I have been putting off making a video on the early Christian view of the Law because I wanted to make a really good video, maybe using Keynote (Mac’s PowerPoint program).

I haven’t had time, and I don’t see that I will very soon. The content is far more important than the presentation, though, so I sat down and taught on this important subject.

The video is 30-minutes long, but the whole point is made in not much over 10 minutes. The rest provides practical application so that this teaching is easier to understand. The last 10 minutes or so also touches on objections brought about by our modern traditions.

Please leave a comment for me. Did you understand this? Too long?

Share
For I will take you from among the nations, and gather you out of all the countries, and will bring you into your own land. I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you. I will also give you a new heart, and I will put a new spirit within you; and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you a heart of flesh. I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and you shall keep my ordinances, and do them. (Ezekiel 36:24-27)

What an excellent prophecy of the New Covenant!

This prophecy covers:

  1. The admission of the Gentiles: “I will take you from among the nations.” (cf. Eph. 3:4-6; “Gentiles” and “nations” are the same word in Greek)
  2. Baptism: “I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean.” (cf. Acts 22:16)
  3. The new birth and spiritual circumcision: “I will give you a new heart, and I will put a new spirit within you; and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you a heart of flesh.”(cf. Jn. 3:3-8; Rom. 2:28-29)
  4. The Holy Spirit for everyone: “I will put my Spirit within you …” (cf. Acts 2:16-18)
  5. Grace which delivers from sin: “… and cause you to walk in my statutes, and you will keep my ordinances and do them.” (cf. Rom. 6:14; Tit. 2:11-12)

The one big thing not mentioned here is the forgiveness of sins, but Ezekiel goes on to cover that, too, in the midst of promises to restore a land to dwell in:

“Thus says the Lord Yahweh: In the day that I cleanse you from all your iniquities, I will cause the cities to be inhabited, and the waste places shall be built.” (Ezek. 36:33)

If you’re wondering what cities and what built-up waste places, then I have been remiss. I need to write more, I think, in interpreting the Law and the Prophets.

Quick Lesson on Interpretation of the Hebrew Scriptures

The early Christians quoted Isaiah 2:3 and Micah 4:2 as much as any other verse in the Hebrew Scriptures:

“Many peoples shall go and say,
‘Come, let’s go up to the mountain of Yahweh,
to the house of the God of Jacob;
and he will teach us of his ways,
and we will walk in his paths.’
For out of Zion the law shall go out,
and Yahweh’s word from Jerusalem.”

Jerusalem was demolished in A.D. 70. That didn’t stop the churches from quoting this prophecy and applying it to the Gospel. The apostles did deliver the law—Christ’s new law (Heb. 7:12)—and God’s word from Jerusalem. They delivered it to all nations.

The mountain of Yahweh in this passage is not Jerusalem, however. At least, it is not earthly Jerusalem. The writer of Hebrews tells us:

“For you have not come to a mountain that might be touched, and that burned with fire … But you have come to Mount Zion, and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem.” (Heb. 12:18,22)

This city, the city of the living God, is the one that the church is building up. It is made of living stones, and when it is done, it will descend from heaven as the beauty of the whole earth, so huge that it appears in prophecy as a 1500-mile cube (Rev. 21:2,16).

Remember, what was promised to fleshly Israel under the Old Covenant is an earthly shadow of the heavenly things that are promised to spiritual Israel under the New Covenant.

Share

Most of this post is from an email I sent today. All the personal information has been removed except what applies to me. I hope that it is personal enough to be moving to you spiritually.

When I was young, in my early twenties, I learned about the church and its power from a book by Gene Edwards called, at that time, The Early Church. It had a great cover, an orange background with big stone letters for the title.

In it, I learned that our testimony to the world was our unity (Jn. 17:20-23) and our love (Jn. 13:34-35), not my individual Christian life. I learned from Gene Edwards retelling of Acts about the raw, breathless joy of the corporate life of the church.

I longed for the fellowship of the church and the intimacy I knew it would bring. I wanted to obey Jesus. I wanted to give up everything and glorify his name, and it seemed clear that the only powerful way to do that was to be a part of his church.

So I pursued “the church.” I started home fellowships, and I attended them. The results didn’t get better over time; they got worse. Nonetheless, I sought everywhere that I could.

Along the way, I gave up one business opportunity after another. I worried about what my parents thought about me. I was sure they were thinking: “Paul is so smart. He could have accomplished anything, but now every time something opens up, he drops it, and runs off searching for the church. He’s always at less than $10/hour jobs, barely supporting his family, and he could be running a company.”

I wondered if I really was being stupid. When I was 34, my wife told me that she didn’t understand why I didn’t give up pursuing the church. She was done with the search.

A few months later, we met Noah Taylor and the church from Geneva, Fl.

This post is from an email. The person to whom I’m writing knows all about Rose Creek Village, where I finally found “the church.” Not “the only church,” but real people really loving one another and sharing their lives. A real family, as a friend of mine once said, not a fake, part-time family.

I struggle with knowing if the church here is doing enough. I struggle with knowing if I’m doing enough. I struggle with whether we are the testimony to Christ that we are supposed to be.

The fact is, though, that I long for my brothers and sisters, and especially the young ones, to long to glorify him like I long to glorify him. I don’t think I’m good at it. I worry that I’m not even a good influence on the young ones, that I show them a life that is too caught up in business, soccer, and entertainment.

There’s a word I heard 30 years ago. That word is “abandonment.”

I love the idea of abandoning everything for God. That’s why I loved the battle with leukemia so much. I could abandon my own life. I fought to stay alive and trusted God because it was good for my wife, for my kids, and for Rose Creek Village. It was so painful physically, yet I got to overcome pain and care only about God’s will. The feeling of abandonment was thrilling to me. I never regret those days in the hospital.

I love anything an abandoned person does. Giving up things for God is the most delightful thing that can be done because it leaves us with just him. Either he comes through or he doesn’t. Such a close feeling to God, and oh, the wonderful results of it!

My greatest concern is that you get to feel the abandoned life; the life lived wholly for God. If you can get there, I will trust all your decisions, whichever ones you make.

Share

This post is in reference to this article, published in the Huffington post. Bernard Starr, the author, claims that the Catholics suppressed the reading of the Bible because they did not want individual members to see just how Jewish the apostles were.

I was particularly bothered by the arguments in this article because the author is obviously well-informed. This is not just a historian, but a historian who has devoted some time to his subject. He had either not devoted enough time, however, or else he has withheld information from his readers that it is deceitful to withhold.

The article justifies this with a lot of almost true statements:

1. The church “sanctioned” 27 books at the Council of Hippo in 393, which were confirmed by the Council of Carthage in 420.

I’m not bothered by this one. It’s only mildly inaccurate, and this claim is made in respectable secondary sources. Those two regional synods did confirm a New Testament canon of 27 books. They had no authority to enforce it anywhere but locally, but they did enforce it.

Proof of this can be found in St. Augustine’s words from A.D. 412, where he mentions that there are books accepted by some churches but not by others (ref). His testimony is important because he was the bishop of Hippo at the time. Had the council of Hippo “sanctioned” anything for the whole church, you would think the bishop of Hippo would know about it!

2. Prior to Hippo and Carthage “various churches and officials adopted different texts and gospels.”

This one is worse. The implication is that Hippo and Carthage brought in something new.

Hippo and Carthage changed nothing. The books being read by all churches in A.D. 150 were the same ones being read by all churches in 393 and 420. The books being argued by all churches were the same in 150 and 393. The books rejected were the same.

There may be one or two for which things changed. The Shepherd of Hermas was likely less accepted in 393. The Letter of James was likely more accepted in 393. For all practical purposes, though, my last paragraph is exactly true.

Proving that is difficult to someone not familiar with the writings of that period. The sources, though, are the writings of the church of that period. There are several lists of New Testament Scripture between 150 and 393, and quotes from Scripture, which are abundant in the writings of the early fathers of the faith, consistently rely upon the same books.

3. The Church “Sequestered Their Sanctioned Bible from the Populace”

Mr. Starr does give references for the claim that the Church prohibited Christians from reading the New Testament on their own. Of course, all of us who know anything about the history of the Roman Catholic Church know that they both prohibited people from reading and even put people to death for translating the Scriptures into a tongue “the populace” could read. In fact, when the RCC could not get its hands on John Wycliffe through his life, they resorted to burning his bones after he was dead!

However, none of that started until late in the medieval period, centuries after the synods of Hippo and Carthage. The earliest reference Mr. Starr gives is A.D. 1229, more than 800 years after Carthage!

The most famous and longest lasting New Testament translation of all, the Latin Vulgate, was translated by Jerome in the early 5th century, a hundred years after Carthage.

It was only much later, when the Roman Catholic Church had become so unscriptural and corrupt that anyone reading it could tell there was a problem that they began to forbid the Bible to their members.

Note: I have been called all sorts of names and accused of being a terrible historian for saying things like that, but that’s not questionable history. The article to which I’m responding provides a couple references. I’m working on saying nice things about individual Catholics, such as the great St. Francis of Assissi and Mother Theresa (may God have mercy on the morons who condemn her because I’m certain he’s furious with them) and some others I’ve met in my lifetime. However, because the RCC still claims “primacy” over all Christians, I am not going to gloss over the results of allowing him primacy. We call the Pope’s reign “The Dark Ages.”

4. “Everything Jesus Did as a Jew Was for Jews, as a Jew, and about Jews”

This statement is true enough in the Gospels. However, it ignores what Jesus said would happen after his death.

He told a parable about a king that went away and left a vineyard in the hands of hired servants. When he sent servants to collect the profits of the vineyard, the hired men drove them off. When he later sent his son, the servants killed the son.

The Pharisees were furious because “they perceived that he spoke of them” (Matt. 21:46).

In fact, what he said to them was, “The kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to another.”

5. “Later, Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles, initiated a rift between his brand of Jewish Christianity and the teachings of the Jerusalem-based disciples of Jesus.

A rift? Really? This is what Acts says? I thought Acts 15, the only report on earth of the conflict between the Judaizers and Paul, said that the apostles James and Peter stood up for Paul and they arrived at a consensus that pleased them all.

History says that Paul’s churches and Peter’s churches considered themselves completely one. I believe that history would testify the same of James’ one church, Jerusalem, had it not been destroyed by the Romans. Now that’s a questionable claim historically, but don’t imagine that all the churches didn’t have issues to work out.

Also, don’t imagine that Paul’s churches didn’t have a very Jewish, but very heavenly, understanding of the kingdom of heaven. It is not just the apostles in general that lived according to the Law (most of the time). It was Paul, too! (Acts 21:24-26). He took vows, shaved his head, offered sacrifices, and was willing to be a testimony that though the Gentiles were not required to keep the Law, and especially not required to be circumcised, Paul himself nonetheless honored and kept the Law.

Further, Paul understood the Law as “expanded, fulfilled, and brought to fullness” by Jesus (Matt. 5:17-48). So did the early churches. They did not abrogate the Law any more than Jesus did. They did, however, know the fullness of it. They knew that nothing going into a person–no food–could defile him or her. They knew that God called clean the person who ruminated on the Word of God and divided from the world. Paul clearly stated that he knew that God didn’t care about oxen, but about those who labor, that they deserved their wages (1 Cor. 9:7-10). (You can read a much fuller explanation of this very common early Christian doctrine

Share

Someone told me that CharismaMag.com had some great articles this month. I agree, it did. One of them inspired yesterday’s post.

Today, though, I want to disagree with one, or at least make it more direct.

The article is called The Difference Between the Gospel of Salvation and the Gospel of the Kingdom. The author describes the difference in this way:

The simplest way to understand the distinction between the two kingdoms is to recognize that the gospel of salvation deals only with the salvation of your soul. The gospel of the kingdom deals with all things the cross affected, including not only salvation but also the reconciliation of all things.

I cannot tell whether the author’s description of “the gospel of salvation” is meant to describe a modern misconception—a false gospel—or whether he is acknowledging it as a truth. At one point he says about Jesus:

His emphasis was more than salvation.

I want to make it clear that his description of this “gospel of salvation” is a description of a false gospel that needs to be repented of.

The author mentions “escaping this evil world.” He complains (rightly) that those who adhere only to the “gospel of salvation” want to escape this evil world through the rapture rather influencing the world.

I just want to make it clear that those with this mindset have believed a false gospel. They don’t have a “gospel of salvation”; they have falsehood.

When Peter preached the Gospel of salvation, which ought not to be different than the Gospel of the Kingdom, he told the Jews, “Be saved from this perverse generation” (Acts 2:38). Escaping this evil world, for Peter, was part and parcel of the Gospel.

In the next chapter of Acts, Peter told the Jews, “Repent therefore, and turn again, that your sins may be blotted out” (3:19). He added, “Every soul that will not listen to that prophet will be utterly destroyed from among the people” (v. 23). And then, “God, having raised up his servant, Jesus, sent him to your first, to bless you, in turning away everyone of you from your wickedness” (v. 26).

The point the author makes in that article is that the “gospel of salvation” is preoccupied with going to heaven, not with life on this earth.

Pause with me for a second, and read this slowly: “preoccupied with going to heaven, not with life on this earth.”

That ought to set off alarms throughout our body. We ought to shiver in the shock of paradox when we here such a thing.

“If you do these things you will never stumble. For thus you will be richly supplied with the entrance into the eternal Kingdom of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ” (2 Pet. 1:10-11).

Going to heaven has everything to do with life on this earth.

We must all be revealed before the judgment seat of Christ; that each one may receive the things in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad. (2 Cor. 5:10)

Do you think this, O man who judges those who practice such things, and do the same, that you will escape the judgment of God. … According to your hardness and unrepentant heart you are treasuring up for yourself wrath in the day of wrath, revelation, and the righteous judgment of God, who “will pay back to everyone according to their works:” to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory, honor, and incorruptibility, [he will pay back] eternal life. (Rom. 2:3,5-7

Know this for sure, that no sexually immoral person, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, has any inheritance in the Kingdom of Christ and God. Let no one deceive you with empty words. For because of these things, the wrath of God comes on the children of disobedience. Therefore don’t be partakers with them. (Eph. 5:5-7)

There’s a pretty good chart of the difference between the “gospel of salvation” and the “gospel of the kingdom” in the article I linked above. It’s worth looking at, but make sure you realize that is a false gospel on the left, not just an inadequate one, and the true gospel on the right, not just a better one.

Share

It has dawned on me after more than 30 years of walking with the Lord that we may not need to dig so deep into the word “flesh,” attempting to translate it as “sinful nature” or interpret it in some similar fashion.

What are people’s biggest struggles?

Physically, are they not sexual temptation, gluttony, and the dangers of comfort, such as laziness and lack of drive for the service of the Lord? Emotionally, are they not ambition, jealousy, envy, and other emotions associated with climbing to the top of the social ladder?

Those are all temptations directly linked to the drives of our body. No need to change “flesh” or “body” to sinful nature. Sin does dwell in us in our unregenerate state, but even regenerated, delivered from the power of sin (Rom. 6:14), we live in a body, the desires of which must be controlled.

Note: I am not trying to present a theology that says we have no “sinful nature” as Christians. That sort of thinking is too complicated for me, at least right now. I am trying to make a practical point about our bodies that has helped me and others.

Jesus calls us to live for our Father’s will, not our will, which is so easily driven by chemicals. When I say “chemicals,” I mean the ones in our body that create hunger, a sexual drive, anger, jealousy, etc.

What will we fulfill? Will we live to fulfill the desires of the body, or we live to fulfill the desires of our father in heaven?

Jesus talked about overcoming, and he made incredible promises to overcomers (Rev. 2-3). This, of course, also translates to warnings for those who do not overcome.

But what are we overcoming? Paul says that those who are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. He also says that he disciplined his body every day and brought it under control.

The next time hormones are raging through your body, driving you to say something harmful to a person who has just wronged you, you will not have to wonder what Jesus wants you to overcome. Will your anger, jealousy, or envy overcome you? Or will you overcome your body and say only what will give grace to the hearer?

When your body says, “I must eat” or “I must be gratified sexually,” you will not need to wonder what overcoming means. Will those hormones overcome you, or will you overcome your flesh, which is just your body and its natural desires?

The practice of walking in the Spirit will help you. Scripture tells us to set our minds on the things of the Spirit if we wish to overcome the flesh. However, in the midst of temptation is not the time to begin to practice this! The mind set on the Spirit is life and peace. The mind that wanders to the Spirit when temptation comes is not going to be enough. We need to sow to the Spirit so that we have a harvest with which to be among those who have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires (Gal. 5:24).

Whether we like it or not, and whether it fits our theology or not, if we live by the desires to the flesh we will die. By the Spirit we must put the activities of the flesh to death. Painful, but true (Rom. 8:12-13).

Share

I really just want to share this article from charismamag.com. It talks about the premarital sex has on the brain.

The best reason for avoiding illicit sex is that Jesus told us to. However, I think it’s nice to have studies like this. A lot of us like to know why we’re being told to do something, even if it is our Lord who told us to do it. We can’t demand a reason, but if we get one, then at least I am glad for it.

Share

I’ve talked about this on the blog before, but this is worth talking about over and over. Here’s the issue I’m asserting:

  1. If the apostles said something that you can’t repeat without explanation or caveat, it is because your theology is wrong.
  2. If you will say what the apostles said, even if you don’t understand it, the apostles’ sayings will correct your theology.

Here’s some examples of things the apostles—or worse, Jesus—said that conservative Evangelicals can’t or won’t repeat, at least not without explaining the verses away. Something to be said on behalf of the Roman Catholics, since I’m usually opposing some claim of theirs on this blog, is that I could make no such list for them.

These are all from the World English Bible. I like the translation, but I use it primarily because it is in the public domain.

  • You see then that by works, a man is justified, and not only by faith. (Jam. 2:24)
  • Having been made perfect, [Jesus] became to all of those who obey him the author of eternal salvation. (Heb. 5:9)
  • “We are His witnesses of these things; and so also is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey him.” (Acts 5:32)
  • God … "will pay back to everyone according to their works": to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory, honor, and incorruptibility, eternal life; but to those who are self-seeking, and don’t obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, will be wrath and indignation … (Rom 2:5b-8)
  • Yet to us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we live through him. (1 Cor. 8:6)
  • "This is eternal life, that they should know you, the only true God, and him whom you sent, Jesus Christ." (Jn. 17:3)
  • "Repent, and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." (Acts 2:38)
  • Be more diligent to make your calling and election sure. For if you do these things, you will never stumble. For thus you will be richly supplied with the entrance into the eternal Kingdom of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. (2 Pet. 1:10-11)
  • If you call on him as Father, who without respect of persons judges according to each man’s work, pass the time of your living as foreigners here in reverent fear. (1 Pet. 1:17)
  • For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. (Gal. 3:27)
  • "I … declared … that they should repent and turn to God, doing works worthy of repentance (Acts 26:20)

I could add at least 20 verses to that list, probably 100.

I know that conservative Evangelicals would all claim to be able to explain these verses. They would argue that they believe all these verses if they are properly explained.

I ask, however, whether a conservative Evangelical would say any of these things. It’s one thing to agree with a statement if you can put your own spin on it. It’s quite another to believe in such a way that you would say the same thing yourself.

Let’s not be general. Try walking into a Southern Baptist church, the largest denomination in the USA with over 40 million members, and telling your Sunday School class that you’ve been out telling people that they should repent, turn to God, and do works befitting repentance.

Let’s go one step further into “heresy.” Try walking into that same Southern Baptist church and saying that you believe that a person is justified by works and not only by faith.

Unless you’ve never spent much time in a Baptist church, you know exactly what kind of response you will get, and will not be praise for having memorized Acts 26:20 and James 2:24.

You won’t do any better with those other verses, either.

I suggest that the reason there are so many Scriptures we Evangelicals cannot quote is because our theology is faulty.

Let me put that in different words so it’s more persuasive: I suggest that the reason that we don’t speak like the apostles is because we don’t believe what the apostles believed. We don’t say what they say because we don’t believe what they believed.

I wish I could convince every Christian to speak scripturally. I wish I could persuade every Christian to know the apostles writings, and to purposely say the same things they say. I am convinced that if we did so, we would—slowly and over time—find our theology, our beliefs, transforming into apostolic beliefs.

Share

Okay, just one more thing I want to cover:

In those days there will be oppression, such as there has not been the like from the beginning of the creation which God created until now, and never will be. Unless the Lord had shortened the days, no flesh would have been saved; but for the sake of the chosen ones, whom he picked out, he shortened the days. … In those days, after that oppression, the sun will be darkened, the moon will not give its light, the stars will be falling from the sky, and the powers that are in the heavens will be shaken. (Mark 13:19-20,24-25)

What I’m about to say could be very offensive. I am about to say really terrible things about religious organizations, both Roman Catholic and Protestant. What I’m saying, however, is simple history.

The Oppression

Let’s address the beginning of that passage of Scripture first.

I am somewhat influenced by the book A World Lit Only by Fire. William Manchester did an excellent job of pulling me into the superstitious, quasi-Christian world of late medieval Europe.

I’ve read Martyr’s Mirror, and I’ve read the stories of men like Jan Huss and John Wycliffe. Huss was burned for his devotion to the Scriptures, and Wycliffe’s bones were exhumed and burned posthumously because he translated the Bible for others.

Recently, I was looking up information on Pope Alexander VI. I was reading a discussion of whether he was a good or bad pope. At the end of it, after the discussion, the history then described his succession of mistresses. That didn’t play into whether he was a good pope or not???

Knowing these things, I believe this description of sixteenth-century Europe by John Calvin:

Those who were regarded as the leaders of faith, neither understood Thy Word, nor greatly cared for it. They only drove unhappy people to and fro with strange doctrines, and deluded them with I know not what follies. Among the people themselves, the highest veneration paid to Thy Word was to revere it at a distance, as a thing inaccessible, and abstain from all investigation of it.
   … every place was filled with pernicious errors, falsehoods, and superstition. They, indeed, called Thee the only God, but it was while transferring to others the glory which thou hast claimed for Thy Majesty. They figured and had for themselves as many gods as they had saints, whom they chose to worship. Thy Christ was indeed worshipped as God, and retained the name of Saviour; but where He ought to have been honored, He was left almost without honor. For, spoiled of His own virtue, He passed unnoticed among the crowd of saints, like one of the meanest of them. There was none who duly considered that one sacrifice which He offered on the cross, and by which He reconciled us to Thyself … none who trusted in His righteousness only. That confident hope of salvation which is both enjoined by Thy Word, and founded upon it, had almost vanished. (translated by Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, references here; emphasis mine)

How close is this description to “unless the Lord had shortened the days, no flesh would have been saved”?

I’d like to suggest that the shortening of those days was the overthrow of the secular authority of the Roman Catholic Church by the Renaissance and Reformation, a process that took centuries.

The Sun Will Be Darkened

Let’s look around at what we’ve replaced superstitious, hybrid Christianity with. Here I won’t bother to quote history because we can look around us and see it happening. Protestant Christianity is not just a divided, disagreeable mess. Division and being disagreeable is the most notable feature of Protestant Christianity.

When I read Genesis, one of the interpretations I give to the “greater light” and “lesser light” that God created is that the greater light is Christ, the Son who shines over the whole world like the sun, and the lesser light is the Church, which has no light of its own, but reflects the light of Christ.

Jesus said that after the oppression of those days, the sun would be darkened and the moon would not give its light.

There is little doubt, I think, that a central presentation of division dims the light of the Son to the world. Jesus once prayed:

Not for these only do I pray, but for those also who believe in me through their word, that they may all be one; even as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be one in us; that the world may believe that you sent me. (Jn. 17:20-22)

If unity lets the world believe, or see the light of the Son, then surely when division is our most notable feature, then the sun has been darkened.

Further, when the sun is darkened, the moon cannot give its light because it has no light of its own.

We can see from John 17:20-22 that the light of the church is unity. That light is worse than dimmed. It is lost behind our divisiveness, and that is as true between Catholic and Protestant as it is within the Protestant denominations and the bickering factions of Catholicism.

I would add that the situation is exacerbated by the fact that almost all of Christianity—western and eastern, with few exceptions—has lost any concept of the church.

Where is the church like Philippi, where Paul was confident that God was doing a good and growing work in every or almost every person? (Php. 1:6). Such churches are almost unheard of. Where is the church that loves Jesus more than father or mother, so that the destitute in the church find themselves living in the homes of their brothers and sisters in Christ rather than the homes of their parents and siblings in the flesh?

The sort of unity that makes the members of a church significantly closer to one another than they are to the members of the their biological families is unusual, even “cultish,” now, but it was simply typical in the early churches. As late as the early third century, one Christian wrote:

It is mainly the deeds of a love so noble that lead many to label us. “See,” they say, “How they love one another!” … “How they are ready even to die for one another!” … no tragedy causes dissension in our brotherhood. … the family possessions, which generally destroy brotherhood among you, create fraternal bonds among us. One in mind and soul, we do not hesitate to share our earthly goods with one another. (Tertullian, Apology 39)

Almost none of us know anything about this kind of unity. Almost none of us have seen or experienced this kind of Christian life, of real church.

I’m going to tell you that I have, and I do, so that you know it is possible. Otherwise, most of you will find it impossible to believe because you’ve never seen it.

Jesus said, “The sun will be darkened, the moon will not give its light.” We can see that it is happening.

The Stars Will Fall from Heaven

I believe the stars represent the saints in Mark 13, not angels, as they may in the Book of the Revelation. We are compared to stars in 1 Corinthians 15, or at least the glory which will be revealed in us is compared to the differing glory of the stars of heaven.

Are the stars falling from heaven?

Charles Hacket, the national director of the Division of Home Ministries for the Assembly of God, said:

A soul at the altar does not generate much excitement in some circles because we realize approximately ninety-five out of every hundred will not become integrated into the church. In fact, most of them will not return for a second visit. (cited by Kirk Cameron & Ray Comfort, The Way of the Master [Wheaton, IL:Tyndale House Publishers, 2004] p. 61)

And so the stars fall from heaven as well.

The result is that the powers of heaven are shaken, not just because the sun is darkened, the moon is not giving its light, and the stars are falling from heaven, but also because we have lost our power with our light, an inevitable occurrence. Part of the reason that we fall away so rapidly is because we no longer know “the powers of the age to come” (Heb. 6:1-6).

That’s probably enough said. My hope is that looking at the situation around us might stir us to action.

The Good News

The good news comes after Jesus warns of the darkness of the sun and moon, the falling of the stars, and the loss of power. The key word in the following passage is “then”:

Then they will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory. Then he will send out his angels, and will gather together his chosen ones from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of the sky. (Mark 13:26-27)

Let us make good use of the time we have. Let us prepare ourselves, and let us rescue our fellow householders, that they would not fall, but would devote themselves to the One who will come, and who will have his reward with him.

Share

Well, I used up all my confident interpretations yesterday. Today, just some food for thought (I hope).

In Mark 13, the apostles do not specifically ask about the end of the age. They asked about when the temple would be destroyed (Mark 13:1-3). (That one we can predict because it already happened: A.D. 70.) However, Jesus does address the issue: “Those [things] must happen, but the end is not yet” (v. 7).

Again, these things are addressed in Matthew 24 and Luke 21 as well. In fact, the end of Luke 17 has a paragraph that is on the same subject.

I can’t put together a series of events from Jesus’ statements, but here are some things I think are either probably true or at least worth considering:

Fulfilled in A.D. 70?

When Jesus begins, it sure sounds like he’s talking about more than 40 years (the time from A.D. 30 or so when he’s talking until A.D. 70 when the temple was destroyed). He says:

When you hear of wars and rumors of wars, don’t be troubled. For these must happen, but the end is not yet. For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be earthquakes in various places. There will be famines and troubles. These things are the beginning of birth pains.

That seems like a lot more long-term prophecy than 40 years.

I want to point out here something a friend pointed out to me. These things—things like wars and rumors of wars—are not evidence of the end, but evidence that “the end is not yet.”

At Least One Thing Was Fulfilled in A.D. 70

When you see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not (let the reader understand), then let those in Judea flee to the mountains. (v. 14, parentheses original)

There may be—in my opinion, will be and has been—a future abomination of desolation standing where it shouldn't. However, I'm pretty convinced there is not going to be another abomination of desolation standing where it should not that is a sign to flee Judea.

In A.D. 70, when the Roman general Titus came to Israel, it was to desolate. Gavin Finley, M.D. cites Josephus, the Jewish historian, as saying that Titus did not want the temple destroyed. Rogue soldiers did that.

Whether that is true or not, Titus desolated Jerusalem, and his soldiers swarmed the temple. This qualifies as an abomination of desolation in my eyes. More importantly, it qualified as an abomination of desolation in the eyes of the Christians who were in Judea in A.D. 70, and they did exactly what Jesus said. They fled to the mountains. All of them survived.

That part of Mark 13 was very literal to the Christians of that generation. They acted on it, and it had practical benefit.

We can be confident that part of Jesus’ prophecy was at least partially fulfilled in A.D. 70. Personally, I think his prophecy also applies to the fall of the western Roman empire in A.D. 476, but that sort of thing is speculative enough that it does not belong with the rest of the things I am posting about Mark 13.

I have one more interpretation I want to throw out concerning Mark 13. We’ve done enough today, however. I’ll cover that tomorrow.

Share

Next Page »