Keys to Understanding the Book of Revelation
Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, having the key to the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand. He laid hold of the dragon, that serpent of old, who is the Devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years; and he cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal on him, so that he should deceive the nations no more till the thousand years were finished. But after these things he must be released for a little while.
'To bind their kings with chains, and their nobles with fetters of iron'. ( Psalm 149:8 )
'Yet she [ was ] carried away, she went into captivity; her young children also were dashed to pieces at the head of every street; they cast lots for her honorable men, and all her great men were bound in chains.' ( Nahum 3:10 )
We have noted throughout this study, several things; one, that national physical Israel was the subject of Jesus Revelation to His people, at least, in the context of adverse judgment, two, that this dragon or serpent, also called the devil and 'Satan', was not a fallen, spiritual being ( ? ), but was in fact, though not any certain man, but as John wrote 'the spirit of Anti-Christ' ( I John 4:3 ), an ordinary man, or men, who had not received, and continued to refuse to know the one true God, and His Son, Jesus the Christ!
We have also seen that Jesus, through John, relied heavily on the vivid imagery of the Old Testament prophets, referring back, as in the Gospels as well, to adverse judgments that God had made in times past toward His covenant people, as well ( ? ) as on those who had acknowledged no covenant with Him.
There has been a tendency, especially in the past hundred years or so, to relegate the book of Revelation to a prophecy of the end of all things ( renewal too ), to seemingly forget the former history of God's covenant people, and the fact that much, if not all, of these former judgments served to point forward to the Revelation of Jesus as the Christ, or God Himself.
'[Is ] this not laid up in store with Me, sealed up among My treasures?' ( Deuteronomy 32:34 )
'My transgression [ is ] sealed up in a bag, and You cover[b] my iniquity.' ( Job 14:17 )
'Then Jeremiah said to them, “Thus you shall say to Zedekiah, ‘Thus says the LORD God of Israel: “Behold, I will turn back the weapons of war that [ are ] in your hands, with which you fight against the king of Babylon and the Chaldeans[b] who besiege you outside the walls; and I will assemble them in the midst of this city. I Myself will fight against you with an outstretched hand and with a strong arm, even in anger and fury and great wrath. I will strike the inhabitants of this city, both man and beast; they shall die of a great pestilence.' ( Jeremiah 21:3-6 )
'And the vision of the evenings and mornings which was told is true; therefore seal up the vision, for [ it refers ] to many days [ in the future ].' ( Daniel 8:26 )
'And he said, “Go [ your way ], Daniel, for the words [ are ] closed up and sealed till the time of the end. Many shall be purified, made white, and refined, but the wicked shall do wickedly; and none of the wicked shall understand, but the wise shall understand.' ( Daniel 12:9 )
Josephus noted this at least once, and even recorded the Roman general Titus as remarking on this, referring back to Jeremiah 21 above, that God had, in the past determined and purposed, and rendered an adverse judgment on His covenant-breaking ( Nehemiah 9 & 10 ) people, and their beloved city, in which they had begun to trust. It is interesting that Jesus related the binding of 'Satan' ( Mark 3:27, Luke 10:18 ) to the 'last days' of His Old Covenant people!
'And the LORD God said to the woman, “What [ is ] this you have done?” The woman said, “The serpent deceived me, and I ate.' ( Genesis 3:13 )
'Take heed to yourselves, lest your heart be deceived, and you turn aside and serve other gods and worship them, lest the LORD’s anger be aroused against you, and He shut up the heavens so that there be no rain, and the land yield no produce, and you perish quickly from the good land which the LORD is giving you.' ( Deuteronomy 11:16 & 17 )
'With Him [ are ] strength and prudence. The deceived and the deceiver [ are ] His.' ( Job 12:16 )
'All the men in your confederacy shall force you to the border; the men at peace with you shall deceive you [and ] prevail against you. [ Those who eat ] your bread shall lay a trap[a] for you. No one is aware of it.' ( Obadiah 1:7 )
The nation, from its inception, or genesis, had been beset by deceivers, but as James wrote 'Where do wars and fights [ come ] from among you? Do [ they ] not [ come ] from your [ desires for ] pleasure that war in your members?' ( James 4:1 ), and as Paul brings to mind in II Corinthians 11:3 and I Timothy 2:14, although Adam was not deceived ( he knowingly broke the covenant ); Eve was deceived and thus her husband, the federal head of God's ( Old ) Covenant people, allowed himself to be led astray, and for all intents and purposes, became the deceiver ( John 8:44 ) of the nations.
And I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was committed to them. Then I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their witness to Jesus and for the word of God, who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received his mark on their foreheads or on their hands. And they lived and reigned with Christ for a[a] thousand years.
'For thrones are set there for judgment, the thrones of the house of David.' ( Psalm 122:5 )
'Hell from beneath is excited about you, to meet [ you ] at your coming; it stirs up the dead for you, all the chief ones of the earth; it has raised up from their thrones all the kings of the nations.' ( Isaiah 14:9 )
'I watched till thrones were put in place, and the Ancient of Days was seated; His garment [ was ] white as snow, and the hair of His head [ was ] like pure wool. His throne [ was ] a fiery flame, its wheels a burning fire.' ( Daniel 7:9 )
'Jesus said to them, “Assuredly I say to you, that in the regeneration, when the Son of Man sits on the throne of His glory, you who have followed Me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.' ( Matthew 19:28 )
'And I bestow upon you a kingdom, just as My Father bestowed [ one ] upon Me, that you may eat and drink at My table in My kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.' ( Luke 11:29 & 30 )
To His followers; Jesus had promised that they would reign with Him, but even before this; we must remember the meaning of the name that God gave to His covenant people: 'Israel', which, according to tradition, means basically, 'prince with God' ( Genesis 32:28 ).
'When He opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain for the word of God and for the testimony which they held. And they cried with a loud voice, saying, “How long, O Lord, holy and true, until You judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell on the earth?”' ( Revelation 6:9 & 10 )
'If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. And if a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand. And if Satan has risen up against himself, and is divided, he cannot stand, but has an end. No one can enter a strong man’s house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man. And then he will plunder his house.' ( Mark 3:24-27 )
'And Jesus said, “For judgment I have come into this world, that those who do not see may see, and that those who see may be made blind.”' ( John 9:39 )
'Now is the judgment of this world; now the ruler of this world will be cast out.' ( John 12:31 )
'But the saints of the Most High shall receive the kingdom, and possess the kingdom forever, even forever and ever.' ( Daniel 7:18 )
As we continue in this study; we will see how this reign with Christ is synonymous with His covenant judgments. It was through these judgments, the binding of 'Satan', and the 'salvation' of His people, that the strong-man's house was plundered and love, not hate, grace, not law, was shown to have free reign.
But the rest of the dead did not live again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy is he who has part in the first resurrection. Over such the second death has no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with Him a thousand years.
Again He said to me, “Prophesy to these bones, and say to them, ‘O dry bones, hear the word of the LORD! Thus says the Lord GOD to these bones: “Surely I will cause breath to enter into you, and you shall live. I will put sinews on you and bring flesh upon you, cover you with skin and put breath in you; and you shall live. Then you shall know that I [ am ] the LORD.'' ( Ezekiel 37:4-6 )
'For the Son of Man will come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He will reward each according to his works.' ( Matthew 16:27 )
'Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming in which all who are in the graves will hear His voice and come forth—those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation.' ( John 5:28 & 29 )
And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, some to shame [ and ] everlasting contempt.
Quoting Daniel 12:2, which I have before, let me point out that when Jesus ( God ) came in the clouds of judgment in AD70, signalling the finality of the reign of terror ( death ), of the Old, or first Covenant; the necessary judgments determined those who woud reign with Christ, and those who be reigned over. Note that although the rest of the 'dead' did not live till 'the thousand years were finished'; the Scripture clearly implies that after 'the thousand years' ( ? ), even those who did not partake in the first resurrection, lived ( and live ), as well as the 'first-fruits' ( I Corinthians 15:23 )
Now when the thousand years have expired, Satan will be released from his prison, and will go out to deceive the nations which are in the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle, whose number [ is ] as the sand of the sea.
'If one wished to contend with Him, he could not answer Him one time out of a thousand.' ( Job 9:3 )
'The chariots of God [ are ] twenty thousand, [ even ] thousands of thousands; the Lord is among them as in Sinai, in the Holy [ Place ].' ( Psalm 68:17 )
'If a man begets a hundred [ children ] and lives many years, so that the days of his years are many, but his soul is not satisfied with goodness, or indeed he has no burial, I say [ that ] a stillborn child [ is ] better than he— for it comes in vanity and departs in darkness, and its name is covered with darkness. Though it has not seen the sun or known [ anything ], this has more rest than that man, even if he lives a thousand years twice—but has not seen goodness. Do not all go to one place?' ( Ecclesiastes 6:3-6 )
There are many other examples throughout the writings of Scripture that indicate, even many times when a literal number can easily be understood, that a symbolic meaning is to be gleaned from the text. In this study we have noted many such passages pointing, maybe most famously, to places like Psalm 50, verse 10; where God told His people that 'every beast of the forest [ is ] Mine, [ and ] the cattle on a thousand hills', and Deuteronomy 7:9, where Moses reminds the people of God that 'the LORD your God, He is God, the faithful God who keeps covenant and mercy for a thousand generations with those who love Him and keep His commandments', but even as far back as the days of Abraham, as we read in Genesis 20:16, where Abimelech payed to Abraham the symbolic amount of one thousand pieces of silver ( Song of Solomon 8:11, Isaiah 7:23 ) to 'cover' any perceived transgression with his wife. Think of this event in reference to the price that 'Satan' symbolically paid for seeking to seduce the wife of God!
'The sons of Japheth [ were ] Gomer, Magog, Madai, Javan, Tubal, Meshech, and Tiras.' ( I Chronicles 1:5 )
'You will come up against My people Israel like a cloud, to cover the land. It will be in the latter days that I will bring you against My land, so that the nations may know Me, when I am hallowed in you, O Gog, before their eyes.' ( Ezekiel 38:16 )
'And I will send fire on Magog and on those who live in security in the coastlands. Then they shall know that I [ am ] the LORD.' ( Ezekiel 39:6 )
'It will come to pass in that day [ that ] I will give Gog a burial place there in Israel, the valley of those who pass by east of the sea; and it will obstruct travelers, because there they will bury Gog and all his multitude. Therefore they will call [ it ] the Valley of Hamon Gog.' ( Ezekiel 39:11 )
As in many other cases in the history of Israel after the flesh; God used the nations around Israel to accomplish His adverse judgments on them, and though Gog and Magog were an actual people, and their descent from Adam can be shown; I believe that it is easily discernible that their involvement in the cloud-judgment of the Old Covenant 'children' of God was more symbolic than anything. ( this may be partially the reasoning behind those who deny that the adverse judgment on Jerusalem in AD70 was 'the time of the end' )
Other than several instances in the Hebrew Scriptures, referring to the enemies of God's people ( Joshua 11:4, Judges 7:12, I Samuel 13:5 ) this phrase, 'the sand of the sea', though often in other words, was most often indicative of God's blessing ( or cursing ) on His covenant people. Although we know that, in the accomplished destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple; Rome and its allies were most noticeably active: we can see through study of the works of Josephus and likely others, that the Jews themselves were indirectly, if not directly, their own worst enemies, or 'adversaries'!
They went up on the breadth of the earth and surrounded the camp of the saints and the beloved city. And fire came down from God out of heaven and devoured them.
'Then the king sent to him a captain of fifty with his fifty men. So he went up to him; and there he was, sitting on the top of a hill. And he spoke to him: “Man of God, the king has said, ‘Come down!’” So Elijah answered and said to the captain of fifty, “If I [ am ] a man of God, then let fire come down from heaven and consume you and your fifty men.” And fire came down from heaven and consumed him and his fifty. Then he sent to him another captain of fifty with his fifty men. And he answered and said to him: “Man of God, thus has the king said, ‘Come down quickly!’” So Elijah answered and said to them, “If I [ am ] a man of God, let fire come down from heaven and consume you and your fifty men.” And the fire of God came down from heaven and consumed him and his fifty.' ( II Kings 1:9-12 )
'Therefore he sent horses and chariots and a great army there, and they came by night and surrounded the city. And when the servant of the man of God arose early and went out, there was an army, surrounding the city with horses and chariots. And his servant said to him, “Alas, my master! What shall we do?” So he answered, “Do not fear, for those who [ are ] with us [ are ] more than those who [ are ] with them.” And Elisha prayed, and said, “LORD, I pray, open his eyes that he may see.” Then the LORD opened the eyes of the young man, and he saw. And behold, the mountain [ was ] full of horses and chariots of fire all around Elisha.' ( II Kings 6:14-17 )
In both of these examples, of which more could no doubt be gleaned; Elijah, in whom we can see a picture, or type, representative of the people of God, and in a sense, maybe, of Christ Himself, and his successor, Elisha, are prominently figured in a glorious picture of the salvation, both physical and spiritual, of the people of God!
When the enemies ( adversaries ) of the people of God fought against His people; God brought down the fire of His wrath against them, both literally and figuratively, to destroy them, and their works. As we have noted already, I believe, in this study, the phrase 'fire from heaven' ( or like phrases ) often referred to actual, literal 'fire from heaven' ( lightning, meteor shower, etc. ), but often held a more symbolic meaning, even when portrayed in a physical way. In Genesis 19:24; we read that 'the LORD rained brimstone and fire on Sodom and Gomorrah, from the LORD out of the heavens', and though this was likely a literal fire ( meteor shower? ), we know that it was really just a physical representation and manifestation of God's wrath on the sinful acts of man ( II Peter 3:7-12 ). We read, in I Kings 18:20-40, about Elijah's victory ( God's really ) on Mt. Carmel, over the prophets of Ba'al, and in verse 38, that 'the fire of the LORD fell and consumed the burnt sacrifice, and the wood and the stones and the dust, and it licked up the water that [ was ] in the trench', where God sent literal fire from heaven, showing, not only His acceptance for the sacrifice of Elijah, but also proving His power, as opposed to the powerlessness and inability of those idols. There are more examples, like that of Elijah above, where 'fire came out from before the LORD' ( Leviticus 9:24 ). After King David had sinned against the Lord by numbering his people, and then repented by making an offering before Him, God showed His acceptance of his sacrifice when 'He answered him from heaven by fire on the altar of burnt offering' ( I Chronicles 21:26 ), and in II Chronicles 7:1; after Solomon had completed the Temple, how God showed His approval and acceptance when 'fire came down from heaven and consumed the burnt offering and the sacrifices'.
The devil, who deceived them, was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone where[b] the beast and the false prophet [ are ]. And they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.
'How you are fallen from heaven, O Lucifer,[b] son of the morning! [ How ] you are cut down to the ground, you who weakened the nations! For you have said in your heart: I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God; I will also sit on the mount of the congregation on the farthest sides of the north; I will ascend above the heights of the clouds, I will be like the Most High. Yet you shall be brought down to Sheol, to the lowest depths of the Pit. Those who see you will gaze at you, [ and ] consider you, [ saying ]: [ is ] this the man who made the earth tremble, who shook kingdoms, who made the world as a wilderness and destroyed its cities, [ who ] did not open the house of his prisoners? All the kings of the nations, all of them, sleep in glory, everyone in his own house; but you are cast out of your grave like an abominable branch, [ like ] the garment of those who are slain, thrust through with a sword, who go down to the stones of the pit, like a corpse trodden underfoot. You will not be joined with them in burial, because you have destroyed your land [ and ] slain your people. The brood of evildoers shall never be named. Prepare slaughter for his children because of the iniquity of their fathers, lest they rise up and possess the land, and fill the face of the world with cities.' ( Isaiah 14:12-21 )
Excuse the lengthy quote, and though this passage requires a more lengthy and in-depth exegesis than I am willing to give it right now; but it shows us several things; first; while this passage, which I have mentioned before, has traditionally been made part of the foundation, so to speak, of the doctrine of 'Satan': read in the context of Scripture and of the present study; it can be shown, I believe, to refer, not to the fallen spiritual being ( ? ), traditionally known as 'Satan' ( the Adversary ), but, through the example of Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, one of the enemies of God's people; ultimately of the apostate 'children' of Israel in general, and their leaders, in particular. Isaiah's highly symbolic language here, also chips away at the traditional doctrine of Eternal Torment, showing, I believe, that John's language of continuing permanency in the Revelation speaks more of a finality, of a contiual stigma attached to one's name, or memory.
'And He said to them, “I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven.' ( Luke 10:18 )
The immediate context of Jesus words above, shows us that it was because of the 'fall' ( from grace? ) of their adversary, that they were able to pursue the ministry of reconciliation, 'introducing' the people of God to the true kingdom of God, in Jesus the Christ. As above, and throughout this study, I believe that it shows us, as well, that as their primary adversary was soon to be defeated, indeed had already begun to fall, the Gospel which they were proclaiming was given freer expansion, as it spread, unhindered ( relatively ) throughout the world.
Then I saw a great white throne and Him who sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away. And there was found no place for them.
'I watched till thrones were put in place, and the Ancient of Days was seated; His garment [ was ]white as snow, and the hair of His head [ was ] like pure wool. His throne [ was ] a fiery flame, its wheels a burning fire.' ( Daniel 7:9 )
It is obvious from John's language here, and surrounding, that this judgment was by God Himself, as Daniel wrote, 'the Ancient of Days'! Although there is to be seen a sense of finality in this judgment ( and it is, eschatology speaking ), this is obviously meant in a hyperbolic and symbolic way, as John is speaking of the Old Covenant economy ( 'heavens and earth'-II Peter 3:5-13 ), for he, in much the same sense as in the beginning of the next chapter, as we'll see, says that 'there was found no place for them', speaking of those ( present, at that time ) 'heavens and earth'. Why would/how could he say this if he was referring to the physical sky and terrene globe, as some have speculated that Jesus speaks of in Matthew 24, Luke 21, and Mark 13, and to which Peter refers in II Peter 3. See also Joel 2:30, Jeremiah 4:23, Isaiah 13:10 & 13, Psalm 50:4, and Deuteronomy 28:23 ( Deuteronomy 32:1, I Chronicles 16:31, Isaiah 1:2 ).
And I saw the dead, small and great, standing before God,[c] and books were opened. And another book was opened, which is the Book of Life. And the dead were judged according to their works, by the things which were written in the books. The sea gave up the dead who were in it, and Death and Hades delivered up the dead who were in them. And they were judged, each one according to his works. Then Death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.[d] And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire.
'A fiery stream issued and came forth from before Him. A thousand thousands ministered to Him; ten thousand times ten thousand stood before Him. The court[b] was seated, and the books were opened.' ( Daniel 7:10 )
I have noted before, I believe, in this study, that John often repeats himself in order to show a sense of urgency and finality, using a form of parallelism, saying the same thing twice, or more, in different words. I believe that this is the case, in a manner of speaking, above. The 'dead, small and great, standing before God' refer, I believe to those same 'heavens and earth' which fled from before His face ( think of the 'children' of Israel, in Exodus 20: 18-21 ), and for whom 'there was found no place'.
We have noted, throughout this study that 'the sea', in apocalyptic literature, such as this is, refers to the Gentile nations, especially those surrounding the nation of Israel. John, when he reported that 'sea gave up the dead who were in it', was speaking not so much of a physical resurrection of those who died biologically ( though I believe this could be included ), but of those people of God, not just Israelites by physical birth, who were scattered across 'the face of the earth', and who had been imprisoned ( blinded ) under the darkness and death of the Old Covenant economy.
'For many nations and great kings shall be served by them also; and I will repay them according to their deeds and according to the works of their own hands.' ( Jeremiah 25:14 )
Although this parenthetical statement refers, in its immediate context ( and by name ) to Babylon; as they ( Babylon ) were but one of the many enemies ( adversaries ) of the covenant people of God; it also speaks of Old Covenant Israel ( according to the flesh ) of whom Paul wrote ( II Corinthians 11:15 ), 'whose end will be according to their works'.
After this judgment was made; the death of Adam, and thus the corrupting grave itself, were cast into the consuming ( Hebrews 12:29 ) 'lake of fire', and ceased to exist for believers in the Christ of God. Obviously; John and Jesus were not speaking of biological death, for we know that Christians still 'pass' from their physical bodies, but of a separational death, the 'death' that Paul wrote of in place like Romans 6:23, and I Timothy 5:6.
Praise God, that through His Son Jesus the Christ, the New Covenant; we have been made partakers in that first resurrection, being written in the Book of Life, and did not have to endure that Judgment, and must no longer fear either the death of Adam, or biological death!
For His Kingdom,
Charles Haddon Shank
Saturday, May 07, 2011
Friday, April 08, 2011
In Defense of the Gospel of Jesus the Christ?
One might wonder why the Gospel would even need defending!
This question might even revert to the question of the nature of God. 'Why', you might ask, 'would I say that'? Lately; I have been involved in some rather heated discussions ( it IS a touchy subject among most Christians! ) about whether the Bible can actually be called the Word of God ( Jesus is the Word of God ( John 1:1-3 ), and whether God has preserved His Gospel within the translated pages of Scripture that we call the Bible. Although I believe that the Scriptures simply revealed the Word of God ( Jesus ), and that we now read those Scriptures in many different translations and versions; God has preserved that Revelation to such an extent, that the Gospel, although maybe in some more or less obscured forms, can be known and understood in most any translation out there. If we doubt the preservation of the Revelation of the Gospel; we doubt, or at least have a very weak view of, the nature of God Himself! One might even venture to say that if we feel that the Gospel needs our defense; we doubt the omniscience and omnipotence of God.
Whose is this 'Good News'?
One question we might ask, at this juncture, is 'what is the Gospel?' More importantly, maybe; 'Whose Gospel is it?' 'Gospel', as I believe everyone knows, simply means 'good news': this 'good news', of course, is that God condescended to take upon Himself the form of a Man, live a fairly normal human existence, and suffer a very painful ( excruciatingly so ) physical death upon the cross, the cruelest form of punishment known at the time, just so that His people could be restored to relationship with Himself. This was God's Revelation of His only-begotten Son to mankind!
We can debate ( as I recently have in certain forums ) whether the Bible is the Word of God, or whether it is simply a record, a chronicle of His covenant dealings with His people, as translated from the Scriptures, which were inspired by the Holy Spirit ( II Timothy 3:16 ), and revealed through holy men of God ( I Peter 1:16-21 ). As found in the original copies of the Greek and Hebrew Scriptures, then, we can surely trust that God's Word is revealed as given to the original scribes, but I do not believe, especially with all the different translations, and even differing manuscripts, out there, that we can call the Bible by the exalted name 'Word of God', or even trust in it as infallible.
Now, you may be thinking that I am doing what I spoke against above, seemingly doubting that God could have, or did, preserve the Revelation of His Word within the pages of the Bible, but I am merely pointing out that, as men are fallible, and finite, creatures, and even the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts that we have available today may differ from others, to say nothing of the many different translations and versions out there; how are we to say, definitively, that one manuscript trumps the other, or that one version ( KJV? ) or translation is better or more trustworthy than another? Those that do this may base their 'doctrine' on faith, and on the 'fact' that one certain version reveals a more equitable picture of God, but as we all know; everyone out there may have a slightly different perception of what glorifies God. I believe that, by making these assumptions; we try to ( usually unconsciously or ignorantly ) limit God, saying that the Bible, or even Scripture alone, reveals the Truth about God. Here again, we must ask the question; 'which one?' How do we know that one certain version or translation reveals God more fully, as opposed to another? We trust, all of us, whether we stick to one certain version or translation, or not, that God has preserved the Good News about Himself, and of His Son; so when we limit God's Revelation to this and not that, are we not, after a sort, 'boxing' God in?
Defense or Apology?
I have probably not clarified, as well as I should in the past, that when I use the term 'apology', at least in the theological sense; I mean what Merriam-Webster's online dictionary records as the number one definition of this noun, 'a formal justification : defense'; although this purveys basically the same idea as the term we often use to describe our defense and justification of our ( perceptibly or otherwise wrong ) actions, this term was used in ancient times, such as in Plato's 'Apology', and Tertullian's 'Apology'. Even today, this term is used thusly, especially among theologians, to denote their defense of a certain doctrine. I have often used this term, sometimes to my detriment, to describe my explanatory, and clarifying defense of certain views that I have asserted.
I wonder if some have felt the need to apologize, in the more modern sense, for the seeming harshness of the Gospel ( God's election/predestination of some and not others ), or to defend its seeming weakness, the inability of God to save everyone through this 'good news', unless they accept it. There are the Arminians, who back up their claims, for the most part, with Scripture, yet seem to focus more on man's ability, rather than on God's, and we have the Calvinists, who also back up their 'doctrine' with Scripture, usually, but not always, different ones ( sometimes; even a different version or translation ), but seem to focus more on the inability of man, as opposed to the sovereignty of God. There are those, as well, who go to great extremes, more or less, on both sides of the argument: 'who's right?'
Dictionary.com, basing it on the more common sense of the term, defines 'apology' as 'a written or spoken expression of one's regret, remorse, or sorrow for having insulted, failed, injured, or wronged another' . This definition could also, in some sense, be applied as I did earlier, as a redress of even perceived ( though unintentional ) wrongs. I often have feelings of regret, remorse, even chagrin, over statements I have made, or things I have done ( more over things I have said, though ), because of the way they were received, or perceived, and so I then make my apology, further explaining, and clarifying what I meant by my statement or action. Having just read through much of Socrates 'Apology', as recorded by Plato, and his defense before the court of the Athenians; although my own situation is nowhere near as severe as his, I realize that my 'apology' is of much the same nature, and can easily fall under either definition given.
What is the Nature of the Gospel?
Most importantly, I believe; the Gospel of Jesus the Christ is not only a Revelation of Himself, as the Son of God, in essence, God Himself, but is, as the Covenant, an embodiment of Jesus, or God Himself. Gospel, as we have seen, means basically 'good news', and throughout the pages of Scripture, and even the Bible, have been revealed this Good News; the 'Good News' found, not so much in the revelation of that Good News, as in Jesus, the Christ, the Son of the living God!
As we continue to defend ( as if He needs our defense ) the Gospel; let us remember always, that He needs not our defense, in fact, does better without it, and that all that is needed is apology ( sometimes in both senses ) for our interpretation of Him! May we always be ready ( I Peter 3:15 ) to apologize for our 'defense' of the Gospel!
Charles Haddon Shank
This question might even revert to the question of the nature of God. 'Why', you might ask, 'would I say that'? Lately; I have been involved in some rather heated discussions ( it IS a touchy subject among most Christians! ) about whether the Bible can actually be called the Word of God ( Jesus is the Word of God ( John 1:1-3 ), and whether God has preserved His Gospel within the translated pages of Scripture that we call the Bible. Although I believe that the Scriptures simply revealed the Word of God ( Jesus ), and that we now read those Scriptures in many different translations and versions; God has preserved that Revelation to such an extent, that the Gospel, although maybe in some more or less obscured forms, can be known and understood in most any translation out there. If we doubt the preservation of the Revelation of the Gospel; we doubt, or at least have a very weak view of, the nature of God Himself! One might even venture to say that if we feel that the Gospel needs our defense; we doubt the omniscience and omnipotence of God.
Whose is this 'Good News'?
One question we might ask, at this juncture, is 'what is the Gospel?' More importantly, maybe; 'Whose Gospel is it?' 'Gospel', as I believe everyone knows, simply means 'good news': this 'good news', of course, is that God condescended to take upon Himself the form of a Man, live a fairly normal human existence, and suffer a very painful ( excruciatingly so ) physical death upon the cross, the cruelest form of punishment known at the time, just so that His people could be restored to relationship with Himself. This was God's Revelation of His only-begotten Son to mankind!
We can debate ( as I recently have in certain forums ) whether the Bible is the Word of God, or whether it is simply a record, a chronicle of His covenant dealings with His people, as translated from the Scriptures, which were inspired by the Holy Spirit ( II Timothy 3:16 ), and revealed through holy men of God ( I Peter 1:16-21 ). As found in the original copies of the Greek and Hebrew Scriptures, then, we can surely trust that God's Word is revealed as given to the original scribes, but I do not believe, especially with all the different translations, and even differing manuscripts, out there, that we can call the Bible by the exalted name 'Word of God', or even trust in it as infallible.
Now, you may be thinking that I am doing what I spoke against above, seemingly doubting that God could have, or did, preserve the Revelation of His Word within the pages of the Bible, but I am merely pointing out that, as men are fallible, and finite, creatures, and even the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts that we have available today may differ from others, to say nothing of the many different translations and versions out there; how are we to say, definitively, that one manuscript trumps the other, or that one version ( KJV? ) or translation is better or more trustworthy than another? Those that do this may base their 'doctrine' on faith, and on the 'fact' that one certain version reveals a more equitable picture of God, but as we all know; everyone out there may have a slightly different perception of what glorifies God. I believe that, by making these assumptions; we try to ( usually unconsciously or ignorantly ) limit God, saying that the Bible, or even Scripture alone, reveals the Truth about God. Here again, we must ask the question; 'which one?' How do we know that one certain version or translation reveals God more fully, as opposed to another? We trust, all of us, whether we stick to one certain version or translation, or not, that God has preserved the Good News about Himself, and of His Son; so when we limit God's Revelation to this and not that, are we not, after a sort, 'boxing' God in?
Defense or Apology?
I have probably not clarified, as well as I should in the past, that when I use the term 'apology', at least in the theological sense; I mean what Merriam-Webster's online dictionary records as the number one definition of this noun, 'a formal justification : defense'; although this purveys basically the same idea as the term we often use to describe our defense and justification of our ( perceptibly or otherwise wrong ) actions, this term was used in ancient times, such as in Plato's 'Apology', and Tertullian's 'Apology'. Even today, this term is used thusly, especially among theologians, to denote their defense of a certain doctrine. I have often used this term, sometimes to my detriment, to describe my explanatory, and clarifying defense of certain views that I have asserted.
I wonder if some have felt the need to apologize, in the more modern sense, for the seeming harshness of the Gospel ( God's election/predestination of some and not others ), or to defend its seeming weakness, the inability of God to save everyone through this 'good news', unless they accept it. There are the Arminians, who back up their claims, for the most part, with Scripture, yet seem to focus more on man's ability, rather than on God's, and we have the Calvinists, who also back up their 'doctrine' with Scripture, usually, but not always, different ones ( sometimes; even a different version or translation ), but seem to focus more on the inability of man, as opposed to the sovereignty of God. There are those, as well, who go to great extremes, more or less, on both sides of the argument: 'who's right?'
Dictionary.com, basing it on the more common sense of the term, defines 'apology' as 'a written or spoken expression of one's regret, remorse, or sorrow for having insulted, failed, injured, or wronged another' . This definition could also, in some sense, be applied as I did earlier, as a redress of even perceived ( though unintentional ) wrongs. I often have feelings of regret, remorse, even chagrin, over statements I have made, or things I have done ( more over things I have said, though ), because of the way they were received, or perceived, and so I then make my apology, further explaining, and clarifying what I meant by my statement or action. Having just read through much of Socrates 'Apology', as recorded by Plato, and his defense before the court of the Athenians; although my own situation is nowhere near as severe as his, I realize that my 'apology' is of much the same nature, and can easily fall under either definition given.
What is the Nature of the Gospel?
Most importantly, I believe; the Gospel of Jesus the Christ is not only a Revelation of Himself, as the Son of God, in essence, God Himself, but is, as the Covenant, an embodiment of Jesus, or God Himself. Gospel, as we have seen, means basically 'good news', and throughout the pages of Scripture, and even the Bible, have been revealed this Good News; the 'Good News' found, not so much in the revelation of that Good News, as in Jesus, the Christ, the Son of the living God!
As we continue to defend ( as if He needs our defense ) the Gospel; let us remember always, that He needs not our defense, in fact, does better without it, and that all that is needed is apology ( sometimes in both senses ) for our interpretation of Him! May we always be ready ( I Peter 3:15 ) to apologize for our 'defense' of the Gospel!
Charles Haddon Shank
Saturday, March 26, 2011
Conversations from the bull-frog's perspective ( Begotten of the Father? )
I hadn't talked to my friend for some time, so I decided to give him a call. I realized that I had been kind of an annoyance to him, and that he had been fairly busy lately, but I had been reading his articles, and had some questions about a few things that he seemed to be purporting.
Unusually ( I think, sometimes that he screens his calls ); he picked up the phone on the first ring, like he was glad to hear from me, or something! 'Hello, brother Jeremiah; I'm glad you called: I've been thinking about you lately, but I've been so busy...........'. I was a bit surprised to hear this, and so did not reply for an almost stunned moment, so he said again, 'Hello?' I quickly gathered my thoughts, and responded with a slightly hesitant, 'Hi Chuck?'
'What's up, brother?', he asked. I told him that I'd been reading some of his articles in which he seemed to be denying, rather than affirming, as the 'church' has for years ( 2,000+ ), the doctrine of the Trinity. 'What about all the instances where Scripture seems to name three distinct persons, namely the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit?'
'What about them?', he asked. As he went on to explain that, while Father and Son could be perceived as two 'persons', the 'Holy Spirit' was not ( necessarily ) any third member of a God-head, or 'Trinity; I interrupted him at once, reminding him that, while the term 'Trinity' is not found in the Bible, the principle of ( and the term ) 'the God-head' most certainly is!
'Believe me', Jer, he said, 'I have thought, studied, listened, and prayed abut this; I realize that there is a God-head, that much is clear, from Paul's statement in Colossians 2:9, 'For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily'. I realize too, that, in places like Genesis 1:26a, where God said 'Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness', that there is an obvious reference to a 'person' other than Himself, yet not really other than Himself, for we know there is only one God........................
My friend continued, 'did you realize that, by many historical accounts, the doctrine of 'the trinity', or three persons in one god, existed long before Christianity, and that the Christian doctrine was only fully 'theorized', or set down, by Tertullian, in the 3rd or 4th century ( AD )'?
'Yes', I replied, 'I had heard that, and there is not only that evidence which seems to detract from its canonization, but also the fact that parts of I John 5:7 & 9 do not appear in the older Greek manuscripts, nor in the passage as quoted by many of the early Church Fathers'. As this is the clearest evidence, besides the baptismal formula in Matthew 28:19, for a 'Trinity'; I believe that we can safely question the doctrine.
'Even though there may be something to this' I asked him, 'should we be debating, or trying to debunk, this doctrine, since there are so many brothers and sisters out there, who hold on to this doctrine for dear life, and if we only upset them, or ( God forbid ) cause them to stumble, by refuting it, should we even try; is it really that dangerous of a doctrine, that we should risk alienating the brethren, by denouncing it?'
He had a good point, I had to admit, but when I reminded him that, although it was not a matter for division, but for discussion, there was always the danger of focusing on a singular aspect of the God-head, or 'Trinity', and in the process, worshiping a different 'God' ( although not really a different God, but only a different perception of Him, often a false, humanistically boxed-in one ), I think he began to see my point as well.
'I realize that we can find numerous examples of a trinity in nature as well,' he said, 'but are these really occurrences, or symbols/signs of a 'trinity', or are we projecting our idea of a 'trinity' onto nature? Sure, we can see that our sun is one body, but has three different aspects, those being that we can feel the sun's heat, even though we can't ( necessarily ) see the rays, it gives us power ( in many different ways ), and it gives us light'.
I had to remind him at this juncture that he had written several articles a number of years ago, in which he had tried to show that even the creation account itself ( Genesis 1 & 2 ) was merely symbolic of God's covenant with His people, and that this would seem to point toward a projection of the notion of 'three-in-one' ( trinity ) onto nature, rather than perceiving it in nature.
'I see what you're saying, my friend', he replied, 'but though nature itself does point us to our Creator, my point in writing those articles was not to prove this, but to show how the 'creation account' was, not so much a literal record of the creation of the universe, or even of the physical earth, but rather, was relayed in such a way as to reveal His covenant, and the spiritual nature of His workings'.
I had to concede his point, but I didn't want to give to much assent to his postulation, not wanting him to get any more 'puffed up' than he already was! ( by this time; I've begun to see that its usually best not to praise his efforts over-much ) As he had made his point; I reminded him that, although this may be true, it was not ( necessarily ) a matter for debate, or division, and while this view could potentially be, and has been dangerous to our theology, as orthodoxically portrayed, was not ( necessarily ) harmful. Having said my piece; I told him goodbye, thanked him for calling, and hung up.
Unusually ( I think, sometimes that he screens his calls ); he picked up the phone on the first ring, like he was glad to hear from me, or something! 'Hello, brother Jeremiah; I'm glad you called: I've been thinking about you lately, but I've been so busy...........'. I was a bit surprised to hear this, and so did not reply for an almost stunned moment, so he said again, 'Hello?' I quickly gathered my thoughts, and responded with a slightly hesitant, 'Hi Chuck?'
'What's up, brother?', he asked. I told him that I'd been reading some of his articles in which he seemed to be denying, rather than affirming, as the 'church' has for years ( 2,000+ ), the doctrine of the Trinity. 'What about all the instances where Scripture seems to name three distinct persons, namely the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit?'
'What about them?', he asked. As he went on to explain that, while Father and Son could be perceived as two 'persons', the 'Holy Spirit' was not ( necessarily ) any third member of a God-head, or 'Trinity; I interrupted him at once, reminding him that, while the term 'Trinity' is not found in the Bible, the principle of ( and the term ) 'the God-head' most certainly is!
'Believe me', Jer, he said, 'I have thought, studied, listened, and prayed abut this; I realize that there is a God-head, that much is clear, from Paul's statement in Colossians 2:9, 'For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily'. I realize too, that, in places like Genesis 1:26a, where God said 'Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness', that there is an obvious reference to a 'person' other than Himself, yet not really other than Himself, for we know there is only one God........................
My friend continued, 'did you realize that, by many historical accounts, the doctrine of 'the trinity', or three persons in one god, existed long before Christianity, and that the Christian doctrine was only fully 'theorized', or set down, by Tertullian, in the 3rd or 4th century ( AD )'?
'Yes', I replied, 'I had heard that, and there is not only that evidence which seems to detract from its canonization, but also the fact that parts of I John 5:7 & 9 do not appear in the older Greek manuscripts, nor in the passage as quoted by many of the early Church Fathers'. As this is the clearest evidence, besides the baptismal formula in Matthew 28:19, for a 'Trinity'; I believe that we can safely question the doctrine.
'Even though there may be something to this' I asked him, 'should we be debating, or trying to debunk, this doctrine, since there are so many brothers and sisters out there, who hold on to this doctrine for dear life, and if we only upset them, or ( God forbid ) cause them to stumble, by refuting it, should we even try; is it really that dangerous of a doctrine, that we should risk alienating the brethren, by denouncing it?'
He had a good point, I had to admit, but when I reminded him that, although it was not a matter for division, but for discussion, there was always the danger of focusing on a singular aspect of the God-head, or 'Trinity', and in the process, worshiping a different 'God' ( although not really a different God, but only a different perception of Him, often a false, humanistically boxed-in one ), I think he began to see my point as well.
'I realize that we can find numerous examples of a trinity in nature as well,' he said, 'but are these really occurrences, or symbols/signs of a 'trinity', or are we projecting our idea of a 'trinity' onto nature? Sure, we can see that our sun is one body, but has three different aspects, those being that we can feel the sun's heat, even though we can't ( necessarily ) see the rays, it gives us power ( in many different ways ), and it gives us light'.
I had to remind him at this juncture that he had written several articles a number of years ago, in which he had tried to show that even the creation account itself ( Genesis 1 & 2 ) was merely symbolic of God's covenant with His people, and that this would seem to point toward a projection of the notion of 'three-in-one' ( trinity ) onto nature, rather than perceiving it in nature.
'I see what you're saying, my friend', he replied, 'but though nature itself does point us to our Creator, my point in writing those articles was not to prove this, but to show how the 'creation account' was, not so much a literal record of the creation of the universe, or even of the physical earth, but rather, was relayed in such a way as to reveal His covenant, and the spiritual nature of His workings'.
I had to concede his point, but I didn't want to give to much assent to his postulation, not wanting him to get any more 'puffed up' than he already was! ( by this time; I've begun to see that its usually best not to praise his efforts over-much ) As he had made his point; I reminded him that, although this may be true, it was not ( necessarily ) a matter for debate, or division, and while this view could potentially be, and has been dangerous to our theology, as orthodoxically portrayed, was not ( necessarily ) harmful. Having said my piece; I told him goodbye, thanked him for calling, and hung up.
Faith; what is it? ( work of man or work of God? )
According to Hebrews 11:1, 'faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.' That seems simple enough, or does it? The 11th chapter of Hebrews is best known as 'the faith chapter, and for good reason the author, or compiler of this book has deemed it necessary to rehearse for us the several, even manifold examples of the faith that God granted ( John 6:65, Acts 11:18, Philippians 1:29 ) them, and which they had faithfully practiced. The question before us, and has been batted back and forth for centuries, albeit maybe unconsciously, is ' is faith a work of God, something that He must give us, which we only then exercise, or is it altogether a work of man, a choice that he makes, and actions that he performs because of that choice?'
Paul wrote to the church in Ephesus ( Ephesians 2:8 & 9 ), 'by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; [ it is ] the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast'. Aside from being one of the most mis-quoted, and thus mis-understood verses in the Bible, this passage has been argued over in the past ( and probably will be ever ), debating whether Paul was saying that faith is a gift of God, or whether he was referring to salvation as that most precious of gifts. Undoubtedly; salvation is most obviously a gift of God, and one which man obviously could not accomplish on his own, but when it comes to trusting ( having faith ) in what Christ ( God ) accomplished for us, and believing, at the very heart of the matter, that Jesus was who He claimed to be, 'very God of very God', or the Son of the Father, the fine line gets a little blurry! Philippians 1:29, referenced above, says 'to you it has been granted on behalf of Christ, not only to believe in Him, but also to suffer for His sake'. It seems pretty clear that Paul, at least, believed that even our faith, our ability to believe in Him was granted, and is granted by God. Except in several cases, notably, Deuteronomy 32:20, which says 'I will hide My face from them, I will see what their end [ will be ], for they[ are [ a perverse generation, children in whom [ is ] no faith', and more famously, Habakkuk 2:4, which reads 'Behold the proud, his soul is not upright in him; but the just shall live by his faith' ( Young's Literal Translational renders the Hebrew as 'stedfastness' ( more in keeping with the context of Scripture, I believe ), the Old Testament Scriptures make no mention of 'faith' ( as a noun ), referring instead, to the 'faithfulness ( or lack thereof ) of the covenant people of God, and of the enduring faithfulness of God Himself ( II Timothy 2:13 ). Throughout the Psalms; David extols the faithfulness of God, and the prophets, even Solomon in the Proverbs, condemn the people of the covenant for their lack of faithfulness towards the covenant that God had made with them.
Phrases like 'I have faith in you', or condemnation of a lack of faith, as, 'your faith just isn't strong enough', are easily bandied around, without consideration of where that faith comes from, or even what exactly 'faith' is. To most, probably; faith is simply believing, and as a noun, what one believes, but truly, faith, particularly as the Bible, or Scripture, defines it, involves, not only belief ( 'Even the demons believe—and tremble!' ( James 2:19 ), but trust, an unfailing trust, in the promises of God. As we can see throughout Scripture; it is not in man ( Alone ) to be constantly, and unfailingly faithful: man can always fail, but God can never fail; God will never fail!
Faith, as we saw above, defined by the writer to the Hebrews, 'is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen'. I used to, when I was more of a deterministic Calvinist, believe that this was to say that faith, as a gift of God ( I still believe that ), was simply the evidence ( in nature, and elsewhere, that God was truly who He says He is ( John 4:24 ), but have come to see that he was speaking, not only of the faithfulness of God, but of the faithfulness of His elect covenant people, of the actions, through the faith God had granted them, of those who God had predestined ( Romans 8:29, Ephesians 1:3-6 ) to salvation in the Christ. In the very next verse of Hebrews 11, we read that 'by it the elders obtained a [ good ] testimony'; do you think, as many seem to think, that they simply 'obtained' this testimony ( Genesis 15:6 ), that this occurred just because they believed, or because they acted on that belief? James elsewhere wrote 'as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also'; thus our 'faith' does us no good if we do not act upon it, and before someone objects that I a, contradicting myself; let me clarify by saying that, though this is a gift of God, and stands on its own, we do not benefit, particularly in this life, will be of no benefit to the people of God, if we do not do what that faith purports.
Let me end here, by saying, in other words, that though this 'faith', or trust, is only available as a gift of God; it is our responsibility, and ours, to exercise, though through the power of God, that faith, but acting our beliefs out in our daily lives. May we all, especially me, begin, more and more, to 'Just do it'!
Charles Haddon Shank
Paul wrote to the church in Ephesus ( Ephesians 2:8 & 9 ), 'by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; [ it is ] the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast'. Aside from being one of the most mis-quoted, and thus mis-understood verses in the Bible, this passage has been argued over in the past ( and probably will be ever ), debating whether Paul was saying that faith is a gift of God, or whether he was referring to salvation as that most precious of gifts. Undoubtedly; salvation is most obviously a gift of God, and one which man obviously could not accomplish on his own, but when it comes to trusting ( having faith ) in what Christ ( God ) accomplished for us, and believing, at the very heart of the matter, that Jesus was who He claimed to be, 'very God of very God', or the Son of the Father, the fine line gets a little blurry! Philippians 1:29, referenced above, says 'to you it has been granted on behalf of Christ, not only to believe in Him, but also to suffer for His sake'. It seems pretty clear that Paul, at least, believed that even our faith, our ability to believe in Him was granted, and is granted by God. Except in several cases, notably, Deuteronomy 32:20, which says 'I will hide My face from them, I will see what their end [ will be ], for they[ are [ a perverse generation, children in whom [ is ] no faith', and more famously, Habakkuk 2:4, which reads 'Behold the proud, his soul is not upright in him; but the just shall live by his faith' ( Young's Literal Translational renders the Hebrew as 'stedfastness' ( more in keeping with the context of Scripture, I believe ), the Old Testament Scriptures make no mention of 'faith' ( as a noun ), referring instead, to the 'faithfulness ( or lack thereof ) of the covenant people of God, and of the enduring faithfulness of God Himself ( II Timothy 2:13 ). Throughout the Psalms; David extols the faithfulness of God, and the prophets, even Solomon in the Proverbs, condemn the people of the covenant for their lack of faithfulness towards the covenant that God had made with them.
Phrases like 'I have faith in you', or condemnation of a lack of faith, as, 'your faith just isn't strong enough', are easily bandied around, without consideration of where that faith comes from, or even what exactly 'faith' is. To most, probably; faith is simply believing, and as a noun, what one believes, but truly, faith, particularly as the Bible, or Scripture, defines it, involves, not only belief ( 'Even the demons believe—and tremble!' ( James 2:19 ), but trust, an unfailing trust, in the promises of God. As we can see throughout Scripture; it is not in man ( Alone ) to be constantly, and unfailingly faithful: man can always fail, but God can never fail; God will never fail!
Faith, as we saw above, defined by the writer to the Hebrews, 'is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen'. I used to, when I was more of a deterministic Calvinist, believe that this was to say that faith, as a gift of God ( I still believe that ), was simply the evidence ( in nature, and elsewhere, that God was truly who He says He is ( John 4:24 ), but have come to see that he was speaking, not only of the faithfulness of God, but of the faithfulness of His elect covenant people, of the actions, through the faith God had granted them, of those who God had predestined ( Romans 8:29, Ephesians 1:3-6 ) to salvation in the Christ. In the very next verse of Hebrews 11, we read that 'by it the elders obtained a [ good ] testimony'; do you think, as many seem to think, that they simply 'obtained' this testimony ( Genesis 15:6 ), that this occurred just because they believed, or because they acted on that belief? James elsewhere wrote 'as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also'; thus our 'faith' does us no good if we do not act upon it, and before someone objects that I a, contradicting myself; let me clarify by saying that, though this is a gift of God, and stands on its own, we do not benefit, particularly in this life, will be of no benefit to the people of God, if we do not do what that faith purports.
Let me end here, by saying, in other words, that though this 'faith', or trust, is only available as a gift of God; it is our responsibility, and ours, to exercise, though through the power of God, that faith, but acting our beliefs out in our daily lives. May we all, especially me, begin, more and more, to 'Just do it'!
Charles Haddon Shank
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
The Politics of Theology
German-born American physicist Albert Einstein said 'We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them'.
A friend of mine has recently adapted this quote to say 'our problems can't be solved by the theological mindset that created them'. This quote could be adjusted to cover a number of different equations. One iteration that has been proposed concerns politics. Most of us are used to thinking of 'politics', as having to do with secular government, and usually local, state, or federal governments. The Wikipedia article, though, that I found on this subject, says, 'Politics (from Greek πολιτικός, "of, for, or relating to citizens"), is a process by which groups of people make collective decisions.' Put simply; the Merriam-Webster Dictionary ( on-line ) defines 'politics' as 'the art or science of government'. As can easily be perceived in both of these definitions; religious ideals, both the theorization and propagation of them, fall under the definition of 'politics', maybe most noticeably in the past several hundred years ( except maybe for those more familiar with Church History ), but have been pervasive throughout the entire history of the Church, beginning with the political situation that Peter was faced with at Jerusalem, as recorded in Acts 11. Throughout the book of Acts, we can read of numerous instances where the apostles are 'called on the carpet' for challenging the theo-political mindset of the day ( they also, along with Jesus, dared to challenge, not only the prevailing social, but geo-political perception ).
Theology, or 'the study of religious faith, practice, and experience; especially : the study of God and of God's relation to the world' ( again, according to Merriam Webster's ), of course, has been around since the beginning of time, and especially since the beginning of the creation of God's covenant with His people. Though differing to a greater or lesser degree, man, through his perception of his Creator, has always carried his own theology of that Creator. The physical children of Israel ( Jacob ), from their conception, had a fairly collective idea of Who God is, and what He required. Whether or not, or to what extent, their perception of YHWH ( more commonly known as Jehovah ) was correct could be argued, but it is clear, from the stiff resistance that Jesus and the apostles confronted; that their theology, through their adherence to the letter of the Law, was somewhat lacking. Paul outlines for his readers, only secondarily, and throughout his letters, the opposition that he fought against from this prevailing theology.
We face much the same situation in the Church today, striving against a faulty theology, although, except in the realm of eschatology, or the study of last things, our picture, or ideological perception of God is much the same. Though our theologies are fairly orthodox, for the most part; our differences, as pertaining to eschatology especially, do have far-reaching implications, even where it comes to discerning the nature of God. Is Jehovah a God that keeps His promises to His people, when He says He will ( Matthew 24:34 ) and how He says He will ( Matthew 16:27 )? If not; how can we really trust anything else He says or does?
What's wrong with our socio-political mind-set?
Our political mind-set, of course, has, at it's core, our perception, and thus conception of who and what God is, our theology. Depending on this perception/conception; most people will live their lives accordingly. If one believes that those with whom he comes in contact have, like oneself, been created in the image of an ultimately loving and care God, the Creator and sustainer of life Who also stands as our Father; we will most likely treat our fellow human beings in much the same way, as siblings, belonging, ultimately, to the same family. If we believe that God is no different, no better than us, reneging on His promises, or just plain being mistaken, and even powerless when it comes to His own creation, with a petty and vindictive nature like ours; we will most likely treat our brothers and sisters accordingly, treating some as better than others, depending on their social or religious status, and will end up proving in our own lives, both public and private, our very perception of God. Is this to say that those who sometimes fail to act upon their purported beliefs, pettily and vindictively treating others differently then they themselves would wish to be treated, have a faulty theology in their view of the nature of God? That's not what I'm saying at all: we're all human, after all, and prone, by our nature ( human, not fallen ( Adamic ), to be selfish, petty, and vindictive. However, through the grace of God, and depending on our perception and reception of that Grace; we can over-come our innate selfishness, and treat our brethren as brethren, ultimately, again, through the grace of God, reconciling His people with Himself!
The institutional church ( or Church, as some might say ) has failed, in the social arena, and in fellowship and love, it's ministry to share the Good News of the Kingdom with many of the less than desirable creatures in society, namely those that do things with which we, whether for a 'solid' Scriptural reasons or not, do not agree or associate ( except maybe secretly ) with! As has been shown through the writings of quite a few authors; I believe that much of the Church's failure can be blamed on a certain theological factor, or even factors, and that the only way that we will fix the 'problems', not only in today's society, but in today's church, is to change, even expand, through the Holy Spirit, and the strength of the Body of Christ, our theological views, not only of eschatology, but the trickle-down effect that it must have on our ministry.
What's wrong with our theological mind-set?
More and more today, the Church of God is either re-examining the prevailing and orthodox view, especially eschatology ( and its far-reaching implications ), or acting as the Church should in many arenas, in spite of that theological mindset. I see this as a positive thing! Through these actions, which are geared toward building God's Kingdom on earth, and is a step in the right direction ( though we may label these brethren 'futurists'; they still have an eschatology of victory ), I believe that we will see God's Kingdom, His people, continually increase, as prophesied in places like Isaiah 9 and Daniel 2!
For far to long; the idea that Christ will return to solve all of our problems, has led many in His Church to isolate themselves from the 'world', reasoning that Christ will take care of it, when He returns and sets up His Kingdom on earth, thus bringing in the new heavens and earth, that Isaiah wrote of ( Isaiah 65:17 ). The thing that we seem to have forgotten ( speaking collectively here ) is that God, in Christ has already solved our problems, the main problem being sin, which no one can truly deny, Christ took care of in His once-for-all sacrifice on the cross! Many have missed the fact that we ( the Church ) are His Kingdom on earth, and that, through the power given us by the in-dwelling of His Holy Spirit, and as the 'Israel of God' ( Galatians 6:16 ), have been made rulers with Him, and that, like the first Adam in the Garden, have been given the dominion over the rest of His creation!
Because of our latent laziness and apathy ( selfishness ), the prevalent theological mind-set present in much of today's institutional church has further encouraged us, again, collectively, to become even more selfishly apathetic, and to hand over more and more of our God-given rights and freedoms, and caused us to cede much, if not all, of our duties to the secular state and federal governments, rather than doing what we have been enabled to, through the power of the Holy Spirit, and having the dominion that He gave us anew, over ourselves, our families, and our society.
In the Spirit of Holiness,
Charles Haddon Shank
A friend of mine has recently adapted this quote to say 'our problems can't be solved by the theological mindset that created them'. This quote could be adjusted to cover a number of different equations. One iteration that has been proposed concerns politics. Most of us are used to thinking of 'politics', as having to do with secular government, and usually local, state, or federal governments. The Wikipedia article, though, that I found on this subject, says, 'Politics (from Greek πολιτικός, "of, for, or relating to citizens"), is a process by which groups of people make collective decisions.' Put simply; the Merriam-Webster Dictionary ( on-line ) defines 'politics' as 'the art or science of government'. As can easily be perceived in both of these definitions; religious ideals, both the theorization and propagation of them, fall under the definition of 'politics', maybe most noticeably in the past several hundred years ( except maybe for those more familiar with Church History ), but have been pervasive throughout the entire history of the Church, beginning with the political situation that Peter was faced with at Jerusalem, as recorded in Acts 11. Throughout the book of Acts, we can read of numerous instances where the apostles are 'called on the carpet' for challenging the theo-political mindset of the day ( they also, along with Jesus, dared to challenge, not only the prevailing social, but geo-political perception ).
Theology, or 'the study of religious faith, practice, and experience; especially : the study of God and of God's relation to the world' ( again, according to Merriam Webster's ), of course, has been around since the beginning of time, and especially since the beginning of the creation of God's covenant with His people. Though differing to a greater or lesser degree, man, through his perception of his Creator, has always carried his own theology of that Creator. The physical children of Israel ( Jacob ), from their conception, had a fairly collective idea of Who God is, and what He required. Whether or not, or to what extent, their perception of YHWH ( more commonly known as Jehovah ) was correct could be argued, but it is clear, from the stiff resistance that Jesus and the apostles confronted; that their theology, through their adherence to the letter of the Law, was somewhat lacking. Paul outlines for his readers, only secondarily, and throughout his letters, the opposition that he fought against from this prevailing theology.
We face much the same situation in the Church today, striving against a faulty theology, although, except in the realm of eschatology, or the study of last things, our picture, or ideological perception of God is much the same. Though our theologies are fairly orthodox, for the most part; our differences, as pertaining to eschatology especially, do have far-reaching implications, even where it comes to discerning the nature of God. Is Jehovah a God that keeps His promises to His people, when He says He will ( Matthew 24:34 ) and how He says He will ( Matthew 16:27 )? If not; how can we really trust anything else He says or does?
What's wrong with our socio-political mind-set?
Our political mind-set, of course, has, at it's core, our perception, and thus conception of who and what God is, our theology. Depending on this perception/conception; most people will live their lives accordingly. If one believes that those with whom he comes in contact have, like oneself, been created in the image of an ultimately loving and care God, the Creator and sustainer of life Who also stands as our Father; we will most likely treat our fellow human beings in much the same way, as siblings, belonging, ultimately, to the same family. If we believe that God is no different, no better than us, reneging on His promises, or just plain being mistaken, and even powerless when it comes to His own creation, with a petty and vindictive nature like ours; we will most likely treat our brothers and sisters accordingly, treating some as better than others, depending on their social or religious status, and will end up proving in our own lives, both public and private, our very perception of God. Is this to say that those who sometimes fail to act upon their purported beliefs, pettily and vindictively treating others differently then they themselves would wish to be treated, have a faulty theology in their view of the nature of God? That's not what I'm saying at all: we're all human, after all, and prone, by our nature ( human, not fallen ( Adamic ), to be selfish, petty, and vindictive. However, through the grace of God, and depending on our perception and reception of that Grace; we can over-come our innate selfishness, and treat our brethren as brethren, ultimately, again, through the grace of God, reconciling His people with Himself!
The institutional church ( or Church, as some might say ) has failed, in the social arena, and in fellowship and love, it's ministry to share the Good News of the Kingdom with many of the less than desirable creatures in society, namely those that do things with which we, whether for a 'solid' Scriptural reasons or not, do not agree or associate ( except maybe secretly ) with! As has been shown through the writings of quite a few authors; I believe that much of the Church's failure can be blamed on a certain theological factor, or even factors, and that the only way that we will fix the 'problems', not only in today's society, but in today's church, is to change, even expand, through the Holy Spirit, and the strength of the Body of Christ, our theological views, not only of eschatology, but the trickle-down effect that it must have on our ministry.
What's wrong with our theological mind-set?
More and more today, the Church of God is either re-examining the prevailing and orthodox view, especially eschatology ( and its far-reaching implications ), or acting as the Church should in many arenas, in spite of that theological mindset. I see this as a positive thing! Through these actions, which are geared toward building God's Kingdom on earth, and is a step in the right direction ( though we may label these brethren 'futurists'; they still have an eschatology of victory ), I believe that we will see God's Kingdom, His people, continually increase, as prophesied in places like Isaiah 9 and Daniel 2!
For far to long; the idea that Christ will return to solve all of our problems, has led many in His Church to isolate themselves from the 'world', reasoning that Christ will take care of it, when He returns and sets up His Kingdom on earth, thus bringing in the new heavens and earth, that Isaiah wrote of ( Isaiah 65:17 ). The thing that we seem to have forgotten ( speaking collectively here ) is that God, in Christ has already solved our problems, the main problem being sin, which no one can truly deny, Christ took care of in His once-for-all sacrifice on the cross! Many have missed the fact that we ( the Church ) are His Kingdom on earth, and that, through the power given us by the in-dwelling of His Holy Spirit, and as the 'Israel of God' ( Galatians 6:16 ), have been made rulers with Him, and that, like the first Adam in the Garden, have been given the dominion over the rest of His creation!
Because of our latent laziness and apathy ( selfishness ), the prevalent theological mind-set present in much of today's institutional church has further encouraged us, again, collectively, to become even more selfishly apathetic, and to hand over more and more of our God-given rights and freedoms, and caused us to cede much, if not all, of our duties to the secular state and federal governments, rather than doing what we have been enabled to, through the power of the Holy Spirit, and having the dominion that He gave us anew, over ourselves, our families, and our society.
In the Spirit of Holiness,
Charles Haddon Shank
Monday, February 14, 2011
What is Love?
Most, I believe, are familiar with 'the love chapter', I Corinthians 13, which I've mentioned before. The Scriptures, when mentioning love, and particularly Paul, in this passage, speaks of it in the sense of action, of things that we do, of characteristics that we exhibit, when we love. There are times, even in Scripture, when love is pretty obviously felt, both in the reception, and in the inception. Conception definitely involves feeling, and often ( usually ) is very emotionally charged. Love, while it often does involve emotion, and usually leads to an emotional attachment, is, first and foremost, an action, almost, as some say, a duty. Much trouble has been caused through the modern, some might say 'secular' view of love, and even the Scriptural example of Peter, at the end of John's Gospel, where Peter could not allow himself to commit to anything but feelings of brotherly love ( 'phileo' ) for his LORD. Relationships are often plagued by this unfortunate fact. Feelings, like most of the things that Paul mentioned in the first passage that we are focusing on here, have an end. If we allow our emotions ( feelings ) to rule our relationships, then we have a very rocky roller-coaster ride ahead of us.
Don't get me wrong: I'm not all saying that emotions are a bad thing, and neither am I saying that we should strive to hide or stifle those feelings: but rather, we should strive to control those feelings and not to base our actions upon those feelings, but to base our actions upon our love for God, rather on the love of God, which is best displayed in John 3:16, 'For God so loved the world.............'
I can say with authority, and I'm sure that most have experienced this, that a relationship ( of any kind ) that is based largely, if not wholly, upon feelings, is often doomed, and most often headed for disaster. Why do I say this? Feelings change, we can't really control those ( though sometimes we can bring them under control ), but we can control our actions. As I've often repeated, 'We all make choices': we always, except perhaps in unusual, or extreme cases have a choice of whether to react or act, whether to wait for the actions of someone else to determine our own actions, or to make a 'preemptive strike', and decide to fulfill our purpose, our destiny, you might say, to love!
As I said earlier: there is absolutely nothing at all wrong with having or exhibiting emotion; we all have them, we all feel them ( some to a greater or lesser extent than others ), but when we allow those feelings to determine our actions, we are not acting in love, but in lust!
Writing more for myself, than for anyone else,
Charles Haddon Shank
Don't get me wrong: I'm not all saying that emotions are a bad thing, and neither am I saying that we should strive to hide or stifle those feelings: but rather, we should strive to control those feelings and not to base our actions upon those feelings, but to base our actions upon our love for God, rather on the love of God, which is best displayed in John 3:16, 'For God so loved the world.............'
I can say with authority, and I'm sure that most have experienced this, that a relationship ( of any kind ) that is based largely, if not wholly, upon feelings, is often doomed, and most often headed for disaster. Why do I say this? Feelings change, we can't really control those ( though sometimes we can bring them under control ), but we can control our actions. As I've often repeated, 'We all make choices': we always, except perhaps in unusual, or extreme cases have a choice of whether to react or act, whether to wait for the actions of someone else to determine our own actions, or to make a 'preemptive strike', and decide to fulfill our purpose, our destiny, you might say, to love!
As I said earlier: there is absolutely nothing at all wrong with having or exhibiting emotion; we all have them, we all feel them ( some to a greater or lesser extent than others ), but when we allow those feelings to determine our actions, we are not acting in love, but in lust!
Writing more for myself, than for anyone else,
Charles Haddon Shank
Friday, February 04, 2011
Studies in the Book of the Revelation of Jesus the Christ the Son of God ( the visions ( final judgment ( 'War & Peace' ( the marriage feast ) Pt 16
Keys to Understanding the Book of Revelation
After these things I heard[a] a loud voice of a great multitude in heaven, saying, “Alleluia! Salvation and glory and honor and power [ belong ] to the Lord[b] our God! For true and righteous are His judgments, because He has judged the great harlot who corrupted the earth with her fornication; and He has avenged on her the blood of His servants [ shed ] by her.” Again they said, “Alleluia! Her smoke rises up forever and ever!” And the twenty-four elders and the four living creatures fell down and worshiped God who sat on the throne, saying, “Amen! Alleluia!"
The book of Revelation has been termed, by some, a 'heavenly worship service', and rightly so, I believe, as witnessed by the episodes of praise and glory, with thanksgiving that are interspersed throughout the book.
'Whenever the living creatures give glory and honor and thanks to Him who sits on the throne, who lives forever and ever, the twenty-four elders fall down before Him who sits on the throne and worship Him who lives forever and ever, and cast their crowns before the throne, saying: “ You are worthy, O Lord,[g] to receive glory and honor and power; for You created all things, and by Your will they exist[h] and were created.”' ( Revelation 4:8-11 )
'After these things I looked, and behold, a great multitude which no one could number, of all nations, tribes, peoples, and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, with palm branches in their hands, and crying out with a loud voice, saying, “Salvation belongs to our God who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb!” All the angels stood around the throne and the elders and the four living creatures, and fell on their faces before the throne and worshiped God, saying: “ Amen! Blessing and glory and wisdom, thanksgiving and honor and power and might, [ be ] to our God forever and ever. Amen.”' ( Revelation 7:9 )
We have noted before, how those faithful in 'Israel' had cried 'Lord, how long?' ( Isaiah 6:11 ( Psalm 13:1, 35:17 ( I Peter 5:8 ) Psalm 74:10, 90:13, Jeremiah 12:4, Habakkuk 1:2, Zechariah 1:12 ) In the previous studies; I have endeavored to show that it was old covenant Israel ( 'according to the flesh' ) that was the primary focus of the adverse judgment prophesied throughout Scripture, and finally, and significantly revealed through John in the Revelation. I believe that Scripture clearly presents the fact that the physical nation of Israel ( their leaders ), and Judaism in particular, was the 'adversary' of God's people throughout their history. Many examples have been presented, especially in the Hebrew Scriptures of other ( foreign ) adversaries that plagued the ( physical ) 'children' of Israel, but, as we have seen throughout these studies, they were but God's typical means of chastising His 'children', and revealing, through their disobedience and apostasy, His true people.
Then a voice came from the throne, saying, “Praise our God, all you His servants and those who fear Him, both[c] small and great!” And I heard, as it were, the voice of a great multitude, as the sound of many waters and as the sound of mighty thunderings, saying, “Alleluia! For the[d] Lord God Omnipotent reigns! Let us be glad and rejoice and give Him glory, for the marriage of the Lamb has come, and His wife has made herself ready.” And to her it was granted to be arrayed in fine linen, clean and bright, for the fine linen is the righteous acts of the saints.
It is customary in this 'day and age', for a bride to wear a white gown for her wedding ceremony, especially if, and in most cases, only if she has not been 'wedded and bedded', in other words, if she is a virgin. This has not always been the case, however; the idea of wearing a white wedding dress ( sometimes very elaborate ) was popularized in the 1800s, when Queen Victoria of England married Albert Saxe-Coberg in 1840, wearing a white gown. Till lately; a white gown was fairly uncommon as a wedding dress, as only the wealthy could really afford to keep a white dress for a singular use, such as a wedding. The white wedding dress has become traditional as a symbol of purity, although this seems to be a recent one, because up till the mid-19th century, blue was worn as a symbol of purity, by brides for their husbands. Biblically speaking; it is easy to see where this idea of white as a symbol for purity came from. From the passages that we read throughout the Revelation ( 3:4, 5 & 18, 4:4, 6:11, 7:9, 13 & 14 ( 15:6 ) 19:14 ), and even throughout the Greek Scriptures ( Matthew 17:2, 28:3, Mark 9:3, 16:5, Luke 9:29, John 20:12, Acts 1:10 ( II Corinthians 5:2-4, I Peter 5:5 ( Romans 4:6 ( Genesis 3:21 ) Romans 10:4, I Corinthians 1:30, II Corinthians 6:14, Ephesians 4:24 ( 6:14 ) Philippians 3:9, II Timothy 4:8 ( II Timothy 2:22, Titus 1:15, Hebrews 10:22 ( 14 ) James 1:27, I Peter 1:22, I John 3:3 ). In the Hebrew Scriptures; were are familiar with David's 'Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean; wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow', from Psalm 51 ( see also Ecclesiastes 9:8 ), and 'Come now, and let us reason together, says the LORD, though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red like crimson, they shall be as wool' ( Isaiah 1:18 ). In Daniel 7:9, much as in Revelation 4, where the prophet was granted a vision of 'the Ancient of Days'; Daniel saw 'His garment [ was ] white as snow', and referring to 'the time of the end', also revealed in John's vision, the angel told Daniel 'Many shall be purified, made white, and refined, but the wicked shall do wickedly; and none of the wicked shall understand, but the wise shall understand' ( 12:10 ).
'And I heard a voice from heaven, like the voice of many waters, and like the voice of loud thunder. And I heard the sound of harpists playing their harps.' ( Revelation 14:2 )
David, king of Israel, wrote 'The voice of the LORD [ is ] over the waters; the God of glory thunders; the LORD [ is ] over many waters.' ( Psalm 29:3 ) When God revealed ( in a vision ) to the prophet Ezekiel, the glory of His future Temple, the prophet was made aware of His presence by the sound of 'His voice like the sound of many waters; and the earth shone with His glory' ( Ezekiel 43:2 ). Previous studies have shone that 'waters' are often indicative ( metaphorically ), not only of the people of God, or people ( the nations ) in general, but of the blessings that God 'rains down' upon those people.
Then he said to me, “Write: ‘Blessed are those who are called to the marriage supper of the Lamb!’” And he said to me, “These are the true sayings of God.” And I fell at his feet to worship him. But he said to me, “See [ that you do ] not [ do that ]! I am your fellow servant, and of your brethren who have the testimony of Jesus. Worship God! For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.”
'The kingdom of heaven is like a certain king who arranged a marriage for his son, and sent out his servants to call those who were invited to the wedding; and they were not willing to come. Again, he sent out other servants, saying, ‘Tell those who are invited, “See, I have prepared my dinner; my oxen and fatted cattle [ are ] killed, and all things are ready. Come to the wedding.”’ But they made light of it and went their ways, one to his own farm, another to his business. And the rest seized his servants, treated [ them ] spitefully, and killed [ them ]. But when the king heard [ about it ], he was furious. And he sent out his armies, destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city.' ( Matthew 22:2-7 )
Again; reading Josephus' history of the wars of the Jews, we can clearly see how this parable become a very literal, physical representation of what was about to take place. In Luke 14:15-24; Jesus tells much the same parable as the one in Matthew, and while Jesus, in the parable in Luke, specifically targets the physical Jews, saying, 'none of those men who were invited shall taste my supper'; He merely states in Matthew 22 that, although the city of those who were originally invited was burned up, those from the 'highways', 'both bad and good' ( verse 10 ) that came to the feast without the proper preparations were cast into 'outer darkness'.
Now I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse. And He who sat on him [ was ] called Faithful and True, and in righteousness He judges and makes war. His eyes [ were ] like a flame of fire, and on His head [ were ] many crowns. He had[e] a name written that no one knew except Himself. He [ was ] clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God.
'In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.' ( Genesis 7:11 )
'Yet He had commanded the clouds above, and opened the doors of heaven, had rained down manna on them to eat, and given them of the bread of heaven. Men ate angels’ food; He sent them food to the full.' ( Psalm 78:23-25 )
'But as the days of Noah were, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be. For as in the days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and did not know until the flood came and took them all away, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be.' ( Matthew 24:37-39 )
'Now I saw when the Lamb opened one of the seals;[a] and I heard one of the four living creatures saying with a voice like thunder, “Come and see.” And I looked, and behold, a white horse. He who sat on it had a bow; and a crown was given to him, and he went out conquering and to conquer.' ( Revelation 6:1 & 2 )
As Stephen stood trial before the Sanhedrin, most of which is recorded in Acts 7, and after his farewell address; he exclaimed, 'Look! I see the heavens opened and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God!' ( 56 ). This made them even angrier, because they must have known, and recognized, from their long and sordid history, that this kind of language usually signified an adverse judgment for the guilty ones, which they knew that they were!
Some have explained the first horsemen in John's vision in Revelation as speaking of someone other than Christ, but I believe that John's reference above, in Revelation 19, indicates that Jesus the Christ is in view here, if for no other reason than the fact that He is seen, mounted upon a white horse. A Wikipedia article that I found on the significance of the white horse has this little tidbit, 'White horses (which are rarer than other colors of horse) have a special significance in the mythologies of cultures around the world. They are often associated with the sun chariot,[1] with warrior-heroes, with fertility (in both mare and stallion manifestations), or with an end-of-time savior, but other interpretations exist as well'. Another article says, 'Let the reader note particularly what John saw, and then remember that it is symbolical, and that instead of looking for a literal fulfillment, we are to ask the meaning of the symbols.' ( from the website 'The Official King James Bible online' ) Traditionally, I believe, the white horse has always been significant of the conqueror, and even of royalty. In our 'day', even, this is the traditional mount for kings, princes, and other royalty. Douglas MacArthur, in my understanding, rode a white horse, and history will tell us that many such generals, kings, and other such, employed the white horse, as a symbol of their status and intent.
As John described the Son of God earlier in the Revelation ( 1:14, 2:18 ) using these words; 'His eyes like a flame of fire', it should be clear that he is seeing a vision of the conquering King here. That He had 'a name written that no one knew except Himself' speaks of the fact that only God knows who's names are truly written in the Book of Life ( Malachi 3:16-18 ).
Describing the coming 'Day of the Lord'; when this conquering King was asked 'Why [ is ] Your apparel red, and Your garments like one who treads in the winepress?'; He answered, 'I have trodden the winepress alone, and from the peoples no one was with Me. For I have trodden them in My anger, and trampled them in My fury; their blood is sprinkled upon My garments, and I have stained all My robes.' ( Isaiah 63:1-6 )
And the armies in heaven, clothed in fine linen, white and clean,[f] followed Him on white horses. Now out of His mouth goes a sharp[g] sword, that with it He should strike the nations. And He Himself will rule them with a rod of iron. He Himself treads the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God. And He has on [ His ] robe and on His thigh a name written: KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS.
'Then Pharaoh took his signet ring off his hand and put it on Joseph’s hand; and he clothed him in garments of fine linen and put a gold chain around his neck.' ( Genesis 41:42 )
'He made the ephod of gold, blue, purple, and scarlet [ thread ], and of fine woven linen.' ( Exodus 39:2 )
'I clothed you in embroidered cloth and gave you sandals of badger skin; I clothed you with fine linen and covered you with silk.' ( Ezekiel 16:10 )
'There was a certain rich man who was clothed in purple and fine linen and fared sumptuously every day.'( Luke 16:19 )
Some may wonder why I've quoted Luke 16:19: I believe, as my readers may have gathered, that Jesus told this parable, symbolic of the division between Jew & Gentile that was presented, most strongly, perhaps, in His day, the 'rich man' being indicative of the Jew, who rested upon his righteousness, or ability to keep the Law, for his salvation, and Lazarus ( corresponds to Eliezer, Abraham's servant, in Genesis 15:2 ) of the Gentiles, those who, as the Jews perceived it, had no interest in the covenant blessings God had promised. Linen, back in those 'days', although probably one of the more popular materials from which clothes were made, was, in its finest form, usually imported from Egypt, and so reserved mainly for the priests and wealthier people.
Starting in Exodus 26, and continuing till near the end of the book; it is interesting to note that many of the trappings, one of which was fine linen, which were employed in the making of the tabernacle and the priestly garments, are very nearly the same as those used symbolically to describe the clothing of God's covenant people.
'You shall break[a] them with a rod of iron; You shall dash them to pieces like a potter’s vessel.' ( Psalm 2:9 )
'And He has made My mouth like a sharp sword; in the shadow of His hand He has hidden Me, and made Me a polished shaft; in His quiver He has hidden Me.' ( Isaiah 49:2 )
John used some very familiar imagery here, recalling prophecies of old, to describe the vision that he observed. As we noted several studies ago, John heard 'The kingdoms[f] of this world have become [ the kingdoms ] of our Lord and of His Christ, and He shall reign forever and ever!' ( Revelation 11:15 ), and in the very next study, John witnessed a woman who was about to deliver her Child, and 'She bore a male Child who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron'. This Child, of course, was none other than the Son of God, who was promised by His Father that the 'nations' would be His 'inheritance', and 'the ends of the earth, His 'possession'.
Another interesting fact, concerning the quote from Isaiah 49, is that when God talks about His Servant whose mouth He will make ( like ) 'a sharp sword', He reveals in the very next verse to whom He is speaking; 'You [ are ] My servant, O Israel, in whom I will be glorified'. This is part of the mystery 'hidden from ages and from generations' ( Colossians 1:26 ( Ephesians 3:9, I Corinthians 2:7 ), that His only begotten Son was the true Israel, of which Jacob and his progeny were mere shadows.
Then I saw an angel standing in the sun; and he cried with a loud voice, saying to all the birds that fly in the midst of heaven, “Come and gather together for the supper of the great God,[h] that you may eat the flesh of kings, the flesh of captains, the flesh of mighty men, the flesh of horses and of those who sit on them, and the flesh of all [ people ], free[i] and slave, both small and great.
'And you, son of man, prophesy against Gog, and say, ‘Thus says the Lord GOD: “Behold, I am against you, O Gog, the prince of Rosh,[a] Meshech, and Tubal; and I will turn you around and lead you on, bringing you up from the far north, and bring you against the mountains of Israel. Then I will knock the bow out of your left hand, and cause the arrows to fall out of your right hand. You shall fall upon the mountains of Israel, you and all your troops and the peoples who [ are ] with you; I will give you to birds of prey of every sort and [ to ] the beasts of the field to be devoured.' ( Ezekiel 39:1-4 )
'Your carcasses shall be food for all the birds of the air and the beasts of the earth, and no one shall frighten [ them ] away.' ( Deuteronomy 28:26 )
'The dead bodies of Your servants they have given as food for the birds of the heavens, the flesh of Your saints to the beasts of the earth.' ( Psalm 79:2 )
'The corpses of this people will be food for the birds of the heaven and for the beasts of the earth. And no one will frighten [ them away ].' ( Jeremiah 7:33 )
'They shall die gruesome deaths; they shall not be lamented nor shall they be buried, [ but ] they shall be like refuse on the face of the earth. They shall be consumed by the sword and by famine, and their corpses shall be meat for the birds of heaven and for the beasts of the earth.' ( Jeremiah 16:4 )
'I will leave you in the wilderness, you and all the fish of your rivers; you shall fall on the open field; you shall not be picked up or gathered.[b] I have given you as food to the beasts of the field and to the birds of the heavens.' ( Ezekiel 29:5 )
That this angel was standing in the sun ( Greek-ἥλιος=helios ) should be noted, considering that the sun, or 'greater light' was made to 'rule the day' ( Genesis 1:16 ), and, in places like Genesis 37:9; is clearly shown to be commonly significant of a 'head', whether of a family, ( 'Look, I have dreamed another dream. And this time, the sun, the moon, and the eleven stars bowed down to me' ), or of a nation ( Isaiah 13:10, 24:23 ( 60:19 & 20 ) Jeremiah 15:9, Ezekiel 32:7, Joel 2:10 ( Habakkuk 3:11 ). God's promise in Isaiah 60:19 & 20, that 'Your sun shall no longer go down', and that 'the LORD will be your everlasting light' makes the place where John saw this angel standing even more significant; we will see several studies from now the significance, as well, of this important phrase.
In the passages above, we can see throughout Scripture that this 'feast', though symbolic of the defeat of the enemies of God's people, had a very real ( and physical ) aspect to it, and especially when read in the context of the creation account in Genesis 1 & 2, could have some interesting connotations.
And I saw the beast, the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against Him who sat on the horse and against His army. Then the beast was captured, and with him the false prophet who worked signs in his presence, by which he deceived those who received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped his image.
Because of the use of this phrase, 'the kings of the earth', among others, maybe, some have gotten the notion that this battle, infamously called 'the battle of Armageddon' ( Harmagedōn-the hill or city of Megiddo ) will be a world-wide conflict, but as we've seen much throughout these studies; the word 'earth' here, might better, and possibly should be, to avoid confusion, 'land'.
'So King Solomon surpassed all the kings of the earth in riches and wisdom. And all the kings of the earth sought the presence of Solomon to hear his wisdom, which God had put in his heart.' ( II Chronicles 9:22 & 23 )
'It shall come to pass in that day [ that ] the LORD will punish on high the host of exalted ones, and on the earth the kings of the earth.' ( Isaiah 24:21 )
'The kings of the earth, and all inhabitants of the world, would not have believed that the adversary and the enemy could enter the gates of Jerusalem— ' ( Lamentations 4:12 )
'When your wares went out by sea, you satisfied many people; you enriched the kings of the earth with your many luxury goods and your merchandise.' ( Ezekiel 27:33 )
Scripture, as I believe I've mentioned before, is centered in and around the 'land' of Palestine, and later, extended to pretty much the whole Mediterranean region, so it should be fairly obvious, especially when considering the historical context of the above passages, that the authors are not referring to rulers of the nations of the whole earth, as we know it, but rather to kings of the earth, or world, that they were familiar with, in that prescribed area of the earth.
'Then I saw another beast coming up out of the earth, and he had two horns like a lamb and spoke like a dragon. And he exercises all the authority of the first beast in his presence, and causes the earth and those who dwell in it to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed.' ( Revelation 13:11 )
We read in Revelation 13 of two beasts, the first from the sea, which can be interpreted as being from the Gentiles, and the beast from the earth, or land, or a Jew. I believe that, though these beasts can be actually identified as separate individuals that lived and died in the first century; John, or Jesus rather, is speaking of two aspects of one spirit ( I John 4:1-6 ).
'The prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests rule by their [ own ] power; and My people love [ to have it ] so. But what will you do in the end?' ( Jeremiah 5:31 )
'If there arises among you a prophet or a dreamer of dreams, and he gives you a sign or a wonder, and the sign or the wonder comes to pass, of which he spoke to you, saying, ‘Let us go after other gods’—which you have not known—‘and let us serve them,’ you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams, for the LORD your God is testing you to know whether you love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul.' ( Deuteronomy 13:1-3 )
Later, in Deuteronomy 18:21 & 22, the 'children' of Israel asked Moses how they would be able to tell the difference between His prophets and self-appointed prophets: Moses told them 'when a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the thing does not happen or come to pass', then they would know that he was not a true prophet ( of God ), and that they were not to fear him. As the 'beasts', above, that we read about in Revelation 13; I believe that Scripture tells us, that though there may have been on particular figure ( individual ) that John ( Jesus ) had in mind here, as 'the' false prophet, who then perished in a very physical 'Lake of Fire' ( the conflagration of Jerusalem and the Temple, in AD70 ); it was not so much an individual figure that John 'saw' as a 'sign' of the spirit of anti-Christ that we read about in the letters of John.
These two were cast alive into the lake of fire burning with brimstone. And the rest were killed with the sword which proceeded from the mouth of Him who sat on the horse. And all the birds were filled with their flesh.
'For Tophet [ was ] established of old, yes, for the king it is prepared. He has made [ it ] deep and large; its pyre [ is ] fire with much wood; the breath of the LORD, like a stream of brimstone, kindles it.' ( Isaiah 30:33 )
'Therefore behold, the days are coming,” says the LORD, “when it will no more be called Tophet, or the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, but the Valley of Slaughter; for they will bury in Tophet until there is no room.' ( Jeremiah 7:32 )
In our studies of the Revelation; we have read about how this 'breath of the LORD', or 'fire of the LORD', at the prayer of Elijah ( "Yahweh is my God" ) fell from heaven and burned up the sacrifice ( I Kings 18:20-40 ), and how, later in the same chronicles ( II Kings 1:9-15 ) the same man of God called down the same 'fire of God', when faced with an adversary ( whose lives he later spared at their own prayer ). It is interesting to note here, that this same 'breath of the LORD' that burned up His adversaries, and the adversaries of His people, is the same 'breath' ( Genesis 2:7 ) that brought Adam to life, and which was the means of resurrection of the house of Israel ( Ezekiel 37 )!
'For the word of God [ is ] living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.' ( Hebrews 4:12 )
We read earlier, in Isaiah 49, and other passages, how God had made His Servant a 'sword', both to redeem His people ( Psalm 58:10, Psalm 99:8, Isaiah 35:4, 61:2, 63:4, Jeremiah 50:28 ), and to take vengeance on His adversaries ( Deuteronomy 32:35 ( 41 ), Psalm 94:1, Isaiah 34:5-8, Jeremiah 46:10 ( Luke 21:22 ) Micah 5:15, Nahum 1:2 ). Josephus, the Jewish historian who chronicled the siege and destruction of Jerusalem, reported that during these 'days of vengeance', a sword appeared in the sky over Jerusalem ( likely a comet ), so, in these events, one can even 'see' almost a physically literal fulfillment of Jesus' words of condemnation, not only from 'The Olivet Discourse ( Matthew 24, Luke 21, and Mark 13 ), but throughout the Hebrew Scriptures, as well!
May this study, as we near the end of it, be a blessing to it's reader, as the Revelation was to its original recipients!
In the love of God,
Charles Haddon Shank
After these things I heard[a] a loud voice of a great multitude in heaven, saying, “Alleluia! Salvation and glory and honor and power [ belong ] to the Lord[b] our God! For true and righteous are His judgments, because He has judged the great harlot who corrupted the earth with her fornication; and He has avenged on her the blood of His servants [ shed ] by her.” Again they said, “Alleluia! Her smoke rises up forever and ever!” And the twenty-four elders and the four living creatures fell down and worshiped God who sat on the throne, saying, “Amen! Alleluia!"
The book of Revelation has been termed, by some, a 'heavenly worship service', and rightly so, I believe, as witnessed by the episodes of praise and glory, with thanksgiving that are interspersed throughout the book.
'Whenever the living creatures give glory and honor and thanks to Him who sits on the throne, who lives forever and ever, the twenty-four elders fall down before Him who sits on the throne and worship Him who lives forever and ever, and cast their crowns before the throne, saying: “ You are worthy, O Lord,[g] to receive glory and honor and power; for You created all things, and by Your will they exist[h] and were created.”' ( Revelation 4:8-11 )
'After these things I looked, and behold, a great multitude which no one could number, of all nations, tribes, peoples, and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, with palm branches in their hands, and crying out with a loud voice, saying, “Salvation belongs to our God who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb!” All the angels stood around the throne and the elders and the four living creatures, and fell on their faces before the throne and worshiped God, saying: “ Amen! Blessing and glory and wisdom, thanksgiving and honor and power and might, [ be ] to our God forever and ever. Amen.”' ( Revelation 7:9 )
We have noted before, how those faithful in 'Israel' had cried 'Lord, how long?' ( Isaiah 6:11 ( Psalm 13:1, 35:17 ( I Peter 5:8 ) Psalm 74:10, 90:13, Jeremiah 12:4, Habakkuk 1:2, Zechariah 1:12 ) In the previous studies; I have endeavored to show that it was old covenant Israel ( 'according to the flesh' ) that was the primary focus of the adverse judgment prophesied throughout Scripture, and finally, and significantly revealed through John in the Revelation. I believe that Scripture clearly presents the fact that the physical nation of Israel ( their leaders ), and Judaism in particular, was the 'adversary' of God's people throughout their history. Many examples have been presented, especially in the Hebrew Scriptures of other ( foreign ) adversaries that plagued the ( physical ) 'children' of Israel, but, as we have seen throughout these studies, they were but God's typical means of chastising His 'children', and revealing, through their disobedience and apostasy, His true people.
Then a voice came from the throne, saying, “Praise our God, all you His servants and those who fear Him, both[c] small and great!” And I heard, as it were, the voice of a great multitude, as the sound of many waters and as the sound of mighty thunderings, saying, “Alleluia! For the[d] Lord God Omnipotent reigns! Let us be glad and rejoice and give Him glory, for the marriage of the Lamb has come, and His wife has made herself ready.” And to her it was granted to be arrayed in fine linen, clean and bright, for the fine linen is the righteous acts of the saints.
It is customary in this 'day and age', for a bride to wear a white gown for her wedding ceremony, especially if, and in most cases, only if she has not been 'wedded and bedded', in other words, if she is a virgin. This has not always been the case, however; the idea of wearing a white wedding dress ( sometimes very elaborate ) was popularized in the 1800s, when Queen Victoria of England married Albert Saxe-Coberg in 1840, wearing a white gown. Till lately; a white gown was fairly uncommon as a wedding dress, as only the wealthy could really afford to keep a white dress for a singular use, such as a wedding. The white wedding dress has become traditional as a symbol of purity, although this seems to be a recent one, because up till the mid-19th century, blue was worn as a symbol of purity, by brides for their husbands. Biblically speaking; it is easy to see where this idea of white as a symbol for purity came from. From the passages that we read throughout the Revelation ( 3:4, 5 & 18, 4:4, 6:11, 7:9, 13 & 14 ( 15:6 ) 19:14 ), and even throughout the Greek Scriptures ( Matthew 17:2, 28:3, Mark 9:3, 16:5, Luke 9:29, John 20:12, Acts 1:10 ( II Corinthians 5:2-4, I Peter 5:5 ( Romans 4:6 ( Genesis 3:21 ) Romans 10:4, I Corinthians 1:30, II Corinthians 6:14, Ephesians 4:24 ( 6:14 ) Philippians 3:9, II Timothy 4:8 ( II Timothy 2:22, Titus 1:15, Hebrews 10:22 ( 14 ) James 1:27, I Peter 1:22, I John 3:3 ). In the Hebrew Scriptures; were are familiar with David's 'Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean; wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow', from Psalm 51 ( see also Ecclesiastes 9:8 ), and 'Come now, and let us reason together, says the LORD, though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red like crimson, they shall be as wool' ( Isaiah 1:18 ). In Daniel 7:9, much as in Revelation 4, where the prophet was granted a vision of 'the Ancient of Days'; Daniel saw 'His garment [ was ] white as snow', and referring to 'the time of the end', also revealed in John's vision, the angel told Daniel 'Many shall be purified, made white, and refined, but the wicked shall do wickedly; and none of the wicked shall understand, but the wise shall understand' ( 12:10 ).
'And I heard a voice from heaven, like the voice of many waters, and like the voice of loud thunder. And I heard the sound of harpists playing their harps.' ( Revelation 14:2 )
David, king of Israel, wrote 'The voice of the LORD [ is ] over the waters; the God of glory thunders; the LORD [ is ] over many waters.' ( Psalm 29:3 ) When God revealed ( in a vision ) to the prophet Ezekiel, the glory of His future Temple, the prophet was made aware of His presence by the sound of 'His voice like the sound of many waters; and the earth shone with His glory' ( Ezekiel 43:2 ). Previous studies have shone that 'waters' are often indicative ( metaphorically ), not only of the people of God, or people ( the nations ) in general, but of the blessings that God 'rains down' upon those people.
Then he said to me, “Write: ‘Blessed are those who are called to the marriage supper of the Lamb!’” And he said to me, “These are the true sayings of God.” And I fell at his feet to worship him. But he said to me, “See [ that you do ] not [ do that ]! I am your fellow servant, and of your brethren who have the testimony of Jesus. Worship God! For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.”
'The kingdom of heaven is like a certain king who arranged a marriage for his son, and sent out his servants to call those who were invited to the wedding; and they were not willing to come. Again, he sent out other servants, saying, ‘Tell those who are invited, “See, I have prepared my dinner; my oxen and fatted cattle [ are ] killed, and all things are ready. Come to the wedding.”’ But they made light of it and went their ways, one to his own farm, another to his business. And the rest seized his servants, treated [ them ] spitefully, and killed [ them ]. But when the king heard [ about it ], he was furious. And he sent out his armies, destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city.' ( Matthew 22:2-7 )
Again; reading Josephus' history of the wars of the Jews, we can clearly see how this parable become a very literal, physical representation of what was about to take place. In Luke 14:15-24; Jesus tells much the same parable as the one in Matthew, and while Jesus, in the parable in Luke, specifically targets the physical Jews, saying, 'none of those men who were invited shall taste my supper'; He merely states in Matthew 22 that, although the city of those who were originally invited was burned up, those from the 'highways', 'both bad and good' ( verse 10 ) that came to the feast without the proper preparations were cast into 'outer darkness'.
Now I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse. And He who sat on him [ was ] called Faithful and True, and in righteousness He judges and makes war. His eyes [ were ] like a flame of fire, and on His head [ were ] many crowns. He had[e] a name written that no one knew except Himself. He [ was ] clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God.
'In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.' ( Genesis 7:11 )
'Yet He had commanded the clouds above, and opened the doors of heaven, had rained down manna on them to eat, and given them of the bread of heaven. Men ate angels’ food; He sent them food to the full.' ( Psalm 78:23-25 )
'But as the days of Noah were, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be. For as in the days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and did not know until the flood came and took them all away, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be.' ( Matthew 24:37-39 )
'Now I saw when the Lamb opened one of the seals;[a] and I heard one of the four living creatures saying with a voice like thunder, “Come and see.” And I looked, and behold, a white horse. He who sat on it had a bow; and a crown was given to him, and he went out conquering and to conquer.' ( Revelation 6:1 & 2 )
As Stephen stood trial before the Sanhedrin, most of which is recorded in Acts 7, and after his farewell address; he exclaimed, 'Look! I see the heavens opened and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God!' ( 56 ). This made them even angrier, because they must have known, and recognized, from their long and sordid history, that this kind of language usually signified an adverse judgment for the guilty ones, which they knew that they were!
Some have explained the first horsemen in John's vision in Revelation as speaking of someone other than Christ, but I believe that John's reference above, in Revelation 19, indicates that Jesus the Christ is in view here, if for no other reason than the fact that He is seen, mounted upon a white horse. A Wikipedia article that I found on the significance of the white horse has this little tidbit, 'White horses (which are rarer than other colors of horse) have a special significance in the mythologies of cultures around the world. They are often associated with the sun chariot,[1] with warrior-heroes, with fertility (in both mare and stallion manifestations), or with an end-of-time savior, but other interpretations exist as well'. Another article says, 'Let the reader note particularly what John saw, and then remember that it is symbolical, and that instead of looking for a literal fulfillment, we are to ask the meaning of the symbols.' ( from the website 'The Official King James Bible online' ) Traditionally, I believe, the white horse has always been significant of the conqueror, and even of royalty. In our 'day', even, this is the traditional mount for kings, princes, and other royalty. Douglas MacArthur, in my understanding, rode a white horse, and history will tell us that many such generals, kings, and other such, employed the white horse, as a symbol of their status and intent.
As John described the Son of God earlier in the Revelation ( 1:14, 2:18 ) using these words; 'His eyes like a flame of fire', it should be clear that he is seeing a vision of the conquering King here. That He had 'a name written that no one knew except Himself' speaks of the fact that only God knows who's names are truly written in the Book of Life ( Malachi 3:16-18 ).
Describing the coming 'Day of the Lord'; when this conquering King was asked 'Why [ is ] Your apparel red, and Your garments like one who treads in the winepress?'; He answered, 'I have trodden the winepress alone, and from the peoples no one was with Me. For I have trodden them in My anger, and trampled them in My fury; their blood is sprinkled upon My garments, and I have stained all My robes.' ( Isaiah 63:1-6 )
And the armies in heaven, clothed in fine linen, white and clean,[f] followed Him on white horses. Now out of His mouth goes a sharp[g] sword, that with it He should strike the nations. And He Himself will rule them with a rod of iron. He Himself treads the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God. And He has on [ His ] robe and on His thigh a name written: KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS.
'Then Pharaoh took his signet ring off his hand and put it on Joseph’s hand; and he clothed him in garments of fine linen and put a gold chain around his neck.' ( Genesis 41:42 )
'He made the ephod of gold, blue, purple, and scarlet [ thread ], and of fine woven linen.' ( Exodus 39:2 )
'I clothed you in embroidered cloth and gave you sandals of badger skin; I clothed you with fine linen and covered you with silk.' ( Ezekiel 16:10 )
'There was a certain rich man who was clothed in purple and fine linen and fared sumptuously every day.'( Luke 16:19 )
Some may wonder why I've quoted Luke 16:19: I believe, as my readers may have gathered, that Jesus told this parable, symbolic of the division between Jew & Gentile that was presented, most strongly, perhaps, in His day, the 'rich man' being indicative of the Jew, who rested upon his righteousness, or ability to keep the Law, for his salvation, and Lazarus ( corresponds to Eliezer, Abraham's servant, in Genesis 15:2 ) of the Gentiles, those who, as the Jews perceived it, had no interest in the covenant blessings God had promised. Linen, back in those 'days', although probably one of the more popular materials from which clothes were made, was, in its finest form, usually imported from Egypt, and so reserved mainly for the priests and wealthier people.
Starting in Exodus 26, and continuing till near the end of the book; it is interesting to note that many of the trappings, one of which was fine linen, which were employed in the making of the tabernacle and the priestly garments, are very nearly the same as those used symbolically to describe the clothing of God's covenant people.
'You shall break[a] them with a rod of iron; You shall dash them to pieces like a potter’s vessel.' ( Psalm 2:9 )
'And He has made My mouth like a sharp sword; in the shadow of His hand He has hidden Me, and made Me a polished shaft; in His quiver He has hidden Me.' ( Isaiah 49:2 )
John used some very familiar imagery here, recalling prophecies of old, to describe the vision that he observed. As we noted several studies ago, John heard 'The kingdoms[f] of this world have become [ the kingdoms ] of our Lord and of His Christ, and He shall reign forever and ever!' ( Revelation 11:15 ), and in the very next study, John witnessed a woman who was about to deliver her Child, and 'She bore a male Child who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron'. This Child, of course, was none other than the Son of God, who was promised by His Father that the 'nations' would be His 'inheritance', and 'the ends of the earth, His 'possession'.
Another interesting fact, concerning the quote from Isaiah 49, is that when God talks about His Servant whose mouth He will make ( like ) 'a sharp sword', He reveals in the very next verse to whom He is speaking; 'You [ are ] My servant, O Israel, in whom I will be glorified'. This is part of the mystery 'hidden from ages and from generations' ( Colossians 1:26 ( Ephesians 3:9, I Corinthians 2:7 ), that His only begotten Son was the true Israel, of which Jacob and his progeny were mere shadows.
Then I saw an angel standing in the sun; and he cried with a loud voice, saying to all the birds that fly in the midst of heaven, “Come and gather together for the supper of the great God,[h] that you may eat the flesh of kings, the flesh of captains, the flesh of mighty men, the flesh of horses and of those who sit on them, and the flesh of all [ people ], free[i] and slave, both small and great.
'And you, son of man, prophesy against Gog, and say, ‘Thus says the Lord GOD: “Behold, I am against you, O Gog, the prince of Rosh,[a] Meshech, and Tubal; and I will turn you around and lead you on, bringing you up from the far north, and bring you against the mountains of Israel. Then I will knock the bow out of your left hand, and cause the arrows to fall out of your right hand. You shall fall upon the mountains of Israel, you and all your troops and the peoples who [ are ] with you; I will give you to birds of prey of every sort and [ to ] the beasts of the field to be devoured.' ( Ezekiel 39:1-4 )
'Your carcasses shall be food for all the birds of the air and the beasts of the earth, and no one shall frighten [ them ] away.' ( Deuteronomy 28:26 )
'The dead bodies of Your servants they have given as food for the birds of the heavens, the flesh of Your saints to the beasts of the earth.' ( Psalm 79:2 )
'The corpses of this people will be food for the birds of the heaven and for the beasts of the earth. And no one will frighten [ them away ].' ( Jeremiah 7:33 )
'They shall die gruesome deaths; they shall not be lamented nor shall they be buried, [ but ] they shall be like refuse on the face of the earth. They shall be consumed by the sword and by famine, and their corpses shall be meat for the birds of heaven and for the beasts of the earth.' ( Jeremiah 16:4 )
'I will leave you in the wilderness, you and all the fish of your rivers; you shall fall on the open field; you shall not be picked up or gathered.[b] I have given you as food to the beasts of the field and to the birds of the heavens.' ( Ezekiel 29:5 )
That this angel was standing in the sun ( Greek-ἥλιος=helios ) should be noted, considering that the sun, or 'greater light' was made to 'rule the day' ( Genesis 1:16 ), and, in places like Genesis 37:9; is clearly shown to be commonly significant of a 'head', whether of a family, ( 'Look, I have dreamed another dream. And this time, the sun, the moon, and the eleven stars bowed down to me' ), or of a nation ( Isaiah 13:10, 24:23 ( 60:19 & 20 ) Jeremiah 15:9, Ezekiel 32:7, Joel 2:10 ( Habakkuk 3:11 ). God's promise in Isaiah 60:19 & 20, that 'Your sun shall no longer go down', and that 'the LORD will be your everlasting light' makes the place where John saw this angel standing even more significant; we will see several studies from now the significance, as well, of this important phrase.
In the passages above, we can see throughout Scripture that this 'feast', though symbolic of the defeat of the enemies of God's people, had a very real ( and physical ) aspect to it, and especially when read in the context of the creation account in Genesis 1 & 2, could have some interesting connotations.
And I saw the beast, the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against Him who sat on the horse and against His army. Then the beast was captured, and with him the false prophet who worked signs in his presence, by which he deceived those who received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped his image.
Because of the use of this phrase, 'the kings of the earth', among others, maybe, some have gotten the notion that this battle, infamously called 'the battle of Armageddon' ( Harmagedōn-the hill or city of Megiddo ) will be a world-wide conflict, but as we've seen much throughout these studies; the word 'earth' here, might better, and possibly should be, to avoid confusion, 'land'.
'So King Solomon surpassed all the kings of the earth in riches and wisdom. And all the kings of the earth sought the presence of Solomon to hear his wisdom, which God had put in his heart.' ( II Chronicles 9:22 & 23 )
'It shall come to pass in that day [ that ] the LORD will punish on high the host of exalted ones, and on the earth the kings of the earth.' ( Isaiah 24:21 )
'The kings of the earth, and all inhabitants of the world, would not have believed that the adversary and the enemy could enter the gates of Jerusalem— ' ( Lamentations 4:12 )
'When your wares went out by sea, you satisfied many people; you enriched the kings of the earth with your many luxury goods and your merchandise.' ( Ezekiel 27:33 )
Scripture, as I believe I've mentioned before, is centered in and around the 'land' of Palestine, and later, extended to pretty much the whole Mediterranean region, so it should be fairly obvious, especially when considering the historical context of the above passages, that the authors are not referring to rulers of the nations of the whole earth, as we know it, but rather to kings of the earth, or world, that they were familiar with, in that prescribed area of the earth.
'Then I saw another beast coming up out of the earth, and he had two horns like a lamb and spoke like a dragon. And he exercises all the authority of the first beast in his presence, and causes the earth and those who dwell in it to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed.' ( Revelation 13:11 )
We read in Revelation 13 of two beasts, the first from the sea, which can be interpreted as being from the Gentiles, and the beast from the earth, or land, or a Jew. I believe that, though these beasts can be actually identified as separate individuals that lived and died in the first century; John, or Jesus rather, is speaking of two aspects of one spirit ( I John 4:1-6 ).
'The prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests rule by their [ own ] power; and My people love [ to have it ] so. But what will you do in the end?' ( Jeremiah 5:31 )
'If there arises among you a prophet or a dreamer of dreams, and he gives you a sign or a wonder, and the sign or the wonder comes to pass, of which he spoke to you, saying, ‘Let us go after other gods’—which you have not known—‘and let us serve them,’ you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams, for the LORD your God is testing you to know whether you love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul.' ( Deuteronomy 13:1-3 )
Later, in Deuteronomy 18:21 & 22, the 'children' of Israel asked Moses how they would be able to tell the difference between His prophets and self-appointed prophets: Moses told them 'when a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the thing does not happen or come to pass', then they would know that he was not a true prophet ( of God ), and that they were not to fear him. As the 'beasts', above, that we read about in Revelation 13; I believe that Scripture tells us, that though there may have been on particular figure ( individual ) that John ( Jesus ) had in mind here, as 'the' false prophet, who then perished in a very physical 'Lake of Fire' ( the conflagration of Jerusalem and the Temple, in AD70 ); it was not so much an individual figure that John 'saw' as a 'sign' of the spirit of anti-Christ that we read about in the letters of John.
These two were cast alive into the lake of fire burning with brimstone. And the rest were killed with the sword which proceeded from the mouth of Him who sat on the horse. And all the birds were filled with their flesh.
'For Tophet [ was ] established of old, yes, for the king it is prepared. He has made [ it ] deep and large; its pyre [ is ] fire with much wood; the breath of the LORD, like a stream of brimstone, kindles it.' ( Isaiah 30:33 )
'Therefore behold, the days are coming,” says the LORD, “when it will no more be called Tophet, or the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, but the Valley of Slaughter; for they will bury in Tophet until there is no room.' ( Jeremiah 7:32 )
In our studies of the Revelation; we have read about how this 'breath of the LORD', or 'fire of the LORD', at the prayer of Elijah ( "Yahweh is my God" ) fell from heaven and burned up the sacrifice ( I Kings 18:20-40 ), and how, later in the same chronicles ( II Kings 1:9-15 ) the same man of God called down the same 'fire of God', when faced with an adversary ( whose lives he later spared at their own prayer ). It is interesting to note here, that this same 'breath of the LORD' that burned up His adversaries, and the adversaries of His people, is the same 'breath' ( Genesis 2:7 ) that brought Adam to life, and which was the means of resurrection of the house of Israel ( Ezekiel 37 )!
'For the word of God [ is ] living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.' ( Hebrews 4:12 )
We read earlier, in Isaiah 49, and other passages, how God had made His Servant a 'sword', both to redeem His people ( Psalm 58:10, Psalm 99:8, Isaiah 35:4, 61:2, 63:4, Jeremiah 50:28 ), and to take vengeance on His adversaries ( Deuteronomy 32:35 ( 41 ), Psalm 94:1, Isaiah 34:5-8, Jeremiah 46:10 ( Luke 21:22 ) Micah 5:15, Nahum 1:2 ). Josephus, the Jewish historian who chronicled the siege and destruction of Jerusalem, reported that during these 'days of vengeance', a sword appeared in the sky over Jerusalem ( likely a comet ), so, in these events, one can even 'see' almost a physically literal fulfillment of Jesus' words of condemnation, not only from 'The Olivet Discourse ( Matthew 24, Luke 21, and Mark 13 ), but throughout the Hebrew Scriptures, as well!
May this study, as we near the end of it, be a blessing to it's reader, as the Revelation was to its original recipients!
In the love of God,
Charles Haddon Shank
Wednesday, February 02, 2011
The Covenant
When is a covenant not a covenant? First; we need to define the word:the simplest definition is perhaps the most ready and apt; according to the Westminster Dictionary of the Bible ( Davis rev. Gehman-1944 ), a covenant is 'an agreement between two or more persons'. I believe that most any dictionary will give you pretty much the same definition as this, and while , as Davis goes on to say 'Various covenants between man and man are mentioned in Scripture ( Genesis 21:27, 32, I Samuel 18:3, 23:18, I Kings 20:34, etc. ). More important are those in which God condescended to be a covenanting party. His covenant with man is a free promise on His part, generally based upon the fulfillment of certain conditions by man'. Let's stop right there for a minute; is a gift conditional? If so, can it truly be said to be free? I agree, in the sense of Davis' words above, that God 'condescended to become a covenanting party', but can we really say that He is merely a 'party' to the covenant? This all goes right to the nature of God! As our Creator, that really was a condescension of God to humble Himself to come down to our level ( created being ) and covenant with us, and in that sense, this covenant may be described as conditional, but when God first decided within Himself, within the Godhead, you might say, to 'make man in Our image' ( Genesis 1:26 ), He did not ask man if he wanted to be made, and when God saw that there was no 'helper comparable to him', He did not first ask Adam whether he would rather be alone ( in fact, God formed the animals first out of the ground, and brought them to Adam ), but rather, put Adam under ( into 'a deep sleep' ), removed a part of him, and formed Eve, whom He then brought to Adam. He did not say that Adam could have Eve as long as certain conditions were met, although He did tell Adam, in other words, that if he refrained from eating of the forbidden tree, he would be able to keep his life, his 'breath' ( Genesis 2:17 ( 2:7 ).
It is becoming more popular, as it has been in the past, in Christian circles, anyway, to have, and sign a marriage covenant, and not just to have a legal document from any certain state, recognized by that state as legal and binding. The marriage covenant is, like we saw earlier, 'an agreement between two or more people'. Not trying to be weird here, but witnesses, to say nothing of THE Witness, are just as important to this covenant as the two who are getting married. There are certain conditions, based upon mutual agreement, to be met, or the covenant can be considered null and void. For instance; if either party ( husband or wife ) is unfaithful to the vows of this covenant, the other party may gracefully ( and legally ) 'bow out' of said covenant. This brings up an interesting question, 'is it legal in God's eyes, just because it's legal in the eyes of the state?' It is true that God instituted the marriage covenant, when He 'brought her to the man' ( Genesis 2:22 ), but the Scriptures do not record that God's gift to Adam was conditional; He did not tell Adam, 'if you will go to sleep; I will make you a helper', or 'if you will allow me; I will bring you a wife to hold', instead, He saw what was needed, and having covenanted with Himself, did what needed done!
There is no doubt, for Scripture is very clear, that God based His dealings with His creation upon covenant, but did He covenant with His creation, or did His creation come to be through His covenant? As we saw earlier, though the word 'covenant' is not mentioned, in Genesis 1, 2, or 3, the principle of covenant between God and man is most clearly laid out in Genesis 2:16 & 17, 'Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day you eat of it, you shall surely die'. This most surely does imply, at least, a conditional covenant, a covenant, legal and binding, between two parties.
Deuteronomy, chapters 27-31, outlines, if you will, the terms and conditions of the covenant that God instituted with His people, where God promised to bless them, and they promised to obey His 'terms and conditions'. The terms and conditions of this covenant were met, to varying degrees, and God kept His part, and blessed them, to varying degrees, but eventually, 'in the fullness of time', God revealed the superiority of His Covenant, the One He made with Himself and 'sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were born under the law' ( Galatians 4:4 ), in other words, those born under the old covenant.
In a sense, the 'new covenant' that God instituted in favorite passages like Jeremiah 31:31-34, Isaiah 65:17, and etc., is such a covenant as well, 'an agreement between two or more parties', but in an even greater sense, it is One and the same with THE Covenant! It has been pointed out to me, from passages such as I John 1:9, that this new covenant WAS made conditional; 'If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive [ us ] sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness', 'Now by this we know that we know Him, if we keep His commandments' ( 2:3 ), 'if we walk in the light, as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all sin'. Peter wrote, speaking of the 'progressive graces', 'if these things are yours, and abound, you [ will be ] neither barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ' ( II Peter 1:8 ), while Paul wrote 'Set your mind on things above, not on things on the earth', ( Colossians 2:2 ), and 'work out your own salvation with fear and trembling' ( Philippians 1:12b ), but are these conditions, or are they simply out-workings of the Covenant, of what God has done? We have a responsibility, there can be no doubt, to do all these things, and yes, if we do not do these things, 'and abound', we will not enjoy the blessings of His covenant, so in that sense, it is not the Covenant that is conditional, but the blessings of that Covenant!
The writer to the Hebrews reminded his readers that 'if that first [ covenant? ] had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second. Because finding fault with them, He says, 'Behold, the days are coming, that I will establish a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah-not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they did not continue in My covenant and I disregarded them', says the Lord. 'For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days', says the Lord; 'I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; I will be their God, and they shall be My people. None of them shall teach his brother, and none his neighbor, saying, 'Know the Lord', for all shall know me, from the least of them to the greatest of them. For I will be merciful to their un-righteousness, and their sins and their lawless deeds, I will remember no more'. Quoting Jeremiah 31:31-34 here, in Hebrews 8:7-12, the writer reminded his people that it was because of the failure of His people to obey His covenant, the agreement they had made ( Joshua 24:21-24 ), that He instituted, and established, a 'new' covenant, a covenant which He signed Himself, and sealed, by sending of Himself, in the form of Jesus, the Son of Man ( Matthew 1:21 ), and the Comforter ( John 16:7-16 ( 14:26 ). Again; there is no asking here: God did not ask to put His 'laws in their mind and write them on their hearts', He just did it, and there is no hint of the people asking God to forgive their sins, but He announced that 'I will be merciful to their un-righteousness, and their sins and their lawless deeds, I will remember no more'.
It is clear to me that the Covenant that God created, through which man came to be, was not a conditional one, although He did institute one with man, what might be called a 'test case' ( Paul called it a 'tutor' (Galatians 3:24 ),that had conditions that must be met ( perfectly ), thereby showing man that he could not keep an agreement, but that he must have a substitute, One that could keep that agreement, those terms and conditions to the letter!
In the love of God, and for His people,
Charles Haddon Shank
It is becoming more popular, as it has been in the past, in Christian circles, anyway, to have, and sign a marriage covenant, and not just to have a legal document from any certain state, recognized by that state as legal and binding. The marriage covenant is, like we saw earlier, 'an agreement between two or more people'. Not trying to be weird here, but witnesses, to say nothing of THE Witness, are just as important to this covenant as the two who are getting married. There are certain conditions, based upon mutual agreement, to be met, or the covenant can be considered null and void. For instance; if either party ( husband or wife ) is unfaithful to the vows of this covenant, the other party may gracefully ( and legally ) 'bow out' of said covenant. This brings up an interesting question, 'is it legal in God's eyes, just because it's legal in the eyes of the state?' It is true that God instituted the marriage covenant, when He 'brought her to the man' ( Genesis 2:22 ), but the Scriptures do not record that God's gift to Adam was conditional; He did not tell Adam, 'if you will go to sleep; I will make you a helper', or 'if you will allow me; I will bring you a wife to hold', instead, He saw what was needed, and having covenanted with Himself, did what needed done!
There is no doubt, for Scripture is very clear, that God based His dealings with His creation upon covenant, but did He covenant with His creation, or did His creation come to be through His covenant? As we saw earlier, though the word 'covenant' is not mentioned, in Genesis 1, 2, or 3, the principle of covenant between God and man is most clearly laid out in Genesis 2:16 & 17, 'Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day you eat of it, you shall surely die'. This most surely does imply, at least, a conditional covenant, a covenant, legal and binding, between two parties.
Deuteronomy, chapters 27-31, outlines, if you will, the terms and conditions of the covenant that God instituted with His people, where God promised to bless them, and they promised to obey His 'terms and conditions'. The terms and conditions of this covenant were met, to varying degrees, and God kept His part, and blessed them, to varying degrees, but eventually, 'in the fullness of time', God revealed the superiority of His Covenant, the One He made with Himself and 'sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were born under the law' ( Galatians 4:4 ), in other words, those born under the old covenant.
In a sense, the 'new covenant' that God instituted in favorite passages like Jeremiah 31:31-34, Isaiah 65:17, and etc., is such a covenant as well, 'an agreement between two or more parties', but in an even greater sense, it is One and the same with THE Covenant! It has been pointed out to me, from passages such as I John 1:9, that this new covenant WAS made conditional; 'If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive [ us ] sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness', 'Now by this we know that we know Him, if we keep His commandments' ( 2:3 ), 'if we walk in the light, as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all sin'. Peter wrote, speaking of the 'progressive graces', 'if these things are yours, and abound, you [ will be ] neither barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ' ( II Peter 1:8 ), while Paul wrote 'Set your mind on things above, not on things on the earth', ( Colossians 2:2 ), and 'work out your own salvation with fear and trembling' ( Philippians 1:12b ), but are these conditions, or are they simply out-workings of the Covenant, of what God has done? We have a responsibility, there can be no doubt, to do all these things, and yes, if we do not do these things, 'and abound', we will not enjoy the blessings of His covenant, so in that sense, it is not the Covenant that is conditional, but the blessings of that Covenant!
The writer to the Hebrews reminded his readers that 'if that first [ covenant? ] had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second. Because finding fault with them, He says, 'Behold, the days are coming, that I will establish a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah-not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they did not continue in My covenant and I disregarded them', says the Lord. 'For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days', says the Lord; 'I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; I will be their God, and they shall be My people. None of them shall teach his brother, and none his neighbor, saying, 'Know the Lord', for all shall know me, from the least of them to the greatest of them. For I will be merciful to their un-righteousness, and their sins and their lawless deeds, I will remember no more'. Quoting Jeremiah 31:31-34 here, in Hebrews 8:7-12, the writer reminded his people that it was because of the failure of His people to obey His covenant, the agreement they had made ( Joshua 24:21-24 ), that He instituted, and established, a 'new' covenant, a covenant which He signed Himself, and sealed, by sending of Himself, in the form of Jesus, the Son of Man ( Matthew 1:21 ), and the Comforter ( John 16:7-16 ( 14:26 ). Again; there is no asking here: God did not ask to put His 'laws in their mind and write them on their hearts', He just did it, and there is no hint of the people asking God to forgive their sins, but He announced that 'I will be merciful to their un-righteousness, and their sins and their lawless deeds, I will remember no more'.
It is clear to me that the Covenant that God created, through which man came to be, was not a conditional one, although He did institute one with man, what might be called a 'test case' ( Paul called it a 'tutor' (Galatians 3:24 ),that had conditions that must be met ( perfectly ), thereby showing man that he could not keep an agreement, but that he must have a substitute, One that could keep that agreement, those terms and conditions to the letter!
In the love of God, and for His people,
Charles Haddon Shank
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)