Thoughts and Stories

So now early in November I’m beginning a study of the book of John. I like John a lot because the narrative seems a lot less stilted and very real. The portrayal of each of the figures, including Jesus, seem real instead of wooden. Because I enjoyed the first chapter so much I’ll give my literary impression of what’s going on.

First you have John (the gospel gets right to the point) and he’s out preaching. Some religious leaders send servants to John who is out doing his thing. They ask him “Are you the messiah?” he says “no.” They ask, “Are you Elijah?” and he says “no.” They ask “are you the prophet?” and he says “no.” You can almost feel an awkward pause as they ask “Who are you then?” John simply replies that he is the messenger spoken about in Isaiah, he is there to proclaim God’s messiah. The servants than ask why he’s baptizing people if he’s not Elijah, the Christ, or a Prophet. John responds, “Look, I’m just baptizing with water. Someone higher than me is coming and he’ll baptize people with the Holy Spirit.”

The next verses have Jesus coming to the river and John proclaims that this is the messiah; he says he saw the spirit descend on Jesus like a dove and heard God proclaim that Jesus was his son.

The next day John sees Jesus again and says “There’s the lamb of God.” Immediately, two of John’s disciples leave him and follow Jesus instead. I like this image because at this point John has done his job, he proclaimed Christ. These two disciples got it; John was who they needed to follow until they met the Messiah, after that following John would be pointless. One of them, Andrew, goes and gets his brother and says “hey we found the Messiah.” Simon comes to Jesus and Jesus gives him his nickname of “Peter.”

The next day Jesus calls Phillip, who lived in the same town as Andrew and Peter. Philip goes home and gets his brother, his brother is skeptical, but Philip convinces him to come along and at least check things out. When Nathanael, Philip’s brother, is seen by Jesus, Jesus goes “here’s a guy with no deceit in his life.” Nathanael asks “how do you know me?” Jesus replies, “Before your bother got you, you were sitting under a fig tree, I saw you there.” Nathanael immediately proclaims Jesus’s divinity. I love Jesus’s response; he goes “Really? You believe because I saw you under a fig tree. Come with me, you’ll see a lot cooler stuff than that.”

I don’t have a lot to comment on this other than the immense pleasure I took in reading this chapter.

These posts are out of order I know. This one is from almost a month ago instead of yesterday:

I was reading the story of Manasseh in 2 Chronicles 33 and I have to admit, this is one of the few times when a story in the Bible really hit me in a bittersweet way. Manasseh became king when his father Hezekiah died at the age of twelve. He undid everything good his father had done and led the people of Israel astray. He burned his son, he consorted with mediums and necromancers, he was involved in worshiping Baal and Asherim, and he even put an idol in the house of God.

God got Manasseh’s attention in a personal way. The Assyrians came and took everything including him to Assyria. It says they led him with hooks and chains. While he was there he called on God and God restored him. Manasseh humbled himself and was able to return home.

Once he was there he tried to make amends for all his past evil. He destroyed all the idols he had made. He destroyed the high places; he removed the idols from the house of God. He even tried to get the people to follow God.  It was too late, the people kept following their own way and Manasseh lived until age seventy-seven seeing his people worship other gods. He died having burned his own children and realizing his sin. He got to see his people lost. His son Ammon ascended to the throne and undid all the good that Manasseh had tried to do after his repentance.

God is merciful and God is just. Just because we repent of our sin and come back to God does not mean all the damage we caused will be undone. Our hearts should break for those who are so lost and do so much evil, God is angry with them. Even if they repent and ask forgiveness, they will be saved because God is good, but they will bear the burden of seeing the results of their actions.

I can’t think of any other way to end this but to say God is good, in him we all should place our hope and our trust.

My recent foray into studying the book of Daniel has given me a heightened interest in eschatology. I plan on recounting some of my thoughts here, but first some things warrant mentioning.

-          Even Daniel did not fully understand these things. The Bible tells us at the end of Daniel 7 that they disturbed him deeply, but he kept the matters in his heart. I don’t think we, as Christians, can ever hope to fully understand (or even begin to understand) prophecy unless God gives us understanding. To that end spend some time in prayer before you begin reading, I always find that I never learn much of anything without asking God for knowledge.

-          Special care must be taken to try not to bring in any outside material. I know it is tempting, especially in a Christian society so pervaded by materials on the rapture and tribulation to draw inferences from something “we think we heard.” This is a focus on the words of the Bible. If your conclusions on the end times are based on scripture or has strong scriptural evidence then it can be considered.

Let’s begin: Our journey begins in Daniel 7. Daniel has a vision a year after Belshazzar takes power where he sees a sea shaken by winds from heaven. Out of that turbulent sea four animals come out.

            The first is like a lion and has wings; it loses the wings and gains the mind of a man. The second is a bear that is already devouring flesh and is told to do so still. The third is a four headed leopard with four wings and it is given dominion.

            The last is a beast that has little description other than being terrible and having ten horns. From those a little horn comes and displaces three of the ten horns. This little horn has eyes and a mouth and we are told that it is “speaking great things.” (v.

            That is the setting; next we see seats put out and the “Ancient of Days” (God for those of you who are unsure). Takes his seat, we get a brief description of him and his dominance and we learn that this is a court and God is taking a seat in judgment.

            The last beast is then killed and burned. The other three lose their power but are allowed to stay alive for awhile. Then the “son of man” (should be a familiar term for those of you who have read the gospels) takes rulership and his kingdom lasts forever.

            That is exactly what we are given in terms of the actual content of the dream. Daniel, who is as disturbed as most people who read this asks a nearby person what this all means.

            He is told that the beasts are Kings (note that) and at the end of days the saints will have the kingdom that the beasts had.

            Daniel asks about the fourth beast and the horn that seemed to take center-stage. Note in verse 21 that the little horn fights the saints and wins! He rules over them and is given dominion over them until God comes back. This isn’t to say we as Christians shouldn’t fight for what we believe in, but it does raise the issue that the only time our victory is assured is when God grants it. (This is already common knowledge it seems, but still important to remember).

            Moving on, Daniel learns that the fourth beast is a kingdom. I find this interesting especially since it was referred to a king earlier. This may seem like an unimportant distinction but the fate of a nation and the fate of a ruler are very different things. For purpose of argument I will say that the terms are interchangeable and that the four beasts can be considered nations.

            This fourth kingdom destroys the planet and all other kingdoms. There is either a ruling council of ten or a dynasty of ten kings. However, we know at least some of these rulers coexist because the little horn overthrows three of them.

            Then this little horn, who is a ruler, (further evidence that the beasts represent kingdoms) speaks out against God and wears down the saints. This man will want to change the law and the times. I want to refrain from bringing political ideology into the discussion, but I think it is important to note that the ruler will be trying to do things a new way. The Bible than says that the saints will be given into his hand. Again, be ready for this. There is nothing wrong with being politically active, but I think Christians shouldn’t fool themselves. At some point we lose and the only thing that keeps us from being completely overcome is God’s intervention.

            The Bible than refers back to the court of the most high who will judge the fourth beast and destroy him. It says his kingdom will be given to the saints.

            Final point on this vision in Daniel; I do not believe that this kingdom refers to heaven. This is the kingdom that was ruled by the fourth beast. I do not believe we can theologically assert that the fourth beast who blasphemes God will ever rule in the kingdom of heaven. To my mind this is evidence for a period of rulership here on earth given to the saints.

Now. I wanted to keep away from “established” theories on eschatology until I reached the end of the chapter. I think the kingdom referred to here is referencing the millennial reign of God’s people, at some point.

I also note here that I see no evidence of rapture or that God’s people are not present for this persecution, popularly termed “tribulation.”

As my studies in eschatology continue I will not hesitate to compare the scripture to existing theories, but support for the traditional view of pre-tribulation rapture and then the millennial reign, I just don’t see it here.

Another excerpt of a letter. The personal content has been removed and this is the actual Theological debate:

I think at the heart of your point about arguing is a question “why is the argument taking place?” This is everything. Most people argue because they know they’re right and someone else is wrong, they throw out their arguments in an attempt to prove their own superiority. Often these discussions are fruitless and benefit no one. I don’t like them and I certainly don’t want to be a part of them. However, the more important and certainly more profitable form of argument is the argument to enhance learning. When I enter an argument I’m entering it to learn. Whether or not the other person agrees makes no difference to me. It was an incontrovertible fact that people can be shown beyond a reasonable doubt that Jesus Christ is Lord and still turn aside out of stubbornness. Arguing with people to prove a point is a pointless waste of time. There never were days when raw argument won converts to Christ and I doubt there will ever be those days. Occasionally a theologian, like C.S. Lewis will say that he became a Christian because he “ran out of arguments,” but note that those were arguments with himself not with another person.

Christians, on a whole, seem to forget that they have nothing to do with someone else’s salvation. No matter how hard you try you cannot win a single convert unless God had already made up his mind to save them. All of us would be nothing more than rebellious blind fools but for the mercy of a loving creator. If you rely on your own strength to save someone you care about than this statement should fill you with unbearable fear. On the other hand, if you rely on God realizing that fear is a sin that statement should fill you with hope. Why should man’s salvation be in the hands of man? Why would we want such a responsibility? Our job is to do what God says. Sometimes that means preaching the gospel, sometimes that means making tents so we can live above reproach (speaking of the apostle Paul of course).

So what am I getting at? I believe that missionary work is vital and necessary if God has called someone to it. I believe that God does unfathomable good through it. I also believe that empathy and argument are both part of God’s desire for his people. The glory of God is to hide truth, and sometimes to find that truth we need to subject our own view to scrutiny. Not everyone is gifted with a silver tongue, but you don’t need one to listen, to ask, and to learn.

In speaking on the gift of tongues I think you raise an excellent point, and my question would be: what do you value more: an overemphasis on the proper use of gifts that, at its worst, prevents them from being exercised, or an overemphasis on the allowance of gifts that, at its worst, allows them to be exercised improperly? My own convictions on tongues aside I don’t think the improper use of tongues is going to send anyone to hell. I also don’t believe that Christians are crippling themselves if they don’t want them practiced.

I actually attended another church this morning. The teaching was bible-focused and the worship seemed spirit-led. In addition the ages of the congregation were much closer than my own and this church was only three miles from my house. I still think I’ll attend the college group on Sunday nights as well as the Jr. High group on Wednesday (more on that later). I hate the drive, but I can’t place enough value on being around other believers.

I actually have a friend who lives an hour from campus, I go see him every few weeks. He and his wife are probably my closest friends in terms of relationship and distance. Unfortunately, that’s still quite a drive when I’m trying to network with people in the town at churches. Even without those friends though, God has been good about sustaining me and keeping me from feeling lonely. I stay busy; I get out in the evenings and go to coffee shops. This week I’m going to an improv comedy theater on Tuesday. I’ll have to let you know how it is.

The Jr. High group is where I’ve been choosing to minister lately. I was reading Isaiah and I’m struck at how much of an active hand believers are supposed to have at building God’s kingdom. They are called to clear roadways, build walls, call on God ceaselessly, and bring everyone back to the rebuilt kingdom. God really convicted me that I needed to get my hands dirty and keep in ministry even though I wasn’t at Hume Lake. I went the first week and they paired me up with a 60-year old ex-atheist academic. We had a group of about five kids and the topic was prayer. It’s amazing how much I missed it. I think that Christians need to realize that their spiritual life is the purpose of their existence and that everything else needs to support that. I’m not reading my Bible to survive law school (and thus allow skipping devotions for study), I’m going to law school so I can afford to study the Bible for the rest of my life. On that note, it is so important that I give God the first fruits of my time. The time when I’m most alert is when I should be spending time with God. Ministry is the same way, if I’m sacrificing ministry to work on a job I need to rearrange my priorities. (I believe the same thing would be true if I was raising a family. I have the job to support the family not the family to support the job). Too many people seem to forget this fact and that goes to a lot of the church’s problems.

Ah yes the doctrines of an eternal hell. I had a friend who believes that God would redeem Satan someday and he would enter paradise with God’s forgiveness. I just don’t believe this is true; angels have already gotten their chance. It is amazing when you read the prophets at the end of the Old Testament, just how much it can change your views of sin and how God views it. God doesn’t stop being angry at sin, he just directs it elsewhere. One word I’ve been trying to stamp out of my vocabulary is “hate” because for me I equate “hate” with desiring that particular object to exist in hell. If I really stop to think about it, I know that object probably does deserve it, but I certainly don’t want them to go there. The world is full of horrible people and we all deserve God’s wrath, but I think it should break our heart that the world is so dark and corrupt. The Bible talks about men of God living fearlessly and interceding for those who have no voice. All too often the view of the Christian man is the pasty white guy afraid of a conflict. What a travesty.

I think that the world is dark and dangerous and when it comes to our own lives we must submit to God, but I think that the world would at least have a more positive view of Christian men if they didn’t just feel bad about the mugging or the rape, but they would intercede for people who are victims when they see such things occurring. As a Christian our occupation is spiritual war, and this war is dangerous. It has consequences in the physical realm and the spiritual realm. We put on the armor of God, our equipment, and we go forth to do battle with spiritual forces and with the effects of those spiritual forces in the physical realm. As a Christian man we should beat our bodies and make them our slaves and train for combat. Not because we can increase our chances one bit of success, but because we honor God by being good soldiers. At the same time we have the opposite extremes of Christian men who do this and forget their duty to be loving, compassionate, sensitive, and sacrificial towards all others. They go on a macho he-man kick and forget the reason they were given their strength. Christian men and men in general need a wake up call. They need to prepare for battle and remember that they are called to emulate Christ who sacrificed himself to save others, loved all, and was never afraid to condemn sin while granting forgiveness to the sinner.

This is an excerpt from a letter to Anna-Beth telling her about a discussion I had with the college pastor of a local church. It was nice to hash things out after spending so much time in the word. Even if I’m wrong on many of these points it only helps to talk to people about these things.

“The pastor talked about the purpose of Christ’s salvation. He made a comment, however, that made me raise an eyebrow. He conjectured that without the law we would be unable to glorify God and therefore neutral. I disagreed because I believe that without the law we would be unable to glorify God and therefore wicked. We had an interesting discussion about spiritual neutrality and I’ll give you some basics here. He argued that animals, who cannot glorify God, are not punished for their wickedness and are neutral. I argued that animals have no souls but bear the burden of our curse on earth and are wicked because of our actions. He argued that the law had always existed as a means to glorify God. I argued that was correct but without those means we wouldn’t be neutral we would be wicked. Even without the law we either exist as God desires or as God doesn’t and without knowing what God desires we live as he doesn’t not in some middle-ground and would be punished in the same way. To me, if we say we can be neutral we deny that God exists, God didn’t create the standard of perfection he is the standard of perfection. People are either with God or not. To say there’s a third option denies God’s absolute nature. So…long story short…I argued that neutrality is only applicable if there is either no God or God is not absolute. Then we got into another interesting tangent (a third person came up) and argued that neutrality is not being given a choice (ie the 1000 year peaceful reign before Satan is released). The pastor and I argued the same point from different views. I argued that because God is outside of time and has foreknowledge that the choice they are making will happen, is happening, and has happened for him so there is no one who does not have a choice. The pastor took the approach that choice is irrelevant and cited Romans and how God chooses people to understand his message of salvation. That people will hear and not go to heaven does not decrease God’s mercy but increases it. God is praised in eternity through the enaction of his justice (hell) and mercy (heaven). And if God’s justice is being enacted in hell than it is a right end for all who go there. People who say this is unfair Paul says “Who are you to talk back to God?”

This is a scary thought, in believing this we must accept that God could send anyone to hell he desires regardless of what they want. The answer, its Biblical. So that was an interesting evening, I think I’ll go back next Sunday but keep shopping for churches on Sunday morning. There is something very valuable about taking my theological study (currently in Hosea, Psalms, Proverbs, and Luke) and hashing out points with other believers.”

As an addendum to the end of this I think that in the absense of the law we can be created in perfect unity with God as well. That would be the state of creation before God gave commandments to us. Creation was neither inherently wicked or neutral after being created before the command was given so my idea needs modification. I affirm that there is no such thing as spiritual neutrality, but deny that without a given law we are innately wicked. God decides where we go in that case.