Light-work

Out With The Bad, In With The Good

In a recent sermon, I stated that fearing God (used in a positive sense) is synonymous with "fearing God's disapproval."  JP has a question: "You say we should fear God's displeasure, but is that the only way we should fear Him?" GREAT QUESTION! Let me answer by first laying some groundwork.

Our English word, "fear," is most often used to denote panic, terror, and dread, so it seems decidedly ill-suited to describe a positive response to the God whom we are also encouraged to "love." How does one love God AND fear Him? It seems like it should be one or the other. Indeed, the Apostle John seems to say that fear and love are polar opposites: There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear involves punishment, and the one who fears is not perfected in love (1 John 4:18).

The Greek word phobos (used by John and elsewhere by almost every other New Testament writer) has a broader range of meaning than the English word "fear." In some contexts, phobos is a positive virtue that is translated by words like "awe," "respect," and "reverence." In others, phobos is something to be avoided. Compare these two passages: "On some have mercy with fear" (Jude 23); "And all the people . . . asked Him to leave them, for they were gripped with great fear" (Luke 8:37). In Jude, "fear" assists one to show mercy - this phobos is good; In Luke, "fear" drives a people to put distance between themselves and Jesus - this phobos is bad. Notice another thing about this passage in Luke. The "bad fear" of the people in Luke 8:37 is fear OF the Lord! Here are a people who really "fear the Lord" but this fear produces a disaster: They compel Him to leave the scene!

For Paul, the fear of the Lord is a powerful and positive motivator (2 Cor. 5:11). But for the residents of Gerasene country, their fear of the Lord motivated an aversion to Him. Think about what they had witnessed. Prior to Jesus' arrival, a man had become the unrestrained terror of the neighborhood through demonic power. Yet, at the man's first meeting with Jesus, the Lord merely used words to accomplish what neither chains nor posse's had here-to-for been able. Again through mere words, Jesus provoked a local shortage of ham and bacon when the demonic horde was promptly dispatched to a herd of swine. Obviously, everything about "life as normal" was subject to change with Jesus around.

Jesus was the enemy of the status quo and the Gerasenes liked their status quo. They had their own agenda, their own plan for what their lives should look like. So when Jesus flashed some muscle, it threatened their comfortable little existence. To see how even the demons were subject to Him made it hard to assert that they themselves were not. When men who resent the Lord are confronted by His power and faced with their accountability, their fear is about consequences. They fear the Lord, not because they love Him, but because they despise Him, despise His power and authority, despise His right to call them to account for their opposition, despise Him for administering punishment. This is fear borne by hate.

1 John 4:18 tells us what happens when this kind of fear has a close encounter with God's love. If a man's eyes are opened and he grasps what actually happened when Jesus died for him on the cross, he sees that the one he has hated loves him with a perfect love. How can he not love Him back? As he does, the fear borne by hate evaporates in the face of His perfect love. This is John's point in 1 John 4:18.

But there is more to the story. The awareness of accountability to God is transformed by love from being a penalty to a privilege. It is an honor to live in a way that pleases the God who loves us with perfect love. This is fear borne by love. An image that helps to capture what this kind of love looks like is discerned in the newlyweds' first meal. By love, the bride has prepared her table. But as "the first bite" approaches, she is anxious and apprehensive. She longs to see her beloved's face beam with pleasure and his approving gaze turn toward her. Here is fear borne by love.

Yes, JP, there are other ways to fear God. But this is the best way.

Who's Got Your Number?

Sometime in the future a very powerful smart idol will "encourage" allegiance to a charismatic world leader. Most folks will receive this encouragement as an offer that cannot be refused. A few will see past the hocus-pocus, declining to join the fan club despite the cost: These are the overcomers who are victorious over the beast (the antichrist) and his image - see previous post for more info.

But there is a third facet to their victory. In Revelation 15:2, we learn that they are also victorious over "the number of his name." Now how do you achieve victory over a number? To answer that question let's consider Revelation 13:16-18, which declares: And he causes all, the small and the great, and the rich and the poor, and the free men and the slaves, to be given a mark on their right hand or on their forehead, and he provides that no one will be able to buy or to sell, except the one who has the mark, either the name of the beast or the number of his name. Here is wisdom. Let him who has understanding calculate the number of the beast, for the number is that of a man; and his number is six hundred and sixty-six (Rev. 13:16-18).

Lots of energy has been consumed in attempting to make a positive ID on the number "666." It seems warranted because of the exhortation to "calculate" this number and the tantalizing prospect that someone who solves this high-stakes Sudoku puzzle "gets it," he understands. So there has been no small amount of speculation about what it represents. I won't go into all the proposals; they are myriad.

I am of the opinion (and it is just an opinion) that solving the 666 puzzle will be impossible until we pass a certain juncture in future events. Once we pass that juncture, anyone with a biblically informed understanding will "get it" quite easily. There is a biblical precedent for this idea. On the night in which He was betrayed, Jesus explained, “But these things I have spoken to you, so that when their hour comes, you may remember that I told you of them” (John 16:4). Jesus predicted future events knowing full well that his disciples couldn't possibly anticipate how they would be fulfilled. However, He did not provide this information so that they could predict what would happen in the future but recognize what was happening for what it was once it had occurred. His prophecy was not about prediction but recognition!

I think that the "triple six" number system will be immediately recognized (by overcomers) for what it is when it actually appears. The saints will experience an "aha" moment when they are blinded by the obviousness of what they see. But, today, in the season when "666" is not manifest, every attempt to predict what to look for is a subjective stab in the dark.

What we can say right now and with certainty is this: The possession of this number is a requirement for market participation. The beast "provides that no one will be able to buy or to sell, except the one who has the mark, either the name of the beast or the number of his name" (Rev. 13:17). Can you imagine having to survive in our modern world without buying and selling? I don't care how "off the grid" you live, buying and selling is still critical to your existence. Someday in the future, without a "beast mark" issued in the form of a name or number, you will be on your own.

So why would anyone refuse such a number. According to Revelation 14:9, receipt of a "beast mark" is a clear declaration of loyalty to this coming charismatic world leader and a declaration of opposition toward God: “If anyone worships the beast and his image, and receives a mark on his forehead or on his hand, he also will drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is mixed in full strength in the cup of His anger; and he will be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb” (Rev. 14:9-10). Anyone with the spiritual eyesight to see the issues clearly would realize that "taking a number" is a choice to keep the pantry stocked at the cost of incurring God's wrath! This is a no-brainer!

The "third victory" of the overcomer is a refusal to align himself with the antichrist even though it means his exclusion from the marketplace. When the time comes and when everyone around him thinks having a triple six makes perfect sense, he will KNOW this is a course defined by perfect stupidity. When told to "take a number," he will respond without hesitation, "Take a hike!"

What Overcomers Overcome

Each of the seven churches addressed in Revelation chapters 2-3 receives an "overcomer promise." Here's one: “He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To him who overcomes, I will grant to eat of the tree of life which is in the Paradise of God” (Rev 2:7).

The other six promises have a similar three part format. (1) They are each preceded by a call for careful consideration, "He who has an ear, let him hear...." (2) The condition is identified by the phrase "To him who overcomes." (3) The result for those who successfully overcome is a profound benefit, although it is variously described as "eat of the tree of life," "not be hurt by the second death," receive "hidden manna, ...a white stone, and a new name," receive "authority over the nations," be made a "pillar in the temple of My God...," and granted to "sit down with Me on my throne." All of these promises are associated with the "finish line" that is described in the last two chapters of the book, chapters 21-22.

A road-map shows what to expect and how to prepare for the journey. Revelation is just such a road-map. The drama that plays out in Revelation 4-20 describes events "before the finish." It identifies the obstacles that will cause some to fail. It points out critical route markers that will indicate when the goal is near. It provides exactly the information an aspiring overcomer could use to great advantage in his journey to the finish line.

So who is an overcomer? View one: This term is synonymous with a "true Christian?" Or, view two, this is a description of a super saint who rises above the norm? View one is preferable. The benefits offered the "overcomer" are no different from what is promised to the true follower of Jesus. If the benefit, "eat of the tree of life," for example, is only available to super saints, where does that leave the less than super saints? Not in a very good place! Conclusion: The fact that the successful overcomer is promised benefits which are extended to all genuine disciples of Jesus tells me that "overcomer" is simply another term for a "true Christian."

Holding this position does raise a sobering question. Some of the characteristics of an overcomer seem to surpass what we would consider "normal" Christianity. For example, the overcomer is one who "keeps my deeds until the end" Rev. 2:26). The overcomer is compared to Jesus who "overcame" by completing His earthly mission (Rev. 3:21), a mission that culminated in His death. In Rev 12:11, overcomers are described as those who "did not love their life even when faced with death." Overcomers don't seem to overcome death, indeed, their victory is somehow secured in death. So what, exactly, does the overcomer overcome? Rev. 15:2 answers that the overcomers' victory is "over the beast, and his image, and the number of his name." The overcomer might not beat death (although he will beat the "second death!"), but he beats the beast at his game of compelling allegiance to himself.

It is not possible to appreciate these verses without concluding that the overcomer represents the true Christian, but his true Christianity includes a surpassing devotion to the Lord. The overcomer shows us that a true believer is willing to die for his faith. His is a simple and uncompromised devotion: He loves the Lord more than life itself. He would rather die than deny his Savior.

An Apocalyptic "Smart Idol"

What would church be like if the morning message was delivered by the "Serminator?" Would it be an improvement to consult a cyborg "Bible answer man" who can instantly answer all of your questions? How will "technological progress" affect "the worship service of the future?"

We have smart bombs and smart home technology. Wait till you see the new "smart idol!" Some time in the foreseeable future, a religious leader called the "false prophet" will arise who assists a powerful governmental leader called "the antichrist" or "the beast." One of the great accomplishments of the false prophet will be creation of a "smart idol," an image of the beast that is capable of breathing and speaking. The achievement will be impressive enough to promote worship of the beast.

In a previous post, we noted that the inability of idols to speak diminishes their appeal. By solving this problem, the false prophet will take worship of the antichrist to a whole new level. Here's the Apostle John's warning about what to expect:

And he [the false prophet] deceives those who dwell on the earth because of the signs which it was given him to perform in the presence of the beast [the antichrist], telling those who dwell on the earth to make an image to the beast who had the wound of the sword and has come to life. And it was given to him [the false prophet] to give breath to the image of the beast, so that the image of the beast would even speak and cause as many as do not worship the image of the beast to be killed (Rev. 13:14-15).

This image appears to be a living thing, it speaks, and it kills. The Terminator series has already introduced us to the idea. The false prophet will take the idea and make it real in the world in which we now live. I do not know if this will be achieved through technology or something supernatural. But it will be utterly remarkable. Most men will be enthralled by the beast and captivated by his image. Those who see it for what it is, will discern a connection with the numbers 6-6-6, will be excluded from participation in the marketplace, and will be marked for extermination. The smart idol of the future will not be very tolerant. How politically incorrect!

What Cog is Gog?

The prophesy against Gog and Magog begs the question, "When will these things be?" For a summary of "these things" read yesterday's post and Ezekiel 38-39. A leader named Gog will invade Israel with a coalition army looking for precious metals and commodities. He will fully expect to wipe Israel off the map. But, he will only succeed in rousing God to Israel's defense. Gog will be the one caught by surprise and seriously outgunned. When the dust has all settled, God predicts, "The house of Israel will know that I am the Lord their God" (39:22). God also declares, "I will not hide My face from them any longer, for I will have poured out My Spirit on the house of Israel" (39:29).

From the perspective of the present, there are two key periods of future history. "The tribulation" will be an unprecedented time of earthly turmoil marked by famine, natural disasters, economic crises, and religious persecution. When Jesus returns to earth, his "second coming" will end the tribulation and begin "the millennium," a period of unprecedented world peace and prosperity. Within this framework, modern students of the Bible have proposed five possible locations for Gog's invasion and defeat. I have positioned each by number within the time-line represented above.

Why the broad range of opinions? All of these views struggle to deal with two key features of the prophesy against Gog. For one, Israel is said to be dwelling in peace and security at the time of the invasion. For two, God's defeat of Gog's coalition seems to be something of a "last battle," the extinction of Israel's enemies and the full realization of God's fellowship with Israel. So the scenario associated with each view must include Israel at peace before the invasion (the "dwelling in peace" test), God's dramatic intervention (the "decisive victory" test), and full enjoyment of God's blessings for Israel after the invasion (the "new day" test).

View one seems to inform the works of Joel Rosenberg and Tim LaHaye. I am not sure how peacefully Israel currently dwells in the land, but let's assume that view one meets the "dwelling in peace" test. I still have serious doubt that the beginning of the tribulation can be construed as a decisive victory or a new day (tests two and three). The tribulation will be the worst of times for Israel; many will be martyred, many more persecuted. In which case, I do not find view one particularly compelling. This does not annul the possibility that Russia and Iran could form an alliance in our day. It simply means that Ezekiel 38-39 is not the predictor of such an occurrence.

Of the fives views, I favor number 5. It well satisfies all three tests. Interestingly, in the book of Revelation there is a reference to an event that sounds strikingly similar to Ezekiel 38-39:

When the thousand years [millennium] are completed, Satan will be released from his prison, and will come out to deceive the nations which are in the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together for the war; the number of them is like the sand of the seashore. And they came up on the broad plain of the earth and surrounded the camp of the saints and the beloved city, and fire came down from heaven and devoured them (Rev. 20:7-9).

From the dawn of human history, sin has created bad blood between brothers. Perhaps Gog's invasion will be the last chapter in this sad story that began with Cain and Abel. Noah had three sons, one of whom was Japheth. Japheth had seven sons including three named Magog, Tubal, and Meshech. In Ezekiel's prophecy, Gog is the leader of the three people groups bearing these precise names. Their grudge is against Israel, the people group descended from Jacob a descendant of Japheth's brother, Shem. At its root, Gog's invasion is an outworking of a rivalry between Japheth and Shem.

How much of this future rivalry did Noah see when he blessed these two sons: "Blessed be the Lord, The God of Shem. ...May God enlarge Japheth, And let him dwell in the tents of Shem" (Gen. 9:26-27). When Gog decides to invade Israel and seize what belongs to a people dwelling in peace, the God of Shem and of Israel will say "enough is enough." When this happens, it will mark the end for Magog, Meshech, and Tubal, the people associated with three of Japheth's seven sons, and any who align with them to defy God, the Defender of Israel.

Shock and Awe for Gog and Magog

A prophecy against Gog and Magog is recorded in Ezekiel 38 and 39. It was written by the prophet Ezekiel while in exile in Babylon during the 6^th century BC. He described a bold invasion of Israel that ends in the complete annihilation of the invaders at the hands of God.  What can we learn from Ezekiel's prophecy about this invasion?

First, let's check out the roster. Gog seems to be a king, and Magog his home turf. Gog is also the "rosh prince," or chief prince of Meshech and Tubal. We cannot rule out the possibility that there is a Russian connection to Gog and Magog. Their attack on Israel does come from "the remote parts of the north" (Ezek 38:7). The coalition Gog cobbles together will include nations from all four sides of Israel: Iran (Persia) to the east, Sudan and northern Ethiopia (Cush) to the south, Libya (Put) to the West, and Turkey (Meshech, Tubal, Gomer, and Beth Togarmah) to the North.

What is the sequence of events? Gog has a deep seated antagonism toward God and will be drawn toward a final showdown in Israel. The invasion will be motivated by a desire for "plunder," specifically for the precious metals of gold and silver and basic commodities that include cattle and "goods" (38:13). Gog will perceive that conditions are favorable to his success based on two strategic advantages. (1) Israel has negligible defensive assets. They are at peace with their neighbors and live securely (38:8, 11, 14). Israel dwells "at rest" in unwalled villages and without rudimentary defensive systems like bars and gates. Gog considers Israel easy pickin's. (2) He has also assembled a massive army capable of quick mobilization (38:9, 15). He believes he and his innumerable allies can bring a whole new meaning to the phrase, "shock and awe."

Gog, however, will make one fatal error of judgment. In his planning for war, He will factor God out of his calculations. Big mistake! God will take "shock and awe" to a level beyond Gog's comprehension. Some of the weapons at God's disposal will include a devastating earth-quake, pestilence, torrential rain, hail, fire, and brimstone (38:19, 22). God will lay down a dense blanket of the fog of war and create confusion in which Gog's invaders turn on themselves (38:21).

Gog will discover himself wholly unprepared for God's counter-attack. His invasion will become his Waterloo, Israel's miraculous deliverance, and the complete end of Gog's entire army. Israel will seize spoil from the fallen invaders and destroy their war materiel by fire (39:9-10). A massive valley in Israel (perhaps the one pictured above) will become the location for the burial of Gog's entire invasion force (39:11). The task of burying the dead will take seven months to complete (39:12)!

There are two statements that capture the final outcome of this crowning moment in Israel's future: "And the house of Israel will know that I am the Lord their God from that day onward" (39:22); "I will not hide My face from them any longer, for I will have poured out My Spirit on the house of Israel" (39:29).

No event in history comes close to matching the details of this account, so it hasn't happened yet. The only time marker we are provided in Ezekiel 38-39 is that the invasion will occur "after many days" and "in the latter years" (38:8). Based on what we know from the rest of the Bible about future events, can we pinpoint "Gog's invasion" within this biblical framework?

Agog Over Gog and Magog

Epicenter, the book and companion DVD by Joel C. Rosenberg, allows us a peek behind the curtain. The author explores and explains the connections to prophesy, history, and current events informing the plot lines of his best selling political thrillers. Here's a link to Joel Rosenberg's blog, if you want to learn more about his thinking. He was also a guest on Glenn Beck yesterday marketing his latest, Inside the Revolution.

In 2000, Mr. Rosenberg observed an alliance forming between Russia and Iran. This unprecedented development prompted him to retrieve a book he had read almost ten years earlier, The Coming Peace in the Middle East, by Tim LaHaye. According to Rosenberg, Coming Peace described "a coming period of security and prosperity in Israel, followed by the rise of a military alliance between Russia, Iran, and a group of other Islamic countries that would target Israel and drive the world to the brink of the apocalypse in what Ezekiel described as 'the last days'" (Epicenter, p. 24). Dr. LaHaye found the basis for this understanding in his interpretation of the "prophesy against Gog," found in Ezekiel 38-39. Mr. Rosenberg was intrigued; "If the rebirth and re-population of Israel described in Ezekiel 36 and 37 were coming true in my lifetime, was it not at least remotely possible that the peace and prosperity - and future war and divine rescue - described in chapters 38 and 39 could soon come true as well?" (p. 29).

This view that Ezekiel 38-39 is describing "the next big thing" on a prophetic time-table informs Mr. Rosenberg's writings. Is this the right spot in time to connect this prophesy? It's a great question that we will speak to in tomorrow's post. But first let's make a few preliminary observations.

The pinpoint accuracy of biblical prophecy does not become obvious until after the fact. Here is a great case in point from the Light-Work Resource Collection. From our vantage point in history, Daniel 9:1-21 is breath-taking as you line up each verse with a four century time-line of middle eastern history. But for those living in the 4^th or 5^th century BC, they could only speculate about how each new development might play out according to Daniel's predictions. This is the speculative challenge Mr. Rosenberg faces. He has written novels "about how the Ezekiel scenario could unfold" (p. 29). How Ezekiel 38 and 39 are actually fulfilled  might be much different. But IF they were fulfilled "next," his scenario's are plausible.

Prophesy rarely provides time markers that allow us to discern WHEN a particular event will occur. Prophesy tells us WHAT will happen, but generally leaves us in the dark about WHEN. This is a function of prophesy's purpose: It is not intended to equip us to become "junior prophets" who predict the dates of future events. Prophesy invites us to get ready for what will happen without knowing exactly when. And it encourages us that God is in control when events unfold just as predicted.

Before checking tomorrow's post, read Ezekiel 38-39. Make some summary observations about WHAT will happen and we'll compare notes tomorrow.

Wow, Wampum, Win, or Whack?

Yesterday, a L-W regular spotted an intriguing connection: The Obama Administration's "help" for domestic automakers comes from the same mold as Nebuchadnezzar's image. King Neb was king of the ancient world's leading superpower in the sixth century BC. One night he saw a spectacular statue in his dreams. The four sections of the statue represented a succession of four kingdoms. Each was associated with a specific commodity, gold with Babylon, silver with Medo-Persia, bronze with Greece, and iron and clay with Rome.

In a sermon series on the book of Daniel a few years ago, I observed that these metallic associations well captured the leadership philosophy of each empire. Here's my summary from one of the sermon slides. Please note that I have used the tried and true preacher's tactic of beginning each point with the same letter - I'm sure you're impressed:

• Gold /Wow!  Using spectacle and “dazzle” to inspire people to follow
• Silver / Wampum!  Using money to purchase allegiance
• Bronze / Win!  Using superior strength to overcome opposition
• Iron / Whop!  Using terror / fear to crush men’s will to resist

So, which approach best summarizes the administration's plan to limit consumers to "responsible" automotive choices? For the auto manufacturer, the government is using wampum as leverage. Toward the consumer, the government is bent on winning. Consumers want one thing, the government wants another. By using its wampum-based influence over the manufacturers, the administration limits consumers to choices it deems "responsible." Whatever choice the consumer makes constitutes an administration victory. Won't this be fun!

Is Planet Earth the Bullpen or the Tryout?

AP is in a small group discussing The Purpose Driven Life by Rick Warren and has a question: Is living according to God's purposes here on planet earth "practice" for what we will do in heaven? Great question!

Life in heaven shares some characteristics with life on earth. For example, the concept of stewardship is evident in both realms. In Luke 16, Jesus tells the story of the unjust servant. He does so to extol the virtue of living for eternity (Luke 16:9). He reinforces His appeal with this statement: “Therefore if you have not been faithful in the use of unrighteous wealth, who will entrust the true riches to you?” (Luke 16:11). Life on earth and life in heaven share this characteristic - they are both realms in which men and women are entrusted with responsibilities. Luke 16:11 even declares that how well one fulfills those responsibilities on earth determines his suitability for a greater level of responsibility in heaven.

I think that calling earthly stewardship "practice" has some merit - clearly stewards are doing something on earth that is preparation for something similar they will do in heaven. But there is another notion that attaches to the term "practice" that COULD be a bit misleading. "Practice" refers to activity in which you don't keep score as you prepare for the occasions when you will. Think of the bullpen at the ballpark where that relief pitcher is warming up. This idea doesn't fit with an earthly exercise of stewardship wherein God is clearly keeping score and evaluating our effectiveness. Luke 16:11 sounds more like a "tryout" than a "practice:" Our conduct as stewards in the management of earthly resources determines our suitability to be "moved up to the majors."

I am not sure what term would best capture this nuance. Until we come up with a suitable word, you might want to hold "practice" alongside these important clarifications.

1. There are some aspects to life on earth that are echoes of life in heaven: Stewardship, work, rest, and worship are four that come to mind. Let's call these "shared aspects."
2. There are other aspects to life on earth that will not be encountered in heaven: Marriage, disciple-making, and fighting the old sin nature are three. Let's call these "unique aspects."
3. Some aspects to life on earth will be experienced in heaven but in a profoundly altered way. For example, on earth "spiritual growth" centers on character transformation. This process will be completed when we see Jesus face to face. But there will still be room for growth of another kind, growth in knowledge and understanding. Surely in heaven we will know God truly, but not exhaustively. Perhaps in eternity we will continue to grow as we learn more about our God with each passing aeon. Let's call these "redirected aspects."
4. All shared aspects like stewardship, work, rest, and worship will be experienced in heaven in a greater way. Everything of life in heaven that echoes life in the new earth will be deeper, richer, and more glorious. By this reckoning, the earthly may seem to be little more than a warmup for the real deal that is eternity.
5. Our experience of life in heaven will reflect the ways in which we have lived for His pleasure in all aspects (shared, unique, and redirected) of our lives on planet earth. On this count, how we have lived our lives on planet earth will matter more than anything!

Yes, life on earth is practice for eternity. But it is also the proof of where you belong. It is both bullpen and tryout.

Change We Can Believe In?

One of the Obama mantra's is "Change We Can Believe In." I can add some phrases that make his slogan less catchy but improve it: "I propose change that is worthy of your belief precisely because it is grounded in the truth. Embrace it, not because of its believability, but its validity." Alas, they didn't ask me for feedback before going to the printers. Too bad!

I can understand why they didn't talk to me, however, because those clarifying phrases would take the discussion to another level. It's no small bother when the litmus test becomes "validity" not "believability." Now you have to prove that the specific changes you propose are the best possible response to all of the relevant facts. No more populist arguments that declare a proposed change as the right one for the mere fact that many believe it.

Solomon, one smart cookie and an accomplished kingdom organizer, twice said, "There is a way which seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death" (Prov. 14:12; 16:25). To our current political debate, Solomon would say it is possible to embrace a "way forward," that is, in point of fact, a journey to disaster. No matter how many jump on the bandwagon, their numbers will not alter its destination.

This kind of flawed logic is what the Obama slogan celebrates. But therein lies it appeal, I suspect, to a younger generation. J. Budziszewski, a professor at the University of Texas, has well captured the  student ethos. Illuminating remarks are captured in his book, Ask Me Anything 2. A sorority coed coos: "Professor Theophilus, since I'm here, would you do me a big big favor?" He agrees to look at her paper and then offers a critique. She responds: "'I don't feel like I've committed a fallacy. You're just not being fair.' Surprised, I look up. The flush had reached her nose, and her eyes looked moist. 'I feel you're just looking for things wrong.'"

This is not just about the "younger generation." A cultural shift is notably evident among the young, but is effecting all ages. Instead of asking "Is it true?", men and women increasingly inquire "How do I feel about it?" The fact that many find Obama's mantra believable is a telling commentary on our changing culture. Personally, I don't find "Change We Can Believe In" very persuasive. But the fact that many do persuades me of an alarming change in progress, the devaluation of truth. I do believe that!

Much Ado Over Gabriel's Revelation

Time reported this week that a first century BC tablet, according to an Israeli scholar, "announces the raising of a Jewish messiah after three days in the grave." Dubbed "Gabriel's Revelation," you can check out the full article on the three foot high tablet by clicking here. Reporters David Van Biema and Tim McGirk seem to think this tablet constitutes another piece of vital evidence debunking the authenticity of the resurrection of Jesus.

Let's assume for the moment that the reported translation of the tablet is correct - this is no small assumption, by the way. How damaging is this revelation? Biema and McGirk think it is serious: "This undermines one of the strongest literary arguments employed by Christians over centuries to support the historicity of the Resurrection: the specificity and novelty of the idea that the Messiah would die on a Friday and rise on a Sunday."

I find it hard not to smirk at the logic of this. Suppose someone living before Jesus did indeed pen a literary work that mentions a third day resurrection. Does this have any value as a denial of later historical events as reported by dozens of corroborating witnesses? Let me illustrate the logic of this: On 9/11 many eye-witnesses observed two planes flying into the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center. What would you think of someone's claim that it is all an invention, a contrivance, and offers as proof a book (that predates 9/11) in which events that are eerily similar are described? He proposes that the idea was suggested to people through the book and that's where they came up with idea. It didn't really happen.

Would you find such an argument convincing? Me neither. If you have already concluded that the resurrection is an invention, if you can make a statement like this - "this could mean that Jesus' followers had access to a well-established paradigm when they decreed that Christ himself rose on the third day" - then I suppose Biema and McGirk's spin on Gabriel's Revelation might seem compelling. I'm not buying it.

Is Faith a Requirement?

"Where does God say that man is required to have faith and why?" That was the query recently posed to my friend. The question can be construed to represent God as a hard nosed stickler. If you're not bringing faith to God's table, don't bother coming.

I find it helpful to think of faith as a privilege not an obligation. It is true that unleashing the power of the Gospel cannot be accomplished apart from faith. BUT, God forces Himself on no man! God does not compel belief, He invites it; He respects us enough to allow us to make our own decision. Think of “faith” as God’s declaration: “I am NOT going to compel you to believe the Gospel. Yes, it makes sense. Yes, it holds within it the power for salvation. And yes, that power will be unleashed when you, by faith, choose to apply it to your life. But I am giving you the power to choose what you will do – I am allowing you to believe or not believe. Now, don’t get me wrong. There will benefits and consequences depending on what choice you make. Not all decisions are created equal. Rejecting the Gospel is the worst possible decision you could EVER make. But it IS your decision to make."

Let’s say that you are selling some sort of agricultural product to Farmer Brown. This product will revolutionize his farming enterprise. So you make your pitch and FB seems thoroughly impressed with your field studies, charts, and cost projections. But the power of your product is not unleashed until it is applied to his cropland. He must purchase it and then act on the “application instructions” to see the results.

So is it with the Gospel. Someone can be quite impressed with the evidence for the Gospel. He can even appreciate how it has been helpful to others. But the power of the Gospel is not unleashed until that someone ACTS on it. He doesn’t have to purchase it (Jesus already made full payment for as much Gospel as a man could need). He merely signs for delivery and applies the product to his life. This is “faith in the Gospel,” choosing to apply the Gospel to his thoughts, words, actions, and aspirations. When a man does this, the power of the Gospel is unleashed.

God is not forcing anyone to use His product. But it happens to be the only product on the market that works. It's the smart choice.

Does God Evolve?

ET writes: I was having a discussion with a friend, and he was attempting to argue for evolution, saying that God used evolution to shape us in His image. I told him that evolution, by definition, is a never-ending improvement and change. So if God used evolution to shape us in His image, that means that He is changing too, which should be impossible since He is perfect. My friend then quoted Scripture saying, "So the LORD changed His mind about the harm which He said He would do to His people" (Exodus 32:14). I was wondering if you wouldn't mind clearing things up for me.

Great question, ET! Let's answer it in two parts. First off, let's deal with the question of the possibility of God "evolving." A passage like James 1:17 describes God as "the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shifting shadow." The moon's light waxes and wanes, the light from the sun varies based upon cloud cover, seasons, latitude, and time of day. But our Father is the SOURCE of all light and His light does not vary. He is the one true constant. This is a way of saying that God does not change in who He is. His character is not subject to development or improvement. God will never become more loving, more holy, more just, more powerful, or more wise.

So what do we do with a verse like Ex. 32:14? I find it helpful to recognize that there is a difference between WHO GOD IS AND WHAT HE DOES. Who God is will never change. But what He does can change. In the case of Exodus 32:14, it is a marvelous testimony to the power of prayer. Moses interceded for Israel, and God altered His plans accordingly. God's CHARACTER did not change. But because Moses pled for the welfare of Israel, God decided to TAKE A DIFFERENT COURSE OF ACTION. By the way, note how Moses' prayer was informed by a knowledge of and appeal to God's character. Moses declares, "Show yourself as the God of goodness and covenant faithfulness." God's character did not evolve or improve in this passage. But what God did was affected by humble and earnest prayer grounded in bold knowledge of who God is.

Part two: I am not sure I would use the line of argument you outlined with your friend. I think your approach has merit, but it's power as proof is compromised by what happened in the Fall. When Adam sinned, the image of God in man became effaced or distorted. Man is still "created in God's image." But as through a lens that is fogged up, it is now harder to see something of what God is like by looking at man.  Redemption is about unfogging the lens. I would not say that man is "evolving." But I would say that men who are redeemed are being transformed. Someday, we will see Jesus face to face, and in that moment become perfect lenses through which to see the image of God.

Because your friend might not see the difference between "evolution" and "transformation in Christ," here's a thought that might suggest a new tack to your conversation. Evolution is theorized to be the engine of improvement driven by chance. Transformation in Christ is the engine of improvement propelled by God's grace. Ask him, "What are the pro's and con's of each approach?" God offers any man the sure hope of becoming a new man in Christ. Your friend does not have to wait millions of years. He does not have to leave things to chance. He can take God up on His amazing offer, RIGHT NOW! Show him the evidence: God's offer is worth believing and receiving. Now that would be an interesting conversation!

A Biblical Pep Talk

Is The Secret a suitable motivational resource for Christians? Isn't some "positive thinking" valuable for believers facing a challenge? If you are unfamiliar with The Secret, check out the previous two posts. The first examines its core philosophy; the second examines its view of God. Both examinations conclude that, at a fundamental level, The Secret and a biblically informed world-view are polar opposites. In which case, I would look elsewhere for material for my next motivational pep-talk.

There is a very different kind of "we can do it" speech in the Old Testament. Here's some background: The Philistines, Israel's enemy, had the upper hand. To maintain their dominance over Israel, the Philistines maintained a monopoly on blacksmith services. By controlling the manufacture and repair of all metal implements, they kept metal weaponry out of Israel's hands. (How would you like to fight an enemy who decided what weapons you could use against him?)

So when we come to 1 Sam. 14, Israel's army has a total of two iron swords, one for King Saul and one for his son, Jonathan. Jonathan decides one morning to go on a little scouting expedition (along with his armor-bearer). They spy out a Philistine garrison and Jonathan gives "the big speech:" Then Jonathan said to the young man who was carrying his armor, “Come and let us cross over to the garrison of these uncircumcised; perhaps the Lord will work for us, for the Lord is not restrained to save by many or by few” (1 Sam. 14:6).

Here's what I really like about Jonathan's pep-talk with his armor-bearer. He discerns what they CAN do and what they CAN'T. Jonathan knows that it is his choice about whether to use his sword to fight Philistines or not, and He looks to God for guidance about what choice to make. Jonathan also knows, however, that God will choose the outcome, and His choice will not be constrained by circumstances or numbers.

What happened next? God made it clear that Jonathan should use his sword to battle Philistines. About twenty men fell before his blade. Then God shook things up with an earth-quake. Confusion rippled through the Philistine camp, and everyone with a sword (no shortage of swords in the Philistine camp!) used it against a fellow Philistine. When the dust had settled, "the Lord delivered Israel that day" (1 Sam. 14:23).

Jonathan did not get confused about who does what. He didn't try to psych himself up. He didn't say, "If we just believe in ourselves, we can win." He was quite clear that victory did not depend on his ability to convince himself he had the right stuff. He deferred to and relied on God. Jonathan was bold in the knowledge that if God decides to work, then it doesn't matter who has more swords. It only matters who is following the Lord's direction.

Your ability to psych yourself up is not the key to success. Success is doing what God directs, regardless of how things look. 

Secret Heresy - Pt. 2 of 2

The Secret is no secret! Millions are buying it (literally). What is it's appeal? This life philosophy answers to the natural dispositions of the sin sick heart like hand to glove. If you haven't done so already, check out this series of quotes from the DVD. These statements have a familiar ring to them like something you would have heard in the Garden of Eden where the serpent's mantra was "You will be like God!"

A desire to be like God can be of two types. One is good, the other is bad. It is possible to desire to be like God as children desire to emulate their father. This is exactly the kind of appeal Paul makes in Ephesians 5:1 when he says, "Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children." The bad kind of desire to be like God is the desire of the upstart, the one who longs to become God's equal, His rival, or His replacement. This is what Satan was pitching and The Secret has taken a page from his play-book. I don't care how much you dress up The Secret in biblical terminology or attempt to find points of connection between it and biblical truth, you will not be able to escape this most fundamental difference: The Secret and biblical truth have as much in common as Satan does with God.

It gets worse! When the dust settles on the book of Job, God makes this statement to Job's three "friends:" "For this reason my wrath is kindled against you [Eliphaz] and against your two friends, because you have not spoken of Me, what is right" (Job 42:7). Do you like it when someone misrepresents you, or makes public statements about you that aren't true? God doesn't either. When we talk about God, who He is and what He is like, we better get it right! It is here that The Secret says what would kindle God's wrath. Let me pinpoint some of these misrepresentations.

1. God is omnipresent, but he is also transcendent. This means that God is everywhere, but that He also dwells OUTSIDE of time and space. The Secret doesn't get this and conceives of "God" as a synonym for the universe.
2. Second, there is a denial of the personhood of God in The Secret. God is presented not as a person, He is a force. (Haven't we heard this somewhere before, Obi-wan?) This is an important issue for the purveyors of The Secret because a force is capable of being manipulated  (like electricity) in ways that a person (who has a will) is not.
3. Third, there is a denial of the sovereignty of God embedded in The Secret. God is the controller of circumstances. He is bound by no man and chooses what He deems best to suit His perfect purposes. "Place the attention on what you want to experience" all you want. In the final analysis, God decides what will happen, not you! Yes, it is true that God can choose to fold our desires into His plan, but "thinking positive thoughts" don't have much to do with it. Praying to the God who is in charge, does.

Now, you would think that with so many strikes against it, The Secret would be something that followers of Jesus view as glaringly flawed and unsuitable for their spiritual growth. Surprise - there are saints who are like Luke Skywalker. "I see the good in The Secret." Let's figure out what's going on here, on Monday.

Secret Heresy - Pt. 1 of 2

GM gave me a copy of a DVD called The Secret. She asked if I had heard about it. Should I? Isn't it supposed to be a secret! (Ba-dum - shhh.) According to the official website for The Secret, the DVD is a companion to the book by the same name. The video has been "seen by millions" and there are over 6 million copies of the book in print. I am not being cynical about it; but if this is a secret, it is one of the worst kept.

Rhonda Byrne is the author of the book, the force behind the DVD, and the one attributed with "discovering" the secret. The website makes no modest claim about it: "The Secret reveals the most powerful law in the universe. The knowledge of this law has run like a golden thread through the lives and the teachings of all the prophets, seers, sages and saviors in the world's history, and through the lives of all truly great men and women. All that they have ever accomplished or attained has been done in full accordance with this most powerful law."

So what is it? Here's my executive summary: The secret is based on the law of attraction, the principle that our thoughts are like magnets attracting what we think about. Think bad and you will attract bad outcomes. Think good (like money, power, and success) and you will attract good outcomes. The universe is like a powerful genie (although not a person) that will bring into your life what you think about.

On the surface, this may seem like just another refrain of the song, "Don't worry, be happy!" But there is something deeper and deeply disturbing going on here. I have compiled a series of quotes from the DVD that you should find illuminating. One of those quotes well captures my concern: "You are eternal life; you're source energy; you are God manifested in human form, made to perfection." Where have I heard something like this before - oh yes, the Garden of Eden!

The serpent said to Eve, "For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil" (Gen. 3:5). Satan drank the Koolaid and believes he can be like God, and here we find him at the dawn of human history trying to sell Eve on the juice. At its heart, the Secret is anything but. It is a lie as old as time - We can be the controllers of our destiny; we can determine what life will give us.

I have more things to say, but I would like you to do a little homework first. Download the series of quotes from the DVD. Then fix Satan's mantra in your mind: "You will be like God." Now read the quotes and see if they don't sound alike. If they do, here's what ought to give you pause. When Satan first introduced his philosophy, he called it a secret. "God has been holding out on you, Eve. But, I am here to dispel his repression by telling you THE SECRET - YOU CAN BE LIKE GOD."

Where has the time gone?

Houston, we have a problem! If the word "day" in chapter one of Genesis refers to a 24 hour day, and if the genealogies of Genesis are complete or anything close to complete, then creation week occurred several thousand years ago. But there is tons of evidence (literally!) which suggests that earth is old: The scientific consensus is that earth has been around for over four billion years. So, is earth recent or old? Science and the Bible can't both be right, can they?

There are two ways to remove (or diminish) this conflict between science and the Bible. One involves the gap theory. There is variety among gap theorists about where they see some missing time. But they all agree that time is missing, namely, a significant period about which nothing (or next to nothing) has been recorded in the Bible. The popularity of this view increased when the Scofield Reference Bible successfully promoted it.

I admit to some skepticism for the mere fact that this proposal is so convenient. It has been discerned "in the nick of time" to rescue the biblical creationist from his discomfort at sounding like a "flat earth" advocate, someone with a blind and unassailable insistence on what amounts to nothing more than scientific clap-trap. Now, a gap proponent can have his 24 hour days and old earth, too. Nice!

Let's give this theory a fair shake. The most popular variety proposes a gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2.  Here's how it reads:

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters. Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light (Gen. 1:1-3).

A gap theorist would say that Gen. 1:3 is the hack mark where the 144 hour clock starts ticking. Verse one describes the original creation that occurred PRIOR to the "recreation" that occurred in 144 hours. There are lots of speculations and surmisings that attempt to connect the dots. One of the more popular connects the fall of Satan to this period of pre-history. It is suggested that his rebellion against God resulted in some sort of cataclysm which rendered the original creation "formless and void." Despite all the huff and puff, I remain unconvinced that this view can travel from "possibility" to "fact."

It is true that there are some missing minutes in the Bible. A dramatic example is found in Isaiah 61:2.  Between the first and second line, there is a time gap spanning two thousand years. How do I know this? I wouldn't, if Jesus hadn't read the passage and pointed this out in Luke 4:16ff. This benefit is not available for "the gap" in Genesis 1:1-3. There is no clear statement from God that an otherwise invisible gap is embedded there. Without this, I cannot say with CERTAINTY that such a gap exists, although I can allow for the possibility.

There are some grammatical issues with the gap theory, but I APPRECIATE the fact that this view takes the Bible seriously. It is not trying to meddle with its language to achieve some forced compliance with what science is saying. It treats a "day" as a day.

There are several passages in the Bible that tell us about pre-history, passages that discuss conditions before space and time. Here's one in John 17:5. Jesus and the Father were both there before space and time, so it is not surprising to overhear it mentioned in their conversation. Jesus requests, “Now, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was” (John 17:5). Jesus was there before the world came into existence. He KNOWS how things came about. I wish He would tell me more, but I must trust Him in this as in all things. I must trust Him that He has told me what I NEED to know.

All In a Day's Work - for God! Pt. 2 of 2

Watch a world class illusionist and you will find yourself asking, "How did he do that?" The illusionist will smile in smug silence, unwilling to reveal his secrets. When God created our world from nothing, it transcended the grandest illusion. This was the real thing and it went beyond breathtaking. Unlike the illusionist, God has been quite forthcoming about how He did it. God's diary of the process is available in Genesis 1:1-2:3.

At face value, this account describes a series of 24 hour days of creative activity followed by a seventh day of inactivity. If God created the world in 144 hours, and the genealogies of Genesis are comprehensive or without major gaps, then this world began a few thousand years ago. There would be little reason to think otherwise except for a preponderance of physical evidence suggesting the earth is billions (if not millions) of years old. So one of the ways to ease the tension of this conflict between the Bible and science has been to reappraise the biblical account. In this second look, bible students have found what seem like credible reasons for the "days" of Genesis chapter one to be understood as "ages" or "epochs" spanning millions of years. Will this dog hunt?

There are several reasons why "day" in the creation account of Genesis should be understood as a literal 24 hour day.

1. "Day" is here used with a number. It is true that "day" in a prophetic passage like Zech 12:3 refers to something other than a 24 hour day. But this figurative usage for "day" never occurs when a number modifies it.
2. The phrase "evening and morning" seems irrelevant to anything other than a literal day. In Dan. 8:14 , "2,300 evenings and mornings" is even used as a synonym for "2,300 days." If "days" are ages, how can we meaningfully attach the terms "morning" and "evening" to segments of such days?
   
3. In Genesis 20:11 & 31:17, God is doing the talking. He says that He created the world in "six days." In every instance where day is used in the plural, it refers to 24 hour days. (There is one possible exception in Hosea 6:2 - but this may be attributed to the dynamics of Hebrew poetry.)

There is some other evidence, but I wouldn't weight it too highly: First, Adam's naming of the animals only seems a feasible accomplishment if we are dealing with 24 hour days. Second, the days of creation are the pattern for Israel's week of work (six days) followed by rest (seventh day). Creation week's function as a pattern is strengthened if it consists of seven literal days.

There is no doubt in my mind that the language of Genesis one is descriptive of 24 hour days. Yes, yes, I know this raises many questions. Patience, Grasshopper - all in good time. For now, there is something poignant to be learned here and I don't want you to miss it. In science's reconstruction of earth's history, man is rendered a minuscule and late-coming dot on the vast time-line of history. I love this line from Derek Kidner, "The scientific account of the universe...overwhelms us with statistics that reduce our apparent significance to vanishing-point" (Genesis, p. 57).

The biblical account treats the grand work of creation as a mere prologue before we get down to the real business at hand, filling the planet with a people who will rule it for God. This puts things in their proper perspective. God is willing to tell us how He did it when He created our world. But now it's time to tell us what we most need to know, to tell us about sin, sacrifice, redemption, and restoration. It may not be the big bang. But it IS the big story and something God says we MUST understand.

All In a Day's Work - for God! Pt. 1 of 2

Did God create the world in six twenty-four hour days? How do I know, I wasn't there? No one was. Even my (and your) great-great grandfather, Adam, didn't come on the scene until 90% of the creative work was completed. So our only reliable first-hand field report is going to come from God. He is well-qualified to file this account. He wasn't just THERE. He was the One making it all happen. So when He tells me what went down in "creation week," I can take His summary as gospel.

Had he chosen to keep it all a secret, I would be consigned to grope for the truth on my own. But He has not been silent! A comprehensive overview of the process has been provided in Gen. 1:1-2:3. God zooms in to allow us a close-up view of day six in Gen. 2:4-25. And there are numerous references to creation week scattered throughout the Bible in passages like Job 38:1-11. Obviously God WANTS us to know what He did. He hasn't told us all we would LIKE to know, but He has fully supplied what we NEED to know.

This doesn't mean God is opposed to our doing some additional study. He has provided an unassailable  framework for understanding creation in the biblical account, but invites us to "do science" to supplement this understanding. The thesis of Privileged Planet (book and DVD both highly recommended) is intriguing - earth has been ideally designed and positioned in the Milky Way to serve as a celestial observation platform. From it's transparent gas atmosphere to its position in galactic "open space" - it is as if God wants us to check out what He has done. Here is one caveat: The biblical account of creation provides guard-rails to protect us when "good science goes bad." The quality, purity, and reliability of information from the Bible is superior to what science can deliver.

Some may not like this, thinking that science must be "unfettered from religious presuppositions." This notion is at the heart of the objections to intelligent design. It is OK to examine a piece of flint and declare, "This is an arrowhead made by an ancient hunter." It is NOT OK to examine our planet and declare, "This is the work of an intelligent designer." The first statement is about science, but the latter is treated as a religious statement and, therefore, unsuited for scientific examination. This is the kind of compartmentalization that drives me bonkers.

The man who believes there is some great divide between science and the Bible and who refuses to allow the Bible to provide guidance to his scientific studies is in a "catch-22." The more his studies lead him to the truth, the closer he gets to the God of truth whom He wants to avoid. Such a man will not be helped by understanding the biblical account of creation.

But for those who understand that the pursuit of truth is best left unconstrained by this kind of compartmentalized thinking, we can learn much by asking, "What does the Bible say about how the world came into existence?" To do this, we must understand how language works as an instrument of communication. Some critics of a twenty-four hour day viewpoint think it relies on what they term a "literal" or "wooden literal" approach to interpretation. "Literal" interpretation sounds like, and "wooden-literal" interpretation undoubtedly is, an approach to Scripture that does not recognize metaphors and figures of speech. A "wooden-literal" interpretive method would not recognize this statement from Jesus as a figure of speech called hyperbole: “If your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out and throw it from you” (Matt. 18:9). Before we start gouging eyeballs (creepy!), might I propose an alternative?

I find it helpful to distinguish between literal interpretation and normal interpretation. Normal interpretation proposes that normal language behaves, well, normally. (This is the kind of profound insight you have come to expect at Light-work! Never underestimate our power to discern the obvious!) Normal interpretation treats the language of the Bible as a normal mode of human communication, one which, at times, is intended to be understood literally. At other times, it may employ a figure of speech  or a literary device like an extended metaphor. (The extended metaphor is one of my personal favorites - I probably rely on it way too much, like the two buses in the previous post.)

The key to interpreting normal language is identifying the literary markers which tell us when something is supposed to be understood literally, when it is to be understood figuratively, or when it is a joke. So when we look at Genesis one, we must pay attention to words and the connections between them. But we also must pay attention to literary markers which tell us if the author wants to be taken literally.

A Tale of Two Buses

What is Genesis one telling us? And what is it not? This is an interpretive basket of snakes, and I don't particularly care for snakes. But we seem to have tumped the basket over yesterday, so we might as well devote some time to snake sorting.

I want to work up to this question: What biblical basis is there for the days of creation to be understood as twenty-four hour days? Jumping right to this question will probably be counter-productive unless we first deal with some pre-conceptions and assumptions.

First, this issue is not central to a man's salvation. A man is saved by trusting in the accomplishment of Christ on the cross. From the Bible's point of view, this is a work of divine power that dwarfs even the creation of a universe. To create the universe is mere word-work for God. He speaks and it comes into existence. In Ps. 8:3, the heavens are called God's "finger work." To say this is not to diminish the greatness of this creative endeavor. But it must be put into proper perspective.

Our salvation required the death of God's own Son. Here is "difficulty" at the highest order of magnitude for God. The greatest triumph is captured in Jesus' exclamation on the cross, "It is finished!" So when a man is trusting in Jesus for his salvation, He is believing in the greatest miracle of all time. I am not a big fan of evangelism that depends on convincing someone of "twenty-four hour days of creation." If he receives salvation in Jesus, then he has already affirmed God's ability to do lessor things, like create a universe. All He lacks is God's disclosure of the mechanics of how it was accomplished. God can handle this in His good time.

Second, we must recognize the difference between the scientific method and biblical interpretation as means to understanding the truth. Science and the Bible are like two buses traveling in opposite directions from very different starting points. In the case of the Bible, it represents a bus traveling from truth to man. The Bible bus comes from God who IS truth; It has Him as its point of origin; it is God breathed. So it delivers to man what is pure, concentrated, and reliable. It is true we must interpret it, that is, identify exactly what it teaches. But when we can say - This is what the Bible teaches; this it what it says happened - we are getting truth straight from the source.

In the case of science, it represents a bus traveling from man to truth. The scientific method involves the pursuit of an elusive target. One seeks truth by gathering evidence through observation and experimentation. This is followed by proposing a hypothesis to account for the evidence. A good hypothesis explains all the evidence and seems a worthy candidate for the title, "truth." But it's claim is always tenuous. New evidence (that doesn't fit the theory) can pop up without notice. Now it's back to the drawing board for more tests in the relentless pursuit of truth.

This challenge is made more difficult (IMPOSSIBLE?) by a filter that the modern scientist uses to "prescreen" his data. Scientific "objectivity" has come to mean that the scientist factors God out of the equation in order to limit his inquiry to only the physical world. This creates "destination dissonance" for the science bus. If God is the truth, then the closer the science bus gets to truth, the closer it gets to what must be avoided. Passengers on the science bus are rigorously attempting to go somewhere that they tenaciously believe must be avoided. Sounds like being pulled in two directions more than a "greyhound adventure!"

It isn't supposed to be this way. For example, David observed, The heavens are telling of the glory of God; And their expanse is declaring the work of His hands (Ps. 19:1). David sees no disconnect between scientific observation and theological implications. He is convinced that study of the nature and scale of the cosmos will propel us toward a better understanding of God. God Himself invites this kind of inquiry. He told Job, "Listen to this, O Job, Stand and consider the wonders of God" (Job 37:14). God is commanding Job to do some science. Set up an observation station, run some tests, evaluate the data - and when you are done, allow your observations to propel your apprehension of who I am! God has it right (as always). And He says there is no essential conflict between robust and rigorous study of His created world and understanding Himself.

So we do not have to be afraid of the data. Let's roll up our sleeves, put on our safety goggles, and look at what the created world tells us about what God has done. But let's recognize that whatever is on the Bible bus comes direct from the source and can give us useful coordinates and road markers to guide the travels of our science bus.

Mammoths and Hippos and Crocs, Oh My!

KB writes: "I have often wondered where we got the idea of the ice age. I work at a public high school and the ice age is mentioned in science as if it is truth.  It is not called a 'theory'.  ...I would like to know if the ice age is mentioned or even slightly implied in the Bible." She also asks, "...in the Book of Job some kind of creature is mentioned as a Leviathan, and Behemoth, what do you think they are?"

Great questions! The concept of an ice age is largely based upon the study of geology, although there is some chemical and fossil evidence, too. I assume from your email address that you live in the Pacific NW. Geologists have discerned considerable evidence of activity consistent with an "ice age scenario" in numerous features surrounding Puget Sound in WA. Most geologists would discern more than one significant advance of ice into the area. I have personally done field studies of some of this evidence as a geology student, and the observable data is quit striking.

For example, a valley carved by glacial ice has a distinctive "u" shape - these features can be observed in areas that have no current glacial activity. Significant advance of ice and glacial activity is the most reasonable explanation for this data, to date. I can understand why someone would present this as "truth" because there does not seem to be any viable alternative explanation for the physical evidence. So even though it is a theory, it is the preferred theory and therefore one people choose as their front-runner for the title, "truth."

There is some evidence which doesn't seem to square with this theory. For example, the remains of  woolly mammoths have been found in a state that suggests they were "flash frozen." Would the slow advance of ice produce such evidence? If not, does the theory need some modification to better account for the evidence?

Let's assume for the moment that the geological data does support the theory that our planet has gone through some significant climatic changes that resulted in an "ice age." Your question (and mine) is, "How would such a view square with what the Bible teaches?" Here are several biblical guard rails that should enter into our answer.

1. There is no event mentioned in the Bible that is described in terms that sound like an "ice age." This does not mean there is a "contradiction" between an "ice age" theory and the Bible - only that it is not specifically mentioned.
2. However, there are some VERY intriguing statements found in Genesis. In Gen. 1:6-10, we learn that God created two major bodies of water, only one of which became oceans or the "seas." Where is the other? In Gen. 2:5-6, we learn that plant hydration was accomplished by a mist which would rise from the earth. "Rain" was not a climactic feature of the world at this time. So the "above ground" body of water produced no rain. And the "below ground" body of water produced the "mist." In Gen. 7:11, we learn that the source of water for the flood came from two sources, the fountains of the great deep and the floodgates of the sky. This much seems clear, the world before the flood had a significantly different set of climactic dynamics than the world we know.
3. If this pre-flood world was more like a giant greenhouse, and if the flood occurred as a result of the collapse of this greenhouse, then dramatic climactic change is something we would expect. It is POSSIBLE that the mechanism for the flood had the effect of (among other things) producing an ice-age type of event.
4. Modern geology and the biblical account of creation do have a fairly clear and serious disagreement about the time-table of these events. Geologists propose that there have been four major ice ages, the most RECENT of which began about 40 million years ago. There is no small debate among students of the Bible about whether the "days" of creation represent literal 24 hour periods or "epochs." The language that is used in the biblical account seems to me (if not to everyone) to clearly describe a sequence of six 24 hour days. So even if there are some gaps in the genealogies of Genesis, this understanding of the Bible suggests that the flood occurred ONLY a few thousand years ago, not 40 million years ago. Any significant advance of ice associated with the flood, by this reckoning, would be a VERY recent occurrence. So two very different views of an "ice-age" timetable are in play here.

Bottom line: The Bible doesn't say anything that denies the possibility of some sort of "ice age" type events. But I do not see how to reconcile science's proposed time-table for the history of our planet with what a "face-value" reading of the the Bible seems to say about the same topic. Some Bible students have eased this tension by interpreting Genesis 1-2 in a way that allows it to describe events that occurred over a greater span of time. I have not found their analysis of the language of Genesis 1-2 convincing.

Leviathan is the name of a creature mentioned in several OT passages. The name means "coiled" or "twisted." The longest description is found in Job 41, where most scholars think the description fits the crocodile. There are several statements - "out of his mouth go burning torches" - that sound like a dragon. But these could be metaphorical statements, something Hebrew poetry is famous for.

The Hebrew word, behema, is used nine times in the OT, usually meaning simply "beasts" or "cattle." But in Job 40:15, "behemoth" seems to be a very particular "beast" whose description matches what we would expect of a hippopotamus.

Is it fun to say "Hacha?"

"Mr. Fleming, is it fun to say 'Hacha'?" I was about seven years old and helping my Dad in the yard. The neighbor boy, Scott, (about my age) had posed this question. Dad replied, "Yea, I suppose it's a pretty fun word." At the dinner conversation that night, Mom and Dad reconstructed the back story. Scott had probably heard and used an inappropriate term and his parents had suggested "hacha" as a "fun" alternative. So that's how "hacha" got on the list with such worthies as "jalalabad."

Sometimes a single word is a good substitute for a whole passel. We can say "God is one in essential character; God is denominated as 'Father," 'Son,' and 'Spirit;' Father, Son, and Spirit are three distinct persons." Or we can just say "trinity" which is shorthand for the previous three statements. The word "perspicuity" (sounds like a combination of perspiration and ingenuity) has two things going for it - it's fun to say (I think so) and marvelously economical. So what does it mean? And how does it relate to biblical inspiration, authority, and sufficiency?  Perspicuity refers to the quality of being clear or lucid. When we talk about the perspicuity of Scripture, we are describing the capacity of the Bible to be clear in what it teaches. Because the Bible is perspicuous, what it teaches is accessible and understandable.

The Apostle John got this. In 1 John 2:27, he says, As for you, the anointing which you received from Him abides in you, and you have no need for anyone to teach you; but as His anointing teaches you about all things, and is true and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you abide in Him. John is not diminishing the value of good teachers, but establishing limits to our dependence on them. There were some who claimed, "What the Bible teaches is beyond your comprehension. You need teachers (like us!) who can unlock its secrets and mysteries, something you could never do on your own." John says this is hogwash. What the Bible teaches can be understood.

Some of what the Bible says may be hard to understand (2 Pet. 3:16), but careful consideration (2 Tim. 2:7) and accurate handling (2 Tim. 2:15) will yield results. We can understand what it says and identify God-approved living. This is possible because of the perspicuity of Scripture. So let's see how this connects to what we said yesterday.

The Bible teaches what a man with a heart for God needs to know. Think of this as a select  body of information within the broader field of "all truth." So truth which lies outside the circle of what the Bible teaches may be nice to know, valuable to know, even important to know - but it does not rise to the level of necessary to know for godly living.  Here is the really cool thing - the circle of perspicuity matches the circle of sufficiency. The Bible is CLEAR about what the man of God NEEDS to know.

Don't miss the point about targeted clarity here. 1 John 2:27 tells us that the lucidity of the Bible's teaching is only apparent to those who have received an anointing from God, i.e., genuine believers. To those who are opposing Christ or attempting to work a deal with God by buying salvation, the Bible will be singularly opaque. The Bible is clear about what the MAN OF GOD needs to know.

When we talk about the role of men (or any other class) and how God wants them to act, our first source of information ought to be the Bible. The sometimes rigorous work of discerning what it CLEARLY TEACHES will yield the fruit of understanding what a man who seeks to please God MUST KNOW. If we cannot say, "This is what the Bible teaches" then we also cannot say, "This is what you MUST KNOW."

So whenever someone says hacha or jalalabad, be sure to tell them about perspicuity. It will be fun - but is it necessary?

Are God and Satan Partners? Pt. 3 of 3

Imagine waging a war against someone whose IQ is off the charts, who has never been out-strategized, and who has enough fire-power to blow away ANY opposition.  Now, also imagine that before every attack, you must secure the  permission of the one whose defeat is sought. What EGOMANIAC would think fighting such a foe under such a restraint is a really good idea? Satan, "the adversary," is just such a one and he has enough chutzpa to abandon himself to this lost cause. How can he hope to defeat the perfect chess player, ESPECIALLY when he can only make moves that his opponent allows? 

The simple answer is that opposing God doesn't make sense. Never has. Never will. But for God's enemy, it is not about MAKING SENSE. It has everything to do with doing "WHAT I WANT." Precisely here is where the deeper magic of God's character outflanks the enemy's schemes. God gets it! And as long as Satan must get God's permission before he pulls his latest stunt, the God who loves us will see through every scheme. Perfectly!

Remember this passage from yesterday:  "Simon, Simon, behold, Satan has demanded permission to sift you like wheat" (Luke 22:31). Satan can throw a tantrum, stomp his feet, and insist on God's endorsement. But, Satan has to receive a nod from God or stay put. Perhaps he thinks himself brilliant enough to trick God into approving something that will backfire on God's good plans. Maybe, he is a tenacious gambler who thinks that sooner-or-later, he has to hit the jackpot. I cannot catalog all his delusions. I only need to know that they are just that, delusions.

We get a good "behind the scenes" look at the dynamic of this permitting process in chapters 1-2 of Job. Perhaps this passage makes us uncomfortable with its depiction of God "bragging on" Job to Satan and practically inviting him to "take your best shot." But God know his man (better than Satan does) and  God uses Satan to accomplish His purpose in Job's life. When Satan does what he wants to do, he only succeeds in getting what God wants done. Can you imagine Satan's frustration over the fact that every time he acts as God's enemy, he ends up as his "partner." Every dart Satan hurls hits God's bullseye!

Yes, we have an enemy. Yes, we ought to resist him with everything in us. Yes, he is capable of wreaking great havoc. But whatever He is up to, it has already been approved by a God whose plan is both good and better. Satan serves God and God's agenda - not because he wants to, but because God is smarter. So when you encounter a situation that looks like it has the adversary's fingerprints all over it, resist but don't despair. Resistance is NOT futile! Our resistance to Satan and responsiveness to God will turn his latest attack into one more stepping stone on the path to victory. 

Enough with the hand-wringing! Wherever you spy the enemy's handiwork, God is at work, too! Greater is He who is at work within us than he who is at work in the world. Satan is God's unwilling and unwitting "partner" and is only allowed to throw at us what God will use to fulfill His purpose for us. 

Are God and Satan Partners? Pt. 2 of 3

"This is just the work of the enemy!" So believers often say in adverse circumstances. Implied is the notion that a certain (generally undesirable) outcome represents the advance of Satan's plan and the thwarting of God's. When a marriage is in jeopardy, when a church is in crisis, or when a culture is crumbling, we greet fresh evidence with this phrase. It seems a fitting piece of punctuation for some spiritual hand-wringing!

There is no doubt that Satan is hell-bent (literally) on defying God. In the OT, the word commonly used for an adversary or opponent is adopted as a title for a supernatural being in three passages: Job 1-2; Zech. 3:1-2; and 1 Chron. 21:1. To call him "the satan" is to call him THE ADVERSARY. So I want to be plain and up-front about something (here in part two) before I say something shocking (in part three).  When you read part three, don't go all knee-jerk on me. Just remember that what you read below is an essential counterbalance to what is posted in part three. If you can hang on to both, your spiritual outlook WILL NOT BE THE SAME! 

Okay, let's get down to business. CS, here's some NT data for you. There are many verses, especially in the NT, that speak to your question. Here are a few selected passages that are quite pertinent.

1. Be of sober spirit, be on the alert. Your adversary, the devil, prowls about like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour (1 Pet. 5:8). It doesn't get any more pointed than this. We are not just imagining there are monsters under the bed. There really is someone out to GET YOU! Notice that this warning is issued to believers and the intent of our adversary is to "devour" us. We are not talking about mere heckling or harassment. We face a foe who is intent on nothing less that our demise.
2. But whom you forgive anything, I forgive also; for indeed what I have forgiven, if I have forgiven anything, I did it for your sakes in the presence of Christ, in order that no advantage be taken of us by Satan; for we are not ignorant of his schemes (2 Cor. 2:10-11). It is possible to yield the high ground to our enemy, to become his unwitting accomplice, by refusing to grant forgiveness to a repentant brother.
3. But He turned and said to Peter, “Get behind Me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to Me; for you are not setting your mind on God’s interests, but man’s” (Matt. 16:23). This verse is especially scary. If anyone was gung-ho for God, it would be Peter. And Peter had JUST SHOWN himself capable of gifted perception. But then we read this! Peter is acting (and being rebuffed by Jesus) as Satan's PR man! If a spiritual giant like Peter can become the enemy's mouthpiece, what hope is there for midgets like us? By the way, notice that Peter let the enemy in the door by having a man-centered agenda.
4. “Simon, Simon, behold, Satan has demanded permission to sift you like wheat” (Luke 22:31). While we are on the subject of Peter, here's a depressing prospect! Satan's plan for Peter on Good Friday was nothing less than running him through the ringer, putting on the pressure to squeeze from his heart every last vestige of devotion to Jesus. Ouch!
5. But I am afraid, lest as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, your minds should be led astray from the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ (2 Cor. 11:3). Paul is talking to believers. What I want you to see from this verse is that Satan can do an inside job. He is capable getting inside my head (and yours) and making devotion to Jesus something that is complicated and compromised. We will not be able to wrap our brains in tin-foil to defeat his alien mind-probe.
6. And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light (2 Cor. 11:14). Our adversary is sneaky, too. He goes to church, he hangs with the saints, and he sounds good. This guy is good! (You understand me, right? He is good at LOOKING good, even though he is BAD!)

There are plenty more verses, but these are enough. Anyone who takes walking with God seriously knows enough to take Satan seriously. At every turn, "the satan" is to be opposed, resisted, and denied even the least advantage. He is the sworn enemy of our souls. Don't forget this!

Are God and Satan Partners? Pt. 1 of 3

CS wants to know about our adversary! She has been reading through the Old Testament and has discovered "numerous places where 'an evil spirit from the Lord' was sent, ie: Judges 9:23; 1 Sam. 16:14-16 (and other references within Saul's story)." She also states, "I've also read about a 'deceiving spirit' sent by the Lord (1 Kings 22:19-22). I think I see that these are situations where these spirits are sent by God, or allowed by God, for justice purposes and with people who aren't following or obedient to the Lord." But she wonders how this relates to us. CS asks, "Does the sending of evil spirits, as in the OT histories, still take place?  If so, what does that look like and are there NT references?"

What a great question!  It's a good one because there are way too many pat answers out there.  There is also a MAJOR misunderstanding that I often hear from Christians. Answering CS's question will allow us to help her, plus blow away some of this doctrinal flotsam.

I am a member of the Evangelical Theological Society.  "ETS" publishes a journal with a very catchy and informative title, the "Journal of the Evangelical Theology Society," abbreviated JETS.  In the September, 2007, issue of JETS is an article entitled "Satan: God's Servant, written by Sydney Page.  I am still working on getting a PDF copy of the article that you can download, but I don't have anything for you yet. The article is worth reading for anyone who wants to go deeper with some of the things that we will say. If you have access to a Bible College or Seminary library, the article is found in JETS 50/3 (September, 2007) 449-65. Much of what I will say in the next two posts is drawn from this article.  More coming tomorrow...