Blog
Some Crucial End-Times Info
Maybe the Bible’s doctrine of the end-times (“eschatology” in theological speak) isn’t something you think about regularly… but maybe we should, more? Like we noted in the previous post, certainly Jesus and the Apostles expected us to have our thinking shaped by the good pressure of the soon coming of Jesus. And there’s a lot more surrounding His coming that the New Testament teaches. Along those lines, I stumbled on this great post from Dr. Michael Vlach the other day. Dr. Vlach takes a few minutes to describe why premillennialism (the teaching that Jesus’ return will be followed by 1000 years of his direct rule as the earth’s king)…well… has just got to be true.
If you’re familiar with these discussions, you know that some good Christians read prophecy differently. But I think a quick read of Dr. Vlach’s points shows the power and clear-headed, biblical nature of his reasoning.
His main points are these:
- Jesus, the last Adam, must successfully rule from and over the realm where the first Adam failed—earth.
- There must be a sustained visible reign of Jesus in the realm (earth) where Jesus was rejected at His first coming.
- There must be a reward and vindication of the saints in the realm where they were persecuted.
- There must be a period when all yet-to-be-fulfilled prophecies and promises will be literally fulfilled.
Why Shouldn’t We Discuss Eschatology?
As the Apostles wrote the New Testament, under the inspiration of the Spirit, they emphasized the return of Jesus–that it was a reality, that it was to be expected, and that it was to be applying a good, purifying and clarifying kind of pressure to all our thinking and living. But some times Christians feel a certain reluctance to talk about it. Why?
Craig Blaising offers some thoughts:
…in spite of the apostolic emphasis on the relevance of Old Testament prophecy, many today avoid the topic of eschatology. Many pastors do not preach on it, and many teachers do not teach it. And why is that?
Because, they say, it is controversial.
But what part of theology is not controversial?
. . . Any area of theology can become controversial. That does not excuse us from an obligation to study and understand God’s Word nor from the responsibility of declaring to the church the whole counsel of God (Acts 20:27).
Pastoral neglect of eschatology has a negative impact on sanctification because such neglect hinders the church’s maturation in hope.
Hope and holiness go together.
Should we stare at the darkness?
Here’s some encouraging thoughts from Alec Motyer, commenting on these verses:
Nevertheless the gloom will not be upon her who is distressed,
As when at first He lightly esteemed
The land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali,
And afterward more heavily oppressed her,
By the way of the sea, beyond the Jordan,
In Galilee of the Gentiles.
The people who walked in darkness Have seen a great light;
Those who dwelt in the land of the shadow of death,
Upon them a light has shined. (Isaiah 9:1-2)
Motyer writes:
As always, the people of God must decide what reading of their experiences they will live by. Are they to look at the darkness, the hopelessness, the dreams shattered and conclude that God has forgotten them? Or are they to recall his past mercies, to remember his present promises, and to make great affirmations of faith?
Isaiah insists here that hope is a present reality, part of the constitution of the “now.”
The darkness is true, but not the whole truth, and certainly not the fundamental truth.
What do we mean by “The Incarnation?”
Last night we took the evening to look at Philippians chapter 2, and try to answer this question: Based on the life and teachings of Jesus, and the witness of the New Testament, what have Christians come to believe about what it means that Jesus was both God (the Son) and Man? Included in the study were some quotes from the 2000 year history of Christians thinking about all of these things. I figured they’d be a good thing to post here. Enjoy…
Athanasius (c. 298-376): “The Savior is as simply God as if he were not man, and as plainly man as if he were not God.”
Augustine (c. 354-430) “For just as our word in some way becomes a bodily sound by assuming that in which it may be manifested to the sense of men, so the Word of God was made flesh by assuming that in which He might also be manifested to the senses of men. And just as our word becomes a sound and is not changed into a sound, so the Word of God indeed becomes flesh, but far be it from us that it should be changed into flesh. For by assuming it, not by being consumed in it, this word of ours becomes a sound, and that Word became flesh.”
Leo the Great (c. 460 AD): “What He was, He remained, and what He was not, He assumed.”
Thomas Oden quoting John of Damascus (c. 675-749): “‘The Word while being God, was made man without suffering change,’ but this does not imply that ‘the Godhead [entirely] was made man’; rather it means that ‘the godhead was united to humanity in one of Its Persons.”
Fred Sanders: When the word who was God and was with God in the beginning (John 1:1-2) took the astonishing step of becoming flesh and dwelling among us (John 1:14), what changed about him? A moment’s thought shows that his divine nature did not change, since that would mean not only that he stopped being God, which is enough of a frightful and unbiblical conclusion, but also that there stopped being a God at all, since the divine nature itself would have changed into human nature. No, God remained God, and the Word remained God, when he became flesh. [When John in his Gospel writes, “the Word became flesh”…] “Became,” in the incarnation, cannot mean “transformed into” or “underwent a change in which he stopped being one thing and turned into another thing.” When the Word became flesh he took human nature to be his own, and he added a complete, real human existence to his eternal self.
But here is the crucial thing to notice, the great, open secret at the heart of the gospel of God: when the Word became flesh, the sonship of the second person of the Trinity did not undergo any change either. It was the eternal Son, whose personal characteristic is to belong to the Father and receive his identity from the Father, who took on human nature and dwelled among us. His life as a human being was a new event in history, but he lived out in his human life the exact same sonship that makes him who he is from all eternity as the second person of the Trinity, God the Son. So when he said he was the Son of God, and when he behaved like the Son of God, he was being himself in the new situation of the human existence he had been sent into the world to take up.
Thomas Oden: The incarnation is concisely defined in the Orthodox Catechism: “The Son of God took to himself flesh without sin, and was made man, without ceasing to be God” (Russian Catechism). The incarnation occurred not by conversation of divinity into flesh but by the assumption of humanity into God. God became flesh not by changing into another reality, but by assumption of the flesh. Remaining what he was, he became what he was not. In Gregory of Nazianzus’ (c.329-390) renowned formulation: “When he was He continued to be; what He was not He took to Himself.”
God has elected to use an extraordinary from of body language to communicate to humanity. “Since human nature is essentially composite, and can neither express itself nor receive anything—cannot even think or aspire—except by use of the physical organism and of its material environment, God adapts His method to the nature which He has created, and uses what we have to use—the human body—as the instrument of His self-manifestation, of redemption, and of sanctifying grace.”
In becoming truly a man, God did not cease to be truly God. “Nor did he lose what he was, but he began to be what he was not” (Augustine, Hom. on John).
Gordon Fee: “His stepping into history is the…most profound display of Godlikeness the human race has ever encountered.”
Also, we looked at the logic of the incarnation, from a few different viewpoints. Here they are:
Described from a divine perspective, the story of the Incarnation is this:
- God is from all eternity Father, Son and Holy Spirit. (Trinity)
- God the Son became human.
- So… Jesus Christ was the Son (also called “the Word”). The son became a human and his name was Jesus. “‘God’ describes what Jesus is, but ‘Son’ describes who he is.” (Sanders)
Described from the human perspective, the story is this:
- People encountered Jesus.
- Jesus spoke about himself as the Son of God. He called God his Father.
- Jesus spoke about himself in the same way he spoke about God.
- Jesus did miracles only God could do, and then rose from the dead and allowed himself to be worshiped as God.
- When the Holy Spirit inspired the history of Jesus to be written, the authors of the accounts of his life spend most of their time saying that he is “the son” or “the son of God” – because that is how Jesus talked. They also wrote about all the things Jesus did and said that only God could do or say.
- The early Christians realized that this meant that Jesus was someone called “the Son” and that the Son needed to be included in their idea of the One God, as the one who was related to the Father and Holy Spirit in a special way.
Thomas Oden, in Classic Christianity, gives this helpful breakdown:
Five key arguments flow together in classic Christian teaching to achieve this trust that Christ must truly be God…
- IF the Son is addressed in scripture by ascriptions that could only be appropriate for God;
- if the Son possesses attributes that only God could possess;
- if the Son does the works that only God could have done;
- if the Son worshiped as God without disclaiming it, and,
- if the Son is viewed by the apostles as equal to God…
THEN – Question: where these five streams flow together, do they mutually compel faith to confirm that the Son indeed must be confessed as truly God?
Finally, Gordon Fee adds this insight in Pauline Christology: “What the earliest followers of Christ had come to believe…on the basis of his resurrection and ascension, was that the one whom they had known as truly human had himself known prior existence in the “form” of God—not meaning that he was “like God but really not” but that he was characterized by what was essential to God.”
Hope you find this all helpful!
“He dies, but he makes alive.”
Tonight we’ll begin a new teaching series, looking at what it means that God became a man. We’ll kick it all off by looking at what the Bible says and what Christians mean when they talk about this “incarnation.” As part of the study, we’ll look at what some ancient Christians wrote about this most important of events–there’s so many awesome quotes from the 2000-year history of the church. To whet your appetite, here’s a long one from our old friend Gregory Nazianzus. If you’d like to see a bible verse for every quote, and do this study on your own, click here. Otherwise, enjoy:
He was baptized as man, but he destroyed sins as God.
He himself was not in need of purifying rites, but he was baptized that he might sanctify the waters.
He was tempted as man, but he conquered as God; not only this but he even encouraged us to be courageous, since he had conquered the world.
He was hungry, but he fed thousands; not only this but he is indeed life-giving and heavenly bread.
He was thirsty, but he shouted, “If anyone thirst, let him come to me and drink;” not only this but he also promised that those who believe would gush forth with water.
He was tired, but for those who are tired and heavy laden he is rest.
He was heavy with sleep, but he is light upon the sea; not only this but he even rebukes winds; not only this but he even makes Peter light when he is sinking.
He pays tax, but he does so from a fish; not only this but he is even king of those demanding the tax.
He hears himself called a Samaritan and demon-possessed, but he saves the one who went down from Jerusalem and fell among robbers; not only this but he is even recognized by demons and drives out demons , and he sinks a legion of spirits and sees the ruler of demons falling like lightning.
He is stoned, but he is not caught.
He prays, but he hears prayers.
He weeps, but he causes tears to cease.
He asks where Lazarus is laid, for he was man, but he raises Lazarus, for he was God.
He is sold, and very cheaply, for it was for thirty silver coins, but he buys back the world, and it was for a great price, for it was for his own blood.
He was led as a sheep to slaughter, but he shepherds Israel, and now, indeed, the whole inhabited world.
He is silent like a lamb, but he is the Word, being proclaimed by a voice of one shouting in the desert.
He has been weakened, wounded, but he heals every disease and every infirmity.
He is lifted up upon the tree, he is nailed to it, but he restores by the tree of life; not only this but he saves even a robber crucified with him; not only this but he darkens everything that is seen.
He is given cheap wine to drink, he is fed bile. Who? The one who changed the water into wine, the destroyer of the bitter taste, the one who is sweetness and all desire.
He hands over his life, but he has authority to take it again; not only this but the curtain is torn apart; for the things above are exhibited; not only this but rocks are split; not only this but dead are raised beforehand.
He dies, but he makes alive, and by death he destroys death.
He is buried, but he rises.
He goes down into Hades, but he brings up souls; not only this but he goes up into heaven…
Not only this, but he will come to judge the living and the dead.
(Gregory of Nazianzus Oration 29.20, translation by Rodney A. Whitacre)
A New Attraction in Our City
Check out this pretty compelling video about something happening right in our own city:
[tvideo type=”vimeo” clip_id=”228891544″]
“It’s the future: people of good will, engaged with the Bible, they change the world. And rather than a divided and polarized America, we envision a transformed America–a renewal of civility and generosity for the common good.”
Evidence that Jesus Rose from the Dead
Tonight we’re going to be studying (at least a portion of) 1 Corinthians 15. I am working with the running title of “How Can we Be Sure Believers will be Resurrected?” for one of the sections. One of the proofs Paul produces is that Jesus himself was raised from the dead. Paul notes the fact that, at the time of his writing, many (of the many) people who saw Jesus alive after he had been dead and buried were still around and available to speak with. Pretty amazing.
In that vein, I wanted to share these two videos (one short and one long) of William Lane Craig detailing all the other evidences for the resurrection of Jesus. Dr. Craig helpfully proceeds directly along the lines of what the average person would call “evidence” today. If you haven’t ever heard these, I suggest you pick one and give it a watch or listen.
Should you talk about marriage before you’re engaged?
If you’re currently dating someone, what kind of boundaries have you set? Most people immediately think about physical boundaries when this topic comes up, but what about conversational boundaries? For instance, here’s a clip from a a helpful article by Marshall Segal:
Most of us have never thought of setting conversational boundaries. I wasn’t ready when one girlfriend’s dad asked in the first couple months of our relationship, “Have you mentioned marriage yet?”
[Long, awkward pause.]
“Um, yeah . . . I think we did talk about it once. . . . ”
“I don’t think that was appropriate for you to talk about, and I expect you to care for her better than that.”
I was totally caught off guard. I had never even thought of certain topics of conversation as inappropriate or dangerous.
Many of you in the young adults group know that my wife and I did not discuss marriage before we were engaged. Now, times were different then…it was way back…in 2002. No, really…it wasn’t that long ago. And even then I knew of no other couple that did it that way. We were weird. As far as I can remember, marriage discussions, life-planning, and even tandem ring shopping were common occurrences among all the couples our age. Sometimes it worked out, of course. They talked up marriage, shopped for rings, and got married. And sometimes it didn’t. They talked up marriage, shopped for rings, and then I’d be sitting with a shocked friend in a diner trying to help them hash out where things went wrong. And nothing’s changed, really. I know it’s basically the only way people in the young adults group do things, still. When you like each other, it’s just so hard not to talk about getting married, like, right away.
And of course, this isn’t necessarily sin. But I agree with Segal’s points here, too:
You don’t have to figure out your whole future together by the third date. You don’t have to talk about your relationship every time you talk, or even half of the time. You don’t need to remind each other why you like each other every fifteen minutes. You really don’t need to talk much about marriage until it’s reasonable that you might actually get engaged and married relatively soon. Conversations like these easily become places we compromise without realizing it in the moment. We indulge desires for intimacy without touching. If you don’t have anything to talk about now except your relationship and your future, you probably won’t have much to talk about if you do get married.
This isn’t bible. But to me, it has the ring of wisdom. And I found it to be true, and a source of strength, in my own life. I knew that my future wife’s heart would be “engaged” in a different way if I began to talk about marrying her than it would be if I was simply dating her. I knew pretty early on I wanted to marry her, but you know, I didn’t have a ring. I hadn’t prayed too much about it. There were a hundred details I hadn’t thought out. And I wasn’t sure exactly how she felt. I knew I could have forced the issue–I could have brought it up and made her think about it. In effect, I could have forced her to say “yes” to an offer I wasn’t really making–to make a commitment to me before I had actually made a commitment to her (including the very real financial commitment of buying a ring). And that just never seemed right to me. I mean, I waited to buy the ring til I was pretty sure I wouldn’t be rejected down there on one knee–there are ways to kind of know things without directly discussing them. But I’ve always been glad that I waited to ask her til I was all in. The first time it came up, it was kind of a surprise for her. There I was, kneeling down. It was real. If she said yes, we were getting married. That was it. You just don’t get many moments like that in life.
So of course, no one can say that this is the only way to do things. But I’d like to suggest, especially to you young men, that it is a sure-fire way to honor and protect a sister’s heart, and keep yourself honest before the Lord about how you’re conducting the relationship.
Something to think about…
Love and Technology and Immigration
Check out this paragraph from a comment posted to a popular blog, on the issue of immigration and Americans who fear for their communities:
We (as in, human beings in the 21st century) are probably having a tougher time assimilating people into our communities than we have in the past because of our epidemic of loneliness and isolation. If we never physically walk over to speak with our neighbors or spend time with them in person, we can’t begin to understand them, or their cultural symbols, or even begin to assess their moral character or hope to influence it for the better. And we all know at least one big reason why: we spend WAY too much time behind our TV’s, computers, and smartphones.
This is interesting on two levels.
First, it connects two things that most people probably don’t connect in all these heated discussions everyone’s having:
- Personal technology use habits, and
- Ability to deal with the changing nature of the country and many neighborhoods.
I mean, imagine if someone was complaining about a new family that moved into their neighborhood, and you asked them, “How much time do you spend watching TV, gaming, or looking at your phone?” I think most people would assume that you had just changed the subject. But no, the writer of that paragraph has pointed out a very real connection, and pointed indirectly at another one. Technology use is most definitely driving this “epidemic of loneliness and isolation,” and in turn, as more and more of us simply get home from work or school and turn to a screen for the rest of our waking hours, that creates a dynamic in which people stay indoors and never meet their (physical) neighbors, and therefore come to see the people they live near as strangers and potential threats. All of this is (to quote one former Facebook exec) “ripping apart the social fabric of how society works.”
What if all the fear and anxiety (on display in many of these discussions about immigration) is made exponentially worse by Americans‘ own bad habits–our absolute addiction to entertainment and mindless time-wasting whenever we’re not on some clock? What if the problem has as much to do with people who’ve been living in America for years or generations as it does with anyone trying to get here for the first time?
More importantly, for Christians, is the need to remember that neighbor-love is a core teaching of Jesus. And, when he was asked to explain who counted as a neighbor, he told a story involving a people from groups who feared, loathed, and mistrusted each other (Jews and Samaritans). So as followers of Jesus, we know that we do not have the option to simply fear and wall out people who are unfamiliar to us. Especially people in need.
…Which brings us to all the way around to the connection made in the comment above. What if this is just one more reason we need to examine our personal use of entertainment and technology?
If we take it to the Lord in prayer, would he tell us that the way we use screens is directly affecting our ability to love our neighbor?
Would he tell us that technology is standing in the way of keeping his commands?
“If I speak now…”
A friend just passed along the website for this movie. I’ve never read the book it’s based on, but I have read Richard Wurmbrand’s other account of his life, In God’s Underground. It is one of the most moving and profound books I’ve ever read. The movie looks to be just as powerful, but of course, read a book about if you need to choose one or the other. Nevertheless, check out these trailers. The second ends with one of the most courageous and powerful lines I’ve ever read (maybe, that was ever spoken…?).
From the book:
In 1945 a ‘Congress of Cults’ was called in the Rumanian Parliament building, with 4,000 representatives of the clergy filling the seats. Bishops, priests, pastors, rabbis, mullahs applauded as it was announced that Comrade Stalin (whose vast picture hung on the wall) was patron of the congress–they preferred not to remember that he was at the same time president of the World Atheists’ Organization. The trembling old Patriarch Nicodim blessed the assembly and the Prime Minister, Groza, opened it. He told us that he was a priest’s son himself, and his lavish promises of support, echoed by other personages who followed him, were appreciatively cheered.
One of the chief Orthodox bishops said in reply that in the past many political rivulets had entered the great river of his church–green, blue, tri-coloured–and he welcomed the prospect that a red one should join it, too. One leader after another, Calvinist, Lutheran, the Chief Rabbi, rose in turn to speak. All expressed willingness to co-operate with the Communists. My wife, beside me, could bear no more. She said, ‘Go and wash this shame from the face of Christ!’
‘If I do, you’ll lose your husband,’ I replied.
‘I don’t need a coward. Go and do it!’ Sabina said.
Get In Touch
Got Questions or anything else? It’d be great to hear from you!
Feel free to contact us and get in touch.
Hope to hear from you soon!