The earth shall SOON dissolve like snow?

One of my all-time favorite songs, John Newton's 1772 "Amazing Grace", contains some of the sweetest words ever written. "I once was lost but now I'm found, was blind but now I see". God's love, grace and mercy are truly amazing! 

The healed blind man said it first, "...one thing I do know, that though I was blind, now I see." (John 9:25) A whole new world opened up to him. What a powerful metaphor for our spiritual condition prior to faith in Christ.

As you may be aware, Chris Tomlin's updated rendition of Amazing Grace (My chains fell off), eliminated the last verse and included the following.

The earth shall soon dissolve like snow

The sun forbear to shine

But God, Who called me here below,

Will be forever mine.

Will be forever mine.

You are forever mine.

What you may not know is that Chris' version, though a slight alteration of the one found in most hymnals, was in fact a revival of Newton's original (published in 1779). 

John Newton, 1779, Olney Hymns
Amazing grace! (how sweet the sound)
That sav'd a wretch like me!
I once was lost, but now am found,
Was blind, but now I see.

'Twas grace that taught my heart to fear,
And grace my fears reliev'd;
How precious did that grace appear
The hour I first believ'd!

Thro' many dangers, toils, and snares,
I have already come;
'Tis grace hath brought me safe thus far,
And grace will lead me home.

The Lord has promis'd good to me,
His word my hope secures;
He will my shield and portion be
As long as life endures.

Yes, when this flesh and heart shall fail,
And mortal life shall cease;
I shall possess, within the veil,
A life of joy and peace.

The earth shall soon dissolve like snow,
The sun forbear to shine;
But God, who call'd me here below,
Will be forever mine.

Do you notice the difference between Newton's original and the one in the hymnal below?

In the mid 1800s, the verse, "When we've been there ten thousand years..." replaced the apocalyptic predictions of Newton. 

With that revelation, two questions immediately sprang to mind.

1. Why was Newton's "the earth will soon be dissolved like snow" replaced?

2. And why did Chris Tomlin bring it back?

Clearly Newton believed like so many before him, that the current world conditions at the end of the 18th century signaled the end of the planet. And this point is critical because we continue to repeat his error. There is a doom and gloom atmosphere that pervades today's Church as it has for the many generations before ours. The church seems to believe the worst about everything. The currency, financial markets and society as a whole, are always assumed to be on a crash course. But given the sordid track record of these doomsayers, should that not at least cause us pause?

Since Newton penned this beloved song so long ago (241 years to be exact), is that perhaps the reason this verse was eventually eliminated? Did someone finally realize that an event can't be perpetually imminent?  That, since the earth did not dissolve "soon" as Newton expected, it became somewhat of an embarrassment? How long will it be before we stop to realize that something cannot be forever on the verge? 

In a sermon this Sunday morn, the pastor, in his attempt to explain the imminence of 1 Peter 4:7 ("The end of ALL THINGS is NEAR..."), fell all over himself trying to explain what Peter "really" meant by NEAR (Greek eggizo). Surely Peter didn't mean that the earth was ABOUT TO dissolve as snow, given the fact that he'd penned these words in the earthly AD 60s, almost 2,000 years ago... slightly less than a GENERATION after Jesus proclaimed, "This GENERATION will not pass away until ALL THESE THINGS take place" (Matt 24:34)? 

Even after reading two verses earlier "...to Him who is READY TO JUDGE the living and the dead" (1 Peter 4:5), the pastor immediately dispelled the notion that Peter, an inspired Apostle, meant exactly what he wrote. After all, the pastor quipped, Peter never said that the end of all things would take place in his GENERATION. 

Do you realize what this dear pastor was arguing? Even though Peter's teacher, Messiah, friend and Savior, made that exact statement some 3 decades prior, since Peter didn't use the word GENERATION, "near" basically meant nothing. I'm sorry, but this kind of logic is unacceptable. This pastor apparently doesn't understand the ground he's giving the atheists and mockers of our day. We need to be prepared to give a defense, and this is not it. 

The reason Peter made that and other bold time sensitive assertions was in direct response to the claims of Jesus Christ. Not only had Jesus said that "ALL THESE THINGS" would take place within a GENERATION of His audience, but He made it abundantly clear that He would return before His disciples finished going through the cities of Israel while a few were still alive. (Matt 10:23; 16:27-28). And, in the Revelation, Jesus at this point (approx AD 62) sitting at the right hand of the Father in full knowledge of the events about to transpire, told John "Things which are to SOON take place...for the TIME IS NEAR." (Rev 1:1,3)  

So, respectfully, we must not continue to make these kinds of excuses for the Word of God. If we will begin to interpret it in context, we will find out how amazing the Bible really is. 

So why did Tomlin remove the one verse (below) that instills the inevitable, our date with death? I can't answer that but it is, in my opinion, what our focus should be. Our lives will "soon dissolve as snow". We are here but for an instant. Our life is but a vapor in the wind. 

For centuries, the millions if not billions who have awaited the return of Jesus, have one thing in common. They have all died. So doesn't it seem that that our focus should be on our life that will eventually fade? How precious is this verse?

Yes, when this flesh and heart shall fail,
And mortal life shall cease;
I shall possess, within the veil,

A life of joy and peace.

Concerning Newton's last verse, a blogger wrote, "There will come a time when the "earth will soon dissolve like snow" -- melting snow is something that we've all seen either in person or remotely. 

This comment is a microcosm of the modern day problem and is not dissimilar to that which the pastor said this morning. The majority have become so desensitized concerning time (the misinterpretation of 2 Peter 3:8 being at the hub) that they don't recognize this kind of faulty logic. Do you see it how inane this is? They are saying that there will come a time when the earth will SOON dissolve? Really?  Is that what Newton meant by "the earth will soon dissolve like snow"? Was he ambivalent about the timing of the end? Was he truly saying that one day in the distant future, the earth would SOON dissolve? That doesn't mean anything at all. 

If I tell my wife, "I'll be there soon, honey," does that mean that at some future time when I finally decide to leave the office, that I'll be there soon? Can you imagine what she would say if that was my excuse for not coming home when she expected? When getting the evil eye upon my appearance, how do you think this would sell? "Honey, I only meant that when I left, I would be there shortly." These are the kinds of ludicrous statements that arise from a very faulty eschatological system. It has come to the point where words don't mean a thing. 

The reality is that John Newton, however well-intentioned, joined the long list of false prophets when he wrote, "The earth will soon dissolve like snow, the sun forebear to shine." 

So why then did Chris Tomlin bring that verse back? 

Perhaps he was motivated by his eschatology. In my view, Chris made the same mistake as Newton. No doubt Chris believes, that given the state of affairs today, the earth will in fact dissolve SOON. However, I want to know why, when he sings this verse, he thinks soon actually conveys something that is actually AT HAND? If the inspired NT writers weren't implying imminence when they used terms like "shortly", "soon", "at hand", "quickly" and "in a very little while", time becomes totally irrelevant and it would be impossible to hold a prophet accountable. So why would Chris use what has so often been characterized as a Biblically ambiguous term? (for a more comprehensive look at the Biblical usages of imminent language click HERE)

The kind of de-creation apocalyptic verbiage Tomlin brought back (earth dissolving like snow) is found in the Olivet discourse (Matt 24; Mark 13; Luke 21), Peter's Pentecost sermon (Acts 2) and in the Revelation as the 6th seal is opened (Rev 6). So when were all these cataclysmic events supposed to take place? Written in Approx AD 62 Jesus, through the Angel told John...

Revelation 1:1-3 (NASB) The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to His bond-servants, the things which must soon take place; and He sent and communicated it by His angel to His bond-servant John, ² who testified to the word of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, even to all that he saw. ³ Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of the prophecy, and heed the things which are written in it; for the time is near.

So, what's going on? If the calamitous events Tomlin references were imminent 2,000 years ago but never happened, what makes him think they'll happen soon? 

When the Bible refers to this kind of judgment language like the moon turning into blood, the stars falling from the sky and the sun ceasing to shine, was it EVER used in a literal fashion? Not once! (for a fuller discussion click HERE) Until we understand the context and genre of apocalyptic language, we will continue to get stuck in the eschatological quagmire. 

So what's actually going on here? What kind of expectations is Tomlin creating? If you expect the earth to dissolve in the near-term, how will that affect your perceptions about the future? Will it cause any lifestyle changes? Will you begin hording food? Will you see the degradation of our society as a sign of the end or determine that Christ wants you to reform it for His ultimate glory? 

The Apostle Paul warned the Corinthians that the "time is short...for the form of this world is passing away" (1 Cor 7:29-31). And because they were nearing the end, what was Paul's admonition? To remain as they were! "So that from now on those who have wives should be as though they had none; 30 and those who weep, as though they did not weep; and those who rejoice, as though they did not rejoice; and those who buy, as though they did not possess; 31 and those who use the world, as though they did not make full use of it..." So why aren't Christians heeding this message if they truly believe that we only have a short time left?

Chris is a gifted songwriter and he recorded a wonderfully inspiring song (our chains have fallen off and we truly have been set free!), but the problem is that he's subtly spreading an eschatological system that is not Scriptural. In my opinion, it's rather audacious to say that soon actually means soon today, but it didn't mean soon when Peter or Paul wrote it. 

The crux of the matter is that we've been led by the experts to believe that, when Peter wrote, "The end of all things is near" that he referred to the end of the planet. Neither Jesus nor Peter were referring to the physical end of the universe, but instead, the end of the Old Covenant age that was growing old and ready to disappear. (Heb 8:13) Consider the following:

Revelation 6:12-17 (NASB) I looked when He broke the sixth seal, and there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth made of hair, and the whole moon became like blood; ¹³ and the stars of the sky fell to the earth, as a fig tree casts its unripe figs when shaken by a great wind. ¹⁴ The sky was split apart like a scroll when it is rolled up, and every mountain and island were moved out of their places. ¹⁵ Then the kings of the earth and the great men and the commanders and the rich and the strong and every slave and free man hid themselves in the caves and among the rocks of the mountains; ¹⁶ and they said to the mountains and to the rocks, "Fall on us and hide us from the presence of Him who sits on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb; ¹⁷ for the great day of their wrath has come, and who is able to stand?" 

If this passage is to be interpreted literally, do you notice the glaring problem? A dark sun, a blood red moon, stars crashing onto the planet earth, the sky splitting and rolling up, and all while every mountain moves out of it's place... and yet people are hiding under rocks? Are you kidding me? What rocks? How in the world could anyone hide under a rock after the entire solar system has obliterated our planet? This de-creation language is poetic and symbolic but it was never meant to be taken literally/naturally. Yes, judgement was coming upon the generation of Christ killers and it came like clockwork just as Peter and the inspired Bible authors foretold. 

If you would like proof that these things didn't happen with the timing predicted, I highly recommend the following rather expansively titled short book, "The Destruction of Jerusalem: An Absolute and IrresistibleProof of the Divine Origin of Christianity including a narrative of thecalamities which befel the Jews, so far as they tend to verify our Lord'spredictions relative to that event. With a brief description of the city and the temple" written by George Peter Holford (Written in 1805). With titles so extensive who needs to read the book?  :)

We have unambiguous historical proof that these events did indeed take place "soon" as Jesus returned with both blessings and cursings. The holy city was destroyed along with the temple that will never be rebuilt. The sun never again shined on the Jewish nation that killed their Messiah as 1.1 million Jews died the most horrific holocaust that nation would ever see. 

So the next time you sing this song, or any song for that matter, ask yourself if each verse is Biblically supported. If truth matters, it seems that we ought to become more theologically discerning. Perhaps "the earth shall soon dissolve like snow" should in fact be permanently replaced with:

When we’ve been there ten thousand years,

Bright shining as the sun,

We’ve no less days to sing God’s praise

Than when we first begun.

"Gather around, wait for the sound, the King is coming" - Really?

Why do so many of these otherwise inspiring songs, begin or end with lyrics like, "Gather around, wait for the sound, the King is coming", or other similar, "Jesus is coming soon" type lyrics? Though these kinds of emotionally charged words of imminent anticipation are guaranteed to send crowds into a frenzy as they tug at our heart strings, the question is, how long will it be before we begin to seriously scrutinize the underlying eschatological system that constantly produces these failed expectations? Few seem to wonder why, if Jesus has been imminently coming for 2,000 years, that He still hasn't returned. Hope deferred makes the heart grow sick, and right now the sickness of failed expectations is causing Christians to question the veracity of the Bible. 

Let me be clear that I truly appreciate groups like Warr Acres and their commitment to Jesus. What frustrates me is that these uplifting songs are tainted with what I believe is poor eschatology. I've been hearing "The King is coming" since the early 70s. Matter of fact, James wrote, "The coming of the Lord is at hand...the judge is standing at the door", almost 2,000 years ago. (James 5:8-9)

Seriously, I don't mean to sound disrespectful, but what do you believe Jesus waiting for? Perhaps, according to some, the complete disintegration of our culture? The decline of the Gospel's influence? If He's supposedly waiting for a low point, why didn't He return before the 16th century reformation? Or why didn't he return before the Puritans landed at Plymouth Rock just prior to Christianity's explosion into the new world? Or why not just after the Civil War when brother killed brother to the tune of 750,000? Or after 100 million died due to WW1 and the Spanish flu pandemic?

The fact is that the world isn't getting worse in spite of the constant insistence by many Christians who have been mislead to believe that the worse things become the closer we are to the return of Christ. I'm sorry, but this is just plain bad eschatology. 

Where is the overcoming nature of the Gospel which is found in the Epistles of John? 

What's interesting is that, in the midst of our eschatological schizophrenia, we sings songs with the following overcoming type lyrics:

Our God is greater, our God is stronger
God You are higher than any other
Our God is Healer, awesome in power
Our God, Our God...

Our God is greater, our God is stronger
God You are higher than any other
Our God is Healer, awesome in power
Our God, Our God...


And if Our God is for us, then who could ever stop us
And if our God is with us, then what can stand against?
And if Our God is for us, then who could ever stop us
And if our God is with us, then what can stand against?
What can stand against?

Yes, indeed, who can stand against? The reality is that many of us don't believe a word of it because we believe that the antichrist-led one-world government is coming, natural disasters are about to increase and world chaos will soon overcome us.  

Until we undergo an severe eschatological makeover, and begin to believe that no one can ever stop the advance of the Gospel, our society will continue to decline and we will continue to blindly sing "Gather around, wait for the sound, the King is coming". The power of the Gospel is being compromised and this is having a rather chilling affect. 

Perhaps those who say they take the Bible literally will one day take the following verse literally. But how many more hundreds or even thousands of years before the Church figures out how long a generation is? 

(Matthew 24:34) Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.

The following podcasts details the events surrounding the close of the Canon near the end of the age. Historical Review (AD 64-66) 

"We are opposed by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy..." ~ JFK

​Take a few moments to listen to this famous John F. Kennedy speech. In it, President Kennedy talks about secret societies, secret oaths, secret proceedings and a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies on covert means to accomplish a grand scheme of world domination.

Questions abound. Was he speaking, as many presume, about the machinations of the infamous New World Order? Were shadow organizations like Skull and Bones, the Bilderbergers and the Illuminati, in JFK's cross-hairs? Was he assassinated because he was exposing the NWO and it's shadowy FED banking system?

Was Kennedy warning us of an impending anti-Christ led one-world government? Many believe that a cabal of rich bankers and megalomaniacs, who are secretly plotting and successfully engineering their plans of world dominion,  were directly responsible for JFK's assassination. Watch this short video and draw your own conclusions as to whether President Kennedy was warning us of this impending NWO takeover or something else more pertinent at the time. JFK has been heralded as the man who exposed these nefariously intentioned globalists. Listen and decide.

Were you aware (as is pointed out at the end of the video) that this April 21, 1961 speech was actually 2,249 words, not just the 181 words that have been carefully edited to foster the above assumptions? Most are as shocked as I was to find that this speech had nothing whatsoever to do with exposing the Rothschilds, the CFR (Council on Foreign Relations) or any of the aforementioned clandestine players. Kennedy's actual target? Sorry to disappoint you, but he was speaking of the inherent and imminent threat of Communism as the tensions were being played out in the cold war. Don't believe me? Then listen to the entire unedited speech (below) - (for the text version click HERE).  

When I first became aware of this dirty little secret propagated by conspiratorialists like Alex Jones, Edward G. Griffin and Texe Marrs, I was really miffed. How dare these agenda-driven provocateurs attempt to dupe us into subscribing blindly to their paranoia at our expense and their financial gain! They've created quite a cottage industry. And the sad reality is that truth doesn't sell nearly like sensationalism. So, since this myth fits neatly into our pre-programmed perceptions of a coming one-world government (promulgated by doom and gloom premillennial eschatology), most never bother to do any fact checking. Christians have become a rather gullible lot.

So, why is this JFK matter important? Because it is one of the NWO conspiracy theory building blocks. If John F. Kennedy gave his life for the cause which conspiratorialists insist was the case, i.e. opposing the monolithic cabal of international "banksters", then we, who love freedom, should be compelled to action in fighting this grandiose beast. However, if JFK was actually speaking of the the communist agenda, this changes the landscape a great deal. 

As with most conspiracies, certain things must be believed before other things, less demonstrable (coincidental anomalies), will become convincing. In other words, if the cornerstone of a theory is found to be riddled with major cracks, all the peripheral stones (anomalies) laid neatly atop the foundation can no longer be supported and thus the entire structure collapses. (So it is with most conspiracy theories, especially ones with a massive scope.) 

Once the structure ceases to exist, the stones which appeared to have ominous meaning and purpose as part of the overall framework, become nothing more than random, isolated rocks strewn across the ground. And therefore, the beautiful conspiratorial edifice becomes nothing more than a pile of rather meaningless rubble. Such has been the case with the misuse and abuse of the actions and speeches of JFK. 

What I have found, is that most who think that JFK was warning us of an impending world takeover by these shadowy overlords, also subscribe to a host of other conjoined false flag conspiracies like:

1. 9/11 was an inside job.
2. Sandy Hook massacre
3. Aurora movie theater rampage
4. The Boston Marathon bombing 

Each of the above events, I am constantly told, were nothing more than false flag operations with the sole intent to turn the populous against guns and ultimately gut the 2nd Amendment. And, over the past 13 years since 9/11, because the government bureaucracy has burgeoned while our freedoms have dwindled (this cannot be disputed), one need not wonder why people have become more suspicious, cynical and easily persuaded that "they" are out to get us.  

So, after coming to the realization that this particular speech, and JFK's presidency as a whole, was not centered around opposing the international bankers, the FED and all the exclusive organizations that are presumed to further their cause, have your presuppositions been compromised as mine were? I began to wonder how many other pieces of the conspiratorial puzzle may have been similarly manipulated? What other issues have been carefully crafted to cause us to buy into this kind of paranoia? 

Listen, I'm not arguing that conspiracies are always confined to active imaginations, forever ordering facts to fit one's predetermined paradigm. But what I am saying, is that I think we need to be more diligent to put, not only the establishment to the test, but also those who summarily oppose the establishment to similar rigorous tests. Neither the political far left nor far right have a monopoly on agendas.

Following is an interview that I found rather intriguing. Yes, both the interviewer and interviewee are decidedly "liberal" (to some this means among other things, untruthful - I reject this notion), but I think they expose an underlying narrative that is controlling the perceptions of many on the far right. These things meld quite nicely with the apocalyptic beliefs of many Christians and because of this, we often scrutinize the building blocks of conspiratorialism far less than we ought. In other words, just because some movement opposes the establishment does not make those who do so decidedly and singularly altruistic.

And, as a footnote, I think there ought to be a distinction between being part of the extreme right-wing and being a Libertarian. Standing for free markets and a morally-based capitalism, doesn't mean one must necessarily subscribe to the conspiratorial paranoia. Though many libertarians are deeply embroiled in conspiracism, they don't have to be. 

The "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" appears to be the script which many of the conspiratorialists like Alex Jones are reading. 



I have learned to constantly confront my worldview with competing and opposing worldviews. It's the only way to remain intellectually honest. But the tendency is to do the opposite. We want to continually reinforce our beliefs, not challenge them. This produces the potential for errors to be perpetuated. Watching the above video is an example of that process being played out. Though I don't subscribe to much of what these men believe, I have come to realize that we can learn a great deal from those with whom we disagree.  

For a fuller discussion of this entire JFK issue, click HERE and HERE. The latter of these links deals with many JFK misquotes like the one below.