Signs and Wonders! Normative for Today?

In a former blog post, “Has the Gospel Been Preached to All the World?”, a dear brother in Christ sent me the following comment/rebuke. Although I haven’t had enough time to fully develop my thoughts in a way I’m totally comfortable with, I thought his comments were worth a more timely response. This is what he wrote:

Wow, I have been having so much fun studying this material! I have believed much this way for a long time. But I have to tell you I am now very concerned because of your statements about healing. How can someone understand the Word so much and yet miss this? I get infuriated when I have leaders make statements about no healings, limbs growing out, blind eyes open, deaf ears healed.

Have you been to one of the trips I have been on to Guatemala in the last 3 years where I have seen many blind eyes opened, deaf hear, bones set that were broken, kids speak that have never spoken and on and on. Above that, we have a stream of people who are healed on a regular basis just in our church.

Just because you have seen nothing in the area of healings, doesn't mean that they aren't happening all over the world today. By the way, I know of several people in Mexico that a friend has seen raised from the dead. You also don't believe in prophetic ministry etc. That list makes me feel less confident in everything else you teach.

Sorry, but I have videos of my trips I have been on where people are being healed by the Lord on the video. Our last trip to Guatemala in November of 2013 there were 100's of healings that we witnessed. We also have seen God heal (many times after family has been called in or given a heads up that their love one has days to live) cancers of all types. We have doctors say more times than we can remember, it's a miracle, we don't understand this etc.

Though I appreciated his comments, from my perspective, they turned a bit harsh. I think his statement, “That list makes me feel less confident in everything else you teach” lacks both balance and perspective. I’ve learned to NEVER throw the proverbial baby out with the bathwater. Even in disagreement, we press on toward the upward call, constantly attempting to renew our minds through the Word.  And although I admittedly have plenty of blind spots, am I alone? Obtuse though I may occasionally be, I am constantly attempting to do my very best to be objective, not allowing personal experience to unduly override Biblical exegesis. In our fervor to “believe all things”, is it possible to be lead astray into the weeds of the subjective?    

Let me say at the outset that I think this kind gentleman has made some invalid assumptions i.e. that I believe God CANNOT heal.  Any correction with chapter and verse is welcome, but I do not believe I’ve ever written, said or even implied, that God was/is unable to do anything. If someone is healed, to ascribe that wonderful gift of God’s grace to anyone or anything other than God, would be an utter travesty.  And the Bible specifically warns against such an attempt. 

My position at this moment regarding the sign gifts of the Spirit (and my views are always subject to change due to the Holy Spirit’s enlightenment), is that I do not believe these gifts as manifested in the first century, are of the same nature today. When's the last time someone was healed by a garment's shadow? When have you seen a 4 day old dead man walk out of his tomb?  To argue that today's recipients of God’s healing mercy, prove that the charismata as manifested throughout the transition period (AD 30-70), is normative for today, is problematic at best.

We live in a nation of 350,000,000. There are Christian churches on every corner, many of which would characterize themselves as "charismatic". Does anyone find as I do, it at least a little bit curious that almost all of the miraculous signs and wonders occur abroad? We have literally thousands of weekly healing services throughout this fruited plain, and yet we are hard-pressed to document a single limb grown out, a blind man receiving sight or a deaf person hearing. Why?  Why, if this ministry of the Holy Spirit is still in operation today as it was in Jesus’ day, do we not have thousands if not millions of clearly documented cases of miraculous healing? 

If the “sign gifts” manifested today are of the same magnitude, scope and intensity as those regularly manifested by Peter or Paul, there would be no room for debate. The mere fact that we have disagreements regarding all things miraculous, proves something is amiss. If it was indeed so obvious that “many blind eyes opened, deaf hear, bones set that were broken, kids speak that have never spoken,” then there would be no question. So why are there so many skeptics?  Are all the doubters simply faith-challenged?  Are those who don’t believe the gifts are normative for today, as blind as this brother thinks we are? 

At this juncture, let me share some personal insights, lest anyone think I am completely ignorant of that which has been spoken of by this brother. I may not have been to Guatemala but I have been in and around the world of the charismata for quite a few years. Many years ago in our small Presbyterian church, within the blink of an eye we went from “frozen chosen” Calvinists to card carrying ambassadors of the Holy Spirit’s new wave of power. After being convinced by Terry Fullum, an Episcopal rector from Connecticut who wrote “Miracle at Darien”, of the Holy’s Spirit’s readiness to heal and prophesy through us on command, I began to eat and drink all things charismatic.

Multiple times I read John Wimber’s books, “Power Healing” and “Power Evangelism”. After scouring the pages, I regularly attempted to “do the stuff”, which was John’s endearing term for blessing others with the sign gifts. The word of wisdom, word of knowledge, prophecy, tongues and healing, were all in razor focus. We (the pastor and a fellow elder) attended and participated in Vineyards “Signs and Wonders Seminars”, after which we became integrally involved in Wimber’s ministry.  In the midst of our fervor I was taken aback when John died of a massive heart attack. Seemed like the irony of all ironies. 

We were empowered, or so we fully believed, to do even greater works than the Apostles. Nothing would stop this new unction of the Holy Spirit as we could now do all things through Christ! Millions if not more, were going to be healed and converted as this “Last days” movement swept across the globe.

We began regular healing services modeled after Fullam and Wimber. At a Presbyterian church, no less! Talk about making us black sheep among our cessationist friends within the PCA.  And during our regular Bible studies, in addition to the constant laying on of hands for physical healing, we added the component of “inner healing”, which was a concept first brought to our attention by Francis and Judith McNutt. Healing of the memories, as they called it, was a supernatural counseling process facilitated by the pray-er but accomplished by the Holy Spirit, where God would reach back into the most painful memories, even ones only embedded in the subconscious, and remove the crippling emotions associated with those memories. 

I remember quite vividly attending a C. Peter Wagner healing conference in Orlando, for the express purpose of learning more effectively how to channel this new wave of the Holy Spirit’s power. It was quite an interesting experience.

If we prayed for 1 we prayed for 1,000s with the full faith that God was going to do miraculous works through our obedience. I had no doubt that we would eventually make our way to the local hospitals and clean them out!  Just as in Jesus’ day, the infirmed would be healed by the throngs. Man, this new chapter in my life was going to be nothing short of amazing! I had been blind to the Holy Spirit's potential for far too many years.

But something happened on my way to the revival. Not only did a paltry few prayed-for souls show any signs of improvement, none with serious, obvious ailments (as were mentioned by the responder above) ever became well. Sure, occasionally people with sinus headaches and lower back pain said they got relief, but nothing like the limbless growing new limbs, paraplegics discarding their wheelchairs, or stage 4 cancer victims immediately and permanently being made well. Sure, there were times when people thought they were healed, but invariably the symptoms would reappear...hopes dashed and faith challenged.  

And I am sad to report that this “movement” (for lack of a better term) had a seriously deleterious effect on my spiritual life. Something had to be wrong with me and/or my connection to God. Why wasn't God moving as we had been told? Did God not love me or us?  Was He really there?  My expectations that had been at a fever pitch, were summarily throttled.  Perhaps God was distant and not nearly as involved in the affairs of His followers as I'd presumed. Doubts abounded. 

These mountains of frustrations, coupled with the underpinnings of leftbehindology (which teaches basically that God wasn’t faithful to His first century followers) and some very unfortunate personal events (my wife’s 6 miscarriages for starters), sent me to the front of the agnostic line. I went from elder/teacher, fervent Christian (prior to engaging in this “move of the Spirit”) to a pathetic excuse of a skeptic. So deep and so long did I plunge spiritually, that I cringe at the mere contemplation. My relationship with Jesus went from vibrant and vital to pitiful and pathetic. 

And like I said, though I don’t attribute my spiritual decline to any one issue (things are always more complicated than that), I can unequivocally report that failed expectations of the charismata played a significant part in my plunge into skepticism.

As my heart grew dimmer and dimmer, I remember attending Bible studies where for years I didn't contribute a word, much lest pray. But because I didn’t want my spiritual struggles to weigh too heavily upon my impressionable teen children, I went through the motions of my regular church activities. So, although my faith had grown weak, by outward appearance other's perceptions of my decrepit estate, were not as bad as they actually were deep within my soul. My silence was perhaps unnerving to my friends, but they really didn't know the extent of my skepticism. Back in '03, a few months after burying my father, I wrote a paper, "Through the Eyes of a Skeptic" and had anyone read it, may have been convinced of my departure from the faith. 

Bringing things forward slightly, less than a decade ago, my life took a 180. Far from being where I wanted to be (my walk with the Lord), I finally began trusting God in a way that I hadn’t previously, even before my time attempting to “do the stuff”.  It took one colossal eschatological paradigm shift to pluck me from the abyss of spiritual ambivalence into a life of faith. Once I realized that God was indeed faithful to His first century followers, I knew that there was hope for me. And as my heart softened, I spent exponentially more time in the Word...which of course had a very positive rippling affect. 

Some use eschatological debate like a political football. I, however, view eschatology pragmatically. To me, fulfilled eschatology represented God’s undying faithfulness as He vindicated the souls under the altar who were constantly asking, “How long, Oh Lord?” Most today still believe those crying dead believers in Revelation 6 are still waiting. And that grieves me no end. 

In fulfillment, I finally had the Biblical certainly to know why we were not able to perform the same kinds of signs and wonders as Peter, Paul and Jesus.  Just as there were amazingly miraculous events that took place during the Exodus, there were similar kinds of manifestations during the Exodus between the cross and the parousia.

1 Corinthians 13:8-13 (NASB) Love never fails; but if there are gifts of prophecy, they will be done away; if there are tongues, they will cease; if there is knowledge, it will be done away. ⁹ For we know in part and we prophesy in part; ¹⁰ but when the perfect comes, the partial will be done away. ¹¹ When I was a child, I used to speak like a child, think like a child, reason like a child; when I became a man, I did away with childish things. ¹² For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I will know fully just as I also have been fully known. ¹³ But now faith, hope, love, abide these three; but the greatest of these is love.

I believe the perfect came in the form of the parousia of Christ, which lasted from 66-70 AD. Most see the parousia as a one-time moment in history. I see it as a prolonged presence or visitation. In an Ed Steven’s podcast, he excerpted an Arthur Melanson radio program where he shared his understanding of Hebrews 11:30-40. (well worth the listen)  As Ed rounded out the Melanson clip, he gave great Biblical support for the ceasing of prophecy, tongues and knowledge after the perfect came. The Canon was completed before the fall of the temple in AD 70, and I do not believe in continuing revelation, characterized as an ongoing gift of prophecy. 

I do, however, believe that God still speaks to His children.  And I further believe that there are special times when He may reveal certain future events that will help us with our daily walk. Does God still work through dreams?  I have no doubt. But to expect this to be the ordinary course, seems less than prudent. 

Quite a number of years ago, my wife received a warning from woman of stature, that there would soon (within the next year) be a great famine in our land. So certain was she of her dream, that her email was almost apoplecticly startling. That food shortage never came. Could it still come?  Perhaps. Anything is possible. When people are steeped in the apocalyptic expectations of our day, no wonder they dream such things! I'm simply making the point that these kinds of supernatural expressions need to be metered by Scripture. 

That said, I highly I recommend the following lectures from R.C. Sproul, “Are Miracles for Today?” and “The Gifts of the Spirit”.  Whatever we experience needs to be put in a Biblical context. If we neglect to do that, I think we open ourselves up to serious error. 

I’ve run out of time to do all that I intended, but suffice it to say, if a healing is documented and proved authentic, it must be attributed to God’s grace. God can obviously use any means possible to bring about His will and as long as all power and glory are attributed to God, and those praying believers aren't exalted in any manner, I'll always give God the credit.  

We agree that God CAN do anything at any time. So perhaps both the cessationists and the charismatics should be diligent to avoid putting God in their own box. Those who insist that God is moving today as He was in the first century, may be in danger of doing the very thing I have been accused of. Just because we witness or hear about something attributed as miraculous, does not mean that these things are normative for today. 

It puzzles me that it apparently doesn’t bother the sign gift proponents even a little bit that the most amazing testimonies of the miraculous i.e. raising the dead, are predominantly witnessed in foreign countries e.g. Guatemala and Mexico. I have heard these kinds of claims for years. I remember hearing Benny Hinn tell of a dead man being raised to life right on the speaking platform. But, I've neither the time nor the inclination to deal with brother Hinn's issues. 

Is there an anti-spiritual force field over the U.S.? Christian illusionist Andre Kole presents some serious challenges to the authenticity of the charismatic movement. For the serious Bible student, I would consider the following DVD: The Signs And Wonders Movement: Exposed

I am not skeptical that God CAN do the miraculous, the question is, is He working in the same manner as He did through the Apostles? Is the move of the Holy Spirit as manifested through tongues, prophecy and healing, normative for today?  

The End of the Beginning!

In a recent church newsletter, the congregants were informed of a new series entitled, "The end: Understanding the Book of Revelation".  In this upcoming set of sermons, the is "going to help make sense of this often confusing book of the Bible." As one considers the first installment, "​The beginning of the end", a few questions immediately flooded my slightly warped (some say very warped :) gray matter. 

To what end is the pastor referring? The beginning of what end?  Though many would automatically presume it to be about the last days of planet earth and the end of human history, did you know that nowhere in John's vision is such an end stipulated. 

Matter of fact, since most presume the book of Revelation to be a more comprehensive treatment of Olivet Discourse found in the synotpics (Matthew 24; Luke 21; Mark 13), it may come as a surprise to some (it shocked the heck out of me!) that the end of the world (kosmos) is not only never mentioned in the Gospels, but is not found in the entire Bible. Jesus frequently referred to the "end of the age" (Matt 13:49; Matt 24:3; Matt 28:20) but never the end of the world. And though that may seem like hairsplitting, it is anything but. Since the KJV (King James Version) wrongly translated "aion" as world, most Christians throughout the past hundreds of years, have mistakenly thought that the end of the kosmos was plainly in Jesus' cross-hairs.  So, though the Revelation may in fact be about the "beginning of the end", it's extremely important to determine what end is actually in view. 

Based merely upon the sermon title, "The beginning of the end", quite a few additional questions immediately spring to mind:

• Isn't this an awfully long ending if ​"The beginning of the end​" began in the first century? (Acts 2:16-17; Heb 1:1-2) Both Peter and the author of Hebrews (I believe to be Paul) made it clear that the "Last Days" began in the 1st century. 
• Doesn't 2,000 years seem like an ​very long "last days"? 
• Weren't the last days, which were 
  first spoken of in Genesis 49, ​supposed to be ​
  at the ​tail end of the Old Covenant age which began at Sinai​,​ 1,600 years before the last days began? If you're like me, you might have to read that again to get the full impact.​
• If the first verse of John's Revelation speaks of "things which MUST take place SHORTLY", what in the world does "shortly" really mean if we're still looking for these events to take place?  ​ ​

Confused?  You should be. :)  And that's probably why most people stay clear of this highly sign-ified book. 

​

So let's get this straight. The ​Mosaic age ​in which ​the last days were supposed to modify, ​were​ to last longer (2,000 years) than the entire Mosaic period (1,600​ years)? Does that make any sense? That'd be like Babies R Us (which is selling off it's inventory as we speak) having a "last days" liquidation sale,​last longer than the entire time the store had existed. LoL

​  ​

Since the apple rarely falls far from the tree, it's my educated guess that this pastor will present a somewhat typical version of premillennialism. Dallas Theological Seminary, the place where he received his degree, has been the hotbed for premillennial dispensational eschatology, which​  was founded at approx the same time ​(1830s) as ​were ​the Mormon​s​, Jehovah's Witness​es​ and the Millerite​s ... all of which share a ​common eschatological framework. ​Not the best of bedfellows. That alone should make one a bit nervous.

​In this week's sermon notes the first verse quoted, "...things which must take place shortly", is listed under the subtitle: "The Revelation is an autobiography." Though this verse and the other two verses quoted on page 1 (of the sermon notes) all contain imminent time references (Rev 1:3 "for the time is near"; Rev 22:7 "And behold, I am coming soon​...​"), I find it curiously telling that the pastor followed with the main bullet point exhortation, "Why is a predictive approach to Revelation not the best? • The Bible warns against it"... while quoting "but concerning the day and hour no one knows". 

Yes, the Bible clearly warns against "private interpretations", but since John is told repeatedly in the first and last chapters in the Revelation of the "things that MUST take place shortly", I'm not certain why it would be wrong to determine if these things did in fact take place shortly. Matter of fact, I think it's imperative that we do that. 

When pastor warns against a predictive approach, is this not an indictment against the entire premillennial schema that he subscribes to? Just wander through your local Christian bookstore (after purchasing one of my wife's wonderful books! :) and notice how the plethora of apocalyptically-based novels and commentaries are warning us of our impending end. This is the drumbeat of this entire eschatological system that has dominated the evangelical community since the 60s.  

So when one references tsunami's, earthquakes (one yesterday in Cuba), Middle East strife, school shootings and moral disintegration, as proof that we are nearing the end, aren't we in a sense violating this edict against this predictive approach?  Though few go so far as the date setting of Harold Camping or Edgar Whisenant (88 Reasons Why the Rapture Will be in 1988), the winds of impending doom are constantly swirling throughout the church. I sat in a north Florida Sunday School some time ago and as the class neared its end, the leader said something like, "Men, things may be bad now, but they will only get worse. Get ready!"  

As I have heard pastors and others allude to the fact that things are only going to get worse, I have to wonder what impact this is having on our resolve to win the world for Christ? Matter of fact, in a rather sordid sort of way, some go so far to revel in the disintegration of our culture as proof that Jesus is closer to returning. (Kirk Cameron addressed that very issue in Monumental - short clip below.) 

Although I would wholeheartedly concur that today's prophetic speculators have brought undue scorn upon the Bible's credibility, I don't think this is what Jesus was warning His disciples about. Jesus had just spent His entire Olivet monologue with the express purpose of telling them what was about to take place and when it would happen. Was Jesus truly dodging the disciple's question, "...when will these things happen, and what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?" Not at all. Jesus answered that question with great certainty in verse 34 "This generation will not pass away until ALL THESE THINGS be fulfilled". So why when we read verse 36, do we assume that Jesus had no clue when He would return? Not knowing the day and the hour is one thing. Not knowing the millennia is quite another!

Matthew 24:36 (ESV) “But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only. 

Was Jesus really telling his disciples that neither He nor anyone would ever have a remote clue when He was going to return? Is that really what this verse was supposed to convey? Jesus said He didn't know the specific day or the specific hour, but He also emphatically stated that "all these things would come upon this generation" (Matt 23:36) and "This generation will not pass away until all these things take place" (Matt 24:34)​​. 

C.S. Lewis thought verse 34 was so misleading that it was really embarrassing (World's Last Night). So much so that it called it the most embarrassing verse in the Bible. Most, instead of being embarrassed by it, do everything in their power to ignore it or alter it's plain meaning. C.I. Scofield tried to do a little slight of hand, writing that "generation" (genea) actually meant "race" (genos). However, since that effort has been so summarily discredited, people choose other avenues like, "It's the generation that sees the signs".  It never ceases to amaze me, the excuses people try to come up with to make the Bible fit into their little box. The disciples asked one question, not three, and Jesus gave one definitive answer. At that point we have a choice. We can either attempt to change what Jesus actually said, or we can believe Him. 

So would you characterize Jesus' statement "Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things have come to pass", as having no idea? Sure, 40 years (a Biblical generation) is a heck of a long time, but it is still a clearly delineated time frame (from the cross in AD 30 to the destruction of the Temple in AD 70).  Jesus had already stated that He would return before his disciples finished going through the cities of Israel (Matt 10:23), while some in his larger flock were still alive (Matt 16:27-28), so adding "this generation" to the mix was really just a reaffirmation of what He had already told them.  

By the time we arrive at Matthew 24:34, ​Jesus had finished a rather lengthy explanation, detailing the events that would precede His return (at the end of the age) culminating in the temple's utter obliteration (Matt 24:2-3).  

So to say that Jesus had no clue when He would return is, well, ludicrous. That may sound harsh, but Jesus made it abundantly clear that His disciples were to stay vigilant and should prepare for His return. That was the intent of the parables that followed Matthew 24. In the Olivet Discourse, Jesus even gave the birth pains analogy, which made evident that although a mother wouldn't know the exact day or the hour of her child's birth, she would know that in approx 9 months she's have a baby... so, once the birth pains arrive, she'd know that her baby's birth was imminent. The point is that in both instances (Jesus' coming and childbirth) there is a fixed, known time period, which was to end shortly after the birth pains began. 

That's why Jesus prefaced His emphatic statement concerning "this generation" with the following:

Matthew 24:32-33 (NASB) "Now learn the parable from the fig tree: when its branch has already become tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near; ³³ so, you too, when you see all these things, recognize that He is near, right at the door. 

​Does this sound as if the disciples were not to know the season of His return? 22 times in the first 44 verses in this Matthew's 24th chapter, Jesus referred to "you" as He warned them (His beloved disciples) of the impending events that would lead to the end of the age and the razing of the temple. So what hermeneutical (science of interpretation) principle would license us to assume that the "you" in "when you see these things" is not specifically referencing the disciples, but instead is some sort of generic "you" representing those of us living in the 21st century? 

When I was first confronted with the interpretive principle, "reader relevance", I was shocked to notice the number of times Jesus referred specifically to His disciples. From start to finish there is a contiguous reference to Jesus' disciples. So to make this passage about us seems arrogant and myopic. 

• Do YOU see all these things? (verse 2)
• Truly I tell YOU (verse 2)
• Watch out that no one deceives YOU (4)
• ​YOU will hear of wars and rumors of wars (6)
• but see to it that YOU are not alarmed (6)​
• ​Then YOU will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death (9)
• YOU will be hated by all nations because of me (9)
• “So when YOU see standing in the holy place ‘the abomination that causes desolation (15)
• Pray that YOUR flight will not take place in winter or on the Sabbath (20)
•  At that time if anyone says to YOU, ‘Look, here is the Messiah!’ or, ‘There he is!’ do not believe it. (23)
• See, I have told YOU ahead of time. (25​)
• So if anyone tells YOU, ‘There he is, out in the wilderness,’ do not go out; or, ‘Here he is, in the inner rooms,’ do not believe it. (26)
• As soon as its twigs get tender and its leaves come out, YOU know that summer is near. (32)
• Even so, when YOU see all these things (33)
• YOU know that it is near, right at the door (33)
• Truly I tell YOU, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened (34)
• Therefore keep watch, because YOU do not know on what day your Lord will come (42)
• So YOU also must be ready (44)
• because the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect him. (44)

Watch Matthew 23-24 (below) to get the full impact of "audience relevance". Skip to the 9:22 mark of Matthew 24.  

Is there any question to whom Jesus was speaking and is there the slightest doubt that Jesus was preparing His disciples so they would remain vigilant? "YOU must also be ready," Jesus exhorted. Why would Jesus exhort them to "be ready" if none of this pertained to them, but rather was targeting a distant generation 2,000 years future? I realize that, in their/our arrogance, every generation thinks they are the most important in all of history, but this is not only not the case, but it's also bad logic. 

Now, notice how Jesus' brother James used the same language as Jesus did 30 years earlier. 

James 5:8-9 (NKJV) You also be patient. Establish your hearts, for the coming of the Lord is at hand. ⁹ Do not grumble against one another, brethren, lest you be condemned. Behold, the Judge is standing at the door!

Jesus had said, "Now learn the parable from the fig tree: when its branch has already become tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near; 33 so, you too, when you see all these things, recognize that He is near, right at the door. (Matt 24:32-33)

​Is this just coincidental language?  James stated that Jesus' return was not only near, it was ​"right at the door"!!!  And the closer they came to the end of the age, the more we see this language of imminence intensify. The passages below were written in the early AD 60s just a few short years from the destruction of Jerusalem. 

In Hebrews 10:37, 1 John 2:18 and 1 Peter 4:7 we read, "for in a very little while He who is coming will come and will not delay"; "Children, it is the last hour; and just as you heard that antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have appeared; from this we know that it is the last hour; and "The end of all things is near; therefore, be of sound judgment and sober spirit for the purpose of prayer."

​Is there any doubt that these apostles were keeping track of the signs? Surely they neither knew the day nor the hour, but, given the anticipatory language above, it's apparent that they knew the "last days" were coming to a close. John didn't say he thought it might be the last hour, he said that he knew it was the last hour. 

According to the Apostle Paul, only those who were not paying attention to the unfolding events laid out in the Olivet were to be consumed by the wrath of God as He poured out His vengeance upon the Christ-killing generation. The thief would ONLY come as a thief in the night to those who were not vigilant. To the Christians who did not live in darkness, they would not be overtaken by the thief. They were sons of the day! 

1 Thessalonians 5:2-6 (NASB) ² For YOU yourselves know full well that the day of the Lord will come just like a thief in the night. ³ While they are saying, "Peace and safety!" then destruction will come upon them suddenly like labor pains upon a woman with child, and they will not escape. ⁴ But YOU, brethren, are not in darkness, that the day would overtake YOU like a thief; ⁵ for YOU are all sons of light and sons of day. We are not of night nor of darkness; ⁶ so then let US not sleep as others do, but let us be alert and sober.

"But YOU are not in darkness that the day would overtake YOU as a thief, for YOU are all sons of light and sons of the day." 

​

​So, when anyone tries to argue that Christ's return in judgment against that wicked and perverse generation, was shrouded in so much mystery that no one should have a clue when He would return, you will know that they are in error because the Bible proves differently. If one ignores the timing, because they don't understand the nature of His coming, confusion will abound. And once we ignore the context of the timing, the Bible becomes an interpretive Mr. Potato Head. ​It can be manipulated to fit our paradigm. 

The first century Jews missed Jesus' first coming. Why? Because they expected a warrior prince to deliver them from their political bondage while vanquishing their oppressors, not a suffering servant who came to set them free from sin and death. So they crucified Him.

Is it possible that 21st Christians have made the very same interpretive mistake by misunderstanding the nature of Christ's return? Jesus had already warned his followers not to be misled. "So if anyone tells YOU, ‘There he is, out in the wilderness,’ do not go out; or, ‘Here he is, in the inner rooms,’ do not believe it." But why? How could they be certain that at some point Jesus would not be found among them again?  For the same reason Peter attempted to resist Jesus' arresting party.

John 18:36 (NASB) Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm." 

The Kingdom, Jesus told them, is not of this world. It's spiritual in nature. The Kingdom was not coming with "signs to be observed". 

Luke 17:20-21 (NASB) ²⁰ Now having been questioned by the Pharisees as to when the kingdom of God was coming, He answered them and said, "The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed; ²¹ nor will they say, 'Look, here it is!' or, 'There it is!' For behold, the kingdom of God is in your midst."

Just a few chapters later, Luke, writing to a predominantly Gentile audience, wrote:

Luke 21:20-22 (NASB) ²⁰ "But when YOU see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then recognize that her desolation is near. ²¹ "Then those who are in Judea must flee to the mountains, and those who are in the midst of the city must leave, and those who are in the country must not enter the city; ²² because these are days of vengeance, so that all things which are written will be fulfilled.    

Is there any wonder why so many Christians have missed this when we're so rooted in earthly/physical/temporal expectations?  If we miss the timing of His visitation (and I don't know how much clearer Jesus and the the NT authors could have been), how will we understand the nature of that coming? Is there perhaps a reason why, after 2,000 years, Jesus has still not arrived in the manner expected, given the fact that, in the second to the last verse of the Bible, He said "Behold, I am coming quickly"? (Rev 22:20)  

I realize this brings discomfort to some (as it did me), but if we don't begin to take God seriously when He said He was going to do something, aren't we unwittingly entering into a state of disbelief simply because we want to hold on to what we've been told?

​Let me add one more thought regarding this supposed second coming "mystery" and the exhortation to avoid prophetic speculation. It should be noted that Jesus said (while still in human form before His ascension) that His parousia (Greek word usually translated "coming") would be in "this generation". At that time, because of His human restrictions, only the Father knew the day and the hour of his return. 

However, would you not agree that once Jesus ascended to sit at the right hand of the Father (AD 30), that at that very moment He knew the day and the hour of His imminent visitation? Jesus' glory was clearly restored to that His prior status before the foundation of the world. So to argue that, even after His ascension, He would never know the day or the hour of His return, is to assault the deity of Christ and the oneness of the trinity.

John 17:5 (NKJV) And now, O Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.

Jesus had already been glorified and was no longer encumbered by human constraints. So, when the Revelation was written (approx AD 62-64), I'm not certain how we can argue that Jesus was still unaware. Therefore, when we read the first 3 verses of the Revelation, what should our conclusion be? The King is telling us WHEN He will return. This is not a guess. "MUST soon take place" gives us no wiggle room. When the Creator of the universe says something must happen, do we have the nerve to question like the serpent did i.e. Hath God said?... 

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.

​The word Revelation is the Greek word "apokalupsis" which means the uncovering. Not the concealing! Many today seem to believe that the Revelation was never meant to be understood by actual recipients, but only properly understood by us. Wouldn't then, the vision has been named the parakalýptō, which means concealed? Luke 9:45 (NASB) But they did not understand this statement, and it was concealed from them so that they would not perceive it; and they were afraid to ask Him about this statement. 

Jesus, through the angel, told John of the impending events that were about to follow. So why is the sci-fi language about beasts, dragons and strange creatures with horns seemingly shrouded in mystery and intrigue?​ To protect the recipients against their adversaries, both Roman and Jewish. This book was not a mystery to those steeped in the Old Testament. It only appears to us like a document concealed in secrecy because we have so little grasp of the Old Testament. 

Twice in the first 3 verses, and 5 times in our Bible's last chapter, Jesus told them that His return was imminent. Personally, though I realize it's not popular, I prefer to believe Jesus than the self-appointed experts who will not take God at His word. 

So is it true that no one was or is to have a clue when Jesus was to return? Clearly the Disciples didn't know the day or the hour, but is it possible for us to know the exact time of His visitation? 

American Vision Founder, Gary DeMar, in the forward to Francis Gumerlock's "The Day and the Hour: Christianity's Perennial Fascination with Predicting the End of the World", wrote:

"Trying to make the Bible say something that it does not is the point of Frank Gumerlock's The Day and the Hour. Its historical documentation is overwhelming. We read how decade after decade of prophecy writers, over two millennia, assured their followers that their generation was the last generation. How could so many well-intentioned and seemingly well-informed Christians be so wrong on such an important topic? Is the Bible that unclear? Not at all. The Bible is not at fault. The fault lies with those who refuse to take it's The result is that God ends up being a liar.

The Day and the Hour forces us to reevaluate the constant claim that today's signs are certain indicators that Jesus is coming soon, that He is returning in our generation. Some might say, "Well, today is different. Conditions of the world are much worse than they were 500 years ago. There are more earthquakes, famines and wars. As you read The Day and the Hour, count how many times this same argument is used to support the claim that the end was near for Christians in long-past generations. 

The Day and the Hour is an ever-present reminder that if the history of date setting teaches us anything, it teaches that everyone who has ever made a prophetic claim has been wrong. In the final analysis, the Bible is the true standard, not the prophetic prognostications of prophetic speculators."

Peacemakers and the Land Promises...

"Blessed are the PEACEMAKERS for they shall become sons of God." (Matthew 5:9)

This poignant exhortation, embedded in Jesus' Sermon on the Mount, is often ignored in the larger context. People recognize their responsibility to seek peace with their "neighbor", but when it comes to nations, Jesus' mandate is summarily ignored. Why?  Why is there such a sense of detachment in terms of international foreign policy? Aren't nations an extension of individuals? Why shouldn't the United States be held to the same peacemaking standards?  Ron Paul was severely ridiculed for his anti-interventionist views, yet, in my opinion, he was merely attempting to apply Jesus' peacemaking directive to nations.

Let me share a clip from former presidential candidate, Pat Robertson, as a perfect case in point.



As you just heard, Robertson made it abundantly clear that any peace initiative involving land concessions (from Israel) to the Palestinians, "will result in terrible suffering for people in the United States". He went on to sternly warn, "I think this is headed for disaster for the United States. God says, 'They divided my land,' there is something about dividing God’s land, He said this is 'My land, I gave it to Abraham and his descendants and I don’t want it taken away from them and Jerusalem is the eternal capital of Israel.'"

Let me attempt to crystallize and unpack what I believe is Robertson's serious theological error. He, along with the majority of evangelicals in our pulpits and pews today,  believes that Israel is above all. National Israel, it is argued, has been and always will be the the apple of God's eye. And if you doubt that for even a moment, consider the 1967 Israeli unprovoked attack on the USS Liberty. You will be shocked at the way this murderous act was swept under the carpet.

Christian leaders, in consort with their Jewish Zionist counterparts (contrary to popular understanding, plenty of Jews oppose Zionism), have brought great pressure upon the U.S. Government to apply standards not enjoyed by any other nation. And Robertson's ominous rhetoric couldn't make that clearer. We are admonished to "Pray for the peace of Jerusalem" (which is good), but yet at the exclusion of their neighbors. Why not pray for the peace of Tehran, Bagdad and Damascus as well?  Because, John Hagee forcefully and defiantly says, they are NOT God's people!  Matter of fact, they are deemed THE enemies of God in the "last days". They were born on the wrong side of the genetic tracks and don't think for a moment they aren't fully cognizant of it.

Is Robertson correct?  Are the countries that encourage Israel's land-swapping for peace, destined for God's retributive judgment?  Is peacemaking conditional?  Is the modern day nation of Israel exempted from Jesus' exhortation?

I have neither the time nor the inclination to deal with all the Biblical ramifications regarding this very common theological position, but suffice it to say, I believe it is both dangerous and errant. Having said that, before you stamp 666 on my forehead and throw me under the bus, please take a moment to understand my position. By even questioning U.S. foreign policy toward Israel or Israel's foreign policy regarding its neighbors, almost always elicits the race card.  Let me make clear, I am NOT anti-Semitic in any way whatsoever. I have many Jewish friends, a former classmate Israeli citizen, and so I want only the best for them. And that's the main thrust of this article. What I believe Christians have unwittingly bought into, is the view that places one race above all others. I realize they believe they have good Biblical standing to do that, but as I will attempt to show, that view is build on very unstable soil. So, I find it ironic that, at it's very core, Christian Zionism is enmeshed in bigotry of the worst kind. It exalts an entire race of people solely on the basis of race.

Many if not most Christians believe it is our duty to support Israel in everything they do. After all, they argue, God gave them the "promised land" FOREVER, right?  And there are no shortage of Old Testament verses that appear to make that case.

for all the land which you see, I will give it to you and to your descendants forever. Genesis 13:15 Others are Exodus 32:13, Joshua 14:19, 1 Chronicles 28:8, 2 Chronicles 20:7, Ezra 9:9.


Anyone even remotely familiar with the Middle East situation, knows that peace in that region is a virtually impossibly without Israeli land concessions.  Therefore, if we take Robertson's stance and faithfully apply the above passages, we are forever dooming the potential for Middle East peace.  The Dome of the Rock, Islam's 3rd most holy site, has stood squarely in the heart of Jerusalem since 691 BC., and according to many, it will be destroyed with God's blessing. Listen, I am no fan of Islam, and believe it to be a very dangerous religion, but to insist that their holy site MUST be razed, proves my point.

In order to properly understand the above verses that seem to suggest Israel's divine right to the holy land, I think it's imperative to look at the Hebrew word Olam, which is most often translated, "forever". Following is an excerpt from a debate regarding this very subject. Don K. Preston was challenging Dr. Ralph Olson's contention which is the same as Robertson's. 

At this point you may be thinking as I initially did, how could anyone in their right mind contend that "forever" could mean anything other than "throughout eternity."  Forever seems rather straightforward, right?  In English it it, but let's look at its Hebrew usage in context.

[Don K. Preston] "Mr. Olson reveals his ignorance of the Hebrew word "Olam", which is translated as "forever", when he demands that it must mean without end. However, I have already shown the following:

God would not abandon Israel, "UNTIL I have performed all I have promised" (Genesis 28:15f).

I have shown that God did say that He would, in Israel’s last days, DESTROY THEM (Isaiah 65:1f; Daniel 9:1f; Daniel 12:1f, Malachi 4:1f, etc.). Mr. Olson simply denies these texts.

Mr. Olson claims that because God said He chose Israel "forever" that this proves his view of Revelation. No, it doesn’t. Take a look at a few texts.

Exodus 29:9; 40:15– The Levitical priesthood was to be an eternal (olam) priesthood. Yet, in Christ, that priesthood has been changed– removed (Hebrews 7:11-12).

In the Mosaic Covenant, the offering of incense (Exodus 30:6f), the Day of Atonement (Leviticus 16:1f), the animal sacrifices (Leviticus 10:1f), the Sabbath (Exodus 31:1f), and virtually every aspect of the Mosaic Cultus was said to be everlasting.

But, the reader will remember that Mr. Olson has already told us that the Mosaic Covenant was temporary. MR. OLSON, THE TEMPORARY MOSAIC COVENANT WAS AN "ETERNAL" (OLAM) COVENANT. But, this is not all. Take a look at this:

In Deuteronomy 28:46 part of the temporary Mosaic Covenant, YHVH threatened Israel with curses for disobedience to that covenant. He said of those curses —"And they shall be upon you for a sign and a wonder, and on your descendants FOREVER." Mr. Olson, according to YHVH, the curses of the Mosaic Covenant would be upon Israel FOREVER!

In Jeremiah 17:4, Judah’s sin caused YHVH to say: "O My mountain in the field, I will give as plunder, your wealth, all your treasures, and your high places of sin within all your borders. And you, even yourself, Shall let go of your heritage which I gave you; And I will cause you to serve your enemies in the land which you do not know; FOR YOU HAVE KINDLED A FIRE IN MY ANGER WHICH SHALL BURN FOREVER." Mr. Olson, God said that Judah’s sixth century sin would cause her to LOSE HER HERITAGE, because God’s anger would burn against her FOREVER! This is the curse of Deuteronomy 28, the curse that would remain on Israel FOREVER, for violation of the Mosaic Covenant, that you agree was temporary!

In Jeremiah 18:16, YHVH said that He was going to bring judgment on Judah, "To make their land desolate and a perpetual (OLAM) hissing." Mr. Olson, is the land of Israel under this PERPETUAL CURSE?

In Jeremiah 23:39f, the Lord said of Jerusalem, "I will surely forget you and cast you out of my presence along with the city I gave to your fathers, and I will bring an everlasting reproach upon you, and a perpetual shame, which shall not be forgotten.’"

MR. OLSON, IS ISRAEL UNDER A PERPETUAL REPROACH as a result of disobedience to the MOSAIC COVENANT?

Mr. Olson can’t argue that this curse would be CONDITIONAL, for his definition of forever MEANS WITHOUT END! So, if the curses came on Israel, then the curses will never end!

In Jeremiah 25:9 YHVH said he was going to bring Nebuchadnezzar against Jerusalem, and make that city "perpetual desolations!" According to Mr. Olson’s definition of everlasting, this means that Jerusalem could never be restored, since God said she would be A PERPETUAL DESOLATION FROM THE TIME OF NEBUCHADNEZZAR!

So, according to God:

The Mosaic Covenant, with its cultus, would stand FOREVER.

The Mosaic Covenant CURSES would be on Israel FOREVER, she would be a PERPETUAL SHAME.

Jerusalem would– from the time of Nebuchadnezzar, be a PERPETUAL DESOLATION!

The fact is that olam does not necessarily mean without end, as Mr. Olson claims. YHVH said that in Israel’s last days, WHEN HE HAD FULFILLED ALL OF HIS PROMISES TO THAT NATION, He would– and He did– cast them off as a distinctive covenant people, because all of the "better things" that Israel foreshadowed, had arrived!

At this point it should be clear that the Hebrew world "Olam" most often means, "for as long as God intends".  Please take the time to watch the following two videos that will put Israel's land promises in perspective.





Once we divest ourselves of the errant notions that Israel is above reproach and that the land of Palestine is eternally theirs to do as they please, we can begin to become peacemakers. First, obtaining inner peace through the shed blood of Christ, and then peace among nations, as we turn swords into plowshares. So, please let's dispense with the notion that the little piece of real estate bordering Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Lebonon, is attached to some sort of divine decree. Two thousand years ago in Jesus' exchange with the Samaritan woman at he well, He made clear that the days had come when God would no longer be interested in physical locations.

John 4:21-24 Jesus said to her, "Woman, believe Me, an hour is coming when NEITHER IN THIS MOUNTAIN NOR IN JERUSALEM will you worship the Father. ²² "You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews. ²³ "But an hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for such people the Father seeks to be His worshipers. ²⁴ "God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth." 

Therefore, let's us become ministers of reconciliation as we point people to the true and abiding temple, Jesus Christ. What would happen if we actually began to promote the Gospel without ethnic strings attached? What might happen if Muslims surrounding Israel, and those living within its borders began to realize that Jesus died for their sins?  And that they too can become the apple of God's eye?

2 Corinthians 5:18  Now all these things are from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation,

We must, in my view, cease this bigoted view that one people group is superior to another. In the New Covenant there is no distinction among races. The Gospel must be shared without prejudice as all Christians become peacemakers. 

Galatians 3:28  There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

Colossians 3:11  a renewal in which there is no distinction between Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave and freeman, but Christ is all, and in all.

Romans 10:12  For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, abounding in riches for all who call on Him;