So why is the Antichrist (or the Beast, as he's actually called in the Bible) such a big deal? In other words, why are so many Christians so obsessed with "figuring out" who he will be?
Truthfully, we shouldn't be. We are given certain signs to look for (like the passage in Daniel, and the passages we're going to look at in this post), but they aren't given so that we can try and decipher any particular hidden code. The signs are given to us so that, as Jesus put it, we can watch and be ready. In other words, it's not about predicting, but recognizing. And why should we be able to recognize him? Two reasons: first, be ready for the Return of Christ. Secondly, it's so we can point to events and certain signs in order to share the Gospel. The key to that, of course, is pointing to the actual signs, not our interpretations of those signs.
Which brings me to one of my all-time favorite examples of interpretation gone awry. I saw a video on Youtube several months ago that claimed that Jesus Himself gave us the name of the coming Beast. It cited Luke 10:18: "He [Jesus] replied, 'I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven.'" Now, I'm going to go through their argument the way they went through it, as if it were undeniable truth. I must admit, it's a convincing argument. But only up to a point, which I will deconstruct after I've presented their case.
So here's what they point out. Luke was written in Greek, but Jesus would not have been speaking Greek, right? He was a Jew. Greek was reserved for conversations with the Romans and other Gentiles, but Jesus would not have been speaking to His disciples in Greek; we need to look at the Hebrew meaning of the words, not the Greek.
In Hebrew, the word for lightning is baraq. Now, the word for "heaven" is a little more difficult, because there are two Hebrew words that can be translated "heaven," but only one word in Greek. In Greek, ouranos can refer to one of two "heavens": the sky and the universe (the domain of Satan, as Paul calls them in Ephesians 2); or Heaven, where God's throne is located. Now, in Hebrew, the word for "sky" is shamayim, but the word for High Places or highest heavens is . . . ready? Bama. Now, as in most other languages, the word we translate as "like" can also be translated as "as." So Jesus is saying, in Hebrew, that He sees Satan falling "as Baraq Bama."
Jesus named our current president as the future embodiment of Satan. Mind blown, right?
And the wording is solid; you can look it up yourselves. The Hebrew is absolutely accurate here. Which is the problem, because Jesus wouldn't have been speaking Hebrew. The language in that region at that time was Aramaic, which, while related to Hebrew, is different enough that baraq bama becomes birqunn shamaya. Not exactly our President's name, is it?
Secondly, even if He were speaking Hebrew, we would have no idea which word for "heaven" He is using. It could be bama, but not necessarily. Of course, it doesn't really matter, because, as I noted a second ago, the verse would have been in Aramaic. Either way, bama is thrown out the window, too.
Lastly, within the context of the Scripture, Jesus' naming of the Beast makes no sense. At the beginning of the chapter, Jesus sends out seventy-two disciples to go to the villages and towns and proclaim the Gospel. They return, excited and amazed, because not only did people accept the Gospel, but the disciples saw people healed in Jesus' name, and, more amazing to them, they inform Him that, "'Lord, even the demons submit to us in Your Name'" (10:17), to which Jesus replies, "'I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven.'" He continues, "'I have given you authority to trample on snakes and scorpions and to overcome all the power of the enemy; nothing will harm you. However, do not rejoice that the spirits submit to you, but rejoice that your names are written in heaven'" (10:19-20).
In context, the way it is translated, the passage makes sense. "Man, Jesus, even demons submit to us in Your Name!"
"Satan will even fall like lightning from heaven. I have given you authority to proclaim My Gospel, and nothing can harm you without My permission. But you should really be more excited that you are Mine, than that you have authority over demons."
Makes sense. The way this video interprets it, though, makes no sense at all. Check it out:
"Man, Jesus, even demons submit to us in Your Name!"
"Satan will embody someone named Barak Obama. I have given you authority to proclaim My Gospel, and nothing can harm you without My permission. But you should really be more excited that you are Mine, than that you have authority over demons." Okay, I admit that Jesus could be cryptic at times, but that's just bizarre - the interpretation, when put in context, makes no sense.
Do you see what I mean about interpretation gone awry? We must always, always put passages within their context. I'm not against speculation, but speculation that removes and ignores Scripture is both wrong and, potentially, dangerous. As I said before, I will say again: we must always put passages within their context.
Which is why I spent the last post of this series looking at the dragon, because Satan has a direct influence on the man we call the Antichrist. After chasing "the woman" (12:17), he goes "to make war against the rest of her offspring - those who obey God's commandments and hold tot he testimony of Jesus," but John tells us that first, "the dragon stood on the shore of the sea" (13:1). In the very next verse, John sees "a beast coming out of the sea," a beast who will be "given power to make war against the saints and to conquer them" (13:7).
So let's catch up briefly (if you haven't read the first part of this, I strongly suggest you do so):
- Satan attempts to "devour" Christ, but fails (12:4-5)
- There is a war in heaven, and Satan and his followers are evicted (12:4, 7-12)
- Satan pursues Israel, but she is supernaturally (?) protected for 3 1/2 years (12:6, 14-16)
- Satan stands on the shore of the sea and waits for "the beast" (13:1)
- "The beast" will wage war against, and conquer, Christians (12:17, 13:7)
So let's take a look at this "beast," and see what kinds of things we should look for. And I'll try and keep wild speculation to a minimum, though I make no concrete promises. Alright, Revelation 13:
And the dragon stood on the shore of the sea.
And I saw a beast coming out of the sea. He had ten horns and seven heads, with ten crowns on his horns, and on each head a blasphemous name. The beast I saw resembled a leopard, but had feet like those of a bear and a mouth like that of a lion. The dragon gave the beast his power and his throne and great authority. One of the heads of the beast seemed to have had a fatal wound, but the fatal wound had been healed. The whole world was astonished and followed the beast. Men worshiped the dragon because he had given authority to the beast, and they also worshiped the beast and asked, "Who is like the beast? Who can make war against him?" (13:1-4).
Okay, so we need to look at this for a moment. John is directly referring to Daniel's vision of the beasts in Daniel 7. We have two statements that lend to this interpretation: first, the numerology of "ten horns." In Daniel's vision, he sees "a fourth beast - terrifying and frightening and very powerful . . . it was different from all the former beasts, and it had ten horns" (7:7). I do not believe this to be a coincidence.
Secondly, John gives us a very bizarre description of this beast, that its body is like a leopard's, its feet are like a bear's, and it's mouth/head is like a lion's. Really weird, but for a Jew familiar with the prophets of the Old Testament, this would make sense, particularly in light of the ten horns. In Daniel 7, Daniel sees a total of four beasts, and while the fourth one has ten horns, the first one is "like a lion," the second is "like a bear," and the third is "like a leopard" (7:4,5,6). While this is speculation of sorts, John truly appears to be referencing Daniel 7. Coupled with the angel's admonition that all of this "concerns the distant future" (Daniel 8:26), and we have a pretty good idea that what John saw here is the same person and events that Daniel saw in Daniel 7 and 8. Beyond this, the meanings of John's symbols are sort of up in the air.
I have a theory that the different parts of the body of the Beast indicate some sort of characteristic. In Daniel's vision, each beast represented an empire: the lion was Babylon, the bear was the Medo-Persian empire, and the leopard was Greece. In John's vision, therefore, I wonder if it's possible that each part of the beast was derived from some aspect of each empire. The "mouth like that of a lion," for example, would indicate perhaps a language or teaching derived from Babylonian influence. What, exactly, would that mean? No idea. "Feet like those of a bear"; no clue what an empire with "Medo-Persian Feet" would look like. Right? Like I said, this is a theory (and not a particularly fleshed-out theory, at that). Please, do not go looking for the rise of a Babylonian-speaking, Medo-Persian culture with a government based on the Greeks - I'm not claiming that! It's just a matter of curiosity for me.
Here's what we can say, however. The ten horns refer to the ten nations from which this Beast derives his political power. Now, as a quick comment, many eschatologists assert that the Beast restructures the earth into ten kingdoms, but this is not supported by the Scriptures. You can look up the passage in Daniel yourself, but it clearly states that the fourth beast has ten horns, and then another smaller horn grows up among the ten horns, uprooting three of the other ten horns in the process. In other words, don't look for a world leader to restructure the planet, and then say, "Ah ha! It's HIM!" That's not the timeline Daniel gives.
Anyhow, the ten horns represent ten leaders. I can say this with authority, because we're told what they represent in Revelation 17: 12-14:
The ten horns you saw are ten kings who have not yet received a kingdom, but who for one hour will receive authority as kings along with the Beast. They have one purpose and will give their power and authority to the Beast. They will make war against the Lamb, but the Lamb will overcome them because He is Lord of lords and King of kings - and with Him will be His called, chosen and faithful followers.
The main takeaway here - and this sets up the rest of the chapter - is that the world not only follows this guy, but they worship both him, and Satan. Listen to me: this is not speculation. This is not a conspiracy theory. This is stated Biblical truth.
The world will turn to Satanism.
They will worship the Antichrist, but they will also worship Satan, who gives the Antichrist his power. Revelation 13:4: "Men worshiped the dragon because he had given authority to the beast, and they also worshiped the beast. . . ." There will come a time when atheism dies. There will come a time when all world religions die. There will only be two types of people: those who follow Christ, and those who worship Satan.
The beast was given a mouth to utter proud words and blasphemies [another reference to Daniel?] and to exercise his authority for forty-two months. He opened his mouth to blaspheme God, and to slander His name and His dwelling place and those who live in heaven. He was given power to make war against the saints and to conquer them. And he was given authority over every tribe, people, language and nation. All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast - all whose names have not been written in the book of life belonging to the Lamb that was slain from the creation of the world.
He who has an ear, let him hear.
If anyone is to go into captivity,
into captivity he will go.
If anyone is to be killed with the sword,
with the sword he will be killed.
This calls for patient endurance and faithfulness on the part of the saints . . .
. . . I was greatly astonished. Then the angel said to me: "Why are you astonished? . . . the Beast, which you saw, once was, now is not, and will come up out of the Abyss and go to his destruction. The inhabitants of the earth whose names have not been written in the book of life from the creation of the world will be astonished when they see the Beast, because he once was, now is not, and yet will come (13:5-10; 17:6-7; 8).
Many of you will notice I skipped over quite a bit of Scripture. We will get to those verses, because they involve more detail about the religion set up during this time. For now, I want to wrap this up and leave you with something very important. First, this Beast is resurrected. There aren't too many other ways to interpret this. We're told four times that he was dead, and has come back to life. We're told in 13:3 that one of his heads had a fatal wound, but it was healed, we're told in 13:12, 14 that he had a fatal wound to the head, and that it was inflicted by a sword, and in 17, the angel who is describing everything to John tells him twice that this Beast "once was, now is not, and yet will come" (17:8).
I want to pause and look at verse 8 for a second, because it's interesting. Notice that John is watching the Beast utterly destroy Christians, and the angel tells him that the Beast "now is not." To what, exactly, does the "now" refer? Obviously not the events that John is watching. That leaves one possibility: the "now" refers to John's real-time life. As in, "The Beast isn't on earth yet." That would mean . . . wait for it . . . that the "once was" refers to someone who lived prior to John. I recognize this isn't the traditional interpretation of the Antichrist. Most eschatologists believe that someone will show up on the scene, be killed, resurrect (most likely on the third day, in an obscene mockery of Christ), and then unleash Hell on earth. Maybe - maybe - that view is correct. I'm not trying to undo traditional interpretation, I'm just commenting on what the Scriptures actually say. The Beast arises out of ten kings - kings John is seeing at that moment, but who "have not yet received a kingdom" (17:12); the kings are present in John's vision, but future for John's life. John then sees the Beast, who is present in the vision, but "once was, now is not, and yet will come" for John's life. Again, I know this flies in the face of popular theology, but this seems to indicate that the Satanically indwelt ruler has already lived, and one day, we will see him live again.
This is why I'm not quick to jump on the "Obama is the Antichrist" bandwagon. Nor have I jumped on the slightly less popular but rapidly growing "Pope Francis is the Antichrist" bandwagon. Now, if either of these men is killed by a sword (beheaded by ISIS, perhaps?), I'll start keeping a closer eye on their bodies. Until then, I'm not going to worry too much about it.
And here's why:
They will make war against the Lamb, but the Lamb will overcome them
because He is Lord of lords and King of kings - and with Him will be His
called, chosen and faithful followers (17:14). Jesus is still Lord. He wins. He is God. Whether the Beast is alive now, whether he lived three-thousand years ago, whether his return is around the corner or fifteen years from now, it doesn't matter for me. I recognize that I'm a miserable sinner who has nothing to offer God but the very Grace He gives me. Without Him, I would be one of those people who follow the Beast. Without the work of Jesus on the cross, I would be deceived by Satan, too. There is no strength, no goodness, no righteousness within me. Anything good in me is Jesus manifesting Himself in my life.
And while my steps are not always in line, while my desires are not always faithful, He has called me, and I trust in Him. If you are in this same position, then there is nothing that this world can throw at us that will compare to the riches that are in Jesus Christ our Lord.
If you're on the fence, choose a side and be done with it. Stop being indecisive.
If you've set your face against Jesus, the good news is that the Beast isn't here yet, so you can repent. You can turn from your self-worship (which is, ultimately, Satan-worship) and worship the God Who loves you even though you don't deserve it, the God who came here and became one of us in order to make us more like Him.
Decide today. We may have fifteen years, fifteen days, or fifteen minutes. But whether you fight against Jesus for the next fifteen minutes, fifteen days, or fifteen years . . . it doesn't matter, because you're fighting for something that is temporal and will all be destroyed, anyway. Seems rather silly, doesn't it?
Monday, December 14, 2015
Wednesday, December 9, 2015
Sweet Potato Fries
Sweet potato fries. Homemade. Just do it.
2-3 sweet potatoes, scrubbed and cut into 1/4" strips 1T brown sugar
1/4 t nutmeg 1/2 t cinnamon
pinch of salt 1T olive oil
1) Preheat oven to 420 degrees.
2) Combine all ingredients in a large bowl, coating potatoes evenly. Spread in a single layer on a baking sheet. Bake until slightly browned, about twenty minutes.
2-3 sweet potatoes, scrubbed and cut into 1/4" strips 1T brown sugar
1/4 t nutmeg 1/2 t cinnamon
pinch of salt 1T olive oil
1) Preheat oven to 420 degrees.
2) Combine all ingredients in a large bowl, coating potatoes evenly. Spread in a single layer on a baking sheet. Bake until slightly browned, about twenty minutes.
Sunday, December 6, 2015
Books on Sale!
If you're in the Richmond, Virginia area, I've got a few copies of Flood Legends and Giants at massively discounted prices! Let me know, and I'll get them to you!
Tuesday, December 1, 2015
It's The End of the World As We Know It: The Antichrist, Part 1
I thought I'd start the Christmas Season - a season in which the Church celebrates the birth of Christ - by posting about the Antichrist. Merry Christmas!
Now, if you search "The Antichrist" on the internet, you'll find thousands (if not tens of thousands) of videos and blogs all asserting that President Obama is the Antichrist. They're everywhere. The last thing you'll want to do, frankly, is go to Youtube with this search, because the pages are endless. While some of them are interesting, the majority of them are utter foolishness: cleverly edited newsreels, altered photographs, stories of aliens living in the center of the earth, and the like; theories are a dime a dozen (we'll take a look at one of those in the next post). Now, theories are not always bad, but we have to be careful with them, so before we start pointing fingers, let's see what the Scriptures tell us about the Son of Perdition.
The Book of Daniel offers some interesting comments on who this man will be. Now, to be fair, it's what is called a "Dual Prophecy," meaning it is referring to someone in the near future (relative to Daniel), as well as someone in the distant future. This can be confusing to decipher between, which is perhaps part of the reason why Daniel was "troubled in spirit" (7:15, 28), he kept fainting (8:18), and was unable to eat (10:2-3)! So let's lay out what it says, and see if we can decipher what's going on.
"I looked, and there before me was a fourth beast - terrifying and frightening and very powerful. It had large iron teeth; it crushed and devoured its victims its victims and trampled underfoot whatever was left. It was different from all the former beasts [see Daniel 7:1-6], and it had ten horns.
"While I was thinking about the horns, there before me was another horn, a little one, which came up among them; and three of the first horns were uprooted before it. This horn had eyes like the eyes of a man and a mouth that spoke boastfully.
"As I looked,
"thrones were set in place.
and the Ancient of Days took His seat.
His clothing was white like wool.
His throne was flaming with fire,
and its wheels were all ablaze.
A river of fire was flowing,
coming out from before Him.
Thousands upon thousands attended him;
ten thousand times ten thousand stood before Him.
The court was seated,
and the books were opened.
"Then I continued to watch because of the boastful words the horn was speaking. I kept looking until the beast was slain and its body destroyed and thrown into the blazing fire. . . .
"In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into His presence. He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshiped Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed (Daniel 7:7-11; 13-14)."
So, this "beast" clearly comes at the "End Times," as his execution occurs when Christ returns to earth. All of this, however, confuses the prophet, and Daniel asks one of those in attendance to explain to him everything he's just seen:
"Then I wanted to know the true meaning of the fourth beast, which was different from all the others and most terrifying, with its iron teeth and bronze claws - the beast that crushed and devoured its victims and trampled underfoot whatever was left. I also wanted to know about the ten horns on its head and about the other horn that came up, before which three of them fell - the horn that looked more imposing than the others and had eyes and a mouth that spoke boastfully. As I watched, this horn was waging war against the saints and defeating them, until the Ancient of Days came and pronounced judgment in favor of the saints of the Most High, and the time came when they possessed the kingdom.
"He gave me this explanation: 'The fourth beast is a fourth kingdom that will appear on earth. It will be different from all the other kingdoms and will devour the whole earth, trampling it down and crushing it. The ten horns are ten kings who will come from this kingdom. After them another king will arise, different from the earlier ones; he will subdue three kings. He will speak against the Most High and oppress His saints and try to change the set times and the laws. The saints will be handed over to him for a time, times and half a time. . . .
"'He will cause astounding devastation and will succeed in whatever he does. He will destroy the mighty men and the holy people. He will cause deceit to prosper, and he will consider himself superior. When they feel secure, he will destroy many and take his stand against the Prince of princes. Yet he will be destroyed, but not by human hands.' . . . He said to me, 'It will take 2,300 evenings and mornings; then the sanctuary will be reconsecrated. . . . The vision of the evenings and mornings that has been given you is true, but seal up the vision, for it concerns the distant future'" (Daniel 7:19-25; 8:24-25; 7:14; 8:26).
The section refers to Antiochus IV, who rose to power out of one of the four kingdoms left in the aftermath of Alexander the Great (see article, particularly the section entitled "After Alexander"; see also Daniel 8:8). Antiochus called himself "Epiphanes," which means "God manifest," essentially setting himself up as God. He desecrated the temple in Jerusalem, but it was reconsecrated 1,150 days later by Judas Maccabeus (1,150 days is 2,300 evenings and mornings). So much of this has come true already. Many scholars, though, associate these passages with the coming Son of Perdition (hence the angel's reminder that all of this "concerns the distant future"). Jesus Himself equates the prophecy in Daniel with the coming ruler (see Matthew 24:15). This is why we can reasonably assume that this passage is a dual prophecy: it refers to events that would take place within a few hundred years of Daniel, but it also refers to events that will happen in the last days. Should you be skeptical of this idea, understand that dual prophecies exist in other areas of Scripture, too. The passage in Isaiah that deals with the Virgin Birth, for example, is a prophecy dealing with Isaiah's own child, as well as the coming Messiah - thus, a dual prophecy (see Isaiah 7:13-8:4).
There are still people who debate this, and since many of them are much smarter than me, I will concede that I could be wrong, but history has revealed Antiochus, and Jesus revealed the "beast," so I tend to side pretty heavily with this interpretation. Nonetheless, what we do know, with relative certainty, about the Antichrist comes from Revelation. We looked at it in the previous post of this series, but I want to look at it again in more depth. Before we get to the actual Antichrist, however, I want to backtrack and look at the visions John is given immediately beforehand:
A great and wondrous sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head. She was pregnant and cried out in pain as she was about to give birth. Then another sign appeared in heaven: an enormous red dragon with seven heads and ten horns and seven crowns on his heads. His tail swept a third of the stars out of the sky and flung them to the earth. The dragon stood in front of the woman who was about to give birth, so that he might devour her child the moment he was born. She gave birth to a son, a male child, who will rule all the nations with an iron scepter. And her child was snatched up to God and His throne. The woman fled into the desert to a place prepared for her by God, where she might be taken care of for 1,260 days (Revelation 12:1-6).
As this is a little confusing, I want to pause here and talk about what could be going on, and what seems most likely to be going on. Let's start with the woman: the fact that she is clothed with the sun and has the moon under her feet indicates an authority over these things. The Scriptures tell us time and again that the earth is the LORD's footstool (e.g., Isaiah 66:1, Matthew 5:35), an indication of His complete authority over the earth. So "the moon under her feet" most likely refers to a position of authority. In other words, this "woman" is in an exalted and chosen position within the realm of Creation. Well, from Genesis straight through the rest of the Bible, the descendants of Jacob are constantly referred to as God's chosen people. The fact that she has a crown of twelve stars probably, therefore, refers to the "Twelve Tribes" of Israel (the people descended from Jacob's twelve sons). Israel's son, therefore, would be the Messiah, who will rule with an iron scepter (see Psalm 2), and who was taken up into Heaven (see Acts 1). If that is the case, then Israel is going to be protected for a period of 3 1/2 years (1,260 days) by fleeing to the desert. I tend to side with this interpretation, for a number of reasons, which we'll look at in a moment.
The other possibility often put forth is that the woman represents the Church, with the twelve stars representing the twelve apostles. This, many would argue, means that the "snatching up" of the child refers to the Rapture. The problem with that, of course, is that if the woman represents the Church, then who, exactly, is her child? The basic idea, when we break it down, is that the woman represents the Church, and the child represents . . . a baby church. A baby church that is snatched up to heaven, leaving the actual Church on earth. Eh. It falls apart.
There is a third possibility, and that is that the woman represents Israel, and the child represents the Church. I also discard this one, because the child is specifically referred to as one "who will rule all the nations with an iron scepter" (12:5). This probably does not refer to the Church, because while we are promised to rule and reign with Christ (Romans 8), it is Christ - and only Christ - who receives the honor and glory of ruling with an iron scepter. We may be joint heirs with Christ, but He is the only True King. There's another reason for rejecting this, too, which I'll get to in a moment.
But first, what about this dragon that tries to eat the baby? Fortunately, most of it is defined in detail in the next few verses, so I don't want to get too much into interpretation. What I want to address are two things. First, the numerology here appears to be a direct reference to the passage in Daniel we looked at earlier. This dragon, much like Daniel's fourth beast, has ten horns. We'll see a little later on that the dragon gives authority to a very particular ruler, much like the horn that grows out from among the ten horns in Daniel. This could be coincidental, but since the passage in Daniel is a dual prophecy, I don't believe the number to be a coincidence.
Regardless, the main point I want to get to here is that John is seeing something that occurs on earth, definitely (see 12:6), but it is largely spiritual in nature ("A great and wondrous sign appeared in heaven"). This isn't unusual for the book of Revelation, as John sees many kinds of things, some of which occur in the spiritual, some of which occur on earth, and some of which occur on earth as a result of something happening within the spiritual realm. This is one of those times, because the sign is in heaven, but the woman (Israel?) flees to the desert prepared for her by God. The sign appears in heaven, but the child born "will rule all the nations." This means that "devour[ing] her child" refers, not to a physical dragon eating a physical baby, but a symbolic representation of the dragon trying to utterly destroy the Messiah, either through death or discrediting, a common theme that we see throughout the life of Jesus. Shortly after He was born (within two years), King Herod plotted to kill the child (see Matthew 2); after Jesus' baptism, He was tempted by Satan (Matthew 4:1-11), an attempt to render His death on the cross useless; and throughout His ministry, various people attempted to kill Him in a manner other than that with which He was purposed (e.g., John 8:48-59). We're talking a spiritual battle here, but one that plays out in events on earth.
Okay, moving on:
And there was a war in heaven. Michael and his angels fought against the dragon, and the dragon and his angels fought back. But he was not strong enough, and they lost their place in heaven. The great dragon was hurled down - that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and the angels with him.
Then I heard a loud voice in heaven say:
"Now have come the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God,
and the authority of his Christ.
For the accuser of our brothers, who accuses them before our God day and night, has been hurled
down.
They overcame him by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony;
they did not love their lives so much as to shrink from death.
Therefore rejoice, you heavens and you who dwell in them!
But woe to the earth and the sea, because the devil has gone down to you!
He is filled with fury, because he knows that his time is short."
When the dragon saw that he had been hurled to the earth, he pursued the woman who had given birth to the male child. The woman was given the two wings of a great eagle, so that she might fly to the place prepared for her in the desert, where she would be taken care of for a time, times, and half a time, out of the serpents reach. Then from his mouth the serpent spewed water like a river, to overtake the woman and sweep her away with the torrent. But the earth helped the woman by opening its mouth and swallowing the river that the dragon had spewed out of his mouth. Then the dragon was enraged at the woman and went off to make war against the rest of her offspring - those who obey God's commandments and hold to the testimony of Jesus. And the dragon stood on the shore of the sea (Revelations 12:7 - 13:1).
There's way too much going on here to go into great detail, but there are a few main points:
1) The dragon is Satan (12:9). There's no need to interpret him any other way, because it's stated loud and clear.
2) The woman is most likely Israel. Why? Because Christians are "the rest of her offspring" (12:17), and Christianity is a direct offshoot of Judaism. We can also conclude, then, that since Christians are named separately from the child,
3) The child (12:5) is most likely Christ.
In light of all of this, I truly believe that this image of a Dragon eating a baby is symbolic of Satan trying to prevent and undermine the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. Many scholars do offer different interpretations, but they sort of have to contradict and ignore passages of Scripture in order to do it. That indicates they are probably off-track. While I mean no offense to anyone who holds a different interpretation of this, seriously check your reasons for believing your interpretations. More importantly, seriously check the Scriptures to see if you are, in fact, ignoring and contradicting other passages.
Now, let's get to the more speculative parts, starting with The War (12:7). Many, many people believe that this war happened a very long time ago, when Satan initially rebelled against God. I disagree, for two reasons. Satan was not kicked out of heaven and banished to earth when he sinned, because Job 1&2 tell us that he approaches God's throne with the rest of the "divine beings" (i.e., angels). Therefore:
presence in heaven = not banished from heaven
We also know that when he is hurled to earth, he pursues the woman "who had given birth." The verb tense is interesting, because most of the book of Revelation is in past tense. Ever noticed that? That's because John is writing down the contents of this book after he received the vision (see 1:9-19). So he's saying, "here's what I saw in my vision: this happened, then this, then I heard that," and so on. But in 12:13, he's using a different tense, a tense that indicates a past event relative to the current events about which he is writing. What John, then, is saying, is, "I saw a war in heaven, and Satan was cast to earth. In his fury, he pursued the woman who had already given birth to the child." Satan's eviction, John appears to be saying, happens after Jesus, not when Satan initially rebelled. That's my take, at least. Obviously, other people - smart, people - disagree.
So what John has said to us, so far, is that Satan pursues the Messiah, but that fails, and Jesus is triumphant on the Cross. Then, there is (or will be) a war in heaven in which Satan and his followers are hurled to earth, and in his rage, he pursues Israel, but she will be protected for 3 1/2 years in a place prepared for her in the desert. Now, I don't believe this has happened yet. There are numerous points in Israel's history where people attempt to erase her from the map, but fail, but none of them match the description of the events given to us in Revelation. It's possible that "a time, times, and half a time" (12:14) means something other than 3 1/2 years. We are, after all, assuming that "time" refers to a year (a year, two years, half a year). However, the explicitly-stated 1,260 days (12:6) is pretty hard to interpret any other way (1,260 days/365 days=3.45 years).
Given that Israel has not fled to the desert to be protected for 3 1/2 years, I don't believe she has been actively pursued by a banished Satan, ergo, he has not yet been banished, because the Scriptures give a sense of immediacy to the events: Satan is banished from heaven, and as a result, he pursues the woman. When that fails, he pursues the Church (also referenced in Daniel 7:21). I believe this is what 13:1 is setting up for us, the method by which Satan begins to execute Christians.
That method is the Antichrist. We'll get to him in the next part of this.
(Oh, and the "two wings of a great eagle" that God gives Israel in order to protect her? Yeah, no clue, so I'm not even going to touch it. We'll have to wait and see when it happens. Sorry.).
Now, if you search "The Antichrist" on the internet, you'll find thousands (if not tens of thousands) of videos and blogs all asserting that President Obama is the Antichrist. They're everywhere. The last thing you'll want to do, frankly, is go to Youtube with this search, because the pages are endless. While some of them are interesting, the majority of them are utter foolishness: cleverly edited newsreels, altered photographs, stories of aliens living in the center of the earth, and the like; theories are a dime a dozen (we'll take a look at one of those in the next post). Now, theories are not always bad, but we have to be careful with them, so before we start pointing fingers, let's see what the Scriptures tell us about the Son of Perdition.
The Book of Daniel offers some interesting comments on who this man will be. Now, to be fair, it's what is called a "Dual Prophecy," meaning it is referring to someone in the near future (relative to Daniel), as well as someone in the distant future. This can be confusing to decipher between, which is perhaps part of the reason why Daniel was "troubled in spirit" (7:15, 28), he kept fainting (8:18), and was unable to eat (10:2-3)! So let's lay out what it says, and see if we can decipher what's going on.
"I looked, and there before me was a fourth beast - terrifying and frightening and very powerful. It had large iron teeth; it crushed and devoured its victims its victims and trampled underfoot whatever was left. It was different from all the former beasts [see Daniel 7:1-6], and it had ten horns.
"While I was thinking about the horns, there before me was another horn, a little one, which came up among them; and three of the first horns were uprooted before it. This horn had eyes like the eyes of a man and a mouth that spoke boastfully.
"As I looked,
"thrones were set in place.
and the Ancient of Days took His seat.
His clothing was white like wool.
His throne was flaming with fire,
and its wheels were all ablaze.
A river of fire was flowing,
coming out from before Him.
Thousands upon thousands attended him;
ten thousand times ten thousand stood before Him.
The court was seated,
and the books were opened.
"Then I continued to watch because of the boastful words the horn was speaking. I kept looking until the beast was slain and its body destroyed and thrown into the blazing fire. . . .
"In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into His presence. He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshiped Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed (Daniel 7:7-11; 13-14)."
So, this "beast" clearly comes at the "End Times," as his execution occurs when Christ returns to earth. All of this, however, confuses the prophet, and Daniel asks one of those in attendance to explain to him everything he's just seen:
"Then I wanted to know the true meaning of the fourth beast, which was different from all the others and most terrifying, with its iron teeth and bronze claws - the beast that crushed and devoured its victims and trampled underfoot whatever was left. I also wanted to know about the ten horns on its head and about the other horn that came up, before which three of them fell - the horn that looked more imposing than the others and had eyes and a mouth that spoke boastfully. As I watched, this horn was waging war against the saints and defeating them, until the Ancient of Days came and pronounced judgment in favor of the saints of the Most High, and the time came when they possessed the kingdom.
"He gave me this explanation: 'The fourth beast is a fourth kingdom that will appear on earth. It will be different from all the other kingdoms and will devour the whole earth, trampling it down and crushing it. The ten horns are ten kings who will come from this kingdom. After them another king will arise, different from the earlier ones; he will subdue three kings. He will speak against the Most High and oppress His saints and try to change the set times and the laws. The saints will be handed over to him for a time, times and half a time. . . .
"'He will cause astounding devastation and will succeed in whatever he does. He will destroy the mighty men and the holy people. He will cause deceit to prosper, and he will consider himself superior. When they feel secure, he will destroy many and take his stand against the Prince of princes. Yet he will be destroyed, but not by human hands.' . . . He said to me, 'It will take 2,300 evenings and mornings; then the sanctuary will be reconsecrated. . . . The vision of the evenings and mornings that has been given you is true, but seal up the vision, for it concerns the distant future'" (Daniel 7:19-25; 8:24-25; 7:14; 8:26).
The section refers to Antiochus IV, who rose to power out of one of the four kingdoms left in the aftermath of Alexander the Great (see article, particularly the section entitled "After Alexander"; see also Daniel 8:8). Antiochus called himself "Epiphanes," which means "God manifest," essentially setting himself up as God. He desecrated the temple in Jerusalem, but it was reconsecrated 1,150 days later by Judas Maccabeus (1,150 days is 2,300 evenings and mornings). So much of this has come true already. Many scholars, though, associate these passages with the coming Son of Perdition (hence the angel's reminder that all of this "concerns the distant future"). Jesus Himself equates the prophecy in Daniel with the coming ruler (see Matthew 24:15). This is why we can reasonably assume that this passage is a dual prophecy: it refers to events that would take place within a few hundred years of Daniel, but it also refers to events that will happen in the last days. Should you be skeptical of this idea, understand that dual prophecies exist in other areas of Scripture, too. The passage in Isaiah that deals with the Virgin Birth, for example, is a prophecy dealing with Isaiah's own child, as well as the coming Messiah - thus, a dual prophecy (see Isaiah 7:13-8:4).
There are still people who debate this, and since many of them are much smarter than me, I will concede that I could be wrong, but history has revealed Antiochus, and Jesus revealed the "beast," so I tend to side pretty heavily with this interpretation. Nonetheless, what we do know, with relative certainty, about the Antichrist comes from Revelation. We looked at it in the previous post of this series, but I want to look at it again in more depth. Before we get to the actual Antichrist, however, I want to backtrack and look at the visions John is given immediately beforehand:
A great and wondrous sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head. She was pregnant and cried out in pain as she was about to give birth. Then another sign appeared in heaven: an enormous red dragon with seven heads and ten horns and seven crowns on his heads. His tail swept a third of the stars out of the sky and flung them to the earth. The dragon stood in front of the woman who was about to give birth, so that he might devour her child the moment he was born. She gave birth to a son, a male child, who will rule all the nations with an iron scepter. And her child was snatched up to God and His throne. The woman fled into the desert to a place prepared for her by God, where she might be taken care of for 1,260 days (Revelation 12:1-6).
As this is a little confusing, I want to pause here and talk about what could be going on, and what seems most likely to be going on. Let's start with the woman: the fact that she is clothed with the sun and has the moon under her feet indicates an authority over these things. The Scriptures tell us time and again that the earth is the LORD's footstool (e.g., Isaiah 66:1, Matthew 5:35), an indication of His complete authority over the earth. So "the moon under her feet" most likely refers to a position of authority. In other words, this "woman" is in an exalted and chosen position within the realm of Creation. Well, from Genesis straight through the rest of the Bible, the descendants of Jacob are constantly referred to as God's chosen people. The fact that she has a crown of twelve stars probably, therefore, refers to the "Twelve Tribes" of Israel (the people descended from Jacob's twelve sons). Israel's son, therefore, would be the Messiah, who will rule with an iron scepter (see Psalm 2), and who was taken up into Heaven (see Acts 1). If that is the case, then Israel is going to be protected for a period of 3 1/2 years (1,260 days) by fleeing to the desert. I tend to side with this interpretation, for a number of reasons, which we'll look at in a moment.
The other possibility often put forth is that the woman represents the Church, with the twelve stars representing the twelve apostles. This, many would argue, means that the "snatching up" of the child refers to the Rapture. The problem with that, of course, is that if the woman represents the Church, then who, exactly, is her child? The basic idea, when we break it down, is that the woman represents the Church, and the child represents . . . a baby church. A baby church that is snatched up to heaven, leaving the actual Church on earth. Eh. It falls apart.
There is a third possibility, and that is that the woman represents Israel, and the child represents the Church. I also discard this one, because the child is specifically referred to as one "who will rule all the nations with an iron scepter" (12:5). This probably does not refer to the Church, because while we are promised to rule and reign with Christ (Romans 8), it is Christ - and only Christ - who receives the honor and glory of ruling with an iron scepter. We may be joint heirs with Christ, but He is the only True King. There's another reason for rejecting this, too, which I'll get to in a moment.
But first, what about this dragon that tries to eat the baby? Fortunately, most of it is defined in detail in the next few verses, so I don't want to get too much into interpretation. What I want to address are two things. First, the numerology here appears to be a direct reference to the passage in Daniel we looked at earlier. This dragon, much like Daniel's fourth beast, has ten horns. We'll see a little later on that the dragon gives authority to a very particular ruler, much like the horn that grows out from among the ten horns in Daniel. This could be coincidental, but since the passage in Daniel is a dual prophecy, I don't believe the number to be a coincidence.
Regardless, the main point I want to get to here is that John is seeing something that occurs on earth, definitely (see 12:6), but it is largely spiritual in nature ("A great and wondrous sign appeared in heaven"). This isn't unusual for the book of Revelation, as John sees many kinds of things, some of which occur in the spiritual, some of which occur on earth, and some of which occur on earth as a result of something happening within the spiritual realm. This is one of those times, because the sign is in heaven, but the woman (Israel?) flees to the desert prepared for her by God. The sign appears in heaven, but the child born "will rule all the nations." This means that "devour[ing] her child" refers, not to a physical dragon eating a physical baby, but a symbolic representation of the dragon trying to utterly destroy the Messiah, either through death or discrediting, a common theme that we see throughout the life of Jesus. Shortly after He was born (within two years), King Herod plotted to kill the child (see Matthew 2); after Jesus' baptism, He was tempted by Satan (Matthew 4:1-11), an attempt to render His death on the cross useless; and throughout His ministry, various people attempted to kill Him in a manner other than that with which He was purposed (e.g., John 8:48-59). We're talking a spiritual battle here, but one that plays out in events on earth.
Okay, moving on:
And there was a war in heaven. Michael and his angels fought against the dragon, and the dragon and his angels fought back. But he was not strong enough, and they lost their place in heaven. The great dragon was hurled down - that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and the angels with him.
Then I heard a loud voice in heaven say:
"Now have come the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God,
and the authority of his Christ.
For the accuser of our brothers, who accuses them before our God day and night, has been hurled
down.
They overcame him by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony;
they did not love their lives so much as to shrink from death.
Therefore rejoice, you heavens and you who dwell in them!
But woe to the earth and the sea, because the devil has gone down to you!
He is filled with fury, because he knows that his time is short."
When the dragon saw that he had been hurled to the earth, he pursued the woman who had given birth to the male child. The woman was given the two wings of a great eagle, so that she might fly to the place prepared for her in the desert, where she would be taken care of for a time, times, and half a time, out of the serpents reach. Then from his mouth the serpent spewed water like a river, to overtake the woman and sweep her away with the torrent. But the earth helped the woman by opening its mouth and swallowing the river that the dragon had spewed out of his mouth. Then the dragon was enraged at the woman and went off to make war against the rest of her offspring - those who obey God's commandments and hold to the testimony of Jesus. And the dragon stood on the shore of the sea (Revelations 12:7 - 13:1).
There's way too much going on here to go into great detail, but there are a few main points:
1) The dragon is Satan (12:9). There's no need to interpret him any other way, because it's stated loud and clear.
2) The woman is most likely Israel. Why? Because Christians are "the rest of her offspring" (12:17), and Christianity is a direct offshoot of Judaism. We can also conclude, then, that since Christians are named separately from the child,
3) The child (12:5) is most likely Christ.
In light of all of this, I truly believe that this image of a Dragon eating a baby is symbolic of Satan trying to prevent and undermine the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. Many scholars do offer different interpretations, but they sort of have to contradict and ignore passages of Scripture in order to do it. That indicates they are probably off-track. While I mean no offense to anyone who holds a different interpretation of this, seriously check your reasons for believing your interpretations. More importantly, seriously check the Scriptures to see if you are, in fact, ignoring and contradicting other passages.
Now, let's get to the more speculative parts, starting with The War (12:7). Many, many people believe that this war happened a very long time ago, when Satan initially rebelled against God. I disagree, for two reasons. Satan was not kicked out of heaven and banished to earth when he sinned, because Job 1&2 tell us that he approaches God's throne with the rest of the "divine beings" (i.e., angels). Therefore:
presence in heaven = not banished from heaven
We also know that when he is hurled to earth, he pursues the woman "who had given birth." The verb tense is interesting, because most of the book of Revelation is in past tense. Ever noticed that? That's because John is writing down the contents of this book after he received the vision (see 1:9-19). So he's saying, "here's what I saw in my vision: this happened, then this, then I heard that," and so on. But in 12:13, he's using a different tense, a tense that indicates a past event relative to the current events about which he is writing. What John, then, is saying, is, "I saw a war in heaven, and Satan was cast to earth. In his fury, he pursued the woman who had already given birth to the child." Satan's eviction, John appears to be saying, happens after Jesus, not when Satan initially rebelled. That's my take, at least. Obviously, other people - smart, people - disagree.
So what John has said to us, so far, is that Satan pursues the Messiah, but that fails, and Jesus is triumphant on the Cross. Then, there is (or will be) a war in heaven in which Satan and his followers are hurled to earth, and in his rage, he pursues Israel, but she will be protected for 3 1/2 years in a place prepared for her in the desert. Now, I don't believe this has happened yet. There are numerous points in Israel's history where people attempt to erase her from the map, but fail, but none of them match the description of the events given to us in Revelation. It's possible that "a time, times, and half a time" (12:14) means something other than 3 1/2 years. We are, after all, assuming that "time" refers to a year (a year, two years, half a year). However, the explicitly-stated 1,260 days (12:6) is pretty hard to interpret any other way (1,260 days/365 days=3.45 years).
Given that Israel has not fled to the desert to be protected for 3 1/2 years, I don't believe she has been actively pursued by a banished Satan, ergo, he has not yet been banished, because the Scriptures give a sense of immediacy to the events: Satan is banished from heaven, and as a result, he pursues the woman. When that fails, he pursues the Church (also referenced in Daniel 7:21). I believe this is what 13:1 is setting up for us, the method by which Satan begins to execute Christians.
That method is the Antichrist. We'll get to him in the next part of this.
(Oh, and the "two wings of a great eagle" that God gives Israel in order to protect her? Yeah, no clue, so I'm not even going to touch it. We'll have to wait and see when it happens. Sorry.).
Wednesday, November 25, 2015
Sedna
Here's a quick question: how many Inuit myths have you read in your life? That's what I thought. Well, here you go:
Sedna lived near the ocean with her father. Her father was an Inung - a spirit who inhabited a living body. The two lived peacefully for many years, as her mother had died when she was just a little girl.
Sedna was nearing adulthood, and the youths and warriors came from all around to seek her hand in marriage, for she was quite an extraordinarily beautiful young maiden. Her eyes were the color of the tree bark, her skin was the color of caramel candies, and her hair was as soft as the down of a young gosling. But in spite of their efforts, Sedna was uninterested. It was many years before Sedna was wooed, and this is how it happened:
A fulmar came over the sea, and landed at her feet as she was feeling the breeze on her skin. It was the springtime, and the breeze was starting to warm, but it was her heart which warmed all the more when the bird sang his song. He offered to take her with him to a land where the people dwelt in the most beautiful tents, where there was never a lack for food, and where the clothes were soft and warm. Sedna was enticed and enchanted by this strange bird, and agreed to go with him. So the two of them flew away over the sea and melting ice, until at last they reached the land of the fulmar. But Sedna had been deceived, for her home was not beautiful, but was made of fish. Her food was also fish, and her clothes were made of walrus hides, which scratched her. She lamented her choice, and sang out to her father, "Come and take me home!" The father came in his boat, and when he saw the treatment his daughter had received, he killed all of the fulmar, and laid waste their land. Then he took his daughter home.
But some of the fulmar had been out hunting, and when they arrived home, they swore vengeance upon their family and their home, and searched for the boat. They saw it at a distance, and tried to capsize it with a storm. The father threw his daughter overboard in an attempt to appease the birds, but she hung on with her fingers. He sliced her fingers off at the first knuckle, but still she clung. So he sliced again, but still she clung. So he sliced a third time, and she slipped into the water. The three joints of her fingers, in the meantime, became whales, water seals, and land seals.
Thinking that Sedna had drowned, the birds calmed the storm and flew away, and Sedna's father pulled his daughter back into the boat. But she was angry with him, and as he slept, she had her dogs gnaw off his hands and feet. At this time, the boat sank into the sea, along with Sedna and her father. Now Sedna rules the land of Adlivun, where the dead dwell.
-Inuit Myth
Sedna lived near the ocean with her father. Her father was an Inung - a spirit who inhabited a living body. The two lived peacefully for many years, as her mother had died when she was just a little girl.
Sedna was nearing adulthood, and the youths and warriors came from all around to seek her hand in marriage, for she was quite an extraordinarily beautiful young maiden. Her eyes were the color of the tree bark, her skin was the color of caramel candies, and her hair was as soft as the down of a young gosling. But in spite of their efforts, Sedna was uninterested. It was many years before Sedna was wooed, and this is how it happened:
A fulmar came over the sea, and landed at her feet as she was feeling the breeze on her skin. It was the springtime, and the breeze was starting to warm, but it was her heart which warmed all the more when the bird sang his song. He offered to take her with him to a land where the people dwelt in the most beautiful tents, where there was never a lack for food, and where the clothes were soft and warm. Sedna was enticed and enchanted by this strange bird, and agreed to go with him. So the two of them flew away over the sea and melting ice, until at last they reached the land of the fulmar. But Sedna had been deceived, for her home was not beautiful, but was made of fish. Her food was also fish, and her clothes were made of walrus hides, which scratched her. She lamented her choice, and sang out to her father, "Come and take me home!" The father came in his boat, and when he saw the treatment his daughter had received, he killed all of the fulmar, and laid waste their land. Then he took his daughter home.
But some of the fulmar had been out hunting, and when they arrived home, they swore vengeance upon their family and their home, and searched for the boat. They saw it at a distance, and tried to capsize it with a storm. The father threw his daughter overboard in an attempt to appease the birds, but she hung on with her fingers. He sliced her fingers off at the first knuckle, but still she clung. So he sliced again, but still she clung. So he sliced a third time, and she slipped into the water. The three joints of her fingers, in the meantime, became whales, water seals, and land seals.
Thinking that Sedna had drowned, the birds calmed the storm and flew away, and Sedna's father pulled his daughter back into the boat. But she was angry with him, and as he slept, she had her dogs gnaw off his hands and feet. At this time, the boat sank into the sea, along with Sedna and her father. Now Sedna rules the land of Adlivun, where the dead dwell.
-Inuit Myth
Friday, November 20, 2015
Brussels Sprouts
I think brussels sprouts typically smell and taste a little like old garbage. Or a full diaper. But these guys - well, I could eat them every week. I also thought it would be a good idea to post this in case you're looking for a Thanksgiving vegetable - something other than green bean casserole.
1 cup beef broth 1 T butter
2 T red wine vinegar 2 T minced onions
1 bag frozen brussels sprouts, OR 1 1/2 t salt
stalk fresh sprouts, trimmed, washed, 1/4 t pepper
and drained parmesan cheese
1) Combine broth, vinegar, and sprouts in a medium saucepan. Over medium-high heat, bring to a boil. Add sprouts and reduce heat to medium; simmer until liquid has boiled off, approximately twenty minutes.
2) Add butter, onions, salt and pepper. Stir well to combine. Stirring frequently, cook sprouts until onion is soft and sprouts have browned, approximately ten minutes. Sprinkle with parmesan cheese and serve.
1 cup beef broth 1 T butter
2 T red wine vinegar 2 T minced onions
1 bag frozen brussels sprouts, OR 1 1/2 t salt
stalk fresh sprouts, trimmed, washed, 1/4 t pepper
and drained parmesan cheese
1) Combine broth, vinegar, and sprouts in a medium saucepan. Over medium-high heat, bring to a boil. Add sprouts and reduce heat to medium; simmer until liquid has boiled off, approximately twenty minutes.
2) Add butter, onions, salt and pepper. Stir well to combine. Stirring frequently, cook sprouts until onion is soft and sprouts have browned, approximately ten minutes. Sprinkle with parmesan cheese and serve.
Thursday, November 12, 2015
Some Light Reading. . . .
You know, I look around at the world and sometimes I feel as if everyone has abandoned all belief in anything spiritual. I feel as if atheism is on a sharp (almost vertical) incline. But the fact is that most people do still belief in the spiritual, even if it isn't the God of the Bible. Recent polls indicate that 51% of people worldwide believe in some form of god (or gods). With that said, however, there are
still plenty of people who don't believe in anything
supernatural (18%, according to the same study). The late Carl Sagan, if I may paraphrase him, once
commented that the universe is it: there is nothing out there greater than what we can see and observe. Just a brief moment of consideration on that, however, reveals that it is a very faulty and highly arrogant thought, because it's only been within the last few decades that we've been able to observe distant galaxies, and we were unable to observe basic microbes until the 1600's. In other words, if Leeuwenhoek had had Sagan's attitude, we still wouldn't know about germs. In essence, what Sagan's statement does is assume that our current knowledge is all we can ever, and all we need to ever, know. This is not only arrogant, but patently false. The most interesting thing about it, however, is that, as a scientist, he also argued vehemently for a constant expansion of our knowledge. Do you see the disconnect there? What he was essentially saying was that all we can see is all there is, but we need to work to see more. If there's more to see, then obviously we're not dealing with all there is, right? It's a backwards, contradictory, and foolish philosophy, but it does raise an important question: does God exist?
Now that question makes many Christians uncomfortable, and immediately turns us into Scripture-quoting, "church-speak"-talking, half-baked philosophers. Until we learn to square with the idea that there are people who legitimately don't believe in God, and until we can learn to legitimately reason that there is one, then our faith is really nothing more than a list of rules. We use Jesus as some kind of intellectual crutch, or an excuse to not have to love God with all of our minds (see Mark 12:30).
So does God exist?
The Apostle Paul, in his letter to the church in Rome, wrote, "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities - his eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse" (Romans 1:20). Paul, who perhaps understood the mind of Christ better than anyone who has ever lived, reminds us of a fundamental truth: everything in the natural world has a beginning.
A quick inventory of the world around us confirms this: babies come from parents, plants come from seeds, and so on. Everything that is natural begins somewhere. Of course, the converse of that is that anything without a beginning would be eternal, and therefore supernatural. Paul says, in effect, the universe (natural) had to start somewhere (with the supernatural).
Most modern scientists, however, disagree. Cosmologists have determined - as best as they can, at least - that the universe had a beginning, yes, but that the beginning was itself natural. They assert that everything - space, matter, time, everything - had a natural beginning. They believe that it all began with a burst of energy that we now know as The Big Bang. There was no God speaking things into existence, no Chaos out of which multiple gods and goddesses emerged, no magical light sources or men made from clay. There was only an initial bust of energy that naturally created everything.
And when we honestly examine the evidence for this initial burst of energy, we find that the evidence is compelling. Things like the undeniable evidence that our universe is expanding, things like the Cosmic Background Radiation, all point to evidence of this Big Bang. If we are truly open-minded about it, there does seem to be, at least superficially, a reason to believe in The Big Bang.
The problem with this, of course, is that it ignores the question we should be asking: Where did the initial energy come from? Instead of asking what the energy did, and what the after-effects of it were, we should be asking, "How was it there to begin with?" Was it created? Then there is a supernatural being who created it. Did it always exist? Then it is eternal and, therefore, supernatural. "Ah," some cosmologists might argue, "but there was no 'eternity' at that point, because time was created with that energy!" Then the energy itself would be outside of time, and, therefore, eternal.
No matter what view we take, no matter how much we try to mythologize and sanitize ancient beliefs, no matter how hard we try to explain away the supernatural, we are left with one conclusion: some god in some form must exist. Maybe it's personal, maybe not. Maybe there's one god, two gods, maybe an infinite number of gods. Regardless of our take on things, regardless of what we may or may not believe, regardless of what we want to believe, the very existence of our universe screams: "I was created by something greater than me!"
If, as Paul points out, we are without excuse, then why do so many people try to close their eyes and pretend there is no god? At this point, it is easy to suggest that people want to be hedonistic animals who live for instinct, but I don't think that's true. For some, certainly, but not all. What I've noticed is that, among all the causes of atheism out there, pain appears to be the most common reason people reject the very existence of God. It's the old question: "Why would a good God allow pain and suffering?" And that is, truly, an excellent question, because when we look around us and see pain, suffering, and death, it doesn't feel right.
In the remarkable film Grand Canyon, Kevin Kline plays a well-to-do business man whose car breaks down in a rough part of town. As he waits for a tow-truck, some neighborhood gang members begin harassing him. One of them pulls a knife, and we get the impression that things would go horribly wrong if the tow-tuck driver, played by Danny Glover, hadn't shown up at that point. He gets out of the truck and walks over to the guys and gives them a remarkable speech on this subject of a broken world.
"Man," he says, "the world ain't supposed to work like this. I mean, maybe you don't know that, but this ain't the way it's supposed to be. I'm supposed to be able to do my job without asking you if I can. That dude is supposed to be able to wait with his car without you rippin' him off. Everything's supposed to be different than what it is."
Death, suffering, trouble . . . this ain't the way it's supposed to be. I find it interesting that we see this idea throughout early mythology: suffering is an invader into the world of men. Whether it comes into the Garden of Eden through a serpent, whether it emerges from Pandora's Box, or whether it wraps itself around Yggdrasil, the Norse Tree of the World, in ancient mythology, death and suffering are portrayed as evil.
And that's because they are evil.
Death is evil, and I believe this is why so many of us reject God. We have a hard time understanding that Evil can exist in a universe with Good. To us, pain and suffering just don't add up. Whether we're watching a loved one die of cancer, we're C.S. Lewis faced with the horrors of war, or we're a lonely desk clerk who has been rejected by one too many people, pain and suffering bring us to one of the most fundamental questions of life: Does God exist?
Unlike a great deal of Christians, I don't believe that asking this question is a problem. After all, the answer we should arrive at ("yes") is only an answer if we first ask the question. If we never question, then what we have is blind faith, which is dangerous no matter what that blind faith is. So all of this brings us back to the original question: if there is no eternal being, then where did all of this come from? I have an astronomy book from college that tells me that, within a 1,000 light year radius of our galaxy, there are over ten million stars. Where did it all begin? Randomly? Purposefully? Flawed from the beginning, or did it start perfect and become corrupted?
The first three chapters of the Book of Genesis tell us that we started perfect, and allowed ourselves to become corrupted. The rest of the Bible unfolds that idea, expounds on it, and lets us know that we are not the center of our universe, and that love and death can - and do - co-exist.
"But wait!" we argue, "How could a loving God create perfect people and allow them to be corrupted? Love wouldn't allow that!" I would agree with you, except that perhaps our definition of love is incorrect. In fact, I would argue that love can exist, not apart from corruption, but with corruption. I would also argue that a perfect love does more than co-exist with corruption: it rises above corruption, defeating it and restoring that which was corrupted. That is, after all, why Jesus died.
He had no sin, yet He became sin, dying the very physical and spiritual death that comes with sin. Yet even in that, there was no corruption, for two reasons. The first, He got back up.
David writes in Psalm 16 that God won't let His Holy One see decay. Paul, in Acts, relates this to Jesus. Why? Because Jesus got back up. Rather than decay, Death reversed, and Jesus got. Back. Up. His followers, who were hiding behind locked doors three days after His death, were so convinced by His resurrection that they all gladly faced torture, execution, and banishment for this truth.
The second reason we know that there is now no condemnation is because Jesus ascended into heaven. Stick with me here: Jesus died for sin, but He didn't die for His own sins. That means He died for everyone else's. Yours. Mine. Sagan's. Everyone. John, in 1 John 2:2 writes that Jesus died, not just for our sins, "but for the sins of the whole world." So Jesus, at His death, was steeped in sin. He was drenched in it. So much so, that He cried out, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" (Matthew 27:46). Okay? Jesus became - literally - the world's most sinful person. Psalm 15 tells us that the only people who have any shot at all of entering into the presence of God is "he whose walk is blameless" (2).
At His death, Jesus was the most sinful person who has ever lived. Sinful people cannot enter Heaven, and yet Jesus did. Why? Because our corruption - the sin laid on Him - was completely and totally atoned for, paid in full. His resurrection and ascension prove that God has power, not only to stop corruption fro happening, but to completely and totally overcome it. This is incredible and amazing, and I have had to retype these last few sentences five times because I'm so excited, I keep making massive typos.
How could a good God allow suffering? Suffering refines us, it strengthens us, and it teaches us. Without it, He wouldn't be good, nor would He be loving. But overcoming it as an expression of love . . . that is Someone worth worshiping.
Now that question makes many Christians uncomfortable, and immediately turns us into Scripture-quoting, "church-speak"-talking, half-baked philosophers. Until we learn to square with the idea that there are people who legitimately don't believe in God, and until we can learn to legitimately reason that there is one, then our faith is really nothing more than a list of rules. We use Jesus as some kind of intellectual crutch, or an excuse to not have to love God with all of our minds (see Mark 12:30).
So does God exist?
The Apostle Paul, in his letter to the church in Rome, wrote, "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities - his eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse" (Romans 1:20). Paul, who perhaps understood the mind of Christ better than anyone who has ever lived, reminds us of a fundamental truth: everything in the natural world has a beginning.
A quick inventory of the world around us confirms this: babies come from parents, plants come from seeds, and so on. Everything that is natural begins somewhere. Of course, the converse of that is that anything without a beginning would be eternal, and therefore supernatural. Paul says, in effect, the universe (natural) had to start somewhere (with the supernatural).
Most modern scientists, however, disagree. Cosmologists have determined - as best as they can, at least - that the universe had a beginning, yes, but that the beginning was itself natural. They assert that everything - space, matter, time, everything - had a natural beginning. They believe that it all began with a burst of energy that we now know as The Big Bang. There was no God speaking things into existence, no Chaos out of which multiple gods and goddesses emerged, no magical light sources or men made from clay. There was only an initial bust of energy that naturally created everything.
And when we honestly examine the evidence for this initial burst of energy, we find that the evidence is compelling. Things like the undeniable evidence that our universe is expanding, things like the Cosmic Background Radiation, all point to evidence of this Big Bang. If we are truly open-minded about it, there does seem to be, at least superficially, a reason to believe in The Big Bang.
The problem with this, of course, is that it ignores the question we should be asking: Where did the initial energy come from? Instead of asking what the energy did, and what the after-effects of it were, we should be asking, "How was it there to begin with?" Was it created? Then there is a supernatural being who created it. Did it always exist? Then it is eternal and, therefore, supernatural. "Ah," some cosmologists might argue, "but there was no 'eternity' at that point, because time was created with that energy!" Then the energy itself would be outside of time, and, therefore, eternal.
No matter what view we take, no matter how much we try to mythologize and sanitize ancient beliefs, no matter how hard we try to explain away the supernatural, we are left with one conclusion: some god in some form must exist. Maybe it's personal, maybe not. Maybe there's one god, two gods, maybe an infinite number of gods. Regardless of our take on things, regardless of what we may or may not believe, regardless of what we want to believe, the very existence of our universe screams: "I was created by something greater than me!"
If, as Paul points out, we are without excuse, then why do so many people try to close their eyes and pretend there is no god? At this point, it is easy to suggest that people want to be hedonistic animals who live for instinct, but I don't think that's true. For some, certainly, but not all. What I've noticed is that, among all the causes of atheism out there, pain appears to be the most common reason people reject the very existence of God. It's the old question: "Why would a good God allow pain and suffering?" And that is, truly, an excellent question, because when we look around us and see pain, suffering, and death, it doesn't feel right.
In the remarkable film Grand Canyon, Kevin Kline plays a well-to-do business man whose car breaks down in a rough part of town. As he waits for a tow-truck, some neighborhood gang members begin harassing him. One of them pulls a knife, and we get the impression that things would go horribly wrong if the tow-tuck driver, played by Danny Glover, hadn't shown up at that point. He gets out of the truck and walks over to the guys and gives them a remarkable speech on this subject of a broken world.
"Man," he says, "the world ain't supposed to work like this. I mean, maybe you don't know that, but this ain't the way it's supposed to be. I'm supposed to be able to do my job without asking you if I can. That dude is supposed to be able to wait with his car without you rippin' him off. Everything's supposed to be different than what it is."
Death, suffering, trouble . . . this ain't the way it's supposed to be. I find it interesting that we see this idea throughout early mythology: suffering is an invader into the world of men. Whether it comes into the Garden of Eden through a serpent, whether it emerges from Pandora's Box, or whether it wraps itself around Yggdrasil, the Norse Tree of the World, in ancient mythology, death and suffering are portrayed as evil.
And that's because they are evil.
Death is evil, and I believe this is why so many of us reject God. We have a hard time understanding that Evil can exist in a universe with Good. To us, pain and suffering just don't add up. Whether we're watching a loved one die of cancer, we're C.S. Lewis faced with the horrors of war, or we're a lonely desk clerk who has been rejected by one too many people, pain and suffering bring us to one of the most fundamental questions of life: Does God exist?
Unlike a great deal of Christians, I don't believe that asking this question is a problem. After all, the answer we should arrive at ("yes") is only an answer if we first ask the question. If we never question, then what we have is blind faith, which is dangerous no matter what that blind faith is. So all of this brings us back to the original question: if there is no eternal being, then where did all of this come from? I have an astronomy book from college that tells me that, within a 1,000 light year radius of our galaxy, there are over ten million stars. Where did it all begin? Randomly? Purposefully? Flawed from the beginning, or did it start perfect and become corrupted?
The first three chapters of the Book of Genesis tell us that we started perfect, and allowed ourselves to become corrupted. The rest of the Bible unfolds that idea, expounds on it, and lets us know that we are not the center of our universe, and that love and death can - and do - co-exist.
"But wait!" we argue, "How could a loving God create perfect people and allow them to be corrupted? Love wouldn't allow that!" I would agree with you, except that perhaps our definition of love is incorrect. In fact, I would argue that love can exist, not apart from corruption, but with corruption. I would also argue that a perfect love does more than co-exist with corruption: it rises above corruption, defeating it and restoring that which was corrupted. That is, after all, why Jesus died.
He had no sin, yet He became sin, dying the very physical and spiritual death that comes with sin. Yet even in that, there was no corruption, for two reasons. The first, He got back up.
David writes in Psalm 16 that God won't let His Holy One see decay. Paul, in Acts, relates this to Jesus. Why? Because Jesus got back up. Rather than decay, Death reversed, and Jesus got. Back. Up. His followers, who were hiding behind locked doors three days after His death, were so convinced by His resurrection that they all gladly faced torture, execution, and banishment for this truth.
The second reason we know that there is now no condemnation is because Jesus ascended into heaven. Stick with me here: Jesus died for sin, but He didn't die for His own sins. That means He died for everyone else's. Yours. Mine. Sagan's. Everyone. John, in 1 John 2:2 writes that Jesus died, not just for our sins, "but for the sins of the whole world." So Jesus, at His death, was steeped in sin. He was drenched in it. So much so, that He cried out, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" (Matthew 27:46). Okay? Jesus became - literally - the world's most sinful person. Psalm 15 tells us that the only people who have any shot at all of entering into the presence of God is "he whose walk is blameless" (2).
At His death, Jesus was the most sinful person who has ever lived. Sinful people cannot enter Heaven, and yet Jesus did. Why? Because our corruption - the sin laid on Him - was completely and totally atoned for, paid in full. His resurrection and ascension prove that God has power, not only to stop corruption fro happening, but to completely and totally overcome it. This is incredible and amazing, and I have had to retype these last few sentences five times because I'm so excited, I keep making massive typos.
How could a good God allow suffering? Suffering refines us, it strengthens us, and it teaches us. Without it, He wouldn't be good, nor would He be loving. But overcoming it as an expression of love . . . that is Someone worth worshiping.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)