Some years ago, a particular "prophecy preacher" authored a work purporting to tell the reader "everything you ever wanted to know about prophecy." Inevitably, of course, time invalidates such claims.
Despite Christ's denial that mankind knows the time of his return (Matt. 24:36; Mark 13:32), predictions to that end are anything but new. Scripture further implies that some prophetic pronouncements will be understood only within the setting of fulfillment itself (Jer. 23:22; 30:24; John 14:29, etc.)
This was all brought to mind recently in relation to the latest, at least to our knowledge, prediction of Christ's return and destruction of the earth - the occurence of which, allegedly, was to have taken place a couple weeks or so ago.
In relatively recent times, the most effective propagation of spurious "prophetic insight" was, of course, the "forty year generational theory" wherein Christ's coming to reign on the earth was to take place forty years after the reestablishment of Israel as a nation. Given the fact that Israel attained statehood in 1948, and that a Pre-tribulation Rapture of the Church was projected to occur seven years prior to the conclusion of the forty years, Christ's "return" would then take place in in 1981. Enormous numbers of believers were persuaded and immense quantities of books promoting the thesis were sold.
Of numerous lesser effective "revelations and insights" we will here touch upon but a few. Some readers, for example, may recall when, following World War II, biblical reference denoting a certain new instrument of warfare was purportedly discovered in Matthew 24:15: "When you therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by the prophet..." . There it was... the first four letters of the word "abomination" being comprised of "A-bom" - thus "the A-bomb of desolation!"
Others will recall the "prophetic discovery" that by ascribing an ascending value of the number 6 (the "number of man") to letters of the English alphabet (A=6; B=12; C=18; etc.), the then Secretary of State Henry Kissinger's last name would yield a numerical total of 666 (no doubt to the immense relief of then Egyptian President Anwar Sadat who, given the fact that Charles de Gaulle was no longer around to fill the role of Antichrist, was himself now absolved of that onerous responsibility).
Again, it was claimed that in preparation for the coming carnage of Armageddon, Mideastern vultures were now multiplying at an incredible rate (largely attributable to their now laying four eggs per clutch as opposed to a previous single egg). The list of spurious "revelations" is, of course, ongoing.
While not specifically eschatological in nature, we would also note the considerable excitement exerted some years ago by the widely disseminated report of Russian scientists who, having drilled a hole many miles into the earth into which a microphone had then been lowered, had been stunned beyond measure upon hearing the cries of the damned in hell. The drive and thrust attendant this alleged event held much in common with many of the "insights" that yet continue to characterize the realm of speculative prophetic allegations.(Interestingly, it was later discovered that the story of the Russian scientists was a deliberate fabrication initiated by a religious skeptic intent on proving Christians gullible and naive.)
To the world at large, repeated confusions of the foregoing nature tend not only to undermine the credibility of prophetic pronouncement but, particularly among those less nurtured in the faith, a certain hesitation or even disillusionment in relation to insightful understanding - particularly as the Church increasingly encounters the day of spiritual delusion wherein, "were it possible, the very elect elect will be deceived" (Matt. 24:24).
Finally, on a somewhat lighter side and as a reminder to "prove all things" (I Thess. 5:21; an exhortation most likely unneeded in the following instance)we here share the following tongue-in-cheek "revelation" concerning "Barney the Purple Dinosaur" of children's television fame. This first appeared some years ago in "The Joyful Newsletter" as published by Cal and Rose Samra of Portage, Michigan(*). With their permission, we then shared it with our readership.
Beginning with the words "CUTE PURPLE DINOSAUR" in which, as per Latin usage, the letters "U" are changed to "V," one thus arrives at CVTE PVRPLE DINOSAVR. By substituting Arabic numerical equivalents for the Roman numerals CVVLDIV in the amended ascription, one then arrives at 100-5-5-50-500-1-5; the sum of which totals
666. Barney, obviously, is the Antichrist!
While we smile, might it be that the preceding "insight" is not always that far removed from the eschatological assumptions sometimes encountered in relation to more serious concerns?
While originally written in relation to another sphere of concern, the words of the apostle Paul are equally appropriate here: "Brethren, do not be children in your thinking, yet in evil be babes, but in your thinking be mature" (I Cor. 14:20).
Burl Ratzsch
(*) "The Joyful Noiseletter"
P.O. Box 895
Portage, Michigan 49081-0895
Saturday, November 12, 2011
Saturday, November 05, 2011
WORSHIPING WHOM?
Some years ago a friend visited a home prayer meeting at which Satan was repeatedly denounced, rebuked and "bound"; advised of the group's authority over him; commanded to "free" those for whom prayer was offered, and ordered to desist from sundry nefarious pursuits. The group was much into "spiritual warfare" - a popular theme at the time. Asked to comment on the meeting at its conclusion, our friend wryly observed that he was impressed with their having focused more on the devil than on the Lord.
That "we wrestle against principalities and powers, the rulers of this world of darkness, and evil spirits in regions above" (Eph. 7:12 NAB) is not at issue here. We do and, as believers, shall continue to do so until the end. The problem here, however, involved the enemy's having gained center stage at the expense of Christ's preeminence. Indeed, an inordinate focus on the evil one, even within a negative frame of reference, possesses the potential, however unintentionally, of an "inverse worship" ('worth-ship,' i.e., recognition and acknowledgement of one's transcendent attributes) upon which he thrives. That the devil is reviled for his malevolent character simply fails of the fact that he desires to be evil. Undue emphasis on his nature and quality of being thus becomes a welcomed acknowledgement of his success.
Acts 8 records Philip's highly successful evangelistic campaign at Samaria where, in a culture of mixed heritage, religious persuasion was rooted largely in a Judaic/paganistic syncretism. As such, the occult played a significant role in the lives of the people. Within this setting Philip's ministry necessarily involved exorcism and spiritual deliverance - in consequence of which "unclean spirits crying with a loud voice came out of many that were possessed by them" (Acts 8:4-8).
Despite such, Philip's theme was not demons and the devil. He rather "preached Christ unto them" (vs. 5), thus providing a setting for the exercise of spiritual authority as occasion required. The result of his Christocentric ministry was "great joy in that city" (vs. 8).
Paul adopted a similar approach at Corinth, itself a notorious center of paganistic license and debauchery: "I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified" (I Cor. 2:2). In having lost this underlying emphasis, the aforementioned prayer group had unwittingly played into the enemy's hand - thus forfeiting both balance and perspective.
Again, the words of the apostle: "Christ is the head of the body, the church....that in all things he might have the preeminence" (Col. 1:18).
As we progress into increasingly dark and difficult times, we shall do well to retain this awareness.
Burl Ratzsch
That "we wrestle against principalities and powers, the rulers of this world of darkness, and evil spirits in regions above" (Eph. 7:12 NAB) is not at issue here. We do and, as believers, shall continue to do so until the end. The problem here, however, involved the enemy's having gained center stage at the expense of Christ's preeminence. Indeed, an inordinate focus on the evil one, even within a negative frame of reference, possesses the potential, however unintentionally, of an "inverse worship" ('worth-ship,' i.e., recognition and acknowledgement of one's transcendent attributes) upon which he thrives. That the devil is reviled for his malevolent character simply fails of the fact that he desires to be evil. Undue emphasis on his nature and quality of being thus becomes a welcomed acknowledgement of his success.
Acts 8 records Philip's highly successful evangelistic campaign at Samaria where, in a culture of mixed heritage, religious persuasion was rooted largely in a Judaic/paganistic syncretism. As such, the occult played a significant role in the lives of the people. Within this setting Philip's ministry necessarily involved exorcism and spiritual deliverance - in consequence of which "unclean spirits crying with a loud voice came out of many that were possessed by them" (Acts 8:4-8).
Despite such, Philip's theme was not demons and the devil. He rather "preached Christ unto them" (vs. 5), thus providing a setting for the exercise of spiritual authority as occasion required. The result of his Christocentric ministry was "great joy in that city" (vs. 8).
Paul adopted a similar approach at Corinth, itself a notorious center of paganistic license and debauchery: "I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified" (I Cor. 2:2). In having lost this underlying emphasis, the aforementioned prayer group had unwittingly played into the enemy's hand - thus forfeiting both balance and perspective.
Again, the words of the apostle: "Christ is the head of the body, the church....that in all things he might have the preeminence" (Col. 1:18).
As we progress into increasingly dark and difficult times, we shall do well to retain this awareness.
Burl Ratzsch
Saturday, October 29, 2011
IT SAID WHAT?
Why pastors tend at times to gray prematurely.....
It is sometimes easy to lose perspective - particularly when in the pursuit or promotion of one's own ideas and understanding. Hence the confusion frequently attendant that which some allege Scripture to affirm. For example:
We were once advised by a totally serious parishioner that Scripture sanctions the cohabitation of unwed couples so long as they eventually marry. In support of his assertion he then quoted from I Corinthians 7:28: "If you marry, you have not sinned." If ever need existed for demonstrating the perils of Scripture removed from context, this had to qualify as a prime example.
There is, of course, no end to distortions of this nature. Thus the persuasion of many during the height of the "wealth and prosperity" teaching that by "leaving one's house, wife, parents, children or farms for my sake and for the Gospel's sake" (Matt. 19:16-24; Mark 10:29,30; Luke 18:29,30) one became entitled to a hundred fold increase. Predictably, this phenomenal return was often avowed and emphasized in association with appeals for financial support in relation to various ministries and endeavors.
In focusing primarily upon financial or material remuneration, the fact that Jesus had included brothers, sisters, parents, wives and children in the resultant enlargement was typically ignored. While personally doubtful as to the interest of many in acquiring another hundred or more children (depending on the number left behind), we did at times tend to wonder as to the appeal an additional hundred wives might have held for some! Well, anyway.....
The whole of Jesus' pronouncement was in answer to that which had taken place immediately prior. Having dealt with a man so driven by materialistic concerns and ambition as to preclude his forsaking all to follow Christ, our Lord had subsequently observed, "How hard it is for those who trust in riches to enter the kingdom of God."
At this point Peter drew Jesus' attention to the fact that, in contrast to the preceding individual, "We have left everything and followed you. What therefore shall we have?" It was then that Jesus addressed the theme of multiplied family and resources.
What was the meaning of Christ's pronouncement? Simply that a family relationship so exists within the community of faith that should one's commitment to Christ and divine cause cost him everything in terms of family relationships and temporal well being, he will be neither alone nor impoverished. As a member of the "family of God" (to quote the well known song), he will rather have gained that body's love, acceptance, concern and sense of familial identity - a hundred times over.
One final illustration in relation to context and intent: Lest our frequently exaggerated view of early Christian maturity and perceptiveness indicate a need for for at least minimal readjustment (the New Testament epistles should themselves clarify much at this point), we would here focus upon one prominent individual from the early Church era. The eminent scholar and theologian Origen became so taken with Jesus' metaphoric allusion to those having foregone marriage "for the sake of the kingdom of heaven" as having "made eunuchs of themselves" (Matt. 19:12), that he personally castrated himself.
Simply stated, context and underlying intent will explain many things in Scripture and in so doing contribute much to one's avoidance of confusion or, as Origen later came to recognize - at least with regard to his self inflicted mutilation - profound regret.
Burl Ratzsch
It is sometimes easy to lose perspective - particularly when in the pursuit or promotion of one's own ideas and understanding. Hence the confusion frequently attendant that which some allege Scripture to affirm. For example:
We were once advised by a totally serious parishioner that Scripture sanctions the cohabitation of unwed couples so long as they eventually marry. In support of his assertion he then quoted from I Corinthians 7:28: "If you marry, you have not sinned." If ever need existed for demonstrating the perils of Scripture removed from context, this had to qualify as a prime example.
There is, of course, no end to distortions of this nature. Thus the persuasion of many during the height of the "wealth and prosperity" teaching that by "leaving one's house, wife, parents, children or farms for my sake and for the Gospel's sake" (Matt. 19:16-24; Mark 10:29,30; Luke 18:29,30) one became entitled to a hundred fold increase. Predictably, this phenomenal return was often avowed and emphasized in association with appeals for financial support in relation to various ministries and endeavors.
In focusing primarily upon financial or material remuneration, the fact that Jesus had included brothers, sisters, parents, wives and children in the resultant enlargement was typically ignored. While personally doubtful as to the interest of many in acquiring another hundred or more children (depending on the number left behind), we did at times tend to wonder as to the appeal an additional hundred wives might have held for some! Well, anyway.....
The whole of Jesus' pronouncement was in answer to that which had taken place immediately prior. Having dealt with a man so driven by materialistic concerns and ambition as to preclude his forsaking all to follow Christ, our Lord had subsequently observed, "How hard it is for those who trust in riches to enter the kingdom of God."
At this point Peter drew Jesus' attention to the fact that, in contrast to the preceding individual, "We have left everything and followed you. What therefore shall we have?" It was then that Jesus addressed the theme of multiplied family and resources.
What was the meaning of Christ's pronouncement? Simply that a family relationship so exists within the community of faith that should one's commitment to Christ and divine cause cost him everything in terms of family relationships and temporal well being, he will be neither alone nor impoverished. As a member of the "family of God" (to quote the well known song), he will rather have gained that body's love, acceptance, concern and sense of familial identity - a hundred times over.
One final illustration in relation to context and intent: Lest our frequently exaggerated view of early Christian maturity and perceptiveness indicate a need for for at least minimal readjustment (the New Testament epistles should themselves clarify much at this point), we would here focus upon one prominent individual from the early Church era. The eminent scholar and theologian Origen became so taken with Jesus' metaphoric allusion to those having foregone marriage "for the sake of the kingdom of heaven" as having "made eunuchs of themselves" (Matt. 19:12), that he personally castrated himself.
Simply stated, context and underlying intent will explain many things in Scripture and in so doing contribute much to one's avoidance of confusion or, as Origen later came to recognize - at least with regard to his self inflicted mutilation - profound regret.
Burl Ratzsch
Saturday, October 22, 2011
"DAYS OF NOAH"
While in a neighboring community recently, our attention was directed to a young lady wearing a shirt emblazoned on both front and back with the word "INCUBUS." For those to whom the term may be somewhat unfamiliar, reference here is to demonic spirits who - primarily within realms of the satanic and/or deeply occult - allegedly assume physical form for the purpose of engaging in sexual intercourse with humans. While likely acquired at a concert by the rock band of that name, our thoughts logically went to the biblical account of such involvement.
In addressing the subject we would, however, first note that following Jesus' lament over Jerusalem and accompanying prediction of its devastion - particularly with regard to its temple - the Gospels record the Twelve's immediate inquiry as to the sign (signal indication) of his return and end of the age (Matt. 24:3 Mark 13:4; Luke 21:7).
At this point, two aspects of our Lord's response assume particular significance in light of their prefigurative implications. "The days of the Son of Man" (i.e., in terms of his coming and end of the age) will be "as it was in the days of Noah" and again, "as it was in the days of Lot" (Luke 17:26,28). While initially focusing upon mankind's fatal lack of awareness as to the fact of impending judgment, both eras are to be seen as additionally presaging the time of the end in terms of its moral and spiritual character.
In relation to "the days of Lot," Scripture portrays an era of moral deviance within a cultural setting of "arrogance, abundant food, careless ease, indifference toward the poor and needy, haughtiness and the committing of abominations" (Gen. 19:1-11; Ezek. 17:49-50). Little in the way of present explanation is needed here.
By way of contrast, the "days of Noah" frequently requires a degree of clarification. At this point Scripture details an era well known to both ancient tradition and holy writ concerning a time of demonic/human interaction wherein fallen angels (generally known at the time as "sons of the gods") interbred with earthly women, thus occasioning the birth of supra human hybrids known as "Nephilim" (Gen. 6:4. Interestingly, upon recognizing the supernatural character of the being accompanying the "three Hebrew children" in the fiery furnace, the pagan king Nebuchadnezzar mistakenly identified this personage as "a son of the gods," Dan. 3:25 NIV; see also other corresponding translations).
At this point a more contemporary view defining the "sons of god" as the supposedly godly descendants of Seth in opposition to the ungodly descendants of Cain obviously requires our consideration. Simply stated, the difficulties are immediate.
First of all, Scripture lends no credence or support to the theory.
Secondly: Godliness is never the result of congenital descent. To quote an applicable adage from the relatively recent past: "GOD HAS NO GRANDCHILDREN; ONLY SONS AND DAUGHTERS." We do well to again hear its affirmation.
Thirdly: Throughout the past Jewish tradition and religious scholarship consistently defined the Genesis account of the "sons of god" as referring to fallen spirit beings. This, in itself, denotes the original sense of meaning ascribed to the Mosaic record.
Fourthly: Nowhere within the realm of biblical pronouncement is there any allusion whatever to godly persons who, in having married outside the realm of like cause and commitment, run the risk of dramatically abnormal, hybrid children (in this instance, the superhuman Nephilim) - as the "sons of Seth"/"sons of Cain" hypothesis would logically require.
Fifthly: Of even greater significance from a Christian point of view is the fact that the apostle Peter, in keeping with the Genesis account, likewise associates Noah's Flood with "angels who sinned" (II Pet. 2:4,5). Simply put, the Sethite/Cainite proposal lacks for either biblical or historical support.
While identified in Scripture as fallen angels (II Peter 2:4; Jude 6), the spirit entities of a rebellious, morally insurrectionist nature are known in contemporary parlance as incubus (male singular) or succubus (female singular - incubi and succubi in the plural). Thus the young lady's shirt - to little mention a growing emphasis within the realms of popular music, entertainment media, etc.
What does this all mean in relation to the time of the end? Simply this: Just as Satan endeavored in the "days of Noah" to so corrupt the human race as to preclude the coming of the Savior who, for obvious reasons, could not be born of such ancestry, so also at the end, demonic interaction with humankind will again serve as a major means of attack whereby the enemy again seeks to thwart divine purpose in relation to both his own defeat and the divine creation of a "new heavens and new earth wherein dwelleth righteousness" (II Pet. 3:13).
In contrast to the world of both Noah's and Lot's days wherein they "knew not until...," it will prove increasingly critical for the believing community "to know."
Burl Ratzsch
P.S. For angelic beings who, in having "kept their first estate" are yet - in the ascription's original intent - designated "sons of God," see Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7).
In addressing the subject we would, however, first note that following Jesus' lament over Jerusalem and accompanying prediction of its devastion - particularly with regard to its temple - the Gospels record the Twelve's immediate inquiry as to the sign (signal indication) of his return and end of the age (Matt. 24:3 Mark 13:4; Luke 21:7).
At this point, two aspects of our Lord's response assume particular significance in light of their prefigurative implications. "The days of the Son of Man" (i.e., in terms of his coming and end of the age) will be "as it was in the days of Noah" and again, "as it was in the days of Lot" (Luke 17:26,28). While initially focusing upon mankind's fatal lack of awareness as to the fact of impending judgment, both eras are to be seen as additionally presaging the time of the end in terms of its moral and spiritual character.
In relation to "the days of Lot," Scripture portrays an era of moral deviance within a cultural setting of "arrogance, abundant food, careless ease, indifference toward the poor and needy, haughtiness and the committing of abominations" (Gen. 19:1-11; Ezek. 17:49-50). Little in the way of present explanation is needed here.
By way of contrast, the "days of Noah" frequently requires a degree of clarification. At this point Scripture details an era well known to both ancient tradition and holy writ concerning a time of demonic/human interaction wherein fallen angels (generally known at the time as "sons of the gods") interbred with earthly women, thus occasioning the birth of supra human hybrids known as "Nephilim" (Gen. 6:4. Interestingly, upon recognizing the supernatural character of the being accompanying the "three Hebrew children" in the fiery furnace, the pagan king Nebuchadnezzar mistakenly identified this personage as "a son of the gods," Dan. 3:25 NIV; see also other corresponding translations).
At this point a more contemporary view defining the "sons of god" as the supposedly godly descendants of Seth in opposition to the ungodly descendants of Cain obviously requires our consideration. Simply stated, the difficulties are immediate.
First of all, Scripture lends no credence or support to the theory.
Secondly: Godliness is never the result of congenital descent. To quote an applicable adage from the relatively recent past: "GOD HAS NO GRANDCHILDREN; ONLY SONS AND DAUGHTERS." We do well to again hear its affirmation.
Thirdly: Throughout the past Jewish tradition and religious scholarship consistently defined the Genesis account of the "sons of god" as referring to fallen spirit beings. This, in itself, denotes the original sense of meaning ascribed to the Mosaic record.
Fourthly: Nowhere within the realm of biblical pronouncement is there any allusion whatever to godly persons who, in having married outside the realm of like cause and commitment, run the risk of dramatically abnormal, hybrid children (in this instance, the superhuman Nephilim) - as the "sons of Seth"/"sons of Cain" hypothesis would logically require.
Fifthly: Of even greater significance from a Christian point of view is the fact that the apostle Peter, in keeping with the Genesis account, likewise associates Noah's Flood with "angels who sinned" (II Pet. 2:4,5). Simply put, the Sethite/Cainite proposal lacks for either biblical or historical support.
While identified in Scripture as fallen angels (II Peter 2:4; Jude 6), the spirit entities of a rebellious, morally insurrectionist nature are known in contemporary parlance as incubus (male singular) or succubus (female singular - incubi and succubi in the plural). Thus the young lady's shirt - to little mention a growing emphasis within the realms of popular music, entertainment media, etc.
What does this all mean in relation to the time of the end? Simply this: Just as Satan endeavored in the "days of Noah" to so corrupt the human race as to preclude the coming of the Savior who, for obvious reasons, could not be born of such ancestry, so also at the end, demonic interaction with humankind will again serve as a major means of attack whereby the enemy again seeks to thwart divine purpose in relation to both his own defeat and the divine creation of a "new heavens and new earth wherein dwelleth righteousness" (II Pet. 3:13).
In contrast to the world of both Noah's and Lot's days wherein they "knew not until...," it will prove increasingly critical for the believing community "to know."
Burl Ratzsch
P.S. For angelic beings who, in having "kept their first estate" are yet - in the ascription's original intent - designated "sons of God," see Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7).
Saturday, October 15, 2011
"TODAY IN PARADISE"
While the following might more readily fit within a Good Friday frame of reference, our immediately preceding posting concerning the otherwise unknown individual who obviously was led to grant our Lord's request for the use of his personal guest facility led once again to our own contemplation of one of Scripture's more dramatic accounts of the divinely inspired.
We would, however, first address the issue of personal perception and response. This concern, for example, was raised some time ago in relation to a particular individual who, despite an ongoing profession of faith, remained involved in a long standing affair. Hence the query: "Why won't he do right even when you can show him from the Bible that what he is doing is wrong?"
While not personally acquainted with the delinquent party, our response in such cases typically notes that situations of this nature do not reflect an ignorance of the Scriptures but rather one's act of will and choice. Such is not to be taken lightly, given the fact that willful rebellion can at times lead, not only to one's forfeiture of conviction but indeed, the capacity for such (Prov. 29:1).
By way of contrast, however, there is an arena of response wherein greater enlightenment ensues in consequence of one's commitment to insight and obedience: "In Your light," states the Psalmist, "shall we see light" (Psa. 36:9). Scripture offers no greater example of this principle than in the case of the repentant thief who, in association with Christ's crucifixion, was himself similarly executed.
Having initially shared with his fellow convict in reviling our Lord for failing to intervene on their behalf should, indeed, he be the Christ (Matt. 27:44), the subsequently penitent felon then responded to a seemingly inexplicable inpulse by affirming his own guilt and defending Christ's innocence (Luke 23:40-41). While perhaps lacking all the "Yea ho verily" formalities frequently attendant our own religious rites and exercises, his acknowledgment at this point constituted an acceptable act of faith and contrition - even if limited in terms of all its implications.
The result was immediate. In contrast to the other thief's lack of remorse, a further - indeed almost incomprehensible - insight was then evidenced in the contrite criminal's request for remembrance "when you [Christ] come into your kingdom." To those standing by, the illogic of addressing a dying man in terms of "When you become king" would almost certainly have been seen as the delirium of an expiring individual crazed with pain. In reality, it represented an impartation of revelation far exceeding that of even the Twelve. Jesus' response? "Today you shall be with me in paradise" (vs. 43).
Why the fact of some persons inclined toward concerns of the spiritually oriented and others disposed to an essential indifference or even rejection of such? The two thieves, after all, were undergoing the same reality of penal death - yet with totally opposite reactions.
In further illustration, we were once acquainted with a Christian family in which two brothers, while close in age, were quite dissimilar in their response to matters of faith and commitment - the one following an ongoing propensity for such into a life of full time ministry while the other, to our knowledge, never evidenced a meaningful interest in spiritual matters.
One might again ask as to "why." (To the likely relief of some, we shall here bypass the issue of election, foreordination and free will other than to note that in addressing this arena of inquiry, the apostle Paul alludes to the ultimate incomprehensibility of God's wisdom, knowledge, judgments and ways, Rom. 11:33-34).
Our initial point here, however, is that an impartation of even greater enlightenment followed the penitent thief's initial step of faith. That a profound revelation concerning Christ's yet coming kingdom and reign should be imparted to a common criminal as opposed to one of a more "spiritual" background and involvement (perhaps one of the Twelve or someone from among those having endorsed and faithfully followed Christ; e.g., Luke 24:13-21) is but one of the many questions in relation to which human perception frequently falls short.
Perhaps the following will prove useful at this point:
What greater example of the grace of God - that undeserved favor and beneficence upon which we are all dependent?
Burl Ratzsch
We would, however, first address the issue of personal perception and response. This concern, for example, was raised some time ago in relation to a particular individual who, despite an ongoing profession of faith, remained involved in a long standing affair. Hence the query: "Why won't he do right even when you can show him from the Bible that what he is doing is wrong?"
While not personally acquainted with the delinquent party, our response in such cases typically notes that situations of this nature do not reflect an ignorance of the Scriptures but rather one's act of will and choice. Such is not to be taken lightly, given the fact that willful rebellion can at times lead, not only to one's forfeiture of conviction but indeed, the capacity for such (Prov. 29:1).
By way of contrast, however, there is an arena of response wherein greater enlightenment ensues in consequence of one's commitment to insight and obedience: "In Your light," states the Psalmist, "shall we see light" (Psa. 36:9). Scripture offers no greater example of this principle than in the case of the repentant thief who, in association with Christ's crucifixion, was himself similarly executed.
Having initially shared with his fellow convict in reviling our Lord for failing to intervene on their behalf should, indeed, he be the Christ (Matt. 27:44), the subsequently penitent felon then responded to a seemingly inexplicable inpulse by affirming his own guilt and defending Christ's innocence (Luke 23:40-41). While perhaps lacking all the "Yea ho verily" formalities frequently attendant our own religious rites and exercises, his acknowledgment at this point constituted an acceptable act of faith and contrition - even if limited in terms of all its implications.
The result was immediate. In contrast to the other thief's lack of remorse, a further - indeed almost incomprehensible - insight was then evidenced in the contrite criminal's request for remembrance "when you [Christ] come into your kingdom." To those standing by, the illogic of addressing a dying man in terms of "When you become king" would almost certainly have been seen as the delirium of an expiring individual crazed with pain. In reality, it represented an impartation of revelation far exceeding that of even the Twelve. Jesus' response? "Today you shall be with me in paradise" (vs. 43).
Why the fact of some persons inclined toward concerns of the spiritually oriented and others disposed to an essential indifference or even rejection of such? The two thieves, after all, were undergoing the same reality of penal death - yet with totally opposite reactions.
In further illustration, we were once acquainted with a Christian family in which two brothers, while close in age, were quite dissimilar in their response to matters of faith and commitment - the one following an ongoing propensity for such into a life of full time ministry while the other, to our knowledge, never evidenced a meaningful interest in spiritual matters.
One might again ask as to "why." (To the likely relief of some, we shall here bypass the issue of election, foreordination and free will other than to note that in addressing this arena of inquiry, the apostle Paul alludes to the ultimate incomprehensibility of God's wisdom, knowledge, judgments and ways, Rom. 11:33-34).
Our initial point here, however, is that an impartation of even greater enlightenment followed the penitent thief's initial step of faith. That a profound revelation concerning Christ's yet coming kingdom and reign should be imparted to a common criminal as opposed to one of a more "spiritual" background and involvement (perhaps one of the Twelve or someone from among those having endorsed and faithfully followed Christ; e.g., Luke 24:13-21) is but one of the many questions in relation to which human perception frequently falls short.
Perhaps the following will prove useful at this point:
What greater example of the grace of God - that undeserved favor and beneficence upon which we are all dependent?
Burl Ratzsch
Saturday, October 08, 2011
THE GUEST ROOM
We were saddened this past week to learn of yet another prominent personality in the realm of faith related interests to have been charged with extensive financial irregularities.
Jesus had much to say to his disciples concerning values systems, materialistic quests, pursuit of greatness and other self-oriented aspirations: "He that will be chief among you, let him be your servant" (Matt. 20:27); "Lay not up for yourselves treasures on earth...for where your treasure is, there will your heart be also" (Matt. 6:21-24), etc. The reason for his so doing is simple:
Within the arena of spiritual endeavor, as with any other sphere of engagement involving prominence, leadership, recognition and prestige, it becomes easy to confuse the altruistic with the self-indulgent and self-serving. At such point, not only do the lines of demarcation become blurred, but in many instances the role of service itself tends to metamorphose into an agency for personal ambition and aggrandizement.
At the same time, recent studies regarding moral failure among the clergy offer disturbing insights into a matter of increasing concern. The problem, of course, is anything but new. Within this frame of reference, we recall our personal withdrawal some years ago from an evangelistic team scheduled for an interfaith crusade in a western Canadian city when it was discovered that the featured speaker was involved in an extramarital affair. These things hurt, both personally and in relation to the cause of Christ itself.
While obviously inclusive of such concerns, Christ's enjoined restraints were not limited to issues of moral and financial integrity. Other areas of address included not only our Lord's indictment of the religious leaders of his day for their relentless pursuit of human recognition, praise and acknowledgement (Matt. 6:2,5,26; 23:5; Mark 12:38-40, etc.) but the Twelve's increasingly related mindset of "Who's the greatest." Might it be that we have sometimes failed to grasp the full import of Christ's pronouncements in this regard? The answer is "yes."
Given such, we would briefly touch upon one further area of past experience. The fellowship in which I was born and reared traditionally sponsored monthly all day "fellowship meetings" - the congregations of each "section" meeting at its constituent churches on a rotating basis. Among the features of the highlighted evening service was a shared "word of greeting" from each of the attending pastors.
As a "revivalist" denomination, the anticipated "word" (typically a misnomer for reasons soon evident) would normally begin with a glowing report of "the great things God is doing in our midst" (i.e., the church of which the speaker was pastor). Not to be outdone, the second pastor's "word" would typically share the even greater things that God was doing in his congregation, etc. - until by the time the last pastor had shared his "word," one might well wonder as to how the region at large had avoided becoming caught up in an intense state of revival.
To my perception, then as now, the overriding problem at this point lay in the fact of ostensibly serving Christ and his cause while in reality seeking to advance one's own cause and recognition.
By way of contrast, one of the biblical accounts with which I have frequently been intrigued involves the man who surrendered his "large, furnished guest room" to Christ and his Diciples for their observance of Passover. To what degree the man grasped Christ's ministry and its meaning we do not know - nor, for that matter, are we apprised of his name. As seen in the fact that the Disciples apparently had no knowledge of the individual (thus Jesus' instructions of Mark 14 13-17 and Luke 22:11-13), previous contact, if at all, would appear to have been minimal. Yet in yielding the room which he would likely have used for his own family's observance of the celebration, he was, at least in terms of providing the physical facility, privileged to host the Son of God in one of history's most memorable events.
It is doubtful that this unnamed worthy attended the next "fellowship meeting" for the purpose of sharing the greatness of his recent role and involvement. Yet, while subsequently hearing nothing more of either himself or his involvement in our Lord's "Last Supper," the part that he played merited divine recognition in the form of a scriptural acknowledgement that has continued to relate his quality of spirit and positive response throughout the history of the Church.
Simply put: Whether in leadership or otherwise, is not God's approval, as opposed to self-focused recognition and desire for attention, that for which one is to seek? We would so suggest.
Burl Ratzsch
Jesus had much to say to his disciples concerning values systems, materialistic quests, pursuit of greatness and other self-oriented aspirations: "He that will be chief among you, let him be your servant" (Matt. 20:27); "Lay not up for yourselves treasures on earth...for where your treasure is, there will your heart be also" (Matt. 6:21-24), etc. The reason for his so doing is simple:
Within the arena of spiritual endeavor, as with any other sphere of engagement involving prominence, leadership, recognition and prestige, it becomes easy to confuse the altruistic with the self-indulgent and self-serving. At such point, not only do the lines of demarcation become blurred, but in many instances the role of service itself tends to metamorphose into an agency for personal ambition and aggrandizement.
At the same time, recent studies regarding moral failure among the clergy offer disturbing insights into a matter of increasing concern. The problem, of course, is anything but new. Within this frame of reference, we recall our personal withdrawal some years ago from an evangelistic team scheduled for an interfaith crusade in a western Canadian city when it was discovered that the featured speaker was involved in an extramarital affair. These things hurt, both personally and in relation to the cause of Christ itself.
While obviously inclusive of such concerns, Christ's enjoined restraints were not limited to issues of moral and financial integrity. Other areas of address included not only our Lord's indictment of the religious leaders of his day for their relentless pursuit of human recognition, praise and acknowledgement (Matt. 6:2,5,26; 23:5; Mark 12:38-40, etc.) but the Twelve's increasingly related mindset of "Who's the greatest." Might it be that we have sometimes failed to grasp the full import of Christ's pronouncements in this regard? The answer is "yes."
Given such, we would briefly touch upon one further area of past experience. The fellowship in which I was born and reared traditionally sponsored monthly all day "fellowship meetings" - the congregations of each "section" meeting at its constituent churches on a rotating basis. Among the features of the highlighted evening service was a shared "word of greeting" from each of the attending pastors.
As a "revivalist" denomination, the anticipated "word" (typically a misnomer for reasons soon evident) would normally begin with a glowing report of "the great things God is doing in our midst" (i.e., the church of which the speaker was pastor). Not to be outdone, the second pastor's "word" would typically share the even greater things that God was doing in his congregation, etc. - until by the time the last pastor had shared his "word," one might well wonder as to how the region at large had avoided becoming caught up in an intense state of revival.
To my perception, then as now, the overriding problem at this point lay in the fact of ostensibly serving Christ and his cause while in reality seeking to advance one's own cause and recognition.
By way of contrast, one of the biblical accounts with which I have frequently been intrigued involves the man who surrendered his "large, furnished guest room" to Christ and his Diciples for their observance of Passover. To what degree the man grasped Christ's ministry and its meaning we do not know - nor, for that matter, are we apprised of his name. As seen in the fact that the Disciples apparently had no knowledge of the individual (thus Jesus' instructions of Mark 14 13-17 and Luke 22:11-13), previous contact, if at all, would appear to have been minimal. Yet in yielding the room which he would likely have used for his own family's observance of the celebration, he was, at least in terms of providing the physical facility, privileged to host the Son of God in one of history's most memorable events.
It is doubtful that this unnamed worthy attended the next "fellowship meeting" for the purpose of sharing the greatness of his recent role and involvement. Yet, while subsequently hearing nothing more of either himself or his involvement in our Lord's "Last Supper," the part that he played merited divine recognition in the form of a scriptural acknowledgement that has continued to relate his quality of spirit and positive response throughout the history of the Church.
Simply put: Whether in leadership or otherwise, is not God's approval, as opposed to self-focused recognition and desire for attention, that for which one is to seek? We would so suggest.
Burl Ratzsch
Saturday, October 01, 2011
"WALKING IN WISDOM"
In addressing the theme of public perception, Paul underscores the church's need for insightful discretion - or, in contemporary parlance, "practical smarts." Hence the importance of "making the most of the opportunity" by walk[ing] in wisdom toward them that are without" (Col. 4:5).
Given such, one tends at times to wonder concerning those congregations presenting themselves to their local communities with church signs such as: "If you're looking for a sign from God, this is it"; "Brushing up on your Bible prevents truth decay"; "Without the Bread of Life, you're toast," and other similar vacuities.
Particular troublesome are the frequently observed postings: "So you think it's hot here!"; "Eternity: smoking or non-smoking?"; "Got Jesus? It's hell without him"; "Stop, drop and roll won't work in hell," etc. Permit us to suggest that the thinking individual will almost certainly be repelled by such flippancy in relation to the ultimate human tragedy - to little mention a logically resultant suspicion as to the shallowness proffered inside.
A few more examples of the objectively meaningless:
1. "Try Jesus - if not satisfied, the devil will take you back";
2. Try our sundaes; they're better than Dairy Queen's";
3. "Read your Bible - no more satin."
This latter effort which "ministered" to a nearby community for some time, opened our understanding to several "deeper truths" of which, for some inexplicable reason (ahem!), we had previously been unaware.
God, for example, is obviously opposed to certain types of cloth - satin in particular. Second: one can, however, rid himself of satin by reading his Bible. Assuming, however, that the pastor's intent more likely applied to Satan than to satin, it had apparently been to our further loss in having failed to recognize that not only could one "resist the devil" (James 4:7) but, by virtue of reading one's Bible, dispose of him as well - thus, "no more Satan." Well...
Interestingly, the pastor of a nearby congregation regularly posted inspiring Bible verses on his church sign. Simple logic itself would indicate as to which of these contrasting endeavors a positive response would more readily ensue. (We were later privileged to meet the second pastor and to personally express our appreciation to him for his public sharing of the Gospel.)
4. And, finally: "I'd rather be a pointer than a setter." Having appeared for many months in front of a particular area church, we assumed it the pastor's design, in some sort of cutesy canine imagery, to convey the thought of pointing others to the way as opposed to sitting (not "setting") idly by. At the same time, we could only envision the smirks of passing mororists made to think more of signs frequently posted in bars and other like establishments for the purpose of distinguishing the ladies' restroom from the men's.
To any finding our somewhat acerbic responses to certain of the foregoing offensive, we here apologize.
At the same time: Is this the best we have to offer a lost, sometimes hurting, and essentially directionless world? God forbid!
Burl Ratzsch
Given such, one tends at times to wonder concerning those congregations presenting themselves to their local communities with church signs such as: "If you're looking for a sign from God, this is it"; "Brushing up on your Bible prevents truth decay"; "Without the Bread of Life, you're toast," and other similar vacuities.
Particular troublesome are the frequently observed postings: "So you think it's hot here!"; "Eternity: smoking or non-smoking?"; "Got Jesus? It's hell without him"; "Stop, drop and roll won't work in hell," etc. Permit us to suggest that the thinking individual will almost certainly be repelled by such flippancy in relation to the ultimate human tragedy - to little mention a logically resultant suspicion as to the shallowness proffered inside.
A few more examples of the objectively meaningless:
1. "Try Jesus - if not satisfied, the devil will take you back";
2. Try our sundaes; they're better than Dairy Queen's";
3. "Read your Bible - no more satin."
This latter effort which "ministered" to a nearby community for some time, opened our understanding to several "deeper truths" of which, for some inexplicable reason (ahem!), we had previously been unaware.
God, for example, is obviously opposed to certain types of cloth - satin in particular. Second: one can, however, rid himself of satin by reading his Bible. Assuming, however, that the pastor's intent more likely applied to Satan than to satin, it had apparently been to our further loss in having failed to recognize that not only could one "resist the devil" (James 4:7) but, by virtue of reading one's Bible, dispose of him as well - thus, "no more Satan." Well...
Interestingly, the pastor of a nearby congregation regularly posted inspiring Bible verses on his church sign. Simple logic itself would indicate as to which of these contrasting endeavors a positive response would more readily ensue. (We were later privileged to meet the second pastor and to personally express our appreciation to him for his public sharing of the Gospel.)
4. And, finally: "I'd rather be a pointer than a setter." Having appeared for many months in front of a particular area church, we assumed it the pastor's design, in some sort of cutesy canine imagery, to convey the thought of pointing others to the way as opposed to sitting (not "setting") idly by. At the same time, we could only envision the smirks of passing mororists made to think more of signs frequently posted in bars and other like establishments for the purpose of distinguishing the ladies' restroom from the men's.
To any finding our somewhat acerbic responses to certain of the foregoing offensive, we here apologize.
At the same time: Is this the best we have to offer a lost, sometimes hurting, and essentially directionless world? God forbid!
Burl Ratzsch
Saturday, September 24, 2011
"UNTIL WE ALL COME..." (Eph. 4:13)
The following was first posted in this endeavor some years ago. We believe it bears repeating.
The apostle Paul did not view the early Church as having experienced ultimate attainment. Indeed, given the problems and difficulties with which he was regularly confronted in serving its constituency, he would likely have wondered concerning the present ambitions of some to recreate "the New Testament Church."
As exemplified in the Corinthian church, for example, one of the issues with which the early community struggled involved the matter of sectarian strife and division. This, despite the fact that in his last recorded prayer, our Lord had specifically requested that the believing Body "be one, even as You [Father] and I are one" (John 17:21,22). That we continue to experience a notable shortfall in this area requires little elaboration.
Nor is profound insight required to recognize that resolving the problem does not lie in a further splintering of the Body by means of newly minted organizations accompanied by "super spiritual" identities of a self-focused nature. We recall, for example, a pastor who, having previously served in a major denomination, now led a congregation that had experienced "deliverance from sectarian bondage." In fact, he enthused, their fellowship now consisted of five such churches - seeming oblivious to the fact of having exchanged a multi-church denomination for a five church denomination. As any student of Church history is well aware, endeavors of this nature are far from unique.
We would here propose three catalysts that will almost certainly prove conducive, not only to fulfilling our Lord's petition, but Paul's vision of a united, matured Bride "without spot or wrinkle...holy and blameless" as well (Eph. 4:11-13; 5:27).
1. A coming move of the Spirit wherein Christ's "High Priestly Prayer" of John 17 finds fulfillment among the truly committed;
2. A coming time of persecution in which, of necessity, believers will become dependent upon one another (Matt. 24:9);
3. A requisite sense of oneness in opposing the culminating apostasy of a deviant and rebellious world - including those spheres of compromised faith allied with the world and its corrupted values (Rev. 18:4).
Does the preceding imply a requisite renunciation of present biblically based associations and identity in the interets of a self-contradictory "non-sectarian sectarianism?" The answer is "No." As demonstrated by simple observation itself, quests of this nature, in and of themselves, can become self-defeating. What is rather called for is an ultimate, transcendent sense of identity inclusive of:
a. "All who in every place call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, their Lord and ours" I Cor. 1:2);
b. "All who love our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity" (Eph. 7:24);
c. "All who love [Christ's] appearing" (II Tim. 4:8).
To the degree that the foregoing become the determinant factors in faith, fellowship, and identity, the rest - including the "unity of faith" enjoined in John 17:21,22 and subsequently foreseen in Ephesians 4:13 - will increasingly come into place.
Burl Ratzsch
The apostle Paul did not view the early Church as having experienced ultimate attainment. Indeed, given the problems and difficulties with which he was regularly confronted in serving its constituency, he would likely have wondered concerning the present ambitions of some to recreate "the New Testament Church."
As exemplified in the Corinthian church, for example, one of the issues with which the early community struggled involved the matter of sectarian strife and division. This, despite the fact that in his last recorded prayer, our Lord had specifically requested that the believing Body "be one, even as You [Father] and I are one" (John 17:21,22). That we continue to experience a notable shortfall in this area requires little elaboration.
Nor is profound insight required to recognize that resolving the problem does not lie in a further splintering of the Body by means of newly minted organizations accompanied by "super spiritual" identities of a self-focused nature. We recall, for example, a pastor who, having previously served in a major denomination, now led a congregation that had experienced "deliverance from sectarian bondage." In fact, he enthused, their fellowship now consisted of five such churches - seeming oblivious to the fact of having exchanged a multi-church denomination for a five church denomination. As any student of Church history is well aware, endeavors of this nature are far from unique.
We would here propose three catalysts that will almost certainly prove conducive, not only to fulfilling our Lord's petition, but Paul's vision of a united, matured Bride "without spot or wrinkle...holy and blameless" as well (Eph. 4:11-13; 5:27).
1. A coming move of the Spirit wherein Christ's "High Priestly Prayer" of John 17 finds fulfillment among the truly committed;
2. A coming time of persecution in which, of necessity, believers will become dependent upon one another (Matt. 24:9);
3. A requisite sense of oneness in opposing the culminating apostasy of a deviant and rebellious world - including those spheres of compromised faith allied with the world and its corrupted values (Rev. 18:4).
Does the preceding imply a requisite renunciation of present biblically based associations and identity in the interets of a self-contradictory "non-sectarian sectarianism?" The answer is "No." As demonstrated by simple observation itself, quests of this nature, in and of themselves, can become self-defeating. What is rather called for is an ultimate, transcendent sense of identity inclusive of:
a. "All who in every place call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, their Lord and ours" I Cor. 1:2);
b. "All who love our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity" (Eph. 7:24);
c. "All who love [Christ's] appearing" (II Tim. 4:8).
To the degree that the foregoing become the determinant factors in faith, fellowship, and identity, the rest - including the "unity of faith" enjoined in John 17:21,22 and subsequently foreseen in Ephesians 4:13 - will increasingly come into place.
Burl Ratzsch
Saturday, September 17, 2011
DEITY OF JESUS CHRIST
Our preceding post touched upon the full deity of Jesus Christ as a requisite to meaningful Christian faith. Hence the following of which, for some years, we have made the practice of having printed copies on hand.
+ + + + + + + +
THE OLD TESTAMENT PROPHESIED HIS DEITY:
"For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, THE MIGHTY GOD, THE EVERLASTING FATHER, the Prince of Peace" (Isa. 9:6);
"Prepare ye the way of the LORD (Jehovah or Yahweh), make straight in the desert a highway for OUR GOD" (Isa. 40:3). John the Baptist applied this to Christ (John 1:15-27).
"Thy throne, O GOD, is for ever and ever, the scepter of thy kingdom is a right scepter" (Psa. 45:6). The writer of the Book of Hebrews states that this refers to Christ (Heb. 1:8,9).
Psalm 110:1 uses the divine title of Adonai in a prophetic sense which the New Testament writers consistently aver as having found fulfilment in Jesus Christ (Matt. 22:41-45; Mark 12:35-37; Luke 20:41-44; Acts 2:34,35; Heb. 1:13; 10:12,13).
JESUS REPEATEDLY ASSERTED HIS OWN DEITY
In Revelation 1:8 and 21:6,7, Christ appropriates the Divine ascription of Isaiah 41:4 in declaring: "I AM ALPHA AND OMEGA, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, who is, and who was, and who is to come, THE ALMIGHTY." Further note this self defining identity in association with Christ's death and resurrection in Revelation 2:8.
In Exodus 3:14, God had identified himself by the name I AM, as such revealing himself as the ever present, self existent One. This became a very sacred name of Deity to the Jews. Jesus repeatedly applied this name to himself in a claim to Deity. The Jews so understood his assertion and endeavored to kill him for having made it. For example: 1. "Before Abraham was, I AM" (John 8:58); 2. "If you believe not that I AM, ye shall die in your sins" (John 8:24. The word "he," as in the KJV, is not in the original text. This is why it is italicized). 3. "When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I AM" (John 8:28. Again the word "he" in the KJV is an interpolation).
In Matthew 22:41-45, Jesus claims to be the Adonai of the Old Testament.
In John 10:30 Jesus states, "I and my Father are one." The Jews correctly understood this assertion as a claim to deity and are so quoted in verse 33.
In John 14:8,9 Jesus further states, "He that hath seen me hath seen the Father."
In Matthew 28:19 Jesus gave the name of God as including himself.
In Matthew 19:17 Jesus answered the rich young ruler, "Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, God." Here, to paraphrase his words, Jesus presses his claim to Deity by demanding, "If you acknowledge that I am good, you must acknowledge that I am God. If you deny that I am God, you must acknowledge that I am not good." It is a powerful declaration.
THE NEW TESTAMENT WRITERS AFFIRM CHRIST'S DEITY
Matthew 1:22,23 states that Christ is "God with us."
In his confession of John 20:28, Thomas states that Jesus is God.
Acts 20:28 states that GOD purchased the Church with His own blood. This is an emphatic claim that it was Deity Who was crucified and Who thus shed His blood upon the Cross.
I Timothy 3:16 defines Christ as "GOD manifest in the flesh."
Titus 2:13 equates God and Jesus Christ.
Acts 2:36 applies the Divine title to Christ.
Philippians 2:10-11 appropriates the Divine identity and ascription of ultimate human submission as given in Isaiah 45:22,23 and states that every tongue will one day acknowledge its rightful application to Jesus Christ.
The grammatical construction of I John 5:20 applies the declaration, "This is the true God" to the antecedent "his Son Jesus Christ."
John 5:23 states that it is God's will that "all men should honor the Son even as they honor the Father."
In keeping with the preceding, it is recorded on various occasions that Christ was worshiped (Matt. 2:11; 14:33; etc.). His acceptance of worship - which by his own declaration belongs to God alone (Matt. 4:10) - was but a continuation of his own assertion of divinity.
+ + + + + + + +
A final word: In having copied the foregoing outline which we assembled many years ago, our use of the KJV reflects the fact that we assembled this outline at a time in which the Jehovah's Witnesses were promoting the fact that they were willing to discuss their cause using the King James Version (as opposed to their own "New World Translation") in calling upon those to whom such would make a difference. Hence our own use here of the KJV.
+ + + + + + + +
THE OLD TESTAMENT PROPHESIED HIS DEITY:
"For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, THE MIGHTY GOD, THE EVERLASTING FATHER, the Prince of Peace" (Isa. 9:6);
"Prepare ye the way of the LORD (Jehovah or Yahweh), make straight in the desert a highway for OUR GOD" (Isa. 40:3). John the Baptist applied this to Christ (John 1:15-27).
"Thy throne, O GOD, is for ever and ever, the scepter of thy kingdom is a right scepter" (Psa. 45:6). The writer of the Book of Hebrews states that this refers to Christ (Heb. 1:8,9).
Psalm 110:1 uses the divine title of Adonai in a prophetic sense which the New Testament writers consistently aver as having found fulfilment in Jesus Christ (Matt. 22:41-45; Mark 12:35-37; Luke 20:41-44; Acts 2:34,35; Heb. 1:13; 10:12,13).
JESUS REPEATEDLY ASSERTED HIS OWN DEITY
In Revelation 1:8 and 21:6,7, Christ appropriates the Divine ascription of Isaiah 41:4 in declaring: "I AM ALPHA AND OMEGA, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, who is, and who was, and who is to come, THE ALMIGHTY." Further note this self defining identity in association with Christ's death and resurrection in Revelation 2:8.
In Exodus 3:14, God had identified himself by the name I AM, as such revealing himself as the ever present, self existent One. This became a very sacred name of Deity to the Jews. Jesus repeatedly applied this name to himself in a claim to Deity. The Jews so understood his assertion and endeavored to kill him for having made it. For example: 1. "Before Abraham was, I AM" (John 8:58); 2. "If you believe not that I AM, ye shall die in your sins" (John 8:24. The word "he," as in the KJV, is not in the original text. This is why it is italicized). 3. "When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I AM" (John 8:28. Again the word "he" in the KJV is an interpolation).
In Matthew 22:41-45, Jesus claims to be the Adonai of the Old Testament.
In John 10:30 Jesus states, "I and my Father are one." The Jews correctly understood this assertion as a claim to deity and are so quoted in verse 33.
In John 14:8,9 Jesus further states, "He that hath seen me hath seen the Father."
In Matthew 28:19 Jesus gave the name of God as including himself.
In Matthew 19:17 Jesus answered the rich young ruler, "Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, God." Here, to paraphrase his words, Jesus presses his claim to Deity by demanding, "If you acknowledge that I am good, you must acknowledge that I am God. If you deny that I am God, you must acknowledge that I am not good." It is a powerful declaration.
THE NEW TESTAMENT WRITERS AFFIRM CHRIST'S DEITY
Matthew 1:22,23 states that Christ is "God with us."
In his confession of John 20:28, Thomas states that Jesus is God.
Acts 20:28 states that GOD purchased the Church with His own blood. This is an emphatic claim that it was Deity Who was crucified and Who thus shed His blood upon the Cross.
I Timothy 3:16 defines Christ as "GOD manifest in the flesh."
Titus 2:13 equates God and Jesus Christ.
Acts 2:36 applies the Divine title to Christ.
Philippians 2:10-11 appropriates the Divine identity and ascription of ultimate human submission as given in Isaiah 45:22,23 and states that every tongue will one day acknowledge its rightful application to Jesus Christ.
The grammatical construction of I John 5:20 applies the declaration, "This is the true God" to the antecedent "his Son Jesus Christ."
John 5:23 states that it is God's will that "all men should honor the Son even as they honor the Father."
In keeping with the preceding, it is recorded on various occasions that Christ was worshiped (Matt. 2:11; 14:33; etc.). His acceptance of worship - which by his own declaration belongs to God alone (Matt. 4:10) - was but a continuation of his own assertion of divinity.
+ + + + + + + +
A final word: In having copied the foregoing outline which we assembled many years ago, our use of the KJV reflects the fact that we assembled this outline at a time in which the Jehovah's Witnesses were promoting the fact that they were willing to discuss their cause using the King James Version (as opposed to their own "New World Translation") in calling upon those to whom such would make a difference. Hence our own use here of the KJV.
Saturday, September 10, 2011
IMPLICATIONS OF 9/11
We are, of course, extremely disappointed with Mayor Bloomberg's unilateral exclusion of both prayer and clergy participation in the 9/11 memorial observance scheduled for this weekend in New York City. That such involves more than mere political posturing - objectionable though that may be - requires little insight.
We would, however, comment briefly on the mayor's observation regarding the sense of national unity that ensued - at least for a time - in consequence of the events of September 11, 2001. An important principle is involved here.
Within the realm of psychology it is commonly recognized that (as in this instance) opposition can serve to stimulate, rather than hinder, one's adherence to a given cause. Thus, for example, the incentive commonly ascribed to Jehovah's Witnesses as deriving from their perception of a common rejection - particularly in association with their door to door visitation programs - as constituting an acceptable (or, perhaps, even welcomed) "persecution for righteousness' sake." (Our personal response to such has been to politely agree to talk with them on the condition that our first point of discussion will be the full deity of Jesus Christ. We have yet to have one accept. Simply put, hatefulness at such point serves only to indicate one's being threatened by having to confront their mistakenly held views.
But, to our more immediate concern: There is a sense in which opposition can serve the interests of either deepening or obviating one's sense of commitment. Jesus, particularly in his Olivet Discourse, dwelt at length on this point. When asked as to the "sign" (i.e., signal evidence) by which the time of his return would become discernable, his answer centered upon a period of intensified confusion, opposition and violent hostility (Matt. 24; Mark 13: Luke 21). Simply stated, it will not be easy. Indeed, within this setting, "many will fall away" - final deliverance coming to those who "endure to the end" (Matt. 24:13).
Our Lord's final charge to the Twelve (as representing the Church) was essentially two-fold: 1). That you "love one another as I have loved you" (John 13:34; 15:12); and 2.) "That they may all be one; even as Thou, Father, art in Me, and I in Thee" (John 17:21). Such was the pronounced emphasis of the apostles as well.
That the Body of Christ has yet to achieve such state requires little discernment. Paul states, however, that its ordained objective shall indeed be attained - the ministries placed within the Church continuing "until we all come to" such state of completion (Eph. 4:11-17; 5:27).
How will this objective be effected? By means of God's Spirit at work within a concluding time of purifying test. It is unfortunate that the introduction of eighteenth century speculation has generated profound confusion on the part of many believers with regard to the time of the end. (We shall here touch upon one point; others, Lord willing, will be addressed at a later time.)
When Paul, for example, spoke of "we who are alive and remain" rising to meet the Lord in the air (I Thess. 4:16-17), he was not speaking of the believer's being taken to heaven in a "Rapture of the Church." The apostle was here enlarging upon Jesus' Parable of the Virgins. Just as the groom's waiting friends went forth to meet him upon his return, so also at Christ's awaited coming, "we who are alive and remain" will rise to meet and welcome him upon his return (here see John 14:28: "You heard me say, 'I am going away and I am coming back to you.'" NIV). In neither instance (as also in Christ's corresponding parable of the nobleman's return, Luke 19:12-27) has the objective been a removal of waiting friends to some far destination.
As believers, the days ahead will serve to either make or break us. Scripture knows no Scofieldian "easy escape." Given such, we need to encourage one another; support one another and pray for one another - indeed, "for all the saints" (Eph. 6:18). Within this setting, God's Spirit will provide the necessary resolve and resource for facing that which lies ahead.
Burl Ratzsch
We would, however, comment briefly on the mayor's observation regarding the sense of national unity that ensued - at least for a time - in consequence of the events of September 11, 2001. An important principle is involved here.
Within the realm of psychology it is commonly recognized that (as in this instance) opposition can serve to stimulate, rather than hinder, one's adherence to a given cause. Thus, for example, the incentive commonly ascribed to Jehovah's Witnesses as deriving from their perception of a common rejection - particularly in association with their door to door visitation programs - as constituting an acceptable (or, perhaps, even welcomed) "persecution for righteousness' sake." (Our personal response to such has been to politely agree to talk with them on the condition that our first point of discussion will be the full deity of Jesus Christ. We have yet to have one accept. Simply put, hatefulness at such point serves only to indicate one's being threatened by having to confront their mistakenly held views.
But, to our more immediate concern: There is a sense in which opposition can serve the interests of either deepening or obviating one's sense of commitment. Jesus, particularly in his Olivet Discourse, dwelt at length on this point. When asked as to the "sign" (i.e., signal evidence) by which the time of his return would become discernable, his answer centered upon a period of intensified confusion, opposition and violent hostility (Matt. 24; Mark 13: Luke 21). Simply stated, it will not be easy. Indeed, within this setting, "many will fall away" - final deliverance coming to those who "endure to the end" (Matt. 24:13).
Our Lord's final charge to the Twelve (as representing the Church) was essentially two-fold: 1). That you "love one another as I have loved you" (John 13:34; 15:12); and 2.) "That they may all be one; even as Thou, Father, art in Me, and I in Thee" (John 17:21). Such was the pronounced emphasis of the apostles as well.
That the Body of Christ has yet to achieve such state requires little discernment. Paul states, however, that its ordained objective shall indeed be attained - the ministries placed within the Church continuing "until we all come to" such state of completion (Eph. 4:11-17; 5:27).
How will this objective be effected? By means of God's Spirit at work within a concluding time of purifying test. It is unfortunate that the introduction of eighteenth century speculation has generated profound confusion on the part of many believers with regard to the time of the end. (We shall here touch upon one point; others, Lord willing, will be addressed at a later time.)
When Paul, for example, spoke of "we who are alive and remain" rising to meet the Lord in the air (I Thess. 4:16-17), he was not speaking of the believer's being taken to heaven in a "Rapture of the Church." The apostle was here enlarging upon Jesus' Parable of the Virgins. Just as the groom's waiting friends went forth to meet him upon his return, so also at Christ's awaited coming, "we who are alive and remain" will rise to meet and welcome him upon his return (here see John 14:28: "You heard me say, 'I am going away and I am coming back to you.'" NIV). In neither instance (as also in Christ's corresponding parable of the nobleman's return, Luke 19:12-27) has the objective been a removal of waiting friends to some far destination.
As believers, the days ahead will serve to either make or break us. Scripture knows no Scofieldian "easy escape." Given such, we need to encourage one another; support one another and pray for one another - indeed, "for all the saints" (Eph. 6:18). Within this setting, God's Spirit will provide the necessary resolve and resource for facing that which lies ahead.
Burl Ratzsch
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)