Sunday, September 25, 2011

Somewhere Lighter and Below the Clouds

As the past several posts suggest, I've been thinking on a fair amount of “heavier” stuff – Eschatology and the nature of God. But I really don't “live there”, not full time.

After 2 courses of antibiotics and nearly 6 weeks, I think I've finally shaken the cough that's been plaguing me. That's the good news. The bad news is that I now have a sore throat, courtesy, of all things, of a yeast infection. The antibiotics killed off the bacterial competition, so the yeast have having a party in my throat. I am now fungus amongus!

As I've mentioned a couple of times, I've been losing weight, probably on a 2-3 year plan so as to make the things I'm doing differently part of my lifestyle. I recently read the Eat This Not That! Restaurant Survival Guide. Though it has some good practical advice, I really didn't care for its theme that restaurants are in a grand conspiracy to make you fat. It's much simpler and there is no malice or conspiracy. Restaurants want you to enter their premises and buy their product so they can make money. In practical terms, that means they will do what it takes to get you to enter their door, look attractive, serve food that will taste good to you, in portions that will make you think you are getting a good deal. Believe it or not, it really is that simple. The result, of course, often is foods that are high calorie, high fat, high carbohydrate, high sodium, in large portions. You could whine about it, get your legislature or city council to regulate restaurants out of business, or eat intelligently. Guess what? I think the latter is the best choice, because if restaurants get regulated out of business, the grocery store will gladly sell you enough butter, cream, mayonnaise, bread, pasta, rice, potatoes, soda and salt to continue digging yourself to an early grave with your knife, fork and spoon.

So, you are at a restaurant … what to do. As the grocery list above suggests, there are certain things you need to avoid or be careful of. Let me illustrate. You are at In N Out, and you want a Double-Double. It's too easy to get it as a combo, as is, and get multiple refills as you eat … and too easy for that one meal to be nearly as many calories as you should eat all day. Or by ordering and eating more carefully, you can end up with a calorie count for the meal that is much more reasonable.

Starting with your burger, there's a lot of calories in the cheese and the mayonnaise-based sauce. Do you really want that cheese and sauce? Like most fast food places, In N Out uses American cheese, which is not exactly a high flavor cheese (if it really is a cheese). Why not pass on the mediocre cheese and at another meal have a smaller amount of really good, high flavor, cheese (e.g. sharp cheddar or jack)? And that high-fat sauce? Why not substitute ketchup, which has few calories and no fat. Just passing on the sauce and the cheese could save you about 200 calories! And that soda? Do you really want it? Would water or iced tea do just as well? Think about it. 16 ounces of soda – one large cup with ice in it – is about 200 calories, and every refill is another 200 calories. Pick the iced tea or water, or if you “must” have soda, have just one cup, drink it only with your food, and don't drink the whole cup. Now, the fries … do you really need the fries? If you're reeeeeally hungry or did a lot of exercise earlier in the day, maybe you do. Otherwise, why not just go with your double hamburger? That's quite a bit of food. Or if you're there with two or three people, why not share one order of fries among you, and eat less than half (or less than a third) of the fries? The bottom line? If you got your double hamburger, without cheese, ketchup instead of sauce, no fries, with water or iced tea, you just saved yourself 800 or more calories. If you are trying to eat 1500-2000 calories a day, that 800 calories is a lot!

You can do the same kind of thing just about anywhere you eat. Pass on or use sparingly, butter, cheese, cream sour cream, and mayonnaise (and sauces based on those ingredients). Does your meal come with bread or bread sticks? Chips and salsa? Skip or limit the bread and chips. When I eat chips at a Mexican restaurant, I've planned the meal into the day and I count the number of chips I eat. Salads? Oil-, Mayonnaise-, buttermilk-, cream-, sour-cream- and cheese-based dressings are not your waistline's friend. On the other hand many fat-free and light dressings are not too good. So always, always, always get your dressing on the side and use as little as possible. And beware cheese as a salad ingredient. Does your meal come with rice or potato as a side? Don't load it up with butter and/or sour cream, and just eat half a cup or 3/4 of a cup of either. Better yet, substitute vegetables (or an extra serving of vegetables). Most sit-down restaurants are very flexible, and even fast food restaurants have room for flexibility. For your meat course, sauces, gravies, and butter add calories. Go with grilled or broiled, seasoned, and maybe meat juice or fruit-based sauces (if any). Most meats are not too bad on calories, with one exception, sausages.

So does that mean pizza is a no-no? Well if your fave is a stuffed-crust deep dish with sausage and pepperoni, that would be a problem. On the other hand, a couple of slices of a thin (or regular) crust pizza with ham and pineapple or vegetarian toppings (mushrooms, bell pepper, olives onions) can be reasonable.

If you learn to eat intelligently, restaurants can be very reasonable special meals.

This was supposed to be a quick, brief, post. Is there a spiritual gift of loquacity?

More Eschatology Thoughts – The Other Half of the Olivet Discourse

Matthew chapters 24 and 25 form what is called the Olivet Discourse, in which Jesus answered questions from the disciples about when the temple would be destroyed and about what we would call the “End Times”. Chapter 24 is cited very frequently in much modern teaching in Evangelical circles about the End Times, but chapter 25 very much less frequently. The explanations and speculations I've seen regarding this disparity range from chapter 25 being avoided, as posing problems for the Pre-Millennial—Pre-Tribulation view of prophecy, to parables being more difficult to interpret. The latter explanation is simpler and sufficient, while a conspiracy of avoidance would be too complicated to maintain or keep secret.

Parables, except those interpreted by Jesus (e.g. the Parable of the Sower), are sometimes difficult of interpretation. And teachers tend to prefer to say, “This means 'A',” rather than, “This means 'A' or 'B' or possibly 'Z'; definitely not 'R' but probably not 'V'.” Nevertheless, I'm going to look at these parable – because of their Olivet Discourse context – point out some possible interpretations, and consider how consistent each parable seems to be with various eschatological views. This is a race in which I don't have a horse running. I really don't hold firmly to any particular view of eschatology, though I have some familiarity with the Pre-Millennial—Pre-Tribulation view.

The Parable of the Ten Virgins – Matthew 25:1-13 (ESV)
"Then the kingdom of heaven will be like ten virgins who took their lamps and went to meet the bridegroom. Five of them were foolish, and five were wise. For when the foolish took their lamps, they took no oil with them, but the wise took flasks of oil with their lamps. As the bridegroom was delayed, they all became drowsy and slept. But at midnight there was a cry, 'Here is the bridegroom! Come out to meet him.' Then all those virgins rose and trimmed their lamps. And the foolish said to the wise, 'Give us some of your oil, for our lamps are going out.' But the wise answered, saying, 'Since there will not be enough for us and for you, go rather to the dealers and buy for yourselves.' And while they were going to buy, the bridegroom came, and those who were ready went in with him to the marriage feast, and the door was shut. Afterward the other virgins came also, saying, 'Lord, lord, open to us.' But he answered, 'Truly, I say to you, I do not know you.' Watch therefore, for you know neither the day nor the hour.

This parable has some tantalizing symbols: the virgins; the oil; the delay; the sleeping; the marriage feast; the shutting of the door; the turning away of the less wise virgins. Who/what are the virgins? Are the virgins symbolic of believers … and 5 of them lose their salvation? Or are the 5 believers but don't make some rapture of elite believers? Are the virgins mixed believers and non-believers who knew about Jesus (the Bridegroom), some of whom had oil (faith) and made it into heaven (the feast) and some had no oil and therefore didn't? If so, how might one “buy” faith, since that is what the 5 less wise virgins went to do? And doesn't calling all 10 “virgins” seem to make the 10 equals? For that matter, are the waiting virgins at all symbolic of believers, since in other contexts the church is the Bride? Moving on, what about the Bridegroom's delay and the sleeping? Obviously, Jesus' return has been “delayed”, but all 10 virgins slept? Does that mean, in symbol, that even true believers will entirely not live and minister as believers should? If the church is going to usher in the Millennium and rule the Earth in before Jesus returns, how can that be reconciled with all 10 virgins sleeping? And the closing of the door and the turning away of the less wise virgins while the other virgins go into the feast (heaven)? Is that symbolic of the rapture – some go to heaven, some are left behind? If so, where are the Tribulation, Armageddon, the Millennium and final judgment? Did Jesus end the parable before and without mention of those significant events? Or is being turned away the final judgment?

If the various elements of this parable are indeed symbols, this parable really doesn't fit very well with any of the various common eschatological views. Could it be … just maybe … all this is vastly over-analyzing the parable? Might Jesus' point have been not the individual details, but instead the general idea of being ready regardless of how long one waits? Certainly, “Be ready!” is the main message of the parable, being the last, summation, sentence of the parable.

The Parable of the Talents – Matthew 25:14-30 (ESV)
"For it will be like a man going on a journey, who called his servants and entrusted to them his property. To one he gave five talents, to another two, to another one, to each according to his ability. Then he went away. He who had received the five talents went at once and traded with them, and he made five talents more. So also he who had the two talents made two talents more. But he who had received the one talent went and dug in the ground and hid his master's money. Now after a long time the master of those servants came and settled accounts with them. And he who had received the five talents came forward, bringing five talents more, saying, 'Master, you delivered to me five talents; here I have made five talents more.' His master said to him, 'Well done, good and faithful servant. You have been faithful over a little; I will set you over much. Enter into the joy of your master.' And he also who had the two talents came forward, saying, 'Master, you delivered to me two talents; here I have made two talents more.' His master said to him, 'Well done, good and faithful servant. You have been faithful over a little; I will set you over much. Enter into the joy of your master.' He also who had received the one talent came forward, saying, 'Master, I knew you to be a hard man, reaping where you did not sow, and gathering where you scattered no seed, so I was afraid, and I went and hid your talent in the ground. Here you have what is yours.' But his master answered him, 'You wicked and slothful servant! You knew that I reap where I have not sown and gather where I scattered no seed? Then you ought to have invested my money with the bankers, and at my coming I should have received what was my own with interest. So take the talent from him and give it to him who has the ten talents. For to everyone who has will more be given, and he will have an abundance. But from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away. And cast the worthless servant into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.'

This parable seems, at first, much simpler. The master went away on a journey; Jesus went to heaven. The master left his servants behind with large amounts of money to use profitably; Jesus left the church a mission and great gifts and abilities to use in that mission. The master returned; Jesus will return. But at this point, understanding the parable gets interesting. First, there is one settling of accounts, and the servant who buried his money get cast into the outer darkness. Does this mean that this servant is symbolic of believers who somehow truly become unfaithful and are become eternally lost? Or do “servants” in the parable represent all humans generally. And the large sums of money entrusted to the servants represent human talents and opportunities generally? In what sense, though, can the lost (who have rejected or ignored God) be called “servants” of the master, Jesus?

Either way, there does seem to be eschatological implications at this point in the parable. All three servants' accounts are settled when the master returns – in one accounting – two being rewarded, one being punished. That seems to suggest that Jesus' return will be a single event (not split across two events, separated by 3 1/2 or 7 years, the Rapture and at the Battle of Armageddon), followed by one final judgment (with some going to heaven and some to Hell). For all three Pre-Millennial views there is, I think, the further problem that this parable seems to leave no room for the Millennium. That over-all understanding of this parable – one return event, no Millennium after the return, one judgment – does seem capable of fitting with either the Amillennial and the Post-Millennial views of eschatology.

However, as with the parable of the 10 virgins, there really may not be messages to be coaxed from the details of this parable. Maybe the above is more over-analysis, a missing of the forest for the trees. One definite over-all message in this parable is for believers (all humans?) to use their opportunities, talents and gifts wisely in the master's (Jesus') service. Maybe this is the message of the parable?

The Final Judgment – Matthew 25:31-46 (ESV)
"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. And he will place the sheep on his right, but the goats on the left. Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.' Then the righteous will answer him, saying, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?' And the King will answer them, 'Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.' "Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.' Then they also will answer, saying, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to you?' Then he will answer them, saying, 'Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.' And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."

On the surface this parable seems to have such a specific and narrow focus – the final judgment – that it can fit into pretty much any of the echatological scenarios. But there are some fine details that I think are not very consistent with the Pre- and Mid-Tribulation—Pre-Millennial views, and pose (at least) some difficulties for the Post-Tribulation—Pre-Millennial and Post-Millennial views? It may seem a tiny thing, but note the reaction of the righteous when they are being judged. They are surprised! Why is this significant? In the Pre- or Mid-Tribulation—Pre-Millennial scenario, the righteous would already have been raptured and have been in heaven. They should know they are among the righteous! And I think the Post-Millennial and the Post-Tribulation—Pre-Millennial views may have that same issue. As for the surprise at the judgment of the unrighteous, I think this is more consistent with the Amillennial view. In the Post-Millennial, and all the Pre-Millennial views I think at least a good number of the unrighteous would know what they have chosen to be, in the light of having gone through the Tribulation and/or having been righteously ruled in the Millennium.

Confused yet? Eschatology is a huge topic. Besides Matthew 24 and 25, there are two other accounts of the Olivet Discourse, in Mark 13 and Luke 21. Several chapters of the books of Daniel and Ezekiel seem to be relevant to eschatology. Most (some say all) of the book of Revelation pertains to eschatology. There are passages in several Pauline letters that touch on End Times matters. So trying to build an eschatological viewpoint on just these three parables in Matthew 25 would be ignoring much that God has said elsewhere. But they are part of what the Bible has to say about the End Times. Right now, I don't have a particular, cohesive eschatological viewpoint. Nor do I feel a urgent and meaningful need to formulate one. God is in control; Jesus will return; judgment is coming; I have salvation through Jesus. That is sufficient at a foundational level and for living the Christian life and witness. On the other hand, God had much to say about the End Times in Scripture, so trying to gain some understanding of End Times teaching and prophecy is part of understanding Scripture.

Two Boundaries for End Times Discussions

I recently participated in a discussion in which I pointed out that some things that some Christians point to as “signs” of the End Times really are not historically unique. One participant got so exasperated at my comments that he accused me of doing what 2 Peter 3:4 condemns: They will say, "Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things are continuing as they were from the beginning of creation." My response was to point out that Peter was talking about people who deny that Jesus will return and a final judgment for all mankind, something I had not done and would never do. Not only so, but in that discussion, prior to his comment, I had stated that Jesus' return and final judgment are fundamental teachings of Christianity.

In the last couple of days it occurred to me that this person had been doing something Jesus had warned against in Matthew 24:23-26: Then if anyone says to you, 'Look, here is the Christ!' or 'There he is!' do not believe it. For false christs and false prophets will arise and perform great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect. See, I have told you beforehand. So, if they say to you, 'Look, he is in the wilderness,' do not go out. If they say, 'Look, he is in the inner rooms,' do not believe it. and in Matthew 24:36: But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son,but the Father only. The person had been speculating about time frames and means by which Jesus might return.

I think these two extremes – denial and date speculation – form a pair of boundaries (not the only ones) within which discussion of eschatology can be informative and edifying. Denial of Jesus' return and setting dates (or time frames) for Jesus return are both paths to spiritual disaster. Denying Jesus' return and final judgment are denials – conscious or unconscious – of Who Jesus is, of what He did, and of our need for Jesus. On the other extreme, history has repeatedly shown that date-setting speculation leads to disappointment when the expected event does not happen. With that disappointment, the people who believed the speculation are forced into a crisis of faith in which they have to backtrack from the ideas they learned to be wrong to something in which they can believe. While some may realize that the problem was of wrong interpretations of prophecy and continue to follow Christ, rebuilding their spiritual lives, others will continue to believe the interpretations of prophecy were correct, but conclude that the prophecies and Christianity are false.

Discussion and study of End Times related Scripture are proper and needful, in a broader context of trying to understand and live in the light of Scripture. But in our eschatology discussions we should heed the warnings of Scripture and stay within these two boundaries to keep our discussions informative and edifying.

Sunday, September 18, 2011

Implications of God Being the Creator

I know, boring title. And if this sentence was here to read it means that I couldn't think of a better title while writing what follows. Anyway …

One of the things my mind keeps coming back to is the implications of God being the Creator. This isn't a Young Earth vs. Old Earth vs. Theistic Evolution thing, but has to do with the nature of God and His relationship with His Creation. When we think of what God created, we think of the things around us – the ground, people, plants, animals, planets, galaxies. Time was also created by God. Your brain could get seriously pretzellated by this fact, but consider some of what this means …

God is not inside, bounded, or limited by time as we human beings are. The day of Creation, the time of Abraham, the time of Jesus, my lifetime, the day Jesus returns are all equally real to God. Guess how God can give us prophecies of future events! Such events may be “future” to us, but not to God.

Questions such as, “What was before God?” or, “What did God do before Creation?” don't really have meaning. Concepts such as “before” or “after” are intrinsically linked to time, and God created time (this is something Augustine pointed out in his Confessions).

That God is Creator bears on the predestination vs. free will argument in at least a couple of ways. First, because God knows all that would happen in His Creation, in that sense He predestined everything by the very act of Creation. But that does not mean that God is actively micro-managing everything that happens, everything individuals do. He just knows what choices each individual will make. Second, being Creator means God designed everything and is the One Who fully understands the nature of each thing He designed and created. Thus, when He speaks to mankind in the Law given to Moses, telling mankind that “______” is wrong or “______” is right, He is speaking not only from the power He has as the Creator but also from His being our designer. In other word He speaks not only from a position of power but from a position of understanding what we are. Not only does He have the right, but He is right. And in telling mankind that “______” is wrong or “______” is right, He shows that human individuals have a meaningful choice each time when one is faced with doing right or doing wrong. Human individuals are not pre-programmed by some micro-manager to do what is right or to do what is wrong.

Saturday, September 17, 2011

Brevity ...

... clearly is not one of my spiritual gifts.

A “Few” Thoughts On Eschatology

First off, what is “eschatology”? “Eschatology” means the study of “last things”. Christians hold a very wide variety of eschatological views. One point of divergence (and a convenient starting point) is the Millennium, mentioned in Revelation 20:1-10. Catholics and some Protestants (e.g. Lutherans) hold to the Amillennial (No Millennium) view of end times, which sees that 1000 years as symbolic (of what, I honestly don't know), in which at some point in time Jesus returns and the final judgment follows. The Post-Millennial view is that at some point in time the church somehow gets its act together, prevails in the world by persuasion (not force or violence), rules the Earth for 1000 years, and then Jesus returns. The Pre-Millennial view understands the 1000 years of Revelation 20 to be a literal future time period, before which Jesus would return for believers and then the Earth for 1000 years. The Pre-, Mid- and Post-Tribulation views are variants of the Pre-Millennial view and refer to a period of some 7 years immediately before the start of the Millennium, called the Great Tribulation. These three variants differ on whether Jesus returns for believers before, some time in the middle of, or after the Great Tribulation. Personally, I'm Pan-Millennial and Pan-Tribulation - I know it all pans out in the end. Joking aside, while I'm most familiar with the Pre-Tribulation view, I really don't hold solidly to it or any specific other view. While I'm inclined to see the Millennium as an literal future event, I must admit that I don't see what the point of the Millennium would be. OTOH, I don't see a critical need to know, and maybe that is the reason relatively little is said in Scripture of the Millennium.

At this point, I do not believe that Israel's restoration in 1948 is relevant to the timing of Jesus' return, other than that the restoration would necessarily precede Jesus' return. I do believe Israel's restoration was prophesied (whether it was fully accomplished in 1948 is another question). A Gospel passage commonly cited during discussions of eschatology generally and with reference to Israel's restoration specifically is the so-called Olivet Discourse, found in Matthew 24 and 25. The time-place-event context for this teaching by Jesus is: a day or two after Palm Sunday; Jesus had just gone through a couple of days of teaching, challenges from the Jewish Powers That Be (PTBs) and chewing out those same PTBs. While our traditional chapter-and-verse divisions were not part of the original Greek texts of New Testament books (possibly a 16th Century creation), Matthew 24 and 25 do form a single context. It begins as Jesus and His disciples are leaving the Jerusalem temple complex and the disciples were pointing out to Him the magnificence of the buildings (verse 1). Jesus responded with a prophecy (verse 2) of the destruction of the temple (which, as we know, happened some 40 years later). When they arrived at the Mount of Olives the disciples asked Jesus (verse 3), “Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the close of the age?” The rest of chapter 24 and 25 is Jesus' response. Here are verses 1-3, from the ESV (as are other verses I quote in this post):

Jesus left the temple and was going away, when his disciples came to point out to him the buildings of the temple. But he answered them, "You see all these, do you not? Truly, I say to you, there will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down."

As he sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately, saying, "Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the close of the age?"

The disciples probably thought their question concerned a single time period. The temple had, for their lifetimes, been at the center of their personal-religious worlds. Whether or not my guess about their thinking is correct, we now know that the destruction of the temple and Jesus' return are widely separated in time. While it is true that, “concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only,” (verse 36) I think it very probable that Jesus did know the two events would not be around the same time. Thus 24:4-35 appears principally to be His answer to, “(W)hen will these things be?” And 24:36-51 appears to be His answer to, “(W)hat will be the sign of your coming and of the close of the age?” The division between answers to the two questions is not quite that neatly clear-cut, though. Chapter 25 is a series of three parables whose primary focus seems to be admonitions to be ready for His return and to use our time wisely. As far as I can see, there is no prophecy of nor a reference or allusion to Israel being restored in Matthew 24 or 25.

The phrase “this generation” – given particular significance in Pre-Tribulation teaching – is in Matthew 24:34, the section of Jesus' response that mainly pertains to warnings of sign of the upcoming destruction of the temple. I think Jesus' use of the word “this” is significant. The adjective “this” means something that is immediately at hand, actually present; I think that had Jesus meant to indicate a generation in the distant future, he would have used the adjective “that”. Another clue pointing to immediate relevance (i.e., relevance to the disciples in their time) is back in the first verse of Jesus' response:

And Jesus answered them, "See that no one leads you astray. For many will come in my name, saying, 'I am the Christ,' and they will lead many astray. And you will hear of wars and rumors of wars. See that you are not alarmed, for this must take place, but the end is not yet.

The “you” whom Jesus is addressing (used 3 times) at that moment is the disciples. Many of them would still be alive and leading the church when the temple would be destroyed. They are the ones Jesus warns not to be led astray (twice!) and not to be alarmed. Jesus spoke to an immediate need – one we now know was some 40 years in the future – not of a distant future event that would not be not relevant to the disciples.

In saying above, “As far as I can see, there is no prophecy of nor a reference or allusion to Israel being restored in Matthew 24 or 25,” I am well aware that there is verse 24:32, which some claim refers to a restored Israel by way of a symbol. In its context:

From the fig tree learn its lesson: as soon as its branch becomes tender and puts out its leaves, you know that summer is near. So also, when you see all these things, you know that he is near, at the very gates. Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place. Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.

Those who see Israel in verse 32 claim the fig tree is a symbol for Israel. If you search on “fig” in the Old Testament in a concordance you will find figs and fig trees were used literally, metaphorically and as symbols. But never as a symbol denoting the nation Israel. Consequently, Jesus' disciples would not from their Scripture training have understood “fig tree” in Matthew 24:32 to mean the nation Israel. How, then, would they have understood the metaphor? First Century Israel was an agrarian society. Jesus' disciples very likely would have had friends and customers who were farmers and orchardists. Even town- and city-dwelling Jews would have had some understanding of agriculture. So, Jesus used an agricultural analogy they would understand: a fig tree does certain things that point to the coming of summer. Similarly, certain signs, verses 4-31, would indicate the impending conquest of Jerusalem and destruction of the temple.

What about the “apocalyptic language” Jesus used in verses 4-31? We think of “apocalyptic” in terms of the book of Revelation and the “end of the world”. But what we think of as “apocalyptic language” was familiar language to Jews of Jesus' time. Jewish prophets used clouds, trumpets and the like as metaphors in predictions of judgments such as the conquest of Israel (the northern kingdom) by Assyria and the conquest of Judah by Babylon. So Jesus' disciples would have understood the “apocalyptic language” Jesus used to mean catastrophic judgment (e.g. the Babylonian conquest, which ended the kingdom of Judah but not the entire world), but they would not automatically think He meant world-ending judgment.

Looking at the “apocalyptic language” Jesus used from a historical perspective, the conquest of Israel and Jerusalem and destruction of the temple really were horrible, catastrophic. I highly recommend that Christians read the works of Flavius Josephus, which cover this time and much else of interest (I found his picture of Herod the Great particularly informative, if horrifying). This war lasted some 7 years (AD 66-73) and had its denouement in the falls of Jerusalem and the Masada. Josephus estimates that well over a million people were killed in putting down this Jewish revolt – most of them Jews – and over 100K were enslaved (flooding the empire's slave market) or dispersed around the Roman Empire. I do not mean to diminish the Holocaust in any way, but proportionally, in the context of the Roman world, these 7 years were worse than the Holocaust. And at the very same time, the Roman Empire experienced a horrible upheaval known as the Year of the Four Emperors. The Twelve Caesars by Suetonius includes a very readable account of this painful time in Roman history. The life and integrity of the Roman Empire literally hung by a thin thread for an entire year! To sum up, if Jesus' “apocalyptic language” in 24:4-31 seems disproportionate to the time of the destruction of the temple, the disproportion is in our knowledge of history, not Jesus' words and the context of that time.

Looking more closely at some verses in Matthew 24:4-31 that some say (I am paraphrasing arguments I've seen made) refer to a restored Israel rather than the church:

Matthew 24:11, 24 – The warning against “false prophets” is particularly relevant to Jews, whose Scriptures contain the writings of many prophets. Since the church also had prophets – e.g. Romans 12:6, 1 Corinthians 12:10, 28-29, much of 1 Corinthians 14, Ephesians 4:11, the prophet Agabus (Acts 11:28, 21:10) and Philip's daughters (Acts 21:9) – false prophets would be a very real and immediate concern to the church. See also 1 Thessalonians 5:20-21, "Do not despise prophecies, but test everything; hold fast what is good," in which Paul instructs the church at Thessalonica that prophecies should be both respected and tested.

Matthew 24:15 – This would have significance to Jews, as they had and will have a temple with a Holy Place, while Christians are the temple of the Holy Spirit. On the other hand if this passage is part of a warning of the impending destruction of the then-standing temple, Christian believers would understand this as referring to a very familiar familiar place in Jerusalem.

Matthew 24:20 – Not fleeing on the Sabbath would only be relevant to observant Jews. If, as I believe correct, this passage is part of a warning of the impending destruction of the temple, this also would be a familiar concept to Christian believers living in and about Jerusalem, many of whom were Jewish and observant of the Jewish Law.

Matthew 24:30 – The word “tribes” in this verse refers to Israel. The New Testament does not use the word “tribes” in reference to Gentiles. Using BibleStudyTools.com, I did a search on the Greek word translated "tribes". It is used 23 times in the New Testament, and usually does refer to Israel. However, the Greek word is used 5 times, in Revelation 1:7, 5:9, 11:9, 13:7, 14:6, to refer to all peoples. So the idea that the word in the New Testament only refers to Israel is incorrect. Going further, the context for each usage specifies to whom the word refers. If one or more tribe of Israel is intended, Israel or the particular tribe(s) are specifically mentioned. And in the context of Matt. 24:30? The verse says, "all the tribes of the earth." Unless the context indicates that hyperbole is used – not the case here – “all” means “all”. So the verse itself contradicts the idea that “tribes” only refers to Israel.

At the least, I think these verses are as consistent with a warning of the impending conquest of Jerusalem and destruction of the temple as with an end-times prophecy referring a future Jewish nation and temple. In the context of verses Matthew 24:1-3, I think it much more likely that verses 4-31 are principally a warning of the impending conquest of Jerusalem and destruction of the temple.

In closing this post I need to state clearly that I am no expert in eschatology. I don't hold to a specific eschatological view. I am just “a certain disciple” trying to understand what a particular passage of Scripture has to say. I invite and urge anyone who reads this to read and endeavor to understand Matthew 24 for themselves.

Ups 'n' Downs Again

It's hard to believe I haven't posted to my blog in two weeks. It's been an interesting couple of weeks. I still have that nagging cough – almost 5 weeks, now – and while I've gone to work every day these 2 weeks, it does drag me down physically. At work, a co-worker is on vacation, so I've had extra incentive to keep going. I think I'm keeping my head above water. I weighed myself last week and in 5 weeks I have lost another 5 pounds (maybe more, as I wore different clothing). Still going in the right direction! With church, we are doing things there and at home preparatory to resuming our home group - really looking forward to that! On an Internet discussion site I frequent there have been a couple of interesting conversations about spiritual matters, and I plan to adapt some comments I posted there to post here in my blog. It's more multiple usage than recycling, as the topics are things about which I've been thinking for many years.

Saturday, September 3, 2011

Less Than Pleasant Reflections on My Family's Past


Don't worry, I'm not going to go all whiny and dredge up traumas from when I was 3 years old. This past week I've spent (invested?) some time writing a relative somewhat about my Mom. She is researching the history of my Mom's side of my family, and there had been some unpleasantness involving my Mom which I tried to “explain”. Reminiscing about such things wasn't exactly easy or pleasant! As far as I can see, there's no one who could be hurt by my speaking honestly about my Mom, while maybe – just maybe – some one could benefit. So I'll write about it all.

My Mom could be very difficult. I'm not saying she was abusive – physically or mentally (whatever that means) – in a legal sense. But she did hurt many people, especially people in her family. The details don't matter, but what does is that at the root of her hurtfulness, as far as I know and understand, was anger, resentment and bitterness from her childhood, youth and early adulthood. Again, the details don't matter, nor would details excuse or mitigate her behavior. She let her hurts and anger – real or imagined – fester into bitterness, a bitterness that tainted and adulterated her very person. She could be a very loving and loyal friend. I've seen her be that. But with some people, many of them family members, the seed of her bitterness yielded unkind and even cruel fruit. She didn't have to become the bitterness-overcome person she became. But she did. She could have recognized and pulled away from the person she had become. But she didn't, as far as I know, to the very end of her life (I hope I'm wrong, but …).

Please! I beg anyone who reads this! If you are angry at some one for something they did (or you think they did) – months ago or years ago – let your anger go. Even if you exact some sort of revenge, it cannot undo what happened. It will still be there, it will still hurt, you'll still have your anger, and it will grow. Give up thoughts of “getting even”! Give up your anger. You don't need to go to the other person to do this, but, in your heart and mind, forgive them! The longer your nurse your hurt and anger, the more it grows into bitterness that will consume you and cause destruction in the lives of people you supposedly love. You cannot control how bitterness affects you or on whom you will inflict it. You will spread the misery around. So don't! Take back control, stop that person from damaging even more of your life! Let your anger go. In your mind and heart, forgive that other person. Start rebuilding who you are and start rebuilding your life's relationships with family and friends. It will be more than worth the effort!