Emails

A Tale of Two Kingdoms: Kingdom of God / Heaven

by

I received this emailed question:

Tim,

I would like to know what is the difference between Kingdom of God and Kingdom of Heaven,

thanks, Brenda

Most of us reading the Gospels have wondered this same thing. Why are there two kingdoms talked about? Or are they two names for the same kingdom? And if so, why?

Cultural Context is Key

I never looked for the answer for this question directly but found it just the same. Living in Austin, Texas, I was introduced to the work of the Bible scholar Dr. Roy Blizzard, Jr. who lives there through a friend of his. Blizzard is the co-author of the classic The Difficult Words of Jesus (with David Biven) and is considered by some as the “father of Hebrew Roots” because of it. I was so impressed with his teachings (back before the Internet became my go-to source for Bible research) that I bought nearly all his teaching tapes.

On one of the tapes he addressed this very issue. Per his normal approach (and as you will find me do in my articles) he delved into the cultural context of the First Century Jewish audience who heard those words of Jesus. In that culture, they were under the influence of the ineffable name doctrine. This Jewish tradition maintained that God’s name was too holy to speak and should be avoided through the use of replacements and euphemisms.

If you ever wondered why some people write “G-d” instead of God, this is why. The doctrine is responsible for the use of Adonai or LORD instead of Yahweh/Yehovah in our Bibles as well.

Heaven = God: Examples

One of the euphemisms used to replace the word Elohim or God was (you guessed it) “heaven”. You can see this used in all three of the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke):

Luke 15:18 (HCSB) — I’ll get up, go to my father, and say to him, Father, I have sinned against heaven and in your sight.

The prodigal son had not sinned against a place called heaven that he had never even gone to. He had sinned against God (as well as his human father).

Mark 11:30 (HCSB) — Was John’s baptism from heaven or from men? Answer Me.

The options for the source of John’s authority in this verse are not truly parallel as written. It ought to either be “from heaven or from earth” or “from God or from man”. So if you read “heaven” as “God”  (just as that culture did) it makes sense.

Matthew 23:22 (HCSB) And the one who takes an oath by heaven takes an oath by God’s throne and by Him who sits on it.

This example is the clearest of all. In it Jesus directly exposes their habit of swearing by “heaven” (instead of by God’s name alone as the Torah commands – Dt 6:13) and shows how ridiculous it was to use a common euphemism like that to avoid being truly bound by the oath. Heaven still connected to God directly who was there sitting on the throne and made you bound!

As you can see, in Jewish culture,  the word heaven was used in place of God for various reasons. However, if you are still not convinced, here’s the coup de grace. You can frequently find parallel passages in the synoptic gospels that will use the two terms in tandem:

Matthew 5:3 (HCSB)  The poor in spirit are blessed, for the kingdom of heaven is theirs.

Luke 6:20 (HCSB) You who are poor are blessed, because the kingdom of God is yours.

 

Matthew 11:12 (HCSB) From the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven has been suffering violence, and the violent have been seizing it by force.

Luke 16:16 (HCSB) The Law and the Prophets were until John; since then, the good news of the kingdom of God has been proclaimed, and everyone is strongly urged to enter it.

Clearly, the Kingdom of Heaven and the Kingdom of God are exactly the same thing.

Once you properly tie in the cultural context of the Gospels or any part of the Bible like this, you can really begin to get to the bottom of many “difficult sayings.”

Sabbath & Feasts ‘Nailed To The Cross’?

by

Tim, I have been reading your site for a while now and now have a question i hope you could help me with. I was raised in a church that taught we are to keep all of gods holy days and Sabbath (WCG). I still believe in Sabbath keeping, but not sure about holy days. Are we still to keep them? or were they nailed to the cross?

I don’t belong to this church anymore, they have split into many different churches now. I am really confused about holy days if you have any way to explain this subject to me it would be very welcome. Thank You for your time.

Feasts Nailed To The Cross?

The “nailed to the cross” phrase is from Colossians 2:14. Paul used a metaphor of a debt note from the Roman culture. ESV Study Bible Notes explains:

In the Greco-Roman world, the “record of debt” (Gk. cheirographon) was a written note of indebtedness. Paul uses this as a word picture to characterize each person’s indebtedness to God because of sin. God himself has mercifully resolved this problem for all who put their faith in Jesus by taking this note and nailing it to the cross, where Jesus paid the debt. The image comes from the notice fastened to a cross by the Roman authorities, declaring the crime for which the criminal was being executed (see John 19:19-22).

Thus this “certificate of debt” illustration does not refer to the Torah. It refers to the guilt from sinning against God. Jesus came to cancel that debt, not to do away with Torah. Taking away the Torah would not remove the guilt it had already brought. To be sure, Jesus said he came to fulfill the Torah, not to destroy it (Mt 5:17). He could not destroy it as the Torah would not fade away until heaven and earth passed away (Mt 5:18). Before that time, when the Kingdom comes, the Torah would be required again and be taught by the rulers in the kingdom (Mt 5:19).

In other words, the Torah is prophetic. It must all be fulfilled. My site’s main article talks about this whole topic.

Sabbath And Not Feasts Required Today?

For the second question, it is important to remember that the Torah is an all or nothing proposition. It is not an “a la carte” cafeteria offering. When Israel and Judah were neglecting land Sabbaths and worshipping idols, God did not say good job on the 99% you do right, I’ll overlook the rest. He kicked them out of the land. James and Paul express this principle:

James 2:10-11 (HCSB) 10 For whoever keeps the entire law, yet fails in one point, is guilty of ⌊breaking it⌋ all. 11 For He who said, Do not commit adultery, also said, Do not murder., So if you do not commit adultery, but you do murder, you are a lawbreaker.

Galatians 3:10 (HCSB) 10 For all who rely on the works of the law are under a curse, because it is written: Everyone who does not continue doing everything written in the book of the law is cursed.

The Sabbath is commanded first in Exodus 16. It’s later repeated in Exodus 20 in the Ten Commandments. The Feasts are in Leviticus 23. They are all part of the same Torah, even if Sabbath  is listed in the Ten Commandments and Feasts are not. Also, Leviticus 23 groups both the Sabbath and feasts together as “my appointed times”.

All or Nothing

This is where the problem comes in when people say you have to keep any part of the laws given to Ancient Israel under the Old Covenant such as tithing, Sabbath, feasts, unclean meats, etc. They are “all for one and one for all.” You cannot say one is required without acknowledging the rest as required.

I used to always wonder how the WCG could teach requirements of unclean meats, feasts, tithing and Sabbath but ignore the sacrifices, stoning of idolaters, witches and disobedient children, laws of niddah, wearing tassles, build sukkahs/tabernacles, and so many other laws. How did they know which ones were for today and which ones were not? Well, I see now they obviously did not know. They were picking and choosing and modifying where needed (hotels = temporary dwellings = sukkahs/tabernacles).

All this to answer your question: if you are convicted you need to keep Sabbath, then according to the Bible you should be convicted as well that you need to keep the annual feasts days.

This, I admit, may be not the kind of “help” you wanted as it opens up a can of worms! How are you going to do commanded sacrifices or tithe crops with no temple or Levites and priests around? Or how many men have the funds to travel to Jerusalem three times per year to keep the feasts in the one place where God “placed his name” (Dt 14:23; 16:2; 26:2)? The answers are: You can’t and indeed very few have the funds to keep Torah.

Anyway, this is what the Bible literally teaches on this question and it is up to each of us to determine for ourselves what to do with it. There are no prophets, judges, Levites or priests today with authority over us in these matters to guide us, unlike what Ancient Israel had as part of the Old Covenant to make Torah “not too difficult” (Dt 30:11-14).

Have You Committed the Unpardonable Sin (Without Knowing It)?

by

A reader sent me this question:

My question is in regard to the “unforgivable sin”. What is your perspective on that particular subject? I have to say personally that I wonder if I have done that myself. And that is half the reason why I get so confused and study so much.

Which of us have not read this verse and wondered the same thing:

Matthew 12:31 (HCSB) — Because of this, I tell you, people will be forgiven every sin and blasphemy, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven.

My Pastor’s Common Sense Answer

I remember the answer my pastor gave back in church during the 90’s to this question. He said that as believers seeking to serve God, “if you are worried you have committed this sin, then you have not done it.” In other words, the people who might commit this sin are the people who are enemies of God, not the ones worried about what God thinks.

This fits with the audience that the verse above was directed at, the Pharisees (Mt 12:24).  The Pharisees were doing everything they could to contradict, undermine, and trap Jesus, a man sent by God by their own admission (John 3:2). They saw him as a threat to their position, power and glory which was their primary concern, not serving God (John 11:47-48). In fact, Jesus plainly said that they did not serve God (John 7:17-19), but followed men and their traditions (Mt 15:3-9) because Satan was their father  (John 8:44). Their evil desires and animosity for Jesus caused them to commit many intentional sins and all could be forgiven—except blaspheming acts that were done by the power of the Holy Spirit.

As long as you have always been neutral or friendly towards God, you could not have possibly committed the unpardonable sin.

Understanding Accountability For Punishment

But what  if in the past you were acting as an enemy of God, much like Paul while he was a Pharisee before his Road to Damascus conversion? How do you know for sure that you did not commit the unpardonable sin then, especially when you did not know enough to realize what it was?

You can know for sure you did not because God is reasonable, fair, and just. He will not damn you eternally for a sin done in ignorance. A sin of ignorance may bring an immediate penalty or curse  for breaking his rules (such as the many curses that Philistines suffered after they captured and touched the untouchable Ark of the Covenant in 1Samuel 5 or the curses on Abimelech for unknowingly taking Abraham’s wife in Genesis 5), but not the ultimate penalty of the Second Death. For you to be accountable for that final punishment, you must first be fully informed in advance of the behaviors that would lead to that punishment. In other words, you must know you are doing it to be accountable for it.

Therefore it’s impossible to commit the unpardonable sin and not know it. You have to consciously be opposing God to commit it and also be aware of God’s will on the subject. The Pharisees, if they really were Satan’s seed as Jesus implied (John 8:44) , were already nonredeemable and had nothing to lose and everything to gain by making a blasphemous lie about the source of power Jesus used to cast out demons.  However, it is unlikely that any believer reading has knowingly blasphemed like that.

Unpardonable Sin Impossible To Commit Today

Besides the aforementioned knowledge prerequisite, a final consideration about this sin is the question of the situation needed for it to happen. Jesus was able to do “many signs” because he was filled with the Holy Spirit. There miracles (and his ministry) began when he was baptized in water by John the Baptist followed by the spirit descending on him like a dove. This was his own private “Day of Pentecost” event, if you will, filling him with the Holy Spirit.

From that day forward, he was able to do the signs he did because of the baptism of the Holy Spirit. The Pharisees witnessed this power repeatedly (along with his irresistible, wise and superior teaching from God’s word). He warned them they were in danger of the unpardonable sin because they knew where his power really came from and yet continued to attribute his power to the Devil instead of God. This same power was also seen in the the apostles and others present in Jerusalem at Pentecost and those who they then laid hands on. Jesus predicted this. He said “these signs shall surely follow” and they did as we can read all about in Acts.

However, today it’s different. Today there is nobody left who had hands laid on them by someone with the baptism of the Holy Spirit. This is not to say miracles and healings do not happen still. They do, but through the fervent prayer of faith by righteous men (James 5…I have personally received divine healed three times this way). Yet, we are not presently familiar with the easy or accidental miracles like those that Acts tells us constantly surrounded those full of faith and the Holy Spirit (Acts 6:5). For example, Acts implies that healings happened by Peter’s shadow passing over the sick in the streets or by receiving a clothing that Paul had worn. That’s the difference between being filled with Holy Spirit and miracles surrounding you constantly and merely being a faithful righteous person who prays to receive miracles and gets them a small percentage of the time.

Given that you are unlikely to find a person filled with the Holy Spirit today, you are not going to see a real miracle that was clearly and obviously done by the Holy Spirit for you to blaspheme. Thus, you cannot commit the unpardonable sin today even if you wanted to.

Hebrews confirms that the presence of the Holy Spirit is a necessary prerequisite of a sin you cannot repent of:

Hebrews 6:4 (HCSB) — For it is impossible to renew to repentance those who were once enlightened, who tasted the heavenly gift, became companions with the Holy Spirit

This passage is not talking about generic salvation as salvation of itself does not make you “a companion of the Holy Spirit.” The laying on of hands is what gives that gift (1Ti 4:14; 2Ti 1:6). That was the special situation of the First Century. People had “enlightenment” or the Holy Spirit as their “companion” because of the laying on of hands (Acts 19:1-6). The passage is saying that if they then fall away after tasting such a level of intimate understanding with God’s way and power (or “enlightenment”) then they were accountable for knowing better if they then abandoned that way. This differs from the accountability people have today without the spirit filling them. We are generally in confusion and doubt on even what the Bible says when we attempt to read it. Such as, for example, what the Bible teaches on what sins you can never be forgiven for =).

Conclusion

There is no need to worry about being guilty of the unpardonable sin and not knowing it. In Scripture God’s enemies are the ones who are in danger of it. Further, it probably has been impossible to commit this sin ever since soon after the First Century. Unlike then, the baptism of the Holy Spirit is not poured out on all believers so that you can witness many signs done by the spirit and then blaspheme it. If you still do catch yourself worrying about having committed it, then that might be the best evidence one can point to that you have not done so.

How Long Was Jesus’ Ministry?

by

A friend asked:

Tim, where do you come down on Jesus ministry being only One year in length and not three years ? Is there a source I can read more about it ?

The length of Jesus’ ministry is not a topic most Christians wonder about. They are universally taught that it was 3½ years long. What they do not realize without personal investigation is that this is only one traditional teaching of several possibilities ranging from 1 – 3 years in length.

I, too, did not realize this for decades as a believer…until meeting Michael Rood. He was teaching a ministry of Jesus of only about a year, or 62 weeks to be exact (70 if you include Jesus’ work up until Pentecost as a glorified man appearing intermittently). This fell in line with what Daniel 9 says about the Messiah being cut off after 62 weeks (Dan 9:26). While the weeks are traditionally interpreted as groups of seven years, not literal weeks of days, in prophecy, there often are dual fulfillments. This allows for both weeks of years and (normal) weeks of days to be intended by the passage. In other words, Jesus died after exactly 62 weeks in ministry as the ministering servant Messiah (from the day John baptized him when he was baptized by the Holy Spirit descending as a dove).

Origins of the 70 Week Ministry

When I asked Michael where he got this theory, he told me about a conference he went to where a couple scholars were teaching it. They claimed that the oldest Greek manuscript fragment for part of the Gospel of John had a different reading than most Bibles follow. I think it was John 6 which in most Bibles has:

John 6:4 (HCSB) Now the Passover, a Jewish festival, was near.

However, in this oldest fragment that the Critical Apparatus of the Nestle Aland had for that chapter, that verse was missing. If the oldest fragment preserved the original, then that verse was not original to John but added later by some scribe.

Michael Rood was intrigued but thought at the time that these scholars were just trying to be controversial to make a name for themselves. Later when he tried to resolve difficulties in The Chronological Gospels (his next book), this bit of trivia came in handy to resolve there being huge gaps in the narrative.

The gaps occurred because certain verses in John inserted extra Passovers without any account of Jesus observing them nor the other of the intervening three annual pilgrimage feasts which the Torah required all males to attend (Unleavened Bread, Pentecost, and Tabernacles). If these Passover accounts were accurate, then Jesus would be breaking Torah which he said he came to fulfill and not to destroy. It would also simply be inconsistent with all the other festivals we see recorded that he always attended like the obedient Jew that he was.

Michael found that two of the four Passovers ascribed to Jesus’ 3½ year ministry were not defensible. John 6:4 did not exist and John 5:1 generic festival reference was not Passover as is normally assumed, but another festival. This left two Passovers, the one soon after the start of his ministry in John 2:23 and the one he died on. Thus, rather than a ministry of over three years, Jesus had a ministry of just over one year (62 weeks) just as some Church fathers had already said.

Why Getting Jesus’ Ministry Length Right Matters

Like Michael, I was not looking for an alternative theory for Jesus ministry either when I encountered it. It just fell into my lap and I accepted it as superior to the 3½ year ministry theory on that merit alone. I did not realize then how key it was that I learned this.

Years later in other research I found compelling research for the correct years of Jesus birth and death: Fall 3 BCE and Spring 30 AD, respectively. These years only leave room for a life span of 31 years, not the 33 years that you need to make a 3½ year ministry beginning at age 30 fit. Only a short one year ministry works. If I still believed the 3½ year ministry at the time of the discovery of those two data points, I probably would have rejected one of this as wrong when all along it was the 3½ year ministry that was wrong. (Note: when you find the difference between 3 BCE and 30 AD be sure to subtract 1 for no year zero! And another 1 because Jesus died six months before his birthday that year. If you don’t, you’ll end up with an age at death of 33 or 32 instead of 31.)

This year of 29 AD for the start of Jesus’ ministry was later confirmed when I discovered that Jesus’ ministry must begin in a Sabbath year. This is derived from his public reading of Isaiah 61:1-2, a declaration of a Sabbath year in Luke 4:18-20 at the start of his ministry. When I researched Sabbath year records, I found the best-supported theory had a Sabbath year fall from Spring 28 to Spring 29 AD (documented in my book). This Sabbath year cycle is the basis for all the many possible years of fulfillment of the 70th week on, since Jesus must return in a Sabbath year, the final year of the 70th Week. (In this way, his two comings are parallel. Both come in the Sabbath year end of one of the 70 Prophetic Weeks: the 62nd or 69th and the 70th respectively.)

If you want to learn more on Jesus one year ministry, check out Michael Rood’s Jonah Code.

Did the Chilean Earthquake fulfill “Unless Those Days Were Shortened” (Mt 24:22)?

by

The powerful 8.8 magnitude earthquake that struck Chile killed more than 700 people and triggered tsunamis. NASA scientists say that is not all it did. It also affected the earth’s axis, speeding up the rotation a little. In other words, the quake shortened the day by 1.26 microseconds. (That’s not one thousandths of a second, but millionths of seconds.)

Many readers have forwarded this news to me probably with the same thought in mind. Could this be what Jesus referred to when he said the following in the Olivet Discourse?

Matthew 24:22 (KJV) — And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect’s sake those days shall be shortened.

One reader phrased it this way:

If we interpret Scripture literally, can we say that the event in Chile has to do when Jesus said days are going to be shortened? What do think? Is it possible ? I know that PX will cause something similar too…but this earthquake literally shortened days according to a scientist … this is getting better ! we are heading to end times…

This question highlights the ambiguity with what Jesus said as it is rendered in the antiquated KJV English version. It can either be understood figuratively or literally. The more common figurative meaning of “those days being shortened” signifies that the length of the tribulation is going to limited by God. The strictly literal reading of it would mean that the literal length of our 24 hour day will be shorter. So which was intended by Jesus?

The reader is leaning towards literal. But is he on the right track? The question also highlights confusion on what “literal interpretation” means. Let’s get to the bottom of it using to approaches.

Approach 1: Think It Through Logically

First a clarification. Some of my students might choose literal because I’m known to teach taking the Bible literally. But this is constantly misunderstood. It does not mean to read everything in the Bible literally even when there are figures of speech, idioms, parables, allegories and metaphors being used. The literal method follows the cues in the text that tell us how to read it. This is instead of deciding to allegorize it without such cues and despite the fact that our reading breaks Scripture (John 10:35) just to suit our preconceived doctrinal positions.

Literal interpretation is really just same way we attempt to understand people everyday. If someone tells us that “I’m dying of thirst!”, do we take it literally and rush them to the hospital for an I.V. drip because we “always wanted to do this” (i.e. be a hero)? No, if we want to stay out of trouble we stop and look at them, see they look fine, think a moment and recognize the person used as a common hyperbolic expression. We process it as such and offer them a drink.

In other words, some common sense thinking is required to go along with proper interpretation. You can solve many questions yourself this way if you just ask yourself questions on what the ramifications are of the interpretation to the surrounding thoughts. Question does it fit or not?

In this case, how does a literal shortening of a 24 hour day prevent the implied extinction of the human race? It makes no sense. On the other hand, the figurative shortening of those days read as the curtailing of the Great Tribulation makes perfect sense as a reason that genocide would be prevented. Satan wants to enslave or destroy the human race and God must step in to prevent this.

Approach 2: Compare Multiple Bible Versions

I realize that we sometimes cannot always see the forest for the trees. We cannot think of the questions ourselves that would lead us to the right answer. (This is why I love the questions I receive by email. They powerfully provoke me to thought on the Bible everyday.)

But sometimes the answer can come through another method. One of the best practices I share constantly is that of checking multiple versions on any passage you are having trouble with. We are very blessed to have the myriad English translations of the Bible we have. If you saw how few Bible versions there are for Spanish speakers, you would feel pity for them.

In this case, checking other versions indeed comes to the rescue. A simple check of a more modern and accurate version like the HCSB produces:

Matthew 24:22 (HCSB) — Unless those days were limited, no one would survive. But those days will be limited because of the elect.

That is clearly a vote for the figurative rendering that the days of the Great Tribulation will be limited. The Greek for this passage means “cut short” which can be rendered as “shortened” like the KJV or “limited” like the HCSB depending on the context. Here, as demonstrated above, the context is talking about limiting the Great Tribulation, so “limited” is best for giving a reader the right idea without them having to go through the mental gymnastics of Approach 1 above.

Does this work all the time? No, sometimes it is no help. But it is always worth a try, especially for people who primarily use the KJV. I cannot tell you how many times people have asked me about a verse in the KJV reading that I answered just by showing them it in the NIV. It’s time for people to update their Bibles and read them through again in the new version. You’ll be amazed at what you can finally understand in the Bible.

But is the Chilean earthquake in any way a sign of the End Times being nearer? Stay tuned for when I address Matthew 24:7 “There will be famines, and earthquakes in various places.”…

When Elijah Comes, What Will He Be Wearing?

by

One of the rare insights I put in Know the Future resurrects a prophecy most people consider already completely fulfilled 2000 years ago. I’m talking about the prophecy of Malachi 4 that a prophet in the spirit of Elijah would come “before the great and dreadful day of the LORD” (Mal 4:5). John the Baptist definitely fulfilled this prophecy, but was that the end of it?

The Elijah of the First Coming

When you look at all the verses on this subject, you find contradictions that call that assumption into question. Jesus and Gabriel the archangel say John the Baptist was this promised Elijah to come (Mt 11:14; Lk 1:17). But significantly, when asked by the Jewish authorities from Jerusalem who he was, John the Baptist himself directly denied being Elijah (John 1:21). Instead, he called himself “the voice of one crying out in the wilderness” (John 1:23).

The best resolution to this contradiction is that he was indeed one of two coming Elijah’s, one for each of the two comings of the Messiah. The Jews were expecting the Messiah to come once and for all to restore the kingdom to Israel (and free them from the Romans). The Elijah they were expecting was therefore this final Elijah, Second Coming Elijah, herald to the King Messiah.

Instead they received a herald to the suffering servant Messiah that they were not expecting. Because of this, I think John answered them with a no, knowing their theology and intent very well. To tell him yes he was Elijah would not work as clearly as explaining his role through the prophecy of Isaiah as he opted to (Is 40:3).

The First Two Elijah’s Strange Attire and Diet

When you hear and recognize this truth about another Elijah for our time, it can be very exciting. We’ve seen self-proclaimed prophets and their predictions come and go with unimpressive results. To have a genuine powerful signs and wonders prophet come to us would be monumental. For this reason, people on the private forums for readers of my book have many posts discussing what they think Elijah will be like.

One question not covered so far came to me by email from another reader. Here’s what he wrote that piqued my interest:

Tim: Do you think Elijah will come back looking like a modern day person or like when he was here in Biblical times?

He was, of course, referring to the similarly notable attire (and diet) of both Elijah and John the Baptist:

2 Kings 1:8 (HCSB) —They replied, “A hairy man with a leather belt around his waist.” He said, “It’s Elijah the Tishbite.”

Matthew 3:4 (HCSB) — John himself had a camel-hair garment with a leather belt around his waist, and his food was locusts and wild honey.

When we understand that another Elijah is coming, it is natural to wonder if this strange attire will play out in some way again.

Understanding John the Baptist’s Attire and Dietary Choices

As we learned in my last article about the Parable of the Ten Virgins, what we dismiss as simply “strange” may have more significance or meaning in that society. It is import to find out what the details of a Bible passage meant to the people of that time before you can move forward with applying that passage to today.

Thus, to understand what a future Elijah might wear or eat, we need to understand how the last two Elijahs food and clothing choices came across in their culture. I found an excellent commentary to shed light on this:

The MacArthur New Testament Commentary – Matthew 1-7.
John must have been a startling figure to those who saw him. He claimed to be God’s messenger, but he did not live, dress, or talk like other religious leaders. Those leaders were proper, well-dressed, well-fed, sophisticated, and worldly. John obviously cared for none of those things and even made a point of forsaking them. His garment of camel’s hair and his leather belt about his waist were as plain and drab as the wilderness in which he lived and preached. His clothes were practical and long-wearing, but far from being comfortable or fashionable. He was much like the first Elijah in that regard (2 Kings 1:8). His diet of locusts and wild honey was as spartan as his clothing. It was nourishing but little else.

John’s very dress, food, and life-style were in themselves a rebuke to the self-satisfied and self-indulgent religious leaders of Israel—the scribes, Pharisees, Sadducees, and priests. It was also a rebuke to most of the people, who, though they may not have been able to indulge in the privileges of their leaders, nonetheless admired and longed for the same advantages.

John’s purpose was not to turn the people into hermits or ascetics. He called on no one, not even his disciples, to live and dress as he did. But his manner of living was a dramatic reminder of the many loves and pleasures that keep people from exchanging their own way for God’s.

That passage helps a lot. The character and point of Elijah’s and John’s attire and diet was to be plain, durable, merely sufficient and possibly also to rebuke the indulgent garb and diet of their respective nemeses (the King of Israel for Elijah and the leaders of Judaism for John).

Elijah’s Attire and Diet Today

Given the above, I think it is safe to say we should not expect the the final Elijah to wear the same original ancient Biblical garb that the first two Elijahs did. Today, that would not accomplish the same functionality and rebuke that it did then. Instead, it would look ridiculous to wear those things. Just imagine the typical person with an “Elijah complex” in Jerusalem today putting on those specific garments and you get the picture. In a word, you think “freak” or “nut” when you see them. You cannot take them seriously.

Instead, picture this as a reasonable way Elijah today could accomplish the same goals with his attire and diet. What if Elijah came and:

  • …did not have a seminary degree or yeshiva education

  • …or even a college degree

  • …did not have a mega-church behind him

  • …did not don the expensive suits of the pastors or the “black hat” of the orthodox rabbis

  • …dresses in modern clothes, but plainly and modestly, even poorly.

  • …drives a beat up old car instead of an expensive car bought off the ill-gotten “tithes” of the laity

I think if Elijah came like this, he would accomplish the same thing John did with his attire and diet. It would definitely set him apart from his peers (and we are all to be a holy or “set apart” people). He would show that he is not materialistic or concerned with impressing or being accepted by people who look for status symbols. His audience instead are those who are hungering and thirsty for righteousness and truth.

For them, he need not get the right clothes and lifestyle to be accepted. He only needs to fulfill his roll again of a voice calling people to the true repentance taught in the Bible. His message will not clash with his lifestyle as it would if a modern mega-church pastor were delivering it. It would be congruent. The meek will receive it with joy, grateful to finally find someone who is with authority teaching the unpopular truths of the Bible that religion not only ignores, but contradicts.

Besides being thrilled at his message, I will be especially curious to see what he ends up wearing and eating and how close I got in this post.

Update: What About the Two Witnesses in Sackcloth (Rev 11:3)?

Someone pointed out that this verse seems to contradict what I said in this article:

Revelation 11:3 (HCSB) I will empower my two witnesses, and they will prophesy for 1,260 days, dressed in sackcloth.

This is a good verse to address because in my book I point out that there seems to be a case for identifying the Malachi 4 Elijah as one of the Two Witnesses. Therefore, following the same approach as before, first let’s see what sackcloth is and then decide whether it is the same garment as Elijah and John wore:

The MacArthur New Testament Commentary – Revelation 1-11.
Sackcloth was rough, heavy, coarse cloth worn in ancient times as a symbol of mourning, distress, grief, and humility. Jacob put on sackcloth when he thought Joseph had been killed (Gen. 37:34). David ordered the people to wear sackcloth after the murder of Abner (2 Sam. 3:31) and wore it himself during the plague God sent in response to his sin of numbering the people (1 Chron. 21:16). King Jehoram wore sackcloth during the siege of Samaria (2 Kings 6:30), as did King Hezekiah when Jerusalem was attacked (2 Kings 19:1). Job (Job 16:15), Isaiah (Isa. 20:2), and Daniel (Dan. 9:3) also wore sackcloth.

The two witnesses will put on sackcloth as an object lesson to express their great sorrow for the wretched and unbelieving world, racked by God’s judgments, overrun by demon hordes, and populated by wicked, sinful people who refuse to repent. They will also mourn because of the desecration of the temple, the oppression of Jerusalem, and the ascendancy of Antichrist.

Sackcloth is specifically worn to mourn and show humility. Much like why fasting is done also in similar situations. In contrast, remember that the clothing that John and Elijah wore were chosen for their simplicity and durability as well as possibly to set John and Elijah apart from the indulgent religious leaders and rulers they were up against. These then are different garments.

If Elijah is one of the Two Witnesses, the indication is that he will only commence wearing sackcloth at the time of his ministry. If he is not, then I would expect his modern lifestyle to reflect better the qualities of John and Elijah’s clothing and diet. Perhaps his clothing will be like this as well in the time leading up to him taking the possible role of one of the Two Witnesses, too.

“Pray that your flight not be…on the Sabbath day”?

by

A reader of my book asked me this very good question that many Christians wonder about when reading Matthew’s version of the Olivet Discourse:

IF the Sabbath is no long in effect (Acts 15) how do we file away this:
Matthew 24:20 – But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the Sabbath day:

Is this a Hint for Christians To Keep Sabbath?

Some Christians find Jesus’ mention of the Sabbath in this passage disturbing. It almost seems to be advising us to be careful to avoid trampling the Sabbath.  For Christians, the Sabbath is a command they associate with the lost legalistic Pharisees of Jesus’ day and the non-believing Orthodox Jews today. Therefore the statement is problematic for them.

On the other hand, Sabbath-keeping Christians often cite this verse as proof of their position that God expects all believers to rest on Sabbath today. “Why would Jesus tell us to pray to not have to leave on the Sabbath unless it was still a day of rest for all believers?” they ask.

Well, that’s an excellent question. They probably are not going to like hearing what the most likely answer is. Yet most Christians will be glad to see how this verse’s plain meaning is in harmony with the rest of the Bible. The exercise will illustrate how many of these verses are best resolved through attention to grammatical, historical and whole Bible context.

Here’s the problem with the common interpretation of this verse. Under the Old Covenant Torah, there was no prohibition against fleeing or even fighting for your life on Sabbath. The only requirement given in the Torah after Israel had entered the land was to rest from your occupational work. (When they were still in tents wandering for 40 years, they had the additional requirement of not even leaving their place; probably only to not be tempted to gather manna – Ex 16:29. See Dt 23:12-13). Therefore, the mention of the Sabbath day causing hardship has nothing to do with believers keeping Sabbath or Sabbath forbidding travel.

A More Probable and Congruent Meaning

To understand the statement, we have to understand what it meant to Jesus’ audience who he spoke it to. In Jesus’ day, their culture was to keep Sabbath. They did this not because it was required by the Old Covenant. They had broken that already. Plus, when it was in effect, prophets continually warned Israel and Judah to stop trampling on it. Yet, those prophets and their warnings ceased with the exile of Israel and Judah (similar to how the shekinah glory left the temple then in Ezekiel 10:18). Instead, they were keeping it as part of their cultural tradition and religion of Judaism that developed out of the Babylon exile. You are probably familiar with some of the many things Orthodox Judaism prohibits on Sabbath, such as ripping toilet paper, carrying money, or turning on a light switch.

They had such embellishments back in Jesus’ day, too, which in several Gospel incidents Jesus is seen in conflict with them on. Examples include the washing of hands, healing or gleaning of grain in fields left for the poor on Sabbath.

They even had a “Sabbath’s day journey” limit on travel (referenced in Acts 1:12 as a distance measurement). Therefore, when Jesus mentioned avoiding Sabbath in the context of the prescribed speedy flight, Jesus’ audience knew immediately what he was talking about. Travel on Sabbath was already problematic back then with the cultural restrictions.

Today in the land of Israel, buses don’t run on Sabbath due to these same traditions. Mostly only Arab-run taxis are available. Therefore, it’s just plain harder to travel in Israel from Friday sunset until Saturday sunset today just as it was back in Jesus’ day. At least in the religious area of Jerusalem, or Judea this was true when I visited. Interestingly, this is the specific area Jesus said we would be gathered to and needing to flee from in the end times (Lk 21:21).

Notice the context as well. Sabbath day is mentioned along with winter and pregnant and nursing women. What do they all have in common? Winter means cold and potentially bad weather that requires more clothing and preparation. It makes travel harder. Being pregnant or having small children means you must go slower or carry a child and stop to nurse him. This obviously makes emergency last minute travel much harder and slower. All these things, like the Sabbath day, present obstacles to fast, unencumbered  travel on short notice as will be required. This was the whole point of the context of the Abomination of Desolation warnings. If someone does not listen to the warning ahead of time about what it coming and instead waits until he sees the event happen before his eyes (“I’ll believe it when I see  it”), then he will need to move so fast that he cannot even stop for supplies (Mt 24:15-20). If time is of the essence, then Sabbath day travel friction is a concern.

Other reputable commentaries agree this is likely the meaning:

What Christian Commentaries Say

New American Commentary on Matthew:

This reference to the Sabbath is found only in Matthew’s account. It would be natural for Matthew to include it for his more Jewish audience, but he does not thereby imply, as is often alleged, that he envisions Christians still keeping the Jewish laws. G. N. Stanton (“ ‘Pray That Your Flight May Not Be in Winter or on a Sabbath’ [Matthew 24.20],” JSNT 37 [1989]: 17–30) surveys the various options for interpreting this verse and concludes that the best approach understands that fleeing on the Sabbath would have antagonized the Jews further and increased persecution of believers.

MacArthur New Testament Commentary on Matthew:

Although Palestinian winters are mild compared to those in many parts of the world, even slightly inclement weather could be a hindrance when the Antichrist begins his final aggression against God’s people. Therefore Jesus said, Pray that your fight may not be in the winter.

Those seeking to escape should also pray that they will not have to flee on the Sabbath, when legalistic Jews who are not fleeing might try to stone or otherwise impede those whom they believe to be profaning the Sabbath—just as their forefathers had sought to stone Jesus for breaking their Sabbath traditions.

Jesus’ point was that no possession would be worth the risk of retrieving and no hindrance could be considered small. Because of the imminent unmatched terror, single-minded, undeterred flight will be the only order of the day.

Abomination Happens on A Sabbath in the Winter

What Jesus is implying by his suggestion to pray about the timing of your flight is that those who make the mistake of waiting until the last minute will literally see the Abomination happen on a Sabbath day in the Winter.

That may sound like an outrageous leap, but we can already confirm the Winter season for the abomination using Daniel. Daniel tells us that the Abomination of Desolation happens 1290 days from the end of the Tribulation. We know the rapture happens on the Feast of Trumpets right after the Tribulation (Mt 24:39-31). The Feast of Trumpets is on Tishrei 1, or first day of the 7th month. If you go back 1290 days or 43 months from that you end up in the 12th month of Adar. That’s the Winter!

Was Jesus also telling us ahead of time that the Abomination of Desolation would happen on a future Sabbath day? I think so.

Those who pray and have the faith to flee before they see the Abomination will probably flee before Winter gets bad. They can pick a time that is not on a Sabbath day as well and have an easier time. But to do this will take faith since it means leaving when everything seems fine to the eye.

Conclusion

Whenever we read a cryptic passage like this, we have to resist the temptation to jump to the conclusion that fits in with our doctrinal view. We have to put our bias aside and put on our detective’s hat. The Bible requires clear thinking and careful research. If we start with what the passage would have meant to the person saying it and also to his audience, we have a much better chance of arriving at the correct answer.

Note: If you think that by writing this article it means I do not keep Sabbath or am against keeping Sabbath, then that conclusion would be just as shaky as the one this article argued against. =) This article is not making a statement for or against keeping Sabbath. The point is only to correct a common case of taking a verses out of its context, masking its true intended meaning.

For the record, according to Isaiah 58 the Sabbath is a delight and blessing to keep whether it is required or not. Committing to resting one day a week recharges your batteries, relieves stress, gives space to reflect on the important things in life, and reconnect with your family. Those who can use more blessings from God in their life might optionally try resting on Sabbath. =)

The First Shall Be Last, the Last Shall Be First?

by

A reader asked what Jesus meant when he said “The first shall be last and the last shall be first”. It is a good question because this proverb is used several times by Jesus in the Gospels.  To properly understand his teaching, several such core concepts must be mastered, one at a time.

This proverb expresses a recurring theme in Jesus’ teaching of the counter-intuitive reversal of fortune that the Kingdom of God will deliver when it comes. There are three groups outlined by Jesus where this is demonstrated:

  1. Many Gentiles will achieve entrance in the Kingdom while large numbers of the chosen people of Israel do not enter. (Lk 13:28-30; Mt 20:1-16);
  2. Among Israel, the outcasts (tax collectors, sinners, and unlearned) would appear ahead of the religious (Pharisees, scribes, lawyers, priests, rich). (Mk 10:23-31; Mt 19:23-30; Luke 6:20; Luke 14:11)
  3. Those who suffer now will have comfort in the Kingdom but those who are rich and comfortable in this world will appear behind those who suffer now. (Lk 16:19-31)

The parable of “Lazarus and the Rich Man” (Lk 16:19-31) expresses this last point grandly, although most completely misread the parable as a complete and accurate depiction of life after death (which it is not; come on, burning in hell and wanting water for your tongue?). Most Christians completely miss that Jesus was drawing upon common Egyptian and Jewish concepts on the afterlife in order to make an important point on the Kingdom. He was not teaching us that we burn in hell when we die. All other teachings in the Bible on the afterlife contradict that conclusion.

The point he was making is again the reversal of fortunes and how what we should seek now is counter-intuitive or not what we naturally seek. This reversal does not even depend on righteousness vs. wickedness. Lazarus is not said to be a righteous man nor is the rich man called a sinner. Instead, one had suffering and the other comfort, respectively. After they both die, their situation is reversed in the next life. Lazarus is seen reclining with Abraham in the kingdom and the rich man is seen suffering outside in the common humanistic vision of a hell (not in a theologically correct unconscious separation from God – Ecc 9:5) .

Jesus is warning us through this parable and his saying “the first shall be last, and the last shall be first” that it does not matter who we are. No special favor is afforded by birth. We must seek the right things in this world, things that are counter-intuitive, so that in the next life, which is forever, we will benefit. These “riches in heaven” are won by seeking first the kingdom and his righteousness in this world (Mt 8:28). And many groups who you would think today have a corner on these riches, in reality will be nowhere to be seen in the Kingdom of God.

Can We Take “The LORD’s Name In Vain” Today?

by

My posts always bring interesting and unexpected responses from readers even when I think they are not controversial. The previous one on the 2012 movie was no different. Here’s the very first reply I received from a reader:

I just received your article about 2012.  I hope you are not recommending the movie.  I read the reviews and that was enough for me.

The Lord’s name is used in vain, 20 times. I cannot imagine that He would want me to go, pay money, and then sit and listen to this.

I don’t mean to sound harsh, I am just soooooooo sick of Christians spending (wasting) their time on such as this.

I too would love to see a good end time movie, but unfortunately the enemy uses them to dull our senses and jade us.

I think this reader is overlooking the ability of movies like this to do the opposite of jading us against end times concerns. Doomsday movies get people contemplating the end of the world, end time prophecy and eventually the Bible. Ironically, even Christians need whatever help they can get to motivate them to finally read the entire Bible (as the statistic that only 5% have done so confirms). In the new My Testimony chapter of my book‘s 7th edition, I recount how the movie The Omen lead a good Catholic boy like me to open the Bible for the first time at age nine. Any movie that can motivate people to open up their Bibles is not a waste of time, in my book.

“2012 Uses The LORD’s Name In Vain 20 Times”?

But in this article I want to focus on just one argument the reader makes against the 2012 movie; the claim that the movie breaks the Third Commandment twenty times. It is an interesting story as to why I disagree with that complaint.

I have recounted many times how gaining a major new Bible insight will often cause a domino effect with other understandings you have. This stands to reason because none of us understand the Bible 100% correctly, including myself. We either completely forget or ignore verses that would contradict what we believe or we misunderstand the verses we are aware of.

A great example of this is what happens when you learn about the sacred name. As I covered in my article on sacred names, I found out years ago that God’s name is not LORD or God but a specific four letter name that occurs 6,828 times in the Old Testament. This understanding then lead to a quick and easy proof for discerning (Christian) false prophets.

The Christian understanding of everyday breaking of the Third Commandment also topples once you understand the truth about God’s name. A reader of my sacred name article yesterday asked a question that hints at it:

Do you think this (using any name that we choose) has any thing to do with the 3rd commandment re: taking the name in vain?

may YAHUWAH have mercy on us all, stephanie

Her question refers to the fact that we do not know God’s name for sure so we must all decide what reasonable facsimile we think is closest from our own diligent research. The answer to the question is absolutely not. And as a result, I will show that God’s name is taken zero times in 2012.

What Exactly is “Taking the LORD’s Name in Vain”?

Exodus 20:7 — You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain.

People today have the idea that saying phrases such as “Jesus Christ!” or “God d*** it!” or other cursing involving Jesus or God in some way is what this commandment is talking about. It is not. To find the correct understanding on the Third Commandment, you must understand it in the context of the Torah given to Ancient Israel which the Ten Commandments are part of.

As my previous article on sacred names explains, Israel was taught God’s actual four letter name, YHWH pronounced something like “Yehovah” (Jehovah is the old English spelling of this when the J was pronounced like Y). They used God’s name for praising (Ps 100:4), blessing (Num 6:23) and even in greeting (Ruth 2:4). The Third Commandment only refers to this word, Yehovah. It does not refer to Yehovah’s titles like “Lord” or “God” or his son’s name (which by the way is not “Jesus Christ” as is used in 2012, anyway. See how the Messiah’s original Hebrew name became mangled as “Jesus”).

We can be sure this is what the Third Commandment is about because Israel was actually commanded to make oaths using God’s name Yehovah exclusively (Dt 6:13).

Dt 6:13 (HCSB) — Fear Yahweh your God, worship Him, and take ⌊your⌋ oaths in His name [Yahweh is a common scholarly best guess of how to pronounce YHWH].

If they did not fulfill their oaths or vows, it was considered swearing falsely and profaning God’s name (Lev 19:12). Once you understand that you can then can see the true meaning of the Third Commandment. For example, here’s what just two commentaries have to say about it:

third commandment. As the second commandment concerned the issue of exercising power over God, the third turns its attention to exercising God’s power over others. This commandment does not refer to blasphemy or foul language. Rather it is intended to prevent the exploitation of the name of Yahweh for magical purposes or hexing. It also continues the concerns of the second commandment in that someone’s name was believed to be intimately connected to that person’s being and essence. The giving of one’s name was an act of favor, trust and, in human terms, vulnerability. Israel was not to attempt to use Yahweh’s name in magical ways to manipulate him. The commandment was also intended to insure that the use of Yahweh’s name in oaths, vows and treaties was taken seriously. — The IVP Bible Background Commentary on Ex 20:7

Taking the Lord’s name in vain (see note on Deut. 5:11) refers primarily to someone taking a deceptive oath in God’s name or invoking God’s name to sanction an act in which the person is being dishonest (Lev. 19:12). It also bans using God’s name in magic, or irreverently, or disrespectfully (Lev. 24:10-16). The Lord revealed his name to Moses (Ex. 3:14-15), and he has continued to identify himself in connection with his acts on Israel’s behalf (see 6:2, 6-8). Yahweh is warning Israel against using his name as if it were disconnected from his person, presence, and power. — ESV Study Bible on Ex 20:7

Conclusion – Today Nobody Can Really Do It

As the Third Commandment was uniquely given to Ancient Israel in the context of other commands on using God’s name, we must realize that it does not directly apply to us today. Today we are scattered believers mostly outside the land of Israel where the Torah applied. We are a different audience in a different situation and it is improper to take all these commands meant for someone else in a different jurisdiction from the distant past and apply them to ourselves.

(Of course, this reasoning does not apply to all Ten Commandments. Most of them are not unique to Israel as they were given earlier to all men.  They are merely repeated in the Torah. For example, whether the Torah applies to us or not, none of us should murder because that moral standard was given in the beginning to Adam. None of us need God to tell us not to steal, commit adultery or bear false witness because other people, society and government will quickly object to that behavior as immoral or unethical.)

There is another major problem with enforcing the Third Commandment today. As my article on the sacred name covered, today there is no prophet like Moses teaching and using God’s name. As a result, nobody knows what God’s name is for sure, or at least how to pronounce it exactly so you can use it. Further, Jesus never reiterated the Third Commandment in his teachings nor left believers any other injunction to use God’s name. (Some would even say he told us not to swear at all citing Matthew 5:34. However, the Hebrew Matthew may preserve a more original reading of Jesus’ words that does not contradict the Torah on this point. For details see Nehemia Gordon’s The Hebrew Yeshua vs. the Greek Jesus.)

Once you realize this, it changes your whole perspective on people saying “Jesus Christ” or other similar curses. That is not God’s name, let alone the Messiah’s. If you do not know what God’s name is for sure, and you are not even told to use it, then it is impossible to use it improperly or otherwise. It would be like someone accusing you of running a red light in Israel when you do not even drive nor live in Israel (which may seem like a contrived example, but perfectly describes myself. I have not owned a car for many years and instead use my bike daily in Costa Rica to get around).

Therefore, it no longer offends me to hear people swear with the words “God”, “Jesus Christ”, or “LORD” anymore than other swearing does. I realize now that these people are not breaking the Third Commandment in my presence and I am not complicit to some sin if I do not rebuke them or do not boycott a movie with such language. I still of course do not endorse the use of any profanities (and must always exercise self-control myself when angry in this regard).

I look forward to the day when the Messiah returns and we are all taught to both use and properly swear by (meaning take oaths and vows) God’s exact, actual, glorious, set apart name.

Mandatory H1N1 Vaccine Rumors Dispelled

by

A reader asked:

I have heard about a mandatory H1N1 vaccine that the US is going to force us to take the vaccine or go to a concentration camp. Have you heard about this? It is supposedly going to start as soon as October 15, 2009. If you have heard anything or have any advise I would greatly appreciate your response.

There are always rumors like this about draconian laws coming or concentration camps for resistors. I’ve heard and watched these fables come and go for years.

You know what I’ve found? They never come to pass.

Why Unsubstantiated Rumors Should Be Ignored

I can think of three reasons why:

  1. Most often they were just unfounded or false rumors. There is a good reason mainstream news sites do not carry such stories. They cannot be verified. This of itself does not make them false, but most unverifiable stories do turn out this way.
  2. Perhaps a few rumors are based on actual plans of the enemy which failed as most plans men make up do.
  3. Finally some may have been real plans and had a real chance but they contradicted God’s master plan. Of course, God is sovereign and his plans never fail.

Discernment 101

In hindsight, most of the above may seem like common sense, even academic. But common sense is not always very common.

I confess it took me a few years to experience this pattern before I recognized it myself. We all have to learn most of our discernment the hard way, by experience. We must fall for a few con-men, erroneous ideas, false prophets, and false prophecies before we start to see that generally if it sounds too good to be true (or too bad to be true) it usually is. Or if too few people are saying something, it generally is false. (With the Bible this turns out to be the opposite:  most of what is popularly taught from the Bible is in error, due to how the Bible was written)

The next time you hear an extreme rumor like this, I hope you treat it as it deserves. As an unsubstantiated rumor.