The Ten Commandments: A Baseline Commitment
Imagine a future in which it is necessary for most counties in the United States to post the Ten Commandments at the county line right under the sign with the county’s name.
WHEN ARMY CHIEF OF STAFF GENERAL GEORGE CASEY expressed fear that diversity in the military would suffer in the aftermath of the Fort Hood shooting, the public was rightly outraged. It was perfectly obvious that military officials, to avoid appearing to descriminate, had placed diversity above the safety of soldiers.
That a terrorist got inside the gates of a military base and killed illustrates how the false morality of secular society has caused our officials to ignore true morality, which protects people. In the guise of secular values like diversity and separation of Church and state, false morality is a danger not only to our nation, but to local areas as well.
A time may come when Americans no longer can afford such luxuries, when times are too dangerous to trust anyone who does not first submit to a baseline of biblical morality. Civil war has been fought in this country before and could be again. Or chaos may result from a catastrophe.
The answer to public disorders is not giving an amoral government power to declare martial law. Rather, it is to allow an armed and moral citizenry and their local law enforcement officials to defend themselves against violators of public morality and law.
Allow me to pose a hypothetical suggestion here that may seem out of place in modern America. The reason it is out of place is that we have not yet seen circumstances that demand it. But it will not be out of place in a more dangerous and chaotic future.
Some day people living in an area might need to inform people coming in of the need to follow certain basic conduct. Speaking especially of a society with roots in Judeo-Christian culture, I know of no better standard of generally agreed upon conduct than the Ten Commandments.
The Law of Moses commanded the Israelites to write the commandments upon their door posts and gates. Similarly, in a society that must depend on the goodness of its people for the maintenance of peace, it will promote the public good to write the Ten Commandments at the gateways of our territories and communities. This is as much as to say, if you come here, commit to keeping these rules, or be regarded as a criminal.
However one interprets the first amendment of the Constitution, it’s certainly undeniable that, in America’s beginnings, public displays of the Ten Commandments would not have been prohibited, but encouraged. In fact, in our early history, Puritan laws were based on the Law of Moses, and they often cited it verbatim. God’s Law was certainly an important part of American history and law, and as long as it was, it promoted the public welfare and security. But the modern move to a secular society has led to a loss of public morality.
Posting the commandments at the gateways to our communities would as much as say, when you enter our community, you enter into a covenant with the people to conduct yourself in a given way. There is a baseline of morality here. The Ten Commandments at the county line would say in effect, “Thieves, adulterers, murderers, and worshipers of false gods are not welcome here.” If this was backed up with a commitment to arrest and prosecute violators, people would be safer in times of crisis and chaos.
In our lifetime, we have never been in a position to have to defend our communities. That is not to say that this will always be the case.
In dangerous times, people have to live in covenant with one another on a local and area level, or it is impossible to trust anyone. Apart from this baseline commitment, everyone is a potential enemy.
Times of peace and prosperity enable human beings to insist on such luxuries as “a high wall of separation between Church and State” and diversity. These secular values don’t help people survive in times when we all need to be able to trust our neighbors. Secular values must inevitably give way in times of great danger, because people have a need to live with each other in a covenant and to trust in God. A covenant surrounding the Ten Commandments would necessarily be religious. And these ten laws would ultimately be based on a belief in the one true God of the Bible. Only the worship of the Judeo-Christian God, therefore, would do. And only those who live by His baseline morality would be regarded as safe people to have around.
The secular alternative to this is simply a fantasy. It is impossible that secularists would agree on morality, and we cannot hope to maintain public order through troubled times without a moral baseline. Nor can we fail to inherit a violent world, if we reject “thou shalt not murder, thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not commit adultery”.
The Judeo-Christian God has given us a moral baseline. This is fodder for skeptics and scoffers until the time when it will be needed. And then no one will be able to deny its effectiveness for promoting public order.
Secularism has thrown open a door to Islam, the practice of which ought to be forbidden in every corner of America, along with any religion that promotes murder as Islam does. The false god of Islam commands his adherents to commit acts of terror. If we therefore reject the God of the Bible while allowing the worship of the false god of Islam, we are rejecting the source of our security. We cannot hope to have peace while worshiping a false deity. It is not as though simply any god may do. Worshiping the one true God is an act of patriotism and self-preservation.
In times of trouble, diversity must be set aside for the good of the people and of the covenant they live by. Those who wish to protect diversity at the expense of covenant will eventually be guilty of creating a society favorable not only to murderers and thieves, but terrorists as well. Indeed, we have this problem in the United States already, where leaders sometimes sacrifice homeland security for diversity.
Instead we must protect the Ten Commandments against making diversity a higher priority; and then we will have safety.
The Effect of Illegal Immigration and Amnesty On Rural Employment
As the US government has enabled illegal aliens to remain in this country and work, White Americans have swelled the ranks of the unemployed and become consumers of entitlements.
OUR FRUITFUL AGRICULTURAL VALLEY IN Eastern Washington got a bus line—more like 16-passenger vans—a few years ago. The line was funded by a voter-approved sales tax increase and matching grants from the state.
At first, the buses were never full, and sometimes mostly empty. Individuals complained and questioned the need of a bus line. But that changed after the economic meltdown of 2008. And lately most mornings somebody is standing, or sitting on the hard back floor, where the wheelchair lift is, as the bus barrels down the highway at 60 mph. There is talk among the passengers of the need for a bigger bus, another sort of entitlement, but no such talk from the bus line’s employees.
What’s interesting to note is that almost 100 percent of the riders are White Americans. An occasional Mexican rides. They are everywhere in this county. But usually a disabled old Mexican and a young girl who works 23 miles down the valley at McD’s are the only ones riding. Most Mexicans drive, because they have cars, some, very nice ones, and they have jobs. The rest of the riders are Whites, and a few Blacks, who were born in America. And almost all are on public assistance.
When I first came to this valley in 1980, a lot of the Whites worked in the fruit orchards, which gave them a low income for six to nine months out of the year. The work used to be done by fruit tramps—some called them winos—and it’s true that many of them did drink, but they also worked for a living and paid for their lifestyle out of their own pockets, not from a monthly government check. In the 70s, the hippies came in and bought cheap land in the hills. They were mostly lazy orchard workers, and the farmers didn’t like them. But in the late 70s, farmers began importing illegal aliens to harvest their crops and prune their trees.
The farmers claimed that the Mexicans were willing to do work that Whites didn’t want, but that was a bit of a distortion. The truth was: prices for their crops had fallen, and they were going into increasing debt, so farmers had no choice but to suppress the wages. Illegal aliens were less trouble than Whites, because they didn’t complain if they knew they were getting a bad deal. And they were willing to settle for whatever the farmer could pay.
The federal government allowed this situation to continue, and granted amnesty (and green cards) to the illegals at least twice that I am aware of. Around 1980, when I came to this valley, some farmers who wouldn’t say so, but they discriminated against Whites in hiring. At that time, the packing sheds were still bastions of White employment, but it was starting to get harder to find work in the orchards if your skin was white.
All that changed with the issuing of green cards to illegals. Today, in Brewster, Washington, which has become largely Hispanic, Mexican food and clothing stores have popped up on the main street in town. And when the shift changes at the two large packing sheds out on the highway, a swarm of Mexicans crosses to and from the parking lot across the road. The sheds also have busses coming in from points as far as 60 miles south, loaded with green card holders. If you want a job there, a Hispanic person makes the decision about hiring. And, of course, we all know that only White people discriminate in hiring decisions. (One of these sheds was busted for hiring illegals just this year.)
The job situation in other industries has also changed. Go into the local social services offices today, and you are likely to find Hispanics among the few Blacks and the Whites that are applying for benefits, and Hispanic workers at some of the windows. There are enough Hispanic consumers of social services that, when you see an add for a job with the county or the state, it always says “bilingual preferred”. Some local businesses also ask for and get bilingual applicants. Most Whites, for practical purposes, are automatically excluded from these jobs because they are not native Spanish speakers. It seems that our governments have recognized some sort of right to have a translator present at taxpayer expense in government offices, when, in fact, most Hispanics could furnish a family member to do this.
We live in a conservative area of a liberal state. Most of the people in the state live on the west side of the mountains around Puget Sound. They vote mostly Democrat, and are environmentalist in their sympathies. Democrats dominate politics in this state, and they make decisions for Eastern Washington that aren’t good for Eastern Washingtonians, especially poor ones who want to be self-reliant. Save the trees. No more gold mining. Stop this or that. Recycle. Between them and the activism of the hippies that moved in here in the 70s, forestry and mining have largely shut down in our neck of the woods. And efforts to bring in new natural resource based employment have been largely thwarted by people who don’t even live here.
The official unemployment rate in our county sits in the low teens. But the real story is that Mexican unemployment is hardly a blip in that figure, and White unemployment is far higher than the Hispanic rate.
There are still strong, self-reliant people here, who would never take a handout from the government. But I have watched some dip into their social security at the earliest possible moment, just to survive and then try to stretch it without applying for food stamps. Meanwhile their mortgage is being foreclosed.
And the people on the bus? Most of them don’t have much pride left. Many of them seem stupid. Ever hear of brain drain? That’s where smart people leave for better opportunities in the city and leave behind the less gifted and less skilled to scrap for the low-wage jobs. Most of them would be happier working in a packing shed for minimum wage.
Now, if you’re a conservative, I applaud you for your self-reliant American values and your practical good sense. I also agree that our country simply can’t go on supporting people like those that ride the bus. But we need to address immigration, and put a stop to handing over all their jobs in places like this to people who weren’t born in this country. We can handle a few who immigrate legally. We can’t handle a flood of them who immigrate illegally. Allowing such a situation inevitably creates some fallout, which leads to dependency upon the government for both immigrants and Americans.
Bring Back the Victory Gardens
If Americans wait to roll up their sleeves and get their hands dirty, it may be too late. We need to get closer to the earth now, so that the earth can nourish us; and so that we can rediscover the things that matter most.
WHEN WE MOVED IN NEXT TO A SWEET OLD WOMAN in a rural area three and a half years ago, there was a horse in her corral. By the end of 2008, the horse was gone. And, in the Spring of 2009, the corral was planted fencepost to fencepost with vegetables, more than the little old lady could possibly care for, keep, or eat. But her kids came every week or two and worked in the garden.
My guess is: It was her idea. After the economic meltdown of 2008 she knew what to do, and prevailed upon her children to put in a garden, and she was thinking more of them than herself when she made them do it. The woman is old enough to remember the Great Depression and the Victory Gardens of World War II.
My mom used to say, “I don’t know what people are ever going to do if there’s another depression. When I was growing up, pretty much everybody had a farm or knew someone who did, and that’s how they ate.”
Ladies and gentlemen, food doesn’t come from grocery stores; especially when one can’t afford it because it is four times as expensive as it was a year or two ago, and definitely not when hyper inflation makes prices rise many times higher than that.
The government will likely be forced to hit the reset button on the economy. That means the value of the dollar will sooner or later go into free fall. If it does, many people will lose their life’s savings, which is something they can survive without. Bank accounts don’t mean much anyway when people can’t eat.
When my neighbor lady planted a garden she was too frail to keep, she was using her native good sense and experience to do what matters. So what if she was maybe a year or two or even three early? Her kids and neighbors got some good produce. Chances are, if she can get them to do it, they will plant again this year, and maybe this year or next year they’ll need it. You don’t want to wait until people are turning hungry and violent to say, “Maybe I should plant a garden next Spring.”
One thing’s sure: on the course the economy is taking, not to mention the government, we are going to need something like the old Victory Gardens of World War II. In those years, the people of the United States ploughed up available spaces and furnished 40 percent of our vegetable supply from non-farm sources. This freed up billions of dollars to fight the war and saved lives. And, of course, people’s health improved from better diet and exercise.
Let me lay out a scenario: Parts of this country now depend on having almost all of their food shipped in. What’s a person to do when food prices go so high that people can’t afford them? First, people must start breaking in and looting. Then, they must start using guns. When they are done raiding the neighborhood grocery store, they must begin ranging farther afield.
Fine, we all buy guns and defend what’s ours, especially our gardens. What happens then? You shoot a hungry looter. You feel terrible about it. But the next time, the looters show up in a gang, only they don’t tell you. You think there’s only one and walk right into an ambush. They take your food and leave you for the ambulance to pick up. Or maybe just one shows up, but he’s carrying an Uzzi. They are going to make sure you are out-gunned.
Really, that is no solution. What we need to do is take personal responsibility for growing as much of our own food as possible. But let’s not get so hung up on the issue of responsibility that we let other people go hungry who can’t plant a garden of their own. Growing our own food will relieve pressure on the food supply and keep prices down. Then we need to think about neighbors and family. It’s time to learn what it is to be a community again.
But we shouldn’t stop there. We ought actually to be shipping food to food outlets in the cities. Too much work? Hey, we are in a crisis; and it will get a lot worse if we don’t do what needs to be done. My elderly neighbor understands that; but it’s time for a younger generation to figure it out.
So let’s do this thing. Let’s have Victory Gardens with the idea that it’s us, We the People, and not the government mandating it. And the victory that we’re fighting for is a victory over our circumstances and over the tyranny of a government that wants to, but can’t, pick up the pieces. Only we can do that.
And we need to plant some signs next to our gardens too, saying:
Victory Gardens:
From Your Friends and Neighbors, Not Your Uncle Sam
Islam Martyrs Nigerian Christians Because They Have No Guns
Many countries in the world ban guns. The result is often not greater safety from violence. But Muslim extremists can buy them on the black market or make them themselves to use against the “infidels”.
MUSLIM GANGS ATTACKED AND BURNED three villages near Jos a few days ago. It took me a few days to become aware of this latest Muslim atrocity here, where our media mostly ignore foreign news and call things like this “sectarian violence”. Not so in British papers. (Read here.)
Jos sits in a border zone between Islamic and Christian regions, where Christians and Muslims compete for fertile farm land. So the attack was partly about stealing land. The Christian victims—some accounts say as many as 528, including many children—were mostly hacked to death with machetes, burned, and a few shot.
That’s because Nigerians can’t legally own guns. That doesn’t stop thugs and Muslim fanatics, a few, from hiding them. And a black market does a brisk business in home-made weapons and AK-47s. (Article here.)
When God said, “Thou shalt not steal” and “Thou shalt not murder,” He gave every human being the unalienable right to own and defend both life and property, even, if necessary, to take the life of an attacker. Laws that take away arms cannot take away God-given rights, nor does government dole them out.
The Christians in the villages near Jos had a right to defend themselves, but the government took their weapons. Taking away guns doesn’t stop bloodshed; it encourages it. The attackers just relied on machetes and fire instead. But some also shot their victims, proving that Muslims, some of them, can be trusted to break the law in order to keep their weapons. Obviously the slain Christians did not keep guns.
This reminds me of a story from the book of Esther in the Bible. A wicked man had horn-swoggled the king into making an unwise decree that, on a certain day, the people of the Babylonian Empire could rise up against the Jews, killing and plundering them. Since the king himself under their laws could not rescind a royal decree, the king published an edict allowing Jews to kill and plunder any attackers. The result was the occasion of much rejoicing among the Jews, and one of their festivals is celebrated today in honor of this victory. If you protect the right of people to defend themselves and their property, the result will either be peace or at least a chance of victory for the innocent.
Advocates of gun control in the United States believe that taking away people’s rights will deter violence. What happened in Nigeria the other day proves otherwise. The same thing has born out in recent American statistics. In 2009, fearing the Democrats and Obama would push through gun control, Americans bought a record number of firearms. With the economy down, the so-called experts predicted a rise in violent crimes. Instead they went down to a significant degree. This was partly due to tougher law enforcement in our nation’s larger cities. But the real story is the drop in murder. This was a direct result of more guns. Killers were stopped before they could kill.
Rest assured, world-wide Islam would like nothing better than to see private Americans and Europeans disarmed. Issuing more concealed and open carry permits would discourage terrorism in public places. It would tell them, “You don’t get to do what you want to do here.”
Moral Law Existed Before God Created Anything
Moral law exists as an objective and eternal reality no matter what I may think of it.
ULTIMATELY THINGS ARE RIGHT or wrong in the nature of things.
People often argue that morality varies from culture to culture. This ignores the universals that all people understand.
For example, every culture regards it as wrong for a soldier to run away in battle. Bravery is lauded and cowardice condemned, and this is universal. It’s in the nature of things. And in this case the nature of things is that life is a right that needs protecting.
While societies differ about how marriage and sexuality ought to be regulated, they all agree that it must be regulated in some way. The modern notion that people should be allowed to do whatever feels good is an aberration. It cuts across the grain of virtually every culture. No culture can long thrive that removes all restraints in the area of sexuality. It’s in the nature of things.
Modern Christians sometimes insist that God’s laws have been reduced to only two: “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength; and your neighbor as yourself.”
Has the law been reduced? Or was it only summed up in two commandments?
Was there ever a time when what is right or wrong now was not right or wrong? Will ever be a time when right or wrong cease to exist. Not if right and wrong are in the very nature of things.
Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life.” In saying this, He showed that the right way to live is not just pointed out by Christ, it is based in His own being. The way is only the way, because it is the nature of God. The truth is not simply a matter of being right or wrong, correct or incorrect. The truth is the truth because it is the nature of God. And even life does not exist independent of Him; for “in Him we live and move and have our being.” Life is “in Him.”
God created man in His own image and likeness. Therefore, it is reasonable to say that something which resonates with the way, the truth, and the life is written in the heart of man. For the way, the truth, and the life is the nature of God, and therefore affects the image of God in man. We ought to find our purpose by living in accordance with that nature.
This is why people all over the world can agree about some things when it comes to right and wrong. You don’t have to be a religious person to agree that murder is wrong. There may be some small differences from one society to another as to what crimes might constitute murder, but we all agree that there is such a thing as murder. Murder is the theft of a life, which is an unalienable, God-given right. A life cannot rightly be taken in our society, nor can one forfeit it, without due process of law.
Morality is in the nature of things as they were created. It has an objective reality. That’s because there is such a thing as good. And it has an objective reality apart from what I may think about it.
But morality also is in the nature of God. Therefore, it is uncreated. Since God existed always, morality existed always too, and always will.
The written Law of God articulates the things that by nature are good or evil. It teaches us to pursue one and avoid the other. The two great commandments did not reduce the moral laws of God to be fewer. Rather they summarized them.
We look over our society today, and we see Christians fighting to keep the ten commandments posted in America’s courthouses and public places. Most Americans do not know how much our civil laws ultimately derive from the Law of God. If they do not exactly replicate the laws of the Bible, our laws at least reflect their influence. For many generations, the Bible informed our public morality and our legislation. Our representative form of government is based on the representative government first found in the Law of Moses.
An amendment that would essentially add the Bible to the Constitution would make sense. Such a change in American law would reaffirm what the founders knew: that American law is based on a common morality derived from God’s word. Such an amendment would allow public schools to teach the Bible as an adjunct to studying American law and government.
If I understand the meaning of many Christians, they are sadly mistaken when they quote that we “are not under Law, but under grace.” We need to consider the effect that such a stance has on the world. It’s like telling the American people that it doesn’t matter what God thinks of our laws or our morality. How that verse may be interpreted implies a denial of the role the Law played in the founding of our government and our morality.
What does “not under Law” even mean? One thing it doesn’t mean is that we are free to live immoral lives.
America badly needs the moral consensus it once had. Ultimately, that means returning to the foundation, a morality rooted in God’s Law. As Christians, we need to accept this as binding upon us. Saying we reject the Law is equivalent to saying to God, “We will not have You reign over us.”
This is not a position that any Christian should take. When Christians understand and accept the application of moral law, it should be no surprise that unbelievers will respond to leadership and accept the moral consensus as well.
But we cannot get there unless we get our story right. So let’s not tell the world that the Law has passed away, nor act as if it were no longer relevent.
What If It Wasn’t 40 Years?
Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place. (Matt. 24:34)
THE GREAT CHRISTIAN WRITER AND THINKER C.S. LEWIS called it the most embarrassing verse in the Bible. If most Christians adequately understood the word generation in Matthew 24:34, he reasoned, then Christ was wrong about when the end of the age and the second coming would occur. And first-century Christians were misled to expect Him so soon. Christ was not wrong. Lewis simply didn’t understand what He meant.
The two dominant eschatologies of our day, which are diametrically opposed to each other, nonetheless approach that word generation in much the same way; that is, they both insist that it is straightforward and plain, and means generation, which they define as a period of about 40 years.
I want to address here the use of the word generation in Jesus’s prophecy known as the Olivet Discourse (Matt. 24; Mark 13; Luke 21). Both Preterists and Futurists point to Matthew 24:34 and parallel verses in two other gospels as their proof texts. Bring this one passage up, and it supposedly will end all arguments. Depending on how they interpret it, most Christians believe that generation means a relatively short time frame, somewhere between 30 or 40 years and one lifetime (70 years). A few insist that it is a hundred years based on Genesis 15:13 & 16.
The end-times teaching of Dispensational Premillennialism suffered a blow when 1988 did not prove to be the year of the rapture (the catching away of the Church before the Great Tribulation). Many, then, switched and reasoned that the generation began ticking from 1967, when Israel regained part of Jerusalem in the Six Days War; but they were again disappointed when 2007 passed without incident. This caused some to revise the length of a generation to 70 or 100 years. But they are still locked into a relatively short and rigid time frame.
What if it isn’t necessary or even wise to add 40 years? Or 70 or whatever?
I want to show here that their definition of the word generation locks them into one of two prevailing views, either preterism or dispensational futurism. And I want to show that there is at least some possibility they have not understood what Jesus said correctly, that there are other reasonable meanings. I also want to show that, if one alters the meaning of what Jesus said, it is possible to arrive at another eschatology that is neither Preterism nor Dispensational Futurism. Finally, I want to show the conditional nature of the statements Jesus actually made about the timing of the end.
I arrived at my understanding of the word generation in Matthew 24:34 by digging. Starting with the assumption that Jesus taught in Hebrew, with which most scholars agree, I dug for a Hebrew word that was translated into Greek as GENEA, from which we derive generation. I then looked for Hebrew words in the Old Testament that were translated into English as generation. I found that the Hebrew word DOR was the most common. And the Septuagint routinely translates it as GENEA, the same word found in Matthew 24:34.
Now let’s look at the meaning of the Hebrew word DOR, which is most likely the word Jesus used, because it will show us what He may have meant. The first, most common definition, is an age, generation, or period of time. DOR is translated generation 133 times in the KJV Old Testament.
Well, that should settle it, right? Not so fast.
Before we assume that DOR means generation, and generation is what Jesus meant, let’s look a little closer. The NASB only translates it as generation 53 times. Other translations include generations (plural, 52), all generations (20), many generations (3), age-old (1), forever (1), and time (2). Of interest here are three categories: definitions indicating a multitude of generations, those indicating an age or very long time, and those indicating an indeterminate length of time. Age-old and forever indicate an age or very long time. A time is a period of indeterminate length. But, of course, one might object that these are the least common definitions. Not so, however, with plural uses of the word DOR—generations, all generations, and many generations.
So let’s try plugging some of these meanings into Matthew 24:34. “These generations will by no means pass away till all these things take place.” Or: “Many generations will by no means pass away till all these things take place.” It starts to sound like a very long time. Try this: “This time will by no means pass away till all these things take place.” Now we don’t know how long it will be. Could be 40 years, could be 40,000, because it is an indeterminate length of time.
How about this? “This age will by no means pass away till all these things take place.” All of these are within the permissible range of meanings for DOR.
Many generations has substantially the same meaning as age. It speaks of a very large number of years, of many lifetimes. An example of this kind of use is found in Joel 2:2: “So there is a great and mighty people; there has never been anything like it, nor will there be again after it to the years of many generations.” (DOR)
Now, where did we read about the age in Matthew 24? That’s right, in v. 3. Jesus was answering a question: “What will be the sign… of the end of the age?” It is reasonable to think that v. 34 is in answer to v. 3. All these prophecies must come to pass before the age passes away.
I believe the word GENEA, based on its history of usage in the Septuagint, was the choice for translating the Hebrew DOR. However, as is often the case in translation, the word chosen in the target language does not reflect the full range of meaning. Given this, it may be a mistake to base our theology too rigidly on one word.
Those who insist on the meaning of generation are locked into only a couple of options in eschatology. Most people define a biblical generation as 40 years. A few, based on Genesis 15:13 & 16, define it as 100 years.
Preterists believe that about 40 years after Christ spoke in the Olivet Discourse, His words were fulfilled when the Romans conquered Jerusalem and destroyed the temple. A full preterist viewpoint would see this as the point in time when Christ came (invisibly) and judged the Jewish nation and when there was a (spiritual) resurrection of the saints. All the prophecies were fulfilled in that moment. If a generation is 100 years long, then the second coming happened during the second Jewish revolt around 133 A.D. As long as Preterists insist on this meaning of what Jesus said, they are locked into an eschatological timetable of 40 or 100 years from the early third decade of the first century.
Dispensational futurists, on the other hand, are locked into a timetable of either 40 or 100 years beginning in 1948 or 1967. We know that 1988 and 2007 came and went uneventfully, but they will still be busy with predictions of the second coming prior to 2048 and 2067. And these, too, will be wrong.
What if the time really did begin when Jesus spoke His sermon in Matthew 24? And what if the time frame was one of many generations, or an age? In that case, one is neither forced to be a preterist nor a dispensational futurist. We don’t need to count down a certain number of years from some starting date. The age might pass away hundreds of years after 1948.
How should we then live? That is the question, which I need not answer in this article, except to say we ought to live constructive and full lives, if we can.
Now let me briefly touch on another little secret contained in the Greek of Matthew 24:34—that is, there is something in the Greek that is not easily translated into English. The Greek word AN is not translated into English. AN is “sometimes properly rendered by ‘perhaps’; more commonly not expressed in English by any corresponding particle, but only giving to a proposition or sentence a stamp of uncertainty or mere possibility, and indicating a dependence on circumstances.” (Spiros Zodhiates Th.D., The Complete Word Study Dictionary) AN conveys that idea that something is possible depending on circumstances.
Adding to the uncertainty and mere possibility of this statement is the use of the substantive mood in the Greek verb. Substantive verbs are often preceded by the word may rather than the word shall. It is also sometimes not translated into English.
You won’t find AN translated into English in this verse in most versions of the English Bible; but you will find it in the ungainly Young’s Literal Translation. Young’s says: “Verily I say to you, this generation MAY not pass away till all these MAY come to pass.” [Emphasis mine] Taking the Young’s Literal Translation literally, one might surmise that Jesus was alerting them to the possibility that they might still be alive when all these things would be fulfilled. That’s only might. He wasn’t saying it was a for sure thing.
Preterists often cross-reference this to a couple of other verses in Matthew that they say also support the idea of Christ coming in one 40-year time frame. But, again, in both verses, one finds the Greek particle AN with the substantive verb.
Young renders Matthew 10:23 as follows: “And whenever they MAY persecute you in this city, flee to the other, for verily I say to you, ye MAY not have completed the cities of Israel till the Son of Man MAY come.” [Emphasis mine]
Likewise, he renders Matthew 16:28: “Verily I say to you, there are certain of those standing here who shall not taste of death till they MAY see the Son of Man coming in his reign.” [Emphasis mine]
Clearly Jesus was conveying a sense of uncertainty about the time of the end. In fact, He claimed not to know when the end would be. “Of that day and hour,” He said, “No one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone.” It makes sense that He spoke in such iffy terms when predicting the end. He was not making promises or telling His disciples to expect it at a certain time.
One last point—in Matthew 24:35, Jesus says: “Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away.” Here He repeats the words pass away that were also found in v. 34. This is a context clue. Verse 35 functions very much in parallel with v. 34. Jesus speaks in v. 35 of an end-of-age event, which corresponds nicely with the age not passing away in the first part of v. 34. In the second half of v. 35, He speaks of His words not passing away, which corresponds nicely with the idea of fulfilled prophecy in the second half of v. 34. Therefore, taken as a parallelism, v. 35 defines GENEA in this context as meaning an age, as the word means in rare cases.
What should we do with this information? The logical thing is to throw out our attachment to any certain time frame, stop worrying about the future, and get to work. Preterists do not need to insist that everything was fulfilled within 40 years. Futurists do not need to rivet their attention on 40 or 70 or 100 years from the perceived fulfillment of some prophecy. We can all just relax and live. We can live our lives expecting Christ, and yet be prepared for it by living normal productive lives, knowing that it may occur a long time after we die.
Haitian Culture Needs Transformation
The kingdom of heaven is like leaven, which a woman took, and hid in three pecks of meal, until it was all leavened. (Matt. 13:33)
SOME AMERICANS FEEL we’re throwing good money after bad in relief for Haiti. It seems we are among the most generous of nations, but not the most shrewd.
When it comes to many other countries, we give with sunny optimism. But Haiti? We throw our hands up in exasperation. Haiti’s situation seems just impossible, even when there hasn’t been a disaster for awhile.
Cynicism is easy, if you don’t mind going through life depressed. It doesn’t take much to say what isn’t working. But faith, well… that can be work. Faith is the only thing that can help Haiti now. Faith and hope.
Christians—often the first to respond in crisis—have an answer for poverty better than wheelbarrows of money and C-14s full of supplies. Because we have hope, we don’t give up on helping Haiti. When you lose hope, as Haitians have, you’ve lost the last thing anyone should ever give up.
We need to get hope on the ground in Haiti. Haiti needs people infected with hope. Hope is contagious.
When discussing ways to help Haiti, clear-eyed realism is almost as much needed as faith and hope. I read two articles today. The first gives clarity and the second hope.
A New York times op-ed piece today, The Underlying Tragedy by David Brooks, gives clarity. Brooks discovers what is wrong, but falls short of real hope. He proposes a schema that might work, even recognizes the problem of the devil in Haitian culture, but fails to find the answer in the kingdom of God. In the end, He is the only power that can cast out Haiti’s demons.
Brooks starts by pointing out the obvious: the death toll in Haiti is far greater than that made by an earthquake of the same magnitude in the United States, because Haiti is the poorest in the Western hemisphere. Poor nations do not have the resources to navigate disasters, and poor people can’t afford to build houses that stand up to earthquakes. So the people die by the tens of thousands.
Brooks then suggests that, for a real solution, President Obama should rethink America’s approach to global poverty. To begin with, he says, Obama must admit our failure at finding any real solutions for poverty:
We don’t know how to use aid to reduce poverty. Over the past few decades, the world has spent trillions of dollars to generate growth in the developing world. The countries that have not received much aid, like China, have seen tremendous growth and tremendous poverty reductions. The countries that have received aid, like Haiti, have not.
In the recent anthology “What Works in Development?,” a group of economists try to sort out what we’ve learned. The picture is grim. There are no policy levers that consistently correlate to increased growth. There is nearly zero correlation between how a developing economy does one decade and how it does the next. There is no consistently proven way to reduce corruption. Even improving governing institutions doesn’t seem to produce the expected results.
The chastened tone of these essays is captured by the economist Abhijit Banerjee: “It is not clear to us that the best way to get growth is to do growth policy of any form. Perhaps making growth happen is ultimately beyond our control.”
Put simply, it’s not working. No amount of money can fix Haiti, or several other countries for that matter.
That’s because solutions have to come from within a culture, based on that culture’s inherent strengths, however little or many they may be. If culture is weak and sickly, it cannot sustain growth. Cultures sometimes need to change from inside out and from top to bottom.
In the parable of the leaven, Jesus said, the kingdom of God is like leaven which a woman hid in some flour until the whole batch was leavened. Something like that needs to happen in Haiti, and other nations of the world. The kingdom of God must work its way into and throughout the culture. It must permeate it.
This recognition of the obvious inferiority of some cultures and religions may not seem politically correct in modern liberal and secularist societies. Yet it is hard to ignore the stark difference between cultures like Haiti and cultures like the United States, which have deep levels of history in Judeo-Christian religion.
How do our liberal friends think the United States got where it is today anyhow? Ideas have consequences.
Brooks takes on political correctness:
It is time to put the thorny issue of culture at the center of efforts to tackle global poverty. Why is Haiti so poor? Well, it has a history of oppression, slavery and colonialism. But so does Barbados, and Barbados is doing pretty well. Haiti has endured ruthless dictators, corruption and foreign invasions. But so has the Dominican Republic, and the D.R. is in much better shape. Haiti and the Dominican Republic share the same island and the same basic environment, yet the border between the two societies offers one of the starkest contrasts on earth — with trees and progress on one side, and deforestation and poverty and early death on the other.
As Lawrence E. Harrison explained in his book “The Central Liberal Truth,” Haiti, like most of the world’s poorest nations, suffers from a complex web of progress-resistant cultural influences. There is the influence of the voodoo religion, which spreads the message that life is capricious and planning futile. There are high levels of social mistrust. Responsibility is often not internalized. Child-rearing practices often involve neglect in the early years and harsh retribution when kids hit 9 or 10.
Christians take notice of the same things, but also the answer. Scott Allen of Disciple Nations Alliance, in a blog titled The Root of the Disaster In Haiti, writes:
Upstream of culture is “cult.” In other words, we build societies and cultures in the image of the God or gods we worship. Voodoo, which is still widely practiced in Haiti, is a satanic belief system, and Jesus warned, “The thief [Satan] comes only to steal, kill and destroy” (John 10:10). Cultures and nations built on this “cult” will reap tragic consequences, which are often exacerbated by natural disasters.
But what if a culture is built upon the worship of the one true God—the maker of heaven and earth—as revealed in Scripture? The Bible is far more than a devotional book or a guide to personal spiritual salvation. It presents a comprehensive worldview that provides the only sure foundation for healthy, free, and prosperous nations…
…The God of the Bible is not capricious. He is a sovereign, loving God who works in an orderly and purposeful way to accomplish his plan to redeem and restore all things. Cultures that worship him tend to be future-oriented. Planning is valued. Science is possible because of the orderliness of the universe, and can be used to help construct strong buildings which are less likely to collapse in an earthquake.
Of course, political correctness is not as much a priority for Christian bloggers as for writers in the New York Times, whose editors would probably laugh Brooks to scorn if he came up with some overtly Christian solutions. Christians writing to Christians can get away with calling attention to the inferiority of voodoo, and offering their religion and world-view as hope. But Brooks deserves credit for confronting this issue of culture head on without bowing to political correctness. As he puts it:
We’re all supposed to politely respect each other’s cultures. But some cultures are more progress-resistant than others, and a horrible tragedy was just exacerbated by one of them.
In other words, Haiti’s voodoo-dominated culture leads to poverty, which makes what might have been a little catastrophe into a giant one. Religious people have no corner on the market of common sense.
Yet they often don’t realize how much they actually have to offer. Perhaps outsiders sometimes perceive it more clearly. Allen points out:
Even atheists are unable to deny the power of a comprehensive, Biblical worldview for social and cultural transformation. See Matthew Parris’s article “As an atheist, I truly Believe Africa needs God.”
The Meaning of If
Here are my reasons for thinking the end might be a long time in coming.
If He may be manifested, like Him we shall be, because we shall see him as he is.
— 1 John 3:2
IN THE EARLIER ESSAY, Expect Delay, I focused on scriptures that Preterists should consider, which speak of delay in the second coming. Now I want to turn and focus on scriptures Futurists, particularly Dispensationalists, should consider. These scriptures speak of conditions that must yet be fulfilled before Christ will return. Some of these ought to be considered by Preterists too.
The purpose of this stack of scriptures is to show that certain conditions must be met before the return of Christ, and that this teaching is not based on an isolated passage or two.
That Christ must necessarily return after one generation, which both Preterists and Dispensationalists teach, is based on exactly one and only one statement from Christ. The teaching of conditional delay, of course, contradicts this notion.
I hope the readers will ask themselves this question: If God has delayed the second coming until now because He awaits the right conditions, might He not also delay it in the future for the same reason?
The odds of misunderstanding one statement in the Bible are high. So it becomes necessary to consider other end-time scenarios.
That the timing of Christ’s second coming has something to do with conditions being met is based on numerous scriptures. These scriptures contradict the notion that a generation is a set length of time.
Dispensational Futurists, I hope if you have read my earlier essay, Expect Delay, you will realize the scriptures I gave also apply to Futurist expectations of immediate fulfillment. Hopefully, these scriptures on conditional delay of the second coming will make this clear. Likewise, I hope Preterists will look at these conditions and see that they were unmet in the events of 70 A.D.
And I hope the reader will understand that, when scripture uses words like “if” and “until” in prophecies of the end, it means something. “If” means there is a condition attached. We cannot, then, speak with accuracy of the end times unless we acknowledge the conditional statements in prophecy.
But on. To the scriptures!
………
“And now, my little children, abide in him; that, IF he shall be manifested, we may have boldness, and not be ashamed before him at his coming.” [Emphasis added] (1 John 2:28, ASV)
…which is followed a few verses later by:
“Beloved, now, children of God are we, and it was not yet manifested what we shall be, and we have known that IF he MAY be manifested, like him we shall be, because we shall see him as he is.” [Emphasis added] (1 John 3:2, Young’s Literal Translation)
Comment:
Speaking of the coming of the Lord, John says NOT “when He shall be manifested”, as most translations have it, but rather “if He may be manifested”. John, near the end of His life, was not at all sure that Christ would appear right away. “May” is correct because the Greek verb is in the subjunctive mood. The Greek word for “if” is often translated “when” because the uncertainty is related to timing. So the verse may also be rendered “when He may come.”
There is no uncertainty about whether or not the second coming will occur, but rather about the timing, that is, whether or not his readers would be alive to see it. John was implying Christ might not return for a long time. As the inspired word of God, it would have made no sense to say this, if it was going to happen in the next five years, as Preterists believe. John, being a prophet, would have known if it was about to occur in his own lifetime.
Many scholars date this letter later, not in the late 60s A.D., but around the end of the first century or beginning of the second. But increasing numbers believe it was written before 70 A.D., an increase partly driven by—no surprise here—people committed to a Preterist eschatology, believing the prophecies were fulfilled by 70 A.D., because their eschatology depends on it.
Be that as it may, if it was written in 65 to 68 A.D., John honestly didn’t know if it would be sooner or later. If these passages were written when the Preterists think they were, then we can see that John in, say, 68 A.D. believed that Christ’s coming might be delayed, possibly for a long time. It was at least a possibility, to John, that He might not return until well after 70 A.D., and that he (John) might not live to see it.
He might have thought this based on two statements of Jesus: 1) In Acts 1, Jesus told him and the other apostles it was not for him to know times and epochs, and 2) In Young’s Literal Translation, Jesus told him and others, in a conditional statement in Matthew 16, that some of them ONLY MIGHT see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom. It’s easy, then, to see why John made no claim of knowing that the time was near.
We ought to do the same today.
………
“‘Lord, is it at this time You are restoring the kingdom to Israel?’ He said to them, ‘It is not for you to know times or epochs which the Father has fixed by His own authority…’” (Acts 1:6-7)
Comment:
They knew a restoration of Israel was coming. Christ did not correct this expectation. In fact, He said the timing of the restoration was fixed by the Father.
Not only did they not know the day or hour, He told them it wasn’t even for them to know the times or the epochs either. Remember that the next time someone says we can know the times or seasons. Some prophecies are sealed until the time of the end. No one can determine their meaning unless they live in the generation when their meaning is revealed.
This explains why the apostles, even those who were part of Jesus’s inner circle like Peter and John, tended to speak of the second coming as if its timing was uncertain or variable. Thus, John could say something like “if He may be manifested,” and Peter could say that with the Lord, “one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day.” (2 Pet. 3:8) In other words, he just didn’t know, and that was one of the points in his teaching.
Let’s look at another scripture that speaks of a conditional delay of the Jewish expectation:
………
“Repent therefore and return, that your sins may be wiped away, IN ORDER THAT times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord; and that He may send Jesus, the Christ appointed for you, whom heaven must receive until the period of restoration of all things about which God spoke by the mouth of His holy prophets from ancient time.” [Emphasis added] (Acts 3:19-21)
Comment:
“In order that” is also a flag for a condition that must be met. The Father will not send Jesus until this condition is met. Peter told his Jewish listeners to repent and be converted in order that their sins might be wiped away, that times of refreshing might come from the presence of the Lord, and that the Father might send Jesus.
He said that heaven must receive Jesus until a future period in which God restores all things. This refers to Jewish end-time expectations. That Peter made reference to these expectations amounts to an inspired stamp on the fact that at least some of these expectations would be fulfilled.
………
“Behold, your house is being left to you desolate! For I say to you, from now on you shall not see Me until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.’” (Matt. 23:38-39)
Comment:
Keep watching for that word “until”. It is a flag for a conditional statement. Here Christ predicts the near destruction of the temple, but says He will not return unless a condition is met by the Jewish people. To date, I am not aware of such a condition having been met.
………
“Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power. For He must reign TILL He has put all enemies under His feet.” [Ephasis added] (1 Cor. 15:24-25)
But David said: “The Lord said to My Lord, ‘Sit at My right hand UNTIL I make Thine enemies a footstool for Thy feet.’” [Ephasis added] (Acts 2:34-35)
And the writer of Hebrews says: “For in subjecting all things to Him, He left nothing that is not subject to Him. But now we do not see all things subjected to Him. But we do see Him who has been made for a little while lower than the angels, namely Jesus, because of the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor…” (Heb. 2:8)
Comment:
Anytime you see the word “until”, look for the condition to be met. There is a condition here. Christ’s enemies must be put under His feet first. Then the end will come.
We understand that this reign in 1 Cor. 15:25 is from a heavenly throne. For Peter declared David’s prophecy fulfilled on the Day of Pentecost when Christ sat down in heaven. The Father told Him to sit UNTIL all His enemies are under His feet.
The author of Hebrews shows us that the subjecting of all things is in process, but that we do see Jesus already crowned.
It is likely that Christians, fulfilling the great commission, have a role in placing Christ’s enemies under His feet. They do this by placing the devil under their feet. Paul even wrote to the Romans: “The God of peace will speedily [or soon] crush Satan under your feet.” (Rom. 16:20) This refers to the violence with which disciples must take the kingdom through their witnessing and martyrdom.
………
“But WHEN the crop PERMITS, he immediately puts in the sickle, BECAUSE the harvest has come.” [Emphasis add] (Mark 4:29)
Comment:
The end of the age in this parable cannot come about until the harvest is ready. The harvest comes about BECAUSE THE CROP PERMITS IT. Conditions must be right.
………
“Behold, I am going to send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and terrible day of the LORD. He will restore the hearts of the fathers to their children and the hearts of the children to their fathers, so that I will not come and smite the land with a curse.” (Mal 4:5,6)
Comment:
John the Baptist came in the spirit and power of Elijah. He was sent to restore the hearts of fathers to children and children to fathers. This was restoration in the area that is always the most needed.
But Israel was required to repent as a nation, or God would smite them with a curse instead. The promise was conditional upon their choice to turn. It was ultimately a choice between the great and terrible day of the Lord (judgment on Israel’s enemies) or the curse. The curse came in 70 A.D., and the day was delayed. This curse scattered Israel and extended the exile among the nations. So we see a prophecy based on a condition, whether or not Israel allows their hearts to be turned. We know from history how that worked out. When a condition is not met, delay results.
Think about how that applies to Christians as you read the next scripture.
………
“What sort of people ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness, looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God?” (2 Pet. 3:11,12)
Comment:
Because Christian conduct can hasten the day of God, we may safely interpret that the timing is variable, and Christian conduct is a determining condition.
If not meeting a condition results in delay, then Christians may be delaying Christ’s return.
………
“Let us rejoice and be glad and give the glory to Him, for the marriage of the Lamb has come and His bride has made herself ready.” (Rev. 19:7)
Comment:
Couched in the context of a passage in Revelation that speaks of Christ’s second coming, this passage speaks of the fact that the Bride must make herself ready. There is a preparation for the Church that will prepare the way of the Lord. In fact, “Prepare the way of the Lord” was the first commandment of the gospel. Perhaps part of the preparation for some Christians will be the refining fires of persecution. But, whatever state of political freedom believers may experience, they must still develop their faith exerting it against evil in their society. This also may be preparation for the Bride of Christ. It is training for reigning.
………
“They will fall by the edge of the sword, and will be led captive into all the nations; and Jerusalem will be trampled under foot by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.” (Luke 21:24)
“Leave out the court which is outside the temple and do not measure it, for it has been given to the nations; and they will tread under foot the holy city for forty-two months.” (Rev. 11:2)
Comment: One of the Old Testament promises that must be fulfilled is that God will gather the Jews from the ends of the earth. This will accompany the end of the age. But it cannot come about until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.
Often in prophecy, we see that a fullness is required before something can take place. God told Abraham way back in Genesis that Israel would not be brought out of Egypt until the sins of the Amorites were fulfilled.
Forty-two months is likely a symbolic number, and must stand for a very long time indeed. For Jerusalem was overrun by the Gentiles in both 70 A.D. or 135 A.D., when all Jews were forbidden from entering the city on pain of death. As of this time in history, there is still, by treaty, an Arab quarter in Jerusalem.
………
“After these things I looked, and behold, a great multitude which no one could count, from every nation and all tribes and peoples and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, and palm branches were in their hands… And he said to me, ‘These are the ones who come out of the great tribulation, and they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.’” (Rev. 7:9,14)
Comment:
There will be a tribulation involving all the people of earth, every tribe and people and tongue and nation. This cannot be the great tribulation mentioned in Matthew 24:21, which involved only Jews and occurred in 70 A.D. What’s more, Jesus said that tribulation might not even be a great tribulation. Chances are, it was not. Only if—that’s IF—the Christians’ flight occurred in Winter or on a Sabbath would it turn into a great tribulation. Another conditional statement that people overlook.
Not only that, the great tribulation in Revelation and Matthew 24:21 may not be the same as the tribulation of those days mentioned in Matthew 24:29, which immediately precedes the second coming. Just relying on the text, we have no way of knowing if that was a great tribulation. But there are many tribulations throughout history.
………
“And they cried out with a loud voice, saying, ‘How long, O Lord, holy and true, will You refrain from judging and avenging our blood on those who dwell on the earth?’ And there was given to each of them a white robe; and they were told that they should rest for a little while longer, until the number of their fellow servants and their brethren who were to be killed even as they had been, would be completed also.” (Rev. 6:10,11)
Comment:
Again, we see the concept of a fullness that must first be achieved. Not only must the fullness of the Gentiles come in, but also the fullness of the martyrs. (Thanks Rae.)
………
These scriptures establish that conditions must be met to bring about some prophetic events. God’s people must conduct themselves in holiness and godliness to hasten the day. The Bride must make herself ready. The Jewish people must repent and return to God and His Christ. Jesus prophesied that they will eventually say, “Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord”, and Paul said all Israel will be saved; but no one knows when that will be. All of Christ’s enemies will eventually be placed under His feet. We do not see that yet.
But we have a role to play in bringing that about. We may be sure that, as we labor to build Christian nations throughout the earth, we will hasten the day of His return.
I hope the reader sees by this stacking up of evidence that a number of scriptures support the ideas both of a delayed coming and of conditions that must first be met.
There is, of course, an issue of which scriptures and their interpretations we will put our faith in. Some place their faith in a certain interpretation of Matthew 24:34. I will merely commit to trying to understand the scriptures, including those I have presented here, and say that I believe also in them. But it makes far more sense to reinterpret one passage of scripture than a bunch of passages so that we can preserve our interpretation of one.
Both Preterists and Dispensational Futurists ought to consider this, for there is actually a great deal of similarity between their interpretations of Matthew 24:34, and only one real difference, the issue of when that generation must be. If their interpretations of this one statement of Christ fail, then there is really no reason to hold either eschatological view. On the other hand, if their interpretations of generation must stand, then they must reinterpret each of the scriptures that I have offered concerning conditional delay.
What is the conclusion of these things? How shall we then live? That is the most important question.
For my part, I have to agree with my Post-millennialist friends. We ought to live as victorious as we can. We ought to believe that victory is possible. And we ought to believe that God will reward our labors, not only in heaven, but on earth.
Expect Delay
Below are some of my reasons for not believing that Revelations and all other prophetic scriptures came to pass in 70 A.D.
Know this first of all, that in the last days mockers will come with their mocking, following after their own lusts, and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all continues just as it was from the beginning of creation.”… But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day.
— 2 Peter 3:3,4,8
THROUGHOUT CHURCH HISTORY, some Christians have made false predictions of the near advent of Christ. Newspapers in the modern era frequently cover these failures, furnishing scoffers with ammunition in their mockery against Christianity and exposing the Bible to ridicule. Often skeptics assume that the private interpretations of some Christians are actually what the Bible teaches.
Preterists, who believe that all prophecies of the end were fulfilled by 70 A.D., insist this folly of predicting a fulfillment of prophecy could be avoided by avoiding belief in a future fulfillment altogether. Some Preterists are quick to call attention to such folly. When Harold Camping, an Evangelical leader, recently predicted the day of judgment, one Preterist blog headline gleefully announced, “Harold Camping Will go Mad on May 11, 2011.” Of course, we all have our opinions, and it’s human to be tempted to call attention to an opponent’s mistakes.
Such glee may appear uncharitable, but Preterists serve the Body of Christ in showing us how foolish and destructive our private interpretations of prophecy can be. Camping represents only a miniscule number of Evangelical leaders who have been willing to risk their credibility by making outlandish predictions.
Most of the shame that comes on Christianity as a result of end-time speculations is from futurists who proclaim that Jesus will come back at any moment, but are savvy enough in the scriptures to quote, “No man knows the day or hour.” People who preach that Jesus may come back tomorrow say prophecies are being fulfilled at an alarming rate; and they accompany this proclamation with warnings of a troubling end-time scenario: seven years of tribulation dominated by the devil himself in the person of the Antichrist. (Pegging the Great Tribulation at seven years, or three and a half, makes no sense unless you are a Dispensationalist, since that’s part of their system. It is based on a highly idiosyncratic interpretation of Daniel’s prophecy that 70 sevens must pass until the end. Yet the 7-year tribulation is an important element of pop eschatology.) Of course, it’s always been easy for people to see the fulfillment of catastrophic prophecies in their own era’s events, from the fall of Rome to the holocaust.
Predictions of Christ’s imminent return fail with predictable regularity, to the delight of atheists and skeptics world wide. (The part about cataclysms and an antichrist has come true again and again—just think of Hitler—but with the same predictable outcome: no second coming event following.)
You really can’t blame people for their fear of the future though. It seems written in their DNA. And with or without the Christian religion, they are going to dread the future. Right now Camping’s is not the only such expectation. One Hollywood producer this year decided to cash in on the fear of the future by creating 2012, a high tech rendition of a Mayan prophecy that predicts the catastrophic end of the world. As if our own Bible’s catastrophes aren’t enough. Now people pay to watch movies about other cultures’ fears too. Hollywood, evidently is an equal opportunity fear monger. My kids actually know teenagers who are genuinely frightened of the year 2012. But how well I remember back in the early 80s thinking the world was going to end in a nuclear holocaust.
Such fears can sometimes change the way we live our lives. And that is one of the worst outcomes of end-times fear. Skeptics have traditionally criticized Christians for being so heavenly minded, they are no earthly good, and for their “get your pie in the sky when you die” mentality, and they were right. At least Post-millennial Preterists have avoided that trap with their eschatology.
But the two camps, Preterists and Futurists, both ignore key scriptures. Preterists, by insisting that everything must’ve come to pass in 40 years from the crucifixion, bypass a number of scriptures that speak of a delay in the second coming. Some of these passages imply the delay may be thousands of years.
Futurists, making a similar mistake, also insist the second coming must happen within a certain time frame. They ignore the scriptures that speak of conditions that must be fulfilled in order for the second coming to occur; and they opt instead for adding 40, 70, or a hundred years to a couple of modern dates they use as the beginning point. If one insists on a 40 to 100 year time frame, you are locked into either Preterism or Dispensational Premillennialism.
First, for the Preterists, I will show some of the scriptures that predict a delay. I have to wait and address the Futurists in a later blog entry. Here goes:
“And shall God not avenge His own elect who cry out day and night to Him, though He bears long [delays] with them? I tell you that He will avenge them speedily. Nevertheless, when the Son of Man comes, will He really find faith on the earth?”
—Luke 18:7-8
Comment: The day of judgment, when God avenges His elect, will come suddenly, even if it delays a long time.
“Know this first of all, that in the last days mockers will come with their mocking, following after their own lusts, and saying, ‘Where is the promise of His coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all continues just as it was from the beginning of creation.’… But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day. The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.”
—2 Peter 3:3,4,8,9
Comment: Peter predicted scoffers would mock because the day of judgment that Christians talk so much about will not have come yet. Though he did not seem to know when to expect it, he certainly implied that it could be anything from a day to thousands of years in the future. He points out that God’s idea of slowness is different than some people’s idea. It logically follows, then, that God’s idea of quickness or soonness is also different. What does that tell us about scriptures that say He is coming soon? Or prophecies that the Bible says will soon be fulfilled?
“But if that evil slave says in his heart, ‘My master is not coming for a long time,’ and shall begin to beat his fellow slaves and eat and drink with drunkards; the master of that slave will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour which he does not know.”
— Matthew 24:38-40
Comment: What was Jesus teaching here? That His return would be soon? Or that it would be sudden? One might or might not infer, based on the servant’s words, that he said this because it had already been a long time. However, it is unlikely that he would have said this soon after his master departed. I reason that a servant might say something like this after waiting at least a medium length of time with no sign of the master.
“Whether he comes in the second watch, or even in the third, and finds them so, blessed are those slaves.”
—Luke 12:38
Comment: The Hebrew night was divided into three watches. The idea here is that the second coming might come either sooner or later in time. Jesus did not seem to know.
“While the bridegroom was delaying, they all got drowsy and began to sleep.”
—Matthew 25:5
Comment: The parable of the ten virgins is about the second coming, when Christ returns to receive His Bride. Jesus indicated that there would be a delay in His appearing.
“After a long time the lord of those servants came and settled accounts with them.”
—Matthew 25:19
Comment: This parable also spoke of the return of Christ and the coming of His kingdom. It indicates that it will be a long time.
“The days will come when you will long to see one of the days of the Son of Man, and will not see it.”
—Luke 17:22
Comment: Was He warning them that they would die without seeing the second coming? I certainly think that is possible. Jesus told them they would not see His return.
This seems to contradict the following scripture:
“Assuredly, I say to you, there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.”
—Matthew 16:28
Comment continued: The thing to keep in mind though is the conditional nature of Matthew 16:28. Not only is the verb for see a subjunctive in the Greek, often rendered may rather than shall, but it also contains the Greek particle AN that indicates the mere possibility of something, rather than its certainty, implying that some condition must be met. Young’s Literal Translation renders Matthew 16:28 thus: “Verily I say to you, there are certain of those standing here who shall not taste of death till they MAY see the Son of Man coming in his reign.” [Emphasis added]
As often happens, the apparent contradiction evaporates upon closer examination. Jesus was not making a final prediction about the future, but only saying what might happen. He probably was less than certain in Matthew that His disciples would live to see His return, the prognosis being, as it was, based on conditions that must take place. Likely, as He saw the continuing hardening of the Jewish nation, He became more certain that His disciples would not live to see His return.
And we are certain that more than one of His disciples lived beyond 70 A.D., which means, Jesus was predicting that the delay of His coming would extend beyond that year.
Finally, there is this passage in Revelation, perhaps the strongest indicator of a delay of all:
“The angel whom I saw standing on the sea and on the land raised up his hand to heaven and swore by Him who lives forever and ever, who created heaven and the things that are in it, the earth and the things that are in it, and the sea and the things that are in it, that there should be DELAY no longer, but in the days of the sounding of the seventh angel, when he is about to sound, the mystery of God would be finished, as He declared to His servants the prophets… Then the seventh angel sounded: And there were loud voices in heaven, saying, ‘The kingdoms of this world have become the kingdoms of our Lord and of His Christ, and He shall reign forever and ever!’”
—Rev. 10:5-7; 11:15
Comment: Preterists make much of the fact that some scholars believe Revelation was written in the late 60s A.D. In fact, their entire exegesis of Revelation depends on it; for if it was written later, in the reign of Domitian around 95 A.D., as many scholars say, then it spoke of something besides Nero (the Beast?) and the events of 70 A.D. Starting with the assumption that the prophecies in Revelation must soon take place (Rev. 1:1), Preterists say all the prophecies came to pass by 70 A.D.
If one looks at Revelation 1:1 a little differently (see my Facebook note titled Suddenly or Soon?), it makes sense to say these things “must soon begin to be” fulfilled or “must suddenly come to pass”, rather than “must shortly take place”. In this case, one is not locked into a Preterist interpretation of the above scripture. The second coming and the end of the age will be delayed. The delay may have begun when Christ ascended into heaven; or, more likely, it began after the Babylonian captivity. When will it end? Well…either in 70 A.D., if you are a Preterist who interprets it as “must soon come to pass”, or no one really knows, if you are inclined to interpret it as “must soon begin to be” fulfilled.
I am aware, my Preterist friends, that most of the delay scriptures could be interpreted as a delay that only lasted until 70 A.D. A few, however, I think you will have trouble with. I am also aware that most people do not change their view overnight. With doctrinal matters, it is especially important to take time. It’s easy to be tempted to say, “They that are persuaded against their will are of the same opinion still.” But the truth is: most Christians will mull things over in their own time and change, if they see something that is true. So take your time, my brethren, and may God bless you.
The Futurists will have to wait. By now, some of you must be happy that I am focusing on the Preterist viewpoint, with which most Premillennialists disagree. Your turn is coming. Next up will probably be my views on the conditional fulfillment of Christ’s promised second coming, if I don’t deal with politics first.
Way of Judgment, Way of Peace
Their feet run to evil, and they make haste to shed innocent blood; their thoughts are thoughts of iniquity; wasting and destruction are in their paths. The way of peace they have not known, and there is no justice in their ways; they have made themselves crooked paths; whoever takes that way shall not know peace. (Isaiah 59:7-8)
A QUESTION ARISES among Christian people: Is the leftward tilt in American politics God’s judgment upon America? I will speak here about what I believe is God’s judgment on America rather than the subject of God allowing us to reap what we have sown in our politics. Certainly America chose Barack Obama and the Democrat majority in Congress. Because of this, we reap bad leadership; except for the mercy of God, it might have caused much more damage by now than it has. I doubt God is ever in a hurry to judge anyone. He allows people to experience the consequences of their choices. And, if they persist for a long time, eventually He judges. But He has no pleasure in punishing.
On to the real subject of this article: We are engaged in a war at this moment in history that shows no sign of ending. The truth is: we cannot pull out of Afghanistan because there is simply no one with whom to negotiate a credible peace. This, I believe, is God’s judgment for a trend that has continued in America for a long time.
In this case, what’s true on a micro level is true on a macro level: “When a man’s ways are pleasing to the Lord, He makes even his enemies to be at peace with him.” (Prov. 16:7) The Bible tells us that God delivered King David from the hand of all his enemies. Through David, God made the enemies of Israel to be at peace with them. When a righteous man like King David leads a nation, the enemies of that nation will sue for peace.
Part of America’s problem today is that righteous people do not lead us. What’s more, righteousness has waned among the whole people. That’s why they voted for Barack Obama.
A pattern emerges throughout the Bible. Most often, when God judges His people, He sends war. God judged King Saul, and he fell on the battlefield before his enemies. God allowed them to triumph. Jerusalem and the Jewish nation, after rejecting Christ, fell before the Roman siege. God even judged King David once for committing an offense and gave him a choice between three judgments. Among the options was fleeing before his enemies for three months. David chose three days of pestilence instead, and 70-thousand Israelites died. God does not always use war to judge a nation. But, biblically speaking, it is the most common.
America will eventually fight the Islamic fundamentalists in the same way we fought Hitler, Mussolini, and Tojo in World War II. Radical Islam is a world-wide phenomenon with all the ingredients for creating another world war. Much as Hitler did, radical Muslims brainwash their children from a young age to believe in Jihad. These are the future foot soldiers of Islam. Since 9/11, 14,484 people have died in Islamic terrorist attacks world-wide. Our leaders try to avoid the accusation that the war on terrorism is a war on Islam; but, technically, we are already at war with radical Islam.
On the whole, compared to our ancestors, our nation is an unrighteous nation, led by an unrighteous chief. “When a man’s ways are pleasing to the Lord, He makes even his enemies to be at peace with him.”
Most Americans will never know President Obama’s frustration in this moment. He must deal with stark realities. True, he would love to please his leftist base by pulling out of Afghanistan. Fact is: he can’t.
There is no one to negotiate with. The Taliban aren’t interested; Al Qaeda isn’t interested. Our enemies’ main objective for Afghanistan is to get the United States to unilaterally pull out, without winning anything, as the Soviets did. If Obama offered to negotiate a peace treaty with them, they would laugh at us. And we’ve got to get the Taliban and Al Qaeda to at least agree to stop attacking us—something they will never agree to, at least in the short term. If they did, it would be a lie. There is no pathway to a credible peace. So we are in for a long and bloody campaign. And liberals are already threatening to punish President Obama for increasing the number of troops, despite the fact that he really couldn’t do anything else.
There is, and can be, no exit strategy until God has mercy on us.
Eventually, the war on terror will expand to more nations. This may happen while Obama is still in office. Already the Taliban and Al Qaeda commit daily atrocities against the Pakistani people, and their military is fighting. Iran may get a nuclear weapon that will destabilize the region. And the United States or Israel might launch a pre-emptive strike to stop them.
Keep in mind, war is God’s judgment. And the question is: Has America already gone too far to escape God’s judgment? I pray not. Yet, judging from the body count coming out of Iraq and Afghanistan, the answer to that question is already obvious.
The war against Islamic fundamentalism could be long and bloody. If eventually it reaches a world-wide scale, which seems likely given the number of nations already suffering terrorist attacks, it will have the same fallout as a world war.
Here’s something we should keep in mind, and I think this reflects the mind of the Lord: If America returns to being a righteous nation, God will cause our enemies to seek peace. But, if not, we face much larger losses. Regardless, we will have to fight Islamic fundamentalists; but the difference will be reflected in the body count. It’s the difference between less than 50-thousand and half a million give or take some thousands of bodies.
Anyone who keeps up on current events and doesn’t see this coming doesn’t have their eyes opened. It doesn’t take a prophet. It is inevitable as was the Civil War.
