Death in Paradise?
I stumbled into this text in the Bible the other day. It is one of the more troubling passages I've run into. Thought you might like to see how I handle texts like these. "Never again will there be in it an infant who lives but a few days, or an old man who does not live out his years; he who dies at a hundred will be thought a mere youth; he who fails to reach a hundred will be considered accursed." Isa 65:20, NIV.
The problem with this text is the context, Isaiah 65:17-25. The whole passage contains one of the most beloved descriptions of what life in the new earth will be like. God will create a new heavens and a new earth (verse 17). There will be no more weeping and crying there (19). God’s people will build houses and live in them, they will plant vineyards and eat their fruit (21). Then there is the glorious climax, "‘The wolf and the lamb will feed together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox, but dust will be the serpent's food. They will neither harm nor destroy on all my holy mountain,’ says the LORD" (25).
What troubles people about this text is the presence of death in paradise (verse 20). God’s people will live long in this new earth, "as the days of a tree" (22), but they will not live forever. How can this be harmonized with the "forever" of other biblical texts (Daniel 7:18; Joel 3:20; Micah 4:5; 1 Thess 4:17; Rev 22:5)? The key to resolving this problem is to explore briefly the historical context in which the prophecy of Isaiah 65 was given.
The central theme of Isaiah through Malachi is the exile of God’s people to Babylon followed by their eventual return to the land promised to Abraham. This "Exile and Return Theme" is dominant in the writing prophets whether they wrote before, during, or after the Exile. They prophesy that the return from Babylon would be accompanied by a three-fold transformation of reality. In Ezekiel 36, for example, God planned to transform human society by restoring Israel to her land and to her witness to the nations (Ezek 36:24,28,33-36, see also Mic 4:1-5, Isa 2:2-5; 11:2-5). He would transform human nature with a new heart and a new spirit (Ezek 36:25-27, see also Jer 31:31-34; Joel 2:28-29; Isa 35:5-6). And He would eventually transform the natural world itself, banishing hunger and violence (Ezek 36:30,35, see also Isa 11:6-9; 35:1,2,7; Ezek 47:1-12).
Unlike the Flood story and the Book of Revelation, where the end of the world means the full, physical destruction of the planet, the End of the prophets would come within history and geography as they understood it. God would intervene mightily within history to transform society, human nature and the natural world. This End is usually described in the context of the exile to and return from Babylon.
There is no question that the view of the End in the Old Testament was a developing one. God always meets people where they are. As they are able, He reveals more and more of His purpose. This principle is clearly stated by Jesus in John 16:12: "I have many things to tell you, but you cannot bear them now."
The danger in this is that later readers would try to universalize these early prophecies and expect every detail to be fulfilled at some time in the future. Instead we should allow later revelation (such as the New Testament) to guide us through the Old Testament material to a clearer picture of the End than was possible earlier. Each stage of Biblical history offers a fresh window into the mind of a God who meets people where they are, yet knows all along where He is going!
Isaiah 65:20 needs to be understood in light of the triple transformation of reality that was promised at the time when God’s people would return from Babylon. This triple transformation would take place within history, within the time, place, and circumstances of the prophetic writers. The "new heavens and new earth" of Isa 65:17, at first glance, sound very much like the book of Revelation, where God destroys the earth before creating it anew. But in Isaiah, it is Jerusalem that is created and the life span is far short of eternity (Isa 65:18-20). "Never again will there be in it an infant who lives but a few days, or an old man who does not live out his years; he who dies at a hundred will be thought a mere youth; he who fails to reach a hundred will be considered accursed." Isa 65:20, NIV.
As attractive as these numbers sound in our degenerate age, they fall far short of the text "there will be no more death" (Rev 21:4). Isa 65:20 is a "problem text" when read from a New Testament mind-set, but it made perfect sense in the setting of what might have been after the return from Babylonian Exile. Although God would intervene in spectacular fashion, according to the prophets, the fullness of paradise would only be restored a little at a time. In the wake of the Christ event, the book of Revelation portrays a much more radical picture of the End.
I suspect this brief essay may not connect with where most people live today. But it does offer a reason why there are so many challenging statements in the Bible. God meets people where they are. That means a text makes the best sense in the original context. When we move to today, it is easy to get confused by the differences between the Bible's world and our own. The same holds true for what the Bible says about the Battle of Armageddon. Only as we interpret Armageddon texts in their original context can we avoid the kind of wild speculation that is taken as fact in all too many circles.
A Perspective on Recent Shifts in American Foreign Policy
Adventist study of Revelation early on focused on the identification of the United States with the land beast of Revelation 13. Particular attention was paid to idea that the land beast has lamblike features when it first appears but comes to speak as a dragon (Rev 13:11). In this perspective, America comes on the historical scene as a relatively positive power, a haven for the oppressed, particularly the religious minorities of Europe. Unlike most nations, whose political position is governed by corporate self-interest, America arose with a corporate vision of its responsibility to feed the hungry, help the weak, and rescue the oppressed. When America went to war, it was for a just and noble cause, not out of corporate selfishness.
America’s geographical location is fairly unique. It is sheltered by oceans on the east and on the west. It is so rich in natural resources that, until the last fifty years (the need for foreign oil), America was self-sufficient in most raw materials. Its abundance of rich farmland means that wars need not be fought for basic survival needs such as food. From the mid-nineteenth century on, the only nations that border the United States, Canada and Mexico, have not been hostile and are, in any case, relatively weak militarily. (The recent bout of insecurity regarding the border with Mexico is a relatively new thing for the United States) The last invasion of the "lower 48 states" was during the War of 1812, unless you count the brief foray into New Mexico by Pancho Villa in 1917. America’s borders have not been a major concern for some time until recently.
The United States, therefore, has been blessed with the luxury of living without significant threat to its existence from potentially hostile neighbors. Because of its abundant natural resources, it has not needed to be an aggressor power like Japan, dependent for its survival on imports of food and raw materials. Japan has to be obsessed with the good or bad intentions of its neighbors (including the United States), as there are so many ways that the country’s survival can be threatened from outside. The United States has had few such concerns until very recently.
Compare the United States with China, for example, a country of similar physical size. China has always felt itself under threat from hostile neighbors. There is the great bear of Russia to the north. There are the unpredictable tribes of Central Asia. There is India to the southwest and Vietnam to the south (China has fought brief wars with both since World War II). To the east are Korea, Japan and Taiwan. Wars have been fought with all three in the last hundred years. And then there is the unlimited reach of the United States navy to worry about. So the Chinese must be constantly thinking of their own political and economic self-interest. The very survival of its people demands it.
As the examples of Japan and China suggest, most nations are naturally driven to a political stance of corporate selfishness. When people feel cornered, they defend themselves vigorously. Their full attention is on their own needs and interests. America was no different at the time of its founding. It was threatened by native peoples nearby and by European powers such as Britain, France and, for a time, Spain. But by the mid-nineteenth century, America felt secure from outside threat and began to develop the sense of "manifest destiny," that it had been placed on the earth to be a blessing to the world. It was not to operate from selfish ambition. Freeing the slaves was, to some degree, motivated by the desire to be a nation that was not tainted by the kind of selfish ambition that is so characteristic in traditional geopolitics.
But all of that began to go by the wayside with World War II. Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor shattered the sense of security that had once been complete. The Cold War also made it clear that in today’s world, a nation does not have to be near to be threatening. America came to realize that its security and even its survival depended to a large degree on events in the Eurasian land mass (from Great Britain to Singapore). The population and resources of Eurasia are so great that any power that can completely control the Eurasian landmass will rule the world. So the continuing worldwide reach of the American navy and air force is not an accident. Contented isolation is no longer an American option. It is very much in the national interest of the United States to act in ways that keep the nations of Eurasia divided.
This has transformed the United States from a benevolent power that intercedes in world affairs to protect the weak to one that aggressively acts to ensure its own interests. The invasion of Iraq in 2003 was perceived as a major turning point in the minds of many. Whatever motives of rescuing the Shiites or the Kurds there might have been, the overwhelming purpose of the invasion was America’s own political self-interest. In the eyes of the world America is now perceived more as a neighborhood bully (dragon?) than as an understanding partner.
And there is no turning back. Al Qaeda and its allies will not go away quietly. The threat of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of terrorists is an ongoing threat. In order to ensure its own survival America must act as an empire, intruding into the affairs of its neighbors around the world in the hunt for those who desire to harm her. It does not matter if a Democrat or a Republican is president. The geopolitical realities of today’s world cannot be ignored. The same President Carter who sought to slow down the development of the "dragon," set in motion events that led ultimately to the invasion of Iraq. America now speaks as a dragon and feels fully justified in so doing.
The Source of Theological Conflict in Adventism
I hope that readers will not mind, but I’d like to focus once more on the Seventh-day Adventist context and the book Questions on Doctrine. Readers from outside the Adventist tradition may find analogies to their own situation, but I will be addressing the Adventist context directly in this blog.
Recently at Loma Linda University, several presenters repeated their contributions at the Questions on Doctrine conference in October (along with a couple of new presenters) in an attempt to share that experience with the Loma Linda audience. We were reminded of the long history of inner-church conflict precipitation by the publication of the book.
It dawned on me during a panel discussion that there are several inner forces at the core of Adventist belief that will inevitably spawn conflict. In other words, the core values of Adventism tend to work against each other somewhat in a dynamic tension that can be invigorating and fruitful, when people are open and affirming, but can be destructive when people focus on one or the other value at the expense of the others.
The first of these values is a strong concern for the "landmarks" of Adventist faith. There is the sense that Adventism has made some significant contributions to the world of faith and no amount of doctrinal development can or should change that. Those who see this value as central to the neglect of the other two will tend to be overcritical of change of any kind.
The second core Adventist value that can create conflict as well as positive change is what I call restorationism. This is the idea that Adventists are called to restore the values of the New Testament (such as Sabbath and sanctuary) that have been lost in the course of Christian history. This value was a major driver of change in the first two generations of Adventist doctrinal development. Related to this is the idea of "present truth," that Adventism at its best will be constantly evolving in its relevance. People who adopt this value as central to the neglect of the other two will tend to promote change at the expense historic Adventist views.
The third core Adventist value is mission, the sense that Adventists have a message for the whole world. But as the Adventist world president said recently, "Theology is being driven by mission." The challenges of reaching out to a world filled with Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists and many others is causing God-fearing people to reconsider how the gospel can best be expressed in settings other than the Western, Christian world in which Adventism came into being. So mission is becoming an increasingly powerful engine of doctrinal change and re-expression. But the great danger of a theology driven by mission is syncretism, where true faith is diluted by accommodation to world views that may not be compatible with the gospel.
Each of these core values is thoroughly Adventist. Yet the confluence of these core values will inevitably lead to conflict whenever one is privileged over the others. The more we become aware of our own natural biases, the more sympathetic we will be to perspectives that differ from our own natural tendencies.
In looking at myself, I think my theological work has been driven by mission, restorationism and fidelity to the landmarks in that order. All three have been important to me, but I realize that I may not have given the "landmarks" perspective as much weight as mission in the development of my own understanding of theology. But self-awareness here is half the battle. And to the degree that I keep all three values in balance, my own understand of God and faith will be richer and more helpful to others.
So when it comes to discussions such as those surrounding the book Questions on Doctrine, conflict is inevitable due to people’s natural tendency to emphasize one or another of the basic Adventist core values. But when we discover that there is more than one right way to think, we will find ourselves enriched by those we have disagreed with in the past.
The Interaction of Faith and the Basic Sciences
People have approached me in the last few months, troubled over my move from Andrews University in Michigan to Loma Linda University in California. They wonder how can I give up the Seminary setting, where my specialties are front-row and center and move to a health science university, where I have to, in effect, start all over. The implication is that I have taken a big step down and have given up my best chance to change the world. Some have even implied that the move is some sort of exile.
I certainly don’t see it that way. Loma Linda University is in an amazing position to change the world. For one thing, it has the only faith-based medical and dental programs in the United States. There are several Jesuit institutions that offer medical programs, but none of them includes religion in the curriculum. They are simply secular programs offered at faith-based universities. Loma Linda is a health-science university that builds faith and wholeness into every single degree and certificate program. In light of recent publicity suggesting that religion can have a positive effect on overall health, Loma Linda is well-positioned to be at the cutting edge of health care in the decades to come.
You may be aware that National Geographic recently identified the Loma Linda community as one of the three longest lived communities on earth, and the only one where longevity is not tied to an isolated and non-duplicatable culture (the other two communities were in isolated parts of Okinawa and Sicily, I believe). The Loma Linda lifestyle may be the world’s best hope for significant advances in longevity in the near future.
In light of the above, the opportunity to be in charge of the religion and humanities curricula of Loma Linda University (Dean of the School of Religion and Division of Humanities) was too good to pass up. I have the opportunity to work with health scientists to integrate the spiritual, emotional and mental sides of the human condition with the latest advances in physical and medical sciences. If the Loma Linda philosophy of wholeness has produced a community that lives ten years longer than the California average, there is something here that is well worth being a part of.
Let me share with you a discussion I chaired between faculty of religion and faculty in the basic sciences at our School of Medicine on January 4, 2008. If there is any aspect of a health science university that could be considered at the opposite end of the spectrum from religion, it would be the basic sciences, which are completely dependant on hard data and careful empirical research. What value could religion classes possibly have to a PhD program in the basic sciences?
We asked the professors in the basic sciences to share the goals and objectives of the program and how religion could contribute to the lives of aspiring scientists. Here are some of the things we came up with:
1) Help students understand that faith is not incompatible with the production of new knowledge. Science is not of dubious usefulness for faith. Rather, faith needs to understand. Religion is worthy of the same kind of intellectual rigor that we expect from scientists. And science can also be engaged in from the standpoint of service to God. One of the things Loma Linda University can contribute to the world is the concept of faith-based and faith-motivated science, something happening in no other educational institution. Is the idea of a faith-based equivalent to Stanford or MIT too big a stretch? I think not. Is the world today ready for such an institution? I think so.
2) Scientists need to know that the Bible is worthy of serious scientific study. Religion teachers can help them learn healthy ways to read texts and common fallacies about the Bible and its interpretation to avoid.
3) Religion classes in a science curriculum can create a safe and respectful environment where students can sort out their own convictions about faith and knowledge. Religion can help them discover the spiritual significance of their lives and develop a sense of God’s purpose in their scientific endeavors. Not all students come to class as spiritual people, but they are all trying to figure out the meaning of their lives.
4) Explore whether the study of science inevitably leads to a loss of faith. And if faith is lost what kind of faith is lost? Can such an occurrence be a blessing at times?
Don’t you wish you could have been listening in on the discussion that produced ideas like that? I was pumped to be part of such a fruitful and life-changing discussion, with many more to come.
So to my two or three fans out there, don’t cry for me. I am having the time of my life. And I promise you I won’t neglect the research and publishing agenda I have pursued for the last twenty years, and that has led to this web site. Stay tuned for some fresh studies on the Battle of Armageddon in the next month or two.
More Than One Right Way to Think?
I have been reflecting further about the Questions on Doctrine conference I attended last month. I’d like to expand here on some thoughts I shared at the conclusion there. The whole controversy over Questions on Doctrine, it seems to me, revolved and still revolves around an unspoken subtext. I summarize that subtext in the following sentence: Is there more than one right way to think?
I have little doubt that the earliest Adventist pioneers would have instinctively answered No to this question. In their minds truth was basically clear and unchanging. There was only one right way to think. It seems to me, however, that the answer of Adventist history as a whole to this question has increasingly been Yes. Very early on a considerable diversity of expression can be seen in the pages of the Advent Review and Sabbath Herald. And it has become increasingly evident that Adventist understanding of truth was both developing and fragmenting throughout our history. Our pioneers expressed an awareness of both development and fragmentation at the 1919 Bible Conference, but these thoughts were largely held in private. What brought an awareness of development and fragmentation into public knowledge was the controversies that developed around the publication of Questions on Doctrine. So whether we like it or not, Adventist history bears witness to both doctrinal development (which means that the "one way to think" of the past is not adequate for the present) and increasing fragmentation. Is this good or bad, healthy or unhealthy? What would the Scriptures teach us?
Is there more than one right way to think? Scripture answers this question with a qualified Yes. The answer of Scripture is grounded in the principle that God meets people where they are. The thoughts and ideas of inspiration come from God. But the form those thoughts take are grounded in the time, place and circumstances of specific human beings. Time constraints require me to limit myself to just two biblical examples.
The first and most obvious example is the presence of four gospels in the New Testament. In the highest sense there is only one gospel, the gospel of Jesus Christ. But that one gospel finds itself expressed in four different ways by four different people. While there is an essential unity and harmony in their presentation of the gospel, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are each a unique and creative expression of that gospel. None of the four gospels has the whole picture. Each comes at the story with a unique purpose in mind. Each story is a true outline of the same events, yet they are all distinctly different. To put it another way, the four gospels testify that there is more than one right way to think. In the four gospels, the differences are due to different human standpoints in telling the story of God’s greatest revelation in Jesus Christ.
In Daniel 2 and Daniel 7 God Himself is the one who articulates this diversity. The two visions cover essentially the same ground: a series of four empires followed by a time of political division followed by the kingdom of God. The purpose of the two visions is the same: to show God’s overarching control of history (see Dan 2:21 and 7:26). To the pagan king He develops this outline of history in the form of an idol. To the Hebrew prophet He develops the outline as a midrash on creation. The story is the same, but the form is different. In other words, there is more than one right way to think.
Now in saying this I do not mean to imply that all viewpoints are right simply because they have been expressed. I am not promoting uncontrolled relativism. There were at least a dozen or so written gospels in the early Christian centuries that did not make it into the biblical canon. These contained, at times, fanciful and even bizarre features. All ways of thinking are not right. But my basic point remains valid. We must not, in our fear of relativism, be too quick to marginalize any viewpoint we disagree with. Just because someone else doesn’t see through my eyes does not mean that what they see is false. Differing perspectives can be windows into the larger truths that we all seek.
It is helpful in theological discussion, therefore, to keep in mind that if someone expresses a truth in a form different from mine, it should not automatically be assumed that if I am right the other must be wrong. To accept that there is more than one right way to think keeps us open to learning fresh dimensions of truth, and it inoculates us against the pride that can come from attainment of truth. There is much to be learned from theological controversy, even when we disagree. To still voices that differ from us may be to still the voice of the Spirit.
I’m Back, with Questions on Doctrine!
I apologize for several months of silence during my family’s move from Berrien Springs, Michigan (Andrews University) to Beaumont, California (Loma Linda University). I am now Dean of the School of Religion at Loma Linda, a health science university affiliated with the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Helping to guide and develop the teaching of religion in the context of the scientific enterprise is a unique and exciting venture for me. Recent studies indicate that the quality of one’s religious experience may be a large factor in one’s relative health and resistance to the harmful effects of stress and aging. Loma Linda, California was recently named by National Geographic one of the longest-lived communities on earth, because of the uniquely healthy lifestyle of the thousands of Seventh-day Adventists who live in the area. It’s exciting to be part of this. Maybe I’ll even live longer.
Anyway, the stresses of moving and acclimating to a completely new kind of job are beginning to abate and I hope to be back in the blogging saddle from here on. I intend also to catch up on reading and responding to comments that have been added to the Armageddon web site over the last several months.
On a different note, I have just experienced an historic event. This last week a major conference occurred in my old bailiwick at Andrews University (October 24-27). A collaborative effort between Loma Linda and Andrews Universities (along with Oakwood College in Alabama), the conference marked the 50th Anniversary of the publication of the book Questions on Doctrine. This book has been described as “the most divisive book in Seventh-day Adventist history.” Print debates about the issues raised in the book have seriously divided Seventh-day Adventists and also involved significant figures in the evangelical world, such as Donald Barnhouse, Walter Martin, Kenneth Samples and Donald Dayton.
For the first time since the book was published in 1957, this conference brought together most of the major living figures in the, at times, rancorous debate. All major viewpoints were represented. Every participant that I spoke with was very nervous going into the conference. But instead of shouting and name-calling, all participants spoke with passion and conviction, but also with respect and kindness. The discussion exhibited a level of scholarship and maturity I would not have expected. Viewpoints were clarified. People listened carefully and openly to those opposed to them. Everyone seems to have come away with a fresh appreciation for the intentions and perspectives of those they disagreed with.
But the highlight of the whole conference occurred on the last morning. The organizers took the unique and risky step of concluding the conference with a communion service (Eucharist or Lord’s Supper to many), experiencing together the bread and cup of our Lord. Standing on the platform leading out were George Knight, Angel Rodriguez and Colin Standish. Among the deacons distributing the elements were Russell Standish, Arthur Patrick, Larry Kirkpatrick, Roy Adams and Woody Whidden. If you know even half of these names you will understand how historic this event was. Dave Larson (a colleague of mine at Loma Linda) and I completely lost it. We wept unashamedly at this enactment of the unity for which Jesus prayed while He was on earth (John 17:20-26). For many years I have dreamed, hoped and prayed for reconciliation in my community of faith. Yet I was blindsided by the moment, thinking that the age of hostile discourse we see in the public square has so permeated people of faith that the answer to my prayers would be unlikely or even impossible. But with God, nothing is impossible!
I cannot guarantee that the participants in this conference will not go home and write articles and blogs that reopen old wounds and paint a negative picture on the conference or on various of the participants. But I return home rejoicing in what occurred. I return with hope that the Seventh-day Adventist Church is entering into a new era of humility, honesty, openness and mutual respect. In such an atmosphere we can all learn much, not only intellectually, but also in terms of character and relationships. It seems to me that Pentecost must have been a little like this.
Jon
Moving
I have been quiet for a while and I thought I should explain. In July my wife and I finished a house in California, sold a house in Michigan, packed up my office in Michigan and moved to California. Here my family is moving into a new house and my new office looks like a warehouse with boxes and bins everywhere. So pray for us and if all goes well I'll be back with a new blog sometime in September. Thanks for your understanding.
I plan that the devotionals will keep flowing and also to post my translation of the Book of Revelation by this Fall. When I get back in the flow I also plan to read through the more recent comments and offer some responses.
Jon
Unintended Consequences II
Here I am sitting at a computer. It suddenly dawned on me that one of the creators of the internet, Bill Joy, thinks my computer wants to kill me. Joy is the chief scientist at Sun Microsystems and the creator of Java, a software application that helped make the internet what it is today. While Joy is at the cutting edge of technological development, he nevertheless argues that technology always leads to "unintended consequences." Just as the widespread use of antibiotics and DDT have had unforeseen and potentially disastrous consequences, Joy argues that "Murphy’s Law" is an inevitable part of technological advances in computing as well. The following is based on his article in Wired, April 2000.
Building on the work of Ray Kurzweil and Dan Moravec, Joy notes that computer systems are very complex, involving interaction among and feedback between many parts. Any changes to such a system will cascade in ways that are difficult to predict. If Moore’s Law of hardware advancement (doubling computer performance every 18 months at no increase in cost) continues to operate, by 2030 we will be able to build machines that rival human beings in intelligence. Joy argued that when such "robots" exceed human intelligence and become able to self-replicate, the extinction of the human race becomes conceivable, perhaps as early as 2050.
Joy sees the danger in genetics, nanotechnology and robotics (GNR) as even greater than the dangers of nuclear, chemical and biological warfare. The latter are military weapons that remain under human control. The dangers of GNR, on the other hand, are grounded in their commercial and economic benefits. They will, therefore, be promoted and developed by the marketplace, with unintended consequences that will be outside governmental control. He concludes, "This is the first moment in the history of our planet when any species, by its own voluntary actions, has become a danger to itself—as well as to vast numbers of others."
There is hope. Jaron Lanier, a specialist in virtual reality systems, put his finger on the flaw in Joy’s argument in a response eight months later (Wired, December 2000). Joy and his supporters have confused "ideal" computers with real computers. While we can conceptualize ideal computers, in reality we only know how to build dysfunctional ones. Real computers break for reasons that are often less than clear, and they seem to resist our efforts to improve them, often due to legacy and lock-in problems. While Moore’s Law continues to work for hardware systems, software seems to be getting worse and worse as systems become more complex.
While in theory, therefore, the hardware could become sophisticated enough to exceed human intelligence, Lanier notes that human beings themselves don’t seem able to write software that would make such a superior machine possible. If anything, Moore’s Law seems to play in reverse when it comes to software. As processors become faster and memory becomes cheaper, software becomes correspondingly slower and more bloated, using up all available resources. So Lanier conceives Joy’s eschatological nightmare to end as follows: "Just as some newborn race of superintelligent robots are about to consume all humanity, our dear old species will likely be saved by a Windows crash. The poor robots will linger pathetically, begging us to reboot them, even though they’ll know it would do no good." Thus the human race will be saved from extinction by "stupid software."
Regardless of the outcome of this debate, it is clear that the Book of Revelation speaks to fears and possibilities that are just as real in today’s world as they were in the days of John.
People like Joy agree with Revelation that society is headed toward catastrophe and chaos unless some extraordinary intervention should occur. He fears that human beings will do this to themselves. But Revelation draws back the curtain to reveal a deeper reality behind the surface. Rev 17:17 shows that nothing on this earth happens completely out of God’s control. Human beings do not have the capacity to write software good enough to replace ourselves. And the One who wrote our software grieves at the mess we have made of things, but holds back the "winds of strife" so we will not completely destroy ourselves. As the robot droned in some old movie I have forgotten, "There is still time to repent!"
Was the Bible Left Behind? IV
I am doing a short series of blogs on the movie Left Behind (and behind it the series of novels by that name) and its view of the Bible in general and the Book of Revelation in particular. In the first blog I shared some positive elements of the Left Behind phenomenon and promised to start dealing with what I perceive as the flaws in the thesis, which can be very convincing to the uninitiated. In the sequel I talked about the tendency of those following the rapture theology to jump from text to text in the Bible rather than following an approach of careful reading of the texts most directly and clearly addressing the question. In the third blog I addressed the two texts in Revelation that clearly and directly address the issue of end-time deception (Rev 13:1-15; 16:13-16), which was so central to the movie. In this concluding blog I will look at the other two end-time deception texts, Matthew 24:23-27 and 2 Thess 2:8-12, and draw some conclusions.
A surface reading of the text makes it clear that Matt 24:23-27 uses the same language and is on the same theme as the other three end-time deception texts (Rev 13:13-14; 16:13-16, and 2 Thess 2:8-12). In Matt 24, as in 2 Thess 2, the end-time deception is a secret return of "Jesus"! The key to unmasking the end-time deception is to know that it will not be universally visible like the true coming of Jesus. "If anyone tells you, ‘check it out, he’s in the desert,’ don’t go out, or ‘check it out, he’s in some secret place,’ don’t believe it, for as lightning comes out of the east and shines even to the west so will the coming of the son of man be." The end-time deception is a counterfeit of Jesus. The end-time deception has a Christian face!
The tragic thing is that, for believers in the rapture concept of Left Behind, the very events portrayed in Matt 24:23-26 will be seem to be evidence that their reading of the Bible was correct (as was the case in the movie). Many sincere people will be convinced by events that Jesus has somehow already returned to earth. But that return will be a deception. How will you know? Matt 24:25, "Behold, I have told you ahead of time." The end-time deception will betray all trust in the five senses. The only safety for the people of God in the end-time is to trust in the broad message of Scripture that they have known and studied in advance. The end-time equivalent of Mount Carmel will prove the opposite of the truth. Truth and reality will be in contradiction.
It is, therefore, my fear that this movie could be part the greatest setup in human history (totally contrary to the conscious and sincere intention of its producers). If Satan were to pull off some sort of rapture, people would be conditioned by the movie’s scenario to believe that the Christian reaction to world events is the only safe place, when in fact the true anti-Christ will not be a latter-day Hitler, but will seem to be the very person of Christ Himself! The anti-Christ will seem to be the savior of the world, and the Christian’s only hope. The final deception will have a Christian face.
What kind of God would allow a deception so severe that even His own people will tremble in anxiety over it? 2 Thess 2:9-12 suggests that He more than allows it. "God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie (2 Thess 2:11)." In the original language, the phrase "powerful delusion" is related to the phrase "working of Satan" in verse 9. The end-time deception serves a purpose in God’s plan, even though Satan is its author. What is the purpose of this deception in God’s eyes? "So that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness (2 Thess 2:12)."
The word "condemned" translates the Greek root word for judgment. The purpose of the deception (from God’s perspective) is to clarify where everyone alive on earth during the End-time stands in relation to the truth about God. There are three classes of people on earth today. One group is made up of people who love the truth, people who will not be deceived no matter what. The second class of people is made up of those who hate the truth. But those who love the truth and those who hate it are in the minority. The third class of people consists of the majority who neither love nor hate the truth; they prefer to avoid commitment, to sit on the fence.
God’s purpose in allowing the great End-time deception, according to Paul, is to say, "It is time to get off the fence. It is time to commit yourself one way or the other." Circumstances on earth are arranged in such a way that decision is forced. Everybody ends up on one side or the other. When the End comes everyone on earth will have made a firm decision to either love the truth or to love unrighteousness.
Fortunately, there is good news in the midst of the Bible’s description of the End-time deception. The original language of 2 Thess 2:10 explains why people get deceived in the last days, it is not because they were hypnotized by the anti-Christ, "They perish because they did not receive the love of the truth." The text explains that those who are deceived at the End refuse to receive the love of the truth. The love of the truth is something you can receive as a gift. And that's good news. When you receive God’s gift of love for the truth, when you have a whole-hearted desire to know God and to do His will, you can know that the deception at the End will have no power over you.
Was the Bible Left Behind? III
I am doing a short series of blogs on the movie Left Behind (and behind it the series of novels by that name) and its view of the Bible in general and the Book of Revelation in particular. In the first blog I shared some positive elements of the Left Behind phenomenon and promised to start dealing with what I perceive as the flaws in the thesis, which can be very convincing to the uninitiated. In the sequel I talked about the tendency of those following the rapture theology to jump from text to text in the Bible rather than following an approach of careful reading of the texts most directly and clearly addressing the question.
When you read through the New Testament carefully you will find that there are four passages which address the issue of the end-time deception. They are Rev 13:13-14, Rev 16:13-16; 2 Thess 2:8-12, and Matt 24:23-27. In each of these four texts you will find the same basic language and scenario; signs and wonders are used to deceive the people of the world, and there is some representative of an anti-Christ. Interestingly enough, not one of these texts is mentioned in the movie, even though the movie claims to portray this very end-time deception.
In the movie the deceptive anti-Christ is a political figure who is hostile to Christian faith and seeks to gain his ends through economic and political means. The deception of the anti-Christ is a hypnosis in which people do not see what is actually going on. Only true Christians see what is actually happening. This is very different from the biblical picture of the anti-Christ and of the end-time deception found in the four clearest passages. When read carefully the startling collective message of these four passages is that the end-time deception will have a Christian face. Unlike the cold-hearted political calculations of Nicolae Carpathia, the anti-Christ of the Bible will be a spiritual leader more than a political or economic figure.
We have already looked briefly at the text in 2 Thessalonians 2. So I will begin with Revelation 13. The anti-Christ figure of Rev 13 is a beast that comes up out of the sea (Rev 13:1-5). In many ways this beast is a clear counterfeit of the life, death and ministry of Jesus Christ (for a more detailed look at the Christ counterfeit of the sea beast read my book, What the Bible Says About the End-Time, pages 109-119). In fact, the three enemy characters of this chapter (dragon, sea beast, and land beast) function as a counterfeit "trinity," offering a parody of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The Christ counterfeit is most obvious in verse 3: "And one of his heads was, as it were, slaughtered to death. . ." There are many Greek words for death, dying and killing. This is not one of the most common. What is interesting is that the very same Greek word is found in verse 8, "the Lamb which was slaughtered from the foundation of the world." There is an unmistakable parallel between the description of the sea beast in verse 3 and the description of Jesus (the Lamb) in verse 8. "And the wound of his death was healed" (13:3). In the final crisis of earth’s history there is an entity whose very character is based on a parody of the death and resurrection of Jesus. The end-time deception has a Christian face! In Rev 13:13-14 the land beast brings fire down out of heaven in order to deceive the world to follow the first beast, the anti-Christ of this text.
The second end-time deception text is Rev 16:13-14. The dragon, beast and false prophet here are the same characters as the unholy trinity of Rev 13. The three frogs that they send out deceive the world by means of the signs that they do. This text is on the same subject and uses the same language as Rev 13. What is interesting for our purposes is that these three frogs are the "spirits of demons" (Rev 16:14). They are portrayed in the story as three evil counterparts to the three angels who give God’s message in Rev 14:6-12. There are two world-wide messages in the last days, one represents the true gospel, the other is a counterfeit of that gospel. The end-time deception has a Christian face!
The climax of this deception is associated with a place called in Hebrew "Har-magedon." I have elsewhere argued that this phrase is a reference to the showdown between Elijah and the prophets of Baal on Mount Carmel (on the main web site click the button labeled "What is Armageddon?" for more). There Elijah brought fire down from heaven to earth in order to prove to the onlookers that Yahweh was the true God and not Baal. Rev 16 tells us that the Mount Carmel experience will be replayed at the end. Once more there will be a showdown between the true God and the false. Once more fire will come down from heaven to settle the issue. But one thing will change this time. The fire will fall on the wrong altar (Rev 13:13-14)! In the end-time deception the eyes and ears will deceive. The five senses will tell us that the truth is false and that the false is true.
In Left Behind the deception was a sort of supernatural hypnosis. Unbelievers saw what was going on, yet they didn’t see. They were mesmerized by the charisma of the anti-Christ. On the other hand, the believers in the movie saw the deception with their own eyes and were convinced that the evil lay in the political realm and that safety was in the church. Yet this is the opposite of the picture in Revelation. In Revelation the deception is a natural thing. It appeals to the five senses, what we can taste, touch, see, hear and smell. In Revelation the unbelievers see and are convinced. It is what they actually experience that deceives them. They don’t need to be mesmerized, the anti-Christ is manipulating reality itself. On the other hand, it is the believers who don’t see what they expected. It is the believers who are led to question their own understanding. Their only hope is their trust that the Word of God is true, no matter what their eyes see or their ears hear. This will become even clearer in the last end-time deception text, Matt 24:23-27, which we will cover in the next blog.
Was the Bible Left Behind? II
The previous blog began a short series on the movie Left Behind (and behind it the series of novels by that name) and its view of the Bible in general and the Book of Revelation in particular. I shared some positive elements of the Left Behind phenomenon and promised to start dealing with what I perceive as the flaws in the thesis, which can be very convincing to the uninitiated. Following are some of the flaws I saw in the movie and some cautions I would offer to whose who are intrigued by its message.
First, always beware when people jump from text to text in the Bible. In the movie, what little Bible was actually mentioned was in the form of strings of texts without any inherent connection. You can take Bible texts from a variety of contexts, and put them together to prove anything you want to prove. Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and even some Seventh-day Adventists, have built compelling theologies on strings of texts whose primary relationship was a system in the interpreter’s mind rather than the ideas expressed by the biblical writers themselves. When the compelling impulse for Bible study is to support your existing beliefs, it isn’t hard to see what you want to see in the Bible. When you string texts together out of a concordance, the original purpose of those texts is often lost and God’s intention can be lost with it.
The safest approach to the Bible is when you ground your understanding on the clear texts and on the broad reading of whole Bible books. The clear texts of Scripture ground the reader in the great central themes of the biblical message. This provides a safeguard against the strange ideas all of us can come up with when examining texts that are more ambiguous. What I mean by a clear text is one that clearly address the subject you are interested in. Such texts can be safely compared with others that are clearly on the same subject and use the same kind of language. Similarly, when you read Biblical books from beginning to end, the Biblical author is in control of the order and flow of the material. When the author is allowed to lead you naturally from one idea to the next, your exposure to the Bible is much less likely to be controlled by pet ideas from your own background. Broad reading of the Bible naturally encourages a teachable spirit and helps you see the text as it was intended to be read. Let’s apply the broad reading/clear text approach to the "biblical" teachings of the movie.
I challenge anyone to read the entire Bible from end to end and find a single text that clearly teaches that there will be two distinct comings of Jesus, a secret one such as the one portrayed in the movie, followed by a public, visible one that will be seen by all. See also if you can find any text that expresses the coming of Jesus with a plural. Do the reading with an open mind and with attention to the purpose of each biblical book. If you do this, you will find that there is only one text in the Bible that comes remotely close to teaching two distinct comings of Christ, 2 Thess 2:8-9. Since this text directly addresses the perspective of the movie, let’s take a closer look at it. Please indulge me for using my own translation in order expose the force of the original language.
"(8) And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will slay by the breath of His mouth and put an end to by the brightness of His coming, (9) whose coming is according to the working of Satan. . . ."
Hold it right there! Whose coming is according to the working of Satan? The natural meaning of the language would point to the "His" in verse 8. But Jesus’ coming itself is not according to the working of Satan. Nevertheless, the two uses of the word "coming" are almost side-by-side in the original, so they are clearly in some kind of relationship.
"(9) Whose coming is according to the working of Satan in all kinds of miracles, signs and lying wonders."
So the "whose" in verse 9 must refer back to the revelation of the lawless one in verse 8. What we have here is a counterfeit of the true coming of Jesus! Which will be first, the coming of the lawless one, or the coming of Jesus? Verse 8 tells us that the lawless one will be destroyed by the brightness of Jesus’ coming, therefore the counterfeit comes before the true.
Please do not miss this point! There is only one text in the Bible that talks about two separate comings of Jesus, and in that one text, the first of these comings is a counterfeit! Could this movie and its underlying theology be part of a giant setup to get people to confuse the satanic counterfeit with the real thing? In the blog that follows this one, we will take a closer look at how the movie’s portrayal of end-time deception stacks up against the clear teaching of the Bible.
Was the Bible Left Behind?
The movement often called "dispensationalism" originated in the 1800s in Great Britain with John Nelson Darby. This Protestant perspective on the Bible has a number of features, including the division of human history into "dispensations," a literalist reading of biblical prophecies, and the understanding that nearly all of the book of Revelation was written solely with regard to the last seven years of earth’s history. The aspect of dispensationalism that is featured in the movie Left Behind is Darby’s idea of a secret rapture, seven years before the close of earth’s history, Christ would come secretly and snatch up all Christian believers, leaving 144,000 Jews as God’s representatives on earth to prepare the way for the visible coming of Christ at the end of the seven-year period.
This viewpoint first came to the attention of the wider American public through the writings of Hal Lindsey in the 1970s. Based on his understanding of the Bible, Lindsey predicted that the rapture would take place in 1981, leading to seven years of chaos and the visible coming of Christ in 1988. More recently, Tim LaHaye wrote a series of novels (now being featured as movies) to once again popularize the viewpoint, but without Lindsey’s date-setting aberrations. Thanks to the books and the movie, Christians in general, and even many in the secular environment are talking about this scenario and wondering what the Bible actually has to say about it.
While I have not read the books, I have seen the movie a couple of times and my comments relate specifically to that. One positive aspect I see in the movie is that it uplifts the Bible as the antidote to a media-manipulated reality. This is clearly the central message of much of the book of Revelation. In the last days of earth’s history the deceptive forces of the dragon, the beast, and the false prophet will try to deceive the world by means of spectacular actions and events (Rev 13:13-14; 16:13-14). Things will not be as they seem. The evidence of the eyes and ears will lead people to believe a lie. At such a time, the only safe course for followers of Jesus is an unwavering reliance on the Word of God over against the evidence of the five senses. The movie makes this point repeatedly and with emphasis. I agree.
The success of the movie could also encourage a trend toward more sensitive portrayals of Christian faith in Hollywood. For years Christians and Christian faith have been ignored in Hollywood movies, except for the occasional self-righteous bigot. Some readers may be tempted to say "so what", but the reality is that the godless perspective of Hollywood has a huge impact on society as a whole. For Christian faith to have a fighting chance in today’s world, it cannot hurt to have some positive, sensitive portrayals of genuine faith in the public square. Left Behind has been followed by The Passion of the Christ and The Nativity, among others, a very positive development in my opinion.
But perhaps even more important, a movie like Left Behind causes many to think and to study the Bible, perhaps for the first time. For some secular people watching this movie or movies like it may be their one and only shot at a genuine openness to Christian experience. When Christians express cynicism about other Christians to a secular person, it only reinforces their sense that all versions of Christian faith are irrelevant to real life. Whether you agree with the thesis of the movie or not, it has had a marvelous pre-evangelistic effect in many people’s lives.
I wish I could end on this note of encouragement, but I cannot. There are serious, serious problems with the message of the movie and its underlying theology. I believe that the most important thing that was "left behind" in this movie was the message and intention of the writers of the Bible. Whole books could be written, and have been written, detailing many of the ways in which Left Behind theology deviates from the biblical perspective. I will need to limit myself to a few basic points that were featured in the film. Please stay tuned to the blogs that will follow on this subject.
Check Out the Interview!
In an exciting new development, the webmaster of my Battle of Armageddon web site (John Miller) has posted video of my interview with Danny Shelton on 3ABN, January 4, 2007. In the interview, titled "Simply Revelation," we cover some of the basic issues of interpretation in the book. The interview can be accessed by clicking on the 3ABN Live Interview button that is on the left side of the home page at www.thebattleofarmageddon.com. I thought John did a great job with the interface.
The interview starts with the basic principles of interpretation that emerge from the introduction to the Book of Revelation itself. I then cover some of the keys to understanding the Letters to the Churches, the Seven Seals and the Seven Trumpets. At a time when there are a lot of strange ideas around, a few basic principles can help us all stay on a helpful track as we study Revelation and its outline of God’s plans and purposes for human history. Doing the interview was great fun. I hope you enjoy it!
Why the Plagues?
I have exciting news. Plans are being laid to record a four-hour DVD miniseries entitled Simply Revelation: A Beginner’s Guide to the Most Challenging Book of the Bible. In this miniseries I will lay out the fruit of thirty years of intensive scholarly study of the Book of Revelation. But the goal of the series is clarity and simplicity, not obtuse depth. In harsher terms, this miniseries will be "Revelation for Dummies." The purpose is sound scholarship unpacking the essence of Revelation at a level that anyone can understand. Watch here for news of the recording dates and the publication of the DVD series, hopefully by mid-summer.
Please also note that today I read through all blog comments from the opening of this web site until now. I have responded to many of your comments and I appreciate each of your contributions to the web site.
In my previous blog I tried to answer a visitor’s question about the bowl-plagues of Revelation 16. This led me to some further thoughts that I would like to share here. In Revelation 15:8 the temple in heaven is filled with smoke from the glory of God. As a result of this glory, no one is able to enter the temple throughout the time when the bowls of wrath (Rev 15:1) are being poured out. In other words, the emptiness of the temple reflects a time when no one will be performing intercession from inside the temple. Mercy has ceased and probation has closed. The seven bowl plagues pour out the wrath of God unmitigated by any trace of mercy. Probation is over and the consequences of disobedience are lived out.
But if the bowl plagues come after the close of probation, no one is repenting any more. So what is the point of these plagues? If people can no longer repent it seems vengeful and capricious to torment them further. It is one thing to remove oppressors and abusers from the universe, it is quite another to drag them from torment to torment along the way. That sounds like cutting of a cat’s tail inch by inch. If the job needs doing you can get it done with a lot less torment than that.
The answer to the question may lie in a major underlying theme of the seven bowls: the justice or fairness of God. The actions of the seven bowls are not arbitrary. God is not some celestial sadist who enjoys the suffering of His creation. There is an ultimate purpose in everything He does. The crucial text is Revelation 16:5-7 (NIV): "You are just in these judgments, you who are and who were, the Holy One, because you have so judged; for they have shed the blood of your saints and prophets, and you have given them blood to drink as they deserve." In other words, the punishments of the plagues are appropriate to the crime. The wicked, as objects of God’s executive judgment, are receiving in kind what they have done to others.
You see, the justice and the fairness of God is the ultimate issue. How can God judge people for all eternity on the basis of a few years of up and down behavior? How do we know the wicked wouldn’t change if they knew God better or had the opportunities that the righteous had? Can we really trust the end-time judgment of God?
The plagues demonstrate that the wicked continue to oppose God no matter the circumstances. Sufferings that have led millions to cry out to God over the centuries only cause the opposition of the wicked to become even more pronounced and severe (Rev 16:8-11). Earlier plagues had brought people to repentance (Rev 11:13) but now the wicked have turned away so long and so completely that they are no longer capable of opening themselves to God’s salvation. At the same time, the sufferings of the righteous in the last days do not turn them away from God. The same sufferings have a solidifying effect on all. The righteous remain righteous and the wicked remain wicked.
The close of probation, therefore, is not an arbitrary decree on the part of God. It is simply a time when world affairs are so arranged that everyone makes a settled decision for or against God at the very same time. The plagues are not arbitrary, even though they come after the close of probation, because they also serve God’s purposes. To put it differently, the plagues of Revelation 16 demonstrate the truth of Rev 15:3-4: "Just and true are your ways." In other words, even though God’s judgment is based on what to us would be inconclusive evidence, it is completely fair and completely accurate. The pouring out of the bowl-plagues demonstrates to the universe that God knows what He is doing, whether or not we fully understand it or accept it.
What Kind of Plagues?
Frequent visitors to this web site will have noticed silence on my part for the last few weeks. This was necessary because of travel in remote places like the South Pacific where my access to the internet was limited. I am back in the office now and planning to do a little catching up in the blog business. I also plan to read through the comments to earlier blogs and leave some responses here and there, so come back often in the next two weeks!
A recent visitor to the web site sent in the following question: "I have a question concerning the trumpets and plagues. The first four trumpets affect the earth, sea, rivers, and heavenly bodies and most Adventist take them as symbolic. The first four plagues affect man, seas, rivers, and heavenly bodies and they are taken literal. What is the rationale behind this? Why is one taken symbolic and the other literal?"
This is an excellent question and one I hear quite often. Are the bowl plagues of Revelation literal or figurative? It is difficult to know directly from the language of Revelation 16. Many scholars prefer a figurative reading of Rev 16:1-8. The very first verse of the book tells us that the vision upon which Revelation is based was "signified" (Rev 1:1). In other words, the book as a whole was placed in symbolic language to express the deeper meaning of God’s purposes for the end of human history. Generally in the Bible it is wise to take the text literally unless a symbol is clearly intended. In Revelation, however, the introduction informs us to take the language of the book symbolically unless it is overwhelmingly clear that a literal reading must be taken. In other words, if a specific passage makes sense symbolically, that is the way it was intended to be read. On the other hand, if a symbolic reading makes no sense, but a literal one does, then the text can be interpreted literally.
I would suggest, therefore, that the seven trumpets of Revelation (Revelation 8-11) should probably be normally read in a symbolic way. Not only does the introduction to Revelation suggest a symbolic approach, but the seals and the trumpets also have specifying information which points to a figurative approach (Rev 8:8; 9:7,17). And a symbolic reading makes sense within the world that John was living in. A literal reading, by way of contrast, is rather challenging to make sense of. You can learn more about my approach to the trumpets from my book Decoding Revelation’s Trumpets and my article entitled Interpreting the Seven Trumpets. Both of these documents are available on the CD of my books and articles available at the shopping area of this web site.
But what about the bowl plagues? Could they be taken symbolically? The opening verse of the book certainly allows for that. So when I look at the first four bowls symbolically I see the following. Figuratively, the plagues could represent the consequences that come as a result of sin, what in the Hebrew Bible is called the curses of the covenant. The boils could represent the suffering caused by sin. The waters turning to blood could represent the suffering of the wicked under the judgments of God. The scorching sun could symbolize the intensified glare of God’s Word as it points out sin and calls for judgment on those who oppose God. But these interpretations seem forced and speculative. When reading these texts in the Greek, you get the impression that something more direct and literal is in view. If a symbolic reading does not bring convincing clarity to the meaning of the text and a literal reading does, the literal reading is to be preferred, but this would be the exception in Revelation, not the rule.
If you take the first four bowl plagues literally, they represent the terrible physical and emotional experience of the last generation of the wicked. God’s restraining hand is removed from the actions of Satan. Wars increase and crime and instability are rampant. Diseases get out of control and no amount of medical or pharmaceutical remedy seems able to stem the tide. The weather goes haywire, producing extremes of heat, wind and rain. Strange chemical changes produce water that is corrosive and undrinkable. This, as you say, is roughly the way most Seventh-day Adventists read Rev 16:1-8.
While it is not certain on the basis of the text whether the literal or the symbolic reading was intended, the evidence of the text inclines me toward a spiritual reading. The symbolic reading is not particularly fruitful theologically. And a literal reading is certainly plausible in terms of the ecological threats that many people perceive lie just ahead for those who live on the earth. But a truly literal reading has its challenges as well. For example, even some sort of universal war would have to produce casualties beyond imagination to turn all the waters of the ocean bloody red.
So the question cannot be decisively answered on the evidence of Revelation itself. But a literal reading would seem to be the more likely.
End-Time Gospel Commitment
I recently returned from a speaking engagement in Guam, a beautiful island in the Western Pacific. There I met Steve. Steve is the owner and manager of the best-known beach club on the island. He offers visitors waterfront experiences like jet skiing, parasailing, dolphin watching and snorkling. About three years ago he became convicted that the Sabbath (Saturday) was still binding on Christians like himself. But he realized that Saturday was the busiest day of the week for his business. And Saturday was also the day when people signed up for Sunday, the second busiest day. So he would be losing the two biggest revenue days every week and he was already millions of dollars in debt. It was likely that it if he closed on Sabbath his business would go bankrupt and he would have to let all of his employees go. He reasoned that it was not fair to them to be so heavily affected by his own personal decision.
But under the conviction of the Spirit he decided to trust God and close his business on Sabbaths. Informing the major beach hotels of his decision, he received only derision and a complete cut-off of their business, and they had been the source of most of his business! Nevertheless, he moved ahead. That Friday night, he closed the business, turned the lights out and left the answering machine on. That Sabbath was the worst weather Guam had seen in some time! When he checked the phone on Saturday night he was amazed to find scores of reservations for Sunday, far above the norm! This weather pattern continued every weekend for six months. Sabbath was terrible and Sunday was beautiful. With the Christian spirit of service and caring concern for people filtering down through his employees, his beach club not only did not fail, it became the dominant player in the market! I saw this with my own eyes. There were long lines of people waiting to get on Steve’s boats, other boats were half empty. It was a touching reminder to me that God is real and he honors those who risk all in faith.
But what if his business had failed? What if he had gone bankrupt? Steve is still convinced that the only way to happiness and peace is through the gospel of Jesus Christ and through a response to that gospel that includes full obedience to all of God’s commandments. Steve feels that it is better to have nothing in this world than to lose what you have in Christ. This was the kind of spirit manifested by the martyrs of the past. Steve’s commitment is the kind of commitment called for at the end of time, according to the Book of Revelation (Rev 13:15-17). So Steve has gotten a taste, not only of end-time gospel commitment, but of the power of a creator God to make something out of nothing (Rev 14:7)!
Biblical Apocalyptic and the Problem of Worry
I’m a little worried these days. I live in a house that’s completely paid for and there is also some income from an apartment on the lower floor. If something were to happen to me, my wife could probably survive quite well on less than a thousand dollars a month, if she had to. But there is a problem with this secure picture. My house is in southwestern Michigan, where housing is relatively cheap. But I’ve just accepted the position of Dean of the Faculty of Religion at Loma Linda University in Southern California. Our comfortable Michigan home will barely provide a down payment on a similar house in Southern California. And while Loma Linda is being very fair with us in light of this reality, the change has introduced a large element of risk for us financially. We will need a huge mortgage in order to get by. It is as if we were starting all over again financially, as a family.
This situation has reinforced for me the reason that I worry. I don’t worry a whole lot about the past. It’s over and I can’t do anything about it (I respect the fact that some readers, on account of abuse or trauma, may find the past a lot harder to shake). I also don’t worry too much about the present. God has been good to me and my family, and I’ve learned to trust that He will take care of us from day to day. When I worry, it is because I don’t know the future. I find it harder to trust in God when I don’t have immediate evidence of how things will turn out. For me, worry is grounded in my inability to know the future.
Daniel, the biblical prophet, had every reason to worry about the future. For forty years he was a hostage in Babylon. As a young man, he had been taken from his home, his family, his temple (and by implication his God), and his land. For forty years he watched as his God communicated with his captor, King Nebuchadnezzar. God seemed to have forsaken him and his people. And the