Ban Food, Sex, and Computers!
True Bible-believing Christians know that to have even a mere sip of a wine cooler will get your butt drop kicked right into the burning fires of hell. When our Lord turned water into grape juice at the wedding in Cana (John 2), he had no idea texts like this would be used by liberal humanistic “christians” to support drinking alcohol responsibly in moderation! Now it’s true enough that having a glass of wine is not going to make you intoxicated, but it does make you flirt with sin! It starts with having a glass of Champaign on your anniversary and before you know it you are vomiting your sinful brains out all over your toilet!
The problem is that we in the lukewarm church have not banned enough things. We rightfully make our church members sign covenants that they will never engage in the worldly practice of temperate, non-intoxicating drinking. But what about so many other areas where we just close our eyes and cover our ears? Friends, in these Last Days as we await the Rapture of the saints we must be pure and holy vessels. This means getting rid of EVERYTHING that could cause us to stumble. Therefore, it’s finally time to ban food, sex and computers.
Think about it. Food causes obesity. Food causes people to focus on their fleshly desires rather than on Jesus. We’ve turned our Fellowship Halls into Halls of Sin with our constant potlucks. Numerous studies show that Bible-believing Christians have higher rates of obesity than even the general public. Why then do we continue eating? To stay alive you say. Well, I heard that you can go weeks without food and still live and a few days without water and still survive. If we really want to treat our bodies as a temple we should only be eating enough to keep us alive and mentally alert. Anything beyond that is excessive from both a scientific and spiritual standpoint.
Maybe we’ve forgotten about all the Scriptures talking about how serious gluttony is. Well, if you want to ignore the parts of the Bible you don’t like then be my guest, but I won’t have any part of it! Eating beyond what will keep you alive is just a precursor to gluttony. It starts with that one Twinkee and ends with you dropping dead at age 30 because of your compulsive eating. Before you know it you’re 450 pounds overweight and you can't barely move off of your couch!
Food is even way more subtle than temptations of drinking. It doesn’t take long for somebody to get drunk. But that bacon you are eating sits in your system for a long time. Remember that slice of chocolate cake you had several Christmases ago? You don’t, but your arteries sure do. You see, food is a slow, silent, and deadly killer. In this sense it’s even WORSE than alcohol because it kills you slowly over a period of years. Rather than just try and be some liberal and have it both ways, we should just ban food outright, except for food that is utterly necessary for your survival. Social eating is just a sliver away from gluttony. They are one in the same!!
What about sex? That Catholic Augustine was right. On a whole, sex is icky. Look at all the damage sex has done to our world. We have trashy sexual advertisements, abortions, diseases and all kinds of other stuff because of sex! Look at all the warnings in the Scriptures about sex! You find literally dozens of verses pertaining to sexual purity. Now I know the Apostle Paul says some nice things about sex and permits sex between married couples. He even says married couples are not to deprive one another except for a very short time. But that was then, this is now. They didn’t have the kind of sexual immorality we have back then. Abortion didn’t even exist until 1973. Back in Bible-times most people were monogamous and responsible sexually. Therefore, even though the Bible permitted a moral sexual ethic back then, we need to ban it because of our sex-saturated culture today.
Free-love unbelievers might not be able to distinguish from their filthy habits and married believers enjoying sex. Christians enjoying a Biblical sexual ethic might send a bad signal to unbelievers today and be a poor witness. Indeed, the mere fact that you enjoy sex is problematic. We tend to do things a lot that we enjoy. If you enjoy sex it opens you up to all kinds of possibilities for sexual immorality. Is that a can of words we really want to open? A better system is to only engage in sexual activity when you must conceive a child. We can view it as a necessary evil to keep the human species going. Other than that, this is a behavior true Bible-believing Christians should avoid.
Last but not least, computers. Look, humanity has done just fine without these Sin Machines for the last 6,000 years, and I see no reason why we need these stupid things now. I know the Bible doesn’t talk about computers per se but it does talk about immorality. Why would I want to use a computer when there are so many pornographic websites out there? What about all the other evil stuff on the Internet as well? Do you really want to be associated with this trash? If not, then stop using your computer! The Bible says we can’t be uneven. A little bit of evil spoils all the good. I’m only using this thing now to warn you of how evil it is. I will repent as soon as I am done with this post.
Sure, there’s a lot of good things on the Internet, but I know too many people who have been drawn into evil addictions because of them. Why take that chance? Let’s just ban computer use and be safe and consistent. Don’t use the excuse that you can use a computer without going on the Internet. You’ll be too tempted to get Internet access and before you know it you’ll be trapped in sin.
In conclusion, food, sex, and computers are just like alcohol. They all aren’t bad in of themselves, but they all can lead to very, very bad things! Excessive gluttony, sexual diseases, etc, all have both very negative cultural connotations and the label of sin from the Bible. Only unlike alcohol, their negative effects are hidden and take a longer time to cause destruction. Maybe they aren’t causing drunk driving accidents, but they sure lead to a lot of other damage! Given that this is the cultural norm, we need to ban food and sex (with survival stipulations) and computers outright! I suppose we could discern good, bad, and neutral uses for all these things, but it is much easier just to ban them completely. And if you want to be a good Christian, then you will ban them from your lives too.
Monday, January 29, 2007
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
Barnwell for President Official Campaign Announcement
Just like Obama and Clinton, I am making my big announcement over the Internet. Please join me in my crusade to become the most powerful man in the world and to bomb the rest of the world for the cause of freedom and democracy:
Barnwell For President Announcement Video
Just like Obama and Clinton, I am making my big announcement over the Internet. Please join me in my crusade to become the most powerful man in the world and to bomb the rest of the world for the cause of freedom and democracy:
Barnwell For President Announcement Video
Friday, January 19, 2007
Is the Bible Too Difficult To Understand?
When studying contentious texts, many good and sincere Christians are tempted to throw up their hands in the air with frustration. Isn’t the Bible supposed to be simple? Hasn’t the Bible been handed down so we all can read and understand it? The answer is not as straightforward as some people would like. On one hand, the gospel message is very simple. The overall theme of the Bible, God calling His covenant people to Himself, is simple enough.
But to know and apply the Scriptures in their entirety for people in the 21st century takes time and work, especially when we are dealing with difficult passages. And no, contrary to what some claimed in the Middle Ages, understanding the Scriptures shouldn’t just be put in the hands of a few scholars and church leaders. The Scriptures can and should be accessible to anybody in the pew, but it is up to the people in the pew to learn how to study Scripture and at least have the resources and tools to turn to when unlocking difficult issues.
Some people also have a view of Scripture that is incredibly too rigid and simple. They assume that the Bible tells us about every little matter of life in completely black and white terms. It doesn’t, and it never intended to. While the Bible is very black and white on any number of issues, it leaves room for differences and freedom amongst good Christians in plenty of other areas (see for example Romans chapters 14-15). Also, many times well-meaning Christians don’t understand that the Bible has to be interpreted on its own terms, not our own. By that, I mean that there’s sometimes more than meets the eye when we are reading Scripture.
Take for instance the book of Revelation. Many well-meaning Christians think that they are being most faithful to God’s word by interpreting the book “literally.” The problem is that even those who say they interpret Revelation “literally” are not doing so unless they want to argue that Satan really is a giant red dragon (Rev. 12), that Christ really well return to earth with a massive sword sticking out of his mouth (Rev. 19) and that a third of the sun and moon will really be destroyed (along with literal stars being flung down to earth, per Rev. 8:10-12) in the tribulation.
But if these things really happened “literally,” life would cease instantaneously and the rest of Revelation would have no significance. However, that is not the point of these texts. The text is indeed describing literal realities of judgment, but using highly figurative language that was very typical of apocalyptic literature from ancient times to describe it. Apocalyptic literature was popular and well read between 200B.C and 200 A.D. It isn’t particularly popular now. Before we make judgments about what a text means, we have to first know how it was meant to be read and how people back then would have read it. So we in the 21st century have to first understand what the Bible meant to the people it was written to and then decide what it means for today, not the other way around.
Another instance of where there is more than what meets the eye is in Ephesians 5:22-33. Many Christians today use this passage to show women their proper place in society by showing how the Bible proves their version of “Biblical female submission.” More than a few Christian men use this and several other passages to try and basically prove that by the very nature of their being men, they are always to have the final word in everything in and outside of the home. Unfortunately, most of them conveniently ignore the verse immediately preceding this passage which reads “Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.” It is right after that where we come to the discussion of wives and husbands. Remember, the subheadings in your Bible were not inspired by the Holy Spirit and weren’t included in the Bible until relatively recently. But plenty want to completely ignore vs. 21 and act like it has nothing to do with vs. 22!
Also, what most of them are completely unaware of is that the original Greek text does not have the word “submit” in verse 22. The earliest Greek manuscripts literally read, “wives to your husbands as to the Lord.” Now, what’s meant here is indeed submission, but the word “submit” is borrowed from vs. 21, a grammatical rule standard in Greek grammar called “ellipsis.” This shows that the meaning of verse 22 about wives submitting to their husbands is indeed connected to what is said in verse 21 about us submitting to one another in general. Wives are indeed told to submit to their husbands, but husbands actually have the greater burden placed on them in this passage (it was already assumed without question in that highly patriarchal culture of the first century that wives should submit to their husbands, thus Paul spends more time talking to husbands here telling them some things which weren’t already assumed).
Some argue that while wives are to “submit,” husbands are to only “love,” whatever that’s supposed to mean. This is ignoring the context and ignores the fact that when Paul closes this section he tells husbands to again “love” their wives but now for wives to “respect” their husbands. He doesn’t change his mind in verse 33 and say that wives don’t have to submit after all, instead only “respect” their husbands. Rather, what is going on here is a form of mutual submission and it goes both ways. If true, this contains many powerful implications and applications. They differ, of course, from some of the assumptions of both many Christians as well as secular feminists.
While there’s plenty more that could be said about these passages and others, my overall point is that Bible study and interpretation is not impossible, it just takes a little more thought and critical thinking than we sometimes would assume. The good news is that Scripture study, while sometimes difficult, is at the same time a very exciting journey. God’s inspired Word is still living and active. Also, no matter how old we may be, we can never stop learning or growing in the Lord. Of course, it’s not just enough to know about it. We need to live it and be it. And that’s where the rubber really meets the road for the serious Christian.
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
Why Are Dispensationalists Obsessed With Building a Third Temple?
Why? Quite simply because they think the end of the world can't come without it. But more importantly, they think that the supposedly prophetic inevitability of a third temple will come right before or right after their being raptured up to heaven before a final tribulation on earth, which they will of course avoid. There's a problem with all of this, however. There is absolutely nothing in the New Testament that talks about "rebuilding the temple." Nothing. Where there is talk of rebuilding the temple in the Old Testament, it is referring to the second Temple of the post-exilic period. Where the brick and stone temple of Jerusalem is referred to literally in the New Testament it is always in the context of judgement and its pending destruction. Thus, the main section of the Olivet Discourse of Mark 13 and its synoptic parallels were first and foremost not checklists for some far distant generation in the "end-times," but served primarily as an apocalyptic judgement text regarding Jerusalem and the temple.
The context seems clear enough, especially in Matthew. Jesus' mourns over Jerusalem then leaves the temple courts and predicts destruction upon the land. The disciples ask two questions, the first of which being, "When will these things happen." Jesus then proceeds to give them an answer and says very clearly "This generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened." Various attempts to get around the force of that statement have been incredibly unconvincing. Jesus is clearly talking about events that have immediate relevance for his contemporaries. Thus, the emphasis on the Temple here and elsewhere is one of judgement. This doesn't mean there isn't contemporary meaning and significance for today in this section of the Olivet Discourse, but it probably does not carry with it the assumptions that dispensationalists make.
One of the most important verses for third temple advocates and dispensationalists in general is Dan. 9:27. According to dispensationalists this verse is totally disconnected from the verses that precede it and refer to a time when the final antichrist figure makes and breaks a covenant with the nation of Israel and unleashes the Great Tribulation. But to make this work, you have to insert a 2000+ year imaginary gap between verses 26 and 27. But there are plenty of problems with the standard view of Dan. 9:27. Let's take a look at some of them.
According to the Dispensational View:
a. Verses 24-26 describe the coming of Jesus (The “Anointed One”) 483 years after the rebuilding of Jerusalem. Jesus is the one “cut off” in verse 26, referring to his crucifixion.
b. The “people of the ruler” in vs. 26 are referring to those who came and destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple in 70AD. However, the Ruler (Antichrist) himself did not make an appearance then and doesn’t until the indefinite future, whenever verse 27 begins.
c. There is a massive gap of time between verses 26 and 27. God’s “prophetic time clock” has stopped now that we are in the “church age.”
d. Verse 27 describes a future antichrist who will come on the world stage (soon!). The covenant is a covenant of the antichrist. The “many” whom he makes the covenant with are the Jewish people of modern Israel, which he will later break.
e. By this time vs. 27 happens there will be a rebuilt temple in Jerusalem with resumed animal sacrifices. In the middle of the last “week” (seven year period) the antichrist will desecrate the Temple, break his covenant with the Jewish people, and thus will begin the “Great Tribulation” which they correspond with Matthew 24, Mark 13, Luke 21, 2 Thessalonians 2, and Revelation 6-19.
The problems with this above interpretation are many:
1. For one thing, there is nothing in this text which suggests a massive 2000+ year gap between verses 26 and 27. A natural and “literal” reading of the text would see verse 27 connected to verse 26 and talking about the same related events.
2. It assumes a two separate people of God theology—Israel and the Church—whereas this idea is foreign to the New Testament. Instead Romans 9-11 and elsewhere suggests that there is one people of God—Jew and Gentile with a common faith in Christ. This faith is founded in the original branch of the Israelites, but a true Israelite is a spiritual one, not just the natural ethnic one (Romans 2:28-29, 9:6-8). Thus, newly grafted in Gentiles are not to be arrogant about their faith. They too can be broken off from the branch because of unbelief, just as unbelieving Jews were. Where Paul does see ethnic Israel being regrafted into the branch is only because of faith in Christ (See Romans 11 for Paul’s future hope for revival amongst ethnic Israel). Therefore, there is one people of God—Jew and Gentile who are brought together in Christ. Thus, there’s no reason to assume God has separate “time-clocks” and prophetic programs for each group as is assumed in the dispensational view of Dan. 9:24-27 and elsewhere.
3. The idea that “the people of the ruler” came in 70AD but the ruler himself comes not for another couple thousand years is awkward and forced.
4. Does the “He” in vs. 27 really refer to a future Antichrist? The “he” could be referring to the Anointed One of vs. 26. Also, if “the ruler” in vs. 27 is the same person as in vs. 26, then the ruler and the Anointed One is the same person. Hence the “people of the ruler” could be Christ’s agents of judgment against Jerusalem. If “the ruler who will come” in vs. 26 is a separate entity, then “the people of the ruler” then it would be seen as Titus’ army laying siege to Jerusalem.
5. Where do we get “He will confirm a covenant with many” to equal “a covenant with the modern nation of Israel”? How is “Israel” the most natural reading of “many”?
6. Who exactly puts an end to sacrifice and offering? According to Hebrews 10, it is Christ Himself. Also, see the New Testament for Christ giving his life for “many” (Matt. 20:28; cf. Matt. 26:28, Mark 10:45, 14:24).
6. The dispensational view assumes a future rebuilt temple for this to work. But when this prophecy was given it was directed towards rebuilding Jerusalem after the Babylonian exile—see vs. 25—which of course involved the rebuilding of the Temple (See books of Ezra and Nehemiah). Thus, we already have a rebuilt temple to direct this prophecy too. This also assumes that a further future rebuilt Temple (from our vantage point) is what is in view in Matthew 24, 2 Thessalonians 2 and Revelation 11, which is probably not the case in any of those citations as well.
7. Projecting Daniel 9:27 into the indefinite future reads in all sorts of other assumptions. It assumes that this is describing “The Tribulation,” and that this corresponds with the various events described in Matthew 24, Mark 13, Luke 21, 2 Thessalonians 2, and Revelation 6-19.
8. The dispensational view contains massive political and theological implications as well. If this interpretation is correct, then a third Rebuilt Temple needs to be constructed with revived Mosaic sacrifices, a theology foreign to the New Testament. If the book of Hebrews and elsewhere says those sacrifices were insufficient for sin and just a shadow of things to come, in what sense would this future temple be “God’s Temple”?
9. Also, those who want to rebuild the temple insist it must be built where the Al-aqsa mosque currently stands which is the third “holiest” site in Islam. If this mosque was destroyed to build a Jewish temple it would almost certainly bring with it an all out regional and religious war and utter chaos to the region and possibly the world. However, would probably excite many dispensationalists since it fits their popular doom and gloom outlook for world events.
Another issue here is that we can't even be certain that Christ is indeed the anointed one of the passage. Anointed One is capitalized in certain translations because the translators are assuming Christ is in view here (and that may indeed be the case). But the problem lies in deciding where to put a comma in the English translation of this text. Does the anointed one come after the "seven sevens" (49 years) or after both the "seven sevens and sixty-two sevens" (483 years). The RSV and several other translations render the verse as having the anointed one come after the 49 years, not after 483 years. This would make the anointed one Cyrus, Joshua, Zerrubbabel or other figures in the OT text referred to as "anointed ones." Thus, the Hebrew is not clear (the original language doesn't even have our modern punctuation!) and the numbers are probably symbolic anyway since trying to fit them into a neat and literal time frame for any of the interpretations ultimately doesn't work. This passage was traditionally seen as having Antiochus Epiphanes IV in mind as well as events of the Maccabean period. I Maccabees directly refers to Antiochus as the "abomination of desolations." Whatever the case, Jesus clearly reworks the prophecy to refer to destruction of the Jerusalem Temple by the Romans. Therefore, in the case of Dan. 9:24-27, whether intertestamental or first century events are in view, either seems a more plausible interpretation than the modern dispensational one which requires all sorts of interpretive gymnastics.
This being the case, why on earth put so much stock in theories based only on a couple of questionable verses? Especially considering the load of theological and political implications many Christians carry with them because of their view of this one single verse!
Why? Quite simply because they think the end of the world can't come without it. But more importantly, they think that the supposedly prophetic inevitability of a third temple will come right before or right after their being raptured up to heaven before a final tribulation on earth, which they will of course avoid. There's a problem with all of this, however. There is absolutely nothing in the New Testament that talks about "rebuilding the temple." Nothing. Where there is talk of rebuilding the temple in the Old Testament, it is referring to the second Temple of the post-exilic period. Where the brick and stone temple of Jerusalem is referred to literally in the New Testament it is always in the context of judgement and its pending destruction. Thus, the main section of the Olivet Discourse of Mark 13 and its synoptic parallels were first and foremost not checklists for some far distant generation in the "end-times," but served primarily as an apocalyptic judgement text regarding Jerusalem and the temple.
The context seems clear enough, especially in Matthew. Jesus' mourns over Jerusalem then leaves the temple courts and predicts destruction upon the land. The disciples ask two questions, the first of which being, "When will these things happen." Jesus then proceeds to give them an answer and says very clearly "This generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened." Various attempts to get around the force of that statement have been incredibly unconvincing. Jesus is clearly talking about events that have immediate relevance for his contemporaries. Thus, the emphasis on the Temple here and elsewhere is one of judgement. This doesn't mean there isn't contemporary meaning and significance for today in this section of the Olivet Discourse, but it probably does not carry with it the assumptions that dispensationalists make.
One of the most important verses for third temple advocates and dispensationalists in general is Dan. 9:27. According to dispensationalists this verse is totally disconnected from the verses that precede it and refer to a time when the final antichrist figure makes and breaks a covenant with the nation of Israel and unleashes the Great Tribulation. But to make this work, you have to insert a 2000+ year imaginary gap between verses 26 and 27. But there are plenty of problems with the standard view of Dan. 9:27. Let's take a look at some of them.
According to the Dispensational View:
a. Verses 24-26 describe the coming of Jesus (The “Anointed One”) 483 years after the rebuilding of Jerusalem. Jesus is the one “cut off” in verse 26, referring to his crucifixion.
b. The “people of the ruler” in vs. 26 are referring to those who came and destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple in 70AD. However, the Ruler (Antichrist) himself did not make an appearance then and doesn’t until the indefinite future, whenever verse 27 begins.
c. There is a massive gap of time between verses 26 and 27. God’s “prophetic time clock” has stopped now that we are in the “church age.”
d. Verse 27 describes a future antichrist who will come on the world stage (soon!). The covenant is a covenant of the antichrist. The “many” whom he makes the covenant with are the Jewish people of modern Israel, which he will later break.
e. By this time vs. 27 happens there will be a rebuilt temple in Jerusalem with resumed animal sacrifices. In the middle of the last “week” (seven year period) the antichrist will desecrate the Temple, break his covenant with the Jewish people, and thus will begin the “Great Tribulation” which they correspond with Matthew 24, Mark 13, Luke 21, 2 Thessalonians 2, and Revelation 6-19.
The problems with this above interpretation are many:
1. For one thing, there is nothing in this text which suggests a massive 2000+ year gap between verses 26 and 27. A natural and “literal” reading of the text would see verse 27 connected to verse 26 and talking about the same related events.
2. It assumes a two separate people of God theology—Israel and the Church—whereas this idea is foreign to the New Testament. Instead Romans 9-11 and elsewhere suggests that there is one people of God—Jew and Gentile with a common faith in Christ. This faith is founded in the original branch of the Israelites, but a true Israelite is a spiritual one, not just the natural ethnic one (Romans 2:28-29, 9:6-8). Thus, newly grafted in Gentiles are not to be arrogant about their faith. They too can be broken off from the branch because of unbelief, just as unbelieving Jews were. Where Paul does see ethnic Israel being regrafted into the branch is only because of faith in Christ (See Romans 11 for Paul’s future hope for revival amongst ethnic Israel). Therefore, there is one people of God—Jew and Gentile who are brought together in Christ. Thus, there’s no reason to assume God has separate “time-clocks” and prophetic programs for each group as is assumed in the dispensational view of Dan. 9:24-27 and elsewhere.
3. The idea that “the people of the ruler” came in 70AD but the ruler himself comes not for another couple thousand years is awkward and forced.
4. Does the “He” in vs. 27 really refer to a future Antichrist? The “he” could be referring to the Anointed One of vs. 26. Also, if “the ruler” in vs. 27 is the same person as in vs. 26, then the ruler and the Anointed One is the same person. Hence the “people of the ruler” could be Christ’s agents of judgment against Jerusalem. If “the ruler who will come” in vs. 26 is a separate entity, then “the people of the ruler” then it would be seen as Titus’ army laying siege to Jerusalem.
5. Where do we get “He will confirm a covenant with many” to equal “a covenant with the modern nation of Israel”? How is “Israel” the most natural reading of “many”?
6. Who exactly puts an end to sacrifice and offering? According to Hebrews 10, it is Christ Himself. Also, see the New Testament for Christ giving his life for “many” (Matt. 20:28; cf. Matt. 26:28, Mark 10:45, 14:24).
6. The dispensational view assumes a future rebuilt temple for this to work. But when this prophecy was given it was directed towards rebuilding Jerusalem after the Babylonian exile—see vs. 25—which of course involved the rebuilding of the Temple (See books of Ezra and Nehemiah). Thus, we already have a rebuilt temple to direct this prophecy too. This also assumes that a further future rebuilt Temple (from our vantage point) is what is in view in Matthew 24, 2 Thessalonians 2 and Revelation 11, which is probably not the case in any of those citations as well.
7. Projecting Daniel 9:27 into the indefinite future reads in all sorts of other assumptions. It assumes that this is describing “The Tribulation,” and that this corresponds with the various events described in Matthew 24, Mark 13, Luke 21, 2 Thessalonians 2, and Revelation 6-19.
8. The dispensational view contains massive political and theological implications as well. If this interpretation is correct, then a third Rebuilt Temple needs to be constructed with revived Mosaic sacrifices, a theology foreign to the New Testament. If the book of Hebrews and elsewhere says those sacrifices were insufficient for sin and just a shadow of things to come, in what sense would this future temple be “God’s Temple”?
9. Also, those who want to rebuild the temple insist it must be built where the Al-aqsa mosque currently stands which is the third “holiest” site in Islam. If this mosque was destroyed to build a Jewish temple it would almost certainly bring with it an all out regional and religious war and utter chaos to the region and possibly the world. However, would probably excite many dispensationalists since it fits their popular doom and gloom outlook for world events.
Another issue here is that we can't even be certain that Christ is indeed the anointed one of the passage. Anointed One is capitalized in certain translations because the translators are assuming Christ is in view here (and that may indeed be the case). But the problem lies in deciding where to put a comma in the English translation of this text. Does the anointed one come after the "seven sevens" (49 years) or after both the "seven sevens and sixty-two sevens" (483 years). The RSV and several other translations render the verse as having the anointed one come after the 49 years, not after 483 years. This would make the anointed one Cyrus, Joshua, Zerrubbabel or other figures in the OT text referred to as "anointed ones." Thus, the Hebrew is not clear (the original language doesn't even have our modern punctuation!) and the numbers are probably symbolic anyway since trying to fit them into a neat and literal time frame for any of the interpretations ultimately doesn't work. This passage was traditionally seen as having Antiochus Epiphanes IV in mind as well as events of the Maccabean period. I Maccabees directly refers to Antiochus as the "abomination of desolations." Whatever the case, Jesus clearly reworks the prophecy to refer to destruction of the Jerusalem Temple by the Romans. Therefore, in the case of Dan. 9:24-27, whether intertestamental or first century events are in view, either seems a more plausible interpretation than the modern dispensational one which requires all sorts of interpretive gymnastics.
This being the case, why on earth put so much stock in theories based only on a couple of questionable verses? Especially considering the load of theological and political implications many Christians carry with them because of their view of this one single verse!
Wednesday, January 10, 2007
Is Drinking Alcohol In Moderate Quantities Inherently Sinful?
Another issue that seriously divides many Christians is the subject of alcohol. There is no real debate on the merits of drunkenness--the Scriptures are categorically clear that drunkenness is a sin (Ephesians 5:18). There are a great many Scriptures which warn of excessive alcohol consumption and its effects (Proverbs 23:21; Luke 21:34; Romans 13:13; Galatians 5:21; I Peter 4:3, etc). Scripture also indicates that the lifestyle of unrepentant drunkennes is a characteristic of those who won't inherit the kingdom of heaven (I Cor. 6:10). Today, many suffer from the ravages of alcoholism and its negative effects on both the individual and society are very obvious. Still, does the Bible condemn alcohol consumption outright? Not according to many other passages, if we take them seriously.
Paul actually instructs Timothy to drink a small quantity of alcohol for his stomach problems (I Timothy 5:23). There are plenty of other positive references as well. Because I'm pressed for time, here's this from Wikipedia:
Wine was prescribed for use in festal celebrations and sacrificial rituals in the Old Testament, and as a result it was also used in celebrations including the Eucharist in the New Testament. In particular, wine was presented daily as a drink offering (Ex 29:38-41), as part of the firstfruits offering (Le 23:9-14), and as part of various supplementary offerings (Nu 15:1-11).[16] Wine was also used as the usual drink at feasts of celebration such as at weddings (Jn 2:1-11), tithe celebrations (Dt 14:22-29), and Passover (Mt 26:17-30; Mk 14:12-16; Lk 22:7-13). Jesus instituted the Lord's Supper at a Passover celebration and set apart the bread and wine that were present there as symbols of the New Covenant, and St. Paul chastizes the Corinthians for becoming drunk on wine at their celebrations of the Lord's Supper (1 Cor 11:20-21).
Wine was used as a symbol of blessing and judgement throughout the Bible. Israel was promised wine if they kepy God's covenant commandments (Dt 7:13; 11:14; 15:14; compare 33:28), and their wine would be taken away as a curse if the Israelites failed to keep the covenant (Dt 28:39; 28:51; compare Zeph 1:13).
There's other positive instances as well, but let's use the above as our starting point.
The common respose is that whenever "wine" or cognate terms are mentioned in a negative way in the Scriptures, what is being referred to is a fermented or alcoholic drink. But whenever these words are used in a positive or non-morally offensive fashion, then what's really being described is just non-alcoholic "grape juice." Advocates of this convienient position state that the Greek word oinos for wine in the NT can be rendered in a way that suggests either alcoholic or non-alcoholic drink. Uses of this word both in the New Tesatment and outside literature of the culture of those times rarely indicate "grape juice." Besides, what do the context of these verses suggest?
John 2 where Jesus turns water into wine should alone should eliminate this notion that wine = grape juice in the New Testament. After Jesus turns water into wine, note the words of the master of the banquet, "Everyone bring sout the choice wine first and then the cheaper wine after the guests have had too much to drink; but you (Jesus) have saved the best until now." According to plenty of Christians, apparently this meant Jesus saved the best "grape juice" until the end. But that doesn't appear to make much sense of the hosts' statements. What he is saying is that usually the more potent wine was served first and then the cheaper less potent wine, but Jesus saved the best-tasting and more potent wine for last. To say otherwise is just reading a presupposition onto the text to make it confirm to an already held belief. Was it really just the best "grape juice" that he saved for the end of the banquet?
If real fermented wine was never used in the Lord's Supper, then how exactly were some abusing the wine and getting drunk (I Cor. 11:21)? Were they getting drunk on "grape juice"? Rather this is another instance of where alcohol can be seen as something good (or at least morally netrual) or something that can be abused and misused in a sinful manner.
So to say the Bible condemns a sip of alcohol outright is clearly making the text say more than it does. The Pharisees did this and were chastised for it. Today and since the temperance movement, many Christians have not been able to discern the difference between self-control/moderation with the dangers of alcohol abuse. Plenty abuse alcohol. But plenty who drink moderately don't. The logic of the temperance movement and its successers have not been able to discern between the two. Typically, those who follow this line of thought condemn many other things in life outright as well when actually a more nuanced view can and should be taken (such as with video games, television shows, going to the movies, etc).
Some who condemn alcohol outright but concede that positive references to wine werent just referring to "grape juice" point out that alcohol in Biblical times was less in alcoholic than ours. That's true, to a point. Most academic estimates put the content of alcohol in Biblical times ranging from 2% and 15%. Others acknowlege that no, the Bible doesn't condemn drinking outright in those days, but for our culture today, a Christian has no business drinking. This position I have many sympathies with. Certainly there are certain places that serve alcohol that a Christian should not patronize. In many social settings, drinking could definitely be a bad witness, especially since even many non-Christians believe that the Bible forbids drinking outright and that any Christian having even one drink would be engaging in hypocrisy.
However, there are plenty of social situations where all this would not apply. In such situations and occassions, is consuming alcohol in moderate quanitites sinful? Not if the Scriptures are our final authority. To say otherwise would be engaging in either Pharasiac extra-moralism, or in the case of the people who feel the true meaning is hidden in the Greek text, bad scholarship. In conclusion, there is certainly nothing wrong with Christians who abstain completely from drinking. You won't hear me complaining that Christians don't drink enough. I also agree that many times it could be a bad witness and those prone to compulsive behavior or temptations of drunkenness should avoid it completly. I personally don't get too excited over the liberty to drink moderately and my wife and I chose not to have it at our own wedding to make a statement to the many unbelievers who would be present. However, there are times, if I'm reading and applying Scripture correctly, when moderate alcohol consumption has no negative moral bearing and is not sinful. Furthermore, if we say fermented alcohol itself is inherently sinful, then Jesus most likely sinned, or at least provided sinful soul-damning beverages to a large group of people. Both moderationists and total abstainers should not look down on one another and should heed the applications of Romans 14:1-23.
Another issue that seriously divides many Christians is the subject of alcohol. There is no real debate on the merits of drunkenness--the Scriptures are categorically clear that drunkenness is a sin (Ephesians 5:18). There are a great many Scriptures which warn of excessive alcohol consumption and its effects (Proverbs 23:21; Luke 21:34; Romans 13:13; Galatians 5:21; I Peter 4:3, etc). Scripture also indicates that the lifestyle of unrepentant drunkennes is a characteristic of those who won't inherit the kingdom of heaven (I Cor. 6:10). Today, many suffer from the ravages of alcoholism and its negative effects on both the individual and society are very obvious. Still, does the Bible condemn alcohol consumption outright? Not according to many other passages, if we take them seriously.
Paul actually instructs Timothy to drink a small quantity of alcohol for his stomach problems (I Timothy 5:23). There are plenty of other positive references as well. Because I'm pressed for time, here's this from Wikipedia:
Wine was prescribed for use in festal celebrations and sacrificial rituals in the Old Testament, and as a result it was also used in celebrations including the Eucharist in the New Testament. In particular, wine was presented daily as a drink offering (Ex 29:38-41), as part of the firstfruits offering (Le 23:9-14), and as part of various supplementary offerings (Nu 15:1-11).[16] Wine was also used as the usual drink at feasts of celebration such as at weddings (Jn 2:1-11), tithe celebrations (Dt 14:22-29), and Passover (Mt 26:17-30; Mk 14:12-16; Lk 22:7-13). Jesus instituted the Lord's Supper at a Passover celebration and set apart the bread and wine that were present there as symbols of the New Covenant, and St. Paul chastizes the Corinthians for becoming drunk on wine at their celebrations of the Lord's Supper (1 Cor 11:20-21).
Wine was used as a symbol of blessing and judgement throughout the Bible. Israel was promised wine if they kepy God's covenant commandments (Dt 7:13; 11:14; 15:14; compare 33:28), and their wine would be taken away as a curse if the Israelites failed to keep the covenant (Dt 28:39; 28:51; compare Zeph 1:13).
There's other positive instances as well, but let's use the above as our starting point.
The common respose is that whenever "wine" or cognate terms are mentioned in a negative way in the Scriptures, what is being referred to is a fermented or alcoholic drink. But whenever these words are used in a positive or non-morally offensive fashion, then what's really being described is just non-alcoholic "grape juice." Advocates of this convienient position state that the Greek word oinos for wine in the NT can be rendered in a way that suggests either alcoholic or non-alcoholic drink. Uses of this word both in the New Tesatment and outside literature of the culture of those times rarely indicate "grape juice." Besides, what do the context of these verses suggest?
John 2 where Jesus turns water into wine should alone should eliminate this notion that wine = grape juice in the New Testament. After Jesus turns water into wine, note the words of the master of the banquet, "Everyone bring sout the choice wine first and then the cheaper wine after the guests have had too much to drink; but you (Jesus) have saved the best until now." According to plenty of Christians, apparently this meant Jesus saved the best "grape juice" until the end. But that doesn't appear to make much sense of the hosts' statements. What he is saying is that usually the more potent wine was served first and then the cheaper less potent wine, but Jesus saved the best-tasting and more potent wine for last. To say otherwise is just reading a presupposition onto the text to make it confirm to an already held belief. Was it really just the best "grape juice" that he saved for the end of the banquet?
If real fermented wine was never used in the Lord's Supper, then how exactly were some abusing the wine and getting drunk (I Cor. 11:21)? Were they getting drunk on "grape juice"? Rather this is another instance of where alcohol can be seen as something good (or at least morally netrual) or something that can be abused and misused in a sinful manner.
So to say the Bible condemns a sip of alcohol outright is clearly making the text say more than it does. The Pharisees did this and were chastised for it. Today and since the temperance movement, many Christians have not been able to discern the difference between self-control/moderation with the dangers of alcohol abuse. Plenty abuse alcohol. But plenty who drink moderately don't. The logic of the temperance movement and its successers have not been able to discern between the two. Typically, those who follow this line of thought condemn many other things in life outright as well when actually a more nuanced view can and should be taken (such as with video games, television shows, going to the movies, etc).
Some who condemn alcohol outright but concede that positive references to wine werent just referring to "grape juice" point out that alcohol in Biblical times was less in alcoholic than ours. That's true, to a point. Most academic estimates put the content of alcohol in Biblical times ranging from 2% and 15%. Others acknowlege that no, the Bible doesn't condemn drinking outright in those days, but for our culture today, a Christian has no business drinking. This position I have many sympathies with. Certainly there are certain places that serve alcohol that a Christian should not patronize. In many social settings, drinking could definitely be a bad witness, especially since even many non-Christians believe that the Bible forbids drinking outright and that any Christian having even one drink would be engaging in hypocrisy.
However, there are plenty of social situations where all this would not apply. In such situations and occassions, is consuming alcohol in moderate quanitites sinful? Not if the Scriptures are our final authority. To say otherwise would be engaging in either Pharasiac extra-moralism, or in the case of the people who feel the true meaning is hidden in the Greek text, bad scholarship. In conclusion, there is certainly nothing wrong with Christians who abstain completely from drinking. You won't hear me complaining that Christians don't drink enough. I also agree that many times it could be a bad witness and those prone to compulsive behavior or temptations of drunkenness should avoid it completly. I personally don't get too excited over the liberty to drink moderately and my wife and I chose not to have it at our own wedding to make a statement to the many unbelievers who would be present. However, there are times, if I'm reading and applying Scripture correctly, when moderate alcohol consumption has no negative moral bearing and is not sinful. Furthermore, if we say fermented alcohol itself is inherently sinful, then Jesus most likely sinned, or at least provided sinful soul-damning beverages to a large group of people. Both moderationists and total abstainers should not look down on one another and should heed the applications of Romans 14:1-23.
Friday, January 05, 2007
Enough With the Jewish Conspiracy Theories
Every so often, I have the privilege of being bombarded with emails from people who believe that Jews are responsible for everything from 9/11 to slow restaurant service. In the strange little world of these guys, Jews are to blame for every evil under the sun. Also if you don’t have the "courage" to admit it, then you are a "coward," "fool," "Jew-lover," or worse. Well count me among the dissenters who believe that this group is full of it.
Yes, that’s right. I’m a fool for not believing that 9/11 with a staged event planned by the U.S. and Israel. I’m also a fool for not believing that these characters are heroic truth seekers for buying into all sorts of paranoid delusional nonsense with no real evidence to back it up. I hardly see how such people are either heroic or a help in the cause for liberty.
Let’s take 9/11 and events that followed for an example. There is a difference in saying that the U.S. government spun the aftermath of 9/11 to win public support for its war on Iraq and that the government caused 9/11 just so it could attack various Middle Eastern countries to do Israel’s bidding. There is a difference between saying Israel was happy about, or supported our invasion of Iraq, and saying that Israel forced or caused these events to happen through their omnipotent influence. The problem with conspiracy theorists of all stripes, especially from the racist branch, is that they wildly blow things out of proportion and read events into the past and present without much support for their positions. There’s no nuance of thought. It’s always the worst-case scenario and "the Jews" are always cast in the worst possible light.
Read the rest of "Enough With the Jewish Conspiracy Theories"
Every so often, I have the privilege of being bombarded with emails from people who believe that Jews are responsible for everything from 9/11 to slow restaurant service. In the strange little world of these guys, Jews are to blame for every evil under the sun. Also if you don’t have the "courage" to admit it, then you are a "coward," "fool," "Jew-lover," or worse. Well count me among the dissenters who believe that this group is full of it.
Yes, that’s right. I’m a fool for not believing that 9/11 with a staged event planned by the U.S. and Israel. I’m also a fool for not believing that these characters are heroic truth seekers for buying into all sorts of paranoid delusional nonsense with no real evidence to back it up. I hardly see how such people are either heroic or a help in the cause for liberty.
Let’s take 9/11 and events that followed for an example. There is a difference in saying that the U.S. government spun the aftermath of 9/11 to win public support for its war on Iraq and that the government caused 9/11 just so it could attack various Middle Eastern countries to do Israel’s bidding. There is a difference between saying Israel was happy about, or supported our invasion of Iraq, and saying that Israel forced or caused these events to happen through their omnipotent influence. The problem with conspiracy theorists of all stripes, especially from the racist branch, is that they wildly blow things out of proportion and read events into the past and present without much support for their positions. There’s no nuance of thought. It’s always the worst-case scenario and "the Jews" are always cast in the worst possible light.
Read the rest of "Enough With the Jewish Conspiracy Theories"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
