Martin Has Been Kidnapped

About a month ago, on a Sunday morning, a member of our worship team at Riverview showed up at the church around 8:00 AM for rehearsal.  In the parking lot of the church, laying uncased and unprotected in the parking lot, was a worn down, beat up guitar.  The worship team member collected the guitar and brought it in the church for further examination.  It was in rough shape.  The back of the guitar was separated from the ribbing in places, and someone had put two large pieces of plastic in place where the saddle and the nut should be (the saddle and nut elevate the strings off the fretboard to make the guitar playable).  Put simply, this guitar had seen much better days.  We all marveled at the DIY repairs that had been done, and then one of the team members put it in his car to use it for spare parts.

Cut to nine days later - the following Monday.  A member of our church showed up in the late afternoon to do some painting in one of the rooms at the church that needed to be done.  As he arrived at the church, he noticed a man sitting on the steps in front of the church.  When he asked if there was anything the man needed help with, he replied that he needed entry into the church in order to get his guitar.  Not knowing the man or the validity of his story, the Riverview member denied him access and went about his business of painting.

The following day, Tuesday, the same Riverview member arrived back at the church to complete the painting job that he had started on Monday.  When he arrived in the parking lot, he noticed the same man he had seen the day before, walking through a wooded area across the street from the church with a guitar case in hand.  Thinking nothing of it, he went back to his task of painting.

The day after that, Wednesday, I went to prepare for leading our Family Night Worship Service at Riverview.  In doing so, I set up a lectern, put out the bulletins for the service, and get my guitar ready to lead the singing.  As I went to retrieve my guitar from the back room, I couldn't find it.  This, however, did not alarm me, as it is not uncommon for my guitar to be moved to a different room or to be used by someone else without my knowledge.  Also, a crew of guys from the church had been working in the room where my guitar was stored, tearing out and replacing carpeting, so it seemed natural that one of them had moved it in the process.  Again, without much alarm, I retrieved a backup guitar that I store on the premises and used it during the service.

Once the service had concluded I began to ask around to see if anyone might know where my missing guitar had ended up, but nobody had any idea where it might be.  The guys who had been working in the room denied that they had moved the guitar in the course of their work, and even denied seeing it in the back room.  After some more asking around, I learned about the man who had been to the church on Monday and Tuesday of that week, and how he had been spotted carrying a guitar case early Tuesday evening through the woods across the street, and the pieces began to fall into place.

About a week later, due to some technical difficulties, I was finally able to access the security camera footage at Riverview.  We have security cameras placed at each of the entrances to the church, and in some of the hallways.  What I saw on the video was the man pictured at left.  On Tuesday, April 26, he and a female accomplice entered the building during business hours (so the church was unlocked). They spent about 20 minutes exploring the church, walking down the hallways, perusing the food shelf and library, and ultimately winding their way back to the music room where my guitar was stored.  After taking the guitar, he departed on foot and went directly to the wooded area across the street where he was observed by the volunteer painter described earlier.

After seeing this all unfold on our security camera footage, and considering the crystal clear images we had of his face, I contacted the West St. Paul police and filed a report.  I was happy to see that one of the reporting officers was one that I had met previously through my involvement in the police chaplaincy program.  The officers were very pleased that we had visual evidence of the crime, and they assured me that they would hand the case over to their investigators.  So far, I'm not sure how much progress has been made on apprehending the thief or retrieving my property, but I remain optimistic.

But it doesn't end there.

On Tuesday afternoon of this week I began to feel ill.  Stomach cramps on Tuesday made way to diarrhea on Wednesday, which knocked me out of leading the Family Night Worship Service this week (which I am bummed about, considering it was our last service of the year).  About 7:00 that evening I received a call from someone who was at the church and who had seen the above photo of the burglar.  He told me that the burglar had returned to the scene of the crime and was at the church at that very moment.  I quickly slipped out of my bathrobe (remember, I was sick) and into some clothes and went over to the church.  By the time I had arrived, I was told that the man left on foot.  I went out into the parking lot and saw someone duck into the same woods across the street that the man had been reported in previously.  I called the police and told them about the incident.

But the interesting thing is how the man interacted with others when he returned to the church last Wednesday evening.  As he came into the building, he immediately began to shake hands of all he came into contact with, and introduced himself to each one as Jesus Christ.  That's right: he claimed to be God in the flesh.  Clearly this man is not in his right mind, which makes this even more sad.

The guitar that was stolen was a Martin (I can't remember the model number).  I bought it second-hand from a friend, who was offloading his gear to help cover the costs of one of his kids' weddings (the sacrifices we guitarists make!).  The guitar is unique in that the body is made of an entirely composite material.  In other words, it's not made of wood.  The only wood on the whole guitar is the neck and fretboard.  The rest is essentially plastic.  Regardless of this fact, the guitar plays like a dream.  In fact, it was easily my best playing guitar.  I have another Martin (DCX1E) that is my best sounding guitar, but it doesn't match the playability of the one that was stolen.  To be sure, Martin guitars are very nice, and most players aspire to own one.  I owned two, and I still have one.  I am a very blessed, fortunate person - even in light of having been robbed.

If possible, I hope I can get my guitar back, as it was my "go-to" guitar - the one that I played in most circumstances as it was accessible, easy to play, and pretty much the right instrument for any occasion.  I have no desire to press charges or see the man who stole it prosecuted for the offense - I'd just like my guitar back!  I even have the one that he left in the parking lot - the old beat up junker.  I'd be happy to make the trade.

Sin that Leads to Death?

1 John 5 contains two difficult portions of scripture that are not easily interpreted.  The first of these portions I addressed in my last post.  This week, I hope to try to explain what John means when he refers to "sin that leads to death."  1 John 5.16-17 says: "If anyone sees his brother committing a sin not leading to death, he shall ask, and God will give him life - to those who commit sins that do not lead to death.  There is sin that leads to death; I do not say that one should pray for that.  All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin that does not lead to death."  The question that arises from these verses is, "What in the world is a sin that leads to death?"  As with other difficult passage from 1 John 5 (verses 6-8), John's readers no doubt knew exactly what he was talking about.  But because we are separated from John and his readers by 2000 years or so, the meaning is less apparent to us, so we need to work a little harder to know what he's talking about.  There are a few different ways of interpreting 1 John 5.16-17, and they are as follows:

1. These verses have been interpreted by the Roman Catholic church as describing what are called "mortal sins."  Roman Catholics believe that mortal sins are those that are committed intentionally, and with full knowledge.  Additionally, mortal sins are said to be of a more heinous and serious nature than venial sins (sins of a less serious nature).  Roman Catholic theology teaches that mortal sins cut off the transgressor from God's saving grace and the result will be the condemnation of a person to hell unless a special act of reconciliation and repentance is granted to the one who has committed the mortal sin.  For this reason, Catholics believe that John instructs us not to pray for those who have committed mortal sins, because they have been cut off from God's grace.

Protestants reject this interpretation, however, and insist that all sin is "mortal" in that any sin is enough to condemn a person to hell.  Indeed, James says that breaking the law at just one point is akin to breaking all of the laws (James 2.10).  And just one so-called "white lie" is enough to condemn a person to hell forever (Revelation 21.8).  Additionally, we do not believe that a person can be "cut off" from the grace of God, for "I am sure of this: that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ" (Philippians 1.6).  For these reasons, the Roman Catholic interpretation of 1 John 5.16-17 as referring to "mortal sins" is flawed.

2. Although we reject the Roman Catholic idea of mortal sins, there are indeed some sins that we see in the Bible whose consequences are immediate, and often times end in physical death.  Generally speaking, all sin is damaging to our physical bodies in ways that we are more or less aware of.  But other sins seem to have more immediate and deadly consequences.  For example, when Aaron's sons offered "unauthorized fire" before the Lord, they were killed for their sin instantly (Leviticus 10.1-2).  Similarly, Ananias and Sapphira "lied to the Holy Spirit" and were killed immediately when their sin was exposed (Acts 5.1-11).  Finally, Paul warns the Corinthians that observing communion in an unworthy manner is a sin that leads to physical illness and even death (1 Corinthians 11.27-30).

Could it be that when John talks about "sin that leads to death" he has these instances in mind?  Possibly, but probably not.  Based on the language John uses here, it seems unlikely that John is referring to specific sins such as those committed by Ananias and Sapphira, or believers who unworthily took communion.  Plus, if there are sins whose immediate consequence is physical death, we are not aware of a comprehensive list in the Bible (which, practically speaking, would be nice to have if such sins existed!)

3. A third possible interpretation of this idea is possible, and it is the one to which I subscribe.  In this interpretation, "sin that does not lead to death" refers to those sins committed by Christians.  Their sin does not lead to death because their sins have been covered by the blood of Christ.  All of their sins - past, present, and future - have been paid and atoned for.  Their sins will not lead them to (spiritual) death.  Sin that does lead to death would then refer to those sins committed by unbelievers, whose sins have not been atoned for.  The sin of unbelievers will lead to their physical and spiritual death because it has not been atoned for through Christ.

This interpretation, I would argue, makes the best sense of John's instructions of how to pray for those who have committed sins that do not lead to death: pray that they might have life.  In other words, pray that God would give them victory over the besetting sins that still plague their mortal bodies.  It also makes sense that John would instruct us to not pray for the forgiveness of sins for those outside of Christ, because their sin can only be forgiven in and through  Christ.  To pray that they would be forgiven outside of Christ would be, to me at least, akin to blasphemy.  Thus, John's instructions of how to pray for people who are sinning make the best sense when the sins he's talking about are differentiated between believers and unbelievers.

Furthermore, this latter interpretation makes the most sense with the general message of the book of 1 John.  Throughout this letter, John has been giving instructions about how to differentiate between true believers and false believers.  This notion that believers are granted forgiveness through Christ but unbelievers are not, certainly jibes well with the overarching message of the letter.  Furthermore, if Christians are found to be in sin, they will naturally want to repent of it and gain victory over it.  Those who are not believers, however, won't really care about the effects of their sins.  Thus, the type of prayer offered for those who are found to be in sin will serve to further differentiate between the true and the false.

If this interpretation is correct, then far from being a discouraging notion about having to worry about committing "mortal sins" or worrying about sins whose ultimate and immediate consequence is physical death, these verses describe the wonderful, life-giving truth of the gospel: Jesus Christ died to save sinners, of whom I am the foremost.  And I still struggle with sin.  But there is life to be had in the midst of my sin, given to me from God.  Praise God that his mercies are new every morning (Lamentations 3.22-23), and that, though prayer, he will give us help in our time of need (Hebrews 4.16).

The Spirit, the Water, and the Blood

One of the challenges of going through the Bible verse by verse is that one frequently stumbles upon passages that are difficult to interpret.  Sometimes we come across verses that don't make sense to us culturally, seem unrealistic or too demanding, or are even downright offensive.  While this is definitely a challenge, it is also a benefit of verse by verse Bible study, as it forces us to wrestle with what the text actually means, do some research, and use the intellect that God has given us.  We came across one such passage this past Sunday during our service: 1 John 5.6-8:

This is he who came by water and blood - Jesus Christ; not by the water only but by the water and the blood.  And the Spirit is the one who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth.  For there are three that testify: the Spirit and the water and the blood; and these three agree.  

This passage is difficult to interpret because we're not totally sure what is being referred to by the references to the Spirit, the water, and the blood.  Interestingly, we can assume that John's original readers knew exactly what he was talking about, because John takes not time to explain it to them.  He knew that they knew what he was referring to, so he didn't comment on it further.  But alas, we are separated from John and his readers by approximately 21 centuries, so the meaning is a bit more obscure to us.  Also, John says that these three witnesses are testifying to something - to what?  And how?  There are two main ways of thinking about how to interpret this passage.  I'll cover each of them, and tell you which interpretation I prefer.

1. The first interpretation states that the Spirit, water, and blood refer to the ongoing testimony evident in the regular Christian life.  As a Christian walks with God, there are witnesses that testify to his or her standing as being a child of God.  These witnesses are: 1) The Spirit.  The Holy Spirit indwells those who are trusting in Christ and empowers them to be able to increasingly throw off the weight of sin and become more and more like Jesus.  Moreover, the Spirit provides believers with an "inner-witness" to those who are in Christ that they belong to God.  2) The Water.  This interpretation would assert that the witness of the water refers to the declaration of faith made in believer's baptism.  When a believer undergoes baptism, he or she is making a public declaration of faith in Christ and intent to follow him all of his or her days.  Thus, a believer can look upon his or her baptism as a witness that testifies to his or her standing in Christ.  3) The Blood.  Those who adhere to this interpretation regard the witness of the blood as the regular process of observing communion with the gathered church.  By taking communion, believers celebrate what Christ has done on their behalf, and participate in the process of working out their salvation with fear and trembling.

Thus, this interpretation finds these witnesses to be a regular part of the Christian life - "the proof is in the pudding," so to speak, as believers testify to their standing as children of God through simply living life and living out their faith in Christ. Through these witnesses, believers can have the assurance they need to overcome the world by faith (1 John 5.4-5).

2. A second interpretation asserts that the three witnesses of the Spirit, water, and blood refer to historical realities rather than to experiential instances.  They are as follows: 1) The Spirit: the witness of the Spirit refers to the presence of the Holy Spirit in the life and ministry of Jesus.  The Spirit's work through Christ testifies of his divine Sonship.  Thus, we are able to know that Jesus is the Christ because of the evidence of his works in the Spirit.  2) The Water.  This interpretation asserts that the water refers to the testimony of Jesus being the Son of God that was given at his baptism.  When Jesus was baptized the heavens opened up, the Spirit came down on him in the form of a dove, and a voice from heaven declared: "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased" (Matthew 3.17).  3) The Blood.  The testimony of the blood is observed through Jesus' sacrificial death, showing how his divine blood covered the sins of all who would believe for all eternity.  The ability of Jesus' blood to atone for sins proves his divinity.  This is no mere man, but the Son of God, because only the blood of the Son of God could atone for sin.

And so, this second interpretation seeks to give assurance to Christians that their faith will overcome the world because of the historical reality of of who and what Jesus is, and what he did in his earthly life.  These witnesses provide believers with a solid foundation upon which they can build their world-overcoming faith.

Of these two interpretations, I find the latter to be more likely.  Although there are several reasons why the second interpretation might be more preferable, the main reason I prefer the second interpretation is contextual.  In other words, it seems to work better with the surrounding texts and the overall message of the book of 1 John.  One of John's purposes in 1 John 5 is to assure his readers of their ability to persevere throughout all of the difficult situations in which they find themselves: persecution, false teaching, cultural pressure from an unbelieving world, etc.  In order for them to persevere through these difficulties, John tells them that their faith is what will give them the victory.  But faith in what?  In the historical reality of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.  John's readers certainly wanted to overcome the world by faith, but perhaps they were unsure how, or if the one in whom they were believing was true.  "Yes, he is true," John seems to be saying, "And I'll give you three pieces of evidence."

John identifies faith in Jesus as the Son of God as being the key ingredient for a persevering, overcoming faith.  And to bolster their faith, John provides them with three historical witnesses of Jesus' divinity: his anointing with the Holy Spirit (in other words, his miraculous works), his baptism, and his death.  Rather than refer his readers to subjective, experiential witnesses like their own baptism and the taking of communion (as discussed in the first interpretation) which are subjective and almost impossible to judge, John gives them an objective rock upon which to anchor their faith: historical reality.  By doing so, John effectively tells his readers that they can be absolutely certain that Jesus was the Son of God.  And if they can be certain of that, then they should believe it.  And if they will believe it with certainty, this faith will give them victory over the difficulties faced in life as a product of living in a fallen world.

While faith in a person or thing is never conclusive, it is simultaneously based on evidence.  John is saying that the evidence presented by the witnesses of the Spirit, the water, and the blood that Jesus is the Son of God is overwhelming, and is worthy of being believed.  Like John's original readers, we can be certain of the witness of the Spirit, the water, and the blood.  The evidence point to the authenticity of the object of our faith (Jesus, the Son of God) is overwhelming.  Moreover, we have the guarantee of God himself about who Jesus is and what he has done (see 1 John 5.9)  And therefore, our faith in him is not in vain.  Rather, it is empowering us to the extent that it will carry us through the challenges presented to us in life until the day of our death.  Through faith in Christ we are more than conquerors through him who loved us.  For we are sure that neither death nor life, nor angles nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation will be able to separate us from the love of god in Christ Jesus our Lord (Romans 8.37-39).

Why We Do Baby Dedications

Three families from Riverview brought
their children to be dedicated on 4.24.16.

This past Sunday at Riverview, three families from our congregation brought their newly-born children to be dedicated in front of our church.  To me, this is a serious, yet joyful, celebration that acknowledges the sovereignty of God over the lives of parents and children, and affords parents an opportunity to publicly dedicate themselves to raising their children in the fear and discipline of the Lord.  I think it is a great practice, and it is one that we will continue to observe at Riverview for the foreseeable future.

This week, however, I providentially read an article by Andrew Wilson entitled "The Problem with Baby Dedications."  In this article, Wilson lightheartedly outlines what he perceives as four potential problems with the practice of baby dedication ceremonies in evangelical churches (it should be noted that while Wilson finds the practice of child dedication problematic, he readily admits that both of his children have been dedicated, and he has performed dedication ceremonies as well).  I find myself partially in agreement with him, but mostly not.  In large part, Wilson's main point of contention seems to be the use of the word "dedication," in that he believes it is a misunderstood term.  This may be, and perhaps it would be wise to change our terminology in what we are actually doing in a baby dedication (more on that below).  In light of this article and the fact that we just dedicated three babies at Riverview this past Sunday, I figured now would be as good a time as any to think publicly about why we do baby dedications at our church.  In what follows, I hope to respond to some of Wilson's concerns, and make an argument for why baby dedication ceremonies are a good practice for the church.

1. Wilson asserts that there is no biblical precedent for baby dedications, and he cites Jesus' dedication at the temple after his birth as an instance that is not parallel to our present-day baby dedications.  This may be true, but there are several practices, traditions, and symbols within the church today that do not find their source from the pages of scripture.  The church is free to institute practices and traditions that are God-honoring, edifying, and in accordance with the principles of scripture.  In other words, the lack of biblical precedence for baby dedication ceremonies does not forbid their presence in the modern church.

2. Moreover, there is precedent of people bring their children to others in order to receive a verbal blessing.  Sometimes these blessings had a prophetic element to them (see Genesis 48-49, for example), and we would not have that as our intention in the dedication of children.  Rather, we would have the same intention for our children that Jesus had in Mark 10.13-16: that of prayer and verbal blessing for children.  These verses describe parents who brought their children to Jesus so that he might pray for them and offer them a verbal blessing, and that is a noble and right process for the church (as representatives of Christ) to duplicate with children in our day.  There is power and significance in verbal blessings and the church is free to follow Jesus in his example in blessing children. (David Michael has argued well for the benefit and power of verbal blessing in this book.  Also, the power of a verbal blessing is important enough for the church to incorporate a benediction - blessing - at the conclusion of its service.)  It is in this sense that perhaps the term "baby dedication" is unhelpful if what we are doing is praying for and blessing children and parents.

3. Wilson also argues that, theologically speaking, "to dedicate something or someone is to set apart something as holy to the Lord.  To dedicate a baby, then, is to act as if the baby is already holy..." Here I think Wilson potentially misunderstands what it means to "set apart something as holy to the Lord" in the context of infant dedication, both in ancient Israel and in modern evangelicalism.  The dedication of firstborn children and animals was a common - and commanded - practice in ancient Israel, whose primary purpose was - I believe - to symbolically remind the people of their dependence upon God, and how everything they had came from him.  For this reason, they would set apart their firstborn children and animals as "holy to the Lord" (the word "holy" means "separate").  Certainly there were thousands of Israelite children who were dedicated to the Lord, but did not live up to the dedication made for them by their parents on their behalf.  Their dedication didn't make them holy or separate in a spiritual sense, and they proved that by not obeying God.  The same is true with modern baby dedications.  I think it is good and right for parents to make a declaration that they are making their child holy to the Lord (separating them for a specific purpose) in that they intend to raise that child in the fear and admonition of the Lord.  If, as that child grows and departs from the instruction of his parents, that has no bearing on what happened at the dedication in their infancy.

To be fair, Wilson's main point with this argument is to guard against making baby dedications akin to infant baptism, which is a valid concern, and one that I share.  Indeed, I am aware of one family at Riverview who declined to have their children dedicate out of a concern that their children would regard their dedication as a means of grace, or as having accomplished something for them spiritually.  This is certainly not the message we want to send through our baby dedication ceremonies, and it is right to guard against it, and if a father and mother decides against it for that reason, I would be supportive of them (although I wouldn't agree with them).  Rather, the dedication of a child to the Lord is simply, I think, a commitment to set oneself and one's child apart for the service of the Lord in all aspects in life.

4. It is in this sense that, for me, the primary focus of a baby dedication ceremony is not so much the infant, but the parents.  The parents are the ones who must dedicate themselves.  To what?  First, to an acknowledgement of God's sovereignty over the child.  Second, to profess their dependence upon God in the rearing of their children.  Third, to dedicate themselves to do their best, by God's help, to raise the child in the fear and discipline of the Lord (Ephesians 6.4).  Moreover, this dedication of parents to these things is done in front of the church.  In other words, parents have accountability for what they have dedicated themselves to, and the church is there to hold them accountable and love and support them in the process.  I see much value in this, especially in the sense that we are one body, and we love and support each other in all ares, including the rearing of children.  It is in this sense, that perhaps we should change the name of the ceremony to "Parent Dedication" rather than baby dedication!

The Bible is clear that children are a gift from God (Psalm 127.3-5), and there is much to be gained in acknowledging this fact through the dedication of our children to the Lord.  Let us praise God for the wonderful gift that children are, and let us commit ourselves to showing them his glory and worth as often as possible (Deuteronomy 6.7-9)

The Shape of Things to Come: Unanswered Questions

On April 24 Riverview Baptist Church held a panel discussion on the doctrine of last things called “The Shape of Things to Come.”  You can listen to this discussion here.  As part of the panel discussion we invited questions from the audience.  Many of the questions submitted, however, were not answered due to time constraints.  Pastor Levi and myself provide written responses to the questions that weren’t addressed during the discussion, below. 

“Do you suppose that as you grow older (much like a few of us) your perspective on the end times (etc.) may change?”

Joel’s answer: It is a natural distinction of human life that our views on certain issues evolve with time.  The more perspective that we have and wisdom that we have gained affords us a better view on life issues, and more experience upon which to draw.  And as we learn more about and from the word of God over time, it seems only natural that our views about certain theological subjects would progress accordingly.   Eschatological (end times) views are certainly subject to this kind of evolution.  It should be noted, however, that this kind of change must be a result of responding to the truth of God’s word, rather than as a form of sentimentality or an emotional response to aging or changing culture (e.g. “Back in my day…”).  In other words, we want our views on the end times to evolve because we are coming to know God’s truth better and more thoroughly, rather than because we are sentimentally looking backwards or forwards toward an idea that appeals to us emotionally.  

“Levi, what does the ‘gift of tongues,’ as you mentioned, have to do with the last days since the gift of tongues has ceased? (1 Cor. 13:8)”

Levi’s answer: This is a good question. There is considerable debate as to whether or not the gift of tongues has ceased or not. But that has little to do with what I was referencing when it comes to the gift of tongues being a sign for the end times. I was not referencing the modern charismatic idea of tongues; rather, I was referencing the first occurrence of tongues at Pentecost in Acts 2. Peter in his sermon at Pentecost points back to Joel 2:28-32 where the pouring out of the Holy Spirit was an promised for the last days. So Peter makes the argument that he was in the last days because Joel 2:28-32 was fulfilled at Pentecost when the Holy Spirit was poured out and the disciples spoke in tongues. Since Pentecost happened all the way back in the first century and since Peter said that those tongues were evidence of the last days, we are therefore in the last days whether or not tongues continue for us today. That was the point I was trying to make. 

“Do you believe the days of Noah, just before the flood, are as bad as today?”

Levi’s answer: I believe there is a constant reality throughout human history after the fall—man is sinful and he pursues that sin as best he can. It is in that way we live in the same reality as Noah did at his time. With that being said, I believe this question is built off of what Jesus says in Matthew 24:37-39, “For as were the days of Noah, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark, and they were unaware until the flood came and swept them all away, so will be the coming of the Son of Man.”

This passage is sometimes interpreted that the end times will be like Noah’s day in that they will be similar in evil. I do not think that is what the context is getting at. What the passage is saying is the world will not see the judgment of God coming just as it did not see it coming during the days of Noah. Hence why they were still “marrying” and they were “unaware until the flood came and swept them all away”. This is how they will be similar. That is the parallel Jesus is getting at, not an attempt to equate the evil of those two timeframes, but to equate the cluelessness of the world in both situations that judgment was coming from God.

“The Bible gives us what it gives us.”  Does that mean we should or should not take the Bible literally?”

Joel’s answer: This question was raised in response to a sentiment expressed in the panel discussion, namely that the Bible is intentionally ambiguous when it comes to specific details of the end times process.  The point of the sentiment expressed in the seminar is that we are to be satisfied with what the Bible tells us about the end of all things, and we should regard the message of the Bible on the end times as sufficient.  A trap that many Christians have fallen into is to be discontent with the limited information the Bible gives us, and they have sought answers to their questions from other (uninspired) sources.  This is a practice that Christians must stop.  Looking for answers beyond those provided in scripture implies that the answers provided by the Bible are insufficient, and most – if not all – the answers provided by extra-biblical sources are erroneous.  That being said, the Bible gives us the information it gives us – nor more, no less – and we should be satisfied with that.  And of those things that it does tell us, we should absolutely take it its meaning and message literally.  (It should be noted, however, that this is a different question from how we are to interpretbiblical texts that speak on the end times.  Literal and/or figurative interpretive methods of significant biblical texts are integral to the formulation of the various millennial views.)

“What about replacement theology, do you support it?”

Levi’s answer: The term “replacement theology” is a derogatory term some dispensationalists use to describe those who believe in Covenant theology. It should be noted that Covenant theologians would reject such a term. The term is often linked to anti-Semitism, but the almost all Covenant theologians are not anti-Semitic. For this reason I do not like using the term “replacement theology” because it is more a political word used to put down someone’s opponent and to label them as guilty by association. Really this debate revolves around the difference in how dispensationalists and covenant theologians understand Scripture.

The key difference between Covenant and Dispensational theologians is how they understand the relationship between the covenants (old and new). Dispensationalists see mostly disunity between the old and new covenants. They believe, for the most part, that the individual covenants stand-alone by themselves.

Contrary to this, Covenant theologians see a lot of unity between the old and the new covenants. Covenant theologians believe that since the Fall all of the covenants are the same outworking of what they call the “covenant of grace.” So they often see a one-for-one correspondence between the new covenant and the old covenant. Baptism and circumcision would be one such example. They view these two as being in essence the same thing.

The difference between dispensationalism and covenantal theology is most plainly seen in their views of Israel. Dispensationals believe that Israel and the Church are two separate entities with different plans of inheritance in the new creation. Covenant theology believes that the Church is the one-for-one substitute for Israel—the church (which they define as all believers both Jew and Gentile) is Israel in that they are the people of God. This is why dispensationalists label that view as “replacement theology.”

I disagree with both of these larger theologies. I believe there is both unity and disunity between the covenants. In other words, I think all of the covenants work together and they progress as they move toward their fulfillment in the new covenant work of Jesus Christ. I do not believe the church is Israel, so I disagree with Covenant theologians. I also do not believe that God has two different plans of inheritance or salvation, one for Jews and one for Gentiles, therefore I also disagree with dispensationalists. So no, I do not support “replacement theology,” rather I believe that the Church is a new creation, something totally new which has no one-for-one equivalent in the Old Testament. In Christ, everything is fulfilled as he is the substance of the shadows found it the Old Testament. I believe the focal point to understanding Scripture is Jesus Christ and that in him mankind is made new because he is the true Israel. In Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek (Gal. 3.28) because all who have faith are now equal in him.

“Does the Bible say there will be a “Millennium?”  Why do all the theories use this word?  Will the Millennium be a physical reign on our present earth?  Only Premillennialism seems to embrace a 1,000 year period.” 

Joel’s answer: Revelation 20.1-6 describes a 1,000 year period of time in which Satan is bound and Christ reigns.  While the word does not appear in scripture, this 1,000 year period of time is commonly referred to by Christians as the Millennium.  The three main views of the process of the end times each regard the Millennium described in Revelation 20.1-6 differently.  Premillennialism asserts that Jesus will return to the earth, and that his return will inaugurate his 1,000 year reign on the present earth (meaning that the events of Revelation 20.1-6 begin at Jesus’ return).  Postmillenialism asserts that the Millennium refers to a “golden age” – which may or may not last 1,000 years – in which the world and the people therein operate under biblical principles and the truth of the gospel. 

This “golden age,” Postmillennialists say, will be ushered in by the proliferation of the gospel throughout the world.  At the end of this “golden age,” Jesus returns to earth.  In this sense, the Millennium of Postmillennialism is not necessarily a 1,000 year period of time, although in this view the “golden age” does take place on the present earth.  Finally, Amillennialism asserts that the 1,000 year period referenced in Revelation 20.1-6 is symbolic of a present reality – that of dead saints reigning with Christ in heaven right now.  In this sense, Amillennialists don’t believe in a literal 1,000 year reign of Christ on this earth.  In summary, only two views (Premillennialism and Postmillennialism) interpret the Millennium as taking place on the present earth, and only one view (Premillennialism) interprets the Millennium as lasting a literal 1,000 years.  

“Jesus said, “When you see the abomination of desolation… standing where it ought not be….flee.’ What would one see?”

Levi’s Answer: Jesus’ discussion of the end in both Matthew 24 and Mark 13 is one of the more difficult passages to understand in the gospels. Where you align yourself (amillennial, premillennial, or postmillennial) will largely determine how you understand this passage. For example, a postmillennialist would understand this prophesy to have been fulfilled completely when Jerusalem fell to Rome in 70 AD. So for them they would say when the temple was destroyed by Rome that was the abomination of desolation which the Israelites saw.

Conversely, if you are a dispensational premillennialist you would see most or all of Jesus’ discussion in these passages as yet to be fulfilled in the future 7-year Great tribulation. They would say the temple will be rebuilt and when that happens the Antichrist will perform another abomination of desolation in the newly built temple.

For me, I think in Matthew 24 and Mark 13 Jesus is constantly going back and forth between what is past for us and will come in the future. As far as the abomination of desolation I believe the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD was an initial fulfillment (or foreshadow)  of that prophecy but that there is still a final fulfillment to come when the antichrist will be standing in the new temple of God. I do not believe this to be a physical temple in Jerusalem, rather the temple in the New Testament is the Church (Ephesians 2-3). So the abomination of desolation will have to do with some evil Satan will bring about against God’s new temple—the church. That I think is the best way to understand it, but I hold that understanding loosely. 

“What do you believe about persecution coming to America while believers are still here?”

Joel’s answer: This question presupposes a Premillennial Dispensationalist view in which believers are raptured.  Moreover, it presupposes the persecution of Christians in America as a sort of “sign of the times.”  In making these presuppositions, this question perhaps puts proverbial cart before the horse.  Throughout the gospels, Jesus warns his followers that they will experience difficulty as a result of following him (John 15.18, 16.33.).  Additionally, the Apostles warn of a general discontinuity between the Christian worldview and the worldview of those living in the world that will create discomfort for Christians, mostly manifested as persecution (1 John 3.13).  This means that the persecution of believers has been a part of the normal Christian life since the first century.  It further means that all believers at some point or another will undergo persecution regardless of their geographical location or time in history.  In fact, we could safely say that persecution of some variety is a defining mark of true believers.  It is in this sense, then, that we should be careful about interpreting the persecution of American Christians – or the perceived increase of persecution of American Christians – as a “sign of the times.”  Indeed, persecution is promised, not as a sign of the times, but as a part of the normal Christian life.  On the other hand, one clear message of the Bible is that societal conditions will decay and grow increasingly morally impervious and increasingly hostile toward those who follow Jesus.  The degree and severity of this hostility, however, is undefined by the Bible, and we should be careful about coming to conclusions regarding the end times based on our own perceptions and interpretations of perceived signs of the times.  

“What about the ingathering of the Jews to Israel? That is a condition that wasn’t being met in the first century.”

Levi’s Answer: I must admit I am little confused by this question. If this question is about the Jews returning to their physical land which happened in 1948, I must say that I have no scriptural passage which I can think of that directly ties to that. As far as the first century is concerned, until 70 AD, the Jews did live in Israel, but they did so under Roman rule. Remember, the Jews expected a Messiah who would free them from the Romans, but instead they got Jesus who was there to free them from their sins. It was not that Jesus was not what God had promised, he was. Rather, the majority of the Jews at that time had misunderstood who and what their Messiah was going to be—the suffering servant of Isaiah 53. In other words, the majority of Jews in the first century looked for a type of ingathering to their land and in the process they missed their Messiah.

If instead this question is meant to be about Romans 11 which appears to speak of a massive amount of Jews repenting and becoming Christians before the end then I would respond differently. I believe that before the end, many Jews will come to Christ, but I also believe that was to an extent happening in the first century. The Christian church was built by Jews who converted. Now I anticipate that there will be more conversions before the end as I believe that is what Paul is talking about in Romans 11. 

“What is the importance of Israel to understanding the end times? In May 1948 Israel became a nation. Israel was often referred to as the fig tree and Jesus said when the fig tree begins to blossom ‘look up for your redemption is draweth nigh.’ Does May 1948 begin the countdown, so to speak?”

Levi’s Answer: This question comes from Luke 21:29-31, “And he told them a parable: “Look at the fig tree, and all the trees.  As soon as they come out in leaf, you see for yourselves and know that the summer is already near. So also, when you see these things taking place, you know that the kingdom of God is near.”  It is true the fig tree was often used as a symbol for Israel, we see this plainly when Jesus curses the fig tree (Mark 11.12-25), but I do not believe in this instance there is any special connection to Israel. Why? First, Jesus lists not only the fig tree but also “all the trees” so this parable is hardly limited to or focused on just a fig tree representing Israel. Second, the focus of this parable is that we can tell the changes in the seasons as these trees begin to blossom. Third, Jesus then brings the analogy home by saying, “when you see these things taking place” then we will know what the seasons of this world are changing. What are “these things” Jesus says are signs of the changing of the seasons? This statement comes at the end of Jesus describing a lot of signs which will occur before the end so it best to take “these things” to include all of what Jesus had to say about the end in this passage. The blooming of the fig tree then is nothing more than an analogy saying we need to be able to read the seasons and thus it is not about the Jews returning to the land.

So no, I do not believe that May 1948 set the clock in motion. Many dispensationalists have made that argument in the past and have thus incorrectly predicted the end of the world several times based on that belief. I believe that such a reading of Luke 21:29-31 stretches the text beyond what Jesus intended it to mean. So no, the Jews returning to Israel did not set the clock in motion, rather Jesus’ death, burial, and resurrection has brought us into the last days (Acts 2:17) and thus the clock has been ticking for about two-thousand years. Nonetheless we must continue to pay attention and to pray, “Lord come quickly!”