Some Interesting Links . . .

Wow . . .  Sharia law in the UK?  We knew it was coming, but not this soon.  It is now an inevitability says the Archbishop of Canterbury, who, by the way, calls this a good thing.  Unbelievable!   Click here: Adoption of Islamic Sharia law in Britain is 'unavoidable', says Archbishop of Canterbury| News | This is London

Meanwhile, the Roman church is having a hard time recruiting priests and nuns.  That's hard to believe since you get free meals and room and board.  Click here: BBC NEWS | Europe | Catholic nuns and monks decline

And then there was one--doughboy that is.  You'd think there would be more of a mention of this in the media, but sadly, World War I, and the American contribution to the allied victory, seems virtually forgotten.   Click here: FOXNews.com - One of Two Known U.S. WWI Vets Dead at 108 - Local News | News Articles | National News | US News

Wondering what to give up for Lent?  How about lowering your carbon footprint?   Don't think I will.   Click here: 40 Days of Carbon Fasting | Liveblog | Christianity Today

After getting caught with his hand in the cookie jar (or with his pants down, or whatever you want to say about it), Ted Haggard was eager to enter a "restoration process."  Now he's had enough and is dropping out.   Click here: Headlines: SUNRISE: Haggard exits restoration process early | haggard, life, new - Gazette.com

Finally, remember that Left Behind end-times video game?  Thankfully, it didn't sell.  Now you can get it as a free download.   Click here: Left Behind: Eternal Forces now free (Hurry! First 1m only!) - Joystiq

Eschatology Q & A -- What About the Remaining 3 1/2 Years in Daniel's Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks?

Joel Asks (Sept 2006):

“What is the most logical method of interpreting the final 3 1/2 days of Daniel's prophecy of 70 weeks.  I see the messianic fulfillment and how the one who confirms a covenant is Christ, not an anti-Christ figure, but still have difficulty with the last 3 1/2 `days.’ While the previous 69.5 weeks can reasonably interpreted as years, it seems like most interpretations end up extending the time period indefinitely or imposing a gap between the first and second halves of the `week.’”

Joel:

This is a question that troubled me for some time as I was working my way from premillennialism toward amillennialism.  When I read Meredith Kline’s essay (“The Covenant of the Seventy Weeks”--  Click here: Covenant_70th_Week) all of a sudden the answer hit me--and it had been right in front of me the whole time.  In the ninth chapter of Daniel's prophecy, not only was Daniel talking about the Messiah and not an Antichrist (based upon the glorious things that are to be accomplished by the Messiah before end of the 70 weeks–see Daniel 9:24), but in the Book of Revelation, John actually tells us what happens during the last 3 ½ years of Daniel’s 70th week!  It is a time of tribulation for the people of God.

In Revelation 12:14, John speaks of a “time, and times, and half a time.”  The same time reference also appears in Revelation 11:1-2 and 13:5-6 (forty-two months).  Obviously, this is figurative language depicting the fulfillment of that eschatological time of tribulation predicted by Daniel and left open-ended in Daniel's prophecy of the seventy weeks.  Kline argues that this is the period of time of the church in the wilderness (“The Covenant of the Seventy Weeks,” 469).  Likewise, Beale holds that these references are based upon the eschatological period of tribulation foretold by Daniel not only in Daniel 9:27, but throughout his entire prophecy (Beale, The Book of Revelation, 565). 

In Revelation 11, the forty-two months are connected to Elijah’s ministry of judgment, and to Israel’s time in the wilderness (which included forty-two campsites), and which may have entailed forty-two years in the wilderness-- if Israel came under God’s judgment after spending an initial two years in the wilderness before coming under curse.

Therefore,  Daniel is predicting a time of tribulation for the people of God after the Messiah comes, but before the last Jubilee (since the seventy-sevens of Daniel’s prophecy are ten Jubilee eras–see Kline’s essay, where he argue for this point).  As we see in Revelation 12:5-6, John tells us that this three and a half “years” of tribulation are inaugurated at Christ’s resurrection and will be consummated at his second coming (Beale, Revelation, 567).  When we notice that Christ’s own public ministry lasted three and one-half years, the image should be pretty clear--it applies to the entire church age.  

While dispensationalists have a fit with this "non-literal" interpretation, it is John himself who tells us that the final 3 ½ years of Daniel’s prophecy anticipates the entire period of time between Christ’s first advent (his death and resurrection) and his second advent (in which the final trumpet announces that the earth is redeemed and all of God’s people are forever freed from the guilt and power of sin).

The way we interpret this 3 1/2 weeks is a great example of the hermeneutical difference between Reformed amillennialism and dispensationalism.  As we Reformed amillennarians see it, the New Testament (especially in a vision given by John in which he proclaims to the church the contents of the scroll which Daniel was told to seal  until the time of the end), ultimately interprets for us what Daniel was prophesying.  In other words, the New Testament interprets the Old Testament.  The bottom line is that in Revelation 11-13, John tells us what those remaining three and a half years of Daniel's prophecy really mean.  Thus, we are not left in the dark about what this means, and we have in Daniel 9:24-27 a glorious messianic prophecy centering upon the active and passive obedience of Christ (v. 24).

The Commander of the Lord's Army -- Joshua 5:13-6:7

The Seventh in a Series of Sermons on the Book of Joshua

Everything seems to be in place for a dramatic victory.  All Israel has crossed through the Jordan River on dry ground and is now camped at Gilgal, just a few miles from the gates of Jericho.  The Israelites have renewed their covenant with YHWH, as all the men of Israel have undergone circumcision and the people have celebrated their first Passover in the promised land.  Israel has a standing army of at least 40,000 men and the people of Canaan are terrified at the news of Israel’s rapid and miraculous advance into their territory.  It will not be long before the Lord grants his people a stunning victory at Jericho.  But first, Joshua will encounter a mysterious man who identifies himself as the commander of the Lord’s army, a man who is none other than the pre-incarnate Lord Jesus Christ.  Joshua is then given specific instructions by the LORD for the Jericho campaign.  All Israel and all the inhabitants of Jericho will know that YHWH is the Lord.

As we continue our series on the Book of Joshua, we come to Joshua’s account of the fall of Jericho, a heavily fortified city which blocked Israel’s way into Canaan.  The city of Jericho is one of the oldest cities in the world, the archaeological evidence showing that it has been continuously inhabited since the 8th millennium B.C.  This same evidence shows that city had been destroyed during some point about 1400 B.C, a date which would correspond with the entrance of Israel into the promised land about that same time.  While Jericho was not a large city, the walled portion of the city taking up but seven acres, although, no doubt, many people lived outside the walls.  And it blocked Israel’s way into Canaan.

In the first part of chapter 5, Joshua contrasts the faith and piety of this current generation of Israelites who have just entered Canaan with that of the previous generation which left Egypt forty years before.  That generation which left Egypt was sentenced to wander throughout the Sinai because they doubted that God could make good on his promise.  That generation grumbled at God’s gracious provision of manna in the wilderness.  But this generation would eat the bounty of Canaan.  That generation grumbled under Moses’ leadership, while this generation obeyed Joshua’s every command.  That generation neglected circumcision, which is the sign and seal of the covenant.  But the men of this generation willingly underwent circumcision while camped at Gilgal.  During the lifetimes of this generation, Israel had become a great nation and the people were trusting in YHWH instead of in their own strength to ensure the conquest of Canaan.  No, this generation was not like that one which left Egypt.  Although raised in the wilderness, this generation believed God’s promise and obeyed God’s covenant.

To read the rest of this sermon,  click here
 

Some Interesting Links . . .

Looks like the state-sponsored schools indoctrination centers in the UK have been about as successful as the schools here.  According to a recent survey, 25% of Britons think Winston was a myth . . .   Yeah, and I'll bet the same state-sponsored UK schools are telling the kids that Islam is a religion of peace!   Click here: Quarter of Brits think Churchill was myth: poll - Yahoo! News

Our Catholic friends face a serious ethical dilemma.  Since Saint Patrick's Day falls within Holy Week this year, Catholics are being asked not to drink, or else celebrate St. Patty's Day a week earlier.  My guess is those people who love St. Patty's Day will move the date!  Click here: Catholics Asked Not To Celebrate St. Patrick's Day On March 17 - Entertainment News Story - WEWS Cleveland.

Here are some great shots of the new Yankee Stadium nearing completion.  Means I have to make my Hajj to the current Yankee Stadium before it closes.  Click here: Sliding Into Home: A Yankees Blog: New Yankee Stadium Construction Updates.

This is a classic case of an editor being asleep at the switch.  Just read the headline and then ask yourself, "isn't this true of all of us?"  Click here: MyFox Washington DC | Police: Crack Found in Man's Buttocks

Yet another faith-based diet?  I keep waiting for the locusts and honey diet.  Click here: Faith-Based Diet Puts God Before Food - Health News Story - KMGH Denver

One of my favorite historians (Ian Kershaw--who's books on Hitler are must reading) asks the question we all need to be asking.  How did a democracy produce a monster like Adolf?  Click here: How democracy produced a monster - International Herald Tribune

Finally, here's a great new blog dealing with historical theology.  Click here: Historical TheoBlogy: Historical Theology one blog at a time

Latest Academy Lecture on New Perspectives on Paul Posted

The audio file of my latest lecture in my series on the New Perspectives on Paul, can be found here.  Click here: Christ Reformed Info - MP3's and Real Audio (of Academy Lectures).  The lecture is entitled "An Evaluation of the New Perspectives on Paul, Part One."

Using the link above, be sure to check out the growing number of Academy lectures posted on the Christ Reformed website. There are some real gems here from G. K. Beale, Scott Clark, Michael Horton and Ken Samples. 

Who Said That?

“It strikes me that Playboy is a religious magazine, though I will admit I have a peculiar understanding of the meaning of the word. What I mean is that the magazine tells its readers how to get into heaven. It tells them what is important in life, delineates an ethics for them, tells them how to relate to others, tells them what to lavish their attention and energy upon, gives them a model of a kind of person to be. It expresses a consistent world view, a system of values, a philosophical outlook.  

Not only does Playboy create a new image of the ideal man, it also creates a slick little universe all its own, creates what you might call an alternative version of reality in which men may live in their minds. It's a light and jolly kind of universe, a world in which a man can be forever carefree, where a man can remain, like Peter Pan, a boy forever and ever. There are no nagging demands and responsibilities, no complexities or complications.

But for the most part, the magazine is, I would expect, pretty harmless. It amuses its readers by creating a delightful imaginary world for them, a world that they find it fun to live in; and everybody needs a little fun now and then. ”

Who said that?  Leave your guess in the comments section below.  Please, no google searches! 

Update on Sunday, February 3, 2008 at 05:55PM by Kim Riddlebarger

I know that you'll never guess this one.  This is a quote from a  Unitarian minister, John A. Crane, from Santa Barbara, California, who devoted an entire sermon to the subject, "Philosophy and Fantasy in Playboy Magazine and What This Suggests About Us."  Hugh Hefner cites this sermon approvingly in his December, 1962 essay, "The Playboy Philosophy."

Looking back at Hefner "philosophy" through the lens of 55 years of hindsight, Rev. Crane's comments sound pretty ridiculous, in light of the scourge of sexually transmitted disease, pornography, and child abuse, which all flourish as unforeseen consequences of "Hef's" hedonism. 

Tonight's Academy Lecture

For those of you living in So Cal, I am continuing my lecture series on the New Perspectives on Paul (the previous lectures in this series can be found here--Click here: Christ Reformed Info - MP3's and Real Audio (of Academy Lectures).  The seventh lecture in this series is entitled "An Evaluation of the New Perspectives on Paul, Part One."

Our Academy lectures are hosted by Christ Reformed Church in Anaheim, they start @ 7:30 P.M., are free of charge, and followed by a time for discussion and refreshments.

The Canons of Dort, First Head of Doctrine, Article Nine

Article 9: Election Not Based on Foreseen Faith

This same election took place, not on the basis of foreseen faith, of the obedience of faith, of holiness, or of any other good quality and disposition, as though it were based on a prerequisite cause or condition in the person to be chosen, but rather for the purpose of faith, of the obedience of faith, of holiness, and so on. Accordingly, election is the source of each of the benefits of salvation. Faith, holiness, and the other saving gifts, and at last eternal life itself, flow forth from election as its fruits and effects. As the apostle says, He chose us (not because we were, but) so that we should be holy and blameless before him in love (Eph. 1:4).

__________________________________

The authors of the Canons are now careful to make the point that since the Scriptures teach that election is based upon God’s good pleasure and purpose (and nothing good within us), election cannot be based upon anything external to God (i.e., something good that God sees in the creature).  It is equally clear that God does not elect any as the consequence of some action that the creature takes which causes or motivates God to respond (in this case, the exercise of faith). This is difficult for us to grasp because this view of election necessarily assigns all glory to God, and all blame to us.

Many have tried tried to evade the force of this critical point by arguing that God's election is indeed based upon factors external to God, i.e., something which the creature does.  In other words, God sets things in motion (by providing a generic, universal, and non-saving grace), and he then reacts to what his creatures do with with the grace he's made available to them.  But this amounts to nothing more than a practical deism.  

The most common objection that we  encounter to the doctrine election as set forth in the earlier articles of the Canons is the argument that God elects individuals based upon foreseen faith.  In other words, God elects those whom he knows will believe the gospel when it is preached to them.  You’ve probably heard the all-too common analogy that election is like a movie God has already seen.  He knows what each of the characters will do, and so he elects them on that basis.

Of course, this is seriously flawed, and is not what the Scriptures teach.  God does not merely know in advance what we will do under certain conditions.  God knows what we will do, because he has ordained whatsoever comes to pass, and yet he does so in such a way as to establish human freedom, not destroy it.  God knows what we will do in the movie of life because he wrote the screenplay and the script, he created the actors, the cameras, the film . . .  You get the point.

While the Greek word proginosko, translated as “to foreknow” in Romans 8:29, can mean that God knows in advance what his creatures will do, the term is probably better understood here in the sense of “knowing the person in advance.”  This would mean that God does not merely know what actions a person whom he foreknows will take under certain circumstances, and he then reacts to that action.  Rather, proginosko may be better understood in light of a text like Psalm 139, where God’s intimate knowledge of us (as persons) is the basis for his knowledge 0f what we will do.  He who formed us in our mother’s womb knows us better than we know ourselves.  This is why it helps to understand the word “foreknow” in terms of personal intimacy (God’s knowledge of us since he created us), rather than in terms of sterile metaphysics (God knows in advance what we will do with the various options available to us). 

Remember too, that according to Romans 8:28-30, God's calling is not based upon foreknowledge, but upon "his purpose."  This fits perfectly with a text like Psalm 139, and with Ephesians 1:3-14, which we have already discussed in some detail above.

It is important to notice that the Canons  also teach that election is always unto something (holiness), not because of something in us (the presence of faith, the virtue of faith, or any personal holiness which might result from faith).  This point is vital to understand.  We are sinful and fallen and can do nothing to soften our own hearts or incline ourselves to believe the gospel.  When we are chosen by God, we are chosen in Christ so that when we come to faith in him, we are also delivered from our bondage to sin and death.  We are also set aside for God’s sovereign purposes.  We become his workmanship, appointed to do good works (Ephesians 2:10).   It is because we have been chosen in Christ that the fruit of the Spirit develops within us, and  God produces holiness in our lives.

Just as we are not numbered among the elect because God knows that we will believe when the gospel is preached to us (rather, because we have been chosen by God, we will believe when the gospel is proclaimed to us), so too, we are not numbered among the elect because God knows that we will perform certain good works once we are Christians.   Rather, because we are elect in Christ, we will perform good works as the fruit of that faith which he graciously gives to us.
 
As the Canons make clear, election is the only basis for the manifestation of any of the Christian virtues in us (faith, obedience and so on), since otherwise, we would still be slaves to sin and unable to perform a single good work, because without faith it is impossible to please God (Hebrews 11:6).  It is because of divine election that we respond to the gospel when we hear it.  It is because of divine election that we perform good works and demonstrate true holiness.  

This is a cause and effect relationship.  Election is the cause, and faith and obedience are the effects—and not the other way around, as is so often taught today.

Political Ideology Aside . . .

Here's something to think about--party affiliation and political ideology aside.

The two current front runners for the office of President of the United States have never served in any executive office.  If one of these two is elected, this means our President will have no executive experience whatsoever.  The Senate does not create leaders, it creates pompous compromisers--the key to getting anything done in the Senate, but a principle that is inimical to leading the nation.

The two front-runners for the office of President of the United States have run on the theme of "change."  Yet both are consummate Washington insiders blinded by "Beltwayitis."  Despite the rhetoric, Clinton and McCain are clearly the establishment candidates.  Change?  Not from these two. 

The two front-runners for the office of President of the United States have both managed to alienate a significant portion of  the members of their own parties.  McCain is universally reviled by small-government conservatives in his own party (indeed, he's antagonized them repeatedly), while Clinton has played the race card with Obama (the black candidate who, ironically, has eschewed making race an issue).  If elected, either one will have significant problems with their base throughout their entire term of office.

Of course, things could change on Super Tuesday and Romney or Obama might reverse the current dynamics of the race (very unlikely, however).   At this point, I'm convinced that our current primary system is not serving us at all.   I liked the good old days of the smoke-filled party conventions when we got better candidates.   

And with all of this electioneering taking place so far in advance of the general election, will anybody still be interested in November 2008?  Any wonder why I am so cynical about American politics? 

Eschatology Q & A -- Are There Any Exegetical Resources Refuting Hyper-Preterism?

ElShaddai Edwards asks (January 17, 2008):

Have there been any exegetical rebuttals of full preterism that you’re aware of?  I was just browsing Keith Mathison’s book on post-millennialism and he includes a rebuttal of FP based on creedal tradition and the authority of the Holy Spirit to the Church.  As far as I can tell, this is the standard rebuttal.  Has anyone published a critique of FP strictly from the Biblical text?

__________________________________

Mr. Edwards:

Yes, indeed, there is such an exegetical critique of hyper (or full) preterism, and better yet, it is still in print.    I refer you to “When Shall These Things Be?”  A Reformed Approach to Hyper-Preterism (P & R, 2004).  The book is edited by Keith Mathison, whom you mention.  For more information on this volume, Click here: Amazon.com: When Shall These Things Be: A Reformed Response to Hyper-Preterism: Books: Keith A. Mathison

As with most volumes like this where there are multiple contributors, some of the chapters are better than others.   It is also a bit problematic when the contributors don't agree among themselves.  In this case, two authors don't see eye to eye about the date of the Book of Revelation--Ken Gentry argues for an early date (pre-A.D. 70), while Simon Kistemaker argues for the traditional (and late) dating of about 95 A.D.

Those minor criticisms aside, there are two real gems here which make the book well worth the purchase price.  

The first is Robert Strimple’s marvelous essay, “Hyper Preterism on the Resurrection of the Body.”  In my humble estimation, Strimple completely destroys the various schemes offered by hyper-preterists to define the resurrection body so as to escape the obvious implications of the biblical teaching of a future, bodily, resurrection of believers.  Strimple’s exegesis of 1 Corinthians 15 is utterly compelling and he does the very thing you are seeking--a refutation of full or “hyper” preterism directly from the biblical text.  Strimple clearly exposes hyper-preterism for what it is--an unbiblical heresy.

The second outstanding essay is Charles Hill’s piece, “Eschatology in the Wake of Jerusalem’s Fall."  Hill deals with the pink elephant in the eschatological room, namely, "why, if hyper-preterism is true, did no one in the early church (post A. D. 70) ever say anything about the fact that the second coming of Christ, the general resurrection, and the final judgment, had already taken place?"  Hill's essay is compelling and I think his thesis is also problematic for those partial-preterists who see in the events of A.D. 70 a genuine parousia of our Lord (but who don't buy into the hyper-preterist heresy).

I also found Keith Mathison’s essay “The Eschatological Time Texts of the New Testament” to be very useful in showing the inability of the hyper-preterists to deal with the same “time-texts" which they claim support their  view.  I'm not fully on board with Mathison's treatment of some of these terms, but he does take them away from the full preterists, and that is a good thing.

When Shall These Things Be? is hated by hyper-preterists (read the reviews on Amazon).  I take that to be a very good sign that the arrow has struck its intended mark.

Hope that helps!