CHARLES HADDON SHANK ( The Simple Man )

Molech Worship-the King as God

2012-02-08T18:08:00.000-07:00

'I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that you present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, [ which is ] your reasonable service.' ( Romans 12:1 )

Uncle Sam ( U.S. ) wants your children!

The worship of Molech was, to my understanding, the practice of sacrificing your children to the false god Molech ( which, at its base, means 'king' ), either by 'passing them through the fire', actually offering them as a burnt sacrifice to this false god, or by presenting them to the king, as in I Samuel 8:10-18, as belonging to the king, rather than to Yahweh, their True King.

Molech worship, as it was in biblical times, may not be quite as blatant, but it continues to this day!

I heard on the news this morning how that there was a certain public school in a district not too far away, that actually had the parents arrested and brought up on criminal charges, because 'their' children were tardy too often! Can you imagine that?! Crazy! There were even rumors following this flagrant injustice that the parents could loose custody of 'their' children if this irresponsibility continued.

This is just the latest example of how the god/state, of course, backed by our nationalistic 'federal' government, is determined to stand in the place of the One, True God, by usurping, in the first place, His power and authority, and secondly, by stealing and claiming for themselves what is rightfully His, and by extension, ours, as His stewards of Creation.

Abortion, of course, is probably the most blatant example, and closest physical representation of Molech worship today. I think that the latest figure I heard was that over 55 million preborn babies have been mercilessly and selfishly murdered, over the past 39 years, ever since the infamous Roe v. Wade decision handed down by the powers that be.

Does this tell you anything about who the king is, who is worshiped by the majority of this nation, even many Christians?! Without going into a big discussion of the military draft, which is but an iteration, a fulfillment, really, of the words of God in I Samuel 8: 10-18, which was referenced earlier, there are many examples, I'm sure, many more than we presently have time or space for, to show how 'the state' for lack of a better characterization, has been seemingly successful in undermining God's true power and authority, and has successfully trampled the Church of God under its iron sandals, and implemented a new form of Molech worship!

If something is not done, and soon, Molech worship, more of the ilk practiced in days of old, will likely become more and more prevalent in our society, as more and more people prostitute themselves to this false god and continually refuse to worship the One, True God.

The Number of the Beast

We know that this number attributed by the apostle John to some unnamed person, was realized and fulfilled in the first century anno domini, but there is also a very real sense in which the 'spirit' of this 'Beast' is with us today. As the man to whom this number pointed in the first century took his stand against the Creator and Sustainer of the universe, so that same 'spirit' which vaunts itself in direct opposition to God, and attempts to steal or destroy what is rightfully His, persists to this day.

Talking with friends the other day, and you've probably heard similar stories, or even experienced it yourself; we heard that when their child had to be birthed in a hospital, rather than at home, as they would have preferred, the hospital staff, in flagrant disregard of, and even contrary to their stated wishes, issued their child a social security number ( SSN ). Now, without going into a lengthy diatribe here, against the evils of the 'Social Security' system, we will suffice to say that by doing so, the hospital dutifully acknowledged that the child is owned by the state/god, and any profit that might be made through this form of Molech worship was due to it!

What can be done to quell this unnecessary evil?

This has been going on for so long that there is much, almost despairingly, to some, too much, to do! We, however, are not without hope, nay, we have a certainty that all will turn out to our good, and God's glory; this IS, after all, our Father's world! Molech, or the state as king, has no power but what God has granted it, and what we, through our weakness and complacency, surrender to it! We, even, and maybe especially, as Christians, are guilty of, not only complacency and pure laziness, but of blatant idol-worship! We have sacrificed our children on the altar of the state for our own selfish reasons, and prostituted ourselves like a dirty whore, in order that we might remain in the comfort of our dank, dark prison, where the light doesn't hurt our eyes, and we are handed a crust of stale, moldy bread on a silver-plated platter made of iron!

Whatever shall we do; to Whom will we turn?

Thankfully; we have a most gracious and merciful God, as always, who hears the prayers of His children, and when they turn to Him, and begin, once again, to keep His Covenant, rather than following the dictates of their own selfish hearts; He, through His Covenant, will honor that faithfulness, and bless His people, His Creation, far beyond our vain imaginations!

May we, as His people, turn with all our heart, mind, soul, and strength, back to Him, and keeping His Covenant as we should, reap the benefits for our generation, and untold generations to come!

'Amen' and 'Amen'!

Charles Haddon Shank

'Heaven' and 'Hell'?

2012-02-01T10:59:00.002-07:00

This is pretty strong language, yes, but is it really any different than some of the language that Jesus used in condemning the self-righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees?

We want to clarify, for you, that 'Heaven' is simply the enjoyment of the blessings of the Presence of God, whereas, the 'Hell' that we speak of here, could be described as the cursedness of a life lived in disobedience to His Covenant, and thus not in enjoyment of the benefits of His Presence!

Many in this world, even some Christians, because of their lifestyle ( in some cases, more correctly termed 'deathstyle'), live in a real 'hell on earth', because of the stubbornness and hardness of their heart, whether because of a rebelliously contrary attitude towards the Words of God, or because of ignorance of the Word of God.
One such example, and I'll only name one, is Ted Haggerty. Because of the rebelliousness of his heart, he was revealed to the world, several years ago, for what he truly was, and that he had, though pretending to be a minister of the blessings of God, been living in a veritable 'Hell'!
We are not claiming either, that prostitutes, while living as prostitutes, enjoy the blessings of the Covenant, although, to some extent, they do; even Ted Haggerty enjoyed drawing a breath ( then again? )! Jesus told the women, supposedly caught in adultery ( John 8 ); 'Go, and sin no more'! He did not condone her sin, and neither do we! But when true repentance is shown, through a heart-felt ( and rending ) turning away from that sin, prostitutes, though harlots no longer, enjoy the blessings of the Covenant, while men like Ted Haggerty, and there ARE others, exist in a literal 'Hell', at least, while living in opposition to the true Word of God!
May we, as the Body of Christ, endeavor to keep the Covenant that God has blessed us with, and living in obedience to His Word, always enjoy the benefits, the blessings of that Covenant, as revealed in Jesus Christ! As the Body of Christ; may we also lead people everywhere, prostitutes and pastors, to true repentance, that they too, may enjoy the benefits of obedience, a blessed existence for eternity, in the Presence of God, which is 'Heaven'!

In the love of God,
Charles Haddon Shank

Who is the Bible Written To?-by Shannon Hammond

2012-01-27T18:56:00.000-07:00

Who is the Bible written to? This probably seems an odd question to ask. Surely, the Bible was written to us who are studying it today. Generation after generation has interpreted the Bible as if it were written directly to them. Generation after generation has watched and waited for the signs, believing perhaps they are living in the last of days; in the days of vengeance in which all things which are written may be fulfilled. Indeed, wars, rumors of wars, famine, pestilence, and earthquakes never fail to stir up a fresh end-of-time frenzy. Even now we find ourselves on the very brink of December 21 2012, and some wonder: could this be the much anticipated end? Traditional Christianity will never leave this mindset until it recognizes the Bible was not written to us, but was left behind for us; so
that we might understand the beauty and grace of the age in which we live today. Much of this beloved book we call The Bible was written to the first century believers, pre AD 70, who were indeed living in the last days. This much is self evident in verses like the following:

Romans 1:7 “To all who are in Rome, beloved of God, called
to be saints…”

1 Cor 1:2 “To the church of God which is at Corinth, to
those who are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all who in
every place call on the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours:”

2 Cor 1:1 “Paul, and apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of
God and Timothy our brother, To the church of God which is at Corinth, with all
the saints who are in all Achaia:”

Galatians 1:1 “Paul, and apostle (not from men nor through
man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father who raised Him from the dead),
and all the brethren who are with me. To the churches of Galatia:”

Ephesians 1:1 “Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will
of God, To the saints who are in Ephesus and faithful in Christ Jesus.”

Philippians 1:1 “Paul and Timothy, bondservants of Jesus
Christ. To all the saints in Christ Jesus who are in Phillippi, with the
bishops and deacons.”

Colossians 1:1 “Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will
of God, and Timothy our brother, To the saints and faithful brethren in Christ
who are in Colosse:”

1 Thess 1:1 “Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy, To the Church of
the Thessalonians in God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ:”

2 Thess 1:1 “Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy, To the Church of
the Thessalonians in God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ:”

1 Timothy 1:1 “Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ, by the
commandment of God our Savior and the lord Jesus Christ our hope, To Timothy, a
true son in the faith:”

Philemon 1:1 “Paul, a prisoner of Christ Jesus, and Timothy
our brother, To Philemon our beloved friend and fellow laborer, to the beloved
Apphia, Archippus our fellow soldier, and to the church in your house:”

Revelation 1:4 “John, to the seven churches which are in
Asia:

At this point I would hope it is obvious these books were not written to us living today. Yet traditional Christianity reads, studies, and interprets scripture as if it were. In doing so, a grave misdeed is done to the Word of God. The student of sound mind upon recognizing this fact will allow his or her interpretation of the text to be guided by what the words meant to the original audience. What were their beliefs and when did they expect the fulfillment of the words contained within? This single thought should always be on the forefront of our minds, as we study eschatology. I cannot enough stress the importance of interpreting scripture in view of the relevance to the original audience. In doing so one can come to fully understand the beautiful message of the Bible.

I wake up thankful every day. I am thankful to the Lord for all He has done, for the knowledge that I do not now, nor will ever, live in the last days. I am thankful for the knowledge that we live in an age without end, and I am thankful for the peace and confidence I have in this life. I am thankful for our finished salvation, and that salvation is a gift of God, and not something we could ever achieve by our own works. How wonderful to know it is the faith of Christ that saves us. For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.

The fact of the matter is traditional Christianity has spent nearly 2,000 years earnestly seeking and looking toward the last day. Sadly, they seek that which has come and gone. In looking for the establishment of a physical kingdom here on earth, traditionalists miss the ever present spiritual reality. Traditional Christianity refuses to acknowledge the plain teaching of the Bible, in favor of the man made doctrines. Jesus’ teaching on His kingdom was very clear (John 18:36), “My kingdom is not of this world, if My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight, so that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now My kingdom is not from here.” Refer also to Matthew 26:50-53, “But Jesus said to him, “Friend, why have you come?” Then they came and laid hands on Jesus and took Him. And suddenly, one of those who were with Jesus stretched out his hand and drew his sword, struck the servant of the high priest, and cut off his ear. But Jesus said to him, “Put your sword in its place, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword. Or do you think that I cannot now pray to My Father, and He will provide Me with more than twelve legions of angels?” So you see, again it is made very clear, Jesus is not concerned with establishing a physical earthly kingdom.

So what exactly were, and when exactly did the last days occur? The last days were not about the close of time, or the end of the earth. The last days spoken of in the Bible were about the close of the old covenant, the Jewish dispensation. In the words of James Stuart Russell, “There was a fitness and fullness of time at which the old covenant was to be superseded by the new; the old and the new were permitted to subsist for a time together; the goodness and forbearance of God delaying the final stroke of judgment. Although, therefore, the great barriers to the introduction of all men, without distinction, into the privileges of the children of God were virtually removed by the death of Christ upon the cross, yet the formal and final demonstration that ‘the way into the holiest of all’ was not thrown open to all mankind, was not made until the whole framework of the Mosaic economy, with its ritual, and temple, and city, and people, was publicly and solemnly repudiated; and Judaism, with all that pertained to it, was for ever swept away.” (The Parousia, 1887)

Jesus Christ taught His second coming would be a first century event, “Therefore, indeed, I send you prophets, wise men, and scribes: some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues and persecute from city to city, that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. Assuredly, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation. O’ Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing! See! Your house is left to you desolate; for I say to you, you shall see Me no more till you say, ‘Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord!" (Matt 23:34-39) Please keep in mind audience relevance. These things were to come upon the generation to which Jesus was speaking. Not some far off future generation, but that very generation.

"Then Jesus went outside and departed from the temple, and His disciples came up to show Him the buildings of the temple. And Jesus said to them, “Do you not see all these things? Assuredly, I say to you, not one stone shall be left here upon another, that shall not be thrown down. Now as He sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, “Tell us, when will these things be? And what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?” (Matt 24:1-4)

My short synopsis on Jesus answer is this: false prophets, false christs, nation rising against nation, abomination of desolation, those in Judea fleeing to the mountains, great tribulation, and the coming of the Son of Man with power and great glory. Then in verse 34 Christ says, "Assuredly, I say to you, THIS GENERATION will by no means pass away till all these things take place." I think I am safe to say no one from the generation to which Jesus spoke is still alive today. I believe Jesus came just as He said He would. Praise the Lord! We indeed have a God we can be confident in, a God who perfectly keeps His promises. The fall of Jerusalem in AD 70, as recorded by the historian Josephus, perfectly fulfilled all Jesus foretold, in the proper generation, confirming the scriptures as true and correct. What is not correct is traditional Christianities understanding of scripture.

The Law of Love

2012-01-03T00:33:00.000-07:00

Did the Law Really Pass Away ( expire ) at the Cross?

The problem, as I, and most Christians see it, with the whole notion of universal salvation, the idea that everyone is 'saved', no matter how they live their lives, is that it removes our responsibility, not only to respond to the Gospel, the Law of Love, but, as I was involved in a discussion with some universalists lately, that it relegates Love to a warm feeling, and even a commitment, of sorts, thumbing their noses in the face of such statements as Paul's in his letter to the Romans; 'love is the fulfillment of the law' ( Romans 13:10 )!

Jesus Himself told His listeners, 'Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill' ( Matthew 5:17 ). Much of the confusion, I believe, comes from our modern definition of 'fulfilled' ( 'prophecy' is another such ). The archaic definition given by the online Merriam-Websters dictionary, is simply 'to make full', but a more modern definition is, 'to bring to an end'. In the context of Jesus' words above, especially about not coming to destroy; we should be able to clearly see that He came to fill up up, or establish the Law, not to bring it to an end! You may hear the phrase a lot, 'the law passed away at the cross', I mean, Jesus Himself 'nailed it to the cross' ( Colossians 2:14 ), right? Well, true enough, but besides the fact that we must take into account the context of Paul's words; let's also look very carefully at how Paul phrased this statement! We know from history, that Jesus was nailed to the cross on Calvary, where He bore the sins of His people, but notice how Paul turns this phrase to say that it was the law that was nailed to the cross, and that it was Jesus who nailed it there!

It is often said ( speaking of catch-phrases ); 'it's all about Christ', and indeed it was ( and is ), but as I've said before; I'm not sure that any of us, and especially modern American Christians, really 'get' the full impact of that statement! When Jesus was finally and fully revealed to be the Christ of God, in fact, God Himself, when He came 'in flaming fire taking vengeance on those who do not know God, and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ' ( II Thessalonians 1:8 ), He showed, not only that He was God Himself, for we can read in the Hebrew Scriptures that it was God who revealed Himself in that way ( Lamentations 2:3, etc. ), but He was the fulfillment of all of biblical history, for 'these are they which testify of Me', as He told the Pharisees, as recorded in John 5:39. He was, in fact the culmination, 'the beginning and the end', of biblical, eschatological history, but, just because He is that, doesn't mean that history, or the bible itself, is no more; it just means that Jesus brought in the fulness of it!

The Law

Having established that the Law is in effect, and by this, we mean the 'law of love' ( as it is often called ) that Jesus spoke of in summation of the ten commandments that God gave through Moses. In this summation, Jesus told His audience, 'You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind', and 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself'; on these, He said, 'hang all the Law and the Prophets'. The question might now be asked; 'do we still have the law and the prophets?' Some would no doubt object to this line of questioning, responding quickly that we do not, for they passed away with the coming of Christ ( whether you believe it was at the cross or in AD70 ). One has only to remember the covenantal context of Scripture, that it is a record of God's dealings with His covenant people, which people we are, to see that, while it is true that we no longer labor under the yoke of the Mosaic Covenant, or suffer under the sin and the death of Adam, these Scriptures are there for our instruction in righteousness, and thus are very applicable to us today: as they reaped the consequences, good or bad, of their actions under the first covenant, so also under the New. No more must we suffer separation from a just and holy God because of the sin of Adam, but we still, when we disobey His Word, and commit acts of disobedience against His Law, suffer the natural consequences of those actions. As Paul wrote, 'whatever a man sows, that he will also reap'!

Here's another question, and one which those who profess a belief in universal salvation would quickly disavow; must we keep the Law in order to be saved? Clarification seems to be the order of the day here ; how is the Law to be kept under the New Covenant, we've basically covered what is meant by, 'the Law', under the New Covenant, but what does it mean to be 'saved', under the New Covenant? I have discussed, in previous articles, what, from my understanding, most modern American Christians mean by the phrase 'to get saved', or even, using biblical language, which some Christians still do, to 'Be saved from this perverse generation', in total disregard, of course, for the covenantal and historical context of Peter's statement, and the relevance that his words would have held for those to whom he spoke.

Obviously, then; the term 'saved' really does not hold quite the same connotation for the people of God today, as it did under that first covenant, for they were being saved from the sin and the death of Adam, whereas we ( post-AD70 ) were not born under that curse, but were born into the life and freedom of the New. Here is where we could get into a sticky situation, because if we are all born into the lively freedom of the New Covenant, wouldn't that technically mean, in that sense, that all are ( have been ) 'saved'?

Universal Salvation, or Universal Reconciliation?

Most of us are probably more or less familiar with all the proof-texts that universalists like to pull out to prove that Christ died for all, as He is 'the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe' ( I Timothy 4:10 ). Once taken, read, and understood in the above-mentioned contexts, much of the confusion, if not all, can be cleared up, when it is understood what the Gospel writers had in mind when they used such terms as 'all', or 'any' ( (II Peter 3:9 ). Here again, though, within the covenantal context of these words; can we truly say that they are not at all applicable to us?

Are all men saved? That is questionable, and in the sense that we bandy the word about, today, the sense of a decision that men and women ( yes, children too ) make, a decision to 'follow Christ in the waters of baptism', and to 'deny himself, and take up his cross daily'; I believe the answer would definitely be a resounding 'No'! There is no question that there is a decision to be made, and that we must agree with, we must keep the terms of God's Covenant in order to receive the blessings ( salvation? ) of that Covenant, but even though some do not obey the Covenant, and thus do not reap the blessings, but rather the cursings ( yes, I said 'cursings'! ) of the Covenant; I believe that all men are, by virtue of their very birth, born into covenant with their Creator!

It could be said, then, in that sense, that all men have been saved, as biblical salvation was from the sin and the death of Adam, but that all men, though they have been reconciled, have not yet reconciled themselves, for whatever reason, with that reconciliation. Some might call this position 'middle knowledge', though it is no doubt better, and more aptly described elsewhere. The Scriptures, Paul in particular, tell us that we are 'God’s fellow workers' ( I Corinthians 3:9 ), as N. T. Wright put it so well, 'He has enlisted us to act as His stewards in the project of creation'. We do not 'save' ourselves, nor are we predestined for an eternity in 'heaven' or 'hell'; the choice, as I've written before, is up to us: will we live our lives according to the 'Law of Love', keeping, observing that Law, not only in our inmost of 'hearts', but shining forth that Love through our actions, and reaping the benefits of our obedience, or will we disregard that Law, not keeping Him or His Words, and reap the natural consequences of our sowing?

May we ever make the right choice, keeping the Law of God, and sharing His Love with all we come in contact with, living and working in covenant community to make this world, which is after all 'Our Father's World', to live up to it's reputation!

Charles Haddon Shank

'

It's the Most Wonderful Time of the Year!

2011-12-24T14:32:00.000-07:00

But why?

Yes; I'm harping again!:)

I love to harp!

Being in the Kingdom; I tend to harp a lot, especially lately, because most people, even Christians, seem to have fallen into the rut of celebrating the most wonderful Gift we, as the people ( family ) of God, have ever received, only, or especially at this certain time of year! So, 'why', I ask again. Why is it that we usually wait for this time of year to sing carols, gather together as families, friends, for these celebratory feasts, giving and receiving of gifts, all; yes, to honor the birth and revelation of the Savior of the World ( I apologize if I seem to be repeating myself; actually 'no', I don't! :).

As I have written before ( I reminisce ); I think that much of our reason for this 'oversight' ( shouldn't that be 'undersight'? ) is that the everyday busyness of our lives often tends to help us pass up the opportunities that God places in our path, if only we would feel free to step out of our comfort zone, defy tradition, and try something 'new'. Especially in the past number of years; the economic 'crunch' has made it even more difficult, with those of us who live at any distance from our covenant community, to gather together for these purposes.

As we near the Christmas holyday 'of most importance', Christmas Day itself, December 25th; the excitement, which has been building, depending on the viewer, at least since the Thanksgiving holyday, will reach it's climax, the gifts will be opened across the country, wrapping will be spread around the room, then discarded, Christmas feasts will be rejoiced over and consumed, games will be played, old acquaintances will be renewed, and familial bonds will be strengthened and enjoyed; but after this season is over, the tree will be undecorated, taken down, and if it was a live ( real ) tree, in most cases, discarded, the Christmas carols, which sing most joyfully of the ( present ) reign of Christ, will cease to be sung ( till next season, anyway ), family gatherings for celebratory feasts will be looked forward to ( next year ), and in many cases, the greatest Gift the World has ever known will be largely forgotten amidst all tthe busyness and cares of the world around us!

I must admit that I get caught up in this 'spirit', as well, and every time this season comes around; I break out the traditional Christmas CDs, look forward to family gatherings, celebratory feasts, and yes, even the gift ( especially the handmade ( or baked ) ones! As much, in the past few years ( as I've matured ), as I 'bah humbug this time of year, like some old Scrooge; I love this holyday season, I love the special music that is usually associated with it, and I love the 'spirit' that fills 'heaven and earth' at this time of year: I really can't say there's anything I DON'T love about this time of year! ( Sights, Sounds, AND Smells! )

As we gather this year ( can you hear the 'harp'? ); let us remember, not only the giving of this Gift, but the fact that this Gift matured into the Revelation of the Presence of God Himself, who once again dwells with and in His people, who presently reigns on this earth ( again, in and through His people ), and who, as the Preacher has repeated numerous times, 'draws straight with crooked lines'!

Maybe this is why most of His people want to remember Him as a baby?!

Rejoicing in the Reason for the Season,
( and for all seasons )
Charles Haddon Shank

I Wish Every Day Could be Like Christmas

2011-12-21T09:29:00.003-07:00

'I wish every day could be like Christmas!'

I awoke this morning, as I usually do, and turned on the local radio station, which just happened to be playing this tune by Jon bon Jovi. Around this time of year; I'm sure that most children, and many adults too, would echo his sentiment, if not in so many words, and likely for different reasons.

With the commercialization ( notice, I didn't say over-commercialization ) of Christmas; children, especially, have looked forward, for centuries, to this time of year, because of what they'll find under the Christmas tree, or even in their stockings. I must admit that I tend to get caught up in this sometimes too, but I believe I'm getting better! Don't get me wrong; the giving and receiving of gifts around this time of year is patterned after the gifts that the maji from the East brought to the Christ-child, and most importantly, the Gift that God Himself gave to 'the world', and that His people received, so many long years ago ( two millenia, to be more exact ), and still receive, as His kingdom continues to expand throughout the whole earth!

I believe that most adults ( and artists like the one mentioned above; Bono of 'U2' comes to mind as well ), and even some children, will sing this theme, longing for a time when families traditionally come together in a central location, for, yes, gift-giving ( and receiving ), but more importantly, especially for those who are separated by any great distance, a time of fellowship and communion, a time to renew and strengthen familial bonds, to eat wonderful meals together around the table, and to just enjoy each others company for a season!

This season is also traditionally a time to share our blessings with those in close community to us, and I believe that this is what artists like Jon bon Jovi, Bono, and others have in mind when they voice such sentiments with their artistry. Many even share the love of God abroad at this season ( though they may not recognize it as such ), doing what they can to make the world a better place! Thankfully; it is not only in this season ( time of year ) that this kind of thing goes on, and I believe that we all, as time and finances will allow, wish that 'every day could be like Christmas'!

May we, in this Christmas season, and all year 'round, echo this sentiment, not only in our words, but in our actions, as well, and always share the love that God showed us when He blessed us with His Presence; the Presence which we now enjoy for eternity! Let us continually celebrate this greatest Gift by always enjoying it and through our bettered lives, blessing those around us, as far as our sphere of influence extends!

Many blessings, in Gods Presence,
Charles Haddon Shank

Peace, Heavenly Peace

2011-12-10T20:06:00.000-07:00

Joy to the world, the Savior reigns!
Let men their songs employ;
While fields and floods,
Rocks, hills and plains,
Repeat the sounding joy,
Repeat the sounding joy,
Repeat, Repeat, the sounding joy!

The carol, of which this is but one glorious verse, is probably one of the best-loved and most familiar hymns of praise that we sing during the Christmas season. When the Christmas season passes, however, this song, more often than not, seemingly passes out of the thoughts of even most Christians, only to be resurrected the following Christmas season, where they readily and easily ( thoughtlessly, ignorantly? ) sing verses like those above; 'why is this?'

Most Christians will quickly acknowledge the rule of King Jesus; up there, somewhere, reigning in 'Heaven', seated at the Father's right hand, holding sway over 'the hearts and minds' of those who acknowledge Him as their King. Isaac Watts, though, realized that Jesus had been sent to this earth ( world ) to reign and rule, on this earth! He was not alone in this assertion, i.e., it was nothing new!

First published in 1719; these words were based by Isaac Watts, on the 98th Psalm. Scriptural reference to the earthly reign of Jesus does not stop with this Psalm, though; in Psalm 2; David wrote these immortal words, 'Thou dost rule them with a sceptre of iron, As a vessel of a potter Thou dost crush them' ( Psalm 2:9-YLT ( Revelation 2:27 ). He wrote, in Psalm 22:28, 'the kingdom [ is ] the LORD’s, and He rules over the nations'. Throughout the Scriptures, but maybe especially, and most clearly in the Psalms; we see God ruling in the affairs of men, and reigning over the nations. John saw, in his vision recorded in Revelation 12:5, the Offspring which was promised in Genesis 3:15; he wrote, 'She bore a male Child who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron'.

Those beloved brother and sisters who see Jesus as 'King of our hearts' acknowledge and long for a future fulfillment of this earthly reign, but do not see Him reigning on this earth as of yet, because, for one thing, 'if He is reigning now, why is there so much evil in the world?', why hasn't the wolf lain down with the lamb, and the lion with the calf?'

Why is there no peace in our generation?

We all know that true peace comes from God alone! Men have gotten the silly notion that peace comes only through bloodshed, but it is only through 'the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding' ( Philippians 4:7 ) that we can experience any true and lasting peace! This peace, the peace that we, as the people of God can experience every day, in even the worst of situations, is the peace brought about by the full realization of the apostle Paul's famous and most-loved words in Romans 8:28; 'we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to [ His ] purpose'. These words should bring us the greatest comfort and peace, because, whatever happens to us, we know that it is for our good, and for His glory!

For He is coming to judge the earth. With righteousness He shall judge the world, and the peoples with equity. ( Psalm 98:9 )

Jesus came, according to Matthew 1:21, to 'save His people from their sins', but also, as we have seen in several Psalms, and in-directly, but usually directly, throughout Scripture, that He came to rule! It is through the salvation and redemption of His people, His 'purchased possession' ( Ephesians 1:14 ) that He rules and reigns on this earth. It is through the Peace that has shone in our hearts that peace can come to this beleaguered, embittered and embattled world. Through our peaceful ( though subversive ) actions, peace, true and lasting peace, will reflect from our peaceful hearts into the chaos and turmoil of the world around us, until truly, 'Every knee shall bow to Me, and every tongue shall confess' ( Romans 14:11 ( Isaiah 45:23 )!

'He rules the world with truth and grace!'

As I wrote above, 'Most Christians will quickly acknowledge the rule of King Jesus', especially during this Christmas season, but when the season has passed; how often do we hear from the pulpit the idea, much less the words, 'Jesus is ruling now!'?

Isaac Watts may not have had the full picture, not that we do, even yet, but he at least realized the impact of fulfilled prophecy; he realized that these prophecies throughout, in particular, the Hebrew Scriptures, had been ( past tense ) fulfilled in Jesus the Christ!

Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, in 1864, during the height of the American Civil War, wrote a poem, now yet another well-loved Christmas carol, 'I Heard the Bells on Christmas Day'. In the words of this famous poet, 'in despair I bowed my head; "There is no peace on earth,” I said'. After all though; Henry realized, as did Maltbie Babock, nearly a generation later, that though 'hate is strong and mocks the song of peace on earth, good will to men', 'God is the ruler yet'. 'This is Our Father's World', and though we sometimes forgot this all-encompassing fact, and it is because of this comforting fact that we should realize peace in ur hearts, and through the Peace in our hearts, spread that Amazing Peace to the weary, war-torn world around us, so that they too, may experience that Peace!

The rule of King Jesus, though a reality to most Christians, as I described earlier, will not, to the reckoning, become a reality on this earth, this 'terra firma', until He returns 'in the glory of His Father with His angels' ( Matthew 16:27 ). The purpose of this article not being to argue the point, but merely to present the fact; the fact that Jesus is now ruling, in and through His people, is an in-disputable fact!

As a friend of mine once said; 'God is in your life, get used to it!'

Turning the Tables ( The Resurrection of Israel )

2011-12-02T22:45:00.000-07:00

Now the Philistines fought against Israel; and the men of Israel fled from before the Philistines, and fell slain on Mount Gilboa. Then the Philistines followed hard after Saul and his sons. And the Philistines killed Jonathan, Abinadab, and Malchishua, Saul’s sons. The battle became fierce against Saul. The archers hit him, and he was severely wounded by the archers. ( I Samuel 31:1-3 )

Most Christians, I believe, have tended to look at the story of Saul & Jonathan's fall on Mt. Gilboa ( 'swollen heap' ) in one one of several ways. We might focus either on the tragedy of their death at the hands of the Philistines, or we might think primarily of the fact that God's will was done, and that the sin of Saul, the federal head of Israel had finally caught up to him, and he had died, thus enabling his crown to pass to God's anointed and holy one, David.

The focus that many have noted in this story, and I believe it's a good one, is that David was not willing, even though he was providentially given the chance at least twice, to kill Saul, and rid himself of this adversary. He was not willing to be guilty of the blood of God's anointed, even though it would have been a clear case of self defense. I mean; Saul was trying to kill him, right?!

The question that most have not thought of ( to my knowledge ), though, is why was David not willing to kill God's anointed? Besides the fact that Saul had been appointed by God as the king that Israel had asked for, and deserved, do you think that David had any special affinity for Saul, particularly after Saul had attempted, numerous times, to end his life? One can imagine that David did feel some sort of love for this man who had been to him somewhat of a father-figure, and this affinity not totally snuffed out when Saul tried to kill him, but I don't think that this would explain satisfactorily, why David was not willing to take vengeance. So we are back to the first reason, with which I totally agree, but this, I believe, is not the strongest reason, by far!

Fast forward now, to the time of Saul's more modern ( not quite 2,000 years ago ) name-sake.

And Ananias went his way and entered the house; and laying his hands on him he said, 'Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus,^[b] who appeared to you on the road as you came, has sent me that you may receive your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit'. Immediately there fell from his eyes [ something ] like scales, and he received his sight at once; and he arose and was baptized. ( Acts 9:17 & 18 )

Among other things, one might note here, that the scales fell from from Saul's eyes before he received baptism. This passage does not clearly state, as many such passage do not, that this was a water baptism, but it most likely was, since this was a sign that Saul had received new life, and would now be a minister of the Lord of Life, rather than a minister of death.

In Luke's record of this event, we read, in verses 3 and 4 of the same chapter ( Acts 9 ), that 'as he journeyed he came near Damascus, and suddenly a light shone around him from heaven. Then he fell to the ground, and heard a voice saying to him, 'Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?' Saul, in essence, was killed, stopped dead in his tracks, both figuratively and quite literally! Later on we read that 'Saul arose from the ground, and when his eyes were opened he saw no one', and that 'he was three days without sight'. This explains what we read earlier, about the 'scales' that fell from his eyes, and many ( most, if not all, really ) have speculated, quite reasonably, I believe, that when Saul was faced with the full ( Shekinnah ) Glory of Jesus, the Son of God, his eyes were seared, and most likely, even his retinas were damaged!

Why, though, does Luke see fit to mention, even accentuate, that Saul was 'three days without sight'? This almost sounds familiar, does it not? Remember that Jonah, when he would have fled from the Presence of the Lord, was 'three days and three nights' in the belly of the 'great fish' that God had prepared for just this purpose. Remember too, that when asked for a sign ( Luke 11:29 ), Jesus told the crowds ( Matthew ( 12 ) records that it was 'the scribes and Pharisees' ), 'This is an evil generation. It seeks a sign, and no sign will be given to it except the sign of Jonah the prophet'. Matthew goes on to say that, 'as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth'. Jonah's ordeal, according to Jesus, was to serve as a picture of what was soon to happen to him, at their hands, even. We know, from the rest of the story, though, that just as Jonah was returned ( restored? ) to dry 'land', once more to stand up and walk in the land of the living, so Jesus Himself was raised from the dead; the grave, or death, could not hold Him; after 'three days'; He arose!

As we have seen throughout Scripture, the number 'three', and thus, even the phrase 'three days', is very significant; but significant of what, you might ask? I would venture to say that it is significant of resurrection; a resurrection to life, or a resurrection to damnation, but a raising up for judgment! One needs only to look at the story of Joseph in prison to see this.

Returning, once again, to the earlier story of Saul: as the king of Israel, Saul was anointed by God, to be the federal, or covenant head his people. The 'children' of Israel had asked for a king like those of the nations around them, a king that didn't scare them quite so much, so even though God, who was their True King, still had his remnant, interspersed among them, He acquiesced and appointed an earthly king for them, but one who was to be a representative of their heavenly King. Saul, as we can read from history, did an okay, if mediocre job. He was not a great king, though God did accomplish His purpose through him. At the appointed time, God set Saul a test, and just as Adam & Eve had failed their test, so Saul failed his, and eventually fell further and further, until at last, as we read above, God slew him. Though Israel was literally defeated at that time, they rose again to stand, fight, and defeat those same enemies under King David, whom God said was 'a man after My own heart'. At this time, though; Israel, because their king was dead, had died with him!

Once again, and finally, we return to the Saul that we know so well, he who became the writer of much of what we know as the Greek New Testament; the apostle Paul. Saul, as most can ascertain for themselves, was, in his own words, 'a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee' ( Acts 23:6 ). As a Pharisee, he was 'brought up in this city ( Jerusalem ) at the feet of Gamaliel' ( Acts 22:3 ), Gamaliel being 'a teacher of the law held in respect by all the people' ( Acts 5:34 ). Because this Saul was a Pharisee, and 'zealous for the law' ( Acts 21:20 ), and 'zealous toward God' ( Acts 22:3 ), 'persecuted the church of God beyond measure and [ tried to ] destroy it' ( Galatians 1:13 ( I Corinthians 15:9 ). After Saul was brought to his knees upon meeting his Maker on the road to Damascus, he made a complete turn-about from his former life. He was called by 'a new name' ( Isaiah 62:2 ), Paul, and became as zealous for the cause of Jesus, as he had been against him. When Saul was prostrated before the Christ, being judged in the Presence of God's own Glory, he in essence died, but was raise to a new life, to true Life, with a new name, as had been prophesied in Scripture, the Scripture that he knew well!

With the resurrection of Paul, a representative of national physical Israel, he who once had persecuted the Church of God, the Body of Christ, was now to be ( and was, most horribly ) persecuted for the sake of God''s people!

The 'tables had been turned'!

For the Glory of God,
And for His people,
Charles Haddon Shank

Empire-builders versus Kingdom-builders ( the city of man versus the City of God )

2011-11-25T23:26:00.001-07:00

Where do wars and fights [ come \ from among you? Do [ they ] not [ come ] from your [ desires for ] pleasure that war in your members? You lust and do not have. You murder and covet and cannot obtain. You fight and war. Yet^[a] you do not have because you do not ask. "( James 4:1 & 2 )

Why do the nations rage, and the people plot a vain thing? The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD and against His Anointed, [ saying ], Let us break Their bonds in pieces and cast away Their cords from us. ( Psalm 2:1-3 )

Unless the LORD builds the house, they labor in vain who build it; unless the LORD guards the city, the watchman stays awake in vain. ( Psalm 127:1 )

'Death and destruction around the world': so said a good friend of mine in referring to the havoc that has been created and foisted upon the world, through wars unconstitutionally perpetrated in the name of freedom and democracy! I believe that most of us, if we're honestly seeking the truth, would have to admit that, at the basis of these 'wars', is not, as we've been led to believe, in our willful ignorance, a concern for freedom and democracy, but rather, a self-seeking and self-serving lust for power, and an undeniable greed for 'all the oil under the sand'!

From the American Heritage dictionary; we get this definition of the word 'empire', 'A political unit having an extensive territory or comprising a number of territories or nations and ruled by a single supreme authority'. From a very basic study of history, both ancient, and recent; we can note the rise and fall of many empires that have been established, and maintained, for awhile, the the strength, power and authority ( ? ) and most often, cruelty, of man. As we see in the quote from the book of James, above, wars occur because men 'lust and do not have', they 'murder and covet and cannot obtain', yet, James says 'you do not have because you do not ask'. There have been wars for centuries, particularly in the Middle East, needless wars, simply because certain men lust for what they do not have, but other men do. Peace is sought, a truce, at least, from the fighting, but it cannot be obtained, because the only way it can be gained, they seem to think, is by more war, or threat of war.

Jesus said, in Matthew 6:33, 'seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added to you', but men, it seems, would rather seek their own kingdom, or empire, empires which have been proven to fail, than the unfailing, everlasting Kingdom which has been established by God, and whose rule and dominion will never cease! Why is this, do you think? Was David right when he wrote that 'the nations rage', and 'the people plot a vain thing', because they want to 'break Their bonds in pieces and cast away Their cords from us'? I believe that a more careful study of the above-mentioned history will show that this is the case, and even though many of these 'wars' ( the Crusades, for instance ) have been waged, and atrocities committed, in the name of God; you will find much the same reason has been the instigation, and the true impetus behind these wars was that men 'lust and do not have'.

Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed; for in the image of God He made man: these words are famously recorded in Genesis 9:6, and are clearly a command for the punishment of murderers, As we have seen ( noted ) throughout history, with its many wars; 'bloodshed begets bloodshed'. Lawful bloodshed, or execution, as punishment for the crime of murder, then, is warranted, but although the bloodshed that we have only read of may seem to be warranted, it is simply the lawless murder of other lawless murderers!

The unlawful, and unconstitutional resolution of war, as, for instance, the resolution that embroiled us in an endless 'War on Terror', has, at its very core, a selfish and rebellious spirit that wishes to 'break Their bonds in pieces and cast away Their cords from us'. The natural man cannot abide the rule of law, much less God's Law, because it requires him to at unselfishly, in the interest of others, rather than himself. As we realize this annoying fact; let us also remember, that, as the people of God, and rulers with Him, of this Kingdom He has bequeathed to us, it is our divine right, nay, responsibility, to call these 'empire-builders' to task for their many crimes, and to remind them, and ourselves of what Jesus tills us;

'Seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added to you'.

In His Kingdom and love,
Charles Haddon Shank

How Many Resurrections? ( Revelation 20 )

2011-11-19T12:46:00.000-07:00

And I saw the dead, small and great, standing before God, and scrolls were opened, and another scroll was opened, which is that of the life, and the dead were judged out of the things written in the scrolls - according to their works. Revelation 20:12-YLT

Wonder not at this, because there doth come an hour in which all those in the tombs shall hear his voice, and they shall come forth; those who did the good things to a rising again of life, and those who practiced the evil things to a rising again of judgment. John 5:28 & 29-YLT

These passages seem to indicate that there are two ( different and separate ) resurrections, what Scripture calls 'the first resurrection', and what others have termed the second, or more popularly, the general resurrection. The 'first resurrection', one would think, would be what Jesus told the Pharisees ( Jews ), 'the hour is coming, and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God; and those who hear will live.' ( John 5:25 ). The second, or so-called 'general' resurrection, then, would be that to which Jesus referred above, in John 5:28 & 29, quoting Daniel 12:2. Daniel's prophecy ( actually, Gabriel's ), though, gives no hint of a separate, and later, resurrection; so, why not?

The resurrection that Jesus spoke of in John 5:25, as happening at the present time of His speaking, I think most will agree, was primarily a spiritual resurrection, the resurrection that Ezekiel witnessed in his vision, recorded in Ezekiel 37. Remembering that Jesus had told His disciples that, 'in the regeneration, when the Son of Man sits on the throne of His glory, you who have followed Me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel' ( Matthew 19:28 ); would it not be safe to assume that this is the 'first resurrection' of which John wrote? Now, some might object here, and for two seemingly very good reasons; first, Jesus used a different word in Matthew's Gospel, than what He most definitely terms a 'resurrection' in John's Revelation, and two, those who 'sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel', or, as was revealed to John, 'they did live and reign with Christ the thousand years', were, according to the latter, 'the souls of those who have been beheaded because of the testimony of Jesus', or those who had suffered martyrdom for Jesus' sake. Interestingly enough, though; Luke does not record in his account that Jesus mentioned this 'regeneration', or restoration ( rebirth ), as being the occasion of His disciples sitting 'on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel', but rather, He told them, this would occur in the Kingdom that 'I bestow upon you' ( Luke 22:29 & 30 ). Without going into a lengthy exegesis, or explanation of the particular context of Jesus' words here ( different in Matthew's account ), suffice it to say that it is those who who were counted worthy to enter the Kingdom that would 'live and reign' with Christ!

Yes, I know; I haven't answered either objection......or have I?

Jesus assured His disciples that 'there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom' ( Matthew 16:28 ); He obviously knew that, although some of them would not end in a martyr's death, at least not till the Kingdom was fully present, some, or most of them, would die before this came to pass. Much of the problem, I believe, in understanding the resurrection is the idea of individual, biological bodies being raised ( anastasis ) from the dead ( grave ). The corporate body of Israel, as we saw in Ezekiel 37 is what the whole Scriptural concept of the raising of the dead referred to, and what the several examples that we have noted before in both the Hebrew and Greek scriptures pointed to and signified. As we have noted before too; inasmuch as the corporate was, and is, made up of individuals, individuals do take part in the resurrection. Primarily, though, the resurrection that Scripture signified was never about individual bodies being raised, although this took place, but about a corporate body, as 'in Adam all die', and, 'in Christ all shall be made alive'; it was under the federal headship of Adam that covenant man lost communion with God, and it was through, or in Christ, that he regained Paradise!

The question of why John saw the martyred saints raised to reign with the Christ for the thousand years ( a highly typological and significant figure, as we have seen ), although maybe a difficult one on the surface, really loses it's difficulty when viewed from a covenantal aspect. It was the corporate body of saints, both biological living and dead, who would reign with Christ. Whether they were physically alive or dead had no bearing on whether they were alive to God. Paul wrote, in his first letter to the Church at Thessalonica, that 'we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord will by no means precede those who are asleep'; earlier, in his first letter to the Church at Corinth, he wrote 'We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed'. He wrote, a little later, that 'the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed'. The dead, as we have seen in previous studies, referred, not ( necessarily ) to the biologically dead, but to those who had engendered covenantal separation from the blessings of God's Presence.

We have noted that, in the Gospel account that Matthew recorded, that it was 'in the regeneration' that His disciples would rule and reign with Him, whereas John, in the Revelation, uses the Greek 'anastasis' to portray the truth of the resurrection, the raising to life of the dead ones of Israel. Although somewhat differently worded, both of these words connote much the same truth, especially when taking into account the true, spiritual and covenantal nature of the resurrection. Regeneration is what Jesus talked with Nicodemus about, as we read in John 3. Nicodemus thought, strangely, that Jesus was giving him a biology lesson, but Jesus was really imparting a greater spiritual truth to him. So with the physical resurrections that we see in Scripture; they simply pointed to the greater spiritual truth of the resurrection to true life, life in covenant communion with God, life without which one is truly and really dead, though his physical heart may continue beating.

Are/were there two separate and different resurrections portrayed in John's vision in Revelation 20, one spiritual, and the other physical, as Jesus supposedly declares in John 5? It would almost seem so, wouldn't it? When you think of Jesus words though, to Martha, in John 11:26 ( yes, I'm harping on John 11:26 again! ), 'I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live'; it becomes clear ( it should, anyway ) that there is but One Resurrection, over a period of 'the thousand years', maybe, but ONE resurrection, several glorious iterations, maybe, but the same glorious Truth!

Rejoicing in this gloriously fulfilled Truth.
Charles Haddon Shank

In God We Trust?

2011-11-05T20:39:00.000-06:00

How can we say we trust in God, and yet rely on the state for our salvation?

There are many Christians out there who seem to want it both ways. We want to keep God and Government in separate realms. Over here; we want to have our faith, and live our lives according to that faith ( as long as we don't offend anyone ), but over there, we want to let the civil government have their way, whether it's right or wrong. In spite of this; we often complain when the civil government steps on our God-given liberties. Some of us don't seem to care, having seemingly given themselves over to an attitude of 'que sera, sera'; like the realm of civil government doesn't have anything to do with our Christian faith. Speaking of attitude, we often take the same stance towards wicked civil government ( often not very 'civil' ) as we sometimes have toward young men; 'boys will be boys': you might well say, 'bad government will be bad government', so we might as well vote for the lesser of two evils, right? Wrong! Many Christians seem to have forgotten the fact that God has called us to bring every thought ( word and deed ) into subjection to Him, and when we try to separate these realms into religious and secular ( 'and never the twain shall meet' ); we tend to forget, as well, that there is no such thing as two separate realms; Jesus removed the separation, and if we would still posit that the separation is firmly in place, then maybe we need to rethink our own position!

Words have meaning, and religion, or religious, put simply, means to live according to what we believe. Everyone, if they're honest with themselves, is religious! Politics is another area that has been abused thusly. Politics, put simply, is the unified decision of a certain group of people, to do one thing, or another.

A question that needs to be addressed is, 'in what God ( or god ) do we trust? Americans, many of them, like to keep God in their back pocket, in the pages of a book, so to speak, but if this is the 'God' you serve, if this 'God' allows you to throw your allegiance to other gods ( the state, etc. ) as well; is this truly the jealous God ( Who does not change ), the Almighty Creator of the universe, the Sovereign Lord of all? If your religion is 'behind the eyes and between the ears' where it won't offend anyone, even other Christians; is it a true religion? If your 'God' is content to rest his laurels between the covers of a book, or within the safe confines of four walls, behind prison bars, so to speak, and your active Gospel is not offending someone, then perhaps you are truly not religious, and your 'Gospel', your 'God' is not the true one!

True religious faith is an active faith, and if we are actively supporting, through varied means, whether by omission or commission, the wicked and apostate government of this nation, or this state, rather than being the watchmen we are commanded to be, if we are not actively speaking out and engaging the enemy; how will our fellow servants know how to fight them ( even who )? More importantly, though; if we do not religiously enter into the body politic, and make decisions for the good of the Body, and not selfishly for the individual, the Body is going to suffer; indeed, history has shown us many examples of how the Body has suffered, and lost her political freedoms; her freedom to make the right choice, the choice to follow God's Law, rather than man's!

It is not too late! What we need to do is to repent of our lackadaisical ( dead', as James put it so well ) faith, our 'faith' that resides 'behind our eyes and between our ears'! If we repent of a faith that agrees with those politicians that say 'I have a deep personal faith in Jesus Christ, but I will in no way allow this to affect my policy-making decisions', and adopt a true religious faith. a faith that involves us in the politics of governance, a governance that begins with ourselves, works its way out through our families into the Church, and from there into the civil realm ( city, state, and nation ); then our Creator God with whom we are in Covenant will bless those efforts, and this nation will yet again be the Christian nation that our fore-fathers set out to found!

Waking up, by His good grace,
Charles Haddon Shank

Who is this 'Satan', anyway, and why do we blame everything on him?

2011-11-02T15:33:00.000-06:00

I've thought about this quite a lot in the past, and even written more than a few lines on the subject. I really searched my conscience and prayed about whether or not I should even broach the subject again. I realize that many of my brethren have seen 'Satan' for who he is ( 'we have met the enemy, and he is us' ), but I know that as many, or most likely, even more, still believe ( almost dogmatically ) that 'Satan' exists as the personification of evil, a spirit being that 'fell from grace' as one of God's angels, even an arch-angel, to become the 'adversary' of God's people, and is now, depending on your doctrinal stance, anything from a fallen spiritual being who rebelled against his Creator and became His arch-enemy, and in some cases, well-nigh equal in power, to one who was defeated at the Cross and has no more power over the Christian, but is still at work in 'the sons of disobedience' ( Ephesians 2:2, 5:6, Colossians 3:6-in context, those first-century Jews who yet denied Christ ), and will continue to wreak in the world ( 'among the nations' ), until the physical return of Christ in glory. Although this saddens me greatly, and even 'peeves' me to no end sometimes; I do count these all beloved brethren! I hope that through what I have written in the past, and even by what I write tonight, to set people's minds at ease, and even to realize that as evil does not exist, but only happens, so this personification ( of evil ) cannot exist, but that it happens when certain people make a choice to do something that is not right, as we often do.

As a child, especially in my early teens, I was often hit, especially when left alone in the dark, with an almost uncontrollable fear, which at the time, I thought was caused by the presence of 'demons', but now know to have been adrenalin 'surges' brought on by my own fearful mind. In my mid to late teens; I got into, and actually enjoyed reading Frank Peretti's 'This Present Darkness', and 'Piercing the Darkness', which only served to strengthen my resolve that 'Satan' was out to get me!

Before I began my descent into things fulfilled; I gradually realized that 'Satan' was no longer able to exercise his power over men as he used to, and eventually I came to the 'doctrinal stance' ( the latter one ) that I outlined above, though I did not necessarily attribute this to any eschatology, not having been indoctrinated much on that subject. As I continued my descent, however ( and I can't blame it all on my eschatological beliefs ); I, through the study of Scriptures, and other men's arguments from those Scriptures, became convinced that 'Satan' was, in a sense, the figment of our imagination, and biblically the love-child of Greek mythology and superstitious Christianity! The term/name 'Satan' comes directly from the Hebrew shaw-tan, and means simply 'adversary'. The people of God throughout the Scriptures have had many 'satans', in fact, as I explained in one of my articles several years ago; God Himself, as the Angel ( messenger ) of the Lord, became an adversary ( 'satan' ) to Balaam ( Numbers 22:22 ) when he was trying to go against God's will. Although, to my knowledge, never expressly said; God became an adversary to the Old Covenant ( physical ) seed of Abraham, and as I reminded a brother not too long ago; Jesus called Peter 'Satan' ( 'adversary' ) when Peter misunderstandingly opposed himself to God's will. ( Matthew 16:23 )

The point of what I have been saying here is that, although it is only natural for us to want to blame anyone but ourselves for our problems, and the modern-day translations ( at least as far back as 1611 ) have only served to strengthen that notion, so that men ( as far back as..........?? ) have conjured up this super-natural spirit-being, who was once an ( arch ) angel of God, and is now, as I said earlier, anything from THE ( arch ) enemy of God, to just a trouble-maker, as I even postulated once, 'a mob boss in prison' with his cronies on the outside doing his dirty work. James wrote that 'each one is tempted, when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed' ( James 1:14 ). He further says in the first several verses of chapter four, 'wars and fights come from......your ( desires for ) pleasure.........in your members......you lust and do not have, you murder and covet, but cannot obtain..........you fight and war......that you may spend ( it-have ) your pleasures.' In the context of James' writing; he was speaking to his brethren, the natural 'children' of Israel, and yes, our situation as believers under the New Covenant ( in Christ ) is much 'changed' ( I Corinthians 15:52 ), but we still have problems with this today; we are still sometimes 'our own worst enemy', but in the world at large ( of unbelievers ), there are still many who set themselves as adversaries to the cause of Christ, so I guess, in the words of a noted author, 'Satan is alive and well on planet earth'!

It may be thought that a subject like this is not all that important, and 'what does it hurt that some brethren believe in a powerful spirit-being who opposes all things Godly?' so 'why write on such a divisive ( heretical ) topic, and risk alienating even more of your brethren?' Good question; 'why?'

I remember hearing the question from an elderly lady, during a bible-study that I attended once, 'but isn't Satan everywhere and all-powerful, just like God?' ( It was something along those lines, anyway ) The reason that this incident has stood out to me oer the years, and one of my reasons for writing, is because I believe that it is this kind of thinking ( 'Satan' as a super-powerful spirit being who opposes God...........hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm....... ), that naturally leads to a morbid interest in demonology, the study of the occult, and the selfish desires that we all have to want to blame our problems on a creature who's existence is questionable at best!

Here are several quotations on the subject that I have written in the past'

'Right off, some more conservative and traditional people would most likely object, saying something like, "The Bible says that there were two different trees", or "God is not the Author of evil, therefore since the tree of life typifies, or typified, Christ, all throughout Scripture; the tree of the knowledge of good and evil must typify, or have typified an opposite, or the fallen spiritual being, known ( traditionally ) as Satan".'

from 'The Tree ( s ) of the Garden' http://charlesshank.blogspot.com/2007/06/tree-s-ofthe-garden.html

'Even with the traditional understanding of 'Satan' taking over the body of the serpent, and speaking through a creature ordinarily incapable of human speech; it must be a supernatural occurrence, which, I will admit, is quite possible, or else this is an example of 'prophetic license', an allegory, a story told in such a way as to portray a certain hidden meaning.'

from 'The Righteousness of Christ' http://charlesshank.blogspot.com/2009/05/righteousness-of-christ-gospel-typified.html

'One might argue, as tradition is, I believe, that the Day-star, or this 'Lucifer' was once 'an angel of light' ( II Corinthians 11:14 ) before he got jealous of God's position and tried to exalt himself above God's throne, and was 'kicked out' of Heaven; but I believe that it can be proven from Scripture that this is not necessarily the case.'

'My purpose in this little study is, first of all, to bring glory to His holy name by reminding my readers that it is His purposes that will be accomplished, not ours, not 'Satans', and second, to edify and strengthen my readers by relieving them through the fact that , although Paul warned his readers, in Ephesians 6:12, 'For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places.', it is not the tradition 'demons' and 'devils', per se, which we strive against, but that we fight against the desires and purposes of wicked and selfish people, as we ourselves once were, and sometimes, still are!'

from 'The Anointed Cherub' http://charlesshank.blogspot.com/2009/06/anointed-cherub-protector-of-gods-glory.html

'And He said, “Go, and tell this people: ‘ Keep on hearing, but do not understand; Keep on seeing, but do not perceive. Make the heart of this people dull, And their ears heavy, And shut their eyes; Lest they see with their eyes, And hear with their ears, And understand with their heart, And return and be healed.”

'God seems here ( Isaiah 6:9 ), to be telling Isaiah to intentionally deceive His people! Who then is this 'devil' that would come, in verse 11 of Luke chapter 8, and take away the word of God? Assuming that this 'devil' is the same 'Satan' that we know from the Old Covenant Scriptures; we can easily see that Isaiah was acting the part of a 'Satan' to his people. In Matthew 16:23 and Mark 8:33; it it recorded that Jesus once called Peter Satan! Whether Jesus meant to rebuke Peter by comparing him with the fallen spiritual being known as Satan, or whether He was saying that Peter was being adversarial; this was a pretty harsh statement!'

from 'He Who Has Ears....' http://charlesshank.blogspot.com/2008/12/he-who-has-ears-to-hear-let-him-hear.html

'This 'great star..........................burning like a torch', whether speaking, as is traditional, of 'Satan' being cast out of Heaven to the earth, or simply symbolical of God 'loosing' His judgment upon covenant-breaking and apostate Old Covenant Israel; it should be fairly clear that God, by whichever means, did reveal, 'in flaming fire' ( II Thessalonians 1:8 ), judgment upon His enemies, the adversaries of His people, in the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple, in AD70!

from 'Studies in the Book of Revelation' ( Pt 5 ) http://charlesshank.blogspot.com/2009/08/studies-in-book-of-revelation-of-jesus.html

'You may have heard, pretty convincingly, I might add, that when Job chapter one records that 'Satan' ( literally 'adversary' ) came before the throne of God to accuse Job, it simply showed that the accuser of the brethren' stands before His throne yet, accusing us ( Christians even ) of our failures, trying to fault us in God's presence. As I implied previously; this is, in a sense, a correct assumption, were it not for several glaringly obvious facts, for example, where Paul, in Romans 16:20, promises the Roman believers that 'the God of peace will crush Satan under your feet shortly.' Peter also wrote, concerning this 'adversary', that he 'walks about like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour' ( I Peter 5:8 ( Luke 20:47 ).'

'When Jesus died on the cross, an earthquake, along with the other above-mentioned signs, signified that He had indeed defeated the powers of darkness, which, in effect , swallowed up the 'flood' of evil that Old Covenant Israel ( after the flesh ) had unleashed by their rebellion, and eventually, apostasy, against the Righteousness of God, seeking their own instead. Jesus condemningly told the Pharisees, in Matthew 23:13, that they had 'shut up the kingdom of heaven against men', because of their traditional 'laws', which Paul said, were 'contrary to' them ( Colossians 2:14 ), were attempting to carry away from the True Path those on whom the seed of the Gospel of Jesus Christ had fallen ( Matthew 13:9 ). When the 'dragon' attempted to imitate the power of God, as in Daniel 2:35; God defeated his purpose by sending His Son in the form of a man ( earthy ), in essence, 'swallowing' the 'flood' of evil, which had been unleashed by the Old Covenant. ( Romans 7:7-12 )'

from 'Studies in the Book of Revelation'' ( Pt 9 ) http://charlesshank.blogspot.com/2010/01/studies-in-book-of-revelation-of-jesus.html

These quotes are not definitive or even authoritative statements on this subject, and should not be viewed as such; my purpose in quoting them, and in writing this study, as in all my studies, is to help people to think for themselves, and most importantly, to study Scripture for themselves to see if these things are so; they we may realize, as I quoted a famous politician once, 'we have nothing to fear but fear itself', that do not 'battle' against some certain fallen angel, or spirit-being, who is intent on our demise, but within ourselves, and against the evil desires of those around us!

Original Sin? ( Re-thinking the doctrine of 'Limited Atonement' )

2011-10-25T19:06:00.000-06:00

Would it be correct to use the word 'limited' in pertaining to any characteristic of God? I think that most of us, when it comes right down to it, would answer that question with a resounding 'No'! Why then, do some of us ( I was one ) choose to limit God's power of atonement, the extent to which His Son's blood covers sin? I believe Jesus shed His blood to cover the sins of His people, but that begs the question, 'who are His people?' We can say, for Scripture says that we will know them by their 'fruits' ( Matthew 7:16 ), that since certain people do, while others do not, exhibit that 'fruit' in a life of loving, trusting obedience, and communion with God and His people, that the former group is His family, and the latter group is not. Most Christians, I believe, feel fairly comfortable in, if not precisely saying this, at least living this way.

In the sense then, that Jesus died for the sins of His people; you could say ( almost ) that this atonement was limited, but can we really, with our finite knowledge and understanding, limit Jesus' atoning power by applying it only to a certain group, and even defining that group?

A good friend called me late last night with a question that apparently had been bothering him for quite some time. That question was, in other words, maybe, 'why does God choose some for faith ( to believe ), and not others?' That is a good question, as I told him, but is it really that simple? Man has the ability to choose for himself, whether to obey God or to disobey God, to serve his own selfish lusts ( wants, desires ), or to serve God and His Kingdom; as Jesus put it in Matthew 6:33, to 'seek first the Kingdom of God'. The language of Scripture, especially as we read it in our own language, and with our particular Western understanding, seems to say that God has appointed certain individuals to believe, and certain others not to believe, and, as Paul put it, in Romans 9:22, to be 'vessels of wrath, prepared for destruction'. We have been taught for years, especially as Calvinists ( which I used to be ) just that, that God has chosen some for 'heaven' and others for 'hell'. Without going into a long explanation here of the realities, or should I say, the truths, about each of these; I will suffice to say that, for many Christians, these words have a different meaning than I believe they do!

I hold the position, as I told my friend, that God is Sovereign, over all, but that man is also responsible, and not only responsible; he is able to respond to God's Covenant. He is entirely responsible for the choice that he makes, and bears the consequences, for there are consequences, either way, of the choice he makes. If, through the wisdom and understanding given him by God ( Genesis 2:7 ), he chooses to obey God, and keep His Covenant, His Word; he will reap the blessings of that Covenant ( Deuteronomy 28:1-14 ), but if he chooses, through his own wisdom and understanding, to disobey God, and to disregard His Covenant, he will reap the curses involved ( Deuteronomy 28:15-68 ). Many believe that this covenant is not confining unless one verbally agrees to, and enters into it, but I believe that Scripture teaches, and this may be a subject for a different article, that all created beings, into whom God 'breathed.........the breath of life' ( it is not recorded that God did this to any other animal ) are in Covenant with their Creator, whether they want to admit it or not, whether they realize it or not!

Of the many doctrines that have been called 'orthodox' for the past few millenia, or maybe just centuries, the doctrine of 'Original Sin' has been possibly one of the most basic, most taken for granted, and largely misunderstood. For this reason alone; it is also one of the most needful doctrines for re-examination, especially in light of the ( re ) emerging truths of Fulfilled Eschatology and Covenant Creation. Covenant Creation is based, quite simply, upon the idea that Adam and Eve were not the first humans ever to inhabit planet earth, but were merely the first human beings with whom God chose to establish His Covenant. If this is true; it should be to us a worthy cause for re-examination of this troublesome, and much questioned, doctrine. Admittedly, Scripture does seem to say, in more than one place that Adam's progeny did inherit the penalty of his sin, which Paul, again, says is 'death' ( Romans 6:23 ), but, besides the fact that it ( 'Original Sin' ) is a man-made doctrine, and should be therefore considered questionable, this is also where Fulfilled Eschatology comes in. Since Jesus returned how and when He promised His disciples He would, and referring again to Paul's statements, such as, 'For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive' ( I Corinthians 15:22 ), it is clear that, as the progeny of God in Christ, rather than the children of Adam; we are not born under the curse that Adam incurred upon himself and his spiritual descendants, but are born into the spiritual blessing of relationship with God. It is now, as always, up to us how we respond to those blessings and cursings!

When Adam sinned, in the Garden, according to orthodoxy, he unwittingly unleashed a curse upon his entire progeny, a curse, which according to most, has not yet been lifted because, according to many Christians, Jesus did not return when He said He would. Much of the fault here lies in physicality, the idea that the primary focus of the curse was a physical one. 'Yes', they will say, 'the spiritual effects of the curse have been reversed, but that physically speaking, the creation itself has not yet been redeemed. This is gnostic to the core, and is itself, a reversal of how it should be understood! Ephesians 1:3, 'Blessed [ be ] the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly [ places ] in Christ', cannot be refuted, and to my knowledge, has never been tried. This is the reversal of the curse; when Christ paid the penalty for the sin of His people ( Matthew 1:21 ) through His death on the cross, and subsequent resurrection; He reversed the spiritual effects of the curse upon Adam and his progeny, redeeming them from the death of Adam, which most will, however grudgingly admit, was not of a physical nature. Sadly, many of these will still tell you, or at least act as if physical death was a part of the curse. Again; it is gnostic to purport this, as any biology major, even common sense, will tell you that biological death is merely a part of biological life. Man was not made to live ( biologically ) forever; man was born to die!

( I am not a biology major, nor even really a student! )

Was the sinful, rebellious nature an effect of the curse, that everyone is now born with, until such time as one accepts Christ? Having already, in essence, partially answered this question; suffice to say that our sinful, rebellious nature was not an effect of the curse! 'But', you might argue, 'Paul wrote that 'through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned'! Yes, he did, but he also wrote that 'death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam'. Paul made a parenthetical statement between these two statements, reminding them, and us, that 'until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law'. If their sin was not imputed to them, why were they still consigned to death? Obviously, the penalty for Adam's sin had nothing to do with physical death! The sin of Adam, which God promised would bring death 'in the day that you eat', unarguably did not bring physical death in that day, but in that very day, Adam, who was used to 'walking in the garden' with His Creator, was ousted from the Garden, and cut off from access to the Tree of Life, or the Presence of God. This was a symbolic separation from the blessings of the covenant, and so was, in essence, covenant death.

Does this whole idea of 'Original Sin', that has been passed down from father to son ever since Adam passed it on to Cain ( how did Abel escape? ), have any merit, then? I believe if we look at it honestly; we must answer that question with a resounding 'NO'! When Cain's sacrifice was refused, back in Genesis 4, and he became angry; God's response ( note well, that God, even though they had sinned, was still with them ) was, 'Why are you angry? And why has your countenance fallen? If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin lies at the door. And its desire [ is ] for you, but you should rule over it'. Several things to note here; God expected Cain to do right, because He knew that Cain could make the right choice if he wanted to. God knew very well why Cain was angry, and it was not because he had inherited his father's sin nature! ( Okay, in a sense he had, but it was more like he had inherited his father's fiery temper, if anything ) He did not offer the wrong sacrifice, or offer a right sacrifice wrongly ( with a wrong attitude ) because of some sin nature that he had inherited from Adam. His sacrifice was not accepted because he chose not to offer the acceptable sacrifice, as did his brother. Abel was obviously able to make the right choice, so why him and not Cain?

The whole idea that Adam was created perfect, and that he was perfect until the day he sinned is ridiculous! If Adam was created perfect; how could he sin? Why did he make the wrong choice, if he was perfect? 'Well' you might say, 'Satan tempted him, and he fell'? That's what the Bible says, right? Well, sorta, but James told his readers that 'each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed'. Eve did not eat the fruit because Satan told her to; Eve bit into the fruit because she chose to, because 'she saw that the tree [ was ] good for food, that it [ was ] pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make [ one ] wise'. It is true that we can be influenced ( tempted? ) by outside influence ( 'here, try this' ), but if we do not actively make the choice to do whatever we are tempted to do, we will not do it; it's that simple!

Going back into the history of Israel ( I AM speaking primarily of Israel according to the flesh, although as typical of, and related to the Israel of God, this may affect us as well ), it can easily be seen how the choice of Adam, and the subsequent bad choices of his progeny, steered their course, going through many trials and tribulations, and eventually ending with their total and complete destruction. There are numerous different passages, Romans 9:22 among them, that seem to point plainly to the fact that those who disobeyed God, under the old covenant were 'fated' to do so, even predestined by God. ( don't get me wrong, here: I am not denying the fact of predestination ) I do believe that the wicked were and are predestined by God to suffer the eternal consequences of their thoughts and actions, and that the righteous are predestined to enjoy the fruits of theirs, but is it right, or fair, to say that God has individually chosen certain people to be disobedient to the heavenly vision, while others have been chosen to receive the Gift of eternal Life? Taking into account what we've studied so far, would it not be more correct to say that God has chosen to eternally bless those who have chosen to live in covenant with Him, while those who continually refuse to do so are damned to a lifetime of suffering and pain ( again; please don't get me wrong, I'm not speaking of physical pain and suffering here ), after which, if they continue in their hard-hearted rebelliousness, they are finally and forever separated from God?

Adam had a choice, Cain had a choice, Ishmael had a choice, Esau had a choice, etc., etc., and we can go on and on! Aside from Cain, who I'm sure was obedient at some point in his life; all those listed above were blessed by God at some point in their lives: when they were obedient! Is it not the same for us today? Although maybe not to the same extent, for there is no doubt that Christ fulfilled the requirements of the law written in stone ( the letter ): if we are obedient to the Covenant, and remain in fellowship with Him; we reap what we sow, the blessings He has ordained for those who love Him, but those who continually blaspheme, and refuse the sacrifice He made, will reap what they sow as well, the curses that He has stored up for those who hate Him! Even as followers of Jesus, we often fail in our high calling, and we usually suffer the consequences when we do ( physically speaking ), but like Paul told Timothy, 'If we are faithless, He remains faithful; He cannot deny Himself.' ( II Timothy 2:13 ) If we do not continue in our unfaithfulness, and repent of our misdeeds, our transgression, we know that He has been 'faithful and just to forgive us [ our ] sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness'.

Obviously, a certain group of people were predestined for either the blessing or cursings of God's Covenant, but I believe that it is as clear ( obvious ) that individuals were not predestined in this way. Yes, God knew from the beginning, for He IS omniscient, that certain individuals would choose their separate ways, but was it because of this foreknowledge that He predestined them? Did God not rather predestine the corporate Body of believers, those who kept His Covenant, to receive the blessings of that Covenant, and the corporate Body of Adam, or Moses, those who did not keep His Covenant, who in fact refused it, and sentenced themselves to death ( 'Let His blood be upon ourselves and our children' ), to inherit the curses of that Covenant?!

The atonement that Christ made almost 2,000 years ago, is, in the corporate sense then, limited to those who do make the choice to follow Christ, but in the individualistic sense in which the adherents of the doctrine of 'Limited Atonement' look at it; we cannot say, I believe, that God's atoning work through Jesus our Savior was limited.

With the admonishment to be a Berean, and to prayerfully study these things for yourself, I am;

Your's in the love of God,
and in the Kingdom of Christ,
Charles Haddon Shank

The Everlasting Kingdom

2011-10-20T21:35:00.000-06:00

And in the days of these kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed; and the kingdom shall not be left to other people; it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand forever. ( Daniel 2:44 )

David wrote, in Psalm 104 ( 5 ), of our great God and Creator who 'laid the foundations of the earth, so [ that ] it should not be moved forever'. Whether you believe. as some, that he was writing of the physical globe, or along with Daniel, of God's Covenant Creation; it is clearly stated that it will stand, or be lively forever. David also wrote earlier, in his 78th Psalm ( verse 69 ), 'He built His sanctuary like the heights, like the earth which He has established forever.' David's son, Solomon, wrote that 'the earth abides forever' ( Ecclesiastes 1:4b ). Why then do we hear, from these fear-mongering end-times prognosticators, that the world is going to end tomorrow? Well, the Scriptures do speak, most famously in Isaiah 65:17, of a 'new heavens and a new earth'. Actually, probably better known is Peter's reference to it, in II Peter 3:13!

In both these references, but probably more clearly in Isaiah 65:17, we can see, or at least we should be able to, that the referent here is not the physical globe, nor even the inhabitants of that globe, but rather to the covenant people of God! The writer of Hebrews says as much when he old his readers ( Hebrews 12:24-28 ) 'you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, to an innumerable company of angels', and then, in a form of literary parallelism ( which they would have been very familiar with ), that this was 'to the general assembly and church of the firstborn [ who are ] registered in heaven'. The writer here made the direct connection that this 'new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells', was the Church, the Body of Christ, or God's covenant people!

Will the physical globe, that we know as 'terra firma', actually, literally abide forever'? That is a question that may be up for discussion, although the verses that I've quoted above certainly seem to indicate that it will! The Scriptures are very clear though, that, as in Daniel 2:44, His Kingdom will stand forever.

When men like Harold Camping continually make predictions about things that never happen, and that we are told over and over in Scripture will not happen; you have to wonder at the reasoning behind these false 'men of God'. A look at Camping's bank records would likely shout the loudest! I'm not saying that this man's intentions are entirely material; in his own way, I'm sure he does want to see people come to Christ, and for the name of Christ and God to be exalted, but you can bet that Camping is not in it solely for the glory of God! I'm quite sure that he is, along with others like him, 'sure' that what he has prophesied will, at some point, come true, but you can be sure that the almighty dollar looms largest on his horizon. I do not know the man, and so cannot personally attest to his delusional truthfulness ( although I did hear that he had a stroke back in June ), but enough is enough! If you'll remember; back in May, he made his original prediction that 'the rapture' would occur on May 21st, followed by 5 months of 'fire, brimstone and plagues', followed by the actual end of the globe, probably the physical universe too, on October 21st. Although much chagrined that, on May 2nd, like his followers, he was still here, he tried to cover himself by saying that a spiritual judgment and rapture had taken place, and that the actual physical 'rapture' would take place, right before the earth is consumed, on October 21st, which is tomorrow. You can be sure that, not only will this not happen, but it will be even more cause for ridicule of the name Christian, and more blasphemy in the Face of God!

Maybe once America's Christians see this charlatan for the blackguard he is, and that people like him are only after their money, they will cease funding fear-mongers like this and turn toward a right and true relationship with their almighty Creator, who made this earth, His earth to endure!

In the love and fear of the true God,
Charles Haddon Shank

Dismemberment or spiritual purity? ( the circumcision of the heart )

2011-10-10T18:31:00.001-06:00

'If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter into life maimed, rather than having two hands, to go to hell, into the fire that shall never be quenched'. ( Mark 9:43 )

I believe that it is rather clear that Jesus is not advocating bodily disfigurement here ( indeed; I believe that He forbids it, in another place ). The covenantal context, which I've spoken of previously, tells us, as in the case of circumcision, that it was for an external sign of what had been done internally. We have seen that, even though God commanded His son, Israel, to circumcise the foreskins of his progeny, this was only an outward sign of obedience to the spirit of His command, which, as we see in Deuteronomy 10:16, was 'circumcise the foreskin of your heart, and be stiff-necked no longer', while, a bit later, in Deuteronomy 30:6, Moses also told them, 'the LORD your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your descendants, to love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live'.

Many Christians have gotten the Gnostic notion that God's commands to His people were based in physicality, that human flesh had become so corrupt that God must needs destroy this humanity and form a whole new body, one more in conformity to His glorious Body, and in His image. Circumcision, to this manner of reasoning, was a sign that God had stripped away, or would strip away this dead humanity, separating the old man from the new.................wait.........................

The verse above, Mark 9:43 ( and I'm sure someone will notice right away that I didn't quote verse 44, as well ) seems to state that we should cut off a hand or gouge out an eye if they cause us to sin. First of all; I believe that we all, if we're honest with ourselves and Scripture, know that our disobedience, or sin, does not come from our biological members, but rather from our perverted 'heart', our inmost desires, from our own naturally rebellious will! Secondly, even if one were to argue that our wrongful desires do come from a certain part ( such as the 'hand', or 'eye' ), which is clearly not what Jesus is saying, then even if we do gouge out an eye or cut off a hand; what about the other hand? What about the other eye? ( what about the penis? ) We would end up killing ourselves because of all the body parts that we were cutting off, and we would most likely still have those wrong desires: we may not be able to actually carry out those desires, but is that what Jesus taught?

Paul wrote to the Church at Corinth that, 'the weapons of our warfare [ are ] not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ, and being ready to punish all disobedience when your obedience is fulfilled.' ( II Corinthians 10:4-6 ). They were not to, just as we are not to, wage war against our foe, whether it be inside or outside influence, using the same weapons that created the problem in the first place. We read, in Romans 8:3, that 'what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God [ did ] by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh'. First, mote that God did not condemn 'flesh'; He 'condemned sin in the flesh': He did not even condemn the weakness of the flesh that He had made good, just the sin, or disobedience that comes through the wrongful desires made possible by selfishly seeking our own wants and desires, rather than His Kingdom!

Now; to be fair; I have heard that separating oneself from a certain body part ( and I think we all know what body part that is! ) will remove the physical desire to use that body part wrongfully. I am not a scientist, and I will not claim to know the 'ins and outs' of the biological make-up of the human body, to say nothing of it's natural chemistry. I can say with certainty though, that our physical chemistry is not the problem; it is our will, our free choice to obey or disobey God's commands!

Are we really to think, though, that by cutting of a hand or gouging out an eye ( or removing some other perturbing body part ), that we will thus enter the Kingdom of Heaven, or rather, that they would? We know, in the covenantal and historical context of Scripture, that things like circumcision were merely foreshadowing the reality that came to Light in the Christ. 'Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the commandments of God [ is what matters ]'. Paul wrote these words, also to the Corinthian Church ( I Corinthians 7:19 ) to combat this very idea. It was not whether one had removed his foreskin or not, whether he was a Jew or a Gentile, but whether or not he had 'circumcised' his rebellious 'heart', deciding to live according to God's Law, rather than his own!

You may note, that in the passage from which the earlier quote comes, Mark 9:43-48, that Jesus uses a form of 'biblical parallelism', in which He relays the same idea three different times, in three different ways: now, without going into a lengthy exegesis of this passage, and why he mentions first the hand, then the foot ( or feet ), and finally the eye, suffice it to say that He was not advocating dismemberment, but rather making a point. As we progress in this short study; we may note what that point was!

'It is better for you to enter into life maimed, rather than having two hands, to go to hell, into the fire that shall never be quenched-where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched.^[d]'

It is interesting to note here, several things about this whole passage. In the more ancient manuscripts, upon which the NU-text ( Nestle'/Aland/United Bible Society ) is largely based, verses 44, the latter part of verse 45, and all of verse 46 do not appear. In verse 48, we can see that Jesus is quoting, as He so often did, from the Hebrew Scriptures, in this case, the prophecy of Isaiah, chapter 66, verse 24. As this passage is descriptive of the New Heavens and New Earth, or the New Jerusalem, it should be plain to see, that Isaiah was prophesying that those outside the city, and perishing in the hellish fires of the valley of Hinnom, or Gehenna would be an unpleasant reminder to the daily worshipers of God, of what had happened to those who refused to give God His due!

It should be fairly clear, I believe, that when Jesus referenced Isaiah's prophecy; he was referring, not to the place of fire and brimstone that we have traditionally known as 'hell', but was speaking of the grave, 'where their worm does not die'( because the worms feed on the dead flesh ), and combining that with a reference to the ever-burning fires of Jerusalem's garbage-dump, the Valley of Hinnom. probably better known to us as 'Gehenna'. His was a warning to those present that if they continued in the old traditional ways, circumcising their flesh, but not their 'hearts', they would safer the same fate as those bodies that were placed in the grave, or consigned to the fires of Gehenna!

I was reminded this weekend, that the Old English word 'hell' means basically 'to cover' Jesus was not referring to the Greek vision that we have come to know and fear as 'Hell'; He was simply using very familiar and hyperbolic language to warn them of their fate, if they continued on the course they were presently on, not just the grave, but, using Gehenna as a metaphor, of the torment they would receive in the coming conflagration!

Another place we should look for clues to the meaning of this enigmatic ( though traditionally plain ) passage, besides, of course, the historical context of Jesus' words, is the immediate context. Remembering that the chapter divisions were not there in the beginning, let's take a look at several of the event that happened immediately before and after. After the vision of the Transfiguration that Mark recorded, the first thing that Jesus did was to heal a young boy of epilepsy. This physical malady was seen to be an outward representation of what was really wrong with the boy: he had a demon, which Jesus immediately cast out! Just prior to the passage in question; Jesus, when He perceived that His disciples were arguing among themselves about who would be greatest, or first, uttered these famous words, 'If anyone desires to be first, he shall be last of all and servant of all', and then, 'Whoever receives one of these little children in My name receives Me; and whoever receives Me, receives not Me but Him who sent Me'. His point, I think we can all agree, especially in the latter statement, is not that we must necessarily shelter little children ( though this includes little children ) in order to receive Him, but that we must be willing to be a servant to all, if we would enter His Kingdom: it is not your status before men that God honors, but rather your status in His Son!

Again, remembering the chapter divisions; Mark next records the episode where the Pharisees questioned Jesus about divorce. They were hoping, somehow, to trap the Son of God, but Jesus, perceiving their wicked intent, reminded them that it was because of the hardness of their 'hearts' that Moses had made this concession for them. They were concerned only with the outward appearance, as with circumcision; if their wives did not do exactly what they required, they were allowed to divorce them. Jesus reminded them, 'from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female.’^[a] ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’;^[b] so then they are no longer two, but one flesh'. As Matthew recorded it, 'He said to them, Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.' ( Matthew 19:8 ).

'What do marriage and divorce have to do with circumcision or 'hell'?', you might ask. Well, since the Pharisees were so focused on the physical aspects of life; I believe that Jesus was giving them another example, showing them that the physical aspects, as the 'letter of the law', were not as important as the spiritual truth behind it, like Jesus told them, 'because of the hardness of your hearts' they were permitted to divorce their wives, and not just for any reason, but only for sexual impurity ( an outward sign of an inward problem ) or for adultery ( also an outward manifestation of an inner desire ). 'Hell' and marriage? I'm just not gonna go there, except to say that, like Jesus said above, it is instituted by God, and when entered into with 'both eyes open', can be a most blissful and glorious state!

Confident in Him,
Charles Haddon Shank

The Resurrection of the Body; Corporate Versus Individual, Spiritual Versus Natural

2011-10-04T00:19:00.000-06:00

The first thing that many Christians think of when someone brings up the topic of the resurrection, is biological bodies being re-animated and rising out of the dust of the earth. Some will even go so far as to say that, even if one is cremated ( which is frowned upon in most circles ) God is still able to take every particle of ash, from as far as it may have been scattered, and reassemble, re-animate that biological body that once was!

I have written on this subject before, so I might just refer you there, but the subject of the resurrection has become very prevalent of late, so we'll just give it another go-round!:) The gist of the subject at hand, as we saw above, is whether or not individual, biological bodies will be raised ( 'anastasis' ), or whether the biblical resurrection was a metaphor for the corporate redemption of the Body of Israel, which occurred in the first century, with the advent of Jesus, who was the Christ. Even though this event did occur in the first century ( Jesus said 'the hour is coming, and now is' ( John 5:25 ), it is an on-going reality, in a sense, because, as the people of God ( 'The Israel of God' ( Galatians 6:16 ) are awakened to His eternal Presence, a resurrection takes place. I remarked previously that, 'as the corporate Body of Israel, or Christ, is made up of individual human beings, a resurrection of the body ( individual ) was expected'. We are individuals, and as such, our individual bodies have been, in a sense, resurrected. 'How', you say? Well, as we have also explored previously, our physical bodies have been metaphorically awakened; we have had our eyes opened, which has stirred us, in many cases, to take action, action which may be contrary to previous actions, or even inaction!

In my latest article on the resurrection, we saw that the resurrection prophesied in the Hebrew Scriptures and looked forward to by faithful Israel, was not that of individual bodies, and not even of biologically dead bodies, for that matter, but was, as Simeon exulted, at the advent of the Son of God, 'Your salvation which You have prepared before the face of all peoples, a light to [ bring ] revelation to the Gentiles, and the glory of Your people Israel' ( Luke 2:29-32 ( Isaiah 42:6, 49:6 ). Zacharias, the father of the fore-runner of Jesus, 'Elijah who is to come' ( Matthew 11:14 ), prophesied in these words, concerning the Christ, 'Blessed [ is ] the Lord God of Israel, for He has visited and redeemed His people, and has raised up a horn of salvation for us in the house of His servant David' ( Luke 1:68 & 69 ) No wonder Nicodemus was confused when Jesus told him 'You must be born again' ( John 3:7 )! He must have thought, as was the tendency by then, with the physically-minded Pharisees, mixing with the Greek thinking of the day, that Jesus was speaking of biological bodies being birthed again after they were already mature. His question said as much! As Jesus assured him, though, He was not speaking of physical bodies being born ( again ) of water ( amniotic fluid ), or naturally, but of the corporate Body of Israel being re-birthed, or resurrected, to the standing of the communion with God which they had previously, of the birth, or anastasis, from above!

We are individuals, there can be no denying that fact, and as such, we have been raised with Christ; we have, in that sense, individually taken part in His death, burial and resurrection. As Paul wrote to the Roman Christians, who were obviously having somewhat the same problem as Nicodemus, even though they were 'individually members', they were all part of 'one body in Christ'. It is not just 'me and Jesus', or even between 'me and God'! Whether you like to use the term 'metaphorical' or not; we are all one Body! Though we are individuals, each with our own different gifts and talents ( indeed; thank God for diversity in the Body of Christ! ); we are not alone: we are to be concerned with the welfare of our brothers and sisters in Christ, to raise them up before the throne of God, in loving prayer, to raise them up from the dung-heap if they have fallen, and to hold them accountable when they stray from communion, the communion of the saints!

Getting back to the subject; it is is recorded in Matthew 1:21 that 'He will save His people from their sins', speaking, of course, of Jesus. Note well that Joseph was not told that 'He will save you from your sins', or even that He will save Mary from her sins'. Nope, not John the Baptist or Nicodemus either. No mention even, of the apostles there, not even His own family! Gabriel told Joseph that Jesus would save His people, all of them, from their sins; as a whole, not just as individuals. All of the above mentioned individuals, or at least, most of them can be included in 'His people', but as His people, as His Body; it is not just us; we are all part of One Body!

So; resurrection, anastasis. We have explored, though not fully, the fact that Israel after the flesh, those who had apostatized from the covenant, had become a dead body. We saw, in Ezekiel 37, that the prophet was given a vision of the future, where God showed him that the dead, or useless, body of Israel would be raised up, and given new life; reborn, you might say. In this vision, we see that it was not body by body that was re-covered ( with sinew, flesh ); it was not individual bodies that received 'the breath of life', but that the prophet was instructed to call 'to the breath', and to say 'Come from the four winds, O breath, and breathe on these slain, that they may live'; not each individual body, not some, and not others, but 'these slain'; all of them, together!

One last note to consider; we saw that, besides referring to 'a raising up'; anastasis also indicates 'removal' ( Hebrews 12:27 ). This removal was, as we have seen, the taking away of our sins, the sins of the people of God, and of the curtain, or veil that separated them from His holy and enduring Presence. This removal was begun in the first century, with, among other things, the ripping of the veil of the Temple, upon the words of Jesus, 'It is finished', and was decisively accomplished in AD70, with the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple, removing the last vestiges of that Old Covenant economy, or system of worship; now the people of God were free, free to worship 'in spirit and truth'!

In the Spirit of anastasis,
Charles Haddon Shank

Anastasis-The Resurrection of the Dead ( Ones )

2011-10-01T21:35:00.000-06:00

Let me first say that, to the 1st century Jewish mind, the resurrection of the dead was not a new concept. The first place, probably, that one would have thought of, when referencing the resurrection of the dead ( and this is the Jewish mindset ), is Ezekiel's prophecy of 'the dry bones' in Ezekiel 37. In verse 11 of this passage; it is recorded that the house of Israel complained that 'Our bones are dry, our hope is lost, and we ourselves are cut off!' This was not a situation speaking of physical death, as is the notion of many when thinking of the term 'resurrection', but, as the house of Israel complained; 'we............are cut off', in essence, looking back at the historical context of Ezekiel's vision, they felt that they had been cut off from the Presence of God, and the blessings of His Covenant. By being sent out of the land, and away from His Temple, much as Adam and Eve were removed from the Garden, they had symbolically been cut off, as had been promised before, for covenant unfaithfulness ( Genesis 17:14, Exodus 12:15, 31:14, Leviticus 7:27, 20:5, 22:3, Numbers 9:13, 15:31, etc. )

The Greek word transliterated 'anastasis' simply means, 'a raising up, removal.', or, 'to stand up', from my understanding. In the passage above; we read that, after God had covered these bones with flesh and sinew again, in essence, recreating, or re-forming them, and symbolically breathed into them 'the breath of life' ( Genesis 2:7 ); 'they lived, and stood upon their feet'.

Many Christians, and this, I believe, is the accepted orthodox position, believe that because Christ's biological Body was physically brought back to life, this necessarily means that ours, as individual believers, will too. Besides the fact that this 'individualism' is one of the problems that plagues the modern Church, this idea of physical, individual bodies being raised from the dead was almost unknown to the Jewish mind. Sure; as the corporate Body of Israel, or Christ, is made up of individual human beings, a resurrection of the body ( individual ) was expected, hoped for, but the main hope of Israel in the first century was a hope of, a looking forward to, the corporate resurrection of Israel, from the dead body of Moses ( old covenant ), into the living Body of Christ ( the New Covenant ).

I believe that Christ's physical, bodily resurrection was, first of all, a sign for those who sought after a sign, the unbelieving Jews, that He had actually defeated death, that the grave itself could not hold, or keep Him. Secondly, but even more importantly, His was a physical, bodily rising again, to show that we, as His Body, have been raised to New Life. As I have been saying; while this includes individual Christians, even in the 21st century, and beyond; it is primarily the corporate Body of Christ that has experienced a resurrection 'from dead works to serve the living God' ( Hebrews 9:14 ), and, as Ezekiel saw, the whole house of Israel, the covenant people of God, who were given a new hope, and symbolically brought back into the Land of covenant blessing, and the Presence of God!

Ezekiel's is not the only passage in the Hebrew Scriptures where the promise of a resurrection of the dead is given. There are several pictures given of this 'anastasis', rising again. There is the example of the widow's son, in I Kings 17, where this child was brought back to life, through the ministrations of Elijah. An example in the Greek Scriptures, of course, and one which is probably most familiar to us, is the resurrection of Lazarus, as recorded in John 11. These examples all came about before the bodily resurrection of Jesus, yet Jesus is referred to by Paul as 'the firstborn from the dead' ( Colossians 1:18 ( Revelation 1:5 ): why do you suppose this could be? Could it be that the resurrection of Jesus was not merely a physical return from biological death, as most have viewed it? That Jesus' resurrection was truly the first, a restoring of covenant Life ( John 11:26 ), of enjoying the Presence of God ( John 14:23 )? Remember that, as the Body of Christ; we do enjoy the blessings of the Presence of God, because of the renewed Covenant!

The prophet Amos, lamenting over the coming desolation of the Northern Kingdom, spoke these words, 'The virgin of Israel has fallen; she will rise no more. She lies forsaken on her land; [ there is ] no one to raise her up'. Note that this is prior to the destruction of the Northern Kingdom, indeed, at the height of their physical prowess, and financial prosperity, but, as Homer Hailey once wrote, their 'religious decay and apostasy', as well. This was how they had fallen, to rise no more. There would be no resurrection for them! This was served as as a picture, as well, of the continuing apostasy and subsequent destruction of the typical old covenant people of God, in AD70!

Although it can be easily argued, and has been proven; that much of the language, and even the events that we have witnessed in Scripture do indeed seem to point to the physicality of the resurrection of biologically dead bodies; an honest and in-depth study ( which this is not; in-depth, I tried to be as honest as I could:) will show that this resurrection of the dead was not a rising of individual bodies, merely to biological life, but a return of the corporate body of Israel, God's people, to the blessings of Covenant Life, to communion with our Creator!

In Scriptural usage, as we have seen, the Greek 'anastasis' means resurrection, or rising again ( from the dead ). As we have also seen; it need not ( necessarily ) refer to biological bodies returning to physical life, but most often referred, especially in the Hebrew Scriptures, but in the Greek as well, to a return to covenant faithfulness, and a return to the blessings of the Covenant, including the Presence of God!

As those who now benefit from the resurrection of the dead, and indeed we do partake of it in a limited sense; we have the advantage, through covenant faithfulness, of having been born into that Life, never having experienced the death of Adam, never having lived under the old covenant ( 'ministration of death' ), so in that sense, the resurrection that Scripture prophesied of is in the past, though, in a limited sense, it continues today, as God's people are freed from bondage ( I'll let my readers ruminate on what form that bondage might take, or by whom it may be administered )!

Short, though it may be; I pray that this study will be a blessing to those who read it, and may it cause its readers to be Bereans, to see for themselves if these things are so!

Charles Haddon Shank

Stand Up, Christian Soldiers!

2011-09-26T19:06:00.000-06:00

Christians are cowards!

This may seem like a pretty strong, and for the most part, untrue statement, but American Christianity, for the most part, has become so lackadaisical, that it's about time to 'warm up the paddles'! For one thing, it usually takes some pretty strong medicine to cure such a terrible sickness. Many Christians out there, whether individually ( usually ) or as a whole, have bowed to the demands of their government, and seemingly forgetting who the Ruler of this world is; have said, 'we have no king but Caesar'!

Christians today, many of them, anyway, are like politicians, those who take the Name of God in vain, anyway, will say things like, 'I have a very deep and personal relationship with Jesus Christ, but I will in no way allow that to influence my policy-making decisions'! A friend of mine remarked that 'at least he didn't really perjure himself and something like 'Jesus is Lord'! The Federal Government ( FG ) likes these kinds of people; well, they'd rather you didn't even acknowledge the Name, but if you keep your 'faith' 'behind your eyes and between your ears', you can believe anything you want, just don't be religious about it: don't act on it! It is when God's people act on their faith, that the words of Thomas Jefferson are proven true: 'When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.' This is where much of so-called 'American Christianity' has relegated itself. By bowing to, by fearing the federal ( even state ) government that vaunts itself against God, and His Law; we as Christians, have proven ourselves to be the worst kind of cowards. We have freely given up some of our most important liberties, and have, wittingly or unwittingly, ushered in something that is dangerously close to being out and out tyranny! ( Many would take issue with this statement, saying, 'we're already there!' )

'What the hell kind of Christianity is that?'

That's a good question. When most Christians read what Paul wrote, 'Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which Christ has made us free' ( Galatians 5:1 ); they seem to forget the whole lesson that Paul was teaching, and that he next said 'and do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage'. Sure; in context, Paul was referring to the ordinances of man as opposed to God's Law.........wait........................that sounds like what we're facing today in America! This country, as a whole, still, praises be to God, has more freedoms than many other nations, to be sure, but as a famous singer once said 'we're losing control by the hour' ( maybe that should be 'loosing' ); that's the 'problem' in a nut-shell; American Christians, for whatever reason, and long ago ( way before our time ) began either to lose or loose control, and have given over to a bunch of unbelieving reprobates, and worse yet, 'Christian' reprobates, control of this great nation of ours!

I believe that much of this 'problem' can be laid at the feet of one lone enemy: this enemy can be called by several different names, 'apathy' being one of them, but problem the worst enemy that American Christianity faces, is pure, unadulterated ( or maybe that should be 'adulterous' ) laziness.We, as a culture, have become so lazy, that we have made it 'easy pickins' for politicians to swoop in and 'take care of all our problems for us', and then we complain when they foist another whole set of different but related problems on us. When will we learn to look to God, and not the Federal Government, for our salvation! When the government begins to fear the people, when Christians begin to grow a backbone, and stand up for their God-given rights, and say, 'Jesus is my Lord; you are not'; then true freedom will reign, but until then, until Christians begin to resurrect, to take a stand for their true Lord, all we have to look forward to is tyranny! How bad do things have to get before this happens?

When American Christians begin to live what they believe, not hiding behind their faith, but acting upon it; we can begin to take this country back. We seem to forget, often, that 'This is Our Father's World': He made it, and He rules it, but He has given us the dominion of it! We just need to stand up and redeem what we have lost, with the knowledge that He has willed His Truth to triumph through us, that the battle is already won: we just need to step up to the plate, and with the strength the God has given us, to fight the good fight!

When we begin to realize that true faith is a lived out faith, not just something between 'me and Jesus', then things will begin to turn around in this country, and God will honor our faith, just as He honored 'the faith of our fathers'!

Prayerfully,
Charles Haddon Shank

The Great Divorce

2011-09-23T00:07:00.002-06:00

Having just experienced the pain of separation; I can personally attest to the fact that, no matter the reason for separation ( which God hates ), no matter how much you might feel relief for being freed from the situation: it hurts, it is not right, and it is not the answer!

In too many instances today, and for the past 50 years or so; divorce has become almost as common-place in the Church ( not just the institutional church ) as in the 'world' around us! If a husband or wife, for whatever reason, cannot 'get along', then divorce, rather than reconciliation, has become one of the first options that we naturally think of. The Church, the Body of Christ, has, for the most part, remained silent, and permitted this to go on. One of the reasons for this, I believe, is that a good understanding of covenant is lacking. To be sure; there are some out there who have begun to explore the whole concept of God's holy Covenant, and, applying it to every aspect of life, including marriage, are seeing the actuality of the reconciliation that the Christ gained for us, in their own lives and the lives of those around them. These have implemented the blessings of the Covenant, and these blessings, although not always correctly understood ( if they're really comprehended at all ) are flowing through them, and as I have often pointed out from Revelation 22, are healing the 'nations' around them, although this 'healing' is not always appreciated!

A good friend of mine ( Timothy P Martin @ truthinliving.org ) has recently begun a sermon series on the book of Hosea, and reading through the book; one can see many similarities between the adultery, harlotry, and idolatry for which God had symbolically put away ( divorced? ) His typical old covenant people, His 'wife' of old, Israel 'after the flesh', and His new covenant people, the Church. Now before I dig myself into a hole, here; let me just remind myself and you, my readers, that, as the Christ finalized and fulfilled that 'first' covenant, His people have been 'changed' ( I Corinthians 15:52 ), and transferred into His Kingdom ( Colossians 1:13 ). This all occurred, as can be ascertained from an honest reading of Scripture, in the first century AD, so 'why', you may ask, 'should we worry about the Church today?'

Well; first of all, we shouldn't worry about the Church ( or 'church' )! We need to be actively concerned, yes, and to do what we can to correct the situation, to begin to root out, to expose ( even mock ) the idolatry, and downright spiritual harlotry which has become so prevalent among those who claim the name of Christ!

We read, in the book of Hosea, what happened to the old covenant people of God when they committed such adulterous acts; can we, as the new covenant people of God, expect any better treatment at the 'hands' of a holy and sovereign God? Praise God; we can! Although God is immutable, and is jealous for His Wife, as we too should be concerned ( horrified ) with the spiritual harlotry and adultery of His people; because of the New Covenant in Christ, His people no longer linger under the 'sword of Damocles', under the threat ( promise ) of eternal separation from God! Should we then do nothing; allowing our brothers and sisters in Christ to suffer the natural consequences of their actions, or inaction, since we need not fear the eternal consequences, as did those 'under' the 'first' covenant? Won't they just learn their lesson the hard way, and come out stronger Christians for it? They may, and sometimes this is what has to happen, when because of their stubbornness or just plain refusal to hear good counsel, they do find out the hard way that God's way is best, but do we really, if we can at all convince them to change their headlong course into 'hell' ( on earth ), wish to see them go through this 'hell'? Do we really want to ( re ) present the Christ ( God ) as a 'whore'?

Secondly, and I believe I just covered, in part, the main reason that we should concern ourselves with the wickedness going around today among many of those who claim the Name of Christ; we must realize, as ambassadors of God, indeed the very Body of Christ Himself, that as we remain silent about, or even partake, to whatever extent, in the harlotrous idolatry that is all around us, we show those that have not yet accepted the invitation to 'Come', and 'Whoever desires, let him take the water of life freely' ( Revelation 22:17 ), that we are no different than they are, that Christ is nothing but an idolatrous whore, who, rather than reconciling as He claimed in the Revelation of God's Word, divorces at the drop of a hat!

Speaking of eternal consequences; I shouldn't say that there are no 'eternal consequences' for the people of God, those who name the Name, who do misrepresent the Good name of Christ, because if they do so continually, despite being reminded of their unfaithfulness to the Covenant, if they do continue in their adultery ( spiritual or otherwise ); I believe that they will, as long as they live in their biological bodies on this earth, suffer the natural consequences of their actions, or lack thereof!

We read, in Paul's second letter to the Corinthians that 'This punishment which [ was inflicted ] by the majority is sufficient for such a man, so that, on the contrary, you [ ought ] rather to forgive and comfort [ him ], lest perhaps such a one be swallowed up with too much sorrow.' ( II Corinthians 2:6 & 7 ). Paul recognized that, while consequences are necessary, the purpose of punishment is not to cause separation forever, but rather through that punishment to bring about reconciliation, to bring back into communion one who had strayed from the Body. Paul has much to say on the subject of the marriage covenant, though not, maybe, in so many words, in I Corinthians 7:1-16. Although, again, not in so many words, he reveals the idea, or purpose, of separation ( for a time, even within the marriage ); it is so that they may come together again, reconciling to each other after taking a step back, so to speak, to prayerfully re-examine their commitment, both to God and to each other.

As I mentioned earlier; I believe that one cause of this 'Great Divorce' within even the Body of Christ, is the fact that we have, as a covenant people, lost touch with the reality of covenant, and too often failed to realize the implications of 'Christ in us'. One of these implications, which many have 'grasped', rather loosely, is something I mentioned before, in passing, you might say. We, because of 'Christ in us', not only ( re ) present Christ to a 'lost and dying wold'; we, for all intents and purposes ( not discounting the absolutely necessary work of the Spirit of God ) ARE Christ to them. Aside from a supernatural intervention; we are the only Christ they'll ever physically witness, so we had better start acting like it! ( I say this to myself more than to anybody else! ) If we truly understood the concept of covenant, in particular, the Covenant that God instituted and established with His people, that of 'Christ in us' ( I'm not claiming to understand or live it perfectly ); I believe that a physical reformation would begin within the Body of Christ, one that could not help but have an even greater impact on the 'nations' around us!

Covenant Context: The Meta-Narrative

As I wrote above; I believe that, in large part, maybe primarily, the reason that the Church is in the straits she is, is because she has, either knowingly or ignorantly 'divorced' herself from the bigger picture of Scripture. Since some teach, for instance, 'Replacement Theology', that the Church has replaced Israel as the covenant people of God, then one might end up thinking that the Church is a plan B of sorts, since, because Israel didn't work out; God divorced them and married the Church. After all, as my friend pointed out recently; that is what we read in the book of Hosea, that God is a divorcee! On the other hand; if you believe and teach that the Church is plan B, and that we are a parenthesis ( 'till the fulness of the Gentiles comes in' ), and that national, physical Israel is still God's wife, then you have God being a polygamist, or worse!

If however, you thoughtfully and truthfully take into consideration the covenant context of Scripture; you may begin to realize and understand that God's Plan from the beginning was to foreshadow His Church through His Old Covenant 'children'; in fact, that the Church is true Israel! Paul wrote as much to the Church in Galatia ( 6:16 ) referring to the 'Israel of God'. As we've noted in previous articles, the name 'Israel' has traditionally meant 'ruler with God': maybe that's the problem with much of the Church today; she doesn't see herself as ruling with God, but as waiting for Jesus to come back!?

One big problem that some have noted, and we believe this to be of grave importance, is that translators of the Scriptures, for whatever reason, have seen fit to insert that nearly blank page in the center of our Bible, separating what is referred to as 'The Old Testament' from what is commonly called 'The New Testament'. This action puts the wall of division, the separating curtain, if you will, in place again; only the names are changed. On one side, we have the Hebrew Scriptures that have to do with Israel, and on this side of the veil we have God's dealings with the Church. But it doesn't end there; according to this futurist paradigm, at least, in some circles, God has yet to deal, once again, with His Old Covenant people, physical, national Israel, who will resume relations with God, along with the Church: this is where God's polygamy rears it's ugly head! ( not really ) As of now though; God is only courting, or engaged to the Church, and Israel is just waiting in the background to resume her place as the wife of God. If, according to this paradigm, particularly the dispensational version, the Church, at the end of this age, will be wedded to God, I mean Christ, then at some point; Israel will resume her marriage relationship with God. Whew; no polygamy there! Wait: aren't Christ and God One and the same'?

Too many gaps........

Another problem that we have noticed, and maybe you've noticed this as well, is all the unnecessary, and un-called-for, 'gaps' that have been created in the Scriptures. The problem that was mentioned above is a glaring example of this. When it comes to the realm of 'Fulfilled Eschatology', and the fact that believers in this paradigm are viewed as heretics, and most often 'divorced' from 'the communion of the saints' because of it; we must go to Daniel's prophecy of 'The Seventy Weeks' in Daniel 9. Most reviewers of this passage will readily admit that those 'seventy weeks' have seen their fulfillment, at least as far as the 69th week, the so-called 'first advent' of Christ, including His crucifixion! The 'problem' is, that Daniel's heavenly apocalyptic gives no indication of any kind of a 'gap' between the 69th and 70th week!

Gabriel told Daniel that 'He shall confirm a covenant with many for one week' ( remember; this is after the 69 ( 7+62 ) have been fulfilled, and Messiah 'cut off, but not for Himself' ), but that, 'in the middle of the week He shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering'. I don't see a gap there; do you?! In fact; I see what Jesus described in Matthew 24:22, 'unless those days were shortened, no flesh would be saved; but for the elect’s sake those days will be shortened'. Looking at Josephus' 'Wars of the Jews', you may well note, as I seem to remember, that there was a certain leader, whether inside or outside, that did make a covenant for a short time, with the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and that in the midst of that short period of time, he did bring an end to the normal Temple routines, and reneged on that covenant, or agreement, but ultimately, I believe, we have to admit that it was God Himself who brought an end to these useless sacrifices that did nothing but cause a stench in His 'nostrils'!

This 'gap' has caused an even wider 'gap' ( usually on the part, sadly, of the 'gap theorist' ) between believing Christians. Because the Church has been unwilling, especially of late ( past couple hundred years or so, at leas ), to realize, to admit that Christ actually meant what He said in place like Matthew 24:34; a 'divorce' of sorts, has happened, and seems to have spread quite far, between much of God's Church, and their Head! As I mentioned before though, I believe; there are those out there who truly follow their Master despite their eschatological 'leanings', and simply 'love the brethren', as they are commanded. Of late; it seems that this, sadly, is not as often the case, as believers of 'Fulfilled Eschatology' are being presented with more and more 'speedbumps'!

Another such 'gap', is supposedly found between verses 27 & 28 of Matthew 16. Jesus told His disciples, in verse 27 'For the Son of Man will come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He will reward each according to his works', and continuing in the same theme in verse 28, 'Assuredly, I say to you, there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom'. Again; no gap, except what man, in his finite 'wisdom', has placed there!

Inserting such 'gaps' serves only to separate the Body of Christ, not only from each other, but in many, if not most cases, from their Head, since they are still waiting for Him to descend and be united ( except in Spirit ) with His waiting Bride, the Church! I think all would readily agree that God dwells with His people, that Jesus lives in our 'hearts' ( John 14:23 ) through His Holy Spirit, but that at some point; Jesus is going to return to this humble existence on earth, set up an earthly reign, and rule on a physical throne from an earthly Jerusalem ( this varies a bit, I believe, from 'gap theorist' to 'gap theorist' ). At this point, as the story goes, physical tears, sickness, and yes, even biological death itself will cease to exist. Where animals, who are natural enemies of certain domesticated animals, will feed, even lie down together, children will play around the dens of poisonous snakes without fear of harm, and God will walk, in the cool of the evening with Adam & Eve: all will be at peace! Wait...................

Matthew 24:3, holds, according to some, the same sort of 'gap'. When the disciples asked Jesus, in their usual manner, 'Tell us, when will these things be? And what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?', according to these futurist speculators, they were asking two, maybe three different questions. First, 'when will these things be?' To satisfactorily answer this question; we don't have to look very far. At least; it would seem that way, but look at the preceding chapter, remembering that these chapter divisions are man-made, and not inspired. After pronouncing His 'woes' against the scribes and Pharisees; Jesus tells them 'Assuredly, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation'. The disciples, no doubt, having just heard this; when commenting on the beauty of the earth tabernacle, or Temple, realized that when Jesus said 'Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place'; He meant that the same 'generation', or group of people, against who He had just levied His judgment, was the same 'generation' that would not 'pass away', or die off, until all the things He had mentioned had taken place.

Secondly, when they asked 'what will be the sign of Your coming'; Jesus answered, first of all, 'Take heed that no one deceives you', and after warning them about false 'messiahs' to come and signs in the heaven and in the earth; He finally told them 'Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory' ( Matthew 24:30 ). You can see that these are very much like His words in Matthew 16:28 ( remember what was said about the chapter divisions? ).

Thirdly, and this is almost so ridiculous by now, that it hardly bears worth mentioning, but I think this needs to be pointed out, 'and of the end of the age?' If one knows anything at all about sentence structure, you know that one must have, at the very basis, a subject and a verb. You might see a subject there ( okay, I'm a bit rusty ), 'the end of the age', but that is hardly a question in and of itself. It only makes sense if you combine it with the first subject, and 'what will be the sign'. Secondly, and thusly; if the coming ( Parousia ) of Christ has not occurred yet, then neither has the end of the age! What age? Certainly not the New Covenant age, for that age, this age, which we are presently in, will admittedly never end! The disciples knew this, and unquestionably referred to the 'age' ( aion ) in which they currently were living, under the administration of the old covenant economy, or system!

Me, Me, Me............

No; I'm not warming up to sing an operetta, or aria; we are taking a look at yet another problem that has plagued the Body of Christ for the past hundred years or so. It's name is 'individualism'! You may have noticed in many of the newer hymns especially, but even back as far as several hundred years or so, this individualistic attitude of 'it's me and Jesus'. Songs like 'No One Ever Cared for Me Like Jesus', 'O, How I Love Jesus', 'When I can Read My Title Clear', and 'I Want To Be Like Jesus', to name just a few, are indicative of this lack of covenantal understanding that I mentioned at the beginning of this article. Now don't get me wrong; we are, each one, individuals, but as members of the corporate Body of Christ ( Paul put it like this, 'Now you are the body of Christ, and members individually' ( I Corinthians 12:27 ); it is not just 'me and Jesus'. Jesus did not come to save Charles Shank from his sins; He came to save His people from their sins. Did Jesus save me from my sins? Yes, of course! But it was not 'for me He died' as one newer song expresses. Even good old hymns like 'Amazing Grace' betray this 'individualism', with lines like ''I once was lost, but now am found, was blind , but now I see'. True enough, but where is the rest of the Body, without which we cannot live?! I must say though, that the fifth verse, 'when we've been there ten thousand years', somewhat redeems itself, though I cannot agree with its presumption still.

This separation, about which we have been reading, is loosely, if not largely, based on God's Word to His people, in II Corinthians 6:17, where Paul quotes from the Septuagint, 'Come out from among them and be separate, says the Lord'. There are times when the believer must separate himself from others, as when they are going down the wrong path, doing that which is against the Law of God, and not in accordance with the Law of Love. When Paul quoted the words of God above, he had in mind a different kind of separation than we seem to focus on today. Paul was not telling believers to separate from other believers, just because they believed differently on certain minor matters. Paul's issue was doctrinal, yes, but it was a major, THE major doctrine, that Jesus was the Son of God.

Were there other issues that Paul had in mind, issues that we might be facing today?

Most certainly!

I will, however, let my readers think, and act, on these, though!

Charles Haddon Shank

Studies in the Book of the Revelation of Jesus the Christ the Son of God ( the visions ( the second ( Renewed ) Adam ) Pt 19

2011-09-18T21:45:00.000-06:00

Keys to Understanding the Book of Revelation

Lest we forget, when reading this fantastic and mysterious book; it is, first and foremost, about Jesus Christ, it is His Revelation. Only secondarily, and due to His Revelation as the Son of God, as He told Caiaphas in Matthew 26:64. 'Nevertheless, I say to you, hereafter you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven.', is it a record, in sign and metaphor, of the annihilation of the apostate 'children' of Israel, after the flesh. When Jesus had spoken the words above; the high priest tore his robe, because, in his hearing, Jesus had blasphemed; God was the only one in his knowledge that came, or rode ( Deuteronomy 33:26, Psalm 68:4 ) 'on the clouds of heaven'. Jesus told Caiaphas, in other words, that He was God Himself, and now revealed to His people, His servants in the Great Tribulation, that He is Who He said He was, very God of very God!

This Book was written for the consolation of His servants who were going through the Great Tribulation, and as I said before, being first and foremost THE Revelation of Jesus as the Christ; it is this fact which was of greatest consolation to the saints, the 'souls under the altar'. As His 'coming on the clouds' was in judgment upon their adversary, first-century apostate Judaism, this was also of great relief to them, even, for those who heeded Jesus' words in Matthew 24:16, Mark 13:14, and Luke 21:21, it also meant their physical salvation ( Romans 13:11 ), for they escaped the siege of the earthly Jerusalem.

And he showed me a pure^[a] river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding from the throne of God and of the Lamb. In the middle of its street, and on either side of the river, [ was ] the tree of life, which bore twelve fruits, each [ tree ] yielding its fruit every month. The leaves of the tree [ were ] for the healing of the nations.

Some study has been made, I believe, concerning these 'fruits', and how they might be matched up with the 'fruits of the Spirit', mentioned in passages such as Galatians 5:22 & 23 and Ephesians 5:9 ( see also I Corinthians 13 and II Peter 1:5-7 ) , and although a correlation can certainly be found there, I believe that to try to make too much of it is to blur the point; the point being, that John, in a vision, was being gently reminded of what Jesus had said a bit earlier, and which John himself had recorded in the Gospel which bears his name. As recorded in John 15:5; Jesus had said, 'I am the vine, you [ are ] the branches. He who abides in Me, and I in him, bears much fruit; for without Me you can do nothing'. Jesus was revealing to His servant, and through him, to His servants, that this was the phenomena of which He had spoken, that through the power flowing through them from the Tree, they would be His Hands for the healing of the nations. Not only would His servants partake of the 'Tree of Life', they would take part in His ministry, doing even greater things than He did while He walked this earth.

'Now a river went out of Eden to water the garden, and from there it parted and became four riverheads.' ( Genesis 2:10 )

'Then he brought me back to the door of the temple; and there was water, flowing from under the threshold of the temple toward the east, for the front of the temple faced east; the water was flowing from under the right side of the temple, south of the altar.' ( Ezekiel 47:1 )

'When I returned, there, along the bank of the river, [ were ] very many trees on one side and the other. Then he said to me: “This water flows toward the eastern region, goes down into the valley, and enters the sea. [ When it ] reaches the sea, [ its ] waters are healed. And it shall be [ that ] every living thing that moves, wherever the rivers go, will live. There will be a very great multitude of fish, because these waters go there; for they will be healed, and everything will live wherever the river goes.' ( Ezekiel 47:7-9 )

Throughout this study; we have seen how heavily John drew upon the Hebrew Scriptures to describe what was happening before his 'eyes': there's good reason for this, for John was seeing in fulfillment, exactly what the prophets of old had merely glimpsed. As Ezekiel had seen this river of life flowing from under the Temple, and remember Ezekiel's was a vision, as well; so John saw the reality of what this 'Temple' truly stood for, and recognized in the metaphor that God had presented to Ezekiel, that the 'fish' represented the nations. No wonder that the early followers of the Christ chose the fish as their 'secret' symbol!

As we noted also of the light of the 'city', the holy, or heavenly Jerusalem, and of its wall, and even the city itself, in the last study, this river was 'clear as crystal'. As this signified the purity of the 'city', so it now stands to signify the purity of the river which flows from the city. Not to apply too much physicality here, but we might even think of the river as being the juice of the fruits; think on that!

And there shall be no more curse, but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it, and His servants shall serve Him. They shall see His face, and His name [ shall be ] on their foreheads. There shall be no night there: They need no lamp nor light of the sun, for the Lord God gives them light. And they shall reign forever and ever.

To correctly understand this first statement; we need to have a correct understanding of what the 'curse itself was. Was the curse merely, or even primarily physical, with biological consequences, such as physical death? The 'curse' definitely could, and often did, lead to physical exhaustion and expiration, but as with death itself; I believe that John's 'staple' diet, the Hebrew Scriptures, show us that all of the curses pronounced upon the apostate 'children' of Israel, as in Deuteronomy 28, while they certainly had physical consequences, were the result of a 'cursed' conscience, which God had, as Paul wrote, in other words, 'given over to a debased mind'.

We all joke about flies, mosquitoes, weeds, etc. as being 'part of the curse; but are they really, or are they a part of Gods good creation that He USES as a curse? Think of the way that God used them when He sent His plagues on Egypt. and I doubt if many people view frogs as 'part of the curse', but I'll bet the Egyptians were thinking that when God 'loosed' them on the Egyptians!

'But it shall come to pass, if you do not obey the voice of the LORD your God, to observe carefully all His commandments and His statutes which I command you today, that all these curses will come upon you and overtake you: '( Deuteronomy 28:15 )

What follows God's warning here, is a list, an expansion really, of what this curse would involve. All the things that would happen to this people as a result of this disastrous curse are very physical, with life-threatening consequences, but, as we have seen with everything chronicled in a physical manner in the Hebrew Scriptures, it is usually not too hard to find a deeper spiritual meaning that it represented, or foreshadowed, in the Greek Scriptures.

Another clue to what might be meant by this 'curse' is found in the next part of the sentence; 'but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it'. This should tell us that the lack of God's presence was the 'curse'! Now we know, again, in a foreshadow, or physical picture of a greater spiritual reality, that God was symbolically present in the tabernacle of meeting, with the 'children' of Israel in the wilderness, when He alit, in the form of a cloud upon the tabernacle; He was said to 'rest' on the mercy seat, which was atop the ark of the covenant. ( Leviticus 16:2, Exodus 40:34-36 ) We read, in Exodus 13:20 & 21, of how God led His people through the wilderness, with the physical manifestation of 'a pillar of cloud', by day, and 'a pillar of fire' by night. As we'll see in a bit; God promised that 'There shall be no night there'.

'It shall be one day which is known to the LORD-neither day nor night. But at evening time it shall happen [ that ] it will be light.' ( Zechariah 14:7 )

Catching a glimpse of The Day of the Lord', and the introduction of the New Jerusalem, with 'living waters' flowing from it ( think Garden of Eden ); Zechariah prophesied of this phenomenon, of this 'city' with no night. We might also be reminded, again, of the ninth plague that God visited upon Egypt, the darkness which enveloped them, but 'all the children of Israel had light in their dwellings'; we can read about this in Exodus 10:21-23.

Reading this phrase through the 'eyes' of the covenant context, too, we might note that 'night' often referred to the old, or 'first' covenant, whereas 'day' referred to the New Covenant, as Christ was called by Peter, the 'morning star' ( II Peter 1:19 ). Remember how Paul wrote to the Church at Thessalonica that, 'You are all sons of light and sons of the day. We are not of the night nor of darkness' ( I Thessalonians 5:5 ).

Then he said to me, “These words [ are ] faithful and true.” And the Lord God of the holy^[b] prophets sent His angel to show His servants the things which must shortly take place. “Behold, I am coming quickly! Blessed [ is ] he who keeps the words of the prophecy of this book.”

'So they said to Jeremiah, “Let the LORD be a true and faithful witness between us, if we do not do according to everything which the LORD your God sends us by you.' ( Jeremiah 42:5 )

Before Israel forsook the land and fled to Egypt, even though God had promised to save them if they obeyed; whether feigned or real, the leaders of Israel came to the prophet Jeremiah with this petition, that he would pray God for them, after the manner of Baalam. Worse than Baalam, though, for Jeremiah even, saw their hypocrisy, they had already decided to flee to the land of Egypt, to seek safety from the hand of man, rather than from the hand of their God. As Israel then committed this idolatry, and spiritual harlotry; so old covenant Israel of Jesus day had committed the same harlotry, and were about to be judged according to their deeds.

Tradition tells us that the Christians of Jerusalem ( and the surrounding environs, I'm sure ) escaped to the mountains of Pella, heeding Jesus' warning ( Matthew 24:15 & 16 ), and thus, from certain accounts, were 'saved' from the destruction which overwhelmed their brethren after the flesh. Though these Christians were the ones who fled, and the apostate Jews the ones who stayed in their 'land' ( though technically, the Christians were still within the confines of the land ); I believe that they understood that the promises were not of a physical, geographical location, but referred to a return to Edenic conditions, to the enduring presence of God.

As we have noted several times already in the course of these studies; Jesus told His servants twice in the passage above about the imminence of His coming and judgment. 'Behold, I am coming quickly', and 'things which must shortly take place', both of which are statements that He had made before, in other words maybe, to His servant John. You may have heard the rather weak argument that, when Jesus said 'quickly'; He actually may have meant 'speedily'; while it is true that different prepositional use of the root word translated from the Greek here have been used to denote a speediness, or hastiness, the contextual use of word like 'soon' and 'near' prohibit this passage from simply telling us that 'when He comes; He'll come quickly, or with speed'. The Greek word that Jesus used above also carries the connotation of 'without delay', further bolstering the fact that Jesus was revealing to His servant, and thus to His servants, that He was about to come upon their enemies like a flood!.

'The angel whom I saw standing on the sea and on the land raised up his hand^[c] to heaven and swore by Him who lives forever and ever, who created heaven and the things that are in it, the earth and the things that are in it, and the sea and the things that are in it, that there should be delay no longer, but in the days of the sounding of the seventh angel, when he is about to sound, the mystery of God would be finished, as He declared to His servants the prophets.' ( Revelation 10:6 )

Now I, John, saw and heard^[c] these things. And when I heard and saw, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel who showed me these things. Then he said to me, “See [ that you do ] not [ do that ]. For^[d] I am your fellow servant, and of your brethren the prophets, and of those who keep the words of this book. Worship God.”

Here John again attests to his truthfulness. He again makes clear that he really saw all these things. When he saw all this glory; he prostrated himself before this representative, this angel, who reminded him that he was only a messenger, the bearer of good news, and not the One who alone was worthy of his worship. A brother of mine quite a few years ago, preached a series of sermons on the Revelation, and I was privileged, not long ago, to listen to these sermons. When he got to this juncture; he commented that this 'angel' was telling John, in other words, 'I am no longer your superior'.

'What is man that You are mindful of him, and the son of man that You visit him? For You have made him a little lower than the angels,^[b] and You have crowned him with glory and honor.' ( Psalm 8:4 & 5 )

'Do you not know that we shall judge angels? How much more, things that pertain to this life?' ( I Corinthians 6:3 )

'So Jesus said to them, “Assuredly I say to you, that in the regeneration, when the Son of Man sits on the throne of His glory, you who have followed Me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.' ( Matthew 19:28 )

We must remember that John was seeing a vision of, at that time, 'the age to come', of which Jesus had often spoken. Depending on which version you're reading; Jesus told the Sadducees that, in the resurrection, or 'the age to come', His people would be 'like ( or 'as' ) the angels in heaven', and in fact; Young's Literal Translation reads 'for in the rising again they do not marry, nor are they given in marriage, but are as messengers of God in heaven'. With the understanding that 'angel' simply means 'messenger', and not some ethereal being, as has been traditionally taught for centuries, even for millenia, and with the understanding that Jesus spoke these words in the context of the judgment of old covenant Israel ( after the flesh; it should be fairly clear that He was not saying that they would become ethereal, but, as in Matthew's Gospel, quoted above, they would judge those that formerly held rule over them.

And he said to me, “Do not seal the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is at hand. He who is unjust, let him be unjust still; he who is filthy, let him be filthy still; he who is righteous, let him be righteous^[e] still; he who is holy, let him be holy still.”

'But you, Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book until the time of the end; many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall increase.' ( Daniel 12:4 )

Reading further in chapter 12 of Daniel; we see that 'Many shall be purified, made white, and refined, but the wicked shall do wickedly; and none of the wicked shall understand, but the wise shall understand.' Jesus told John, through His messenger, not to seal the book, whereas He had told Daniel a long time before ( about 600 years? ) to seal his prophecy of judgment because that time was far off in the future from Daniel's day. God revealed to John the loosing of those seals that Daniel was told to 'seal............until the time of the end'.

As we have noted throughout this study ( and many others have noted this, as well ); John was showing us, was writing nothing new: we have only to return to the Hebrew Scriptures to see this! The Israelites had become 'as an unclean thing' ( Isaiah 30:22 ), their righteousness 'like filthy rags' ( Isaiah 64:6 ), so God 'pronounced them unclean' ( Ezekiel 20:36 ), because of their ritual harlotry. The Hebrew Scriptures are also full of examples, especially in the 'major prophets', of the lack of justice meted out by those who were to judge God's people fairly, and were themselves judged for this crime.

National physical Israel had been given man chances, throughout her long history, to repent of her whorish and idolatrous ways, to do justly, to love righteousness, and for a time, she would. She always, though, turned back to her idols of wood silver and stone, and usually did more evil than even the nations around her, to whom she was to shine the light of the Gospel. At last, the fulness of time had come, for God to judge His typical old covenant people, and reveal His true people, the 'Israel of God', in His Son Jesus, who came as the Christ! John saw this revealed glory, and so worshiped.

And behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward [ is ] with Me, to give to every one according to his work. I am the Alpha and the Omega, [ the ] Beginning and [ the ] End, the First and the Last.

Again we see that He was coming quickly. Some have tried to infer that Jesus was simply saying that when He came, it would happen quickly, speedily, and indeed, the Greek adverb ταχύ, transliterated 'tachy', does carry the meaning of 'speedily', but with it, the sense of 'without delay, as in 'right away' ( Matthew 5:25, 28:7, Mark 9:39, 16:8, John 11:29 ).

'The Lord is not slack concerning [ His ] promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us,^[b] not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.' ( II Peter 3:9 )

Peter found the need to remind his readers, his brethren, that though Jesus had promised to come within their own generation, and even quickly, and soon, that just because it wasn't on their time-table, and not in the haste that they would have preferred; Jesus would return in judgment when He said, and how He said: 'quickly'! In Peter's use of the word βραδύνω, or 'slack', as it is translated here; he called to their minds what the prophet Habakkuk prophesied, and which the writer to the Hebrews quoted, when he said, of the Lord, ''For yet a little while, and He^[j] who is coming will come and will not tarry' ( Hebrews 10:37 ( Habakkuk 2:3 ). The 'cup of wrath' of apostate old covenant Israel was full to overflowing, and as the Messenger of God said, in Revelation 10:6, there would be 'delay no longer'!

'For the Son of Man will come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He will reward each according to his works.' ( Matthew 16:27 )

'Now Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about these men also, saying, 'Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of His saints, to execute judgment on all, to convict all who are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have committed in an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him.' ( Jude 14 & 15 )

Many Christians try to insert a gap between Matthew 16:27, which I've quoted above, and the next verse, in which Jesus says, 'there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom'. This is just one of the many problems with our English translations; they, when they broke these wonderful passages up into verses, put the 'breaks' where they often really didn't belong, and thus gave rise to such 'gap theories'.

As with the quotation from the prophet Jude, however; we must realize, we must recognize the historical and covenant context of both Jesus' and Jude's words. When Jesus spoke these words, it was soon after He had warned His disciples of the 'leaven', or false and misleading doctrines of the Pharisees. We must remember also that Jude's warning, as well, was in the context of covenant judgment.

Once again; Jesus reminds His readers, through His servant John, that He is none other than God Himself, the Beginning and End, or fulfillment of His Covenant Creation!

Blessed [ are ] those who do His commandments,^[g] that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter through the gates into the city.

A dear friend of mine has rightly pointed out the 'Beatitudes' of the Revelation, and, as so much of the book hinges on the number '7', so it is here; there are 7 'beatitudes', or blessings ( Revelation 1:3, 14:13, 16:15, 19:19, 20:6, 22:7, 22:14 ). As in the 'Sermon on the Mount' in Matthew 5, which is most usually associated with 'The Beatitudes'; the blessings here are for those 'who do His commandments'. When Jesus gave His 'blessings' in the sermon on the mount; He told His followers that if they practiced these principles, they would reap the covenant blessings, theirs, He said, was 'the kingdom of heaven', they would 'be comforted' ( Revelation 6:9-11 ), they would 'inherit the earth', they would 'be filled', they would 'obtain mercy', they would 'see God', they would 'be called sons of God', if when persecuted, they did not act in kind, or take vengeance, they would inherit 'the kingdom of heaven', and Jesus ends by telling them that through their obedience to the covenant, they would have great 'reward in heaven'.

'Then the LORD God said, 'Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil. And now, lest he put out his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever^'_ therefore the LORD God sent him out of the garden of Eden to till the ground from which he was taken.' ( Genesis 3:22 & 23 )

Jesus' words in Revelation 22, above, should be noted as in direct reference to God's denial of the right of Adam & Eve to the Tree of Life. When Adam and Eve sinned by disobeying God's only command to them, they were consequently thrust out of the garden, and away from the figurative tree of life, although, as a friend of mine pointed out several years ago, they were not totally cut off from the Presence of God. It being His plan for them to leave the Garden one day that the Good News might permeate the earth; God's Presence followed them on their mission. Although our first parents suffered the consequences of their disobedience, and did not reap the blessings of the covenant, God was still with them as hey labored in His Kingdom, the world!

But^[h] outside [ are ] dogs and sorcerers and sexually immoral and murderers and idolaters, and whoever loves and practices a lie.

'Do not prostitute your daughter, to cause her to be a harlot, lest the land fall into harlotry, and the land become full of wickedness.' ( Leviticus 19:29 )

'I have seen your adulteries and your [ lustful ] neighings, the lewdness of your harlotry, your abominations on the hills in the fields. Woe to you, O Jerusalem! Will you still not be made clean?' ( Jeremiah 13:27 )

'For they shall eat, but not have enough; they shall commit harlotry, but not increase; because they have ceased obeying the LORD.' ( Hosea 4:10 )

I believe that we have noted before, in this study, how that this harlotry that Israel was guilty of was not necessarily the physical act, although this was certainly 'in view', but that covenantal unfaithfulness, spiritual harlotry was the reason that God put her away. We have seen, as well, how national Israel, as a whole ( God still had His Remnant ) had become almost indistinguishable from the nations around them; hence, God called their leaders, through the prophet Isaiah, 'dumb', and 'greedy dogs' ( 56:10 & 11 ). Rather than being the watchmen, and righteous spiritual leaders they should have been; they had become as corrupt, and in many cases, more wicked than the Gentiles whom they called 'dogs'!

These, as we have seen, were simply 'outside' the city, apparently still existent, but with the blessings of the Covenant and the enduring Presence of God!

I, Jesus, have sent My angel to testify to you these things in the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, the Bright and Morning Star.

'The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show His servants-things which must shortly take place. And He sent and signified [ it ] by His angel to His servant John.' ( Revelation 1:1 )

Jesus finally assures his audience that this message is actually from Him. This also serves to show, again, that this is ONE Revelation, that it was given to 'the seven churches which are in Asia', and that the warnings in this book, though no doubt applicable, in some way, for us today, were for these 'seven' ( number of perfection or completeness, wholeness ) churches. These churches, we know from history, actually existed in the ancient Near East, in what is now modern-day Turkey. As a friend has recently pointed out, these churches, over time, failed to heed these warnings, and as warned, their 'candlestick', or 'lampstand' was removed.

'And in that day there shall be a Root of Jesse, who shall stand as a banner to the people; for the Gentiles shall seek Him, and His resting place shall be glorious.' ( Isaiah 11:10 )

From the genealogies given in Matthew 1 and Luke 3, we can ascertain that, according to the flesh; Jesus was indeed from the line of David. Paul, in his letter to the Romans ( 1:3 ), declared that Jesus was 'born of the seed of David according to the flesh'. That Jesus was a descendant of David, according to His human heritage, is a well-established fact! More importantly, though this fact is encompassed by it; Jesus was the 'Root' that we see prophesied throughout the Hebrew Scriptures, but mainly in the prophesy of Isaiah, and in the Psalms. Jesus was the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end of the Covenant that God made with His people, and which He Himself upheld and strengthened when He sent His beloved Son as the Foundation of the salvation of His people!

'I see Him, but not now; I behold Him, but not near; a Star shall come out of Jacob; a Scepter shall rise out of Israel, and batter the brow of Moab, and destroy all the sons of tumult.' ( Numbers 24:1 )

This prophecy of Balaam's was, of course, of David, who did finally defeat Moab ( II Samuel 8:2 ), but it was David's Great Anti-type of whom Balaam ignorantly and primarily prophesied, Jesus the Messiah, or Christ, who would defeat in finality, the enemies of God's people, the death that Adam had brought upon his progeny: covenantal separation from God!

'And so we have the prophetic word confirmed,^[a] which you do well to heed as a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts.' ( II Peter 1:19 )

The rising of this 'Star' was not a new concept, as Peter reminded his audience. This rising had been prophesied, as well, throughout the Hebrew Scriptures, though maybe in other words. We must remember too, that the birth of Jesus was heralded by a star that rose out of the East.

'And he who overcomes, and keeps My works until the end, to him I will give power over the nations-'He shall rule them with a rod of iron; they shall be dashed to pieces like the potter’s vessels’^[j]- as I also have received from My Father; and I will give him the morning star.' ( Revelation 2:26-28 )

In Jesus promise to the overcoming Church, He quotes Psalm 2:9, revealing His Oneness with them, and advising them that just as He ruled, so would they, because He would present Himself to them, to us!

And the Spirit and the bride say, “Come!” And let him who hears say, “Come!” And let him who thirsts come. Whoever desires, let him take the water of life freely.

'God [ is ] Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.' ( John 4:24 )

'For [ as ] a young man marries a virgin, [ so ] shall your sons marry you; and [ as ] the bridegroom rejoices over the bride, [ so ] shall your God rejoice over you.' ( Isaiah 62:5 )

When Paul wrote to the Church at Ephesus concerning marriage; he told them, 'I speak concerning Christ and the church.' ( 5:22 ). It is a well-established fact that we, as the Church, are the Bride of Christ, the Body of Christ; so here John takes note that it is not only God, but His Bride, as well, who gives the invitation. We, as the Church, and 'members individually' ( I Corinthians 12:27 ), being one with Christ, have taken part in the ministry that He began during His period on earth. Jesus actually told His followers, in John 14:12, that 'Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me, the works that I do he will do also; and greater [ works ] than these he will do, because I go to My Father'. This sounds almost unbelievable, but it's really not! Because of the indwelling of the Spirit of God; we are doing greater works, continuing the work of redemption and reconciliation that He began! When we invite others to 'Come'; we are doing His work!

A passage from the Hebrew Scriptures that comes to mind in relation to the verse above, from Revelation 22, is the incidence in the wilderness of Israel being watered by 'that spiritual Rock that followed them' ( I Corinthians 10:14 ). The passage I referred to above is Numbers chapter 20, verses 1-13, where Moses was told to 'Speak to the rock before their eyes'. Of course, we know from history that Moses instead struck the rock, about which Paul said 'that Rock was Christ', and so was symbolically refused entry to God's Rest, or the Land of Promise. This water was offered freely, but rather than following God's instructions, doing it His way, as so many times we ourselves fail to do, Moses, for whatever reason failed to do as he was told, and though he got results, he also paid a high price for it!

For^[i] I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add^[j] to him the plagues that are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away^[k] his part from the Book^[l] of Life, from the holy city, and [ from ] the things which are written in this book.

Many that I have spoken to about this passage will rip it from it's context, and warningly say that God thus has told us that if we take away one 'jot or tittle', one iota, one word, from the Bible, that God will curse us by removing our name from His 'Book of Life'. Firstly; who are we to say which is the correct version of the Bible? Usually, I believe; those who make statements like this are some kind of King James Version Only advocates, who believe that one certain version is the true Word of God, and all other versions are just that, versions, and flawed versions at that, because they omit, or just, true to the Greek or Hebrew text, don't include the words that are often not there in the first place. Secondly, and more to the point; the 'book' that Jesus is talking about here is not the whole of Scripture, although the could be included in this warning; He is, more importantly, talking about the letter that He has just revealed to His servant John, what we call the Revelation.

Having said all that; let me now say that the Scriptures, to be sure, ARE one revelation, from beginning to end! Much of the problem that we have within the Body of Christ today, or the Church, can be traced to the division of the greater story of Scripture, the meta-narrative, as a good friend of mine rightly calls it. Long ago, someone saw fit to divide the Scriptures, by putting an almost blank page in between Malachi and Matthew, thus lending credence to the idea that God was dealing with national physical Israel under the old covenant, in what is called the old testament, but turned to deal with the Church under the New Covenant, and will at some point, under the futurist paradigm, return to deal, once again, with national physical Israel, where He will reign from a physical throne, in a physical Jerusalem.

Clearly; God is plainly warning the churches, yet again, that if they do not heed His warnings in the earlier part of this letter, or book; He would remove their 'lampstand'. In immediate context of His words; he is giving this warning to the churches in the first century. Covenantally; I believe that we, as the modern-day Body of Christ must also take note of these warnings and realize our responsibility to do the things that He commended these churches for, and not do the things that He waned them about. If we, as His Church, His Body, across the ages, do not practice the things tat some of these churches practiced, and lost their standing, their place, for, then we will continue to live out our lives within the City of God, and eat from the Tree of Life, but if we do not continue in His ways; we too, will cease to grow, and be cut off, burned, as a useless and dead branch!

He who testifies to these things says, “Surely I am coming quickly.” Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus! The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ [ be ] with you all.^[m] Amen.

All hope is not lost! Jesus again tells His servant, in words plain and true, 'I am coming quickly'! As we saw earlier; this word has been bandied around, and the connotation made to fit the theory of a future coming of Christ. This clearly, and especially in the context of His words, is not so! Jesus was warning those who were disobedient to His word that He would soon appear, and if things were not 'ship-shape', which, as we saw, they were not, that He would give their place to another, another who would heed His word, who would bear good fruit. He also gave these as words of comfort, comfort to those who were oppressed by the unrighteousness of the Judaizers, and those like them, who sought to suppress their Righteousness!

As I finish up this study of the book of the Revelation; my prayer is that, in some way, God might use my weakness to further His Kingdom, to take some of the mystery out of the book, or what has heretofore been viewed by many as enigmatic! We need not read it apprehensively, unless, of course, we are found guilty of the sins pointed out here, and we may take great comfort in the fact that it has been fulfilled, and that we are residents of this holy city, the New Jerusalem! In several of the articles that I have recently, within the pat several years, written on this subject; I have explored, though not in great detail, the blessedness of this glorious fact. I hope, as well, as with this study, that my words,both here and there and of course, the Holy Spirit of God; will open the eyes of many that have been blinded to this glorious fact!

In the service of the King and His Kingdom,
Charles Haddon Shank

The Face of God

2011-09-08T13:59:00.000-06:00

Recently; I have been reminded that to live 'coram Deo', or before the Face of God, is to live a life in obedience to His commands, the imperatives of the Covenant that He has made with us through Jesus Christ. We, as Christians, or followers of Jesus the Christ, have willingly and knowingly entered into the bonds of this Covenant, and based upon our obedience or disobedience to that Covenant, reap the benefits, the just deserts of that Covenant, either the blessings or the curses. You can find these laid out most famously in Deuteronomy 28.

As in the original 'Garden', as recorded in Genesis 2; we all seek to live 'coram Deo', or at least we should! Too many of us, and maybe especially in America ( though other countries are not immune ), do not live as before the Face, or in the Presence of God. We have allowed, and in some cases, joined in, the murder of millions of helpless innocents! The statistics are horrifyingly astounding; The Guttmacher Institute, in a study completed in August of 2011, according to Pro-Life Action League, found that 'Since the legalization of abortion in 1973, there have been approximately 50 million abortions performed in the United States.' And through it all, we, as American Christians, expect God to bless us with His Presence, and to shine His Face upon this once-Christian nation. According to this same study, over 18,000 babies are murdered yearly, even after they have reached and in many cases, passed their 21st week! And we expect the blessings of the Covenant when we allow such atrocity to persevere?!

God told the Edomites, who were persecuting His people; 'Because you have had an ancient hatred, and have shed [ the blood of ] the children of Israel by the power of the sword at the time of their calamity, [ when ] their iniquity [ came to an ] end, therefore, [ as ] I live,” says the Lord GOD, “I will prepare you for blood, and blood shall pursue you; since you have not hated blood, therefore blood shall pursue you.' Although our situation is arguably somewhat different; I believe that the principle stands true; we, as a nation, have not repented of, and turned from the shedding of this blood, and I believe that it is overly evident that bloodshed has pursued this nation, much as this nation has herself, pursued bloodshed!

Abortion is not the only area in which this nation has not shied away from bloodshed. The hijacking of several different airliners, and the subsequent crashing of two of them into the Trade Towers in New York City on September 11th, 2001 is without doubt, probably the most memorable, and memorialized, events to happen within our borders, in recent history. In this tragic scenario; thousands of 'innocents', including the passengers of the planes ( not to mention the sequential event in Washington, DC ) lost their lives, and many more were tragically altered forever when rescuers attempted, to varying degrees of success, to 'rescue the perishing', to save what they could out of this horrible mess! Without launching into a tirade, here, about what might have prompted such a terrorist action, or even who may have been involved; let me just suggest that it might have been avoided.

Not long after these horrible events transpired; our illustrious ( and 'Christian' ) president, at the time, took it upon himself to embroil our nation and its valuable resources in the supposed 'War on Terror'; a police action which has shed the blood of countless Americans, as well as those of other nationalities, and has cost, besides those lives which could have been better spent protecting our own borders, millions, and likely even billions of dollars!

With all this blood on our hands, can we, should we really expect God to bless us? If you are at all familiar with the writings of Scripture; you know that such a scenario is entirely possible, even promised, but there is only one way that judgment can be turned from an adverse one, one of cursing ( more bloodshed ) into one of blessing. God told us, in II Chronicles 7:14; 'If My people who are called by My name will humble themselves, and pray and seek My face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin and heal their land'. This, you can be dead certain of, is THE ONLY way that this disaster may be averted; national repentance! If this nation, as a whole, turns from the murder of innocent babies, and repents of many of their wicked and detestable policies, both foreign and domestic, which have led to the loss of, not only many innocent, but many righteous lives, then maybe we can expect God to shine His fair face on our beloved country, once again.

Let us begin to live 'coram Deo', and honoring God and His Covenant; lead tthis nation back from the brink of disaster!

Charles Haddon Shank

Thoughts on the Rapture

2011-08-28T23:19:00.000-06:00

'Then we who are alive [ and ] remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord.' ( I Thessalonians 4:17 )

I would say, without a doubt, that this is the first place that most Christians will point you to when you ask for a Scriptural basis for the 'doctrine' of the Rapture. There are other passages, as well, that are used to 'prove' that a 'rapture' will, or even did, happen at the end of the age, following immediately on the heels of the resurrection.

The number one definition given by the Merriam-Webster On-line Dictionary for 'rapture' ( noun ) is, 'an expression or manifestation of ecstasy or passion'; other definitions involve a highly emotional, or mystical experience: only thirdly do they posit that is is 'the final assumption of Christians into heaven during the end-time according to Christian theology.' So what are we to make of all this talk of a 'rapture', mostly by dispensationalists, but in one for or another, by most futurists, and even purported by some preterists?

There are those, in the preterist camp that believe that I Thessalonians 4:13-17, along with maybe places like I Corinthians 15:52, teaches that there was a physically literal 'rapture' ( according to the modern Christian's definition of 'rapture'-see above ). I have made the point, in the past, that if we are to take Paul's language in I Thessalonians 4 in a physically literal way, then we must apply the same hermeneutic to similar language used elsewhere in Scripture, not just Paul's writings, but the words of Christ Himself, and even others of the apostles. Most dispensationalists, I'm sure, would have no problem doing that, and even many futurists, but as preterists, especially; we should know better! We know that Jesus' similar language in Matthew 24:31 is metaphorical of the gathering together into one 'place' of the Body of Christ ( think of the Genesis Creation here, and 'the waters under the heavens' ). It is also clear, using a historical and grammatical hermeneutic and especially keeping in mind the covenant context, that Jesus words, in fact all of the so-called 'New Testament', were nothing new. Taken in a physically literal way, though; it is easy to see where one could find support for the 'Rapture Theory', which I believe, was not revealed ( or held ) until back in the 19th century, to a young Scottish woman, and lately upheld by false prophets like Harold Camping.

I have often said that the most important part of that passage in I Thessalonians 4, comes in the last phrase, which, interestingly enough, echoes the words of the prophet Hosea ( Hosea 6:2b ); Paul wrote 'And thus we shall always be with the Lord'. No matter how we will, or have gotten there, or even where 'there' is; I believe that most Christians would agree that this is the whole point of our redemption/salvation, that, as in the Garden, Christians will be, or are, depending on where you are in your theology, with the Lord, enjoying His Presence forevemore. As believers in Fulfilled Eschatology; we realize that we are in that Presence now, but there are those who believe, from passages such as I Corinthians 5:6-8, where Paul wrote, 'So [ we are ] always confident, knowing that while we are at home in the body we are absent from the Lord. For we walk by faith, not by sight. We are confident, yes, well pleased rather to be absent from the body and to be present with the Lord.' that our physical bodies must expire before we can truly 'be with the Lord'. Paul's words in I Corinthians 15:50, that 'flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God', also seem to lend credence to this idea, that we cannot enter the Kingdom, or be in God's Presence until we pass from this physical existence. As I have reasoned before though, in a previous article; no one will argue, I believe, from Paul's statement in Romans 8:8, that 'those who are in the flesh cannot please God', that there is just no pleasing God until we shuffle off this mortal coil! That's just a silly, ridiculous idea, and one which could lead, who knows where! We should see that Paul's use of the word 'flesh' here, as in most other places, refers, not to our biological bodies, but to the old covenant body of death, which death, which body, was done away, was transformed ( Philippians 3:21 ) in Christ! So also, when Paul talks about meeting the Lord in the air; the first thing we should do is compare Scripture with Scripture, noting how this phrase is used elsewhere in the Bible!

'In the Air'

No; we're not discussing Phil Collins here, although we may discuss Genesis! When reading the phrase 'in the air', you might remember, again, Paul's words in Ephesians 2:2, about 'the prince of the power of the air'. This phrase is most famously, probably, used by those of the dispensational persuasion, when describing the workings of 'Satan'; to those I would remark, in an off-hand way, that Paul is, for one thing, reminding his brethren Who the real Power of the air is, and to show that though this 'spirit' held sway 'in the air'; it was there where the followers of Jesus would meet with Him and be in His Presence forever! In this; Paul was comforting his brethren, as in Romans 16:20 ( 'And the God of peace will crush Satan under your feet shortly. ' ), that no more did this 'spirit' have the power, but that Jesus' victory had wrested even what power he had from him.

We read in Genesis 1:26 that Adam was given the dominion over 'the birds of the air', which, by extension, might be said to be over the air itself. Another word that Scripture uses to define the air, or sky, is 'heaven', so when Paul related to the Thessalonian Church that they would 'meet the Lord in the air'; he might just as easily said that they would meet the Lord ( God ) in 'Heaven', or His domain, or realm! I must say that the Greek words here are a bit different, though not not all that much in actual meaning.

Those that purport a belief in a 'rapture'; when asked for old testament support for such a 'doctrine', might bring up the 'rapture' of Enoch and Elijah. Other than the fact that 'Enoch walked with God', for which reason 'God took him', and that 'he [ was ] not'; Scripture doesn't have a whole lot to say about 'the ascension of Enoch', but we can read a bit more detail about Elijah's 'rapture'. I wrote an article several years ago, where I mentioned this 'taking up of' of Elijah. II Kings 2:11 says that 'Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven'. In the article that I referred to; I mentioned the theory that this may not have been, as you will get from a purely physical understanding of this short passage, a physical event, an actual taking of Elijah into the realms of glory, as it was a physical manifestation of a spiritual truth, that of the glory of God, and His holiness, and that these 'chariots' were really just manifestations of cherubim ( I Chronicles 28:18 ). It is clear from the account that Elijah, like Enoch before him, was 'taken', but that he was transported to the Presence of God at that point; Scripture does not clearly say. There are places, like Hebrews 9:8, that indicate 'that while the first tabernacle was still standing', that are used to show that these realms were not opened to 'mere' men until Christ's Parousia ( Presence ), but the writer of Hebrews only said that 'the way into the Holiest of All was not yet made manifest', not that men could not enter previously. We can only speculate as to whether Enoch, Elijah, and probably Moses, were taken straight to the Presence, or whether, as is orthodox, I believe, among many believers in Fulfilled Eschatology, they simply waited in the grave until the Revelation of Jesus Christ. That, however, may be another subject for a later article.

As many wise people have noted; 'words have meaning'. The Free ( on-line ) Dictionary, not unlike Merriam-Webster's above, as the number one definition of the word 'rapture', gives this meaning; 'The state of being transported by a lofty emotion; ecstasy.'. Only thirdly does this dictionary bow to the un-orthodox traditions of men, and say that it is 'The transporting of a person from one place to another, especially to heaven.' With the main definition of the word being that it is simply an emotional high, of sorts, a euphoric feeling, if you will; how is it that so many Christians have gotten the idea in their heads that it is descriptive of our escape from this realm to another, better realm? Kinda gives a whole new meaning to the phrase, 'the grass is always greener........................' I wonder if the dictionary people have a bent against Christianity, since what many Christians describe as 'the Rapture', is really just a feeling of euphoria.

I think it was Fanny Crosby who penned the line 'But purer, and higher, and greater will be, our wonder, our transport, when Jesus we see'!

Seeing Jesus, and enraptured with His grace,
Charles Haddon Shank

The Truth Has Made Us Free

2011-08-17T01:26:00.001-06:00

Like a muddied spring or a polluted fountain is a righteous man who gives way before the wicked.

Proverbs 25:26 ( ESV )

When Peter was asked by a bunch of ( Re? ) publicans if His Master paid the temple tax, like a good Jew, he responded in the affirmative; of course He does.................right? After they had gone into the house, a bit later; Jesus asked Peter this question, 'From whom do the kings of the earth take customs or taxes, from their sons or from strangers?' When Peter responded that it was 'from strangers'; Jesus reminded him that 'then the sons are free'. Nevertheless; Jesus went ahead and paid the temple tax, not because He must, but because He could.

Most Christians today believe that we should obey 'the powers that be', for they are ordained of God ( Romans 13 ), and obey them as long as they do not command us contrary to the Law of God. Well; that sounds okay, as far as that goes, maybe, but from places like the passage in Proverbs that I quoted above: is it right for Christians to bow to the laws, the unjust laws for that matter, of unrighteous men? Not to get too far into it, for as we know, Scripture can get pretty graphic, but the verse above, in the Hebrew, alludes to the nether region, the unmentionable parts of a woman, and how when a righteous man bows before the wicked ( metaphorically or actually ), he is really whoring himself before that person, or image.

Although there are more and more who are waking up to it, I daresay that most people in this country do not even realize how unjust, to say nothing of their unrighteousness, and how unscriptural many of the statutes of this nation are. I am not a lawyer, and I do not claim to know a whole lot of 'legalese', but I am one of those, praise God, who are waking up to the unbiblical and unconstitutional laws that have been foisted upon us by our 'leaders'. Both Christians and non-Christians alike, lovers of liberty all; have begun to unite under one common banner and to fight this unjust theft of our liberties!

Getting to the point; by prostrating ourselves, as those whom Christ has made righteous, before the wicked leaders of this once Godly nation, before 'Caesar'; we have done nothing different than the old covenant children of Israel. We have committed spiritual adultery, harlotry, in fact, by quivering before them, and even, whether through fear, or otherwise, trusting in them for our sustenance, rather than in the God who provides, Yahweh, or Jehovah-Jireh!

We were not set free, just as God's old covenant 'children' were not, so that we could 'go back to Egypt', so that we could once again be in bondage to those who make a mockery of our God, and His perfect Law of liberty! We were set free, as were they, so that we, in our liberty, could freely serve God, and exercise the dominion over His creation of which He has made us stewards.

We are kings! Who are we to abdicate our God-given position and pay homage to Baal?? At this point, you may begin to see where this is going; how far do we go in our exercise of our liberties, our dominion as kings? Though it's very arguable, as we saw earlier, in Jesus' statement, whether or not we even owe those obeisances, whether literal or figurative, to these 'powers that be', especially wicked and ungodly ones, it is clear that our Christian duty is first and foremost to our Creator and His Laws, not to those whom we have allowed to take dominion over us; we are to render unto Him our worship, ascribing worth to Him alone. As one of our wise and good elders once said ( and I love this phrase ), Jesus is Lord; Caesar is not'!

For too long, we as Christians, as kings and priests, ordained by God, have prostrated ourselves, bowed, and given way to the wicked, mostly out of fear, but also out of ignorance. We need to wake up to the higher calling that God has called us to, start taking up the reins of government, whether it be family, church, state, or all three, and begin to exercise the dominion that God has given us, to take back the freedoms and liberties that He has granted! It is only through His Word, and the Berean study and anointed preaching of it, that we will begin, as many have already, to realize our exalted position, and having done all, to stand.....................and fight!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

by God's grace, alone,
Charles Haddon Shank

Teats, Triggers, and Tyrants

2011-08-09T00:16:00.000-06:00

I will not take a bull from your house, [ nor ] goats out of your folds. For every beast of the forest [ is ] Mine, [ and ] the cattle on a thousand hills. I know all the birds of the mountains, and the wild beasts of the field [ are ] Mine. Psalm 50:9-11

Lest I be accused of pulling this Scripture out of context; the only real import this passage has on my topic here, is that all these things belong to God; not us, and certainly not some silly, puffed up tyrannical despot.

Commenting on the recent raw milk raid on some poor operation out in California that's only trying to make a better life for the next generation through healthier eating; a friend of mine stated, in almost enraged shock, 'my God; they're squeezing cow's teats, not triggers!' The recent raid, though almost laughable, is only a symptom of a looming, and seemingly irreversible ( without bloodshed ) problem; our federal government is playing God again! The banning, and even criminalizing of things as simply good for you as raw milk is like barely scraping the top of the iceberg that sank the Titanic! I mean, 'really'; when you think about all the good things that God has given to us, everything necessary for health and happiness; the federal government has, in their 'messianic complex', in their finite 'wisdom', deemed it necessary, because many people lack responsibility and the common sense God gave a horse, to say, 'here; we'll just ban it, or regulate the hell out of it', thus taking the burden of responsibility off of our shoulders, because we're just too stupid and senseless to know better! Well, needless to say, 'it don't work that way'! We're all still personally responsible before God, and even to each other, as the people of God.

'Jesus is Lord; Caesar is not!'

These words were spoken by the same good friend that I quoted earlier, and they're also from the same sermon, not surprisingly. Jesus is Lord, and 'Caesar', whatever shape or form he may take, is not! What does this really mean, besides, as Peter said, 'we ought to obey God, rather than men' ( Acts 5:29 ) While we must certainly disobey authority when 'it' commands us to do something contrary to the Law of God ( wow; chew on that one for awhile ), we are also given a certain set of duties by God, and these include many of the principles set down by our 'founding fathers' in the documents upon which this once-great country was founded. Many of the freedoms granted to us by our Creator, by divine right, but also set down in these founding documents, have been stomped on, obliterated, and just plain ripped from our 'cold, dead fingers'. Unfortunately; we can't lay all the blame on 'Caesar! Although most 'Christians' acknowledge, in word at least, the Lordship of Jesus, in action, many prove what they really think of their 'Lord', while they lay their 'crowns' at Caesars feet!

Jesus is Lord; Caesar is not!

Not that it would have done any good to remind them, but those agents who rushed that raw milk 'factory' had no real authority to shut them down. I say this without knowing the whole story, or even many details, but I can tell you how 'udderly' ridiculous it was! I mean, guns drawn to stop illegal 'production' of something that is doubtless worlds better for you than the pasteurized, processed stuff that the FDA has approved. For far too long, 'Christianity', while lauding Jesus as Lord, has bowed the knee to Caesar, acknowledging him, in action, anyway, as Lord, looking to him for our salvation; all, or mostly, because of a faulty, and even a misinterpretation of Scripture. 'Caesar' is NOT Lord! Jesus told Pilate 'You could have no power at all against Me unless it had been given you from above. Therefore the one who delivered Me to you has the greater sin' ( John 19:11 ). Paul wrote to the Church at Rome ( and this is the passage that 'Christians' love to use, to excuse their false worship ), 'Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God'. These 'authorities', whether we like them or not, are ordained by God for the punishment, or chastening of His people, but to blindly follow just any 'authority' based on Romans 13 is almost ridiculous as, say, a raw milk raid.

What does truly belong to 'Caesar'? Maybe a better question would be, 'who is Caesar?'! "Caesar' is who we say he is, right? In this once-great country, this form of government 'of the people, by the people, for the people' has dictated that we the people should determine who our 'Caesar' should be. Do we then owe that 'Caesar' our allegiance? Excuse my French, but 'hell no!' We owe God, Jesus our Lord our allegiance, and only Him; He is a jealous God, after all! As a minister of God, for good; the Scriptures tell us how we are to treat those whom He has set over us, but when they cease to be a minister of good, and forget their place which God has granted them; then is when we must refuse to bow to them, and do all within our power to remove them from their exalted place of authority. Caesar does not own the cattle on a thousand hills; Jesus does, and therefore Caesar does not own the raw milk that comes from those cows; Jesus does, and he has entrusted that milk, among other things, to the stewardship of His people. Our cowardice, when it comes to rolling over and playing dead at 'Caesar's' command; needs to stop; and by the grace of God; His people are beginning to stand up, and say, 'hey; that's not yours ( Caesar's ); that belongs to our Lord, and to us, His people!' Jesus is Lord; Caesar is not!

Charles Haddon Shank

JEW-HATER!!!

2011-08-02T22:04:00.000-06:00

What preterist out there, hasn't, at one time or another, not to mention those that hold to 'Replacement Theology', or anyone who doesn't uphold the nation/state of Israel as the true people, or Israel of God, been labeled anti-semitic? I know I have and other friends of mine who hold views somewhat similar to my own have. It's not that I mind being called something I'm not ( you know, 'sticks and stones............' ), but it's so far from being the truth, and I daresay that this is the case with many who are so wrongly accused.

What does Scripture say constitutes a Jew? Never mind the argument that the very word 'Jew' is derivative of the tribe of Judah; God said that a true Jew is one of faith, who believes that Jesus is the Son of God. In fact, He, through Paul, said that 'those who are of faith are sons of Abraham' ( my favored version, NKJV, adds 'only' to the beginning of this statement, but since it's not in thee Greek; I won't argue that point here ). I've been over this before, but when Paul said earlier, in the book of Romans, chapter 9, that , 'they [ are ] not all Israel who [ are ] of Israel'; I get quite heated, sometimes, when I ruminate on this! What else could this possibly mean, especially in conjunction with passages like Galatians 3:7, except that Israel is the people of God; period!

It's been made clear to me that the physical descendants of Abraham were simply pictures, as I often say, of the true 'Israel of God' that Paul wrote of in Galatians 6:16, the greater spiritual reality of God's chosen people, through promise, and not physical birth-right.

Merriam-Webster's On-line dictionary defines a 'semite', as 'a member of any of a number of peoples of ancient southwestern Asia including the Akkadians, Phoenicians, Hebrews, and Arabs', so, to call us anti-semitic is really unfair, and untrue, because, among most of us anyway, it is not really a racial thing, but a belief in action, or religious thing. At this point in time, especially, maybe, because of 9//11; we, as a nation, have a tendency to be leery of those of Arabic descent; so who's racist and anti-semitic, again?

I was called a 'Jew-hater' once, to my face ( who knows how many called me that behind my back ), by a dear friend of mine who has since passed on, and hopefully knows the truth now. He was pretty sick at the time, and as some would say, probably 'not in his right mind', and I quickly forgave him. It didn't really bother me, because I know the Truth, but I give this as an example for those who are often labeled accordingly. We are not Jew-haters; rather, we are Jew-lovers! Like I said earlier; Scripture says that the true Jew is the one who has faith ( believes ) that Jesus was the Messiah, and is the Son of God. In other words; those who actually see Israel for who she is, the Bride of Christ, now the Wife of God, the Church, and who love the brethren, are the exact opposite of anti-semitic, because we are not racially-motivated, as those who support the nation/state of Israel without compunction, but rather, we love those whom the Scriptures say are the true Jews, whether they be Caucasian, Hebrew, or Arab, Chinese, Mexican, or Negro.

Just some thoughts,
Charles Haddon Shank

The Difference Between Having and Taking ( a History of Violence )

2011-07-27T23:28:00.002-06:00

So God created man in His [ own ] image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth. Genesis 1:27 & 28

From the moment in time when Eve decided to take from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, things have gone down-hill. They were told before this happened, to 'have' dominion but ever since the 'Fall', it seems like man has taken whatever dominion he has, whether it be over the birds of the air, the fish of the sea, the beasts of the earth, or the earth itself. One has only to read one of the good old history books,, ancient or 'modern', to read this history, 'necessary' or not, of violence.

When, on September 11th, 2001, 'a date which shall live in infamy', two hijacked airliners were flown smack-dab into two of the most influential towers in this country, if not the world; violence, which had stayed, for the most part, in other parts of the world, returned to our shores, and prompted maybe one of the greatest, and most short-lived spiritual revivals this nation had seen for quite some time. People were going to church again, neighbor was helping neighbor, and God was again be sought after for help in time of trouble. As was the case with Israel of old, however; once things began to calm down once again, and relative peace was restored ( there is still a flair-up every now and then; usually outrage over some new mosque, or some such ); God was yet again returned to the back burner ( if not the oven ), and life pretty much returned to normal. To be fair; I don't live in New York City; and cannot, therefore say with any real authority that this disaster had no lasting effect on the spiritual welfare of those involved!

Getting to the point, though, of the passage above; the only reason that those terrorists did what they did ( well; I probably shouldn't say 'the only reason'............... ), was that the leadership of this great nation of ours had decided, long ago, to take what they thought was their right, and to exercise their own brand of dominion by going overseas, and sticking their noses in where they didn't belong. This happened most notably in 1948, with the wrongful wresting of the land of Palestine from the Palestinians and 'returning' it to the Israelis, in the name of the Jews.. Here is a short passage from the Wikipedia article on the subject;

'Following the 1947 United Nations decision to partition Palestine, on 14 May 1948 David Ben-Gurion, the Executive Head of the World Zionist Organization^[9] and president of the Jewish Agency for Palestine, declared Israel a nation independent from the British Mandate of Palestine.^[10]^[11] Neighboring Arab states invaded the next day in support of the Palestinians. Since then, Israel has fought a series of wars with neighboring Arab states,^[12] and has occupied territories, including the West Bank, Sinai Peninsula, Gaza Strip and the Golan Heights, beyond those delineated in the 1949 Armistice Agreements.'

This is not the only episode in the history of violence in those parts, but doubtless the most notable in recent, modern history. This is also just one area of the world, which has seen a history of violence, and interestingly enough, this is where the Scriptural story is centered; all because men don't want to just receive and steward the gifts which God has given; we would rather take them, by force if necessary, and say 'Look what I did; look at me!' This all goes back, as was pointed out earlier, to the Garden of Eden, where our first 'parents' got impatient to have dominion, and decided to take it for themselves!

Aggression can be a good thing, as with all moods, when it is harnessed by the Spirit of God, but sadly; I'm afraid that much of the aggression shown by our leadership in the past, and it continues today, has not been according to the Spirit of Almighty, and loving, God. This aggression, though it cannot necessarily be blamed on any one individual, those who have taken the leadership in this country, since a few short decades after its inception, have, to varying degrees, brought much trouble on this nation through their stance.

How can we get out of this mess?

The one and only way that we can crawl out of this deep, dark hole that we have dug, first of all, is to humble ourselves before this Almighty, and loving, God, seek His forgiveness for centuries of careless repression and apathy, and repenting of our sin, bring before our exalted leaders the grossness of their iniquity, and through our own example, lead them to repentance of their own evil deeds.

This will not happen overnight, 'in the twinkling of an eye', so to speak; it has taken centuries, even millenia to get to the point we are today, and apart from the super-natural, miraculous intervention of God Himself, it's not going to be restored to Eden in one day! God has made us kings and priests in His Kingdom, and it is up to us to rule according to His law, being stewards of the gifts that we have received by warrant of birth!

With this in mind; let us begin to have the dominion that God has given us!

By God's grace, Charles Haddon Shank

Some Thoughts on the Millenium

2011-07-27T15:09:00.001-06:00

There is much unnecessary quibbling in many of today's theological circles over what is meant by the phrase 'the thousand years', as it is found in Revelation 20:3, in reference to the binding of Satan, who was bound for 'a thousand years'. This 'thousand years' is most commonly referred to as 'the millenium', and has been the instigation behind cult and sects, even splitting the Body of Christ into premillenials ( of which there are differing versions ), who believe that Christ will return prior to the millenium, the postmillenials, who believe that He will return at the end of the millenium, which will be the end of time, and the amillenials, who believe that it's all figurative. All, or most of these, anyway, can be classified as 'futurists', in other words, they believe that Christ will return bodily, in our future. We, as believers in fulfilled eschatology, realize that Christ returned in judgment on His covenant people in AD70, and was revealed as God Himself!

As you know; the term 'millenium' is not to be found within the pages of Scripture, but is a contrivance of man, meant to describe a period of time.As we all know, particularly in the Hebrew Scriptures, the term 'thousand' was often employed to describe, not any certain amount ( although this was sometimes the case), but, more often than not, a great, or even innumerable amount, such as that famous passage from Psalm 50, about God owning the cattle 'on a thousand hills'; I have quipped before, concerning this phrase, 'who owns the cattle on the thousand and first hill?' Stupid question, I know, but it just goes to show where a strict literalism can lead.

As John borrowed most heavily from the Hebrew Scriptures when he wrote the Revelation, it should not take long to see that he was not speaking either, of a 1,000 year period, but was, like the prophets of old, using a sort of symbolic, even hyperbolic, maybe, language to describe the period of God's judgment of His covenant people. This is also referred to, in some circles, as the 'transition period', between the crucifixion ( 69th week of Daniel 9 ) and the Destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple, and the Revelation of Jesus the Christ ( 70th week ).

Some have objected to this, even with the understanding of the term's symbolic usage in the Hebrew Scriptures, that the approximate 40-year period between the cross and the Destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple was too short a period of time to be classified as 'a thousand years'. It does seem to be a rather short period for John, or Jesus, actually, to call it 'a thousand years', doesn't it? Maybe now, though, would be a good time to look at the covenantal context of the word. Most famous, probably, and interestingly, also one used most often by these same 'futurists', is II Peter 3:8, where Peter told his audience, 'do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day'. This most often is referred to the idea that, since Jesus has not returned ( as 'they' see it ), that His use of words like 'soon', 'near' and 'quickly' refer to even thousands of years in the future.This, it should be plain to see, was simply Peter's way of reminding his readers that God was not constrained to time as we know it, but would return and visit His judgment in the fulness of time, when the harvest was ripe. Peter was merely using the same sort of language that he, as a Jew had grown up with, that he was used to hearing every sabbath day in the synagogue, no doubt.

As we continue to spread the Good News of Good's Kingdom; let us remember that it only leads to these kinds of disagreements, and tends to take our focus off of what we should be doing instead, when we quibble over silly matters like whether the 'thousand years' of the Revelation is. Instead; we should remember what the Revelation is all about: Jesus the Christ, the Son of God!

With the 'thousand years' in the past, whatever your particular view of it is; let's live the eternity that we have been given in service to the Kingdom of God!

Studies in the Book of the Revelation of Jesus the Christ the Son of God ( the Visions ( Genesis Restored ) Pt 18

2011-07-20T12:13:00.000-06:00

Keys to Understanding the Book of Revelation

Now I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away. Also there was no more sea.

In previous studies; we have noted many times that, particularly in prophetic writings, the use of the term 'sea' most often refers to a large group of people, those outside the physical boundaries of the nation of Israel, or to the nation as a whole. When you read this first verse of chapter 21; the last phrase should immediately take you back to Genesis 1:10b; 'the gathering together of the waters He called Seas.' Understood in it's true covenantal context, you might also think of Galatians 3:28, and like passages ( Colossians 3:11, Ephesians 2:14 ) where Paul wrote, 'There is neither Jew nor Greek'.

'How the Lord has covered the daughter of Zion with a cloud in His anger! He cast down from heaven to the earth the beauty of Israel, and did not remember His footstool in the day of His anger.' ( Lamentations 2:1 )

Although I have quoted this verse before; I believe that it warrants being quoted again to show that the phrase 'heavens and earth' ( Deuteronomy 32:1, Psalm 50:4, Isaiah 13:13, 51:16, Jeremiah 51:48, Habakkuk 3:3, Matthew 5:18, II Peter 3:5-7 ) referred most often, especially in relation to God's holy Covenant, not to the sky and terra firma, but to the position and place of God's covenant people. God told the priests, the leaders of His typical old covenant 'children', in Hosea 4:6; 'Because you have rejected knowledge, I also will reject you from being priest for Me'. Because God's covenant 'children' had rejected His Law, as we saw above, in Jeremiah's lamentation; God had removed them from their exalted position, and, as Jesus said, in His parable in Matthew 21:43, 'Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to a nation bearing the fruits of it'!

Then I, John,^[a] saw the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.

'But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, to an innumerable company of angels, to the general assembly and church of the firstborn [ who are ] registered in heaven, to God the Judge of all, to the spirits of just men made perfect, to Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling that speaks better things than [ that of ] Abel.' ( Hebrews 12:22-24 )

'For it is written that Abraham had two sons: the one by a bondwoman, the other by a freewoman. But he [ who was ] of the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and he of the freewoman through promise, which things are symbolic. For these are the^[d] two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar-for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children-but the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all.' ( Galatians 4:22-26 )

I have commented on this previously, in another article, but when John saw this vision of the holy city of 'Jerusalem' descending from heaven to earth, as we read from the book of Hebrews above, it was significant, not only of the Church, the bride of Christ, ready to be wed to her Groom, but also that God's covenant people had become, as Jesus taught His disciples to pray, in Matthew 6:9-13, His 'kingdom come', 'on earth as [ it is ] in heaven'!

'I will greatly rejoice in the LORD, my soul shall be joyful in my God; for He has clothed me with the garments of salvation, He has covered me with the robe of righteousness, as a bridegroom decks [ himself ] with ornaments, and as a bride adorns [ herself ] with her jewels.' ( Isaiah 61:10 )

'Also for Adam and his wife the LORD God made tunics of skin, and clothed them.' ( Genesis 3:21 )

Looking back over the studies that I had done of the first three chapters of the book of beginnings the other day; I was struck, again, with the fact that 'they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed' ( Genesis 2:25 ), before they had broken covenant with almighty God, and that after God had pronounced judgment on them for their trespass, before He consigned them to wander in the wilderness, outside the Garden; He clothed them, thereby symbolically and significantly forgiving their iniquity!

And I heard a loud voice from heaven saying, “Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and He will dwell with them, and they shall be His people. God Himself will be with them [ and be ] their God. And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes; there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying. There shall be no more pain, for the former things have passed away.

'And it came to pass, when Moses entered the tabernacle, that the pillar of cloud descended and stood [ at ] the door of the tabernacle, and [ the LORD ] talked with Moses. All the people saw the pillar of cloud standing [ at ] the tabernacle door, and all the people rose and worshiped, each man [ in ] his tent door. So the LORD spoke to Moses face to face, as a man speaks to his friend. And he would return to the camp, but his servant Joshua the son of Nun, a young man, did not depart from the tabernacle.' ( Exodus 33:9-11 )

'I will dwell among the children of Israel and will be their God. And they shall know that I [ am ] the LORD their God, who brought them up out of the land of Egypt, that I may dwell among them. I [ am ] the LORD their God.' ( Exodus 29: 45 & 46 )

'Then the word of the LORD came to Solomon, saying: [ Concerning ] this temple which you are building, if you walk in My statutes, execute My judgments, keep all My commandments, and walk in them, then I will perform My word with you, which I spoke to your father David. And I will dwell among the children of Israel, and will not forsake My people Israel.' ( I Kings 6:13 )

'You have ascended on high, You have led captivity captive; You have received gifts among men, even [ from ] the rebellious, that the LORD God might dwell [ there].' ( Psalm 68:18 )

'Then I heard [ Him ] speaking to me from the temple, while a man stood beside me. And He said to me, “Son of man, [ this is ] the place of My throne and the place of the soles of My feet, where I will dwell in the midst of the children of Israel forever. No more shall the house of Israel defile My holy name, they nor their kings, by their harlotry or with the carcasses of their kings on their high places. When they set their threshold by My threshold, and their doorpost by My doorpost, with a wall between them and Me, they defiled My holy name by the abominations which they committed; therefore I have consumed them in My anger.' ( Ezekiel 43:6-8 )

'Jesus answered and said to him, “If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him.' ( John 14:23 )

John had heard this voice before, proclaiming things like 'Now salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of His Christ have come, for the accuser of our brethren, who accused them before our God day and night, has been cast down' ( Revelation 12:10 ), and 'The kingdoms^[f] of this world have become [ the kingdoms ] of our Lord and of His Christ, and He shall reign forever and ever!' ( Revelation 11:15 ). Hearing these words now, must have thrilled John to the heart, knowing, understanding, as he must have, that the promises of God concerning His continuing Presence, which were foreshadowed in the Hebrew, and reiterated in the Greek Scriptures, were about to be fulfilled, indeed were already fulfilled in Jesus the Christ!

One thing stood in the way, physically and covenantally speaking, though: as we read above, and there are others, in I Kings 6; God told His people that 'if you walk in My statutes, execute My judgments, keep all My commandments, and walk in them', then He would fulfill His Word, and dwell among them. As we can easily ascertain by reading through the Hebrew Scriptures, and maybe especially through the book of Judges; the 'children' of Israel often, and on the whole, failed miserably to keep that Word! However; with the Revelation of Jesus the Christ, that Word was fulfilled, and God's eternal Presence in and among His people was finally realized!

'For You have delivered my soul from death, my eyes from tears, [ and ] my feet from falling.' ( Psalm 116:8 )

'Then I returned and considered all the oppression that is done under the sun: and look! The tears of the oppressed, but they have no comforter-on the side of their oppressors [ there is ] power, but they have no comforter.' ( Ecclesiastes 4:1 )

Therefore you shall say this word to them: ‘Let my eyes flow with tears night and day, and let them not cease; for the virgin daughter of my people has been broken with a mighty stroke, with a very severe blow.' ( Jeremiah 14:17 )

'And this is the second thing you do: you cover the altar of the LORD with tears, with weeping and crying; so He does not regard the offering anymore, nor receive [ it ] with goodwill from your hands.' ( Malachi 2:13 )

' And behold, a woman in the city who was a sinner, when she knew that Jesus sat at the table in the Pharisee’s house, brought an alabaster flask of fragrant oil, and stood at His feet behind Him weeping; and she began to wash His feet with her tears, and wiped them with the hair of her head; and she kissed His feet and anointed them with the fragrant oil. Now when the Pharisee who had invited Him saw this, he spoke to himself, saying, “This Man, if He were a prophet, would know who and what manner of woman this is who is touching Him, for she is a sinner.”' ( Luke 7:37-39 )

'Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, [ he is ] a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new.' ( II Corinthians 5:17 )

In the passage above, from Luke 7; read in the context of the whole story, we read that this woman, through her tears, received forgiveness of her sins from Jesus ( God ). In the covenant context of this greater story, then, we can ascertain, even from everyday life, that tears ( of pain or remorse, not joy ) most often are significant of some kind of punishment, as a result of wrong-doing, whether purposeful or ignorant. When Jesus forgave the prostitute, or sinner ( indicative of the adulterous house of Israel ); He showed that her tears had been dried, and that her former sins ( although He told another woman in a parallel passage ( John 8:11 ) 'go and sin no more' ) had been wiped away, or as Paul put it, speaking of the 'death' of that first covenant, 'old things have passed away', and she had been given a clean slate, for 'the former things have passed away'!

A friend of mine has recently begun a sermon study of the book of Hosea, and although this adulterous woman, Israel, is judged for her iniquity, there is also the promise given of forgiveness and reconciliation. In the Revelation of Jesus the Christ; we now begin to realize, to 'see' the fulfillment of that promise, in the forgiveness ( 'No More Tears' ) and reconciliation, or resurrection, of this relationship between God and His people!

Then He who sat on the throne said, “Behold, I make all things new.” And He said to me,^[b] “Write, for these words are true and faithful.”

What did Jesus ( God ) make new?

One 'problem' that most have with the Fulfilled viewpoint is that 'obviously', all things have not ( yet ) been made new, so this prophecy has yet to be fulfilled. When we go back to passages such as II Corinthians 5:17 ( Isaiah 48:5-7 ), though; we can start to get an idea of what these 'all things' are, that He made new. Paul says that we, His people, are His 'new creation'; as the covenant is at the basis of God's relationship; we see that the covenant was renewed with His people, fulfilled in Jesus the Christ ( Isaiah 42:6, 49:8 ). Rather than changing the Covenant itself, for Jesus is 'the same yesterday, today, and forever' ( Hebrews 13:8 ( Revelation 4:8 ), through the New Covenant ( I Corinthians 11:25 ( Matthew 26:28, Luke 22:20 ), He renewed His relationship with His people, instituting a 'change' ( I Corinthians 15:52 ( Ezekiel 36: 25-27, Ezekiel 37 ( Isaiah 62:2, 66:22 ) in them!

And He said to me, “It is done!^[c] I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. I will give of the fountain of the water of life freely to him who thirsts. He who overcomes shall inherit all things,^[d] and I will be his God and he shall be My son.

Using language similar to the words He uttered on the cross ( John 19:30 ); Jesus revealed to John that His purpose, His plan, was complete; all had been renewed, all had been restored as it should be.

'In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.' ( Genesis 1:1 )

'And He said, “Amos, what do you see?” So I said, “A basket of summer fruit.” Then the LORD said to me: “ The end has come upon My people Israel; I will not pass by them anymore.' ( Amos 8:2 )

'And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world as a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come.' ( Matthew 24:14 )

'But the end of all things is at hand; therefore be serious and watchful in your prayers.' ( I Peter 4:7 )

I acknowledge that the verses I have chosen to show how Scripture 'backs up' Jesus' claim that He is 'the Beginning and the End' could be a bit confusing; if Jesus is the 'beginning', the Creator ( John 1:1-3 ) of the material wold, as is the traditional understanding of Genesis 1, would that not indicate that the end spoken of in Scripture, to be the 'end' of that material world? As believers in Fulfilled Eschatology; we see this 'end' for what it is, as God revealed through His prophet Amos, above, 'The end has come upon My people Israel', and thus, that He was the 'beginning' of those same people, or 'children', as I like to term them. This is not to say that God is not the Creator of the physical heavens and earth; I believe that secular science, even, try as it might, cannot deny that the universe and all it contains, was made by an Intelligent Being, and not by 'chance'. It is clear enough that God did create the material universe, but Scripture is all about His dealings with His covenant people, and not about the creation of the physical heavens and earth, at least not as we're used to thinking of them!

But the cowardly, unbelieving,^[e] abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.”

'Its streams shall be turned into pitch, and its dust into brimstone; its land shall become burning pitch. It shall not be quenched night or day; its smoke shall ascend forever. From generation to generation it shall lie waste; no one shall pass through it forever and ever.' ( Isaiah 34:10 & 11 )

I have quoted this passage before, I believe, but as others, it bears repeating. God revealed His Judgment on cowardly Edom for the way in which they had treated His people. We have read other, similar passages before, all using this sort of hyperbolic and metaphoric language ( Joel 2 ( Acts 2:14-21 ), Ezekiel 32:1-8, Isaiah 13:5-10 ( Ecclesiastes 12:2 ).

We have seen throughout this study that John relied very heavily on his knowledge of the Hebrew Scripture, of course through the inspiration of God's Holy Spirit, when he wrote the Revelation. This is the case here as well. John was reminding, in code, if you will, the enemies of the people of God, that just as God had judged His enemies in the past; their judgment would be, not only in similar terms, but that it would be final!

Again; we can see, in the covenant context, that it was national, physical Israel ( after the flesh ) that had become the cowardly, unbelieving, lying, and adulterous people that John had in view here. The book of Hosea shows very plainly how adulterous and idolatrous this people had become. Jesus told the Pharisees that they were children of the devil because he 'he is a liar and the father of it' ( John 8:44 ). Earlier in this very study; John condemned the Judaizers, 'those who say they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan' ( Revelation 2:9, 3:9 ).

Then one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls filled with the seven last plagues came to me^[f] and talked with me, saying, “Come, I will show you the bride, the Lamb’s wife.”^[g] And he carried me away in the Spirit to a great and high mountain, and showed me the great city, the holy^[h] Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God, having the glory of God.

'But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, to an innumerable company of angels, to the general assembly and church of the firstborn [ who are ] registered in heaven, to God the Judge of all, to the spirits of just men made perfect, to Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling that speaks better things than [ that of ] Abel.' ( Hebrews 12:22-24 )

The writer to the Hebrews told his first century audience that they had come to the New, or 'heavenly' Jerusalem. We understand that he was saying that, as the Body of Christ, we have come before the Throne of God, to the 'city' that Paul wrote of in Galatians 4:26; 'the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all'. There is a tendency, in today's 'day and age', to forget that John was recording a vision here. I have spoken before, with my 'tongue in cheek' of John's disappointment, when promised a view of 'the Bride', to only witness a city descending out of the sky, but seriously; John was shown a very hyperbolic, and metaphorically brilliant vision of the Bride of Christ, who really isn't a bride at all, except in the spiritual sense of being covenantally united with Christ, but is a corporate Body, the people of God, called out from among the Old Covenant Body of Moses.

This is not the first time that a 'woman' has been compared to a structure, or described in architectural terms. Solomon described his Shulamite bride ( traditionally viewed as a picture of Christ and His Bride ) in terms not unlike this; 'Your nose [ is ] like the tower of Lebanon which looks toward Damascus' ( Song of Solomon 7:4b ), and 'Your neck [ is ] like the tower of David, built for an armory, on which hang a thousand bucklers, all shields of mighty men' ( Song of Solomon 4:4 ).

It is rather common, even in this 'day and age' to refer to certain objects, including cities, as 'she', and this is nothing new, for throughout Scripture; Jerusalem is often referred to in terms of the people that inhabited 'her'. Isaiah, prophesying of the coming judgment, wrote 'When the Lord has washed away the filth of the daughters of Zion, and purged the blood of Jerusalem from her midst, by the spirit of judgment and by the spirit of burning, then the LORD will create above every dwelling place of Mount Zion, and above her assemblies, a cloud and smoke by day and the shining of a flaming fire by night. For over all the glory there will be a covering.' ( Isaiah 4:4 & 5 ) In Jeremiah 4:14; God pleaded with His people, 'O Jerusalem, wash your heart from wickedness, that you may be saved. How long shall your evil thoughts lodge within you?' God referred to the spiritual harlotry of His people, Jerusalem, in very vivid terms, as the very worst of harlots, in Ezekiel 23 ( see this also, in the book of Hosea ).

Her light [ was ] like a most precious stone, like a jasper stone, clear as crystal. Also she had a great and high wall with twelve gates, and twelve angels at the gates, and names written on them, which are the names of the twelve tribes of the children of Israel: three gates on the east, three gates on the north, three gates on the south, and three gates on the west.

'O you afflicted one, tossed with tempest, [ and ] not comforted, behold, I will lay your stones with colorful gems, and lay your foundations with sapphires. I will make your pinnacles of rubies, your gates of crystal, and all your walls of precious stones.' ( Isaiah 54:11 & 12 )

The immediate context of God's promise above is that of the restoration of His people. Throughout this study; we have seen how this kind of language is used, largely by the prophets, to describe the blessings of the covenant for those who kept it. Not only is this kind of language used by the prophets of God in a hyperbolic, or metaphorical sense, though: I Kings 10 chronicles for us some of the blessings of the covenant that were lavished on Solomon, king of Israel for his faithfulness and Godliness. In I Chronicles 29; we read how David prepared much of these sorts of things, in preparation for his son to build the Temple, one of the many pictures we have in the Hebrew Scriptures, showing how God prepared us to be built up by His Son as a temple for the Holy Spirit ( Ephesians 2:19-22, I Peter 2:4 & 5 ).

'You [ were ] the seal of perfection, full of wisdom and perfect in beauty. You were in Eden, the garden of God; every precious stone [ was ] your covering: the sardius, topaz, and diamond, beryl, onyx, and jasper, sapphire, turquoise, and emerald with gold. The workmanship of your timbrels and pipes was prepared for you on the day you were created.'

The above quotation from Ezekiel 28:12b & 13 is most often, I believe, said to be a description of that 'being' traditionally known as Satan, but when you really think about it, it really is a description of our, or their, first father, Adam. Remember when Jesus told the Pharisees that they were children of their father, the devil ( John 8:44 )? In other parts of the above passage, we can see, too, more language from the earlier parts of Genesis, referring to the beginning of covenant life.

We should notice too; that although God had judged His old covenant 'children', mostly with a adverse judgment; the gates of His 'new' city, the heavenly Jerusalem ( from above ) were adorned with the names of His 'twelve tribes', which should be yet another 'key', or clue, that this was but a fuller revealing of His plan concerning His people.

Now the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names^[i] of the twelve apostles of the Lamb. And he who talked with me had a gold reed to measure the city, its gates, and its wall. The city is laid out as a square; its length is as great as its breadth. And he measured the city with the reed: twelve thousand furlongs. Its length, breadth, and height are equal.

We see here how God has made of the two, One. By showing John that, not only, as we saw in the previous passage, was this 'heavenly Jerusalem', or the Bride of Christ, made up of the original twelve tribes, but that the very foundation of this 'city' was laid on the foundation of the apostles, who, though mostly of physically Jewish descent, were followers of the Christ, and no longer Jewish, but Christian. Remember that we read in Isaiah 62:2b, that 'You shall be called by a new name, which the mouth of the LORD will name' ( see also Isaiah 65:15 )?

Many people like to read John's description of the Church, or the Bride of Christ, here, and assign to it a physically literal meaning, and envision a city that is 1,500 miles square, as one person described to me; floating in the air, with those twelve foundations. Wait; a city that is not anchored to the ground does not need.....................never mind: it's just ridiculous!

You've heard of the 'four-square' gospel churches, speaking, I believe, of the fulness of the message, rather than making sure that their buildings are laid out in exact measurements: much the same here; I believe that Jesus was showing His servant John that His Church was perfect, and complete, the 'fullness of Him who fills all in all' ( Ephesians 1:23 )!

The equal 'length, breadth, and height' of its walls might also refer to the equality of its inhabitants before God, and each other.

Then he measured its wall: one hundred and forty-four cubits, according to the measure of a man, that is, of an angel. The construction of its wall was of jasper; and the city was pure gold, like clear glass. The foundations of the wall of the city were adorned with all kinds of precious stones: the first foundation was jasper, the second sapphire, the third chalcedony, the fourth emerald, the fifth sardonyx, the sixth sardius, the seventh chrysolite, the eighth beryl, the ninth topaz, the tenth chrysoprase, the eleventh jacinth, and the twelfth amethyst.

We have noted this before, that as '7' is a most significant number in the Holy Scriptures; so too, we see that '12' is just as significant, and may even more prolific. Aside from the measurement of the wall, which John found to be a perfect multiple of 12; it is also interesting to note that this measurement was 'according to the measure of a man' , again cementing the fact that John was seeing no ordinary, physically literal city ( although its 'make-up' is very physical ), but rather was seeing in a wonderfully metaphorical vision, the Church of God, not as witnessed by human eyes, but as seen through the eyes of Grace!

'And you shall put settings of stones in it, four rows of stones: [ The first ] row [ shall be ] a sardius, a topaz, and an emerald; [ this shall be ] the first row; the second row [ shall be ]a turquoise, a sapphire, and a diamond; the third row, a jacinth, an agate, and an amethyst; and the fourth row, a beryl, an onyx, and a jasper.' ( Exodus 28:17-20 )

I'm sure you've hear this before, and even noted it yourself, that, even though in different order, and most likely by different names, but the stones which John recorded seeing as adorning the walls of this city ( again, think of Ezekiel 28 & Isaiah 54, above, but also Isaiah 61:10 ) were much the same as the precious stones which were to adorn the high priest's breastplate. It is very interesting to note that, as these stones adorned the breastplate of judgment, so they also are noted as adorning the protecting wall of the New Jerusalem, the Bride of Christ!

The twelve gates [ were ] twelve pearls: each individual gate was of one pearl. And the street of the city [ was ] pure gold, like transparent glass.

'Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a merchant seeking beautiful pearls, who, when he had found one pearl of great price, went and sold all that he had and bought it.' ( Matthew 13:45 & 46 )

I don't know if you've ever thought about why Jesus would show John a vision in which the gates of this heavenly city were made of pearls, but I had really never given it much thought, except to think; that is one BIG pearl! Aside from the fact that this was a metaphorical vision that John saw, and that this 'city' was not an actual city, but was indicative of the inhabitants of the New Covenant: why would Jesus use 'pearls' for the 'gates'?

For a physical explanation, both of why Jesus would use a pearl as the subject of one of His parables, and in the vision that He gave to His servant John, in the Revelation; we might think of the geographical land of Palestine. Palestine is located in the Near East, on the shores of the Mediterranean Sea, where there are found, no doubt, pearls! For a more spiritual explanation, though; we might think first, of Jesus reference in the parable above, in Matthew 13, which includes a number of parables, all centered around 'the kingdom of heaven'. We're all familiar with Jesus' words in Matthew 7:6: 'Do not give what is holy to the dogs; nor cast your pearls before swine', lest, He said, 'they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you in pieces'. While we could certainly attribute a physically literal meaning to this, and glean some really good advice from this ( I mean; who in their right mind would throw their costly gems into a pigpen? ); I believe that Jesus had more in mind 'pearls of wisdom', metaphorically, 'the wisdom that comes from above'!

We saw, earlier in this study, how the Great Harlot, indicative of Israel, was adorned with 'gold and precious stones and pearls': these would be indicative, as James wrote, of a 'worldly wisdom' that is 'earthly, sensual, demonic' ( James 3:15 ).

Pearls, as you likely know, are formed through probably one of the most painful processes imaginable, at least, if you're an oyster! I mean, think about it, for us humans; it would be kind of like getting a splinter in a hard to reach place, or else one that is just beneath the surface of the skin, or even worse yet, under the fingernail! And we have arms, fingers with which to pull these foreign objects out; the mollusk's only choice is to cover it up and hope that it will eventually feel better as it continually layers this foreign object with nacre, the same stuff that lines the inside of their shells.

I believe that Jesus used the pearl as an object lesson, not only because of it's ready availability, beauty, and popularity in the region, but metaphorically, because those who make up the Bride of Christ, the New Jerusalem, are very like pearls, in that we must make the best of what we have been given, whether it's foreign to us or not. The 'children' of Israel under the Old Covenant did not do this, rather, they let the foreign object become their identity, as we have seen, conforming to the wickedness around them, instead of being the redeeming factor they were called to be!

Streets of Gold?

I don't know if you've ever heard it explained this way, but someone actually told me once, that 'maybe the purest form of gold IS crystal clear'! Never heard that one before, but again, we must remember that this was a vision, meant to relate a greater spiritual truth.

'Your gold and silver are corroded, and their corrosion will be a witness against you and will eat your flesh like fire.' ( James 5:3 )

'In this you greatly rejoice, though now for a little while, if need be, you have been grieved by various trials, that the genuineness of your faith, [ being ] much more precious than gold that perishes, though it is tested by fire, may be found to praise, honor, and glory at the revelation of Jesus Christ.' ( I Peter 1:6 & 7 )

Like the pearl; a natural explanation could be found, as to why Jesus would use this most precious metal to pave the streets of His city, but the point of John's vision here, I believe, was again that the people of God are in view here, as their 'gold' was found to be much more precious than that of His old covenant 'children', which was 'corroded', and soon to eat their flesh like fire, in the conflagration of AD70.

Again; gold is the softer of metals, more pliable than most, and except for platinum, arguably the most precious. Not only did gold figure most heavily in the trappings of the Old Covenant tabernacle and then in the Temple, which were but pictures of the true; it also was used to symbolize the preciousness and worth of the wise and covenant-keeping people of God. In fact; the wisdom of God's people, and His Law, are regarded as more precious, and 'better than gold, yes, than fine gold' ( Proverbs 8:19 ).

The other side of the coin, regarding the covenant-breaking 'children' of Israel, was that, as Jeremiah lamented; 'How the gold has become dim! [ How ] changed the fine gold! The stones of the sanctuary are scattered at the head of every street' ( Lamentations 4:1 ), and 'The precious sons of Zion, valuable as fine gold, how they are regarded as clay pots, the work of the hands of the potter!' Although the people of God are today also regarded as 'clay pots'; let us not forget that, not only are we more precious, and 'valuable as fine gold', we are yet but 'the work of the hands of the potter'; lest we too, allow our 'light' to be dimmed, and forsake the Covenant!

But I saw no temple in it, for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are its temple. The city had no need of the sun or of the moon to shine in it,^[j] for the glory^[k] of God illuminated it. The Lamb [ is ] its light. And the nations of those who are saved^[l] shall walk in its light, and the kings of the earth bring their glory and honor into it.^[m]

'Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light.' ( Genesis 1:3 )

There is a story going around, not that we can really deny it's veracity, though maybe mis-understood, that the seeming inconsistency in God 'creating' Light on the first 'day', but the Sun, Moon, and stars on the fourth day, by saying something like, 'Jesus was the Light, before the Sun, Moon or stars were created', then pointing ahead to the passage above, in Revelation 21. Like I said; you really can't deny that Truth, but I believe that, covenantally, it's not quite that 'cut and dried', or simple. John's Gospel makes it pretty clear that Jesus was the Light typified by the Genesis creation, especially in the later portion of this passage; 'In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend^[a] it.' ( John 1:4 & 5 )

In the Revelation of Jesus Christ; John saw that 'the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are its temple', but other places in the Greek Scriptures call God's people, for instance, 'the temple of the Holy Spirit' ( I Corinthians 6:19 ), and 'the temple of God' ( I Corinthians 3:16 ). On the other hand; when Jesus told the Pharisees to 'Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.' ( John 2:19 ), and though they, as often, misunderstood this saying; we can see that He was speaking metaphorically of 'the temple of His body'.

We also read in Scripture that Jesus is 'the light of the world' ( John 8:12, 9:5, 11:9, 12:46 ), and He most surely is, but Matthew told the followers of Jesus; 'You are the light of the world' ( Matthew 5:14 ), while Paul uses very similar language to John's in Philippians 2:15. As we are the Body of Christ on earth; we are both the light of the world, although those words were primarily meant, I believe, to give comfort and strength to their first-century audience, and the Temple of the New Jerusalem. God, in Christ is without doubt the true light and true temple, of which we are mere finite representations, but when we think of Jesus' words in John 14:23, for instance; we can begin to realize the impact of the words, 'Christ in you, the hope of glory' ( Colossians 1:27 ); for for believers ever since the 1st century anno domini, this is a fulfilled, though not always realized 'hope', but as we, believers in Fulfilled Eschatology, and the Revelation of Jesus the Christ, continually let our lights shine, or rather let the Light of God shine through us, we will make a way in the darkness!

As we've noted before in this study; Israel, under the Old Covenant, was to be a light to the darkness of idolatry around them, and sometimes, usually while they were being shepherded by a good leader, or leaders, they often fulfilled that mandate, to a point, but ultimately, they failed in their mission. The writer to the Hebrews tells us that God found fault with the 'children' of that 'first' covenant ( Hebrews 8:8 ), thus 'finding' it necessary to establish 'a new covenant', as prophesied in places like Jeremiah 31:31-37.

Its gates shall not be shut at all by day (there shall be no night there). And they shall bring the glory and the honor of the nations into it.^[n] But there shall by no means enter it anything that defiles, or causes^[o] an abomination or a lie, but only those who are written in the Lamb’s Book of Life.

'And I said to them, “Do not let the gates of Jerusalem be opened until the sun is hot; and while they stand [ guard ], let them shut and bar the doors; and appoint guards from among the inhabitants of Jerusalem, one at his watch station and another in front of his own house.”' ( Nehemiah 7:3 )

If not from this verse alone, reading a bit of the historical background of the book of Nehemiah will quickly reveal why Nehemiah would give a command like this. The political situation at that time was such that he felt the need, for safety's sake, to give this command. In the New, or 'heavenly' Jerusalem, there is no need to take such precautions, for, going back to Genesis, 'there shall be no night there'. The enemy has been defeated, and though there are still 'gates' ( Psalm 24:7-9 ); we are not to be closed, or shut up, but are to be open, day and night, that the true Light of Christ may shine through us, bringing God's Light to a sick world in desperate need of healing!

'Therefore your gates shall be open continually; they shall not be shut day or night, that [ men ] may bring to you the wealth of the Gentiles, and their kings in procession.' ( Isaiah 60:11 )

In the New Jerusalem which Jesus revealed through His servant John, the situation is quite the opposite from in Nehemiah's day. In the New Jerusalem, which Paul equated with the Church, the Bride of Christ, now the Wife of God; the enemy has been defeated! We do not fear 'those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul', for death, the death of Adam, which was spiritual, or covenantal separation from God was cast into the 'Lake of Fire', to be seen no more! The New Jerusalem, like Jesus said of us, His kingdom, 'is not of this world' ( John 18:36 ). Jesus referred to the same 'world' to which He came, and which 'did not know Him' ( John 1:10 ); I believe that, as Paul revealed that 'flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God' ( I Corinthians 15:50-Paul also refers here to that same 'world' ), that we can also apply Jesus' words to the natural ( physical ) creation, intangible insofar that it can be defined, seen, or felt, only through the Spirit of God. Not only are the 'gates' to remain open for lack of fear, but as Jesus told the church at Laodicea; 'Behold, I stand at the door and knock' ( another particular referent ), we are also to remain open that men 'may bring to you the wealth of the Gentiles', or as John wrote, 'they shall bring the glory and the honor of the nations into it'. This is not so much an evangelistic message, as it is indicative of the blessings of the New Covenant in Christ!'

But there shall by no means enter it anything that defiles, or causes^[o] an abomination or a lie, but only those who are written in the Lamb’s Book of Life.

This can applied to un-believers today, as well, but as we have seen throughout these studies; John's referent is the apostate 'children' of Israel, God's typical old covenant people. We read in Revelation 3:7 about those 'of the synagogue of Satan, who say they are Jews and are not, but lie', and again, in John 8:44; Jesus tells those same Jews that 'You are of [ your ] father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own [ resources ], for he is a liar and the father of it.'

Who is said to have profaned God's holy name throughout the Scriptures, but the 'children' of Israel, 'after the flesh'? Who but the these Israel had, time after time, defiled, not only themselves, but their inheritance, the 'land of promise', which was, of course, typical of 'the holy city, New Jerusalem'?

This book is, of course, first and foremost, the Revelation of Jesus as the Christ, as the Son of God, Almighty Himself, but it also chronicles God's judgment of His typical old covenant people, for those who obeyed the Gospel, as personified in Jesus good, and for those who rejected this Good News; evil.As we near the end of these studies; it is important to remember this, and to realize that, as the New Covenant 'Israel of God', we are now married to God, not only as His representatives on earth, His Kingdom on Earth, but much more than that; we are His Wife, endowed with all the covenant blessings and intimacy that enntails.

As we begin to wrap these studies up, then; let us forever keep in mind this glorious fact of Who He is, and thus who we are: may God bless you with these words!

Charles Haddon Shank

The Venemous Wife

2011-07-18T16:05:00.002-06:00

Let's face it, the history of the Church, particularly of the American Church, doesn't need a whole lot of stretching to be compared with the Old Covenant 'children' of Israel, the congregation in the wilderness, sometimes! Is it any wonder that many in the mainline church are calling this 'the Laodicean age'? Sure; there are pockets, which have existed throughout the history of the Church, that have stubbornly stood in defense of the Gospel of Jesus the Christ, but too many others have exhibited a 'Laodicean' lukewarmness.

Many Christians today make a livelihood, almost, from condemning 'sin', or evil, wherever it might rear its ugly, venomous head, but most don't stop to think that the Church itself, as the new priest-hood of God, has, in many areas reneged, or else absolutely refused to be the Wife that Solomon described in the latter portion of Proverbs 31.

This is not meant to be a comprehensive study of Proverbs 31, though that should doubtless be on the menu, but verse 11 says of this virtuous wife, 'The heart of her husband safely trusts her'. As the Wife of God; the Church has not had a very good history in that respect, but the fact that God's Kingdom has been growing since its genesis is due solely to the the glorious fact that 'If we are faithless, He remains faithful; He cannot deny Himself' ( II Timothy 2:13 ). This does not absolve us of responsibility for this careless 'oversight', this horrible neglect, and our apathetic refusal to 'get involved'! As before; there has always been that faction that has labored virtuously for the Kingdom, striving to be the best 'Proverbs 31 wife' she can be; don't get me wrong! On the whole, though; far too many have abdicated their role of leadership, except within the four walls of their church, to..................you name it: the state, or federal governments, which are growing more God-less and anti-Christian, it seems, by the day, and then we wonder why our culture, which we are supposed to shape, and not the other way around, is in such deplorable dis-array: it's because the Church herself is in such dis-array!

I have recently had the unspeakable privilege, and thus, blessing, of listening to a series of sermons on the Revelation, preached by a very good friend of mine, an elder at Covenant Community Church, of Whitehall, Montana. In this series, particularly on Revelation 11; he really brought home the fact that one reason for the seeming decay of much of the Church, is because of a lack of correct, covenantal worship. Going off on a bit of a rabbit-trail here; the book of Revelation is just that, the Revelation of Jesus the Christ, revealing Him for Who He said He was, the very Son of God, God Himself! For too long; the Wife of God has almost obliterated this fact; divorcing the book from its meta-narrative, and seeking salvation in its pages. By this; I simply mean that far too many Christians seem to be seeking an escape from this 'world', and their responsibilities in it, as 'the Israel of God'!

Back to the subject now; God's Wife, across the ages has had an adulterous history, sordidly like that of old covenant Israel herself, as laid out, most notably, in the prophecy of Hosea. You might be thinking, 'Whoah; that's kinda strong language!' Yes, it is, but probably not strong enough! The words 'too little, too late' come to mind. But we, as the people of the Almighty God, Creator of all, know that this is not true! If the Wife of God would begin to do her job, 'facing up' to her responsibilities, and watching over the ways of her household ( the 'world' ); coming back to a true covenantal worship of God, in all aspects of life, and every hour of ever day; then she may begin to have the effect she is predestined to have, upon the 'world' around her!

Throughout her 'colored' history; the Church has committed much idolatry, adultery even, with foreign gods, and committed many atrocities in the name of her Husband, with almost the opposite effect from what she was supposed to affect, taking rather than having, and forcing her religion, rather than the true religion of God that the apostle James talked about, in James 1:26 & 27. When we begin to remember, as a corporate whole, one complete entity, and that it is all about Christ, and the true religion of God, and not about any man-made religion; then perhaps we will begin to effect a change in the 'world' around us.

Our culture, the 'world' us, we often forget, belongs to God, and through our relations with God, to us. Because of a mis-understanding, or total lack of understanding of our covenantal relationship with our Creator, and denial of His words in the Revelation, 'The kingdoms of this world have become [ the kingdoms ] of our Lord and of His Christ, and He shall reign forever and ever!'; the Church has,again, over the ages, and especially within the past couple hundred years, more or less, adopted a policy, seemingly, of 'wait and see'; we have not fulfilled our covenant duty as the wife of God to get involved, to be the Proverbs 31 wife He has made us, extending our hands to the poor, and supplying sashes for the merchants.

May we remember, before 'the silver cord is loosed,or the golden bowl is broken, or the pitcher shattered at the fountain, or the wheel broken at the well' ( Ecclesiastes 12:6 ), that, as the Bride of Christ, the New Covenant Wife of God; we are up to the task, and if we meet it head on, our own works will be our praise in the gates, or as Jesus said, 'that they may see your good works and glorify your Father in heaven'. This being our prayer; let us act upon it for the glory of God and for His Kingdom!

Charles Haddon Shank

An End to Vanity, an End to Violence

2011-07-13T19:35:00.000-06:00

Violence, when you think about it, is useless; it usually only begets more violence; in fact, simply stated, Newton's, Third Law of Motion; 'for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction', is very applicable in this situation. Violence sometimes seems necessary, and often the only answer, but I believe we've all heard the phrase, 'violence is not the answer'. I believe that is true; while it can be AN answer, you're probably just as familiar with the saying, 'violence never solved anything' ( seems like Gandhi would have agreed with this statement ), it's also true that it has been our ( humanity's ) way of life since day one. As Newton averred, 'every action has an equal and opposite reaction'; this is the human way,: it is human nature, when someone threatens, or even takes action against you or yours, to react with equal, if not more, force! This is not necessarily wrong; sometimes in order to protect our stewardship ( 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness' ), it may be necessary, in fact, the only clear course.

One of the most violent, unjust, and poignant, events recorded in our Scriptures ever perpetrated against a singular individual, was the mock trial, flogging, and crucifixion of the Jewish Messiah, Jesus, the Son of God.
Recently, and there are other portrayals like this, Mel Gibson's 'The Passion of the Christ' really brought to our remembrance the violence of this event, beginning with His flogging ( I don't think you can watch this with tearing up ), and ending with the cross being dropped into the ground, further tearing at the wounds in His flesh ( pass the kleenex, please ). Without denying that Jesus was sent to die for the sins of His people, to redeem them back to true covenant relations with Himself; I believe that one reason that Jesus suffered such a violent separation on the cross was to show how violence was so utterly useless, and needless. Again; this is not to deny the fact that, as God's law required the death of a perfect human being to satisfy His justice; Jesus' ordeal was indeed necessary, according to the law. Could Jesus, as God, have paid the ransom for His people and redeemed them with having to suffer that ignominy, both that of having to suffer the normal existence ( although I think He rather enjoyed it ) of a human being, and then being crucified, put to the most cruel death? Well, when you come right down to it; He probably could have, but He chose to do it in such a way that we, as mere, finite human beings could understand the magnitude of what it meant to break the Covenant.

As I said; I'm not denying the fact that, according to God's holy law; Jesus' death on the cross was necessary to atone for the transgressions of His people, although it probably could be argued that God's law, like His Covenant, was always about the spirit ( principle? ), rather than the letter.

Anyone who has read anything of the early history, especially, but really, the entire Scriptural record of the dealings of God's typical old covenant 'children' can attest that theirs was a very violent time, and in fact, that much of their violence was carried out at the behest, the command, even, of God Himself. There can be no denying the fact that God commanded them to 'kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known a man intimately' ( Numbers 31:17 ), and that 'the LORD delivered the Canaanites and the Perizzites into their hand; and they killed ten thousand men at Bezek' (Judges 11:4 ). The history of the 'children' of Israel is, without doubt, one of the most violent on record, and, unlike those around them, was perpetrated in the name of a loving God. No doubt the nations around them attributed and sanctified their atrocities to their 'god', but Israel's God, we know, was the true God, the Creator of 'heaven and earth'. Theirs ( ours ) was a God of mercy and love, unheard of among the other nation's 'gods'. As the 'god's' of the nations required a blood sacrifice ( usually human ), the God of the Hebrews, who also required a blood sacrifice, asked only for the blood of some poor, hapless animal. This, of course, was merely a picture of the sacrifice of God's own Son, because as the author of Hebrews wrote; 'For [ it is ] not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins.' ( 10:4 ).

Reading the histories of Josephus, though, really brought out for me, the violence, especially in the latter years of their history, of these covenant-breaking 'children', some of which was committed in the name of God, but none of which was attributable to, or glorified God in the least. I'm not what you would call a history 'buff', or even all that knowledgeable in those areas ( I can sure 'Google', though ), but, from what little I have studied about it; Christianity, during the 'Dark Ages', and into the 13th and 14th centuries ( and beyond ) has committed some terrible atrocities against mankind, all in the name of God!

Beginning in the 12th century; awful practices were carried out by the Roman Catholic Church, although officially, secular 'police' did the dirty work, in the four different Inquisitions, which 'office' was founded to root out heretics. Really though; I believe that this was pretty much anyone who disagreed with Roman Catholic theology, or practice. Although Germany was never touched by the Inquisition to the extent that medieval France and Italy, then later, Spain, Portugal, and even Rome itself experienced it; I believe that Martin Luther probably experienced some of the 'fallout' from those dark days.

In the late ninth and early tenth centuries, and operating at much the same time, though in different areas of the world, the crusades were officially launched by the Roman Catholic Church, although, at that time, it may have simply been 'the Catholic Church'. As I said earlier; I'm not much of a history buff, and it not being my purpose here to give a history of the violence that Christianity has fostered throughout the centuries, suffice it to say that much of the horrific violence committed in the name of Christ over those 'Dark' years, in particular, but even for the past millenia, can be attributed, I believe, to a misunderstanding of the teaching of Christ, for instance, when He said, 'turn the other cheek'!

Jesus by no means meant that Christians are to be wimps, much the picture that we get today, from those who advocate 'turning the other cheek'. Earlier; He said 'blessed [ are ] the meek, for they shall inherit the earth'. Jesus told His disciples, not to be weak doormats, but to be meek, 'wise as serpents, [ and ] harmless as doves', always acting, not reacting ( that's usually where violence comes from ), in submission to God, seeking to fulfill His Purpose, and not our own. I believe that much in the way of defining the origins of 'a history of violence', particularly when it comes to Christianity, is a misinterpretation of the command in Genesis 1:26-28, to 'have dominion': if not in so many words, most Christians, from Genesis on, have seemingly understood this to say, 'take dominion'. This; I believe, was never God's intention, and Jesus' words, and for the most part, actions, in the Greek Scriptures, show that violence is not His way. When Jesus overturned the tables in the Temple, one could say that He was being a bit violent, but I don't believe that by doing so, that He was advocating violence. Scripture does not record Him assaulting anyone, anyway. Although He instructed Peter and the other disciples to go out and purchase swords ( for self-defense? ); He later rebuked Peter for using it in a violent way, for taking a preemptive strike, and cutting off the ear of the high priests servant.

'There is no truth or mercy or knowledge of God in the land. [ By ] swearing and lying, killing and stealing and committing adultery, they break all restraint, with bloodshed upon bloodshed.'

God's court case against idolatrous Israel, revealed by the prophet Hosea, included the charge of spiritual adultery, and indeed, that was His main complaint, but I believe that His words above also show that it was for their violence as well. The Israelites, through their covenant-breaking, had become a nation of violence, just like the nations around them, lying, stealing, committing adultery, and even murdering, all things forbidden by the 'Ten Commandments'. God even instituted cities of refuge that someone who killed another without meaning to, could flee to, in order that the violence might not continue!

As we continue in chapter 4; we read that God's just vengeance on His covenant-breaking people can be pretty violent, but truly; there is a difference between His justice and violence! I'm not saying that justice can always be carried out without violence of some sort. No; the violence that I'm talking about is unwarranted violence, and wrongful violence, like the 'bloodshed upon bloodshed' that God complained about, above; violence of the sort perpetrated, 'from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah who perished between the altar and the temple' ( Luke 11:51 ) against the innocent and the righteous. This sort of violence is what God truly condemns, and it is this sort of violence, although not the only sort, about which I write. As I said earlier, in other words, maybe, 'sometimes violence is the only recourse'! Sometimes, in order to defend our stewardship we must counter violence with violent action, whether it be warding off blows ( though not necessarily returning them ), or whether it actually comes down to taking a life, violent action is required! Violence, even in these situations is not always needful, though it is our nature, even as Christians, to meet violence with more violence. By the nature of Christ, or God, in us, we can dispense with, or overcome these violent tendencies, and rather than reacting, which is really what defines violence, we act as Christ did, with love, grace, and mercy.

We have witnessed many times, because of needless violence, that, as Hosea prophesied of his people, the 'land' has mourned. Ten years ago, our own 'land' mourned because of a wicked act of terrorism brought on by, you guessed it, needless violence; in fact, some of the same sort of violence that was related earlier in this article.

In Jesus' crucifixion; I believe that God was not only meeting the just requirement of the physical 'letter of the law', and paying the ransom for the sins of His people with the blood of His Son, but also provided a lasting image for those who witnessed it, of what the kind of needless violence that they had perpetuated throughout their long history led to; more needless violence!

From the beginning, though, God spoke out against the innate violence of man: aside from the first act of murder, God unleashed the flood in Noah's day against a world of wicked men, because of their violence ( Genesis 6:11-13 ). Throughout Scripture, 'violence' is denounced as belonging to the wicked and to the faithless, and in Isaiah 60:18; God revealed through the prophet that 'violence shall no longer be heard in your land, neither wasting nor destruction within your borders; but you shall call your walls Salvation, and your gates Praise.' Those who understand the covenant context of God's Promise realize that He is not speaking of an end to physical violence, although that may come ( 'Amen'! ) , but of the spiritual rest and peace that came, and come, in Jesus. As this peace and rest, along with the mercy, grace, and love of God is worked out in the lives of His people, there will, I believe, come an ever-increasing end to even physical violence!

Amen: through the blessings of the New Covenant, may this be, as we, the married Church if Christ, put an end to the violence in our own lives. May we begin, instead of reacting, begin to act upon the grace we have been shown, and show forth the Light of God in our inmost being!

The Silence of the Dogs

2011-07-01T21:59:00.002-06:00

His watchmen [ are ] blind, they are all ignorant; they [ are ] all dumb dogs, they cannot bark; sleeping, lying down, loving to slumber. Yes, [ they are ] greedy dogs [ which ] never have enough. And they [ are ] shepherds who cannot understand; they all look to their own way, every one for his own gain, from his [ own ] territory. ( Isaiah 56:10 & 11 )

There is a festering problem in many of America's churches today, and this is a problem that, ultimately, only God Himself, through the gentle thrashing of His Holy Spirit, can solve! That problem is the unwillingness, for whatever reason, of our spiritual leaders to 'rock the vote' ( I mean 'boat' ) when it comes to the insidious dangers that our country now faces; the threat of our liberties, granted by our Creator, being wrested from us! Oh sure, there are many pastors out there, who have taken up 'arms', at least within the safe and sacred confines of their beloved 'worship center', or church building, against the more visible threats; pornography and homosexual marriage, to name a few. As long as their speaking out won't disrupt their happy homes, or threaten their exalted position as leader of their particular social club, or of any certain institutional church that offered them the salary that they were looking for.

Fortunately; this is not always the case; there are those out there, as God promised Elijah, 'Yet I have reserved seven thousand in Israel, all whose knees have not bowed to Baal, and every mouth that has not kissed him' ( I Kings 19:18 ); those who, despite, for the most part, their 'favored' 501( c )3 status, are beginning to return to the roots of our countries spiritual leadership ( if they ever left ), and are preaching those good ole' 'fire & brimstone' sermons ( not quite ), and being the 'watchmen' ( Ezekiel 33:1-11 ) that God has called them to be, preaching, and acting, as the preachers they claim to be, searching out and fighting the evil that has pervaded their congregations and pretty much every aspect of society. This invasion, as was pointed out above, includes many of our personal liberties, our God-given rights, which, sad to say, far too many of us, for far too long, have ceded to our federal and state governments, in part based on a faulty interpretation of passages like Romans 13, and a general lack of understanding of our covenantal responsibilities, and yes, even relationship to and before Almighty God!

Covenant Community Church, which meets and worship together at the Education Station in Whitehall, Montana, and with whom I have recently become affiliated, has begun to bring back the 'Election Sermon', which, from 'days gone by', were delivered before elected leaders to remind them of, not only their constitutional oaths and promises, but of their duties and responsibilities before their Creator. We have been doing this, and other related activities, since 2,000 anno domini ( In the Year of Our Lord ). I believe that this extends, as well, to the spiritual leaders of America's churches, who, in many cases, are not much different than those who hold secularly elected office. Although I'm sure there are some ( secular ) politicians out there who sought their office with truly good intent, thinking of more than just a big cushy desk-job ( I'm sure most true politicians would 'take me to task' on that! ), or a comfortable, opulent lifestyle, as there are many pastors out there with the same 'good intent'; many have sought and gotten these exalted and revered positions, seemingly, just so they can afford all the 'things' daddy and granpa never had.

The lack of understanding of our covenant relationship with and responsibility before God is a large part, if not the main factor that has led to the downfall of this once-great nation, beginning, sadly, with individual Americans, but also deposited heavily ( some might say 'heavier' ) on the weakened shoulders of our God-ordained ministers, both in the secular and religious, or spiritual realm. One might question, at this point, whether there is, or should be, any difference!

The passage that was quoted at the beginning of this article, Isaiah 56, verses 10 and 11, seems to apply most readily to our leaders in today's America, does it not? We must remember though, that, although these men ( and women, now ) may 'shoulder' a greater responsibility; we also, as servants of the Most High God, and ministers of the grace which has been bestowed upon us, are stewards of the same Covenant, and have been 'shouldered', not only with our own stewardship, but with calling those leaders to account for their actions ( or lack thereof ). May we always use the grace given us to humbly ( and 'gently', as the case may be ) remind them of their covenantal obligations, whether they look at it that way or not!

Another way in which 'the silence of the dogs' can be marked, concerning the violation of our freedoms, is that great scourge upon the society of what we might call 'the preborn'; abortion. The preborn, more commonly called 'the unborn', or even 'the fetus', have, especially since the infamous Roe v. Wade case, decided in 1973 before the Supreme Court, have experienced more of this loss of liberty, particularly, and maybe primarily, when it comes to life itself. This is not an essay on the evils of abortion, so I will go no further than to say that, although ventures like 'Operation Rescue' have been very successful, to one degree or another, in exposing some of the real 'problems' behind abortion, one of them being human nature; all in all, too many watchmen have done nothing further than maybe denouncing it as 'a great evil' in this world, from the pulpit. Here again; we cannot discount human nature itself, because every person has a choice, personal liberty, granted by their Creator, of what to do with their own; not a liberty to do wrong, mind you, but a liberty to do what's right, even if someone tells you it's wrong!

The loss of liberty may be, then, the greatest 'evil' that has ever been unleashed on society, and this has been since the 'genesis' of time, because, really, it is all-encompassing. As Scripture describes liberty, and as I commented on above; it is the freedom to do right, not to do wrong. When the 'serpent' beguiled Eve in the Garden; he took away her right to do good, to obey her Creator, and thus unleashed a 'world' of trouble, that has plagued society ever since! As I said; the loss of liberty is all-encompassing, relevant, when you think about, to all areas of life. It is this travesty, then, that we as the Body of Christ, must address, not only from the pulpit, but in all walks of life; wherever, and in whatever form, God may grant us a 'pulpit'!

Let us all, through the covenant context of the Revelation of God's Word, begin to act as the 'watchmen' He has called us to be, each and every one of us, and not give this 'evil' one square inch of ground, not one iota of rest, until it has been forever exterminated.

Maybe the question we should be asking, is not, 'who let the dogs out?', but, 'who shut the dogs up?'

Let the 'barking' commence!

Communion

2011-06-24T17:46:00.000-06:00

We all seek it, in our own way, and, whether we admit it or not, we all need it!

Sometimes; we can try to do without it for a time, if not for good, but we always end up communing, either with some 'thing', or with some 'one', and that's not always good!

God said ( Genesis 2:18 ) that 'it is not good that the man should be alone'. He made man for communion. It is good, sometimes, just to go away by yourself and 'commune with nature', or it can be refreshing to spend some time 'alone with God', but for the most part; man craves communion, and if he isn't communing with the good; the opposite is usually true, we tend to commune with the bad! ( been there, done that, so I can speak from experience )

When one hears the word 'communion'; we most often think, in 'Christian circles', anyway, of the Communion that they share with others in the Body of Christ, partaking of the wine ( or grape juice ) and bread, whether they do it as a symbolic remembrance of His sacrifice, or whether they believe they are following Jesus' words in John 6:53; 'unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His blood, you have no life in you'. I remember once, when I told a brother that the church I was attending at the time had 'communion' every Sunday; he, knowing that I meant the fellowship meal we enjoyed every Sunday after worship service, protested, 'but Christ isn't there!' I believe that, as the Church is the Body of Christ, and as per John 14:23; Christ is most definitely there; as He Himself said, 'wherever two or three are gathered in My name, there AM I among them' ( Matthew 18:20 ). Many orthodox Christians seem to have this hang-up when it comes to the use of the word 'communion', and in fact to the practice itself. We have tended, because of this fact, to view our communion within the Body of Christ as simply fellowship, and this misnomer needs to be addressed in the Church!

Why do we have a problem realizing the import, when it comes to communion, of what Jesus said in Matthew 18:20? I have addressed what I believe to be the biggest ‘problem’ that has plagued God’s Church throughout its history; that of ‘A Focus on the Physical’( not a bad thing in and of itself, for as I explained; a secondary focus on the physical is a good, indeed necessary thing ) This is one reason that my brother retorted that ‘Christ isn’t there’; because of the orthodox ( Futurist ) view that, mainly, if not wholly based on Acts 1:11, Jesus remains in His physical Body in some spiritual ( ethereal? ) ‘Heaven’, sitting at the right hand ( again; ethereal? ) of God, from which He will, at some point in our future, ‘come to judge the quick and the dead’. I agree that Jesus has taken up residence in His Body ( John 14:23 ), and that He sits at ‘the right hand of God the Father’, although I believe the Scriptures are very clear about His coming to judge the quick and the dead ( this happened in the 1st century, AD. )

Life, as I’ve tried to point out in a previous article, is a sacrament; when I say that; I mean simply that all of life, everything that we say or do ( not just Sundays, a pagan holyday? ) is to be our worship ( Romans 12 1-5 ), to the glory of God, and for His Kingdom. Traditionally; I believe that too many within the Body of Christ, ad this includes a great many in the institutional church, have viewed the Church as the church building, failing to realize, seemingly, that God’s Church, the Body of Christ, is made up of His people ( it’s not some dumb, inanimate idol, I mean building )! To be fair; when confronted with a question, such as, ‘is the Church God’s people, or the building that they worship in?’, the answer would likely be a quick, ‘well, God’s people, of course!’. I’m afraid, though, that this ready answer too often belies their actions. Too many pastors today look at their congregation as their church, failing to see the Church as One Body, and that of Christ, belonging not to any certain group of people ( clique’ ) within a certain geographical location or area.

Denominations can be a good thing, and in fact, could almost be said to be necessary; they are a more or less easy way of defining where a group or individual is coming from theologically ( basically; what he/she believes ). I have no problem with people believing differently, we are all at different points and stages, in the development of our relationship with our Creator ( and each other ); the problem I have with ‘denominations’ is that they often feel that Truth is theirs alone; they’re the only ones that believe correctly ( orthodoxically ), and therefore, communion within the Body is hardly, if ever, even thought of, much less practiced: sure, within their own congregation, on Sundays and maybe Wednesday evenings, possibly even within their own denominational community, for a ‘church picnic’, or some such event. Again, to be fair; not all denominational, institutional churches act this way; there are those who do, in action anyway, if not in their theology, view themselves as just a small part of the Body, and commune with other members of that Body, even though they may believe somewhat differently, and belong to a different denomination, and gather on a certain day of the week to worship corporately.

For far too long though, and in too many churches, the modus operandi has been to gather for that form of worship on Sundays ( sometimes twice ) and maybe for a middle-of-the-week ‘service’, and dedicate the rest of the week to ‘work’ ( this could open up another ‘can of worms ) so that we can support ourselves, our families, and pay our tithes to whatever ‘church’ we’re attending at the time. If we see another ‘church’ member outside the sacred walls that we enter at those certain times; great: if we have time, maybe we’ll say ‘hi’, or even sit down for a bit of ‘fellowship’. Typically, this ‘fellowship’ is not viewed as ‘communion’; that is reserved for some ‘sacred ( almost mystical ) communion’, a sharing of little thimbles full of grape juice, or wine, and a little egg-carton wafer ( as I call’em ), or piece of bread, with heads solemnly bowed, and Jesus words ( usually quoted from I Corinthians 11 ) somberly spoken over them. Don’t get me wrong; I don’t have a problem with this practice, in fact, the symbolism of the whole ‘institution’ is a good reminder of what Jesus words in John 6:53 mean: personally, I view it, as with Sunday worship, as a kind of ‘closer communion’ with other members of the Body, whether or not they believe like I do. It is not, however, and we all need to really remember this, the only, and best, form of communion; that is with each other, within the Body of Christ, and as the Body of Christ, whether or not we share denominational affiliation, similar eschatological beliefs, or even hold the same views on communion!

In holy communion with the Body,
Charles Haddon Shank

Mocking the False Profits

2011-05-31T18:03:00.001-06:00

Let him who is taught the word share in all good things with him who teaches. Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap. For he who sows to his flesh will of the flesh reap corruption, but he who sows to the Spirit will of the Spirit reap everlasting life. Galatians 6:6-8

Recently; the Church 'world' has again been shaken and disturbed by yet another date-setter, predicting the end of the world as we know it, but worse than this, Harold Camping is just the latest notable figure to repudiate, and publically mock the Gospel of Jesus the Christ, who said, repeatedly, that the first-century would play host, not just to His coming, or 'parousia', but to His judgment on the enemies of His people!

To be fair, some notables of the dispensational/futurist camp have avowed that 'of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven', quoting Jesus in Matthew 24:36. Paul wrote similarly to the Thessalonian believers, 'you yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so comes as a thief in the night' ( I Thessalonians 5:2 ). History has proven, though, that although they may not have known the day or the hour; those first-century believers were not at all surprised by this event. Jesus told His followers, in Matthew 24:15-35 very specifically about the events immediately preceding His 'parousia', while Paul told his Thessalonican audience, a few sentences after his earlier statement, which I quoted above; 'But you, brethren, are not in darkness, so that this Day should overtake you as a thief', reminding them that, as followers of the Christ, they had been given a special insight into the matter, and thus would not be surprised, as others, who 'did not know until the flood came and took them all away' ( Matthew 24:39 ); Jesus said that His coming would be very like this! In the case of the 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor, for example; history has shown that some indeed, those who were 'in the know', had information that the attack was coming, although virtually nothing was done to halt it ( quite the opposite, actually ). Here is a quote from the Wikipedia article, on the subject; 'Though by late 1941 many observers believed that hostilities between the U.S. and Japan were imminent, and U.S. Pacific bases and facilities had been placed on alert on multiple occasions, U.S. officials doubted Pearl Harbor would be the first target'.

While the earlier part of the passage above ( Galatians 6 ) might seem to lend credence to the idea that we should treat these charlatans, mockers, actually, of the true Gospel with 'kid-gloves': I believe that a moment's reflection, common sense, really, will show that these men, and others like them, have not only made much ( false ) profit from their fear-mongering lies and postulations, but have inadvertently ( ignorantly? ) made a mockery of the revelation of God's Word, and opened the 'flood-gates' for many unbelievers, even weaker brethren, to deny or doubt the validity and veracity of that Word! These men, in other aspects of their 'ministry', may seem to have some good things to say, but I believe that their actions, for the most part, reveal their true intentions, which, no doubt, are not meant to mock God, or His 'good news', but simply to make a profit!

In the passage that I first quoted; Paul warns these men that 'whatever a man sows, that he will also reap', but earlier, God told them through Jeremiah ( 23:1 ); 'Woe to the shepherds who destroy and scatter the sheep of My pasture!', and throughout the rest of chapter 23, says things like, 'I will bring disaster on them', 'I will feed them with wormwood', and 'behold, I, even I, will utterly forget you and forsake you, and the city that I gave you and your fathers, and [ will cast you ] out of My presence'.

'Soon' does not mean 2,000 years!

It's the End of the World ( as we know it )!

2011-05-13T14:44:00.000-06:00

May 21st, 2011, in the year of our Lord, is fast approaching, but will this really spell the beginning of the end? If so, and this is quite possible, the end of what ( 'world' )? For whatever reason, and it could be because of the Mayan ( 2012 ) thing, which is also looming on the horizon; we have started to hear, once again, the clanging symbols, purporting to signal Christ's return, and the end of the age, I mean 'world'!

Predicting the end of the world is nothing new: a Google search ( Bing? ) will quickly reveal many results, several even listing most of the many failed predictions, or prophesies that have been made, down through the millenia. ( Of course most of these will also, interestingly enough, list Jesus' own prophecy in Matthew 16:28, Matthew 24:30, Mark 13, and Luke 21. ) I think I even saw one website that listed an end-of-the-world prediction from Before Common ( era ).

Maybe the most famous ( or is that, 'infamous' ) of these 'false prophets' ( Deuteronomy 18:20-22 ) is probably Hal Lindsay, best known for his 'prophecies', back in the 70s, but William Branham predicted the imminent return of Christ in 1977 ( he died in 65' ). I believe that many of the prophecies are contingent upon the funding of the nation/state of Israel in 1948, but, while more could be said on that subject; suffice it to say thatall these prophecies failed, not only because they were based, however loosely, on an already false premise, but ultimately, and more importantly, because the 'end' came when Jesus said it would, in the first century!

I am saddened, although it is almost humorous ( I've even had a laugh or two at their expense ), by the sheer lunacy ( some might say, 'idiocy' ) of these 'false prophets', who think that, ignoring Jesus' own warnings, they can make these predictions, ruining countless lives ( including their own ), and leading countless thousands into a false hope, and very marshy, to say the least, theological ground!

Although Harold Camping is, no doubt, not the only one spreading this fear-mongery about May 21,2011, he is probably the loudest cymbal right now. I, as well as others, wonder what will happen when May 22nd comes around, and there is no sign of Christ; maybe we should keep our eyes on 'Israel'( Romans 9:6-8, Galatians 6:16 )!

In the service of the present Christ,
and His Kingdom,
Charles Haddon Shank

Re-animating 'A Spiritual Body' ( re-thinking the resurrection )

2011-05-09T17:12:00.000-06:00

You may remember hearing of, or reading, several years ago, a short article that I wrote, entitled 'A Spiritual Body': in this article, I put forth the idea that the 'spiritual body' that Paul wrote about in I Corinthians 15:44, was not some ethereal, yet still tangible, body that we will inherit when we die and go to 'Heaven', but that Paul was simply speaking of the 'change' that God's people were going through in the first century, and yet, in a sense, undergo, when, through the power of the Holy Spirit, they are em-powered to 'put to death the deeds of the body' ( Romans 8:13 ). Since I wrote this short article; I believe that God has shown me a few things that were lacking in my understanding; for instance, a truly covenantal, and even a more correct historical view of the context and meaning of Paul's words and phraseology, not only in quite possibly the three most famous resurrection passages in the Greek New Testament, I Corinthians 15, II Corinthians 5, and Philippians 3, but from other, shorter passages in both the Greek and Hebrew Scriptures.

First; I want to make clear that, although I do use the NKJV much of the time,, I do not necessarily agree with their interpretation of certain passages, or with any comments or chapter headings that they might assign.

Although I still believe the main premise of the article that I wrote previously, some clarification, because of further revelation, or understanding, is in order. Paul wrote, in I Corinthians 15:44b, that 'There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.' We might first clarify what Paul is speaking of here ( a 'natural body' ) in order to better understand 'a spiritual body'. Some have regarded this 'natural body' as the physical, biological body that we now inhabit, and while this is a fairly traditional ( orthodox? ) understanding of this phrase, I believe that Paul had something else in mind when he wrote these words.

The Old and New Testament Scriptures might more correctly be termed the Old and New 'Covenant' Scriptures. The definition of 'testament', according to the Merriam-Webster online dictionary, is 'archaic : a covenant between God and the human race'. I acknowledge that this is the 'correct' definition, according to the finite understanding of man, but really; who defines 'covenant? Is it not God, who is over all, that defines most correctly the thing that He made? I have made the argument, presenting the notion in other places, and in other words, that God first made covenant with Himself, within the God-head ( 'Let us make............'-Genesis 1:26 ), and that the 'first covenant' ( Hebrews 8:7 ), of which the 'new covenant' ( Jeremiah 31:31-34, Hebrews 9:15 ) was simply a clarification, or final revelation, was simply, if you will, a parenthetical 'covenant', whose purpose, as Paul wrote to the Church in Galatia ( 3:24 ), 'the law was our tutor [ to bring us ] to Christ, that we might be justified by faith', to reveal to God's people the principle, or spirit ( John 4:24 ) of the law ( or Mosaic 'covenant' ), which was, as Jesus said, to 'love the LORD your God..................', and 'your neighbor as yourself' ( Luke 10:27 ).

Getting back to our subject; the Bible, or Scripture, is a book, or revelation of God's covenant dealings with His people, and as such, presents a progressive story of the transition, humanly speaking, from the old, or first, to the new, which was really only a clarification, or reiteration of that original covenant ( we sometimes call it the Adamic covenant ). We read in Hebrews 8:8 that 'finding fault with them' ( the physical 'children' of Israel, with whom He covenanted ); He re-affirmed, or confirmed 'a new covenant', which should tell us, I believe, that there was not so much a 'change' ( I Corinthians 15:52 ) in the covenant that took place, as a 'change' within those with whom He had covenanted. It is this 'change', I believe, that is the whole point of the resurrection!

The Greek ἀνάστασις, or 'anastasis', simply means, according to Thayer's Lexicon, 'a raising, rising up ( as from a seat)'. As tradition has dictated for the past couple hundred years, anyway; this term involves a literal, physical rising from the dead, as in the resurrection of Jesus and numerous other notable resurrections throughout Scripture, but I believe that a more careful and contextual reading of those passages, and others like them, will reveal that these were simply signs that those witnessing might believe ( John 11:14, 26 & 42 ).

'Resurrection', as noted, again, by the Merriam-Webster online dictionary is also used metaphorically, one might say, in phrases such as, for example, 'He was enjoying the resurrection of his career', and 'a resurrection of an old theory', and quite often, in Scripture, did refer to a rising to life ( physical ) of the biologically dead, but as we can see, from examples like those above, and even within the pages of the Bible, 'resurrection' need not always refer to a re-animation of biological bodies.

'And not being weak in faith, he did not consider his own body, already dead (since he was about a hundred years old), and the deadness of Sarah’s womb.'

The above quotation, from the fourth chapter of Romans ( verse 19 ), referring to the birth of the 'son of promise' ( Genesis 18:1-15 ( Romans 9:9 ( Galatians 4:21-31 ), is not the first place that one usually looks to for a glimpse of the resurrection, but a resurrection it was, in that sense, because God took Sarah's 'dead' womb, Abraham's 'dead' body, and brought them to life, to symbolically, and eventually, bring to Light the true Life ( John 14:6 )!

Ezekiel 37, and 'the valley of dry bones', is a passage that some have pointed to as indicative of a physical resurrection, not to mention, a return of the physical children of Abraham to their 'Home-land' ( but that's another story for another day, perhaps, although it's been told before, I believe ). We must remember, first, that this was a vision, much like the Revelation that John saw, revealing a spiritual truth, using physical 'pictures'. In verses 4-9; one may note the parallels to the creation account in Genesis 2:7, and covenantally this could have some interesting, and potentially 'dangerous' implications, for if this is talking about a resurrection, metaphorically, of God's people from their own perceived 'deadness' ( hopelessness-verse 11 ), then what does that have to say about the creation account? Was Adam's the first 'resurrection'? Is the 'creation account' simply a symbolic and hyperbolic way of relating the 'birth of the covenant'?

'Behold, O My people, I will open your graves and cause you to come up from your graves, and bring you into the land of Israel. Then you shall know that I [ am ] the LORD, when I have opened your graves, O My people, and brought you up from your graves. I will put My Spirit in you, and you shall live, and I will place you in your own land. Then you shall know that I, the LORD, have spoken [ it ] and performed [ it ].'

Scripture tells us, in Matthew 27:52, that 'the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised', and that after the resurrection of Jesus, after three days ( Hosea 6:2 ), they appeared in the holy city to many witnesses. Prior to the prophecy above, from Ezekiel 37, in verse 11; the 'whole house of Israel' perceived that 'Our bones are dry, our hope is lost, and we ourselves are cut off!'. Because of their iniquities, they had been sold into captivity, and separated, not only from their 'land', but 'cut off' ( as they perceived it ) from the Presence of their God. This is what Ezekiel 37, and resurrection, is all about; not a physical return to a piece of real estate ( 'Holy', though it may be ), or of a re-animation of physical, biological ( flesh & bone ) bodies, but a return to the communion that God had promised beforehand, through His covenant. and as He also promised, in Isaiah 56:5, 'Even to them I will give in My house and within My walls a place and a name better than that of sons and daughters; I will give them^[a] an everlasting name that shall not be cut off.' In verse 14, God promised, again, 'I will place you in your own land', and in the rest of the chapter, seems to lend credence to the notion of a physical return of Israel ( 'according to the flesh' ) to the 'land' of Palestine, but I believe that the context, not only of this chapter, but all of Scripture points, not an to actual piece of real estate, but to the metaphorical ( although quite real ) rest that we have in Him ( Hebrews 4:1-8 ( Hebrews 12:18-24 ). Compare the language of Ezekiel 37:21, 'Thus says the Lord GOD: Surely I will take the children of Israel from among the nations, wherever they have gone, and will gather them from every side and bring them into their own land', and Matthew 24:31, 'And He will send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other'; some may argue that this is speaking of an actual literal gathering, into one place, but I believe that an honest exegesis of both of these passages, and like I said, the context of Scripture, will show that this gathering, though very real, is not physical, but is a metaphor for His redemptive work.

'Your dead shall live; [ together with ] my dead body^[b] they shall arise. Awake and sing, you who dwell in the dust; for your dew [ is like ] the dew of herbs, and the earth shall cast out the dead.'

This verse, I believe, is a favorite among some, for removing from it's immediate context ( I should know; I was one of these ), but when one takes phrases such as 'you who dwell in dust', and then look back at verse 5, 'He brings it down to the dust' ( speaking of the lofty pride of Jerusalem ); one can see that He is not referring, in verse 19, to biological death, but to the abasement of prideful men.

The statement above comes from the midst of what is called by some, 'the little Apocalypse', from Isaiah chapters 24-27. Within this 'little Apocalypse', or pre-revelation, you might call it, God revealed that, through the adverse judgment of His enemies; He would also bring about the salvation of His people.Verses 12 & 13 of chapter 27 reveal also, a gathering of His people from the nations. In verse 6 of chapter 25, which reads 'in this mountain the LORD of hosts will make for all people a feast of choice pieces, a feast of wines on the lees, of fat things full of marrow, of well-refined wines on the lees', speaking, yet again, of a gathering of His people into one 'place', 'this mountain', for the feast that He prepared, bringing to mind passages like 'the marriage supper of the Lamb', in Revelation 19, Jesus' 'Parable of the Great Supper', in Luke 14:15-23, and the 'parable o the wedding feast', in Matthew 22:1-14. The 'bright spot', you might say, in the first chapter ( 24 ) of Isaiah's 'Apocalypse' is verses 14 & 15, which proclaims 'They shall lift up their voice, they shall sing; for the majesty of the LORD they shall cry aloud from the sea. Therefore glorify the LORD in the dawning light, the name of the LORD God of Israel in the coastlands of the sea', and although not speaking of an actual gathering ( of His people ). the next verse reveals that this praise and glorification will come from 'the ends of the earth'.

'Jesus Himself stood in the midst of them, and said to them, 'Peace to you.'

You may recall hearing the explanation of this event ( Luke 24:36b ) as relaying the fact that our 'resurrection body' will be able to pass through walls, and locked doors, as Jesus' body reportedly did. Is this the 'spiritual body' that Paul talked ( wrote ) about? As ridiculous as it may sound; it is quite possible, though not at all probable ( physics lesson, anyone? ) that a body could be tangible, as Jesus' body was 'proven' to be ( verse 38, John 20:19-27 ), and yet move through objects at will.

As I discussed the Covenant above, and the two iterations with which we are most familiar in Scripture, the 'old', or 'first' covenant, and the 'new covenant', within that Covenant; I believe, as Paul wrote much, though seemingly of individual bodies, of the corporate body. One small example I have given before is the marriage covenant, in which two, although still separate, individual people, are made 'one' ( Mark 10:6-9 ), but perhaps the most glaringly obvious, and well-known, example is when Paul wrote 'Now you are the body of Christ, and members individually' ( I Corinthians 12:27 ( Romans 12:5, Ephesians 3:1-7, 4:11 & 12 ( 5:23 ) Colossians 1:24 ( 2:11 ). As thus, then; I believe that the 'natural' and 'spiritual' bodies that Paul made reference to, were/are not individual bodies, per se, but of the corporate qualities of the respective 'covenants'.

The first covenant, that which God gave through Moses, may be ( almost ) truly said to have been a works-based 'covenant'( although Paul did write that 'by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified' ( Galatians 2:16 ( Romans 9:32 ), even as far back as Adam, because God did make stipulations; 'if you do this, I will do that'. These stipulations required perfect obedience, through the law, and if one did not abide by that law; he suffered severe consequences. The whole point of the law, as Paul said, was that it served as 'our tutor [ to bring us ] to Christ, that we might be justified by faith', as we read earlier, in Galatians 3:24. As such then, the whole point of that first 'covenant' ( with man ) was not the revelation of law ( of works-Galatians 3:19 ), but the Revelation of the ( true ) Law ( the faith of Christ ( God )-Galatians 3:10 ), to show His people that their works could never prove them, but that it was only through the faith ( fulness ) of Christ that they had any hope.

We now get to the essence of what a spiritual body is, what makes it spiritual.

I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts.

Some people believe, and I have been known to postulate, that, as we are, in reality, spirit-beings ( 'we are not our bodies' ); upon the expiration of this biological body, we become our true selves, with purely spiritual bodies. I agree, in the sense that we are not to be defined by our bodies ( our hairstyle, piercings ( or NOT ), or our clothes ), but by our spirit/Spirit, which is the real 'us', but which will, in one way or the other be 'proven' by our actions while in this physical existence. What is referred to above might well be called a spirit-body, for though, as we know it, or understand it, a spirit has no physical essence, but is corporeal, nonetheless.

Paul wrote, to the Corinthian Church, 'These things we also speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teaches but which the Holy^[d] Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know [ them ], because they are spiritually discerned. But he who is spiritual judges all things, yet he himself is [ rightly ] judged by no one.' ( I Corinthians 2:13-15 ) Contrasting this with what he later told them, in I Corinthians 15:44-46, 'It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. And so it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being.”^[d] The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural, and afterward the spiritual.', we may begin to understand the essence, or make-up, of the spiritual body.

Moreover, brethren...................

When a chapter or passage begins like this; we know that we had better pay attention to what the writer was saying in the previous passage or chapter, before he wrote, 'Moreover'. Paul, in chapter 14, had been reminding the Corinthians ( they seemed to have a problem with remembering ) of the correct ( appropriate ) order of things. They seemed to have forgotten, in part, at least, the gospel ( good news ) which Paul had originally preached to them, in particular, for some reason, they were questioning the fact of the resurrection, namely, and first of all, Christ's, then even the gospel promise of theirs. This is almost purely speculation, but the story that the Jews circulated after the crucifixion and burial of Jesus, that 'His disciples came at night and stole Him [ away ] while we slept', may, through the influx of the Judaizers, have found its way into the Corinthian church. Whatever the case may be, we have been blessed, and sometimes stymied, by 'the resurrection chapter'!

'And if Christ is not risen, your faith [ is ] futile; you are still in your sins!'

So wrote Paul in response to their critical questioning of the fact of the resurrection. Some ( most maybe ) have postulated, gathering from this, that it was not only Jesus' sacrifice that paid the debt ( ? ) for the sins of His people ( Matthew 1:21 ), but that He must also needs have risen from the grave, thus showing that He had conquered death for all.

'For the wages of sin [ is ] death, but the gift of God [ is ] eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord'

What 'death' is Paul talking about here? There is much and long-standing disagreement over whether Paul was speaking of physical, biological ( worm-eaten ) death, or whether he was speaking of what some call 'spiritual death' ( I have been known to use this term too ). This argument continues, in reverse, all the way back to 'the death' of Adam; did he physically die in the day that he ate? Some have argued that the text ( Genesis 2:17 ) implies that Adam would begin to die ( physically ) the day that he ate, or that the construction of the warning phrase should be taken to mean that 'in the day' meant that within his lifetime ( in his 'day' ) he would die. The text does plainly imply, though, that Adam was separated from the Presence of God, when he was 'booted' from the Garden, where was the Tree of Life, 'lest he put out his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever' ( Genesis 3:22 ).

The Gospels show us plainly, as Paul found the need to repeat to the Corinthians, that Christ did, indeed, physically rise from the dead, but I believe that this was merely a sign to the unbelieving Jews ( including most of the disciples, who still didn't really understand ), as was the 'resurrection' of Lazarus, that He had actually done what He came to do; to save His people from their sins, by conquering ( abolishing ) 'the death' of Adam! Just think what the Corinthians would have said if Paul hadn't been able to tell them about all the witnesses of Jesus' resurrection; they might have, because of the Judaizers, said 'aha, they're right; He didn't really rise from the dead, like He said He would; His disciples just stole the body'!

Why would Paul tell the Corinthians that if the Resurrection had not occurred, they were still in their sins?

'[ There is ] therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus,^[a] who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit.'

In verse 17 of I Corinthians 15; Paul wrote that 'if Christ is not risen, your faith [ is ] futile; you are still in your sins!' The simple answer is that if Christ had not shown that death had been conquered, by rising from the grave ( remember Lazarus ), then how would they know, as Paul had preached, that their sins had been paid for, that they had been redeemed? In the quote above, from Romans 8:1 ( although the N/U text does not contain the latter part of the verse, the phrase 'who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit' does appear elsewhere in Paul's writings ( even in the same chapter ( verse 4 ), so I believe that this is a safe assumptive clarification ); Paul pointed out to his readers, to his brethren, really, that there was no more law that could condemn them, because they were now part of the Body of Christ. Being now part of the Body of Christ, through the 'new covenant' ( Isaiah 42:6 ), the law, since it had been fulfilled by Jesus ( perfectly ), no longer condemned them to death, being superseded ( and 'bettered'-Hebrews 8:6 ) by the grace of God, through Jesus the Christ!

Later, in Romans 8:6; Paul told them that 'to be carnally minded [ is ] death, but to be spiritually minded [ is ] life and peace.' What is it to be 'spiritually minded'? Is it not the same, would you think, as to walk 'according to the Spirit', and to be 'carnally minded', to 'walk according to the flesh'? I believe that Paul was telling them that the carnal mind-set was to live according to the old covenant law, which only brought death, since no one could keep it perfectly, but that if, or since, they 'walked' according to, or in the Spirit ( 'But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you' ), which is the grace of God in Jesus, they would truly live ( forever-John 11:26 )!

But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know [ them ], because they are spiritually discerned.

In I Corinthians 15:46; Paul wrote, 'However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural, and afterward the spiritual', in answer to their foolish question, 'How are the dead raised up? And with what body do they come?' He was saying, comparing the two passages, that those who were 'imprisoned' by the old covenant ( law , and thus 'carnal' ( I Corinthians 3:1-4 ), were the opposite of those who did receive the Spirit ( of Christ ), and thus were able to 'spiritually' discern the Truth, that it was through grace, and not through works ( of the law ) that one was justified ( Romans 3:20 )!

In the article, 'A Spiritual Body', which I wrote several years ago; I discussed the notion that verses 33 & 34 of I Corinthians 15 presented a turning point, on which Paul's discussion of Christ's Resurrection, upon which theirs hinged, became a discussion of a different sort of resurrection, a spiritual resurrection. He wrote 'Awake to righteousness, and do not sin; for some do not have the knowledge of God. I speak [ this ] to your shame'.

'Awake, you who sleep, arise from the dead, and Christ will give you light.'

Paul, in Ephesians 5:14, wrote these words in the midst of a plea to 'Walk as children of light', and to 'have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness', but on the contrary, to expose them for what they were, useless ( dead ) works of the law. Aside from the fact, as I have mentioned elsewhere, that 'sleep' is often used Scripturally to denote physical death, it can also signify, as Paul wrote above, a realization of some previously unknown fact. The churches continued to be full of those that were weak-minded, and open to the suggestion of the Judaizers ( imperative, really ) that one must be circumcised and keep the whole law in order to enter the Kingdom.

In the sense that Paul spoke the words above; I think it is safe to assume that Paul wrote to encourage them to open their eyes, to remember the Gospel of Christ that he had preached to them, not that they were physically dead, as is usually assumed abut Daniel 12:2. These, though alive in Christ, had begun to revert, trying to gain righteousness rather than just accepting the Righteousness of Christ. Many in the Church today face much the same situation.

As 'we' ( the bride/wife of Christ/God ) continue to have our 'eyes' opened, realizing the true nature of God's Word, and the glorious implications of fulfillment; may we ever remember that is is because of the New Covenant that we are able, not only to discern this spiritual Truth, but to live out our lives, in spiritual body, or maybe more correctly, in THE spiritual Body, which is the Church, the Body of Christ!

Charles Haddon Shank

Studies in the Book of the Revelation of Jesus the Christ the Son of God ( the visions ( Hercules Bound ( and released ) the final defeat of 'the old man' ( Adam ) pt 17

2011-05-07T14:41:00.000-06:00

Keys to Understanding the Book of Revelation

Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, having the key to the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand. He laid hold of the dragon, that serpent of old, who is the Devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years; and he cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal on him, so that he should deceive the nations no more till the thousand years were finished. But after these things he must be released for a little while.

'To bind their kings with chains, and their nobles with fetters of iron'. ( Psalm 149:8 )

'Yet she [ was ] carried away, she went into captivity; her young children also were dashed to pieces at the head of every street; they cast lots for her honorable men, and all her great men were bound in chains.' ( Nahum 3:10 )

We have noted throughout this study, several things; one, that national physical Israel was the subject of Jesus Revelation to His people, at least, in the context of adverse judgment, two, that this dragon or serpent, also called the devil and 'Satan', was not a fallen, spiritual being ( ? ), but was in fact, though not any certain man, but as John wrote 'the spirit of Anti-Christ' ( I John 4:3 ), an ordinary man, or men, who had not received, and continued to refuse to know the one true God, and His Son, Jesus the Christ!

We have also seen that Jesus, through John, relied heavily on the vivid imagery of the Old Testament prophets, referring back, as in the Gospels as well, to adverse judgments that God had made in times past toward His covenant people, as well ( ? ) as on those who had acknowledged no covenant with Him.

There has been a tendency, especially in the past hundred years or so, to relegate the book of Revelation to a prophecy of the end of all things ( renewal too ), to seemingly forget the former history of God's covenant people, and the fact that much, if not all, of these former judgments served to point forward to the Revelation of Jesus as the Christ, or God Himself.

'[Is ] this not laid up in store with Me, sealed up among My treasures?' ( Deuteronomy 32:34 )

'My transgression [ is ] sealed up in a bag, and You cover^[b] my iniquity.' ( Job 14:17 )

'Then Jeremiah said to them, “Thus you shall say to Zedekiah, ‘Thus says the LORD God of Israel: “Behold, I will turn back the weapons of war that [ are ] in your hands, with which you fight against the king of Babylon and the Chaldeans^[b] who besiege you outside the walls; and I will assemble them in the midst of this city. I Myself will fight against you with an outstretched hand and with a strong arm, even in anger and fury and great wrath. I will strike the inhabitants of this city, both man and beast; they shall die of a great pestilence.' ( Jeremiah 21:3-6 )

'And the vision of the evenings and mornings which was told is true; therefore seal up the vision, for [ it refers ] to many days [ in the future ].' ( Daniel 8:26 )

'And he said, “Go [ your way ], Daniel, for the words [ are ] closed up and sealed till the time of the end. Many shall be purified, made white, and refined, but the wicked shall do wickedly; and none of the wicked shall understand, but the wise shall understand.' ( Daniel 12:9 )

Josephus noted this at least once, and even recorded the Roman general Titus as remarking on this, referring back to Jeremiah 21 above, that God had, in the past determined and purposed, and rendered an adverse judgment on His covenant-breaking ( Nehemiah 9 & 10 ) people, and their beloved city, in which they had begun to trust. It is interesting that Jesus related the binding of 'Satan' ( Mark 3:27, Luke 10:18 ) to the 'last days' of His Old Covenant people!

'And the LORD God said to the woman, “What [ is ] this you have done?” The woman said, “The serpent deceived me, and I ate.' ( Genesis 3:13 )

'Take heed to yourselves, lest your heart be deceived, and you turn aside and serve other gods and worship them, lest the LORD’s anger be aroused against you, and He shut up the heavens so that there be no rain, and the land yield no produce, and you perish quickly from the good land which the LORD is giving you.' ( Deuteronomy 11:16 & 17 )

'With Him [ are ] strength and prudence. The deceived and the deceiver [ are ] His.' ( Job 12:16 )

'All the men in your confederacy shall force you to the border; the men at peace with you shall deceive you [and ] prevail against you. [ Those who eat ] your bread shall lay a trap^[a] for you. No one is aware of it.' ( Obadiah 1:7 )

The nation, from its inception, or genesis, had been beset by deceivers, but as James wrote 'Where do wars and fights [ come ] from among you? Do [ they ] not [ come ] from your [ desires for ] pleasure that war in your members?' ( James 4:1 ), and as Paul brings to mind in II Corinthians 11:3 and I Timothy 2:14, although Adam was not deceived ( he knowingly broke the covenant ); Eve was deceived and thus her husband, the federal head of God's ( Old ) Covenant people, allowed himself to be led astray, and for all intents and purposes, became the deceiver ( John 8:44 ) of the nations.

And I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was committed to them. Then I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their witness to Jesus and for the word of God, who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received his mark on their foreheads or on their hands. And they lived and reigned with Christ for a^[a] thousand years.

'For thrones are set there for judgment, the thrones of the house of David.' ( Psalm 122:5 )

'Hell from beneath is excited about you, to meet [ you ] at your coming; it stirs up the dead for you, all the chief ones of the earth; it has raised up from their thrones all the kings of the nations.' ( Isaiah 14:9 )

'I watched till thrones were put in place, and the Ancient of Days was seated; His garment [ was ] white as snow, and the hair of His head [ was ] like pure wool. His throne [ was ] a fiery flame, its wheels a burning fire.' ( Daniel 7:9 )

'Jesus said to them, “Assuredly I say to you, that in the regeneration, when the Son of Man sits on the throne of His glory, you who have followed Me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.' ( Matthew 19:28 )

'And I bestow upon you a kingdom, just as My Father bestowed [ one ] upon Me, that you may eat and drink at My table in My kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.' ( Luke 11:29 & 30 )

To His followers; Jesus had promised that they would reign with Him, but even before this; we must remember the meaning of the name that God gave to His covenant people: 'Israel', which, according to tradition, means basically, 'prince with God' ( Genesis 32:28 ).

'When He opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain for the word of God and for the testimony which they held. And they cried with a loud voice, saying, “How long, O Lord, holy and true, until You judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell on the earth?”' ( Revelation 6:9 & 10 )

'If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. And if a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand. And if Satan has risen up against himself, and is divided, he cannot stand, but has an end. No one can enter a strong man’s house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man. And then he will plunder his house.' ( Mark 3:24-27 )

'And Jesus said, “For judgment I have come into this world, that those who do not see may see, and that those who see may be made blind.”' ( John 9:39 )

'Now is the judgment of this world; now the ruler of this world will be cast out.' ( John 12:31 )

'But the saints of the Most High shall receive the kingdom, and possess the kingdom forever, even forever and ever.' ( Daniel 7:18 )

As we continue in this study; we will see how this reign with Christ is synonymous with His covenant judgments. It was through these judgments, the binding of 'Satan', and the 'salvation' of His people, that the strong-man's house was plundered and love, not hate, grace, not law, was shown to have free reign.

But the rest of the dead did not live again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy is he who has part in the first resurrection. Over such the second death has no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with Him a thousand years.

Again He said to me, “Prophesy to these bones, and say to them, ‘O dry bones, hear the word of the LORD! Thus says the Lord GOD to these bones: “Surely I will cause breath to enter into you, and you shall live. I will put sinews on you and bring flesh upon you, cover you with skin and put breath in you; and you shall live. Then you shall know that I [ am ] the LORD.'' ( Ezekiel 37:4-6 )

'For the Son of Man will come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He will reward each according to his works.' ( Matthew 16:27 )

'Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming in which all who are in the graves will hear His voice and come forth—those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation.' ( John 5:28 & 29 )

And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, some to shame [ and ] everlasting contempt.

Quoting Daniel 12:2, which I have before, let me point out that when Jesus ( God ) came in the clouds of judgment in AD70, signalling the finality of the reign of terror ( death ), of the Old, or first Covenant; the necessary judgments determined those who woud reign with Christ, and those who be reigned over. Note that although the rest of the 'dead' did not live till 'the thousand years were finished'; the Scripture clearly implies that after 'the thousand years' ( ? ), even those who did not partake in the first resurrection, lived ( and live ), as well as the 'first-fruits' ( I Corinthians 15:23 )

Now when the thousand years have expired, Satan will be released from his prison, and will go out to deceive the nations which are in the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle, whose number [ is ] as the sand of the sea.

'If one wished to contend with Him, he could not answer Him one time out of a thousand.' ( Job 9:3 )

'The chariots of God [ are ] twenty thousand, [ even ] thousands of thousands; the Lord is among them as in Sinai, in the Holy [ Place ].' ( Psalm 68:17 )

'If a man begets a hundred [ children ] and lives many years, so that the days of his years are many, but his soul is not satisfied with goodness, or indeed he has no burial, I say [ that ] a stillborn child [ is ] better than he— for it comes in vanity and departs in darkness, and its name is covered with darkness. Though it has not seen the sun or known [ anything ], this has more rest than that man, even if he lives a thousand years twice—but has not seen goodness. Do not all go to one place?' ( Ecclesiastes 6:3-6 )

There are many other examples throughout the writings of Scripture that indicate, even many times when a literal number can easily be understood, that a symbolic meaning is to be gleaned from the text. In this study we have noted many such passages pointing, maybe most famously, to places like Psalm 50, verse 10; where God told His people that 'every beast of the forest [ is ] Mine, [ and ] the cattle on a thousand hills', and Deuteronomy 7:9, where Moses reminds the people of God that 'the LORD your God, He is God, the faithful God who keeps covenant and mercy for a thousand generations with those who love Him and keep His commandments', but even as far back as the days of Abraham, as we read in Genesis 20:16, where Abimelech payed to Abraham the symbolic amount of one thousand pieces of silver ( Song of Solomon 8:11, Isaiah 7:23 ) to 'cover' any perceived transgression with his wife. Think of this event in reference to the price that 'Satan' symbolically paid for seeking to seduce the wife of God!

'The sons of Japheth [ were ] Gomer, Magog, Madai, Javan, Tubal, Meshech, and Tiras.' ( I Chronicles 1:5 )

'You will come up against My people Israel like a cloud, to cover the land. It will be in the latter days that I will bring you against My land, so that the nations may know Me, when I am hallowed in you, O Gog, before their eyes.' ( Ezekiel 38:16 )

'And I will send fire on Magog and on those who live in security in the coastlands. Then they shall know that I [ am ] the LORD.' ( Ezekiel 39:6 )

'It will come to pass in that day [ that ] I will give Gog a burial place there in Israel, the valley of those who pass by east of the sea; and it will obstruct travelers, because there they will bury Gog and all his multitude. Therefore they will call [ it ] the Valley of Hamon Gog.' ( Ezekiel 39:11 )

As in many other cases in the history of Israel after the flesh; God used the nations around Israel to accomplish His adverse judgments on them, and though Gog and Magog were an actual people, and their descent from Adam can be shown; I believe that it is easily discernible that their involvement in the cloud-judgment of the Old Covenant 'children' of God was more symbolic than anything. ( this may be partially the reasoning behind those who deny that the adverse judgment on Jerusalem in AD70 was 'the time of the end' )

Other than several instances in the Hebrew Scriptures, referring to the enemies of God's people ( Joshua 11:4, Judges 7:12, I Samuel 13:5 ) this phrase, 'the sand of the sea', though often in other words, was most often indicative of God's blessing ( or cursing ) on His covenant people. Although we know that, in the accomplished destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple; Rome and its allies were most noticeably active: we can see through study of the works of Josephus and likely others, that the Jews themselves were indirectly, if not directly, their own worst enemies, or 'adversaries'!

They went up on the breadth of the earth and surrounded the camp of the saints and the beloved city. And fire came down from God out of heaven and devoured them.

'Then the king sent to him a captain of fifty with his fifty men. So he went up to him; and there he was, sitting on the top of a hill. And he spoke to him: “Man of God, the king has said, ‘Come down!’” So Elijah answered and said to the captain of fifty, “If I [ am ] a man of God, then let fire come down from heaven and consume you and your fifty men.” And fire came down from heaven and consumed him and his fifty. Then he sent to him another captain of fifty with his fifty men. And he answered and said to him: “Man of God, thus has the king said, ‘Come down quickly!’” So Elijah answered and said to them, “If I [ am ] a man of God, let fire come down from heaven and consume you and your fifty men.” And the fire of God came down from heaven and consumed him and his fifty.' ( II Kings 1:9-12 )

'Therefore he sent horses and chariots and a great army there, and they came by night and surrounded the city. And when the servant of the man of God arose early and went out, there was an army, surrounding the city with horses and chariots. And his servant said to him, “Alas, my master! What shall we do?” So he answered, “Do not fear, for those who [ are ] with us [ are ] more than those who [ are ] with them.” And Elisha prayed, and said, “LORD, I pray, open his eyes that he may see.” Then the LORD opened the eyes of the young man, and he saw. And behold, the mountain [ was ] full of horses and chariots of fire all around Elisha.' ( II Kings 6:14-17 )

In both of these examples, of which more could no doubt be gleaned; Elijah, in whom we can see a picture, or type, representative of the people of God, and in a sense, maybe, of Christ Himself, and his successor, Elisha, are prominently figured in a glorious picture of the salvation, both physical and spiritual, of the people of God!

When the enemies ( adversaries ) of the people of God fought against His people; God brought down the fire of His wrath against them, both literally and figuratively, to destroy them, and their works. As we have noted already, I believe, in this study, the phrase 'fire from heaven' ( or like phrases ) often referred to actual, literal 'fire from heaven' ( lightning, meteor shower, etc. ), but often held a more symbolic meaning, even when portrayed in a physical way. In Genesis 19:24; we read that 'the LORD rained brimstone and fire on Sodom and Gomorrah, from the LORD out of the heavens', and though this was likely a literal fire ( meteor shower? ), we know that it was really just a physical representation and manifestation of God's wrath on the sinful acts of man ( II Peter 3:7-12 ). We read, in I Kings 18:20-40, about Elijah's victory ( God's really ) on Mt. Carmel, over the prophets of Ba'al, and in verse 38, that 'the fire of the LORD fell and consumed the burnt sacrifice, and the wood and the stones and the dust, and it licked up the water that [ was ] in the trench', where God sent literal fire from heaven, showing, not only His acceptance for the sacrifice of Elijah, but also proving His power, as opposed to the powerlessness and inability of those idols. There are more examples, like that of Elijah above, where 'fire came out from before the LORD' ( Leviticus 9:24 ). After King David had sinned against the Lord by numbering his people, and then repented by making an offering before Him, God showed His acceptance of his sacrifice when 'He answered him from heaven by fire on the altar of burnt offering' ( I Chronicles 21:26 ), and in II Chronicles 7:1; after Solomon had completed the Temple, how God showed His approval and acceptance when 'fire came down from heaven and consumed the burnt offering and the sacrifices'.

The devil, who deceived them, was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone where^[b] the beast and the false prophet [ are ]. And they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.

'How you are fallen from heaven, O Lucifer,^[b] son of the morning! [ How ] you are cut down to the ground, you who weakened the nations! For you have said in your heart: I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God; I will also sit on the mount of the congregation on the farthest sides of the north; I will ascend above the heights of the clouds, I will be like the Most High. Yet you shall be brought down to Sheol, to the lowest depths of the Pit. Those who see you will gaze at you, [ and ] consider you, [ saying ]: [ is ] this the man who made the earth tremble, who shook kingdoms, who made the world as a wilderness and destroyed its cities, [ who ] did not open the house of his prisoners? All the kings of the nations, all of them, sleep in glory, everyone in his own house; but you are cast out of your grave like an abominable branch, [ like ] the garment of those who are slain, thrust through with a sword, who go down to the stones of the pit, like a corpse trodden underfoot. You will not be joined with them in burial, because you have destroyed your land [ and ] slain your people. The brood of evildoers shall never be named. Prepare slaughter for his children because of the iniquity of their fathers, lest they rise up and possess the land, and fill the face of the world with cities.' ( Isaiah 14:12-21 )

Excuse the lengthy quote, and though this passage requires a more lengthy and in-depth exegesis than I am willing to give it right now; but it shows us several things; first; while this passage, which I have mentioned before, has traditionally been made part of the foundation, so to speak, of the doctrine of 'Satan': read in the context of Scripture and of the present study; it can be shown, I believe, to refer, not to the fallen spiritual being ( ? ), traditionally known as 'Satan' ( the Adversary ), but, through the example of Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, one of the enemies of God's people; ultimately of the apostate 'children' of Israel in general, and their leaders, in particular. Isaiah's highly symbolic language here, also chips away at the traditional doctrine of Eternal Torment, showing, I believe, that John's language of continuing permanency in the Revelation speaks more of a finality, of a contiual stigma attached to one's name, or memory.

'And He said to them, “I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven.' ( Luke 10:18 )

The immediate context of Jesus words above, shows us that it was because of the 'fall' ( from grace? ) of their adversary, that they were able to pursue the ministry of reconciliation, 'introducing' the people of God to the true kingdom of God, in Jesus the Christ. As above, and throughout this study, I believe that it shows us, as well, that as their primary adversary was soon to be defeated, indeed had already begun to fall, the Gospel which they were proclaiming was given freer expansion, as it spread, unhindered ( relatively ) throughout the world.

Then I saw a great white throne and Him who sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away. And there was found no place for them.

'I watched till thrones were put in place, and the Ancient of Days was seated; His garment [ was ]white as snow, and the hair of His head [ was ] like pure wool. His throne [ was ] a fiery flame, its wheels a burning fire.' ( Daniel 7:9 )

It is obvious from John's language here, and surrounding, that this judgment was by God Himself, as Daniel wrote, 'the Ancient of Days'! Although there is to be seen a sense of finality in this judgment ( and it is, eschatology speaking ), this is obviously meant in a hyperbolic and symbolic way, as John is speaking of the Old Covenant economy ( 'heavens and earth'-II Peter 3:5-13 ), for he, in much the same sense as in the beginning of the next chapter, as we'll see, says that 'there was found no place for them', speaking of those ( present, at that time ) 'heavens and earth'. Why would/how could he say this if he was referring to the physical sky and terrene globe, as some have speculated that Jesus speaks of in Matthew 24, Luke 21, and Mark 13, and to which Peter refers in II Peter 3. See also Joel 2:30, Jeremiah 4:23, Isaiah 13:10 & 13, Psalm 50:4, and Deuteronomy 28:23 ( Deuteronomy 32:1, I Chronicles 16:31, Isaiah 1:2 ).

And I saw the dead, small and great, standing before God,^[c] and books were opened. And another book was opened, which is the Book of Life. And the dead were judged according to their works, by the things which were written in the books. The sea gave up the dead who were in it, and Death and Hades delivered up the dead who were in them. And they were judged, each one according to his works. Then Death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.^[d] And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire.

'A fiery stream issued and came forth from before Him. A thousand thousands ministered to Him; ten thousand times ten thousand stood before Him. The court^[b] was seated, and the books were opened.' ( Daniel 7:10 )

I have noted before, I believe, in this study, that John often repeats himself in order to show a sense of urgency and finality, using a form of parallelism, saying the same thing twice, or more, in different words. I believe that this is the case, in a manner of speaking, above. The 'dead, small and great, standing before God' refer, I believe to those same 'heavens and earth' which fled from before His face ( think of the 'children' of Israel, in Exodus 20: 18-21 ), and for whom 'there was found no place'.

We have noted, throughout this study that 'the sea', in apocalyptic literature, such as this is, refers to the Gentile nations, especially those surrounding the nation of Israel. John, when he reported that 'sea gave up the dead who were in it', was speaking not so much of a physical resurrection of those who died biologically ( though I believe this could be included ), but of those people of God, not just Israelites by physical birth, who were scattered across 'the face of the earth', and who had been imprisoned ( blinded ) under the darkness and death of the Old Covenant economy.

'For many nations and great kings shall be served by them also; and I will repay them according to their deeds and according to the works of their own hands.' ( Jeremiah 25:14 )

Although this parenthetical statement refers, in its immediate context ( and by name ) to Babylon; as they ( Babylon ) were but one of the many enemies ( adversaries ) of the covenant people of God; it also speaks of Old Covenant Israel ( according to the flesh ) of whom Paul wrote ( II Corinthians 11:15 ), 'whose end will be according to their works'.

After this judgment was made; the death of Adam, and thus the corrupting grave itself, were cast into the consuming ( Hebrews 12:29 ) 'lake of fire', and ceased to exist for believers in the Christ of God. Obviously; John and Jesus were not speaking of biological death, for we know that Christians still 'pass' from their physical bodies, but of a separational death, the 'death' that Paul wrote of in place like Romans 6:23, and I Timothy 5:6.

Praise God, that through His Son Jesus the Christ, the New Covenant; we have been made partakers in that first resurrection, being written in the Book of Life, and did not have to endure that Judgment, and must no longer fear either the death of Adam, or biological death!

For His Kingdom,
Charles Haddon Shank

In Defense of the Gospel of Jesus the Christ?

2011-04-08T16:59:00.000-06:00

One might wonder why the Gospel would even need defending!

This question might even revert to the question of the nature of God. 'Why', you might ask, 'would I say that'? Lately; I have been involved in some rather heated discussions ( it IS a touchy subject among most Christians! ) about whether the Bible can actually be called the Word of God ( Jesus is the Word of God ( John 1:1-3 ), and whether God has preserved His Gospel within the translated pages of Scripture that we call the Bible. Although I believe that the Scriptures simply revealed the Word of God ( Jesus ), and that we now read those Scriptures in many different translations and versions; God has preserved that Revelation to such an extent, that the Gospel, although maybe in some more or less obscured forms, can be known and understood in most any translation out there. If we doubt the preservation of the Revelation of the Gospel; we doubt, or at least have a very weak view of, the nature of God Himself! One might even venture to say that if we feel that the Gospel needs our defense; we doubt the omniscience and omnipotence of God.

Whose is this 'Good News'?

One question we might ask, at this juncture, is 'what is the Gospel?' More importantly, maybe; 'Whose Gospel is it?' 'Gospel', as I believe everyone knows, simply means 'good news': this 'good news', of course, is that God condescended to take upon Himself the form of a Man, live a fairly normal human existence, and suffer a very painful ( excruciatingly so ) physical death upon the cross, the cruelest form of punishment known at the time, just so that His people could be restored to relationship with Himself. This was God's Revelation of His only-begotten Son to mankind!

We can debate ( as I recently have in certain forums ) whether the Bible is the Word of God, or whether it is simply a record, a chronicle of His covenant dealings with His people, as translated from the Scriptures, which were inspired by the Holy Spirit ( II Timothy 3:16 ), and revealed through holy men of God ( I Peter 1:16-21 ). As found in the original copies of the Greek and Hebrew Scriptures, then, we can surely trust that God's Word is revealed as given to the original scribes, but I do not believe, especially with all the different translations, and even differing manuscripts, out there, that we can call the Bible by the exalted name 'Word of God', or even trust in it as infallible.

Now, you may be thinking that I am doing what I spoke against above, seemingly doubting that God could have, or did, preserve the Revelation of His Word within the pages of the Bible, but I am merely pointing out that, as men are fallible, and finite, creatures, and even the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts that we have available today may differ from others, to say nothing of the many different translations and versions out there; how are we to say, definitively, that one manuscript trumps the other, or that one version ( KJV? ) or translation is better or more trustworthy than another? Those that do this may base their 'doctrine' on faith, and on the 'fact' that one certain version reveals a more equitable picture of God, but as we all know; everyone out there may have a slightly different perception of what glorifies God. I believe that, by making these assumptions; we try to ( usually unconsciously or ignorantly ) limit God, saying that the Bible, or even Scripture alone, reveals the Truth about God. Here again, we must ask the question; 'which one?' How do we know that one certain version or translation reveals God more fully, as opposed to another? We trust, all of us, whether we stick to one certain version or translation, or not, that God has preserved the Good News about Himself, and of His Son; so when we limit God's Revelation to this and not that, are we not, after a sort, 'boxing' God in?

Defense or Apology?

I have probably not clarified, as well as I should in the past, that when I use the term 'apology', at least in the theological sense; I mean what Merriam-Webster's online dictionary records as the number one definition of this noun, 'a formal justification : defense'; although this purveys basically the same idea as the term we often use to describe our defense and justification of our ( perceptibly or otherwise wrong ) actions, this term was used in ancient times, such as in Plato's 'Apology', and Tertullian's 'Apology'. Even today, this term is used thusly, especially among theologians, to denote their defense of a certain doctrine. I have often used this term, sometimes to my detriment, to describe my explanatory, and clarifying defense of certain views that I have asserted.

I wonder if some have felt the need to apologize, in the more modern sense, for the seeming harshness of the Gospel ( God's election/predestination of some and not others ), or to defend its seeming weakness, the inability of God to save everyone through this 'good news', unless they accept it. There are the Arminians, who back up their claims, for the most part, with Scripture, yet seem to focus more on man's ability, rather than on God's, and we have the Calvinists, who also back up their 'doctrine' with Scripture, usually, but not always, different ones ( sometimes; even a different version or translation ), but seem to focus more on the inability of man, as opposed to the sovereignty of God. There are those, as well, who go to great extremes, more or less, on both sides of the argument: 'who's right?'

Dictionary.com, basing it on the more common sense of the term, defines 'apology' as 'a written or spoken expression of one's regret, remorse, or sorrow for having insulted, failed, injured, or wronged another' . This definition could also, in some sense, be applied as I did earlier, as a redress of even perceived ( though unintentional ) wrongs. I often have feelings of regret, remorse, even chagrin, over statements I have made, or things I have done ( more over things I have said, though ), because of the way they were received, or perceived, and so I then make my apology, further explaining, and clarifying what I meant by my statement or action. Having just read through much of Socrates 'Apology', as recorded by Plato, and his defense before the court of the Athenians; although my own situation is nowhere near as severe as his, I realize that my 'apology' is of much the same nature, and can easily fall under either definition given.

What is the Nature of the Gospel?

Most importantly, I believe; the Gospel of Jesus the Christ is not only a Revelation of Himself, as the Son of God, in essence, God Himself, but is, as the Covenant, an embodiment of Jesus, or God Himself. Gospel, as we have seen, means basically 'good news', and throughout the pages of Scripture, and even the Bible, have been revealed this Good News; the 'Good News' found, not so much in the revelation of that Good News, as in Jesus, the Christ, the Son of the living God!

As we continue to defend ( as if He needs our defense ) the Gospel; let us remember always, that He needs not our defense, in fact, does better without it, and that all that is needed is apology ( sometimes in both senses ) for our interpretation of Him! May we always be ready ( I Peter 3:15 ) to apologize for our 'defense' of the Gospel!

Charles Haddon Shank

Conversations from the bull-frog's perspective ( Begotten of the Father? )

2011-03-26T16:26:00.000-06:00

I hadn't talked to my friend for some time, so I decided to give him a call. I realized that I had been kind of an annoyance to him, and that he had been fairly busy lately, but I had been reading his articles, and had some questions about a few things that he seemed to be purporting.

Unusually ( I think, sometimes that he screens his calls ); he picked up the phone on the first ring, like he was glad to hear from me, or something! 'Hello, brother Jeremiah; I'm glad you called: I've been thinking about you lately, but I've been so busy...........'. I was a bit surprised to hear this, and so did not reply for an almost stunned moment, so he said again, 'Hello?' I quickly gathered my thoughts, and responded with a slightly hesitant, 'Hi Chuck?'

'What's up, brother?', he asked. I told him that I'd been reading some of his articles in which he seemed to be denying, rather than affirming, as the 'church' has for years ( 2,000+ ), the doctrine of the Trinity. 'What about all the instances where Scripture seems to name three distinct persons, namely the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit?'

'What about them?', he asked. As he went on to explain that, while Father and Son could be perceived as two 'persons', the 'Holy Spirit' was not ( necessarily ) any third member of a God-head, or 'Trinity; I interrupted him at once, reminding him that, while the term 'Trinity' is not found in the Bible, the principle of ( and the term ) 'the God-head' most certainly is!

'Believe me', Jer, he said, 'I have thought, studied, listened, and prayed abut this; I realize that there is a God-head, that much is clear, from Paul's statement in Colossians 2:9, 'For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily'. I realize too, that, in places like Genesis 1:26a, where God said 'Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness', that there is an obvious reference to a 'person' other than Himself, yet not really other than Himself, for we know there is only one God........................

My friend continued, 'did you realize that, by many historical accounts, the doctrine of 'the trinity', or three persons in one god, existed long before Christianity, and that the Christian doctrine was only fully 'theorized', or set down, by Tertullian, in the 3rd or 4th century ( AD )'?

'Yes', I replied, 'I had heard that, and there is not only that evidence which seems to detract from its canonization, but also the fact that parts of I John 5:7 & 9 do not appear in the older Greek manuscripts, nor in the passage as quoted by many of the early Church Fathers'. As this is the clearest evidence, besides the baptismal formula in Matthew 28:19, for a 'Trinity'; I believe that we can safely question the doctrine.

'Even though there may be something to this' I asked him, 'should we be debating, or trying to debunk, this doctrine, since there are so many brothers and sisters out there, who hold on to this doctrine for dear life, and if we only upset them, or ( God forbid ) cause them to stumble, by refuting it, should we even try; is it really that dangerous of a doctrine, that we should risk alienating the brethren, by denouncing it?'
He had a good point, I had to admit, but when I reminded him that, although it was not a matter for division, but for discussion, there was always the danger of focusing on a singular aspect of the God-head, or 'Trinity', and in the process, worshiping a different 'God' ( although not really a different God, but only a different perception of Him, often a false, humanistically boxed-in one ), I think he began to see my point as well.

'I realize that we can find numerous examples of a trinity in nature as well,' he said, 'but are these really occurrences, or symbols/signs of a 'trinity', or are we projecting our idea of a 'trinity' onto nature? Sure, we can see that our sun is one body, but has three different aspects, those being that we can feel the sun's heat, even though we can't ( necessarily ) see the rays, it gives us power ( in many different ways ), and it gives us light'.

I had to remind him at this juncture that he had written several articles a number of years ago, in which he had tried to show that even the creation account itself ( Genesis 1 & 2 ) was merely symbolic of God's covenant with His people, and that this would seem to point toward a projection of the notion of 'three-in-one' ( trinity ) onto nature, rather than perceiving it in nature.

'I see what you're saying, my friend', he replied, 'but though nature itself does point us to our Creator, my point in writing those articles was not to prove this, but to show how the 'creation account' was, not so much a literal record of the creation of the universe, or even of the physical earth, but rather, was relayed in such a way as to reveal His covenant, and the spiritual nature of His workings'.

I had to concede his point, but I didn't want to give to much assent to his postulation, not wanting him to get any more 'puffed up' than he already was! ( by this time; I've begun to see that its usually best not to praise his efforts over-much ) As he had made his point; I reminded him that, although this may be true, it was not ( necessarily ) a matter for debate, or division, and while this view could potentially be, and has been dangerous to our theology, as orthodoxically portrayed, was not ( necessarily ) harmful. Having said my piece; I told him goodbye, thanked him for calling, and hung up.