There are some Preterists who think that 1 Enoch contains a prophecy that confirms Christ's coming judgment in AD 70. The text reads as follows:
And when their sons have slain one another, and they have seen the
destruction of their beloved ones, bind them fast for seventy
generations in the valleys of the earth, till the day of their
judgement and of their consummation, till the judgement that is for ever
and ever is consummated. In those days they shall be led off to the
abyss of fire: 〈and〉 to the torment and the prison in which they shall be confined for ever. And whosoever shall be condemned and destroyed will from thenceforth be bound together with them to the end of all generations.
It's argued that Luke is using Enoch's chronology, as he has a genealogy that adds up to 77 generations from Adam to Jesus, which supposedly matches Enoch's timeline (70 generations from Enoch who is 7 generations from Adam). Now, even if the numbers were right, and they are not, Luke would merely be displaying that the demonic powers were judged within Jesus' generation (i.e., within His earthly lifetime or at least by the end of it), since Enoch states that they will be bound for 70 generations and then judgment. If this had to do with the temple, they would be bound for 71 generations, not 70. It must be remembered that a generation in Luke is specific to the person to which it refers as well. One cannot make up some number, like 40 or 70, and place it on each generation, as it doesn't work out that way. Some in Luke's genealogy lived for hundreds of years and others died young. One could say that it only refers to the time of a person before they give birth to the new person that then starts a new generation, but even that does not work out, as Abraham begets Isaac when he's 100 years old, and Jared begat Enoch when he was 162, but Enoch begets Methusaleh when he's 65 (same for Mahalalel with Jared). The generation, then, refers to the lifetime of the person, not beyond it. So even if the numbers worked out, it still says nothing toward Jesus overcoming the powers in AD 70. Instead, it would relate His judgment of the powers at His early ministry and/or the cross and resurrection. One could not argue that Jesus was of the same generation as that of AD 70, as the time He makes His "this generation shall not pass away" statement, a new generation has already come. Also, Luke's generations clearly end when one dies. Hence, Jesus' generation does not go past His death in Luke's genealogy, even if used differently elsewhere.
However, 70 in Enoch is likely a figurative number, as apocalyptic literature often uses septadic numbers to represent completion (in Enoch the completion of the temporary bondage of the fallen angels). It's likely then that the 70 isn't literally 70 generations, but rather meant to end in the author of Enoch's day. Either way, it doesn't work out to AD 70.
But what's even worse than this is that Jesus is not 70 generations from the time this occurs in Enoch. People assume that this is 70 generations from Enoch, but the time of their bondage is the flood. This statement is directed to Noah in the apocalyptic narrative, not Enoch (v.1, "Then said the Most High, the Holy and Great One spake, and sent Uriel to the son of
Lamech, and said to him: 'Go to Noah and tell him in my name "Hide thyself!" and
reveal to him the end that is approaching: that the whole earth will be destroyed, and a
deluge is about to come upon the whole earth, and will destroy all that is on it). 70 generations from Noah comes out to 80 generations from Adam, not 77. Then you would need at least one more to make it to AD 70, so now we're at 81. Obviously, 77 doesn't match up to 80 to make it about Jesus, and the 70 generations of Enoch plus 7 generations to Enoch don't match up to 81, not to mention 78, which is what was needed even if the original numbers were right.
Monday, November 16, 2015
Wednesday, September 30, 2015
A Lament for the Unbeliever
Unbelief is appealing, not because it is intellectually satisfying, but because it is fun. We disguise it as sophisticated with sophistry and posturing, but in the end, it is intellectually bankrupt, showing itself to be stupidity rather than stupendously coherent.
But aside from our exaltation of it, it is a pseudo-intellectualism, a deformed philosophy, that brings forth deformed creatures.
And this is the judgment of God at its beginning. Not fire from heaven, but a giving over to become less human. The more God gives one over, the more unbelief takes hold, the less a human becomes a human and the more he or she becomes some malformed creature, a creature, not meant for this world, but of chaos, of the abyss, belonging to something like the demons that are described, not even as animals, but as hybrids, distorted and dying.
We see, then, that unbelief is a journey of becoming, but not of becoming a created human, greater than the angels, but becoming something lower than a dog, feeding on whatever passions enslave it to speak and act in the moment: to kill, to bark nonsense continually, to eat itself to death, or lick itself in public. The mind becomes cruder, the mouth becomes ruder, company becomes lewder.
And only in the end will this golem of a creature be thrown into a place where it belongs, a place of chaos, a place where mutants dwell. It is a place that is made for such worthless beings, a place of fire, of darkness, outside the created order where fully formed beings dwell. Such creatures mimic the condition of their eternal destination in the here and now.
As Peter says, there is nothing left for them but to be caged and destroyed like a rabid animal.
What a sad state for this, what we can only call, "thing," both in our day and in that one. Licking up its own vomit, eternally degenerating into something it was never made to be. Enslaved forever by its mental, emotional, and spiritual retardation, a twisted mass of nothingness, it becomes an appropriate dwelling place for blind and deaf spirits, and demons seek it out like zombies feeding on brains.
A hatred for those who are truly human, and the God who creates them by ordering and giving them healthy minds that lead to life, is all that is left. These creatures feed on humans. They desire for all to be ruined as they are, and only those who bind themselves to the Creator will be truly created and escape them. Believers are given eyes to see. That's what believing God does. And they can see clearly what these sad souls cannot . . . that unbelief is anything but fun.
But aside from our exaltation of it, it is a pseudo-intellectualism, a deformed philosophy, that brings forth deformed creatures.
And this is the judgment of God at its beginning. Not fire from heaven, but a giving over to become less human. The more God gives one over, the more unbelief takes hold, the less a human becomes a human and the more he or she becomes some malformed creature, a creature, not meant for this world, but of chaos, of the abyss, belonging to something like the demons that are described, not even as animals, but as hybrids, distorted and dying.
We see, then, that unbelief is a journey of becoming, but not of becoming a created human, greater than the angels, but becoming something lower than a dog, feeding on whatever passions enslave it to speak and act in the moment: to kill, to bark nonsense continually, to eat itself to death, or lick itself in public. The mind becomes cruder, the mouth becomes ruder, company becomes lewder.
And only in the end will this golem of a creature be thrown into a place where it belongs, a place of chaos, a place where mutants dwell. It is a place that is made for such worthless beings, a place of fire, of darkness, outside the created order where fully formed beings dwell. Such creatures mimic the condition of their eternal destination in the here and now.
As Peter says, there is nothing left for them but to be caged and destroyed like a rabid animal.
What a sad state for this, what we can only call, "thing," both in our day and in that one. Licking up its own vomit, eternally degenerating into something it was never made to be. Enslaved forever by its mental, emotional, and spiritual retardation, a twisted mass of nothingness, it becomes an appropriate dwelling place for blind and deaf spirits, and demons seek it out like zombies feeding on brains.
A hatred for those who are truly human, and the God who creates them by ordering and giving them healthy minds that lead to life, is all that is left. These creatures feed on humans. They desire for all to be ruined as they are, and only those who bind themselves to the Creator will be truly created and escape them. Believers are given eyes to see. That's what believing God does. And they can see clearly what these sad souls cannot . . . that unbelief is anything but fun.
Monday, June 29, 2015
The One Who Denies That Jesus Is Coming in the Flesh
Important in discussing the Second Coming with JW’s and Full
Preterists is whether Christ will be physically seen, or whether He will merely
come again in some spiritual way. Of course, everyone acknowledges that Christ
spiritually receives His kingdom through various returns throughout church
history, beginning when He is delivered up in judgment before the Sanhedrin.
However, the question is whether there will be a final reception of the
kingdom, when the already (spiritual)-not yet (physical)has become one in the
future.
One of the more helpful texts in this discussion is 2 John
7. In the Greek, the text clearly states
that it is a heresy to deny that Jesus is coming again physically:
“Because many deceivers went out into the world, those who
do not confess Jesus Christ is coming in flesh. This is the deceiver and the
antichrist.”
The Greek participle here is erchomenon, which seems to become an almost terminus technicus in the New Testament and early Christianity for
the multiple comings of Christ, both in terms of His “not yet” and future
reception of His entire kingdom (all heaven and earth) and in terms of the
“already” sense of His receiving His kingdom (see ). The present participle of erchomai is the common way to express a
future event or action of someone who “will come,” but Christ’s reception of
His kingdom, present or future, is often described with the present participle (Matt
16:28; 24:30; 26:64; Mark 13:26; 14:62; Luke 21:27). Compare also the
substantival participial forms in Revelation 1:4, 8; 4:8, and 11:17: ho erchomenos “the one who is coming”
(present aspect – future referring) in contrast to the one who is (present
aspect - present referring) and the one who was (imperfect aspect – past
referring).
What the text teaches is, however, widely unknown, largely
due to an unfortunate misunderstanding in its translation. Many interpreters
and translators simply thought that John was saying the same thing that he had
said in his first epistle. Hence, they translate and interpret it according to
what they think is the sense of it. One can see this confusion by looking at
some of the English translations that interpret the text as John conveying the
same concept that he expresses in his first epistle concerning Christ’s
physical incarnation.
The NIV translates erchomenon
as “has come in the flesh,” the NRSV and
NASB as “as coming in the flesh,” implying a stative (i.e., “as having come in
the flesh), and the YLT attempts a various ambiguous translation, “Jesus Christ
coming in flesh,” still seemingly implying a past event with the present
participle.
The KJV translates it as “is come in the flesh,” which is
likely the source of confusion for all of the other translations and
interpretations, although it continues a tradition of early English Bibles (i.e.,
Wycliffe, Purvey, Tyndale, and the Geneva) that ignore the present and
translate it as a perfect . The translation “is come,” in English, is a stative
idea conveyed by the Perfect aspect in Greek. Hence, even though it sounds like
a present to use the English word “is,” the idea of “is come” focuses on the
present state of a past result. In other words, “is come” in English is a perfect, not a present. Hence, to translate
the present in Greek as a perfect obscures the actual meaning.
We translate
perfects this way all the time. For instance, “it is written” is often an English
translation of the Perfect that expresses the state of what is written. It was
actually written in the past, but it still exists in the text to this day.
However, the Present does not convey the same idea. The
Present is an “unfolding” aspect, where the author chooses to use it to convey
something in process. Contextually, then, it can be molded to refer to any time
in the past, present, or future. The issue, therefore, is not one of grammar so
much, but of the way that John, and to a larger extant, the New Testament, uses
this particular grammar to convey a future idea in contrast to one that is in
the past. When referencing the incarnation, John, in his first epistle, uses
the Perfect, i.e., “has come in the flesh,” “is come in the flesh.” In 2 John,
however, the formula has been purposely altered to conform to the common
expression of Christ’s eschatological return, “is coming in the flesh.”
We do the same thing in English. If an event
is future, we typically say we “are coming” (present) to refer to something we
will do in the future. Hence, the present tense, often when used with the word
“come,” is future-referring. This same idea holds true for the Greek. As Lieu
states:
Particularly striking here,
however, is that the present participle “coming” (erchomenon) replaces the perfect participle of 1 John 4:2, “having
come,” while the prepositional “in flesh” instead of preceding the participle
follows it, although it is a moot point whether this gives it less
significance. A number of translations ignore this present tense and treat it
as if it were past, “has come,” merely repeating 1 John 4:2 (NRSV); this,
however, is not what the participle means, and to translate so fails to explain
why the author, if dependent on the passage in 1 John, has made the change—even
if he had an aversion to the perfect he could have used an aorist tense.
Similarly, attempts to suggest that the present tense expresses a timeless
truth or continuous reality clash both with the inherent idea of the verb and
with the precision implied by “in flesh.”
It is, however, the nature of the
verb that the present participle can have a future reference: “Jesus Christ
(as) the one to come in flesh.” The earliest known writer to cite 2 John,
Irenaeus, used a chain of Johannine passages—2 John 7; 1 John 4:1-3; John 1:14;
1 John 5:1—to make this precise point: “knowing the same Jesus Christ, to whom
were opened the gates of heaven because of his enfleshed assumption, who also
in the same flesh in which he suffered, will come [future] revealing the glory
of the Father (Against Heresies 3.16.8).
The future fleshly coming was a common concern of the period, more frequently
made by an appeal to Acts 1:11 (“in the same manner”). Although rarely taken up
by translations and less favored among modern commentators, a continuing line
of interpretation has seen in 2 John 7 a defense of the expectation of a
fleshly parousia. Such a reference cannot be excluded, and might cohere with
the warning against eschatological loss of a reward in the following verse.”[1]
Lieu here alludes to a host of modern commentators, largely
of the more liberal variety, that do not care to take this statement as
referring to the future advent of Christ. One might assume that this is for the
obvious reasons that many liberal commentators share the same assumptions about
the Second Coming that the Docetic Gnostics held, i.e., that the Second Coming
is a spiritual event, not a physical one where Christ literally returns in the
same body with which He rose from the grave.
For instance, Dodd goes so far as to say that the text’s
plain reading to anyone who knows Greek would obviously convey the idea that
the author was referring to Christ’s Second Coming.[2]
He then, however, proceeds to denigrate the author of the Second Epistle by
saying that he must not be versed in the subtleties of the Greek language: “We
shall perhaps do best to assume that our writer is not skilled in the niceties
of Greek idiom, and to understand the present passage in light of the First
Epistle.”[3]
Apart from appealing to an idea that denies the meaning of
the text as it is written, however, Dodd is correct to admit that the Greek is
clear enough to convey the idea that the author is referencing the future
coming of Christ, not His incarnation. This is because the Docetic Gnostics not
only denied that Jesus had come in the flesh, but because of their denial of
His physical entrance into the world, they also denied that he would return in
the flesh. If Christ had not come in the flesh in the first place, it was
hardly true that He would return in a physical body He never took on in the
world. We, perhaps, see this same denial in Paul’s reference to the heresy of
Hymanaeus and Philetus in 2 Timothy 2:17-18, where the two men are able to
assert that the resurrection has already taken place simply because Christ was
not returning physically and the resurrection was not a physical event.
Hence, John intentionally changes the tense of the participle
from perfect, which is past-referring in the context, to the present , which is
future-referring in the context, in order to combat the same heresy that denied
the physical appearance of Christ, both in His incarnation, as John addresses
in 1 John, and in His return, as John now addresses in his second epistle.
Hence, the text reads as follows:
“Because many deceivers went out [aorist: past-referring]
into the world, those who do not confess [present substantival participle:
present-referring] Jesus Christ is coming [present: future-referring] in flesh.
This is [present: present-referring] the deceiver and the antichrist.”
Hence, what one can see here is that John is presenting the
idea that a denial of the Jesus Christ who is coming in the flesh is a denial
of the true Jesus Christ, and confuses the true Jesus Christ with the
antichrist, a replacement Christ that is of a different nature and purpose. The
Christ who does not physically return is not the Christ of the gospel.
The
physical Christ returns to reclaim the physical as His own in biblical
theology. All creation, physical and spiritual, in heaven and earth, belongs to
Him. Hence, He is the Savior of the world by redeeming both spiritual and
physical aspects of it. As it has often been said in Christian theology, what
He assumes, He redeems. Since Christ assumes the physical, He redeems the
physical. A Christ who does not do this is not the Christ of the Bible.
This is
why John places such a heavy emphasis on affirming the truth of Christ’s physical
ministry: incarnation, propitiation in His blood, and physical return.
One sees this warning in the very statements of Christ when
He tells His disciples that the message of the false Christs will be that the
“time is engus.” Whereas, most
interpreters think that the Greek word engus
means “near” in terms of “approaching,” what it actually means is “near” in
terms of present access, in one’s presence, something that is here. Hence, the
message of the false Christ’s is that the Second Coming is here ( i.e., He has
returned already) even though Christ has not physically returned. In opposition
to this, Christ tells His disciples that His coming will be a visible advent
where He will be seen coming with His holy angels.
In John’s Apocalypse, the
reader is told that “every eye will see Him, even those who pierced Him.” John
talks about the bodies of believers being made like His body when He becomes
visible at His Second Coming in his first epistle (2:28-3:3). This is His
physical appearing and return to His people, not His people’s appearing before
Him, as the grammar and terminology indicate. Hence, it cannot be speaking
about one’s time of death.
And, of course, this is the “not yet” portion of the
“already-not yet” theology of the New Testament that can be seen in Jesus’
words in John 5:19-30 and Paul’s argument in Romans 5-8, consistent as well
with Acts 1:11 and early Christian expectation.
Monday, December 15, 2014
Friday, December 12, 2014
Tuesday, November 25, 2014
What Leads to Divorcing God?
Originally posted July 9, 2012
Our relationship with God is often described (collectively at least) as a marriage. So many seem to enter into that marriage covenant, but end up turning away from the true God in the long run. Why is that?
One of the major reasons I think this is the case is because people often don't "fall in love" with the whole person to whom they are married. Instead, a person will latch on to certain attributes and overemphasize those attributes as encompassing the whole person. Thus, these loveable attributes overshadow other attributes that may be less charming to the specific individual. This is called the halo effect.
We see it when a young girl can't see that the guy she's dating is a complete jerk. That's because there is some charming quality, or qualities, about him that diminish the less than charming attributes and he is perceived just in terms of those charming attributes.
What happens then is that she gets married to the guy. The halo effect slowly disappears, and she ends up seeing all of him. She then thinks, "Who is this? I don't even know this person anymore." Actually, it was that she never knew him in the first place. Her love was never based on knowledge of his whole person, and so her love was never of his whole person, just of an imaginary character that her husband once played in her delusion. She then begins to look for a "better" partner (what this usually means is she looks for someone else with whom she can do the exact same thing), or no partner at all. In other words, she chooses detachment from her covenant promise by divorce/adultery. She chooses either to remain single at that point, perhaps, realizing that the guy she imagined is not out there at all, or she chooses a different guy. The point is that she never knew the person to whom she was married. She never made a commitment to him at all. She merely had a fanciful relationship with a delusion. Her spouse was never loved by her, because he was never really known by her, and once he was known, all of his attributes displayed, he was rejected by her for having said attributes.
This is the same thing that often happens with God. People love someone who loves them. People love someone who is sacrificial, merciful, compassionate, etc. But people do not love someone who demands obedience, is condemning of their wayward beliefs and deeds, and who is exclusive, rejecting those who are not in accord with his standards. Hence, when God is accepted by many individuals today, He is accepted as the "loving and gracious God," which then overshadows His other attributes of holiness and being just. He hates sin and is wrathful toward those who practice it without the fear of retribution. But all of this is not usually seen by so many. When they finally come into contact with all of who God is, they are appalled, as our rebellious and corrupt minds and hearts hate authority and a holiness that places us in a less than positive light.
When one of these individuals comes into contact with all of who God is, they want a divorce. They may become atheists, or they go off to some other religion that is "less judgmental," which is connected to the idea of God's holiness and justice, or they may simply still attend a fellowship and call themselves "Christians," but simply reject the God of the whole Bible for the God of half the Bible.
This last group is sort of like the woman who never finds out who her husband is, and instead, desires to live in a delusion. She, in all reality, hates her husband and loves someone else who is not her husband. She just thinks of her husband as that someone else.
Churches have helped in this delusion, as many pastors are equally deluded. They have a half-revealed God, because half truths allow us to distort the truth via willful ignorance. A half truth is a lie, not because it is not true in context of other truths, but because it lacks those other truths to clarify and define the whole truth. It's like saying, "If you jump out of a plane, you'll be fine," and leave out the part where such is only true in the context of one wearing a parachute. Half truths are false truths (if I can put it that way). Likewise, loving half the character of a person is not loving the person at all, as in reality, the truth of who that person really is is not known, and in fact, he would be hated if he was fully known. That person has been rejected for another within the imagination of his spouse.
This is why Jonathan Edwards once argued that one can only finally come to know that he is a Christian who has fully embraced God when he loves God's holiness as much as His other attributes. By nature, we are children of wrath, but we want to see ourselves as good and saved. God's holiness tells us otherwise, so it is something we hate. We hate God's condemning of sins of which we approve. We hate God's wrath upon the Canaanites for their sins when their sins look a lot like ours. We hate God's wrath upon sinners in hell when those sinners look a lot like us as well. We hate God's holiness because it demands of us that we must be holy as well, and we don't want a Holy God, just a gracious God who overlooks sin.
But the Christian has been transformed by God's love to see all of God as good and loveable. He is given a new heart to love what is good despite himself. He understands the gospel fully, rather than only partially, because he understands the holiness of God and what it demanded of us. And, through trial and tribulation, he seeks to become what he loves. The real Christian never divorces God, because he fell in love with all of who God is, not just a god who was glued together from different parts of the Bible outside of their context of His whole character revealed upon all of its pages.
The truth is, we have a lot of "Christians" who divorced God a long time ago. We also have a lot of atheists and other religious adherents who were supposedly once married to God as well. But the point I'm making here is that none of these people were ever married to Him, because they never knew Him, nor were they known by Him. They were always lovers of another god. Such a thing always leads to divorce in one way or another, and so it does with God as well.
For this is a rebellious people, false sons, Sons who refuse to listen To the instruction of the Lord; Who say to the seers, "You must not see [visions]"; And to the prophets, "You must not prophesy to us what is right, Speak to us pleasant words, Prophesy illusions. "Get out of the way, turn aside from the path, Let us hear no more about the Holy One of Israel." (Isa 30:9-11)
"For your husband is your Maker, Whose name is the Lord of hosts; And your Redeemer is the Holy One of Israel, Who is called the God of all the earth. (Isa 54:5)
God says, "If a husband divorces his wife And she goes from him And belongs to another man, Will he still return to her? Will not that land be completely polluted? But you are a harlot [with] many lovers; Yet you turn to Me," declares the Lord. (Jer 3:1)
Our relationship with God is often described (collectively at least) as a marriage. So many seem to enter into that marriage covenant, but end up turning away from the true God in the long run. Why is that?
One of the major reasons I think this is the case is because people often don't "fall in love" with the whole person to whom they are married. Instead, a person will latch on to certain attributes and overemphasize those attributes as encompassing the whole person. Thus, these loveable attributes overshadow other attributes that may be less charming to the specific individual. This is called the halo effect.
We see it when a young girl can't see that the guy she's dating is a complete jerk. That's because there is some charming quality, or qualities, about him that diminish the less than charming attributes and he is perceived just in terms of those charming attributes.
What happens then is that she gets married to the guy. The halo effect slowly disappears, and she ends up seeing all of him. She then thinks, "Who is this? I don't even know this person anymore." Actually, it was that she never knew him in the first place. Her love was never based on knowledge of his whole person, and so her love was never of his whole person, just of an imaginary character that her husband once played in her delusion. She then begins to look for a "better" partner (what this usually means is she looks for someone else with whom she can do the exact same thing), or no partner at all. In other words, she chooses detachment from her covenant promise by divorce/adultery. She chooses either to remain single at that point, perhaps, realizing that the guy she imagined is not out there at all, or she chooses a different guy. The point is that she never knew the person to whom she was married. She never made a commitment to him at all. She merely had a fanciful relationship with a delusion. Her spouse was never loved by her, because he was never really known by her, and once he was known, all of his attributes displayed, he was rejected by her for having said attributes.
This is the same thing that often happens with God. People love someone who loves them. People love someone who is sacrificial, merciful, compassionate, etc. But people do not love someone who demands obedience, is condemning of their wayward beliefs and deeds, and who is exclusive, rejecting those who are not in accord with his standards. Hence, when God is accepted by many individuals today, He is accepted as the "loving and gracious God," which then overshadows His other attributes of holiness and being just. He hates sin and is wrathful toward those who practice it without the fear of retribution. But all of this is not usually seen by so many. When they finally come into contact with all of who God is, they are appalled, as our rebellious and corrupt minds and hearts hate authority and a holiness that places us in a less than positive light.
When one of these individuals comes into contact with all of who God is, they want a divorce. They may become atheists, or they go off to some other religion that is "less judgmental," which is connected to the idea of God's holiness and justice, or they may simply still attend a fellowship and call themselves "Christians," but simply reject the God of the whole Bible for the God of half the Bible.
This last group is sort of like the woman who never finds out who her husband is, and instead, desires to live in a delusion. She, in all reality, hates her husband and loves someone else who is not her husband. She just thinks of her husband as that someone else.
Churches have helped in this delusion, as many pastors are equally deluded. They have a half-revealed God, because half truths allow us to distort the truth via willful ignorance. A half truth is a lie, not because it is not true in context of other truths, but because it lacks those other truths to clarify and define the whole truth. It's like saying, "If you jump out of a plane, you'll be fine," and leave out the part where such is only true in the context of one wearing a parachute. Half truths are false truths (if I can put it that way). Likewise, loving half the character of a person is not loving the person at all, as in reality, the truth of who that person really is is not known, and in fact, he would be hated if he was fully known. That person has been rejected for another within the imagination of his spouse.
This is why Jonathan Edwards once argued that one can only finally come to know that he is a Christian who has fully embraced God when he loves God's holiness as much as His other attributes. By nature, we are children of wrath, but we want to see ourselves as good and saved. God's holiness tells us otherwise, so it is something we hate. We hate God's condemning of sins of which we approve. We hate God's wrath upon the Canaanites for their sins when their sins look a lot like ours. We hate God's wrath upon sinners in hell when those sinners look a lot like us as well. We hate God's holiness because it demands of us that we must be holy as well, and we don't want a Holy God, just a gracious God who overlooks sin.
But the Christian has been transformed by God's love to see all of God as good and loveable. He is given a new heart to love what is good despite himself. He understands the gospel fully, rather than only partially, because he understands the holiness of God and what it demanded of us. And, through trial and tribulation, he seeks to become what he loves. The real Christian never divorces God, because he fell in love with all of who God is, not just a god who was glued together from different parts of the Bible outside of their context of His whole character revealed upon all of its pages.
The truth is, we have a lot of "Christians" who divorced God a long time ago. We also have a lot of atheists and other religious adherents who were supposedly once married to God as well. But the point I'm making here is that none of these people were ever married to Him, because they never knew Him, nor were they known by Him. They were always lovers of another god. Such a thing always leads to divorce in one way or another, and so it does with God as well.
For this is a rebellious people, false sons, Sons who refuse to listen To the instruction of the Lord; Who say to the seers, "You must not see [visions]"; And to the prophets, "You must not prophesy to us what is right, Speak to us pleasant words, Prophesy illusions. "Get out of the way, turn aside from the path, Let us hear no more about the Holy One of Israel." (Isa 30:9-11)
"For your husband is your Maker, Whose name is the Lord of hosts; And your Redeemer is the Holy One of Israel, Who is called the God of all the earth. (Isa 54:5)
God says, "If a husband divorces his wife And she goes from him And belongs to another man, Will he still return to her? Will not that land be completely polluted? But you are a harlot [with] many lovers; Yet you turn to Me," declares the Lord. (Jer 3:1)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)