Besides the prophecies of our Lord about the death of Peter and Paul (and the other apostles too, it seems -- see Matt. 24:9 where Christ says to the apostles, "they will kill you."), and the things enumerated in Acts 1:4-11, things which Christ prophesied must also first come to pass before his return from heaven and the time when he "restores the kingdom (sovereignty) to Israel," I will now offer other prophecies that also must first come to pass before the coming of the Lord.
The Olivet Discourse & Imminency
Many of these other events, which are ordained to precede the return of our Lord, are enumerated and detailed in the "Olivet Discourse."
In that sermon it is very clear that
1. The Destruction of Jerusalem would occur before his second coming.
2. The dispersion of the Jews would follow that destruction and take place before his return to earth to reign.
3. The "gospel of the kingdom" would be "preached in all the world" before his return.
4. The "trodding down of Jerusalem by the Gentiles" will occur before the Lord comes again.
5. The "great tribulation" too would occur before the "elect are gathered from the four corners of the earth."
6. The "setting up" of the "Abomination of Desolation" in the temple of God, of which Daniel prophesied, would also occur before the coming of the Lord.
I will look more closely at this discourse later.
From other prophecies of Christ and his apostles, we also learn that these things too must first occur before the second coming of the Lord Jesus Christ.
1. The Coming of Elijah the prophet. Said Jesus: "Elias truly shall (yet future) first come, and restore all things."
2. The Coming of Anti-Christ. Said Paul: "Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day (the day of our "gathering together unto him," the day of the "Lord's coming/parousia," the "day of Christ") shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition..."
Note too that the Lord "destroys" Anti-Christ by "the appearing of his presence" -- "brightness of his coming." (KJV) How could he "destroy" Anti-Christ at his parousia if Anti-Christ be not then here?
Our "gathering together unto him," the "rapture" or "catching away" of the saints, clearly follows the "apostasia" and the apocalypse of Anti-Christ.
Clearly there are two "apocalypses" in this chapter, two "comings." There is the apocalypse (revelation) of Christ and his parousia (coming), and then there is the apocalypse and parousia of Anti-Christ.
Clearly Christ is revealed, undergoes his apocalypse, after the Anti-Christ is revealed, or undergoes his apocalypse. Christ comes after Anti-Christ comes.
3. The "reproving the world of sin" by the Holy Ghost. (John 16:8)
4. The "drawing all men" after the resurrection through the preaching of the gospel. (John 12:32)
5. The "regathering" of the nation of Israel. (I will elaborate on this later)
6. The coming of the "falling away" ("apostasia") mentioned in the verses refferred to above in II Thess. chpt. 2.
7. The completion of the canon of scripture with the writing of the Book of Revelation by the Apostle John. (More too on this later)
The Inter-Advent Period to be a Long Time
Here are scriptures that speak of the inter-advent period as being one of a long period of time, viewed from the human perspective.
1. "Then began he to speak to the people this parable; A certain man planted a vineyard, and let it forth to husbandmen, and went into a far country for a long time." (Luke 20:9)
2. "After a long time the lord of those servants cometh, and reckoneth with them." (Matt. 25:19)
The Prophetic History of the Seven Churches of Asia
The Seven Churches of Asia, in Revelation chapters two and three, are clearly a prophetic portrait of the general drift of the church from the time of the dictating of the letters by Christ to John until his return from heaven. Both Pre-Trib and Post-Trib Premillenialists generally agree on this. In fact, I have never known a Pre-Trib advocate who did not believe that the order of these seven churches were ordained to give us such a prophetic picture of the fate of the church in the inter-advent period.
It is even argued by the leading Pre-Trib Premillenialists, men like J.A. Seiss (author of the famed book "The Apocalypse," a very good book generally), that the statement, "things which must occur after these things," means "after the church age," after the church has gone through these seven stages. This is a gross inconsistency, a glaring contradiction, for it destroys the whole idea of Pre-Trib views on "imminency."
I ask: How could the coming of Christ have been "imminent" before the church has gone through these seven stages? Could the coming of Christ have come in the Ephesian church period? Could those living in the Ephesian period expect the coming of the Lord? Clearly "the legs of the lame are not equal" here.
"Looking" and "waiting" for Christ or Anti-Christ & Signs?
It is argued by those who advocate "imminency" and a "pre-trib rapture" that those who believe in a post-trib coming of Christ, and who deny "imminency" (as it is taught by the pre-tribbers), are not looking for Christ, but are only looking for signs, for the apostacy, looking for Anti-Christ himself. Now, that is a strong charge indeed! Some so despise those of us who deny their views so vehemently that they make it a "test of fellowship" and think that those who deny the pre-trib rapture view are less holy! Again, serious charges and accusations!
Are these charges and accusations true? Are they who refuse Christian fellowship over the matter acting in the Spirit of Christ when they do so?
Comparing the Comings of Christ with regard to Imminency
Consider the argumentation of those, like John MacArthur, who spout the charges and promotes the views of the pre-trib advocates, mentioned above, in regard to those words of exhortation, in both testaments, for believers to "look for" (or "watch for"), to "wait for" (or "be patient for"), to "expect," the "coming of the Lord."
Did Eve expect the coming of the "seed of the woman"? Yes. Did she expect it to occur immediately and imminently? Yes, for when Cain was born, she exclaimed, "I have gotten a man from the Lord," doubtless believing Cain to be the fulfillment of the promise. She was wrong. The coming of the "seed of the woman" was not to come imminently.
Were they therefore not able to "look for," or "wait for" or "expect" the coming of that "seed"?
Consider too that in the time just prior to the Lord's incarnation, people in Israel were, like Simeon, "waiting for the consolation of Israel" (Luke 2:25), that is, for the coming of the Messiah. They were all "looking" for the coming of Jesus. "And said unto him, Art thou he that should come, or do we look for another?" (Matt. 11:3)
But, were they also not "looking for" his forerunner to come first according to the prophecies of Isaiah and Malachi? Just as kings, when visiting another land, in ancient times, sent before them emissaries to prepare for their arrival, so would Christ in both his comings. Did those people not "look for" the king simply because they too "looked for" the coming of his forerunners?
According to the arguments of the pre-trib advocates, the Old Testament saints, at the time of Christ's first coming, were NOT "looking for" the coming of Christ since they were "looking for" his forerunner! How is that for "logic"?
Just as Old Testament saints could "look" and "wait" for the coming of Christ, yet believe there were "signs" and events to precede it, then so can we. So, this "argument" is vain and useless.
The Birth Of Children & The Coming of Christ
It is very clear that in many passages, relative to the second coming of Christ, that it is compared to the birth of a child. Let us note these passages of scripture.
1. "Verily, verily, I say unto you, That ye shall weep and lament, but the world shall rejoice: and ye shall be sorrowful, but your sorrow shall be turned into joy. A woman when she is in travail hath sorrow, because her hour is come: but as soon as she is delivered of the child, she remembereth no more the anguish, for joy that a man is born into the world. And ye now therefore have sorrow: but I will see you again, and your heart shall rejoice, and your joy no man taketh from you." (John 16: 20-22)
2. "For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape." (I Thess. 5:3)
3. "And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered." (Rev. 12:2)
4. "These are the beginning of sorrows (as in child birth)." (Matt. 24:8)
When a woman is pregnant with child, she is "looking for," "waiting for," and "expecting" the birth of her child. Does this require that she believe the birth of the child is continually "imminent"? No. Also, to argue that her looking, waiting, watching, and expecting the coming of her child into the world implies that she is doing this with the belief that it is contiuously "imminent" and with the belief that nothing must come first before the birth and coming of the child, is ludicrous.
Even in the ninth month of a normal pregnancy, when the birth is even more imminent than before, when the mother is intensely "looking for" the birth of her child, does this exclude her from "looking for" the signs of that birth, the things that will "precede" it, like her birth pangs? According to the "logic" of the pre-trib advocates, she could not be "looking for" the birth of her child and be "looking for" the birth pains at the same time. This however is clearly not tenable.
So, I have shown how the argumentation and logic used by the pre-trib advocates, that says "looking for" signs and events to precede the coming of the Lord is incompatible with the idea of "looking for" the coming itself, is false; the saints "looking for" the first coming and the case of a mother "looking for" the birth of her child show how it to be false.
The only instance I know where birth pains are prophesied to occur after birth, is this passage.
"Before she travailed, she brought forth; before her pain came, she was delivered of a man child. Who hath heard such a thing? who hath seen such things? Shall the earth be made to bring forth in one day? or shall a nation be born at once? for as soon as Zion travailed, she brought forth her children." (Isa. 66:7,8)
I will not enter into a discussion of that here, but believe that at least one fulfillment of it occurred when the nation Israel gave birth to the Messiah and later suffered the travails of the destruction of her capital and temple and the dispersion of her people(in A.D. 70 and after).
I will conclude my look at this issue of "imminencey" in a third concluding article, the Lord willing, in the near future.
Sunday, August 5, 2007
MacArthur on Imminence
John MacArthur wrote:
“The NT is consistent in its anticipation that the return of Christ might occur at any moment.”
And,
“From the very earliest days of the church, the apostles and first-generation Christians nurtured an earnest expectation and fervent hope that Christ might suddenly return at any time to gather His church to heaven.”
And,
“The writer of Hebrews cited the imminent return of Christ as a reason to remain faithful:
“Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some [is]; but exhorting [one another]: and so much the more, as you see the day approaching.” Hebrews 10:25
http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/j00-11-1.htm
Is MacArthur right on this verse, that it promotes “imminency” and denies that there are any signs or events that must precede the arrival of “that day”?
First, let us notice two key words in the passage.
“Approaching” is from eggizō and means to “draw near to,” to “join one thing to another” (Strong)
“See” is from blepōo and means to “understand” to “discern mentally” or to “perceive” (Strong)
How do we, in every day life, “see the day approaching”? Is it not by looking at a clock, or by looking at the “connection” of a present event (or sign) with either a most recent one or with an impending one? Do I not see the day of my death approaching by seeing the signs of it?
The Psalmist said:
“We see not our signs: there is no more any prophet: neither is there among us any that knoweth how long.” (Psalm 74:9)
Here it seems that the Psalmist is at odds with the thinking of MacArthur and the Pre-Tribbers in how they “see the day approaching,” or to “see” anything “approaching,” for that matter.
This passage is interesting in that it mentions key words like “see” and “signs” and “how long,” all relevant to the matter at hand. We do not often “see” “how long” because we do not “see our signs”!
Why then do Pre-Trib advocates and believers in “imminence” say that this “seeing the day approaching” is not to be looking for any event that precedes that day? Is that true in every day life?
How do I come to understand that the night, or next day, is “drawing near”? Is it not because we see “time slip away” by its connected events?
Pre-Trib folks should quit using such argumentation on such verses as Hebrew 10:25.
“The NT is consistent in its anticipation that the return of Christ might occur at any moment.”
And,
“From the very earliest days of the church, the apostles and first-generation Christians nurtured an earnest expectation and fervent hope that Christ might suddenly return at any time to gather His church to heaven.”
And,
“The writer of Hebrews cited the imminent return of Christ as a reason to remain faithful:
“Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some [is]; but exhorting [one another]: and so much the more, as you see the day approaching.” Hebrews 10:25
http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/j00-11-1.htm
Is MacArthur right on this verse, that it promotes “imminency” and denies that there are any signs or events that must precede the arrival of “that day”?
First, let us notice two key words in the passage.
“Approaching” is from eggizō and means to “draw near to,” to “join one thing to another” (Strong)
“See” is from blepōo and means to “understand” to “discern mentally” or to “perceive” (Strong)
How do we, in every day life, “see the day approaching”? Is it not by looking at a clock, or by looking at the “connection” of a present event (or sign) with either a most recent one or with an impending one? Do I not see the day of my death approaching by seeing the signs of it?
The Psalmist said:
“We see not our signs: there is no more any prophet: neither is there among us any that knoweth how long.” (Psalm 74:9)
Here it seems that the Psalmist is at odds with the thinking of MacArthur and the Pre-Tribbers in how they “see the day approaching,” or to “see” anything “approaching,” for that matter.
This passage is interesting in that it mentions key words like “see” and “signs” and “how long,” all relevant to the matter at hand. We do not often “see” “how long” because we do not “see our signs”!
Why then do Pre-Trib advocates and believers in “imminence” say that this “seeing the day approaching” is not to be looking for any event that precedes that day? Is that true in every day life?
How do I come to understand that the night, or next day, is “drawing near”? Is it not because we see “time slip away” by its connected events?
Pre-Trib folks should quit using such argumentation on such verses as Hebrew 10:25.
James 5: 7-9 & Imminence
"Be patient therefore, brethren, unto the coming of the Lord. Behold, the husbandman waiteth for the precious fruit of the earth, and hath long patience for it, UNTIL he receive the early and latter rain. Be ye also patient; stablish your hearts: for the coming of the Lord draweth nigh. Grudge not one against another, brethren, lest ye be condemned: behold, the judge standeth before the door." (James 5:7-9)
Does James teach the idea that the Christians, to whom he is writing, were to be expecting the "imminent" return of the Lord and of their "rapture" unto him? Some think so. It is a verse often cited, by "Pre-Trib" advocates, in an attempt to prove "imminency."
MacArthur cited it for that purpose, although he did not prove how the verse proved "imminency," thinking simply by highlighting the words "coming of the Lord is at hand" (wherein he assumes the typical Pre-Trib argument that "at hand" = "imminency," which it does not), and "the judge stands before the door" (where again these words are supposed to prove "imminency," again which they do not), proved it. He ought to have highlighted other things mentioned in the verse too that disprove "imminence."
But, the "waiting," and "patient waiting," and the implied "watching for" or "looking for" the "harvest" ("for the precious fruit of the earth"), by the farmer-planter, the sower, is not always "imminent" for such between the time sowing has been done and reaping is "expected." The farmer is always looking for "milestones," "sign-posts," "landmarks along the road," so to speak.
Two "sign-posts" are even mentioned in this passage, the "early rain" and the "latter rain." So, we as Christians, "look for," "watch for," "hope for," "long for," "expect," "observe the day approaching," JUST AS THE FARMER! As he looks for signs of the coming harvest, so do we. Where is the "imminent" and the "any moment" harvest here? I don't see it.
Does James teach the idea that the Christians, to whom he is writing, were to be expecting the "imminent" return of the Lord and of their "rapture" unto him? Some think so. It is a verse often cited, by "Pre-Trib" advocates, in an attempt to prove "imminency."
MacArthur cited it for that purpose, although he did not prove how the verse proved "imminency," thinking simply by highlighting the words "coming of the Lord is at hand" (wherein he assumes the typical Pre-Trib argument that "at hand" = "imminency," which it does not), and "the judge stands before the door" (where again these words are supposed to prove "imminency," again which they do not), proved it. He ought to have highlighted other things mentioned in the verse too that disprove "imminence."
But, the "waiting," and "patient waiting," and the implied "watching for" or "looking for" the "harvest" ("for the precious fruit of the earth"), by the farmer-planter, the sower, is not always "imminent" for such between the time sowing has been done and reaping is "expected." The farmer is always looking for "milestones," "sign-posts," "landmarks along the road," so to speak.
Two "sign-posts" are even mentioned in this passage, the "early rain" and the "latter rain." So, we as Christians, "look for," "watch for," "hope for," "long for," "expect," "observe the day approaching," JUST AS THE FARMER! As he looks for signs of the coming harvest, so do we. Where is the "imminent" and the "any moment" harvest here? I don't see it.
Judge Before The Door - Imminence?
"The Judge stands before the door" (James 5:9), as if about to enter the courtroom, and then sit down to judgment business.
I do not know all about "legal procedure" among the ancient Roman world, to which James no doubt alludes, in this word of warning, but I am sure that it was not all that different from our own. It is after all the basis of Western legal code and procedure. So, what does it mean, in legal procedure, for the judge to "stand before the door"?
It seems likely that the "door" alluded to is that which leads from the private chambers of the judge to the scene of trial, the "courtroom" proper, where (presumably) the jury, witnessess, accusers, prosecution, and defendants are already waiting.
Yes, the words do imply some sort of "imminence," some idea of "immediacy," and the idea that the entrance of the judge is now very near. But, does this mean that no one is looking for any event that would signal that entrance?
I can imagine myself seated in the courtroom, waiting and anticipating the the arrival and entrance of the judge; am I not looking for any sign?
I imagine people are "looking for" the first initial opening of that door (which always precedes the going through the door!), for the doorkeeper to move towards the door, for him to place his hand on the knob, and begin to open it, and to hear some court announcer say, "all rise"!
It would be foolish to argue that those, in the courtroom, who are anxiously anticipating the entrance of the judge, through the door, are not really "looking for" the judge himself because they are "looking for" these little "signs" preceding his entrance! Absurd! Bad "logic"!
I do not know all about "legal procedure" among the ancient Roman world, to which James no doubt alludes, in this word of warning, but I am sure that it was not all that different from our own. It is after all the basis of Western legal code and procedure. So, what does it mean, in legal procedure, for the judge to "stand before the door"?
It seems likely that the "door" alluded to is that which leads from the private chambers of the judge to the scene of trial, the "courtroom" proper, where (presumably) the jury, witnessess, accusers, prosecution, and defendants are already waiting.
Yes, the words do imply some sort of "imminence," some idea of "immediacy," and the idea that the entrance of the judge is now very near. But, does this mean that no one is looking for any event that would signal that entrance?
I can imagine myself seated in the courtroom, waiting and anticipating the the arrival and entrance of the judge; am I not looking for any sign?
I imagine people are "looking for" the first initial opening of that door (which always precedes the going through the door!), for the doorkeeper to move towards the door, for him to place his hand on the knob, and begin to open it, and to hear some court announcer say, "all rise"!
It would be foolish to argue that those, in the courtroom, who are anxiously anticipating the entrance of the judge, through the door, are not really "looking for" the judge himself because they are "looking for" these little "signs" preceding his entrance! Absurd! Bad "logic"!
Charismata In The Tribulation?
Those who are "strict cessationists" have a difficult time with the coming of the "two witnesses" mentioned in Revelation chapter 11. It is very clear that these two men of God work miracles during the time of the Great Tribulation, possessing supernatural gifts of power over nature, and power with God in prayer, and this amidst abounding supernatural works done by leading wicked men.
The question that every "strict cessasionist" must ask is this: Are these two men exceptions in every way, at the time of their "prophesying"? There is no doubt that they are exceptional in their gifts and mission, but are they the only ones, among the latter day saints, who are thus empowered for witness in that evil day? I trow not.
I find it abundantly taught in scripture that God will again revive these gifts among the few, in the extreme latter days, "who have not defiled their garments," and who have remained true and faithful to the Lord amidst abounding corruption, on the right hand and on the left. No, all the supernatural powers will not be in the hands of the enemy, but also in the hands of the chosen ones.
On the times in which these two latter day prophets appear, Seiss writes some very good things that I wish to endorse and post here also. He says:
“The world is so full of malignant evil, that they cannot maintain a being in it without the power of miracle.”
This is very good commentary. The following is even better and a characteristic of the times of the Two Witnesses and of the Great Tribulation. He says further:
“They are also times of intense supernaturalism and miracle. All the ordinary laws of things are shaken and bent, like reeds in a swollen river; and extraordinary agencies and results put themselves forth from all sides. Saints from heaven and potencies from hell are upon the scene, as never was the case to the same extent or in the same manner
before.”
He says further:
“The worst impieties of all ages shall concentrate in one. All the power of hell itself shall come into play upon earth. Such times the world has not yet seen. Indeed, human philosophy has become so wise as to banish from the range of possibility even the smaller variations from the ordinary course of nature which stand recorded of the past. But all such wisdom is folly. There is nothing permanent in nature. It is not true that “all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.” Mighty changes and variations have occurred, and will yet occur. Natures’s laws are not God, and are ever subject to modifications both from heaven and from hell.
Satan could impoverish and sicken Job as Moses could afflict Pharoah. Nay, here it stands written, from the lips of Him who is the Alpha and Omega, that there SHALL COME TIMES WHEN SPIRITUAL POTENCIES, GOOD AND BAD, WILL SHOW THEIR ACTIVITY ON THE EARTH, AS IF NATURE HERSELF WERE ABOUT TO BE ENTIRELY SUPERSEDED.
Men are astounded, and hold back from believing when they read the doings of Abraham's God among the idols of Egypt, or in the camp of the pilgrim Hebrews. They hesitate, and talk of fiction, metaphor, superstition, orientalism, exaggeration, when the life and deeds of Jesus are the theme. But their doubts about the supernatural, and all their grave science on the subject, shall yet be utterly confounded. Here are times indicated, which shall bring men on earth face to face with living powers from heaven and hell in the gigantic struggle of their last conflict, and fill the world with wonders, of which those in Egypt were but the dim foreshadows; --times when that Devil, whose existence some count a mere myth, will put himself forth in things so marvellous that, if it were possible, the very elect would be deceived, whilst the deluded world fathers as one man to his worship as their God and Saviour. People may doubt, and shake their heads, and vaunt the sobrieties of their better philosophy; but such will be the times of these Two Witnesses." (Page 256, 57)
More to come, on this topic, the Lord willing.
The question that every "strict cessasionist" must ask is this: Are these two men exceptions in every way, at the time of their "prophesying"? There is no doubt that they are exceptional in their gifts and mission, but are they the only ones, among the latter day saints, who are thus empowered for witness in that evil day? I trow not.
I find it abundantly taught in scripture that God will again revive these gifts among the few, in the extreme latter days, "who have not defiled their garments," and who have remained true and faithful to the Lord amidst abounding corruption, on the right hand and on the left. No, all the supernatural powers will not be in the hands of the enemy, but also in the hands of the chosen ones.
On the times in which these two latter day prophets appear, Seiss writes some very good things that I wish to endorse and post here also. He says:
“The world is so full of malignant evil, that they cannot maintain a being in it without the power of miracle.”
This is very good commentary. The following is even better and a characteristic of the times of the Two Witnesses and of the Great Tribulation. He says further:
“They are also times of intense supernaturalism and miracle. All the ordinary laws of things are shaken and bent, like reeds in a swollen river; and extraordinary agencies and results put themselves forth from all sides. Saints from heaven and potencies from hell are upon the scene, as never was the case to the same extent or in the same manner
before.”
He says further:
“The worst impieties of all ages shall concentrate in one. All the power of hell itself shall come into play upon earth. Such times the world has not yet seen. Indeed, human philosophy has become so wise as to banish from the range of possibility even the smaller variations from the ordinary course of nature which stand recorded of the past. But all such wisdom is folly. There is nothing permanent in nature. It is not true that “all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.” Mighty changes and variations have occurred, and will yet occur. Natures’s laws are not God, and are ever subject to modifications both from heaven and from hell.
Satan could impoverish and sicken Job as Moses could afflict Pharoah. Nay, here it stands written, from the lips of Him who is the Alpha and Omega, that there SHALL COME TIMES WHEN SPIRITUAL POTENCIES, GOOD AND BAD, WILL SHOW THEIR ACTIVITY ON THE EARTH, AS IF NATURE HERSELF WERE ABOUT TO BE ENTIRELY SUPERSEDED.
Men are astounded, and hold back from believing when they read the doings of Abraham's God among the idols of Egypt, or in the camp of the pilgrim Hebrews. They hesitate, and talk of fiction, metaphor, superstition, orientalism, exaggeration, when the life and deeds of Jesus are the theme. But their doubts about the supernatural, and all their grave science on the subject, shall yet be utterly confounded. Here are times indicated, which shall bring men on earth face to face with living powers from heaven and hell in the gigantic struggle of their last conflict, and fill the world with wonders, of which those in Egypt were but the dim foreshadows; --times when that Devil, whose existence some count a mere myth, will put himself forth in things so marvellous that, if it were possible, the very elect would be deceived, whilst the deluded world fathers as one man to his worship as their God and Saviour. People may doubt, and shake their heads, and vaunt the sobrieties of their better philosophy; but such will be the times of these Two Witnesses." (Page 256, 57)
More to come, on this topic, the Lord willing.
The Coming Charismatic Revival
"And such as do wickedly against the covenant shall he corrupt by flatteries: but the people that do know their God shall be strong, and do exploits." (Daniel 11:32)
"And the LORD shall utter his voice before his army: for his camp is very great: for he is strong that executeth his word: for the day of the LORD is great and very terrible; and who can abide it?" (Joel 2:11)
The scriptures clearly tell of a genuine blockbuster Holy Spirit revival which will power up towards the end of this age. (Joel 2:28-32, Isaiah 60:1-5, Zechariah 12:10-13:1 etc
Where Are His Miracles?
This is the post I made today in my other blog - "My Daily Bread." I thought it would be good to post here also since I have discussed "cessationism" here and on other blogs I visit.
"And Gideon said unto him, Oh my Lord, if the LORD be with us, why then is all this befallen us? and where be all his miracles which our fathers told us of, saying, Did not the LORD bring us up from Egypt? but now the LORD hath forsaken us, and delivered us into the hands of the Midianites." (Judges 6:13)
Perhaps Gideon should rather have asked - "where be the the faith of our fathers"? Perhaps instead of querying "why there is an absence or cessation of divine activity, of God working miraculously," he should have rather queried - "why is there an absence or cessation of the kind of faith activity our fathers exercised"? Or perhaps, "Why do we not have the kind of faith that produces these miracles?" Why does Gideon indict God rather than indict himself?
Perhaps we are in the same condition today as was Gideon? We blame God for the absence of his miracles today, the absence of prophets and miracle workers, of charismatic people, believing that it belongs to a past generation of Christians, but not to our own. Is the church today saying, like Gideon, "where are all his miracles"? Are they saying - "Where are the miraculous gifts that the early church possessed"? Are we not asking ourselves - "Do we not have the same need of them today"?
I think the church ought to be saying - "where is my faith"? And - "Why do I not have faith greater than a "mustard seed"? And - "Why is the Lord not giving the supernatural gift of "faith," the kind that can work miracle?" These are not "foolish and unlearned questions" that ought to be "avoided." It is rather a question to be confronted and seriously addressed.
"And now, Lord, behold their threatenings: and grant unto thy servants, that with all boldness they may speak thy word, By stretching forth thine hand to heal; and that signs and wonders may be done by the name of thy holy child Jesus. And when they had prayed, the place was shaken where they were assembled together; and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and they spake the word of God with boldness." (Acts 4: 29-31)
Perhaps we do not see such power and faith in the church today because we have ceased praying as they did? Perhaps we have been led to believe that the church today no longer needs to heed the apostolic command to "earnestly desire the spiritual gifts"? (I Corinthians 14:1)
What authority does anyone have to tell Christians today that it is wrong to pray as did the early church, in Acts 4, and wrong to earnestly desire the charismata?
Can we no longer pray as James exhorted us to do in James 5? Can we no longer ask the Lord to increase our faith to the level of miracle working? If our aims are right and our doctrine too?
Can we not legitimately ask - where is the "prayer of faith"?
"Is any among you afflicted? let him pray. Is any merry? let him sing psalms. Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord: And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him. Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much. Elias was a man subject to like passions as we are, and he prayed earnestly that it might not rain: and it rained not on the earth by the space of three years and six months. And he prayed again, and the heaven gave rain, and the earth brought forth her fruit." (James 5:13-18)
This same writer also said, about prayer: "But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed. For let not that man think that he shall receive any thing of the Lord. A double minded man is unstable in all his ways." (1: 6-8)
"And Gideon said unto him, Oh my Lord, if the LORD be with us, why then is all this befallen us? and where be all his miracles which our fathers told us of, saying, Did not the LORD bring us up from Egypt? but now the LORD hath forsaken us, and delivered us into the hands of the Midianites." (Judges 6:13)
Perhaps Gideon should rather have asked - "where be the the faith of our fathers"? Perhaps instead of querying "why there is an absence or cessation of divine activity, of God working miraculously," he should have rather queried - "why is there an absence or cessation of the kind of faith activity our fathers exercised"? Or perhaps, "Why do we not have the kind of faith that produces these miracles?" Why does Gideon indict God rather than indict himself?
Perhaps we are in the same condition today as was Gideon? We blame God for the absence of his miracles today, the absence of prophets and miracle workers, of charismatic people, believing that it belongs to a past generation of Christians, but not to our own. Is the church today saying, like Gideon, "where are all his miracles"? Are they saying - "Where are the miraculous gifts that the early church possessed"? Are we not asking ourselves - "Do we not have the same need of them today"?
I think the church ought to be saying - "where is my faith"? And - "Why do I not have faith greater than a "mustard seed"? And - "Why is the Lord not giving the supernatural gift of "faith," the kind that can work miracle?" These are not "foolish and unlearned questions" that ought to be "avoided." It is rather a question to be confronted and seriously addressed.
"And now, Lord, behold their threatenings: and grant unto thy servants, that with all boldness they may speak thy word, By stretching forth thine hand to heal; and that signs and wonders may be done by the name of thy holy child Jesus. And when they had prayed, the place was shaken where they were assembled together; and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and they spake the word of God with boldness." (Acts 4: 29-31)
Perhaps we do not see such power and faith in the church today because we have ceased praying as they did? Perhaps we have been led to believe that the church today no longer needs to heed the apostolic command to "earnestly desire the spiritual gifts"? (I Corinthians 14:1)
What authority does anyone have to tell Christians today that it is wrong to pray as did the early church, in Acts 4, and wrong to earnestly desire the charismata?
Can we no longer pray as James exhorted us to do in James 5? Can we no longer ask the Lord to increase our faith to the level of miracle working? If our aims are right and our doctrine too?
Can we not legitimately ask - where is the "prayer of faith"?
"Is any among you afflicted? let him pray. Is any merry? let him sing psalms. Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord: And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him. Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much. Elias was a man subject to like passions as we are, and he prayed earnestly that it might not rain: and it rained not on the earth by the space of three years and six months. And he prayed again, and the heaven gave rain, and the earth brought forth her fruit." (James 5:13-18)
This same writer also said, about prayer: "But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed. For let not that man think that he shall receive any thing of the Lord. A double minded man is unstable in all his ways." (1: 6-8)
"Whatever is not of faith," wrote Paul, "is sin." (Rom. 14:23)
Do you pray in faith, my friend, or do you pray in doubt? Do you come to God without faith?
"But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him." (Hebrews 11:6)Do you lack faith? Then look to Jesus the "author and finisher of our faith." (Heb. 12:2) Pray as did the disciple who said - "Lord I believe, help my unbelief." (Mark 9:24)
Praying with strong faith will truly "move mountains."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)