Category Archives: The Bible

by - 2 Comments

Daily Broadside | Biblical Prophecy Will Be Fulfilled — Are We Watching It Now?

In the wake of the atrocities in Israel one of the questions evangelicals are asking is, Are we seeing prophecy being fulfilled? Pastor Greg Laurie attempted to answer that in his sermon this past Sunday.

A California pastor has suggested that the Hamas terrorist attacks in Israel which killed more than 1,000 people, including 14 Americans, were predicted by scripture.

Greg Laurie, the head of California megachurch Harvest Christian Fellowship, made the claims in a sermon he delivered on Sunday. 

‘Interesting how it always comes back to Jerusalem. The Bible predicted, thousands of years ago, that the End Time events would revolve around Jerusalem,’ he said. ‘Not San Francisco. Not Los Angeles. Not Moscow. Not Paris.’

‘But Jerusalem, this tiny little city, in this tiny sliver of land, will play a key role in the events of the last days. It’s the focal point of End Times events,’ he added, quoting Zechariah 12:3, stating: ‘On that day I will make Jerusalem an immovable rock. All the nations will gather against it to try to move it, but they will only hurt themselves.’ 

I’m not one to engage in end times speculation, but I tend to broadly agree that we are seeing the beginning of birth pangs.

Jesus answered: “Watch out that no one deceives you. For many will come in my name, claiming, ‘I am the Messiah,’ and will deceive many. You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come. Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be famines and earthquakes in various places. All these are the beginning of birth pains.

“Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of me. At that time many will turn away from the faith and will betray and hate each other, and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people. Because of the increase of wickedness, the love of most will grow cold, but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved. And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.

— Matthew 24:4-14

The regathering of Israel was a prophetic fulfillment.

Laurie added that this was a ‘super-sign’ that the ‘prophetic clock ticking is the re-gathering of the nation Israel into their homeland.’

‘On the heels of the Holocaust, who would have ever thought that these Jewish people who lost 6 million of their people to the Nazis would somehow re-gather in their homeland?’ he said. 

‘But it happened against all odds. And on May 14, 1948, Israel became a nation. I’m proud to say the United States was the first nation to acknowledge that.’

The prophets and other scriptures anticipated the restoration of Israel thousands of years ago:

The most widely covered restorative theme in the Bible relates to Israel. God declares through the prophet Jeremiah:

“… I will restore your fortunes and gather you from all the nations and all the places where I have driven you, declares the Lord…” (Jeremiah 29:14, ESV)

Nearly every Hebrew prophet foresaw a time when God would restore the fortunes of the Jewish people following a long period of exile, destitution and suppression.

Indeed, they would return from the all countries where God had scattered them (Jeremiah 32:37). He would plant them back in the land of their fathers (Jeremiah 24:6). They would rebuild the ancient cities (Isaiah 61:4).

They would turn the desert into a blossoming garden (Isaiah 51:3). God would increase them in numbers (Ezekiel 37:26). And most importantly, God would restore His people not only physically but also spiritually (Ezekiel 36:24).

There are detractors from this view of scripture who argue that Israel is a secular state. While that’s true, it’s also true that the Jewish people are being gathered into the land that was theirs from ancient times. Plus, I’m not sure how Israel being a secular country somehow invalidates biblical prophecy. In my view, it only makes the promise of being restored not just physically but spiritually more likely.

In the ensuing decades, many more Jews would arrive. Finally, in 1948 the State of Israel was established. This reminded many of the question posed by Isaiah long ago:

“Who has heard such a thing? Who has seen such things? Shall a land be born in one day? Shall a nation be brought forth in one moment?” (Isaiah 66:8 ESV)

In May 1948, the resounding answer was “Yes!” The German theologian Karl Barth later proclaimed: “Now we can read it in the newspapers: God keeps His promises.”

Today, close to half of the world’s Jewish population is residing in Israel, compared to only 0.5% in 1889. They have turned the State of Israel into a hub of technology and innovation. Israel’s ancient cities are not only rebuilt, but they are larger and more beautiful than ever before.

No one can say for sure that what we’re seeing is, in fact, prophecy being fulfilled. But it is interesting that on September 29, 1923 the British Mandate went into effect (making Palestine a political entity for the first time in centuries) thus providing a home for the Jewish people in the region; on October 6, 1973 came the suprise attack of the Arab nations on Yom Kippur; and now, on October 7, 2023 there is the surprise attack by the Arabs in Gaza.

Every 50 years is interesting, but not conclusive. But Israel being reestablished as a nation? Irrefutable.

My advice is to watch developments carefully. Biblical Persia is modern-day Iran, and is predicted to play a major role in the end.

The word of the Lord came to me: “Son of man, set your face against Gog, of the land of Magog [Russia], the chief prince of Meshek and Tubal [region of modern-day Turkey]; prophesy against him and say: ‘This is what the Sovereign Lord says: I am against you, Gog, chief prince of Meshek and Tubal. I will turn you around, put hooks in your jaws and bring you out with your whole army—your horses, your horsemen fully armed, and a great horde with large and small shields, all of them brandishing their swords. Persia [Iran], Cush [Sudan] and Put [Libya] will be with them, all with shields and helmets, also Gomer with all its troops, and Beth Togarmah from the far north with all its troops—the many nations with you.
— Ezekiel 38:1-6

by

Making Your Point vs Making an Appeal

Talking to a skeptic about the Reality of Christ can be a real challenge.

In some cases, they’re genuinely curious. They recognize the elegance of the human experience and the complexity of the universe as something that has to have been designed for a purpose as opposed to it being nothing more than an infinite collection of lucky accidents.

In other instances, you’ve got a cynic that is resolved to maintain a desperate grasp on the idea that they are their own absolute and they’re not interested in listening as much as they’re interested in talking.

Regardless of what kind of a skeptic you’re talking to, you have to be strategic. Should you make the mistake of trying to build your case according to a sequence of truths, there’s a good chance you’ll be stopped in your tracks before you can even make your point.

It’s not because what you’re saying lacks validity as much as it’s an approach that can be easily compromised simply by disagreeing.

Should your argument be built according to a series of talking points that build on one another, all your critic has to do is question the substance of just one of your assertions and your whole platform has now been compromised because of the way you have to pause and “prove” a portion of your perspective that usually falls way short of what you’re actually trying to communicate.

Sometimes it’s a legitimate question, but a lot of times, especially when you’re contending with someone who doesn’t want to listen as much as they want to mock, villify and undermine what you would say about Jesus, it’s a tactic designed to shut you down while simultaneoulsy enhancing their mindset without them having to say a word.

You see this played out in a big way especially when it comes to historical references to Christ.

A Complete Fabrication

Anytime you suggest that there are secular references to Jesus Christ as Someone Who actually lived, you’ve got a real problem on your hands because the atheist needs Jesus to be a complete fabrication.

If Jesus was Someone you could actually speak with and listen to, then He becomes a far bigger problem in the mind of the skeptic who needs to convince both himself and everyone else that there is no absolute save the bottom line of the individual. It’s not just the Substance of the gospel and the question of sin that has to be discarded. The very “idea” of Christ has to be reduced to a ridiculous albeit popular non-entity that has no place in intelligent conversation.

And so they engage in a campaign where things like the portion of Josephus Antiquities that references Christ by name is dismissed as an unethical edit made by an enterprising scribe that was never written by the original author. The persecution of Christians spearheaded by Nero in 64 AD is a complete fabrication and John Tyndale was not burned at the stake for laboring to create an English version of the Bible.

Even the verbiage of the Declaration of Independence that references the “Creator” as the source of one’s rights is reduced to a token courtesy that has no real historical or spiritual substance given the way our Founders were supposedly Deists as opposed to orthodox Christians.

The thing that makes this so toxic and at the same time so exhausting is that, while the conversation has the look and feel of a reasonable evaluation with the goal being an equitable treatment of all faiths and an accommodation of those who may not subscribe to the gospel, the inevitable result is a distorted perception of our nation’s spiritual heritage which then segues gracefully into a godless culture and a humanistic marketplace.

It’s not a search for answers as much as it’s a resolve to silence the answers as they were articulated by our Founding Fathers who were looking to the Bible for both their Inspiration and their Resolve.

It’s not the “separation of church and state,” it’s the re-creation of the church and state as institutions that worship the individual and God is dismissed altogether.

But you can’t do that without inventing an entirely different past…

…nor can you question the historical Reality of Christ without assaulting the Christian doctrine as a whole.

You’re not just “disagreeing” with the gospel or “questioning” the integrity of the Scriptures.

You’re actually implying much, much more.

A Fool or a Fiend
Not Getting Rich Jesus doesn’t offer power or wealth in exchange for believing in His Identity as the Son of God. Rather, He invites you to “take up your cross and follow Him.” (Lk 9:23; [see also 1 Tim 6:10]) Not Making a Good Impression In the aftermath of Christ’s Resurrection, the disciples, who are now absolutely convinced the Jesus is the Christ, are now speaking out publicly and in so doing are infuriating the Saducees. In Acts 5 you can see how the disciples’ resolve was rewarded by threatening them with their lives and then having them flogged (Acts 5:17-41). No Room for Rivals In Acts 17:7 you see the lethal aspect of beliving in Christ from the standpoint of a Roman legislature in that you were proclaiming allegiance to a king other than Caesar.

The First Disciples Were Liars

In order for Christianity to be false, you have to include several default scenarios that must be in place if Jesus is a myth and the gospel is a scam.

First, the original apostles were liars. If the Resurrection was a hoax, then they were lying when they said that Christ has risen.

Yes, the Ten Commandments forbid lying (Ex 20:16) and Jesus was morally perfect (Heb 3:15). But somehow the disciples saw no conflict in lying about the fact the Jesus rose from the grave (Acts 4:10).

That makes no sense.

Every Christian That’s Ever Believed is Either a Fool or a Fiend

You’re Not Getting Rich, You’re Getting Killed

Early Jewish converts to Christianity were not getting rich nor were they getting applauded for subscribing to Christ as the Son of God. As a Hebrew, you were putting yourself at odds with the established religious hierarchy who saw your creed as heretical. From the perspective of Rome, any reference to a “king” other than Caesar was considered a capital offense (Acts 17:7).

Even prior to the persecution by Nero in 64, Christians were getting harrassed as seen in Acts 8:1. After the Edict of Milan, although Christians were no longer targeted the way they had been, believing in the gospel, a commitment to printing the Bible in English or a desire to communicate the Message of Christianity to foreign countries was often enough to warrant abuse, torture and oftentimes death.

Given the lack of benefits and the sacrifices that were often made, you have to be either a fool or a fiend to believe in Christ if He was a myth.

What Are You Thinking?

In the immediate aftermath of the crucifixion, if there was, in fact, a body that could be recovered and you knew it, you were knowingly misleading people in a way that could cost them their lives.

‘That would qualify you as a detestable human being –  a genuine fiend.

Then again, if you could do some thinking for yourself and determine that the Resurrection was not real, yet you made a point of declaring yourself a believer, you’re a fool given the way in which you have now pitted yourself against the authorities that have the legal means to end your life.

And you’re not gaining anything by doing it!

That would make you a fool.

Consider Who You’re Talking To

In subsequent centuries, while distortions of the gospel could translate to wealth and power, neither legitimate Reformers nor authentic Missionaries were benefitting by championing the cause of Christ.

Again, if you’re aware of the fallacy that characterizes your faith, either your character or your intelligence can be rightfully regarded as flawed and you are either a fool or a fiend.

But when you consider the intellectual substance of men like Martin Luther, John Locke or Copernicus, these are not “fools,” rather these are academics that have contributed significantly to the way we see ourselves and the world around us.

And to accuse people like Mother Theresa or Albert Schweitzer as being sinister in any way shape or form is ludicrous.

And yet, should you insist that Christianity is for non-thinking people, you either hold these people in contempt or regard them as hopelessly gullible.

And that makes no sense.

The Writers of the Ancient World Were Frauds

He Can’t Be Real

As has been already stated, acknowledging Jesus as a historical figure – apart from any kind of religious context – represents a dangerous concession for the atheist.

If Christ can be validated as a legitimate person, then you have what amounts to a natural segue to an objective acknowledgement of His Words and His Actions; most of which resonate as incredibly noble.

An atheist’s contempt for religion is founded on an unwillingness to submit to any authority other than the one they’re comfortable with. Yet they can’t be heard as someone who is critical of charity or compassion so it becomes strategic to shut down any attempt to refer to Jesus as a verifiable reality by insisting that…

But in order for this to be true, then every falsification has to have had some kind of motive that would make it not only reasonable but genuinely beneficial to promote a lie.

Why Are You Doing This?

Bear in mind that the Resurrection is an absurd marketing campaign. Given the way many of the world’s religions are capable of winning converts simply by promising eternal rewards or temporary fulfillment, asserting the idea of a bodily Resurrection is a bizarre and unnecessary overreach if all you’re trying to do is win friends and influence people.

At least, that’s what a lot of religious mystics are able to accomplish simply by being charasmatic as opposed to positioning themselves as a resurrected corpse.

Everything we know about the disciples suggests they died as obscure martyrs and not as wealthy and powerful individuals.

To maintain that the gospels are nothing more than a collection of lies, you have to justify why these men would document these fabrications especially given the political and spiritual landscape they occupied at the time.

Not only are they championing a ridiculous claim, they have nothing to gain by promoting the idea that Christ had risen from the grave. Rather, they had literally everything to lose.

That makes no sense.

Josephus

Eusibius is a Fraud
Among the things we have confirmed now is that all surviving manuscripts of the Antiquities derive from the last manuscript of it produced at the Christian library of Caesarea between 220 and 320 A.D.
, the same manuscript used and quoted by Eusebius, the first Christian in history to notice either passage being in the Antiquities of Josephus. That means we have no access to any earlier version of the text (we do not know what the text looked like prior to 230 A.D.), and we have access to no version of the text untouched by Eusebius (no other manuscript in any other library ever on earth produced any copies that survive to today). That must be taken into account. (Richard Carrier)

In a similar vein, if you’re going to insist that every secular reference to Christ is an “interpolation,” then you have to do more than elaborate on “what” was changed, but you also have to provide a substantial reason as to “why” it was changed in the first place.

How does changing or adding some verbiage to Antiquities written by Josephus translate to a marketing strategy? What do you stand to gain by editing the words of Tacitus?

Critics want to insist that the references to Christ found in the writings of Josephus and Tacitus were lies introduced by Christians that took it upon themselves to transcribe a copy of the original and corrupt it by adding content that gave credibility to the historical reality of Christ and the substance of the Christian doctrine.

For example, in Book 18 of Antiquities written in 93 AD, it says this:

At this time appeared Jesus, a very gifted man—if indeed it is right to call him a man; for he was a worker of miracles, a teacher of such men as listened with pleasure to the truth, and he won over many of the Jews and many of Gentile origin as well. This was the Christ; and when at the instigation of our leading men he had been condemned to the cross by Pilate, those who had loved him at the first did not cease to do so; for on the third day he appeared to them alive again, the inspired prophets having foretold this and countless other wonderful things about him. Even now the group of people called Christians after him has not died out.1

This was quoted by a man named Eusibius who put together a history of the early church called “The Ecclesiastical History” in 313 AD. It was a massive undertaking and something that had never been done before. In subsequent centuries he would become known as the “Father of Church History.”

Eusibius was a student of Pamphilus who trained under Origen, one of the earliest and more important Christian scholars.  Under Origen, Pamphilus established a library containing over 30,000 volumes. Eusibius undoubtedly had access to this library and because he was so meticulous in his citations we can know for certain where he was getting his information from.

This is significant because some of what Eusibius references has since been lost so in his documentary we’re given access to resources that no longer exist.

He also had the ability to reference texts like Josephus’ Antiquities that, although it was obviously a copy of the original, it was a transcription written within 200 years of the original as opposed to now where the oldest manuscript we have today was written in the 12th century – over a thousand years removed from the original writing.

Eusibius quoted the above text, not once, but three times. In addition to the above text, Eusibius quotes Josephus prolifically throughout his book.

Historian John Michael Wallace-Hadrill makes an astute observation by saying:

It is in any case exceedingly improbable that Eusebius himself is to be held responsible for the alteration of Josephus’ text, as some have held him to be. If he had perpetrated what would be one of the cleverest frauds of literary history, can we believe that he would have treated his own fraud in the almost casual manner of quoting the Testimonium differently on three occasions?2

The fact that both Josephus and Tacitus reference Christ is understandable given the impact Christ had regardless if you believed Him to be the Son of God or not. The fact that we’re still talking about Him today demonstrates that whatever happened in Jerusalem that first Easter morning resonated as more than just a Facebook post and would’ve been worthy of mentioning as part of a “Year in Review.”

No doubt, Eusibius recognized how the substance of his account would be enhanced by including the irrefutable dynamic of an impartial, secular reference to Christ. But would the temptation to quote a forgery be enough to offset the very real chance of him being revealed as a fraud?

He’s writing the history of the church and attempting to present Christ as the Son of God. How do you accomplish that by lying?

It’s one thing if you’re mistaken or perhaps some concessions can be allowed should you choose to overlook or minimize certain aspects of the past in order to preserve the dignity of specific individuals.

But here you’re talking about the very Identity of Jesus Christ. Being able to cite Josephus honestly would be advantageous but the Substance of the Christian doctrine does not depend on the observations of a historian. Therefore to risk the integrity of your work as a whole for no reason other than the chance to incorporate a secular Jewish perspective into your text…

…makes no sense.

Tacitus

Cornelius Tacitus was a Roman historian who lived approximately between AD 56 and 120. Robert Van Voorst says Tacitus “is generally considered the greatest Roman historian” and his Annals is his “finest work and generally acknowledged by modern historians as our best source of information about this period.”3

At one point, Tacitus says this:

Therefore, to squelch the rumor, Nero created scapegoats and subjected to the most refined tortures those whom the common people called ‘Christians,’ [a group] hated for their abominable crimes. Their name comes from Christ, who, during the reign of Tiberius, had been executed by the procurator Pontius Pilate. Suppressed for the moment, the deadly superstition broke out again, not only in Judea, the land which originated this evil, but also in the city of Rome, where all sorts of horrendous and shameful practices, from every part of the world converge and are fervently cultivated.4

The fact that you have a Roman historian who, by virtue of the way he describes Christians as a people group, “…hated for their abominable crimes” and proliferators of a “deadly superstion” is obviously not a believer – that fact the he references Christ as Somone who was executed by Pontius Pilate is a huge vote of credibility for the Christian doctrine in that it validates Jesus as a real person and that He was put to death by Pontius Pilate.

Critics swarm to this text like flies to sugar because of their need to undermine anything that could potentially qualify Christ as Someone that actually existed.

Their criticisms target the way in which Christ is spelled “Christus,” thus referring to someone else. They also attempt to assert that the Christians referenced by Tacitus is actually a different sect of people and not Christ-followers…

Here it’s a bit easier to recognize the improbability of what the atheist needs to be in place in order for their criticisms to carry any weight.

Apart from their critique resonating more as a desperate search for flaws than it does an honest evalutation, if it were something authored by a renegade Christian, the text would be far more complimentary of the Christian doctrine as opposed to it being addressed as an “evil” and a “horrendous and shameful practice.”

Again, to be critical to the extent where you feel justified in dismissing the text altogther…

…it just doesn’t make any sense.

So How Do You Do This?

When you look at the way Jesus engaged the Pharisees, you see a method being deployed from time to time that those who are familiar with the techniques used in a debate would recognize as the Socratic Method.

Basically, you’re posing a series of questions that compel your opponent to answer in a way that complels them to make your point for you.

You see Jesus using this method when He asks the Pharisees to tell Him whose image is on the Roman coinage (Matt 16:26). He made His point about working on the Sabbath when He asked the Pharisees what they would do if they saw one of their flock had fallen into a pit (Matt 12:11).

In the context of this conversation, what you want to do is ask your critic questions based on the three things that we covered here.

For example…

How could the first disciples feel comfortable about lying about Christ’s Resurrection if God commanded them not to lie?

Would you feel comfortable calling Copernicus or Mother Thersa an idiot?

Explain to me why a historian would risk being labeled a fraud for lying about something that could easily be verified?

The idea is to expand the scope of the conversation in a way that compels your opponent to acknowledge the way in which their cynicism and arrogance translates to a scenario where some of the most brilliant minds and compassionate human beings are held in contempt.

It’s then when the fragility of their platform is revealed as something that’s based more on pride than principle and you now have an opportunity to elaborate on the True Substance of the gospel and the practical impact it has on one’s life.

There’s a difference between making your point and making an appeal.

Use Christ’s example in the way you champion your convictions and you’ll be able to make your point. Otherwise, you come across as though you’re asking for concessions.

Your faith is stronger than that…

…and so is He.

by

Make No Provision | Part II

In “Make No Provision Part I,” we looked at how some will push the boundaries that define the difference between right and wrong and justify their actions by saying that unless they’re crossing the line, they’re not guilty of any wrongdoing.

Yet Scripture commands us to be making no provision for that which can lead to a genuine problem (Rom 13:14). So, even if we’re not at that point where Satan is getting ready to hit a home run, if we’ve allowed him to load the bases so all he needs now is a base hit, we are guilty of accommodating the devil rather than resisting him (Jas 4:7; 1 Pet 5:8-9).

And here’s the thing: You’re not playing to win when you’re doing things that make it easier to lose. And when you’re not just contemplating concessions but actually you’re doing things that make those compromises more likely, then you have to ask, “Whose team am I playing for?”

These aren’t just “impure thoughts,” this is you intentionally fumbling the ball and giving the other team a chance to score.

No, not everything is black and white. But, then again, God never has to speculate and since He sees the heart (1 Sam 16:7) and no man can serve two masters (Matt 6:24), you can rest assured that however you may be able to successfully convince another human being that things aren’t as they seem, God has full access to both your actions and your motives and you’re either promoting His Reputation or protecting your own.

Period.

In her article, “The Difference Between Guilt and Conviction,” Jeanne Harrison, a staff writer at Grace Church in Orlando, does a great job of shutting down all the white noise and allowing the  Truth that is central to this whole debate be heard in a way that’s easy to hear and understand…

Here’s the difference between guilt and conviction: guilt is not willing to pay the price of repentance. Guilt wants to make the problem go away as painlessly as possible because guilt’s primary focus is me. What will they think of me? How will the consequences impact me?

Conviction focuses on God. We begin to experience conviction when our hearts are grieved not solely because we might lose our job, or our spouse, or our standing, but because we have broken fellowship with God. In 2 Corinthians 7:10 Paul captures the difference between guilt and conviction by describing two different kinds of sorrow. He writes, “Godly sorrow brings repentance that leads to salvation and leaves no regret, but worldly sorrow brings death.”

The question is, why are you lamenting over your sin? Is it because you fear losing the things of the world—the respect of your boss, the esteem of performing perfectly, the pleasure of sin itself? If so, you are experiencing worldly sorrow. Or are you pained because you have personally grieved God’s heart? This kind of godly sorrow takes us straight to the cross—to repentance, restoration, and life. In order for me to repent, I had to care more about my relationship with God than I did about my reputation.

If your priority is your relationship with Christ, your actions will reflect your priorities (Matt 7:17).

Those who are being either indifferrent or critical of your behavior are subordinate to the One Who died for your sins.

That’s good news to the person who has a clear conscience, but it’s anything but encouraging to the one who has something to hide.

If you or the person you’re listening to defends their actions in a way that demonstrates a greater emphasis being put on their reputation than that of their King, there’s a good chance they’re being disobedient. Not necessarily in the context of an obvious sin, but a sin nevertheless in that if you’re making it easier for Satan to win, then you’re working against your Heavenly Father (Mk 9:38-40).

by

Daily Broadside | Restored! The Tomb of Nahum the Prophet

Daily Verse | Nahum 3:1
Woe to the city of blood,
    full of lies,
full of plunder,
    never without victims!

Monday’s Reading: Habakkuk 1-3

Monday and it’s the last week of September.

Today’s “Daily Verse” is from the book of Nahum, one of the twelve “minor” prophets. The “city of blood” referred to in 3:1 is ancient Nineveh, which is located just outside of modern-day Mosul, Iraq.

You may remember Mosul was captured by the Islamic State in 2014, taking control of Iraq’s second-largest city. The Islamists then gave Christians an ultimatum: leave the city, pay the jizya (a fee of protection) or die by the sword. They all fled, leaving no Christians in Mosul for the first time in the history of Iraq.

But Mosul was known for its murderous streets even before then. In April, 2010, while U.S. troops were still stationed in Iraq, I traveled to Erbil in Kurdistan-controlled northeastern Iraq as a member of a small Christian humanitarian relief organization. Erbil is about 50 miles east of Mosul.

Ancient Nineveh is mostly known because of the biblical prophet, Jonah, who was told by God to go and call the Assyrian capital city to repentance during the reign of king Ashurdan III (772–754 BC). He refused, and scripture tells us he spent three days in the belly of a great fish to help correct his attitude.

Turns out that the prophet Nahum also prophesied against Nineveh.

The fascinating thing that you may not know is that Nahum’s tomb is in the city of Alqosh, Iraq, about 30 miles north of Mosul. And that’s the small city we visited one day while I was in Iraq.

Nahum’s tomb was on the northern side of the city and was in severe disrepair. This is what it looked like when we stepped out of our car.

Photo: Dave Olsson, ©2010

In the background are the domes of a local Catholic church where the bones of the prophet were reportedly moved out of fear that the Jews who left the country in the 1950s would take his remains with them. Whether the bones were moved or not is still the subject of debate because no one dares violate the burial site.

But inside the crumbling edifice in the northern reaches of a Muslim majority country was something magnificent and, to me as an outsider from the West, shocking—ancient Hebrew text inscribed on the walls of the tomb.

Photo: Dave Olsson, ©2010
Photo: Dave Olsson, ©2010

And here is the actual burial site within the tomb, fenced off and covered by a green tarp. We never saw what the tarp covered.

Photo: Dave Olsson, ©2010

While I was there a gaggle of very young Arab boys were playing in the courtyard. One of them came up to me wearing headphones plugged into some kind of device. He smiled large and motioned for me to listen to what he was listening to, so I took his headset and placed it in my ears.

I’ll never forget how shocked I was—again—when I heard explicit American gangsta’ rap music. I was immediately embarrassed, thinking, “This is what we’re exporting?” The boy thought I’d be pleased to hear what he was listening to, but I just shook my head, disappointing the kid’s expectations that I’d find it awesome. How could I affirm that garbage?

We left not knowing what would happen to the tomb, grateful to have visited but assuming we’d never see it again and that it would be completely lost before long.

Remarkably, as I was researching this post, I came across an article from September 2021 in The Times of Israel called, “Saving Iraq’s Tomb of Nahum, a secret mission resurrects Kurdistan’s Jewish past.”

For decades, the people of Alqosh, members of the Chaldean Catholic Church, guarded a shrine once revered by local Jews as the final resting place of Nahum of Elkosh. But on that day, the structure that lay before them was crumbling around a caved-in roof.

“The walls and pillars were cracked and crumbling. It looked like the rest of the building would collapse at any minute,” recalled Adam Tiffen, an American entrepreneur and project manager who had visited the site a year earlier and was there that day with the Israelis.

[…]

But according to Tiffen, the tomb was special. It had for generations resisted being turned into a church or mosque, and more recently had also been spared by Islamic State, which had not been so kind to the nearby Nabi Younus Tomb, believed to be where the prophet Jonah is buried, or a shrine in Mosul that some revere as the final resting place of the biblical Daniel.

“The synagogue was a beautiful and tangible reminder of the connection of the Jewish people to the land and their coexistence in the region with the Christian, Yazidi and Muslim communities for over a millennium,” Tiffen said.

“Given the recent sectarian violence and attacks by ISIS on religious minorities like the Christians and Yezidis, we also saw the restoration as a symbol of hope and a reminder of the common history and belief that we all share,” he went on. “Jews, Christians and Muslims coexisted in the region for hundreds or thousands of years. Perhaps not perfectly, but with a level of tolerance and acceptance that should not be forgotten.”

The whole article is worth the read if for no other reason than to appreciate the preservation efforts of a site connected to a biblical figure. And the photos included are spectacular, including close ups of the work.

Here’s a comparison between my first photo above and one taken from almost the same spot following the restoration 11 years after I was there:

In a region beset by so much violence, destruction and bloodshed—true to the ancient reputation of Ninevah as recorded by Nahum—it’s refreshing to see what has become of this historic Jewish and Christian site.

by

Daily Broadside | It’s The End of The Year But Not The End of The Lunacy

Daily Verse | Revelation 16:18-19
Then there came flashes of lightning, rumblings, peals of thunder and a severe earthquake. No earthquake like it has ever occurred since man has been on earth, so tremendous was the quake. The great city split into three parts, and the cities of the nations collapsed.

Friday’s Reading: Revelation 17-19
Saturday’s Reading: Revelation 20-22

It’s Friday and the last day of 2021. I don’t know what 2022 holds, but I expect more of the same as 2021. We still have an illegitimate junta occupying the White House, our country is in economic shambles, the Chinese Lung Pox continues to thrive, China, Russia and Iran are threatening our safety, and creeping Marxism continues to solidify its grasp on the once-great institutions that held our nation together.

It’s not looking good.

That’s why starting each year with a focus on God and his revealed Word is essential to maintaining my sanity and reminding me of what truly matters. When the world burns—and it will—the only thing that remains stable and sure is the eternal God and his Son, Jesus Christ, who “is the same yesterday and today and forever” (Hebrews 13:8).

One of the things I started doing this year was adding a “Daily Verse” to the top of every post, and then I started adding the day’s full reading, too. I plan to keep up that practice in 2022, and I invite you to join me in reading through the Bible next year.

Below is the updated Bible reading plan, which runs six days a week, taking you cover-to-cover over the course of the year. If you’ve never done it, I strongly encourage you to do so. Even if you’re not a Christ-following believer, but are curious about the Bible, you’ve got nothing to lose and everything to gain by reading through it.

Part of what motivates me to read through the Bible (again and again) is that it is the source of what I say I believe. To say I believe what it tells me but not to know what it says is irrational. Plus, I don’t want to stand before the Lord someday and try to explain why I wasn’t regularly familiarizing myself with his written Word and letting it guide my thoughts and actions.

So, without further fanfare, here’s 2022’s One-Year Bible Reading Plan, developed by yours truly. It starts on Monday, January 3, and finishes on Saturday, December 31. Print it out (you don’t have to print the calendar on the second page to use the plan, but I included it since having a calendar handy is sometimes helpful) and have it ready to start on Monday.

BibleReader_C2C2022Download

As we pull the curtain on 2021, thank you for reading the blog this year. I sincerely appreciate the kind words, the questions and the comments you sometimes leave for me. My goal is to bring you the latest developments of any consequence in faith, culture and politics, and offer my (admittedly partisan) view on them.

I wish you all a very Happy New Year and look forward to continuing the conversation.

Blessings. Have a good weekend.

by

Don’t Judge!

“Don’t judge!” is a statement that’s heard fairly often when the issue being discussed is a person’s moral behavior. If the individual in question is acting in a manner that violates a Biblical Absolute, however obvious the discrepancy may be, it is trumped with the “Don’t judge” card and the conversation is supposedly concluded.

If the response is challenged, the person saying that they shouldn’t be judged will say that it says in the Bible you’re not supposed to judge and, whether they know it or not, they’re referring to Matthew 7:

1 “Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. 3 “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4 How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye. (Matthew 7:1-5 [see also Rom 2:1-29])

But here’s the thing: There’s far more content in this passage than what is reflected by the supposed synopsis represented by the statement, “Don’t judge!” If you stop there, then the end result is a situation where there is no distinguishing between right and wrong, justice goes out the window because there is no crime and there is no difference between that which is honorable and that which is criminal.

But what happens when you take a look at Matthew 7:1-5 the way a reporter might look at it?

  • Who is Jesus talking to?
  • What is He telling them?
  • How does it apply to you and me?

Chances are there’s more to what Christ was saying when you consider those dynamics, yes?

Let’s take a look…

Who Is Jesus Talking To?

Matthew 7 is part of the Sermon on the Mount which begins in chapter 5. In Matthew 5:1, it says that by this point Jesus was well known and crowds would often gather to hear Him teach (see Matt 4:25). He was a dynamic teacher and that coupled with the fact that He was capable of healing people with incurable diseases made Him a phenomenon that drew large groups of people wherever He went.

The makeup of the crowd was primarily Jewish which can be inferred from the geography of the situation. After Christ was tempted, you see Him frequenting the area around the Sea of Galilee where He selected some of His disciples. In Matthew 4:23, it says that He preached and taught throughout Galilee, although His fame spread as far north as Syria and the Decapolis (a group of 10 cities area south of Galilee and east of the Jordan River).

The composition of the crowd is significant because in Matthew 9:36, it says that Jesus was filled with compassion when He looked over the crowds because, in addition to the obvious physical needs, He saw a group of people that were spiritually haggard. Matthew Henry in his commentary elaborates on this:

They wanted help for their souls, and had none at hand that was good for any thing. The scribes and Pharisees filled them with vain notions, burthened them with the traditions of the elders, deluded them into many mistakes, while they were not instructed in their duty, nor acquainted with the extent and spiritual nature of the divine law; therefore they fainted; for what spiritual health, and life, and vigour can there be in those souls, that are fed with husks and ashes, instead of the bread of life? (Matthew Henry Commentary [Matt 9:36])

The Jews that gathered to hear Jesus speak were living in a culture that was constantly reminding them of not being able to live up to the standard of God’s Law. The Pharisees were especially adamant and relentless when it came to telling the people that they were way south of the standard that God expected them to live up to. And what made that so heinous was the fact that the Pharisees themselves were hypocrites in that they were unable to live up to the standard that they were using as a basis to condemn others.

What Is Jesus telling them?

When Christ taught, while He taught on a great many things, the centerpiece of His Message was the idea of a new approach to God that was infinitely easier than what man had access to at that time (see Matt 11:30). The Hebrews that Jesus spoke to were aware of a Promise that had been articulated by the prophets centuries earlier, but were unaware of what that Promise would look like. While they were conscious of some specifics, by the time Jesus arrived on the scene, the presence of the Romans coupled with the previous centuries of foreign oppression had most Hebrews looking for a military figure that would overthrow the current government.

But God had something much bigger in mind.

The Promise of the Messiah provided deliverance from the power of sin and the way in which it governed the lives and destinies of men.

“This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time,” declares the Lord. “I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. 34No longer will a man teach his neighbor, or a man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest,” declares the Lord. “For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more.” (Jer 31:33-34)

When Jesus taught, He used Old Testament verbiage in order to communicate to the Jews the substance of what He was saying. When He said that His yoke was easy and that you would find rest for your souls in Matthew 11:28-30, the Jews heard Jeremiah 6:16. In that moment, they were processing Christ’s platform, not as a poetic collection of words, they heard Jesus stating His being the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy!

This “new covenant” was referenced by Jesus at the Last Supper when He presided over the Passover Ceremony and referred to the cup as the “new covenant in my blood (see Luke 22:20).” What He was saying was that His death and subsequent resurrection would atone for the sins of all mankind and thereby forever eliminate the barrier that would otherwise remain in place – a barrier that was only temporarily removed through the old sacrificial system.

It was in the context of this old system that the Pharisees were forever pointing fingers and accusing their communities of wrongdoing while they were guilty of the very same things. And it was this kind hypocrisy that Jesus was addressing in Matthew 7.

But while the Pharisees were guilty of hypocrisy in the way they indicted others for moral infractions that they were guilty of themselves, it wasn’t only the Pharisees that needed to hear Christ’s counsel. We all need to remember that while we are admonished to graciously confront those who are doing wrong, we need to ensure that our corrections are credible by not having to veil the fact that we’re doing the very thing we’re trying to tell someone they shouldn’t be doing.

That’s the first qualifier: Don’t be a hypocrite.

The second thing that He is saying is more easily recognizable when you look at way “The Message” renders the same passage:

Don’t pick on people, jump on their failures, criticize their faults— unless, of course, you want the same treatment. That critical spirit has a way of boomeranging. It’s easy to see a smudge on your neighbor’s face and be oblivious to the ugly sneer on your own. Do you have the nerve to say, ‘Let me wash your face for you,’ when your own face is distorted by contempt? It’s this whole traveling road- show mentality all over again, playing a holier-than-thou part instead of just living your part. Wipe that ugly sneer off your own face, and you might be fit to offer a washcloth to your neighbor. (Matthew 7:1-5 [The Message])

In addition to the issue of hypocrisy is the issue of your tone. Eugene Peterson refers to it as a “critical spirit.”

You see the same thing being addressed in Romans 14:10-12:

So where does that leave you when you criticize a brother? And where does that leave you when you condescend to a sister? I’d say it leaves you looking pretty silly—or worse. Eventually, we’re all going to end up kneeling side by side in the place of judgment, facing God. Your critical and condescending ways aren’t going to improve your position there one bit. Read it for yourself in Scripture:  “As I live and breathe,” God says, “every knee will bow before me; Every tongue will tell the honest truth that I and only I am God.” So tend to your knitting. You’ve got your hands full just taking care of your own life before God. (Romans 14:10-12 [The Message])

The bottom line is that we’re all going to be evaluated by God Himself and at that point, no one will be revealed as blameless. So for anyone to have an attitude that says, “I’ve got it all together and the rest of y’all are just trying to catch up!” is neither appropriate let alone accurate.

How Does This Apply to You and Me?

As has already been alluded to, what Jesus was telling His audience applies to you and me as well. Don’t be hypocritical and don’t be a condescending jerk. Both of those dynamics create tension that distracts from the resolution that needs to be pursued. In addition, they also reflect poorly on the God you supposedly represent (see Matt 5:16; Jn 13:34-35).

But here’s the thing: While Jesus is saying to avoid hypocrisy and a foul attitude, He is not saying to refrain from being discerning when it comes to distinguishing the difference between right and wrong.

For example, take Luke 17:3 where it says:

“If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him.” (Luke 17:3)

In order for your brother’s conduct to register as sin, you have to define it as such. Jesus elaborates on the importance of confronting your brother where his sin is concerned in Matthew 18:15. What’s significant about that text is the fact that it follows the parable of the lost sheep. What’s being communicated here and throughout the Bible is that when you confront someone about something they’ve done wrong, the goal is to encourage them in a way that gets them back on track. Merely condemning their behavior, while that may be necessary, is short of what God wants and expects. Being critical is not necessarily helpful and that’s what Christ is targeting with His comments in Matthew 7. Rebuking someone is ultimately part of a process that is to culminate in that person repenting, avoiding all of the fallout from what their behavior would otherwise have precipitated, and getting on with a morally solid lifestyle.

In other words, the idea is to help and not harm.

That’s why it’s important to follow the steps the Jesus enumerates in Matthew 18 as far as going to your brother privately first, and then with a couple of witnesses and then finally you bring him before the church. At each step, the intervention that is occurring is done in a way that fosters a positive response.

Some won’t listen and will be antagonistic no matter how gracious you may be. It’s then when you have to determine whether or not your brother is open to the Truth and if not, Matthew 7:6 instructs you to not throw your pearls to swine who can’t appreciate it. But that doesn’t mean you give up, you just switch tactics.

You see that illustrated in First Corinthians 5 where the Corinthian church is instructed by Paul to expel a particular believer from the church because of his immoral conduct. It’s not unreasonable to imagine this individual accused the church of being “judgmental,” but this scenario demonstrates the very thing we’re discussing as far as Christ’s instructions in Matthew 7 were never intended to be interpreted as a command to not judge.

You have to judge as part of the process that corrects wrong behavior. In First Corinthians 5, the person is being kicked out of the church because of their apparent refusal to cease their immoral conduct. In Second Corinthians 2:5-11, you see Paul counseling the same church to reaffirm their love for a person who’s been recently disciplined. It may very well be the same person that was documented in First Corinthians 5. But regardless, it shows that wrongful behavior is to be identified and the guilty party is to be disciplined, but always with the goal of restoring that person to a place where they’re honoring God and by so doing, avoiding all of the hurt and damage that goes along with bad behavior.

The Bottom Line – Reprove and Improve

Judging a person is both necessary and helpful when done in a truly Biblical way. The difference between the kind of judging that Jesus refers to in Matthew 7 and the judging that culminated in the happy ending in 2 Corinthians 2 is accomplished by avoiding hypocrisy and maintaining a Christ like attitude.

There’s a word that captures the kind of judging that brings about a good result. That result is “reprove.” You see in 2 Timothy 4:2:

Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long suffering and doctrine. 2 Tim 4:2 [KJV])

Merriam-Webster defines “reprove” as “to scold or correct usually gently or with kindly intent.” So the motivation behind a reproof is to improve the condition of the person you’re talking to.

The definition of, “reprove” is “to scold or correct usually gently or with kindly intent.” It’s significant that you find the word “reprove” throughout Scripture and the liberality with which it is used further reinforces the need to correct and the and the necessary approach in order to ensure that the correction lands in a good place.

Consider another place where the word “reprove” is used in Ephesians 5:11:

And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them. (Eph 5:11)

Look at Matthew Henry’s Commentary on this verse:

There are many ways of our being accessary to the sins of others, by commendation, counsel, consent, or concealment. And, if we share with others in their sin, we must expect to share with them in their plagues. Nay, if we thus have fellowship with them, we shall be in the utmost danger of acting as they do ere long. But, rather than have fellowship with them, we must reprove them, implying that if we do not reprove the sins of others we have fellowship with them. We must prudently and in our places witness against the sins of others, and endeavour to convince them of their sinfulness, when we can do it seasonably and pertinently, in our words; but especially by the holiness of our lives, and a religious conversation. Reprove their sins by abounding in the contrary duties.(Matthew Henry Commentary on Ephesians 5:11)

The first highlighted sentence shows how you actually add to the problem by condemning them, as in the kind of judging we’ve been looking at in Matthew 7. Counseling, consent and concealment can all conceivably fit beneath the heading of “fellowship,” so you don’t want to go there either. You don’t want to have any part of those things that brings somebody down, rather you want to “reprove” them effectively by first off ensuring that our own behavior is devoid of the discrepancy we’re pointing out and then address our audience in a way that makes it clear that our priority is their welfare.

Look at Galatians 6:1:

Brothers, if anyone is caught in any transgression, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness. (Gal 6:1 [ESV])

11 Brothers, do not slander one another. Anyone who speaks against his brother or judges him speaks against the law and judges it. When you judge the law, you are not keeping it, but sitting in judgment on it. 12 There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the one who is able to save and destroy. But you— who are you to judge your neighbor? (Jas 4:11-12)

In order to restore somebody, you first need to establish that they need to be restored which inevitably is going to involve telling them that they’re wrong in what they’re doing. It’s not being judgmental, like what Christ elaborated on in Matthew 7, provided you’re not guilty of hypocrisy or an inappropriately critical attitude.

It’s much like seeing a friend yours driving down the road doing 90 in a 35. You call them on their cell phone and you tell them, “Be careful! You’re speeding and somebody might get hurt.” That works! What doesn’t work is when you call them on their cell as you’re speeding past them telling them they shouldn’t speed and you’re going to give them a ticket.

First off, you’re not the one to give them a ticket, which is the dynamic being referred to in James 4:11- 12. The fact that you’re actually faster than they are, as you’re telling them they should slow down, is the hypocrisy piece referred to by Jesus in Matthew 7:4-5. Should your tone of voice be condescending and overly critical, that’s the nonsense Paul talks about in Romans 14:10-11.

So don’t judge in the context of being hypocritical or posing as the Magistrate that issues the actual ticket. But do embrace those opportunities that God gives you to come alongside someone and help them recognize the error of their ways.

Look at James 5:20:

20 remember this: Whoever turns a sinner from the error of his way will save him from death and cover over a multitude of sins. (Jas 5:20)

That’s what we’re going for: The wellbeing of the person we’re correcting, both in a temporary and an eternal sense.

So do judge (Jn 7:24), as far as exercising your God given responsibility to look out for the welfare of others, but don’t judge in a way that comes across as hypocritical and condescending. And remember that your goal is to draw them closer to Christ, not to merely point out the error of their ways. By making that your starting point and your goal, you are then offering a reproof rather than what is perceived as a condemnation and that reflects well both on you and the One you serve.