What Do We Like About Jonah That We Don't Like About Manasseh?

An important quadrennial event occurred January 20, 2017--Donald Trump's inauguration as another president.  But a much bigger anniversary--I should say "murderversary" is being ignored on that date.  It is the 44th year of murdering babies in the womb via Roe v. Wade.

I want to tell you a Bible story that will illustrate how God feels about abortion. Consider this: America has really not retracted one bit from the disastrous Roe v Wade decision, but we are actually becoming blase about the terrible status quo. And by status quo, I mean we still allow about one million babies to be killed in the womb in the U.S. every year. We tinker with abortion by not allowing it later, etc, restricting it a bit, but we’re still not anywhere close to shutting it down. I read about how Asians around the world are still memorializing the 2004 earthquake and tsunami that killed 228,000 people. An astounding number. If you do 260 more just like it, you finally get close to the number of babies murdered through abortion in the U.S. since Roe (1973) was enacted, through today. That’s 60 million little lives lost. Where is our sorrow?

Our story begins with how evil the ancient Canaanites were (you can read about them in the book of Genesis, Joshua, and several more chronologically).  One of their worship  practices was called the teraphim. Teraphim is ancestor-worship. When they wanted to zealously follow it, they would take the first-born male of their family and cut off his head! (Yes, he was perfectly healthy when they decided to do that).  The hair of the head would be removed, and then the head would be salted and oiled, thus preserving the son's features. The dessicated head was supposed to retain contact with the departed spirit. So, with the proper ritual, the head could serve as a conduit to the spirit world, passing information between a family and their ancestor gods. The book of Jasher (a reliable book, mentioned in Joshua 10:13) records the following steps:

…taking a small tablet of copper…and writing the name upon it (ed., of the person you desire to contact), and placing the tablet under his tongue and putting the skull in the house, and lighting up lights before it and bowing down to it. And at the time when they bow down to it, it spoke to them in all matters that they ask of it…

This, by the way, changed my opinion of ancestor worship, from bad to worse. This is demonology. It also strengthens my understanding of why God would initiate such a severe judgment on the Canaanites—He is a holy God, and never tolerates killing the innocents without passing severe judgment.

Let’s take another look at another unspeakable “religious” practice of the Canaanites—this is where Ahab, a Jewish king, was involved. Ahab's only notorious claim to fame  is that his wife was Jezebel. But he has his own tale of evil. He adopted many religious practices from the Canaanites. The Canaanites were so evil that God told Israel to attack them and not leave a single soul breathing. That may seem unjust--but look at the last paragraph for the reason why.  And here's their second horrible offense:  killing children as a sacrifice offering. This was in honor of the god Molech, a god of Baal. This is where Ahab got involved.  Here is II Chronicles 28:3 about his “religious” worship:

He (Ahab) burned incense in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, and burned his children in the fire, according to the abominations of the nations whom the LORD had cast out before the children of Israel.

This horrific act seems beyond understanding. Why did Ahab do it? Well, maybe it was due to some other sexual “benefits” of Baal and Molech worship that might outweigh losing a son. (It helped if you had many wives and many sons; the pain of losing one was lessened). The religion, after all, included sex rituals. Such as, would you believe, sodomy and prostitution in religious liturgy, and adultery with swapping wives and fornication with other men’s virgin daughters.

Unfortunately a later Jewish king, Manasseh, did the same shocking thing. But he did even worse: he promoted it among the people! Many Israelites followed his lead. From II Kings 21:11:

“Because Manasseh king of Judah has done these abominations (he has acted more wickedly than all the Amorites who were before him, and has also made Judah sin with his idols)...

More on Manasseh’s sin, II Chronicles 33:2-3, 6-7:

But he did evil in the sight of the LORD, according to the abominations of the nations whom the LORD had cast out before the children of Israel. 3 For he rebuilt the high places which Hezekiah his father had broken down; he raised up altars for the Baals, and made wooden images; and he worshiped all the host of heaven and served them...6 Also he caused his sons to pass through the fire in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom; he practiced soothsaying, used witchcraft and sorcery, and consulted mediums and spiritists. He did much evil in the sight of the LORD, to provoke Him to anger. 7 He even set a carved image, the idol which he had made, in the house of God…

Unbelievable that he would do this in God’s house. God is also totally against mediums and spiritists, as you see in Deuteronomy 18:9-14:

“When you come into the land which the LORD your God is giving you, you shall not learn to follow the abominations of those nations. 10 There shall not be found among you anyone who makes his son or his daughter pass through the fire, or one who practices witchcraft, or a soothsayer, or one who interprets omens, or a sorcerer, 11 or one who conjures spells, or a medium, or a spiritist, or one who calls up the dead. 12 For all who do these things are an abomination to the LORD, and because of these abominations the LORD your God drives them out from before you. 13 You shall be blameless before the LORD your God. 14 For these nations which you will dispossess listened to soothsayers and diviners; but as for you, the LORD your God has not appointed such for you.

As you can see, making your children “pass through the fire,” a sacrifice murder of your own child (similar to abortion, my main point), was mentioned as early as Deuteronomy. This practice, and God’s hatred of it, had been known a long time. So these two kings, Ahab and Manasseh, were in direct violation of a plain command of God.

But let’s get back to our story. Manasseh’s sin (promoting it to the people, and doing it in God's house) was so great in the eyes of God that He promised His anger could not be quenched. The sad words are in II Kings 21:12-15, right next to verses above:

… therefore thus says the LORD God of Israel: ‘Behold, I am bringing such calamity upon Jerusalem and Judah, that whoever hears of it, both his ears will tingle. 13 … I will wipe Jerusalem as one wipes a dish, wiping it and turning it upside down. 14 So I will forsake the remnant of My inheritance and deliver them into the hand of their enemies; and they shall become victims of plunder to all their enemies, 15 because they have done evil in My sight, and have provoked Me to anger since the day their fathers came out of Egypt, even to this day.’”

What was Manasseh’s specific sin that deserved such extreme judgment? In the next verse:

Moreover Manasseh shed very much innocent blood, till he had filled Jerusalem from one end to another, besides his sin by which he made Judah sin, in doing evil in the sight of the LORD.

It was the innocent blood. Blood of little children. "From one end" of Jerusalem "to another" meant lots of people followed his lead. Now Jesus loves little children. How was Manasseh’s sin greater than Ahab, so that Ahab wasn’t threatened with this ultimate calamity? I suspect because, as the verse above says, “by which he (Manasseh) made Judah sin.” He publicized it, and lots of people followed. So the murder of the innocents was that much greater. (But I suspect it doesn’t total America’s sin thus far, 60 million souls!)

Now you expect judgment, and--perchance, if there is repentance, God is OK again, right? Well, now you’re going to see a part of God you don’t want to see.

We’ve all heard about how Jonah, after being burped out of a big fish, preached to the vicious Assyrians, you heard about their repentance—and how God changed His mind of His promise of judgment on them and rolled it back. Great story about God’s mercy. Yes, we’ve all heard of the Jonah story, and there are many kids’ books about it. But did you know that Manasseh repented, and had a great reformation? Have you ever heard what happened after that? Doubtful. Well, did you ever hear about how his grandson Josiah had the greatest revival in human history? What, you’ve never heard that one either? Not surprising, considering God’s reaction to this wonderful repentance is “unexpected.” Let me warn you:  We all just need to know more about God. We have imagined His mercy is unending— but for a nation, that might not be a true image. Kind of important since He has the keys to every nation's judgment.

First, Manasseh’s judgment and repentance. From II Chronicles 33:11-16:

And the LORD spoke to Manasseh and his people, but they would not listen.11 Therefore the LORD brought upon them the captains of the army of the king of Assyria, who took Manasseh with hooks, bound him with bronze fetters, and carried him off to Babylon. 12 Now when he was in affliction, he implored the LORD his God, and humbled himself greatly before the God of his fathers, 13 and prayed to Him; and He received his entreaty, heard his supplication, and brought him back to Jerusalem into his kingdom. Then Manasseh knew that the LORD was God. 14 After this he (Manasseh)…took away the foreign gods and the idol from the house of the LORD, and all the altars that he had built in the mount of the house of the LORD and in Jerusalem; and he cast them out of the city. 16 He also repaired the altar of the LORD, sacrificed peace offerings and thank offerings on it, and commanded Judah to serve the LORD God of Israel.

So, you say, the land was forgiven, right? Jerusalem was saved, right? Uh, no…He died right after that. Then there was a short reign of his son, who was killed. Then his grandson Josiah comes to power. During his reign, the priests find the buried Book of the Law, blew the dust off, and read it to him. He tore his clothes in distress, and urged his aides to seek a prophetess (not the same as a medium, this person was touched by God and had a 100% rate of prophecies that came true). II Kings 22:13 records Josiah's great words:

“Go, inquire of the LORD for me, for the people and for all Judah, concerning the words of this book that has been found; for great is the wrath of the LORD that is aroused against us, because our fathers have not obeyed the words of this book, to do according to all that is written concerning us.”

Later, he does a “clean-up” operation like his grandfather, only better; and this is what joyous Scriptures record, from II Kings 23:1-10:

Now the king (Josiah) sent them to gather all the elders of Judah and Jerusalem to him. 2 The king went up to the house of the LORD with all the men of Judah, and with him all the inhabitants of Jerusalem—the priests and the prophets and all the people, both small and great. And he read in their hearing all the words of the Book of the Covenant which had been found in the house of the LORD. 3 Then the king stood by a pillar and made a covenant before the LORD, to follow the LORD and to keep His commandments and His testimonies and His statutes, with all his heart and all his soul, to perform the words of this covenant that were written in this book. And all the people took a stand for the covenant.4 And the king commanded Hilkiah the high priest, the priests of the second order, and the doorkeepers, to bring out of the temple of the LORD all the articles that were made for Baal, for Asherah, and for all the host of heaven; and he burned them outside Jerusalem in the fields of Kidron, and carried their ashes to Bethel. 5 Then he removed the idolatrous priests whom the kings of Judah had ordained to burn incense on the high places in the cities of Judah and in the places all around Jerusalem, and those who burned incense to Baal, to the sun, to the moon, to the constellations, and to all the host of heaven.6 And he brought out the wooden image from the house of the LORD, to the Brook Kidron outside Jerusalem, burned it at the Brook Kidron and ground it to ashes, and threw its ashes on the graves of the common people. 7 Then he tore down the ritual booths of the perverted persons[d] that were in the house of the LORD, where the women wove hangings for the wooden image. 8 And he brought all the priests from the cities of Judah, and defiled the high places where the priests had burned incense, from Geba to Beersheba; also he broke down the high places at the gates which were at the entrance of the Gate of Joshua the governor of the city, which were to the left of the city gate… 10 And he defiled Topheth, which is in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, that no man might make his son or his daughter pass through the fire to Molech.

The “high places,” in case you’re wondering, based on other Scriptures, seem to be where the religious prostitutes were. He eliminated those. He executed the priests of the high places, by the way. And he removed those who consulted mediums and spiritists. Josiah goes farther than his repentant grandfather, because and he goes out of his way to defile the worship places of false gods—and because he gets the populace involved with making a covenant to God. The main thing is that he stopped the sacrifice killing of children.

He goes even further yet. In honor of religious holidays that he’d just heard about, he institutes a Passover festival (memorializing God’s miracles which saved them from Egypt). We read this joyous event in II Chronicles 35:18:

There had been no Passover kept in Israel like that since the days of Samuel the prophet; and none of the kings of Israel had kept such a Passover as Josiah kept, with the priests and the Levites, all Judah and Israel who were present, and the inhabitants of Jerusalem.

All in all, he was praised as a wonderful king—he gets higher praise than King David. Think about that! From II Kings 23:25:

Now before him there was no king like him, who turned to the LORD with all his heart, with all his soul, and with all his might, according to all the Law of Moses; nor after him did any arise like him.

So, you say, God forgave the land, right? Jerusalem was saved, right? If God could give the vicious Assyrians a break with Jonah, He could give His favorites, the “apple of His eye,” a break, right? Uh….no. Only five verses after the great Passover festival, only four verses after the verses recording the reformation above, Josiah was simply…dead. Explanation? From II Kings 23:26:

Nevertheless the LORD did not turn from the fierceness of His great wrath, with which His anger was aroused against Judah, because of all the provocations with which Manasseh had provoked Him.

So, great reformation and the greatest revival in history could not bring forgiveness. I remind you, what were the “provocations” that were unable to save Jerusalem? Killing the innocents.

Immediately after Josiah, it turns out that the Israeli kings, and soon the land, too, are in the hand of their enemies. You can see why this story is not in kids’ books, and not well-known. We don’t like stories with a bad ending. But kill the innocent—and your country gets a bad ending. Shouldn’t we expect the same for the U.S.--or even worse, since we have not even repented? A country who seems to lack the spiritual power to slow down or stop the status quo of killing a million innocents a year?

Now if any of my readers out there had an abortion, or encouraged one, that's a different subject than a country. We’re talking about your individual soul. You will have different consequences than Israel if you repent. Murder will, indeed, get you to hell—unless you repent and begin living your life for Christ, who came to die to pay for your sin. Become a “living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God,” as Romans 12:1 puts it. It’s never too late to confess and begin to have guilt-free living.

Acknowledgement: Ancient Paganism, Ken Johnson

Let's Re-Introduce Proper Church Discipline

In the area of church discipline, here’s where we are now: If your church is evangelistic, you're probably too careful about not offending people, you want them to hang around and get saved--so you won't exercise any church discipline, unless it’s to quietly reprimand the offender to make them uncomfortable, and hopefully they leave the church.  Let's say a guy is known as living with a woman, and they show up together Sunday morning, week after week (definitely a need for church action), many churches won’t do a thing, on the grounds of not offending them.   In some evangelical churches, many times the only real "church discipline" might occur if you question the pastor’s authority, or point out where Scripture seems to differ from what is being taught.  That person might indeed get the left foot of fellowship.

A few churches take an opposite approach. If they do exercise serious discipline, like shunning, they go overboard on applying it too much; the cults are big at this. My point is, seldom are the Scripture's rules on church discipline used as a guideline any more—which is too bad, since the rules are laid out there in detail and are easily understandable--and are meant to keep a healthy church, free of unsaved people who sneak in and destroy God's local light of evangelism and fellowship.

So, let’s take a look at what churches should be doing, by looking at Scripture. There are graduating steps. First, let’s say you, a regular churchgoer, have a problem with another person at church; they are definitely doing something to harm you. Let’s say you confronted them, exhorted them, but their only reaction was feeling victimized--or they ignore you. If you are close to the Lord, you know their sin hurts them and the church you both attend, so something has to be done. The next step, in most cases will be in Matthew 18:15-16:

“Moreover if your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have gained your brother. 16 But if he will not hear, take with you one or two more, that ‘by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.’

The church is an interested party if anger and bitterness among its members have negatively affected its evangelistic light. (We'll assume when they became members, they knew about this brand of accountability being expected, being spelled out in church bylaws.  Of course, they might not be members, which changes the rules).  The church's role in this situation is to provide objective witnesses trying to get at the truth, and render solid advice to repair relationships.  But--in today’s society, if you tell one of the offenders that you’re bringing a couple witnesses to listen and talk to him, it’s unlikely that he will even meet with you. But bringing witnesses are necessary—they are important for validating what was said, critical in later steps below. (By the way, though I'm using male pronouns, all these rules work for women too). Let’s say he does meet with you and the witnesses (which are, hopefully, not just your friends at church).  But, in the end, he still won’t agree with you. Then it’s time for step 2, in Matthew 18:17a:

And if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the church.

This means telling the senior pastor or counseling person. They will need to check out your story by asking you, and him, and maybe a couple others some questions. Getting the church administration involved could be a big step. Do you have mature people in leadership who will follow the Scripture’s discipline rules? Hopefully. Then there is another problem: Your problem person might react like the church is “ganging up” on him, and just mentally make himself the victim—so it may make him even less likely to repent. On the other hand, if he’s got a long history with the church, his next step could be to round up his church friends, make everything “your side vs my side,” and may even split the church. If all this goes in a godly direction depends on whether most church members choose to follow Scripture--or do they follow charismatic personality instead, even if that person is hurting the church?

So here’s what SHOULD happen next if the church leaders feel you have a genuine case, have checked out all the facts, and have the courage to actually do church discipline—I Timothy 5:20:

Those who are sinning rebuke in the presence of all, that the rest also may fear.

Wow, a public rebuke. Scripture doesn't list what sins are serious enough to get into this stage of treatment; it’s the elders’ call. They shouldn’t shirk from it, since God may want to “prune” His disobedient church member (John 15:1-6) to make him better, and the pastor has proper authority, by Scripture, to do a public rebuke to a member. Keep in mind, I remind you, that it is all done in love, with the goal of bringing this person to repentance and reconciliation. It has a side benefit, as stated above: “the rest also may fear.” (I have a blog on the benefits of a fear of God; there are many, many Scriptures that speak of it.) Ideally, in the public event, the offender, who has been told, is present. If he is not there, do it anyway.  I know this sounds contrarian, but the reprimand should seek to make sure as many church members as possible are there, too. If everyone hears all the details of the case and the reprimand, there will be fewer rumors and lies that fester and grow into division later.

Most church members today would really be shocked and anxious when they hear about such an upcoming public rebuke, it's so rare it happens anymore, so the pastor has to prepare them Scripturally beforehand. Some of the regular attendees will leave the church as soon as they hear about the public rebuke, and some will leave after, since the church no longer served their purpose as the comfy place where they can relax and do whatever they want, sin as much as they want, without accountability. Don't worry about losing such members.

This public rebuking was done in the earliest days of the Church—and we’re not talking about Salem, or The Inquisition here. We’re talking about the Acts 2-5 church, the most powerful, Spirit-infused church in history—so the public rebuke wasn’t harmful to church evangelism of the Gospel—I believe it was part of the reason why they were the most effective church in history. So, you may lose some weaker members—this may not be bad. As Gideon proved, you can accomplish more for Him by obeying His difficult Word—in this case, properly exercising church discipline--even though you’re now operating with fewer in number. Accomplishing more for God--that is what you want, right? Not just a puffed-up membership number.

Well, the disobedient one may not show up for “the reprimand,” or even if he shows up, maybe his heart is hardened and he will not change his mind. Now what do you do, as a church? Matthew 18:17b shows us the next step:

But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector.

What does that mean, “let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector.” Well, don’t just assume this means “shunning.” Yes, you’ll find that in the Old Testament, where the Pharisees ruled.  But, why do we care about how the Pharisees thought, since Jesus condemned them? We're under a new covenant, the New Testament, which has our instructions.  Instead, let's look at how Jesus treated the heathens and tax collectors. (The tax collectors were Jews who collected taxes for Rome. Some cheated on the books and made themselves rich. Not a beloved crew).There are plenty of verses on this. Consider Mark 2:16-17:

And when the scribes and Pharisees saw Him eating with the tax collectors and sinners, they said to His disciples, “How is it that He eats and drinks with tax collectors and sinners?” 17 When Jesus heard it, He said to them, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance.”

As an explanation of the phrase "I did not come to call the righteous," Jesus is not saying the Pharisees are righteous; it’s more like self-righteous, and “those who are well” really means “well in your own eyes.” These are the proper definitions of the Greek--and thus we see His sarcasm of the Pharisees. The point is, He had no problem socially mingling with the sinners and tax collectors—in fact, it was one of the charges against Him at His trial. He did good things with the Gentiles (non-Jews), as well--such as the Roman centurion and the Samaritan woman. The Jews normally refused to even speak to Samaritans. He also went into their homes. More fascinating reading is Luke 19:5-7, the story of Zacchaeus, a Jewish tax collector:

And when Jesus came to the place, He looked up and saw him, and said to him, “Zacchaeus, make haste and come down, for today I must stay at your house.” 6 So he made haste and came down, and received Him joyfully. 7 But when they saw it, they all complained, saying, “He has gone to be a guest with a man who is a sinner.”

Note that in later verses, Zacchaeus believes in Jesus and performs righteous acts of large amounts of alms for the poor and people he had offended. So Jesus' testimony was effective. Even though he was a known sinner, and might have even stolen from his Jewish brothers, Jesus just wanted to save souls, and this man had a sincere salvation experience.  The best place to evangelize is among people who are humbled and low in life, unloved by the masses.

Well, then, did all this carrying on with the obscure sinful folk mean that Jesus winked at sin, and caroused with sinners? Not at all; Jesus wanted to bring salvation to as many people as He could. Sometimes people are reached through hard rebuke—Jesus did those at other times. Other times, it was by love—such as with Zacchaeus.

To fully understand Matthew 18:17b, we're not suggesting shunning these people.  To give you a little more history: Jesus knew that no “sinner” or Gentile or tax collector could ever be a member of a synagogue. They were denied sacred ritual. This in itself was a serious disciplinary rebuke. In the same way today, I’m saying, after a public rebuke, the unrepentant sinner should not be allowed Communion, or the Lord’s Supper, which is, after all, a channel of grace—thus he is “ex-communicated.” (Ex-communication, for several hundred years, was a fearful situation to be in, and was often used as a weapon to get people to toe the "proper" doctrinal line.) Communion was so important to the early Church that it was celebrated weekly—even daily, for some. They were so strict on this, that in the case of a serious sin, even if a person were repentant, the early church might still keep him in ex-communication for awhile longer to test out the sincerity of his repentance.  In those early days, if you denied Christ under persecution, let’s say, then later wanted to repent and rejoin the church, you could still be denied Communion for ten years. I remind you, this delay of reinstatement had to do with really serious sins. The sinner needed to be reminded of the gravity of his sin, and the church wanted to know if he is really serious in his repentance.

Ex-communication doesn't have the effect on people that it once did, but it still should be used.  It could still be advised for a lesser sin, after public rebuke has failed to work.  An unrepentant sinner might be denied Communion for that week, until he repents.  Considering the stubbornness of some, he may never have Communion again. In the middle ages, that was enough for him to feel that he lost his salvation. Now its importance is casually ignored.  We will pay the price for being casual about adult baptism and Communion; they are important instruments of maintaining salvation.

Getting back to the present subject, the unrepentant sinner is also not a “member in good standing,” either-- which means he can go to meetings, listen to the sermon, but gets escorted out or ignored in the passing of the Lord's supper. He certainly cannot be a speaker, or voter. But here’s what separates Scripture from cults: at this level, for unrepentant sinners, based on what Jesus did above for Zacchaeus, and others, it’s OK for regular members to socially get together with them. You're not at the shunning stage yet.  But, in your getting together with them, still carry a good testimony; the real goal is that your goodlnes gently nudge them to reconciliation.  And this could mean his salvation.  After all, if the sin involves his unmerciful attitude, or unwillingness to forgive, he could be unsaved just because of that. Consider Matthew 6:15:

…if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.

A word of warning here:  we cannot say out loud that someone has lost his salvation, because Scripture says we often can’t tell the wheat from the tares (Matthew 13:29, 30).

So Scripture teaches a delicate mix (shunning them from the sacred ritual, but not shunning them from church society). This is what God decided through Scripture to handle this situation at this point.

I want to remind you: The pastor who refuses to wade deep into discipline is not a friend of the flock. After all, if he backs off, he has treated Scripture lightly, besides turning his head on evil deeds—that’s a bad example. He will be judged by God on judgment day.

Now, let’s move on to the next level and when it’s activated. Read I Corinthians 5:11:

But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner—not even to eat with such a person.

Keep in mind that this person would have already gone through public rebuke and ex-communication--to no effect.  Now we're talking about breaking away socially as well, almost complete shunning, and this level is for the most serious of sins: Someone who was, or claimed to be, a brother and has done one of these terrible things, you are not to eat or socialize with them. (But you could, of course, attempt to save them if they were drowning, or you could do a good deed for them, as Christ commanded even for an enemy).  Other lists of serious sins are: Ephesians 5:3-5, I Corinthians 6:9-10, Galatians 5:19-21, and Revelation 21:8. They do not all list the exact same serious sins, but they’re very close. It shouldn’t be hard to decide when to take this step. Note the phrase above, "anyone named a brother." By his behavior, he has denied His Savior. Unrepentant denial of our Savior could mean eternity in hell (Matthew 10:33).

One other set of verses is a serious enough sin to place it in this level of discipline: it's in II Thessalonians 3:6, 10-15:

But we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly and not according to the tradition which he received from us... 10 For even when we were with you, we commanded you this: If anyone will not work, neither shall he eat. 11 For we hear that there are some who walk among you in a disorderly manner… 14 And if anyone does not obey our word in this epistle, note that person and do not keep company with him, that he may be ashamed. 15 Yet do not count him as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.

Thus, living off welfare with no intention to work was a serious sin to be added to this level of discipline.

In all these above verses, keep one thing in mind: All those verses speak of an UNREPENTANT sinner, who has/is attending church as a "Christian," doing those things. Every saved person should know repentance and confession. God loves us enough to clean us from sin and give forgiveness if we are repentant at the foot of the Cross.

Next let's talk about the “total shunning” level: This is reserved for those who are bringing a doctrine that says Christ has not come in the flesh. In the church’s early days, the target of this one was the Gnostics. In their mysterious religion, they had two gods; the inferior god created an inferior race, Man. But the perfect Jesus couldn’t come to earth as a man, they said, which is inferior, so in His appearances, He wasn’t really flesh and blood. This heresy is spoken about in II John 10-11:

For many deceivers have gone out into the world who do not confess Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist…10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into your house nor greet him; 11 for he who greets him shares in his evil deeds.

It’s the phrase “nor greet him” that makes this level of discipline unique. That’s total shunning. Is there a limit to the shun? I guess it’s OK to save him if he were drowning, but I don’t know—what if he’s heavier, what if he’s thrashing wildly? I’d think about it for awhile, hmmm.  No, I’m just kidding. You don’t take shunning THAT far.  This person is a true enemy of God's people, but don't forget, Christ said we should still love and pray for our enemies.  But they're kryptonite, and working with the devil to destroy the Church.

Anyway, these are the levels of church discipline. May God help us to pray that our church leaders will have courage to exercise these things before some really bad people start secretly tearing things down in our church. Let’s stay Scriptural, with lots of love and firmness to go around.

Acknowledgement: Dave Bercot, CD: Church Discipline, Scroll Publishing.

Are Speaking in Tongues and Word of Prophecy for Real?

The Holy Spirit gives each of His children at least one of nine gifts, listed in I Corinthians 12:7-11:

But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to each one for the profit of all: 8 for to one is given the word of wisdom through the Spirit, to another the word of knowledge through the same Spirit, 9 to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healings by the same Spirit, 10 to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another discerning of spirits, to another different kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues. 11 But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually as He wills.

Let’s discuss the most controversial ones: Healing, tongues, and prophecy, the so-called “sign” gifts. We’ll focus on tongues and prophecy the most. When the charismatic wave hit the U.S. in the early 1980s, much ink was spilled in controversy. You could say I’m 35 years too late on this, but the subject was raised in an excellent book I’m reading: The Supernatural Worldview, by Cris Putnam. So let’s have a go at it.

The biggest outcry against the use of the sign gifts was by conservative, supposedly Bible-believing churches. At the time, I broke away from my Baptist roots and joined a charismatic church. My former pastor didn’t have a kind word for me after that, saying that what I was hearing in a tongues-speaking was from the devil. I must say, though, I learned much in the new setting—particularly in small groups, where we were encouraged to be accountable, and to listen to what people were saying to us, who on occasion were hearing from the Lord. I learned about my weaknesses, my strengths, my gifts--and found mine. Used it a couple times, and was respected. The educational emphasis was unexpected, since the charismatic churches have been accused of emphasizing emotion instead of intellect. But from what I observed, tongues were followed by interpretation, prophecies were judged to be Scriptural; it seemed to be an orderly setting.

The theology that the non-believers in sign-gifts came up with to support their view was called “cessationism.” They maintained that (1) the Holy Spirit’s purpose for the sign gifts was finished in the first century; (2) the sign gifts were given exclusively to the twelve apostles; and (3) the gift of apostleship no longer exists. One of their favorite proof texts is I Corinthians 13:8-11:

Love never fails. But whether there are prophecies, they will fail; whether there are tongues, they will cease; whether there is knowledge, it will vanish away. 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part. 10 But when that which is perfect has come, then that which is in part will be done away. 11 When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things. 12 For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I shall know just as I also am known.

The cessationists believe tongues and prophecy are ways “progressive” churches want to hear “new” doctrines from the Lord, but then become open to deception and manipulation. My personal experience wasn’t that way—although it’s possible it did happen elsewhere that way. (They also loved to say, the tongues they heard about are “gibberish” and we need to “put away childish things.”) But getting down to it, their real Scriptural “proof” is insisting the word “perfect” in the above verse refers to the arrival of the New Testament canon. Once that happened, they say, all these sign gifts “vanished away,” and what happens now is not from the Holy Spirit, since there is no new “hearing from the Lord.” They say the Lord is heard from in Scripture, period—not through tongues or prophecy, they say.

But these verses are not saying what they want them to say. Let’s hear from John Piper, conservative theologian and author, speaking about the word “perfect” in verse 12:

 “It says ‘Now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face.’ Is it more likely that Paul is saying, ‘Now before the New Testament is written, we see in a mirror dimly; but then when the New Testament is written, we shall see face to face’? Or is it more likely he is saying, ‘Now in this age we see in a mirror dimly; but then when the Lord returns, we shall see (Him) face-to-face’?”

The latter version, as he implies, is much more likely correct--especially since there are several references in the Old Testament, and at least two in the New (Revelation 22:4, I John 3:2), that our desire is to see Jesus face to face. Thus, cessationists have lost their main "proof" verse.  Perhaps all the gifts are still active, still Spirit-inspired, until Jesus has His second advent. Then they will vanish away.

The non-believers give this further argument: The arrival of New Testament canon, and its wonderful general guidance, meant “hearing from the Lord” on some specific issue is not necessary--so we “don’t need” the sign gifts; we should just read Scripture to get general guidance, and rely on feelings from the Holy Spirit for specifics. They’re assuming that charismatics are easily deluded in swallowing an anti-Christian idea that might creep up as a deception. Well, it's possible, there are probably tongue-speaking charlatans trying to delude. On the other hand, think about this, though: if indeed the devil is busy making sign-gift counterfeits, could that mean that his focus on smearing these gifts mean he is worried about this being the real thing, and its impact on converting people to the Lord?

Well, what do you do about the possibility of charlatans? The answer is, the most spiritual men should do increased discernment.  This is better than doing a sweeping dismissal of the entire gift. Throwing out all of it—baby and bath water—is the lazy choice, and not the best one. Paul is concerned about charlatans:  he talks about performing intervention if possible deception like that goes on (I Corinthians 14:32,33).

Now let’s talk about counter arguments. Those who believe in sign gifts argue that the “power” in Mark 16:17 refers to a Holy Spirit gifting:

And these signs will follow those who believe: In My name they will cast out demons; they will speak with new tongues;

But this power is for the purpose of globalizing the gospel to “the end of the earth," right (Acts 1:8)? Well, that goal hasn’t quite happened yet. So, we still need the gift. To argue that the purpose of sign gifts expired in the first century's apostles (or in the fourth century, when the canon was completed) is bogus.

Plus, the argument that it was limited to the apostles doesn’t hold water. Stephen had it, Acts 6:8, and so did Philip, Acts 8:13, and neither one was an apostle:

And Stephen, full of faith and power, did great wonders and signs among the people

Then Simon himself also believed; and when he was baptized he continued with Philip, and was amazed, seeing the miracles and signs which were done.

And then there are Paul’s detailed instructions on these gifts. In I Corinthians, three chapters are devoted off-and-on to this difficult subject—three chapters means it’s important, but pastors still stay away from this rather than figuring it all out. In all those chapters, he says nothing about these gifts ceasing.

Read his words in I Corinthians 1:7:

so that you come short in no gift, eagerly waiting for the revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ

That clearly indicates that he wants to see everyone possessing all the gifts, all the way up to the last days, “the revelation of our Lord.” So he was teaching the opposite of cessation. Consider, too, what he "bragged" in I Corinthians 14:18:

I thank my God I speak with tongues more than you all

Well, that speaks a good word for tongues, does it not? Now in all honesty, Paul has restrictions on tongues—and he figures another gift, prophecy, is more important. He wants an interpretation to each tongue, because otherwise no one could understand it (I Cor. 14:2). By the way, this by itself dismisses a frequent cessationist argument that tongues, if they operate, should all be like Acts 2, in a known language—so someone gets usefulness out of it. But here Paul is flat-out saying, if you don’t have an interpreter, no one will understand your tongue. So he’s definitely saying that it’s an unknown tongue to everyone. But with an interpretation, it becomes useful. That idea is further confirmed in I Corinthians 14:15:

What is the conclusion then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will also pray with the understanding. I will sing with the spirit, and I will also sing with the understanding.

To give this contrasting statement “I will pray with the spirit, and I will also pray with the understanding,” suggests they sang or prayed in an unknown tongue (which was without understanding, unless there was an interpreter; in a private prayer, you wouldn't have an interpreter). Having a gift of tongues, even operated quietly by oneself, is still a spiritual uplift to the person. 

Pastors nowadays hang on to cessationism, I fear, because all this “gibberish” in public would turn people off.  But in those days, the church still grew using these gifts. Are people that much different today? I say, no--if it's genuine,  and lives of those giving utterances have indeed changed.

A couple serious words of warning: Do not try to force yourself to speak in tongues through an altered state of consciousness, brought on by chanting, breathing irregularly, “emptying your mind,” drugs, or any other way. There is no Scripture backing you up, and you may indeed be inviting demons to come in for residence. I must confess, though I am in favor of all gifts, from Scripture, I have never spoken in tongues. The other word of warning is, don't expect to increase your church's population by pushing tongues.  On the other hand, if everyone possesses the fruits of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22ff), you'll grow lots.

Paul also said that tongues in a church service were for the unbelievers; i.e., to have them see that God is at work in this service. I Corinthians 14:22:

tongues are for a sign, not to those who believe but to unbelievers

But don’t get the idea that tongues have to be limited to a Billy Graham crusade tent in Africa. We showed their further usefulness above. And here’s a short testimony by a noted church father, Irenaeus, in 202 AD. “…we do also hear many brethren in the Church, who possess prophetic gifts, and who through the Spirit speak all kinds of languages, and bring to light for the general benefit the hidden things of men, and declare the mysteries of God…they being spiritual because they partake of the Spirit.” This says, first of all, that tongues and prophecies didn’t die with the apostles—since Irenaeus was 100 years later. (Augustine, a great (but controversial) theologian in the fifth century, had kept a record of a long list of miracles in his day as well tied to gifts). Secondly, this implies that tongues, when interpreted, are also useful in church in revealing a sin that became a convicting rebuke to some unbelievers. (Rebuking unbelievers in their sin: there’s a concept.))

Finally, Paul writes, not just for the church at Corinth, but for everybody, I Corinthians 14:39:

Therefore, brethren, desire earnestly to prophesy, and do not forbid to speak with tongues.

The second half of the verse is exactly what many “Bible-believing” pastors are doing, forbidding it, breaking this command from God.

Speaking of miracles: Miracles go on today, but hardly ever in the U.S. There are constant mission reports of many miracles in South America, India, Asia, and Africa. Many involve healing. Where demonic activity is visible, God steps up the supernatural and makes Himself more visible. But not much of this happens in the U.S. My suspicion? Satan can see that the U.S. churches are weak because they can’t overcome people’s materialism. We are lukewarm. (Are we the church of Laodicea in Revelation 3:14-18?) So why should he “rock the boat” that is swinging us to sleep? The author, Cris Putnam, quotes a Barna poll that indicates that 59% of the U.S. “Christians” do NOT believe there is a real Satan! Satan is fine with this; he hopes we all lull ourselves into hell. Shades of C.S. Lewis’s Screwtape Letters! We must remember that Jesus would not work miracles when faced with stubborn unbelief (Matthew 13:58). We cannot let this lack of miracles be a self-fulfilling prophecy—in other words, if the lack of miracles increases our cynicism—this would lead to even fewer miracles yet.

It’s possible people are using gifts without knowing in advance about them. There is a story about the great preacher Charles Spurgeon—a Calvinist and likely cessationist, by the way, who stumbled into miracles of his own. In his autobiography he tells how he interrupted a sermon to point at a young man in the audience, telling him that the gloves he was wearing were stolen from his employer! (A bold move). Later in his office, the dumbfounded and convicted young man confessed his sin. Spurgeon further wrote, “I could tell as many as a dozen similar cases in which I pointed at somebody in the hall without having the slightest knowledge of the person .…except I believed I was moved by the Spirit to say it.” Whether he knew it or not, that’s the gift of knowledge in operation. We’re often ignorant of our gift, or don’t want to use it, or afraid to use it. Mr. Spurgeon’s faith door must have been opened a little more after that supernatural event.

And this gets to the reason for the author Mr. Putnam mentioning this subject. His book is about the supernatural. But cessationism is a refusal to believe in certain kinds of supernatural. Putnam calls this doctrine a “sanctified form of unbelief,” and believes we are discounting the supernatural in American churches. Sermons are not exposing or attacking Satan, or educating people on demons, for instance. They are also dismissing the power of the Holy Spirit by marginalizing three of His nine divine gifts--that is not a good thing. Mr. Putnam calls it “demythologizing the Holy Spirit.” Since the Holy Spirit is God, denying His power may lead to His judgment on the cessationalist.

According to Joel 2:28-31:

“And it shall come to pass afterward That I will pour out My Spirit on all flesh; Your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, Your old men shall dream dreams, Your young men shall see visions. 29 And also on My menservants and on My maidservants will pour out My Spirit in those days…And the moon into blood, Before the coming of the great and awesome day of the LORD.

What if many churches, dismissing the supernatural, then dismisses these prophecies, visions, and dreams that may happen in their church in the end-time days?  God wants to warn us of the upcoming End Times tribulation, and maybe provides these signs. If we react stone-faced to information God wants us to know, if He presented it to us in this "distasteful" way, and we ignore it, we won’t be ready for the antichrist—and could then be easily manipulated and even fall into apostasy. That temptation will be greatest among those who believe in a pre-tribulation rapture—when they see that that belief was wrong. (I have other blogs on that subject). Unfortunately, many of the “pre-trib” churches are also cessationists. A double-punch is coming to their faith. Not getting a rapture, then not believing the warnings, they will be blindsided by Satan. The resulting demoralization will mean they are not ready in the face of persecution. So it's possible to conclude that many people could fall into apostasy simply because they walled off God’s use of supernatural gifts (Matthew 24:24).

Finally, let’s read about the church in Acts 2:40-47:

And with many other words he testified and exhorted them, saying, “Be saved from this perverse generation.” 41 Then those who gladly[a] received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added to them. 42 And they continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in prayers. 43 Then fear came upon every soul, and many wonders and signs were done through the apostles. 44 Now all who believed were together, and had all things in common, 45 and sold their possessions and goods, and divided them among all, as anyone had need. 46 So continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they ate their food with gladness and simplicity of heart, 47 praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to the church[ daily those who were being saved.

Or, how about I Corinthians 14:26:

How is it then, brethren? Whenever you come together, each of you has a psalm, has a teaching, has a tongue, has a revelation, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification

This was a church that had great power, so we should desire to copy it as much as possible, right? But I’ve never heard anybody express any desire to follow that simple “copy the best” idea. Our churches are lacking in many of the areas you read in those two verses above, are we not? The fact is, young people are abandoning their parent’s churches—perhaps because the services seem to be just “going through the motions.” Not much evidence that God is there. Young people see this as hypocrisy.

I want it alive like it was in the early church. Maybe we won’t get this feeling of participation and togetherness that they had until we get persecuted like they were. But cessationism won’t get us into those blessings, that’s for sure.

Acknowledgements: Cris Putnam, The Supernatural Worldview

Atonement #2: Is Adam's Guilt Transferred?

Atonement #2: Is Adam's Guilt Transferred? Is Christ's Righteousness Transferred When We are Not Righteous?

Hopefully you read our first article on atonement. We put forth the idea that the Classic view, by the earliest church fathers (who had more direct access to the apostles), was superior than the currently popular “Satisfaction” view, put forth around 1080 by Anselm. Reasons were many, as we stated, and proved by Scripture. We proved, I believe, that the Satisfaction theory has a poor view of God.

Well, after listening and meditating on Dave Bercot’s CD on “Atonement #2,” let's have a go at another problem, and offer more good reasons for abandoning the Anselm Satisfaction view. The problem is, the twisting of what went on with the word “imputation.” That’s a big word, but easily defined. As I did in the first article, this paper is not meant for seminarians, it is understandable by the general reader. And the subject is vitally important.

First, let’s define the word “impute.” Unger’s Expository Dictionary says: “To reckon, to put down to a person’s account.” Basically, “to charge with, or credit with.” The three imputations that the Satisfaction view stands behind are: (1) The guilt of Adam’s sin is imputed to all mankind, making us all guilty before we have done anything; (2) The sins of Christ’s people are imputed to Him; and (3) the righteousness of Christ is imputed to His people. (Note that the Satisfaction theory has changed the definition of "impute" to also mean a transfer from one person or party to another person or party).

Let’s look at their idea of imputations one at a time. On the first leg: Does Scripture indicate that Adam’s guilt is charged to all of his children, and grandchildren, etc. all through history? If it is, then it is clearly a case of a cross-generational curse that God has attached to man that the Satisfaction theory is charging Him with. By each generation receiving his guilt, we're all hell-bound from the day we become accountable.  However, Scripture denies guilt-transfer: Deuteronomy 24:16 says cross-generational curses can’t happen. Ezekiel 18:20 also says it:

“The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.

These verses clearly show that cross-generational curses are not part of God’s plan for eternity. Now you could argue that other verses show God does cross-generational curses. Look at Exodus 20:5:

…you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me…

This seems to say that God will curse two or three more generations after those who hate Him. But this idea seems to say the opposite of what we saw in Ezekiel 18 above. Can Scripture contradict itself? No. The best explanation here is one of two:  (1) "visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children" does not have to mean passing guilt, or make someone hell-bound. Or the verse could also mean that (2) the sin is hating God, not simply being born.  I'm suggesting that the children of God-haters usually hate God too--they learned it from their parents. So they get punished for that on their own. It’s a shame that children born into a family that hates God might have a lesser chance of making heaven than children born into a family that loves God. We can possibly philosophize that life isn’t fair; just being born into a bad family stacks the cards against you. But we can’t conclude that God is responsible for such effects of sin. We all make choices to either sin or to be righteous and are responsible accordingly.

So we still conclude that the Satisfaction theory of atonement seems to have a gigantic generational curse—the guilt of Adam’s sin being transferred to all humanity?! Doesn’t that ring untrue about God, especially in the light of clear Scripture from Ezekiel above? Well, you might ask, what other theory do you have? What did Adam transfer to humanity, if anything? Well, we do have an alternative theory, as we’ve mentioned in our first Atonement article. Namely the Classic theory.  According to the Classic theory, what was transferred was (1) his mortality and (2) his corruption--he leaned toward sin; these were imputed to later generations. I think #1 (mortality) was necessary for God to allow because if we live in sin forever, our abilities to corrupt ourselves and others will have no limit. And sin would become immortal. Bad thought. I think in #2, Adam had a unique position: a perfect soul, a perfect communication with God. We, however, often choose to rebel before we learn to walk. We seem born to say “no,” as any mother will tell you. And God is harder to access than He was with Adam (but He is still not far, Acts 17:27). Yes, there are differences between us and Adam. But here’s the merciful part of our story: God has put a void in everyone’s hearts that can only be truly happy by seeking Him. He gave us His Word, which points to the way of salvation; He gave us His Son, who showed us how to live--and died for our sins.  From all that wonderful love and mercy: Do we, seeing His love, cling to Him as Savior of our souls? Or do we choose to rebel all our lives against this mercy? We have choices to make, and mostly rational minds to make them. What’s important here is that the tendency to sin does not mean we’re beyond getting saved.

But there are other favorite verses presumably backing the Satisfaction theorists that we need to deal with. Such as Romans 5:12.

Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned—

This verse seems to say that Adam’s guilt is passed on. But a simple study reveals a simple truth: Why is “death spread to all men”? Because “all sinned.” Thus we are only responsible for our own sin.  We can’t blame Adam or God. We can only blame Adam for our tendency to sin--if we can blame him for that. But the fact is, we each make the choice to sin; the responsibility is ours.

But there can still be an evangelism problem with the Satisfaction theory too. To some unsaved people who conclude, “God isn’t fair. Sticking me with guilt for Adam’s sin,” it's tougher to reach them with the Gospel.  But if you accept the Classic theory of atonement and God's forgiveness in that theory, the easy tendency to blame God for unfairness is dispelled.

The other favorite verses for Satisfaction theorists are I Corinthians 15:21-22:

For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive.

In the phrase “as in Adam all die:” does it say, well, we all die because we have his guilt on us? No. It simply says mortality is passed on.

Now let’s take a look at the second imputation “leg” of Satisfaction theorists: The sins of His children are imputed to Christ. Their key verses: Isaiah 53:4-5:

Surely He has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; Yet we esteemed Him stricken, Smitten by God, and afflicted. 5 But He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities; The chastisement for our peace was upon Him, And by His stripes we are healed.

Now I don’t have any argument here, since both theories of atonement have Christ’s substitutionary suffering as it is spelled out here—He is innocent, but He paid for our sin. Our sins were imputed, or laid on, Christ. Thank You, Lord. But I have one warning about this verse: The phrase “smitten by God” does not mean God punished His Son. (We had more to say on that in our first Atonement article; Jesus was the ransom paid to Satan for our sin. Satan was the punisher.) But it’s true that God allowed Satan temporary control over Our Lord, so in the end, God is “at fault.” But for a greater good--because thereby we are saved.  Why God allowed sin and suffering is beyond the scope of this little paper.

On to the third leg of Satisfaction theorists: The righteousness of Jesus being imputed to believers. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, a classic conservative evangelistic work, has this to say: “It is not meant that Christ’s people are made personally holy or inwardly righteous by the imputation of His righteousness to them. But that His righteousness is “set to their account” so that they are entitled to all the rewards of that perfect righteousness.” The phrase “set to their account” suggests it’s a bookkeeping transaction in heaven; His righteousness is transferred in the ledgers of heaven to us—without the necessity of our being personally holy, or doing a thing except accepting Christ. Those who have read my other articles know where I’m going with this. Dietrich Bonhoeffer calls this “cheap grace,” and I wholeheartedly agree. The Satisfaction theorists sometimes also say, in essence, that to have God expect us to behave righteously is expecting too much. The Old Testament, in particular, teaches us, the Encyclopedia says, “The righteousness which God demands is not to be found among people.” Is that so? Well, try “googling” the word “righteous” in the Old Testament (biblegateway.com). You’ll find over a hundred references, such as Genesis 7:1:

Then the LORD said to Noah, “Come into the ark, you and all your household, because I have seen that you are righteous before Me in this generation.

Over a hundred verses, Old and New Testaments. Just like that one. Then google “blameless.” Lots more. Sorry, Encyclopedia, defending the Satisfaction argument should not have to include twisting the word "righteous." God's demand for righteousness after we accept what Jesus did does not mean perfection, praise Him.  And He does commend people who strive to make their lives a righteous living for Him.

To be thorough, we have to explain more of their favorites: Isaiah 64:6a:

But we are all like an unclean thing, And all our righteousnesses are like filthy rags;

This contempt for righteousness seems to try to contradict over a hundred Biblical verses that show God loves the people who seek to be righteous. So let’s analyze further to avoid accusing God for a Scriptural contradiction. One question is this: What is the occasion for Isaiah’s prayer here?  In context, it is a prayer of penitence and intercession that Isaiah was making on behalf of the unfaithful Israelites. It follows the typical form that the penitential prayer does: When a repentant Jew petitions God for mercy, they invariably amplify their wrong and magnify their smallness in comparison to the greatness of the Lord. Such magnifying distorts reality, but for a good purpose—to glorify God’s majesty. But let’s return to reality instead of this ritual: Does God have to agree with this version of man’s smallness? No. Think about it: If God really felt this way, why does He go to the trouble of calling certain people righteous over a hundred times?  Now it so happens that this verse was a favorite verse of Martin Luther. It seems he went, from a few verses like this, to construct a theological system—ignoring hundreds of verses that disagreed with his theology. He concluded, let's forget works altogether--salvation is all about just belief in what Christ has done. True, in an absolute sense, none of us are righteous as God—we’re all short of the glory of God. But God, in His love, has always considered His faithful ones, who have walked in obedience, not perfectly, but enough to call them “righteous.” That God could call us righteous despite His hatred of sin, is His mercy showing forth. I love His self-description in Exodus 34:6:

And the LORD passed before him and proclaimed, “The LORD, the LORD God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abounding in goodness and truth, 7 keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, by no means clearing the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children and the children’s children to the third and the fourth generation.”

I commented above on the last 26 words ("visiting the iniquity of the fathers," etc.), but you see the two sides of God. There are many wonderful stories in His Word about His patience with stumbling mankind.

Maybe the best case for this third leg in the Satisfaction theory is in their third set of favorite verses, Romans 4: 2-11:

For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3 For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” 4 Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt .5 But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness, 6 just as David also describes the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works: 7 “Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, And whose sins are covered; 8 Blessed is the man to whom the LORD shall not impute sin 9 Does this blessedness then come upon the circumcised only, or upon the uncircumcised also? For we say that faith was accounted to Abraham for righteousness. 10 How then was it accounted? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised. 11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while still uncircumcised, that he might be the father of all those who believe, though they are uncircumcised, that righteousness might be imputed to them also,

Through verse 8, saying things like “him who does not work but believes on Him,” seemingly says works are not a part of ultimate salvation, so you can see why Martin Luther loved Romans and hated James, who made a case for works as a part of salvation. But I have many blogs on this apparent contradiction about works and faith, and they say the same thing: Multitudes of Scripture clearly point out that while initial salvation is mostly faith, it takes confession, obedience to His commands, and abiding with Christ—“works,” if you like to call them—to maintain salvation. Paul echoes this idea over and over, and is not contradicting James at all.

Then what’s the key to understanding Romans 4? The key is in verses 9-11—this is the context for the whole section: Abraham’s faith was “accounted to Abraham” as righteous--while he was uncircumcised. This whole section of verses is an argument against the need to circumcise the believing Gentiles, or make them follow Jewish rules. He is fighting the “Judaizers” here and elsewhere. The “works” that he hates are Mosaic law, or Jewish works--such as circumcision. Abraham was righteous before he was circumcised, so circumcising had nothing to do with his righteousness—or his initial salvation. So, he asks, how are you ahead by circumcising the Gentiles,or forcing them to do Jewish works? Paul quotes David, who blesses righteous men—who were declared righteous without any mention of Jewish “works.”

Whenever Paul says “works don’t have a part in salvation,” he always means the Mosaic law. But he never says obedience to Christ has no part in salvation—just the opposite. In I Cor. 6:9-11, for example, Corinthian believers used to be unrighteous, having those ungodly traits, but they were washed, they were sanctified—their behaviors became more righteous. Keep in mind, washing someone—keeping their bodies clean (of sin)--is different than simply making a transfer in the books of heaven. Believers in Martin Luther can “call” someone washed when they aren’t behaving clean at all. Isn’t that what the Encyclopedia says?There’s that cheap grace again. A genuine Christian strives to be holy, he’s not just “counted as” holy. Becoming a Christian transforms our lives, our souls, our very nature, when we’re truly born again. Folks, unlike what’s suggested by “cheap grace” Satisfaction theorists, a godly life is required for ultimately going to heaven. Read other blogs to get a clearer picture.

Acknowledgements: David Bercot, Atonement #2.

Two Atonement Theories

A word of prelude: This paper is designed for the average reader, not for seminarians. Atonement is an important subject—for everybody. There are some important controversies on that subject that everyone needs to hear. It affects our view of God, among other things.

So let’s start with a definition: Atonement is defined by Unger’s Bible Dictionary as “the covering over of sin, the reconciliation between God and man, accomplished by the Lord Jesus Christ. It is that special result of Christ’s sacrificial sufferings and death by virtue of which all who exercise proper penitence and faith receive forgiveness of their sins.”

Nothing could be more important, right? Now, I’m not here to challenge the definition—the problem is in the details. First, a word of background assumption: If there are two different theories on the same subject, I believe the correct one would more likely be the one that was believed by the earliest church fathers (we’re talking about the disciples of the apostles, and the next generation to, say, 250 AD—all before the church got corrupted by marriage to the State). That is based on two things: (1) Their literature is breathtaking in its knowledge of the context of Scripture; and they developed an ability to effectively prove doctrinal theories with Scripture; and (2) If they had doctrinal questions, there was a disciple of Paul or Peter nearby (or only a generation or two removed) who could talk on the subject ad infinitum.

Well, there are indeed two different theories on Atonement. The theory put forth by the earliest church fathers (called the “Classic” theory) was good enough that it endured from the church’s apostolic beginning for 1000 more years, but it was overtaken by the “Satisfaction” theory of Anselm, a Roman Catholic church philosopher and Archbishop of Canterbury around 1080. His theory was accepted by Catholics, and later, believe it or not, by the Reformers (Luther, Calvin). Thus, most “main line” denominations believe this way as well. (I have three proofs of that statement; the first two are quotes from usually reliable Wikipedia: (1) "Calvinists advocate the satisfaction theory of the atonement, which developed in the writings of Anselm of Canterbury and Thomas Aquinas. In brief, the Calvinistic refinement of this theory, states that the atonement of Christ pays the penalty incurred by the sins of men—that is, Christ receives the wrath of God for sins and thereby cancels the judgment they had incurred."  (2) "The satisfaction view of the atonement is a theory in Christian theology about the meaning and effect of the death of Jesus Christ and has been traditionally taught in Western Christianity, specifically in the Roman Catholic, Lutheran, and Reformed circles."  The third proof is from the Baptist Confession of Faith: "The Lord Jesus, by His perfect obedience and sacrifice of Himself, which He through the eternal Spirit once offered up to God, has fully satisfied the justice of God."

So what are my problems with Anselm's theory, the one that is now acceptable by most—how could I challenge something that has been around almost a thousand years (1080-today)? Let’s take a closer look at Anselm’s “Satisfaction” theory. Firstly, what about his insistence that sin is, quoting him, “a debt to divine justice that must be paid,” that “no sin can be forgiven without satisfaction”? He is also saying that a sin against a sovereign—such as what God is—is too great to be forgiven, because it insults His majesty. So, says the theory, God could not forgive it. But where is there room for God's forgiveness?  "No sin can be forgiven without satisfaction?"  Is this idea Scriptural? Or, maybe it is based on Medieval chivalry, perhaps.  I suggest Anselm was influenced more by the thought of his culture--when overlords were absolute rulers of their fiefs, and you had to have fear and unquestioned obedience to run your land effectively. This theory poses that God is a God of justice, not mercy, since He could not simply forgive.  But again...is this idea based on Scripture?

The theory further says that God loved us enough to allow His Son to suffer and die on the Cross. That's fine, but it further states that His suffering paid God His demanded ransom price for our sin—they “appeased” His need for justice.  By Jesus enduring God’s wrath and paying for our sin, He took our place—our ransom has been paid to the Father, so we are now potentially acceptable by God, whose justice has been satisfied, since His wrath as payment for our sin was poured out upon His Son instead of us.

Now, for comparison: Here is the “classic” theory put forth by the earliest church fathers (from 50 AD to 250 they developed this; their view held sway until Anselm in 1080). The theory states that our sin put us in rebellion to God and under the control of Satan. Satan demanded a ransom, a price for our lives, as he had a right to do, because our sin placed us under bondage to him. Jesus’ suffering and death on the Cross was to pay Satan—not God. Jesus gave Satan His life for our lives. So the “substitutionary” aspect of Jesus’ incarnation still remains, but different, as you can see.

Now I realize that this presentation is oversimplication to the highest degree—but as I said, this is written for everybody, and it has the main germ of the theories. It’s an easy base by which we can now discuss the issues. So here are my main problems with Anselm's theory:

1. Because God is a divine sovereign, does that mean He cannot simply forgive our sins? Did He send His Son to the cross based on an insatiable quest for justice, without mercy? Did He really “demand” payment for our sin, either from us or from His Son? Did He really have to pour out wrath because of our sin? This is what Anselm was saying. For one possible response, let’s look at Matthew 18:21-27:

Then Peter came to Him and said, “Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? Up to seven times?” 22 Jesus said to him, “I do not say to you, up to seven times, but up to seventy times seven. 23 Therefore the kingdom of heaven is like a certain king who wanted to settle accounts with his servants. 24 And when he had begun to settle accounts, one was brought to him who owed him ten thousand talents. 25 But as he was not able to pay, his master commanded that he be sold, with his wife and children and all that he had, and that payment be made. 26 The servant therefore fell down before him, saying, ‘Master, have patience with me, and I will pay you all.’ 27 Then the master of that servant was moved with compassion, released him, and forgave him the debt.

Consider also James 2:13: Mercy triumphs over judgment.

These verses clearly show that God, despite being a divine sovereign, wants to forgive and have mercy on us.

Consider this too, though: The Matthew parable above says He requires us to forgive each other. Matthew 6:12, part of the Lord’s prayer also says:

And forgive us our debts, As we forgive our debtors

So, we ask Anselm, would God assert justice without forgiveness and then turn around and tell us that we need to be forgiving? Is God a “do as I say, not as I do” person? I think not. By reading the "Satisfaction" idea so followed today, you get the idea that God was inflexible, and wanted all justice and no mercy; that He wanted to pour wrath on His Son, that all this suffering by Jesus was His Father’s quest for blood appeasement. Now, I don’t want to take away from how we should have a righteous fear of God; He is not a “grandpa that overlooks my faults.” But I have a serious problem with the rigidity of God as One who is totally unforgiving—as Anselm suggests. Scriptures above say otherwise (read also the prodigal son, Luke 15).

2. The second problem I have is the issue of “who was Jesus paying” with His suffering and death—was He paying His Father, suggested by Anselm, or was He paying Satan, suggested by the church fathers’ classic theory? The key to that is the word “ransom” in Scripture. As Matthew 20:28 and Mark 10:45 say:

...just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many

And as repeated in I Timothy 2:6:

who gave Himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time

So, given that Jesus was ransomed, here’s my question: To whom is a ransom supposed to be paid? Well, how much sense is it that a ransom be paid to the father of the one being held for ransom? Huh? You don’t need to watch many criminal shows on TV to see how senseless that sounds. Yet that’s what Anselm is suggesting. The classic theory, on the other hand, holds that Jesus was held as ransom by Satan—and any payment would be made to Satan. That makes more sense right away, since ransoms are paid to the bad guy who is holding the person you want released.  Satan had a bondage claim on us because of our sin.

The question you might have now is: What right did Satan have for holding Jesus instead of us, the sinners? Well, here’s where the substitutionary aspect comes in.  The problem was us. We, starting with Adam, have all sinned and have therefore put ourselves under Satan’s control. If you don’t believe that, then you don’t know how much God hates sin. Jesus has said we all have a master; it is either God or Satan. Look at Matthew 6:24.

“No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be loyal to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon. Note: “mammon” means wealth-driven—that’s serving Satan.

We all sin, which is a rebellion against God, and thus start our accountable life, having sinned, under Satan’s mastery. He was our “father” if we’re unsaved. Further proof of that is how Jesus called those who don’t love Him children of the devil. Look at John 8:42-44a:

Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love Me, for I proceeded forth and came from God; nor have I come of Myself, but He sent Me. .. 44 You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do. He was a murderer from the beginning…

This is echoed in I John 3:10: In this the children of God and the children of the devil are manifest: Whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is he who does not love his brother.

But God, thank Him, still loved us sinners, and wanted to free us from Satan’s control. Satan demanded ransom to release us. God’s Son was willing to pay that ransom, to be our substitute, placing Himself (temporarily, as it turned out) under Satan’s control in exchange for us. Satan was willing to accept this as ransom payment. His thinking was, by tormenting and killing Jesus, he would forever have control over us. But he didn’t bank on the resurrection. By virtue of that ransom, our sins which held us to Satan were paid for by Jesus’ suffering and death, paid to Satan, and we were set free.

Scripture is also clear on who is satisfied by the ransom of Jesus. Is it God or Satan? As Galatians 1:3-4 says, Jesus delivers (redeems) us—not from His Father (so says Anselm), but from this “present evil age”—that means Jesus bought us from Satan’s realm:

Grace to you and peace from God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ, 4 who gave Himself for our sins, that He might deliver us from this present evil age

Finally, Acts 20:28 says: Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock…to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.

Now think with me: Did Jesus purchase the church from His Father—so Anselm would say? Well, does that mean God had ownership of the church, so He had Jesus suffer so He could “sell” it to His Son who purchased it from Him? Huh? That makes no sense. No, the church was purchased for a ransom price from an enemy holding it up for ransom—Satan. That’s what a ransom is all about.

3. My third problem with Anselm is of an underlying, hidden fact of his theory. If we accept Anselm’s view that Jesus paid our debt to God, then God cannot burden us with our debt again. That means He cannot unsave us. As any good lawyer will tell you, reinstating a debt is impossible once it has been paid. Once your debt is paid, you’re done. No retraction possible. This leans, as you can probably tell, toward the “once saved always saved,” or eternal security, view of salvation. (I have a huge blog disputing that view, elsewhere on this site. That view is attractive, but Scripturally wrong.)

The classic theory of atonement, written by early church fathers, follows their expressed view against the theory of eternal security, the exact opposite. They’re saying, remember, that God was not “paid” for our sins; Satan was. God simply forgave our sins when we trust the work of Christ. God received no consideration (payment) for our sins. Christ's death paid Satan, remember.  This opens the door for later possible retraction; God can unsave us if we aren’t abiding in Christ or being unfruitful (John 15, Galatians 5). Lawyers will tell you that when no consideration is paid for a debt, retraction of a debt-forgiveness is possible. Scripturally, this is also clearly taught in “the rest of the story” of the servant of Matthew 18 above. We left off with the Master forgiving his debt, verse 27. Let’s bring up Matthew 18:28-34:

“But that servant went out and found one of his fellow servants who owed him a hundred denarii; and he laid hands on him and took him by the throat, saying, ‘Pay me what you owe!’ 29 So his fellow servant fell down at his feet[a] and begged him, saying, ‘Have patience with me, and I will pay you all.’[b] 30 And he would not, but went and threw him into prison till he should pay the debt. 31 So when his fellow servants saw what had been done, they were very grieved, and came and told their master all that had been done. 32 Then his master, after he had called him, said to him, ‘You wicked servant! I forgave you all that debt because you begged me. 33 Should you not also have had compassion on your fellow servant, just as I had pity on you?’ 34 And his master was angry, and delivered him to the torturers until he should pay all that was due to him.”

After we’re forgiven of our sins, and become initially saved, if we adopt “the ways of the world,” such as greed and unforgiveness as exampled here, we could lose our salvation (the debt is reimposed and you could be “delivered to the torturers.”) These verses clearly teach how we can lose salvation. (I’ve covered losing salvation in other blogs too).

I trust you agree that the Scriptural evidence backs the early church fathers. They have a better view of God from Scripture: God is forgiving, but if we deny Him in word or behavior, he will deny us. He did not heap wrath upon His Son, nor was He anxious for blood appeasement. Let us know Him and love Him.

Acknowledgement to Dave Bercot’s CD, “Atonement #1.”

The Incarnation

Christmas is about the incarnation of Jesus. From God to man. Strip away the season’s hustle and bustle, the trees, the cookies, the extra pounds, and what remains is a humble birth story and a simultaneously stunning reality — the incarnation of the eternal Son of God.

This incarnation, God himself becoming human, is a glorious fact that is too often neglected, or forgotten, amidst all the gifts, get-togethers, pageants, and presents. Therefore, we would do well to think deeply about the incarnation, especially on this day.

Here are five biblical truths of the incarnation.

1. The Incarnation Was Not the Divine Son’s Beginning

The virgin conception and birth in Bethlehem does not mark the beginning of the Son of God. Rather, it marks the eternal Son entering physically into our world and becoming one of us. John Murray writes, “The doctrine of the incarnation is vitiated (ed., ruined) if it is conceived of as the beginning to be of the person of Christ. The incarnation means that he who never began to be in his specific identity as Son of God, began to be what he eternally was not” (quoted in John Frame, Systematic Theology, 883).

2. The Incarnation Shows Jesus’s Humility

Jesus is no typical king. Jesus didn’t come to be served. Instead, Jesus came to serve (Mark 10:45). His humility was on full display from the beginning to the end, from Bethlehem to Golgotha. Paul glories in the humility of Christ when he writes that, “though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking on the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross” (Philippians 2:6–8).

3. The Incarnation Fulfills Prophecy

The incarnation wasn’t random or accidental. It was predicted in the Old Testament and in accordance with God’s eternal plan. Perhaps the clearest text predicting the Messiah would be both human and God is Isaiah 9:6: “To us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.”

In this verse, Isaiah sees a son that is to be born, and yet he is no ordinary son. His extraordinary names — Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace — point to his deity. And taken together — the son being born and his names — point to him being the God-man, Jesus Christ.

4. The Incarnation Is Mysterious

The Scriptures do not give us answers to all of our questions. Some things remain mysterious. “The secret things belong to the Lord our God,” Moses wrote, “but the things revealed belong to us and to our children forever” (Deuteronomy 29:29).

Answering how it could be that one person could be both fully God and fully man is not a question that the Scriptures focus on. The early church fathers preserved this mystery at the Council of Chalcedon (451 A.D.) when they wrote that Jesus is “recognized in two natures [God and man], without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence, not as parted or separated into two persons but one and the same Son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ.”

5. The Incarnation Is Necessary for Salvation

The incarnation of Jesus does not save by itself, but it is an essential link in God’s plan of redemption. John Murray explains: “[T]he blood of Jesus is blood that has the requisite efficacy and virtue only by reason of the fact that he who is the Son, the effulgence of the Father’s glory and the express image of his substance, became himself also partaker of flesh and blood and thus was able by one sacrifice to perfect all those who are sanctified” (Redemption Accomplished and Applied, 14).
And the author to the Hebrews likewise writes that Jesus “had to be made like his brothers in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people” (Hebrews 2:17).

The incarnation displays the greatness of God. Our God is the eternal God who was born in a stable, not a distant, withdrawn God; our God is a humble, giving God, not a selfish, grabbing God; our God is a purposeful, planning God, not a random, reactionary God; our God is a God who is far above us and whose ways are not our ways, not a God we can put in a box and control; and our God is a God who redeems us by his blood, not a God who leaves us in our sin. Our God is great indeed!

Written by Joseph Scheumann, December 25, 2013

Exact Month of Jesus' Birth Predicted by the Stars and Scripture--And What Happened on December 25?

People tend to scoff at this Biblical record of the star of Bethlehem, saying

“this star is doing things a star cannot do.” They’re likely referring to Matthew 2:9:

When they heard the king, they departed; and behold, the star which they had seen in the East went before them, till it came and stood over where the young Child was.

“How does a star “stand over,”or stop, people say. So they assume this story is a fable. Well, science has a surprising answer to that question. Of course,if we can "prove" it, they would ask “Why do you think you can introduce some new facts now, when we haven’t heard anything convincing in all of history?” Science has a reason for that too.

A little background: The author of the CD I'm summarizing is Professor Larson--a lawyer, not a reputed scientist. But he has been a lifelong fan of astronomy—movements of stars and planets and constellations. (Not the same as astrology, which is often abused as predictive, often telling you how to run your life). Scripture praises astronomy: it insists the stars tell us things from God. But Scripture condemns astrology. Note Job 9:9:

He (God) made the Bear, Orion, and the Pleiades, And the chambers of the south.

And note Psalm 19:1-2:

The heavens declare the glory of God…2 Day unto day utters speech, And night unto night reveals knowledge.

Thus, the stars communicate. God wants us to study the heavens to see what He might announce or tell us. Prof. Larson found Biblical proof that will surprise you (see also his website, bethlehemstar.net)  Now you’ll surely ask, “Why isn’t he supported by reputable scientists?” Well, why do most of our scientific minds believe in evolution instead of creationism? And what happens to scientists who believe in creationism?  The fact is: To the world, their basic “truths” are anti-God. Hey, If those who have the media, those in power, are rational, why did they kill Jesus?

Final background: Johannes Kepler in 1619 discovered the math behind the movements of the solar system. With hundreds of hours of effort, he could map how the sky appeared on any date, past or future, since all movements of everything in the sky are predictable. But the effort required was ponderous for math and science geniuses of his generation. Now we have the advent of computers; so these movements have been incorporated into software programs. How the sky will appear from any location on the planet for any given date can now be found in seconds—in fact, the computer can even animate their movements through a period of time. So we are only now able to answer the big question: “Which of them is the star of Bethlehem—if any?” There are, it is estimated, 100 billion galaxies, and 100 billion stars in each—how can you find the Bethlehem star in such a crowd?

Here is the relevant Bible passage, Matthew 2:1-9, from which we will draw necessary characteristics for the Bethlehem star:

Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, wise men from the East came to Jerusalem, saying, “Where is He who has been born King of the Jews? For we have seen His star in the East and have come to worship Him.” 3 When Herod the king heard this, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him. 4 And when he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together, he inquired of them where the Christ was to be born. 5 So they said to him, “In Bethlehem of Judea, for thus it is written by the prophet: 6 ‘But you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, Are not the least among the rulers of Judah; For out of you shall come a Ruler Who will shepherd My people Israel.’” 7 Then Herod, when he had secretly called the wise men, determined from them what time the star appeared. 8 And he sent them to Bethlehem and said, “Go and search carefully for the young Child, and when you have found Him, bring back word to me, that I may come and worship Him also.” 9 When they heard the king, they departed; and behold, the star which they had seen in the East went before them, till it came and stood over where the young Child was.

From these verses, the Star of Bethlehem has to fulfill 9 qualifications:
a. The star has to indicate birth (2:2)
b. It has to indicate Kingship ( 2:2)
c. Has to point to Jewish Scripture (2:1)
d. Rising in east (2:2)
e. Appears at an exact time
f. Herod didn’t know when it appeared ( 2:3)
g. Endured over a considerable period of time (2:2, 9)
h. Went ahead of magi as they traveled south to Bethlehem ( 2:9)
i. The star has to Stop! Over Bethlehem ( 2:9).  This is the strange one.

So here is what he concluded:  It couldn’t be a meteor, which doesn’t rise in the east, and it isn’t long-lasting. It couldn’t be a comet because omens are perceived as foretelling doom. But Jesus’ birth is good news. Also, there were no comets in 3-2 BC (those were the conception/birthdate, see below). It couldn’t be a nova—a spectacular exploding star--Herod wouldn’t ask “when,” because his scientific advisors (also astronomers, though I suspect not as smart as the magi) would’ve told him—along with their “interpretation.” Also, there were no novas for 3-2BC.

Based on what we just excluded, and from (f) above, the “right star” wasn’t spectacular—but it must have been moderately bright. It so happens, a conjunction of planets, or planet/star, would fulfill that. Larson decided, why not look at Jupiter, the King Planet (as it is so-called—and, it is the largest in the planet system). If Jupiter is involved, it would help us meet requirement (b) above as well. As it so happens, Jupiter, the King planet, was conjoined to Regulus (the King Star, how “coincidental”) in September of 3 BC. Since a magus had likely seen this 2-3 times before (this conjunction happens every 12 years), that by itself is not a big enough deal to get the Magi excited enough to pack up their camels and travel to see what's happening. Nor is it a big enough deal for Herod to hear from his scientific advisors.  But later, as we shall see, that is the date of the conception of Jesus by the Holy Spirit into Mary.

A scientific note here: planets sometimes reverse (“retrograde”) motion (like passing a car slowly on the freeway, it seems to move backward, so when earth swings past a planet, that planet seems to move backward). It so happens, Jupiter is in retrograde in 3-2BC in a very peculiar path—it passes Regulus, then reverses course, passes again, then reverses course, passes a 3rd time! This would have been exciting by itself, but additionally, if you draw this movement, it forms a halo above Regulus. Thus we have a triple-proof coronation of a king! (King planet, king star, and halo). Item “b” above is definitely solved, and we have a base "star" for further study.

Now, what about Jewishness--(c) above? A little Scriptural background will get us toward the answer: Gen 49:9 says, in summary, (1) out of tribe of Judah would come a King of all kings. (2) Judah is compared to a lion. Well, why not look and see if anything is happening in the constellation Leo the Lion? (By the way, good astronomers in those days knew many faiths' Scriptures.)  

Now let's talk about Jesus' birth.  Is it also confirmed by the stars?  Begin with Revelation 12:1-5, a prophecy of Jesus' birth.  A “great sign appeared in heaven;” a woman “clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet,” who was pregnant and due to bear a child “to rule all nations with a rod of iron.” She is threatened by a dragon wanting to kill her child. This has long been interpreted to be about Jesus and the Virgin Mary—and opposed by a dragon--Satan working through Herod. Compare these verses with how the stars told us all about it:  It So Happens that as Jupiter begins to crown Regulus, an interesting event happens in the constellation Leo—and behind Leo is—guess what—the constellation Virgo (Virgin). Virgo is rising, clothed in the sun. The moon at the time (within September, 3 BC, see below) is new, so it was under her (Virgo’s) feet! Note the Scriptures above.  An amazing prophecy come true in many "coincidental" points! You must see the DVD to appreciate this amazing point!

As it turns out, the stars tie together the Conception of Jesus by the Holy Spirit and the Birth. How do we know? Because 9 months after the event in the last paragraph, Jupiter is finished crowning Regulus; and has moved to conjoin with Venus, making the brightest conjunction in the world (planetariums love to show this conjunction). This was the only time in those magi’s lifetime for this conjunction. If the magi were thinking about all the activity just noted from September, this bright combo practically screamed out, “Mount Up!”

The bright planet conjunction happened in June, 2 BC.  Thus, Jesus was born in June, 2 BC.Yes, it "should" have been 0 BC/AD. Medieval dating experts were good, but not that good.

And the magi began planning a trip.

The next several months after June 2 BC are speculative, as opposed to the Keplerian rock-hard scientific facts above. Let’s assume the magi were, within a few months, starting their trip. We’re assuming the magi, from the East, were located at Babylon, a home base for the best astronomers of those days. After a couple more months, they would arrive at Jerusalem asking “where?” They tell Herod the details about September, 3 BC and June, 2 BC, then get sent south to Bethlehem—only 5 miles away, please note that.

It So Happens that in December of 2 BC (thus allowing 6 months from Christ’s birth to their arrival at Jerusalem), Jupiter is in the sky south of them from Jerusalem-- thus it continues leading them toward Bethlehem.

This means 8 of 9 requirements above are fulfilled:
a.The first conjunction signified birth by its association with Virgo “birthing” the new moon at her feet (in the tradition of the day, a woman typically gave birth downward).
b.The Planet of King’s halo-coronation of the Star of Kings signified kingship.
c.The triple conjunction began with the Jewish New Year and took place within Leo the Lion, showing a connection with the Jewish tribe of Judah (and prophecies of the Jewish Messiah).
d.Jupiter rises in the east.
e.The conjunctions appeared at precise, identifiable times.
f.Herod was unaware of these things; they were astronomical events which had significance only when explained by experts.
g.The planet/star events took place over a span of time sufficient for the Magi to see them both from the East and upon their arrival in Jerusalem.
h.Jupiter was ahead of the Magi as they traveled south from Jerusalem to Bethlehem

But Jupiter somehow stopped, since it stayed over Bethlehem for the time they traveled there. (This is what brings the scoffers out). There is a simple explanation for the scoffers.  As it so happens, when a planet (or star) goes to the end of an arc and begins to retrograde, it has to “stop” briefly. (Picture an elliptical arc, say the outline of the end of an egg, say the egg is standing up—as you draw the edge of the egg in your mind, from the left, the arc, or egg outline, is moving down. At the right, it moves upward. But for a brief period, at the bottom, it isn’t moving up or moving down—so it seems to stop). It So Happens that Jupiter was “at the bottom”—just before retrograde, it “stopped”—and that day was December 25, BC 2! That must’ve been the date of their arrival to the toddler Jesus, in the house. That’s a Significant date—not for the birth (by which we mistakenly celebrate it), but for the celebration of worship and presenting gifts to Our Lord.

Thank You, God, that your planets, stars, and constellations speak of Your great Immanuel! With perfect prediction. Jews knew the night sky well (they had no light pollution, no real air pollution, they slept on their roofs a lot—knew the constellations).
FOLLOW MY BLOG AT EASTER: THE EXACT DATE OF THE CRUCIFIXION OF CHRIST—FROM THE STARS.