Earthquakes in Pulpits and Pews

Tim LaHaye was in Hawaii at a Bible prophecy conference (at what other conference would he be attending or speaking?) when the 8.9 earthquake rattled parts of Japan. When asked about the news in Japan, the first thing out of his mouth was along the lines that the Bible says there would be earthquakes in various places before the Second Coming of Christ. Where is all that Christian compassion for the victims and survivors of that catastrophe? Nothing seems to matter more than to hope that this crisis or the next crisis fits into our end-time scheme. Just like Jonah. (See earlier blog post, Have You Been Gypped about Egypt?, and especially my P.S.)

Let us set the record straight. Jesus is coming again. There will be a second bodily coming of our Lord. There will be a future bodily resurrection of believers and unbelievers alike. There will be a new heaven and a new earth. There will be an eternal lake of fire.

But there is absolutely nothing in the Bible that says that earthquakes, famines, wars, or whatever else would increase in frequency right before Christ's Second Coming. This may come as a shock to many, especially those who have been fed dispensationalism all their lives. And I may be branded as some sort of kook heretic, but so be it.

It was the improper interpretation of God's Word that led the religious leaders in Jesus' day to miss the boat on his First Coming, and it is the improper interpretation of God's Word that is leading many Christians today to miss the boat regarding the Second Coming. (See John 2:18-21 and Mark 14:55-65 for one such example.)

There is ONE passage about earthquakes or wars or other catastrophic events that have been used over and over again by countless preachers and authors who relish in sensationalizing over national or world tragedies. This passage is found in the Olivet Discourse, which is found in Matthew 24, Mark 13 and Luke 21. Many assume right off the bat that this whole discussion between Jesus and His disciples was about the signs leading up to the Second Coming of Christ. That is where people go wrong.

The disciples were not thinking about the Second Coming of Christ. They did not know fully yet about the First Coming of Christ, and they would not know all about that until after Christ's resurrection. So why would they bother to ask about the Second Coming now thousand years removed from them, when they did not even have at the time the slightest clue about Jesus' death just several hours away?

What was the burning issue on their minds? Luke 21:5-7 tell us, so does Mark 13:1-4, and so does Matthew 24:1-3. Jesus made it so clear to them and to us, how can we miss it? Jesus pointed to their beautiful Temple in Jerusalem, which all Jews took enormous pride in, and said that building would be leveled to the ground. Naturally, the Jewish disciples were astonished to no end, and they wanted to know when the end of their Temple would occur.

Jesus proceeded to answer their question. He gave the signs leading up to the end of the age, not the end of the world, but the end of the old covenant age, when Jesus would come in judgment upon that generation that rejected the Messiah. When the Temple is destroyed, there are no more sacrifices, priests and Levites are out of a job, and the old covenant nation of Israel ceases to be. Plain and simple. The disciples were not asking about the signs leading up to the Second Coming of Christ (why would they be concerned about that since it was going to be such a long way off, two thousand years and counting now?). They were asking when the Temple and their nation would come to a screeching halt.

Wouldn't that concern us if someone with impeccable credentials and authority told us today that our nation's capital would be overthrown? Would our normal, natural reaction be, "When will a rebuilt nation's capital be destroyed some hundreds or thousands of years later?" How preposterous. That flies in the face of reason. Or would it be something like this, like what the disciples asked, "When is our country today coming to an end? Tell us, give us some clues, give us some time indicators, when will the D.C. we have now be Destroyed Completely?"

So Jesus answers the disciples' question. He doesn't answer a question that they didn't ask. He doesn't give answers that would be totally irrelevant to His disciples. Jesus knew what the disciples were asking, the disciples heard what Jesus had said, and the question before us is this: Will we hear Jesus, or will we hear some popular preacher/author instead, who will take advantage of an earthquake in Japan, in order to prove a point that Jesus never made? Do we know more than our Lord?

Bottom line is this--everything Jesus said in Mark 13:5 and following (and in the other synoptic gospel accounts) is about historical events that would happen leading up to the destruction of the Temple in the first century. And in Mark 13:30, Jesus wraps up everything in a nice pretty bow by saying, "Truly I say to you, THIS (not THAT, as in a future distant generation) generation will not pass away until ALL THESE THINGS (all the things he talked about from v.5 on) take place."

Was Jesus right? Jesus spoke these words in 30 A.D. Guess what would happen in 70 A.D., forty years later, within a generation of time? The Temple was destroyed by an invading Roman army. The old covenant age came to an end. The nation of Israel ceased to be. Jesus came in judgment, like when God came in judgment numerous times in the Old Testament (Isaiah 26:21, Micah 1:3, etc.).

There are many passages in the Bible that speak concerning the Second Coming of Christ, but Matthew 24, Mark 13 and Luke 21 are NOT one of them.

What about the earthquake in Japan? Or Hurricane Katrina? Or Haiti? Or 9/11? Or Mt. St. Helens? Or the Vietnam War? Or the San Francisco earthquake? Or the Chicago Fire? Or the Black Plague in Europe? Or the Crusades? Or any other disaster that has been used to justify the nearness of Christ's Second Coming?

Rather than go to Mark 13, we should go to Luke 13, like verses 1-5, for insights on how Jesus handles man-made or natural disasters. "Unless you repent, you will all likewise perish." Jesus said that twice in fact. He didn't jump on the leading news stories in His day in order to hype them for some end-time scenario. He preached repentance to those who were still alive. There is a far greater "fate" than dying in a tsunami; it is dying without Jesus.

Maybe the real earthquake that needs to happen today is the one in our pulpits and pews. Maybe we need to shake loose of some bad teaching that has grabbed hold of us for so many years and has distorted our view of prophecy and of the gospel.

Living in the blessed hope of Christ's coming,

Chris

Dear John, Your Uneducated Peasant is The Intelligent Being

In a letter to the editor at The Oklahoman newspaper, dated March 12, 2011, a John D. Sargent of Oklahoma City wrote the following in response to an earlier letter to the editor:

". . .First, the Bible is too incomplete to explain the 'how' of practically anything. If the entirety of human history, much less the cosmos, can be demonstrated by the amount of water contained within the Pacific Ocean, then the Bible represents the historical equivalent of a one-gallon pitcher. In reality, the Bible is religio-political propaganda, created by tribal shamans and first-century clergy, to explain the 'why' to their adherents.

Second, considering that he was an uneducated peasant, Jesus could not have known even a portion of what a modern person knows second hand about the cosmos or germ theory. Christianity is a multimillion-dollar business and its sustainability relies upon an effective marketing program (fear, uncertainty, doubt). Bible literalists/fundamentalists must wake up and realize that the clergy's livelihood and position within their respective organizations is dependent upon their ability to convince consumers of the effectiveness of their product.

Using the Bible in support of intelligent Design is a a fool's errand"

Here is my Dear John letter:

With all due respect to John Sargent's vacuous, worn-out arguments, his last statement is a remarkable example of evolutionary hypocrisy: "Using the Bible in support of intelligent design is a fool's errand."

Now did John Sargent use his intelligence to come to the conclusion that we all came from non-intelligent matter?

And as a famous philosopher once said, "If there is a God, nothing is impossible; but if there is no God, then everything is permissible", then how can we make any value judgments of what is foolish and what is intelligent in the first place? Would it be foolish or wrong for me to kill someone I don't like, or would it be an act of intelligence to speed up the process of the survival of the fittest? No one can say, because everything becomes permissible.

The inspired, inerrant Bible never makes the claim of being a "scientific textbook"; neither do William Shakespeare's works nor any other great work of literature. We don't use the Bible to teach calculus, business law, architecture, civil engineering, interior design, computer technology, German, or any other worthwhile pursuit. We can be educated to learn how to make a living, but we need Something or Someone to tell us how to make a life.

God gave created man a dominion mandate in Genesis 1:26, and involved in that is the discovery of God's wonderful creation. The human body is wonderfully and fearfully made, so says the psalmist. If God told us everything how He did it, then that would put scientists out of a job. So it would be intelligent not to bite the Hand that feeds you and made you. "It is the glory of God to conceal things, but the glory of kings is to search things out." (Proverbs 25:2)

Just last night I was watching a science program on PBS, hardly a Bible fundamentalist mouthpiece, and I learned that scientists do not know what 95% of the universe is made of, because it is mostly dark invisible matter. If scientists only know 5% of the universe's composition, then how can they tell us with such certainty what did or did not make the universe? That would be the fool's errand.

Whom John Sargent calls "an uneducated peasant", Jesus Christ has done more to change people's lives for the better now and forever than all the John Sargents and Chris Humphreyses in the world put together. If Jesus were just "an uneducated peasant", then why do secular works, such as encyclopedias, still devote more time and space to His life than to any other person in the history of mankind?

Maybe John Sargent can use his intelligence from non-intelligent matter to figure that one out for us.

Respectfully yours,

Chris Humphreys

Have You Been Gypped about Egypt? (with all apologies to Libya, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Yemen, Bahrain, and all the rest)

Sure enough. It happened. Sermons, Bible studies, prophecy conferences, books, articles, you name it have poured out about how today's turmoil in the Middle East is a fulfillment of prophecy. It seems that eager beaver Christian leaders are ready to capitalize on any crisis to prove something that you and I can't figure out on our own. In the New Testament day, that elitist idea of special knowledge granted to a few was called gnosticism; today it is called dispensationalism. With our Scofield Bibles in hand, and with our note pads ready to jot down the latest "insights" from our prophetic gurus, we are confident again that "this" today in Egypt is "that" foretold in Isaiah.

Not long after the unrest in Egypt erupted, I came across numerous instances where Christians were flocking to hear how the latest leading news story was all there written down for us thousands of years ago. The Bible is more of a crossword puzzle, where the word cross has been marganilized to make room for our imaginative prophetic puzzles to be solved. We come out looking smarter than God Himself, all the while looking more foolish again in the eyes of the world.

Have you noticed that all the prophecies mentioned by these dispensational experts about Egypt are in the Old Testament, and none are in the New Testament? That should tell us something big. Why are there no prophecies in the New Testament, which covenant is said to be superior than the old covenant (Hebrews 8:6-13), about the current Middle East situation? Why is there no mention of Egypt in prophecy in the twenty-seven books of the New Testament? Not even one in the book of Revelation, the largest prophetic book in the entire Bible. (Interestingly enough, first century Jerusalem is identified as Egypt in Revelation 11:8.)

If all the experts today want to take us entirely to the Old Testament to prove their cherished theories, then are they willing to live under the Old Testament's dire warnings of what should happen to those whose prophetic insights don't come to fruition? (Deuteronomy 18:20-22) Death is the only option for any prophecy blunder. As a way to escape any responsibility, like Pontius Pilate who washed his hands of any guilt, modern day dispensational preachers will say they do not consider themselves as prophets in the Old Testament sense of the word. Therefore, they conclude, this Deuteronomy passage is not valid concerning them, since they are only trying to teach what the prophets foretold.

However, such reasoning does not stand up, especially if these modern preachers twist and distort Scripture out of context to their own profitable liking. In that sense, they are creating new prophecies which God never said in the first place. If their teaching applications do not come to pass over time then, they are demonstrating themselves to be false prophets. But alas, very few will see it in that regard, because dispensational preachers and teachers are banking on people's short retention span. (The words "profitable" and "banking" are not just financial metaphors!)

Haphazarding a guess, I am inclined to believe that many sermons have been preached out of Isaiah 19 recently, where the connection has been made between what we read there and what we read and hear today in Egypt. For example, v. 2 says, "And I will stir up Egyptians against Egyptians, and they will fight, each against another and each against his neighbor, city against city, kingdom against kingdom. . ." Aha, some would say. Isn't this what we see going on in Egypt today? Civil unrest, and Egyptians fighting against Egyptians, right? So, therefore, the conclusion must be that all this today has been prophesied right here in Isaiah 19.

Another verse I am sure dispensationalists will latch on to is v. 4, "and I will give over the Egyptians into the hand of a hard master (President Mubarek, or his successor?), and a fierce king will rule over them, declares the Lord God of hosts." So the guessing game begins who will be this hard master, this fierce king, who will take over the reigns of Egypt today, and how will he be the missing cog on the road to Armageddon?

It is a high crime not to believe the words that come out of God's mouth. It is also a high crime to put God's words in His mouth where we try to force Him to say something that He never meant.

If we want to go down this dispensational road of imaginative speculation and fanciful interpretation, then we better be consistent all the way. Let's read the rest of Isaiah 19 and not just pick and choose a couple of verses that seem to fit any preconceived end-times scheme.

Where is the Lord riding on a swift cloud to Egypt? (v.1) If we are to be strict literalists, as dispensationalists insist we must be, exactly when did that happen recently, or when will it happen?

Where are the idols of Egypt today? (v.1) Islam is a false religion, but can anyone show us where the carved idols are in Egypt today?

Where are the sorcerers and mediums and necromancers in Egypt today? (v.3) If Isaiah 19 is about today, then should we not expect to see v. 3 clearly in view today?

Where is the king who will rule Egypt? (v.4) Will he take that title upon himself? Mubarek was President, not King, of Egypt. We must be literalists, say the dispensationalists.

Where and when will the Nile River and all other waterways be dried up in Egypt? (v.5-7) We should all be waiting for that to happen any day now, right?

According to v.8-10, what are going to be the principal occupations in today's Egypt, if Isaiah 19 is about today's headlines? Does Egypt today depend on fishing as its main source of income?

Where are the capital cities of Zoan and Memphis today? (v. 11-14) I thought Cairo was its capital today. Are we to believe then that Zoan will overtake Cairo as the new capital of Egypt?

Also, will the new king in Egypt today take over the title of Pharoah? (v.11) Has there been any suggestion on the part of anyone that the new leader in Egypt or any future leader will be called Pharoah?

In v.16-25, we read that Egypt, Assyria and Judah will join forces in a spiritual way. Where is Assyria today? Where is the tribe or nation of Judah today? Syria today is not Assyria; and Israel today is nothing like Judah of the Old Testament days.

Where are the five cities in Egypt today that will speak the language of Canaan? What is the language of Canaan? And where is the Old Testament altar going to be built in Egypt today?

If dispensationalists try to spiritualize all the above, then they are destroying their own literalistic theories.

How about this for a novel idea. . .novel to dispensationalists? Why can't Isaiah 19 be a prophecy about events that would happen in Isaiah's lifetime? Not something thousands of years down the road, but something more immediate. Does not Isaiah 20:3 indicate a three year period of time? Why do we think that every prophecy, or even most of the prophecies, have to concern us and our times? Are we that egotistical? Do we think the world of biblical prophecy revolves around us? Are we better than all those Christians who lived before us, who evidently had nothing said about them in their times, if indeed dispensationalism is true? Where do we get off thinking that God made us kings and queens while Christians in previous generations and centuries were nothing but paupers in comparison? (Judging by the state of Christianity today, a person may be inclined to believe the reverse is true instead.)

Isaiah 19 uses the names of people, places and events to describe what would happen during that day, not during our day. How can we be so blind to miss the obvious?

A text taken out of context is a pretext. I have even heard dispensationalists use that catchy phrase. Okay, let's take them at their word. If we start at Isaiah 9 and read on, we see that all the nations mentioned in prophetic judgment were nations at the time of Isaiah himself: Assyria, Philistia, Cush, Babylon, Moab, Tyre, Sidon, and last but not least, Egypt. Why do we have to suppose that all the nations mentioned in those chapters before and after chapter 19 deal with nations back then, but in chapter 19, God throws us a curve ball, and talks about a nation way off in the distance, like in the 21st century A.D.? How exactly does chapter 19 then have any relevance to the original hearers of Isaiah's prophecy?

It is true that only the nation of Egypt in the Middle East, outside of Israel, carries the same name as what we find on the map today, but what does that really prove by itself? A text taken out of context is still a pretext.

I feel sorry for Libya, Jordan, Syria, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and other places in the Middle East who are experiencing as great as an upheavel and maybe more so than what Egypt has encountered so far. Not a word is being said about them from our leading dispensational spokesmen. Of course, those nations are relatively new nations, and it may be hard for even the most creative, imaginative interpreters of Scripture to find their names in the Old Testament. We may owe these nations an apology for slighting them and focusing all our time on just one country.

Have no worry though. All the latest sermons on Egypt will soon be forgotten; they will be collecting dust in file cabinets along with all the hundreds and thousands of other sermons in the past on prophecy where the interpretations have never panned out. We will move on to the latest news story of the day and just depend on the short memories and shallow theology of all our devoted followers.

Jonah was the reluctant prophet. The last thing he wanted to do was go preach to the hated Assyrians. After a brief submarine ride, Jonah got the message though, and he preached the message to Ninveh. To Jonah's disgust, the Ninevites got disgusted over their sin, turned from their sin, believed in Yawheh God, and God did not send punishment their way. The once praying, preaching prophet became a pouting prophet in Jonah 4. All his prophetic dreams, charts and diagrams were in the ash heap. The gripes of wrath is what we find Jonah doing outside the city limits of Ninevah. He was only out there to see if God would somehow change His mind and vaporize Ninevah within forty days. He was a prophetic speculator and spectator.

He could have stayed inside Ninevah to help disciple all these new converts. He could be in there preaching and teaching them more about the true Yahweh God that they had come to believe in, and he could have been in there praying with and for them. Nope, he would have none of that. It was more to his amusement to see if his preconceived prophetic wishes would come true whereby he could rub his hands in glee over the destruction of Ninevah.

Sometimes I get the feeling that we Christians in America are so consumed with doom and gloom that we rub our hands in glee when a new worldwide crisis comes on the scene. We seem so eager to pounce on the latest catastrophe and try to prove to others and to ourselves that this is what God said would happen in the last days. We have moved in with Jonah outside of Ninevah. We have become prophetic speculators and spectators. We eat it up, and we can't buy the latest prophetic books fast enough.

Imagine for a moment two churches in town: one church has recently advertised a big special sermon and Bible study on end time events and how Egypt today is a direct fulfillment of this or that prophecy in Scripture; another church in the same town at the same time has gotten the word out that they want to have a very special prayer service for the Christians in Egypt and the Middle East during this upheaval, and to pray for some missionaries they know are serving over there. Let's say that both churches have put out the word equally through different avenues about what would be happening this coming Sunday at their respective churches.

Now which one do you think would attract a bigger crowd?

We know the answer to that question, don't we?

We would rather be outside of Egypt, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, or Ninevah, where we could safely speculate or watch with bated prophetic breath. How many would want to go on the "inside" and spend our time instead lifting up fellow persecuted believers in prayer and for the gospel to make more inroads into the hearts of Egyptians or Libyans?

Are we more like Jonah than we care to admit?

Yours in Christ,

Chris

P.S. An 8.9 earthquake has rattled Japan and left hundreds dead. Are our hearts broken over the lost of many lives, or are we nestled in with Jonah outside of Ninevah, somewhat giddy on the inside, because "there will be earthquakes in various places" (Matthew 24:7)?