mike's messages

The Antichrist

pastormike@calvaryleh.org — Sun, 07 Aug 2011 17:09:00 GMT

666... the apocalypse... the mark of the beast... the dragon... the false prophet... the end times... the return of Jesus...

One day a man will be given the power to lead humanity to an unprecedented time of evil. No one knows his identity, only his title... antichrist.

Much speculation surrounds who he is, and when he will rise to power, and where he will make his appearance, and what is keeping this evil at bay.

Daniel 7 & 9, Revelation 13, and 2 Thessalonians 2 all describe this future tyrant in vivid detail. These passages encourage those of us who worship the true Christ to be faithful witnesses until Jesus Christ returns.

I know I covered a lot of information in this message, and I apologize for the Q&A session being cut short. Some great insights were shared after the service. And now, here is your opportunity to share your thought or pose your questions about this man who will one day rule the world through the power of satan. Any thoughts?
More ...

The Homosexual Debate

pastormike@calvaryleh.org — Sun, 10 Jul 2011 17:16:00 GMT

Is there a hotter topic in the news today than marriage? Everyone seems to have a different viewpoint. For example, on our left, there are the polygamist pedophile cult leaders who abduct and marry a multiple pre-pubescent girls because, “God told them to.” Then, on our other left, there are the homosexual activists who will not be satisfied until a married couple of the same gender is considered, “Normal,” while a male married to a female not. The one exception to that last rule is, of course, if the male is actually a surgically altered female. Confusing times… Next, we turn our attention to the church, which has managed to keep up with the world in one crucial category… The divorce rate. God forbid Christians should stay married when the going gets tough. Incredibly, “Most,” meaning, by definition, “Over half,” of our lawfully wedded brothers and sisters in Christ now choose to opt out of a covenant they made with God. How dare we criticize someone else’s house if we can’t keep ours clean? And, on an equally disturbing front, more and more are choosing not to opt in at all, which brings us to our final category: Cohabitation, the disposable commitment. So, in the midst of this conjugal crisis, just what should Christians do when confronted with homosexual marriage?

In my message this past Sunday, I addressed, “The Homosexual debate,” and tackled such issues as: Is homosexuality moral? Should homosexual marriages be recognized? Should homosexual church leaders be ordained? And, how should Christians respond when laws, such as NY State’s recent decision to recognize homosexual marriage or California’s SB-48 mandating gay history in public school education, contradict morality? How can Christians hold the line morally and do so in love? Here, I welcome your comments, questions, and feedback on the subject…

The sermon that this blog is in reference to is available here. Please be sure to listen to the message before posting on this blog. Thanks!

More ...

Galatian Vacation

pastormike@calvaryleh.org — Sun, 12 Jun 2011 17:13:00 GMT

Well, it's confession time... I planned to do a quick Q&A at the end of the message on the book of Galatians, but... at 12:15, I wanted the Nursery workers to escape with their fruit of the Spirit in tact. So, I figured I would entertain Galatians Questions in this format instead. If you accept my challenge to read Galatians this week, whether it's a chapter a day or straight through in one sitting, and you have questions, comments, or observations along the way, please visit and leave your thoughts here. Or, if you missed the message, you can listen online and respond as well.

Just a quick note on blog posts: I am open to publish almost anything on this site, with a few common sense guidelines. First, it needs to be clean and on task. The spirit of the blog is to learn and discuss, not vent and rant. Second, I will never post an anonymous response, pseudonym, or message that I believe to be fraudulent. Sorry I need to make a statement like that, but it's the world we live in...

So, with that in mind, are you ready to take a Galatian vacation?
More ...

Why the world did not end... Friday, October 21 (Sunday, October 23)...

pastormike@calvaryleh.org — Wed, 25 May 2011 15:51:00 GMT

Here we go again... Now the world is going to end Friday October 21... not May 21... Oh brother...

I'd like to thank everyone who came out to church May 22, especially those who had the courage to ask questions... We covered everything from rapture views (pre-tribulation versus pre-wrath) to hell and eternal torment versus annihilation to Ezekiel's war versus Armageddon, and that's just the Q&A (all of this, along with the message, is available online thanks to our crack tech guys!).

Now, I know there are more questions regarding Biblical prophecy out there... So I'd like to open up this forum. If you have any more q's about the Bible and the future, fire away...

More ...

Hate crimes...

pastormike@calvaryleh.org — Mon, 04 Apr 2011 20:50:00 GMT

Hate crimes get a lot of attention today. NY, along with many other cities, actually has a hate crimes task force. A hate crime is an act motivated by hatred toward another group. And hate crimes can go unnoticed or excused in the church.

Like it or not, gossip is a hate crime. Sure, you’ll probably never do any time for it. Let’s hope the thought police and big brother are never realized. But you will answer for gossip and prejudice, just as much as you’ll answer for sexual immorality and drug abuse, at the judgment seat of Christ. And, “Knowing, therefore, the terror of the Lord, we persuade men” (2 Corinthians 5:11). It’s just, some sins, they seem more palatable, or harder to confront, at any rate...

Gossip and prejudice played a big part in the early church in Acts. Did you hear that, all you, “We need to do church like they did back in Acts,” whiners? In Acts 11, on the heels of Cornelius and his Gentile family coming to Christ, gossip travels from Caesarea to Jerusalem faster than Peter does, and prejudice is waiting for him when he returns (Acts 11:1-2). The Christian Jews, they hated the fact that Peter fellowship with Christian Gentiles. They don’t care that he preached to them, converted them, or baptized them. The problem is... He ate with them (Acts 11:3)!

It takes a lot of guts to do what is right. Sure, Peter stood up to “the enemy” in Acts 4 and 5. But here, he stands up to other prejudice believers. And if he doesn’t, they never grow up.

Our challenge is simple: Christians need to stop the gossip, drop the prejudice, and roll with the truth.

But how?

More ...

Acts 10... Judgment Day, May 21, 2011, and Cult of Personality...

pastormike@calvaryleh.org — Tue, 29 Mar 2011 19:16:00 GMT

On Sunday, April 17, 2011, THE WORLD IS GOING TO END... Just kidding. Actually, I’m going to preach a message that will make you beg for JUDGMENT DAY... I will cover a passage of Scripture that will, on a very practical level, address the subject of demagoguery, and by the time I’m half way through, you’ll be wishing THE END IS NEAR! Now, to save you the trouble of looking it up, a demagogue is a leader who holds power through clever use of emotional appeal. This type of leader produces a cult of personality. Their followers tend to be intensely loyal, regardless of the leader’s bizarre antics or wild claims. In other words, these leaders can say or do no wrong. And, every once in a while, one of them rears their ugly head in the church...

Many leaders are offered the keys to demagoguery at some point in their tenure. Paul had his shot in Acts 14. And, as we saw last week, Peter was offered the role in Acts 10:25. Think about it... Peter got from Cornelius the very thing the devil coveted from Christ (Matthew 4:9). He could have established his own little empire right there in Caesarea, but instead, the retired Jewish fisherman commanded the powerful Roman centurion with a Greek imperative, “Get up.” Peter was more concerned with God’s kingdom than his own little empire. Peter was more focused on making followers of Christ than followers of himself. Unfortunately, this cannot be said of every religious leader...

On Sunday, May 22, I will preach a message entitled, “WHY THE WORLD DID NOT END YESTERDAY.” This message will be given in response to the false prophesy of a popular religious demagogue who claims to be a Christian leader. In making this prediction with the emphasis, “The Bible Guarantees it,” this individual has single-handedly portrayed Christians as raving lunatics, not to be taken seriously in the culture at large. And, instead of rebuking him, his followers, in typical cult of personality style, have embraced him all the more. So on Sunday, May 22, I’ll give an overview of what the Bible says will happen in the future, and then open the morning up to questions and answers. And yes, I know I’m picking a fight here. It’s what shepherds do when they spot a wolf.

One question I believe plenty of people have on their minds is, “How did someone come up with Saturday, May 21, as JUDGMENT DAY?” The following explanation is taken directly from: http://www.familyradio.com/graphical/literature/judgment/judgment.html (thanks to DH for sending this link in). I will put the quote up in its entirety, and then share my thoughts on this type of Bible teaching. Here is what is being presented as proof of judgment day:

“God had written in the Holy Bible in Genesis 7:4: For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth. God added in Genesis 7:10-11: And it came to pass after seven days, that the waters of the Flood were upon the earth. In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.

The ark that Noah had built was the only place of safety from the destruction of the Flood. Likewise, God’s gracious mercy is the only place of safety from the destruction that is coming on the Day of Judgment.

In 2 Peter 3:8, which is quoted above, Holy God reminds us that one day is as 1,000 years. Therefore, with the correct understanding that the seven days referred to in Genesis 7:4 can be understood as 7,000 years, we learn that when God told Noah there were seven days to escape worldwide destruction, He was also telling the world there would be exactly 7,000 years (one day is as 1,000 years) to escape the wrath of God that would come when He destroys the world on Judgment Day. Because Holy Infinite God is all-knowing, He knows the end from the beginning. He knew how sinful the world would become.

Seven thousand years after 4990 B.C. (the year of the Flood) is the year 2011 A.D. (our calendar). 4990 + 2011 – 1 = 7,000 [One year must be subtracted in going from an Old Testament B.C. calendar date to a New Testament A.D. calendar date because the calendar does not have a year zero.]

Thus Holy God is showing us by the words of 2 Peter 3:8 that He wants us to know that exactly 7,000 years after He destroyed the world with water in Noah’s day, He plans to destroy the entire world forever. Because the year 2011 A.D. is exactly 7,000 years after 4990 B.C. when the flood began, the Bible has given us absolute proof that the year 2011 is the end of the world during the Day of Judgment, which will come on the last day of the Day of Judgment.

Amazingly, May 21, 2011 is the 17th day of the 2nd month of the Biblical calendar of our day. Remember, the flood waters also began on the 17th day of the 2nd month, in the year 4990 B.C.”

Let me begin by saying that this is a perfect example of “HOW NOT TO INTERPRET THE BIBLE.” First of all, when you read Genesis 6-8 in context, you are dealing with events that happened in the past, not the future. In the flood account, God gave Noah a specific time period of 120 years in which He would judge the earth (Genesis 6:3). At the end of that time, when the ark was built, and all the animals gathered, and all the food stored, and all the people of Noah’s day warned and without excuse (2 Peter 2:5), these verses in Genesis 7 tell us that God sent Noah into the ark one week prior to flooding the earth. There is nothing in this passage that in any way indicates a hidden prophetic clue about a future judgment timeframe. This type of Biblical interpretation is called “Eisogesis,” or “reading into” the words of Scripture in order to make Bible say whatever you want it to say. For two masterful examples of Eisogesis, see Genesis 3:1-5 and Matthew 4:5-6.

Next, some verses are like heretic magnets. False prophets are drawn to them like summertime bugs to the fuzzy blue zap-light. So for reasons unbeknownst to me, it seems as though it is a prerequisite for a religious demagogue to play fast and loose with 2 Peter 3:8. Now, let’s be clear... when Peter says, “A day is LIKE a thousand years...” He is using a METAPHOR. By definition, a metaphor is a figure of speech not to be taken literally. The word translated “like” in 3:8 is a Greek adverb that is pronounced “hose.” For an example of how Peter uses the adverb “hose,” turn back just a few verses to 2 Peter 2:12. When (ironically) referring to false teachers, Peter writes, “But these (false teachers), LIKE natural brute beasts (NIV translates “unreasoning animals”) made to be caught and destroyed...” Yeouch! Did I read that correctly? Is Peter literally saying here that we should hunt down and exterminate false teachers because they are rabid animals? Let’s be consistent, people... He is using the same word, “hose” here as in 2 Peter 3:8. Is he promoting violence, or is he making another “shepherd and wolf” point? Before you answer, consider how Peter also uses “hose” in 2 Peter 3:10 when he writes: “But the day of the Lord will come AS a thief in the night...” Now, we all understand that he is using a figure of speech to convey a point, I hope... This day will come suddenly. No one knows when the thief is coming... No one! A thief does not call a homeowner in advance to make an appointment: “Excuse me, sir, but I intend to rob your house on Sunday, May 21, 2011. Is it asking too much for you to leave the back door unlocked for me so I can clean you out?”

So, what’s the point of 2 Peter 3:8? Should we try to apply “one thousand years” to every mention of a “day” in Scripture? If so, then I suppose we should start with Jesus still being in the tomb, because, well... Since a thousand years is as a day, by my math, we should expect His resurrection in the year 3030-ish AD, right? I mean, reason with me for a minute: Jesus is God, and He did say something about rising on the third day, and a day is a thousand years to God, right? Then that settles it! See you in 3030! (As the apostle Paul would say, I speak as a fool!) I hope you see my point here. Peter is not trying to give us a decoder ring to be used on the rest of Scripture in 3:8. He is conveying the truth that, unlike human beings, God is not beholden to time. One thousand years may be a long time to us, but not to God.

Finally, on a more practical, skeptical, rational note... For those who came up with the date of May 21, 2011, I would like to know how you handled some of the more delicate problems with our calendar. I mean, aside from the switch from a 360-day lunar year to a 365.25 calendar year somewhere in the middle of your math, (a switch complete with the complication of leap years), there are also problems like September 3-13, 1752 to contend with. Historically, the dates September 3-13, 1752 do not exist. They were taken out as an adjustment to the calendar. And, as I mentioned, “17th day of the 2nd month of the Biblical calendar” is founded on a 360 day lunar year, while May 21, 2011 is founded on 365.25 calendar year. Now, if those who came up with the May 21 date painstakingly adjusted for such oddities as the year 0, I would like to know if they took these other anomalies into account, or are we possibly a couple days off? I mean, it’s just a couple of measly days, no big deal, really, but WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE END OF THE WORLD HERE PEOPLE!

These types of pronouncements only create panic, scorn, and cult of personality... Follow Christ! And see you on May 22^nd!

More ...

Cornelius... the nicest pagan you'll ever meet!

pastormike@calvaryleh.org — Tue, 22 Mar 2011 00:40:00 GMT

In Acts 10, I introduced you to Cornelius, the nicest pagan you’ll ever meet. And I really needed Cornelius’ help to deal with a big problem in Christianity today. The problem I addressed is the growing acceptance of Universalism, as evidenced in Rob Bell’s latest book, Love wins. For a look at the teaser that was shown in church, go to: http://vimeo.com/20272585. For a hard-hitting interview of Rob Bell by Martin Bashir, go to: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vg-qgmJ7nzA. And for even more info than that, go to YouTube and search “Rob Bell Love Wins.” The internet abounds with recent interviews for you to search out for yourself. For now I’d like to prepare you for what you will see and hear by answering the questions: What is Universalism? And, is Rob Bell a Universalist (since he claims in various interviews that he is not)?

First of all, Universalism is a teaching. A belief system. A dogma. Yuck, dogma! Who likes dogma, anyway? I mean, if you listen to Bell long enough, you’d equate dogma with drinking from a crusty, slobbery, slimy old water bowl. So on a side note, always take care when dealing with a word-smith who blasts dogma on one breath and then promotes conversation on the other. It’s clever semantics, that’s all. Here’s an example of what we’re dealing with... In an interview promoting Love Wins, Bell condescendingly describes churches that reject his dogma as, “Misguided and toxic.” Ouch! That means, since I don’t accept his dogma as truth, I’m... Yikes what a way to be labeled! But, when responding to allegations of heresy from those he just referred to as “Misguided and toxic,” Bell publically retorted with the statement: “I was not aware that labels are the highest form of goodness and truth.” (USA TODAY, 3/14/2011, 13B). Really? Who was it that threw the first label, anyway?

Second, Universalism is not just any teaching, but it’s an old teaching. It’s been around for a long, long time. Bell did not come up with a new idea here. He stumbled across an old one that has been dead and buried for hundreds of years in orthodox Christianity. Most scholars credit a man named Origen for developing the dogma of Universalism around 200 (AD for you old-schoolers, CE for you young-ins). Now, there are two things you should know about this old dogma: One, Origen’s view is referred to as the “Apokatastasis,” which is a term used to describe his belief in a future time when all human beings will be restored to their original state of creation. So, I guarantee you Bell cites Origen extensively in his book. And second, this view has been consistently held by Christianity as heresy. And, I’ll bet Bell dances around that little tidbit as delicately as possible in Love Wins. Remember, by definition, a conversation has two sides...

So third, Universalism is not just your ordinary old teaching, it is an old false teaching. What is it falsely teaching? Well, understand from the onset, as with many other dogmas, Universalism is a spectrum. That means not every Universalist will agree on everything. In general, Universalism is the belief that all human beings will one day be saved. Hence “Universal.” Now, how does that play out? Well, some Universalists believe, with the simplicity of “All dogs go to heaven,” that all human beings are heaven bound, regardless of their conduct or belief in this life. Other Universalists teach that a time of punishment does exist after this life, but that time is temporary. They believe that God will ultimately bring all human beings back into the fold, even if their conversion occurs post-mortem. In other words, to some Universalists, hell is real, but short-lived. After a time of suffering, or purging, as Origen would say (yes, he also provided the foundation for the Roman Catholic doctrine of Purgatory), all human beings will eventually submit to the love of God and hell will be emptied (i.e. Love Wins). Most Universalists who hold on to this branch of the Universalist tree believe that one’s time in hell will generally correlate to one’s misconduct in this life. Finally, there is a school of thought within Universalism that holds to annhilism. Annhilism is the belief that there are some human beings condemned to hell who are so wicked that they will never be redeemed (Love Loses?), and therefore they will cease to exist, or be annihilated (Love settles for a Draw?). In any case, the most general definition of a Universalist I can provide is one who believes that, in the future, all human beings will ultimately be in heaven, and no human beings will be subjected to eternity in hell. For a more detailed analysis of Universalism, I would refer you to Millard Erikson’s work, Christian Theology, pp. 1025-1032. For now, how does Universalism square with Scripture?

The usual Greek word for eternal is “ai-own-i-os.” From it, we derive our English word eon. Ai-own-i-os means forever, eternal, everlasting, you get the idea (BADG, p. 28, for you Greek geeks like myself). Now, this is a really good word. Think about Matthew 25:46... Jesus, speaking about the saved, says, “the righteous (will go) into eternal life.” There is the adjective ai-own-i-os in action, describing eternal life! Yipee! Don’t you just love it? Life that never ends! Life that goes on forever and ever! Clearly, Christ is describing a permanent state here! There is just one catch... In the first half of the verse, Jesus is contrasting the saved with the lost, and He says of the lost, “These will go away into everlasting punishment.” And guess what? “Everlasting” is the exact same Greek word, ai-own-i-os. Now, if you are going to apply this adjective as a permanent state to modify life, why would you do otherwise to modify punishment? In other words, you can’t change the meaning of the word just because you don’t like the theological implications.

The other problem is that eternal punishment is consistent throughout Scripture. It’s not just a New Testament concept. The Hebrews have a word for eternity as well. It’s “O-lam.” And check this out: In Daniel 12:2, Daniel is given a description of the final judgment when he writes, “And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting (O-lam) life, some to shame and everlasting (O-lam) contempt.” So Universalists of the world, I challenge you: If you don’t want to believe hell is forever, at least be consistent and teach that heaven isn’t eternal either. Christ repeatedly warned of it. For a brief Bible study on the permanence of the eternal state of punishment, I refer you all to Mark 3:29 & 9:43-48; 2 Thessalonians 1:9; Revelation 20:10, & 21:8.

Why Universalism? In Basic Theology, Charles Ryrie puts it this way: “The heresy of Universalism grows out of an unbalanced concept of the attributes of God. It teaches that since God is love He will ultimately save all people. But God’s perfection of love does not operate apart from his other perfections, including holiness and justice. Therefore, love cannot overpower holiness and save those who reject Christ and die in their sins,” (p, 45). In short, God is love, but He is also holy. You can’t say He is more love than He is holy, because He is completely love and completely holy.

So does love really win? If you go around telling people that hell is not real and hell is not eternal, then no, love loses...

PS, for a really, really well thought out rebuttal to Love Wins, check out Kevin DeYoung’s review (DeYoung is the co-author of the excellent book, Why We’re Not Emergent by Two Guys Who Should Be) at http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevindeyoung/2011/03/14/rob-bell-love-wins-review/.

More ...

Acts 9... Keeping the change!

pastormike@calvaryleh.org — Tue, 08 Mar 2011 01:53:00 GMT

The last two weeks in Acts 9 were essentially one really long message broken down into two fairly long ones. Sorry to all my nursery workers. I’ll get the hang of this, I promise!

Acts 9 tells the story of Saul’s conversion. The first half of Acts 9 deals with Saul’s conversion. That’s justification. The second half deals with the way his life dramatically changed. That’s sanctification.

Sanctification doesn’t get a lot of play these days. It is a painful process, because it involves change. For Saul, he...

Changed Immediately. One minute he was persecuting Christians, the next he was preaching Christ.
Changed his desires. Instead of a desire to bring Christians to jail, he desired to bring the lost to Christ.
Changed his message. Instead of preaching hate, he preached the living Christ.
Changed his power source. Instead of relying on his position or pedigree, he relied on the power of God working through him.
Changed his position. Instead of being strong and in control, he was now weak in the eyes of the world.
Changed his alliances. The men who once supported him now were trying to kill him, and the people he was trying to kill are risking their lives to save him.
Changed his heart. The heart is a tough one to gauge, but the power of Jesus in Saul’s heart became evident in every part of his life. This is what resulted in a lasting, life-long change for Saul.

Now, that’s Saul. The big question is, what about you?

More ...

Acts 9... The penalty box

pastormike@calvaryleh.org — Sun, 27 Feb 2011 22:36:00 GMT

Today I’d like to write about the penalty box... If you’ve never been there, trust me, it’s not a nice place to visit. Hockey players who fight are sent there to hang their heads in shame while their opponents go on a power play. Indoor soccer players who foul, or worse, kick the ball into the ceiling panels, serve their time in the penalty box as well. And then game continues without you. And all you can do is wait. You sit and watch helplessly as your team suffers. Seconds feel like hours. Why did you do it? Is the referee being fair? Will your teammates hate you when you return? Will the time ever come for you to get back into the game? Is there redemption from this ungodly place?

I’ve often wondered about Saul’s time in the penalty box. Acts 9:9 says he spent three days there. Waiting. And no coincidences here: Three days, the same amount of time as Jonah spent in the belly of the fish. The same time period that Jesus spent in the tomb. Three days in the penalty box. And during that time the Bible says he spent it...

Acts 9:9... May Blepown kai ouk ephagen oude epein.

A literal translation would read something like:

May (Not) Blepown (Seeing) kai (and) ouk (neither) ephagen (ate) oude (nor) epein (drank)

Now, sometimes in Greek, the language is tied together loosely, and sometimes it is tied very tight. Grammatically, Luke has tied a very tight knot here. He used a series of verbs and conjunctions to do it. This provides us with a clear picture of Saul’s time in the box.

Let’s start with the verbs, which indicate the action of the passage, or, in this case, the lack thereof. Blepown is written here as a present active participle. As a general rule, a present active participle gets translated with “–ing.” However, both ephagen and epein are written as aorist active infinitives. The Aorist in Greek is like our English past tense. Now, you may wonder why these verbs are written in different tenses (past and present) to describe the same situation. This is called contemporaneous action. Think of it like this: The participle is driving, and the other two verbs are acting like passengers in the back seat. The three do go together, but the participle is the one in control. Luke, the author of Acts, wanted to tell us that for the duration of Saul’s blindness, he did not eat or drink. So he wrote it this way. But that’s not all he did.

Luke also used the negative correlative conjunctions ouk... oude. This is Greek for “neither... nor.” This structure, coupled with the verbs, ties the grammar in a very tight knot. So Luke is not telling us that Saul lost his appetite or skipped a meal or two during this time in the penalty box. He is saying that Saul didn’t touch food or water any more than he was able to see. For the entire three days, nothing... No food, no water, no seeing... Just waiting.

When you read a passage like this, it’s fair to ask: What drove Saul to behave like this? Is this a fast? Or is it brokenness of spirit? Is he seeking God? Or trying to punish himself? Is he worried about his regaining his sight? Or overcome with the vision on the road to Damascus? Or is he filled with regret for his malicious treatment of Christians?

As always, good commentators provide valuable perspectives. Concerning this verse, MacArthur says, “Saul needed time to reflect on the transformation of every aspect of his life... Although salvation is an instantaneous transformation from death to life, darkness to light, it takes time to plumb the depths of its meaning and richness...” (NT Commentary, p. 271). Robertson suggests, “It was a crisis for Saul... These must have been days of terrible stress and strain,” (NT Word Pictures, p. 118). And Toussaint, “Three days of blindness, fasting, and praying were a time of waiting,” (Bible Knowledge Commentary, p. 376). Personally, while I agree in principle with these insights, I can’t help but think that regret played a major role in this time of anguish.

So here is a closing thought... While salvation provides instantaneous justification for all sins, sometimes in life, there are still consequences to be had. Remember, justification is a legal term. It does not mean you and I are “not guilty.” We are guilty. Justification means we believers in Jesus Christ have been declared righteous in spite of our sin, because another has willingly served our sentence. There is a big difference between “not guilty” and “declared righteous”. For example, the sins of an IV drug user are washed white as snow when they come to Christ, but they still have to deal with the consequences of Hep-B. While Saul was blind, perhaps it was the recent images of those he had executed for the faith that stole his appetite away?

The funny thing is, there is no shortage of penalty boxes in life. I can think of a plenty of places that could qualify. Police department. Principal’s office. Emergency room. Separation. Church discipline. Unemployment. And the list goes on. (Maybe not all of these in every case, but you get the point.) The question is, when you find yourself or someone else in the penalty box, what will you do?

More ...

Acts Eight Anomalies... aka... Man, Philip had a weird day!

pastormike@calvaryleh.org — Sun, 20 Feb 2011 02:19:00 GMT

Did you ever have a really weird day? You know, like the kind of day where you thought you were stuck in an episode of the twilight zone? Or Glee? Well, the day Philip met the eunuch on the desert road to Gaza had to go down as one of the weirdest days in his life. The entire event was filled with anomalies. Now, by definition, an anomaly is something odd, peculiar, or strange. And a closer inspection of the passage reveals that the second half of Acts 8 (verses 26-40, the passage I preached from on Sunday) is just one anomaly after the other. Take the opening phrase... When Philip is instructed to leave Samaria for the desert highway, in the original Greek, the Bible says:

Acts 8:26... Angelos de Kurios elalayse pros Phillipon.

This literally reads “But/Now” (de) “An angel” (Angelos) “of/from the Lord” (Kurios) spoke (elalayse) to Philip. For starters, in this Greek clause, the word angel is indefinite, which means there is no article, or “The” in English, which is why the indefinite marker “An” is inserted here. Now, as I mentioned in my last blog (Simon the Sorcerer... saved?), you can’t make too much out of the presence or absence of the Greek article (just keep reading and you will see why). But, after reading this verse, you can ask yourself, “Self, just who is talking to Philip?” I mean, is this just your ordinary, run-of-the-mill, heavenly being encounter? Or, is this the mysterious, “Angel of the Lord”? Or could this possibly be Luke’s fancy way of describing the Holy Spirit? Different commentators view this anomaly different ways. If you are interested, take some time to check out the various differing opinions of the experts by reading a commentary or two (or asking me and Bryan). In the end, the lack of a definite article causes me to lean toward this being an angel. But what do you think?

Now, like me, you might be thinking, “Big deal, an angel appears... thanks for stating the obvious, Mike. The Bible is full of angelic encounters...” But my question is; Why here? Why would God send an angel to deliver such a simplistic message like this to Philip? Well, hold that thought for a paragraph or two... Because, if you read a little further to where Philip encounters the eunuch, we also encounter another anomaly. The Bible says:

Acts 8:29... Eipe de to Pneuma tow Philippow

This clause literally reads “But/Now” (de) “The Spirit” (to Pneuma) “spoke” (eipe) to Philip. Well, well, well, what do we have here? The first thing that stands out in this clause is actually the presence of the article (to), which makes the noun Spirit (Pneuma) definite, and translated into English as “The Spirit,” as opposed to “A spirit.” And speaking of Spirit, notice that this is not the word angel (Angelos) used in Acts 8:26. This is a reference to the Holy Spirit. So, think about this... Philip has already received divine instructions from an angel. Now he’s receiving instruction from the Holy Spirit. What an anomaly... What a day... But, why the change from angel to Holy Spirit in the divine delivery system? Well, all I can tell you is, folks, we’re not done yet. After Philip’s encounter with the eunuch is all over, we are left with one more anomaly to deal with... The Bible says:

Acts 8:39... Pneuma Kuriou arpase ton Philippon

Right off the bat, I have to admit that this clause is very difficult to translate. Pneuma Kuriou is literally “Spirit of/from the Lord.” However, in this phrase, Pneuma is the object and Kuriou is the complement. Therefore, in this Greek word pairing, Pneuma can be definite even without the article (which is why I’ve been reminding you not to make too much of the presence or absence of the article). I wrote all that to explain to you how this phrase could properly be translated into English as “The Spirit of the Lord.” (And it is in most English translations... I honestly don’t know what the Contemporary English Version (CEV) committee was thinking! Maybe they had a Monty Python moment? You know, “And now for something completely different...”) Anyway, it is clear that the Spirit of the Lord did something to Philip here. The question is: What did He do? The word arpase in the text is derived from the Greek verb arpazow, and it is written in as an aorist active indicative, which is much like our English past tense. It literally means, “He seized.” So, literally, Philip was seized away by the Holy Spirit. Now, does that mean the Holy Spirit led Philip on to his next task the same way He leads you and me, or was this more of a mystical transportation?

Well... Normally, I’d think this was a simple case of Luke poetically describing the Holy Spirit leading Philip away. But remember, we’re in anomaly-ville, here. And a curious point is how, and where, the Greek verb arpazow is used elsewhere in Scripture. Here is a brief survey:

2 Corinthians 12:3-4... And I know such a man—whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows— how he was caught up (arpazow) into Paradise and heard inexpressible words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.

1 Thessalonians 4:17... Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up (arpazow) together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air.

Revelation 12:5... She bore a male Child who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron. And her Child was caught up (arpazow) to God and His throne.

So, while my natural inclination is to lean toward a less supernatural explanation, it does seem that... surprise... something odd may have happened to Philip here. He may very well have been miraculously removed from the presence of the eunuch and transported to his next mission field, which would explain the second half of Acts 8:39. But that’s just what I think. What do you think?

Well, it’s time to shift gears and address Acts 8:37... What an anomaly! This verse has started more fights between Christians (ugh... that phrase itself, ya know?), and it is a rallying point for most King-James only churches. So the question is: Should it or shouldn’t it be in the Bible?

As I noted in my sermon (He who has an iPod, let him hear), versions like the NIV and NET take this verse completely out of the text and, awkwardly enough, jump from Acts 8:36 to Acts 8:38. Hmmmm... Do you think anyone will notice, guys? For now, both versions place Acts 8:37 in the bottom margin of their translations, along with gaudy disclaimers that read something like, “It is clearly not a part of the original text of Acts,” (NET). They might as well state: “Bible skeptics, attack here!” Furthermore, their disclaimers seem to imply that the current location of Acts 8:37 is just a temporary layover until it reaches is final destination on editing room floor of some future revision. But, before we go crazy with the scissors and tape to the Bible already, we really should ask: Is it clearly that cut and dry that Acts 8:37 does not belong?

In order to reach this conclusion, you have to engage in the very touchy science of textual criticism. Textual criticism should be an in-house debate that strengthens the faith of believers, but instead it’s turned into a church-splitting issue that has brought derision from skeptics and made Dan Brown a millionaire. (And again I say... Ugh!) So examine yourself... If you are not mature enough to handle an honest debate, along with another anomaly or two, please stop reading here... skip to the last paragraph where I give the Isaiah assignment... really, it’s OK. But, if you think you can handle the truth, read on...

The truth is we do not possess the original manuscripts written by the Biblical authors like Luke. So Bible scholars use textual criticism, which is the science of comparing the thousands of ancient books, scrolls, papyri, and fragments that we do have, in order to determine what the original manuscripts contained. The consistencies and similarities between these texts are amazing! However, the one thing all these books, scrolls, and etc. have in common is that they are all copies, and unlike the originals, copies can have errors. But, by comparing the thousands of copies we do have, we can be confident that we have God’s complete, preserved Word. Now, that’s not to say that some verses haven’t come under scrutiny, and Acts 8:37 is one of them. So let’s start by taking a quick look at a couple of these Greek witnesses that are very important for textual criticism.

First, it is true that some of the oldest, most reliable Greek witnesses do not contain this verse. For example, Acts 8:37 is not in the Codex Sinaiticus, perhaps the oldest surviving Greek witness, circa 500 AD (Or CE for you more contemporary types. I’m old school). But, while that is a strong piece of evidence against its inclusion in Scripture, it does bear mentioning that the Codex Sinaiticus does include portions of the Apocrypha, including the Shepherd of Hermes and the Epistle of Barnabas, and it also contains documented scribal errors. Could the omission of Acts 8:37 be one of them?

Another important text that does not include Acts 8:37 is the codex Alexandrinus, a “Bible” that dates back to the middle of the fifth century AD. But, while the combination of these witnesses and others is strong evidence against inclusion of Acts 8:37, it is not a slam dunk. In support of inclusion, the verse does appear in multiple Greek fragments (I could list a bunch of numbers that refer to fragments here, but that would mean very little to most readers. So instead I’ll refer any interested parties to the UBS Fourth Edition of the Greek New Testament, p. 438, for a detailed list of pros and cons) as well as in the Vulgate (Latin), Syriac, Coptic, and Armenian translations. Furthermore, important early church fathers like Irenaeus and Augustine commented on this verse, lending support that it was originally recognized as a part of Scripture. So what do we do now? Well, somehow we have to explain what happened here and make a decision. In the end, you really can only end up in one of two camps. So, wherever you land on this one, just promise to play nice, ok?

If you think this verse does not belong in the Bible, then you probably consider it an addition to the text by a well-meaning scribe, kind of like an early “Study Bible” or commentary. In other words, you can believe the verse is true, but just not inspired. Therefore it does not belong in the text. Or, as Toussaint puts it in the Bible Knowledge Commentary, “Acts 8:37 is included only in late Greek manuscripts and therefore probably not in the original,” (pp. 374-5). Odd, though, of all the places for a scribe to add commentary, why insert it here, where the text is pretty clear, and yet remain silent on more ambiguous passages such as Acts 2:38?

On the other hand, if you think this verse does belong in the text, then you believe that an early scribal error either accidentally or intentionally omitted the verse from major textual families, but other fragments kept the reading alive until it received general acceptance when it was included by Erasmus in the Greek Majority Text in 1516 AD. Now, to be fair, since the Byzantine Greek text does not include this verse either, Erasmus was Acts 8:37’s big break! Had he not included this verse in the final edition of his work, we probably would not be having this debate today. His influence in this matter cannot be understated. So, if you, like Erasmus, believe this verse belongs in Scripture, then you would agree with the likes of Jerry Falwell when he writes in the Liberty Bible Commentary, “Although some manuscripts do not include verse 37, it does fit perfectly into the story.” (p. 281). Perhaps Warren Weirsbe said it best in the Weirsbe Bible Commentary, NT, “While Acts 8:37 is not found in all New Testament manuscripts, there is certainly nothing in it that is unbiblical,” (p. 350). So, for those reasons, I believe Acts 8:37 does belong in the body of Scripture, but I do understand the argument surrounding it. But what do you think?

OK, last paragraph, I promise... and for those of you who skipped the introduction to textual criticism... welcome back! So finally, when Philip encountered the eunuch, the Bible says that he was reading from Isaiah 53. During Sunday’s message, I gave you a homework assignment, and I’d love to see a collection of blog responses on this subject! I asked you to read Isaiah 52:13- 53:12 and list all the times that you see Jesus in that Old Testament passage. This would be a great topic to discuss as a family during devotions, or dig into a commentary and see what other scholars have concluded. So, where do you see Christ in Isaiah 52-53? And as you read, keep this in mind: When you see Him, my friend, it is no anomaly! Happy hunting!

More ...