.jpg)
Because so many psalms are prophetic, we are wise when we come to them to ask the question posed to Philip by the Ethiopian eunuch concerning the prophecy of Isaiah that he was reading at the time. He inquired, “About whom does the prophet say this, about himself or about someone else?”
It was an excellent question. We must ask it of ourselves (and of the scriptures) today.
In which our regular writers toss around subjects a little more volatile than usual.
Canada’s former Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland once noted that Russia had a chance to get on the “right side of history” and help negotiate a political end to the reign of Syrian strongman Bashar Assad. Former president Obama loved the expression, and Bill Clinton used it more than 20 times in his speeches. Writer Ben Yagoda says the phrase — whether it’s “right side” or “wrong side” — has been in use for over a century.
Tom: I can vaguely understand what a Christian might intend by the use of the expression, Immanuel Can. But what on earth does “the right side of history” mean in a post-religious, thoroughly secular context?
On September 9, 1939, The Telegraph reported that a woman from London, England named Frances Fripps was accidentally struck by a local bus. Taken to Middlesex hospital, Miss Fripps awoke to find someone bending over her bed. To her utter astonishment, she recognized her visitor as none other than the Queen of England, there for a surprise tour of the hospital.
“They told me I had been trying to knock down a bus,” gasped Miss Fripps, “and now I find you here, your Majesty. What a day!”
What a day indeed.
.jpg)
I don’t love boring post titles like this one. However, in this case the alternative was my working title, Babylon 5. You can thank me later.
Yes, this series has run longer than expected. We are done today. In yesterday’s post, we briefly examined the current frontrunners for the real-world, present-day religious and political entity toward which scripture’s “mystery Babylon” symbolism is pointing us. Eschatologists in the Reformed tradition put forward apostate Judaism as its prime candidate, while the more popular names in the Dispensationalist school have historically envisioned Roman Catholicism in the role of the great prostitute seated on many waters or, as John refers to her, “Babylon the great”.
Hey, we’re Protestants. We have to protest something. Or someone. And yes, I know more than a few saved Catholics. Let’s not go there.
.jpg)
The New Testament writers reference Babylon 11 times. The first four mentions are purely historical, denoting the ancient city and its empire. My interest today is in the final seven, which talk about a Babylon that has endured throughout history. Six of these are in Revelation.
Few attentive readers of scripture doubt that John’s usage of “Babylon” in Revelation is primarily or exclusively symbolic. It has to be. The city was a ruin then and remains one today, buried under millennia of dirt. The empire is long gone. To the extent that Babylon continues to be a factor in our world, it is primarily a spiritual and philosophical influence rather than a visible political entity. I’ve been calling her “mystery Babylon”, not least because interpreters of scripture struggle to determine exactly where and how the Babylonian spirit currently manifests and how it will manifest in the end times. That is certainly mysterious.
Of course, there are always opinions about it. One favorite speculation over the centuries has been that Roman Catholicism is mystery Babylon.
.jpg)
“I believe our pastor is trying to introduce teaching and practices inconsistent with our church’s statement of faith. Should I respond, and if so, how?”
It’s not at all uncommon for Christians to attend a church whose statement of faith they disagree with in small ways. I’ve yet to fellowship with any congregation that was monolithic in its faith and practice. Doctrinal differences are to be expected, and our Lord anticipated them in his letters to the seven churches in Revelation. To the church in Pergamum he twice says some among them held teachings contrary to the faith.
Quietly holding a doctrinal error is a problem, but not as big a problem as being in a position to teach it. Being in a position to teach it weekly is worst of all.
“Fallen, fallen is Babylon the great, she who made all nations drink the wine of the wrath of her sexual immorality.”
It’s not enough for the chronic sinner to quietly sin in a corner. Whatever tattered shreds of conscience he retains will trouble him just enough that he must rationalize his behavior, and that requires seeking the validation of others.
To secure their approval, he needs them to be thinking the same way he does. The quickest way to pervert their intellects along the same lines as his own twisted reasoning is to introduce them to his favorite sin, so they can experience the very same sort of moral tension with which he is struggling. So the sinner in the corner becomes the cause of stumbling in the public square, and sin spreads. Maybe if everybody’s doing it, it won’t feel so bad.
.jpg)
Last week we looked into the apostle Paul’s use of Psalm 5:9 in the book of Romans. For Christians, this is usually the bottom line: we’re interested in how the things that were written in the Old Testament apply in our own experience. That’s normal, natural, and even biblical, but it’s useful to keep in mind that whatever the NT writers may have legitimately made of them, these passages also had an original context and an original audience.
Today we’re looking at what these words meant when David wrote them something in the order of 3,040 years ago.
In which our regular writers toss around subjects a little more volatile than usual.
David B. is a regular reader/commenter here. A few weeks back he (politely) asked Immanuel Can, “Why do you choose to fellowship in a church where you clearly disagree with how they operate?”
IC responded, “Maybe I’ll do a post on that …”
Tom: Maybe that time is now, IC, not least because I feel like it might be a useful topic for a number of our readers who have found themselves in similar positions.
As you suggested to David in your response, churches do not suddenly become heretical overnight. It’s my experience that almost anything can be smuggled into a local church provided it is done incrementally.
“Shallum the son of Jabesh conspired against him and struck him down at Ibleam and put him to death and reigned in his place …”
“Then Menahem the son of Gadi came up from Tirzah and came to Samaria, and he struck down Shallum the son of Jabesh in Samaria and put him to death and reigned in his place …”
“Pekah the son of Remaliah, his captain, conspired against him with fifty men of the people of Gilead, and struck him down in Samaria, in the citadel of the king's house with Argob and Arieh; he put him to death and reigned in his place …”
“Then Hoshea the son of Elah made a conspiracy against Pekah the son of Remaliah and struck him down and put him to death and reigned in his place …”
Ah, the kings of Israel. Their history is very much like that of all the idolatrous nations around them. Somebody gets the kingship, then somebody else murders him and takes over. And each one is as bad as the last.
“Meet the new boss, same as the old boss,” as Roger Daltrey famously intoned.
Looks like this is turning into at least a three-parter. I’ll post the next instalment this coming Sunday, LW. Meantime, we should have a look at three significant Old Testament passages that almost surely informed the writings of Peter and John about what we might call “mystery Babylon”, the spiritual descendant of the Chaldean-controlled city that was both the enemy of Israel and the enemy of her God.
The writers of the New Testament were comfortable with the idea of Babylon as a spirit, temperament or idea, one that promotes the glory of man rather than the glory of God.
The writers of scripture use the Hebrew/ Aramaic word translated “Babylon” or “Babel” nearly 300 times between Genesis and Revelation. That’s an awful lot of references to look up. If you had asked me before I looked which book of the Bible mentions that great city the most, I would have bet on one of the OT historical books. In fact, almost half the Strong’s entries are in Jeremiah, of all places (141). 2 Kings is a distant second with 28. Revelation, which dedicates parts of three chapters to her, has only six.
At some point, the attentive Bible student says to himself, “Hmm, Babylon is actually a major theme of scripture. Maybe I should look into that.” All right then. I hope you’ll find it’s not just an excuse for me to … babble on.
.jpg)
“I recently came to faith in Christ and am living with an unbeliever. What should I do?”
An excellent question. A couple that attends our church’s Sunday morning service recently answered it: they got married. The man, definitely saved and growing in Christ. The partner of many years, possible. She comes out to the meeting. She looks, listens and lingers, but no definitive evidence of regeneration. Maybe she will follow her new husband’s lead. Maybe she will decide to turn back to Sodom and end up the spiritual analog to Lot’s wife. Nobody knows.
Come now, smart guys (of whom I used to be one): Why is there no easy, black and white, definitive answer for couples with one partner on each side of the line between heaven and hell?
Sometimes you really have to read something to believe it.
This would be one of those cases. It’s what appears to be an honest expression of frustration at the writer’s inability to shake the belief of Christians he encounters. Blogger Gary asks, “How Do You Convince Someone That His Invisible Friend Does Not Exist?” Sounds like he’s tried and failed, and is thoroughly stumped.
I guess the first thing that crosses my mind is Why would anyone want to convince others Jesus does not exist?
.jpg)
I mentioned last week that we would take a little time out from expositing Psalm 5 in context to look at Paul’s use of verse 9 in a famous passage in Romans 3 that begins by posing this question: “What then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin.”
The selection from Psalm 5 is part of a list of Old Testament quotes from various sources that Paul assembles to prove his point, and this is where his critics begin to object to his usage of Psalm 5:9 and other verses. So let’s take a look at their objections today and see if we can’t come to a better understanding of what Paul was trying to accomplish in Romans 3.
In which our regular writers toss around subjects a little more volatile than usual.
In principle, I’m not keen on leaving churches. It happens too often and too easily. But sometimes, there just isn’t any choice.
When Gretta Vosper became the pastor of a West Hill United Church in Toronto, Canada in 1997, she was not yet out of the closet about her atheism, a little bonus she didn’t disclose from the pulpit until 2001. Amazingly, quite a few congregants hung on until 2008 when Vosper did away with the Lord’s Prayer, at which point 2/3 of the flock made for the exits.
Tom: I’m not sure precisely where the line is, but I’d have difficulty faulting anyone who leaves a church with an atheist pastor, IC. From your experience, what are the ingredients that go into making for a “time to go” decision?
“If you know these things, you are blessed if you do them.”
Most of the time I enjoy writing these posts.
Sometimes, not so much.
Like today.
Today, I feel the truth of what I heard a preacher say once: “When you point your finger at somebody else, there’s always three pointing back at you.” Or, as the scriptures would put it, “Not many of you should become teachers ... for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness.”
Peter wrote his first epistle to saved Jews scattered throughout the Roman provinces of ancient Turkey. That should hardly be a contentious statement, since he declares it plainly in his introduction: “To those who are elect exiles of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia.”
Elect = saved. Exiles = Jews. (Evidence forthcoming.) Of the Dispersion = Jews. Pontus, Galatia, etc. = Asia and Asia Minor, most of which is now Turkish.
As with any humanistic philosophy, Feminism and the Bible are starkly at odds. A woman can be both Feminist and Christian, but she will not be much good in either role.
As it permeated Western society, one of the ways Feminism has been most effective in creeping into our churches has been its claims to reasonableness, fairness and equality, all of which at least purport to be somewhat-Christian values. Claims are one thing, but the motive behind making them is very much another. In going back to do a little research on the history of the movement, I find myself fascinated by the “tells” the early Feminist writers gave us about their own true character and beliefs. The motivating force behind the philosophy was evident to any discerning person from its very beginning, regardless of its professed aspirations.
Feminism’s earliest promoters wore their shameless opposition to God right on their sleeves.
.jpg)
“What does God say about avoiding sin just because we are scared of the consequences? Is resisting temptation meaningless if fear is the only reason we are godly?”
Jesus taught that love is the best motive for obedience, though he wasn’t the first to do so. Even the Law of Moses has the correct motive built right into it. When asked about the most important commandment in the Law, Jesus quoted two commands to love: “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength” and (in second place) “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”
Then he said, “If you love me, you will keep my commandments.” Love and avoiding sin go together better than chocolate and peanut butter.
The subject of giving to the Lord has come up a few times in the last year from different angles. One idea that I touched on briefly in a previous post is that some Christians believe we ought to do all our giving through the filter of local church leadership, who would distribute funds received as they see fit.
You’d have to know a little bit about my background to understand how foreign such an idea seems to me.
.jpg)
The superscription to Psalm 5 reads “To the choirmaster: for the flutes. A Psalm of David.” I had to take a quick peek at the Hebrew for “flutes” in my Strong’s, as I don’t imagine what the Levite musicians played 3,000 years ago bore much resemblance to a modern wind instrument, especially one usually made out of nickel-silver alloys.
As it turns out, the word only appears in certain English Bibles. Some consistently omit the superscriptions for reasons discussed in this article. Even in the cases where it does appear, we have nothing else in the Old Testament with which to compare it. The usage is unique. Strong’s says it may refer to a musical instrument or simply be the name of a particular melody, which is a discreet way of saying the translators are guessing. Most modern translations go with “flutes”, though a few say “wind instruments” and the NIV goes with “pipes”.
It would be nice if we perfectly understood the etymology and popular usage of every ancient Hebrew word. This one we don’t. We can only imagine how this psalm sounded in full vocal chorus with accompaniment.
In which our regular writers toss around subjects a little more volatile than usual.
Tom: Quick quiz, IC: How many different local churches have you been part of? I’m not counting churches you’ve visited, but just those you would have considered “my church” for a period of time; churches in which it would have been notable to others if you weren’t there.
Immanuel Can: Um … rather more than most people, I suspect. I’ve been regarded, for some time, as a regular attendee of … I make it 14. I might be missing one or two. My youth and early adult years were marked by a lot of moving around, so it wasn’t a product of unhappiness in most cases. How about you?
So … what if atheists took themselves seriously?
So seriously, as a matter of fact, that they actually tried to live out the rational implications of their own rejection of all possibility of God or gods? What then?
As I said in yesterday’s post, getting answers to this question turned out to be more difficult than it might initially appear.
Persuading atheists to speak about what follows from the rejection of God was very hard. Not only did they generally refuse to press forward logically, but they often reacted with bitter, visceral hatred at any prompting to do so, making further conversation difficult.
“Think only of the past as its remembrance gives you pleasure.”
— Jane Austen
“Things without all remedy should be without regard: what’s done is done.”
— William Shakespeare
“The past can’t hurt you anymore, not unless you let it.”
— Alan Moore
Guess what I’ve been thinking about this week?
I’ve been thinking about the value of word studies in the Bible’s original languages. There are definitely pros and cons.
There is a potential problem inherent in the style of platform ministry that commences every attempt at exposition by telling the audience which Greek or Hebrew words underlie the most significant words in your text, and to what extent their meaning differs from the closest possible English equivalents.
You probably identified that danger zone right away. Invariably, one of two things happens.
.jpg)
“What is the great deception of the end times?”
The Bible portrays the final years of our present age as a period characterized by lies and deception, one in which truth will be very hard to find. Sometimes I wonder if we are getting close.
In Matthew 24, the disciples asked Jesus what signs will indicate the end of the age has come, and that the Lord Jesus is returning to earth as king. Among other things, he replied, “Many false prophets will arise and lead many astray”, including deceivers who claim to be the Christ. Paul would later write to Timothy, reminding him that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and the teaching of demons. Numerous other passages say similar things.
If we had only the accounts in the four gospels from which to form an opinion about Pontius Pilate, we might find ourselves with a measure of sympathy for his plight. After all, he didn’t invite a crazed mob of angry Jews to show up on his doorstep in the middle of the night, threatening the peace, his person and his reputation. He didn’t ask to be accused of public disloyalty to Caesar. He didn’t ask for the job of judging Jesus.
He certainly doesn’t come across as hostile to the Lord personally. I’m quite sure he would much rather have been snugly tucked into his bed than making a life-or-death decision in a situation he didn’t understand.
.jpg)
The superscription to Psalm 4 reads, “To the choirmaster: with stringed instruments. A Psalm of David.” It reminds us that no matter how personal any given psalm may appear, each was written with the entire body of believers in mind. Three thousand years ago, your new psalm did not get played on the radio in your car, revolve on the turntable of your stereo, or get discovered on Spotify. The average Israelite did not even have a copy of the words at home in a scroll to read and meditate on.
Psalms were for the congregation when it gathered, whether sung and accompanied or performed for worshipers by trained musicians.
In which our regular writers toss around subjects a little more volatile than usual.
Everybody’s favorite political football Bristol Palin has written a column on the subject of the Guinness Beer Company and its Christian origins.
Tom: This is not the first time I’ve come across this story, Immanuel Can. In another generation, a Christian brewer turns out to have been the voice of moderation and societal self control. But in some evangelical circles today, Arthur Guinness would be taken to task for corrupting the faithful. I mean, he sold alcohol for a living!
Is there a less cartoonish and more biblical position to be taken on the subject of alcohol consumption, IC?
I’ve spent quite a bit of time talking with atheists.
You might wonder why. You might say, “People have to be open to the voice of God, or they hear nothing at all. ‘He who has ears to hear, let him hear,’ said the Lord. A man whose ears are already shut gets nothing — and, if we follow the Lord’s example — should get nothing, for he does not unite his hearing with any measure of faith. And without faith, it is impossible to please God.”
Even secular common sense accepts this. “A man convinced against his will remains an unbeliever still,” goes the axiom.
So why bother to talk to people whose minds are already made up? A fair question.
When the Ottoman Empire collapsed in the WWI era, the Balkan Peninsula, previously unified, fragmented into numerous smaller, less-stable states and the term “balkanize” entered our vocabulary as a way of describing any process by which a bigger unit breaks down into smaller units or factions.
It’s not a verb I use a whole lot, but it showed up last week in a text from my good friend and occasional commenter WiC. He asked, “Should Christians balkanize to strengthen in dark days? The West has been conquered without a shot.”
Ah yes. The Benedict Option, or something like it. Hmm, let’s consider that a bit.
Schools of systematic theology develop out of a felt need to explain difficult or unclear passages of scripture. As much as we might try to avoid systems — and I certainly do — the necessity of finding a coherent set of overarching principles within which we may evaluate the meaning of any individual text eventually asserts itself. Even refusing to interpret becomes its own sort of interpretation, or at very least a comment on the significance of what God has said. So we try to explain the text without explaining it away.
What then should we do when our systematic theology collides with both observable reality and, more importantly, the scriptures?
.jpg)
“Why are missionaries obsessed with getting everybody else to go to the ends of the earth with the gospel?”
If you’ve never had a missionary to another country visit your local church while on furlough, let me tell you what to expect. You will not get a nice little forty-minute message from scripture. You will definitely not get deep exposition that will help you to grow in Christ. You’ll get a rousing, urgent call to join the missionary out in the world somewhere preaching the gospel to the lost.
If you’re like me, you’ll end the meeting feeling slightly guilty and a little annoyed. I guess I’m saying I can relate to this question, and maybe you can too.
In 1931, an excavator named Claude Schaeffer on a dig in Ras Shamra, Syria came across three clay tablets in the ruins of a house belonging to a high priest of the god Baal that have come to be referred to as the Krt Epic or the The Epic of Kret. (Without any vowels in the original languages, it’s hard to be consistent in the transliteration of some ancient Eastern names.)
If you were to cherry-pick a few couplets from the Krt tablets you might observe that they bear a passing similarity to the language of the Psalms.
.jpg)
Psalm 3 is a little piece of history.
The superscript over it reads, “A Psalm of David, when he fled from Absalom his son.” It takes us back to chapters 15 through 19 of 2 Samuel, which describe Absalom’s conspiracy against his father. The scripture says he “stole the hearts of the men of Israel”. An attractive, charismatic young man, Absalom pretended to care about the people of God and to offer them something his father could not, and large numbers of Israelites followed him in rebelling against David and driving the king from his palace in Jerusalem to exile across the Jordan River.
Absalom’s conspiracy ultimately failed. God delivered David, and if we read Psalm 3 with those events in the back of our minds, we see its words harmonizing with the history in Samuel.
In which our regular writers toss around subjects a little more volatile than usual.
The Gospel Coalition is an evangelical colossus, with close to 8,000 affiliated congregations across the U.S., 65 million annual website pageviews, regular live events, a full slate of in-house blogs and other media promoting its theological checklist.
Tom: But one very slightly unsettling feature of TGC’s ministry, Immanuel Can, is that they seem to have little interest in engaging in the exchange of ideas, as this Jonathan Merritt article very effectively documents.
You’re quite familiar with TGC. What do they stand for?
Today I want to do a short follow-up from last week’s post, which was about bad songs that conservative evangelical congregations are singing these days.
My particular concern in that one was the really atrocious doctrine of the Holy Spirit that they seem to be teaching in song. I pointed out some of the raw falsehoods that are being sung passionately by those of us who really ought to know better: and I said that the victims of our error include all untaught believers and our own children, as well as the Spirit of God himself, concerning whom these songs promote raw falsehoods.
I ended with a passionate plea for us to stop.
And I really hope somebody is listening.
One of the minor themes that has caught my attention throughout my latest pass through scripture in my morning readings is the orthodoxy of our Lord’s teaching during his time in the public eye. Most of the subjects he referenced came directly out of the Law, Psalms, Prophets and wisdom literature with which the Jews were extremely familiar, and his take on these subjects was entirely in harmony with all the writers of the Old Testament from one end to another.
Now, it is certainly true that he reframed these ancient concepts in new ways appropriate to his own generation, but he never left himself open to the charge of preaching heresy. His doctrine was in every respect firmly moored to the scripture that he himself insisted cannot be broken.
“Six days you shall labor, and do all your work …”
There’s much discussion in Western economies among secularists, and more recently among believers, about eliminating employment altogether for the vast majority of the population. You have almost surely read something to that effect in the last little while. Futurists tell us it’s all but inevitable.
The prospect of a labor-less future for humanity has Elon Musk speculating about governments providing “universal high income” payments to compensate their voters for the unemployment they expect AI to cause.
For unbelievers, any “universal” income, feeble or otherwise, is a sort of holy grail.
.jpg)
“What is the ‘marvelous light’ 1 Peter 2:9 refers to?”
Light is frequently a metaphor for truth, revelation or understanding, not just in the Bible but everywhere in Western literature and beyond. In English, we refer to becoming “enlightened”, meaning we have somehow received a more accurate way of looking at something we formerly did not comprehend. There is even a period in Western history we call the Enlightenment or Age of Reason.
Did this usage originate in the Bible? Perhaps. Many metaphors did.
When a man cannot stop talking, something is terribly wrong. That is especially true among the people of God, where self-control should be at a premium.
Scripture is consistent from beginning to end in warning about the hazards of uncurated communication. Most recently, Ecclesiastes reminded me, “Be not rash with your mouth, nor let your heart be hasty to utter a word before God, for God is in heaven and you are on earth. Therefore let your words be few.”
In that case, I believe Solomon was concerned about rash vows rather than babbling in worship, petition or confession. Nevertheless, caution in the presence of the Almighty is always prudent.
.jpg)
The word Selah appears in the Old Testament a total of 74 times, primarily in the Psalms, but also a few times in the prophecy of Habakkuk. If that seems odd, you may want to read this post and possibly this one. Hebrew scholars entertain the possibility that in the midst of his prophetic utterances, Habakkuk quoted something constructed very much like a traditional Hebrew psalm (though not one preserved in the Psalter). If that is in fact the case, it should not surprise us to find the prophet using the language of a psalmist. Selah is one of those words peculiar to Psalms.
We are about to encounter it for the first time in Psalm 3.
In which our regular writers toss around subjects a little more volatile than usual.
Matthew, Mark and Luke all make reference to a sin that will, in Matthew’s words “not be forgiven”. Mark calls it an “eternal sin”.
The reference has been a source of distress down through the centuries to Christians who fear they may have committed it and be irreversibly destined for perdition.
Tom: Personally, Immanuel Can, I’ve always thought the unpardonable sin was lazy exegesis, but I haven’t got much scripture to back me up there.
Immanuel Can: Lazy exegesis? Bad, yes, but probably pardonable if you repent. Now, being a Pittsburgh Steelers fan … that’s a whole different category: expect perdition.
The congregation I was in last weekend was singing this new song:
“Holy Spirit, come invade us now
We are your church
We need your power …”
Eh?
These people believe the Spirit of God is outside of believers, and has to be called on to “invade”? They think the church of God does not actually have the Spirit of God already?
Surely not! But why were they singing such nonsense?
.jpg)
We evangelicals love to use words long past their best-before date. Perhaps the reading material we share in common influences us to sound alike, or maybe we hear other people using a word and pick it up by osmosis.
Here’s one I’d be very happy never to hear again: winsome. It’s not in any translation of the Bible I’ve ever owned, and I’m pretty sure we don’t need it to be.
Have you ever heard anyone but a Christian say it? I certainly have not.
Proverbs is wisdom literature. As such, we expect it to deal with mostly with practicalities and real-world concerns, and this is exactly what we find: relationship advice, sound strategies for home and workplace, political savvy and oodles of good old common sense.
What we might not expect to find in Proverbs is a plethora of references to God. In fact, the generic “God” [elohim] and the specific, personal “Lord” [YHWH] appear in Proverbs a combined total of 96 times across 31 chapters, the vast majority being the personal name of the Lord.
On reflection, that too makes sense. There is no real wisdom apart from God. He is the source of all genuine understanding about life.
.jpg)
“To what extent are friendships transactional?”
If you peruse secular media and believe what you read, your answer is probably a quick and hearty yes. Perhaps you have come across the expression “toxic friendship”. The line of thinking currently in vogue is that your friends exist to benefit you. When they stop being satisfying and become more trouble than they are worth, it’s time to give your old pals the boot right out of your life. In the words of Marie Kondo, “The space in which we live should be for the person we are becoming now, not for the person we were in the past. Keep only those things that speak to your heart.” By “things” she means people.
Hmm. Let’s see what the Bible says about that.
I don’t believe in evolution. One reason is that I can do math. Another is the Second Law of Thermodynamics. A third is that evolution requires more faith than Christianity does, based on far less evidence. I have plenty more reasons besides those. Evolution is not my subject today, but its lack of substance is always worth mentioning when the younger generation may be lurking around.
Yet another reason I don’t believe in evolution is that my theology excludes it. You cannot reconcile the teaching of Christ and his apostles with the teaching of Darwin and his acolytes. Not coherently.
.jpg)
We were looking last week at the future, earthly opposition to God and his Messiah described for us in Psalm 2. David tells us that the rulers of the nations in those days will take their stand against both, craving freedom from the moral restraints Christ’s righteous government of our world will impose upon them. The psalmist cautions them from resisting the Lord’s Anointed. But as Isaiah would later write, “Of the increase of his government and of peace there will be no end.”
A fallen world will not want that, even if it comes packaged with all manner of millennial blessings.