David Mohler

So here’s a study activity for your consideration. Examine the four passages below. I have proposed some questions which follow.

The NET Bible has been used below for two reasons: 1) I have not studied these texts in the NET. So, I am not picking a translation that weighs in favor of my present understanding; 2) the NET is a trustworthy translation in the company of the KJV, NASB and ESV. All four translations should bring us to the same conclusion.

Your thoughtful, exegetical responses are welcome. Obviously, additional scriptural citations may be required.

Two more passages for your consideration:

Some questions for starters:

I recognize that parables were used to teach pointedly, and that extrapolating them into something they were never intended to teach is wrong. Similarly, just because one parable uses a certain term doesn’t necessarily mean that the same term in another parable means the same thing. With that in mind, please do not consume the meta on that issue alone as it is already understood. Nonetheless, I believe that Jesus was obviously developing cohesive, consistent and interrelated illustrations about the nature of the Kingdom and our entrance into it. Therefore, I would maintain that the Kingdom parables certainly cannot be contradictory, and surely they are not to be read as islands unto themselves.

A couple of years ago, I engaged in a discussion of Christ’s deity, His temptation, and whether or not He could have sinned (I reject that He could have ever sinned, He was non posse peccare.) That online debate led to an article on the legitimacy of the temptation of Jesus Christ while affirming a defense of His inability to sin.

Tonight, I ran across a worthwhile comment by Dr. John H. Gerstner on why Jesus could not have sinned:

“If the Son of God could have succumbed to Satan’s temptation, recorded in Matt. 4 and its parallels, since He is the same yesterday, today and forever He could yet sin and there could never be any rest for the weary with an ever-ready hell always at hand with its consuming fire waiting for them to fall when their unpredictable Savior failed to save to the uttermost.”

Bingo! That sentence sums it up:

1. Jesus has never changed. He didn’t change from being “able to sin” (or even being “able not to sin”)  to “not able to sin” - upon which our assurance rests. He has never been able to sin.)
2. Even those who argue that Jesus could have sinned  would rush to qualify their belief by affirming that He predictably would not have sinned. Does not that obvious predictability deflate the possibility of Jesus’ ability to sin? Of course it does!

He who says it simplest, often says it best. That is why I enjoy reading Gerstner. It seems that what he says in a few words always leads to a resounding, “Duh! Why didn’t I think of that?”

“Whenever you make a move to do what God wants you to do, you can expect that Satan, other men, or both are already working against that move. With Satan, the fact that he will work against you personally is almost certain; with man, it is even more than certain.”

I don’t remember where I heard that, but it has stuck with me over time and I have observed its general truth. We attribute a lot of our spiritual assaults, lack of spiritual progress, and/or frustration with spiritual issues to Satan and his minions when in fact we humans can be altogether more troublesome. Satan is often better served to leave us alone with our own lusts, which entice and draw us away, than to directly interfere. It saves him the time and effort, and accomplishes the erosive result far more effectively.

Our lives are not meant to be static, wherein we reach a sort of equilibrium in our spiritual work, simply executing like an engine idling at some variance of the throttle. But much of Christianity ends up in that mode, doing the “things” we do, saying the things we say, moving from one interest to another all the while forgetting that Christ’s work is a hard, progressive, spiritual work, requiring much focus, time in training, and time in execution. Wannabes and hobbyists are a bane to the Church, holding others back in deference to their own selfish interests and idle activity. The only thing worse is a legalist.

In explaining the hard work of pressing on toward the goal (Phil. 3:14), Paul uses the metaphor of a race (Heb. 12:1-2.) We are, certainly, to run with the intent of winning (1 Cor. 9:24.) But Christians engaged in the race can sometimes be a peculiar group often forgetting that we work within the Church as if the race was a relay, cooperatively working to pass the baton between runners as the laps continue. Who has ever seen an effective team where some runners trot side-by-side nursing their misgivings about the other runners on their team? Or runners that keep grabbing the baton out-of-turn because they want to carry it? That team is destined to be a loser because among its members are those who are selfish, more focused on what they are getting out of the race instead of what is collectively being contributed for Someone else’s glory. There is much value in the exhortation of “in honor preferring one another” (Rom. 12:10, which I learned as a little boy at family reunions watching the Brethren “extend liberty” while the food got cold…some of you know what I mean!)

I recall a pastor telling me about a sermon he was preparing to preach in the early life of his church. I think it was preached as a precautionary warning about the hindrances of proper church growth, both spiritually and numerically. The sermon he preached was about Achan, who buried treasure in his tent (Joshua 7.) The treasure, of course, is a picture of hidden sin. But there is really no such thing as “hidden” sin, per se: God always knows and, if we are brutally honest, we know about our “hidden” sin more than any of our other sins because of the effort we put forth to hide it with impunity. We hide it away thinking no one else knows, or so that we can dishonestly deny that we even have it.

The first form of erosion resulting from such selfish behavior occurs in our spouses and children. They learn the behavior and integrate it into their own lifestyle. This is a violent form of erosion. When left unattended, it is unstoppable and permanently destructive.

The second form of erosion occurs in the Body of Christ. Beware of those who bury their “hidden treasure” in the camp by generating sideline discussions where doubts are seeded, distrust is cultivated, factions are developed, and resentment is harvested. The fact that the Church still exists today is a testimony that Jesus does not put up with it.

Achan was put to death with his family because of the erosive nature of his sin (Joshua 7:24-26.) His family had to perish with him because they were the first element of erosion in that they would inevitably learn his deception and perpetuate it. This happens all the time: spouses and children mimic our slang, our tones of voice, our attitudes, or our apparent “sinning without consequence”. They will mimic our “hidden” sin.

Annanias and Sapphira are New Testament examples of this (Acts 5.) Here we have a married couple who looked at each other with straight faces and brazenly sinned against Christ and His Church (Acts 5:9.) Actually, I think it is a bit absurd to suggest that Annanias said, “Sapphira, let’s defraud the Church by lying even though it is sin.” Surely they reasoned with considered thought and logical conjecture that whatever they were going to do, it was with “good reason”, or “for a good cause”, or because “the church people wouldn’t understand”. According to Peter, they sinned all the while knowing in their hearts that they were burying the sin of their actions (Acts 5:3.) This sin would have infected the congregation had it been left undisciplined (Acts 5:11.) The exact same thing can be said for Achan (Joshua 22:20.)

If Jesus is going to build His Church (and He is), then “be not deceived: God is not mocked.” The fear promulgated by the death of Annanias and Sapphira, or Achan (or Nadab and Abihu) are yellow caution signs for God’s people throughout all time. Those ancient stories should not merely be historical events, but ever-present reminders that God will take us out of the race if we obstruct His purposes. The second form of erosion, the erosion of His own flock, by those within His flock, is not permitted to endure indefinitely - especially when there are spiritual people present, praying that success can be had for God’s glory and inviting His remediating discipline to ensure it (Joshua 7:7.)

It is easy to say, “Hooray for church discipline!” But that really is a very sad thing. Not one of us really wants to be disciplined, and most of us would reject that we have ever gone so far as to deserve it. God is merciful if we will humble ourselves before it is too late. Conscience is a wonderful thing, and when it enlightens us to our “hidden sins”, we have the responsibility to repent of and confess our sins to Him who is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

We should strive to say with Paul, “I do all things for the sake of the gospel, so that I may become a fellow partaker of it…so that, after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified.” (1 Cor. 9:23, 27b.)

“The Roman authorities brought the highly respected bishop of Smyrna into the crowded arena, preparing to shove him to the lions - but only reluctantly. They much preferred a denial of the charge against him. He was a Christian.

“Simply swear by Caeser,” the governor pled.

“I am a Christian,” said Polycarp. “If you want to know what that is, set a day and listen.”

“Persuade the people,” answered the governor. Polycarp replied, “I would explain to you, but not to them.”

“Then I’ll thrown you to the beasts.”

“Bring on your beasts,” said Polycarp.

“If you scorn the beasts, I’ll have you burned.”

“You try to frighten me with the fire that burns for an hour, and you forget the fire of hell that never goes out.”

The governor called to the people, “Polycarp is a Christian.” Then the mob let loose. “This is the teacher of Asia,” they shouted, “the father of the Christians, the destroyer of our gods.”

So Polycarp, praying that his death would be an acceptable sacrifice, was burned at the stake.

The scene is real. It did happen.

- adapted from “Church History”, by Bruce L. Shelly, © 1995 Word Publishing. Recounted in “Early Christian Fathers”, edited by Cecil C. Richardson.

Note: This article, previously 3,689 words in length, has been split in two. The second half, containing a “critical response”, has been posted as a reply to the original thread “Pretribbers Do It Again“.

This is in response to a comment from “Roy” in the article referenced above. I found his comment to be typical of what happens when one speaks up against pretribulationism. The pretribulational system (a teaching that Jesus Christ removes His Church immediately prior to the beginning of a seven-year period called the tribulation) is so fragile that its staunchest advocates cannot countenance the thought that someone would question it, let alone analyze its problems.

Let’s review the original post.

What I wrote was a brief observation that was critical of date-setting by pretribulationists. It isn’t my fault that these pretrib people set dates. It isn’t my fault that pretribbers have set dates more than any other view combined. (And before Roy presumes to accuse me of asserting facts without support, he should take note that it would be unnecessarily embarrassing for him when I produce objective research that supports this claim.) Again, the facts are MORE pretrib people have set dates in the last 175 years than all other views combined. It’s a fair question: Why does this view produce more heretical dung contrary to Acts 1:7 than any other view? Why does this view produce fantasy fiction that adds to the book of Revelation in direct violation of Rev. 22:18-19? (And it does: volume 8 of “The Left Behind Series” by Tim LaHaye espouses a theological position that a man can be forced to take the mark of the beast, and then get a mark of God which overrides it. Tim LaHaye is one of the most vocal proponents of the pretrib position. How can pretrib advocates endorse this fictional variant on God’s Word? Where is the incensed reaction to this mangling of the Revelation of Jesus Christ? Why do pastors not caution their people with all diligence and loving protection to not imbibe this stuff? It is inexcusable, and goes to the heart of the veracity of pretribulationism.)

The initial Grace Brethren-flavored response to my article played leap-frog, and pre-supposed some answers and logical conclusions to issues that were not even being introduced in the article. Like trained monkeys, this seems to be the instinctive response from Grace Brethren pastors who have never exegeted the subject themselves. Now, that initial responder is one my closest brothers. We have shared heartfelt burdens together concerning a variety of issues. He knows me well. My response to him was firm and deliberate because he is a Man of God, and a bold preacher of God’s Word. He is not pusillanimous, and does not need to be handled with kid gloves. My response to him was not to make eschatology the conversation of the year, but it was intended to stimulate his own resolve on this issue because the time is growing short. Christians need to be prepared for certain pressure that will come upon the Church before Jesus Christ returns as the Lion of the Tribe of Judah, and as the King of kings, and Lord of lords. Pastors need to observe how “uphill” the battle really is when one proclaims this truth. Satan does not want the Bride of Christ to be prepared, that much is obvious. I contend for this Truth.

This is a matter of life and death. Some of you reading this know that, but you can’t tear yourself away from the “packaged church” of your culture, whatever it is. Your children and grandchildren depend on this wick-trimming Truth. If pretribulationism is really the catalyst to “being ready at all times”, then where is the readiness? Is it exemplified by a church where the ushers plan their fantasy baseball teams during the worship service? Is that readiness exemplified by a church where divorced people and their new spouses attend together sitting on opposite sides, without any discipline? Where is the readiness? Where is the pretribulational stimulus we have been promised that leads us to live holy lives? It’s not there because the doctrine is bad. One cannot expect water to flow from a dry well.

Again, the article was essentially innocuous. Therefore, it begs the question: why do people in dispensational denominations, especially if they have not really exegeted the subject for themselves, instinctively respond as they do with unfounded leaps of logic? What genetic disposition breeds this, especially if the position is as rock solid as they purport it to be?

The original article attracts the response of commenter Roy, who has never weighed in on this blog unless he is mad at what I have written. Once or twice he has simply sent a bombastic e-mail, such as when he responded to my article on Elihu. Perhaps it hit home. Or maybe he is simply gauche. Suffice it to say, his reputation speaks for itself. Nonetheless, he deserves a response - not a rebuke (1 Tim. 5:1) - to his comment.

Today is my birthday. My Aunt Vivian, a missionary with her husband in Europe nearly all of my life, sent an e-mail birthday greeting this morning with these words:

“Run the straight race through God’s good grace,
Lift up thine eyes and seek His face;
Life with its way before us lies,
Christ is the path, and Christ the prize.”

The poetic stanza, she informs me, were penned by John Samuel Bewley Monsell (1811-1875) and are contained in a hymn he wrote titled “Fight the Good Fight”. They are beautiful words, aren’t they? So much of what we call “running the race” is spent casually jogging, looking from side to side admiring the sights, or looking over our shoulder checking our position against other people. Monsell writes simply that running this race is all about Christ. That kind of race is run with legs flying, all energy concentrated ahead, paying no attention to the distractions alongside, with neck outstretched and wide-eyes fixed on the goal: Christ is the race, Christ is the prize.

Here we go again.

The extreme wing of pretribulationism is again showing that they are the ones most inclined to play the rapture date-setting game. These are the guys who preach an “any moment” return of Jesus Christ, and then proceed to toy with calendar and event-driven scenarios (“times and epochs”, q.v. Acts 1:7) which logically mitigates their “any-moment” stance!

Now, according to Rev. Mark Biltz of El Shaddai Ministries, the Church has four months left on the earth thanks to some fresh calculations he has performed using NASA’s astronomical data. Alan Kurschner (definitely not a pretribber) summarizes the issue here.

So that you can get a feel for the company one keeps in the pretribulational arena, here is a partial lineup of past date-setters: Margaret McDonald (the Mary Baker-Eddy of dispensationalism) was wrong with her prediction of 1830; Ellen G. White (founder of the Adventist Church) was wrong in 1850; Chuck Smith of Calvary Chapel was wrong in 1981; Hal Lindsey was wrong with his 1988 prediction; Edgar Whisenant was wrong in 1988 (and again in 1989); and Harold Camping was wrong in 1994 (and has revised the date to 2011.)

No other eschatological system in the past 175 years has produced more scriptural incongruousness, false prophets and fantasy novels - not to mention unprepared Christians - than pretribulationism. Just read this especially noting the next-to-last paragraph, which shows pretribulationist exegesis for what it is.

The company where I work allows employees to take their birthday as a holiday. Last year, I spent my birthday-holiday at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary visiting with Al Mohler in his office to discuss our mutual genealogy (we have the same sixth-great grandfather) and then spent a little time in his catacomb-like library at his home. That seems like it was only last week.

Today, I used my birthday-holiday two weeks early to attend an all-day workshop at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary in Charlotte, North Carolina. The workshop covered lexical exegesis using the BibleWorks software, which I have been using for several years now. BibleWorks is the best software on the market for Bible research: nothing else comes close. Our workshop was taught by Dr. Matt Harmon, associate professor of New Testament at Grace Theological Seminary. Everyone in the class was thrilled with Dr. Harmon’s superb teaching style. We spent a some time investigating BibleWorks’ tools for textual criticism (with the NET Bible), and general lexical research across various morphological texts. Dr. Harmon demonstrated tools we did not know existed in BibleWorks, such as a graphical search engine which can employ Granville Sharp’s rule. The algorithmic construction of that rule in graphical format (click here to see) was pretty cool for me (being the English fanatic and software developer that I am.)

BibleWorks is not Logos or PC Study Bible on steroids. It is a research tool in a class all its own. An industrial-strength, granular data engine like BibleWorks allows a serious Bible student to do what men fifty years ago would have spent years and years doing, if nothing more than documenting relationships between different writers of the Biblical text. Properly used, the preacher can exegete a passage on his own with confidence, and relate it to his people in English. I hope to illustrate this in the next post using Revelation 21:8. This is not academic stuff; I pity the seminary student who treats this as an academic experience. For me, an analogy can be expressed thus: “One can be a tourist of the Grand Canyon, observe what everyone else observes, and parrot the features someone else points out. Or, with time and effort, one can become the geologist and know, love, and live in the Grand Canyon.” Even though it takes time and hard work, I prefer the latter because I want to study to show myself approved unto God. I am not interested in being a parrot that only says what the strongest voice says, or what my favorite author has said. Neither, on the other hand, should this become erudition itself (i.e., the people in the pew do not need to be impressed with this.) I want to personally know the “why” of scripture so that I can teach the fact of a matter with honesty. I want to understand the textual relationships, and see the tapestry of God’s work.

Anyways, so much for my annual birthday update, 2 weeks early this time. I would encourage you, no matter who you are, to cancel your cable TV subscription and invest in BibleWorks and use it. It is a diving board into the deep end of the Bible study pool. And with instruction from someone like Dr. Harmon, you can fully appreciate the words behind the Word.

Turn off the TV tonight (if you have one) and instead watch these YouTube videos of a recent interview on CNN between Glenn Beck (the host) and Christian author, Joel Rosenberg.

I have read Rosenberg’s fictional books (except the most recent one, “Dead Heat“) in which he presents a clear-headed scenario of current events and how they might logically play out. His experience as a past geopolitical analyst provides for rather uncanny insight into Iraq, Iran, Russia, and the rest of the nations, and how they figure into the Bible’s prophecy concerning Israel’s final conflict in the world. Intriguing, to say the least.

Part 1 of 5
Part 2 of 5
Part 3 of 5
Part 4 of 5
Part 5 of 5

I have been told that a literal reading of the text is important to preterists. For example, in Matthew 24:34, preterists insist that “this generation” applies only to those people actually alive when Christ spoke those words. As I understand it, the preterist believes that Christ’s second coming ostensibly occurred in 70AD, when the temple was destroyed, and the Matthew 24:34 generation was extant in fulfillment of Christ’s prophecy.

In order to employ the preterist’s understanding consistently, take note of the following words of Paul as they relate to that same generation:

“For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.” (1 Cor. 11:26 ESV)

According to preterism, the second coming of Jesus occurred in 70AD thus postdating Paul’s writings, and his death at the hands of Nero. In other words, Paul wrote that excerpt above priorto the supposed second coming of Christ  - which the preterist says happened roughly three years after Paul died. Therefore, the words “until He comes” must be consistently interpreted by the preterist to be within the scope of that 70AD coming.

Which brings us to the question: “If Christ has already come, why do preterists take communion?”