Thankfulness isn’t Real Until it Addresses and Expresses

It’s amazing how shallow and cheap thankfulness is today.  As the person on the street, “What are you thankful for?” and they will likely rattle off several things. Maybe it’s family, or job, housing, health, etc. It doesn’t matter if that person is Christian or Atheist, Buddhist or Hindu—they can (and most likely will) give you at least a few ideas of what they are thankful for.

But the big question that never seems to be asked—or even considered—is this: “Okay, you’re thankful for these things, which is great—but what are you thankful to?” Just that one word, that change of a small little preposition, changes the whole discussion. Why? Because it isn’t real thankfulness until it is addressed and expressed.

Hear that again: It isn’t real thankfulness until it is addressed and expressed.

Take a look with me at Luke 17:11-19.

The Setting

Jesus is heading to Jerusalem (possibly for the last time), and He’s got a strange crew of disciples (17:1), apostles (17:5), and Pharisees (17:20) following Him around.

As part of the journey, He walks near the border area of Samaria and Galilee—neither of which had the best reputation among the “real” followers of God. Remember the amazement of the Jews when Galileans began speaking in foreign languages, and preaching in the temple? (Acts 2:7). Remember the time when the Pharisees hurled the insulting epitaph, You are a Samaritan, at Him? (John 8:48). You can be sure that the Pharisees weren’t too happy to be in this area—they usually made it a point to cross over a river (twice) and spend several more hours walking on the journey from Judea to Galilee, just to avoid walking through Samaria.

So, other than for Jesus, this wasn’t a comfortable excursion.

Maybe some of you have a class of people, a type of people you don’t want to reach, don’t want to talk to, don’t want to help. Maybe you’ve written them off as a Samaritan. Maybe it’s because they’ve been on drugs (or still are), or maybe it’s because they struggle financially and have needs they need help with. Maybe their clothes are tatty and worn, or they have tattoos, or they’re black, or Latino, or Republican or Democrat, young or old, atheist or Pentecostal. And maybe you’ve convinced yourself that it’s okay.

Jesse and a friend one time attended worship in Columbia, Missouri. The class discussed reaching people with problems (drugs and prison history), and one woman admitted, “I don’t want to deal with them because I’m afraid they will need more of my time than I’m willing to give.”

But Jesus worked hard, both in His teachings (the good Samaritan) and His actions (see the woman at the well in John 4) to humanize, to elevate the Samaritans as being worth reaching, worth the time it takes to engage them. In other words, Samaritan lives matter. Are there types of people you have written off as unworthy of the gospel? Jesus says their lives—and souls—matter too!

The Request

If being that close to Samaria wasn’t bad enough, things got even more uncomfortable. Lepers! Ten of them! Ten men with a flesh-eating disease, bodies gnarled and misshapen, faces unrecognizable, unable to interact with normal society, stood at a distance and called out in a harsh squeaky voice,[1] “Jesus, Master, have mercy on us!”

These men felt the crushing weight of oppression. This disease mocked them. It said, “You aren’t worthy to come to the city. You can’t live near real people. You can’t worship with the real followers of God.” They felt this loss, this shame—brought on through no fault of their own—day after day after day after day after day… And instead of pity and help, they usually received a cold should of indifference from people they saw at a distance.

But then they saw Jesus. A crowd around Him, yes, but they saw Jesus. They cried out with that barely-human voice, “Master, have mercy on us!”[2]

Why didn’t they address the apostles? After all, these twelve men had been given the power to heal lepers (Matthew 10:8). So why not call for their help? Maybe they had heard that some of the apostles wanted Jesus to obliterate an entire Samaritan village with fire from heaven (Luke 9:51-56). That could really undermine their influence, right?

Maybe you’ve let your tongue get out of control and killed your influence and credibility with some people. Maybe it was a racist joke, a harsh attitude, or just a cold shoulder of indifference. What might it be that causes people to not want to talk to you about their hurts, problems, and needs?

See, Jesus was well known as someone who helped people. These lepers knew that if they were going to get mercy, sympathy, and help from anyone, it would be Jesus—He has proven it over and over again. He cared then and cares now for the marginalized, the oppressed, the forgotten, the ignored. He takes the time to show they are important to Him.

The Answer

Jesus responds to these hurting and ostracized men with compassion and a command. Now don’t let this fact get by you. Jesus told them to “Go, show yourselves to the priests.” And when they acted in faith, God acted in love. Hear it again, When they acted in faith, God acted in love.

They weren’t healed immediately—it was only when they started their obedience, started on their way to the priests, that they were cleansed. Had they stayed still, the leprosy would have stayed. Had they hobbled into the city, they would have kept on hobbling.

The principle, When man acts in faith, God acts in love, is seen all throughout the Scriptures. “Make a fiery serpent and set it on a pole, and everyone who is bitten, when he sees it, shall live” (Numbers 21:8-9). “By faith, Noah…built an ark to the saving of his family” (Hebrews 11:7). “He that believes and is baptized shall be saved” (Mark 16:16). Acting in faith is obeying what the Lord commands, trusting that He will keep His word (and He always does).

God never tells you to do something impossible. He loves you, and wants you to spend eternity with Him. But in order to do that, you have to act in faith, and trust Him that the rewards of faith are greater than anything you’ve ever experienced!

The Thankfulness

Now we get back around to where we started this lesson. One of those ten men, when he saw that he was cleansed (and remember that Jesus’ healings were complete—so his whole body would have changed: from gnarled to normal, from bent-over to upright, from hobbling to running)—when he saw that he was cleansed, he turned around and almost certainly ran to Jesus.

I love what Luke says next. “He praised God with a loud voice.” Leprosy would have destroyed his voice—it would be like permanent laryngitis.[3] But now he has a “loud voice,” and he uses it! The Greek here is awesome. The word “loud” is mega, and the word “voice” is phone. Mega-phone. This man was loud and proud—he wasn’t scared to let anyone and everyone know that HE HAD BEEN HEALED! And that it was THANKS TO GOD! Then he “threw himself down at Jesus’ feet” (NIV).

Remember what we said at the beginning, It isn’t real thankfulness until it’s addressed and expressed. There is no doubt that he was thanking God (not just “being thankful” in general) for his cleansing. And he clearly expressed it in his words and actions.

Those other nine were “thankful,” I’m sure, in the way our modern society uses the term. They were happy about it (they asked for it after all, so they obviously wanted it), but that’s about as far as it went. No smile and a wave at Jesus in recognition of this kindness. No hollering “Thanks Jesus” over their shoulders as they stand upright for the first time in months or years and walk away. No praising God for His great love and mercy.

If a reporter from the Jerusalem News or the Samaritan Post had asked the nine ungrateful men, “Are you thankful you’re not a leper anymore?” I’m sure they’d say, “Yes.” But they didn’t show it. They got what they wanted from Jesus, and that’s all they needed Him for. That’s not gratitude. One writer said “…ingratitude was a worse leprosy than the physical disease.”[4]

Do we treat God the same way? We go to Him in prayer and ask for stuff, for outcomes, for guidance, and when we get them, we conveniently forget to even give lip-service thanks to Him.

The Ingratitude

If the story ended here, it would still be worthwhile by seeing the example of a truly grateful person. But it doesn’t. Luke adds a brief little sentence: “And he was a Samaritan.” Of all people, a Samaritan is the only one who was truly thankful. The one most looked down upon shines as the brightest example of the ten!

Jesus points this out when He asks the disciples, apostles, and Pharisees, “Weren’t there ten cleansed? Where are the other nine?” I know a guy who, when he was a teenager, got a card from a member of the church. His mom asked him if there was any money in it (because this member had a habit of doing that), and he said, “Yeah, but only $20.” If you had given that money, and you heard that response, how would it make you feel? That gives you an small inkling of how Jesus felt at the complete ingratitude of people whose entire lives had just been changed.

Then He says, “Only this stranger [allogenes, literally person from a different family] returned to give glory to God. Most commentators agree that this means the other nine lepers were Jews. Zerr says, “The mere mention of this man’s nationality, in connection with his exceptional conduct of gratitude, was intended as a rebuke for the Jews.”[5]

The man could have said, “I’m thankful to be healed,” but that wouldn’t have been true, real, authentic gratitude—because gratitude, thankfulness, is directed towards someone or something. Why do we tell people “thank you”? Because we all realize, whether we act on it or not, that thanks is something given (“thanksgiving” anyone?), and if it is given, it must be given to someone. It isn’t real thankfulness until it is addressed and expressed.

The Reward

Jesus looks down at the incredibly grateful man and tells him to “Go your way. Your faith has made you whole.” Now I want you to take careful note here. He had already been cleansed of his leprosy, as had the ungrateful nine. So what Jesus gives him here is something different. The Greek word for “made whole” is sozo, which is usually translated “saved.” Young’s Literal Translation says, “Thy faith hath saved thee.”[6]

Faith—true, authentic faith—expresses itself in gratitude. If gratitude is missing, then how can you claim to have faith? (“In everything, give thanks” 1 Thessalonians 5:18.)

The Questions

Are you thankful for your home? Your family? Your friends? Yes? Then to whom are you thankful? To whom is that thanks given?

Are you thankful that God sent His only begotten Son so that we might be saved from sin? Yes? Then how are you expressing that?

Remember, When man acts in faith, God acts in love.

Show your thankfulness, your gratitude, by coming to Christ for healing of the sins that eat away at your soul. Whether that’s through baptism to put on Christ, or prayer as a Christian seeking forgiveness, show your gratitude today.

When you act in faith, obeying His loving Word, then you can take the words of Luke 17:19 to heart: “Arise… your faith has saved you.”

-Bradley S. Cobb

[1] “…the lepers’ bronchial tubes are dry and the voice is high and squeaky.” J.W. McGarvey, Fourfold Gospel, p. 530.

[2] The word translated “Master” means a commander, overseer, or one who has authority. In the New Testament, it only appears in Luke.

[3] “An almost total failure of the voice is one of the symptoms of leprosy.” Burton Coffman, Luke, p. 376.

[4] The Interpreter’s Bible, Vol. 8, p. 298.

[5] E.M. Zerr, Commentary Vol. 5.

[6] Smith’s Literal Translation does as well, and it appears in footnotes/marginal readings in several translations and study Bibles.

Share Button

Methods for Interpreting the Book of Revelation (Part 7): The Preterist Method (part 2)

Last week, the Preterist Method of interpreting Revelation was introduced.  It says that the book was meant for the first-century Christians, and had a direct application to them.  It says that the events in Revelation were things that they would experience (see 1:1, 3).  It takes God at His word when He said that Revelation was “to show His servants things which must shortly come to pass” (1:1, 22:6).  But as with almost everything regarding the Bible, there are those who oppose this method.  Let us consider their main objections:

  1. This method makes the book ONLY have meaning for the original recipients, and has no message for us today.”

This is the most common argument, and those who use it claim it is the most powerful.  In the Old Testament, there were prophetic books written about impending destructions upon a specific people during a specific time.  Oddly enough, no one ever makes the claim that Jonah or Nahum or Obadiah ONLY had meaning for the original recipients and has no meaning for us today.  If the Old Testament historical books can still have a message for us today, then so can the book of Revelation.  If the Old Testament prophetic books can still have a message for us today, then so can the book of Revelation.  If the gospel accounts and Acts can still have a message for us today, then so can Revelation.  After all, each of them was written about things which have already taken place.

There are many lessons that can be learned and applied from Revelation when one interprets with the Preterist Method.  We can learn about the nature of God and of Christ, how God views rebellion, that faithfulness is rewarded and unfaithfulness is punished, etc…  This first objection is overruled.

  1. This method implies that the church – a spiritual kingdom – would be concerned about the overthrow of a physical kingdom.”

The church – God’s kingdom – was undergoing severe persecution from a specific physical nation.  This physical nation was trying to destroy Christianity, trying to get Christians to leave the faith and trying to coerce them to enter (or in some cases, re-enter) into a religious system that God did not approve of.  In other words, this physical kingdom was trying to steal Christians’ very salvation from them.  The book continually encourages Christians to remain faithful in the midst of this persecution.  The very fact that a book was necessary to encourage them shows just how brutal the persecution was.  This book is God’s way of saying, “I’ll take care of things; you just stay faithful.”  It is God who rules in the affairs of men, and who controls the rise and fall of nations.

One last thing to consider regarding this objection is this: Jesus was concerned about the overthrow of a physical nation (see Matthew 23:34-24:34).  If He—who was more spiritual than anyone else on earth—was concerned about it, why is it strange that His people also be?  This objection is also overruled.

Share Button

Methods for Interpreting the Book of Revelation (Part 6): The Preterist Method (part 1)

Imagine yourself as a Christian in the first century, under constant persecution, even the threat of death.  Things seem to keep getting worse instead of better.  And in the midst of it, the thought enters your mind, “I thought we were supposed to have an abundant life.”  The truth was, for most Christians of the first century, dark times were ahead; times that would try the souls of even the most dedicated Christian.  There were those that began to have doubts about Christianity and were going back to Judaism (see the book of Hebrews).  There were others who—because they loved the present world—forsook Christ and His servants (II Timothy 4:10).  Some left Christ out of fear. Then, in the midst of this turmoil, you are presented with a letter written down by the apostle John.  The letter begins in a way that lets you know it applies directly to you: this letter is about things which are about to happen – the time is at hand! (Revelation 1:1, 3).

As you read through the letter, you read about congregations that have lost their first love, and you recognize the signs.  You have seen Christians undergoing persecution to the point where they finally decide Jesus isn’t worth it, and though they may not have openly renounced their faith, you can tell a difference – they aren’t trying to tell others about Him at all.  You read of other congregations, small ones, that have almost nothing, but they are holding on to Jesus for all they are worth.  And as you read this letter, you realize that it is Jesus Himself who tells these faithful Christians to keep holding on, and they will receive a victory crown of life.  As you near the end of John’s letter, you understand that Jesus will overthrow those who oppose Him, and that His faithful saints will be rewarded for not giving in to the persecution.  As you finish reading it, the final words are a reminder of what was said at the beginning: this letter is about things which are about to happen – the time is at hand! (22:6, 10).

The main questions to ask regarding the book of Revelation and the approach one should take in interpreting it are these:

  • Was the book really written about “things which must soon take place” (1:1, ESV)?
  • Did the Christians who first received the book understand it? (see 1:3)
  • Did the book deal with things pertaining to the first century Christians? (see 22:10)

The Preterist Method of interpreting the book of Revelation says that the book had a direct application to the persecuted Christians who first received it.  It takes God’s word at face value when it claims to be about “things which must shortly be done” when it was first written (in the first century).  As such, anyone who wants to understand the book of Revelation must first understand what the book meant to the people who first received it.  As a result of this common sense approach, the Preterist believes that the specific events described in the book have been fulfilled.  This is the only method of interpreting the book which is in harmony with John’s inspired introduction (“things which must shortly come to pass…the time is at hand” – 1:1, 3) and his inspired conclusion (“things which must shortly be done…the time is at hand” – 22:6, 10).

-Bradley S. Cobb

Share Button

Methods of Interpreting the Book of Revelation (Part 5: The Spiritual Method)

You open up the Bible, go to the most difficult, confusing book, and you can’t really understand what it is saying.  You know that somewhere in there, victory is promised to those who stay faithful, but beyond that nothing makes much sense.  So, instead of trying to figure out what it is saying, you decide to take a novel approach: the book really isn’t about anything specific!  No, the book is all about spiritual principles, the battle between good and evil, and the only thing the book teaches is that eventually, ultimately, good will triumph over evil.  Not surprisingly, this method is called The Spiritual Method.  Those who take this view claim it is the only one that makes Revelation have application to the church in all ages.

It has been accurately said that the Spiritual Method is the lazy way out of interpreting Revelation.  Anything in the book that doesn’t make sense to you, just claim it doesn’t really represent anything!  Some people who take the Spiritual Method have described it this way: “Many of the symbols are nothing more than extra details like props on a stage during a play.  They are completely unimportant, except to add to the scenery.”  One question must be asked in light of this: Are you willing to say that God placed completely unimportant things in His word?

Those who take the Spiritual Method have quite a difficult time explaining how Revelation isn’t referring to any specific events when the very first verse says otherwise.  “The Revelation of Jesus Christ…to show His servants things which must shortly come to pass…”  That verse shows that Revelation discusses events which were about to happen, but had not happened yet.  Did the spiritual battle between good and evil somehow not exist until shortly after Revelation was written?  Of course not.  Anyone who reads the Old Testament can see the battle between good and evil has been raging from the beginning.

Their claim that Revelation represents spiritual principles (good vs. evil) within the church in all ages runs into an interesting paradox at this point.  The church began over 30 years before the book was written.  Since the things described in the book hadn’t happened yet, it couldn’t apply to the church up to that point.

To simply “spiritualize” away the details in Revelation ignores the fact that there were real people discussed (such as Antipas, 2:12-13); real congregations addressed with their own real problems (chapters 2 and 3); real cities mentioned (Jerusalem, 11:8); real rulers mentioned (the kings of chapter 17); and an overthrow of a real “great city” that would cause the real blood of the real apostles and real prophets to be avenged (18:20-19:2).

Are there spiritual principles about the battle between good and evil to be learned from Revelation?  Absolutely!  But is that all that is under consideration?  Absolutely not!

-Bradley S. Cobb

Share Button

Methods of Interpreting the Book of Revelation (Part 4: The Historical Method)

Imagine yourself living almost 2,000 years ago, and you’re undergoing heavy persecution, the threat of death, for being a Christian.  You worry about your own life and the lives of your family members who are also members of the church of Jesus.  You are in need of comfort in the face of affliction.  So, God sends you a letter of comfort, telling you that the whole church is going to fall away and turn into one large denomination, but that in 1500 years, Martin Luther is going to start another denomination.  Are you confused yet?  Welcome to the Historical Method of interpreting the book of Revelation.

This method was very popular from the time of the Protestant Reformation (1500s-1600s) until the early 1900s.  Martin Luther, John Wesley (Methodist founder), Charles Spurgeon (famous Baptist preacher), Matthew Henry (famous Presbyterian preacher), William Miller (founder of the Seventh-Day Adventists), John L. Hinds (author of the Gospel Advocate Commentary on Revelation), and many others used the Historical Method of interpreting Revelation.

This view says that the book of Revelation is a continuous, chronological record of “the church” (most of it referring to the Catholic Church) from the time of John until the final judgment.  Most who take this view will say that the book describes the apostasy of the church into Catholicism, the rise of the popes, the attacks which destroyed Rome, the rise of Islam, the Protestant Reformation, the French Revolution, Napoleon and Mussolini, among others.  Some in the Lord’s church who take this view teach that Alexander Campbell and the restoration of the Lord’s Church are referenced as well. It is noteworthy that no two Historical Method commentators can agree on which historical events are described in each section of the book.

Now, before we go any further, we need to ask some questions.

  1. What comfort does it bring to Christians who are suffering for their faith to say, “don’t worry, in a couple hundred years, pretty much the entire church is going to go into apostasy and become one large denomination”?
  2. How can this book be said to be made up of things which “must shortly come to pass” (1:1) if the overwhelming majority of the book is interpreted to be at least a thousand or more years away from when John wrote?
  3. Could the people who originally received this book have understood its meaning if it was about specific people and events—some of which were at least 1700 years away?
  4. If, as most who take this view will agree, we are living in the last section of the book before the judgment scene in chapter 20, what happens if there’s another 2,000 years of the church?

Another problem with this interpretation is that the birth and ascension of Christ are mentioned in the middle of the book (Revelation 12:1-5).  In 12:10, the kingdom is said to come with power.  If Revelation is a chronological record and Christ’s birth doesn’t even show up until chapter 12, exactly what is recorded in chapters 4-11?

While this view still has proponents within the church, it does not match up with the purpose of the book, nor the time which God said it would take place (Revelation 1:1, 3, 22:6, 10).  As such, this method cannot be the one God wants us to use in interpreting the book of Revelation.

-Bradley S. Cobb

Share Button

Methods of Interpreting the Book of Revelation (Part 3: The Futurist Method 02)

You are hurting, being persecuted by a group of people that really don’t care that you’re trying to obey God and that you’re trying to live your life the best way possible.  These persecutors have no mercy on you at all.  While you’re trying to avoid being killed, you receive a letter.  It’s a letter of hope, a letter designed to bring you comfort…or so you thought.  You open it up, and you find out that it is a letter that really has nothing to do with anything you’re going through.  This letter instead contains predictions of governmental, political, and religious situations in the 41st century.  How much comfort will you get from that letter?

You may think the above paragraph far-fetched, but that is exactly what the futurist interpreters of Revelation want you to think God was giving to His people in the 1st century.  God’s people, the Christians, are going through horrible persecutions at the hands of uncaring, vicious men when the book of Revelation was written.  The book of Revelation was to give comfort to the Christians undergoing persecution.  Yet, according to the futurist interpretation, the book deals with things that wouldn’t happen for twenty centuries (at the very least) in the future.  Such a book would have no meaning for the people who John wrote it to.  Would God write a book, address it to specific people, and then make the contents of that book meaningless to them?

Another thing to consider when examining the futurist interpretation is that God promises a blessing on those who keep [obey] the things written in the book (Revelation 1:3).  If it is composed of things—none of which have yet happened—that means it was impossible for anyone, for the last 2,000 years, to be blessed by this book.

Taking this view also makes God a god of confusion.  With every generation, the futurists must re-interpret Revelation to fit the current world events.  Some futurists have seen Germany and Adolph Hitler in Revelation.  When that didn’t work out, it was Russia.  Then Iraq and Saddam Hussein.  Then Barack Obama.  And in another ten years, they will point to someone else.

Taking this view also ignores that John wrote down the Revelation for seven actual churches in the first century (Revelation 1:4).  As you read chapters 2 and 3, you will see that Jesus addressed actual problems that actual congregations were actually going through in the first century.

Hopefully it has been made clear that the futurist position (that all—or even most—of the events in Revelation are still in the future) is in opposition to clear statements from God’s word, from the book of Revelation itself, and—as such—the futurist position must be labeled as “false doctrine.”

-Bradley S. Cobb

Share Button

Methods of Interpreting the Book of Revelation (Part 2: The Futurist Method 01)

The most popular method of interpreting the book of Revelation today is the Futurist method.  Popular books are written about it, movies have been made about it, and it has pervaded the modern mindset more than we even realize.  Have you ever heard someone say, “It’s a sign of the apocalypse”? Or perhaps, talking about something being part of the Battle of Armageddon?  These have been popularized by those who employ the futurist interpret the book of Revelation.  But what is this method?  Is it possible that it is the correct method of interpreting this last book in the New Testament?  Is this the way God would have us understand the book?

The futurist method of interpreting Revelation says that everything in it is still in the future, and that none of it (or very little of it) has been fulfilled.  Does the Bible have anything to say about this?

One of the biggest keys to understanding the book of Revelation can be found in the first verse of the book.  It is such an important key that it actually is made clear twice in the first chapter, and twice in the final chapter.  Revelation 1:1 states very plainly that the book of Revelation was written to “show unto His servants things which must shortly come to pass.”  Two verses later, God’s inspired word says that “the time is at hand.”  Now, perhaps that might grab your attention.  If John the apostle came to you today, and before getting to his message said, “I’m going to tell you things which must shortly come to pass,” and then said, “the time is at hand,” would you imagine that he was really saying “I’m going to tell you things that won’t happen for at least 2,000 years”?  At the conclusion of the visions and incredible imagery of the book, we have John reminding us of how the book began.  He says that the things in the book were “to show his servants things which must shortly be done” (Revelation 22:6).  He’s also told, “don’t seal the prophecy of this book, for the time is at hand” (Revelation 22:10).  Now, John has told us ahead of time that the things in the book were about to happen, and then at the end of the book reminds us that the things in the book were about to happen.  What do you think he means by this?

The futurist method must ignore or disregard the fact that God said the things “must shortly come to pass.”  Oh, some will say, “but to the Lord, a day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years is as a day!” Explain that to Paul, who was told by Jesus “Make haste, and get thee quickly out of Jerusalem” (Acts 22:18).  The word “quickly” in this verse is the same word that is translated “shortly” in Revelation 1:1.  Was Jesus really telling Paul, “hurry up and get yourself out of Jerusalem sometime in the next 2,000 years”?  Of course not.

My friends, do you think God knows how to tell time?  God told Daniel to “seal up” the prophecy because the time was still “many days” away (Daniel 8:26).  That prophecy was fulfilled less than 400 years later.  But God told John “don’t seal up” the prophecy of Revelation, because “the time is at hand.”  God knows the difference between near and far when it comes to time.

-Bradley S. Cobb

Share Button

Methods of Interpreting Revelation (Part 1: Intro)

It’s hard enough sometimes to understand what people are trying to say when they’re talking normally.  Now imagine that they are talking to you in symbols, in fantastic imagery, of books, of a Lamb, a dragon, of beasts with seven heads and ten horns that come out of the water, of colored horses, and a myriad of other words that you recognize, but put together in ways that are very strange and foreign to you.  How are you to make sense of what is being said?

If you are given a 5,000-piece puzzle, and are asked to put it together, could you do it?  Now imagine that you’re just given the pieces, but you aren’t allowed to see the box that shows you what the picture is supposed to look like.  How likely are you to stick with trying to piece the mystery puzzle together?  Yet this is exactly what people try to do with the book of Revelation!  They go about it, reading through without any real idea of what they are trying to figure out or what the big picture is.  People do this every day, and it should come as no surprise that they soon quit in frustration, thinking they can never understand it.

It is important that we—if we are going to derive any benefit from the book of Revelation—have an idea of what the book is about, know what message it is teaching, and understand how to interpret it.  God pronounces a blessing upon those who read, hear, and keep the things written in it (1:3).  Can anyone keep the things written in it if they don’t know what it’s saying?  Of course not.  Now a more important question: would God have created a book that CANNOT be understood?  My friends, it IS possible to understand the book of Revelation.  Of course, in order to understand it, we have to know how to interpret the language in it.

But not all methods of interpreting this book are equal.  In fact, some of the approaches are polar opposites of each other, and if one is right, that means the other one must be absolutely wrong.  Though there are variations on each view, and some people take hybrid views (where they take parts of one view and parts of another), we can generally classify the methods of interpreting the book of Revelation into four categories: Futurist (all the events in Revelation are still in the future), Historical-Fulfillment (that the book records the complete history of the church from Pentecost to Judgment), Preterist (all the events in Revelation were fulfilled soon after the book was written), and Spiritual (the book describes no actual events, just symbolic language describing the battle between good and evil).

Next week, we will start taking a closer look at each of these four methods.

-Bradley S. Cobb

Share Button

Doubting…John?

We often hear references to a famous doubter in the Bible, doubting Thomas. I won’t get into why he really doesn’t deserve that moniker here, but I would like to point your attention to someone else who had some very intense doubt.

His name was John. And he is best known for baptizing people. In fact, he is known to history as “John the Baptist.” But the last words we have recorded from him express doubt.

John had been called by God to preach. He had baptized thousands. He had even received divine revelation and confirmation that Jesus was the Christ, the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world (John 1). But John had expectations—expectations that didn’t match the reality he found himself facing in Matthew 11.

John is sitting in a prison, locked up for speaking the truth to Herod. He has been taken out of the picture, so far as his life’s work was concerned. He’s unable to teach the masses, unable to baptize anyone, unable to point repentant souls to a life of relationship with God. Surely this can’t be part of the plan, he must have thought.

So John, who had already known and proclaimed the truth, sent some messengers to Jesus. He told them to ask one simple question: Are you the one we’ve been waiting for, or is there someone else? In other words, Was I wrong, Jesus, when I told people you were the Messiah? John needed confirmation (and he got it by Jesus’ response). But for the moment, John had doubts.

It’s not wrong to have doubts. But when we have them, we need to be like John and go to the right source for the answers.

-Bradley S. Cobb

Share Button

Haman the Agagite

If you’ve read Esther, then you know Haman is a bad guy, whose hatred for the Jews knows no bounds. He schemes a plan to have the entire Jewish nation wiped from the face of the earth, by decree of the Persian king. But why did Haman hate the Jews so much? The answer might just be found in the title of this short article. Haman was an Agagite—that is, he was descended from a man named Agag.  So who is Agag? I’m glad you asked.

Back in 1 Samuel 15, King Saul was instructed to completely kill all the Amalekites. But he disobeyed God, and in addition to saving many of the animals, he also spared the king, Agag. When Samuel showed up, he corrected that problem and “hewed Agag to pieces before the Lord.”

But it appears that Agag had children who didn’t live there (or who weren’t in the city when it was destroyed), because Haman is an Agagite. Even though hundreds of years had passed since that incident, Haman would have heard the story about how the Jews slaughtered his people—and even though Agag was spared temporarily, they finally executed him too. And Haman wanted revenge by doing to the Jews what they did to his ancestors so long ago.

Note: Josephus (Antiquities of the Jews, book XI, chapter 6, paragraph 5) says “He [Haman] rather determined to abolish the whole nation. For he was naturally an enemy to the Jews: because the nation of the Amalekites, of which he was, had been destroyed by them.”

-Bradley S. Cobb

Share Button