Week 26, Day 5: 1,000 Year Reign
Today’s Reading: Revelation 21:1-22:21
Some thoughts from yesterday’s reading…
I wanted to emphasize the symbolic language that we see used in Revelation, especially when we come to chapter 20. So many people today believe in doctrines that have their roots in Revelation chapter 20. So many have as their central belief and teaching that a 1,000 year reign of Christ on earth is coming along with the rapture. There is so much that they teach that comes from Chapter 20 and Matt 24. So I want to just point out a few places in the immediate context that most folks would agree are showing the use of symbolic language. Ask your friends who believe these things, are these things literal or figurative?
In Chapter 19
The great harlot – vs. 2
Her smoke rising up forever and ever – vs. 3
the white horses – vs. 11, 14
eyes are a flame of fire – vs. 12
many diadems on His head – vs. 12
His robe dipped in blood – vs. 13
a sharp sword coming out of His mouth – vs. 15
name written on His thigh – vs. 16
the beast – vs. 19
the false prophet – vs. 20
the mark of the beast – vs. 20
In chapter 20
the key of the abyss – vs. 1
those beheaded – vs. 4
lake of fire and brimstone – vs. 10
the 1000 year reign – vs. 4
How many things have to be clearly symbolic before we accept that the 1000 year reign is symbolic as well. It is difficult for me to see placing so much ephasis and forming so much teaching around this passage when it clearly has so many symbolic images used. The way folks talk, everything else could be symbolic but the 1000 year reign has to be literal, why? Is it not reasonable to see that the 1000 year reign is also symbolic of something instead of being a literal, earthly reign for 1000 years? I do believe that the first step to convincing people to consider letting go of teaching the 1000 year reign as literal is to show just how much in the context is symbolic. It is not consistent for us to pick and choose which part of the text we want to make a literal portion. Especially to then go on to placing so much emphasis on that doctrine. The 1000 year reign has become the “main dish” at many denominations. The only reason I can see for this is because it sounds exciting and gives them opportunity to speculate on the present day “signs”. Let us be prepared to be able to ask what they think about these other symbols and try to help lead them to consider that this is not something to be viewed as literal but rather figurative.
Unfortunately, I do not have a good suggestion as to what the 1,000 year reign is refering to.
Week 22, Day 5: The Master of Discourse
Today’s Reading: John 9:1-10:42
Some thoughts from yesterday’s reading…
We can see in chapters 7 & 8 some examples of why the Pharisees would eventually come to the point of not asking Jesus any more questions – they could not compete with the truth He spoke. Many times Jesus gave the Jews logical answers or asked them logical questions for which they had no good answers. 7:21-24 is one of those times where Jesus presents His case so well. If Moses commanded circumcision and on the Sabbath it is done to complete what the Law commands, then why were they upset that Jesus had healed a man and made him whole on the Sabbath. It was a very good point and should have made the Pharisees consider what He said. But as we all know, discussions are not always based on logic, depending on the person’s intentions. The Pharisees had their minds made up and no matter how good the point was that Jesus made, they were determined not to hear Him.
Another example of the lack of logic behind the Pharisees actions is seen in 7:50-52. Nicodemus asked a good question, “Our Law does not judge a man unless it first hears from him and knows what he is doing, does it?” This is a good point and one that should be easy to answer. And yet the reply is more of an insult or an act of belittling Nicodemus. “You are not from Galilee, are you?” What kind of response is that unless you are just trying to silence someone.
When we are discussing God’s word with others, let us remember these examples. Our patience will be tested at times because we can make the most sensible, well thought out point and the person may try to divert from answering the question by going in a different direction (dodging the question) or by trying to turn the discussion into an attempt to slander you (name calling). Those who are serious about learning the truth will be easy to recognize because they will think about what you said. They will search these things out. But let us also remember that we may need to suffer long with those whom we are trying to teach because the walls they have put up may not come down quickly. Let us be gentle and not loose our composure. Sinking to the tactics of name calling or heated insults does not avail us anything in helping them to see the truth.
Week 4, Day 2
Today’s Reading: Acts 9-10
Some thoughts from yesterday’s reading…
In Acts chapter 7, we see Stephen’s defense, delivered before the Jewish council. He was brought before them in chapter 6, accused of speaking against the holy place, and the Law. Stephen could have spent the time trying to defend himself personally, but instead he gave a defense of the Gospel! In the giving of this defense, Stephen gave the council enough information to teach them what they had to do to be pleasing to God.
One thing that is interesting to note in this chapter is where Stephen started this defense. He went back to the time of Abraham, and worked his way through the history of the Old Testament, laying out the prophecies that pointed to the Messiah. In doing that, he was showing that Christ was indeed the Messiah of prophecy, and that He was the one that these Jews should have been listening to. Stephen was able to do this because these people knew the prophecies, they knew the Old Testament characters that he was discussing. As we continue through the book of Acts, we will see the evangelists start at different places. To the Gentiles, who were unfamiliar with these prophecies and characters, the logical method that Stephen used here would be far less effective. These things would have meant less to them, than it did to these Jews.
What we learn from this is that we have to start teaching a person wherever they are. If a person already believes that the Bible is the word of God, then we don’t have to spend time proving that before teaching the gospel message. But, if we are starting to teach a person who is an athiest, or an agnostic, then we have to start by supplying enough evidence to support the very existence of God before it will be beneficial to try and teach the gospel message. There is no “one way” to teach the gospel to a person. That is not to say that there is more than one gospel. The gospel message is the same, but how we approach a person, and at what point we actually start with a person may change.
At the end of chapter 7, we also see the reaction to Stephen’s sermon. In chapter 2, we saw a group of people who were “cut to the heart” by the gospel message, and they obeyed, putting on Christ in baptism. In this chapter, the result was not they same. They were still “cut to the heart” by the gospel message, but instead of being obedient, they turned on the messenger. They attacked Stephen, and stoned him to death. In each of these cases, the gospel accomplished its purpose. It convicted the hearts of the hearers. Even today, the gospel will accomplish the same thing. When presented, the gospel will make a person examine themselves, and either accept or reject the message.
Unfortunately, Stephen lost his life in this instance. But, he was willing to bravely, and forcefully teach the truth to those assembled before him. He could have toned down the message so that they would not be so unhappy with him, but instead, he continued on, knowing that his safety, if not his life were in danger. How often do we back down from teaching the truth just because we might lose a friend? This makes our fears seem a bit insignificant!
Week 3, Day 1
Today’s Reading: Luke 21-22
Sorry to be so late getting this posted for today, but then I’m sure you all could guess what the next reading was going to be anyway!
Some thoughts from Friday’s reading…
I have always enjoyed the story of Zaccheus from Luke chapter 19. I often think of it from the standpoint of Zaccheus when reading it, but this time, I thought about this account from Jesus’ standpoint. There are a couple of things that I think we can learn from this account and put into application in our own efforts.
First, we can learn that Jesus did not suffer from the preconceptions that most of the people in His time believed. Most people hated the tax collectors, and would not have given them a second thought when it came to sharing something with them. Jesus had the most valuable thing int the world at His disposal–a relationship with God. He didn’t decide that Zaccheus was not worthy of hearing His message. Just the opposite. He chose the house of Zaccheus to go to. Jesus obviously taught, as we see changes in Zaccheus. He was going to give generously to the poor, and he was going to return four fold what he had overcharged.
Secondly, Jesus did not care what others thought about His actions. It didn’t matter that everyone who saw Jesus talking with Zaccheus was going to condemn Him for His actions. There wasn’t a worse sinner than the Publicans (tax collectors) in the mind of most of the Jews. If He allowed the impressions of the people around Him to impact His actions, He would have never spoken to Zaccheus.
These two principles need to be considered while we are practicing evangelism. We should not hold the “word of God with partiallity.” We should not decide who we are going to approach with the gospel based on outward appearances, or based upon some preconception. Sometimes we avoid some people while trying to hand pick others. That process never works. Our job is to spread the seed, and let it fall where it will. It will find the good soil, and grow.
We also cannot allow what other people think affect who we will approach with the gospel message. Many churches try to form an appearance for themselves. They want to be affluent, and they want to draw in the powerful, popular people in the community. The Lord’s church does not (or should not) operate in that way. The gospel is for all. If we truly believe that, then we must spread the gospel message to all. Spread that seed freely, and let God produce the increase where He will!