Romans 8:18 For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us.
Here in East Texas and the Southern United States, it was once very common to get the response "I reckon." When we say or said that the meaning was "I think" or "I suppose". When Paul uses these words in Romans 8:18, he may sound like a Southerner, but he means something much more definite than supposing. Paul is accounting, had calculated or counted up the situation and is confident of the truth he proposes. If we study Romans chapter 8, we can find the things he counts toward the truth that present sufferings have no right or realm to compare to further glory.
Sufferings have a purpose. Christians have a future. Seen in that light, we see small sufferings and resplendent glory. In ourselves we focus on and maximize the bad. But the reckoning clears away the fog that we see Christ only.
There is a future hope, vs. 19-25
There is a present intercessor, vs. 26-27.
All things work together for good vs. 28-30.
All is grounded in God and His promise, vs. 31-39.
Showing posts with label Interpretation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Interpretation. Show all posts
Saturday, May 05, 2012
Sunday, April 15, 2012
The synagogue of Satan
Rev. 2:9b I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.
Rev. 3:9 Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.
What do we know of the synagogue of Satan? As with the Nicolaitanes, there is plenty of supposition. John Gill believes they "were false Christians, nominal professors, and shunned persecution for the Gospel." Matthew Henry says that "the devil has his synagogue...Those assemblies which are set up in opposition to the truths of the gospel, and which promote and propagate damnable errors..." H. A. Ironside thought it referred "to the Judaizing movement that came into the church in the early centuries." In the IVP New Testament Commentary Series, J. Ramsey Michaels wrote "that the synagogue of Satan consisted of Gentile Christians who had Judaized, that is, who adopted Jewish ways or even converted to Judaism, perhaps in order to avoid persecution by the Romans. These represent some of the more "sane" interpretations. (I ran across some really wild ones scattered across the internet.)
The specific term "synagogue of Satan" is used on two times in the Bible, both in the book of Revelation. From those passages we are able to learn:
1. The synagogue of Satan is an identifiable people known to the churches in Smyrna and Philadelphia.
2. The synagogue of Satan say they are Jews but are not.
3. The synagogue of Satan are liars.
4. The synagogue of Satan are blasphemers.
5. The synagogue of Satan were enemies of the churches.
6. The synagogue of Satan will be judged, will worship God in the presence of the Philadelphians, and will know whom God loves.
A good many take the synagogue of Satan to mean literal Jews in the flesh, thinking there may be some comparison with John 8:33-45, where Jesus speaks of those who take pride in being Abraham's seed. He says they really are of their father the devil. Also compare verses such as Rom. 2:28-29; Rom. 9:6-8; Matt. 3:9; etc. This could be in view, as Paul demonstrates "he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart." But this is a theological and spiritual understanding held by the churches of God. Why would some Jews in the flesh outside the church claim to be spiritual Jews when they would have no reference point for such a claim? On the other hand, Gentiles who had passed through the churches and then embraced a sort of Judaism would have more reason to "claim" they are Jews, though they are not.
Regardless, the churches at Smyrna and Philadelphia had real enemies who made a false Jewish claims. These synagogues (assemblies) belonged to Satan and did his work. They opposed the churches of God. God knows what will come and will be with His people. In Smyrna He commands them to endure persecution, trials and tribulations. Be faithful even to the point of death. He who commands this is He who was dead, and is alive. Fear not! The church in Philadelphia must also suffer tribulation, but God has set an open door that no man can close. No not even those of the synagogue of Satan can do so. In the end these false assemblies will be humbled, and know whom Christ has loved and whom He has not.
Rev. 3:9 Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.
What do we know of the synagogue of Satan? As with the Nicolaitanes, there is plenty of supposition. John Gill believes they "were false Christians, nominal professors, and shunned persecution for the Gospel." Matthew Henry says that "the devil has his synagogue...Those assemblies which are set up in opposition to the truths of the gospel, and which promote and propagate damnable errors..." H. A. Ironside thought it referred "to the Judaizing movement that came into the church in the early centuries." In the IVP New Testament Commentary Series, J. Ramsey Michaels wrote "that the synagogue of Satan consisted of Gentile Christians who had Judaized, that is, who adopted Jewish ways or even converted to Judaism, perhaps in order to avoid persecution by the Romans. These represent some of the more "sane" interpretations. (I ran across some really wild ones scattered across the internet.)
The specific term "synagogue of Satan" is used on two times in the Bible, both in the book of Revelation. From those passages we are able to learn:
1. The synagogue of Satan is an identifiable people known to the churches in Smyrna and Philadelphia.
2. The synagogue of Satan say they are Jews but are not.
3. The synagogue of Satan are liars.
4. The synagogue of Satan are blasphemers.
5. The synagogue of Satan were enemies of the churches.
6. The synagogue of Satan will be judged, will worship God in the presence of the Philadelphians, and will know whom God loves.
A good many take the synagogue of Satan to mean literal Jews in the flesh, thinking there may be some comparison with John 8:33-45, where Jesus speaks of those who take pride in being Abraham's seed. He says they really are of their father the devil. Also compare verses such as Rom. 2:28-29; Rom. 9:6-8; Matt. 3:9; etc. This could be in view, as Paul demonstrates "he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart." But this is a theological and spiritual understanding held by the churches of God. Why would some Jews in the flesh outside the church claim to be spiritual Jews when they would have no reference point for such a claim? On the other hand, Gentiles who had passed through the churches and then embraced a sort of Judaism would have more reason to "claim" they are Jews, though they are not.
Regardless, the churches at Smyrna and Philadelphia had real enemies who made a false Jewish claims. These synagogues (assemblies) belonged to Satan and did his work. They opposed the churches of God. God knows what will come and will be with His people. In Smyrna He commands them to endure persecution, trials and tribulations. Be faithful even to the point of death. He who commands this is He who was dead, and is alive. Fear not! The church in Philadelphia must also suffer tribulation, but God has set an open door that no man can close. No not even those of the synagogue of Satan can do so. In the end these false assemblies will be humbled, and know whom Christ has loved and whom He has not.
Sunday, April 08, 2012
The Nicolaitanes
Revelation 2:6 But this thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitanes, which I also hate.
Revelation 2:15 So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes, which thing I hate.
Who are the Nicolaitanes? Some ideas are:
1. A sect who followed the teachings of a man named Nicolas.
2. Those who believe in exerting hierarchical authority over the church/people/laity, from the meaning of the name “one who conquers the people.” The word Nicolaitanes (Greek: Νικολαΐ́της) is made up of Nikos/conquest, victory and Laos/people, with the ending making a proper name.
3. A sect named from the Greek word Nicolah (meaning "let us eat") who encouraged the eating of things offered to idols.
The second view is the one that I have heard most, but that is probably just my limited experience. From the information given in the Scriptures we cannot establish any of the preceding views. But we can gather the following:
1. The Nicolaitanes were an identifiable group/sect/people known to the churches in Ephesus and Pergamos.
2. The Nicolaitanes had doctrines and deeds known to the churches in Ephesus and Pergamos.
3. God hated the deeds and doctrine of the Nicolaitanes.
4. Those of Ephesus hated the deeds of the Nicolaitanes.
5. Those of Pergamos tolerated the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes.
Is it possible that we spend so much time and energy trying to identify exactly who these people are that we weaken or miss the clear point of the passages? God hates the deeds and doctrine of the Nicolaitanes!
We should not tolerate the things which God hates. We should hate what God hates and love what God loves.
Revelation 2:15 So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes, which thing I hate.
Who are the Nicolaitanes? Some ideas are:
1. A sect who followed the teachings of a man named Nicolas.
2. Those who believe in exerting hierarchical authority over the church/people/laity, from the meaning of the name “one who conquers the people.” The word Nicolaitanes (Greek: Νικολαΐ́της) is made up of Nikos/conquest, victory and Laos/people, with the ending making a proper name.
3. A sect named from the Greek word Nicolah (meaning "let us eat") who encouraged the eating of things offered to idols.
The second view is the one that I have heard most, but that is probably just my limited experience. From the information given in the Scriptures we cannot establish any of the preceding views. But we can gather the following:
1. The Nicolaitanes were an identifiable group/sect/people known to the churches in Ephesus and Pergamos.
2. The Nicolaitanes had doctrines and deeds known to the churches in Ephesus and Pergamos.
3. God hated the deeds and doctrine of the Nicolaitanes.
4. Those of Ephesus hated the deeds of the Nicolaitanes.
5. Those of Pergamos tolerated the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes.
Is it possible that we spend so much time and energy trying to identify exactly who these people are that we weaken or miss the clear point of the passages? God hates the deeds and doctrine of the Nicolaitanes!
We should not tolerate the things which God hates. We should hate what God hates and love what God loves.
Thursday, April 05, 2012
Stars are angels
Rev. 1:20 The mystery of the seven stars which thou sawest in my right hand, and the seven golden candlesticks. The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches: and the seven candlesticks which thou sawest are the seven churches.
Rev. 2:1, et al. Unto the angel of the church of....write...
Who are the ‘angels’ in Revelation 2-3? A common interpretation -- perhaps the most common -- is that the seven angels represent the seven pastors of each of the seven churches of Asia. Baptist, Evangelical and Protestant commentators provide some examples:
“The candlesticks represent the churches; the stars represent the messengers or pastors of the churches...” -- B. H. Carroll, The Seven Churches of Asia
“...the seven stars which John saw in Christ’s right hand, represent the angels, or pastors of the seven churches of Asia, and in them all the pastors and ministers of the churches in all the periods of time until Christ’s second coming.” -- John Gill’s Exposition of the Bible
“These messengers were probably the pastors of these churches or prophets through who the message was to be delivered to the congregation.” -- John F. Walvoord, The Revelation of Jesus Christ
“With the meaning of the seven stars, that they are the ministers of the churches...” Matthew Henry’s Complete Commentary on the Bible
“But by Angel in this and all the other epistles written to the seven churches in Asia, we are to understand the episcopacy, presbytery, and ministry in each particular church, unto whom the charge, oversight, care and government thereof was committed by the Holy Spirit...So the word ‘Angel’ in all these seven epistles, is a noun collective, comprehending all the bishops and presbyters, called elders, in this Church of Ephesus, so in all other churches of Christ in Asia, and elsewhere.” -- Hanserd Knollys, An Exposition on the Book of Revelation
The notion that angels represent pastors runs very deep in the mindset of many. But the deep-seated nature of that interpretation may disguise a lack of proof that pastors are angels or that angels are pastors.
Revelation 1:20 is “epexegetical” -- that is, it interprets itself; or (perhaps more technically) it is a verse in which the explanation or interpretation is supplied. John hears a voice, sees a vision. It is the Alpha & Omega, the beginning and the end, He who was dead and is alive forevermore. In the vision John sees Him -- the Lord Jesus Christ -- in the midst of seven golden candlesticks, holding seven stars in His hand. The vision ends with a command to write -- and an explanation of the mystery of the seven stars and seven candlesticks. The seven candlesticks are the seven churches of Asia to whom John is commanded to write. The seven stars are the angels of those seven churches. Now at once we must decide: has Jesus given the interpretation of the mystery, or has He only interpreted half the mystery and left the other half for us to decide? All seem to agree that the interpretation of churches is churches. Yet perhaps only a minority accept that Jesus’s interpretation of stars as angels actually means the stars are angels. Some may accept angels on the surface. But rather than understanding angels as the spiritual beings we most commonly think of when we hear the word, they interpret them in regard to the basic meaning of the term -- a messenger.
I believe the stars are angels:
1. Because of the interpretation of Jesus. If the stars are not angels, but rather pastors, that leaves the interpretation provided by our Lord as no interpretation or explanation at all. Stars are angels. Candlesticks are churches. The mystery is revealed. Or not?
2. Because the most common use of “angel” (Gk. angelos) means angelic/spiritual beings, ministering spirits. According a search engine I consulted (if done correctly), angel or angels occur 75 times in the KJV English version of the book of Revelation. 67 occurrences clearly refer to angelic beings. If 1:20, 2:1,8,12,18, 3:1,7,14 do not refer to angelic beings, they are exceptions to the rule throughout the book. Chapter 1 opens with an angel who is an angel. Chapters 2-3 do not clearly indicate any reason for a difference from the other usage throughout the book. The following chapters continually portray angels who are angels. It is unlikely that angel differs only in chapters 2-3, with no explanation. Everywhere in the book of Revelation the angels are angels.
3. Because the stars who are angels in Rev. 12: 3-9 are angelic spirit beings, not human beings. The dragon drew a third of the stars of heaven, verse 4. In verses 7 through 9 we find that the dragon is the Devil, and the stars are angels!
I do not believe the stars are angels who are angels who are pastors:
1. Because the interpretation breaks down. Rather than following the interpretation given by the Lord himself, one must continue on to reinterpret it. Jesus says the stars are angels. Men say the stars are pastors who are only called angels. If pastors are called angels here, we find no confirmation of it elsewhere in the Scriptures. Pastors/elders/bishops are not called angels in the Bible.
2. If the angels are pastors, the greetings/salutations of the letters to the seven churches of Asia are inconsistent with the greetings of other church letters found in the New Testament. No other New Testament church letter was written to the pastor alone. Rather, they were written to the church, i.e., the entire local congregation of saints in a particular place. Compare some of the salutations given by Paul in his letters: 1 Thessalonians 1:1; 1 Corinthians 1:1-2; 2 Corinthians 1:1; Colossians 1:1; Ephesians 1:1; and Philippians 1:1.
3. If the angels are single pastors the condition of these churches in Revelation is not consistent with the rest of the New Testament praxis. In Acts 20, for example, the church at Ephesus had several overseers/elders: Acts 20:17 “And from Miletus he sent to Ephesus, and called the elders of the church.” They were preaching/teaching elders: Acts 20:28 “Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.” During these days, there was a plurality of elders in every church (Acts 14:23). These elders were bishops, or overseers. Local assemblies in the Bible are consistently portrayed as led by elders, plural.
The popularity of the angel=pastor interpretation may arise for two main reasons: 1). The angels as pastors just “makes sense”. Why would God send the message to the church to an angel? When Jesus’s simple explanation of Rev. 1:20 finds hard ground, it is carried away and another substituted for it. 2). Familiarity and commonality breeds popularity. It is the interpretation we hear most; it is the interpretation we are taught. It “makes senses” and isn’t challenged, so why should we seek another interpretation?
Does it make any sense that the Lord would address the letter to the church to “the angel”? Does it matter whether it does? The Lord said the stars are angels. The star is the symbol. The angel is the interpretation. Perhaps there is a lesson here to accept what the Lord says at face value even if it doesn’t “make sense”!
Rev. 2:1, et al. Unto the angel of the church of....write...
Who are the ‘angels’ in Revelation 2-3? A common interpretation -- perhaps the most common -- is that the seven angels represent the seven pastors of each of the seven churches of Asia. Baptist, Evangelical and Protestant commentators provide some examples:
“The candlesticks represent the churches; the stars represent the messengers or pastors of the churches...” -- B. H. Carroll, The Seven Churches of Asia
“...the seven stars which John saw in Christ’s right hand, represent the angels, or pastors of the seven churches of Asia, and in them all the pastors and ministers of the churches in all the periods of time until Christ’s second coming.” -- John Gill’s Exposition of the Bible
“These messengers were probably the pastors of these churches or prophets through who the message was to be delivered to the congregation.” -- John F. Walvoord, The Revelation of Jesus Christ
“With the meaning of the seven stars, that they are the ministers of the churches...” Matthew Henry’s Complete Commentary on the Bible
“But by Angel in this and all the other epistles written to the seven churches in Asia, we are to understand the episcopacy, presbytery, and ministry in each particular church, unto whom the charge, oversight, care and government thereof was committed by the Holy Spirit...So the word ‘Angel’ in all these seven epistles, is a noun collective, comprehending all the bishops and presbyters, called elders, in this Church of Ephesus, so in all other churches of Christ in Asia, and elsewhere.” -- Hanserd Knollys, An Exposition on the Book of Revelation
The notion that angels represent pastors runs very deep in the mindset of many. But the deep-seated nature of that interpretation may disguise a lack of proof that pastors are angels or that angels are pastors.
Revelation 1:20 is “epexegetical” -- that is, it interprets itself; or (perhaps more technically) it is a verse in which the explanation or interpretation is supplied. John hears a voice, sees a vision. It is the Alpha & Omega, the beginning and the end, He who was dead and is alive forevermore. In the vision John sees Him -- the Lord Jesus Christ -- in the midst of seven golden candlesticks, holding seven stars in His hand. The vision ends with a command to write -- and an explanation of the mystery of the seven stars and seven candlesticks. The seven candlesticks are the seven churches of Asia to whom John is commanded to write. The seven stars are the angels of those seven churches. Now at once we must decide: has Jesus given the interpretation of the mystery, or has He only interpreted half the mystery and left the other half for us to decide? All seem to agree that the interpretation of churches is churches. Yet perhaps only a minority accept that Jesus’s interpretation of stars as angels actually means the stars are angels. Some may accept angels on the surface. But rather than understanding angels as the spiritual beings we most commonly think of when we hear the word, they interpret them in regard to the basic meaning of the term -- a messenger.
I believe the stars are angels:
1. Because of the interpretation of Jesus. If the stars are not angels, but rather pastors, that leaves the interpretation provided by our Lord as no interpretation or explanation at all. Stars are angels. Candlesticks are churches. The mystery is revealed. Or not?
2. Because the most common use of “angel” (Gk. angelos) means angelic/spiritual beings, ministering spirits. According a search engine I consulted (if done correctly), angel or angels occur 75 times in the KJV English version of the book of Revelation. 67 occurrences clearly refer to angelic beings. If 1:20, 2:1,8,12,18, 3:1,7,14 do not refer to angelic beings, they are exceptions to the rule throughout the book. Chapter 1 opens with an angel who is an angel. Chapters 2-3 do not clearly indicate any reason for a difference from the other usage throughout the book. The following chapters continually portray angels who are angels. It is unlikely that angel differs only in chapters 2-3, with no explanation. Everywhere in the book of Revelation the angels are angels.
3. Because the stars who are angels in Rev. 12: 3-9 are angelic spirit beings, not human beings. The dragon drew a third of the stars of heaven, verse 4. In verses 7 through 9 we find that the dragon is the Devil, and the stars are angels!
I do not believe the stars are angels who are angels who are pastors:
1. Because the interpretation breaks down. Rather than following the interpretation given by the Lord himself, one must continue on to reinterpret it. Jesus says the stars are angels. Men say the stars are pastors who are only called angels. If pastors are called angels here, we find no confirmation of it elsewhere in the Scriptures. Pastors/elders/bishops are not called angels in the Bible.
2. If the angels are pastors, the greetings/salutations of the letters to the seven churches of Asia are inconsistent with the greetings of other church letters found in the New Testament. No other New Testament church letter was written to the pastor alone. Rather, they were written to the church, i.e., the entire local congregation of saints in a particular place. Compare some of the salutations given by Paul in his letters: 1 Thessalonians 1:1; 1 Corinthians 1:1-2; 2 Corinthians 1:1; Colossians 1:1; Ephesians 1:1; and Philippians 1:1.
3. If the angels are single pastors the condition of these churches in Revelation is not consistent with the rest of the New Testament praxis. In Acts 20, for example, the church at Ephesus had several overseers/elders: Acts 20:17 “And from Miletus he sent to Ephesus, and called the elders of the church.” They were preaching/teaching elders: Acts 20:28 “Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.” During these days, there was a plurality of elders in every church (Acts 14:23). These elders were bishops, or overseers. Local assemblies in the Bible are consistently portrayed as led by elders, plural.
The popularity of the angel=pastor interpretation may arise for two main reasons: 1). The angels as pastors just “makes sense”. Why would God send the message to the church to an angel? When Jesus’s simple explanation of Rev. 1:20 finds hard ground, it is carried away and another substituted for it. 2). Familiarity and commonality breeds popularity. It is the interpretation we hear most; it is the interpretation we are taught. It “makes senses” and isn’t challenged, so why should we seek another interpretation?
Does it make any sense that the Lord would address the letter to the church to “the angel”? Does it matter whether it does? The Lord said the stars are angels. The star is the symbol. The angel is the interpretation. Perhaps there is a lesson here to accept what the Lord says at face value even if it doesn’t “make sense”!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)