The Nature of the Resurrection Body

I have been deeply involved in study and meditation for many years about

1) the nature of the resurrection body

2) the kind of life lived in an immortal body in the new heavens and earth

Needless to say, these things are of the greatest interest to me. What will I be doing from day to day throughout eternity? What kind of life will it be to have no fears or worries? To not have to work to eat, or eat to live? To never get tired? To never sigh? To do what one wants? Will I be in twenty four hour a day worship? Or, will I have time to simply enjoy living? Will I be able to have hobbies? To do things that please me? Will I be really able to run and not be weary? Will I really be able to mount up with wings as eagles, to travel at the speed of light and angels? Will I be able to appear here, then disappear, reappearing somewhere else? Fascinating stuff! I plan to write upon some of this as I come to the final postings in my series on "Redemption," and discuss the "redemption of the body" and "the day of redemption."

Is Preaching Hell & Damnation Part of the Gospel?

When I was with the Hardshells, I heard a lot of preaching by them, and I heard a lot of their "pet sayings." One that I often heard was this in gist: preaching about hell is not preaching the gospel. I remember how the words of Paul in Romans 2: 16 persuaded me that such a proposition was false.

"In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel." 

Obviously, preaching the gospel involves saying something about "the day when God shall judge" men. In fact, preaching the gospel involves warning men about the coming judgment and of their need to believe the gospel and to repent of their sins. In fact, in Paul's preaching before Felix, it is said that he "he reasoned of righteousness, temperance, and judgment to come," causing Felix to "tremble." Paul also said: “Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord we persuade men.” (2 Cor. 5:11) The Savior himself asked some in his day - "How can ye escape the damnation of Hell?" (Matt. 23:33)

Preaching the gospel involves warning people about the coming judgment and of their need of trusting in Christ for salvation.

"And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people." (Acts 3: 24)

The good news? "Every soul" that will "hear that prophet" (Jesus) shall not be destroyed! But, those who "will not hear that prophet" will indeed be destroyed. Do our Hardshell brothers tell sinners that they will be destroyed from among the people, and suffer everlasting destruction, if they refuse "to hear that prophet"? Is it merely a "timely destruction" that these Christ rejecters receive? To affirm such is to deny the gospel. It is Offering Hope To Hypocrites and if they do not warn the wicked as did the apostle Paul, then they are not preaching the gospel.

Milestone - 1000 Postings!

We have reached a milestone here at "The Old Baptist" blog!. Kevin and I have made 1000 postings! 

At this point, we also have 438 drafts for possible future articles. Of course, some of these postings were mostly citations from other writers.

Reasons To Rejoice or Things Accomplished

1. What a vast array of material on many biblical topics we have provided!
2. What a vast array of material on the history of the Baptists and of the Hardshells we have provided!
3. Several Hardshell preachers have been delivered from the cult and heresy of the Hardshells!
4. Many who have been proselyted by the Hardshells have been kept from the cult by our writings!

Regrets

Have not finished several series (I am bad for this), such as on

a. Waiting for the Huiothesia
b. The Faith of God
c. Awakened Sinners
d. The Two Witnesses (of the Apocalypse)
e. The Hardshell Baptist Cult (179 chapters already!)

Topics Yet To Write Upon
(or to complete)

1. Redemption
2. The Apocalypse

Top Series 

Note: each of these series of articles would make a book! I have plans to publish each of them in the future as such. But, such a work takes lots of time, and some means.

List Of Series (or books)

1. The Hardshell Baptist Cult

Note: The larger book has 178 chapters, and many of these are in series (each of which could be a book by itself, such as "Hardshells & Gill," "Addresses to the Lost," "Hardshell Proof Texts," etc.

2. Weak vs. Strong Brothers
3. The Error Of Pretribulationism
4. Waiting For The Huiothesia
5. The Faith of God
6. The Means of Grace

Other Extended Series

1. Hardshells and the Adultery Question
2. May Women Vote in the Church?
3. Hardshells & Alien Baptism (Landmarkism)

Topics We Talk Much About

1. Faith and repentance
2. Regeneration, conversion, and the new birth
3. Election and predestination
4. Hermeneutics
5. Perseverance of the saints

Thank you to all who have followed and supported us here!

Thoughts On How To Interpret Prophecy

"To treat figurative language as if it were literal, and to treat literal language as if it were figurative, constitute two of the greatest hindrances to understanding the meaning of the Bible."

("Basic Bible Interpretation: Special Topics in Bible Interpretation," (here) citing "Protestant Biblical Interpretation" (Chapter 9), by Bernard Ramm)

I believe the above words of Ramm are extremely important. So many today do not know how to interpret the scriptures, especially prophecy.

Here is what Ramm wrote (emphasis mine):

Reasons for Figurative Language

Figurative language is often used to speak about abstract concepts in terms of concrete things. All human speech contains this type of language because it is intrinsic to the way people communicate.

Very often when we are talking about something which is not perceptible by the five senses, we use words which in one of their meanings refer to things or actions that are. When a man says that he grasps an argument he is using a verb (grasp) which literally means to take something in the hand but he is certainly not thinking that his mind has hands or that an argument can be seized. To avoid the word grasp he may change the form of the expression and say, "I see your point," but he does not mean that a pointed object has appeared in his visual field. Everyone is familiar with this linguistic phenomenon and the grammarians call it metaphor. But it is a serious mistake to think that metaphor is an optional thing which poets and authors may put into their work as a decoration and plain speakers can do without. The truth is that if we are going to talk at all about things which are not perceived by the senses, we are forced to use language metaphorically. There is no other way of talking. Anyone who talks about things that cannot be seen, or touched, or heard, or the like, must inevitably talk as if they could be seen or touched or heard.

Bible language should be understood in its normal, ordinary, or literal sense unless there is a convincing reason for considering it otherwise:

If a statement would be absurd, irrational, or impossible if taken literally then the author is probably using a figure of speech. Examples of this would include trees clapping their hands (Isaiah 55:12) or a person being referred to as a dog (Phil 3:2), a door (John 10:7), or a lamb (John 1:36).

If an inanimate object is used to describe a living thing, then the statement may be considered to be figurative. For example, Jesus described Himself by saying He is the bread of life (John 6:35) and the light of the world (John 8:12). In a similar way, when life and activity are attributed to inanimate objects, these statements can also be considered to be figurative expressions.

Often the context of a passage will point out whether a figure of speech is intended. In many cases, the figurative passage is followed by a clear interpretation. For example, those who are "asleep" (1 Thess 4:13-15) are later described as those who have actually died (1 Thess 4:16). Also, the word "sword" must be understood figuratively in Eph 6:17, (1) because of the prepositional phrase "of the Spirit" and (2) because of the subsequent explanation: "which is the Word of God."

Figurative speech, as already discussed, is a picturesque, out-of-the-ordinary way of presenting literal facts that might otherwise be stated in a normal, plain, ordinary way. Saying that "the argument does not hold water" is an unusual way of saying the more ordinary sentence, "The argument is weak." Both sentences convey a literal fact. One conveys it in a figurative fashion, the other in a nonfigurative way. In other words, as Radmacher put it, "Behind every figure of speech is a literal meaning, and by means of the historical-grammatical exegesis of the text, these literal meanings are to be sought out." Any figure of speech depends on ordinary-literal language. When Peter wrote, "The devil prowls around like a roaring lion" (1 Peter 5:8), the legitimacy of that figurative comparison is based on our understanding of something about actual lions. The same is true of types, symbols, parables, allegories, and fables.

Identifying Types of Figurative Language

Figures of Comparison. This is the most common type of figurative language in the Bible, and it typically expresses a similarity between two things that are otherwise dissimilar.

In examining figures of comparison, remember that ordinarily only one point of comparison is intended. The comparisons are limited, and the reader is not permitted to improvise or decide what point of comparison he likes best or finds compatible with his doctrinal structure. If we are not careful, the Scriptures will no longer be an independent authority, sitting in judgment on our ideas, but rather we interpreters will become the authorities, building unsound doctrine on misapprehension of a figurative biblical expression.

Figures of Substitution. This involves having one thing represent another or stand in place of another thing. In figures of substitution sometimes part of a thing will be spoken of as if it were the whole thing, or the whole may stand for only a part. Figures of Personification. This involves taking a characteristic of a person and attributing it to a non-personal object, or attributing a human characteristic to God.

Figures of Exaggeration or Irony. This involves saying more than is literally required, or saying the opposite of what is literally meant.

Rhetorical Questions. This involves asking questions without expecting an answer. This forces the reader to think about the answer and consider its implications for affirming a specific truth.

Idiomatic Expressions. An idiom is an expression that cannot be understood simply from the meanings of the individual words of which it is composed. Usually it is unique to a particular group of people, and in order to understand the intended meaning we must bridge the gap between ourselves and that group.

Principles for Interpreting Figurative Language

Determine whether figurative language is being used. Use the general guidelines above to determine whether a passage contains a figure of speech. It would violate the principle to authorial intent to interpret a figurative passage literally, or to interpret a literal passage figuratively. Sometimes a normal statement is wrongly taken as a figure of speech; for example, when John wrote that 144,000 will be sealed with 12,000 from each of the 12 tribes of Israel (Rev 7:4-8), there is no compelling reason to understand this statement figuratively.

Determine what the figure of speech (image) is referring to (referent). For example, Isaiah 8:7 says, "Therefore the Lord is about to bring against them the mighty floodwaters of the River." How are we to determine whether these floodwaters are literal or figurative? This is a figurative expression because the very next phrase gives the referent: "the mighty king of Assyria with all his pomp." The floodwaters are the image and the king of Assyria is the referent. "Sometimes the image is stated, but the nonimage or referent, though not given explicitly, is suggested by the context. In Luke 5:34 the bridegroom is not said to be Jesus, but the meaning is implicit since Jesus said in the next verse that the bridegroom would be taken from them. The guests of the bridegroom are not specified, though they are most likely Jesus' disciples who are eating and drinking, much like bridegroom guests." Determine the specific point of comparison that is being made between the image and the referent. For example, Isaiah 53:6 says, "All we, like sheep, have gone astray." The image is sheep, the referent is human beings, and the specific point of comparison is the tendency of sheep to stray off on their own, just as human beings stray away from their Shepherd and Creator. Not every aspect of sheep is part of this figurative comparison - only their tendency to stray is being emphasized.

Determine the specific meaning that was intended by the biblical author when he used a particular figure of speech in a specific context. Treat each figure of speech individually according to its specific context, and do not assume that a particular figure always means the same thing throughout the Bible. For example, in Hosea 6:4 the figure of "dew" is used to describe the transience of Judah's loyalty to God, but in Hosea 14:5 the figure of "dew" describes the Lord's blessing on them.

Interpreting Biblical Prophecy Bible prophecy is a special topic because it often makes use of figurative language, and because there are special time elements involved in the prophet's message. The two aspects of biblical prophecy have sometimes been called foretelling and forthtelling because there is a future predictive element as well as a message of exhortation, reproof, correction, or instruction to a specific people living at a specific time in history. To correctly interpret biblical prophecy, "We need an approach that will read nothing into prophecy that is not there, that will make clear all that the prophet said or wrote to his own people, and that will make the correctly interpreted message of the prophet relevant to our own times."

Prophecy does have a predictive element, but we must never forget that biblical prophecy was spoken into a specific historical situation with the intention of motivating a particular group of people to action in their own day. The foretelling of the future was included to show that God is working out His plan in history and is moving forward according to His own timetable. God's future actions were meant to influence what the readers or listeners were doing at the time they heard the message. In light of His future activity, they were meant to live differently from those who ignore God. "To lose sight of the original hearers and to focus our attention on what may tickle the fancy of the curious-minded in the present day is to lose sight of the very reason for the message. This results in a tragic distortion of the purpose behind the prophecy."10

The primary guideline for interpreting biblical prophecy is to view the passage in its normal, simple, direct, ordinary meaning unless there is a convincing reason to do otherwise. Just as with any other Bible language, we should understand predictive passages literally unless there are specific reasons for viewing them in some figurative sense. "Of course figurative and symbolic language is used extensively in prophetic passages, but this does not mean that all prophecy is figurative or symbolic. We should begin with the assumption that the words are to be taken in their normal sense unless a figure of speech or symbol is indicated. Deeper and mystical senses should not be sought.

Signs of the Times (1833)

From the article "The Gospel Spiritually Discerned":

"In the work of regeneration, I consider the word of God to be the seed of eternal life; this is received in the heart by the quickening power of the Holy Ghost; and thereby Christ is formed in the heart, and a new creation actually takes place." (Feb. 6, 1833 - see here)

That is what the first "Primitive" or "Old School" Baptists believed at the start! If today's "Primitive Baptists" do not believe what their founding fathers believed, how then are they "primitive" or "original"?

"Final Perseverance of the Saints" (April 10, 1833 - see here)

"All that can be fairly drawn from the word if, is this: If you persevere, that will prove the reality of grace: If after making a profession, you should afterwards fall away, that will prove you never had the grace of God in truth, notwithstanding all the profession you have made: as St. John argues, "They went out from us because they were not of us; for had they been of us they must needs have continued with us."

"Primitive Baptists" who today do not agree with this statement on perseverance show that they all not "primitive" and therefore the very name of their denomination is a lie, or farce.

"If men have some natural awakenings and alarms of conscience, if they are outwardly reformed, and make a profession of religion, immediately, they are set down as believers, and should they afterwards fall from their profession it is vainly supposed by some that they are fallen from grace. Had could they fall from that which they never had? This appears to be one of the prevailing errors of the present day. Preaching up reformation as if it was regeneration. I must insist upon it, that there may be reformation where there is no regeneration, but there can be no regeneration without reformation."

Again, today's Hardshells will not accept what this paragraph says! Have I not said many times throughout the years that we here are the real old or original Baptists?

Beebe on "Total Depravity" (April 24, 1833 - see here)

"We have reason to believe the children of God differ in their opinions somewhat in regards to faith; some concluding it is the duty of all (who hear, or have an opportunity of hearing the gospel) to believe--while others contend that faith is a grace of the Spirit of God, and of course does not enter into the list of duties required of man. These matters of opinion should not cause brethren to fall out by the way, while all agree in the important point what is to be believed, namely this: that Jesus Christ is the only and all-sufficient Savior of sinners..."

Hardshells today, however, do consider an affirmation of duty faith to be a heresy!

The Apocalypse (vi)

In the "Pulpit commentary" we have this commentary on the meaning of "Lord's day":

"The expression occurs here only in the New Testament, and beyond all reasonable doubt it means "on Sunday.""

This is indeed ironic. The reverse is actually true. It is "beyond all reasonable doubt" that "the Lord's day" does not mean Sunday, nor any other day of the week.

Let us look at the facts and then make our decision as to the correct interpretation.

The Facts or Evidence

1) There is no other place in the NT where we find the exact words "the Lord's day."
2) There is no place in the NT where either the seventh or the first day of the week is called "the Lord's day."
3) Many places in the NT speak of a "day of the Lord" such as these:

a. "The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before that great and notable day of the Lord (Lord's day) come." (Acts 2:20 KJV)

b. "Who shall also confirm you unto the end, that ye may be blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ." (I Cor. 1:8 KJV)

c. "To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus." (I Cor. 5:5 KJV)

d. "As also ye have acknowledged us in part, that we are your rejoicing, even as ye also are ours in the day of the Lord Jesus." (II Cor. 1:4 KJV)

e. "For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord  (Lord's day) so cometh as a thief in the night." (I Thess. 5:2 KJV)

f. "But the day of the Lord (Lord's day) will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up." (II Peter 3:10 KJV)

4) The Greek form of "the Lord's day" is different in Greek than "day of the Lord."
5) The context of the words "the Lord's day" shows no indication that a particular day of the week is intended.
6) The context has much to say about the second coming of Christ.

False Inferences From The Facts

1) Had John intended "the Lord's day" to mean "the day of the Lord" he would have used the same form as the passages where "day of the Lord" is used. Ergo, he did not mean "the day of the Lord" but something else. Ergo, the seventh or first day of the week.

2) John's use of the term "the Lord's day" presumes that his readers were familiar with the term, and from writings not long after this period we have early Christian writings where "the Lord's day" was used to signify "the first day of the week" or Sunday. Ergo, "the Lord's day" means Sunday.

Fair Inferences

1) If the words "the Lord's day" was understood by John's audience, this does not necessarily imply that his audience understood it to be a reference to Sunday (or Saturday).

2) It is much more probable that John's audience was familiar with "the day of the Lord" and saw "the Lord's day" as signifying the same thing

3) The unique adjectival form of "the Lord's day" was done for emphasis and is a valid way of translating the Hebrew words "day of the Lord."

Arguments

1) The fact that Christians in the second century were calling the first day of the week "the Lord's day" does not mean that it was used by them as such in the first century. To impose a second century meaning of a term upon the first century apostolic writings is not the way to properly interpret scripture.

2) No other writer in the NT refers to either Saturday or Sunday as "the Lord's day" and this makes it unlikely that John so uses it that way. The NT writers constantly call Sunday "the first day of the week." If John had meant that he was in a prophetic spirit on Sunday, he would have said "I came to be in spirit on the first day of the week."

3) There is no essential difference between saying "the Lord's day" and "the day of the Lord" and this weighs heavily in making them to mean the same thing.

4) To make "the Lord's day" to mean Sunday does not fit into the context, there being no other allusion to public worship by the church in the immediate context, but there are several references to the coming again of the Lord Jesus, which cannot be disconnected from "the day of the Lord Jesus."

5) To make "the Lord's day" to mean Sunday is grossly out of context and meaningless. What difference does it make for us to know that John began to see his visions on a particular day of the week? What other prophet ever began his report of visions by stating what day of the week it was?

On the Greek form of the words in Rev. 1:10, one writer wrote:

"Some people have raised a legitimate question about the above view. If John meant “the Day of the Lord,” why did he write “the Lord’s day”? In the Septuagint, the Hebrew יהוה יום) yom YHWH, “day of YHWH”) was rendered by the Greek expression ἡμέραν θυμοῦ κυρίου (“day of the Lord”), but John rearranges the words and uses a different form, τῇ κυριακῇ ἡμέρᾳ (“the Lord’s day”). Why does John translate “the Day of the Lord” in a slightly different way than the translators of the Septuagint did?

There is no difference in the meaning of the two expressions; there is only a difference in emphasis. “The wife of the President” and “the President’s wife” refer to the same person. If I use the first form, I am emphasizing whose wife she is (“the wife of THE PRESIDENT”). If I use the second form, I am emphasizing her role as a wife (“the President’s WIFE”). This same rule holds true in Greek. The Prophets who wrote about the Day of the Lord were emphasizing who the Day belongs to (THE LORD): John was emphasizing THE DAY more than the Lord to whom the day belongs." ("The Lord’s Day" by Daniel Botkin - see here)

That seems to me to be a more probable reason for John using a dative rather than a genitive to refer to the day of the Lord Jesus. But, more on this shortly.

In "The Translation of the Phrase “the Lord’s Day”," Richard C. Barcellos (see here), writes (emphasis mine):

"Note the translation of the particular phrase under consideration—“the Lord’s day.” It is not translated “the day of the Lord,” as in 2 Peter 3:10, because it is a different construction and uses a different word for “Lord.” Second Peter 3:10 reads, ἡμέρα κυρίου (hēmera kyriou [“the day of the Lord”]). The word κυρίου (kyriou [“of the Lord”]) is a genitive masculine singular noun. It comes from κύριος (kyrios), a noun meaning “Lord.” In the context of 2 Peter 3, “the day of the Lord” clearly refers to the eschatological day of the Lord, “the day of God, because of which the heavens will be destroyed by burning” (2 Pet. 3:12). Peter is clearly referring to the last day judgment, the day of the resurrection (see John 5:28-29 and 6:40).

Revelation 1:10, however, reads τῇ κυριακῇ ἡμέρᾳ (tē kyriakē hēmera [“the Lord’s day”]). The word κυριακῇ (kyriakē), translated “Lord’s,” is a dative feminine singular adjective, agreeing in case and gender with the noun it modifies (i.e., ἡμέρᾳ [hēmera; “day”]). It comes from κυριακός (kyriakos), an adjective meaning “belonging to the Lord.”[1] “Lord’s” is an adjective attributing a quality to the noun it modifies (i.e., “day”). The Lord’s Day, therefore, is a day belonging to Jesus Christ as Lord. The word κυριακῇ (kyriakē [“Lord’s]) is used twice in the New Testament—here in Revelation 1:10 and in 1 Corinthians 11:20."

Since the construction in the Greek of "the Lord's day" is the same as that in I Corinthians 11:20 in the words "the Lord's table," I offer these thoughts.

There is no essential difference in saying "table of the Lord" or "Lord's table." So, likewise, there is none in saying "day of the Lord" or "Lord's day." In either case, the adjectival construction is designed to affirm that both "table" and "day" are things that "belong unto the Lord." But, how is this true of Sunday alone?

"In" or "On"?

Many commentators and translators are convinced by religious tradition that the term "the Lord's day" refers to Sunday and reveal their bias by translating the Greek preposition "en" by the English word "on," whereas its usual translation when referring to a historical time is "in." The correct translation would be "I was in spirit in the Lord's day." To translate "en" (Greek preposition) as "in" leads one away from seeing the words "Lord's day" as being equivalent to "Sunday" and towards the view that "Lord's day" denotes "day of the Lord." John was not "on" the day of the Lord, but in it, beholding the scenes of the last day.

From ntgreek.net we have the following information on the preposition "en" in NT Greek

"In Greek, it is very important to learn what cases can be used with a given preposition, and to note what meaning is associated with the preposition for each case. Some prepositions consistently take only one case. Other prepositions may take two or three different cases, and have varying meanings depending on which case is used. You must associate the case and the meaning together when learning a preposition. For example, you should not be content to learn that ἐν means in. Rather you must learn that ἐν used with the dative case means in."

In our text, "in the Lord's day" is dative case. "En" should therefore be translated as "in" rather than as "on." The Greek preposition en is more usually rendered “in,” only once in Revelation is it translated “on,” in the expression “on the earth,” Rev. Rev. 5:13+. Everywhere else where en is followed by the word “day” it is rendered “in” (Rev. Rev. 2:13+. Rev. 9:6+. Rev. 10:7+. Rev. 11:6+. Rev. 18:8+).

Literally John is saying - "I came to be in spirit in the Lord's day" - ἐγενόμην ἐν πνεύματι ἐν τῇ κυριακῇ ἡμέρᾳ -(transliteration is - egenomen en pneumati en te kuriake hemera).

A contributor named Stephen in the comment section of an Internet article titled "2. The Origins of Pretribulationism" (see here) wrote some helpful things relative to a discussion of what is meant by "the Lord's day." He wrote (emphasis mine):

"John’s unique use in the New Testament (1:10) of the dative expression, in the Lord ’s Day (ἐν τῃ̂ κυριακῃ̂ ἡμέρᾳ), appears to be influenced by the repeated use of the similar dative expression in that day (ἐν ἐκείνῃ τῃ̂ ἡμέρᾳ) in the Septuagint (LXX), to designate the day of the Lord (Zech 12-14, etc.).

The context of Chapter One: (1:1) “revelation of Jesus Christ…”, (1:7) “Behold He is coming with the clouds…”, (1:8) “the One who is to come…”, point to Lord’s day as John’s choice of words to describe the eschatological day of the Lord.

To propose, as some do, that John would believe it necessary to reveal what day of the week he received the Revelation, and leave out the time frame for the events, is nothing short of unbelievable, and without precedent among God’s prophets.

Another way of stating this is that the prophets of God always gave the time frame surrounding the events of their prophecy, but never found it necessary to give us the day of the week they received the prophetic word from God.

It is noteworthy that, just as the coming of Christ is announced with a trumpet (1 Thess. 4:16; Matt.24:31), so is all that John reveals to us here (Rev. 1:10).

But all the writers of the New Testament who made any reference to Sunday, including Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Paul, designated Sunday exclusively with the phrase “first day of the week” (cf. Mt. 28:1, Mk. 16:2, 9; Lk. 24:1, John 20:1, 19; Acts 20:7; 1 Cor 16:2). The translation should read “in the Lord’s day” not “on the Lord’s day.”

Later in church history (as in our day) Christians would refer to Sunday, or the day set aside for worship, as “the Lord’s day.” However, “the day of the Lord,” “that day,” and “the day” are used throughout the Bible to designate the eschatological day of the Lord, the event when the Lord Jesus comes again.

John is saying that the Revelation he received pertained to the time concerning the events surrounding the coming of the Lord Jesus. The observation (Thomas, op. cit.) that John uses the dative of Lord (adjectival, “Lord’s day”) contributes nothing to his argument that the meaning is Sunday. The genitive is the customary case for adjectives; the dative for adverbs (Wallace, p.76). Peter, using the genitive as John uses the dative, writes (2 Peter 3:12), “God’s Day,” της του θεου ἡμέρας an adjectival use of God in the genitive with the noun day. This is especially noteworthy in that Peter uses this construction as a synonymous way of stating “the day of the Lord,” which he had referenced in the same passage (ἡμέρα κυρίου 2 Peter 3:10). Walvoord says, “The adjectival form can be explained on the ground that in the Old Testament there was no adjectival form for “Lord,” and therefore the noun had to be used” (p.42). Nothing from history, or from the way John uses the Greek language, compels us to conclude that by “Lord’s day,” he meant anything different than “day of the Lord.” Kittel observes, “A genitive του κυρίου might have been used instead of the adjective.” [Gerhard Kittel, Editor. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Vol. 3 (Grand Rapids, 1976), p.1096] The attempts to import the later future meaning of this phrase, “Sunday,” into the present context is an example of the exegetical fallacy (Carson, p. 32) described as “semantic anachronism.”"

Righteous Indignation

This posting is a follow up to my recent posting On Righteous Indignation

I submit this good article for the good of our readers and to let our Hardshell brothers, who accuse us of having unrighteous anger, in writing against their heresies, that we keep a guard on our anger.

"What is "Righteous Anger"? How can I know whether I'm feeling that or just being a hothead?" by Lisa Harper in "Christianity Today" (see here - emphasis mine):

"I grew up believing anger was a "bad" emotion. So I've needed several years of Christian counseling even to admit I get angry, much less to learn I can express those feelings righteously! Thankfully, God's Word sets clear parameters for getting peeved.

What does God say about this? The bad news for hotheads is that Scripture contains many more verses warning believers against blowing their cool than verses advocating such behavior. The writer of Proverbs connects anger with foolishness: "Fools quickly show that they are upset, but the wise ignore insults" (Proverbs 12:16, NCV). And the apostle Paul recommends letting our heavenly Father fight our battles: "My friends, do not try to punish others when they wrong you, but wait for God to punish them with his anger. It is written: 'I will punish those who do wrong; I will repay them,' says the Lord" (Romans 12:19, NCV).

Sometimes, however, God allows his people to fuss and remain faithful. Such is the case when King David furrows his brow and huffs:

God, I wish you would kill the wicked!
Get away from me, you murderers!
They say evil things about you.
Your enemies use your name thoughtlessly.
Lord, I hate those who hate you;
I hate those who rise up against you.
I feel only hate for them;
they are my enemies (Psalm 139:19–22, NCV).

Or when Nehemiah gets upset after learning about the wealthy Israelites' exploitation of the poor: "Then I was very angry when I had heard … these words" (Nehemiah 5:6, NASB).

What's noteworthy in these situations is that David called down curses on sworn enemies of God, and Nehemiah directed his irritation at the "haves" repressing the "have-nots." Both men were angry because of ungodly people or activities.

And Jesus expressed anger—at the Pharisees who exhibited such hard hearts (Mark 3:1-5) and at the crass commercialism that sullied the temple (Matthew 21:12-13; Luke 19:45-48)—to convey extreme displeasure over sin. Those reasons are the key to righteous anger.

How does this affect me? As Christ-followers, we're totally appropriate getting upset over sin, too. Evils such as abuse, racism, pornography, and child sex trafficking should incense us.

But no matter how reprehensible the people or activities we're condemning, we still aren't justified to sin in our responses: "When you are angry, do not sin, and be sure to stop being angry before the end of the day" (Ephesians 4:26, NCV). Those of us with confrontational personalities might want to ask ourselves the question, Is my motive to be right or to be righteous? before ripping into the offending parties.

Such considerations also help us be pokey in getting peeved: "Let every person be quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to anger; for the anger of man does not produce the righteousness of God" (James 1:19–20, ESV). Instead of replying immediately, simply counting to ten before reacting usually leads to much better results in a contentious situation.

Then after we take offense, we should take redemptive action.

Ultimately, if our outrage results in restoring people into loving, healing relationships with Jesus, it's righteous anger."

Good words!

The Apocalypse Of Jesus Christ (v)

"The Lord's Day"

Another argument in favor of the view we are upholding, that the words "revelation of Jesus Christ," are a title meant to convey to us the subject matter of the the visions John is about to receive, comes from John's testimony that he "was in the Spirit in the Lord's day." (1:10) What is meant by "Lord's day" and why is it mentioned by John in this context?

Dr. Seiss wrote:

"With this also agrees the statement of John as to the circumstances under which he came to the knowledge of the things which he narrates. He says he “was in Spirit in the Lord’s day,” in which he beheld what he afterwards wrote." 

Seiss' translation is correct in leaving out the definite article before "spirit." He does capitalize "Spirit," however. Whether the word "spirit" here denotes the person of the Holy Spirit, or a state of mind and disposition, is a matter of opinion. I personally think the "spirit" was not the Holy Spirit, for John was already "in the Spirit" before this time, and the context seems to favor the idea that he was enraptured in his mind, being in a prophetic spirit. The absence of the definite article would favor this view. Thus, John is saying that he was "in a spiritual and prophetic frame of mind." Seiss will discuss this in the next quotations.

It is important to note how the contents of the Book of Revelation are a written record of what John saw while "in spirit," in prophetic and ecstatic state, mentally leaving his body and seeing with the eyes of his soul the things he afterwards narrates and describes. To read what he describes lends great support to the view that the Book of Revelation deals, in one way or another, with the coming apocalypse or return of Christ to our world. If it were merely information about things that were to occur, either within a few years after John wrote the Book of Revelation (Preterist view), or about things that were to occur during the 2000 years of the church's history (Historicist view), or of things not yet fulfilled (Futurist view), it is still prophecy. Whether those things have been fulfilled or not is the question that has been debated for thousands of years. To my mind, it is clear that what John records fits in well with the thesis that the whole of the Revelation describes end time events associated with the coming again of Christ. Were it merely more information, it would give information on various points of doctrine, as do the apostolic epistles. But, this is not what we find when we scope the contents.

Seiss continued:

"What is meant by this Lord’s day? Some answer, Sunday — the first day of the week; but I am not satisfied with this explanation. Sunday belongs indeed to the Lord, but the Scriptures nowhere call it “the Lord’s day.” (Unless this be the only time - SG) None of the Christian writings, for 100 years after Christ, ever call it “the Lord’s day.” But there is a “Day of the Lord” largely treated of by prophets, apostles, and fathers, the meaning of which is abundantly clear and settled. It is that day in which, Isaiah says, men shall hide in the rocks for fear of the Lord, and for the glory of his majesty; — the day which Joel describes as the day of destruction from the Almighty, when the Lord shall roar out of Zion, and utter his voice from Jerusalem, and the heavens and the earth shall shake; — the day to which the closing chapter of Malachi refers as the day that shall burn as an oven, and in which the Sun of Righteousness shall arise with healing in his wings; — the day which Paul proclaimed from Mars’ Hill as that in which God will judge the world, concerning which he so earnestly exhorted the Thessalonians, and which was not to come until after a great apostasy from the faith, and the ripening of the wicked for destruction; — the day in the which, Peter says, the heavens shall be changed, the elements melt, the earth burn, and all present orders of things give way to new heavens and a new earth; — even “the day for which all other days were made.” And in that day I understand John to say, he in some sense was. In the mysteries of prophetic rapport, which the Scriptures describe as “in Spirit,” and which Paul declared inexplicable, he was caught out of himself, and out of his proper place and time, and stationed amid the stupendous scenes of the great day of God, and made to see the actors in them, and to look upon them transpiring before his eyes, that he might write what he saw, and give it to the Churches."

This is the point to be decided. When John refers to "the Lord's day," is he referring to a particular day of the week? To Sunday as most say? To Saturday, as say others? Or, to "the day of the Lord," as Seiss and others affirm, and as I believe? We will discuss it at length. But, first, let us observe an important remark made by Seiss. He says - "And in that day I understand John to say, he in some sense was." 

John "saw" what we would today call "episodes," "previews," or "clips," to use cinema language. John was "seeing" the coming of the Lord, and the numerous things "coming on the earth" (Luke 21:26), just as today we might see video recordings of events. People today who see the video of the World Trade Center being hit by planes are not seeing the actual event, but a "symbol" or video copy of that event.  So, it is with what John sees, and what we see, in the book of Revelation. It is a written record of a coming event, seen beforehand in visions of "that day." John, in his mind and spirit, was able to teleport into the future, as if he had been in a "time machine," and to record the things which he saw in conjunction with the "day of the Lord."

John's previous experience in seeing the coming of the Lord was on the "mount" in which Christ was transfigured. The event on the mount is significant, and ought to be considered in the context of John foreseeing the coming of Christ in the Apocalypse.

"Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom. After six days Jesus took with him Peter, James and John the brother of James, and led them up a high mountain by themselves. There he was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and his clothes became as white as the light. Just then there appeared before them Moses and Elijah, talking with Jesus.” (Matt.16:26-17:3 NIV)

"For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount. We have also a more sure word of prophecy..." (II Peter 1:16-19 KJV)

Concerning the event on the mount, Albert Barnes wrote:

"that transfiguration was understood to have an important reference to the coming of the Saviour in his kingdom and his glory, and was designed to be a representation of the manner in which he would then appear. This is referred to distinctly by each one of the three evangelists who have mentioned the transfiguration. Matthew 16:28, "there be some standing here which shall not taste of death until they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom;" Mark 9:1-2; Luke 9:27-28. The transfiguration which occurred soon after these words were spoken was designed to show them what he would be in his glory, and to furnish to them a demonstration which they could never forget, that he would yet set up his kingdom in the world...they had in fact such a view of him as he would be in his kingdom, that they could entertain no doubt on the point; and the fact, as it impressed their own minds, they made known to others. The evidence as it lay in Peter's mind was, that that transfiguration was designed to furnish proof to them that the Messiah would certainly appear in glory, and to give them a view of him as coming to reign which would never fade from their memory. As that had not yet been accomplished, he maintained that the evidence was clear that it must occur at some future time. As the transfiguration was with reference to his coming in his kingdom, it was proper for Peter to use it with that reference, or as bearing on that point."

This is the view of most bible commentaries, that the experience of Peter, James, and John on the mount, was one in which they beheld Christ in his second coming. This certainly is the view of Peter in his commentary on that experience. Peter said that he, James, and John, got a view of "the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ" when they were seeing the things they saw while on the mount. Peter says they were then "eyewitnesses" of his "majesty," and such majesty as will be seen by all when the Lord returns. Just as Jesus had said, some "standing here" (Peter, James, and John) would "see" the Lord "coming in his kingdom" before they died. Thus, John got a preview of the return of Christ while on the holy mount, and gets another, more complete vision of it on the isle of Patmos. The Apostle John is supremely the witness of the second coming.

Seiss continued:

"This is what I understand by his being “in Spirit in the Lord’s day.” I can see no essential difference between the Lord’s day, and the day of the Lord. They are simply the two forms for signifying the same relations of the same things."

This is the point that is in dispute on what is meant by "the Lord's day." Does "Lord's day" mean the same thing as "day of the Lord"? Are they but two ways of saying the same thing, as Seiss and others affirm? If I say "president's wife" or "wife of the president," am I not saying the same thing, though in a different grammatical form? What is the essential difference between saying "table of the Lord" or  "Lord's table"? Between saying "law of the Lord" or "Lord's law"? Between saying "gospel of Christ" or  "Christ's gospel"? Between "word of God" or "God's word"? We could multiply examples. I agree with Seiss that they are ways of saying the same thing, and so "the Lord's day" denotes, not Sunday, but "the day of the Lord," the day of Christ's return. But, more on this as we go along.

Seiss continued:

"And if John was thus mystically down among the scenes of the last day, and has written only what he says he has written, that is “things that he saw;” it cannot be otherwise but that in dealing with the contents of this book we are dealing with what relates pre-eminently to the great Apocalypse and Epiphany of our Lord, when he cometh to judge the world in righteousness.

And when we come to consider the actual contents of this book, we find them harmonizing exactly with this understanding of its title. It takes as its chief and unmistakable themes what other portions of the Scriptures assign to the great day of the Lord. It is nothing but Apocalypse from beginning to end."

This is all weighty evidence in favor of the view that "Lord's day" means all the same as "day of the Lord." The contents of the scroll that contains John's record of the coming Apocalypse detail events and scenes of the last day, of those things that are destined to come to pass in conjunction with the Lord's coming again, as any honest reader of the prophecy must admit. The evidence for this has already been presented.

Seiss continued:

"First we have the Apocalypse of Christ in his relation to the earthly Churches, and his judgment of them; then the Apocalypse of his relation to the glorified Church, and the marshalling of them for his forthcoming to judge the world; then the Apocalypse of his relation to the scenes of the judgment, as they are manifested on earth under the opening of the seals, the prophesying of the witnesses, and the fall of Babylon; then the Apocalypse of his actual manifestation to the world in the battle of the great day of God Almighty, the establishment of his kingdom, and the investiture of the saints in their future sovereignties; and finally the Apocalypse of his relation to the final act of judgment, the destruction of death and the grave, and the introduction of the final estate of a perfected Redemption. What, indeed, is all this, but just what was foretold by all the prophets, by Christ himself, and by all his apostles, as pertaining to THE DAY OF THE LORD? Verily, this book is but the rehearsal, in another and ampler manner, of what all the Scriptures tell us about the last day and the eternal judgment. It is pre-eminently The Apocalypse and Epiphany of Jesus Christ."

Insightful words are these! What Seiss called a "rehearsal" we would today call a "video preview." Anyone who wants to know more about the coming last day, about the end of the age, about the final destiny of men and earth, will want to read and meditate upon this glorious record of Christ's coming Apocalypse.

"The day of the Lord"

Seiss wrote:

"When we speak of the day of the Lord, or the judgment period, many have the notion that it is but one day, or a very brief space of time. They are consequently led to wonder how we can speak of the impending nearness of that day, and yet look for the rebuilding of a great city then to be destroyed. The difficulty, however, does not lie in the nature of the things, but in the popular misapprehensions of what the day of the Lord means, and the length of the period which it covers. The mistake is in taking the day of the Lord, or the coming again of our Savior, as if one particular moment of time, and one single event or scene were to be understood." 

This is sadly missed by many bible students. When we think of the first "coming" of Christ, do we focus on one event and say that is the point when he "came"? If, as Seiss powerfully argues, the first coming of Christ encompassed many years and many events, then we certainly cannot limit the second coming to a single 24 hour period. The same is true in regard to the use of the word "day" in regard to "the day of the Lord." "Day" does not mean a 24 hour period, no more than it did in regard to the time when Christ was here the first instance. Jesus said "Abraham rejoiced to see my day and he saw it and was glad." By "my day" Christ did not mean the day of his birth alone, but of his whole time spent here on earth. "Day" oftentimes in scripture denotes a marked out "period of time."

Seiss wrote:

"What the Scriptures describe as the day of the Lord, and the second coming of Christ, is no more limited to a single event or moment of time than was the day of his first coming, which extended over more than thirty years, and embraced various stages and successive presentations. If we take the prophecies concerning the first advent, we find it impossible to apply them to any one day, year, or scene, in the evangelic history. Micah said that Christ should “come out of Bethlehem” (Ephratah), but Hosea said that he would come “out of Egypt.” Malachi said that he should “suddenly come to his temple,” and Zechariah that he would come to Zion “riding upon an ass, upon a colt the foal of an ass;” whilst, according to Isaiah, “the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali” were to see the “great light.” All these presentations were his coming. He did come when he was born at Bethlehem; he did come out of Egypt; he did come when he announced himself at Nazareth; he did come as a great light among the people of Northern Galilee; he did come riding into Jerusalem on the ass; he did come suddenly to his temple when he twice drove out the moneychangers; and he came when he reappeared after his resurrection. Each one of these particular incidents is alike called his coming; but they were only so many separate presentations, at different dates, extending through a period of thirty-three years, all of which together are required to make up the first advent as a whole. And just as it was then, so it will be again. The second coming, like the first, is complex and distributive, extending through a variety of successive and diverse scenes, stages, events, and manifestations, requiring as many, if not still more, years."

In the next posting we will continue our discussion of the meaning of "Lord's day" and of its connection with the words "revelation of Jesus Christ."

Redemption (viii)

In the previous posting it was shown how the work of redemption was a work of the whole Trinity, though it was stated that the incarnate Son, or second person in the Trinity, is especially the "redeemer" of sinful men, for he particularly payed the price of redemption by the shedding of his blood as a sacrifice for sin. But, the death of Christ as payment for release is the fulfillment of the will of the whole deity, via the "covenant of redemption," the Father and Spirit involving themselves in the redemption ordained. In this posting we will focus on how the Son is especially the sinner's "redeemer," and in the next we will focus on how the Spirit redeems. Further, it may well be said that the Father "paid" the price of redemption by giving up his Son as a sacrificial victim, pictured in the story of Abraham offering up his "only begotten son," Isaac.

The Son As Redeemer

"But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption..." (I Cor. 1:30)

"Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus..." (Rom. 3:24)

By redemption being said to be "in" or by Christ Jesus, we are to understand that he is the "redeemer" of sinful man's lost estate. In the old testament, a redeemer (Hebrew "goel") was a "near relative," for only he had "the right of redemption" to deliver an enslaved family member and to restore his lost freedom and possessions.

In Hebrew society a "redeemer" had to not only be a male family member, but he had to be one who was both willing and able to redeem a family member from slavery and loss of estate. In Christ Jesus we find one who not only had "the right of redemption," but who also was graciously willing, and more than able, to redeem a lost relative and to restore his disponed inheritance.

Many bible teachers refer to Jesus as the believer's "Kinsman-Redeemer." What is meant by this title? Baker's Evangelical Dictionary says this on the subject and on what constitutes the qualifications of a "kinsman redeemer" (or "go-el") in Hebrew law (emphasis mine):

"Male relative who, according to various laws found in the Pentateuch, had the privilege or responsibility to act for a relative who was in trouble, danger, or need of vindication."

Christ is indeed the "male relative" of fallen man. He partook of our nature and was in all respects "like unto us," sin excepted.

Redemption was both a "privilege" and a "responsibility" of the Lord Jesus Christ. The Son of God, in the covenant of redemption, graciously volunteered to become the redeemer of fallen men.  But, at the same time, he felt the responsibility to 1) please his Father, and 2) save his chosen people, those who were designated as such by the decree of election. This decree of election constituted the elect as a possession of the Son of God (viewed as incarnate), as "his people," or "bride." This decree also made the elect virtually one with Christ, the Son of God, and thus one with the Father and Spirit. The union that was formed by the decree of election was not an actual or vital union. That can only exist once the elect are born and have an actual existence. That vital union begins when one is born again, and the bond of union is continually strengthened in the progressive sanctification of the believer.

Notice how Baker's says that a redeemer was "to act for a relative," being a legal representative for the relative who is in need of redemption. The work of the redeemer involves delivering the relative who has been "sold" into slavery, saving him from his loss and restoring to him his inheritance. But, this is not all. The redeemer will also "vindicate" his relative and the family name and honor. Baker's says this in regard to the redeemer's work involving "vindication."

The writer says further:

"Although the term "kinsman-redeemer" is used only seven times in the NIV (all in the Book of Ruth) and "avenger of blood" is used twelve times, the Hebrew verb ga'al, from which both of these terms are translated, is used over 100 times and rendered by such additional terms as "redeemer" or "near relative." The Hebrew term designates a male relative who delivers or rescues (Gen 48:16; Exod 6:6); redeems property (Lev 27:9-25) or person (Lev 25:47-55 ); avenges the murder of a relative as a guiltless executioner (Num 35:9-34); and receives restitution for wrong done to a relative who has since died (Num 5:8). The unique emphasis of the redemption/salvation/vindication associated with the kinsman-redeemer is the fact that this action is carried out by a kinsman on behalf of a near relative in need. This idea is most clearly illustrated in the Book of Ruth."

Few fail to understand all that is involved in "redeeming" a man and his property, and especially how such a restoration often involves removing squatters and aliens from the reclaimed and repossessed inheritance, and sometimes involves executing justice on behalf of the person being redeemed, by avenging his murder.  As the above citation affirms, redemption involves not only salvation, but "vindication."

Baker's says further:

"God is Israel's Redeemer, the one who will defend and vindicate them. The idea that God is a kinsman to Israel can be defended by those passages of Scripture that identify him as Israel's Creator and Father (Exod 4:22-23; Deut 32:6), Deliverer (Exod 20:2), owner of the land (Lev 25:23), the one who hears innocent blood crying out for vengeance (Deut 19:10; 21:6-9), and the King who has made his covenant with the people (Exod 6:2-8). David, in his use of the term (Psalm 19:14 ; 103:4), doubtless has in mind the actions of his great-grandfather Boaz (Ruth 4:9-10)."

Redemption, as we have seen, involves deliverance and restoration, but few see how a "redeemer" in Israel was not only a deliverer and restorer, but an "avenger," one who executes justice upon the murderer of a family member, to "vindicate" the murdered kin. But, more on this shortly.

The writer says further:

"In the psalms God often redeems in the sense of rescuing from danger. In Job 19:25 the term "redeemer" in context refers to God who, as friend and kinsman of Job, through faith will ultimately defend and vindicate him. The same idea of vindication (this time with the term translated "Defender") is used in Proverbs 23:11." (Stephen J. Bramer, "Summary of the Role of the Goel or Kinsman Redeemer" - see here)

These are the main parts of the duty of the "Goel," or the "kinsman-redeemer":

1. Buying back or redeeming the alienated land (Lev 25:23, 24, 25, 26, 27)

2. Purchasing the freedom of the man who had sold himself as a slave  (Lev 25:47, 48, 49)

3. Avenging the slaying of a kinsman (Nu 35:19)

Redemption, Apocalypse, and Vindication

The scriptures link these three concepts together. The second coming of Christ is especially styled in the new testament as "the day of redemption," day of "apocalypse," and the "day of vengeance" (or 'wrath' or 'vindication'). The "the day of redemption" is the very same "day" as the day of "revelation," when Christ and "the sons of God" are gloriously "revealed." It is also a "day of salvation," of final and complete salvation. It is a day of judgment, a time when both believer and unbeliever will be judged. It is a day of vindication for the believer and a day of condemnation for the unbeliever.

Many people fail to see how "the day of the Lord" is a day of "vengeance." Paul says that the day when Christ is revealed from heaven, the day of his apocalypse and appearing, is a time of vengeance towards those who "know not God and obey not the gospel." (II Thess. 1:8) He wrote:

"So that we ourselves glory in you in the churches of God for your patience and faith in all your persecutions and tribulations that you endure: Which is a manifest token of the righteous judgment of God, that you may be counted worthy of the kingdom of God, for which you also suffer: Seeing it is a righteous thing with God to recompense tribulation to them that trouble you; And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power; When he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe (because our testimony among you was believed) in that day." (vs. 4-10)

Several things should be observed from this passage. The subject is in regard to the second coming of Christ and how it will be a day when he sits as judge, rendering "righteous judgment," and "recompensing (repaying) tribulation," and "taking vengeance," when men are "punished with everlasting destruction," etc. It is a time for "vindication" of the saints who have suffered "persecutions and tribulations" from unbelievers, when the Goel, or near kinsman, renders family and civil vengeance upon the murderers of the family of believers.

Redemption has both a positive and negative aspect, just as does the "day of the Lord," as stated by the prophet Amos, who, representing Jehovah, asks:

"Woe unto you that desire the day of the LORD! to what end is it for you? the day of the LORD is darkness, and not light. As if a man did flee from a lion, and a bear met him; or went into the house, and leaned his hand on the wall, and a serpent bit him." (5: 18-19 KJV)

The "end" or destiny for the godly, for the believer, in "the day of the Lord," and in the "day of redemption," will be to enjoy it as a day of "light," while the "end" for the ungodly, on that day, will be "darkness," as well as tribulation. This tribulation, sent upon unbelievers, as part of the day of the Lord, is described as a person experiencing one trouble after another. A man is fleeing a lion! And, "murphy's law," he runs into a bear while fleeing the lion! Could anything get worse? Yes, the man makes it into his house, barely escaping the lion and the bear, and then, irony of ironies, he puts his hand on the wall, in the house where he feels safe, and a snake bites him! That is a picture of the time when God renders tribulation to those who have brought tribulation on the Lord's servants.

This is what is described in the Apocalypse, and in conjunction with "redemption." Christ, the Goel, as the "avenger," and as part of his duty as a "redeemer," is not only bringing believers out of their state of bondage and corruption, body and soul, but is avenging their mistreatment at the hands of their persecutors (Avenging the slaying of a kinsman (Nu 35:19) . This is pictured in the words of Paul and in the Apocalypse, and in many other passages.

Not only the passage just cited from Paul's first epistle to the Thessalonians, but other passages of scripture as well, speak of the "day of the Lord," and the "day of redemption," as a day of "vindication" and "retribution." Notice these passages:

"But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God; Who will render to every man according to his deeds: To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life: But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile; But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile: For there is no respect of persons with God." (Rom. 2: 5-11 KJV)

In speaking of "the day of wrath and revelation" Paul is clearly alluding to the second coming of Christ, when he comes as "redeemer." For believers, redemption will be a positive thing, they receiving at that time "immortality" and "eternal life." But, for those described as "contentious" and who "do not obey the truth," but "obey unrighteousness," it will be a time when they receive "indignation and wrath," as well as "tribulation and anguish." This is redemption's negative aspects, where the Goel is acting as "Kinsman Avenger."

Now let us notice these words from the Apocalypse:

"Rejoice over her, thou heaven, and ye holy apostles and prophets; for God hath avenged you on her." (Rev. 18:20)

"And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held: And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth? And white robes were given unto every one of them; and it was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellowservants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they were, should be fulfilled." (Rev. 6: 9-11)

"For the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand?" (Rev. 6:17)

Many Christians fail to see how this "judging and avenging" is part of the work of the Kinsman Redeemer.

Now notice these words from the Lord himself:

"And will not God bring about justice for his chosen ones, who cry out to him day and night? Will he keep putting them off? I tell you, he will see that they get justice, and quickly. However, when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on the earth?" (Luke 18:7-8 - NIV)

In the KJV we have "avenge them speedily" for "see that they get justice," but the thought is the same. God's people will be vindicated, and their enemies made to repay. This same thought is found in these words of the prophet Jeremiah:

"Their Redeemer is strong; the Lord of Hosts is His name: He shall thoroughly plead their cause." (Jer. l: 34)

Notice how "pleading their cause" is connected with the Lord being a "Redeemer." Also, on the necessity of a redeemer being "strong" to execute the many responsibilities of a "Goel."

The words of the prophet Job, forming probably the oldest book in the bible, speak of how the work of a "redeemer" was not only to deliver from harm and loss, but also a vindicator and avenger for wrongs committed against the ones being redeemed. Notice these words:

"Oh that my words were now written! oh that they were printed in a book! That they were graven with an iron pen and lead in the rock for ever! For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth: And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God: Whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and not another; though my reins be consumed within me."

Though these words are pregnant with meaning, our focus is how Job also viewed it the work of his "redeemer" to vindicate him as well as to rescue him.

The Apocalypse Of Jesus Christ (iv)

The "apocalypse of Christ" is not only a title, full of significance, and a gift to the Son of God, but is surely a title denoting the second coming of Christ. The evidence given already proves this. It is the common interpretation given it in the other places it is used in the NT. That is proof enough. But, there is more evidence for this interpretation from the immediate context (chapter one) and from the remaining chapters.

The interpretation that says "revelation of Christ" means "appearing (or coming) of Christ," rather than "information coming from Christ," is the correct view. The contextual evidence proves that the words are from a Greek genitive that is objective rather than a subjective, or genitive of source. It is further substantiated (as stated in the previous posting) by the immediate context (Revelation chapter one), by the whole of the Revelation, and finally by general new testament usage.

Immediate Contextual Evidence

In order for us to get the immediate context for the words "revelation of Jesus Christ" we will cite verses 1-11 (highlighting mine).

"The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John: Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw. Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand. 

John to the seven churches which are in Asia: 

Grace be unto you, and peace, from him which is, and which was, and which is to come; and from the seven Spirits which are before his throne; And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen. Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen. 

I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty. I John, who also am your brother, and companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was in the isle that is called Patmos, for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ. I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet, Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea." (vs. 1-11 KJV)

In looking over these verses that follow the divinely given title, who can doubt that references to Christ's second coming are several (highlighted)? This lends support to the interpretation that says "revelation of Jesus Christ" means "coming of Jesus Christ," or his reappearing. On the other hand, there is very little in the context of these words to support the view that "revelation of Jesus Christ" means "truth coming from Jesus Christ." The only evidence from the context that supporters of the wrong view (that the words denote "revelation of truth coming from Jesus Christ") give is the fact that Christ is called "the faithful witness." These contend that it is as "the faithful witness" that revelation comes from Christ. But, this evidence is weak, especially in light of the strong proof that has been given for the view that "revelation of Jesus Christ" denotes the second appearing of Christ from heaven, which is the very thing stated in verse 7 - "Behold, he comes with clouds"! What is this coming but the same thing as his future glorious apocalypse?

There is indeed a "testimony of Jesus Christ" (vs. 2) and a "witness" coming from Christ. What is special however about the book of Revelation and of its being a communication from the risen Christ is the fact that it concerns his future apocalypse. That which Christ bore witness and testimony to in the book of Revelation is his own return, and it is testimony concerning that, through words and visions, which form the substance of it.

Certainly the "testimony of Jesus Christ" and his "witness" includes all new testament revelation. Deity spoke "through the Son" unto men (See Heb. 1:1,2); And, it is Christ the Son who has communicated through his apostles. (See Acts 1: 2) All new testament revelation is "of Jesus Christ," as a source, and this is not merely true of the book of Revelation. The book of Romans is a "testimony of Jesus Christ" via the apostle Paul, and it is a testimony about salvation, justification, sanctification, and about "things which accompany salvation" (Heb. 6:9). The four Gospels are "the testimony of Jesus Christ." But, when one reads of the testimony and witness of Christ in the opening verses of the book of Revelation, it clearly concerns "things that must happen" (in the future from the days of John), about the glorious "apocalypse" and "coming with clouds," about "prophecy" in relation to the time of the end, when Christ returns in power and glory.  Notice the similarity of these words to those in the last chapter:

"And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said unto me, See thou do it not: I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy." (19:10)

Since "the testimony of Jesus Christ is the spirit of prophecy," and the second coming or glorious apocalypse of Christ is prophecy, then the testimony of Christ addresses that apocalypse, especially here in the book titled "apocalypse of Jesus Christ."

The Second Coming Permeates The Book

Not only is the second coming mentioned several times in Revelation chapter one, in context of the words "apocalypse of Jesus Christ," but it permeates the book. Let us notice some of the verses. First, in the letters to the seven churches, each of the seven letters has a promise "to him who overcomes" and each promise is in regard to something that will be given at the return of Christ. Here are two examples:

"But that which ye have already hold fast till I come. And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations: And he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers: even as I received of my Father." (2:25-27)

Surely the fulfillment of this remains for the second coming of Christ.

"If therefore thou shalt not watch, I will come on thee as a thief, and thou shalt not know what hour I will come upon thee." (3:3)

The warnings given by the risen Lord to the churches was always couched in language that foretells of a coming day of judgment and reward, a return of the Lord to judge the church and the world.

Other References To The 2nd Coming

"For the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand?" (6:17)

"And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever. And the four and twenty elders, which sat before God on their seats, fell upon their faces, and worshipped God, Saying, We give thee thanks, O Lord God Almighty, which art, and wast, and art to come; because thou hast taken to thee thy great power, and hast reigned. And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest give reward unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear thy name, small and great; and shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth." (11:15-18)

"And I looked, and behold a white cloud, and upon the cloud one sat like unto the Son of man, having on his head a golden crown, and in his hand a sharp sickle." (14:14)

"And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war." (19:11)

"And he said unto me, These sayings are faithful and true: and the Lord God of the holy prophets sent his angel to shew unto his servants the things which must shortly be done. Behold, I come quickly: blessed is he that keepeth the sayings of the prophecy of this book." (22:6-7)

"And he saith unto me, Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book: for the time is at hand...And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be." (22:10,12)

"He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen." (22:20-21)

Thus, here is a summation of the evidence presented to support the thesis that says that the words "apocalypse of Jesus Christ" denotes his second coming:

1) The fact that the "revelation of Jesus Christ" is commonly used in the new testament to denote the second coming:

2) The immediate context of the first chapter

3) The context of the whole of the book of Revelation

Further, we have observed how the context gives little reason for thinking that the words "revelation of Jesus Christ" denotes "revelatory knowledge coming from Jesus Christ."

1832 Baltimore Baptist Ass. Circular

Circular of the "Ministers and Messengers of the Baltimore Baptist Association, convened, according to appointment, at the Warren Church Meeting-House, on the 17th day of May, 1832.--to the several Churches they represent, send Christian Salutation. (see here - emphasis mine)

"As an Association, we have hitherto held fast to our principles, and to that form of sound words, which were formally adopted when we were constituted: nevertheless, it has been slanderously reported, and some have affirmed, that we have embraced the principles and the spirit of Antinomianism, soon after our last Anniversary Meeting in the city of Frederick, an article in the shape of a report found its way into the periodical print called the Religious Herald, in which we find the following remarkable words:

Many of the ministering brethren in this (Baltimore) Association do not believe that it is their duty to address the unconverted, or exhort sinners to repentance; they pass by them altogether. The great theme of their sermons is, the many valuable and glorious privileges of the Elect; who, according to their doctrine, believe against their will, and are kept in the way of righteousness without effort.

This article, in which our doctrine and practice are most palpably misrepresented, was soon after republished in the Christian Index accompanied with reflections of no friendly character, by a writer under the signature C.S.A.

Being thus summoned to the bar of the public by the officious meddlings of the above class of news-mongers, we shall, in self defence, and with a view of undeceiving a religious public, in this our circular epistle notice the several allegations embodied in the above report, under the following specifications:

1st. that many of our ministering brethren do not believe it to be their duty to address the unconverted, or exhort sinners to repentance.

They do, however, constantly preacheth the necessity of repentance toward God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, and that both evangelical faith and repentance are the gifts of God, the produce of his blessed Spirit. Our ministers address the unconverted as sinners dead in trespasses and in sins; they prophesy to them as unto dry bones; they proclaim the truths of the Gospel, leaving the event with God, depending upon the influence of his Spirit to crown their labors with success, nor can they be led to entertain any other opinion."