Imminence

Q. People who believe in a pre-tribulation rapture claim that the Bible says the rapture will happen at any time, and we won’t know when. So, this is possible only if the rapture is pre-tribulation. If the rapture is post-tribulation, we would know it is after the 7-year tribulation. What is your view?

A. First, let us start with what the Bible says about rapture, imminent, and imminence, not what people say. While the concept of rapture or translation of Christians to meet the Lord is well-known, the word “rapture” itself does not appear in most English translations in use today. [It appeared once in DBY (Darby Translation, Songs 2:3) and four times in BBE (Bible in Basic English, Ps 28:7, 45:15, 51:8, and Prov 5:19). However, in these cases it is used in the sense of being rapturous, ecstatic, or extreme excitement. This is NOT “a seizing by violence; a hurrying along; rapidity with violence,” which is Webster’s definition and what most Christians understand rapture to mean.]

The adjective “imminent” appeared once in the NASB (New American Standard Bible), AMP (Amplified Bible), and LSB (Legacy Standard Bible) – 2 Pet 1:14, and three times in the NET (New English Translation) – Ps 27:3, Prov 10:14, and Hos 9:7. The noun “imminence” does not appear in contemporary English versions at all. The Greek word for imminent in 2 Pet 1:14 is transliterated tachinos, which means “swift, quick” of events soon to come or impending. Tachinos appeared twice in the Greek NT:

• 2 Pet 1:14 knowing that the laying aside of my earthly dwelling is imminent, as also our Lord Jesus Christ has made clear to me.
• 2 Pet 2:1 But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves.

In 2 Pet 1:14, Peter was talking about his impending death, while in 2 Pet 2:1, he was referring to punishment that will quickly fall upon the false prophets and teachers. In neither case was he referring to the rapture of the Church.

So, what do pre-tribulation proponents base their claim that “the rapture is imminent” on? They based it on deductions from their interpretation of certain verses, not on direct biblical statements.

Second, let’s review the two primary passages that describe the rapture:

• 1 Thes 4:16-17 For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive and remain will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we shall always be with the Lord.
• 1 Co 15:51-52 Behold, I tell you a mystery; we will not all sleep, but we will all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet; for the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed.

Note the following:

• The rapture – the resurrection of the dead in Christ followed by those alive being caught up together to meet the Lord – will happen when the Lord descends from heaven. It will be a public event with loud sounds, not a secret rapture. Even pre-tribulation supporters agree that the Lord’s return will be after the tribulation and not before it.
• It will take place in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet of God. That is, it will happen very quickly. The text did not say at any moment or imminent, as pre-tribulation proponents claimed.

Then where does the idea of imminence come from? Let me quote a few verses cited by the pre-tribulation school to support their argument:

• Mt 24:36 But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone.
• Mt 24: 42, 44 “Therefore be on the alert, for you do not know which day your Lord is coming. For this reason, you also must be ready; for the Son of Man is coming at an hour when you do not think He will.
• Mt 25:13 13 Be on the alert then, for you do not know the day nor the hour.
• See also the parallel passage Mk 13:32-37

Their reasoning is since no one knows, not even the Son, the only conclusion is that it could happen at any moment or at any time. If something else needed to happen before the rapture, for example, the great tribulation, then that would be a sign, and we would know. On the surface, that sounds reasonable. But is that the only solution?

When the day or the hour of an event is not known, at any moment is one possible solution. Another possibility is that it is in the future, for which timing is indefinite, with or without signs. For example, when a child is born, the day or the hour of his (or her) death is unknown. Under normal circumstances, the current life expectancy for Canada in 2024 is 83 years. If he (she) has a fatal disease (with signs) or an accident (without signs), the life span would be cut short. The death may be imminent, but not necessarily. The timing of the death is unknown but need not be imminent. Similarly, the rapture’s timing is unknown but need not be imminent. This is simply logic.

Third, any Bible passage’s interpretation must be consistent with the context. What does the context of the quoted passages say?

• The immediate context of Mt 24:36 is the parable of the Fig Tree (Mt 24:32-41), which follows Christ’s glorious return in v 29-30, “But immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from the sky, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky with power and great glory.” It refers to Christ’s Second Coming after the tribulation, not a pre-tribulation rapture.
• Mt 24:42’s context follows the parable of the Fig Tree, with the Lord warning His disciples to be ready for His coming. The subject has not changed. It is still after the tribulation.
• Mt 25:13’s context is the parable of the Ten Virgins (Mt 25:1-13). In Mt 25, the Lord taught two parables, the Ten Virgins followed by the parable of the Talents (Mt 25:14-30), before describing the Final Judgment (Mt 25:31-46). The entire chapter teaches about Judgment after the tribulation. It is not talking about a pre-tribulation rapture.

You can search other verses cited by pre-tribulation proponents to see whether they support their premise. But my bottom line is: how can we legitimately apply Bible passages describing post-tribulation events to justify a pre-tribulation and imminent rapture? We can’t! Period.

Fourth, one well-known author explained “imminence” as follows:

• Other things may happen before the imminent event, but nothing else must take place before it happens. If something else must take place before an event can happen, then that event is not imminent. In other words, the necessity of something else taking place first destroys the concept of imminency.

Unfortunately, his definition is what destroys their understanding of imminency.

Let me cite two examples in which the biblical characters involved did not expect an imminent rapture would derail what they thought would happen:

• Jn 21:18-19 Truly, truly, I say to you, when you were younger, you used to gird yourself and walk wherever you wished; but when you grow old, you will stretch out your hands and someone else will gird you, and bring you where you do not wish to go.” Now this He said, signifying by what kind of death he would glorify God. And when He had spoken this, He said to him, “Follow Me!” The Lord was prophesying how Peter would die. Remember, according to pre-tribulation supporters, He did not know the day and hour of the rapture. Did He assume an imminent rapture, which could occur before Peter’s death, to nullify His prophecy? I don’t think so.
• What about Paul? Was he an advocate of an imminent rapture by which God would deliver him out of his trials and tribulations? No. When he bid farewell to the Ephesian elders, he said in Acts 20:22-23, 25 And now, behold, bound by the Spirit, I am on my way to Jerusalem, not knowing what will happen to me there, except that the Holy Spirit solemnly testifies to me in every city, saying that bonds and afflictions await me. And now, behold, I know that all of you, among whom I went about preaching the kingdom, will no longer see my face. Paul did not know what would happen to him except that imprisonment and persecution awaited him in Jerusalem. He will not see the elders from Ephesus again. He also knew he would testify in Rome because the Lord told him. Acts 23:11 But on the night immediately following, the Lord stood at his side and said, “Take courage; for as you have solemnly witnessed to My cause at Jerusalem, so you must witness at Rome also.”  This must occur before the rapture because the Lord said so, which destroys imminency according to the pre-tribulation school’s definition.

I can continue to provide a rebuttal for other points raised, but this is a short article, and I have written enough to show you my train of thought. If there are issues you want me to address, please specify them, and I would be glad to discuss them when I have time.

Future Judgment or Present Application?

Q. Is the teaching in Luke 19:26 “to everyone who has, more will be given, but as for the one who has nothing, even what they have will be taken away” referring to the future when judgment happens? Does it apply in the present world?

A. The idea in Lk 19:26 is found in several passages in the Gospels:

• Mt 13:12 For whoever has, to him more shall be given, and he will have an abundance; but whoever does not have, even what he has shall be taken away from him.
• Mt 25:29 For to everyone who has, more shall be given, and he will have an abundance; but from the one who does not have, even what he does have shall be taken away.
• Mk 4:25 For whoever has, to him more shall be given; and whoever does not have, even what he has shall be taken away from him.
• Lk 8:18 So take care how you listen; for whoever has, to him more shall be given; and whoever does not have, even what he thinks he has shall be taken away from him.

Whether it refers to future judgment or the present depends on the context. In Lk 19, Jesus told His disciples the parable of the ten minas because they supposed that the kingdom of God was going to appear immediately (Lk 19:11b). So the context tells us that it refers to a future judgment. This also applies to Mt 25:29 in the parable of the talents. The passage follows the parable of ten virgins and precedes the judgment of sheep and goats, both of which refer to a future judgment.

However, for Mt 13, Mk 4, and Lk 8, the context is why Jesus taught in parables. He was explaining the principle behind exercise, habit, or usage. Those who show interest, are open, and are sensitive to spiritual truths will be given more and get more out of the parables. Those who are not keen will lose even the superficial knowledge they think they have. This is true in physical training. Muscles that are used become stronger;  muscles that are not used grow weaker. Others call this the principle of momentum, which works both positively and negatively. In all these cases, it applies in the present. So, interpret the passage in the light of the context.

Molech

Can you explain Leviticus 18:21?

First, observe the text:

• Lev 18:21 You shall not give any of your offspring to offer them to Molech, nor shall you profane the name of your God; I am the Lord.

Who is Molech? Let’s examine the broad context. The name Molech appears eight times in the OT. Besides Lev 18:21, it is in:

• Lev 20:2-5 “You shall also say to the sons of Israel: ‘Any man from the sons of Israel or from the aliens sojourning in Israel who gives any of his offspring to Molech, shall surely be put to death; the people of the land shall stone him with stones. I will also set My face against that man and will cut him off from among his people because he has given some of his offspring to Molech, so as to defile My sanctuary and to profane My holy name. If the people of the land, however, should ever disregard that man when he gives any of his offspring to Molech, so as not to put him to death, then I Myself will set My face against that man and against his family, and I will cut off from among their people both him and all those who play the harlot after him, by playing the harlot after Molech.
• 1 Kings 11:7 Then Solomon built a high place for Chemosh, the detestable idol of Moab, on the mountain which is east of Jerusalem, and for Molech, the detestable idol of the sons of Ammon.
• 2 Kings 23:10 He also defiled Topheth, which is in the valley of the son of Hinnom, that no man might make his son or his daughter pass through the fire for Molech.
• Jer 32:35 They built the high places of Baal that are in the valley of Ben-Hinnom to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire to Molech, which I had not commanded them, nor had it entered My mind that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin.

Molech is the detestable idol of Ammon. God forbade the Israelites to offer their sons and daughters to Molech by making them pass through the fire, i.e., child sacrifice. Anyone doing that will be stoned to death because they played the harlot after Molech, i.e., spiritual adultery. To play the harlot is to profane the name of God, punishable by death. Lastly, let’s examine the immediate context. When you read Lev 18:6-23, you will notice that the entire passage is about unlawful sexual relations. Starting with blood relatives (v 6-18), then menstrual impurity (v 19), adultery with neighbor’s wife (v 20), homosexuality (v 22), and finally bestiality (v 23) – everything about illicit sex except v 21 on child sacrifice. Some commentators, therefore, speculated that v 21 is infanticide to eliminate illegitimate children. This is a possibility, except for v 22 and 23. The simplest explanation is that the entire passage has to do with adultery, whether physical or spiritual. All profane God’s name and are prohibited.

Buy a Sword?

Q. Luke 22:35-38 why is Jesus telling the disciples to sell their robes and buy swords? But when they found 2, why did He say, “that is enough” (in the kid’s Bible it says, “enough of that”.)

A. This question is raised by our two grandkids who studied the same passage in their daily devotions. I want to talk a bit about interpreting the Bible, besides answering their query.

When you study any Bible passage, the first thing to know is the context. Ask the W6 questions (Who, What, Where, When, Why, and How) to understand the basic facts. The next thing to know is the language. Besides the grammar, we need to know whether it is literal, or figurative. This is where this passage causes problems for some readers, besides the disciples. With that in mind, let us examine the passage:

• Lk 22:35-38 ³⁵ And He said to them, “When I sent you out without money belt and bag and sandals, you did not lack anything, did you?” They said, “No, nothing.” ³⁶ And He said to them, “But now, whoever has a money belt is to take it along, likewise also a bag, and whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one. ³⁷ For I tell you that this which is written must be fulfilled in Me, ‘And He was numbered with transgressors’; for that which refers to Me has its fulfillment.” ³⁸ They said, “Lord, look, here are two swords.” And He said to them, “It is enough.”

The occasion was the Last Supper. Jesus was giving His disciples some last instructions before they went to the Garden of Gethsemane where He was betrayed and arrested.

• The “when” in v 35 refers to the first time He sent them out, in Lk 9:2-3 And He sent them out to proclaim the kingdom of God and to perform healing. ³ And He said to them, “Take nothing for your journey, neither a staff, nor a bag, nor bread, nor money; and do not even have two tunics apiece. They did not lack anything, because the Lord provided for them through the hospitality of those who are worthy (Mt 10:11).

• The “now” in v 36 refers to the end of Jesus’ earthly ministry, when the Jewish leaders had rejected His Messiahship, and were about to have Him crucified. In other words, times have changed for the worse. Things are going to get very tough for the disciples after the Lord is taken from them. They will not be well received like the last time. That is why Jesus warned them to prepare for the perilous times ahead, carrying their own provisions.

• The “whoever” in v 36 refers to any and all of His disciples. A slave is not greater than his master. If they persecuted Him, they would also persecute the disciples (Jn 15:20). This is inevitable, so expect it, and prepare for it.

• That which was “written and must be fulfilled in Me” in v 37 refers to the prophecy about the Suffering Servant in Is 53:12 Therefore, I will allot Him a portion with the great, And He will divide the booty with the strong; Because He poured out Himself to death, And was numbered with the transgressors; Yet He Himself bore the sin of many, And interceded for the transgressors. V 53:11 says, “the Righteous One, My Servant, will justify the many, As He will bear their iniquities.” This is exactly what Jesus did – He justified many by pouring out Himself to death, bearing the sin and iniquities of many.

• Now with this groundwork, was Jesus speaking literally or figuratively? Note the following:
  • Jesus talked about 3 things: a money belt, a bag, and a sword. His disciples focused only on the sword.
  • The disciples found two swords, but there were 11 of them (the twelve less Judas). How can 2 swords be shared by 11 people and be enough? If Jesus had been literal, He should have said, “they are enough”, not “it is enough”.
  • Shortly after this, Peter cut off the high priest’s servant’s ear in the Garden of Gethsemane. Mt 26:52 Then Jesus said to him, “Put your sword back into its place; for all those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword.” If Jesus had intended that from now on His disciples take up arms to defend themselves, why would He chastise Peter when he did exactly that?

• Based on the above I believe that while the money belt, bag, and sword are literal, Jesus was referring to them collectively. He meant His disciples should expect hardship and provide for themselves financially, materially, as well as their physical security. The disciples, however, took His words too literally and focused on the sword alone. They did not catch His meaning.

• What about “it is enough”? This phrase, or “that is enough”, or “that’s enough” is an accurate literal translation of the Greek text, but given the context, other versions have translated it differently e.g.

• CEB, CEV, HCSB, ISV: Enough of that!
  • EXB: That’s enough talk like that!
  • MSG: Enough of that; no more sword talk!
  • TPT: You still don’t understand.

My opinion is that these dynamic-equivalent (as opposed to literal) translations or paraphrases catch Jesus’ meaning more precisely. So their children’s Bible is acceptable here.

Faith or Works?

Q. I told a Catholic friend salvation is by grace through faith, not as a result of works (Eph 2:8-9). She then asked her priest, who told her James 2:14, i.e. can that faith save him?  I am sure this passage is not about salvation, what does it mean? 

A. There are two Protestant views on Jas 2:14-26. The majority view believes James to be contrasting two kinds of faith – a genuine saving faith versus a false intellectual assent dead faith. The minority view feels James was not referring to true versus false faith but mature versus immature faith. Either way, the Catholic priest’s rejection of the Protestant position would be wrong. Let me explain.

First, the priest pits Jas 2:14 against Eph 2:8-9 as if they contradict each other. He chose Jas 2:14 because it refers to works which Catholics believe in. In his mind, Jas 2:14 trumps Eph 2:8-9, and for him, that settles the issue. That is wrong because God is omniscient, so His word is infallible and inerrant, and never self-contradictory. If there is an apparent contradiction, the problem is with our understanding, not with the word of God. The solution is to reconcile the difference, not just choose the idea that appeals to you. Catholics tend to do that because they accept tradition as a basis of authority besides Scripture. But how can human thinking which at best is finite and at worst depraved be on par with, or even override, God’s word? That is error #1, in his premise.

Second is the issue of hermeneutics or interpretation. To determine if there is a real contradiction, we must ascertain whether the words employed are used in the same sense or refer to different things altogether. While Paul and James both use the word faith, they use it to refer to different things, as we will show below. To assume that they meant the same thing and conclude that there is a contradiction would be a mistake. That is error #2, in his methodology.

What exactly does James mean? Let us examine the text in its context. James listed several characteristics of the kind of faith in 2:14-26 –

1. It is useless (v 14, 16, 20) – both to the person who has it and others i.e. those in need,
2. It is what someone says he has (v 14) i.e. it is only a claim when it is not backed up by works (v 14),
3. It does not save (v 14),
4. It is dead (v 17, 26),
5. It cannot be shown to others (v 18),
6. It is only a belief (v 19), an intellectual assent held even by demons, but not something to be obeyed,
7. It is not perfected (v 22), or complete, and
8. It is not the type that justified Abraham (v 24) and Rahab (v 25), which are accompanied by works.

But the characteristics of the faith Paul talked about in Eph 2:8-10are:

1. It is the vehicle of salvation (v 8 saved through faith),
2. It is not of yourselves, but God’s gift (v 8),

Based on the above most scholars conclude that Paul and James are referring to two different types of “faith” altogether:

• Paul is talking about a true “saving faith” whereby he places his trust in God alone. That faith is not the result of his own effort and is visible only to God, as the LORD looks at the heart (1 Sam 16:7). God justifies him and declares him righteous. Rom 4:3, 5 Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness. … But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness. This faith is the basis or root of our salvation, which invariably manifests itself in good works, since Christians are created in Christ Jesus for them, and would walk in them (Eph 2:10).
• James is talking about a nominal faith in name only, which a person professes but which lacks good deeds as evidence that the faith is genuine. This type of faith is useless, does not save, and dead. Other people cannot see this faith, as man looks at the outward appearance (1 Sam 16:7), but there are no accompanying works or fruits as proof. It is a cognitive faith only, in which a person subscribes to the truth of some doctrines, but which does not change him/her on the inside. Because there is no root, there is no fruit, and therefore a false, dead faith, not the type possessed by Abraham and Rahab.

The minority view does not go so far as to label the faith James described as false, but as imperfect, incomplete, immature. I will not dwell on it but suffice it to say that with either view, James did not contradict Paul. Their views are complementary. In fact, both are derived from what the Lord Himself taught:

• Mt 7:20-21 So then, you will know them by their fruits. ²¹ “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. 

The faith that saves is always that which trusts in the finished work of Christ alone, never in one’s work. But this faith is not alone in that it leads to good works as fruits. The priest’s error #3, then, is a lack of understanding of the context. He followed his church’s teaching in putting the focus on works, not faith in Christ. Hope this explanation helps.

Is Hell Eternal? (2 of 3)

(Continued from yesterday)

But what the Bible teaches about hell is not limited to those verses in which the word “hell” appears. The annihilation view on hell have tried to do this, claiming only the 13 verses in which “hell” occurs are valid. They noted that the words “eternal” or “everlasting” are not in those verses, but “destruction” is. This is like reading only the first line of a paragraph on a subject in which the name appears and ignoring the rest of the paragraph which uses prepositions instead. The hermeneutic principle is context, not just appearance. There are passages on the final judgment and eternal destinies with features that match those of hell, and scholars have identified the subject as hell, even though the name itself is absent:

• Mt 3:12 His winnowing fork is in His hand, and He will thoroughly clear His threshing floor; and He will gather His wheat into the barn, but He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.” (Also Lk 3:17)
• Mt 13:42 and will throw them into the furnace of fire; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
• Mt 13:50 and will throw them into the furnace of fire; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
• Mt 25:41 “Then He will also say to those on His left, ‘Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels;
• Mt 25:46 These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”
• Rev 14:10-11 he also will drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is mixed in full strength in the cup of His anger; and he will be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever, and they have no rest, day or night, these worshipers of the beast and its image, and whoever receives the mark of its name.”
• Rev 19:10 And the devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are also; and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.
• Rev 19:20 And the beast was seized, and with him the false prophet who performed the signs in his presence, by which he deceived those who had received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped his image; these two were thrown alive into the lake of fire which burns with brimstone.
• Rev 20:10 And the devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are also; and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.
• Rev 20:15 And if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.

I have not listed secondary verses on “weeping and gnashing of teeth” or “outer darkness”, nor OT passages with the Hebrew word “sheol”, or NT passages with the Greek word “Hades”, as there are enough here for us to consider. The primary verses listed inform us the following about hell:

• The Lord will separate the wheat (the fruitful) from the chaff and burn up the latter in unquenchable fire (Mt 3:12);
• Those thrown into the furnace of fire are the tares (sons of the evil one Mt 12:38) and the wicked (Mt 12:49), where they will suffer remorse and anguish (Mt 13:42, 50);
• The accursed ones will go into eternal fire to suffer eternal punishment (Mt 25:41, 46);
• Hell was prepared for the devil and his angels (Mt 25:41), but those who worship the beast (the Antichrist) and receive his mark will join them there (Rev 14:10-11, 19:20);
• The devil, the beast and the false prophet will be thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone to be tormented day and night forever and ever (Rev 19:10, 20, 20:10), but so will anyone whose name was not found written in the Book of Life (Rev 20:15).

(To be continued)

Be Angry and Do Not Sin (2 of 2)

(Continued from yesterday)

Yesterday we looked at grammar, today we examine the context and theology of the text.

Context
The paragraph starts with “therefore” in 4:25, which links the verses following to the principle preceding. Paul taught the Ephesians the principle of putting off the old self (4:22) and putting on the new self (4:24). The verses following named 7 areas in which this principle is to be applied:
1. old – falsehood (9th commandment) vs. new – truth (4:25);
2. old – anger (6th commandment Mt 6:22) vs. new – letting go (4:26);
3. old – steal (8th commandment) vs. new – work, share (4:28);
4. old – unwholesome word vs. new – edification (4:29);
5. old – bitterness, wrath, anger (6th), clamor, slander (9th commandment) vs. new – kind, tender-hearted, forgiving (4:31-32);
6. old – immorality, impurity (7th), greed (10th commandment) vs. new – what’s proper (5:3);
7. old – filthiness, silly talk, coarse jesting vs. new – giving of thanks (5:4).
Note that the structure of the seven pairs is always putting off something bad first, then putting on something good. Secondly, except for 4 and 7 concerning talk, the other 5 all deal with the 6th to the 10th commandments.

Theology
Is anger always wrong? Not necessarily, because anger or wrath is God’s response towards ungodliness and unrighteousness (Rom 1:18), as God’s nature is diametrically opposite to sin. Jesus drove out the money-changers and dove merchants from the temple (Mt 21:12; Mk 11:15; Jn 2:15). He looked at the Pharisees with anger, grieved at their hardness of heart (Mk 3:5). He had righteous indignation, but He did not sin (Heb 4:15; 1 Pet 2:22; 1 Jn 3:5). So anger in and of itself is not wrong, it depends on the motive.

How did God manifest His anger? Did He take action immediately so as not to let the sun go down on His wrath, or did He delay judgment? In Jesus’ examples cited, He acted right away, because that was the right time. In the Father’s case in OT history, He delayed until the fullness of time (Ga 4:4). Rom 3:25 This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed. So in God’s case judgment need not be immediate to avoid the sun setting on His wrath.

Having said that, Jas 1:19-20 says:
• But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; for the anger of man does not achieve the righteousness of God.
While man can and do follow God’s example by being angry with unrighteousness, in general man’s anger is sinful and do not achieve God’s purpose.

Opinion
You interpreted “be angry” as an imperative, having a righteous indignation against unrighteousness. This avoids the apparent contradiction with v 31, which commands we put away all wrath and anger. Theologically you can separate anger from sin, so this is a possible interpretation, though I think not likely in view of the context.

The structure of the passage consists of a principle followed by 7 applications. Putting aside 4:26 for the moment, the framework of all the other 6 follow an “eliminate the negative, cultivate the positive” pattern, with the negative behavior being what’s prohibited in the second half of the 10 commandments. While 4:26 could go against the pattern and be a positive command to have righteous indignation, the evidence on “angry” being negative is stronger. This is especially in view of v 27, “do not give the devil an opportunity”. Had righteous indignation been the intended meaning, it would not have given the devil an opportunity. However, if negative anger was meant, it most certainly would. So based on the context I believe the traditional interpretation is the correct one. The alternative is possible but unlikely. Hope this helps.

Lazy Wicked Servant (1 of 2)

Q. In Matthew about the wicked lazy servant: “So take the bag of gold from him and give it to the one who has ten bags. For whoever has will be given more, and they will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them. And throw that worthless servant outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” Does it mean being a complacent Christian leads to hell?

A. The key rests on whether the wicked lazy servant is a genuine Christian, and what does the outer darkness mean. Some believe the one-talent servant to be a complacent Christian because:

• He was a servant, just like the other two;
• He was entrusted with one bag of gold or one talent.

They believe the Lord would not entrust His wealth to unbelievers. Therefore the worthless servant must be a Christian. Those who subscribe to “once saved always saved (OSAS)” believe he lost his reward, and the “weeping and gnashing of teeth” meant remorse at his loss. Those who don’t hold to OSAS believe he lost his salvation, as “outer darkness” meant hell. Who is correct?

I do not hold either of these views. I believe the third servant is not saved at all. Here are my reasons:

1. Immediate Context. The parable of the talents in Mt 25 is sandwiched in between the parable of the 10 virgins and the parable of the sheep and the goat. I’ve argued in an earlier post that the five foolish virgins were not Christians because they had no oil:

Five Foolish Virgins

and won’t repeat myself here. The goats were not Christians either. So based on the pattern contrasting the saved versus the unsaved, the third servant should be a non-Christian.

2. Text. The interpretation turns on the differences between the 3 servants. The amount the master entrusted to each, according to his ability, is different. However, since the first and second servants, who got 5 and 2 talents respectively, received identical commendation from the master for the same 100% return, I believe the key is not in the dollar amount received. The crux is in the effort in relation to the amount received, which in turn is dependent on the servant’s attitude towards the master.

The third servant’s opinion of his master is that:
• He was a hard man;
• Unreasonable – harvesting where he had not sown.
As a result he was afraid of losing the gold and hid it in the ground. I believe that’s only an excuse, because if he were truly afraid he would have done something to avert the master’s reprimand e.g. depositing the money with bankers to earn some interest. But he did nothing.

(To be continued)

Haircut?

Q. Is Leviticus 19 addressed to all Israel?
• v 2 The LORD said to Moses, “Speak to the entire assembly of Israel and say to them: ‘Be holy because I, the LORD your God, am holy.'”
• v 27 Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard.
Is this law cultural and not relevant any more today? Lev 21 is addressed to priests and it clearly says in v 5 that ‘Priests must not shave their heads or shave off the edges of their beards or cut their bodies.’

A. Some people interpret Old Testament laws literally and believe all of them are relevant today e.g. Orthodox Jews still don’t cut their sideburns or trim their beards. Should we do the same?

The most basic principle in interpreting any passage is the context. You already observed in v 2 that chapter 19 addresses the entire assembly of Israel, but to understand v 27 you need to examine its immediate context to know why that prohibition was given:

• V 26-28 Do not eat any meat with the blood still in it. Do not practice divination or seek omens. Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard. Do not cut your bodies for the dead or put tattoo marks on yourselves. I am the LORD.

V 26-28 are targeted at pagan practices of the heathen in Canaan – eating blood, divination, cutting themselves (e.g. Baal prophets in 1 Kings 18:28), tattoos etc. The pagan did all these things to commune with their gods. The Israelites were not to be like them. They were to be holy, or separated. This was especially so for priests, who were to lead by example and not defile themselves.

The principle is holiness or separation unto God, and is still valid today. The application at that time was cutting sideburns or trimming beards, which custom had changed over time and is no longer relevant now. Since the cultural expression changed, I do not think we need to avoid cutting facial hair today in order to follow Lev 19:27.

Let me give another example. Ex 22:1 “If a man steals an ox or a sheep and slaughters it or sells it, he must pay back five head of cattle for the ox and four sheep for the sheep.” Most of us don’t live in an agricultural society anymore, does that mean this law no longer applies? While the letter of the law may not apply except to livestock owners, the spirit of the law, the principle of protection of personal property, is just as valid today as it was thousands of years ago. We just have to adapt the application to bring it up-to-date. So while I believe in interpreting the Bible literally as far as possible, subject to figures of speech, we need to take culture into account instead of applying Scripture indiscriminately.

Evil spirit from God

Q. 1 Sam 16:14 Now the Spirit of the Lord had departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the Lord tormented him. How could an evil spirit be from the Lord?

A. Christians are often surprised or puzzled when they read about an evil spirit from the Lord tormenting Saul. God is supposed to be holy and loving, how could He send an evil spirit to torment people? This phrase appears 5 times in the Bible, and there was no translation error:

• 1 Sam 16:15-16 Saul’s attendants said to him, “See, an evil spirit from God is tormenting you. Let our lord command his servants here to search for someone who can play the harp. He will play when the evil spirit from God comes upon you, and you will feel better.
• 1 Sam 18:10 The next day an evil spirit from God came forcefully upon Saul.
• 1 Sam 19:9 But an evil spirit from the LORD came upon Saul as he was sitting in his house with his spear in his hand.

How are we to understand this? First, know the historical background. Saul was being punished for not keeping the Lord’s command and rejecting His word:
• 1 Sam 13:13-14 “You acted foolishly,” Samuel said. “You have not kept the command the LORD your God gave you; if you had, he would have established your kingdom over Israel for all time. But now your kingdom will not endure; the LORD has sought out a man after his own heart and appointed him leader of his people, because you have not kept the LORD’s command.”
• 1 Sam 15:23, 26 For rebellion is like the sin of divination, and arrogance like the evil of idolatry. Because you have rejected the word of the LORD, He has rejected you as king.” But Samuel said to him, “I will not go back with you. You have rejected the word of the LORD, and the LORD has rejected you as king over Israel!”
Saul was rebellious and arrogant, and rightly deserved God’s punishment. God had acted justly.

Second, know the grammar. Even though you may not know the original languages, you can have a pretty good idea of what the Hebrew OT said here by checking multiple English translations. I looked up 1 Sam 16:14 in 39 translations and paraphrases. Here are the results:
* 31 translations (79.5%) have the passive voice “an evil spirit from the Lord”,
* 6 (ERV, GNT, HCSB, NIRV, NLV, NLT) have the active voice “the Lord sent an evil spirit”,
* 2 (Knox, Message) translated it as an evil mood instead of a spirit.

The majority has translated the Hebrew accurately. There is a difference between God actively sending an evil spirit to torment Saul, versus God allowing an evil spirit to do so. You will recall that in Job 1 and 2 Satan incited God against Job to ruin him without any reason (Job 2:3). Satan had to ask for permission to strike Job, and God allowed it. Here all 5 references in 1 Sam the text said an evil spirit came from God or the Lord. The text did not say God actively sent the evil spirit, despite the minority view. I suggest something similar to Job is happening here: the evil spirit appeared before God to ask for permission to torment Saul, and God allowed it.

Why did God allow it? I believe because it is God’s way of dealings with the rebellious as articulated in the NT:
• Rom 1:24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another.
• Rom 1:26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones.
• Rom 1:28 Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, He gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done.
• 1 Tim 1:20 Among them are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan to be taught not to blaspheme.

When men continued to exchange God’s glory and truth for images and lies, God gave them over to their sinful desires and lusts. Paul handed Hymenaeus and Alexander over to Satan to be taught not to blaspheme. When Saul continued to disobey God’s commands and reject His word, He gave him over to an evil spirit to torment and discipline him.

Third, when you look up the Hebrew word spirit (ruwach) in a lexicon, it has the following meanings depending on the context:
a. breath
b. wind
c. spirit (as that which breathes quickly in animation or agitation)
d. spirit (of the living, breathing being in man and animals)
e. spirit (as seat of emotion) i.e. mood
f. spirit
g. Spirit of God

As pointed out above, 5% of translators took the fifth meaning (e) by interpreting “an evil spirit” as “a troubling feeling” or depression. This is possible, but unlikely. Personally I believe the historical-grammatical approach of the majority of scholars taking the sixth meaning (f) to be a better explanation. Hope this helps.