Home » Posts tagged 'Matthew'

Tag Archives: Matthew

Zero Social Gospel in the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats (Part Two)

Part One

Earlier in Matthew 7:15, Jesus commanded and warned:  “Beware of false prophets.”  False prophets send their victims down the broad road that leads to destruction and away from the narrow road that leads to life eternal (Matthew 7:13-14).  The false teaching from false prophets varies, yet with the same goal of keeping their prey on the broad road.  One of these varieties is something called the “social gospel.”  Its proponents use the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats in Matthew 25:31-46 as their proof text.

The part of the parable of Jesus in His Olivet Discourse in Matthew 25 most referred by social gospel advocates is verses 35-40.  Jesus again is teaching concerning the time right before He comes and sets up His kingdom.  He identifies those from the tribulation period who will enter His kingdom.  Entrance into His kingdom is a common theme all through Matthew, since Jesus presents Himself as King or Messiah.  Many places in the New Testament deal with this time on earth.

Salvation comes only by grace through faith.  Those Jews saved by grace through faith during the tribulation period before Jesus sets up His kingdom will exclusively manifest certain characteristic at that time.  One of those traits, a fruit of conversion, is their loyalty to other saved Jews.  This is akin to the Jerusalem church in Acts shortly after the crucifixion of Jesus.

No middle ground existed between Christian Jews in the first century Jerusalem church and their Jewish opposition there.  You were with the church or not with it and being with it meant rationing and sharing their physical belongings for mutual survival.  Non-participation marked unbelief.  The future tribulation period, the time of Jacob’s trouble, will show a similar demarcation between believing Jews and their alliance with the rest of the world against Christ.

Verses 35-40

The believing population when Jesus comes will have survived the tribulation, which engendered alarming needs.  Jesus mentions six of them:  hunger, thirst, alienation, exposure, sickness, and imprisonment.  Revelation 13 says that those who do not receive the mark of the Antichrist cannot buy or sell.  Believers are fugitives, running for their lives.  Helping them likely is illegal and punished severely.  Only believers will help believers.

The kingdom of Jesus Christ is for those who are with Christ.  It’s not for those who merely profess, “Lord, Lord,” and then don’t do what He says (Matthew 7:21-23).  It isn’t arbitrary.  If you are with Him, then you are in fact with Him.  When Jesus returns at the second coming, He will deliver those with Him, saving them from the tribulation persecution atrocities.

The care and supply of fellow believers in the tribulation is the care and supply of Jesus.  Jewish tribulation saints will have done it unto him when they did it unto these.  Those are the merciful who obtain mercy (Matthew 5:7).  They are also the pure in heart, because their conversion is real.  This isn’t an act with them, as seen in their loyalty and commitment to each other as unto Christ.

Social Action?

1 John 3:14-17

Jesus isn’t saying that they come into His kingdom because of their commitment to social action.  He is saying that what they did unto these, they did unto Him.  Commitment to Jesus Christ in the tribulation period will manifest itself in commitment to fellow persecuted believers.  1 John 3:14-17 reveal this truth, that the life, light, and love of God abides in those who love the brethren:

14 We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren. He that loveth not his brother abideth in death.

15 Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.

16 Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren.

17 But whoso hath this world’s good, and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his bowels of compassion from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him?

John wrote his first epistle that believers might have complete assurance of their salvation (1 John 5:13).  One sure mark of true conversion among others is love for the brethren.  This isn’t seeing just anyone in need, but seeing “his brother in need” (verse 17).  This parallels with Matthew 25:35-40 and the Jerusalem church in Acts 2-5.  Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also (Matthew 6:21).

Not Just Talk, But Action

Tribulation era saints will not shut up their bowels of compassion toward their brethren.  It is axiomatic.  Believers will love the brethren.  If they don’t, this reveals they are not one of the Lord’s own.

According to Matthew 7:21-22, belief is more than saying, “Lord, Lord.”  People might talk a good game, but those who know Him, will not just love in word, but in deed and in truth (1 John 3:18).  That is a true test of faith, not mere verbiage.

The Olivet Discourse and Jesus’ record of the judgment of nations in Matthew 25:31-46 doesn’t describe social work.  It isn’t about feeding and housing lost people.  It is truly about the care of believers, who very often suffer for righteousness’ sake.

Earlier Jesus said to His disciples in Matthew 10:40:

He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me.

He also told them in His upper room discourse in John 15:18:

If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you.

True believers standing with one another against the onslaught of the world is a mark of saving grace.  It is the fellowship of Jesus’ sufferings that Paul mentions in Philippians 3:10.  It is going with Jesus “outside the camp, bearing his reproach” in Hebrews 13:13.  Those believing in Him are joining that and will characteristically or habitually join that.  This is confessing Jesus before men (Matthew 10:32).

Thrill Seekers and the Lazy

In John 6, thrill seekers followed Jesus to the other side of the Sea of Galilee, and He fed the multitude.  He told that gigantic crowd that He would not keep feeding them, so they all defected.  Everyone wanted a free meal, not Jesus Christ.  Jesus turned to His disciples and asked if they would also go away.  For the group, Peter said, No, you have the words of eternal life.

Jesus did not go running after those who defected.  He also didn’t fail because He didn’t keep feeding them.  His plan is not the temporal bread, but the eternal bread.  It isn’t social action.  Instead, Jesus said in John 12:8, “The poor always ye have with you.”

In fact, Paul warns against giving food to those who won’t work.  The provision of food for those in the future tribulation era is not giving food to homeless on the street.  Both Old and New Testaments teach a kind of quality control.  Paul represents this in 2 Thessalonians 3:10:

For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.

The Bible won’t contradict itself.  Social action, this feeding the unbelieving hungry day after day, does not jive with 2 Thessalonians 3:10.  In the end, preaching that God saves those who do the deeds of feeding and sheltering the homeless is preaching salvation by works.  Adding that as a requirement nullifies grace and makes someone a debtor then to do the whole law (Galatians 5:1-6).  It corrupts the gospel of Jesus Christ.  Even the law itself doesn’t manifest this program or represent this as a lifestyle.  It isn’t even a requirement of the law, let alone the gospel.

More to Come

Q, Synoptic Gospel Dependence, and Inspiration for the Bible

Does it matter if one adopts a belief in “Q” and rejects the historic belief that the synoptic gospels–Matthew, Mark, and Luke–are independent accounts? What happens if one rejects this historic belief for the theory, invented by theological liberalism and modernism but adopted by many modern evangelicals, that Mark was the first gospel (instead of Matthew), and Matthew and Luke depended on and altered Mark, using a (lost) source called “Q” that just happens to have left no archaeological or historical evidence for its existence? What happens if we adopt source, tradition, and redaction criticism? Let me illustrate with the comment on Matthew 25:46 in John Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew: A Commentary on the Greek Text, New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2005), 1034–1037.  Nolland is discussing how to go behind the text of Matthew’s Gospel to what the historical Jesus said (which he assumes is different); he is discussing what Matthew added and changed from what Christ originally said, which, supposedly, was handed down in little bits of tradition here and there, and which Matthew used, along with his dependence upon Mark and Q. I have added a few comments in brackets within Nolland’s commentary.

While the account has a totally comprehensible sense in its Matthean use, various unevennesses and tensions suggest a complicated history. At various points there seem to be Matthean accents and even quite Matthean features. [In other words, Matthew added and changed what the Son of God said.] … On the basis of the tensions and difficulties [which are not really there] in the account many scholars have held that Matthew has cobbled this account together [what a nice description] out of traditional fragments and OT resources. Others would be prepared to identify a remnant of a parable in vv. 32c–33 and a significant fragment of tradition in vv. 35–36. But perhaps even this is too pessimistic. [Perhaps? We aren’t sure?]

We have had cause to notice that the king in various of Jesus’ parables was originally God, but he has become Jesus himself in secondary use of the parable. [The Watchtower Society and the Unitarians would be delighted.] This is likely to be true of all three of the immediately preceding parables. In the other cases the adjustment is likely to be pre-Matthean, but this time it may be Matthew himself who is responsible for the change.

Without vv. 31–32a, ‘by my Father’ in v. 34, and ‘my brothers and sisters’ in v. 40, the account could be focussed on God and not on Jesus. [Note how he is willing to cut out portions of the Word.] With some brief, now-lost beginning to introduce the king, the restored parable is free of the tensions and difficulties that have been identified in the Matthean account. With the loss of vv. 31–32a the account will be of the eschatological judgment of Israel rather than of all nations. So we can now make sense of the unquestioning recognition of the status of the king by those on the left and the assumption that they would have served him if it had been visible to them that that was what was involved. Both those on the left and the right are Israelites who in principle recognised God as their ultimate king. … Various other Matthean features noted above may also betray his intervention, [of course, all of what he is saying is speculative.] but these do not disturb the basic functioning of the narrative. … Matthew has bundled a lot of cross referencing into his account [in other words, he assumes Christ did not refer back to His earlier teaching, but Matthew changed it so that it referenced back to earlier passages] in a manner reminiscent of his development of 9:27–31. It remains an open question whether the fourfold repetition of the list is a pre-Matthean feature. It is reminiscent of the repetition involved in the inclusion of 25:16–18, which was judged above to be pre-Matthean but not original. [“Not original” means Christ did not actually say it.]

The pre-Matthean account that emerges is still not a parable, only an account of the judgment that makes use of a comparison (if this is not Matthean) and speaks of God as ‘the king’. But could there be a genuine parable further behind this? A lot depends on the missing beginning. But the other places where the narrative world of a parable about a king is broken are vv. 34, 41, and 46, and we would have to give up ‘your brothers and sisters’ suggested above for the pre-Matthean account. A possible beginning sentence for a parable might be something like ‘There was a king who entered into judgment with his people’ (all the future tenses of the account would need then to become past tenses). If in v. 34 ‘Come, you blessed ones’ was followed by something more appropriate to the narrative world, and similar adjustments were made to v. 41, then the narrative world of a parable would be complete (while v. 46 completes the narrative logic, it is not strictly necessary, but it could be adjusted in a corresponding manner).

There is one important proviso here to describing both the Matthean and, behind that, the immediately pre-Matthean account as ‘an account of the judgment’. We have already noted the tension between 24:31 and 13:41, where the angels respectively gather the elect and take off the wicked to punishment. Mt. 25:31–46 offers a different picture again. Not the angels, but Jesus/God acting like a shepherd makes the division himself (perhaps the angels might be used for the initial gathering), and the two groups are arranged on either side of him. … The further along this track behind the Matthean material we go, the more our account of it becomes necessarily speculative. [My note:  No kidding!] But there appears to be no insurmountable barrier to tracing the origins of the Matthean account back to the historical Jesus. And the original that we might attribute to the historical Jesus offers the same challenge about the importance for judgment day of God’s profound self-identification with his people.

Nolland-who is considered “conservative,” not a liberal, by many, and his commentary in the NIGTC series representative of a broadly “evangelical” commentary series–makes the common and unreasonable assumptions that Matthew, who would have been there to here Christ teach and who was controlled by the Holy Spirit, needed to depend upon tiny fragments of tradition passed down here and passed down there by who knows who, and also borrow from Mark (who was not there, like Matthew was). Through this whole process what Christ actually said got changed, and so we need to attempt to reconstruct what Jesus Christ actually said by going behind Matthew’s Gospel to the hypothetical, reconstructed words of the historical Jesus.

This anti-inspiration nonsense affects evangelical apologetics. When I debated Shabir Ally he could not believe that I denied that there was a “Q” document and that the gospels were dependent on each other. Other Christians that Shabir debated accepted that these lies were true.

This sort of anti-inspiration and anti-historical nonsense about Q, sources, and redaction is all over evangelicalism and just about completely controls theological liberalism.  It even infects portions of those who call themselves fundamentalist, chiefly among those who deny the perfect preservation of Scripture and so are not King James Only. Beware of “evangelical” commentaries on the Gospels and “evangelical” leaders who adopt critical methods and deny the Biblically faithful and historically accurate view that the synoptic gospels are independent accounts and give us eyewitness testimony.

TDR

John the Baptist and the Lord Jesus and Sending Authority in Matthew 3

Paraginomai Versus Ginomai

The Greek verb paraginomai appears only three times in Matthew, an intense or emphatic form of a common verb, ginomai.   All three occur in Matthew 2 and 3:

2:1, “Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem.”

3:1, “In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judaea.”

3:13, “Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him.”

The magi, those kingmakers from a powerful far eastern nation, came with royal authority and bringing kingly gifts.  Herod recognized their authority.  It troubled him.  John the Baptist, the forerunner and herald of the King who would sit on the throne of David forever, came heralding or preaching.  The King Himself, Jesus, came to begin His work in an official capacity.

Luke 7:20 uses the same unique verb, paraginomai, to describe John the Baptist ascending to his divine task, parallel with Matthew 3:1.  The only usage in Mark, 14:43, sees an official, governing body of chief priests, scribes, and elders with Judas coming to arrest Jesus.  The Apostle Paul uses paraginomai in 2 Timothy 4:16, saying, “At my first answer no man stood with me.”  He described no one joining him in an official capacity in public court.  It’s an obviously technical word to denote the function of a person who came into court to defend the accused (John Phillips, Exploring the Pastoral Epistles, p. 454).

Official Capacity

The only use of paraginomai in Hebrews (9:11) reads:

But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building.

This verse describes Christ, the anointed one, come an high priest, so again in a high, official capacity, so with authority.  In the New International Commentary on Hebrews, Paul Ellingworth says concerning Hebrews 9:11, The use of paraginomai instead of the usual ginomai suggests “an official public appearance” (p. 449).  So also Harold Attridge in his Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, commenting on the dramatic nuance of the word (paragenomenos, participle of paraginomai), says, “He has arrived on the heavenly scene as High Priest” (p. 245).

John the Baptist was a man sent (apostello) from God (John 1:6).  That verb (“sent,” apostello) is also very technical, expressing the nature of an envoy or an ambassador.  Jesus asked (Matthew 21:25), “The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven, or of men?”  The implication in Matthew by Jesus (cf. Mk 11:30, Lk 20:4) was that God authorized the baptism of John.  He got it from heaven.

The Lord Jesus came like John with sending authority.  Jesus said, “As my Father hath sent (apostello) me, even so send I you” (John 20:21). God also expects sending for all His workers.  It’s more than reading the Great Commission, saying you’ve got it because you read in Matthew 28:18-20.  That command went to a plural, “Go ye.”  One should assume that “ye” meant people in the group.  It did not imply that anyone or everyone could go with His authority (“power”).  “You” is also plural in John 20:21.

Romans 10:15

The Apostle Paul writes in Romans 10:15,

And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!

The word “preach” is kerusso.  This is the same word applied to John the Baptist and his preaching.  The kerux is someone to announce the Lord’s coming, to give His message, and to prepare the way for Him.  Again, Romans 10:15 asks of the plural, “they.”  Who “sends” (apostello) “them”?  Christ sends as Head of His church.

John the Baptist “came” in an official capacity.  God “sent” John in an official capacity.  The New Testament uses the same terminology for every believer.  How shall they hear without a kerux?  How shall they kerusso except they be apostello?  God the Father sent John and Jesus directly.  Jesus then sends true believers by means of the church.  He heads the church.  God sends believers only through true churches.

A Special Cast of Characters

Ones Christ sends constitute a special cast of characters and yet not one, not one because it applies to everyone.  Every one bringing glad tidings or the gospel of peace should be and must be sent.  That should be every member of a church, a member of Christ’s body with Him as Head.

As a personal example, individual churches sent my wife and I.  A true church sent us in 2020 from California to Oregon.  The same true church sent us in 2021 from Oregon to Utah.  In 2022, a true church in Utah sent us from Utah to Indiana.  The church in Indiana sent us for a few months to England at the end of 2022 and beginning of 2023   Since February 22, 2023, my wife and I function as heralds with authority of or from our church in Indiana.  We requested and received letters, which we possess, from three total churches in all this (California, Utah, and Indiana).

God sent John.  He came.  Sent and came are unique words of sending.  God sent Jesus.  He came.  The same pattern applies to the work of every true believer.

How serious would you take the sending of the Commander-in-Chief of the United States?  If the United States of America authorized you for a legitimate task, would you acknowledge the honor bestowed?  Can you recognize the greater honor of the Lord Jesus sending you through a true church?

The Gospel of Matthew: Matthean Authorship, Early Date, Infallible Truth

The Apostle Matthew wrote Matthew’s Gospel.  But do you know when Matthew was written, and what the historical evidence is for Matthew’s date?  Was Matthew the first, second, third, or last gospel written?  Did Matthew copy from another gospel?  These, and similar questions, are answered in my written study on the evidence for the New Testament here.  But if you want a video on Matthew which answers the questions above, click here to view “Historical Evidence for Matthew’s Gospel: Apostolic Authorship, Early Date, God’s Infallible Word on YouTube (from the last Word of Truth Conference at Bethel Baptist Church), or click here to view the video on Rumble, or view the embedded video below:

 

 

Sadly, in relation to the date question, not only theological modernists but too many theological conservatives and evangelicals ignore the actual ancient historical data to adopt dates significantly later than the data support, unnecessarily weakening the case for Christ.  This video does not do that, but argues for the date for Matthew, c. A. D. 40, actually supported by history.

TDR

Are We Living in the Last Days? The Right Approach to Biblical Prophecy

The Bible is a prophetic book.  That alone is an amazing statement, because it is the only prophetic book in the world, because it is the only one written by God.  Prophecy has a lot of purposes, a major one being a validation that that the Bible is in fact the Word of God.  As you open the New Testament, it is easy to see the importance of prophecy all over it.  God wants us to take it seriously.

The first page of the New Testament in Matthew, a genealogy, is related to prophecy, because the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants are prophetic.  The genealogy proves that Jesus is a fulfillment of those predictions.  Then you get the Isaiah 7:14 prophecy that says that Jesus is a fulfillment of that.  Then you have the magi setting off looking for the Messiah based upon what?  Prophecy.  Then there are four wondrous prophecies in four different geographical locations in the second half of Matthew 2 that confirm who Jesus is.  Matthew 3 talks about John the Baptist, himself another fulfillment of prophecy.

When Peter preaches on the Day of Pentecost, almost every point he makes relies on prophecy.  When the baptism of the Holy Spirit occurs, what is that?  It is a fulfillment of the prophecy of John the Baptist, Acts 1:5, which is repeated by Jesus before He ascends into heaven.  When the unbelievers mock what’s happening in Acts, Peter defends it with what?  Prophecy.  He refers to Joel 2:28-32 in Acts 2:17-21 to kick off his sermon there, explaining to the audience what’s going on.  He starts:

15 For these are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day. 16 But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel; 17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God

It is such an unusual, outlying event, outside of the norm for comprehension, Peter makes the connection to the Old Testament.  This gigantic crowd wasn’t all drunken.  This is what Joel was talking about, and Peter says that what was occurring there on the Day of Pentecost was “in the last days.”  Generally, when people say, “We’re in the last days,” they mean something different than what Peter says, so that becomes confusing.  Peter’s usage of the last days is the correct usage and it’s what we should imitate.

We’re not waiting for the last days.  We’re already in them.  Peter was saying that he and his audience were in them.  1 John 2:18 says,

Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.

“Last days” or “last time,” which is the same terminology, is ironically a terminology from Old Testament prophecy.  That’s what is supposed to get us up to speed is the Old Testament usage.  Here are some places:

Isaiah 2:2, And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the LORD’S house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it.

Jeremiah 23:20, The anger of the LORD shall not return, until he have executed, and till he have performed the thoughts of his heart: in the latter days ye shall consider it perfectly.

Ezekiel 38:8, After many days thou shalt be visited: in the latter years thou shalt come into the land that is brought back from the sword, and is gathered out of many people, against the mountains of Israel, which have been always waste: but it is brought forth out of the nations, and they shall dwell safely all of them.

Daniel 10:14, Now I am come to make thee understand what shall befall thy people in the latter days: for yet the vision is for many days.
To the Jews, the last days were the Messianic era, when the Messiah had come and was in operation.  To God, this began when Jesus came the first time.  This launched the last days.  It’s also why Peter can be using a passage with amazing astronomical events and say they are referring to the Day of Pentecost, when those things didn’t take place.  What they experienced on the Day of Pentecost, I like to call the “sample pack.”  It’s like when you go to Costco and you taste a sample, so that you’ll be receptive of the whole box.
The last days had arrived, because Jesus had arrived with the accompanying miracles, wonders, and signs.  The ones on the Day of Pentecost are in the same program as those that will appear when Christ undoes the seals during the seventieth week of Daniel, what we refer to as the seven years of tribulation.  What the audience in Acts 2 understood as the Messianic age, that Joel was prophesying, was already started.  This was the prefulfillment of that with the ultimate fulfillment later.  In one sense, it’s all the same event with book ends, Jesus coming as Savior and then Jesus coming as Judge.
The magi were anticipating the coming of Jesus.  Believers today should be anticipating the second coming.  How do you interpret what you read in the prophetic passages?  Look at all of the prophecy of scripture and compare.  The prophecies will give you clues.  Revelation is symbolic language, as revealed in the first verse with the word, “signified.”  Prophecy uses symbolism, but that isn’t freedom to treat it like your Gumby doll.
If God can do astronomical events, like He will according to Joel 2, then He can do the smaller, albeit plainly divine, ones of Acts 2.  That’s the push-back and explanation from Peter.  These things are occurring because we are already in the last days.
I believe we are meant to look for the fulfillment of prophesies that haven’t been fulfilled.  We are required to be scriptural with this and not to speculate.  If we are speculating, we should say we’re speculating.  When someone asks, do you think we’re in the last days, they are meaning something other than what that phrase means.  I don’t like to give them an answer that reaffirms their wrong view.  A better question is, do you think that some of what we see happening portend to unfulfilled prophesies from scripture?  I say, yes.
Let me give you an example.  Revelation 13:17 says,

And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.

I think it is good to make an application of this with what we see happening today.  The world economy will be centrally controlled in a totalitarian way.  We can look today how this might be applied.  We can see it can happen.  That is a good application of that above verse.   How does one man control everyone?  Can technology give this capacity?  We should point to that, look at the contemporary examples.  That doesn’t contradict what I see New Testament authors do with Old Testament prophecy.
Prophecy in scripture is real.  We should take it literally.  That doesn’t mean we don’t take the symbolism into consideration.  We do.  We understand the symbolism based on comparing every passage with every other passage of the Bible.  It gives us enough clues to understand.  This is hard to be understood like Peter said about Paul’s prophetic passages (2 Peter 3:16).  It can be understood though.  As preachers or teachers in the church, we should want people to understand the prophecy and how the yet unfulfilled parts should be understood.
We should oppose globalism, because it looks like the one world government and church of the antichrist.  There is a tension here.  If we really want the Lord’s return, perhaps we could hasten it by supporting the one world government.  The elimination of borders is a contemporary issue that relates to prophecy.  We should use prophecy to make that application.  This is right thinking.  This is a good use of the Word of God.
Let me give you two more examples.  The Apostle Peter prophesies how the world will end in 2 Peter 3:10.  That’s how it will end.  This results in my denying the contemporary climate change teaching.  That is an application to the world we live in, based on what Peter said.  It says a lot more than that, but we shouldn’t ignore it.
The culture of the United States and then the world is deteriorating.  This looks like a trajectory toward total apostasy.  It has affected a hearing of the gospel.  Let’s be honest.  When Isaiah went to preach to apostate Israel, he couldn’t get a hearing.  We are in similar times.  These are times like Noah was in.  Man is of the same nature he’s been since the fall.  We can say that we’re getting closer to the end, because we see this trajectory.  We don’t want it.  We’re still being faithful, but we’ve got to make the application.  People need to know.
Much more could be said.  We don’t want to stretch scripture beyond what it’s saying, and in that sense, just use scripture.  We should preach what the Bible says and apply it, including the prophetic passages.

AUTHORS OF THE BLOG

  • Kent Brandenburg
  • Thomas Ross

Archives