Jesus preaches the gospel of the kingdom even after he is risen

Posted on June 17, 2013 by christopher fisher

A few months ago I was having a conversation with a pastor of an Acts 2 dispensationalist church. Dispensationalists who are “Acts 2” are those that believe that the “salvation by faith alone” gospel started immediately following Christ’s death. Talking to Acts 2 dispensationalists sometimes gets a little humorous, especially when it is pointed out that immediately after Jesus’ resurrection that Jesus spends 40 days preaching the Gospel of the Kingdom:

Act 1:3 to whom He also presented Himself alive after His suffering by many infallible proofs, being seen by them during forty days and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God.

After Christ rose from the dead, he spent 40 days with his disciples. The text explicitly tells the reader what the 40 days was spent doing: “speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God”. When talking to the Acts 2 pastor, with a straight face he declared “Jesus was just describing what the kingdom of God would be like”. I asked: “You mean the physical features.” To which he said: “yes”.

In the world of Acts 2 dispensationalists Jesus decides to spend his last 40 days on Earth, not explaining to the apostles how to preach the gospel or the meaning of His death and resurrection (Acts 2 dispensationalists claim the apostles were confused about these things later in Acts). No, instead of clearing up the massive amount of strife and confusion about Jews and Gentiles and faith and works, Jesus instead taught about what the Kingdom of God would look like. Add to this that every apostle to whom Jesus was describing the Kingdom would be dead before they saw the Kingdom. Why on earth would Jesus focus his last 40 days on that topic? Did the apostles then decide not to share with the rest of humanity what Jesus’ most important 40 days were spent teaching?

In reality, Jesus was still promoting an imminent, physical Kingdom of God which would soon return to Earth and establish Israel has his priest nation. This was the focus of his entire ministry, and this is what the apostles were told to preach:

Luk 24:46 Then He said to them, “Thus it is written, and thus it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day,
Luk 24:47 and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

Mar 16:15 And He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature.
Mar 16:16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.

Mat 28:19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
Mat 28:20 teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”…

So Jesus tells his apostles, according to Mathew, Mark and Luke to preach Jesus’ commandments, to preach the gospel, and to preach repentance and remission of sins. Jesus did not ever teach “salvation by faith alone”, and each of these verses are spoken after Jesus has resurrected. Jesus explicitly tells the apostles to continue the gospel that he started; the gospel that states an imminent kingdom of God is soon to appear and some of the apostles will be alive to see it. In fact the disciples answer him in Acts stating:

Act 1:6 Therefore, when they had come together, they asked Him, saying, “Lord, will You at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?”
Act 1:7 And He said to them, “It is not for you to know times or seasons which the Father has put in His own authority.
Act 1:8 But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be witnesses to Me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.”

The first thing the apostles ask is when God would “restore the kingdom to Israel”. I guess this might make sense in a world in which Jesus spent 40 days describing the physical features of the Kingdom of God. The apostles might be thinking: “This sounds all pretty and nice, but can we talk about something that affects us in a new environment in which our leader has just be crucified and we are to take over the spread of a foundling church while navigating the politics of a Roman occupation of our land”. So the Acts 2 dispensationalists have me there.

It is clear that Jesus spent his last 40 days on earth (days after he rose from the dead), preaching the Gospel of the Kingdom and telling his followers to do the same. It was only later, after the Jews rejected this plan that God turned to the gentiles with “salvation by faith alone” (Rom 9).

Posted in Dispensationalism, Theology | 19 Comments

peters vision in acts

Posted on June 17, 2013 by christopher fisher

In Acts 10, Peter has a vision:

Act 10:11 and [Peter] saw heaven opened and an object like a great sheet bound at the four corners, descending to him and let down to the earth.
Act 10:12 In it were all kinds of four-footed animals of the earth, wild beasts, creeping things, and birds of the air.
Act 10:13 And a voice came to him, “Rise, Peter; kill and eat.”
Act 10:14 But Peter said, “Not so, Lord! For I have never eaten anything common or unclean.”
Act 10:15 And a voice spoke to him again the second time, “What God has cleansed you must not call common.”
Act 10:16 This was done three times. And the object was taken up into heaven again.

Peter wonders what this means. It is important to note that Peter was still following the symbolic law and keeping kosher dietary laws (as evident in this text). This was well after the events in Acts 2, meaning Acts 2 was not a “salvation by faith alone” message. When Peter finally meets the gentile Cornelius, he interprets his vision, showing his shock at Gentiles being accepted:

Act 10:28 Then he said to them, “You know how unlawful it is for a Jewish man to keep company with or go to one of another nation. But God has shown me that I should not call any man common or unclean.

Peter, at this point of time has not even considered that the Gentiles were part of Christ’s promise. It is important to note that Jesus himself focused his ministry on the Jews, excluding Gentiles and half-Jews (Samaritans). It is at this event that Peter starts to believe that Gentiles can be saved through works of the law:

…Act 10:34 Then Peter opened his mouth and said: “In truth I perceive that God shows no partiality.
Act 10:35 But in every nation whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him.

Peter, in Acts 9, has been in contact with Paul only 15 days (see Gal 1:18). Paul seems not to have influenced him at this point of time, which is to be expected from a fledgling Christian who the church still feared. That Peter was not influenced (or perhaps the subject was not broached) is made increasingly evident by what comes next:

Act 10:36 The word which God sent to the children of Israel, preaching peace through Jesus Christ—He is Lord of all—
Act 10:37 that word you know, which was proclaimed throughout all Judea, and began from Galilee after the baptism which John preached:

Did John preach “salvation by faith alone”? Did Christ preach “salvation by faith alone”? Peter tells the gentile Cornelius not only to “work righteousness” but to heed the “word which God sent to the children of Israel”. Peter is still preaching the Gospel of the Kingdom, and for good reason; this gospel was reinforced to him the 40 days after Christ rose from the dead while Christ was with the apostles (Act 1:3)). Accepting the Gentiles as equals (along with salvation by faith alone) was a new concept to Peter. Peter next clarifies the gospel:

Act 10:38 how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power, who went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with Him.
Act 10:39 And we are witnesses of all things which He did both in the land of the Jews and in Jerusalem, whom they killed by hanging on a tree.
Act 10:40 Him God raised up on the third day, and showed Him openly,
Act 10:41 not to all the people, but to witnesses chosen before by God, even to us who ate and drank with Him after He arose from the dead.
Act 10:42 And He commanded us to preach to the people, and to testify that it is He who was ordained by God to be Judge of the living and the dead.
Act 10:43 To Him all the prophets witness that, through His name, whoever believes in Him will receive remission of sins.”

Does believe on him entail believing Christ’s “Gospel of the Kingdom” or is it what modern Christians interpret “believing in him” to be? The preceding text, mentioning “righteousness” and the Gospel of “John the Baptist” and “Jesus of Nazareth” indicate the former. Peter’s words, in which he accepts Gentiles, is shocking to everyone who hears:

Act 10:45 And those of the circumcision who believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also.

Throughout this entire incident, Peter does not seem to understand more than the fact that “the Gentiles are not unclean”. He does not advocate “salvation by faith alone” or even current Jews forsaking the symbolic law. This can best be illustrated by the events later described in Galatians 1 and Acts 15.

Paul, though, uses this event as leverage for his own message (Eph 3:5).

Posted in Church History, Dispensationalism, History, Theology | 1 Comment

sowell on swedish price controls

Posted on June 11, 2013 by christopher fisher

From Thomas Sowell’s book Basic Economics:

Rent control had very much the same effects in Sweden. As of 1940, there were approximately 6,330,000 people living in Sweden and there were about 1,960,000 dwelling units to house them-about 31 housing units for every 100 people. Over the years, the number of housing units rose relative to the population-to 36 units per 100 people in 1965 and 43 units per 100 people by 1973-and yet the average waiting time for getting a place to live also rose. There was a 9-month wait in 1950, a 23-month wait in 1955 and a 40 month wait by 1958, for example. In short, the longer waits for housing was not due to any less housing in proportion to the population. There was a lessening scarcity but a growing shortage.

As incomes in Sweden rose much faster than rents were allowed to rise under rent control laws, more and more people could afford to occupy their own independent housing units, making it harder for others to find places to live, even with a massive, government-sponsored program to build more dwelling units. Before rent control, less than one-fourth of all unmarried adults in Sweden had their own separate housing units in 1940, but that proportion rose until just over half did by 1975. Not only was the actual physical amount of housing no less than before, Sweden was in fact building more housing per person than any other country in the world during this period.

Nevertheless, the housing shortage persisted and got worse. As of 1948, there were about 2,400 people on waiting lists for housing in Sweden but, a dozen years later, the waiting list had grown to ten times as many people, despite a frantic building of more housing. When eventually rent control laws were repealed in Sweden, a housing surplus suddenly developed, as rents rose and people curtailed their use of housing as a result. Again, this shows that “shortages” and “surpluses” are matters of price, not matters of physical scarcity, either absolutely or relative to the population.

Emphasis mine.

Posted in Economics, People, Price Controls, Sowell | 1 Comment

mandatory meal breaks make my life worse

Posted on June 11, 2013 by christopher fisher

Although mandatory meal breaks provided by employers is a state by state issue, there is a federal law covering how breaks and lunches are handled. This is known as the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). This act has caused me, as an employee, a lot of harm in my career. Two main provisions under this law are that during an unpaid lunch break the employer cannot ask anything of the employee and that lunch breaks under 20 minutes long have to be paid.

I have had several jobs in my career affected by the FLSA and other similar rules. The first job was as a server for a restaurant. In this job, I often chose to skip lunches all together. It was a game. If I was placed in a desirable section (if I was covering lots of high capacity, high turnaround tables) then taking a break would vastly decrease my earning potential for the night. If I was placed in a terrible section, taking a break might free me from making relatively little money. In any case, I maximized money by being active on the floor (waiting tables) as long as possible.

Where the law hurt me was if I was in a high performing section but was hungry. There was not a legitimate mechanism for me to take a break and keep my section. I would have preferred to have a sandwich in the break room and make normal stops to my tables (customer service increases tips). The employer did not want to pay me to eat a sandwich, and I was perfectly content to give up my $3.50 per hour to work while on break, but the law stood in my way. Luckily the law is not enforced very well; I would often make trips to tables during breaks (before I was allowed to “punch back in” per the FLSA). This ensured happy customers and ensured I kept a monopoly on the tips from my own table (other servers might want a share if they were doing the work or sometimes there are thieves).

Another reason the law hurt me was because it stopped me from using a 5 minute break to remove myself from a poor performing section. The computer software, programmed per the FLSA, did not allow anyone to punch in before the required minimum time. Thanks for helping me, government.

My next job provided me 30 minute lunch breaks, but in addition to FLSA this job was subject to union rules. They mandated a “right” to a lunch period. Whereas I would prefer to give up my half hour of lunch each day to gain a release time half an hour earlier each day, this was not allowed. So guestimating about 230 work days per year, this translates into 115 hours of my free time lost due to “union” benefits. Six and a half “waking days” per year! There are a lot of better things I could be doing with my time than eating fast food on work days. Thanks a lot, union.

When unions and the government try to help employees, they end up hurting others. Not everyone values the same things at the same rate (lunch breaks, paid vacation, sick leave, health benefits, etc). To have government involved, or the unions using government muscle, creates misery for individuals who want to be free to choose their own lives.

Posted in Goverment, Standard of Living | 1 Comment

why paul uses the word mystery

Posted on June 7, 2013 by christopher fisher

The apostle Paul, throughout his letters, utilizes a very interesting writing style. He knows his local audience and incorporates elements of their society to make theological points. For example, in Corinthians he alludes to special sports competitions that they held. He mentions running and perishable crowns. Near the city of Corinth, the Greeks held the Isthmian games in which people competed in races to obtain a crown of leaves, as noted by Plutarch. Paul uses this aspect of their society to contrast perishable crowns to eternal rewards in heaven.

Likewise, Paul uses the term “Mystery”. In the ancient world, the Mysteries were a series of cults dedicated to various Greek gods. These sacred cults were the religious lifeblood of the Greek world. Each Mystery worshiped a different god (either a Greek god or an imported foreign god) and practiced its own unique celebrations. Initiates into these religious cults were required to undergo a variety of rituals and progress various ranks in order to eventually obtain enlightenment. Enlightenment was the end goal of all good initiates, revealed to the chosen few. The higher level initiates were taught secret teachings, “Mysteries” of which the penalty for revealing was death. Plutarch mentions this facet in his Moralia:

Most of the relevant proofs can lawfully be pronounced or divulged only to those of us who have been initiated into the Perfect Mysteries celebrated every other year, but what I am going to speak of is not forbidden in conversation with friends, especially over after-dinner wine, while we are enjoying god’s own bounty.

Paul latches on to this societal practice and uses it to illustrate his own points. Paul mentions the word “Mystery” over 20 times in six of his letters. Six times it is mentioned to the saints in Ephesus, five times to the saints in Corinthians, and four times to the saints in Colossians. I have written about the Platonism of Colossians previously. Ephesus and Corinth were Mystery Cult hubs.

It is very telling, not only Paul’s interpretation of the Christian mystery, but the way Paul uses the term. As noted before, Mysteries were to be kept secret on the pain of death. Paul, making a mockery of this facet of society, proclaims his Mystery openly. Paul is very specific:

Eph 3:3 how that by revelation He made known to me the mystery (as I have briefly written already…
Eph 3:6 that the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, of the same body, and partakers of His promise in Christ through the gospel,

In Corinthians he openly proclaims a different Mystery:

1Co 15:51 Behold, I tell you a mystery: We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed—
1Co 15:52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.

We see it is not necessarily the noun “Mystery” that is important, but the message behind the word and the cultural understanding of “Mystery”. Paul used the word to denote important theological points that are the lifeblood of Christian theology. To the Ephesians he stressed that the Jews and Gentiles were equal. To the Corinthians he stressed that the dead would rise. He uses the words for a variety of purposes elsewhere (with the Jewish-Gentile equality being the most common usage). Everywhere and always, it indicated a key teaching of Christianity.

Posted in Bible, Dispensationalism, History, Mystery Cults, Theology | 2 Comments

misquoted verses – all things work together for good

Posted on June 4, 2013 by christopher fisher

Rom 8:28 And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose.

When Christians quote Romans 8:28 it is often as a calming “God controls everything, so do not think your suffering is without a purpose” type of way. The claim is that God has built a plan, and everyone suffers as a means to a fabulous end goal. The steps, they claim, including the suffering are necessary and purposeful.

The problem with this is twofold:

First, if God inflicts pain on us to teach us lessons, is that moral? In order for that to be justified, the end goal has to well outweigh the end result. For example, killing your children’s beloved pet dog with a shotgun might teach them about mortality, but doing so would just make the father cruel. The father actually could get this end state or teach this concept in a less horrifying manner. So what is the end goal that could justify God killing 6 million Jews in the Holocaust? The end goal not only has to be worth the tortured deaths of 6 million Jews, but also has to be the better than a less costly method.

Second, the verse has nothing to do with God making the best of bad situations, but about the reassurance that even though we suffer and die, we will be saved in the end:

Rom 8:29 For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren.
Rom 8:30 Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.

Paul starts right after this verse by re-enforcing the fact that people are saved (this is “the good” to which he refers in the previous verse). He follows this up with saying:

Rom 8:33 Who shall bring a charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies.
Rom 8:34 Who is he who condemns? It is Christ who died, and furthermore is also risen, who is even at the right hand of God, who also makes intercession for us.

Who is making a charge and why? Paul is continuing his focus on salvation being the end state. People cannot charge believers with being sinners (thus not being saved) because it is God who justifies, not people. And to top it all off, he explains what people can do to Christians and not separate us from Christ:

Rom 8:35 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?

So Christians will experience tribulation, distress, persecution, famine, nakedness and death (the “sword” is used figuratively for death throughout Paul’s writings). Death is fairly permanent, and not usually what Christians think about when they say “all things work together for good”. After all, if a Christian dies, how are “all things” working together for their good? It is clear that Paul is not saying God has micromanaged plans to make all harms to Christians into nice results. Instead, Paul is saying even though life is rough and Christians might be beaten and killed that Christians are saved and no one can take that from us.

Note also, this verse is better translated: Rom 8:28 And we know that we work all things together with God for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose.

Posted in Bible, Misquoted Verses, Theology | 5 Comments

lord means god

Posted on June 4, 2013 by christopher fisher

In the book Among the Gentiles, Luke Johnson points out the term “Lord” was used of gods in the ancient world:

The title “Lord” (kyrios) was probably the earliest used by the first believers to express their conviction that Jesus was exalted to a share in God’s’ power (1 Cor 12:3; Rom 10:9).48 Writing to the Philippian church, Paul declares that “God has greatly exalted him and has given him a name above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bend, above the heavens and upon the earth and in the depths, and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord” (Phil 2:9-11). In the Greco-Roman world, this designation for the divine was common: we have noted how Aelius Aristides spoke of “Lord Serapis” and “Lord Asclepius.” It was, in fact, the connection of this title to Hellenistic cults that led to the theory that the Jesus movement only became the “Christ cult” when it went outside Palestine and encountered Greco-Roman religion.

Posted in Church History, History, Mystery Cults, Theology | Leave a comment

if death is the end

Posted on June 4, 2013 by christopher fisher

1Co 15:32 If after the manner of men I have fought with beasts at Ephesus, what advantageth it me, if the dead rise not? let us eat and drink; for to morrow we die.

Paul in this passage is communicating a very important fact. He is saying that even if God is real and even if Jesus is divine, that if this life is all that there is then there is no reason not to do whatever we want. He says: “Let us eat and drink; for to morrow we die”. The scene he paints is one of party, gluttony, and carelessness.

The logic is sound. Pretend there was a God and he sent his son to die on the cross for us. Also pretend we were temporal creatures, we ceased to exist after we die. Should we live for Christ, although it only causes us misery and hardship? Christ did not have an earthly kingdom, and the earliest Christians endured social ostracization, persecutions, and hardships with very little earthly rewards to show. God never did come to earth, give them riches and prosperity, and punish their oppressors. Instead they endured 300 years of hardship before being accepted by the state. Why should those who have died undertaken such misery if they were gone for good?

Annihilation means freedom from judgment, freedom from God, moral law, and earthly authority. The Romans might kill a criminal, but the criminal might enjoy himself until they do. After he is dead, there is very little they can do to him. The killers at Columbine thought this, and took preemptive measures to end their own lives to escape bureaucratic judgment. Paul’s argument is sound.

It is telling that Paul understands this simple concept, and yet he is persecuted as a Christian. He even verbally explores a counterfactual if he is wrong about the resurrection; he understands, in that case, that his persecution, troubles, imprisonments, and other multitude of hardships are all in vain. Yet he endures these to the end.

What this tells the reader is that Paul was sane. He understood actions and consequences, and he understands if death is the ultimate end, then we should live today to the fullest pleasure with total freedom. It also tells the reader that Paul was sincere; he believed what he taught and taught what he believed. If he was a charlatan, he was creating a lot of strife and hardship for himself with no return.

What this also gives the reader, is an argument against modern atheists. Where does their system of ethics come from and why should we follow it if death is the ultimate end? Logically consistent atheists might only exist in the form of the Jeffery Dahmers and Columbine killers of the world. After all, if death is the end, why not do whatever we want at any time?

Posted in Morality, Theology | 3 Comments

ehrman on the incident at antioch

Posted on June 4, 2013 by christopher fisher

Ehrman gives an excellent summary of the Incident at Antioch in his Peter, Paul, and Mary Magdalene (p 21):

According to Paul’s account in the book of Galatians, Peter came to visit Antioch and followed suit, meeting with both Jews and Gentiles (Gal. 2:11–12). Now, for strict (non-Christian) Jews, this kind of meeting practice could pose serious problems, since eating a meal with Gentiles would entail not keeping kosher. At first, Peter, like Paul, evidently did not see this as a problem. After all, what mattered for salvation was not kosher food but the death of the messiah.

But then other Jewish Christians arrived from Jerusalem. These were close associates of James, the brother of Jesus, who was evidently the ultimate authority in the Jerusalem church at this time. These visitors did not subscribe to Paul’s view of Gentiles, maintaining instead that it was important for them to keep the Jewish law if they were to be followers of the Jewish messiah… [Peter] decided that it was best not to alienate the visitors from Jerusalem. And so he stopped holding fellowship with the Gentile Christians and ate meals only with the Jewish Christians, thereby keeping kosher.

In fairness to Peter, this may have been simply an attempt to avoid offending someone with sensibilities different from his own. But Paul did not see it that way, and once again—Peter may have been used to it by this time—he issued a severe and public rebuke: “And when I saw they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, ‘If you, a Jew, live like a Gentile even though you are Jewish [i.e., if you normally don’t keep kosher], how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews [i.e., how can you now insist that Gentiles do keep kosher]?” (Gal. 2:14). Paul’s logic was that when Peter withdrew from eating with Gentiles, he was showing that deep down he thought that keeping the Jewish law mattered for a right standing before God. But if that’s what he thought, then he was previously behaving hypocritically. So he was a hypocrite either earlier or now—either way, it was fickle and it wasn’t good… Peter, once more acting rashly without thinking out the consequences, changed his mind, repented of his behavior, and was rebuked for it.

Posted in Church History, Dispensationalism, Ehrman, History, People, Theology | 2 Comments

value is subjective – rap video

Posted on June 2, 2013 by christopher fisher

Below is a good primer on “value being subjective”:

Posted in Econ 101, Economics, videos | Leave a comment