Second Coming of Jesus Christ

First, no man knows the date and time of the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. Also, the rapture is not the Second Coming. In fact, the raptured saints will return with Jesus Christ at the Second Coming. Jesus came the first time to seek that which was lost and to save the sinner from eternal damnation, He will come the second time to rule and reign, to judge and condemn those who have rejected Him and persecuted the saints.

After the Marriage Supper of the Lamb, when Christ first appears at the Second Coming He returns riding a white horse and is leading an army of saints, who are riding on white horses where white linen, to wage battle against the beast, the false prophet, the kings of the earth and their armies. His eyes are as fire and His has many crowns, He has a name written that no man knows. Christ gathers together the foul of the air to consume the flesh of the men that are about to be killed (Rev 19:11-21). Christ will land on the Mount of Olives and split it with half going to the north and half to the south (Zech 14:4). With the Word of God the armies are slain. Christ will come as a fast lightning goes from the east to the west, the sun shall be darkened and the moon will no longer reflect its light, stars will fall from heaven and the powers of the heaven shall be shaken. (Math 24:29-31). Christ will be KING OF KINGS and LORD OF LORDS and rule from Jerusalem with a rod of iron. The saints will rule with him (Jude 14,15).



Sources Consulted

Blackburn, Marvin and Timothy D. Blackburn. History of the Future. Eugene, Oregon: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2001.

Greene, Oliver B. Bible Truth. Greenville, South Carolina: The Gospel Hour, Inc., 1968.

Poythress, Vern S. The Returning King: A Guide to the Book of Revelation. Phillipsburg, New Jersey: P&R Publishing, 2000.

Worship in Revelation Chapter 5

Worship is described as falling down (5:8), singing unto (5:9) and praising the Lord (5:13). While these specific actions are mentioned, they are not as fully and completely described as they could be. Rather, we see the focus of details as they relate to Christ. But, the mention of how they worshipped does show that man must play a part. From this reading, the object worshipped is what is important not the person doing the worshiping. The object of worship is the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. The object of worship must be worthy of such. Christ saved us by His blood. The qualifications for Christ to receive worship are listed below.

A. The one who prevailed
B. Has seven horns and seven eyes (which are the seven spirits of God)
C. He took the book out of the right hand of the Father
D. A new song sung to him that declared:

1. Worthy to take the book
2. Open the seals
3. Was slaine
4. Redeemed all (every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation) of fallen man to God by His blood
5. Made those redeemed to be kings and priests
6. Gave those who are redeemed the privilege to reign on earth.

E. The Lamb was slain to receive:

1. Power
2. Riches
3. Wisdom
4. Strength
5. Honour
6 .Glory
7. Blessing

While man compared to God is nothing but dust and vanity the worship by man of God is what God desires. God is honest and fair. He does not give man glory for what he cannot do (such as open the book) but He does acknowledge man for what He can do. In this case, fall down, sing a song and praise Him. There is subtle importance here. God loves his creation and wants His creation to be with Him and interact with Him. God loves the elders gives them a proper note of the role they play in heaven. While the glory and worship belong to God, He loves to lift up those who willfully submit to Him (James 4:10).

Forgetting the Children

In the the book of Joshua, we see the people following their God-called leader, Joshua. When Joshua dies, at the age of 110 years, there is no person to follow him as he had followed Moses. The absence of qualified leadership results in chaos for the subsequent generations thereby they live in a continuous cycle of slavery and deliverance. When the future generations are not properly trained and prepared by the current generation, there will be a lack of qualified, effective leadership and the people will descend from victory to defeat.

This lack of faith on the part of the new generation is largely the fault and responsibility of the past generations. Many times the greatest generation in terms of their accomplishment results in the following generation being the worst. When people focus on their own personal success they tend to neglect the time it takes to ensure the success of their children. When the children are taught the faith of the past generations great people of God usually arise (II Timothy 3:15).

Another interesting Old Testament example occurs in first chapter of Ruth. A man named Elimelech moved his family from Judah to Moab. He leaves the land of his fathers, the land given to him and his people by God, to pursue worldly success and prosperity. While in Moab he dies and his sons marry Moabite women as opposed to women from Judah who would have the same cultural blessing and lineage as well as be Jewish. Had Elimelech stayed in Judah and trained his sons in the faith of Abraham, Issac and Jacob then they would have married Jewish women and lived the proper life of a Jew. Ultimately, God has great plans for one of the Moabite women, Ruth, but this does not excuse Elimelech from his duty to properly train his children.

The great judge, Gideon, was greatly used of God and delivered Israel from the Midianites and established a period of peace for forty years. Gideon then multiplied wives to himself and had seventy sons. One of those sons, Abimelech would cause great bloodshed and destruction after his father had passed. While Gideon knew the Lord, his children did not. Moreover, after his death the Israelites went a whoring after other God, departing from the faith exhibited by Gideon. This appears to be the result of a lack rearing the part of Gideon and his generation.

Self-Existence of God

What is in common in the 4 verses of scripture: Exodus 3:6a, 13-15?

Three of the verses have a phrase similar to “God of your fathers.” Two of the verses declare God to be the God of the Patriarchs: Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Verse 14 has the famous “I AM THAT I AM.”

Among other interesting qualities, these verses reveal the aseity or self-existence of God. Floyd H. Barackman in his book Practical Christian Theology, explains that the statement “I AM” from verse 14 reveals that God is timeless. He describes God’s existence as “one indivisible present.” There is no concept of time as we know it within the Trinity itself. Therefore if there is no “succession of events” inside the Trinity then God must have always existed as there could have been no event that created Him. This is interesting to consider when one thinks of the Father eternally begetting the Son and the Father and Son eternally spirating the Holy Spirit. If the begetting or spirating process (if one would even call this a process) ever ceased then the timeless nature of the Trinity would be changed and the aseity of God could be questioned.

The phrase “God of your fathers” implies that no matter the human father (going all the way back to Adam) God is the God of that father. Which means God must have existed before the creation of man. Because if a man could have created God it would be safe to say that man would make himself the ruler of God as is shown by the many religious priesthoods that have existed throughout history. Therefore, if God existed before the creation of man who was there to create God? If something did create God that something has never revealed himself and God has never told us about him. In fact, God is rather insistent that there are no other Gods besides him (Isaiah 44:6). If nothing created God then it must be assumed that God exists in and of Himself.

Sources

Barackman, Floyd H. Practical Christian Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 2001.

Ryrie, Charles C. Basic Theology. Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1999.

Birthright

Using the King James Version of the Bible there are nine occurrences of the word “birthright.” Reading Genesis 25:1 and I Chronicles 5:1 we see that birthright can be transferred from one son to another son. It the first case it was sold and in the second it was lost due to sinful transgression. From I Chronicles 5:2, it is clear that birthright is not necessarily the same as the lineage of the chief ruler, Jesus Christ. Genesis 27:36 shows that the birthright was not the blessing either. Therefore the birthright was something different than a blessing or a line to Jesus Christ. Esau shows us that one can despise their birthright. Genesis 43:33 reveals that the birthright gives a man his proper place in the family.

Webster’s 1828 dictionary defines birthright as: any right or privilege, to which a person is entitled by birth, such as an estate descendible by law to an heir, or civil liberty under a free constitution.

From this definition, it is clear that birthright primarily has to do with the transfer of property or a civil liberty.

Birthright is extremely important when considering the claims of Israel to present day Palestine as opposed to the claims of Ishmaels’ descendants. If the birthright had gone to Ishmael then Israel would have no valid claim to the land. Oddly and interestingly, Islam claims its birthright back to Abraham through Ishmael. The inheritance of Palestine is largely a question of proper birthright.

The person who receives the birthright would also become the leader, especially the spiritual leader of the family. The profane, fornicating Esau held no value in his birthright as he sold it for a single meal. In Old Testament times it was a custom to trade birthright for something extremely valuable (Demaray, 98), one meal would hardly qualify. This trade showed how little Esau regarded his birthright. As Pastor James Knox puts it “Never was any food, save the forbidden fruit in Eden, purchased at so high a price.” (Knox, 222)

Halley’s Bible Handbook claims that while the birthright was sold by Esau to Jacob, Issac had to validate it with the blessing. From this perspective, the blessing and birthright are in fact tied together. The birthright gives the inheritance, the blessing validates it. In my reading on the birthright in the verses I found I did not find anything that mentioned this validating of the birthright but if one looks at the examples set forth in those verses there is no case where the birthright and blessing were given separately even though Esau indicated in Genesis 27:36 that he does make a distinction between the two. Although this is the same Esau who sold the birthright for a meal, so perhaps his division of birthright and blessing should not carry much weight. If the blessing confirms the birthright; this could show the inheritance we receive with Christ and how His blood validates that inheritance (1 Peter 1:3-5). In this case the birthright is very important. Just as the birthright of the Jesus Christ gives us eternal life, the birthright of the Patriarchs in Genesis prepares the path for a nation of people who would be separated unto God and bring forth the Saviour.

James Knox claims that the birthright gave a person a place in the lineage of Jesus Christ, this is shown to be incorrect according to I Chronicles 5:2.

Sources:

Demaray C. E. Ph.D., Donald S. Metz, D.R.E., and Maude A. Stuneck, Ph.D. Exploring the Old Testament. Ed. W. T. Purkiser, Ph.D. Kansas City, Missouri: Beacon Hill Press, 1959.

Knox, James W. The Christ-Honoring Commentary Series: The Book of Genesis. Deland, Florida: Bible Baptist Church of Deland, 2004.

Halley, Henry H. Hally’s Bible Handbook. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1965.

Process of Canonization

From the Greek word kanon we get the term “canon” which literally means a “measuring instrument.” (Ryrie 119). This particular measuring instrument, the Holy Bible, measures out a man and finds him wanting. (Daniel 5:27) The Bible was written over 1500 years by 40 different authors. By the year 300 B.C. all of the Old Testament books were written. Many believe that Ezra and the Great Synagogue (first recognition council) recognized which books were Scripture and divided the Old Testament books into three divisions: the Law, the Prophets, and the Kethubhim. (Thiessen 60) Interestingly, Jesus Christ made this same division in Luke 24:44. At the Council of Jamnia, in A.D. 90, remaining disputes concerning the canonicity of Ecclesiastes and Song of Solomon were finally resolved with them being included in the Old Testament canon (although it is reported that some discussion continued for another century). (Theissen 59) The New Testament books were written by the year A.D. 100 and the canon was officially declared for the western church at the Third Council of Carthage in A.D. 397. (Thiessen 60) By the year A.D. 500, the eastern church had agreed that the 66 books recognized earlier by the western church were authoritative Scripture. (Theissen 61)

This canonization process did not make the books authoritative; rather, these books were authoritative when they were written. The church merely recognized them as the Word of God. (Ryrie 119). Therefore, by the end of the fourth century, the canon was closed until the Council of Trent in A.D. 1546. At this Roman Catholic Council 11 more books or parts of books were added to the Old Testament. Among other reasons for the inclusion was the fact that these books were included in the Greek Old Testament, the Septuagint, and these books supported heretical Roman Catholic doctrines such as purgatory (II Maccabees). (Geisler 514) Often Martin Luther is thought to have challenged the canonicity of the General Epistle of James as he referred to it as a “straw epistle”. (Ryrie 124) His comments were based upon the doctrine taught in James, never did he intend to question its authority as Scripture. (Ryrie 124) Even today there are cults and religious groups who seek to add to the Word of God new books such as the Mormons (the Pearl of Great Price and the Book of Mormon). As one can see many have tried to continue the process of canonization even though it ended over 1600 years ago.

Sources

Geisler, Dr. Norman. Systematic Theology. Vol. 1 Minneapolis, Minnesota: Bethany House, 2002.

Ryrie, Charles C. Basic Theology. Chicago, Illinois: Moody Press, 1999.

Thiessen, Henry Clarence. Lectures in Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdsman Publishing Company, 1979.

Three Ways that Jesus Christ is Pictured in the Book of Genesis

Animals that were slain to make clothing for Adam & Eve

Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.

Genesis 3:21

The animals were sacrificed for a sin they did not commit to pay the penalty for a sin that someone else committed. Dr. Willmington in the course textbook refers to Isaiah 53:5-6 to show how Jesus Christ will (did) suffer for the sins of world so that the world could be saved. Dr. Willmington observes that this establishes the doctrine of the innocent dying for the guilty and as such I think it is an excellent albeit sad picture of what Jesus Christ did and had to do (if we were to be saved) for us.

Melchizedek, King of Salem

James W. Knox in his commentary on the book of Genesis does not consider Melchizedek to be a Christophany. This is important because if Melchizedek is a Christophany then he is not a picture of Christ but rather Christ Himself. As a picture of Jesus Christ, Knox does outline four similarities between the Lord Jesus Christ and Melchizedek, King of Salem. Knox states that they share a “strange and miraculous ancestry.” Christ Himself was born to a human mother who was impregnated by the Holy Spirit while the record of Melchizedek reveals no father or mother, he is presented without genealogy (Hebrews 7:3). Secondly, Melchizedek is called the “king of peace” (Hebrews 7:2) and Jesus Christ is called the “prince of peace” (Isaiah 9:6). Next, Melchizedek is a High Priest (Genesis 14:18) and Jesus Christ is a High Priest (Hebrews 10:21). Finally, Knox points out that both received blessing from God and men.

Arthur W. Pink agrees with James W. Know in his work titled An Exposition on Hebrews concerning whether the Melchizedek in Genesis is a Christophany. Pink shows from Hebrews 7:17 that Jesus Christ is after the order of Melchizedek not the actual Melchizedek. Therefore, Melchizedek could not have been a Christophany. The Melchizedek order was before the law while the Aaronic priesthood was under the law. In essence, Melchizedek foreshadows the priesthood of the Son of God who will fulfill the law and save His people from their sin which was revealed to the people by the law (Romans 3:20).

Abraham

James W. Knox in his commentary on the book of Genesis also considers Abraham to be a type of Christ. He cites six points (the points below were copied from Knox’s book):

• Abraham conquered the nations, as will Christ - Genesis 14:15.
• Delivered his kinsmen, as will Christ – Genesis 14:16.
• Established peace, as will Christ – Genesis 14:18.
• Brought the kings of the surviving nations before him to determine what they may keep, as will Christ (Matthew 25) – Genesis 14:17,21.
• Given his servants gifts taken from the nations, as will Christ – Genesis 14:23-24.
• Eaten kingdom food with the priest, as will Christ with His priests (Mark 14:25, Revelation 1:5) – Genesis 14:18.

Also, Abraham could be a picture of the Father. Abraham is the father of a nation just as the Father is a father of all those who believe in His Son. Abraham was prepared to sacrifice his only son, Isaac, just as the Father DID sacrifice His only begotten Son, Jesus Christ.

Outside Sources

Knox, James W. The Book of Genesis. Deland, FL: The Bible Baptist Church, 2004.

Pink, Arthur W. An Exposition on Hebrews. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 2006.
Wilmington, Dr. Harold. Great Truths from God's Word: Old Testament Survey. Fidlar/Doubleday, 2003.