"The Gospel" in Mark 1:15

Dispensationalists teach that "the gospel" in Mark 1:15 is a different gospel than "the gospel" in Mark 16:15. They say "the gospel" in Mark 16:15 refers to "the gospel" found in John 3:14-15, but that "the gospel" in Mark 1:15 is another gospel.

But when you harmonize Mark and John's accounts of Jesus' life, it appears that Jesus said John 3:14-15...

And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

BEFORE He said Mark 1:15...

The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.

John 3:14-15 records something Jesus said before John was put in prison while Mark 1:15 records something Jesus said after John was put in prison. So it would seem that "the gospel" in Mark 1:15 is the one and only gospel, "that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures".

John 3:14-24
And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. ... After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized. And John also was baptizing in Aenon near to Salim, because there was much water there: and they came, and were baptized. For John was not yet cast into prison.

Mark 1:14-15
Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.

...

Add a Bite to our Barking!

I sent the following email to the host of the "Christian Worldview Today" talk radio show, but got no response. Perhaps this message was meant for YOU instead!

Tony,

Perhaps the reason that the Washington officials are not heeding our barking about the government takeover of healthcare is because they know that we do not have a bite.

Socialism is being forced on America, but it did not start with our soon-to-be nationalized healthcare. In fact, our healthcare system is not as socialized as it could be.

We are currently forced to buy healthcare, but we do not yet have single-payer healthcare (where the government pays for all the healthcare), and we do not yet have a single-owner healthcare system (where the government owns all the hospitals). And the hospitals do not indoctrinate us.

If we are really opposed to our slide into socialism, rather than pouring some tea into a few rivers over our concern about socialized healthcare, we should stop using the socialized public school system!

Like the healthcare system, we are required to send our children to the public school system (so most people seem to think), which already has a single-payer, and already has a single-owner, and already is an indoctrination chamber.

For the healthcare system to be as socialist as the public school system, all the hospitals would have to be owned by the government with the services paid by our taxes, and when you went in to a doctor's office they would indoctrinate you about the values of homosexuality, abortion, etc. So as you can see, our healthcare system is not near as socialized as our public school system.

So, if we are truly against socialism, our first action should be to stop using the public school system. After we have done that, we can throw some tea in the river and it may mean something.

I am amazed that with all the barking on your show about socialism, I have yet to hear anyone mention the public school system and just how socialized that institution is.

I am challenging you to be the first. Just as that one man seems to have started all the tea parties with his rant about government payouts, you could be the one to start the movement to TAKE OUR CHILDREN OUT OF SOCIALIST PUBLIC SCHOOLS IN THE FALL!

You could be the spark!

God bless you.

...

Did Jesus Have An Origin?

We have been debating with some Jehovah's Witnesses about the nature of Jesus. We believe the Bible teaches that Jesus had no beginning (that He has always existed), whereas the Jehovah's Witnesses believe that Jesus had a beginning (an origin).

The Jehovah's Witnesses official website says... Jesus’ life course might be divided into three stages. The first began long before his human birth. His origin was "from early times, from the days of time indefinite," says Micah 5:2.

The Jehovah's Witnesses Translation says... And you, O Beth´le·hem Eph´ra·thah, the one too little to get to be among the thousands of Judah, from you there will come out to me the one who is to become ruler in Israel, whose origin is from early times, from the days of time indefinite.

If that is what Micah 5:2 actually said, maybe Jesus did have an origin. But that has not been the standard English interpretation of that verse in the past.

The King James Version says... But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, [though] thou be little among the thousands of Judah, [yet] out of thee shall he come forth unto me [that is] to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth [have been] from of old, from everlasting.

The King James Version makes it clear that Jesus had no beginning, no origin, and that He is everlasting. Jesus has always been "going forth".

But I am troubled by some of the newer translations. For example, the English Standard Version seems to side with the Jehovah's Witnesses Translation on this verse.

The English Standard Version says... But you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah, who are too little to be among the clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler in Israel, whose origin is from of old, from ancient days.

Are you disturbed by the English Standard Version rendering of Micah 5:2?

What motive did the translators of the English Standard Version have to render Micah 5:2 that way?

...

"Pivotal Passage" Ezekiel 17:22

When you are given a list of turns and distances to a particular destination, getting the first turn right is the most critical. If you make a wrong last turn, you may only end up on the wrong street. Whereas if you make a wrong first turn, you could end up in another state. The same is true with various Bible passages. If you get some passages wrong, you will have only slightly different views. But if you get the “pivotal passages” wrong, you will end up with a completely different “big picture” in many cases.

Ezekiel 17:22 is one of the "pivotal passages" in the Bible because what you believe the phrase "his young twigs" in that verse is referring to will greatly affect what you believe about the historical and prophetical portions of the Bible.

Ezekiel chapter 17 records a riddle of the Lord. We are given the interpretation of the first part of the riddle, but we are not given the interpretation of the last part of the riddle.

Ezekiel 17:3-4 Thus saith the Lord GOD; A great eagle with great wings, longwinged, full of feathers, which had divers colours, came unto Lebanon, and took the highest branch of the cedar: He cropped off the top of his young twigs, and carried it into a land of traffick; he set it in a city of merchants.

Ezekiel 17:12 Know ye not what these things mean? tell them, Behold, the king of Babylon is come to Jerusalem, and hath taken the king thereof, and the princes thereof, and led them with him to Babylon;

We are told that "the highest branch" is referring to "the king" (King Zedekiah) and that "his young twigs" is referring to "the princes" (the children of King Zedekiah).

So now we come to the "pivotal passage", verse 22. The Lord gives us more of the riddle without giving us the interpretation.

Ezekiel 17:22 Thus saith the Lord GOD; I will also take of the highest branch of the high cedar, and will set it; I will crop off from the top of his young twigs a tender one, and will plant it upon an high mountain and eminent:

According to the natural reading of this passage, "the highest branch" in verse 22 must be referring to King Zedekiah and "his young twigs" must be referring to his children. Keep this in mind when you are searching for a commentary to tell you what this passage means.

...

"Pivotal Passage" Daniel 8 & 9

When you are given a list of turns and distances to a particular destination, getting the first turn right is the most critical. If you make a wrong last turn, you may only end up on the wrong street. Whereas if you make a wrong first turn, you could end up in another state. The same is true with various Bible passages. If you get some passages wrong, you will have only slightly different views. But if you get the “pivotal passages” wrong, you will end up with a completely different “big picture” in many cases.

Daniel 8 & 9 is one of the "pivotal passages" in the Bible because what you believe the phrase "the vision" in Daniel 9:23 is referring to will greatly affect what you believe about the historical and prophetical portions of the Bible.

In order to understand a passage in the Bible we have to accomplish two things…

(#1) We must be able to understand what the Bible passage says, and the translators have helped by creating versions in our native tongue.

(#2) We must be able to understand what the Bible passage means, and this is where commentaries can come in handy.

We often expect the clergy to be better at knowing what a passage means (#2 above) because they have had extensive training. This may be the case. But we all have a good chance at knowing what it says (#1 above). It is our job to make sure that what we are told the passage means matches up with what it says. If a commentator (no matter how eloquent or famous) tells you a passage means something that does not align with what it says, I would suggest seeking another answer.

So I ask you, when you read Daniel chapters 8 & 9 in one reading, do you agree that the plain meaning implies that the prophecy recorded in Daniel 9:24-27 is somehow connected to the vision recorded in Daniel 8?

I believe that “the vision” in Daniel 9:23 and “the vision” in Daniel 9:21 both refer to the vision of Daniel 8, since that agrees with the natural reading of the text and because Daniel 9:24-27 (the only other thing "the vision" in Daniel 9:23 could possibly be referring to) records a prophecy and not a vision.

(Daniel 9:21-23) Yea, whiles I was speaking in prayer, even the man Gabriel, whom I had seen in the vision at the beginning, being caused to fly swiftly, touched me about the time of the evening oblation. And he informed me, and talked with me, and said, O Daniel, I am now come forth to give thee skill and understanding. At the beginning of thy supplications the commandment came forth, and I am come to shew thee; for thou art greatly beloved: therefore understand the matter, and consider the vision.

Daniel was greatly distressed by the vision of Daniel 8 and did not understand it. I believe Daniel 9:21-23 says that Gabriel is coming to help Daniel understand the vision of Daniel 8 by giving him a prophecy. Somehow, the prophecy of Daniel 9:24-27 must help explain the vision of Daniel 8.

Now, when you read commentaries that attempt to explain what Daniel 8 & 9 means, make sure it matches up with what the passage says (that the prophecy of Daniel 9:24-27 helps to explain the vision of Daniel 8).

...

Correlate Daniel 8 & 9

Part of the process of determining what a passage says is to correlate the various Bible passages that deal with the same subject. We need to determine which verse in one passage correlates with which verse in another passage. I have correlated the vision of Daniel 8 and the prophecy of Daniel 9 below. Notice that the ending of the prophecy of Daniel 9 correlates with the ending of the vision of Daniel 8...

Daniel 8 Complete Vision

Interpretation of Vision

8:3: Then I lifted up mine eyes, and saw, and, behold, there stood before the river a ram which had two horns: and the two horns were high; but one was higher than the other, and the higher came up last.

8:20: The ram which thou sawest having two horns are the kings of Media and Persia.

8:5: And as I was considering, behold, an he goat came from the west on the face of the whole earth, and touched not the ground: and the goat had a notable horn between his eyes.

8:21: And the rough goat is the king of Grecia: and the great horn that is between his eyes is the first king.

8:8: Therefore the he goat waxed very great: and when he was strong, the great horn was broken; and for it came up four notable ones toward the four winds of heaven.

8:22: Now that being broken, whereas four stood up for it, four kingdoms shall stand up out of the nation, but not in his power.

8:9: And out of one of them came forth a little horn, which waxed exceeding great, toward the south, and toward the east, and toward the pleasant land.

8:23: And in the latter time of their kingdom, when the transgressors are come to the full, a king of fierce countenance, and understanding dark sentences, shall stand up.

8:11: Yea, he magnified himself even to the prince of the host, and by him the daily sacrifice was taken away, and the place of his sanctuary was cast down.

8:24: And his power shall be mighty, but not by his own power: and he shall destroy wonderfully, and shall prosper, and practise, and shall destroy the mighty and the holy people.

8:12: And an host was given him against the daily sacrifice by reason of transgression, and it cast down the truth to the ground; and it practised, and prospered.

8:25: And through his policy also he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand; and he shall magnify himself in his heart, and by peace shall destroy many: he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes; but he shall be broken without hand.

Daniel 8 Vision Ending

Daniel 9 Prophecy Ending

8:11: Yea, he magnified himself even to the prince of the host...

9:25: Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.

8:11: ...and the place of his sanctuary was cast down.

9:26: And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.

8:11: ...and by him the daily sacrifice was taken away...

9:27: And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease...

8:12: And an host was given him against the daily sacrifice by reason of transgression, and it cast down the truth to the ground; and it practised, and prospered.

9:27: ...and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

...

Am I a Calvinist?

Am I a Calvinist, you ask. This is a common question among Christians. My first reaction to this question is that I become very uneasy since it seems very similar to when the Corinthians were saying “I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas.” The truth is that all Christians are “in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption.” We are not “of” anyone else.

Now I know that people are not asking “are you of Calvin” when they ask “are you a Calvinist”, but the plain meaning of such a question seems to mean that you agree with everything that Calvin says. If I knew everything that Calvin believed, I am sure that I would disagree with some of his teachings. So no, I am not a Calvinist if that means that I agree with everything Calvin said.

In actuality, I think what people are asking when they ask “are you a Calvinist” is “do you believe the TULIP”, the acronym for Total depravity, Unconditional election, Limited atonement, Irresistible grace, and Perseverance of the saints. They are not asking, I think, if you agree with everything Calvin taught. But in that case, it would seem more proper to be called a TULIPist and not a Calvinist.

Am I a TULIPist, you ask. The plain meaning of such a question seems to mean that you are asking if I believe that the TULIP gives the best description of the way things are. Although the TULIP is fairly eloquent in describing the way things are, I believe there is a much better explanation. I guess I must call it the FPCJG, the acronym for Foreknow, Predestinate, Called, Justified, and Glorified.

The Bible says “For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.”

That passage in Romans 8 seems to be the clearest and simplest explanation of the ways things are. So I guess I would say I am a FPCJGist!

...