What Does the New Testament Say About the Apocalypse?

Check out today's episode

I have recently finished reading the New Testament and I am collecting my thoughts about what I read in this series of posts. Today I am writing about what the New Testament says about the apocalypse. Other entries in this series:

1. Slavery

My primary concern with this post is when the apocalypse will happen. Ideally, I would be able to post a complete list of new testament verses that reference the end times, however, the specific purposes of my bible reading evolved a bit over the year and this is not something I had my eye on at the beginning. It is entirely possible that there are more verses that I have missed, especially early on. However, I have plenty of material here, so there is little harm.

The first verse that I have which mentions the return of Jesus is 1 Thessalonians 4:15-16 will happen before those in the crowd die. Unless someone in that crowd has a life span of at least 2000 years, I think this verse is pretty well busted. At the time of reading 1 Thessalonians, I hadn't started consulting the Christian commentaries yet. I was curious how this particular problem would be solved and looked up Guzik's article. He focuses on the fact that those who happen to be alive will not get favoritism over those who died before the event. To address the fact that the apocalypse would occur before they died, he said that Paul was setting up expectancy in the church, it is supposedly good for churches of all ages to expect an imminent return of Jesus. So Paul wasn't wrong, he was just lying to the future church? Seems to be a pretty poor defense to me. This mentality will be reflected in the next point.

There are a huge number of verses that simply mention that the apocalypse is coming very soon. 2 Timothy 1:12,18, James 5:3,8, 1 Peter 4:7, 1 John 2:18, Jude 18-19, Revelation 1:1,3, Revelation 3:2,3, Revelation 3:10-11, Revelation 22:6,7,10,12,20. What exactly does very soon mean? It never gives a specific amount of time, so arguments could be made for all kinds of different time frames, even years, but millennia? I find it hard to accept that a perfect God would be that sloppy with his communication. Not surprisingly, the theists have an answer for this, and also not surprisingly, I find the answer unsatisfactory. Guzik advanced the idea a number of times that the Greek word that "very soon" is translated from means quickly, not soon. So what the verses really mean is not that the end is about to happen, but that once it starts to happen it will happen quickly. I addressed this best in Revelation 1 with help from the lexicon, in short, there are some verses where this defense might hold up, but others where the Greek word clearly does mean soon, and not quickly. Furthermore, as we see in Revelation 13, the beast is allowed to rule for three and a half years. I would hardly say that is particularly quick.

Another argument that Guzik puts forward multiple times involves an analogy of the apocalypse as going over a cliff. He says that we are not running toward a cliff's edge, but instead we are running alongside a cliff, and at any moment we could make a left turn and fall off. In this way we are always on the edge, although we might be on that edge for thousands of years. I must say that I find this argument beyond silly. There is a big difference between "you could fall at any moment" which is what Guzik seems to be proposing here, and "you will fall off soon" which is what actually seems to be contained in the bible.

I am mostly interested in the timing of the apocalypse for this post, but while we are talking about it, what are the end times like? The only place where this is really explored is in Revelation, and it is pretty hard to know exactly how much of that is supposed to be taken literally. But the clear point of the story is that anyone who is not on God's side (including those who were tricked into following Satan) will suffer a very violent and painful end followed by an eternity in a lake of fire. This message is very hard to square with a loving God.

Revelation 22: The End

Check out today's podcast episode

The River of Life (v. 1-5)

The river of life will flow through the streets and the tree of life will grow on either side with 12 kinds of fruit that grow every month. The leaves of the tree will be for the healing of the nations. There will be no night, the light of God will be your light instead of lamps or the sun.

I'm not really sure what the leaves part means, the rest of it sounds pretty good. I'm guessing that getting enough food was a problem back then, so having food year round coming off of these trees would sound like paradise. I'm also not really sure I understand the thing about light.

According to Guzik, the Greek word that is being translated into "healing" can also mean "health-giving" or "therapeutic". I'm still not sure I really understand what that means.

Jesus Is Coming (v. 6-21)

Jesus is coming very soon, it says so 5 times in this short section.

It's hard to imagine that by soon he meant thousands of years. This is nothing new, we've been over this point a bunch of times.

We see the same justification for this, that the Greek word means suddenly not soon. Given the message here and the apparent urgency being used, I think this is a pretty unreasonable reading of the text.

Let the evildoer still do evil, the filthy be filthy, the righteous do right, and the holy be holy.

What do you mean "let the evildoer do evil"? I thought we were in the business of saving souls? In fact, this might be another time that demonstrates how close we are supposed to be to the end, it is so close you shouldn't even bother converting people any more.

There are some who are not allowed to enter the city gates and get to the tree of life: "the dogs and sorcerers, the sexually immoral and murderers and idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices falsehoods."

This is pretty much the same list we saw before. One thing I find interesting, is that these people are even around on our new earth. If they didn't make it to heaven, shouldn't they be burning in the lake of fire? Are they on the new earth but just not in the city? This doesn't seem to match up too well to our picture of the afterlife.

But outside are dogs and sorcerers and sexually immoral and murderers: What about those outside? We shouldn’t think that outside the walls of heaven multitudes will throng, longing to get in. “The verse does not intend to teach that in the eternal state all manner of wicked men will be living just outside the heavenly city. It simply describes the future with the imagery of the present.” (Mounce)

I'm sorry, but this is completely idiotic. It is clearly talking about the city gates of new Jerusalem. 

The words in this book are true, if anyone adds anything to it or takes anything away from it, you will take part in the plagues and be denied the tree of life.

A last ditch effort to tell people not to edit the book, seems like a reasonable request.

Finished!

Picture from run-nyc.com

Well, that marks the end of the new testament. I can't believe I've now read the whole thing. Now I just have to tackle the old testament =D

What lessons are in this chapter?

--Apocalypse--

Revelation 22:6,7,10,12,20 Jesus is coming back soon

"what must soon take place...I am coming soon...the time is near...I am coming soon...Surely I am coming soon"

--Lists--

Revelation 22:15 list of things that will keep you out of new Jerusalem

"Outside are the dogs and sorcerers and the sexually immoral and murderers and idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices falsehood."

Revelation 9: God Loves Torture

Listen to the podcast below (or right click this link for the mp3 file) 

Podcast Powered By Podbean

The Seven Trumpets [cont] (v. 1-21)

The fifth angel blew his trumpet which made a star fall to earth, which was a key to the shaft of the bottomless pit. The angel opened the pit, and smoke rose like that from a great furnace which darkened the air and blocked out the sun. Then locusts with the power of scorpions came out of the smoke. They were told not to harm grass, trees, or other plants, but only people without the seal of God. They were allowed to torment those people for 5 months but not kill them, those people will seek death but will not find it.

So now God has gone beyond killing people and he is torturing them. Why would he spend 5 months making them wish they were dead and not allowing them to die? I suppose this doesn't sound like such a bad thing to people who have rationalized the idea that their good god tortures people for all eternity, but to me this is something that could only be done by a complete monster.

Again, Guzik. The star that fell from heaven was probably an angel, perhaps Satan himself. About the locust "Their purpose and period is expressly governed by God, and the purpose of all this to bring repentance " I'm disgusted here.

A minor point as well, the locusts were told not to harm the grass, but all of the grass burned up last chapter.

The locusts looked like horses preparing for battle, they what looked like crowns of gold on their heads, they had human faces with women's hair, lions teeth, they had breastplates of iron and their wings made the noise of chariots rushing into battle. Their tails had the stings of scorpions.

Why even call them locusts?

"Why would God call them locusts if they are not literal locusts, but demonic spirits who swarm and destroy like locusts? Among other reasons, because locusts are agents of God’s judgment. This is a consistent Old Testament figure in passages like Exodus 10:4-14; Deuteronomy 28:38; 1 Kings 8:37; 2 Chronicles 7:13; Joel 1:4, and Amos 4:9."

The answer to the angel who is king of the bottomless pit, whose name is Abaddon in Hebrew and Apollyon in Greek.

This supposed to be hell right?

The sixth angel blew his trumpet and the "four angels who had been prepared for the hour" were released

Presumably this is the 4 horsemen

They had 200,000,000 troops with which they used to kill a third of mankind. They wore breastplates the color of fire, sapphire and sulfur, the heads of the horses were like lion's heads with fire, smoke and sulfur coming out of their mouths. The tails of the horses were like serpents.

I'm starting to think that John was high even if he had intended this to not be taken literally.

The remaining people did not repent of their works, they did not give up worshiping demons or idols of gold, silver, bronze, stone and wood. They did not repent of their murders, sorceries, sexual immorality, or their thefts.

I guess the message here is that even under these extremes, non-Christians will still not give up their sinful ways or something. Basically this is just more demonizing of outsiders. 

Pretty much what I expected 

In general, mankind shows no repentance, despite the presence of some pretty overwhelming “signs and wonders.”

 I'm not really sure how I would react to seeing this kind of thing. I would never worship a God this terrible, but I would sure as hell pretend to if I thought it would save me.

It is amazing to see how quickly things return to “normal” after some calamity such as an earthquake. We are so quick to forget God’s lessons, even the lessons that come in judgment.

It's amazing to me that he would even compare the events described in Revelation to an earthquake. Natural phenomenon compared to demons set loose to kill a huge portion of the people on the planet.

What did we learn today?

Revelation 9:5-6 God loves Torture

"They were allowed to torment them for five months, but not to kill them, and their torment was like the torment of a scorpion when it stings someone. And in those days people will seek death and will not find it. They will long to die, but death will flee from them."

Revelation 8: All Heaven Breaks Loose

Listen to the podcast below (or right click this link for the mp3 file) 

Podcast Powered By Podbean

The Seventh Seal and the Golden Censer (v. 1-5)

The lamb broke the 7th seal and there was silence in heaven for a half hour.

Seems like this half hour of silence has some significance, but I can only guess at what it is...so I will. Maybe it is that everyone stops everything to watch to see what will happen, like a moment where everyone is fixated on a single thing and the room is silent, except this is such a huge event that moment drags out...for a half hour. Another guess, it is like a moment of silence when someone dies, except it is the whole world, so it stretches out way longer than normal.

I did pretty good on this one, Guzik seems to agree with my guesses. (And again, I'll use him as a source for the Christian commentary today unless otherwise stated)

Then seven angels are given trumpets, and another angel is given a censer. They burn a bunch of incense on a golden altar in front of the throne, and put fire in the censer and throw it down at the earth. It causes thunder, lightning and earthquakes.

It's on!

The Seven Trumpets (v. 6-13)

The first angel blows his trumpet, hail and fire were mixed with blood and thrown upon the earth. A third of the earth and a third of the trees were burned up. All grass was burned up.

Whoa!

The second angel blows his trumpet and something like a great mountain on fire fell into the sea. A third of the sea became blood, a third of the sea creatures died, and a third of the ships were destroyed.

I find the phrase "something like a great mountain" very interesting. It would seem to indicate that John is describing something that he can best identify as a mountain, but he knows is not actually a mountain. It seems to me to indicate to me that he is trying to be as accurate as possible, so if you ever want to argue that when he says X it was really Y, you have to be arguing that he was wrong, and thought it was really X. For example, when he says that a star fell from the sky, you can safely argue that he thought it was a star but it was really an asteroid. When he says he saw a creature with six wings, I would argue he's telling us what he thinks he saw.

The third angel blows his trumpet and a great star (named wormwood) fell from heaven blazing like a torch. It fell on a third of the rivers and on the springs of water. A third of the water became wormwood and people died from the water because it was bitter.

Isn't wormwood what absinthe is made of? That stuff makes you hallucinate. Maybe that explains this whole thing.

The fourth angel blows his trumpet and a third of the sun, moon, and stars were struck so that a third of their light would be darkened. So a third of the day and a third of the night would be kept from shining.

How the hell do you darken a third of the sun?

Then John looked overhead and saw an eagle crying woe to people on the earth.

Wait, so eagles can talk? Also, they can fly above heaven?

What did we learn today?

I usually use this space to isolate verses which I will put in the overview, but today I pretty much just want to reference the entire reading. God is a violent monster. He's raining destruction down on people on such a massive scale it is hard to imagine. How anyone can call him a loving God is beyond me. I suppose if people can spin noah's flood to be a good thing they will be able to do the same here, but I just don't see it.

Revelation 3: Jesus is Returning Soon

Listen to the podcast below (or right click this link for the mp3 file) 

Podcast Powered By Podbean

It has come to my attention via the comments of previous posts that many things that come up in Revelation are generally thought to be figurative, while I have been taking them literally. I'm not totally sure what to think about that as I don't know how I am supposed to evaluate which is which, but I've got it in mind. Perhaps I will try to consider both possibilities, I don't know. We'll see how it goes.

To the Church in Sardis (v. 1-6)

The letter to this church focuses on the seven stars and the seven spirits of God.

The seven stars and the seven spirits? I thought the seven spirits were the seven stars.

You have a reputation of being alive, but you are dead. Wake up and strengthen what remains and is about to die, for I have not found your works complete in the sight of my God.

I usually try to do summaries rather than quoting verses, but I have this here because of the literal/figurative thing. It seems to me that the first sentence here proves we are talking figuratively, because I don't know what it could literally mean when he says the person he's writing to is dead. He must be talking about a spiritual death, I just don't see any other way to read it.

In that case, the message here seems to be that they have fallen away from the faith, and they are being told to shape up.

According to Guzik (who quotes a couple of other people in addition to giving his own thoughts), the church is dead is a reference to the fact that the church was no longer a threat to evil. They are at peace, but it was a peace of the dead. I'm not sure how much I like the idea that the church being at peace is a bad thing, although I guess I can understand their perspective that not pushing others endangers them.

Remember the things you have been taught and repent. If you don't repent, I will come like a thief in the night, you will not know what hour I will come against you.

I think this (and the previous verse which says "what remains and is about to die") is talking about the impending apocalypse. I suppose it could be interpreted to mean the death of an individual, although that doesn't seem right to me. Also, I've heard Christians many times use the "thief in the night" verse when talking about the apocalypse.

There are still a few among you who haven't soiled their garments, they are worthy and walk with me. The one who conquers with also be clothed in white and his name will never be blotted out of the book of life.

So there are a few people remaining who are still right with God, they are walking with Jesus. The one who conquers will also get this honor. I really don't understand the "one who conquers" thing, I'm guessing they are talking about some impending battle that we will read about later, I suppose we should just keep that in mind and move along.

To the Church in Philadelphia (v. 7-13)

This one focuses on Jesus "who has the key of David, who opens and no one will shut, who shuts and no one opens."

Not sure what that means, it doesn't match up with the vision from before

You have kept my word and not denied my name, I will open a door for you that no one may close. Because you have kept patient endurance, I will keep you from the trial that is coming on the whole world.

He seems to like this church quite a bit. He is going to shield them from the apocalypse. I'm curious how the Christian commentaries are going to get out of this. Is this particular church still around? If so you'd think everyone would want to join them.

Jews lie, they are actually a synagogue of Satan.

Yeah, that's not cool.

According the Guzik's commentary, this is not an indictment of Jews at all, but this particular people who are not Jewish but are claiming to be Jews. Reading the verse again "those of the synagogue of Satan who say that they are Jews and are not, but lie", I think the only reasonable conclusion is that my first read on this was crap. This is clearly an indictment of people who are evil, and are pretending to be Jewish but are not actually Jewish.

I guess the danger lies in the determination of who is really Jewish, and who is just claiming to be Jewish but is actually evil. Does this perhaps open the door for people to attack Jews under the claim that they are not real Jews but instead agents of Satan? If someone tried that it would certainly seem to be a stretch. I'm not completely sure how I feel here, any thoughts?

I am coming soon, so hold fast to what you have so that no one may take your crown. To the one who conquers, I will make him a pillar in the temple and write the name of God on him.

There doesn't seem to be anything Jesus doesn't like about this church. This is about the worst thing he says to them, and it is just a warning to not slip up. Also, we have this conqueror again, and the mention of the name of God. This lends credence to this discussion in the comments of the white stone from last time.

For quickly, he used the same argument from before about how it is not coming soon, but once it comes it will happen fast. Again, I would just say read the text and see if this sounds reasonable to you, it just doesn't ring true for me.

To the Church in Laodicea (v. 14-22)

You are neither hot nor cold, but lukewarm, so I will spit you out of my mouth.

This reminds me of a sermon from when I was a child, the preacher said he would rather have people leave the church than stay in it and be on the fence. He would rather have people leave the church than stay in the church and be apathetic. He wanted everyone to be "on fire for God".

Guzik tries to paint the lukewarm message as saying that compromise is bad. That just seems like a really shitty message to put forward. He also says they have been cooled down by their "apathy and self-reliance". Apathy I'm with him on, it can be bad, but since when is self-reliance bad? The only way I can see self-reliance being a negative, is from the perspective of someone who wants you dependent upon them so they can control you.

You are rich, but you are actually poor in spirit.

What did we learn today?

--Apocalypse--

Revelation 3:2,3 The end is near, although you can't be sure exactly when

"strengthen what remains and is about to die...I will come like a thief, and you will not know at what hour I will come against you."

Revelation 3:10-11 Jesus is returning soon

"...I will keep you from the hour of trial that is coming on the whole world, to try those who dwell on the earth. I am coming soon...."

Revelation 1: Jesus Vomits Swords

Listen to the podcast below (or right click this link for the mp3 file) 

Podcast Powered By Podbean

Let's start by looking at the wikipedia page. Looks like it is written by John, although it seems to be a different John from the books by that name. Also, it seems many believe it was written in 95AD, although some place it at 70AD instead. There is actually a ton of information there, but most of it seems to be about the content itself, which we will get to in the reading soon enough. Near the bottom though is a section Criticism which contains a quote from Ingersoll that Revelation is "the insanest of all books." Awesome!

Prologue (v. 1-3)

God sent an angel to John so that his followers would know what is about to take place. Blessed is anyone who reads or hears this prophecy, for the time is near.

First, I'd like to point out that it says the events which are going to be described in this book are right around the corner. It says it twice actually, in v1 it says "must soon take place" and in v3 is says "the time is near". Seems pretty clear to me that it is therefore going to be a failed prophecy. The only way out of it is to redefine what they mean by "soon". I suppose it is up to each individual person to determine whether they think it is reasonable to define soon to be "in about 2000 years.

Guzik has 2 answers for this point. The first is one that we have seen him use many times in the past, that we are not running toward a distant brink, but we are running along side it, always right near the edge. With this logic we can be on the verge of falling for thousands of years without ever falling. Honestly, I think he's pushing his "falling off a cliff" analogy pretty hard here. If that was what was meant by the book, you would think it would say something like "it could happen at any moment" or something. Would you describe his situation (running along side the edge) as "must soon take place" or "the time is near"? I think not.

His other defense here is a quote from someone named Walvoord, he says 

Shortly is the ancient Greek phrase en tachei, which means “'quickly or suddenly coming to pass,' indicating rapidity of execution after the beginning takes place. The idea is not that the event may occur soon, but that when it does, it will be sudden.”

which I decided to check out on the lexicon for this point, when it comes to verse 1, he is potentially right, the Greek is tachei which translates to speed. Perhaps his interpretation here is correct here and we are talking about speed once it starts but not speed in it getting started. But what about verse 3? Here 'near' is from the word engus which means 'near (in place or time)'. Given that the phrase is "the time is near", I don't think there is really a way around this.

Second, if God really is all powerful, why would he only send an angel to John? Why not send one to everybody?

Greeting to the Seven Churches (v. 4-8)

John greets the 7 churches in Asia. He wishes them peace from God and the 7 spirits before his throne.

Is there supposed to be one spirit for each church? I feel like I'm missing something here.

According to Guzik, this is a reference to Isaiah 11 which describes 7 aspects of the holy spirit. I don't know about that, because the text clearly says "seven spirits". I also looked at the commentary of Jamieson, Fausset & Brown for this and didn't find anything very satisfying. They talk about seven's a lot, it has a bit of a numerology feel to it. I still might just be missing something here.

Jesus freed us with his blood, he will come with the clouds and everyone will see and wail on account of him.

I'm guessing 'coming with the clouds' means he will be flying down from the sky. This makes some sense as they believed heaven was up in the clouds. Does the idea that everyone will see him indicate a flat earth? I suppose it would be argued that Jesus could fly around the earth and everyone would see him, they don't necessarily have to all see him at the same time.

Guzik says that "every eye will see" refers to the fact that when Jesus returns everyone will know about it, in contrast to his first coming which was "somewhat obscure", and "never made front-page news in Rome". I don't know about that, didn't Herod kill a bunch of children because of the birth of Jesus? Doesn't sound so obscure to me.

God is the alpha and the omega, "who is, who was, and who is to come"

This is said twice, in verse 4 and 8. I guess it is the way the bible says God is eternal.

Interesting point from Guzik here

The Greek construction of who is, who was and who is to come is intentionally awkward in the Greek. It seems that John searched for a phrase to communicate the Old Testament idea of Yahweh.

 Vision of the Son of Man (v. 9-20)

John tells us that God sent him to the island Patmos, and while he was 'in the spirit' a loud voice like a trumpet told him to write a book and send it to the 7 churches.

Apparently Patmos is a prison island. (Guzik)

I'm not really sure what it means to be 'in the spirit', was he praying?

Again from Guzik's commentary, Walvoord says he was "Carried beyond normal sense into a state where God could reveal supernaturally the contents of this book." Whatever that means.

When he turned to see the voice, he saw 7 golden lampstands. In the middle was Jesus in a long robe with a golden sash around his chest. His hair was white like wool or snow. His eyes were like fire, his feet were bronze, his voice was like the roar of many waters. He held 7 stars in his right hand, from his mouth came a sharp two-edged sword, and his face was like staring into the sun.

Uhh...so he's insane right? Or stoned out of his mind, or something. Seriously, how are we supposed to make sense out of this?

Looking at Guzik once again, the lamp stands are not lamps, they are a vessel to put a lamp where you display light, but they don't produce light themselves. This is an analogy for the church, which is more of a platform for Jesus. He also says that the garments are meant to show that Jesus is of high status. Long robes are worn by people who don't have to work much, and the sash is gold and therefore very valuable. The hair is about old age and wisdom. Eyes are about judgement. The feet are also about judgement, as well as stability and permanence. His voice is powerful. The sword is power and it is coming out of his mouth because it is supposed to be his words. His face is shining because of his glory.

Jesus says he is the first and last, and then says he has the keys of death.

A third time he is saying he is eternal, and that with Jesus you can't die.

Jesus explains that the 7 stars in his hand are the angels of the seven churches, and the 7 lamp stands are the churches themselves.

Okay, so does every church have a corresponding angel then, or are these 7 churches special? Why do the stars and lamp stands go together? What about all of the other crazy images here?


What we learned today:

--Apocalypse--

Revelation 1:1,3 The end is near

"must soon take place", "the time is near"

--Properties of God--

Revelation 1:4,8,17 God is eternal

"who is and who was and who is to come" (twice)

"I am the first and the last"

---

Check out today's comic

Jude: When all else fails, use fear

Listen to the podcast below (or right click this link for the mp3 file) 

Podcast Powered By Podbean

Back to wikipedia, apparently the authenticity of this book was never doubted, but it's canon status was. "The links between the Epistle and 2 Peter, its use of the Apocryphal Books, and its brevity raised concern." The links between Jude and 2 Peter are that they are too similar, and either one was copied from the other, or they both used a common source.

Greeting (v. 1-2)

Jude identifies himself as the writer and he says he is writing to those who believe in Jesus.

Judgment on False Teachers (v. 3-16)

Be careful, some ungodly people have crept in to the church hierarchy to pervert it.

Now this is interesting, it is basically admitting that there are bad people within the church and that you should be wary of that. I know there have been previous messages about false prophets and such, but this explicitly says that are from within the church, which wasn't the message I got before. I'm not sure if it wasn't implied before or if I was just being thick.

Don't forget, Jesus saved a people out of Egypt, but also destroyed those who did not believe. The people of Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities served as an example of those who deserve a punishment of fire.

It was Sodom and gomorrah and surrounding cities? I don't think I've ever heard that before. Also, I'd like to point out that in this version of the story it is Jesus who is doing these things. I guess this is consistent if Jesus=God.

Don't forget about the angels who sinned and are being kept in eternal chains under gloomy darkness until judgment day.

Whoa, I'm guessing stuff like this is why the canon of this book is questioned.

These people, relying on their dreams, defile the flesh, reject authority, and blaspheme the glorious one.

Interesting what is chosen as the horrible thing to do, defile flesh (sex), reject authority and blaspheme. These really don't seem like the worst sins to commit to me.

According to Guzik, the bit about their dreams means that they were dreamers out of touch with reality. It also could mean that they were relying on supposedly prophetic dreams. Seems like a reasonable enough interpretation to me.

v10 "these people blaspheme all that they do not understand, and they are destroyed by all that they, like unreasoning animals, understand instinctively."

This verse really jumped out at me. Does it really make sense for blasphemy to be so horrible if the person doing it doesn't understand what they are doing? It's one thing to understand what God is and blaspheme against him, at least that makes sense for God to get irritated by. But if someone doesn't even understand it and blasphemes, it is basically on accident right? I mean, if a young child or a mentally deficient person commits a crime which they don't understand, we don't punish them in the same way we punish an adult who knows what they are doing. You are being punished for ignorance. Furthermore, you are punished for you animal instincts, which presumably God gave you. Seems pretty damn unfair to me.

Enoch prophesied that Jesus would come with 10,000 holy ones to execute judgment on the ungodly.

Why does God need such a posse?

A Call to Persevere (v. 17-23)

Remember that Jesus said there would be scoffers in the last time. Keep yourselves in the in the love of God.  Wait for the mercy of Jesus that leads to eternal life, and have mercy on those who doubt and save them from the fire. To others "show mercy with fear, hating even the garment stained by the flesh."

Again, it seems that the end times are said to be near, although this one is less solid than many others we have seen in the past. Also, I'm not sure what that last line means, but it sounds like we are supposed to save those we can and fear those we can't. 

According to Guzik  this second group must be saved with fear. They need to be confronted more strongly but with the right approach can be saved. I suppose this is consistent with the reading.

Doxology (v. 24-25)

Jesus is great.

For the overview post (If you think I should add or remove stuff from this list please let me know, I think it would make good conversation)

Good:

Jude 4 Be aware of enemies in your midst

"For certain people have crept in unnoticed who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into sensuality and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ."

Jude 22 Help those who need it

"And have mercy on those who doubt"

Bad:

Jude 8 Sex, disobedience, and blasphemy are the worst sins

"Yet in like manner these people also, relying on their dreams, defile the flesh, reject authority, and blaspheme the glorious ones."

Jude 10 Punished for ignorance and following God given instincts

"But these people blaspheme all that they do not understand, and they are destroyed by all that they, like unreasoning animals, understand instinctively."

Jude 18-19 End times prediction

"They said to you, "In the last time there will be scoffers, following their own ungodly passions." It is these who cause divisions, worldly people, devoid of the Spirit."

Jude 23 Use fear tactics if necessary

"save others by snatching them out of the fire; to others show mercy with fear, hating even the garment stained by the flesh."

1 John 2: Faith without works is a lie

Listen to the podcast below (or right click this link for the mp3 file) 

Podcast Powered By Podbean

Christ Our Advocate (v. 1-6)

I am writing this so that you won't sin, but even if you do Jesus is a great advocate for you if you know him. If you say you know him but do not keep his commandments you are a liar. But if you do know him and keep the commandments then the love of God is working in you.

This actually seems to settle the faith versus works discussion we had before. Some versus seem to say that faith is all that matter, others say that works are important. This one ties them together saying that if you truly have faith then you would do the works, and if someone doesn't do works it is evidence to us that they don't really have faith. This is essentially the argument I have heard come from various religious people, but this is the first time I recall seeing it actually in the bible.

The New Commandment (v. 7-14)

I'm not writing you a new commandment, but and old commandment that you already had from the beginning. Also, I am writing a new commandment. The darkness is passing away and the light is shining.

What? I guess the idea is that it is the same old ideas but a new twist on it?

Guzik says that the sense that is is old is that it has been preached to these people during their whole lives. That seems like a pretty crappy explanation to me. Gill seems to say it has been written on people's hearts all along (even Adam) and therefore isn't new. This makes a little more sense, but I still don't think it's great. Seems like they are just trying to have it both ways.

Do Not Love the World (v. 15-17)

 Do not love the world or the things in the world, because God isn't in that stuff. Do not love the desires of the flesh or take pride in possessions, they will pass away with the world. But whoever loves God will abide forever.

Same old message, bad things come from the world. Again, the problem here is that God created the world, so ultimately God is responsible for the evil things as well. The other thing that is interesting here, is that it says not to love the world or the things in the world. On the surface this would seem to be saying that we should only love God and not love anything in the world, although I suppose we could also love "godly" things in the world, such as the church. At any rate, it seems quite open to interpretation, and I think it is poorly written at best.

Guzik spends quite a bit of time talking about this, but basically it comes down to "the world" being bad things. Specifically, he says "it is the community of sinful humanity that is united in rebellion against God." Is this a reasonable interpretation of "the world"? I suppose if you must carve things up as "things for God" and "things against God" then one might call the things against God "the world", except that plenty of things that are for God are in the world, so it seems somewhat silly to me.


Oh, and one last thing, it is talking about things that are bad, so of course one of two examples given is sexuality "desires of the flesh". 

Warning Concerning Antichrists (v. 18-27)

There are many antichrists, anyone who denies the father and the son is an antichrist. We know it is the last hour because so many antichrists have come.

They seem to be equating antichrist with nonbeliever, or perhaps apostate, but at any rate, they have said that many antichrists have come, and therefore we know the end is near.

The fact that the Christians seem to have no good answer to this is telling. Guzik says that "we should regard ourselves as being in the last few minutes", which is absolutely absurd thousands of years later. Gill at least tries a little harder. He first discusses what is doesn't mean (the last hour of the Jewish state, the last hour of the gospel dispensation, or the last hour of the actual world itself). But if it isn't the last hour of those thing, what is it the last hour of? Clearly it is "the last hour of the apostolic age. All the apostles were now dead, John was the last of them". At least this is an answer, unlike what Guzik had to offer, but seriously? Is the compelling to anyone? I think it is much more likely that they thought the end of the world was near.

If you deny the son, you also deny the father.

This is a direct challenge to Jews if I am reading it correctly. It seems to be saying that not accepting Jesus means you are rejecting God as well.

This last bit I didn't notice until I recorded the podcast, but verse 27 is pretty anti-intellectual.

v27 "...you have no need that anyone should teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about everything, and is true, and is no lie..."

Basically the message here seems to be that you get everything you need from the bible, and you have no need to learn anything from anyone else. I can't help but think of evolution.

Guzik tries to whitewash this by saying that the holy spirit has given us what we need to learn the truth. But he goes on to say "This is not to say that teachers are unnecessary, because one of the resources for knowing the truth is the reminder given by teachers like John." If teachers are still good, then why does the bible say "no need that anyone should teach you" and "his anointing teaches you about everything"?

Children of God (v. 28-29)

You should follow Jesus, so that when he returns you can be confident in your righteousness and not shrink away.

This message sure does seem to lose some punch a few thousand years later.

For the overview post (If you think I should add or remove stuff from this list please let me know, I think it would make good conversation)

Good:

1 John 2:4 If you really have faith you will do works

"Whoever says "I know him" but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him"

Bad:

1 John 2:16 the world is evil, sex is bad

"For all that is in the world--the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride in possessions--is not from the Father but is from the world."

1 John 2:18 It is the last hour

"Children, it is the last hour, and as you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come. Therefore we know that it is the last hour."

1 John 2:23 You can't worship God without Jesus

"No one who denies the Son has the Father. Whoever confesses the Son has the Father also."

1 John 2:27 You don't need teachers, you get everything you need to know from Jesus

"But the anointing that you received from him abides in you, and you have no need that anyone should teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about everything, and is true, and is no lie--just as it has taught you, abide in him."

1 Peter 4

Listen to the podcast below (or right click this link for the mp3 file) 

Podcast Powered By Podbean

Stewards of God's Grace (v. 1-11)

Jesus suffered and so should you, for if you suffer in the flesh you will cease from sin and you will live the rest of your live for the will of God rather than for human passions.

Here we go again, suffering for sufferings sake. Jesus suffered so you should too, what the hell kind of message is that? Futhermore, what does this even mean? From v1 "for whoever has suffered in the flesh has ceased from sin". does suffering in the flesh not mean what it sounds like? Because I'm pretty sure that every suffers in some manner. Some people have chronic pain and suffer all the time, is it impossible for them to sin?

Guzik argues that we are talking about suffering for Jesus' sake. If you suffer persecution for the sake of Jesus, it will change your outlook on sin. He also quotes Grudem who said "Whoever has suffered for doing right, and has still gone on obeying God in spite of the suffering it involved, has made a clear break with sin." I don't see any reason to think this is true. I guess it falls back to the definition of "suffer for Jesus" and we are open to the no true Scotsman fallacy, but I find it hard to believe that suffering for Jesus would keep your from sinning forever.

We are passed the time of doing what the gentiles what to do (living in sensuality, passions, drunkenness, orgies, drinking parties, and lawless idolatry). When you do not join them they will malign you.

So much wrong in so little space. First, he is implying that all outsiders do these things all the time. Second, he's saying that sex and alcohol are inherently bad. Taken to extreme they can cause some problems, but they can be very good things. And why would they malign you for not joining in? Sometimes people can be a bit pushy trying to get everyone in the party to have a good time, but I don't think they'd malign them. I suppose people would argue that times were different back then.

They will be judged by Jesus, who judges the living and the dead. The gospel is preached to even the dead, so that even though they have already been judged in the flesh, they might live in the spirit as God does.

This is interesting, the gospel is preached to the dead as well. They are talking about dead people who were judged, it sounds like they were judged poorly (last verse we were talking about people who died in the great flood) and yet there is the hope that they will live as spirits the way God wants. Where are these spirits? I think it's pretty obvious that the view of the afterlife from these people is much different from what we think of today. Clearly you can't be Godly if you are being tortured in hell, and if you are in heaven you are already being Godly. I'm guessing their image of the afterlife is more like Sheol.

I honestly tried really hard to find an answer to this in the Christian commentaries. Guzik said nothing useful, I looked at Gill's and came across a wall of text. If you scroll down to verse 6, there is just a huge paragraph which seems to go on and on about all of the groups of dead who this verse does not apply to. I could try reading it again to better parse it, but fuck it, this particular chapter of the bible has be doing enough of that already.

The end is near, so before that happens you should continue to love each other and be hospitable to each other. You all have gifts, use them to help one another.

This is generally a message of generosity, which is good, but it is also saying the end is near, which was obviously incorrect.

Guzik says that if you believe that you live in the last days, then it is appropriate that you should give yourself over to prayer. However, he hilariously ignores the fact that 2000 years have passed and the end has not come.

Gill talks about a few different ways to interpret this, from the perspective of a single person, the end is death. It could be various states, or the world, or the universe. He said those could be said to be "at hand" because "because that was the last time, and the last dispensation of things", so I guess he's saying that God has come down directly for the last time so any time after that counts as "at hand", seems very shaky to me. But then Gill gives everything away by saying the following:

whereas they knew not the exact time when it would be, they frequently spoke of it as near, in order to stir up the saints to the more diligent discharge of duty, and fervent exercise of grace

And that is really the whole damn point, isn't it? The religious leaders of the time were talking about the apocalypse to manipulate people, and the same thing happens even today.

Love one another earnestly, as it covers a multitude of sins.

This confuses me somewhat, I like that the message is to love one another, that's good. But reasons are important, and it seems to be saying that you should do it to cover up sins, which love is good at doing apparently. I suppose another interpretation could be that the covering of sins is the rationale for giving the instruction and keeping the idea in our heads, but we shouldn't love each other because it covers sins. I'm not really sure how much I like that explanation, but it is all I can think of, and it is the only way I can reconcile loving earnestly and "because it covers sins".

Guzik's take on this is that love will heal wounds caused by sins. For example, if I have sinned and caused a rift between us, love has the power to heal that rift. I actually like that interpretation.

Show genuine hospitality to one another and use your personal gifts to help one another.

This sounds good.

Suffering as a Christian (v. 12-19)

Rejoice if you share Christ's suffering, but none of your should suffer for doing bad things. "If you are insulted for the name of Christ, you are blessed, because the spirit of glory and God rests upon you"

This is the same old thing, suffering itself is talked about as a good thing. You are blessed if you suffer for Christ. I am fine with putting yourself in danger of suffering for the sake of Christ. And if those people wind up suffering they have done a great thing by risking danger for their morals. But the fact that they actually had to suffer should be seen as a bad thing. Necessary perhaps, but the actual suffering should not be a positive.

For the overview post (If you think I should add or remove stuff from this list please let me know, I think it would make good conversation)

Good:

4:8 Love has the power to repair rifts caused by sin

"Above all, keep loving one another earnestly, since love covers a multitude of sins."

4:9-10 Help each other out

"Show hospitality to one another without grumbling. As each has received a gift, use it to serve one another..."

Bad:

4:1,13 suffering (for Christ?) makes you sin free

"...for whoever has suffered in the flesh has ceased from sin"

"But rejoice insofar as you share Christ's sufferings..."

4:3 Sex is bad, drinking is bad, and all non-Christians do it

"For the time that is past suffices for doing what the Gentiles want to do, living in sensuality, passions, drunkenness, orgies, drinking parties, and lawless idolatry."

4:7 the end is near!

"The end of all things is at hand..."

James 5

Listen to the podcast below (or right click this link for the mp3 file) 

Podcast Powered By Podbean

Warning to the Rich (v. 1-6)

Soon your wealth will rot away and be useless to use, you have chosen to amass your treasure here on earth where it will be useless soon. The rich gain their wealth by fraud and exploitation of their workers. You are responsible for the death of Jesus.

The bible clearly does not like rich people, funny then, that the catholic church has amassed so much wealth. Something I wanted to focus on a bit, I summarized that wealth will soon be worthless, I said this because verse 3 contains "You have laid up treasure in the last days". If you are really pushing for this to make some kind of sense, I imagine you would argue that this is talking about your own personal death, but I think it is pretty clear they are talking about the impending apocalypse.

The other problem here, is that all rich people are lumped into one big pile. They all have ill-gotten gains and apparently they are all responsible for the death of Jesus.

With the Catholic church in mind, the following statement from Guzik made me laugh. "[James] now naturally rebukes those most likely to live independently from God: the rich."

Patience in Suffering (v. 7-12)

Be patient and establish your hearts for the coming of the lord, which is at hand. Do not judge each other or you will be condemned. Be an example of suffering and patience like Job.

I like that patience is extolled here. Other than that, I'm not a fan of this passage. It is mentioned a second time that the apocalypse is right around the corner. It also says that suffering is a virtue, and looks toward Job as a role model. As far as I'm concerned, the story of Job is horrible, God lets the devil torture a guy to prove a point.

Apparently, the apocalypse prediction is not wrong, even though it has clearly failed, as according to Guzik 

"James said that in his day that the coming of the Lord is at hand. Was he wrong? No; we should not think as history since Jesus’ Ascension as moving towards a distant brink known as Jesus’ coming. Instead, it has run parallel to that brink for the last two thousand years or so, ready at any moment to head off it."

So apparently the end is near, and it has been for 2000 years. Great logic there buddy. Gill tries to get out of it in a different way, with a vague reference to the idea that for God "a thousand years are as one day". This seems like a pretty lame cop out to me, if correct it also seems that God is terrible at communicating with us, for if he meant that Jesus would return in thousands of years, he should have not told us it is right around the corner when our lifespan is so much shorter than that.

Do not swear any oath by heaven or earth.

As to the "don't swear an oath" thing, I don't get it.

According to Guzik the oath thing refers to making complicated deals with people, which are presumably complicated because they are deceptive. It says to use simple yes and no, and that is apparently what this is referring to. Being unfamiliar with the history, I'm fine deferring to him on this point. And given that, the spirit of this seems good, don't try to swindle people with complicated contracts.

The Prayer of Faith (v. 13-20)

If you are righteous and have faith your prayers have great power. The prayers of the church elders can heal, and the prayers of Elijah caused it to not rain for the and a half years.

This has two ideas in it that are terrible, first is the idea that prayer can do anything. Are we actually supposed to believe that Elijah made it stop raining for three and a half years? If not, at the very least the story is surely supposed to be telling us that prayers is extremely powerful. I definitely think the verse that says church elders can heal with prayer is supposed to be taken literally. Why is this such a bad thing? Because prayers don't seem to work. But the second bad thing about this section is that if your prayers don't work, it is your fault, you must not be righteous enough.

I didn't mention it, but in addition to having the elders pray, they are supposed to anoint the sick with oil. Guzik interprets this as "seeking the best medical attention possible". Are you kidding me? I mean, I'm glad they found a way around the silly rules in the book and are able to still go get proper care, but to say that is what the text means is a hell of a lot of spin.

He also says "Some have interpreted the idea behind save the sick as not specifically being healing, and raise him up as being a reference to ultimate resurrection." Another no lose situation for God. One more quote "The best approach in praying for the sick is to pray with humble confidence that they will be healed, unless God clearly and powerfully makes it clear that this is not His will."

It is quite telling when the Christians trying explain things hedge their bets immediately like this. "God can heal anything, unless he doesn't want to, so if it doesn't work it's not God's fault"

James finishes by stating that bringing back someone who wanders from the truth will "save his soul from death and cover a multitude of sins"

Are those the sins of the person saving or the person being saved? My first thought was that it was talking about the person saving, that saving someone will offset some of your own sins. But then I looked again and it is talking about saving his soul, is bringing him back covering his sins? I'm not sure.

Guzik agrees with my first thought, that the person helping the other person gets some sins forgiven for helping him.

For the overview post (If you think I should add or remove stuff from this list please let me know, I think it would make good conversation)

Good:

5:7-8 patience is a virtue

"Be patient, therefore, brothers...8 You also, be patient..."

Bad:

5:3,8 the end is near!

"...You have laid up treasure in the last days."

"...Establish your hearts, for the coming of the Lord is at hand."

5:4-6 All rich people are evil

"the wages of the laborers who mowed your fields, which you kept back by fraud... You have lived on the earth in luxury and in self-indulgence...You have condemned and murdered the righteous person..."

5:16 Prayer is powerful if you are righteous enough

"Therefore, confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person has great power as it is working."