Answering the Jehovah's Witnesses (Part 2)

If you're interested in reading "Part 1" in this series, click here.

The Jehovah's Witnesses are adamant that the name "Jehovah" can only rightly be applied to the Father, for in their theology, only the Father is divine - Jesus is just an "archangel" and the Holy Spirit "the active force" of God. This is an area where you can take advantage of their ignorance of the scriptures, and a great way to get them to see (the honest ones, at least) that the Watchtower Society has a system of theology that, rather than being logical and coherent, looks more like a tangled mess.

If you're studying with a JW, kick-start the line of questioning by asking them if they believe that the title of "Jehovah" can be applied to Jesus. When they respond in the negative, ask them why. They will likely respond by telling you that Jehovah is an expression of the tetragramatton (YHWH) and that it is the personal name of God Himself...and Jesus is not divine.

This is where you might turn their attention to Isaiah 8:13-14...

"The LORD (tetragramatton, YHWH) of hosts, Him you shall hallow; let Him be your fear, and let Him be your dread. He will be as a sanctuary, but a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense to both the houses of Israel, as a trap and a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem."

Here's the point: the title of Jehovah is applied to one that would be "a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense." Then turn their attention to 1 Peter 2:8 where Jesus Christ is identified as being the fulfillment of Isaiah's prophecy. In other words, Jesus is the stone of stumbling and rock of offense...and thus the title of Jehovah, according to Isaiah, belongs to Jesus Christ as well as the Father. Jesus, then, according to their own definition and application of Jehovah, is divine.

Of course, there are many other places where this point can be made. In Isaiah 40:3, we're told: "The voice of one crying in the wilderness: 'Prepare the way of the LORD (tetragramatton, YHWH); make straight in the desert a highway for our God.'" Who was the one crying in the wilderness? Was it not John the Baptist, according to Matthew 3:3? Wasn't it John's mission to prepare the way for Jesus, to be that voice in the wilderness announcing the coming Savior and King? If so (and the JW will have to answer in the affirmative), the title of Jehovah is once again applied to Jesus. John the Baptist prepared the way for Jehovah, or Jesus.

Do a search of the tetragramatton in scripture and you will find many other similar cases, where it is applied in prophecy to the coming Savior, Jesus Christ. Emphasize these verses and comparisons to the JW, but don't forget to first of all hand them the shovel and let them dig their own grave, so to speak; pin them down on the concept of Jehovah and to whom it is applied. Then get into the above scriptures. If the JW is honest, they will be forced to admit, whether outwardly or inwardly, that Jesus is worthy of the personal name of God.

Click here to read the next installment in this series of articles.

Answering the Jehovah's Witnesses (Part 1)

Today, I will begin a series of short articles addressing the manner in which the Jehovah's Witnesses misconstrue the identity of Jesus Christ. For those who may not know, the Jehovah's Witnesses (JW's) do not believe that Jesus was/is divine. Instead, they view Him as an archangel. In this series of articles, I'll not only address many of their arguments, but will raise arguments of my own that you might employ in your dealings with them.

Our focus in this article will be on Revelation 19:9-10. Carefully notice this exchange which took place between an angel and the apostle John:

"Then he (the angel) said to me (John), 'Write: Blessed are those who are called to the marriage supper of the Lamb!' And he said to me, 'These are the true sayings of God.' And I fell down at his feet to worship him. But he said to me, 'See that you do not do that! I am your fellow servant, and of your brethren who have the testimony of Jesus. Worship God! For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy"

When John bowed down to worship this mighty angel, the angel rebuked him, commanding him to direct his worship to God. Jesus Himself said to Satan in Matthew 4:10, "Away with you, Satan! For it is written, 'You shall worship the Lord your God, and Him only you shall serve.'" And so, we can safely conclude that the only being worthy of our worship is God, for He is divine. No angel or man or woman or child or creature is worthy of our worship and it would be wrong to offer such.

And yet, isn't it interesting that Jesus received worship on many occasions?

"And when they had come into the house, they saw the young Child with Mary His mother, and fell down and worshiped Him..." (Mt. 2:11).

"And behold, a leper came and worshiped Him..." (Mt. 8:2).

"While He spoke these things to them, behold, a ruler came and worshiped Him..." (Mt. 9:18).

"Then those who were in the boat came and worshiped Him, saying, 'Truly, You are the Son of God" (Mt. 14:33).

"And as they went to tell His disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, 'Rejoice!' So they came and held Him by the feet and worshiped Him" (Mt. 28:9, also verse 17).

 These are only a few of the many examples we could consider. Now, here's the question: if the only being worthy of our worship is God, and yet Jesus received worship as a mere angel, wouldn't that make Him a false Christ? This is what the Jehovah's Witnesses must accept; they must contend that Jesus was WRONG in accepting all of this worship. If He was merely an angel, then He must have been a fallen angel for receiving worship that was only to be given to God!

Or...or we can accept what the scriptures teach, that Jesus was/is divine! What do you think?

Click here to read "Part 2" in this series of articles.

Why Did the Savior Come to Earth? (Part 3)

Click here to read Part 1 in this series.
Click here to read Part 2 in this series.

On one hand, the scriptures teach that Jesus, the Savior, came to earth to redeem the nation of Israel, to rise up as King, and to establish a mighty kingdom that would have roots in Jerusalem but would extend to all the earth. On the other hand, we are also told that the Messiah would be rejected by the people, cursed, scourged, and crucified as the Lamb of God. Jesus Himself seemed to be confused, for He taught the concept of a kingdom that would be established in the first century while simultaneously teaching the inevitability of suffering and persecution...even foretelling His own death.

In the first article in this series, we emphasized the "on one hand" and then in the last article (Part 2), we turned our attention to the "on the other hand." I concluded the second article with the following probing question: do these two concepts contradict. They seem to, don't they? But as I pointed out then, they actually do not contradict in any way, shape or form; rather, we can easily harmonize the ideas of Jesus as King and Jesus as the Lamb of God. In this article, I'd like to explain that.

In order to achieve harmony, we have to understand something about the kingdom of the Messiah. The kingdom that was prophesied in the Old Testament, and the kingdom that Jesus said was "at hand" then in the early part of the first century, was not the kind of kingdom to which we as earthly residents are accustomed. What I mean is that it was not an earthly kingdom in the likeness of Rome or Britain with a physical throne and territorial domain that is conquered by the threat and/or use of brute force. Rather, Jesus' kingdom was spiritual in nature, with its throne, not on earth, but in heaven, and with territory that was defined, not by geographic regions, but by the souls of men and women, conquered by the "two-edged sword," the word of God and gospel of Christ! And let it be known here at the outset: this kingdom WAS established.

Again, this is the mistake that the early Jews made, and that many denominational folks make today. They assume that the kingdom of David's descendent, Jesus (the messianic kingdom) was a physical kingdom, like that of David...only greater and farther-reaching. Obviously, Jesus didn't establish this kind of kingdom, and so it is assumed that Jesus failed and therefore will have to return a second time to "get it right."

While passages like Psalm 2 and Zechariah 14 speak of a messianic kingdom, the language must be interpreted spiritually...and the reason that we are to interpret it spiritually is because a careful and thorough study of the whole Bible mandates a spiritual interpretation.

For example, in Jeremiah 22: 24, 30, notice what is written about the royal line of David:

"'As I live,' says the Lord, 'though Coniah the son of Jehoiakim, king of Judah, were the signet ring on My right hand, yet I would pluck you off'...Thus says the Lord: 'Write this man down as childless, a man who shall not prosper in his days; for none of his descendents shall prosper, sitting on the throne of David, and ruling anymore in Judah."

Coniah is the "Jehoiachin" of 2 Kings 24. He was the second-to-last king to rule in Jerusalem over the southern kingdom of Judah, and he was - as were ALL the kings of Judah - a descendent of the royal line of David. Coniah was taken as a prisoner to Babylon when Nebuchadnezzar conquered Jerusalem. The only other man to rule after Coniah was Zedekiah, and Zedekiah was Coniah's uncle, not his son. So in other words (and this is what Jeremiah is saying in Jeremiah 22), genealogically speaking, Coniah was the LAST one in the line of David that would reign physically in Jerusalem. If that's the case (and it is, obviously), Jesus, being a descendent of David, could not possibly reign as King in Jerusalem. And yet, He would become King of Israel. Notice what is said a few verses later, in Jeremiah 23:5-6:

"'Behold, the days are coming,' says the Lord, that I will raise to David a Branch of righteousness; a King shall reign and prosper, and execute judgment and righteousness in the earth. In His days Judah will be saved, and Israel will dwell safely; now this is His name by which He will be called: THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS."

 So, let's get this straight. Coniah was the last one in the davidic line that would reign as King in Jerusalem...and yet there would be another in the davidic line - Jesus- that WOULD reign as King.

Don't worry, we'll make sense of this in just a moment...

In Daniel 2, we find Daniel's interpretation of the dream of the Babylonian king, Nebuchadnezzar. The king dreamt of an image that consisted of four parts: a head of gold, chest and arms of silver, belly and thighs of bronze, and fourthly, legs of iron and clay (vs. 32-33). In the dream, a stone "cut out without hands" came and struck this image, forming a "great mountain" that "filled the earth" (vs. 35). What did all of this mean? That's what the king wanted to know, and Daniel was there to provide an answer. In short, the four different parts of the image represented four kingdoms. Nebuchadnezzar (Babylon) was the head of gold (vs. 38). Daniel goes on...

"...But after you (Babylon) shall arise another kingdom inferior to yours; then another, a third kingdom of bronze, which shall rule over all the earth. And the fourth kingdom shall be as strong as iron, inasmuch as iron breaks in pieces and shatters everything..." (vs. 39-40).

So we find a succession of four kingdoms, the first being Babylon.

Now turn to Daniel 7, to what we call Daniel's "vision of the Ancient of Days." In the beginning of the chapter, we learn that four earthly kingdoms are symbolically represented by four different animals: a lion, a bear, a leopard, and then a "fourth beast" that was "dreadful and terrible" with "ten horns" (vs. 7). You can compare the structure of Daniel 7:1-6 to what we just read in Daniel 2. In fact, here in Daniel 7, these four beasts are plainly said to represent kings, or more specifically, kingdoms (Dan. 7:17, 23).

We've already established that the first kingdom was the Babylonian empire. According to Daniel 5:28-31, the second kingdom in this line was the Medo-Persian empire. Daniel 8:20-22 indicates that the Grecian empire is the third kingdom in this line. The fourth kingdom, although not specifically named in Daniel, was the great Roman empire. History confirms all of this, that these four kingdoms existed in this order.

In both Daniel 2 and Daniel 7, the point is made that during the existence of the FOURTH kingdom (Rome), God would set up a kingdom.

"And the stone that struck the image became a great mountain and filled the whole earth...(and then Daniel's interpretation of the stone)...And in the days of these kings (the kings of the fourth kingdom, Rome) the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed; and the kingdom shall not be left to other people; it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand forever" (Dan. 2:35, 44).

 "I watched then because of the sound of the pompous words which the horn (one of the kings of the fourth kingdom, see vs.8) was speaking; I watched till the beast was slain, and its body destroyed and given to the burning flame. And for the rest of the beasts, they had their dominion taken away, yet their lives were prolonged for a season and a time. I was watching in the night visions, and behold, one like the Son of Man, coming with the clouds of heaven! He came TO the Ancient of Days, and they brought Him near before Him. THEN to Him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and His kingdom the one which shall not be destroyed" (Dan. 7:11-14).

 And so both Daniel 2 and Daniel 7 present the same timelines and the same basic facts. Four kingdoms would exist: first, the Babylonian; second, the Persian; third, the Grecian; fourth, the Roman. The Roman kingdom was going to consist of a line of kings (the Caesars, obviously). But what is most significant is that during the days of the Roman kingdom, the "Son of Man" would establish an everlasting kingdom.

BUT NOTICE - and this is CRITICAL - the point at which the kingdom would be established according to divine prophecy. The plan was NOT for Jesus to come to earth and establish Himself as King in Jerusalem on earth. Again, Jeremiah has already told us that Coniah was the last davidic king to do that. Instead, Jesus' kingdom would be established specifically when He went "TO" the Father. In other words, Jesus' reign as King would begin, not when He came FROM the Father to earth, but when He left the earth and went back to the Father. His throne would be in heaven, not Jerusalem.

And so the apostle Peter was correct when he said the following to the Jews on the day of Pentecost (just ten days after Christ's ascension):

"Men and brethren, let me speak freely to you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. Therefore, being a prophet, and knowing that God had sword an oath to him that of the fruit of his body, according to the flesh, He would raise up the Christ to sit on His throne...Therefore being exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He poured out this which you now see and hear" (Ac. 2:29-30, 33).

 The kingdom of Christ WAS established according to prophesy during the days of the Roman kingdom; Jesus became king, not in the physical sense, but in the spiritual sense. His kingdom was NOT like the kingdoms of Babylon, Persia, Greece or Rome - there was no earthly throne or dominion. The kingdom of Messiah, rather than begin prevented by the Messiah's crucifixion, was established spiritually BECAUSE of the crucifixion and ultimately the resurrection and ascension. This is what Jeremiah and Daniel prophesied, what Isaiah prophesied, what Peter taught, and what Jesus Himself taught...

"Then Pilate entered the Praetorium again, called Jesus, and said to Him, 'Are you the King of the Jews?' Jesus answered, 'My kingdom is not of this world...'" (John 18:33, 36).

Folks, Jesus didn't come to earth to set up a physical kingdom, and then, because He was rejected, have to resort to "Plan B" (i.e. the cross). Jesus came TO be rejected, to be crucified, and to establish a SPIRITUAL kingdom that would have worldwide dominion.

And it does. The kingdom of Christ consists of all the saved of every nation who bow before the great King of kings, Jesus Christ who reigns from heaven at the right hand of the Father. So Paul was right when he told the Colossians that they had already been transferred INTO the kingdom (Col. 1:13). John was right when he identified himself and those to whom he was writing as members of the kingdom (Rev. 1:9). And Paul again was right in 1 Corinthians 15:24-25 when he wrote that Jesus was and is reigning NOW...and will reign until the end, when He returns to gather the citizens of the kingdom (on earth) that we might go to spend eternity with Him in the heavenly kingdom.

Those who argue that Jesus came to establish a physical kingdom are wrong, and those who teach a FUTURE messianic kingdom on earth are equally wrong. These verses and points leave no room for doubt.

I know that there are still some questions that you might have. If so, comment below. I look forward to the exchange. NOTE: I recently preached a sermon on Isaiah 11, a chapter that has a lot of relevance to this discussion. Click here and then scroll down until you see the sermon title; stream it from the website or download and listen at your leisure.

Why Did the Savior Come to Earth? (Part 2)

Click here to read "Part 1" of this series.

As was explained in yesterday's article, there are many religious people who contend that Jesus came to earth for the purpose of establishing a physical kingdom but failed. Rather than embrace their King, the Jews rejected Him and He was consequently crucified between two thieves. God worked it out, however, and the possibility of spiritual salvation was extended to all men, Jews and Gentiles alike, through the precious blood of the Christ. However, even though Jesus failed the first time, it is argued that He will one day return to earth to set up His "millennial kingdom," and this time, there will be no stopping Him. Again, this is what many in the denominational world believe.

This doctrine is interesting and entertaining, and like a juggernaut, when embraced, it leads to other ideas and doctrines until eventually one's entire paradigm towards the scriptures is changed. But we cannot accept a teaching on the basis that it's entertaining, nor can we adopt a position simply because it's the "official position" of the church we attend, or the way we were raised, etc. Like the noble Bereans of Acts 17:11, we need to be open-minded and honest enough to be critical of the status-quo, and to change when necessary.

The fact is, Jesus came to earth, not to set up a physical kingdom, but to be the "Lamb of God" and to die on the cross that we might be saved. In other words, the sacrifice of Christ was not "Plan B." It was THE plan from the very beginning and it was fulfilled perfectly. The evidence for what I'm saying here is overwhelming and leaves no room for doubt.

Yes, there are a number of Old Testament prophecies that foretold a King that would not only establish a kingdom (beginning in Jerusalem), but would bring about the glorification of Israel - and I'll come back and explain all this later - but the Old Testament is equally clear that Jesus would fill the role, not only of King, but of Savior. As Savior, He would suffer and die for our sins.

In Psalm 22:1, David wrote, "My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?" Of course, Jesus repeated these very words on the cross, thereby proving that it was known that Jesus would suffer. By reading the rest of Psalm 22, this fact is confirmed. The same insulting words that were hurled at Jesus as He suffered were prophesied in verse eight. Later in the psalm, we find these words: "For dogs have surrounded Me; the congregation of the wicked has enclosed Me. They pierced My hands and My feet; I can count all My bones. They look and stare at Me. They divide My garments among them, and for My clothing they cast lots." These words did not have application to David in any way, at least not that I'm aware of. And so it was known ahead of time not only that the Messiah and King would die, but that He would die by means of crucifixion and that the Roman soldiers would cast lots for His clothes.

Another great example is Isaiah 53. The entire chapter relays in exact detail the purpose of Christ's coming to earth - His mission, His objective, His purpose was to suffer and die as the ultimate sin-sacrifice. Go ahead, just read the entire chapter. Jesus would be despised and rejected (vs. 3), would bear our griefs and sorrows (vs. 4), would be wounded and afflicted for our sins, not His own (vs. 5-6), would be led as "a lamb to the slaughter" (vs. 7), would die and be buried (vs. 9) - and all of this would happen in keeping with God's plan to offer His Son as the sin-sacrifice that we as the guilty ones might achieve true and complete redemption and fellowship with Him (vs. 10). The plan was not for Israel to embrace the Messiah, but for them to reject Him...and they did, according to plan. We could look at a number of other prophesies such as this, but the fact that God intended for Jesus to suffer and be rejected is irrefutable. The plan was not for Him to be embraced, to rise up as King and to restore Israel to its former glory, but to be rejected, crucified, and yet through it all to rise victorious over sin...and to enable us, through His blood, to do the same.

It's clear that this very concept carried over into the New Testament, that certain folks, including Jesus, were cognizant of these facts.

The angel told Mary that she would bring forth a Son and He would "save His people from their sins" (Mt. 1:210. Sin is a spiritual problem requiring a spiritual solution. Sin couldn't be conquered by physical warfare or the establishment of a physical kingdom; a sacrifice had to be made. John  understood this when, by inspiration, he cried out upon seeing Jesus, "Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world" (John 1:29). In the Hebrew vernacular, the term "lamb" had sacrificial implications. John didn't greet Jesus as the mighty King who would lead Israel to victory over Rome, but as the humble sacrifice that would Himself conquer sin.

Jesus Himself taught a gospel that included warnings of suffering and persecution. In fact, suffering and persecution would go hand-in-hand with inheriting the kingdom (Mt. 5:10-11). Some of the most powerful evidence of the thesis of this article are the numerous conversations that Jesus had with His apostles in which He plainly articulated the suffering and death that awaited Him...

"From that time Jesus began to show to His disciples that He must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised the third day" (Mt. 16:21). Ironically, just a few verses later, in the same conversation, Jesus said, "Assuredly, I say to you, there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom" (vs. 28).

"You know that after two days is the Passover, and the Son of Man will be delivered up to be crucified" (Mt. 26:2).

"Indeed, Elijah is coming first and restores all things. And how is it written concerning the Son of Man, that He must suffer many things and be treated with contempt" (Mk. 9:12).

"Thus it is written, and thus it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day" (Luke 24:46).

 From the very beginning of His ministry, Jesus knew the fate that awaited Him. He knew the prophesies,  that He would be betrayed, scourged and crucified - and He viewed these horrendous acts not as signs of failure, but as proofs of victory...victory because that's why He came. There is simply not a shred of evidence anywhere in the four gospels that Jesus had any intentions on setting up a physical kingdom on earth; it was always about Calvary. Always!

We've considered a handful of the prophesies made BEFORE the time of Christ, and we've considered a few of the things that were said DURING the time of Christ. Now, let's consider some of the things written AFTER the time of Christ.

"Him (Jesus), being delivered by the determined purpose AND FOREKNOWLEDGE of God, you have taken by lawless hands, have crucified, and put to death" (Ac. 2:23).

"For truly against Your holy servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel, were gathered together to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose determined before to be done" (Ac. 4:27-28).

"...knowing that you were not redeemed with corruptible things, like silver or gold, from your aimless conduct received by tradition from your fathers, but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot. He indeed was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you..." (1 Pet. 1:18-20).

 Can't you see that EVERYTHING in the Bible confirms that Jesus' purpose in coming to earth was NOT to set up a physical kingdom, but to die on the cross as the sacrificial lamb of God for the sins of the world. He didn't fail. He didn't fall short. He didn't have to resort to a "Plan B." God's redemptive plan was fulfilled perfectly in ALL that occurred.

Now...someone might respond to all of this by pointing out an apparent contradiction between yesterday's article and this article. On one hand, the scriptures indicate that Jesus came to establish a kingdom, that He identified Himself as King and promised to glorify Israel, that Zion would be exalted once more. And yet we've also seen that Jesus came, not to set up a physical kingdom, or to lead the Israelites to victory over Rome, but to be rejected, betrayed and crucified. Is this a contradiction?

In short, the answer is "No!" But the detailed explanation of how these two points harmonize will have to wait until tomorrow...

Click here to read Part 3 (the next installment) in this series.

Why Did the Savior Come to Earth?

I suppose it's universally accepted among those who identify themselves as Christians that Jesus Christ came to earth where He lived for over 30 years as the Son of Man and ultimately died on the cross at Calvary. But what is NOT universally agreed upon by the membership of "Christendom" is the purpose of Jesus' life on earth. Why did He come here to live among us? Sure, He preached and performed miracles and traveled all over the land of Israel inspiring some and enraging others - we can ALL agree that His life consisted of these different activities - but what was the "end game," the objective, the intended conclusion?

Many believe that Jesus came to set up a physical kingdom on earth, that the original intention of His life was to return the nation of Israel to its former glory, to reign Himself as King in Jerusalem. Of course, this is also what the Jews of Jesus' day expected from the Messiah; they anticipated a davidic King that would overthrow Roman rule and restore Israel's independence and glory. The scriptures are clear that this is what the majority of the Jews assumed...

After Jesus was born, wise men came from the east saying, "Where is He who has been born KING of the Jews?" (Mt. 2:1-2). It is interesting to note that when King Herod heard this, he was "troubled" (Mt. 2:3). Obviously, he interpreted the title of "king" (in reference to Jesus) in the physical sense; a child had been born that would one day threaten Herod's position as king. Perhaps the wise men also had this assumption.

There was an occasion during His ministry when His followers, after witnessing the miracle of the feeding of the 5,000, wanted to take matters into their own hands. John 6:15 says, "Therefore when Jesus perceived that they were about to come and take Him by force to make Him king, He departed again to the mountain by Himself alone." These actions were not unreasonable, especially in light of the fact that the focal point of Jesus' teachings was "Repent, for the KINGDOM of heaven is at hand!"

Later, the mother of John and James came to Jesus and made the following request: "Grant that these two sons of mine may sit, one on Your right hand and the other on the left, in Your kingdom" (Mt. 20:21). There is no doubt that this woman (as well as James and John) viewed Jesus' impending kingdom as a physical one.

In Matthew 21, we find the so-called "triumphal entry" of Jesus into Jerusalem. How was He received? As a King (Mt. 21:4-9)! There is no doubt that when these people hailed Jesus as King that they were anxiously awaiting the day that He would drive the Roman empire into the ground and Israel, not Rome, would be supreme once more.

And then, of course, during His trial, certain Jews "began to accuse Him, saying, 'We found this fellow perverting the nation, and forbidding to pay taxes to Caesar, saying that He Himself is Christ, a King" (Lk. 23:2). Pilate responded to this charge, turning to Jesus and asking, "Are You the King of the Jews?" to which Jesus plainly replied, "It is as you say" (Lk. 23:3). Just as Herod viewed Jesus as a threat to his position, others perceived Jesus' kingdom as a threat to Rome and Caesar.

Finally, even after His death, burial and resurrection, His own disciples asked Him, "Lord, will You at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?" (Acts 1:6). You'd think the disciples would have learned by this point, but apparently, they, like all the other Jews at that time, viewed the impending kingdom as a physical one, based in Jerusalem.

Many religious folks today have the same concept in mind, and again, this is not completely unreasonable. Not only did Jesus devote much of His ministry to preparing people for the "kingdom of heaven," but He accepted the title of King. Furthermore, many of the Old Testament prophecies foretold a king, a kingdom and the glorification of Israel and Zion. God promised David that His kingdom would be established forever (2 Sam. 7:16). Psalm 2, a "messianic psalm," prophesied a King, the "begotten Son of God," that would be established in Zion (Ps. 2:6-7). Then, just read Zechariah 14! "Behold, the day of the Lord is coming...And in that day His feet will stand on the Mount of Olives...and in that day it shall be that living waters flow from Jerusalem...and the Lord shall be King over all the earth" (Zech. 14:1, 4, 8-9). These are only a few of the many verses that prophesied a King that would establish Himself in Zion, would bring glory to Israel, and reign over all the earth! So again, it was not unreasonable for the Jews of Jesus' day to anticipate a physical kingdom, nor is it unreasonable today for certain folks to have this concept in mind.

Having said that, we all know that Jesus did NOT set up a physical kingdom on earth. Instead, He was betrayed by one of His own disciples, arrested, put on trial, beaten, bloodied, tortured, mocked, spat upon and executed in the most gruesome and shameful way, naked and nailed to a splintery cross on Calvary.

Here's the question...

...did Jesus fail?

Some would answer, "Yes!" They would contend that Jesus' purpose was to win over the Jews, become their King, overthrow Rome (and all other worldly kingdoms for that matter), and reign from Jerusalem. That was the plan all along. But...well, it just didn't work out. The Jews rejected their Messiah and consequently Jesus suffered a cruel death on the cross. But it's okay, they say, because God used the death of Christ to bring salvation to mankind and set up the church as an afterthought...."Plan B," if you will.

Is this true? Did Jesus fail?

While some say, "Yes," I say...and let me be clear...I say, "NO!" Jesus did not fail. He absolutely succeeded in every way. Jesus fulfilled His purpose and He became King JUST AS GOD INTENDED!

I'll explain what I mean in another article tomorrow. Stay tuned!

Click here to read "Part 2" of this series...

Misplaced Blame (Josh. 7)

Most of the time, when we turn to the early chapters of Joshua, it is the account of the famous "Battle of Jericho" in Joshua 6 that is studied. A story of equal value, I believe, is found in the next chapter: the story not only of the sin of Achan, but of Joshua's leadership in the conflict with Ai.

When Israel conquered Jericho, Joshua told them, "And you, by all means abstain from the accursed things, lest you become accursed when you take of the accursed things, and make the camp of Israel a curse, and trouble it" (Joshua 6:18). Despite the clarity of these instructions, one man, Achan, transgressed and brought a curse upon the whole camp of Israel. "But the children of Israel committed a trespass regarding the accursed things, for Achan the son of Carmi...took of the accursed things; so the anger of the Lord burned against the children of Israel" (Josh. 7:1). We could stop here and talk about the dangers of disobedience, or how one sin is sufficient to incur God's wrath, but it's Joshua, not Achan, that is the focus of this article.

Beginning in Joshua 7:2, we find that immediately following their victory at Jericho, Joshua began to gather "intelligence" on Ai, the city next in line to be conquered and burned to the ground by Israel. Notice that Joshua did not consult the Lord about the plan regarding Ai, nor did he receive any commands or instructions from the Lord as he did concerning the crossing of the Jordan and the conquering of Jericho. Instead, Joshua acted presumptuously by ordering an attack on Ai. Had Joshua consulted the Lord, or had he waited for the Lord to give him instructions, he would have realized that the camp was cursed due to Achan's sin. However, he knew not of Achan's sin and presumed that the Lord would bless Israel with yet another victory.

So what happened?

"...about three thousand men went up there from the people, but they fled before the men of Ai. And the men of Ai struck down about thirty-six men, for they chased them from before the gate as far as Shebarim, and struck them down on the descent; therefore the hearts of the people melted and became like water" (vs. 4-5).

This wasn't what Joshua expected! He expected an easy victory, not a shameful retreat! What on earth was God thinking...letting them lose the battle; this would lead to all sorts of problems! It would bolster the confidence of the nations of Canaan, sending the signal that Israel could be defeated, and furthermore, it would shatter the faith of the people of Israel and make it that much harder for Joshua to lead them effectively.

We learn in verses 6-9 that "Joshua tore his clothes, and fell to the earth on his face...and Joshua said, 'Alas, Lord god, why have you brought this people over the Jordan at all - to deliver us into the hand of the Amorites, to destroy us? Oh, that we had been content, and dwelt on the other side of the Jordan! O Lord, what shall I say when Israel turns its back before its enemies? For the Canaanites and all the inhabitants of the land will hear it, and surround us, and cut off our name from the earth. Then what will You do for Your great name?" In other words, Joshua blamed God for their defeat.

But it wasn't God's fault...

It was Joshua's fault!

God was perturbed by Joshua's words and attitude. He told Joshua, "Get up! Why do you lie thus on your face?" (vs. 10) and then He proceeded to inform Joshua that the camp was cursed and therefore did not have God's blessing (vs. 11-12). Only when they removed the "accursed thing" from among them would God's blessings be restored (vs. 13).

This is a perfect example of misplaced blame.

Joshua himself had issued the command to Israel, that if anyone took any of the accursed things of Jericho that the ENTIRE camp would be cursed (Josh 6:18). And following the victory at Jericho, he didn't check to make sure that the command had been obeyed. But even then, had he simply inquired of God before presumptuously attacking Ai, this "curse" would have been brought to his attention and 36 men wouldn't have died in vain.

Was it God's fault? No, it was Joshua's...or at least, he was partly to blame, as the appointed leader of Israel. So he should have blamed himself, not God!

The lesson here is a powerful one, for many people today refuse to learn from Joshua's mistake. God has given us His law, and He has carefully explained to us the blessings of obedience as well as the consequences, both temporal and eternal, of disobedience. And yet God is blamed when people face the consequences for their own disobedience.

There are those who pay no attention to the rules of "Christian living" found in God's word. Instead of heeding the advice of Proverbs, and humbly putting into practice all the rules of the New Testament (that govern relationships, finances, thoughts, morality, etc), they choose to live how THEY want to live...and then they get upset when their life falls apart. "God, why would YOU allow this to happen to me???" Instead of taking responsibility for their actions and humbly seeking God's forgiveness and salvation, they blame God.

Then there are those who ignore God's teachings regarding the church and salvation. Instead of diligently seeking authority for all that they do, they act presumptuously. They presume that denominationalism is  right, and so they participate in it by joining a denominational church. They presume that instrumental music in worship is acceptable, that churches can build fellowship halls and gymnasiums, that the collection can be taken up anytime (not just on Sundays), etc, etc, etc. Like Joshua, they fail to consult God as to whether or not these things are right; they don't turn to the Bible for authority....they just do what they want to do and assume that God will bless them. I dare say that there will be some folks on the day of Judgement that will, like Joshua, be mighty upset with God...who will blame God when they should be blaming themselves!

The lesson? Do what God says and you'll be blessed. Consult God. Don't act presumptuously.

Nearer to Salvation

And do this, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep; for now our salvation is nearer than when we first believed. The night is far spent, the day is at hand. Therefore, let us cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armor of light” (Romans 13:11-12).

Have you ever known someone that simply hated mornings? When you go in to wake them up, they pull the blankets over their head and tell you to “go away.” They’ll hit the snooze button on their alarm clock a half-dozen times before finally rolling out of bed, and even then, you better leave them alone because they are g-r-u-m-p-y, GRUMPY! There are some people that, if left alone, would sleep in till lunchtime every day.

According to Romans 13:11-12, there are people like this on a spiritual level. They may be called “Christians,” but instead of getting to work, they continue to hit the snooze button. After all, it’s nice and warm under the covers—it’s hard to get up, push through the drowsiness and commit to such a labor-intensive day.

Paul urged these slumbering saints to “awake” for “the day is at hand.” The sun was poking over the eastern horizon, and they needed to get up and get ready so that they could put in a full day’s work in the vineyard of the Lord!

But what’s the motivation for getting up and going to work, or in this case, to BATTLE? Why should we get out of bed? Why should I step out into the light when the darkness is so comfortable and the covers so warm?

Here’s the motivation: “our salvation is nearer than when we first believed.” For the worker, Mondays are hard because you’ve got the whole work-week ahead of you. Thursdays and Fridays, on the other hand, are much, much easier because it’s almost payday and the weekend is fast-approaching.

Here in 2012, we are a year closer to inheriting the salvation that God has promised to the Faithful! Our salvation is nearer, and it grows ever nearer as time passes by. So awake out of sleep and put on the armor of light. Labor in God’s vineyard with passion and diligence, knowing that payday is coming!

Are you ready?