Patriotism In The Bible

Overview

Should Christians in America, serve in today's military?  Should a Christian serve in the military under any condition? What makes today any different than 10,20 or 100 years ago? Should a Christian help those that hate the Lord?  Is the military just like any other job one might have? Is there a line in the sand, which when crossed should prevent any Bible-believing Christian from offering their service to the country  they live in? The times we live in have some, including myself, asking these sorts of questions.

Some groups such as the Amish have argued that it's never acceptable to serve in the military or even own firearms for self defense, because they are pacifists and see the 6th of the ten commandments,  Exodus 20:13 "Thou shalt not kill." as to be taken literally. Jesus explains this in Matthew 19:18 as referring to murder or the shedding of innocent blood. All through the Old Testament we read about God telling His people to smite and in some cases utterly destroy some groups of people.  The Bible tells us in I Cor 14:33 that God is not the author of confusion.  How could God give Moses the 6th commandment, thou shall not kill, yet later on with Joshua and others, tell the children of Israel to kill and destroy these other nations?  To me it’s clear the Bible makes a distinction between killing and murder. Just so we are clear, we are not talking about objecting to military service on the basis of a view shared by the Amish, that of a pacifist.

Then

We could look at the lives of some of the mighty men of the Bible - from David, Gideon, Joshua, or Samson.  We could look at the period of the judges or the various kings, both before and during the division of the kingdom after Solomon.  In all these, we have men who led other  men into battle yet feared the Lord and did what was right in the sight of the Lord and there were those who turned away and did evil in the sight of the Lord.  In many cases during the times of the kings, a good king was followed by a wicked king. Even though none of them were without fault, there is an example of this sort of conflict between service to your people and obedience to God and having to choose one or the other.  Israel at the time of Ahab was split between the northern kingdom that took the name Israel and the southern kingdom of Judah under king Jehoshaphat.  Israel was gearing up for war with Syria and king Jehoshaphat decided to join with Israel. There was one man who had a problem with this decision.  Jehu the seer.  We read about this encounter in II Chronicles 19.  Jehu questioned King Jehoshaphat why he would help a wicked king like Ahab. 

Today

America today means different things to different groups of people.  The Norman Rockwell image of America of the 1950’s is nearly gone.  The US has become a land of “mingled people” as in Jeremiah 50 as he describes the Chaldeans.  Many Christians today that consider themselves very conservative can’t seem to understand why so many refuse to see it the way Fox news sees it.  America, as a people has turned its back on the Lord.  Sure, a token mention of God is made here and there, but it’s largely for show. There is still a remnant who fear Him, but they no longer have the reigns of power and their influence is on the decline. The nation is and has been for decades in the hands of a globalist, God-hating, cabal of degenerates with a lust for empire and wealth.  They will sell out our heritage to appease the bankers and the burgeoning masses of people who have come here from the far flung corners of the world and want the US to become more like the place they left.  The way the bureaucrats have chosen to do this is a gradual chipping away at the things that offend groups like muslims, hindus, jews, atheists and especially the last few years, the homos.  Any group except Christians. No, it’s Christians who must be made to bend, accommodate and tolerate, in the name of cultural sensitivity and embracing diversity.  More than one generation has grown up now that are all too willing to continue in this direction.  

The last 20 years especially, has seen an onslaught of new programs in the military that require soldiers to adhere to in the name of political correctness.  Some view the military as a distinct and independent branch of our government.  However it is the civilian leadership that has the authority to direct their actions and fund their operations.  When a young man joins the military he takes an oath to support and defend the constitution.  He also puts himself into a position unlike any job he might ever have outside the military except possibly law enforcement to some degree.  In many cases if he is doing anything other than sitting behind a desk, he could find himself putting his life in the hands of others and having responsibilities that could get many of his fellow soldiers killed if he fails. He can’t just walk out the door either if he doesn’t agree with the “management” or rather his chain of command.  If he does, he can end up in prison and/or a record that follows him for the rest of his life.  So, no being a soldier is not just another job. The whole chain of command can be compromised if trust and respect is lost.  It’s one thing to force through promotions in the name of political correctness, or boosting females into combat where they don’t belong,  it’s an entirely different level when our soldiers are asked to accommodate things that the Bible is clear about that God hates and has given over to a reprobate mind. Trust breaks down and then respect is lost.  These directives, while being ordered from the top brass, originate from civilian bureaucrats, many of whom are bought off by multinational corporations and groups openly hostile to anyone or anything that supports a biblical view of these matters.  

Many brave men have served in the US military and many have paid the ultimate price in countless wars and engagements around the world.  Many if not most Christians can not see that there would ever be a situation that would cause them not to support someone considering military service.  It’s the patriotic thing to do. Might it be that even if statues of moloch were erected on every military base, they would still  line up to enlist?  What good is the most powerful military in the world if the people turn away from God? Is the military going to prevent a country from becoming something even more opposed to God’s way? No, it’s past time for the men that do the bidding of these bureaucrats to just refuse to enlist and maybe officers to resign their commissions.  Let the king Ahabs of America fight their own wars.  

Psalms 11:3

If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?

Psalms 146:3

Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help

What then?  

We need men like Elijah and Elisha to confront the king's false prophets.  Preachers like Jeremiah and Isaiah that preached the hard truth that the self-righteous didn’t want to hear.  We need leaders like Jehoshaphat and Asa who tore down the institutions the sodomites built and tore down the high places.  Maybe then a young man that fears the Lord can enlist in the service of his country again and not feel like he is helping those who hate the Lord.

The King James Translators Preface to the Readers

Overview

This is something I had wanted to not only read, but study through for quite some time. Much can be learned about the King James Bible and it's seemingly peculiar way it reads to us today in the modern world by reading from the words of translators themselves.  The thing to understand is that the men doing the translation were not only the best and brightest Bible scholars of the day, but they also had a deep reverence for the Scriptures.  So important was it NOT to err away from the Word, that often a literal translation was made from the original Hebrew or Greek, rather than the method of "textual criticism" as it was known in areas like Alexandria, where many false doctrines started.  Though not often printed in most King James Bibles today typically in an effort to save space, we can still find the preface the translators included not only to the King, but to the reader.  They include 15 different points they address that can explain why and how they did what they did. Below each section I have put my own notes on what they have said.

This often omitted preface, can be found online here:
http://thekingsbible.com/Library/Preface
Here is a short summary and my own notes on each of these sections as I read through them. They cover a lot of ground, going back to the earliest times.

I.  The best things have been calumniated (slandered)
- They knew they were not going to please everyone
- Worthy men have been brought to an untimely death for the very things they are doing now.

II. The highest personages have been calumniated
- Constantine, while he openly professed his faith, there was some question to his sincerity, yet he was called wasteful by his peers for providing for the church.
- There is no new thing under the sun (ref. to Ecclesiastes 1:9)

III. His majesty's constancy
- King James knew full well the criticism he would get, but he was not discouraged
- Kings especially, should care for religion and to know and profess it zealously
- This is their glory before all nations (ref. I Samuel 2:30)

IV. The praise of the Holy Scriptures
- Love the Scriptures and wisdom will love thee (ref. Proverbs 4:6)
- The Scriptures is an armory of weapons for both offense and defense

V. Translation necessary
- I Corinthians 14:11 "Therefore if I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh shall be a barbarian unto me."
- Without a translation, the unlearned are like the children at Jacobs well with no bucket

VI. Translation of the Old Testament out of the Hebrew into Greek
- The Lord at first, would have His name great only in Israel, Hebrew was sufficient
- As time passed, God sent His son to be a reconciliation through faith in His blood not to the Jew only, but also to the Greek
- Ptolemy Philadelph, King of Egypt called for translating the Hebrew scriptures into Greek (eg. the Septuagint, approx 285 BC) also called the "translation of the seventy"
- The translation of "the seventy" did not satisfy the learned, especially the Jews. Hence, followed further translations of the Hebrew by Aquila, Theodotian, Symmachus
- The Apostles left the Septuagint when it left the Hebrew.
- Origen used these translations to collate what became known as the Hexapla
- These translations were not without fault.  The KJV translators would go back to the original Hebrew of the Masoretic text.

VII. Translation out of Hebrew and Greek into Latin
- The first few hundred years after Christ, LAtin was a good language for translation since to many were provinces of Rome.
- There were too man Latin translations to be all good, and were not out of the Hebrew fountain, but the Greek, so Hierome (Jerome) translated from the Hebrew.

VIII. The Translating of the Scripture into the vulgar tongues
- Even in Jerome's time, the Scriptures had been translated into several languages.

IX. The Unwillingness of Our Chief Adversaries, That The Scriptures Should Be Divulged In The Mother Tongue
- One had to get a license in writing just to use them
- It's not he that has good gold that is afraid of the touchstone, but he that has the counterfeit. A touchstone is a stone to rub gold on for testing its purity)

X. The Speeches And Reasons, Both Of Our Brethren, And Of Our Adversaries Against This Work
- Many were asking why yet another translation, asking had the church been deceived.
- They (the translators) were not wanting to handle the Word of God deceitfully

XI. A Satisfaction To Our Brethren
- A Man would rather be with his dog than a stranger whose speech is unknown.
- The conference at Hampton court was appointed to hear the complaints of the Puritans

XII. An Answer To The Imputations Of Our Adversaries
- Even the "meanest" translations contained the Word of God.  
- The Romanists(Catholics) judged them by only an example or two, referring to these earlier translations (eg. Wycliffe, Tyndale)
- They(the translators) knew they were being called herritiks
- The numerous iterations of work the translators were doing were being criticized, but this is the very thing they are charged with, that is to make a better translation
- The Catholics had themselves changed and corrected their own translations


XIII. The Purpose Of The Translators, With Their Number, Furniture, Care, etc
- They were not out to make a bad translation into a good one, but a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principal one.
- Hierome (Jerome) translated not out of the Greek, but the Hebrew even though he was fluent in Greek, yet made no mention of the Greek.
- As others such as Hierome and Augustine had said, if a new translation should be done, it should use the Hebrew for the OT and Greek for the NT as their sources.
- Origen some say was the first to write commentaries upon the Scriptures, but he overshot himself many times.
- The work has taken 7x72x2 days and then some, compared to the Septuagint 72 days.
XIV. Reasons Moving Us To Set Diversity Of Senses In The Margin, Where There Is Great Probability For Each
- Some things are certain, namely the Gospel and the things concerning salvation, but there are other things and words that are not clear. These things are those that some men will make
- The variety of translations they were using, most likely referring to the numerous Greek translations, were to profit the finding out of the Scriptures.

XV. Reasons Inducing Us Not To Stand Curiously Upon An Identity Of Phrasing
- They did not want to vary from the sense of that which they had translated before(in another passage)
- God Himself had used diverse words in His Holy Writ.
- They were leaving the wording of the Puritans and the Papists
- Their desire is that the Scripture may speak like itself, that it may be understood even of the vulgar (non-Latin)

Common Reasons For and Questions About The Pre-Tribulation Rapture

Overview:

Most who believe in a rapture of believers, will point to I Thessalonians 4:14-18 as the key passage explaining this event.  It's when this event and its sequence is considered in relation to the other events of the last days that there is disagreement. This post is to lay out some of the key points for the rapture occurring before the 7 year period known as "the tribulation" or "Daniel's 70th week" begins and then ask some questions about those points.  There could probably be twice this many listed, but here are 10 common reasons typically given on the teaching that the rapture happens before the tribulation.  What follows these 10 points are questions about these points.

1. God has not appointed us (Christians) to wrath, I Thessalonians 5:9
2. Noah was taken into the ark before the flood came, Genesis 7 and Lot was take out of Sodom before God destroyed it, Genesis 19
3. The Holy Spirit must be taken out of the way before the antichrist is revealed, II Thessalonians 2:7,8 and since believers have the Holy Spirit living inside them, they can’t remain behind either. I Cor 3:16
4. The tribulation period is a 7-year period known as Jacob’s trouble and since Jacob refers to Israel, therefore Christians are not going to be part of it. Jeremiah 30:7 
5. Believers are the bride of Christ and no man would want to let his bride get abused. Ephesians 5:25, therefore the rapture must come before the time of Jacob’s trouble.
6. Since the church is no longer mentioned after Revelation ch 3, and John is told to "come up hither" in Revelation 4:1, the rapture must come before the tribulation spoke of in chapters 5 & 6 and elsewhere that covers the period known as Daniel’s 70th week.
7. Matthew 24 is mostly talking to the nation of Israel, the rapture can be seen in verses 40,41 but the earlier part of the chapter is directed to the Jews and the nation of Israel.
8. Paul was the first to reveal the rapture, as he said he was revealing a mystery that had not been known till then. I Corinthians 15:51 and therefore the first part of Matthew 24 does not concern the rapture, but rather Israel.
9. Daniel’s 70th week, which is the time period the tribulation covers, is for Israel, not the church and Michael the archangel will stand up for Daniel’s people (the Jews).  Daniel 12:1
10. No man knows the day or the hour, Matthew 24:36 therefore Christians have to be removed before the time of the tribulation.  If we were present, we would know the day of His 2nd coming since we would witness the antichrist make the covenant with Israel (Daniel 9:24-27) and start the countdown.

Now for the questions. 

Lets consider each of the 10 points above, and see if they make sense or is there more to study and understand.

Questions on points 1, 2 & 5

It’s true that God will not pour His wrath down on believers.  However, does the entire 70th week involve God pouring out His wrath, or does God’s wrath only begin somewhere during this time period?  Tribulation seems to be what the world (and the prince of this world, the devil) does to believers, but wrath is something that God pours out on the world, starting with the 6th seal of Revelation ch 6. Between the 5th and 6th seal we read about those that have been martyred for the cause of Christ ask in Rev 6:10 “And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?”  Finally, the day of God’s wrath arrives and begins, in Rev 6:17. So doesn’t it seem that all of this 7 year period is not God pouring out His wrath, only part of this time period, with the first part being tribulation, followed by God's wrath?

Questions on point 3

Nowhere is the Holy Spirit mentioned.  Isn’t it a leap to say that since believers have the in-dwelling of the Holy Spirit, and if the Holy Spirit is taken away, then believers must be taken away and before the tribulation starts?  However, since the man of sin is revealed at what’s known as the abomination of desolation (Daniel 9:27) which is in the middle of this time period (Revelation 13), this idea that II Thess 2:7 referring to the Holy Spirit can’t really tell us the sequence of the rapture happening before this 7 year period even begins, can it? Just who is this “he” referring to in II Thessalonians ch 2, that is being taken out of the way?  The Bible isn’t specific in naming the he. Also, how would anyone get saved during this 7 year period if the Holy Spirit is removed?   Could this he that is being referenced in verse 7 be very closely tied to the same he that is being talked about just a few verses earlier, which concerns the antichrist.   Something or someone is preventing the antichrist from being revealed. In Revelation 13 we see an image of a beast, the rise of a world government and how one of the heads of this government gets a deadly wound.  In Revelation 17 there is more about this, when we read in verse 8 “when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.” which seems to say that one of these kings is taken out of the way (killed) and yet he still is. It is this individual that becomes the beast, or rather the beast becomes him, and the beast which gets its power from the dragon, the devil. In Rev 13:4 and Rev 17:8 we see that this beast ascends out of the bottomless pit (hell). Finally, could this individual “he who now letteth will let” in II Thess 2:7 be referring to one of the kings that make up the world government, mentioned in Revelation 13 & 17, who is killed but somehow is seen to be alive but really isn't. Who, then the world wonders after him and just a few verses earlier in II Thess 2:4 he sits in the temple claiming that he is God.

Question on points 4,7 & 9

Daniel (ch 9:2) had been reading the book of Jeremiah, so he knew full well what Jeremiah had written.  The book of Daniel is very important when studying the book of Revelation. In Daniel 12, the things he was told he didn’t understand (12:8) and was told in 12:9 “for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end.” and it’s with the revelation given to John in the book of Revelation, that we can understand the things told to Daniel.  In the first verse (12:1), Daniel is told Michael will stand up for “thy people”, which, since Daniel was a Jew would seem to imply that, here again as in Jeremiah 30:7, this time period is only going to be for Jews. The key to me, starts at 12:2, which is the resurrection. Since we know the rapture (I Thess 4 & I Cor 15) involves the bodily resurrection of believers, this passage must be dealing with the same events. Otherwise this doesn’t make sense.   Finally, in verses 10-13 we see the same time period that was mentioned in Daniel 9, which mentions him having already read Jeremiah, and concerns this final 70th week. Daniel is told he is going to rest (die) but will stand in his lot at the end of the days, which to me is obviously referring to the resurrection at the rapture. Also, why is Daniel told in verse 12:12 that he will have to wait 1335 days? This time period seems odd but close to the same segments of this 70th week as mentioned elsewhere in Daniel 12:9 and Revelation (11:2, 12:6).  If Daniel is going to wait 1335 days, when would this period start since it’s obviously not the full 7 years? If this is only for the Jews, then why do we read in Daniel 12:1 “thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book.”? How does one get their name in the book? Is this not the book of life mentioned in Revelation 20:12?

Further, Paul tells us in Galatians 3:28,29 that there is no Jew nor Greek concerning salvation, and that if we put our faith and trust in Jesus, then we too are heirs to the promise given to Abraham, just like Daniel.   Otherwise, is Daniel going to be resurrected separately?

Just who is Jesus addressing in Matthew 24?  Isn’t it his closest followers? Is he addressing them as His followers or as the earthly, physical nation who will reject Him? Who are the elect mentioned in Matt 24:22,24.   Do a search on the word “elect” in the New Testament - who is being referenced? Is it the Jews, or believers, those that have put their faith in the Lord Jesus Christ? This is clear to me that this entire passage is Jesus addressing those who are his followers and have trusted Him, not to some earthly, physical nation or a specific ethnic group.  In Mark 4, Jesus explains that the parables are given broadly to those who do not yet believe, but the parables are only actually explained to His followers and those that put their faith in Him. Finally, Paul tells us in I Cor 2:14 “But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.”

Question point 6

Just because the churches mentioned earlier are no longer being addressed after ch 3, does that require they are now gone and the rapture to have occurred?

This is something that tended to sort of make sense until I really started to study Matthew 24 with Revelation 6, as they are the same events.  However, if Jesus is addressing those who are following Him in Matthew 24, this poses a problem for this idea of the church being raptured after Revelation 3 (or beginning of ch4 which John is told come up hither).  

Question on point 8

Does the use of the word mystery here in I Corinthians 15 require that the rapture, which Paul is talking about, had never been mentioned or revealed before?  It is true that God chooses not to reveal some things at a given time, but only later. Take the case of Daniel, who was told things about the last days, but instead of explaining these things, he was told to seal up the book until the end. If in fact the first part of Matthew 24 is addressing those who have believed on Jesus, then it can’t be right to say that Paul is teaching something new, for Jesus had already spoken about it.  Also, since Jesus refers to Daniel’s prophecy in Matthew 24, then the things Daniel was told surely also deal with this same event among others of the last days? See also Mark 13 and Luke 21. If we let the Bible define itself, and look elsewhere the word mystery is used, it seems clear that the meaning is not something that was not known before, but rather is something that is not easy to understand.

Question on point 10

No so sure about this one either.  Since a deal could get made in the back room of some government office somewhere, nobody would yet know when to “start the clock”.  The issues raised so far really come down to deciding who Jesus is speaking to in Matthew 24 and who is being discussed in Daniel when concerning the 70th week.  If however, Jesus is speaking to those who believe on Him, it still doesn’t allow one to know the day or the hour, because He is speaking about the things that they will see in the last days.