Let the Wise Be Humbled

Psalm 8

LORD, our Lord,
how majestic is your name in all the earth!
You have set your glory
above the heavens.

Through the praise of children and infants
you have established a stronghold against your enemies,
to silence the foe and the avenger.
(TNIV)

Philippians 4:8

Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things.

How can we know what is real and true?

“You have no right to tell me what to do!” “That might be wrong for you but it’s not for me!” Statements like these are tossed around in our culture and sadly even in many churches. At the heart of such claims is a much deeper presupposition: there are no standards of right and wrong, further there is no standard of truth. Everything is relative. If someone would oppose the relativity of our day they must appeal to a truth that is sovereign over all people and for all time.

For the most part the word truth has lost its essential meaning. Relativists have confused and fudged the most basic understanding of the word that even children can fully comprehend. Truth is what corresponds to reality. To say that something is when it is not is non-truth, because it doesn’t match reality! For this reason truth cannot be defined as “what works” because some things “work” that aren’t true. For example if a man on the brink of divorce lies to his wife that he’s truly not cheating on her and she stays with him then the man got what he wanted but his statement didn’t correspond to reality. His lie worked but it didn’t represent truth i.e. the fact he was cheating on his wife.

There are two dangerous systems of thought which attempt to invalidate the reality of objective truth: skepticism and relativism and within each system there is a further disagreement on whether skepticism and relativism applies universally or only religiously. Universal skepticism claims that no truth is knowable. The problem in making that claim is that the claim itself is contradictory to the whole position of universal skepticism. If truth can’t be known then how do those who maintain universal skepticism objectively know that truth can’t be known? Religious skeptics profess that only religious knowledge can’t be known. At the core of this skepticism is the idea that God can’t be known. The problem with the statement, “It is impossible to know anything about God” is that one would have to know something about God, namely, the fact that he can’t be known in order to make this statement. How does the religious skeptic know so much about God that he knows God can’t be known? Their reasoning is flawed.

The universal subjectivist claims that all truth is dependent upon each person to decide for himself and that there is no standard or objective truth. The flaw in this argument is that even that claim “All truth is subjective” is subjective for the subjectivist (within the logic of their system). The subjectivist isn’t really trying to say anything! He can’t even convince someone else of his fundamental claim that all truth is subjective, since truth varies from one person to the next! The religious subjectivist holds that religious positions are relative and that there isn’t one objective truth concerning God. This idea doesn’t conform to facts because God has acted and manifested Himself in reality thereby validating only one objective truth about Himself. Religious subjectivism is disproved once facts are brought into the equation. Jesus Christ died, was buried, was resurrected. These are objective truths that can be verified through historical evidence. The foundational belief of Christianity is an objective truth claim that can be proved by evaluating solid evidence thus nullifying religious subjectivism.

The skeptics and subjectivist and those who deny the existence of God have a great dilemma. They place man at the center of morality and truth yet they then try to make a system of objective morality that all people should conform to. Based on their system this just doesn’t work! Maybe murder is wrong for you, but it may not be wrong for someone else! The skeptic and subjectivist can’t approve or rebuke one course of action over another because their opinion about “truth” doesn’t warrant that kind of “judgmentalism.” They are impotent to enforce any standard for right conduct over another person. What would this do to society? Chaos! The government or any other human wouldn’t have any right to convict child molesters worthy of the death penalty or any other heinous crime for that matter. Evil could be passed off as “true for me” while the most loving acts of kindness could be labeled as wicked. But this isn’t how the world really works. Governments do appeal to standards of right and wrong based on objective truth and pronounce judgment when those standards have been violated. Josh McDowell coined his own proverb in confronting this issue, “There are no relativists who expect to be treated relatively” (McDowell 78). In theory the skeptic or subjectivist might say that morality and truth is decided individually but the second their wife gets raped they scream, “Justice!” Though they want certain benefits from their skeptic or subjective beliefs they can’t stomach the consequences when other people live out the inevitable implications of the rationale that boasts, “Such and such is true for me!” If humanity adopted the belief that truth is relative the only fair answer one could give to someone who experienced such an atrocity is, “Tough! Get over it!” This answer doesn’t satisfy!

The heart of the matter is the question, “How can we know what is real and true?” Skepticism and subjectivism are inadequate and flawed arguments to defend the position that truth can’t be known or isn’t real. Modern thought has been so polluted with falsehood that we have forgotten how simple it is to know reality and truth. Subjectivists and skeptics have tried to replace the word belief or opinion with truth (Willard). This is irrational because you can’t make something true just by believing it! The next time you’re starving try believing that there really is food in your stomach. Even if the whole world agreed that there was food in your fridge or in your stomach it wouldn’t matter because belief doesn’t constitute truth; correspondence to reality does! “You can think of reality as what you run into when you’re wrong” (Willard 12). Only when something corresponds to the way things really are is it true. When we claim, “Jesus was and is the Son of God” we are stating an objective truth that either matches up with how things really are or it doesn’t. Since Jesus made an objective truth claim that he was God he can only be true or false. Since Jesus bodily rose from the dead we have a historic reason to believe that Jesus was speaking the truth.

Reality and truth isn’t something we make up or decide it is what really is.

Bibliography:
Groothuis, Douglas. Truth Decay. Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press, 2000.
Kreeft, Peter and Ronald K. Tacelli. Handbook of Christian Apologetics. Downers Grove:
Intervarsity Press, 1994.
McDowell, Josh and Bob Hostetler. Right From Wrong. Dallas: Word Publishing, 1994.
Willard, Dallas. “Truth: Can We Do Without It?” Christian Ethics Today. Vol. 5. Number 2,
April 1999: 12-15. .

The Cyclical Nature of the Book of Revelation

Revelation. The Greek word from which we get "revelation" is the word "apokalupsis" (αποκαλυψις) which means "to unveil" "to uncover" or "to disclose." The unveiling of a mystery (a reveleation) is not how we typically feel when we think of the book of Revelation. No doubt this is the most controversial and confusing book of the entire Bible! I invite and beg you to try on a different perspective or "pair of glasses" for reading through the book of Revelation. If you do I believe that you will be blessed as the book says (Rev. 1:3) and you will have a new appreciation for the message that is in the book.

First, understand that Revelation was not written to the "end times" generation, it was written to the persecuted Christians of the 1st century. What encouragement would a suffering Christian back in that time receive from reading a book that could only be understood by the "last generation?" NONE!

Further, I need to clarify what the Bible is speaking of when it talks about the "last days." When we hear that phrase our mind immediately jumps to a picture of calamity and the end of the world, but that isn't what Paul or Peter meant by that phrase. Examine these Scriptures for yourself:

2 Timothy 3:1-5 "But mark this: There will be terrible times in the LAST DAYS. People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God— having a form of godliness but denying its power. HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THEM" (EMPHASIS MINE).

The foundational principle of interpretation is "what did the writing mean to the original audience?" So now I ask you, who was Paul writing to in this letter? Paul is giving his pupil Timothy instructions as a minister. Paul in he last sentence commands Timothy to "have nothing to do with them." Who is "them" ? They are the people of the last days who are disguised as Christians! The most important thing I want you to see is that Paul is instructing Timothy about the kind of people that will mark the "last days" and commanding Timothy back in the 1st century to avoid those people, the people of the LAST DAYS!

Read 2 Peter 3:3. Peter warns the church that in the "last days scoffers will come." Now turn to Jude 1: 17-18. Jude is quoting 2 Peter 3:3 and is stating that what the apostles (Peter) foretold has taken place in the 1st century!

Read Peter's sermon in Acts 2. Peter was responding to the scoffers that were mocking the apostles by saying that their speaking in tongues was a result of their supposed drunkenness. On the contrary Peter told the scoffers that the speaking in tongues was a fulfillment of Joel's prophecy that said, "In the LAST DAYS, God says, I will pour out my Spirit on all people..." (EMPHASIS MINE). Indirectly we can see that Peter knew that he was living in the Last Days.

So what are the Last Days? The "Last Days" is the entire period of time between Jesus' first coming and Jesus' second coming. This is in contrast to the "Last Day" mentioned in Scripture which is the Day of Judgment.

One theory which has been suggested in order to understand Revelation is that it is cyclical (which I believe to be correct). What this means is that the book describes the present age and then ends the cycle with a picture of final judgment and then circles back and repeats the process of describing life in the present age and then ends again with a picture of final judgment, and then repeats yet again. The process repeats itself 7 times throughout the book. There are many trusted scholars who hold this view to name a couple, William Hendriksen and Boise Bible College's very own, Professor Dale Cornett who wrote a 250 page master thesis on "The Cyclical Nature of the Book of Revelation."

Again you must see this for yourself. I ask you to try and come to the book with a blank slate as though you never had been given someone else's interpretation of the symbols. The cycle generally gives a picture of the world in the present church age and then ends with a picture of final judgment (except for the first cycle 1-3 which is directed to the seven churches of Asia).

The cycles are as follows:
Chapters:
1-3
4-7
8-11
12-14
15-16
17-19
20-22

Try not to get discouraged about not understanding every symbol, rather try to get the big picture of the book and it's major flow of thought. The number 7 in the book isn't accidental and I also don't believe that the 7 cycles are merely accidental. God bless you in your pursuit of understanding, I am also on that same pursuit.