It is time to elect a new national leader, and your vote is very important. Here are some facts about the three leading candidates.

Candidate A associates with crooked politicians, and consults with astrologers. He’s had two mistresses. He also smokes constantly, plays cards every chance he gets, and drinks 8 to 10 martinis a day.

Candidate B has been kicked out of office twice, sleeps until noon, takes leisurely baths lasting for hours, used opium in college and drinks a quart of whiskey every evening.

Candidate C is a decorated war hero. He’s a vegetarian, doesn’t smoke, drinks only an occasional beer and never cheated on his wife. He is extremely kind to children and dogs.

Which of these candidates would be your choice?

But, before you choose, consider these points:

• We should be very reluctant to “judge” until we have all the facts. And we almost never (never?) have all the facts!
• God can work with just about anyone, for good and for ill.
• Sometimes He chooses the most extraordinary of “leaders”.
• Our estimation of things, including “leaders”, may be altogether at variance with God’s.

Now… whom did you choose?

The fact is… all three have been significant national leaders, and even world leaders, who were clearly chosen and used by God.

Candidate A is Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Candidate B is Winston Churchill.

Candidate C is Adolph Hitler.

Who would YOU vote for?

[Written in 1996.]

Elections, elections, everywhere! But who would YOU vote for?

Israel

In Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu has been elected Prime Minister by the narrowest of margins. He has now formed a coalition government (in Israel, there is no other kind!) consisting of his own Likud Party and various right-wing and religious parties. The Labor Party of the assassinated Yitzhak Rabin and his successor Shimon Peres is now out, and along with it (probably) the whole Oslo/PLO peace process.

You are, of course, a believer in peace. “Pray for the peace of Jerusalem” (Psa 122:6). “Blessed are the peacemakers” (Mat 5:9). So you would have voted for Peres and the Labor Party, who were instrumental in negotiating peace with Yasser Arafat, right?

But you also believe that Jerusalem is to be the eternal capital of Israel. So how could you have voted for a party with plans to cede part of God’s Holy City to the Arabs? Instead, you would have voted for the Likud Party, which promised an undivided Jerusalem in Israeli hands, right?

It’s all very difficult, isn’t it?

Russia

In Russia, Boris Yeltsin has now won a new four-year term as President, with vows to continue economic and political reforms. Making a prudent alliance with the third-highest vote-getter, Yeltsin was able to capture a runoff over the Communist candidate Gennady Zyuganov, who had finished a close second in the general election.

You are, of course, a believer in freedom and economic opportunity; you know what terrible atrocities the Communists perpetrated under Stalin. And it would certainly be a good thing if Russia kept its doors open to Western influences. So you would have voted for Yeltsin, right?

On the other hand, the democratic reforms in Russia over the past five years have stimulated the growth of a whole criminal class, a Russian “mafia” which controls a vast system of drugs, pornography, prostitution, and every other vice. The Communists would never have tolerated this. And, for that matter, the Communists had the means — and the will — to intervene in the Middle East and to fulfill Bible prophecy (Ezekiel 38?). So they should be in power. And you would have voted for them, right?

Again, very difficult.

The United States

In the US, Democratic President Bill Clinton — all but written off last year as the “victim” (?) of a whole host of scandals and misadventures — now looks strong again for the November election. His probable opponent — Republican Bob Dole — has seemed, by comparison to Clinton, old and dull and uncertain. Dole has a tendency to grouchiness, while Clinton can be smooth and charming. But it’s still a long way to November.

The Democratic Party in America has been, and continues to be, the party dedicated to protecting the rights of minorities — those shut out for so long from the political process. The Democratic Party has, since the days of Franklin Roosevelt, championed the cause of the poor and the disadvantaged. So you will vote the Democratic ticket in ’96, right?

On the other hand, the Republican Party has long been the party of Christian conservatism, the opponent of abortionists and homosexual activists, the party of fiscal responsibility and family values and law and order. So you will vote Republican, right?

But on the OTHER other hand, the Republican Party has also long been the party of the wealthy and the special interests — and is the party most likely to turn its back on Israel. So it’s back to the Democrats, right?

But don’t forget the OTHER other other hand… the Democratic Party has most often favored the “rights” of gays and pro-abortion advocates. And Bill Clinton has become notorious for his marital infidelities (real? alleged? some of both? whatever).

So you will vote for… whom?

The right choice

How sad it would be if all our hopes rested upon any mortal man, or upon any political party.

But we know that the Almighty rules in the kingdom of men (Dan 4:17,25,32; 5:21), and that He sets up whomsoever He pleases, and that His purposes will prevail. The parties, and the men, to whom He gives temporary power and authority — whether in Israel, Russia, the United States, or any other nation — are His choices, for His purposes, whether we understand or not.

“Now [God] commands all people everywhere to repent. For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed” (Acts 17:30,31).

May that man, the Lord Jesus, return soon!

With every passing day, we are closer to the Return of Jesus the Christ. The message of his imminent Return is as urgent as ever. The certainty of his Second Coming is clearly good news for a world in distress: there is not a country on this earth which is not suffering from confusion, hardship and turmoil. Our world needs God’s help now.

Why then the apparent delay in the Second Coming?

When asked privately by his disciples, “Tell us, when will this [the destruction of the Temple] be, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the close of the age?” (Mat 24:3), Jesus gave several examples and predicted specific events that would be perceived and understood as indicating a soon fulfillment of his prophecy. Near-term fulfillment was the authenticating mark of a true prophet (Deu 18:22). And Jesus was proved true. Spoken around AD 30, the parts of the Mount Olivet prophecy about the overthrow of Jerusalem were fulfilled in AD 70.

Jesus’ complete prophecy as recorded in Matthew 24-25 also included a number of parables: the budding fig tree, the unwatchful householder, the wise and wicked servants, the wise and foolish maidens, and the servants entrusted with money. All were calculated to teach his disciples their need to “watch”, ie, to be ready, to be prepared, and to be occupied in his work, while the Lord was away (Mat 24:42,44; 25:13). For how long? No one knew, not even Jesus (Mat 24:36). The wait for fulfillment is going on nearly two thousand years. Did the parables indicate such a long delay?

One parable did speak of a delay. Concerning the ten maidens “who took their lamps and went to meet the bridegroom” (Mat 25:1), the story goes on to say: “As the bridegroom was delayed, they all slumbered and slept” (Mat 25:5). Jesus did not state the reason for the delay. However, it did have the effect of allowing slumber to overcome both the wise and the foolish maidens. Assuming that the correct interpretation is that Jesus is the bridegroom (cp Luke 5:35; 12:35-38; Rev 19:7), what might be the reason(s) for his delay in returning to the earth?

Consider the story of the death of Lazarus told in John 11. When Jesus had been informed that “he whom you love is ill” (v 3), he said: “This illness is not unto death; it is for the glory of God, so that the Son of God may be glorified by means of it” (v 4). So Jesus was very clear on his purpose and priorities. The next two verses are illuminating:

“Now Jesus loved Martha and her sister [Mary] and Lazarus. So when he heard that he was ill, he stayed two days longer at the place where he was” (vv 5,6).

Having emphasized his love for the whole family — which is repeated from v 3, and which is pointed out again in v 36 — the text indicates that Jesus deliberately delayed his going. Why? For the glory of God mentioned earlier. And for the instruction of his disciples, as the story unfolds. When Jesus finally said, “Our friend Lazarus has fallen asleep, but I go to awaken him out of sleep” (v 11), the disciples were glad to hear that recovery was imminent (v 12). “Then Jesus told them plainly, ‘Lazarus is dead; and for your sake I am glad that I was not there, so that you may believe’ ” (v 15). So the delay was for the benefit of the twelve.

The delay was also for the benefit of Martha and Mary when Jesus finally arrived. Both in turn, when they went out to meet him, reproachfully said: “Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died” (vv 21,32). Yet Martha was quick to add: “And even now I know that whatever you ask from God, God will give you” (v 22). The ensuing verses are wonderful to read:

“Jesus said to her, ‘Your brother will rise again.’ Martha said to him, ‘I know that he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day.’ Jesus said to her, ‘I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, and whoever lives and believes in me shall never die. Do you believe this?’ She said to him, ‘Yes, Lord; I believe that you are the Christ, the Son of God, he who is coming into the world’ ” (vv 23-27).

Jesus knew how Martha and Mary would be tortured by his delay. He also knew that their belief in the resurrection was solid. Yet he held back in order to let their faith grow. He stretched them to the limit. He took the sisters to the tomb. With mourners wailing, bystanders questioning (“Could not he who opened the eyes of the blind man have kept this man from dying?”), and a body starting to smell after four days of death, Martha could hardly believe Jesus’ instruction to take away the tomb’s stone door (vv 34-39). Jesus then reminded her: “Did I not tell you that if you would believe, you would see the glory of God?” (v 40). Simply, but magnificently, the text then says: “So they took away the stone” (v 41). This was GREAT faith!

That Jesus was always looking for his Father’s wisdom in this situation is evident from his acknowledging prayer:

“Father, I thank thee that thou hast heard me. I knew that thou hearest me always, but I have said this on account of the people standing by, that they may believe that thou didst send me” (vv 41,42).

Who knows what blessings came to the people in Perea during those two extra days of bewildered uncertainty before Jesus set out for Bethany? We do know of the saving belief that was generated at the graveside in the next few moments, to the glory of God. For when he finished his prayer, Jesus “cried with a loud voice, ‘Lazarus, come out!’ The dead man came out, his hands and feet bound with bandages, and his face wrapped with a cloth. Jesus said to them, ‘Unbind him, and let him go.’ Many of the Jews therefore, who had come with Mary and had seen what he did, believed in him” (vv 43-45).

To summarize the reasons for Jesus’ delay, it was for:

(1) the glory of God, (2) the instruction of the twelve apostles, (3) the “faith-stretching” of Martha and Mary, and (4) the convincing of the tomb bystanders.

The last three are clearly benefits for people who thought that Jesus had done wrong in delaying his coming to save Lazarus.

This is exactly the point made in 2Pe 3. Having written that in “the last days” there would be scoffers saying, “Where is the promise of his coming?” (vv 3,4), Peter went on to write: “The Lord is not slow about his promise as some count slowness, but is forbearing toward us, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance” (v 9).

In other words, any delay on God’s part is for the purpose of saving men and women. For Peter, there was no doubt that “the day of the Lord will come” (v 10) as promised, along with the dissolution and destruction of the world of sinful men, in order to make way for “a new earth in which righteousness dwells” (v 13).

But eventually the Day will come. So Peter exhorted his readers:

“Since all these things are thus to be dissolved, what sort of persons ought you to be in lives of holiness and godliness, waiting for and hastening the coming of the day of God…?” (vv 11,12).

This “hastening” is alternately rendered “earnestly desiring” in the RSV, and the NIV reads: “You ought to live holy and godly lives as you look forward to the day of God and speed its coming.” Like the wise maidens who went out to meet the bridegroom, their keenness and preparation was represented by their extra oil. For them, there was no problem with delay. Let us take heed, and live likewise.

“Where did God come from?” What kind of question is that? Well, for one thing, it may be an innocent child’s question — to which the answer is something like this:

‘Look, sonny, God has always been; there never was a time when He did not exist! He created everything else in this whole universe. Everything else came from God. But God did not come from anything. The Bible says He is from everlasting — that’s forever! — and He will go on to everlasting — that’s forever again!”

But, before we get over our heads in trying to explain the simplest, and yet the most profound, of matters — the existence, and plan, and purpose of God — we might pause for a moment and imagine that the questioner might (and in this case, since I know the questioner… most definitely DOES) have a different point in mind.

And the fact is… the Bible does answer this question in the most straightforward and literal manner:

Question: Where did God come from?

Answer: The Bible says, “God came from Teman” (Hab 3:3) — a region in the Sinai Peninsula. The passage appears to refer to God’s manifestations of Himself in the days of Moses and the wilderness wanderings of Israel.

The lesson, perhaps, is that we should be careful to understand, if possible, what the questioner wants to know, and needs to know, and what he can understand of an answer.

Another lesson is: Sometimes the simplest approach is the best!

Which reminds me of the little tyke who finds his Dad (probably watching a football game on TV at the time), and asks in all innocence: “Dad, where did I come from?” All of a sudden, Dad forgets about the ball game and now has visions of storks and cabbage patches whirling through his head — and maybe a first primer on the facts of life — for which he is far from ready. This wasn’t supposed to come along for a few years yet. Stammers and hums and haws follow, and finally Dad can do no better than, “Son, that’s a big question; we’ll have to think about that a bit!” To which the little fellow replies: “But, Dad, Johnny — who just moved in next door — came from Dallas. And all I want to know is… where did I come from?”

Oh….

So, in this spirit, we can answer the following questions, taken straight and verbatim from the Bible:

Q: Where did God come from? A: Teman (Hab 3:3).

Q: Where did the LORD come from? A: Sinai (Deu 33:2).

Q: Where did Jesus come from? A: Galilee (Mat 3:13), or Nazareth (Mar 1:9).

To which may be added the following (until now) unasked questions, with their irrefutable answers, directly from the Bible.

Q: Where did Jacob come from? A: Paddan Aram (Gen 33:18).

Q: Where did Boaz come from? A: Bethlehem (Rth 2:4).

Q: Where did Solomon come from? A: Gibeon (2Ch 1:13).

Q: Where did the queen of Sheba come from? A: The uttermost parts of the earth (Mat 12:42).

Q: Where did the scribes come from? A: Jerusalem (Mar 7:1).

Q: Where did Timothy come from? A: Thessalonica (1Th 3:6).

And, last but not least…

Q: Where did the goat come from? A: The west (Dan 8:5).

Inquiring minds want to know!

Which viewpoint is right?

It happens all the time. Two Bible-believing people have opposing viewpoints on a certain passage of Scripture. Both claim to have solid supporting evidence in terms of context, cross-references and consistency. Both make what they think are reasonable arguments for their interpretations. So how can it be determined which viewpoint is right? And does it matter?

Using elementary logic, there are four possibilities regarding accuracy. Either the first viewpoint is 100% right and the second is all wrong, or the second interpretation is 100% right and the first is all wrong, or both interpretations are partly right and partly wrong, or both are 100% wrong. But again, how can it be determined which possibility is the right one? And does it matter?

Based on probability, it is most likely that both viewpoints are partly right and partly wrong. With the exception of clear-cut fundamental Bible teaching — sometimes called “first principles” — no one has the full, complete, all-aspects-covered answer.

For example, a Bible student can be 100% accurate in interpreting the known evidence, but what about the unknown? Scripture is so richly significant and interwoven that discovery of another aspect or realization of another line of inquiry is just a matter of time. An avid Bible student will never stop learning… which means there is always something more to learn… which means that even the most diligent and knowledgeable student doesn’t understand it all… which means that even 99% rightness still has 1% wrongness/incompleteness… which means that (with the exception of a true “first principle”) no one should be unalterably dogmatic on a matter. To be so is mathematically insupportable, and presumptuous as well.

If we are spiritually growing as disciples of Christ, we are continually growing in knowledge and understanding. God’s Truth invites investigation. So when encountering a different viewpoint, we should seize the opportunity at least to understand the evidence provided. We can always learn something, and if we’re wise, we will adjust our own viewpoint accordingly.

So what has all this to do with Bible prophecy? Simple. There are many differing interpretations of prophetic Scripture. Which viewpoint is right? The measuring stick for soundness and rightness must be God’s Word. It’s that simple.

Now some readers may remember than many of the “other” viewpoints cited Bible verses as evidence. That’s correct. Thus it becomes a matter of determining the relevance (does the text contain the same or similar words and ideas?), validity (does it really support the point being argued?), and clarity of the citation (is the reference self-explanatory, or does it, too, need interpretation?). It’s also a question of ensuring that the interpretation is in harmony with undisputed fundamentals of Bible teaching. For example, if a prophetic viewpoint is inconsistent with or contradicts well-known Bible facts and doctrine, then it must be modified accordingly, or abandoned. So just because a viewpoint is argued by citing dozens of verses does not, in itself, make it Biblically sound. What counts is clear, relevant evidence, validly reasoned.

But who is to decide what is clear, etc? In the opening paragraph, the scenario was about two people claiming solid Bible evidence and sound reasoning. How are relevance, validity, and clarity evaluated? And how is one viewpoint determined to be more right than another? Well, there are rules of logic and argumentation and applicability that can serve as a measuring stick — but the issue goes beyond academic accuracy. It’s still necessary to ask, “Does it matter?”

Yes and no. It does matter if a person’s misunderstanding will take him/her out of the way that leads to salvation. It doesn’t matter if the viewpoint is simply differing detail such as timing and location and protagonists. For example, if one’s viewpoint is that “all believers will be raptured to be with Christ, and so they will totally avoid the last days tribulation”, that person might be shaken in faith upon finding him/herself having to endure the tribulation, as Scripture plainly teaches will be the experience of some believers (cf 1Pe 4:12,13; Luke 21:34-36; Rev 2:10; 6:9-11; 7:14; 11:3-8).

On the other hand, if one’s viewpoint is that “the Gog of Ezekiel 38 will invade Israel before Christ returns, and/or the ‘merchants of Tarshish’ refer to the UK and the USA who step out to resist Gog”, it seems unlikely that holding an alternative view of “an invasion after Christ’s return, and/or the merchants are out to cooperate with Gog” jeopardizes one’s salvation.

Suppose a person with a particular viewpoint is 100% right on an issue that could readily affect the salvation of a person with a different viewpoint. The matter doesn’t stop here. If the #1 person is not patient, gentle and meek in trying to persuade #2 (cf 2Ti 2:24,25), but rather impatient, harsh and accusatory (manifested by strong words, condescension, indignation, separation, etc), the correctness of #1 counts for nothing. Wrong behavior more than cancels out right knowledge. If anyone has been blessed to have the right understanding of Scripture, especially the prophetic message, he/she has the responsibility to be forthright but caring toward those who do not yet share that understanding. Such patient, gentle teaching imitates the prophets, the apostles, and Jesus himself.

So which viewpoint is right? The one that lovingly and constantly witnesses for Christ and his Return.

TOLERANCE, INTOLERANCE, AND IN BETWEEN

The following is a three-way exchange of recent days:

Brother X: “(There is)… a climate of confrontation and intolerance threatening to destroy our unique fellowship.”

Brother Y: “However, it should be pointed out that some of us believe that our unique fellowship is threatened with destruction from excessive tolerance.”

Brother Z: “So we should use slight intolerance…?”

Now this exchange is threatening to give me a headache, for which I have little “tolerance”. So, to head this off, and incidentally to figure out where I stand on this, I headed for the dictionary…

“Tolerance” has at least four distinct meanings (not that they are totally unrelated to one another, but there are gradations involved… and, as everybody knows, the fun is in the “details”!):

• a policy of non-interference with; the desire to allow or permit (something or someone).
• freedom from bigotry or prejudice. (This ought to be further qualified: “bigotry” is “blind, or narrow-minded adherence to a particular point of view” — at least that is the primary definition; and “prejudice” is “suspicion or irrational hatred”.)
• The amount of variation allowed from a standard. (This is basically a scientific definition — as in “allowable or workable deviation” from a manufacturing standard — but it does suggest some interesting points from a Christadelphian point of view.)
• allowing others freedom to hold religious views that differ from the established ones.

Now, this suggests a question: When they use the word “tolerance”, or its negation, “intolerance”, which of the four definitions (or its negation) do each of Brothers X, Y, and Z mean?

Does Brother X mean there is “a climate of blind, narrow-minded… suspicion and irrational hatred”? Or does he mean there is a “climate in which certain beliefs are not allowed”? My guess is… the first. But can I be sure?

When Brother Y says that we may have “excessive tolerance”, does he mean that we have gotten too far away from “blind, narrow-minded… suspicion and irrational hatred”? Or does he mean that we’ve gotten (or could get) to the point where we “allow or permit” certain beliefs that we should not? My guess is… the second.

Is Brother Z suggesting that even “slight bigotry or prejudice” is too much? Of course. Or is he suggesting that we should, as a community, “allow or permit” any and every doctrine? I hope not.

Just a little case study of how the use of the same word with different meanings can drastically affect our discussions. Or, as the fellow once said, “It all depends on what you mean by what you say!”

Now take the four definitions of “tolerance” above:

(a) If by “tolerance” we mean a policy of non-interference with particular doctrines or practices IN THE BROTHERHOOD, then… certainly… absolute “tolerance” would be absolutely destructive of our faith, or at least of our community’s uniqueness. Amongst Christadelphians, such absolute “tolerance” could never be tolerated!

(b) If by “tolerance” we mean freedom from bigotry and prejudice, then we can never have too much! It’s like Peter says in Acts 10 and 11, “I have learned not to call or consider any man common or unclean!” However, as with Cornelius and his household, such men (and women) could not be “tolerated” in the ecclesia unless they believed the first principles and were baptized.

What is interesting about this definition is how the commonly-accepted definitions of ordinary words may come to affect our very thought processes (think “gay” and “pro-choice”). If “intolerance” is so readily equated with “prejudice” and “bigotry”, who would ever want to be “intolerant”? But sometimes, I am sure we all agree, we must be “intolerant”! When and where, that is the question!

(c) If by “tolerance” we mean an acceptable variation from a generally-recognized standard, then — again — tolerance is a very real desideratum (sorry, I was reading John Thomas today: “desideratum: a thing greatly to be desired”). Part of what keeps us together is our adherence to a generally-recognized standard (a statement of faith). But another part of what keeps us together, practically speaking, is that we generally recognize that there are acceptable variations from that standard, ie, certain doctrines and practices not specifically forbidden, because not of a first-principle nature. As has been said, “In essential things –unity. In doubtful things — liberty (or tolerance). And in all things — love.”

(d) If by “tolerance” we mean allowing others to hold religious views that differ from the established ones, we better believe in this. If our governments did not believe in this, where would we be, with our “non-orthodox” views? Hiding in cellars and caves, that’s where!

Submitted in a spirit of equal parts “tolerance” and “intolerance”,

George

I’m not quite sure how one does it — nor even how I do it, sometimes — but I think it’s a good idea to develop some sort of “circuit breaker” in the mind. So sometimes, when I’ve been pretty hard on myself — deservedly so — for a failure or shortcoming or even a chronic deficiency — then I find myself “turning off”… as in, ‘I’m not going to think about that any more for a while’… and maybe going for a walk, or just resting, or sitting in the back yard and listening to the birds… and thinking — not very profoundly or deeply — but just letting the mind wander over… the goodness of God, and how Jesus loved sinners, and stretched out his hand and touched even the leper or the prostitute. And remembering that he — that THEY, God AND His Son — love me! In other words, going “easy” on myself for a little while, and reminding myself that I am the child of God, and that He loves me, warts and all.

Now that doesn’t mean that I should stay in that pleasant, soothing state altogether, or too long. But sometimes I need it, so as not to overload. And being strengthened by that little “break”, after a while, I can go back to the “struggle”, whatever form it takes. But I can’t — I just CAN’T — be struggling all the time!

Now it’s not as though, when I am “wrestling” with this or that problem of mine, or trying diligently to improve in this or that aspect of my life, that I can’t — simultaneously — think of the goodness and mercy of God. And probably that “double-thinking” would be the ideal. So maybe it’s more like… at times, I could easily forget what I SHOULD be remembering all the time: that God loves me, because — well, just look at me! What’s there to love? As brother Dev told us this weekend, “We are a miserable mass of sins and temptations and lusts, and the flesh — like a subtle snake — is inextricably entwined in all we do and think and say!”

And THEN he REALLY got going!

Seriously, though, Dev had a lot more to say than that. But the point is worth remembering, and that can be a corrective to the tendency to dwell too much in the pleasant, soothing atmosphere of “God-loves-me” Land — where a too-long sojourn may possibly leave us thinking something like: “Well, now, since God does love me — freely and without reservation — then why should it make any difference what I do, or don’t do?”

I remember a while back we had this same sort of discussion, when some expressed reservations about my quoting brother Growcott in daily exhortations… because he could be very uncompromising — and too much GVG could leave one feeling hopelessly inadequate.

But what I tried to say then, and I’m trying to repeat now, is: in our lives, we all need some comfort AND some challenge. Some patting on the back AND some kicks in the… backside.

And we each need some of both, but in different proportions. And we each need different proportions at different times.

So, taking GVG’s comments and exhortations, for example, I’ll say for myself that I wouldn’t want to read him all the time or exclusively, any more than I would want to dwell ONLY on the passages in the Bible that tell me, “Be ye holy, as God is holy” or “Be ye perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect”. But I need those passages, and those sorts of exhortations, sometimes. And other times, I need to hear that, yes, God loves ME! And I need to believe it.

Why were the Canaanites so bad that God told Israel to kill them all, including children?

Well, it’s a tough question, isn’t it? But the OT is full of the same question — just phrased in different ways: Why was the whole world so bad that God destroyed them all, young and old alike, but saved only eight in the days of Noah? (And, of course, it can be pointed out that in the NT Jesus gives explicit support to the account. If we believe in Jesus, we can’t help but believe that the story of Noah is literally true.)

On one level, the answer is: the Canaanites (so far as we know about them) were grossly idolatrous people; their systems of worship involved the worst forms of sexual abominations, hetero and homo and other things totally unmentionable. Their worship was totally tied up in these things; you couldn’t “worship” the Baalim and the Ashtoreth, etc, without visiting the equivalent of brothels on a regular basis. There were male prostitutes and female prostitutes, who were called “priests” and “priestesses”. The whole business was publicly witnessed, and glorified. And it was “fun” and “exciting”. (Probably not much worry about getting young and old alike out to the “mid-week Bible class” there!) And then there was the offering of babies in the fires to their gods! Sex and violence galore. Las Vegas, Mardi Gras, and the abortion clinic all wrapped up in one!

One can’t tell for sure, but there were possibly some terrible diseases — including sexually transmitted ones — epidemic in these peoples too. There are at least a couple of occasions when God tells Israel to destroy certain peoples, and leave alive only those.. young?… girls who were virgins.. no one else (was this because all the others were so infected?). Other times, of course, He commands that ALL be destroyed. Sometimes He even saves others — like Rahab and all her family — even though a decree of death was placed on all the people of Jericho. Presumable He knew what He was doing in every case… even if we can’t understand it.

What problems might this have presented for Israel if there were pockets of these people, and their worship, everywhere in Israel? We know that some remained, and were “thorns” in the sides of Israel ever after.

On another level, there is this answer to the question: God doesn’t OWE anyone anything. Life, even brief life, is a gift from God, and He is free to take it back when and how He pleases. He cannot be unjust. The only problem is: we have trouble understanding WHY. But that’s our problem, not His. It’s like Job… he keeps asking WHY. Why am I suffering? Why aren’t THEY suffering? Why won’t God explain it all to MY satisfaction? Why won’t God at least come and talk to me?

The thing is: God finally does come to Job, and talk to him, but He DOESN’T explain it! He doesn’t answer all Job’s questions. Not really. Instead, He says, in abbreviated form, “I’m God and you’re not. Were YOU there when I made the heavens and the earth? Who are you to question HOW I do anything?” And, apparently, Job is satisfied and repents — having seen the great and terrible glory of God, up close and personal.

Is that an answer? Sort of, I guess. Not easy to put over to others, I suppose. Unless they are disposed to see it.

But I think that to see a lot of what the Bible teaches, on a very basic level, we have to be prepared to give up a lot of our preconceptions (some might call it “humanism”). To put ourselves in that right place vis a vis God and His Law and His commandments… is very humbling to the flesh and pride of us human beings. We are not the center of the universe, all things do not revolve around us… that’s hard to grasp, because for everyone of us, they do! We are born thinking about ourselves, we live thinking about ourselves, we see the whole world through our own eyes, and no one else’s. And we just have to keep learning, time after time, that there is something bigger than us!

Exhortation for the day concluded.

“We are hard pressed on every side, but not crushed; perplexed, but not in despair; persecuted, but not abandoned; struck down, but not destroyed… We know that the one who raised the Lord Jesus from the dead will also raise us with Jesus and present us with you in his presence… Therefore we do not lose heart. Though outwardly we are wasting away, yet inwardly we are being renewed day by day. For our light and momentary troubles are achieving for us an eternal glory that far outweighs them all. So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen. For what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal” (2Co 4:8,9,14,16-18).

The apostle Paul and his companions spent years trudging up and down the roads of the Roman Empire — always seeking opportunity to bring the good news of Jesus Christ and his Kingdom to their fellowmen. It was not easy work. The demands on the spirit as well as the body were almost overwhelming. There were dangers on every side, at every turn in the road. Foul weather, hunger, thirst, disease, shipwreck. And the constant threat of physical harm — or even death — at the hands of Jewish partisans or Roman authorities (2Co 11:25-28).

Paul never minimized the physical and emotional trials of such work. He knew too well the limitations of mortal man, even though “born again”, forgiven, spiritually re-generated, and Holy Spirit-infused. The life he had pursued was grindingly hard. Sometimes, he despaired even of life itself. Paul wrote: “We do not want you to be uninformed, brothers, about the hardships we suffered… We were under great pressure, far beyond our ability to endure, so that we despaired even of life. Indeed, in our hearts we felt the sentence of death” (2Co 1:8,9a). But he continued: “But this happened that we might not rely on ourselves but on God who raises the dead. He has delivered us from such a deadly peril, and he will deliver us. On him we have set our hope that he will continue to deliver us” (vv 9b,10).

So why did Paul go on? Because he hoped in God who raises the dead. Because there had come to him, in that dark room in Damascus years earlier, the absolute knowledge that Jesus was alive — raised from the dead, never to die, again! Nothing else was so real as that simple but earth-shaking fact. Jesus was alive!

Jesus is alive! And those who believe in him, who trust in him, who commit their lives to him, will live with him (1Co 15:20-23; 1Th 4:14-16)!

This is real. This superlative fact will never change. No matter what sufferings a believer must endure, whether for days or weeks or months or years, this reality of a living Lord will never change. In the truly big picture, framed by God and the universe and eternity, the resurrection of Jesus and the offer of everlasting life to his followers are irrefutable fact and unshakable promise. For the believer, these are reality.

For Paul, then, “my troubles are light and momentary and temporary” was much more than a few brave words. In the context of divine reality, “the glory that awaits me is weighty and eternal” made absolute sense. Nothing else counted. Not the pain. Not the illness. Not the privation. Not the heat nor the cold nor the damp nor the blazing sun. And not even the cruelty of other men who should have known better. The sum of all these seemingly terrible things counted for nothing compared with the new life found in Christ.

Listen how Paul explained “what really counts” to the Philippians:

“If anyone else thinks he has reasons to put confidence in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee; as for zeal, persecuting the church; as for legalistic righteousness, faultless. But whatever was to my profit I now consider loss for the sake of Christ. What is more, I consider everything a loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them rubbish, that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ — the righteousness that comes from God and is by faith. I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of sharing in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, and so, somehow, to attain to the resurrection from the dead” (Phi 3:4-11).

By Jewish reckoning, Paul’s pre-Christian life was outstandingly admirable and righteous. But even the “best” of men are only actors on a stage of God’s devising. They play their parts, and all too soon they make their final exits, like the “great” men of a hundred generations before them (Eze 31; 32:18-32). All too soon, they go to the eternal grave of dust and ashes — unless they have a hope in God (Ecc 3:18-20; 9:1-10; Psa 49:5-20; Luke 13:1-5; Isa 26:13,14,19-21).

Any “achievements” of those same “great” men — wealth, power, fame, etc — are short-lived and rarely survive the next generation (Ecc 2:1-23). “All of them are meaningless, a chasing after the wind.”

But Paul knew what to strive for. Continuing on in that same letter to the Philippians, he wrote:

“Not that I have already obtained all this, or have already been made perfect, but I press on to take hold of that for which Christ Jesus took hold of me. Brothers, I do not consider myself yet to have taken hold of it. But one thing I do: Forgetting what is behind and straining toward what is ahead, I press on toward the goal to win the prize for which God has called me… Only let us live up to what we have already attained. Join with others in following my example, brothers, and take note of those who live according to the pattern we gave you” (Phi 3:12-14,16-17).

So what is real? What really counts? What will turn to dust and ashes and what will last forever? In 2Co 5 and 6, Paul says those who find a new life in Christ (being reconciled with God) will fearlessly pursue a lifestyle inspired and controlled by the love of Christ, persuading other men and women that this life, lived with its eyes glued on the future kingdom, is the full, true life — not the shadowy existence. Read his Spirit-inspired indomitable words for yourself:

“As servants of God we commend ourselves in every way: in great endurance; in troubles, hardships and distresses; in beatings, imprisonments and riots; in hard work, sleepless nights and hunger; in purity, understanding, patience and kindness; in the Holy Spirit and in sincere love; in truthful speech and in the power of God; with weapons of righteousness in the right hand and in the left; through glory and dishonor, bad report and good report; genuine, yet regarded as impostors; known, yet regarded as unknown; dying, and yet we live on; beaten, and yet not killed; sorrowful, yet always rejoicing; poor, yet making many rich; having nothing, and yet possessing everything. We have spoken freely to you, Corinthians, and opened wide our hearts to you” (2Co 6:4-11).

Bible believers will see each day’s measure of evil and trial for the trivial thing it is in the light of eternity. They will turn the other cheek. They will walk the extra mile. They will not lose heart. For they know what is coming. They know who is coming! And they know why (Rev 11:15-18)!