Question #1:
Hi Mr. Luginbill,
Ok, I think I have it now, thank you! Another thought came to mind, what
kind of life do plants have? It goes without saying that plants don't
have spirits - so their life is different. Certain plants move toward
the sun. I look at plants as scientific in terms of their processes
(photosynthesis, etc), I wonder now is this correct? I was reading some
of your email links on science and how as Christians we should look at
science and I just wondered. Since people know through natural
revelation that God exists, I assume we should look at nature as more
than just scientific? We must enjoy nature cause it tells us about God?
Thank you for your encouragement and reminding me again to keep my eyes
on Jesus, what He has done and will do for us. These verses have always
comforted me:
All those the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I
will never drive away.
-John 6:37
37 On the last and greatest day of the festival, Jesus stood and said in
a loud voice, “Let anyone who is thirsty come to me and drink. 38
Whoever believes in me, as Scripture has said, rivers of living water
will flow from within them.” 39 By this he meant the Spirit, whom those
who believed in him were later to receive. Up to that time the Spirit
had not been given, since Jesus had not yet been glorified. -John
7:37-39
14 For Christ’s love compels us, because we are convinced that one died
for all, and therefore all died. 15 And he died for all, that those who
live should no longer live for themselves but for him who died for them
and was raised again. -2 Corinthians 5:14-15
22 This righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who
believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, 23 for all have
sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and all are justified
freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. -
Romans 3:22-24 (I love the word "freely")
I have struggled with something lately, ongoing for a long time, and
yesterday morning I was feeling very discouraged. This passage came to
mind,
15 For we do not have a high priest who is unable to empathize with our
weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as
we are—yet he did not sin. -Hebrews 4:15
and also the temptation of Jesus, and I know what you say about we have
the right to decide what we think and feel and do, and I decided to stop
allowing the enemy to have control in this way. Please pray for me that
I will gain the victory through God's power, that I will fight in a
godly way and get this under control in the way Jesus would have me. If
Jesus is our Savior and Example in all things, and He has gone through
what we go through, then I can conquer this. And God knows my heart and
knows that I want to do what He would have me, right, so I don't have to
worry on this. Just pray for me please, it's not going to go down
without a struggle (even though I wish I could just get rid of it, cause
I want nothing to do with it!)
Thank you for listening and always for the prayer and encouragement in
Jesus - I am so grateful for you.
Respectfully,
Response #1:
Plants have a lot more going for them than most people realize. They are much more attuned to their environment and surroundings, and more "clever" (if that is the right word) than is obvious, Tropisms, turning to the sun, turning their roots down instead of up, etc., are just some of the more obvious manifestations. There are all manner of wonderful things to learn about plants – and insects and the entire natural and physical world – wonderful because God made them all.
How countless are your works, LORD!
In wisdom you have made them all;
the earth is full of your creatures.
Psalm 104:24 CSB
And given that the creation is "suffering" on account of the fall (Rom.8:19-22),
we can't really even imagine how wonderful the new heavens and new earth will be
when the world is a place where only "righteousness dwells" (2Pet.3:13).
Wonderful verses! I am in prayer for you for victory on this front, my friend.
The closer we draw to the Lord, the easier this sort of thing gets. We get to
the point of not worrying about it – of not worrying about anything (not that we
are all perfect at this all the time, but things do get better as we progress).
So keep running your good race! Your labor is not in vain in the Lord
(1Cor.15:58).
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #2:
Hello Professor,
At the end of this paragraph, why did you reference Isaiah 4:5-6?
https://ichthys.com/Tribulation-Part6.htm#6._The_Nature_of_New_Jerusalem:~:text=Revelation
22:5a-,Just,-as the tabernacle
My confusion is because I thought this verse is about Millennial
Jerusalem instead of New Jerusalem. Will we still have need of shelter
from the heat by day, or a place to take refuge and hide from storms and
rain?
I'm going to try to attach a picture for you of my kitchen table model
of New Jerusalem. I pulled out the visual model I made years ago of the
tribes to study the marching and camping order. I remember that you said
one time you have enjoyed studying gems. I wonder if you have a visual
model of the breastplate with actual gems? I would love to get the
colors more accurate.
Thank you for you help.
Your friend,
Response #2:
The main application of the passage you ask about, Isaiah 4:5-6, is indeed the Millennium. But prophetic passages often have multiple applications. That is a deliberate and common feature of biblical prophecy, one which, sadly, much evangelical interpretation vigorously rejects. But if it were not the case, then there could be no typology, e.g., since in that misguided view the prophecy would have to apply to the type or the antitype but not both. That is just one example. Here is a passage that illustrates pretty directly what I'm talking about:
"See, I will create new heavens and a new earth. The former things will not be remembered, nor will they come to mind. But be glad and rejoice forever in what I will create, for I will create Jerusalem to be a delight and its people a joy. I will rejoice over Jerusalem and take delight in my people; the sound of weeping and of crying will be heard in it no more. Never again will there be in it an infant who lives but a few days, or an old man who does not live out his years; the one who dies at a hundred will be thought a mere child; the one who fails to reach a hundred will be considered accursed."
Isaiah 65:17-20 NIV
This passage starts out talking about the eternal state, but then shifts
to matters which are clearly speaking of the Millennial kingdom. But
prophecy stresses the commonalities: at both times there will be
blessing and rejoicing; at both times Jerusalem will be a delight; at
both times death will no longer be an issue. So scripture can blend two
things into one, especially in the Old Testament where the first and
second advent were not yet so clearly seen to be different. That is why
"the prophets, who prophesied of the grace that would come to you, made
careful searches and inquiries, inquiring to know what time or what kind
of time the Spirit of Christ within them was indicating as He was
predicting the sufferings of Christ and the glories to follow"
(1Pet.1:10-11 LSB). I call this particular phenomenon "prophetic
foreshortening" (here's
the link for that).
To come back to Isaiah 4:5-6, while the main features here are
millennial, the similarities between millennial Jerusalem and New
Jerusalem are many, and meant to be illustrative one to the other. The
passage we are talking about argues for an assembly area in New as well
as millennial Jerusalem where we will fellowship with God. As it is
proclaimed when New Jerusalem descends, "Behold, the tabernacle of God
is with men, and He will dwell (lit., "tabernacle/ tent") with them, and
they shall be His people. God Himself will be with them and be their
God" (Rev.21:3). So this passage along with the Ezekiel 37:27 passage
pulls together the biblical assurances of God "tenting" with us and
thereby supplying the light, His glory (for He is light: 1Jn.1:5), by
which we shall walk with Him forever: a canopy (tent) "above the glory"
(Is.4:5); compare: "The city had no need of the sun or of the moon to
shine in it, for the glory of God illuminated it. The Lamb is its
light." (Rev.21:23 NIV); "They need no lamp nor light of the sun, for
the Lord God gives them light. " (Rev.22:5 NIV).
Wow! You've made some amazing teaching aids! The best I've ever done,
outside of the pretty lame illustrations posted at Ichthys, is making a
to-scale post-it square and sticking it on an old globe I have (to get
some perspective on the size of the eternal city: it covers almost half
of the USA, for example).
On the colors of the gemstones (link),
this is about the best I could do. It's a complicated issue. When we
read and interpret ancient texts, including the Bible, anything
mentioned which is coming from the plant, animal or mineral "kingdoms",
has to be taken with a grain of salt in terms of identifying it with
modern equivalents. It's pretty clear that a lion is a lion, based upon
all of the passages where the Greek and Hebrew words we translate as
"lion" occur, but what about this?
Even the sparrow has found a home,
And the swallow a nest for herself,
Where she may lay her young.
Psalm 84:3a NKJV
The word translated "sparrow" here is in fact the generic Hebrew word
for "bird", and word for "swallow" only occurs one other place in the
Old Testament, Proverbs 26:2, where it is also paired with this same
generic word for "bird" (and often translated "sparrow" there as well).
Now "sparrow" and "swallow" sound a lot better in a translation of the
Bible than "bird" and "some other type of bird maybe a turtle dove but
we're not really sure which one". And I have no problem with the
translations because, well, they ARE birds and small ones at that (that
is clear from the contexts and peripheral evidence from versions and
ancient testimony, etc.). But we would need to be careful if we are
planning to put any particular doctrinal weight on "sparrows" as opposed
to "wrens" or "finches". That is to say, I'd be very skeptical of any
teaching which said something like, "Because we have sparrow here and
not chickadee, therefore . . . [anything by way of conclusion]".
There is the further complication, in speaking of this issue, that
plants, birds and animals which have apparent equivalents in the modern
world are not necessarily what the words meant in the ancient world.
That is to say, just because Socrates drank the "hemlock" and died,
doesn't mean that what we call "hemlock" is actually what he drank –
even though the name is identical. This is because there is no unbroken
chain equivalence from the ancient world to the modern one in botany (or
mineralogy, etc.). The dark ages and the middle ages provided more than
enough time for active and experiential knowledge about these matters to
be lost. Blessedly, we still have many of the texts (and we are grateful
for the Bible most of all!), but what these sorts of terms actually mean
is not necessarily so clear, and that is most definitely the case when
it comes to identifying the sorts of things we are talking about here.
There are other problems as well, including how we think about things in
the modern world being different from the way they thought about things
in the distant past. To a modern day American an eagle and a vulture are
two entirely different things; to an ancient Greek, the same word can
apply to both (e.g.).
Back to minerals and your question: the Greek word topazion from
which we get the word "topaz" is the gemstone identified with the
northwest gate, the gate of Naphtali. But it is not actually a "topaz";
rather it is a "peridot" (as best as can be discovered), translating the
Hebrew yashepheh (fr. Ex.28:20, etc.), the word from which
"jasper" derives. But Pliny's Natural History suggests that "olivine" or
"peridot" is actually the correct, modern equivalent for the topazion
of Revelation 21:20. So even though in Hebrew it sounds like "jasper"
and in Greek it sounds like "topaz", our later identification of the
minerals of those modern names as such is not in fact coincident with
what was the case in terms of naming in the ancient world.
If all of this sounds confusing, no worries – it gets worse! All one has
to do to realize that identifying colors is even more problematic is do
a quick image search of "jasper" on the internet. You will quickly see
that, just as there are many kinds of birds, so there are many hues of
jasper (and that is true of other minerals in our list as well). Now all
of these "jaspers" have certain qualities in common which has led
gemologists to classify them as such – and many of these qualities were
not unknown in the ancient world as well – but that doesn't necessarily
help us if we're trying to identify the mineral by color alone. So I
have done the best I can with this knotty problem, and have chosen color
equivalents which seem to be the most generalized given what was known
and available in the ancient world. I will say also that the mis-identification
both of the order of the gates and of the correlation of the minerals in
Revelation to those in Exodus and Ezekiel by most "scholars" has led to
even greater confusion on this issue – but at least you will find that
straightened out at Ichthys.
Did I mention I love your teaching aids? Nicely done!
I think it's also fair to say that nothing on this earth can prepare us
for how beautiful and how glorious New Jerusalem will be "in person", no
matter how well we describe or represent it here and now.
Looking forward to that wonderful day to come!
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #3:
Thank you for your generous reply. I think I understand prophetic
foreshortening, it was explained to me initially with the phrase
"already- not yet". I'm sure that doesn't capture it as fully, but it
shows that a prophecy can already be fulfilled and not yet fulfilled at
the same time. I need to keep in mind that these can also be split right
in the middle of the same passage in order to join the commonalities of
the "picture".
I'm wondering tonight if "Rachael weeping for her children" can also
apply to the 144,000? Not small children but nevertheless they will be
her offspring when they are martyred. Random thought of mine but is that
wrong for me to think like that?
Back to our Isaiah 4:5-6 discussion, surprise, surprise! I don't think
I'm getting yet.
You wrote: "(A) Just as the tabernacle was illuminated by the lamp
and indwelt by the Shekinah glory of God, so the New Jerusalem will be
illuminated by the true glory of God, with that glory illuminating the
exterior covering from within and everything without as well, in keeping
with the proclamation that He will be "tenting with us" from this point
forth forever."
For my tabernacle will be over them. Then I will be their God, and they
will be my people.
Ezekiel 37:27
(5) And the Lord will create over Mount Zion and over all her assemblies
a cloud – one of smoke by day, and of a shining flame of fire by night.
For there will be a canopy above the glory [of His presence, covering
it] entirely. (6) It will be a shelter from the heat by day, and a
refuge and hiding place from the storm and rain.
Isaiah 4:5-6
You wrote: "(B) To come back to Isaiah 4:5-6, while the main features
here are millennial, the similarities between millennial Jerusalem and
New Jerusalem are many, and meant to be illustrative one to the other.
The passage we are talking about argues for an assembly area in New as
well as millennial Jerusalem where we will fellowship with God. As it is
proclaimed when New Jerusalem descends, "Behold, the tabernacle of God
is with men, and He will dwell (lit., "tabernacle/ tent") with them, and
they shall be His people. God Himself will be with them and be their
God" (Rev.21:3). So this passage along with the Ezekiel 37:27 passage
pulls together the biblical assurances of God "tenting" with us and
thereby supplying the light, His glory (for He is light: 1Jn.1:5), by
which we shall walk with Him forever: a canopy (tent) "above the glory"
(Is.4:5); compare: "The city had no need of the sun or of the moon to
shine in it, for the glory of God illuminated it. The Lamb is its
light." (Rev.21:23 NIV); "They need no lamp nor light of the sun, for
the Lord God gives them light. " (Rev.22:5 NIV)."
So, I think I understand you paragraph I marked (A). The light in the
City will not come from the sun but from God Himself. It will be so
bright that it is seen throughout the whole world. Since His glory is
there, He is there. Since He is there in the New Jerusalem, this is
where He lives. Tabernacle or tent would be equivalent to our home,
correct?
Ezekiel 37 passage says His tabernacle will be over them. Perhaps the
walls of the city? Or is the tabernacle also the Light source?
Then in the Isaiah passage we have the canopy above the glory of God. It
would seem reasonable that the tabernacle in Ezekiel is the same exact
thing as this canopy, but that one makes my brain hurt right now. Smoke
and fire in a tent?
Now moving to the paragraph marked (B). That whole thing makes my brain
hurt. All the separate parts seem understandable but putting it all
together is painful. If I just focus on the bolded words, are you saying
the tabernacle is His glory. I sure hope so because that's all I'm
making out of that. You talk about an assembly area and I'm not sure
what to picture for that. No one would need a literal cover overhead
that I can think of so that leads me back to the illumination of His
glory above us.
Thanks so much for your help.
Your sister in Christ,
P.S. Response #9 was so very good.
Response #3:
My pleasure, my friend.
On "Rachel weeping", clearly that passage, Jeremiah 31:15, has multiple
fulfillments. First, it describes in context the comfort to "mothers in
Israel" from the restoration of the nation following the Babylonian
captivity. Second, Matthew writing in the Spirit applies it to the
slaughter of the infants by Herod. Finally, in both cases this comes via
the "Day of the Lord Paradigm", using the millennial restoration as the
parallel for the near term events. I think it is fine to include the
144,000 with all who will be lost and lamented before the Lord's return
and the regathering of the nation during His 1,000 year reign.
A tabernacle is a tent and the verbs related thereunto are used to
express "dwelling" – which is why some translations say, "and He will
dwell" rather than "tent", because although we are not given many
details about these matters what we are told seems to indicate permanent
rather than temporary "dwellings". E.g., "The wall of [the city] was
composed of [purple] jasper, and the city [itself] of pure gold [which
was] transparent like crystal" (Rev.21:18).
On Ezekiel 37:27, remember that there is no temple in New Jerusalem.
Instead . . .
But I saw no temple in it, for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are its temple.
Revelation 21:22 NKJV
That is clearly figurative; that is to say, they are not a literal
temple but their presence satisfies the functions of a temple in
providing a place to meet with the Lord. I take Ezekiel 37:27's "over"
(in Hebrew, not in most translations) in that sense too.
The "cloud and smoke by day and the shining of a flaming fire by night"
are the same pillar of cloud and fire that led and protected the
Israelites during their wilderness journeying.
And the LORD went before them by day in a pillar of cloud to lead the way, and by night in a pillar of fire to give them light, so as to go by day and night.
Exodus 13:21 NKJV
But in New Jerusalem we will see the Father and the Son "face to face",
so that there will be no need for such previous manifestations whereby
their glory was shielded from the people. As the Lord said to Moses,
"But He said, “You cannot see My face; for no man shall see Me, and
live"." (Ex.33:20 NKJV).
Re: "are you saying the tabernacle is His glory"; along the lines
of the above, HE is "the glory" and any temple or tabernacle is only a
place for His glory to dwell, and specifically to hide it from us in our
sinful state so that we are not destroyed by it. But that will not be
necessary in New Jerusalem. It will be necessary in the Millennium
because the earthly population will still be in bodies of sin (only the
Church will have been resurrected).
Feel free to write me any time!
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #4:
Dear Professor,
Please bear with me again.
Re: "are you saying the tabernacle is His glory"; along the lines of the above, HE is "the glory" and any temple or tabernacle is only a place for His glory to dwell, and specifically to hide it from us in our sinful state so that we are not destroyed by it. But that will not be necessary in New Jerusalem. It will be necessary in the Millennium because the earthly population will still be in bodies of sin (only the Church will have been resurrected).
This last part there makes perfect sense to me so I hope this will get us where
we need to be. Specifically, "But that will not be necessary in New Jerusalem."
(5) And the Lord will create over Mount Zion and over all her assemblies a cloud
– one of smoke by day, and of a shining flame of fire by night. For there will
be a canopy above the glory [of His presence, covering it] entirely. (6) It will
be a shelter from the heat by day, and a refuge and hiding place from the storm
and rain.
Isaiah 4:5-6
Would it work to make this statement after that verse-
As opposed to the Isaiah verse above where it shows an assembly on Mount Zion
with a symbolic representation of God (the Shekinah), the New Jerusalem will be
the real and permanent dwelling place of the Father and His son in full
unfiltered glory. A place where we will reside (and assemble) eternally with
them.
Or, what about-
Just as the tabernacle was illuminated by the lamp and indwelt by the Shekinah
glory of God (as evidenced in Isaiah 4:5-6), so the New Jerusalem will be
illuminated by the true glory of God, with that glory illuminating the exterior
covering from within and everything without as well, in keeping with the
proclamation that He will be "tenting with us" from this point forth forever.
I just saw this one!
I am not trying to correct you at all. I am positive that you have it exactly
right and that I am just mentally slow to get things. I apologize for taking so
much of your valuable time.
In Christ,
Response #4:
I don't have any problem with either paragraph (yours or mine). They seem
consistent to me, with each other and with what I've written you in these emails
(let me know if you are having any trouble squaring things).
Keep in mind that during the Millennium Jesus Christ in His glory will be ruling
from Jerusalem personally dwelling in the physical (not yet rebuilt) temple.
Although I imagine that He will be accessible only to us, the Church, and to the
angels; David, in resurrection, will be ruling as His king regent of Israel,
just as the rest of us will have administrative duties in the Millennial Kingdom
throughout the world.
"And he who overcomes, and keeps My works until the end, to him I will give power over the nations—‘He shall rule them with a rod of iron;
They shall be dashed to pieces like the potter’s vessels’—
as I also have received from My Father."
Revelation 2:26-27 NKJV
"To him who overcomes I will grant to sit with Me on My throne, as I also overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne."
Revelation 3:21 NKJV
Do feel free to write me any time!
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #5:
Professor
I was listening to my Bible and noticed in Numbers 9:15ff that it sounded an
awful lot like Ezekiel 1:19-21.
I know we should follow the Lord God wherever He leads us, and that is your main
priority in your study and interpretation of the Bible. However, could you tell
me if there is a particular significance to these passages sounding so similar?
I'm stuck particularly because I am comparing two different types of creatures
here, cherubim (angelic) to that of human. The college of four that replaced
Satan are holy angels, while we humans are in the process of replacing the
entire rebel forces. So I see no reason for humans to be taking that most
honored position. Perhaps I'm seeing something that is not even there. Please
help whenever you have the time.
Your student in Christ
Response #5:
The creatures in Ezekiel are cherubim, the same ones we see in Revelation before
the throne of God (here's a
link).
Believers, the Church, are replacing the fallen angels. The cherubs are elect
angels – of the highest rank – and have already received this exalted position
as a reward. So we are not going to be replacing them (or any other elect
angel). Together we and they and the millennial believers will constitute the
complete "family of God" in New Jerusalem forever.
I don't see off hand any problem with the two passages conflicting or causing
trouble for this principle. The cloud over the tabernacle was a manifestation of
the Lord's glory, but the cherubim never appeared to the Israelites (and were
only visible to certain prophets like Ezekiel on unique occasions; cf. also
Is.6:1ff.). Two cherubs were represented on the mercy seat (and stitched into
the curtains), and two on the back of Solomon's temple. These things are all
consistent in my view. Perhaps I'm not understanding your question completely.
Do feel free to write me back!
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #6:
Dear Professor,
Yes, like I say to my spouse, if you would go by what I'm thinking instead of
what I'm saying! But alas, we're fallen creatures.
When those went, these went; and when those stood, these stood; and when those
rose from the earth, the wheels rose along with them, for the spirit of the
living creatures was in the wheels. Ezekiel 1:21
I'm primarily looking at the creature movement (angelic cherubim) in Ezekiel and
comparing it to the creature movement (human, children of Israel) in Numbers
9:15-23. These verse describing the movements just rang out to me as being the
same. I know the Lord doesn't need a creature to power His Throne Chariot so
then it must be for the benefit of the creatures. (I wish I could state things
as beautifully as you do.)
But there in the Numbers passage we have the Levites, with the whole camp,
carrying the ark with the cherubs on the mercy seat. Such a connection there is
between the Levitical position and that of the cherubim. I understand this is
the shadow things that the Levites carry and not the actual throne.
When the Lord moves, they move. When He stops, they stop. What a lesson for us
all even now. Oh, to be that close to the Lord Himself!
Is that all there is? Am I seeing connections that aren't really there? I hope I
said what I was thinking this time. Sorry about that.
In the One on the throne,
Response #6:
Levites carried the humanly constructed ark, but cherubs propel the heavenly one. As Paul reminds us about the Levites:
They serve at a sanctuary that is a copy and shadow of what is in heaven. This is why Moses was warned when he was about to build the tabernacle: “See to it that you make everything according to the pattern shown you on the mountain."
Hebrews 8:5 NIV
That is to say, everything about the earthly tabernacle and its furniture is
symbolic, merely modeling what goes on in heaven. So the ark is not the actual
throne of God, i.e., His battle chariot, but a model of the real one in the
third heaven. So any Levite carrying the former is not actually in the place of
a cherub but merely representing the heavenly "propulsion" we see in Ezekiel:
copies and shadows but not the "real thing".
So I think you are right about what you write in this second email – congrats on
figuring it out for yourself!
N.b., everything about the tabernacle/temple worship and the Law is symbolic,
looking forward to things to come. How blessed we are today to have the "real
thing" in Jesus Christ our risen Lord!
In Him,
Bob L.
Question #7:
I have another question. There was supposed to be no death in Eden, but what of
plant life? Plants were definitely eaten, otherwise there would be no food for
anything. The common explanations I've heard are:
1.Plants aren't alive according to the Bible because they don't have the Breath
of Life
2. While plants and fungi are alive, death only counts for beings that have
souls, which only animals, humans, and purely spiritual beings like angels and
God do.
Is one of these correct or is something else going on here?
Response #7:
In my view, this is a false construct. Who ever said "There was supposed to
be no death in Eden"? And even if there was such a statement, do we see any
such death in Eden in scripture?
There was the tree of life in the garden, and Adam and Eve were allowed to eat
of it (Gen.2:16); that was the tree the eating of which would have resulted in
"living forever" (Gen.3:22), but that is the only verse I know of which speaks
of anything like this issue.
So I don't think it's necessary to worry about this. The tree of life also
exists, of course in New Jerusalem. We will be blessed to eat of it forever –
and there is no indication that it will ever die off (I'm very sure it never
will).
"And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes; there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying. There shall be no more pain, for the former things have passed away.”
Revelation 21:4 NKJV
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #8:
I always understood angels can't be saved because they were in the full presence of God, or at least because they serve a very different purpose than humanity, that being to be fully loyal servants without having much of a choice. Is this not how it really is? From everything I understand humans exist so God can have a people who will love and follow Him out of true free will.
Response #8:
They most certainly had a choice! Angels likewise have the image of God, but
their choice was different than ours because they are so much different from us
in their nature (at present). Their choice consisted of staying faithful, or
not; ours consists of accepting God's offer of reconciliation in Jesus Christ,
or not. We are all part of the same perfect plan of God, and together elect
angels and saved humanity, the Church plus the Friends of the Bride, we will
collectively form the final, complete, family of God in New Jerusalem.
I've written a great deal about this. Please see Bible
Basics 2A: Angelology (also the
Satanic Rebellion series).
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #9:
So...basically what I suggested? Or am I not getting something here? I guess I can just read the link, thanks Doc
Response #9:
Angels, elect angels, ARE "saved", because of the choice they made in NOT
abandoning the Lord; where as fallen angels are NOT saved because they chose to
forsake the Lord for the devil. If the latter had been willing to repent,
everything scripture says about God and about the salvation of human beings
indicates that He would have made reconciliation possible – but none were
willing. Mankind being different has had a different experience (the details and
the contrasts are outlined
at the link). The creation of mankind was a very clear signal to the fallen
angels that the devil's assurances to them – that they could not be replaced –
were nothing but lies. If there had been any inclination of a willingness to
repent on behalf of any of them the blacking out of the universe and God's
judgment upon and the subsequent restoration wherein this "replacement creature"
with the image of God was created would have occasioned that.
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #10:
Not something you need to answer, just a comment on the last message. I've actually seen this idea explored, in the famous book Paradise Lost. In the story there's a character, an angel named Abdiel, who was wooed by Satan during the Rebellion, but he received forgiveness because he turned back to God before the big coup, even receiving commendation from Him for it. Thanks for the link too, it's quite insightful. God bless.
Response #10:
That's the problem with cultural Christianity: "exploring ideas" which are NOT
biblical and as a result giving Christians false ideas about what is and is not
true. Non-Christian fiction at least has the virtue of not directly subverting
direct biblical truths in the fashion (although all fiction is essentially a lie
– which is no doubt why it is so popular and we all indulge in it).
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #11:
Hi Bob,
Thanks for putting the update prayer up, I really appreciate it. Also
appreciate your concern. Yes I feel a little under the cosh at the
moment, probably because I am getting so close to putting the ministry
up. I know the enemy will do anything to stop that!
As an aside, could you also pray for my cousin? He has only just
graduated university (so really young) and he couldn't wait to fly to
Pennsylvania to work at Camp America this summer. I know that it will be
fairly innocuous stuff but there is a mature student he wants to meet up
with after in San Francisco and I have really bad feelings about this
person. ___'s family have been charmed by him and ___ is besotted but I
am wary these days of 'charming people'. This 'friend' has been
influencing ___ to get involved with the LGBTQ and linked him to a
famous singer who made an infamous satanic pop video called 'Unholy'
which apparently was pornographic. I never watched it and wouldn't
recommend you do. My cousin is qualified as a cameraman now so has been
involved with pop videos a lot. Thankfully he didn't work on that
satanic video but the connection is there nonetheless. I can't help but
think this is the enemy attacking a member of my family because he can't
get at me directly.
Please can you pray that my cousin will come home after the camp and not
go onto San Francisco? I really have a very horrible feeling about him
going there. This person says he is involved with magic and he could
mean sleight of hand parlour tricks or it could be the actual occult. I
really get a 'cult' feeling about this man. He really did seem to 'lovebomb'
everyone he met while he was over here and some of his backstory didn't
add up or make sense to me. There were so many unanswered questions
about him and I have an awful feeling that he may be a 'recruiter' of
some kind and I know cults do use Universities as a place to groom
impressionable youths. I may be off base with this feeling but it may be
a warning from the Lord. I have an uncanny feeling that if __ meets up
with this person then he won't be coming back home for a long time. He
will find reasons to keep him out there, I know it.
I was just thinking this morning on Satan's Rebellion (your series) and
how things are panning out. Especially in the light of that massive
Hindu Temple built over there. I know that the main impetus for the
angelic rebellion was to have a physical body and have physical
sensation that a body can bring but do you think that maybe the lust to
be like God was also a part of it? We are not privy to what Satan said
in particular to lure the angels away but is it not possible that just
as he said that eating the forbidden fruit would lead to godhood, is it
possible that the forbidden fruit for the angels (spiritual possession
of physical bodies) was not also part of a similar temptation. Could it
not have been that Satan said that possession of a body of flesh could
make them like God?
I know that now demonic possession is well under way in this day and age
and that fallen angels seem to be addicted to the experience as though
it were like a drug so much so that they would beg to go inside a pig
herd rather than be without it! I was just thinking (of course this is
all speculation). I have some hunches. I don't think that Satan's army
of fallen angels are as tight and as organised as we might think. I
suspect there is an awful lot of infighting and jostling for top
positions. After all they are not driven by holiness and the desire to
lift up one another but instead would be driven by selfish desires and
ruthless competition.
We know that Islam and Hinduism are both demonic false religions for
example. Islam is monotheistic though whereas Hinduism is polytheistic.
I thought it interesting that both these idolatrous religions should be
at war with one another given they both have common demonic ancestry.
Obviously the Bible teaches us on a need to know basis but we can
discern how the enemy works by the results plainly observed. It occured
to me that with Islam, it is probably Satan getting the glory behind
'Allah' and it occured to me that maybe the fallen angels might not like
that. Satan probably promised to 'share the throne' with them, though he
has no real intention to ever do that.
On the other hand Hinduism is a polytheistic religion (they claim it is
monotheistic but you can worship whichever god that you choose) which is
meant to have 330 million gods! Now no one can name all of them
obviously and this may not be an accurate number but given that a third
of a hundred can be written as 33.3 recurring or 33⅓ then I think this
is an obvious tell on that the pantheon of Hindu deities is basically
all the fallen angels together, all getting their share of worship so to
speak. As Satan never keeps his promises, some deities are more equal
than others so no doubt his most loyal and ruthless demons in the
rebellion get to be behind the most popular Hindu deities whereas the
least successful or committed demons in the rebellion probably get to
'own' one of those millions of deities that no one ever prays to! It's
like being in a really low level football team, in a low league with no
hope of promotion!
What I am driving at is that the religion of Islam typifies what Satan
truly desires, a monotheistic religion under him alone that is ruled by
fear and completely captive to worship him, whereas Hinduism is a
compromise with his demonic army whereby they all get a piece of the
worship (no matter how fleeting, small or illusory).
I have said this before that I suspect, like Narcissists and cults,
Satan seduced and duped the angels to rebel against God with the promise
that he will share rule with them. I also suspect that the Antichrist
will do the same thing to humans by offering to share worship with them
by telling everyone that 'we are God'. I think that by the time the
'Abomination of Desolation' is finally revealed, fallen angels and
humans both will realise that Satan never intended to share rule with
anyone else but to create a strict and punishing monolithic cult that
worships him and him only.
By that time both fallen angels and humans alike realise that they have
thrown their lot in with a cheat and a liar that only intended to use
and manipulate them to get his own self serving ends, it will be too
late! Satan has zero loyalty even to his own kind and his most ardent
followers.
Thank you for your consideration of me Bob. I am struggling at present.
The online vitriol against Christians because of the Ten Commandments
ruling in US schools, it really got me down and depressed yesterday in a
way it really shouldn't. I even got some nastiness my way for telling a
homeless guy that I would pray for him. It really looks like they hate
us and think we are the worst thing right now. Yes, that has got me
down, I even felt a despair yesterday.
I do sometimes seem to have great gusto for all the wrong things and I
seem to go at great speeds only for the motor then to cut out when I am
at my fastest. I remember before you talked about having a balanced
cruising speed but Bob, I really struggle with it. My personality seems
to be very all or nothing, boom and bust and I really struggle to get
things just cruising forward calmly and nicely. You know how Peter
always comes across as feet first and ask questions later? Well I can
really relate to him and I am a lot like that myself. Peter is a great
believer though and he achieved a great deal with his ministry so that
should encourage me.
I have never been a calm measured person but always been a bit frenetic.
The problem is that when I try to slow it down to a normal pace then it
seems the engine shuts out all together.
The whole ___ thing hit me harder than it should... It took ages to
build up her trust and one misunderstanding then blew it all away. I
have had to realise that I can't put the same effort in again as it took
me away from my real ministry and maybe that was what the enemy
intended. I have made that common mistake in believing that suffering
automatically makes a person a victim and therefore they have a virtuous
status. Only when a believer suffers and is suffering for the glory of
God does this suffering produce virtue. With unbelievers there is no
such thing. I know now that only mature believers will be called to
share the sufferings of Christ and that if they were offered help and
respite from other believers then they would respond faithfully and with
gentleness and gratitude.
We won't get this from suffering unbelievers or even from lukewarm baby
believers. Many people make the mistake to believe that suffering equals
virtue in every instance. It reminds me of people who take stray animals
in to look after and feed them and are completely shocked when the same
animal claws at them or bites them. As though the animal wouldn't be
capable of lashing out through fear.
__ said something very insightful about this that may have been self
referential. I told him that I felt sorry for ___ as she seemed
vulnerable and defenceless. He told me that the people who seem at their
most defenceless actually tend to have the hardest defences to
compensate for their vulnerability. Like an injured baby or elderly
animal still has teeth and claws. It made me speculate that ___ often
seems vulnerable and people then try to lean in to protect him but then
he lashes out. I think he was letting me know something important about
himself there as well.
Will need to step back from the noise and churn and concentrate on
taking things one day at a time in patience to do what the Lord wants me
to do. Amen!
In Jesus,
Response #11:
I have been praying for him, and will continue to do so.
In terms of "be like God", well, that is certainly what Satan wanted / wants.
Everything the Bible says about him suggests that he is not much on sharing,
however. As taught in the SR series, the devil has changed around the angelic
ranks, inflating them and bestowing them on his followers (lots of generals, not
so many privates), but the top spot is his alone . . . for a little while
longer. The demons believe in God's existence . . . and shudder (Jas.2:19). So
they are well aware of who God is and no doubt also of their own limitations
since their knowledge in general is far beyond ours. Only foolish human beings
seem to be able to be convinced that somehow they might "become gods".
In terms of how the devil and his followers relate to human beings, however, as
taught elsewhere there is a lie for every taste, and the only objective of all
lies in the devil's system (see
the link) is to further Satan's own plans . . . which consist entirely at
this point in trying to frustrate God's plan (an absolutely vain hope). So the
religion of antichrist will, for the first time, bring all cults and religions,
everything false, into one big tent. Only the truth will be excluded (link
to links on this).
There are those who have to be prodded to act. There are those who need to be
reined in. The best thing is to be in the perfect middle where the Lord wants us
to be, but the Christian life of spiritual growth and progress is a lot about
fine-tuning from careening all over the road to small movements in the center of
the lane. And we all hit potholes from time to time.
It's a pleasure to have you as a friend in Jesus Christ.
Keeping fighting the good fight of faith in Him.
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #12:
Dr. Luginbill,
Thanks very much for the answers you have already provided. This
question is primarily one of curiosity and I'm very much fine with it
receiving low priority. I'm sure others have more important questions.
Does Satan know what is coming in the tribulation? Are he or other
angels (good or bad) familiar with the prophecies we are (or should
be... I admit I should be much deeper in the Word than I am)? I believe
the origination of these thoughts for me was 1 Peter 1:12:
"It was revealed to them that they were not serving themselves, but you,
in these things which now have been announced to you through those who
preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven--things
into which angels long to look."
At this point, unless God has given directives against it, surely angels
have had the opportunity to read the Bible and in a literal sense, look
into such things. Although perhaps at the time of writing this had not
been possible. Either way, I understand that it couldn't bring about
repentance in fallen angels, and the obedient angels have all they need.
But how curious are they?
This is, as I said, curiosity on my part (I love curiosity but really
need to focus more of it on the Word). I don't see one way or the other
having any significant impact on my faith and by no means expect you to
go out of your way to provide an answer. Thank you again for the wealth
of material you have made available already on your website. It's very
much a blessing and I thank God for it.
Thanks very much,
Response #12:
Thanks for the good words!
I'm sure that the angels know the Bible better than we do. Why wouldn't
they? They have been around since before its first word was written and
have a great interest in what is going on down here (cf. 1Pet.1:12 which
you quote). But of course, just as with human beings, there is a
difference between knowledge and what someone actually believes and acts
upon (cf. Jas.2:19).
It's good to consider too that angels were around long before human
beings. In terms of knowledge, Satan "knew" better than anyone just how
powerful, wise and amazing God is – and yet through arrogance he
corrupted that knowledge and replace the truth of God with "truths" of
his own making – lies concocted to suit his own desires. And he managed
to convince a third of angelic kind to follow him into rebellion. Don't
we find this with human beings too? I mean, "You are going to die
eventually, o man!", we might want to shout in the ears of unbelievers.
"Knowing" this, shouldn't they be zealous to find a solution AND deeply
grateful to hear the gospel? But such is not the case for the majority.
We rejoice to know what we know. But we also realize that actually
believing the truth deeply and acting on it consistently is what this
life is really all about. And how many of us believers are really
responding to what we know and believe to the degree we should? As you
say, "I admit I should be much deeper in the Word than I am". Isn't that
true of us all? It's just a matter of degrees. This is the era of
Laodicea. The Tribulation is just around the corner and yet most
believers are not doing anything much to prepare spiritually. Isn't that
pretty much the same as the situation you ask about with the devil – or
with unbelievers? Again, just a matter of degrees. Blessedly, AT LEAST
believers have committed their lives to Jesus Christ and will be spared
condemnation as a result . . . as long as we stay faithful, firm in
faith until the end (Heb.3:6; 3:14; 4:14; 6:11; 10:23; 2Jn.1:8;
Rev.2:26)
So, "Does Satan know what's coming?" He has heard what the Bible says –
but he is doing his level best to defeat the plan, and will continue on
that course until he's cast into the lake of fire at history's end. That
WE know . . . because it's in the Bible (Rev.20:7-10).
Arrogance blinds, and absolute arrogance blinds absolutely.
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #13:
Thanks! This makes sense.
Re: "I mean, 'You are going to die eventually, o man!', we
might want to shout in the ears of unbelievers." This brings to mind
the parable of the rich man and Lazarus in Hades and Paradise,
respectively. Which I rather often think about when it comes to
unbelievers. I suppose it goes along with Romans 1 in the theme of there
being no excuse.
As to Satan continuing - makes sense I suppose. From the initial
rebellion he's had nothing to lose. Thanks be to God for His restraint
of the evil of him and his followers.
Have a great week,
Response #13:
Considering "Nothing to lose" as a motivation for the devil certainly is biblical:
"Therefore rejoice, you heavens and you who dwell in them! But woe to the earth and the sea, because the devil has gone down to you! He is filled with fury, because he knows that his time is short.”
Revelation 12:12 NIV
Keep running your good race, my friend!
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #14:
Doc, maybe I just don't see something that should be obvious but I never got how Cain got so jealous he literally killed his brother. I mean I know nowadays and even in history people have done horrific acts for petty reasons, but Cain from all my understanding had no reason that could have drove him to this, unless he's also the first psychopath or something. Why do you think it ended like that?
Response #14:
You might as well ask why Satan rebelled against God. After all, the devil was the most beautiful creature God ever made, the most gifted, and the one in highest rank over everyone else in the universe . . . except God. When arrogance is allowed to rule, there is absolutely no end to the sin and no depth to the evil that creatures of free will aren't willing to go. And, actually, the Bible gives us the answer to your question:
Do not be like Cain, who belonged to the evil one and murdered his brother. And why did he murder him? Because his own actions were evil and his brother’s were righteous.
1st John 3:12 NIV
This is fundamental in the world in which we live . . . which is why John is given to say this in the very next verse:
Do not be surprised, my brothers and sisters, if the world hates you.
1st John 3:13 NIV
It may seem unreasonable to us (as in Cain's murder of Abel), but it makes all
the sense "in the world" while we are here "in the world" which lies in the lap
of the temporary ruler of this world (1Jn.5:19).
So while I applaud your innocence, I remind you that the Lord told us also that
in this world we need to be "shrewd as serpents" . . . because otherwise we are
likely to be "surprised" . . . and not in a good way (Matt.10:16).
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #15:
Hi Bob.
I hope all is well with you and yours.
In Song of Solomon 4:14, saffron is mentioned among the spices. I recently heard
that there was some debate as to whether that was actually turmeric. Do you know
anything about this? No English translation listed on Biblegateway translates it
that way. It seems like another "Turin Shroud" misdirection. Saffron is much
more labor intensive and probably considered more much more valuable than a
root.
Also, I've heard that the hyssop mention at the crucifixion was actually Za'atar
aka Syrian Oregano which is a bush and if Jesus was crucified on a low cross,
could have been used to hold a small sponge of vinegar. Seems plausible to me.
Final question today: have you ever done an analysis of Daniel's last vision and
explanation. Chapters 11&12. If so, could you point me to the link. The last
part seems clear that it's the Tribulation but the earlier part is still
somewhat murky for me. It seems to cover the history from Daniel's time up to
the Tribulation. I still don't understand the Kings of the North and South and
can only speculate on the identity of the "ships of the Western coastlands."
Given what little I actually know about history, it seems like those Kings
shifted from country to country.
I've come to adopt your philosophy: If I don't read it in scripture. I don't
believe it -- assuming, of course, that I actually understand what I read.
Hence, the saffron question.
You, yours and your tenure remain in my daily prayers. I hope all is well at U
of L.
In our Lord,
Response #15:
I think we've discussed before the difficulties involved in matching anything
from the animal, plant, or mineral kingdoms in antiquity with modern equivalents
. . . not because these things themselves have changed but because the "chain of
custody" of the way they were represented then and now is not often discernible
(the dark ages got in the way of matching up what's in texts with experiential
reality). Lions are lions but "connies"? When it comes to lesser known things,
it can be a matter of guesswork to match the now with the then. In terms of
saffron, the Hebrew word here in Song of Solomon 4:14 often translated saffron
is karkōm, which shares the same morphemes as crocus (from which that
spice comes), so it's likely a good identification. Since this word occurs here
in a context where any spice would work, and since this is the only place it
occurs in scripture, while people can argue for anything, I would have to hear
some strong reasons to want to change.
On hyssop, I'm no expert. Matthew 27:48 and Mark 15:36 both have kalamos
which is the generic term for reed (cf. Rev.11:1; 21:15-16); only John 19:29 has
hyssop, so it must be a reed/stalk of hyssop we're talking about here.
On Daniel, all of the passages apropos of the Tribulation are covered in the
CT series. Best way to find each
one you're interested in is to check the translation
list (at the link). For example, Daniel 11:29-35 is covered in
CT 3A
(at the link), but I go back to this passage repeatedly in the next section of
CT, namely CT 3B: Antichrist and his Kingdom
(link), and that is where many of the questions you might have about this
particular passage are covered, the ones you've touched on in this email in
particular (i.e., identifying the kings and the ships). Happy to address any
individual questions!
Happy Labor Day!
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #16:
Hi Bob,
Thanks for the explanations. We did cover similar ground before. The word from
which saffron is translated convinces me along with a bit of logic that saffron
is accurate. Calling saffron turmeric is another "Turin Shroud" exercise. There
seems to be quite a bit of that going around. Syrian oregano definitely is large
enough to work as a reed, assuming the cross was reasonably low to the ground.
On Daniel, I reasonably understand the Tribulation part. It's the broad brush of
history up to that point that's murky. The part of Alexander being superseded by
four kings, though, seems clear. That's the part that convinced me it was an
historical broad brush. Today, I suppose, it makes little difference who the
kings of the North and South were; Greek, Roman, German or whatever. Ships on
the Western shoreline could very well be American since we have a tendency to
butt into everyone's skirmishes playing king of the hill. We seem to be moving
ships there now.
Thanks for explaining. BTW, there are connies today; a bird similar to a
cormorant. I don't know of it's occurrence in scripture. If I read it, I
probably assumed it was the bird and read on. For me, Labor Day will be like any
other day. Though rain is in the forecast. I hope your day is pleasant and if
you barbecue, you won't have to take out a second mortgage for the brisket or
ribs.
In our Lord,
Response #16:
The context in Song of Solomon 4:14 is a list of exotic and aromatic spices, so
that I think one can appreciate the thought regardless of whether it really is
saffron (or turmeric or oregano or some such other fragrant spice). As I say,
saffron is a defensible rendering (not so much the others).
In terms of Daniel, the key verse is Daniel 11:21 where Antiochus Ephiphanes is
also a type of antichrist, so that the Spirit uses this part of the chapter to
explain the career of the latter more than that of the former (see
the link). The prior history of the Seleucids vs. Ptolemys is historically
accurate but of no particular eschatological value now that it has been
fulfilled (except to confirm the absolute reliability of prophecy), but with
verse 21 we have a treasure trove about the future course of the Tribulation,
the beast's career in particular, because of the close parallels between
antichrist and Antiochus Ephiphanes (again, this is all laid out
in CT 3B).
In terms of the "ships of Kittim", that is all explained under the Second
Campaign against the South (link).
Essentially, most translations (and commentators) have the situation reversed:
these ships are on the beast's side (so, yes, US and NATO forces, I would
imagine, if things proceed quickly in the way in which they are presently
moving).
On conies, sorry for the misspelling (only one "n"); from Ps.104:18; Prov.30:26
it's clear that these are ground dwelling creatures (badgers?).
The brisket was a gift, but I didn't cook it well. No worries. I ground it up
with potatoes and onions and it made a delicious hash.
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #17:
Ah, Bob,
Thank you for the explanation and links. That will be much study over the next
few days. Sorry about the echoed misspelling, It's been many years since I
considered that. (I did know several Connies, though they were two-legged.)
Sorry about your brisket. It takes all day, or nearly so to cook so it's a shame
it didn't turn out as you hoped. Jacques Pépin says you never want to reheat and
duplicate a recipe. You make something new. He's absolutely right so your hash
is an excellent choice.
I'll get back to you if the next few day's study brings new questions. My broad
brush understanding of history comes from Well's "Outline of History." A good
read from what I remember, but how accurate is another question.
In our Lord,
Response #17:
Never read this book by Wells (read some of his sci-fi as a youth). I may have
to check it out. Thanks for the reference!
Fall finally arrived up here. The nasturtiums are loving it.
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #18:
Hi Bob,
I don't know accurate "Outline of History" is likely to be. I still have the
books (2 volumes) but haven't read them for years. It's not likely I'll ever
reread them again though my bucket list was to reread all my books; some from my
grandfather. C'est la guerre!
I have enjoyed watching the seasons pass. God is truly good in that He makes
everything work together as long as we don't try to fix it. While fall hasn't
come to Central Texas, yet, we do have cold air from the north and some rain so
life is good.
I pray you and yours are well.
In our Lord,
Response #18:
I ordered the books from the library (we have most of our stuff in automated
storage now so you can't really browse the stacks the way you used to be able to
do); don't have a lot of time for reading at the moment, so we'll see.
Re: "He makes everything work together as long as we don't try to fix it"
– hah! That is the stone truth, isn't it? Trusting the Lord is very hard for
most people, but it's the only real way to please Him (Heb.11:6).
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #19:
Hi Bob,
It's been so many years since I've been in a library... Last I went to a library
nearby, it was rather disappointing. That was before confusers came to dominate
our world, so I actually had to browse the stacks:). I have no idea what
"automated storage" might be, but it doesn't sound all that good. I would miss
the browsing.
In the normal course of my Bible reading, I ran into Hosea 4. Hosea was always a
chapter I rather coasted over. But this time, chapter 4 et. seq. hit me right
between the eyes. It so accurately describes our "society" today, it's uncanny.
While we are not God's chosen, why should we expect any different or any less?
From Hosea, I take it the Israelites didn't trust the Lord either, and paid the
price. A rather heavy one.
If you do read "Outline of History" I would very much appreciate your opinion. I
hope all is well up there. Save those Nasturtium buds! They make excellent caper
substitutes when fermented like kraut.
In our Lord Jesus,
Response #19:
The "robot" is a huge warehouse structure with bins which are accessed by a
semi-automated forklift system that brings down the bins for a library worker to
paw through and retrieve the requested book(s). It breaks down rather
frequently. About half of the books I need were unavailable for the better part
of a year a year or so ago. Blessedly, we have a good inter-library loan system
so my research (such as it is) was not held up significantly. At least they're
not de-accesioning as many things with this system.
On Hosea, you could say the same for about half the chapters in the prophets, it
seems to me. We do bear many similarities to pre-exilic Israel and Judah. In our
defense, we are not "God's special people" – except for believers, that is. So
on the one hand, it's probably the case that good behavior (spiritual growth,
progress and production) on behalf of believers has had an outsized "salt"
effect over the prior centuries; on the other hand, lack of that same is
starting to show through more and more dramatically from where I sit.
I'll try and get by the library tomorrow and have a look at this over the
weekend.
Keeping you in my prayers, my friend – and thanks a bunch for yours!
How are you doing?
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #20:
Hi Bob,
So far, I'm getting along reasonably well. Temperatures have been in the mid
80s, so It's livable. We've had some rain, which means I'll have to mow again
this year, I've had some leg swelling and issues but it seems to be subsiding.
All in all, things are good. I hope all is well up there in L'ville and U of L
is treating you decently. The world has changed, so we never know.
In our Lord,
Response #20:
"The world has changed, so we never know", and changing every day at an accelerating clip of change daily, it seems. One has to stay somewhat flexible about the non-essentials as a result. We just need to be unbending about what is really important.
"These things I have spoken to you, so that in Me you may have peace. In the world you have tribulation, but take courage; I have overcome the world."
John 16:33 NASB
In Jesus,
Bob L.
p.s., re: H.G. Wells, on first investigation he seems to be greatly enamored of
Buddha and also to be a virulent non-believer (he should have stuck to sci-fi).