The Holy of Holies

When we look at Revelation 4:1-2, we read of the two phrases “voice I had first heard” and “in the Spirit” – both connecting back to Revelation 1:10. This is the same vision, and not a separate vision. The fact that Revelation 1-3 comes first in the book should be noted as preliminary remarks concerning the churches. This also would explain why the word μετα is used. It means both after and with, and not either/or. It is after seeing the first vision, and after writing the seven letters to the churches that John turns his focus to this, which is not a separate vision, but with the first two statements.

In this heavenly vision, we find it paralleling both Isaiah 6 and Ezekiel 1-2. The difficulty with this chapter for many is preconceived notions of what these symbolsmust mean, and often they can’t be tied to anything exactly. We see, just like in Isaiah 6, a throne, and angels singing holy, holy, holy. Just like in Ezekiel 1-2, we find the four living creatures, the throne “with the figure like a man”, the throne like sapphire, light surrounding the throne “like a rainbow”, and when adding Revelation 5:1, the scroll with “writing on both sides”. The two visions in the Old Testament by these prophets are the same thing that John is seeing, but the details given in each of these visions are distinct from one another.

From verse 1, we see an entrance into a new scene. There is a door in heaven, and it seems most logical to conclude that John is outside of this door until being beckoned inside.

The throne is the Ark of the Covenant. Others who saw the throne are found in 1 Kings 22:19, Isaiah 6:1, Ezekiel 1:26, Psalm 47:8, and Daniel 7:9. See Psalm 18:6, 10, 80:1, 99:1, Micah 1:2, Habakkuk 2:20, Exodus 25:22, Numbers 7:89, 1 Samuel 4:4, 2 Samuel 6:2, and Isaiah 37:16 as evidence that the Ark of the Covenant is the throne of God. Therefore, the throne room here in Revelation 4 is the Holy of Holies. See Hebrews 8:5. This also brings new meaning to Hebrews 4:16 and 10:19-22. When we come before God in prayer, entering into His presence, we are entering into this scene.

In Revelation 4:3 we read of the one sitting having the appearance of jasper and carnelian, and the throne being encircled by a rainbow. Ezekiel 1:26-28 reads, “Above the expanse over their heads was what looked like a throne of sapphire, and high above on the throne was a figure like that of a man. I saw that from what appeared to be his waist up he looked like glowing metal, as if full of fire, and that from there down he looked like fire; and brilliant light surrounded him. Like the appearance of a rainbow in the clouds on a rainy day, so was the radiance around him.” We see later (21:11) that the City of God is described as shining like jasper and crystal (carnelian) also.

In verse 4, we read of these twenty-four other thrones and seated upon them are twenty-four elders. These are representative of the twenty-four priestly families (see 1 Chronicles 24). It is strange that this is here ‘interrupting’ the view of the throne (which is taken up again in verse 5). Also, you would assume the four creatures are explained first, for they are closer to the throne and their worship is what promulgates the worship of the twenty-four elders. The fact that these most likely represent priesthood – the white robes and crowns already explained in notes on 3:5 and 2:10 – would imply that the supposed interruption is in view of 3:21. “To him who overcomes, I will give the right to sit with me on my throne, just as I overcame and sat down with my Father on his throne.” Somehow these ‘thrones’ are distinct, and yet they must be mentioned together with God’s throne – compare Daniel 7:9 and Revelation 20:4.

For the “peals of lightning, voices of thunder, and thunderings” in verse 5, compare Ezekiel 1:13, Psalm 77:18, and John 37:4. The seven lamps and the seven spirits of God are explained in Revelation 1:20, 3:1, and 1:12. In Solomon’s temple there are ten freestanding lamps (1 Kings 7:49). However, there is also high likelihood that these are representing the menorah.

The “sea of glass” in verse 6 is possibly the washing basin outside of the Tabernacle, but there was also “The Sea” in Solomon’s temple (1 Kings 7:23-26). Also see Psalm 104:3, that God sits upon many waters. The “living creatures” are cherubim, and we find the four of them in Ezekiel 1:22, 26, and Ezekiel 10 recognizes them as cherubs. Note that in Ezekiel credits these cherubs as being “under the throne”, but we cannot interpret the Greek in Revelation 4 to meaning under the throne. It means “in the midst” of the throne. Why are the creatures in the midst of the throne here when elsewhere they are described as “around” the throne? John is pulling from 1 Kings 6:27 and 8:6-7. There were two cherubim on the top of the mercy seat and two more “overshadowing” the Ark. The covering of eyes in front and back can be traced to Ezekiel 1:18 and 10:12.

Verse 7 is a four-lined stanza, each line beginning with και (and). In Ezekiel 1:10, the man comes first, not third, but other than that, the order is the same.

In verse 8, John modifies the cherubim into what Isaiah calls “seraphim”. In this, I assume that John is gathering imagery to explain the scene and press the point: he is in the Heavenly Temple, before the Throne, in the Holy of Holies.

Verse 9 is interesting to note the praise of the elders in 10-11 is whenever the living creatures praise. Yet, in verse 8, the living creatures are praising God “continually” (NIV translates as ‘day and night’). This is difficult to reconcile, but the possibility is that the elders are always at the disposition of worship before God, even when they are performing some other work. Compare their praise to Daniel 4:34. The phrase “who lives forever and ever” is repeated in verse 10, 10:6, and 15:7. See Deuteronomy 32:40 and Daniel 12:7.

In verse 10, the twenty-four elders have already been noted to correlate with 1 Chronicles 24. Examine Isaiah 24:23, “The Lord Almighty will reign on Mount Zion and in Jerusalem and before its elders, gloriously.” Here is what we know about these elders:

• 1) They sit on 24 thrones around God’s throne (4:4, 11:16)

• 2) They wear crowns of gold and white garments (4:4)

• 3) They are called πρεσβθτεροι – twenty four in number

• 4) They occupy these thrones presently, not at the end of the age.

• 5) The seer addresses one of them as κθριε (lord) (7:13)

• 6) They act as interpreting angels (7:13-14)

• 7) They have a priestly function in presenting the prayers of the faithful to God in golden bowls (8:5)

• 8) They encourage John when he beholds the inhabitants of heaven (5:5)

• 9) They hold the office of praising God by singing and playing the harp (5:8, 14, 11:16, 19:4)

From these characteristics, we glean that they cannot be men, must be angels. They act as interpreting angels, and unless we say that all messengers of God are human – prophets or glorified saints – we cannot then conclude that these are people. Sorry to the dispensationalist; the rapture didn’t happen. Also, their sitting on thrones prior to the eschaton speaks against them being saints, for the saints receive their reward at the coming of Messiah (22:12). The chief priests were designated “princes of God” in 1 Chronicles 24:5. It is possible that these are angelic counterparts to the twenty-four priestly elders – see note on 1:4 and 1:20. In 1 Chronicles 25:9-39, we find twenty-four orders of Levitical singers as well.

For the phrase “glory and honor and power”, see 1 Chronicles 16:27-28. “For you willed they existed, and were created”; compare this to Psalm 148:5, “For he commanded and they were created.” This seems backward. God had conceived, and therefore created. He thought through what would exist, and then made it physical reality. This could be a verse used to support the eternal existence of the soul, but it wouldn’t be a wise choice to do so. The verse itself doesn’t imply eternality of the soul, but merely conceptions in the mind of God before the creation of the world.

Thus, when we view this scene in chapter 4, we see John taken up from the world and given a seat in heaven to behold the rest of the vision. We see the beginning of God’s ultimate purposes for humanity and history is His glory. In Revelation 1, we saw the glory of God revealed in the Son, and now we see the glory of God in the Father (the Son to be revealed as the Lamb slain in chapter 5), and at the end of Revelations, we find them both sitting upon the throne together in the City of God. The beginning and end is the glory of God, and not the journey to get there. If God is glorified and glorious before we see the end time prophecies, and He is glorified and glorious after the end time prophecies, then He is glorified and glorious in the midst of the prophecies. While it seems as though all hell is breaking out upon the earth, God is still upon the throne, and there is not one detail that falls through the cracks. He is in control of all, not surprised at all, and in all things reveals His absolute sovereignty – even in the midst of displaying the freewill of men to reject Him and curse Him.

This is the God we serve, and it is sobering to consider that when I come before Him, I don’t merely stand before a big party table. I stand before a throne of glory, with angels and elders all around giving praise and homage unto the King of glory. This is sobering, but at the same time exciting. Please, if there is anything that you can take from this, take away that when we pray, we are to show the proper respect that God deserves. Yes, he is our Father – Abba – but no, He is not our “daddy”. He is still God, and if you or I were to behold even partially this glorious sight, we would never again have the thought to simply come before Him with our vain requests of blessings and giving us our desires.

What is Me?

For those of you who follow this blog, you know that I think somewhat uniquely. Today I want to take up the challenge of defining what ‘you’ are. I’ve heard frequently about how we need to die to self, because ‘you’ are not holy. I think that we as Christians need to be extremely cautious and careful with the words and definitions of those words that we choose. In one moment we can say that God loves you, and that He accepts you just as you are, so come to Him for salvation, and then we turn right around in the next statement to say that you need to die to self, you are a sinner, the sinful nature cannot please God, and all sorts of statements like this.

I have a difficult time with this.

Why is it that Jesus would come to give us life and life abundantly, and then expect that we should only die and die and die and die and die and die and die and die and die and die and die and die and die? Are these contradictions? If they are, then why do we continue to teach them? If they are not, then what exactly is being expressed?

Lets start with a simple statement.

Salvation is based upon new birth. What does that mean? The new birth goes back to prophecies like Ezekiel 36:26 and Jeremiah 31:33. Now, if we read the context, it is quite obvious that what is being spoken of is intended for national Israel. Let’s look at these two verses in specific. “I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh.” (Ezekiel) “This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time, declares the Lord. I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people.” (Jeremiah)

When we read our New Testaments, we find the teaching of the apostles declaring that this has already broken forth. For example, “You show that you are a letter from Christ, the result of our ministry, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on the tablets of human hearts,” 2 Corinthians 3:3. “He saved us, not because of the righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit,” Titus 3:5. “Let us draw near to God with a sincere heart and with the full assurance that faith brings, having our hearts sprinkled to cleanse us from a guilty consciences and having our bodies washed with pure water,” Hebrews 10:22. “In his great mercy he has given us new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,” 1 Peter 1:3.

I think that this is what we’re talking about with the “dying to self” thing. We die to self, which is to say, our old man. What is the “old man”? The old man is the person that we had become before conversion, the one destined to destruction. There were habits, mindsets, attitudes, sinful ambitions, greed, lust, anger and bitterness, and all sorts of evil built up in that old ‘you’. But when we come to Christ, when we enter the Kingdom of God, that heart of wickedness is taken out and replaced with a heart of flesh – the heart that desires only to do what is good and right. Where, then, is there room for statements of dying to self? Our self is no longer evil. Therefore, Paul boldly proclaims, “He who is in Christ is a new creation; behold, ALL things are become new.”

I actually have a problem when people say that we are continually supposed to die to self. I think it is semantics, though. We are indeed to die to the flesh – that old nature – and live from the power of God. We conform no longer to the pattern and mindsets of this world, but are instead transformed by the renewing of our minds. To this I give a wholehearted amen. My contention, then, is simply on the word “self”. What do we mean by this?

David, for example, in Psalm 56 asks the question, “What can mortal man do to me?” If we really think about it, especially when we look at the context of the Psalm, man can do a lot to David. He is already being persecuted. He is already being slandered and tormented by evil men. Obviously, mortal men are already doing something to him. So, the question can’t be about whether men can harm David physically or socially. The question seems to imply a different definition of the “me” that David is speaking of. What David is speaking of is the new man. It is who David is in the deepest depths. This is who David is in God – who the Maker has created David to be.

Let us go back to the initial difficulty.

Why is there always so much language about death? It seems to me that if you’ve died with Christ and been raised by the glory of the Father that you’ve already died and don’t need to keep dying. This is true. You’ve entered into new life, and therefore you don’t need to any longer “die to self” – unless, of course, you haven’t truly died to self. So, the question is no longer about “me” at that point, but instead about the sin that lives in me. As Paul says, “It is no longer I that sin, but the sin that dwells in me.”

The ‘you’, the ‘me’, it is speaking of who Christ has made us to be. It is speaking of that deep depth of who we are. There is nothing in that that needs to be put to death. When we come to Christ, we find that we’re not living from who God has made us to be. The essence of our being has been suppressed and cast aside – covered over with masks and supposed personality traits – twice dead. We indeed were dead in our trespasses and sins, but don’t neglect that Christ has made us alive through resurrection!

What we need to ask is two things. Does my life conform to how Scripture says I am to live and act? Am I living from who God has intended me to be, instead of someone else’s projection what what “Christ-likeness” is (including my own projection)?

To conclude, then, I hope this is freedom for some of you. Some of you have been oppressed and suppressed through language of dying and always needing to repent and surrender over to God. Have I sinned today? My conscience is clear – God is my judge; I do not even judge myself. Why should I repent of something that I don’t know about? What is the point of that? And if I repent simply because I’m “supposed to”, then is it really repentance? What is more important to me is answering those two questions in regards to everything I do. Am I living out of who God has made me to be, and have I projected a false image of what that means by misinterpreting – or completely ignoring – the Scripture? At the end of the day, those two things are truly what it all comes down to. It is all based upon living out of the core of who you now are in Christ – from the new heart – which is to say, to live out of love for your neighbor.

There is no greater love than this: to lay down your life for your friends. Paul even says that “I die daily”. But there is a significant difference between the dying to self when we enter the Kingdom and Paul’s daily death. It was self-sacrifice on behalf of others – HUGE difference. The wisdom of God is manifest in that when I die, or suffer, on behalf of others, life is imparted to them. This “death” is not about dying or suffering, but about serving. It is about taking up ultimate purposes. As Paul writes in 2 Corinthians 1:6, “If we are distressed, it is for your comfort and salvation; if we are comforted, it is for your comfort, which produces in you patient endurance of the same sufferings we suffer…”

The cross is experienced in the life of the believer once and for all to die to sins, and taken up again to give our lives as a ransom for many. Death and suffering are never glorified, but rather the life and power that come as a result of sacrifice. If we are focusing upon the death and suffering, then we have left the Christian faith. The beauty of the cross is found in the power over death itself, and not in the “Jesus died for me” alone. Why is it that Jesus’ death moves us? Is it simply because He died while I was still a sinner? Or is there something beyond that? I think that what moves us is the significance of the act, and not the act itself. Through His death, He has brought life. Through His resurrection, He has secured eternal salvation for all who come to Him. Likewise, we take up our crosses and follow Him.

On Interpreting the Prophetic Scriptures

*Disclaimer: This is a rant about they who have studied the prophetic texts and actively try to teach them*

I am extremely zealous over this. I spend a lot of time in the prophetic texts of the Bible, and a lot of time reading various opinions on these texts. Something I’ve noticed is rampant is that the prophetic texts – especially the ones full of symbolism – are used to say whatever the person wants it to say. I’ve seen far too often verses pulled completely out of context just so that certain false doctrines could continue to be presented.

I’ll give a couple examples.

The woman in the book of Revelations is Israel – not the Church. In chapter twelve, it is Israel that flees from the dragon. How do I know this? Look at the symbolism. She is standing on the moon, her face is like the sun, and the crown on her head has twelve stars. Go back to Genesis 37 and read of Joseph’s dream where the sun, moon, and eleven stars bow down to him. This is Israel. Jump forward in Revelations 12 to where the serpent chases her. Check the Greek in verse 6. She flees to the wilderness where they will take care of her for 1,260 days. Who are the they? It is the Church. How do I know this? Go later in chapter 12 to verses 13-17. These are further details of that flight into the wilderness. What happens? The earth swallows the flood – something that is looking back to Numbers 16 where Korah is swallowed by the earth. Korah is a type of Antichrist. Who swallows the water? It is the Church. How do I know? Look at verse 17. The result is that those who obey the commands of God and hold to the testimony of Jesus are persecuted. Who are they? That is the Church – something separate and distinct from the woman.

Lets look at the two witnesses. Who are they? People want to say that they are symbolic of the whole Church. What language is used to describe them? They are two olive trees and two lampstands. This is a direct translation from the Hebrew of Zechariah 4:11. These two in Zechariah 4:11 are Joshua and Zerubbabel. Joshua and Zerubbabel are types. What do I mean by type? A type is a pattern. God is foreshadowing through the prophetic words over these two men something larger that is to happen way in the future. These men will perform miraculous plagues. In Revelations 11:6, we see these plagues are likened to Elijah and Moses. Does that mean these two are Elijah and Moses? No. Elijah and Moses are being used as patterns. Just like Elijah and Moses brought about plagues against the kingdom of darkness (see Exodus 12:12), so these two men will also plague the kingdom of darkness.

Everything in the prophetic Scriptures form together. They aren’t independent symbols that we need to “figure out” so that we can become famous because we found hidden symbolism in the Bible. The Branch is spoken of by many of the prophets. Every time, it is a reference to the messiah. There is the ominous king of the north – sometimes defined by the Assyrian, sometimes by Babylon, sometimes by another enemy of Israel, and sometimes just a shadowy figure “from the north”. Every time, it seems like the prophecy extends beyond the person being spoken of to the Antichrist that will arise at the end of the age.

This is the way that you read prophetic Scripture. You compare Scripture with Scripture, prophet with prophet, vision with vision, prophecy with prophecy, and even story with story. Many times there are patterns in the stories of the Scripture. Amalekites tried to destroy Israel when they were walking around the desert in Exodus. Later, Saul is told to destroy the Amalekites and doesn’t kill Agag. This causes Samuel to weep through the night. We find in the book of Esther that Haman was an “Agagite” – a descendant of that king of Amalek. The Amalekites have the pattern of always seeking the destruction of Israel. That is a pattern set up in the Scripture.

It is incredibly important that we learn this. King Saul was anointed by God, and yet we find at the end of his life he is possessed by demons and seeking the counsel of a witch. We find that John calls Judas who betrayed Jesus the “son of perdition” – one who was entered by Satan to betray his friend. In Psalm 55:13-14, we find David use that same language about Saul – the companion and friend is the one who betrays him. In 2 Thessalonians, we find Paul call the Antichrist the “son of perdition” – the only other time in the New Testament that this phrase is being used. This is a pattern. These men are types and foreshadowing.

What is the point of all this? If we do not want to do the digging necessary to understand the prophetic texts, we should just keep our mouths shut. That isn’t to say that I have all of the correct interpretations, but to say that when we just make up interpretations that “sound good”, we really do more damage than help. It is more beneficial when I read or listen to someone who has done their homework and they challenge my view biblically than when I’m talking to an internet infidel who doesn’t know that the prophetic words intertwine.

Context is Everything

In our current Christianity – especially in the Western World – we have learned to quote Bible verses and make Scripture references to prove our points of view. We should indeed use the Bible when considering our beliefs. But I’ve found that often the verses are pulled out of context. (By often, I don’t mean the majority of the time, but instead that it happens more than it should.) We’ll use verses like 2 Timothy 3:15-17 to ‘prove’ that the Bible is the inspired word of God, yet neglect entirely what the point of the verses were: the conclusion to the first part of the chapter, which was about those who would rise up and promote heresy and ungodly living. Yes, the verse says that the Scripture is the inspired word of God, but no, that isn’t the point of the verse.

In the New Testament times, the Jewish scholars – called rabbis – would debate the Scripture with one another. When they debated, they would quote a verse or a passage. But, when they quoted the verse or passage, they didn’t mean just that verse or passage. They knew that their opponent would know the verse, and know the context of the verse. So, they would quote the verse – sometimes part of the verse – and the other rabbi would then pull it up in their mind as to what the context is, what the chapter is about, what the book is about, and where it is located in the whole schema of the Scriptures. Out of that context, the rabbi would then know that the point being made is not simply about that one verse, but rather the whole context gives a more full and complete argument. Therefore, to respond simply to that verse would completely miss the brunt of the argument.

I try to do this in ALL of my writings. I’ll admit, I am unsuccessful. Yet, especially when I’m trying to make a point, I will use a verse or passage knowing that the context supports the argument being made. I think this is so necessary for our time. We need to be willing to dig into the texts of the Bible for multiple reasons.

First, we need to see that when Scripture is being referenced or quoted in other parts of the Bible, that reference is not simply there because they want to quote one part of a verse. The reference is there because they expect if you don’t know the verse you will look it up and see the context and get the bigger picture and the fuller argument being made.

Second, we need to dig into the Scripture so that we too can make these sorts of arguments. When we’re debating, when we’re discussing, when we’re teaching, when we’re learning, when we’re apologetic-ing – ANY time that we quote the Bible we need to use the context of that verse and make sure that it is the context making the argument and not one specific verse. It has taken me years to overcome the many verses pulled out of context (like John 3:16) that we have this “understanding” of what this verse means, and when we come to it, we read this understanding into it, but when we read up to it or after it, we understand that is the context. How many times have I seen it in myself? I’ll be tracking, and then suddenly a verse that I have quoted and known and put to memory will come up, and I’ll say, “What?!? That’s what that verse means?”

How about I give a couple of examples and then end.

“Wives, submit to your husbands…” Ephesians 5:22. I’m expecting that you know the verse, and you know the following couple verses. What comes before this verse? Do you know? Paul just finished speaking about how we’ve come out of darkness and into light. Darkness and light are metaphors for two different kingdoms. The way that Paul concludes this introductory thought is by saying, “Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ”. This is the verse directly before, “Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord.” What is the context telling us? Just like everyone submits to everyone else, so too should the marriage relationship be one of submission one to another. What comes after this verse/passage? “Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her.” This plays in perfectly with what I just said: the point is that the relationship is one of submission unto one another – the husband even submitting himself unto death on behalf of his wife! What comes after that? We find Paul giving advice to children and parents, to slaves and masters, and finally to bear the full armor of God. This passage is the commencement of Paul explaining what it means to be children of the light, who have come out of darkness. He concludes the whole thought with the “put on the full armor of God” passage.

Let us try another. “Do not judge, or you too will be judged” Matthew 7:1. What is the context? We are in the sermon on the mount, where Jesus begins with these beatitudes, basically clarifying what it means to typify the kingdom of God. Then, he gives two examples of what these traits look like: salt and light. From there, Christ tells us that He fulfills the Law (a rabbinical way of saying that He is teaching it in its purest form), and that our righteousness needs to exceed the Pharisees’. How does that happen? Jesus spends the next 13 ‘teachings’ explaining what it means. The first six are in relation to the Law and the way that we understand and obey it. The next seven are in relation to our daily lives and attitudes. At the beginning and at the end of these teachings we find the phrase “the Law and the Prophets”. This teaching on judging others is the second to last of these teachings on what it means that our righteousness should exceed that of the Pharisees. From there, Jesus explains that the gate is small, and the path is narrow that leads to life. How do we get onto this path? We live in righteousness that exceeds the Pharisees’. How do we know we are indeed on that path? Jesus explains that we will know by our fruit. Then He ends by giving the parable of two builders: one wise and one foolish. So, when we come to judging others, this is the context. We find verse 7:5 saying, “first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.” Jesus is actually telling us to judge! He is distinguishing between the unrighteous judgment and the righteous judgment, though. So, 7:1 fits in with the whole context – a comparison of the two “righteousnesses” (one true, and one false) – and also stands as an introduction to what it means to righteously judge your brother.

So, in conclusion, I would highly recommend that we start seeking to understand the context of these verses and passages we quote as “proof texts”. Many false doctrines have entered the mind of believers simply because they haven’t gone and looked at the context of the verses quoted. This will save you from falling for much deception – not all – and will give you such a firm foundation in your faith. Hopefully this helped someone. God bless you all!

Is it a Goat or a Demon?

Browsing through Leviticus, I came across chapter 17 where God tells the Israelites not to eat blood. Now, it is interesting that in the letter to the Gentiles, the Jerusalem church tells them that this is one of the laws that they cannot break. Circumcision – whatever – but do not eat/drink blood. Before we reach this command in verse 10, we find verses 1-9 speaking of how the people must offer their sacrifices to the Lord at the Tent of Meeting, and not outside of the camp.

But there is something fascinating that happens in verse 7. “They must no longer offer any of their sacrifices to the goat demons to whom they prostitute themselves. This is to be a lasting ordinance for them and for generations to come.”

Wait… What?

What is a goat demon? The Hebrew word is se’irim, which simply means “hairy one”. It is used in 2 Chronicles 11:15 and Isaiah 13:21 as well. Sometimes it is translated as goat. Sometimes it is translated as Satyr. Sometimes it is simply translated as “baboon”.Some have thought that maybe these se’irim are false gods in Egypt that were “blood thirsty”, and God is saying “Don’t you indulge in that.” What in the world is going on here?

There is this weird connection between offering to the goat demon, and eating the blood. God says don’t eat blood, because the life is in the blood. When we examine Acts 15:29, we find that the things mentioned to the Gentile believers to abstain from are the very things that were used at times to worship false gods. Do not eat sacrifices offered to idols. Do not eat the meat of strangled animals. Abstain from sexual immorality. Sandwiched in the middle is this command to not eat blood. So, it seems likely that this is indeed one of those things that would have been performed as a ritual when sacrificing to a certain false deity.

Jump ahead to 1 Corinthians. Paul is talking to these believers, and he says to them “about eating food sacrificed to idols…” that “food does not bring us near to God; we are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do.” Then, to top it off, Paul says, “If anyone… sees you… eating in an idol’s temple, won’t he be emboldened to eat what has been sacrificed to idols? So this weak brother, for whom Christ died, is destroyed by your knowledge.” This dialogue is found in 1 Corinthians 8.

Jump ahead in 1 Corinthians to chapter 10. Paul makes the statement to “flee from idolatry”, and then wraps that intimately with communion. Then, if that weren’t confusing enough, he flips the subject around and says, “Do not those who eat the sacrifices participate in the altar? Do I mean that sacrifices offered to an idol is anything, or that an idol is anything? No, but the sacrifices of pagans are offered to demons, not to God, and I do not want you to be participants with demons. You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons too; you cannot have part in both the Lord’s table and the table of demons.”

What just happened? One minute Paul seems to say that it isn’t a big deal to eat of the sacrifices offered to demons – which is deliberately against what the Jerusalem counsel said – and then in chapter 10 it seems like he starts back-peddling. Might I suggest that what is being expressed is bigger than just meat offered to idols? The whole point isn’t about the meat, nor about the idols. The point goes beyond this to a deeper truth. It is about what the communion itself means.

Communion with the Lord is about marriage to God. When the Jewish people would become “engaged” (truthfully, the courtship of the ancient Israelites was much more than what we would call engagement), the father would go with his son to the woman’s home. They would speak to the father of the woman, and they would try to work out a marriage pact. Then, at the end of it all, the son would take a cup and fill it with wine. He would say over the cup, “This is my blood of the covenant. Take and drink of it.” The daughter will then have an option: take the cup and accept marriage with God, or politely decline. When we take of the cup of the Lord, we are committing ourselves to marriage with Him. Jump back to Leviticus 17. Notice the language is about harlotry when the Israelites would offer to this “goat demon”.

We have before us two tables. There is the table of the Lord, which is a covenant between God and His people of marriage with them. Then, there is the table of demons, which is a covenant with death and hell solemnly sworn against the Lord.

To the table of the Lord, we find verses like Genesis 14:18, where Melchizedek brings wine and bread to break with Abraham. We find Psalm 78:19, where God spreads a table in the wilderness for Israel. We find in Mark 8:4, where the disciples ask Jesus, “Where will we get enough bread to feed all these people in this remote place?” In Ezekiel 20:35, the prophet speaks of a time still yet in the future when Israel would be scattered into the wilderness of the nations and sup with God face-to-face. Revelation 12:6 speaks of a time where the woman (Israel) flees into the wilderness to a place that God has prepared to take care of her for 1,260 – another prophecy that is most likely future. It is spoken of this communion that unless you eat Jesus’ flesh and drink His blood, you cannot be His disciple.

Then there is another table. There is a contrast. Psalm 14:4 speaks of evil doers who “devour my people as men eat bread”. Jeremiah 10:25 prophecies of a wrath to be poured out on all the nations and people who “have devoured Jacob; they have devoured him completely and destroyed his homeland.” But the most blatant of all these Scriptures is in Micah 3. “Listen, you leaders of Jacob, you rulers of the house of Israel. Should you not know justice, you who hate good and love evil; who tear the skin from my people and the flesh from their bones; who eat my people’s flesh, strip off their skin and break their bones in pieces; who chop them up like meat for the pan, like flesh in the pot?”

What is the point? There is somehow a direct connection between taking the meat sacrificed to idols – joining in the table of demons – and devouring the people of the Lord. There are few things that God says He will cut the people off for. This is one. Another is the blaspheme of the Holy Spirit. Thirdly there is taking the mark of the beast. I believe that all three of these are connected deeply and intimately. Notice Matthew 12:28 that Jesus compares the Spirit of God with the kingdom of God – “If I drive out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.” Then, Jesus goes on to express that the strong man – Satan – must be bound in order for the Kingdom of God to come. Then, Jesus goes back to the subject of the Spirit of God by saying those who blaspheme the Spirit of God will not be forgiven. Why? Because the Spirit of God is the one that is casting out the kingdom of darkness. The Spirit is being likened to the kingdom of God. To say that the work of the Spirit is actually the work of Satan is the ultimate affront.

The book of Revelations contrasts the seal of the 144,000 with the mark of the beast. To one, the mark of God is put upon their forehead. To the other, it is the mark of the beast upon the forehead. What is the difference? They who see the antichrist and will actually claim this man is God is to equate the kingdom of God with the kingdom of darkness. It is the same as they who blaspheme the Spirit – which is the same as they who will feast at the table of demons. Look at Luke 11:20. The same verse in Matthew 12 that compares the Spirit of God with the kingdom of God is said in Luke 11:10 “If I drive out demons by the finger of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.”

This phrase is found in Exodus 8:19. The Egyptians see the plagues as the “finger of God”. What is happening? The contrast is being made: Egypt or Israel? Goat demons or Jehovah? The Spirit of God or the false miracles performed by the false prophet? Jesus or the Antichrist? The kingdom of God or the kingdom of darkness? Which do you choose?

A Link to my Other Blog

I have moved to Wordpress, but continue to post blogs here from time to time. Anyone who is subscribed, please check out my wordpress at:

tjustincomer.wordpress.com

God bless you all who read this, and may you continue to find deeper revelation of the truth within our God and Father through His Son, amen.

Running from Church to Find God

            In the case of Philemon, the history might be the best commentary. Philemon was a man who owned slaves. He was a believer in Jesus, and somehow had a connection with Paul, by Paul’s own words he was indebted his life. The story that seems to be taking place in the midst of Philemon is a slave named Onesimus ran away. Philemon was a believer in Jesus, and he had some sort of meeting of the Church in his home. One of the questions that come to mind would be why his slave ran away – but more specifically, why to Paul?

            The best thing that can be figured was that Onesimus heard about this man Paul. He heard about this man Jesus. He heard the message of the Gospel, but didn’t see the reality of it lived out before him. His master was quite the Christian man in front of all the other believers, but is it possible that he was less than sanctified while dealing with his slaves? Maybe the reason that Onesimus ran away – especially to Paul – was because he heard the message of hope and redemption, but still felt oppressed and tormented. Onesimus would have ran to Paul as an attempt to find the man who gave his master hope and redemption. He apparently believed the Gospel, but was discontent in the house of affliction – a house that purported to be Christian.

            In one way, we can look at this and ask why it must have been that this happened, but in another very real sense, we need to glance at out own lives. Why is it that our friends and family – those who are closest to us – don’t believe our message? Is there anything is me that would hinder my witness of the Gospel? Am I the very instrument that is causing someone in my own home to say, “I would love to believe it, but where is the reality in their life?” All across the world we find this story being played out a million times over. Teenagers, friends, coworkers, and acquaintances are running away from Church to find God. This isn’t a new phenomenon. It has happened from the very first century onward. The question is not why they are leaving. The question is why they have been pushed out the door.

            What is it about Philemon that drove Onesimus to such drastic measures? What is it about our so-called Christian homes and church gatherings that have driven the youth away? I have yet to talk to one person that is uninterested in God, except they who are in the Church. The people outside of the buildings have questions that are not getting answered, and they love to talk and discuss the things of God when someone is able to talk reasonably and intellectually. It is the system of religion that has driven them into insanity, looking for life and hope in a dead and dying world. Where are the Pauls of the world? Where are the people that they can run to? Unlike Onesimus, our generation seems to have persecuted the true apostles and prophets so that there is no one to run to.

            In a world that is hostile to God, where do they who truly seek run to? The buildings don’t talk about God. They quote from the Bible, but only to talk about self. On September 12, 2001, while churches across America gathered for their midweek Bible studies, and again on the 16th for Sunday service, millions of people flocked to the churches with questions of love and hope. They wanted to know whether America was under judgment because of the terrorist attacks. They wanted to know if God saw their oppression and heard their cry. They wanted to hear a message from the preachers, who are supposed to be God’s spokesmen, but instead found “business as usual”. When they ran to the churches to find hope and redemption, the preachers got up and began the same sermon series from where they left off – as if the World Trade Centers had not just been kamikazed. Where do the people have to run? Who is the voice that they can go to in order to ask these difficult questions?

            What I find as a challenge with the book of Philemon is that this man was a Christian who sat under Paul’s teaching, and even had a house church. Yet, Onesimus found it necessary to run away from that in order to find God. What vexes me is that I see the same thing taking place, but where do they run? To whom do they take counsel in? The severity of the situation calls for drastic measures, and yet the majority of Christians see it as a “them” problem and not an “us” problem. They are the ones leaving, right? So why is that our fault? What was it in Philemon that caused Onesimus to run away? It wasn’t because of Onesimus that Onismus ran. He could have very well spoken to his master about the same things he sought Paul for. Yet, he decided to run to Paul instead of asking the very man closest to him.

            In considering the book of Philemon, let us consider also the implications that this epistle has on our own lives. Let us reflect on those who have run away from our own homes and lives. Is there anything in us that would have caused for that fleeing? Sometimes there isn’t anything, and they just don’t want to believe. Yet, that shouldn’t be our immediate response, considering the depth of grace and love that we’ve experienced in Christ. Anyone who knew the glory that we have attained to in Christ would sprint 1000 miles to also come unto. The question isn’t our message, nor their hearts, but first and foremost our own hearts and lives and conduct.

           I feel like to end, I should quote Mother Teresa: If you don't want your children, then send them to me. She was talking about abortion, but I'm officially opening my doors for a generation that is asking questions.