So I take it that God is very keen that the gospel be presented as the revelation of a mystery that was fully foretold in the prophets but hidden, not only from men, both just and unjust, but also from the principalities and powers of this age till its appointed time of revelation and manifestation. This gospel includes both comings and the relation of those comings to Israel. It is the OT mystery of Messiah’s coming, departure, and return to Israel. Now I realize that’s a mouthful and preaching the gospel does not have to follow a prescribed method, but this is the framework and understanding that all the apostles were proceeding. It was the approach they took and they understood the preaching of the gospel as the revelation of a mystery that proves itself by its conformity to what was written in the prophets. That’s its apologetic force and appeal that removes the intellectual refuge in the face of the miracle of fulfilled, and being fulfilled prophecy. This content and this means of making the gospel known was, in their understanding, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, since it pleases God to make Himself known as the God who declares the end from the beginning, the one to whom is known (and foretold) all His works from the beginning. “The testimony of Jesus is the Spirit of prophecy.”

This does not have to explicit in every preaching of the gospel, of course. There is great freedom. But this should be the context and framework of understanding that is understood as implicit, not as a rigid method, by no means, but as a consciousness of the aims of God, not only as to His ends but as to His commanded means, namely, the use of the scriptures of the prophets. When the gospel is preached in this way, built right into it is a powerful apologetic through the miracle of fulfilled prophecy. It is the power of prophecy in evangelism that has been all to neglected. Yet, it is this that God enjoins on us as ‘according to the commandment of the everlasting God’, as I understand Paul’s statement in Ro 16:25-26, and as observed in the common practice of apostolic preaching as we have it recorded in the book of Acts.

The gospel was first preached in an apocalyptic context of flight from the wrath to come, as an urgent message of repentance in view of the shortness of the time, beneath the shadow of an imminent destruction of Jerusalem that would naturally be understood in inextricable connection with the judgment of the nations and restoration of the kingdom to Israel. That’s where they were and where we find ourselves again, full circle.

It is also the “witness” (Travis’ “credible witness”) of the imminence of the kingdom of God (Mt 24:14) God will not judge fully and finally until there has first gone forth in power and clarity this “witness” so to leave all men without excuse for a very compelling opportunity for faith that to reject is to expose the powerful predisposition of the natural heart.

Apocalyptic evangelism is not limited to Jews, though it is meant to appeal to them, not only from the evidence of fulfilled prophecy but of things presently unfolding and soon to follow in their lifetime. Thus, it has the working of a delayed reaction bomb. This is especially seen in Isa 28 where the gospel is first dismissed, but soon enough the forewarned disaster falls and this is calculated to have powerful working on the Jewish conscience in his time of calamity. The same can be said of the rising tide of anti-Semitism, which a futuristic understanding of prophecy has always clearly anticipated. That too is again upon us. Apocalyptic evangelism exploits this evidence to point the Jew, and the nations to the implied divine contention over the nature of true covenant righteousness, and all the issues of God’s face being hidden from the beleaguered nation till the coming in of the everlasting righteousness. Even that statement presumes a mystery, since this righteousness was revealed in the gospel but waits to become the experience of the entirety of the nation when it is born in a day.

The target audience is “whosoever will.” The issue of Israel and the controversy God has with them is for the nations to consider, but they will not consider it rightly until they have understood how God is using the issue of Zion to confront the nations with His controversy with them. All is designed to bring down every high look, to destroy all boasting, whether Jewish or gentile. Actually, all evangelism is apocalyptic in the sense that all preaching of the gospel should presuppose this context of the everlasting covenant and the breaking in of the judgments of the day of the Lord, as well as the ever present danger of eternal hell for the spiritually dead. It is this apocalyptic righteousness of the Spirit that quickens the dead, apart from works, that the gospel reveals, now to those who obey and then to the surviving remnant who look upon Him whom they pierced and cry with one voice, “blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord.” Apocalyptic evangelism is a call to the nations, albeit in the context of a convincing witness of both the presence and imminence of the kingdom, which implies the return of the King to reign from Zion’s little hill over all nations through a restored “Jewish” nation. It’s that last part that stumbles many. It was so intended. That’s why this sovereign prerogative (the scandal of particularity) will be openly vindicated and employed as a divinely intended challenge to the nations for a thousand years (Isa 66:19-22; Zech 8:23; 14:17-18).

The post On Evangelism in “Apocalyptic Evangelism” appeared first on Mystery of Israel.

The post The Mystery of Israel [Video] appeared first on Mystery of Israel.

The post For Then Shall Be Great Tribulation [Video] appeared first on Mystery of Israel.

1 Chronicles 16:34 O give thanks unto the LORD; for he is good; for his mercy endureth for ever. This appears in the book 50 times and I question the validity of this being true, as I was thinking, how can this be true if there is a place called hell? Please expound on this!

Unfortunately (for the flesh), the question of hell is inseparably bound to the question of Jesus’ identity and authority. I have a view that helps me considerably with this question, but you have not asked concerning matters of interpretation. Instead, you seem to question whether such a place can co-exist with the justice and goodness of God. That is a far more serious issue, since this becomes the question of Jesus’ authority and identity, not only as a prophet, but as the divine Son of God.

Though many will agree that we evangelicals are of all people most to be pitied, it is true that we are ‘victims’ of the conviction that Jesus is who He claimed to be, and this leaves us with no recourse than to believe what He affirmed about hell, else the whole foundation is at once removed. Simply put, if we would not sacrifice the integrity of Christ’s authority, we are compelled to believe in the existence of hell, regardless of how we understand it.

This means that the reality of the hope of eternal life is inseparably bound to the reality of eternal damnation, if Jesus is indeed who He claimed to be. We who are naturally humanistic in our thinking need to understand that only one provision for salvation was ever possible to God. From a human point of view, God is bound to be God. He is defined by His nature. According to Ro 8:20, His very decision to create a universe that He knew would pass into futility was based on the timeless pre-determination to send Jesus to the cross (Isa 49:7; 53:3-5; Dn 9:26; Mic 5:1; Zech 12:10; Acts 2:23; Rev 13:8).

It is significant that the reason for hell’s existence is explained in the very place where we see the greatest conceivable sacrifice of divine love. “For God sent NOT His Son into the world to CONDEMN the world; but that the world through him might be saved … THIS is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil … ” (Jn 3:17, 19).

So we must understand that the question of hell is subservient to the much more ultimate question of the existence and nature of divine revelation. Ultimately its a choice between revelation and philosophy. I begin with the evidence. If the evidence is sufficient to remove all reasonable doubt of the reality of divine revelation, then I am relieved of having to understand hell in order to acknowledge its existence. If He is indeed there; if He has indeed spoken, then who am I? I am creature; He is God. I am at the mercy of whatever He has chosen to reveal (Deut 29:29). This is the humility of faith, but faith is not without reasons.

Revelation transcends the limits of rationality, but it is never irrational. It is not without compelling evidence. The evidence is such as to leave all without excuse, but not such as to remove all mystery. There is the choice. Will we bow to the evidence, suffering the tension that must always exists between evidence and mystery, or will we exalt reason over revelation, with an all or nothing demand?

Hell is one of those things that is so naturally unthinkable that it actually commends itself as belonging, not to the realm of human conceptions of justice, but of divine revelation. The greatest reason for our quarrel with hell is because we are ‘cut off’ and ‘out of touch’ with the holiness of God. We are insensible of divine reality. If God is possessed of a holiness that is infinite, sin becomes something much more than a finite, time bound event, as we tend to imagine. That is why we are incapable of knowing the degree of our sin apart from revelation.

We are in no position to demand of God. Revelation does not come as divine obligation to the creature, else it would not be grace but debt. Revelation is the issue of humility and divine sovereignty (Mt 11:25-27). It doesn’t work with the pride of demand. It works where prayer works, namely, at the end of the power of self-sufficiency (Deut 32:36; Dan 12:7). Revelation comes to those who have been brought to feel their own destitution (Ps 102:17). I call it the Jacob’s trouble principle, but it is the principle of the cross.

“Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up. The man who thinks he knows something does not yet know as he ought to know. But the man who loves God is known by God” (1 Cor 8:1-3). In contrast to philosophy, religious dogma, or even a creed that is merely ‘correct,’ only revelation can bend the knee and break the heart. It brings down man and lifts up Christ.

This is why I don’t have to understand or explain hell to enjoy the salvation of Christ. It is the issue of trust. I simply am too weak and unreliable in myself to trust the limits of my poor reason over that which He has spoken (“Has God really said?”). When it comes to the question of hell, my answer is the same as Abraham’s unquestioned assumption: “Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?” (Gen 18:25).

Notice that Abraham appeals to this great ‘given’ of the nature and character of God in the face of what seemed to him evidence to the contrary. The operating word here is “seemed.” I like to say that we see through a “seem.” There is often a great chasm between what ‘seems’ and what is. It is testament to Abraham’s faith that he holds fast to the conviction of God’s goodness and justice, even in the face of ‘apparent’ contradiction. He never lifts himself up beyond the place of finite and dependent creature-hood. He puzzles, he appeals, but he never puts his own limited first impressions in the place of God. This is precisely what philosophy does when it rejects the primacy of revelation.

Whether any of His attributes are ever palatable to the flesh, we are not in a position to prescribe the kind of deity that suits us. Either God has revealed Himself as He indeed is, despite the limits of our understanding, or He has not. In which case, we can play till judgment day with our unbounded imaginations, “ever learning (conveniently) and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.”

By a sublime irony, God deliberately puts Himself on trial. When Jesus stood before Pilate, things were not as they appeared. By placing Himself before the tribunal of human judgment, God was permitting our judgment of Him to be the judgment that we are really passing on ourselves. When we exalt an autonomous reason over the gift of inspired revelation, we judge ourselves (“He who rejects Me, and does not receive My words, has that which judges him – the Word that I have spoken will judge him in the last day;” Jn 12:48).

The entire passion scene is divinely constructed to raise the great questions. Pilate’s dilemma is ours. What should be done with this man? “What is truth?” These are questions that the crisis of Jesus (and soon of Israel) puts on the lips of our collective humanity. Settle this one question and all others fade in comparison. The only really ultimate question is put by Jesus Himself when He asks, “Who do you say that I am?” (Mk 8:29).

Either Jesus was a man of His times spreading well meaning religious, but nonetheless human opinion, or He is the final authority of truth on all questions pertaining to human destiny. He is the only One who is in a position to speak with such absolute authority from the other side of the veil. If He is wrong about hell, what is He right about? What good is a mistaken Messiah? “Let us eat and drink for tomorrow we die!” (Isa 22:13; 1Cor 15:32). That is sound advise from one whose pious self assurance was crucified on the road to Damascus.

No hell, no Savior! I don’t see any possible middle ground. Both the identity of Jesus and the existence of hell belong to the realm of revelation. A Jesus that is less than divine is no threat to the flesh, but He is also no hope for the soul. If Jesus was sincerely deceived about hell, then tell us, “to whom shall we go?” Judaism? Islam? Or the nihilism of hedonism?

Well, you asked that I expound on the question. Now for a personal appeal. You and I have been back and forth on questions of this kind for a good while now. I don’t mind, but I get the feeling that your frustration may become such that you will despair to inquire further. Therefore, in honor of our friendship, would you consider to read a little booklet that made all the difference in my life? It is, “Saved by Grace,” by John Bunyan. He was the author of the famous, “Pilgrim’s Progress.”

How I would love to see you come to the real resolution and peace that is faithfully quickened to our hearts when we have despaired of any hope in ourselves (Isa 57:10). May it be soon for you, is my prayer.

Your friend in His unspeakable goodness, Reggie

The post The Question of Hell appeared first on Mystery of Israel.

Paul said, “knowing the terror of the Lord, we persuade men” (2Cor 5:11). Do we know the terror of the Lord? Perhaps this is why we are not so urgent to persuade men. Paul is just as clear in the same chapter that it is the love of Christ that constrains us, but to warn of a wrath to come is intrinsic to the proclamation of the good news, since it is from wrath that we are saved. Where the severity of God in judgment is not justified as just, and not only just but necessary to the very being and nature of God, then mercy becomes indulgence and the glory of grace is destroyed. To uphold the one is necessarily to uphold the other. In the history of revival, it has been those most knowing of the terror of the Lord that have also been those most constrained by the love of Christ to warn and plead with souls to turn from dead works to serve the living God.

In his book, “The Holiness of God,” R.C. Sproul speaks about the wisdom of deliberately devoting the greater portion of our time to those themes and topics in scripture that most disturb us. There are certain passages of scripture on the solemnity of divine judgment that should deeply sober us and move us to vigilance and urgency in the enterprise of turning souls from darkness to light. In addition to the passage I put at the heading of this piece, there are two in particular that, for me, evoke the most sober picture of what it will mean to stand before God in that awful day without the vital covering of Christ’s righteousness. One is in Daniel Dan 2:35: “Then was the iron, the clay, the brass, the silver, and the gold, broken to pieces together, and became like the chaff of the summer threshingfloors; and the wind carried them away, that no place was found for them: …” Another is Rev 6:15-17: “And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich men, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and every bondman, and every free man, hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains; And said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him who sits on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb: For the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand?”

Somehow the natural mind is able to entertain the impossible notion that death is a refuge, as well as an end. It is neither. There is no asylum from the holiness of God except as one is “in Christ” and thus in union with God. The very thing that will make hell hell is not the absence of God but the presence of His un-shielded holiness after the veil of the flesh has been forever removed. “Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power” (2 Thess 1:9). More than fire or darkness, which stand for a reality that transcends human ability to conceive, it will not be some vainly imagined absence of God, but the unmitigated exposure to the holiness of His person and attributes that will make hell hell.

It will be the exposure of pride in the presence of His meekness, and so on. The brightness of His appearing will be to those in the graves and out of the graves an instant and automatic exposure and condemnation of all that is short of His glory. That is why it is so terrible to suppose that the light and holiness of God condemns only what we would judge as willfully evil. That is pure humanism. No, His unapproachable light condemns all that is short of His glory, which is to say, short of Christ. That’s why any supposed sanctification that presumes to mix anything of man with Christ is self condemned, as short of His glory. The only acceptable righteousness then is the righteousness that is gloriously His alone and nothing of our own, else it is a righteousness that is short of the glory of God.

That is why any supposed personal sanctification that is ‘short’ of His glory is evil, simply because it is a false covering, and thus an affront, as to “climb up some other way” (Jn 10:1). To mix is to destroy. That is why the final unveiling of that unapproachable light will cause all that is outside of Christ to blush in shame and terror and turn in on itself in unmitigated and unbearable self condemnation. The one thing most desired would be the presumed refuge of death, but neither death nor hell can provide sanctuary from His everlasting omnipresence.

The post Knowing the Terror of the Lord We Persuade Men appeared first on Mystery of Israel.