04 · 06
04 · 25

How Long?

Media_httpskepbitchfi_hydse
Tucked away amidst the last books of the old testament is Habakkuk. Habakkuk [חֲבַקּוּק], whose name is believed to mean "to fold one's hands" or "to embrace" by ancient rabbis on one hand, and an Akkadian word for a garden plant by  most modern scholars on the other, was a Judean prophet. He is believed to have been a contemporary of Nahum and Zaphaniah (Smith, 1984 : Nichol, 1978). The book of Habakkuk contains a conversation between the prophet and God, ending with a prayer/song in chapter 3.


I was blessed to begin a series on this book at my local church, but I've been struck down with an infection. I don't know when I will conclude. Since I had some time to sit and reflect concerning my dilemma, I found my thoughts going back to my exposition of the book, particularly the opening question of Habakkuk's first complaint (1:2-4). The prophet says, "How long, O Lord, must I call for help, but you do not listen?" (1:2 NIV). The second question, "or cry out to you, 'Violence!' but you do not save?," parallels the first, in that the prophet expects that when God "listen/hear" He will move to action, but this time he adds the reason for the cry.


Habakkuk is appalled and frustrated by the violence, injustice, and destruction that he sees. The time that he is describing is one of strife and conflict, it's as if the Judean street had become the harbinger of rage and decadence. There is justice and law but they are in the state of inaction (1:4). Perhaps the judges are bribed into upholding wickedness, or the law enforcers are too few to stale the madness of the people, or maybe they are in a grand collusion. Whatever the case, Habakkuk is so overwhelmed by the evil that he sees, he asks, "Why do you make me look at injustice?" (1:3). He desires to have the evil removed from his sight. There are those who he manages to call "righteous/just" but they are boxed-in by the wicked (1:4). It is this chaos, which has spread a raven blanket over the land, that causes him to cry out.


My mediation on the text was not concerning the violence that is being done to others, though I acknowledge that there is a great deal of violence and destruction being allocated to the children of Adam, my complaint is concerning the violence being done to me. After a tumultuous year, of which some of my choices are partly to blame, I was expecting things to be on the up side at least for a little while (I am aware that God does not promise a painless life). No such luck, instead I'm hit with an infection near the end of the semester. This is a result of a malformation while I was in the womb. The typical scenario is to have the whole church call up and express their camaraderie and bible promises. However, when I'm sick I prefer prayer over endless sermonizing, which sometimes sounds like a pre-death eulogy (smile). I found the hope I needed in a simple statement in Habakkuk's book.


At the beginning of Habakkuk's complaint, he questions the Lord concerning the longevity of His silence. Habakkuk had been complaining for a long time and he is wondering "how long" will he go on asking and the Lord will remain inactive. When one presents such a scenario, it leaves us eager for God's response. However, I was content with the fact that Habakkuk kept on voicing his request even though he did not get an answer initially. Should I get tired or discouraged and stop asking? Stop speaking? No, I must keep communicating. Habakkuk showed perseverance in prayer.


For all who have been asking or complaining to God and have not received a response, keep talking. God does say "no," or "not yet," (etc.), but if you haven't gotten that kind of response, then keep asking. If He hasn't dismissed your request, then persevere. An important aspect of Habakkuk's prayer, which might be overlooked sometimes, is that his request of God is based on what he knows of Him. In this case, he is aware that God cannot tolerate wrong (cf. 1:3 and 1:13). One prays with more confidence when he/she knows what is God's view on the matter, especially when you compare your request with scripture.


Persevere in your request, as the prophet did, as I am trying to do. One must practice what one preaches (ironically, a friend visited me on Saturday and told me this, after I've written it).


*I'm always glad to hear from readers, please feel free to leave a comment. Don't forget to sign up for e-mail subscription


Works Cited:


Nichol, Francis D. The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary: The Holy Bible With Exegetical and Expository Comment. Washington: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1978


Smith, Ralph L. Word Biblical Commentary: Micah-Malachi. Dallas: Word Books, 1984

03 · 31

The Fundamental Principle for Christian Planning

Media_httpimg2timeinc_tiuie
One of the best things a person can do in life is to plan their moves. In my teenage years, I never cared about planning anything. Often times, the idea was presented to me, but I brushed it off, because I was focused with the present (the now). Had I picked up the importance of it earlier, I probably would have been a lot more systematic than I am now. It is never too late to learn (to reform). Though I’ve become a planner, I realize that no matter how hard you plan, certain factors are out of your hands. Should Christians plan? If yes, is there (or should there be) any difference from how the world does it?


Giving you all that the bible says on planning is not my purpose here. I’m limiting my reflections to James’ epistle. In James 4, the apostle begins his march towards a Christian perspective on planning by presenting what is commonly done. He begins by saying, “Come now, you who say, ‘today or tomorrow we will go to such and such a city, and spend a year there and engage in business and make a profit” (Jam. 4:13). This is common in the modern world.


There are a few things to note: the first one is that the planner(s) has a location in mind: “we will go to such and such a city.” Second, the planner(s) calculated the amount of time that they are going to spend in the city: “and spend a year there.” The third move is to decide on actions to be taken during the time spent in that location: “and engage in business.” Finally, the planner(s) are expecting a net income on their business venture: “and make a profit.” Sounds like a great plan!


In verse 14, however, James begins with a word that calls for the fast-paced reader to slow down, he says “Yet.” He then goes on to add a few things. First, he wanted them to reflect on the fact that they might not be alive tomorrow: “Yet you do not know what your life will be like tomorrow.” Second, this statement also means that they don’t know what their existence will be like. Existing does not require a clean bill of health.


Furthermore, we see a description of life in 14b: “You are just a vapor that appears for a little while and then vanishes away” (So much for doctoral plans). If you ever seen a vapor, what will immediately struck you is its’ frailty and the shortness of its existence. In the big picture—the history of a universe locked in a great controversy—individual existence (in terms of time) is only but a vapor. It goes by rapidly. One instant, we are living, and the next we are gone. James is giving these planners, what we may refer to as a spiritual “reality check”.


The problem with the plan was not that it was not good; it was a great plan, well laid out with specific details. However, they were missing the most important thing. I will present this to you as the Fundamental Principle for Christian Planning: what does Jesus thinks about our plans?


Let’s look at verse 15 for more clarification. James gives the prescription for the major error that the planner(s) committed. He says, “Instead, you ought to say, ‘If the Lord wills, we will live and also do this or that.” Though James place the Lord’s will prior to the details of the plan, his purpose is not to advocate a rhetorical formula for prosperous results. Rather, it is to display what should be the planner(s) main (primary) concern.


When a Christian is making plans and has not spoken to Jesus first, he is pacing on dangerous grounds. If the Lord wills, then they will live and He will allow them to be able to do this or that. The emphasis is not on you saying “if the Lord wills” when you are speaking to people about your plans, but being aware of the fact that the Lord must be consulted first!


I’m still in the process of practicing this, what is your experience?

03 · 22

Same-Sex: The Genesis of the Issue, from an Old Testament Perspective

Media_httpfarm4static_qfija
Though there are many that say that the bible does not address same-sex marriages, they cannot circumvent the fact that it addresses same-sex sex. Previously, we assert that one—of Christian belief—cannot knowingly support a union that creates an environment for a lifestyle they consider sinful to take place as if it is sanctioned by God (see part 2 of this series). In this third installation, we turn our attention to the genesis of the same-sex union. Tracking down the origin and root of same-sex unions in human historical records is an extremely difficult, if not impossible, task. Thus, our survey is confine to the Bible. Ultimately, what really matters from a Christian perspective is God’s view, a view to which we should adjust our lenses if we have not done so already.


Genesis 19 contains the bible’s first mention of the desire for same-sex unions. Initially the men of Sodom seek to fulfill this desire with the two angels that came to the city, and then Lot was threaten when he stood in the way (Gen. 19:4-9). The passage suggests that this type of sexual behavior was already taking place in the city and the arrival of the angels presented an opportunity to engage with new men. Prior to the arrival of the angels God told Abraham, “the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous” (Gen. 18:20, cf. Gen 13:12, 13). However, the Lord did not mention a specific sin here.


God told Abraham that the reason He is going to Sodom is to see if it is as bad as He hears (Gen. 18:21). This is followed by Abraham’s questioning of how many righteous people will it take for the Lord not to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen. 12:23-33). While the angels were in Lot’s home in chapter 19 they were sought after by men who wanted to sleep with them and who had a disregard for hospitality. We must acknowledge that in Genesis, the destruction of Sodom accompanies the reason.


Further evidence in the Tanakh shows that it was not just about same-sex in Sodom. Ezekiel 16:49, 50 lists Sodom’s sin as being “arrogant, overfed and unconcerned, did not help the poor and needy, haughty, and did detestable things.” We Christians often bypass that description of Sodom. We hammer away at homosexuality but ignore our arrogance and the poor that litter our streets.


Some have concluded that since Ezekiel specifically says. “this was the sin [iniquity],” means that any attempts to explain what was wrong in Sodom is limited to the list that follows. This conclusion may have simply been the result of a hasty study. They are ignoring the totality of the biblical revelation on a given subject. Ezekiel and Genesis are not the only ones that speak of Sodom. If you use the NASB or the KJV, you will note that Sodom is mention 48 times in 47 verses, twice in Gen. 19:1 (the NIV mentions it 47 times in 47 verses). To ignore all the mentions and their contextual significance will result in an incomprehensive understanding of what the bible says about Sodom.


The word translated here for sin or iniquity עֲוֹן, is of singular construct. However, Ezekiel gives a list of multiples as the meaning of the word (in this context). The argument can be made that the phrase: “arrogant, overfed and unconcerned, did not help the poor and needy, and haughty,” consist of inter-related terms of thought and action. One who is arrogant and haughty will not be concern about the needs of others unless there is something to gain from lending a hand. Since the poor in those days had nothing to offer—no tax discount for giving to a helping cause—there would have been no incentive to be a humanitarian. Those who had abundance did not help those who lacked.


Such analysis is agreeable, but there is a need to go further and address the תוֹעֵבָה [abomination]. Although  תוֹעֵבָה [abomination] is listed as part of Ezekiel’s explanation of Sodom’s עֲוֹן [iniquity], it is not defined. Ezekiel does not say what he mean by abomination. The reason for this lack of disclosure is found in the answer of an interpretive question: why did Ezekiel mention Sodom?  Ezekiel calls Sodom and Samaria sisters of Jerusalem in the allegory found in chapter 16, which is designed to illustrate how wicked Jerusalem became (Ez. 16:46-47). In fact, Jerusalem was so wicked that it was worst then Sodom. Thus, Ezekiel did not set out to reconstruct a detailed explanation of Sodom’s sin. He used what he needed to make his point. He also acknowledges that the oppression of “the poor and needy” was common to the people of Judah (Ez. 22:29 NIV).


These facts are sufficient to conclude that homosexuality was not only part of Sodom’s (and Gomorrah) lifestyle, but part of the reason why she was destroyed. In our 4th posting, we will look at what the new testament says about homosexuality and whether or not Sodom is mentioned.


*I am always glad to hear from readers. Write a response below. If you haven’t done so already, please sign up for e-mail subscription located on the lower left.

02 · 15

Same-Sex: To Advocate or Not

Media_httpstaticguimc_wukhb
In the first post in this series, we took a panoramic look at the reasons why people are for or against same-sex marriages, and the worldviews that condition those reasons. We noted from a "secular" perspective that it is impossible not to (or eventually) support same-sex unions because the post-modern generation has a laissez-faire (relativistic) attitude towards others when it doesn’t directly affect them. We’ve also concluded that from a "secular" perspective, probably to the astonishment of some, there are really no strong reasons why same-sex unions can’t be legalized.

Some may argue that the definition of marriage limits it to the union of a man and a woman, but the world is actively engaged in the invention of new words and the redefining of old ones, and thus it is only a matter of time before traditional definitions become irrelevant. As of today, Webster’s online dictionary recognizes same-sex unions as part of its definition for the word marriage. We must conclude that it is pointless to argue this from a secular standpoint (if you are of the Christian belief) because we’re dealing with variable arguments.

Should a Christian support the campaign for same sex marriages? Already there are many from the so-called “liberal” side that have taken up the cause for same-sex marriages, not just in terms of civil law, but also in the church. Albert Mohler Ph.D., president and professor of Christian Theology at Southern Seminary, refers to a study from a liberal group called the Religious Institute that concluded that 3,300 churches are welcoming to gays and lesbians and allow for “full inclusion.” This is happening in mainline Protestant churches.

It is impossible for Christians to support same-sex unions, marriages, or relationships. It is impossible because same-sex unions are not supported by scripture and thus a mind that is led by the Spirit will find itself repulsed by the thought of advocating an anti-Christ lifestyle. Unless your exegetical methods are so darkened that you are unable to receive the plainest teaching of scripture, you will be quick to note that Leviticus 18:22 says, “Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable” (NIV, cf. Lev. 20:13). The word that is used for lie is the Hebrew word shakab meaning "to lie down to rest, sleep; to lie down sexually; or to lie down in death" (notice how it is used in Lev. 15:20; 15:26; Deut. 24:13; 2 Sam. 12:3; Job 11:18). The context (Lev. 18:1-18:30) is aptly titled by some commentators “unlawful sexual relations.” From verses 6 through 23 God gives a list of sexual "don'ts", except for verse 21 where He forbids the offering of children to Molech. Fitting the word lie in this context favors a sexual interpretation of verse 22. The Israelites are warned that these are part of the reason why the Canaanites are going to be driven out of the land (Lev. 18:3, 24-29).

For a Christian to deny the relevancy of this verse today, he or she would have to prove that it was among the laws nailed to the cross or that there are no conditions that merit the existence of such law (meaning that we should focus on the spiritual significance of the law). Christians would agree with (and find relevant) all the laws that are in chapter 18, except for perhaps verse 19—I’m not married, so I really don’t know whether intercourse is had during the menstrual cycle or not. We would not advocate a man sleeping with his father’s sister, his daughter-in-law, or his brother’s wife. If we would not advocate these actions, we also cannot advocate endeavors that acknowledge their right to exist in relationships under law. If we can’t advocate same-sex sexual acts, we as Christians with God’s word in our hands and in our minds can’t advocate a same-sex law, whether it be secular or religious.

Why would we support something that we do not believe in? Why would we let the world think that we who fear God don’t mind approving things which are against our beliefs? Part of the failure of Israel as the people of God was that instead of living and communicating God’s truth to the world, they accepted the beliefs and practices of the cultures around them. Should we? I think not.

I am always glad to hear from readers. Write a response below. Follow regular updates on Twitter at https://twitter.com/JerryJacques

02 · 12

Looking at the Same the Same Way

Media_httpassetsnydai_ilifz
Is it lawful for two of the same sex to wed? This question has positioned itself along the fault line of division in western society, causing seismic waves whenever it is uttered. The East—which consists of many countries that are not as technologically advanced as the West—is not cumbered with this debate due to its largely traditional (and religious) ways of looking at marriage. The disseverment of the chains of tradition by the West paved the way for the public manifestation of what was always there: same sex relationships. They did not magically appear in the last decades of the 20th century; they have always been around. Once the union is made public then the next logical step is to seek equality.

Before one can address the lawfulness of same-sex marriages, one must acknowledge the court and sets of laws within that court that pertain to the issue. Assuming that we are all referring to the same court with the same rules is a grave misunderstanding. Besides the government’s judicial system, we observe laws from the court of public opinion, ecclesiastical bodies (which may or may not contain the same laws found in those bodies’ scriptures), and many others. If we don’t adhere to the same judicial entity, then what one views as lawful will be disregarded by another.

In the court of public opinion, which ultimately affects the judicial system (as reasoning changes so does the interpretation of laws—slowly but surely), the traditional way of looking at marriage has mutated into a form that would not be recognizable by those born at the beginning of the 20th century. If we all adhere to the decision of the court of public opinion, then we are either for same-sex marriage or soon will be (even though most adherents are not, themselves, homosexuals). It is not that the adherents are emphatically in favor of it (as a matter of fact, some are repulsed by the thought of marriage between two of the same sex); rather there is no argument that will fully convince them that they should deny another the right to express his or her sexual orientation.

In an ecclesiastical body, public opinion is weighed and accepted only if it is in line with that body’s religious convictions as stated in their scriptures and other forms of writings that they deem authoritative (in most cases). Though traditional forms of worship and functions have changed with the times, there has not been much change in beliefs concerning same-sex relationships and marriages in religious circles. Therefore, most adherents of a religious belief would not find it lawful to wed two of the same sex.

The battle for same-sex marriage is not being fought as rigorously in the churches as it is being fought in the judicial courts. Because public opinion has shifted in their favor, many who are of that orientation (who were formerly terrified of being discovered), have become emboldened and have taken a public stand. They are knocking on the doors of the legislative body demanding that their form of union be recognized legally and placed on a pedestal equivalent to that of heterosexual marriages. In reaction to this, many from the religious right (conservatives) have campaigned actively against them.

Is it lawful for two of the same sex to wed? I think most adherents of a religious belief have never actually sat down and thought of the question and its implications. According to the Bible, a Christian church (assembly, entity, congregation, whatever you want to call it) can only acknowledge the union of a man and a woman when it comes to what we have identified as marriage. I will present the biblical points for this in the following post.

However, the courts of the nations are not subject to these beliefs. They can choose to allow same-sex marriages and the argument that would win the day would be based on equal rights. Not what you were expecting to hear, was it? Don’t worry, I don’t believe in same-sex marriages. There is more than meets the eye when it comes to the union of the sexes. This preliminary approach was necessary to emphasize the fact that when we talk about same-sex marriage with those of different beliefs we are not looking at the same the same way.

I am always glad to hear from readers. Write a response below. Follow regular updates on Twitter at https://twitter.com/JerryJacques

01 · 20

The Earthquake that Shook the World…for now

Media_httpuploadwikim_ehmiz
On Tuesday, January 12, 2010, the world met with a catastrophe of major proportions: an earthquake registering 7.0 on the Richter scale hit Haiti 6 miles underground, with its epicenter being located approximately 10 miles southwest of Haiti's capital, Port-au-Prince (U.S. Geological Survey). Though there was a significant loss of life in the initial moments, there is still fear that the number will increase due to lack of medical attention and relief workers’ inability to distribute food and water in a way that guarantees that everyone will receive. It is a devastating event for Haitians who live on the island and to those who have family and friends there. In fact, it is horrific to anyone who cares about human beings. As a Christian and a Haitian, there are important reflections to be made concerning this event, reflections that should also involve action.

Help Them

There is more than one way that you can help. For those that are able to do so financially, I call upon you to open your pockets and give cheerfully, “for God loves a cheerful giver” (2 Cor. 9:7, NIV). The money that you give will go towards fulfilling the words of Jesus, “For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink; I was sick and you looked after me” (Matt. 25:35, 37). Those who perform such actions are the sheep that will be on His right side when He comes (Matt. 25:31-34). The actions are depicted as if done to Jesus Himself: “whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me” (Matt. 25:40).

If you’re unable to do anything financially, you can still help. God is still in the business of answering prayers (1 Pet. 3:12). Even if you don’t know how to utter a majestic prayer like one of those eloquent speakers in your congregation, there is no need to worry. The Spirit is able to take your prayers, as He does for the eloquent speakers, and intercede (Rom. 8:26-27). So pray that those who have lost loved ones may be comforted; that those who are rescued may find food, medicine and water; and finally, pray that living conditions improve and that the survivors are able to get back on their feet.

Eschatological Significance

A Christian cannot go past this event without noting that it has eschatological significance. Though I may be viewed as a pessimist for even bringing end-time significance into focus during this time (as my friend pointed out clearly in his sermon last Sabbath), it is true that the Bible says that there will be “famines and earthquakes in various places” (Matt. 24:7, Luke 21:11). These are to happen before the second coming of Christ, but they are only the beginning (Matt. 24:8). Nothing guarantees that Haiti will be fixed, only God knows. I pray that it will be fixed and that more people will get the opportunity to choose Jesus Christ as their personal savior before the world get worst (it will). We see the hand of God in the recovery efforts and in the experiences of the survivors. He is active. I dare ask, are we ready for what’s coming? If it’s this bad now, how bad will it get later?

If you learned the lesson of the fig tree, you will recognize that the earthquake in Haiti is a sign of the coming of summer—the eschaton (Matt. 24:32, 33). Jesus is coming and He is right at the door. In all our praying and helping, let us not forget that these things were predicted and that we need to announce to the world that the heavens will open one day to reveal not only a revelation from God, but that God Himself is also that revelation.

Culture of Preparedness

What does this earthquake call for? A lifestyle of preparedness—a lifestyle that keeps you in constant communication with God. If this is not a wake-up call, then I don’t know what else is. If we are alive now and are able to evaluate where our relationship with God has been going, then we should do what is necessary. Join with me as I call on the name of Jesus to save me. Yes, God wants to save us, whether we be Haitians, Americans, Jamaicans, etc, He wants to save. “Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts,” but join Christ and “hold firmly till the end” (Heb. 3:15, 14).

I am always glad to hear from readers. Write a response below. Follow regular updates on Twitter at https://twitter.com/JerryJacques

01 · 06

Hope in Uncertainty

Media_httpfalloutofli_oyhkb
The dawn of a new year brings hope and uncertainty. Hope, because deep within we yearn for the arrival of positive changes; and uncertainty, because we are unable to predict what will happen—whether our hopes will materialize into reality. Though some economic intellectuals have predicted the future stability of the economy, the verdict is still out. Unexpected events can cause tectonic shifts in the financial realm resulting in negative cash flow. This will then have major effects on the socio-religio-political status of (especially) those who find themselves in middle class and below.

The truth is our hopes find themselves in the midst of uncertainty. As uncomfortable as we may be bearing them within that environment, they must testify. Hope must stare in the darkness of the unknown and dare to march on while embodying the belief that negatives and positives only serve to emphasize the grandeur of the good that has yet to emerge. Hope must be allowed to assert itself amidst the ravishing winds of these tornado-like episodes.

Some advocate the development of an optimistic worldview in their discourses. Their stirring sermons on positive thinking, preached on social and academic pulpits, serve as catalysts to propel many from depressive stages to a “yes we can” attitude. Positive thinking is a necessary state of mind that affects the overall health of an individual. Thus, one cannot do without it.

Christians are not at odds with positive thinking. The problem that arises is that the world has a different definition of positive than we do, different from the one it had even 30 years ago. As empires rise and crumble like skyscrapers, so do anthropo-centric world-views on positive, right, and good. They are constantly changing and morphing, because in reality, they are defined by those who have espoused the theory of relativism. Relativism justifies the un-changeableness and changeability of one’s judgment within an environment (to which everyone else should take a laissez-faire attitude). The philosophy that the self-help gurus promote encourages the belief in ones’ own ability to bring what is hoped for into existence, according to what they deem appropriate in a given environment.

For the Christian, Jesus Christ is “our hope” (1 Tim. 1:1). It is not only that we place our trust in the fact that Jesus can and will do things to ultimately bring us to a greater end, but that He Himself is our hope. Our hope is not an abstract theory, but a living God, whose second coming will result in the ultimate good for His followers. Therefore, our confidence–as we stare into the unknown–should be greater than that of those who place theirs' in statistics and optimistic rhetoric. The One in whom we hope is our hope, and has a comprehensive view of what is contained in the darkness, for the darkness is not dark to Him (Ps. 139:12).

He does not make vague and incomprehensible promises, but He speaks as one with a proven track-record and the capability of doing something new (Isa. 43:19). If He is indeed our hope, then it cannot change in the midst of turbulent times. Whether we are carried off to sleep by the lullabies of silver-tipped bullets whistling overhead in the Baghdad night; the roar of a child’s belly in a hut on the famine-ridden African plains; the echoes of coins hitting the floor as young children are sold as prostitutes in the ghettos of Asia; the frivolous waltz of atheistic Europe as it urges on moral decadence; or the mingling of flesh and jaws as the capitalistic west chews up the savings of the poor, we must hope.

What have we done with Jesus? Whatever we did last year (if negative) does not need to be duplicated this year. We can start new. Here is an opportunity to refocus our lenses to adjust to the Christo-centric worldview, in which Jesus is our hope. I pray that the new year brings us closer to Jesus. If you haven’t accepted Him as your personal Savior or if you have become lax in your Christianity, there is no day like today. Let’s make Jesus our hope in this uncertain world.

12 · 25

The War on Terror

Media_httpwwwfinalcal_chzhw
The war on terror (a title set up by the media, the appropriate title is "Global War on Terrorism") seems to be “ill-titled.” For one, terror is primarily defined as “a state of intense fear” (Webster), and “intense, sharp, overmastering fear” (Dictionary.com). If that is the only meaning, then this war would be fought in laboratories where psychologists (alongside others in the mental and/or behavioral analysis fields) would analyze patients under the duress of phobia, in order to develop a cure or a way for them to cope. It would be a psychological war. However, that is not the only meaning of “the war on terror”. The war is on America’s perception of terror personified—Osama Bin Laden’s brand of Islamic Jihadists.

The war’s objective is to rid the American public of terror, and it intends to do so by targeting and exterminating the agents (persons or events) that cause terror. Reflecting further…the “war on terror” is actually a vague title. It can be applied to any effort made to eradicate the cause of extreme fear. As seen in Genesis 3, the personification of supernatural terror—the terrorist known as Satan—manifested and brought extreme fear (not to mention death and destruction). Bible-believing Christians, extracting from two chapters in the Nevi'im (the prophets), trace the war further back to God’s heavenly temple (Ez. 28, Isa. 14, cf. Rev. 12).

The terrorists that Americans are fighting in this war are creatures of their own making. They are products of programs, developed and run by CIA and Special Forces, to stop the Soviets’ attempt to dominate the entire Eurasian landmass in the late 1970s. The Americans trained Islamic fighters—funded by rich Saudi families—and equipped them with intelligence in order to stop the advance of the Soviets in Afghanistan (Paulien, 14-17).

The Americans are attempting to cure the plague by cutting off funds and sending special operative forces to eradicate the evil man across the world in the mountains—Osama Bin Laden. These surgical maneuvers, though seemingly effective, will only cause the plague to lie dormant. Some may believe that if they cut the head of this snake, the body will continue to fight for a while, but eventually die. This, however, is not the case. This mystical snake will grow a new head and fight on. The dead militants will be glorified as martyrs. Their deaths will serve as adrenaline to drive the motor of the terrorist war machine.

It is hard to kick against the pricks (Acts 9:5, KJV). America is fighting a war against an enemy that anchors its sentiments in religious ideology. It is not Islam that calls for such persons; it is because such persons base their agendas on their interpretation of the Qur’an. This is a war that cannot be won because the root of it is inaccessible to American cruise missiles. Ideologies can be defeated but never extinguished; they lie in wait seeking the next charismatic figure to lure into speaking their oracles.

America will never win the war on terror because it cannot destroy the source. The source is the devil who " has come down, having great wrath" (as if “wrath” needed an adjective [Rev. 12:12 NASB]). His roar is heard in the minds and through the voices of those who have given themselves to him; and with the thirst of a Lion, he walks around looking for someone to devour (1 Pet. 5:8). Terror is a result of the activities and influences of the devil and his angles. He is the antitypical terrorist from whom all other terrorists arise.

God has given us the promise that the terrorist will be destroyed. Satan will be thrown "into the lake of fire and brimstone" (Rev. 20:10). Man is in a war that he cannot win. All our attempts are futile and don’t even bandage the wounds; but God will split the heavens and come down to wipe out terror once and for all. There will be a new world in which terror, and the agents of it, will never be seen or felt (Rev. 21).

Works Cited:

Paulien, Jon. Armageddon at the Door. Hagerstown: Autumn House Publishing, a division of Review and Herald Publishing, 2008.

12 · 17

Ending Soon

Media_httpcontributec_azvva
The end of the year is a great time to reflect on endings. No matter how old we are, as long as our abilities to comprehend are not impaired, we have a certain degree of familiarity with endings. This familiarity provides us the necessary background with which to communicate our experiences. Endings can be seen in either positive or negative perspectives based on what led up to them and how they affect future decisions and experiences.

In order for an ending to arrive, a beginning must have taken place. In between the beginning and the end is the journey. Life consists of birth (start), living (journey), and death (ending). Within the journey are many sub-journeys that one undertakes. No matter what journey one takes within the journey, the idea that an ending is coming is never far from the mind. Those who are in the Christian journey should know that the ending of endings is coming.

For over 2000 years, the Christian church has been driven by a fervent conviction that Jesus Christ is coming back soon. The “soonest” was not a concept that developed based on rationalization, but it was revealed through scripture. It was in the first century that Jesus choose to end the apocalypse with the assuring declaration of His soon return (Rev. 22:20, cf. 3:11; 22:7, 12). This “second coming” is supposed to mark the ending of an existence marred by sin.

It does not take a genius to realize that the ending is not yet (check your prophecy charts, there are some events left). It has been not yet for a while, and this has caused many to wonder if He is coming at all. There was a time in history where Christians were certain that Jesus’ second coming would mark the end of life as we know it. This belief was so engrained in the fabric of society that even non-believers planned to convert before their deaths (as if they were able to predict when they were going to die). Today it seems as if the Mayan and Nostradamic predictions of the world ending in 2012 are more convincing. Jesus’ very words concerning man’s inability to predict the exact “day or hour” are widely ignored (Matt. 24:36).

It may be that some have become so comfortable with how things are that the thought of a new world is disturbingly unrealistic, and is looked upon as the inventions of myths and apocalyptic fanatics. The Adventist spirit has been neutered (so it seems). Perhaps the journey has been a bit too long (from their perspective), comfortable, with no threat of a horrific persecution edging over in the horizon. Life seems to go on as it always had. People are “eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage” (Matt. 24:38). The rich and the poor are always among us. They have espoused a certain philosophy concerning the repetitiveness of human conduct and world events (and life itself): “What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun” (Eccl. 1:9).

No matter how unrealistic it may seem, the ending will come. What matters is how one lives during the journey. Jesus calls the Christian to adopt a culture of preparedness during the journey (Matt. 24:42-44). Because the ending that we refer to as death is only a sleeping time—a state of unconsciousness and inactivity—until the trumpet sounds, Christians live their lives knowing that this life will impact the one they hope to have in the new world (Job 14:10-12; 1 Thess. 4:16). Despite the not yet that may be swirling around in your mind, it is crucial that the Christian lives everyday thinking that Jesus is coming soon. Such thinking will affect thoughts and actions.

Is your conduct in the journey reflective of where you hope to be when the ending comes? If not, there is no need to despair, there is a need to repent (gr. metanoeo, to change one’s mind). This internal repentance will result in an outward manifestation. Prayerfully evaluate your present condition, and with eyes stayed on God, make the necessary changes. Do not wait, pray now. Jesus is coming back again. The world will be ending soon.

jerryjacques

I love to write.

About