Prop 8 Update

The debate over marriage can be simplified by one question? Who decides the definition of marriage—the electorate, or a few people in black robes?

In the case of marriage, no state court in the United States had ever found a “right” to same-sex marriage until the Massachusetts Supreme Court found it in 2003. Then California’s State Supreme Court found the right in 2008, and the Iowa Supreme Court in 2009. Currently seven states allow same-sex marriage, and in all seven it has been imposed by either judges or the legislature. When put to a vote of the people, 31 states have voted on the definition of marriage, and the score is 31-0 in favor of marriage being one man and one woman.

Shouldn’t states be allowed to set their own social policy? Of course. But when voters in California did so in 2000, approving Proposition 22 (“Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California”) with over 61% of the votes. But Prop 22 was challenged in court, and in a 4-3 ruling, the California Supreme Court’s majority decided it knew better than the electorate, and imposed same-sex marriage despite the clear will of the people to the contrary. The Court’s reasoning was that that certain lofty concepts in the State Constitution, such as equal protection, demanded re-defining marriage to include homosexual couples.

How can the will of the people ever trump a four-judge majority of the State Supreme Court? By amending the state Constitution. Those favoring natural marriage, even before the 4-3 ruling in May 2008 imposing same-sex marriage on California, signed petitions to get the issue on the ballot, again. Only this time the wording “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California” would be enshrined in the California Constitution if approved by the voters. The initiative, known as “Proposition 8,” passed, with over seven million Californians voting for Prop 8, and in an election year where Sen. Barack Obama swept California on his way to being elected President of the United States.

After it was passed, Proposition 8 was challenged in the courts. Those who favored same-sex marriage couldn’t challenge the vote count that affirmed Californians want marriage to be one man and one woman, so they made technical arguments about Prop 8 not being a proper initiative, and should therefore be stricken. The California Supreme Court upheld the propriety of Prop 8 in a 6-1 ruling, but allowed the 18,000 or so same-sex “marriages” that took place from June to November 2008 to be recognized.

That’s then end of the line, right? The people of California spoke as to how marriage should be defined, and the state Supreme Court finally upheld the will of the people as expressed in Prop 8. But never underestimate gay marriage supporters. The day the California Supreme Court declared Prop constitutional, two homosexual couples filed a lawsuit in federal court in California arguing that denying same-sex couples the right to marry violated the federal (United States) Constitution.

The case was assigned to Judge Vaughn Walker, who failed to disclose that he was a homosexual and was in a ten-year relationship with another man. The fact that Judge Walker could have benefited from his own ruling was evidence to many that he should have either recused himself from hearing the case, or at least disclosed his same-sex relationship. He did neither, and after a trial Judge Walker ruled that there is a right to same-sex marriage in the United States Constitution, and therefore he overturned, again, Prop 8.

Judge Walker’s ruling was appealed to the oft-reversed Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and the case, Perry v. Brown, was assigned to a three-judge panel. One of the judges on the panel, Stephen Reinhardt, is the most reversed judge in the history of the United States, and his wife was the head of the ALCU of Southern California for nearly 40 years.

One of the issues for the Ninth Circuit was whether anyone had standing to represent the people of California who voted for Prop 8. Why was this an issue? Because when the federal challenge was filed against Prop 8 then-governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger and then-attorney general Jerry Brown refused to defend the law (which was part of the Constitution of California, which they were both sworn to defend). The advocates of same-sex marriage tried to argue that no one had the right to step in and defend Prop 8 after the governor and attorney general refused, effectively denying the seven million who voted for Prop 8 from having a voice in opposing Judge Walker’s ruling, effectively giving a victory to supporters of same-sex marriage. The Ninth Circuit panel sent the issue of standing back to the California Supreme Court, which ruled unanimously that the proponents of Prop 8 could represent the law in the federal appeal.

On February 7, 2012, the Ninth Circuit, by a 2-1 vote, affirmed the ruling of Judge Walker that Prop 8 violated the U.S. Constitution. Only the majority did not decide the case like Judge Walker did. Judge Walker found a right to same-sex marriage in the United States Constitution (the first federal judge to ever do so, and a departure from the United States Supreme Court’s 1972 decision of Baker v. Nelson that held there is no right to same-sex marriage in the U.S. Constitution). The Ninth Circuit panel, however, clearly stated that they were not resolving the issue of whether the right to gay marriage is in the U.S. Constitution. Instead, the panel decided the issue by finding that same-sex couples had a right to marry in California, and Prop 8 took that right away without any rational basis, which made the law unconstitutional.

The Ninth Circuit opinion skims over the fact that the “right” to same-sex marriage was imposed by a 4-3 vote of the California Supreme Court, and the court-imposed “right” was only in effect for 143 days, until

Prop 8 was passed in November 2008. Further, the Ninth Circuit acknowledged that Prop 8 would be constitutional if any rational basis existed for the law promoting any legitimate government interest. The court found no rational basis for Prop 8, essentially saying that the law was rooted solely in hatred toward homosexuals. In short, the more than seven million Californians who voted for Proposition 8 were merely bigoted, since the court found that keeping marriage between a man and woman has no benefit to society whatsoever. The panel disregarded several rational reasons for natural marriage that promote legitimate government interests, such as optimal parenting and responsible procreation, reasons other courts have found to be rational bases for laws (e.g., Citizens for Equal Protection v. Brunig, 8^th Circuit, 2006).

The proponents of Prop 8, who fought for Prop 22 and lost, who fought for Prop 8 before the California Supreme Court and won, who fought in federal district court and lost, who fought for standing before the Ninth Circuit and won, and who fought Judge Walker’s ruling before the Ninth Circuit and lost, now has a choice: either ask for an en banc hearing, in which a broader panel of the Ninth Circuit would review the 2-1 ruling of the panel affirming the district court’s overturning of Prop 8, or appeal directly to the U.S. Supreme Court.

There is currently a federal court challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”), a law passed by Congress and signed into law by President Clinton that allows states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages from other states, allows no recognition of same-sex marriages under federal law. Either or both the DOMA challenge and the Prop 8 (Perry) case could end up before the U.S. Supreme Court to resolve the issue of whether there is a right to same-sex marriage in the U.S. Constitution. Most court-watchers speculate that the U.S. Supreme court is divided 4-4 on the marriage issue, with Justice Anthony Kennedy being the swing vote. Whether true or not, soon the High Court will accept a case that will address the question of a “right” to same-sex marriage under the U.S. Constitution, and its decision will likely affect not only those seven states that currently allow gay marriage, but also the 43 states that do not allow same-sex marriage. But just like the Prop 8 issue in California, the question remains: Who decides the definition of marriage—the electorate, or a few people in black robes?

Men in Black Strike Again

Californians have become accustomed to a few people in black robes deciding they know better than the electorate. First, in 2008, by a bare 4-3 ruling, the California Supreme Court struck Prop 22, a voter-approved initiative that limited marriage to one man and one woman. Then California voters passed Prop 8, which had the same language as Prop 22, only this time as an amendment to the State Constitution. When the state Supreme Court upheld Prop 8, the opponents went to federal court, and found a sympathetic homosexual judge that ruled Prop 8 violated the U.S. Constitution. Now, in a 2-1 ruling, the oft-reversed Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the lower court, essentially saying there was no rational basis for Prop 8 to take away the “right” for same-sex couples to marry. The 89-page opinion, written by Judge Stephen Reinhardt, the most reversed federal judge in the history of American, fails to give proper weight to the fact that the “right” to same-sex marriage was a right imposed by a 4-3 court opinion that only existed for 143 days until the electorate approved Prop 8. It was the effect of Prop 8 eliminating this “right” that was the basis for the Ninth Circuit ruling, not some yet-to-be found “right” to same-sex marriage in the U.S. Constitution. The issue of whether same-sex marriage is a fundamental right under the U.S. Constitution is for another day, when the U.S. Supreme Court decides to weight in. Until then, the message is clear—all men are created equal, but if you wear a black robe, you are more equal than others, including over seven million Californians who approved Prop 8.

I Am

Try not to let your eyes glaze over when I warn you that I am going to discuss some basis aspects of grammar in order to shed light on the topic I want to discuss. I confess that studying English grammar in high school was, to me, the educational equivalent to a root canal. However, when I studied Greek grammar in college and seminary, all of a sudden English grammar made sense, and it became a useful tool to explain the precise nature of the teachings of Scripture. Let’s see if a little grammar lesson opens our eyes of understanding.

“I am.” The two simple words “I am” can make up an entire sentence, and can make perfectly good sense, provided the context is clear. For example, if someone asked, “Who is writing this blog?” It would make sense if I said as my entire response, “I am.” However, without such a question being asked, if I opened up a conversation with “I am,” you’d wonder, “you are what?” My two words need something more to make sense. That “something more” is a “predicate,” the part of a sentence that expresses what the subject is or does. If I said, “I am happy,” or “I am six feet tall,” you would understand, because those sentences have a predicate.

Seven times in the Gospel of John Jesus uses the words “I am” followed by a predicate in order to express who He is. The predicates that follow Jesus’ use of “I am” are “metaphors,” figures of speech that use a word or phrase that ordinarily designates one thing, but is used to designate something else. The comparison of the two is what expands the ordinary meaning of the word. For example, after Jesus fed the 5,000 people along the shore of the Sea of Galilee (see Gospel of John chapter six), He said, “I am the bread of life.” The hearers knew that bread provided sustenance. Thus, Jesus uses a common element of his audience’s everyday lives to teach spiritual truth, equating Himself to that which sustains a person’s existence. “Bread” is used as both a predicate to express what Jesus is, and also as a metaphor to expand the spiritual application of who He is.

Seven times Jesus uses metaphors as the predicate following “I am.” He is not only the “bread of life,” but also the “light of the world,” the “door,” the “good shepherd,” the “resurrection and the life,” the “way, the truth and the life,” and “the true vine.” Each of these great metaphors is logically connected to a context that allowed the hearers to understand the spiritual truth Jesus was teaching. After multiplying the five loaves and two fishes in order to feed the 5,000, Jesus uses the food the multitude had received as a basis to provide a transcendent teaching about feeding our souls. After healing a man born blind (John chapter nine) He says, “I am the light of the world.” He then uses sheep to illustrate His nature (John chapter ten), stating “I am the door” (to the sheepfold). Sheepfolds of Jesus’ day were enclosures that kept the flock together and protected from predators. Often the shepherd would lay across the entrance to keep the sheep in and danger out. Jesus presents Himself as the door, also adding, “I am the good shepherd.”

After Jesus’ friend Lazarus died, Jesus told his daughter, Martha, “I am the resurrection and the life.” He then proceeded to raise Lazarus from the dead (John chapter eleven). When Jesus told His disciples He was going “to prepare a place” for them, (John chapter fourteen) He added that they knew the way that He was going. When Thomas asked, “How do we know the way?” Jesus replied, “I am the way, the truth and the life.” Finally, Jesus speaks about the fruit that His followers are to bear, and uses the metaphor of a vine to teach that without Him His followers “can do nothing,” stating “I am the true vine.”

The seven “I am” statements in John’s Gospel greatly expand our understanding of the nature and work of Jesus. Those who heard His teachings could understand the spiritual truths He was revealing because He used metaphors that involved aspects of their everyday lives, including food, light, sheep, life and death, pathways and vines. These predicates provide rich meaning to the scope of Who Jesus was, and what He had come to do. But there are two additional uses of “I am” in John’s Gospel that are not followed by predicates—John 8:24 (“unless you believe that I am, you shall die in your sins”) and John 8:58 (“Before Abraham was, I am”).

Where is the predicate? There seems to be something amiss grammatically. It is natural to ask, “You are what?” Since Jesus, in both cases, does not use a predicate like He did with the seven “I am” statements mentioned above, what are we to make of these two “I am" statements? Judging from the reaction of the hearers (John 8:59, “they picked up stones to stone Him”) Jesus’ use of “I am” without a predicate meant something to the Jews who were present. What was it that caused those Jews to want to kill Him? The answer lies in the Book of Exodus, when Moses was confronted by God who appeared through a burning bush. God commissioned Moses to speak to the Jews, and Moses knew the Jews would ask the name of the God who had sent him. Thus, Moses asks, “What shall I say to them?" God says to Moses, “I am who I am. Tell them 'the I am has sent you.'” When Jesus tells the Jews in John 8:58, “Before Abraham was I am,” they understood this to be Jesus’ claim to deity—that He was the same as the God who spoke to Moses out of the burning bush. In addition to the seven “I am” metaphors, Jesus also uses “I am” to confirm that He was God in the flesh (see John 1:1, 14 “…the Word was God… and the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us”). From the humble beginning as a babe born in Bethlehem, Jesus emerges as the crucified, risen and exalted King of Kings and Lord of Lords, the great I Am seated at the right hand of the Father, at whose name every knee shall bow, and every tongue confess that He is Lord.

The Brave New Secular World

In Shakespeare's The Tempest, upon seeing outsiders for the first time, Miranda says:

          O wonder!
          How many goodly creatures are there here! How beauteous mankind is!
          O brave new world! That has such people in it! (Act V, Scene I).

Miranda's "brave new world" is actually her optimistic observation of drunken sailors staggering off their ship that had run aground. The notion of a "brave new world" is further used by Rudyard Kipling in his 1919 poem The Gods of Copybook Headings:  

And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins...

Science fiction writer Aldous Huxley, in 1932, following the lead of the Bard, used the concept of "brave new world" as the ironic title of his futuristic novel Brave New World. Huxley's work was published one year prior to the Humanist Manifesto I that optimistically anticipated a utopia free from the restraints of traditional beliefs, offering a new "religion" of Humanism that would replace existing religions that were based on a supernatural being and supernatural revelation. Huxley, however, was not so optimistic. His Brave New World was a "negative utopia" ("dystopia"), akin to George Orwell's 1984, devoid of God and goodness. Huxley's novel parodied the 1923 utopian novel Men Like Gods by H.G. Wells.

Fast forward to 2011. With the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, we can see the foolish optimism of the Humanistic Manifesto I, written at a time when Germany's Weimar Republic was being replaced by the Third Reich, in which an Austrian immigrant named Adolph Hitler would seduce Germans into thinking they were the incarnation of Nietzsche's ubermensch ("supermen"). With the stench of the Holocaust embedded in the nostrils of post-Word War II humanity, secular humanists had no choice but to admit that their 1933 "Manifesto" was too optimistic. In 1973 Humanistic Manifesto II was published as an updated utopian projection of secular thinkers, ironically in the same year that the United States Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, essentially providing for abortion on demand, legalizing the killing of more than 50 million unborn babies as of 2011.

The question is, whose view of the future is turning out to be more accurate--Huxley or the humanists? In a bit of further irony, elements of Huxley's Brave New World appear to have emerged, but the humanists do not see this as a dystopia--instead, the shift toward "secular values" is embraced as a sign of the humanist's utopia. 

A recent case is illustrative of the point.  In England, a Christian couple, Owen and Eunice Johns, had previously raised four biological children and fifteen foster children. They were denied the opportunity to continue as foster parents because they did not believe in telling children in their care that homosexuality was a good thing. Their case went to court, essentially pitting "anti-discrimination" laws against the couple's religious freedom. The issue before the court was whether sincerely held religious beliefs must give way to the new, secular notion of "equality" that essentially views all forms of sexual preference as equal. The highest court in England earlier this year decided that the couple's unwillingness to tell children that homosexuality is "good" renders them unfit as foster parents. Traditional values, rooted in divine revelation, must give way to "equality" as defined by the new secular "morality" that will not, and cannot, use the historic labels of "right" and "wrong," much less "sin," when describing human behavior. The only apparent "sin" in the religion of secularism may be the belief that there is a divinely-revealed objective standard of right and wrong.  

The Council that denied the Johns the opportunity to continue as foster parents lauded the court's decision in a display of post-modern thinking, stating the Council "valued diversity and promoted equality" and "encouraged and supported children in a non-judgmental way, regardless of their sexual orientation or preference." Being "non-judgmental" is the prime directive that has come down from the secular Sinai, and it must be followed in all cases except where someone has the temerity to take a moral stand. In such cases, the new secular values permit judging those who would judge good and evil, right and wrong. The sheer hypocrisy of such contradictory requirements should be evident to anyone with an open mind. It is as if we have reached the confluence of Through the Looking Glass and 1984.

When a court holds that laws "protecting people from sexual discrimination" mean that a couple is unfit to be foster parents because they could not tell a child that homosexuality was an acceptable lifestyle, we have entered into Huxley's Brave New World. However, the reason why Huxley's negative utopia has emerged is because it as a brave new secular world. Religious values, as the humanists have wanted, are being replaced by "secular values." In an age where "tolerance" has become the equivalent of a secular sacrament, the application of "tolerance" to real-life situations, such as the Johns' case, shows how insidious secularism is, and how exceedingly harmful its application is to areas such as child-rearing, education, and the interpretation of anti-discrimination laws. The court's ruling sends a clear message that mainstream Christian beliefs are potentially harmful to children and that Christian parents with traditional Christian views are not suitable to be considered as potential foster parents. The court's ruling also confirms that Huxley's Brave New World has arrived. 

Morning in Galilee

Sunrise over the Sea of Galilee

Sorting through a cascade of thoughts as I sit here watching the sunrise over the Sea of Galilee, it seems surreal that somewhere out my window Jesus walked on water. One thought has stuck, namely what an important area this was in the ministry of Jesus. Laurie listened yesterday as I relayed all the references to the region of Galilee found in the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke). Reference after reference to the “Sea of TIberias,” “Capernaum,” “Bethsaida,” and other sites line the pages of His Galilean ministry. Later this morning we will turn off at Migdol where Mary “Magdalene” was from, pass near Nazareth, and proceed to Caesarea (Maritima), the coastal town build by Herod the Great in honor of Caesar Augustus. We look forward to experiencing Caesarea, where Paul was imprisoned for two years prior to his journey to Rome to have his case heard before the Emperor Nero.

With my teaching finished in the Old City of Jerusalem and having completed our brief time of ministry in the Golan Heights (north of the Sea of Galilee), now we have our first chance to sightsee, and soak up the significance of this part of the Holy Land. I realize that God could have chosen any time and any place to enter history as a baby in order to bear the sins of world so that we might be united with our Creator. He chose this place, and did so “in the fullness of time “ (Galatians 4:4). The fact is, He did come, and Jesus made it clear that besides giving His life as a ransom, He also was showing us the Father, and revealing God’s plan. Nearly 20 centuries have passed since His ministry, death and resurrection, and Jesus remains the hope of the world. Whether America, Israel, or any place else, the carpenter from Nazareth offers His love and forgiveness to all who call upon Him, and, as some have said so simply, “wise men still seek Him.”

John

TIberias, Israel

September 27, 2011

Is Jesus Really Coming Again?

As I write this we are within hours of the time set by radio preacher Harold Camping for the end of the world. If you are reading this blog, it means Camping was wrong. Again. Mr. Camping, now 89 years old and the founder of Family Radio, headquartered in Oakland, California, previously predicted that Jesus was coming back in 1994. That glaring “oops!” has not deterred his faithful. Whether his current followers have short memories or have not bothered to check Mr. Camping’s bona fides is unclear. Those who bought into his 1994 false prophecy but now are certain that this time Camping got it right should remember the old adage: Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Camping and his followers have, indeed, been shamefully fooled.

To be fair to Camping and his followers, he is by no means the only date-setter who has lead people astray. Since the early-19^th century we have seen the likes of Joseph Smith, William Miller and Charles Taze Russell (and later his organization, the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, commonly known as “Jehovah’s Witnesses”).

Smith, founder of the Mormon church, called a meeting of his church leaders in February 1835 to tell them that he had spoken to God recently, and during their conversation he learned that Jesus would return within the next 56 years, after which the end times would begin promptly.

Miller was a New England farmer who, like Harold Camping, had no formal training in biblical studies. His study of Bible prophecy resulted in his discovery that the Scriptures tell us exactly when Jesus will return (notwithstanding Jesus stating in Matthew 24:36 that “No man knows the day or the hour, not even the angels”). According to Miller’s calculations Jesus was coming back some time between March 21, 1843 and March 21, 1844, eventually fixing the date at April 23, 1843. Many of his followers sold or gave away their possessions, assuming they would not be needed. When April 23 came and went, Miller re-calculated and concluded Jesus would return on April 23, 1844. After that date came and went most of his followers scattered, but some of them banded together to form what became the Seventh Day Adventist denomination.

Charles Taze Russell set the following dates for the return of Jesus: 1874, 1878, 1881, 1910, 1914. His Watchtower organization set 1918, 1925, 1941, 1975, and 1984 as the dates that Jesus would return. One has to wonder how many false prophecies an organization must make for it to be considered a “non-prophet” organization.

There are many, many others who share the dubious distinction of thinking they figured out when Jesus was returning and presumptuously publicized the date. Televangelist Pat Robertson, in May 1980, informed his "700 Club" television show audience that he knew when the world would end, saying "I guarantee you by the end of 1982 there is going to be a judgment on the world." Perhaps we missed that one, Pat.

Edgar Whisenant sold thousands of copies of his book, “88 Reasons Why Jesus is Coming Back in 1988.” Whisenant was so confident his calculations were correct that it is reported he said, "If there were a king in this country and I could gamble with my life, I would stake my life on Rosh Hashana 88."  His confidence apparently affected others as well because Paul and Jan Crouch of the Trinity Broadcast Network swallowed it whole. Instead of airing their nightly Praise the Lord television talk show, the Crouches ran videotapes of prerecorded shows dealing with the rapture. For non-Christians who might be watching, the revised programming included specific instructions on what to do in case Christian family members or friends disappeared and the world was thrust into the tribulation. When nothing happened by the end of September 13, Whisenant revised his prediction, suggesting the rapture would come at 10:55 a.m on September 15. When that failed, he revised it to October 3. After that he admitted he made a "miscalculation" of one year and insisted the rapture would occur in 1989. He even wrote another book to "prove" it.

Self-proclaimed “prophet” Ronald Weinland wrote a book in 2006 entitled "2008: God's Final Witness." In his book Weinland states that hundreds of millions of people will die, and by the end of 2006, "there will be a maximum time of two years remaining before the world will be plunged into the worst time of all human history. By the fall of 2008, the United States will have collapsed as a world power, and no longer exist as an independent nation." As the book notes, "Ronald Weinland places his reputation on the line as the end-time prophet of God." Did Weinland, a former follower of cult leader Herbert W. Armstrong, gracefully fade away when his prophecies did not come true? As the late John Wayne often said, “Not hardly.” Weinland currently has a website where he backpedals, re-writes his own prophetic history, and otherwise dishonestly deals with his previous false prophecies, now claiming that 2012 is the year Jesus is coming back (Weinland, perhaps more delusional than Harold Camping, claims that he and his wife are the two witnesses mentioned in Revelation chapter 11 who will be slain then will rise from the dead).

Is it Reasonable to Believe Jesus is Coming Again?

With all the utter-nonsense that has resulted from people trying to figure out what Jesus Himself said “no one knows,” (i.e., the date of His return), can a thinking person still reasonably believe that Jesus of Nazareth is coming again to Earth? Yes. How can an intelligent person believe in such an event? Because we have reliable documents, written by eyewitnesses, where Jesus Himself tells his followers, “I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you I will come again, and receive you to Myself, that where I am, there you may be also” (John 14:2-3). And since the evidence is compelling based upon His miracles, fulfilled prophecy, and especially His resurrection from the dead, that Jesus was the Messiah, the Son of God (and God the Son), then it would be foolish not to believe Him when He said He would come again to Earth.

Unfortunately, too many have misinterpreted Scripture, stretched the Bible to say something it does not say, and made unsupported assertions about prophetic passages that resulted in the lame-brained date setting previously discussed. From David Koresh (born Vernon Howell, who lead most of his Branch Davidian followers, including more than a dozen children, to a fiery death at their compound in Waco, Texas in 1993) to Ronald Weinland, people who typically lack formal biblical training have a tendency to “discover,” for example, what the seven seals of Revelation really mean (in Koresh’s case, he claimed to be the Lamb of God who could open the seals), asserting they have some special insight that no one else has. Biblically naïve and gullible people too often accept, without question, the interpretations and pronouncements of these self-proclaimed “prophets.” In most cases it leads to disillusioned followers, as in the case of William Miller or Ronald Weinland. In some cases it leads to a violent death, as in the case of Jim Jones or David Koresh.

Biblical Test of a Prophet

According to the Bible, in order to qualify as a prophet of God, the prophet must be 100% accurate. Deuteronomy 18:20, 22 says, “But the prophet who speaks presumptuously in My name which I have not commanded him to speak…that prophet shall die…When a prophet speaks in the name of the lord, if the thing does not come about or come true, that is the thing which the LORD had not spoken…” Mr. Camping, et al., should be grateful that today we do not employ this sanction against false prophets.

Is the Church Contributing to Those Who Mock the Belief in the Return of Jesus?

A common reaction to the doomsday false prophets is scoffing. Even professing Christians who sat through prophecy seminar after prophecy seminar, or heard sermon after sermon about the return of Jesus, are susceptible to getting “burned out” on prophecy to the point where they don’t want to hear about it any more. Is it possible that the “mockers” Peter speaks of in I Peter 3:3ff include people who came out of evangelical churches that spent an inordinate amount of time speculating about the return of Jesus? When a pastor or teacher sets a date or otherwise makes a prediction that does not materialize, a question of credibility emerges. Falso uno, falso omnibus.

A Scriptural Basis for a Literal Return of Jesus to Earth

What, then, is my Scriptural basis for believing Jesus is coming back? First, as previously mentioned, Jesus said He would come again (John 14:3). Even though Jesus often spoke in parables and mashals (short parables with a moral lesson), His reference to His coming again was not an allegory. It was a clear promise. The Apostle Paul speaks of Jesus’ return as the “blessed hope” of Christians (Titus 2:13, “looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ”).  Paul ends his first letter to the church at Corinth with an Aramaic word (“Maranatha”) that means, “The Lord is Coming” (a prayer for His soon return) (I Corinthians 16:22).

Evangelical Bible scholars overwhelmingly see Christ’s return to Earth as a prophecy that will be literally fulfilled at some point. These scholars generally point out that those Bible prophecies that have already been fulfilled were fulfilled literally (e.g., Micah 5:2 is understood as a Messianic prophecy that predicts Bethlehem will be the birthplace of the Messiah, an understanding King Herod’s chief priests and scribes shared according to Matthew 2:4-5). Thus, to be consistent, there is no reason to believe the words of Jesus in John 14:3 and elsewhere mean anything other than He will return to Earth bodily.

The Times and Seasons

Even though no one knows the day or hour of Jesus’ return (Matthew 24:36) the Scripture provides certain signs to enable us to understand the times and seasons in which we live (e.g., Ezekiel chapters 37-39 reference the return of the Jews to the Promised Land; I Thessalonians 5:1 says the Corinthians should be aware of the times and epochs in which they live; I Thessalonians 5:4 indicates that the return of Jesus should not overtake Christians like a thief because we are not in darkness.

Is Christ’s Return One Event or Two?

The historic view of the church is that Jesus will come back to Earth and will establish a kingdom on Earth for 1,000 years (historic premillenialism). Others do not believe in a literal 1,000-year reign of Christ on Earth (amillennialism), while some interpret the Scriptures to say Jesus will come back at the end of the 1,000 years (post millennialism).

The most common view among evangelicals today is premillenialism (i.e., there will be a literal 1,000 year reign of Jesus on Earth). There is a split among Bible-believing Christians as to whether Jesus’ return to Earth is one event or two. Perhaps the most common view among premillenialists is that Jesus will first come back for His church, and will meet them in the sky, after which there will be a seven-year period of tribulation, including the final 3 ½ years of Great Tribulation in which the judgments mentioned in Revelation chapters 6-18 will take place. Then at the end of the seven-year tribulation period Jesus returns bodily to Earth to reign for 1,000 years.

What is the evidence for the view that Jesus will return for His church seven years before He returns bodily to Earth to set up His kingdom? The following chart helps to contrast His pre-tribulation return for His church (commonly referred to as the “rapture,” which means the sudden removal or “translation” of believers from Earth to heaven) with his visible second coming.

Rapture                             Second Coming

Meet Lord in air                He returns to Mount of Olives

Living saints translated     No translation of church

He returns to heaven         He remains on earth

Earth not judged               Earth/sin judged

Imminent event                 Follows signs

Verses that are commonly used to support the pre-tribulation rapture include I Thessalonians 5:9, “God did not appoint us to suffer wrath but to receive salvation;” I Thessalonians 1:10 “Jesus, who rescues us from the coming wrath;” and Revelation 3:10 “I will keep you from the hour of trial that is going to come upon the whole world…”

Conclusion

Regardless of the date-setters and false prophets that bring contempt to the legitimate study of Bible prophecy, there are compelling reasons to believe that Jesus is coming again. Given the rebirth of Israel in 1948, there are reasons to conclude that His return could be soon. Whether one believes in a pre-tribulation rapture, mid-tribulation rapture, or a post-tribulation return of Jesus to Earth, the important fact is the Jesus is coming again. To quote the lyrics of the song “Outlaw” by the late singer/songwriter Larry Norman,

Some say He was the Son of God, a man above all men.

That He came to be a servant, and set us free from sin.

And that’s who I believe He was, cause that’s who I believe

And I think we should get ready, cause its time for us to leave.

Why do I believe that Jesus is coming back? Because He said so, and that’s who I believe. Even so “Come Lord Jesus” (Revelation 22:20).

Des Moines Register Article, appearing August 7, 2010

WILL THE CALIFORNIA MARRIAGE DECISION AFFECT IOWA?

The marriage debate is not going away any time soon. In light of Wednesday’s ruling striking down California’s marriage amendment, the debate will likely intensify. The California decision has implications for Iowa, including efforts to put the issue of the definition of marriage to a vote. My wife and I divide our time between California and Iowa, and have experienced the ups and downs of voting on the definition of marriage, only to have our vote negated by judges, or, in the most recent case, one judge. Here in Iowa there is a slightly different dilemma, but the ultimate question for Iowa, California and the rest of the country is the same: Who decides the definition of marriage—the people, or judges?

Before discussing the effect the California ruling on Iowa, a little background.  In the year 2000 California, which has “direct democracy,” bypassed its legislature and passed a law defining marriage as between one man and one woman. This was two years after Iowa’s legislature passed a similar law. In May 2008 the statute was overturned by the California Supreme Court In a 4-3 vote. In order to put the issue above the reach of the State Supreme Court, the voters of California put on the November 2008 ballot a proposed amendment to California’s Constitution defining marriage as between one man and woman. That initiative, Proposition 8, was passed by voters. It was challenged in state court, but was upheld 6-1 (ironically, the lone dissent cited the Iowa case of Varnum v. Brien, the 2009 Iowa case that struck down Iowa’s marriage law).

The opponents of Proposition 8 then challenged it in federal court, claiming under the U.S. Constitution same-sex marriage was a fundamental right, which would trump California’s Constitution. The case was assigned to Judge Vaughn Walker, a 66-year-old single man living in San Francisco, who the San Francisco Chronicle reported was gay. After a 13-day trial in the spring, Judge Walker handed down his 138 page opinion on Wednesday, striking down Proposition 8, finding a fundamental right under the U.S. Constitution to gay marriage. One man’s opinion trumped the votes of seven million who voted for Proposition 8.

The California decision will be appealed, and will likely be the one that makes it to the U.S. Supreme Court, and a ruling there will ultimately determine whether there is a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. Affirming California’s right to define marriage would also affirm the rights of the 29 other states that have thus far amended their constitutions to define marriage traditionally. What about Iowa? In Iowa there is no “direct democracy,” so Iowans must rely on the legislature to get the ball rolling by passing a resolution, twice, before the people can vote on a constitutional amendment defining marriage. The majority in Iowa’s legislature continue to hold the voters hostage by refusing to pass the required resolution before Iowans can vote. In California a federal judge negated the will of the people on the marriage issue. In Iowa, the legislature has disenfranchised the people. Iowans who believe in democracy should continue to press their legislators to allow the people to vote on the definition of marriage, or vote new people into office who truly represent the will of the people.

While the marriage debate continues, we can and should all live together peacefully as Americans and Iowans, regardless of our views on marriage. But the courts have forced a massive disruption of our social order by elevating behavior that the most Americans consider immoral to the level of procreative marriage. If the moral basis for laws is eliminated, which is an implication from Wednesday’s California ruling, all legitimate arguments against polygamy, incest and prostitution are removed. President Obama’s appointee to the U.S. Human Rights Commission,  Chai Feldblum, argues that our government has a duty to promote gay sex as “morally good.” If Iowans want the law to reflect that homosexually is morally good, and have their children taught this in public schools, then do nothing. If Iowans want a say in how marriage and should be defined, then demand that state representatives give Iowans the right to vote.