Christ is one, and he alone is righteousness for all who believe in him, irrespective of anything in themselves and irrespective of their place in the church. But office has higher standards than membership, is available only to a select few (Jas. 3:1), and is not meant to glorify the ones who hold it but so that they may serve everyone else in humility and without partiality. (Mk. 10:42-45; 1 Tim. 5:21). 

Last year I asserted that we should reconsider what terms we employ in discussing the question of fitness for office in the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA). Subsequent correspondence suggests that such an assertion merits further consideration. Of particular interest is the concept of the unthinkable in moral questions.
In such matters conscious obedience to what has been explicitly stated is, it needs but little comment, of great importance. God has revealed his moral law in the Old Testament, clearly transcribing by the hand of his prophet Moses those things that he wishes men to do or refrain from doing. But alongside of the question of intentionally obeying such explicit commands is the related matter of the unthinkable.
Consider an example. Some time ago I was working in a clinic where a boy was getting a shot. He resisted by making a scene, to which what appeared to be his grandmother responded by chiding him for his incivility. The boy responded by loudly cursing this poor woman.
When I mentioned this incident to a coworker from Michigan, he, while not approving the behavior, nonetheless asserted there were occasions in which he could conceivably curse while addressing his mother, albeit not with a disrespectful tone. That notion, like the boy’s behavior, is utterly foreign to my Southern upbringing, so much so that I am not sure what would have happened to me if I had ever done either. It was simply inconceivable that I would ever curse in the presence of a parent or grandparent, much less toward one.
Nor was this because I had the advantage of a rigorous Presbyterian upbringing (I didn’t). I knew that one does not disrespect familial authority like that even when I was, at most, vaguely familiar that Ex. 21:17 exists. This was because I was the beneficiary of a common moral sense that had been developed and propagated by my culture in the form of sundry taboos.
And central to the effectiveness of such taboos is the concept of the unthinkable: for what cannot be thought in one’s own mind cannot be discussed with others, and what cannot be discussed openly cannot be done with impunity. The creation of the taboo is a strong impediment to the commission of the behavior it ultimately seeks to defend against.
Now such taboos are not merely a result of God’s common grace (where they are beneficial), nor a result of sin (where they depart from his will, Mk. 7:1-5, 9-20; 1 Tim. 4:3-5); they are to have their place also in the church, provided of course that they are fully in accord with scripture and do not go beyond it by forbidding what God allows (Col. 2:18, 20-23; 1 Tim. 4:3) or requires (Matt. 15:3-6). See, for example, 1 Corinthians 5. A man in Corinth had married his step mother (a violation of Lev. 18:8), and Paul in his letter is aghast that such a thing had not only occurred but also been boasted over (vv. 2, 6).
It is not clear why the church was boastful about such a thing, but some think that it involved a misunderstanding of liberty in Christ.1 Whatever its precise cause, the church had stumbled by permitting what even pagans recognized as intolerably evil  (v. 1).
Read More
Related Posts:

But immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from the sky, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. 30 And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky with power and great glory. 31 And He will send forth His angels with a great trumpet and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of the sky to the other.—Matthew 24:29-31
Pardon Me While I Let a Little Cat Out of a Very Big Bag
Of the things Christians are usually divided over, Jesus’ incarnational first coming seems to be a point of unity. We all agree that He was born a few years BC, which humorously might suggest that the Christ was born before Christ, a rather ironic blight upon poor Dionysius Exiguus’ dating system. Yet, notwithstanding a Scythian error or two, we all agree that Jesus lived to be less than 40, He died a horrific death at the hands of the Jews, He rose again visibly and bodily in Jerusalem, and He ascended into heaven in the early thirties of that first common era century. His Ascension into heaven not only ended His first incarnational coming, but it also ushered in His heavenly reign over His Kingdom, the Church, that continues down to this day.
Yet as clear as His first coming has been, there has been an unbelievable amount of confusion on when the second coming will occur. For instance, some—among the full preterist types—believe everything in the New Testament has already happened and that a future bodily coming of Christ is unnecessary or, at the very least, was not recorded in the Bible so we cannot expect it. On the other end of the eschatological spectrum, the full-fledged futurist types tend to quibble over whether Jesus’ second bodily coming will be a pre-tribulational, mid-tribulational, or post-tribulational escape via a wonkavator-like-rapture.
What very few seem to notice is that there are two kinds of divine comings in the Bible. There are the bodily comings where God takes on a human body, such as when He walks with Adam and Eve in the garden, passes by Moses, dances in a fiery furnace, comes as Lord and Messiah to the Jews, and returns bodily at the end of human history. All these we affirm. Yet, there is another kind of “divine coming” in the Bible, where God spiritually comes in judgment against a wicked nation that we must not overlook if we are going to understand this passage.
That is the eschatological cat I would like to let out of the end-times knapsack and that is where I would like us to dive in today. For clarity, I will provide 10 reasons why Jesus’ second coming has already occurred in the first century, but with that, I will give you the most important qualifier that is needed before I begin. Here goes…I believe Jesus will physically return at the end of human history. I believe that He will come back in bodily form, give us new spiritual bodies, and call us up to meet Him in the air (e.g. 1 Corinthians 15 & 1 Thessalonians 4). My contention in this article is that the “coming” Jesus is referring to in Matthew 24 is not the end of human history coming, but a divine judgment coming against the Jews for their covenantal infidelity.
To support this view, I will be giving 10 lines of cold hard Biblical data that come right out of the text. But, if you would like more information on what these two kinds of divine comings are (Physical Incarnational and Judgment Covenantal) and how they are used in the Bible (e.g. Isaiah 19:1), then see the article I wrote a few months back that covers this very topic.
For all others, onward!
Evidence 1: The Meaning of “Immediate”
Many, such as eminent New Testament Scholar, D.A. Carson, suggest a multi-thousand-year gap between verses 28 and 29 of Matthew 24. Those within that ilk conclude that our Lord is referring to the downfall of Jerusalem in AD 70 in verses 15-28, but then wrongly assume Jesus hopscotched 2000 years forward into the modern era when moving along to verse 29. This suggestion could be reasonable if there was a shred of evidence to defend it. Yet, the evidence is insurmountable in the opposite direction.
In fact, the insurmountable evidence I am speaking of rests on a single word… “Immediately”! Notice how the passages flow:
For just as the lightning comes from the east and flashes even to the west, so will the coming of the Son of Man be. 28 Wherever the corpse is, there the vultures will gather. 29 But, immediately after the tribulation of those days…—Matthew 24:27-29a
Assuming a multiple thousand-year gap between verses 28 and 29 is the scholarly equivalent of trying to sell ice to an Eskimo. To say it differently, it might be a tough sell. But, I suppose it could be done if there were actual contextual factors, that were right there in the text, alerting the reader that Jesus consciously intended to wax proleptically. But, this cockamamie thesis falls apart quicker than a house made out of toilet paper when you stop to consider what the word “immediate” means.
Not to state the obvious, but if verse 28 is referring to the downfall of Jerusalem, as many attest and we just proved last week, then verse 29 cannot refer to an entirely different era. It must happen immediately after the previous one, limiting its fulfillment to the first century.
Evidence 2: “All These Things”…
Before we get to the meat of verses 29-31, let us recall the sauce Jesus prepared for us in verses 34-35. He said:
Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place. 35 Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away.—Matthew 24:34-35
We do not have to know mathematics on par with men like Isaac Newton to understand that 34 is just a bit larger than 29, 30, or 31. And we do not require formal training from men like Noam Chomsky, to comprehend that “all these things” means all the things Jesus just said in verses 1-28. What we need is the courage of men like Luther, Calvin, and Knox to believe what Jesus said, even if it is difficult to imagine and especially if it messes with our theological system.
Let me say it plainly, verses 29-31 happened in the first century, in that generation, because Jesus said “All these things” would happen in a single generation in verse 34 and we believe that He meant it. This is the unavoidable conclusion you must come to unless you want to turn yourself into a human pretzel.
Evidence 3: The Sun, Moon, and Stars as Apocalyptic Imagery of Judgment
Jesus said:

But immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from the sky, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken.—Matthew 24:29

In the words of Ricky Ricardo, it looks like we have some “esplainin to do”. If we are positing that all these things happened in the first century, then it sounds like we are saying that the sun darkened, the moon stopped shining, and a host of stellar luminaries fell from out of the sky, all within a generation from Jesus speaking. To be fair, that is what I am saying, but not completely.
Like Carson and other scholars, I also detect a switch has occurred between verses 28 and 29. Yet, instead of seeing that switch happening in the timing of the prophecy’s fulfillment, I see the switch occurring in the kind of genre Jesus is employing. For instance, in verses 3-28, Jesus is using the normal kind of language one would use when speaking to a friend. He is answering their questions in a straightforward and dialogical way that the disciples accurately record through historical prose. This form of communication is straightforward, plain, and easily discernible.
Yet, as Jesus continues speaking, He switches to a common Old Testament form of communication that His first-century interlocutors would have easily comprehended. This switch was to the apocalyptic genre, which foretells future-oriented events through the lens of symbols. The word apocalyptic means “to reveal” and it does so through visionary, figurative, and metaphorical speech patterns that were common to His contemporaries but not so to the modern man.
Read More

“Gender” tinkering came to a head in 1949 with Simone de Beauvoir’s statement: “One is not born, but rather becomes a woman.” Her idea was that the attainment of womanhood was no longer exclusive to those born female. Womanhood was simply a social construct and could, therefore, also be deconstructed. De Beauvoir’s existentialist vision of personal actualization and authenticity allowed womanhood to become an abstract state of mind, not a concrete way of being. With womanhood no longer limited to just biological women, feminism opened Pandora’s Box to today’s endless “gender” confusion and creation.

The trans movement is in full bloom. Many are scratching their heads as to how we got here.
A survey of the last two centuries reveals that it was long in the making, with deep roots found in feminist ideology, as discussed at length in my book, The End of Woman. Feminism ushered in significant shifts in thinking about women, fundamentally changing the way Western civilization considers biology, language, and law.
Each of these shifts on its own would have been damaging enough, but like the poisonous tentacles of a jellyfish, when taken together, they were fatal and brought about the triumph of the LGBT movement.
Biological Argument: Make Women More Like Men
One of the earliest efforts of the feminist movement was to help women with the suffering associated with fertility. It is a laudable goal, except that rather than help women as women, the feminist vision was to help women become more like men, namely, rendering their bodies sterile to enable sex without consequences.
The idea was to get rid of the connection between women and motherhood. Among first-wave activists, Elizabeth Cady Stanton said, “The woman is uniformly sacrificed to the wife and mother.” A few decades later, Charlotte Perkins Gilman said motherhood made it “impossible for women to achieve their potential.” And by the 1960s, Betty Friedan completed the transformation by famously encouraging every woman to leave the “comfortable concentration camp” that is the home to do productive work. The message was clear: Career is more important than motherhood.
The biological transformation away from motherhood would not have been possible without the work of Margaret Sanger, promoter of birth control and founder of Planned Parenthood, who envisioned a eugenic utopia where individual pleasure triumphed over the family. Women, she believed, were the source of “the most flagrant of our social evils” because of their fecundity, and as a result, women had not only “incurred a debt to society” but must “pay that debt” by not having more children.
With the Pill and later Roe v. Wade, women could finally live the ideal of consequence-free sex by eliminating their reproductive capacities entirely. Birth control was the prophylactic, and abortion was its backup safety net.
Erasing this essential element of women, the capacity to conceive and bear life — biologically, psychologically, and spiritually — quickly made the meaning of woman murky. For women, motherhood was largely erased as an essential and replaced with a vision of womanhood modeled after a masculine ideal. To maintain this new ideal for women — the pursuit of a career — women were sold the rabid dependence on contraception and abortion that we see today. It can be argued that feminism has been transitioning women into men for decades, with few noticing because of the enticing idols of achievement and independence.
Language Change: Implementing the Sexless Language of ‘Human Person’
While feminism was pushing women to be like men, a second societal change developed: a subtle change in language. What seemed minor was, in fact, a significant change in the way men and women viewed human nature. It started harmlessly enough, with Mary Wollstonecraft emphasizing the common dignity and rationality of all human beings to distinguish women from slaves and cattle. This focus on what is common between men and women quickly undermined what distinguished them, such as the centrality of motherhood. Feminists, seeing the utility of this linguistic emphasis, have used it repeatedly ever since. Consider the following examples:
In the late 1800s, Susan B. Anthony: “The only question left to be settled now is: Are women persons? And I hardly believe any of our opponents will have the hardihood to say they are not.”
Read More
Related Posts: