THREE CRITICAL EXEGETICAL ISSUES IN MATTHEW 24: A DISPENSATIONAL INTERPRETATION

THREE CRITICAL EXEGETICAL ISSUES IN MATTHEW 24: A DISPENSATIONAL INTERPRETATION

Jesus’ Olivet (or Eschatological) Discourse in Matthew 24–25 contains the fullest record of the Lord’s prophetic teaching during his earthly ministry. Each of the five great discourses (or sermons) by Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew (chaps. 5–7, 10, 13, 18, 24–25) are of utmost significance to his followers, but the Olivet Discourse is given a unique importance since Matthew at its conclusion adds the word “all” to the formula by which he ends each discourse.1 At the end of the discourse it says: “When Jesus had finished all these sayings . . .” Matt 26:1 ESV. 2 In other words it is the culmination of the great blocks of teaching in Matthew. In fact it is Jesus’ Farewell Discourse or Testament in Matthew’s Gospel.3
Jesus like biblical leaders before him such as Jacob (Gen 47:29–49:33); Moses (Deut 31:1–34:38); Joshua (Josh 23:1–24:30); Samuel (1 Sam 12:1–25), and David (1 Chron 28–29), near to the occasion of his death prepared his followers to face the future without his physical
1 Jeffrey A. Gibbs, Jerusalem and Parousia: Jesus’ Eschatological Discourse in Matthew’s Gospel (St. Louis: Concordia Academic Press, 2000), 13.
2 Matthew 7:28 ESV at the end of the Sermon on the Mount says: “And when Jesus finished these sayings...” This is the typical formula used at the end of the first four discourses.
3Many scholars since the time of Friedrich Busch, Zum Verständnis der synoptischen Eschatologie: Markus 13 neu untersucht, Neutestamentliche Forschungen, vol. 4 (Gütersloh: C. Bertelsmann, 1938), 44, have viewed the discourse as being a Farewell Discourse rather than an apocalypse in terms of its genre. See e.g., W. D. Davies and Dale C. Allison, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to Saint Matthew, ICC, vol. 3 (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1997), 326. Several elements separate the discourse from Jewish apocalypses. Apocalypses are invariably pseudonymous (being falsely attributed to an authoritative figure from the past), and are replete with bizarre images, heavenly secrets, esoteric symbols, ex eventu prophecy (prophecy of an event after it actually occurred), and timetables; its revelations come via a heavenly mediator. None of these are true about Jesus’ discourse. The teachings in the discourse come from Jesus himself who discourages sign seeking and end-times calculations. The discourse discourages premature apocalyptic fervor and contains more parenetic (exhortations and commands) and parabolic material, than that which merely unfolds the future. G. R. Beasley-Murray, A Commentary on Mark 13 (London: Macmillan, 1957), 18 writes of the Eschatological Discourse: “There is no other apocalyptic writing known to me which contains so high a proportion of admonitions and in which instruction and exhortation are so completely interwoven.” For further information on the Olivet Discourse as a farewell discourse see Neil D. Nelson, Jr., “‘Be Ready for the Hour Is Unknown’: A Literary Critical Exegesis of Matthew 24” (Ph.D. dissertation, Dallas Theological Seminary, 2000), 253–57.

presence. Farewell discourses usually contain warnings concerning false teachers,4 appeals to remain faithful and to exercise loving behavior toward one another,5 predictions of woes and tribulations,6 warnings of judgment against those who persecute his followers or who do not carry out his commands,7 and blessings to come to faithful followers.8
Jesus prophesied what the future would involve and prepared his disciples and those who would follow in their train to understand and to face future events and difficulties forewarned and forearmed. He prepared them for ongoing faithfulness to Christ, his people, and his commission while they awaited his return. The disciples with their heads clouded by ambitions of immediate glory9 desired a definitive pronouncement which would give them the signs and times for which they were looking (Matt 24:3). Jesus did not give them an apocalypse which would enable them to see where they were on the end-time timetable and how close they were to the end of history. He gave them what they needed to know to face a future fraught with adversity and to carry out a successful mission to the nations. He united predictions of the future with exhortations concerning the conduct required of faithful and wise followers.
The importance of the Olivet Discourse as his Farewell Sermon and great prophetic teaching makes sound interpretation of the discourse imperative. Yet as Wilkins writes: “Jesus’ predictions in this discourse have produced an almost dizzying array of interpretations.”10 This
4Matt 24:4, 5, 11, 23–26 cf. Acts 20:17–18; 2 Tim 2:16–18; 3:1–8; 2 Pet 2:1–22; 3:16–17. Both 2 Timothy and 2 Peter may be considered farewell speeches of Paul and Peter respectively (see 2 Tim 4:6 and 2 Pet 1:12–15).
5 Matt 24:4–14, 36–51; 25:1–30 cf. 2 Tim 1:13–14; 3:14–17; 2 Pet 1:5–12; 3:14–15. 6 Matt 24:4–13, 15–28
7 Matt 24:38–51; 25:11–13, 24–30, 41–46.
8 Matt 24:31, 33; 25:10, 20–23, 34–40, 46b.
9 See e.g., Matt 18:1; 20:20–28 cf. Luke 19:11; Acts 1:6.

study will deal with four crucial interpretive issues in Matthew 24, showing the strength of a futuristic dispensational interpretation in comparison with other schools and varieties of interpretation.11 The interpretive issues which will be covered are: 1) The identification and timing of the events in Matt 24:15–31; 2) The referent of “this generation” in Matt 24:34; and 3) Whether “one is taken, one is left” in Matt 24:40, 41 refers to the rapture or to the Second Coming.
Are the Abomination that Causes Desolation, the Greatest Tribulation, and the Coming of the Son of Man Past or Future Events?
Turner helpfully divides approaches of evangelical interpreters into four camps based on how much of the discourse they assign to the A.D. 70 fall of Jerusalem and the temple, and how much they assign to the end of the age.12 Preterist or historical interpreters believe Matt 24:1–35 was fulfilled in the first century, especially in the judgment of God upon Jerusalem. While moderate preterists tend to believe that Matt 24:36–25:46 discusses the end of the age and the Second Coming,13 full or extreme preterists believe that all the events in the discourse were
10 Michael J. Wilkins, Matthew, NIVAC (Grand Rapids: Zondervan), 789. See D. A. Carson, “Matthew,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 8:1–599 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984), 488–95 for a sample of the many issues with which an interpreter must deal in regards to the interpretation of the discourse. Matthew 24 is often considered the most difficult chapter to interpret in the Gospel of Matthew.
11 The author of this essay does not mean to imply that dispensational interpretations of the discourse are monolithic. There is some variation in dispensational interpretation of these issues. In fact, concerning the difficult problem of the meaning of Matthew 24:34 (”Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place”) several dispensationalists have changed their views after continued study. Few dispensational writers on an academic level today continue to hold that “this generation” refers to Israel as a nation. Yet that had been a popular view decades ago.
12 David L. Turner, “The Structure and Sequence of Matthew 24:1–41: Interaction with Evangelical Treatments,” Grace Theological Journal 10 (spring 1989): 3–27.
13 Examples of moderate or partial preterists include David E. Garland, Reading Matthew (Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys, 2001), 240–41, 244–49; Gibbs, Jerusalem and Parousia, 183–208; and R. T. France, Matthew, TNTC (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1985), 333. R. C. Sproul, The Last Days according to Jesus (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1998), 66, 158 sees himself as a partial preterist, but believes that all of Jesus’ prophecies in the Olivet Discourse were fulfilled in the period between the discourse itself and the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. He still believes in a literal Second Coming, future resurrection, and final judgment based on

fulfilled at the fall of Jerusalem and even the Second Coming, resurrection, and final judgment are all past events. Futurist interpreters, while differing as to whether Matt 24:4–14 refers to the inter-advent age, or wholly or partly to a future “great tribulation” period immediately before the end,14 assign all of 24:15–41 to the future. There are two types of mediating positions, the traditional and the revised preterist-futurist positions. The traditional preterist-futurist position takes 24:15–26 as a “double reference” prophecy referring in a perspective common to biblical prophecy in the near view to the events of A.D. 70 and in the far view to the end of the age.15
other New Testament texts. He admits to being “still unsettled on some crucial matters” (p. 158). His purpose in that book is not to exegete Matt 24–25, but to evaluate the claims of partial and full preterism.
14John F. Walvoord, Matthew: Thy Kingdom Come, 183 takes Matt 24:4–14 as a unit, describing the general characteristics of the age leading up to the end. He writes: “In general, these signs have been at least partly fulfilled in the present age and have characterized the period between the first and the second coming of Christ. They should be understood as general signs rather than specific signs that the end is near” (183–84). He does believe these general inter-advent difficulties will be “fulfilled in an intensified form as the age moves on to its conclusion.” Walvoord is probably “the greatest defender of the pretribulation rapture in [the twentieth] century” (from the dedication in Thomas Ice & Timothy Demy, eds., When the Trumpet Sounds [Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 1995], 3). Other dispensationalist writers who hold this view include Wilkins, Matthew, 772–77; David K. Lowery, “A Theology of Matthew,” in A Biblical Theology of the New Testament, ed. Roy Zuck (Chicago: Moody Press, 1994), 60; Joel F. Williams, “Mark,” in The Bible Knowledge Key Word Study: The Gospels (Colorado Springs, CO: Cook, 2002), 158 [concerning the Markan parallel to these verses]; Ed Glasscock, Matthew (Chicago: Moody Press, 1997), 461–97; and Nelson, “Exegesis of Matthew 24,” 191–94. C. I. Scofield, Scofield Reference Bible (New York: Oxford University Press, 1909), 1033, holds that 24:4–14 applies to the church age and to the end of the age. Louis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology, 8 vols. (Dallas: Dallas Seminary Press, 1947), 5:120–21 believes that 24:4–8 describes events of the present church age and 24:9–26 describes the tribulation period. Dispensationalists who place the events of Matt 24:4–14 exclusively in an end times tribulation period yet future include: J. Dwight Pentecost, Things to Come (Findlay, OH: Dunham Books, 1958), 277; Paul P. Enns, “Olivet Discourse,” in Dictionary of Premillennial Theology, ed. Mal Couch (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1996), 287; and Paul N. Benware, Understanding End Times Prophecy (Chicago: Moody Press, 1995), 317–20.
15Adherents of this view include George Eldon Ladd, The Presence of the Future (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1974), 309–11; and Leon Morris, Matthew, PNTC (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1992), 593– 608. Thomas Ice, “Back to the Future,” in When the Trumpet Sounds, 13 says that to be a pretribulationist, one must be a futurist. However, several dispensational interpreters hold to a traditional preterist-futurist view including Turner, “Matthew 24”; Wilkins, Matthew, 778–91; Glasscock, Matthew, 468; and John D. Grassmick, “Mark,” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary: New Testament Edition, ed. John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck (Wheaton, IL: Victor, 1983), 169–70. C. Marvin Pate, “A Progressive Dispensationalist View of Revelation,” in Four Views on the Book of Revelation (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998), 135 sees the hermeneutical key for progressive dispensational interpretation of New Testament prophecy to be an “already/not yet” eschatological tension. For him both Rev 6–18 and parallel events in the Olivet Discourse were partially fulfilled in A.D. 70, yet have their ultimate fulfillment in the future. Darrell L. Bock, Luke 9:51–24:53, BEC (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1996), 1675–77 carefully differentiates between the account in Luke 21:20–24 which describes Jerusalem’s fall and the account in Matthew 24:15–22 which looks at the end-time and speaks of consummation. He takes a futurist view on this section in Matthew.

The revised preterist-futurist view of Carson sees A.D. 70 as the subject of 24:15–21 and the church age being addressed in 24:22–28.16
Preterists and the Parousia
There are significant problems with the preterist and preterist-futurist views of Matt 24:15–31. For example, the view of preterists like France, Garland, and Sproul is that “this generation” in Matt 24:34 must refer to Jesus’ contemporaries who experienced “all these things” (24:33, 34) including “the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory” (24:30b). To protect the veracity of the Lord and the authority of Scripture this then mandates that Matt 24:27–31 refers not to the Second Coming, but rather to a coming in judgment on Jerusalem in A.D. 70.17 However, in the context of the discourse words like parousi,a (“coming,” v. 27), evrco,menon (“coming,” v. 30), and do,xhj (“glory,” v. 30) likely refer to the Second Coming of Christ. Parousi,a is used in Matt 24:37, 39 (“the coming of the Son of man”),18 which are verses these moderate preterist interpreters take to refer to the future return of Christ.19 To see parousi,a in Matt 24:27 as a symbolic or spiritual coming of the Lord would be to use the word in a way unprecedented in Matthew and in the entire New Testament.20 Forms of the verb   (“come”) which is used in Matt 24:27, are used throughout the rest of the discourse in passages that clearly speak of the Second Coming (24:42 “your Lord is coming”; 24:44 “the Son of Man is coming”; 24:46 “when he comes”; 25:10 “the bridegroom came”;
16 Carson, “Matthew,” 499–504.
17 France, Matthew, 333–47; Garland, Reading Matthew, 235–39; Sproul, Last Days, 41–65. 18 Parousi,a also refers to the Second Coming in Matt 24:3.
19 Stanley D. Toussaint, “A Critique of the Preterist View of the Olivet Discourse,” 476 notes that parousi,a is always used of the actual presence of a person and that in 1 Cor 15:23; 1 Thes 2:19; 3:13; 4:15; 5:23; 2 Thes. 2:1, 8; Jas 5:7–8; 2 Pet 1:16; 3:4, 12; and 1 John 2:28 it refers to the Lord’s presence at his Second Coming.
20 Blomberg, Matthew, 363.

25:19 “the master of those servants came”; 25:27 “at my coming”; and 25:31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory”). In Matt 25:31 the word “glory” is used twice (do,xh|, do,xhj) of the Lord’s glorious presence at his Second Coming.
The coming of the Son of Man with his angels to divide humanity at the future judgment accompanying the Second Coming is emphasized previously in the Kingdom parable in Matt 13:41 (cf. 13:49) and later in Matt 25:31 (cf. 24:44; 26:64).21 The reward of the righteous and the punishment of the wicked at the Second Coming in fact is a major theme throughout the rest of the Olivet Discourse (cf. 24:40–44, 45–51; 25:1–13, 14–30, 31–46). That is the same event spoken of in Matt 24:27–31.
The event described in Matt 24:27–31 is also both universal and unmistakably visible to all on earth, which was not the case in the local judgment which befell Jerusalem in the first century. There is a very strong emphasis here on the universal visibility of the coming of the Son of Man (24:27 “for as the lightning comes from the east and shines as far as the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man”; 24:30 “then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory”) in contrast with repeated warnings concerning deceptive reports of a secret coming (24:23–26). This coming judgment causes all the tribes of the earth to mourn since Jesus’ return means judgment.22 It also means that the elect throughout the globe in 24:31 (who are dispersed so widely because they
21 See Eugene W. Pond, “The Background and Timing of the Judgment of the Sheep and Goats,” Bibliotheca Sacra 159 (April–June 2002): 201–20 for evidence that the judgment of Matt 25:31–46 occurs on the earth immediately following Christ’s return to reign.
22 Gustav Stälin, TDNT, s.v. “
world’s mourning for itself in its final, hopeless distress.” The world has come to the realization that it is too late and each one grieves concerning their personal fate at the “immediately impending judgment of God.” The mourning of those about to be judged contrasts with the gathering of the elect into the kingdom by the Lord’s angels. The consistent pattern throughout the rest of the discourse of dividing humanity into two groups begins here. When the sign of the Son of Man (the sign is the Son, a genitive of apposition) appears it is too late to repent. See also Rev 1:7. An alternate interpretation is taken by Toussaint, “Preterist View of the Olivet Discourse,” 477–79. He says that the mourning is the repentance of the tribes of Israel when Jesus returns in fulfillment of Zech 12:10. If so this would be further proof of the future salvation of Israel in line with Matt 23:39.
ß says that the word “mourn” in Matt 24:30par. is “the

have carried out the Lord’s commission cf. 24:14; 28:19–20) will be gathered by the Lord’s angels to enter into the kingdom, eternal life, and the joy of the master (cf. 25:21, 23, 34, 46).23 Only a physical return of the Lord in total judgment satisfies the language in 24:27–31. The use of Dan 7:13–14 in Matt 24:30, where one like a son of man comes with the clouds of heaven and receives authority over all the nations from the ancient of Days also signals that Matt 24:29–31 is speaking of the future return of Christ. In Daniel 7 God passes judgment on the four kingdoms that dominate the earth and gives all authority to one like a son of man (Dan 7:13–14). His kingdom will be over all the earth and he will reign forever.
The Abomination and the Great(est) Tribulation
There are several events or references in Matt 24:15–28 which do not fit an A.D. 70 fulfillment. Matthew declares that the abomination comes first, followed by the great tribulation and flight. The abomination causes desolation.24 However, in the siege of Titus in A.D. 70, the tribulation preceded the abomination. In Daniel, the abomination is always linked to the temple. The abomination of desolation takes place “in the holy place”; that is in the temple. Yet when the Romans entered the temple with their standards, it was too late to escape and for flight into the mountains.25
The phrase “abomination that causes desolation” comes from the book of Daniel (Dan 9:27; 11:31; 12:11 cf. 8:13). Abomination (  refers to “what defiles a sacred place and
23 There is no rapture found in the Olivet Discourse. Blomberg, Matthew, 363, no pre-tribulationist himself, correctly affirms this.
24 Preterists are quite divided as to the specific event in the first century which Matthew calls the abomination of desolation. See Toussaint, “Preterist View of the Olivet Discourse,” 479–80 for four possibilities. France, Matthew, 340–1, a preterist himself, points out problems with various preterist views as to the exact identity of the event and comes to no conclusion other than that it had to occur in A.D. 66–70.
25Toussaint, “Preterist View of the Olivet Discourse,” 480.

causes it to be left desolate.”26 While originally it referred to the act of Antiochus Epiphanes IV (who in 167 B.C. outlawed Jewish religious practices, slaughtered swine on a temple altar devoted to Olympian Zeus and then destroyed much of the temple precincts and the city of Jerusalem, Dan 8:13; 11:31; 1 Macc 1:54, 59; 4:38; 6:7; 2 Macc 8:17), Jesus by his words in Matt 24:15 (“when you see . . .”) foresees a yet future fulfillment of Daniel’s prophecy shortly before the end of the age. The Danielic reference in Matt 24:15, points the reader to Dan 9:27 and 12:11 which look at the consummation and the end of the age.27 Daniel 12:2–3, 11, 13 speaks of the time of the end and the resurrection of the righteous. Daniel 9:27 speaks of Daniel’s 70th week and a future figure who will set himself up as God in the temple in the middle of the seven years which precede Christ’s Second Advent.28
Further, A.D. 70 was not “great tribulation, such as has not been from the beginning of the world until now, no, and never will be (24:21).” Though Josephus reported terrible atrocities, the tribulation Jesus is predicting here must be greater than the devastation caused by the universal flood in Noah’s day to which Jesus in context directly compares the events of the end
26 BDAG, s.v., bde,lugma.
27 Matthew 24:15 with its formula “spoken of through the prophet Daniel” is different than the other “fulfillment” quotations in Matthew in that although it has other essential elements of a fulfillment formula, it is the only one that lacks an explicit reference to any fulfillment of the prophet’s words, in this case, the text of Daniel. Matthew therefore intentionally does not want this text to be understood as fulfilled. See Fred W. Burnett, The Testament of Jesus-Sophia: A Redaction-Critical Study of the Eschatological Discourse in Matthew (Washington, D.C.: University Press of America, 1981), 306–7. Robert H. Gundry, Matthew: A Commentary on His Handbook for a Mixed Church under Persecution, 2d ed (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1994), 481 points out that the very command that the reader “understand” alludes to Daniel 12:9–10 immediately before Daniel’s final mention of the abomination of desolation. These words speak of the end-time.
28 Other revelation in the New Testament identifies the future abomination as a person (Mark 13:14 where the masculine participle ‘standing’ refers to a person standing where he should not),28 who proclaims himself to be
God and is called “the man of lawlessness” (2 Thes 2:1–9) and “the beast” whom earth dwellers are made to worship (Rev 13:1–18).

(24:37–39).29 Matthew 24:22 says, “if those days had not been shortened, no human being (flesh) would be saved. Pa/sa sa,rx (“all flesh”) is a technical term referring to all humanity nine times in the New Testament. 30 “All flesh” here is not limited to Jews who died in Judea in the first century. Rather it implies that all humanity would be extinguished in the future “great tribulation” as happened at the flood (except for Noah and his family), if not for God’s intervention for the sake of his elect. Jesus here was speaking of an event much worse than
A.D. 70.
A final proof that Matt 24:15–28 speaks of the great tribulation of the future, rather than
of a first century event is in Matthew’s use of the words “cut short” in Matt 24:22 and “immediately” in 24:29.31 Carson, because of the word “immediately” takes Matt 24:22–28 to refer to the entire interadvent period of the tribulation now stretching almost 2,000 years. But then “immediately,” seems to have lost all meaning and effect and it is hard to see how God has “cut short” or limited the days (v. 22). Jesus, in Matt 24:29–30 says, “Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened . . . then will appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven.” This means that immediately after the great and unparalleled tribulation described in Matt 24:21–26, the Second Coming will occur. The words  ß or  ß (“immediately”) in all 18 occurrences in Matthew mean “immediately,” “at once,” “without delay,’ or “instantaneously.” The word means the same thing here in this context.32 Futurists have no
29 Lowery, “Theology of Matthew,” 190. Josephus Jewish War 5–7 reported the death of 1.1 million Jews, but most scholars believe that the population of Jerusalem during the feast time was closer to 150,000. In any case the world (and the Jewish people) have experienced greater tribulations than this in the past century.
30 Matt 24:22; Mark 13:20; Luke 3:6; John 17:2; Acts 2:17; Rom 3:20; 1 Cor 1:29; Gal 2:26; 1 Pet 1:24. In 1 Cor 15:39 Paul uses the phrase in the sense of all human and animal life, an even wider usage. Toussaint, “Preterist View of the Olivet Discourse,” 481.
31 For more on this see Nelson, “Exegesis of Matthew 24,” 185–88.

difficulty in seeing the parousia immediately after the future abomination that causes desolation and the great tribulation. This unparalleled tribulation will last about three and a half years according to Dan 9:27; 12:7, 11; Rev 11:3; 12:6, 14. God “cut short” the days by limiting them to 1,260 days (Rev 11:3). Preterists who use Matthew’s “immediately” in 24:29 to tie the siege of Jerusalem to a symbolic “parousia” of Christ in a temporal judgment on Jerusalem err because “immediately after the tribulation of those days” (24:29) refers back to “those days” (24:22) of the future great tribulation. Preterist-futurists who stretch the tribulation to include the whole interadvent age rob the words “immediately” and “cut short”of their plain meaning in Matthew.33
The futurist interpretation of Matthew 24:15–28, the view of most dispensational interpreters, best explains this important section of Jesus’ sermon. The combination of the temporal and inferential conjunctions “therefore when” which begin Matt 24:15–28 signal a shift34 to the important topic of a major event prophesied in Daniel 9:27 and 12:1–12, the still future event when Antichrist sets up his image in the temple to be worshipped which in turn commences the never to be equaled “great tribulation” which lasts three and one half years. God cuts this tribulation short for the sake of his elect. The tribulation then ends immediately as Christ comes in his full glory to judge the nations and to gather his elect, that is tribulation saints, into his kingdom.35
32 BAGD, 320–21. Redaction critics see ß as a deliberate redactional addition to his Markan source in order to deliberately tie the tribulation to the parousia.
33 Carson, “Matthew,” 594–95 differentiates between the time of the “great distress” of A.D. 70 in Matt 25:15–21 and the general interadvent age in 24:22–28. Therefore Jesus does not affirm that his Second Coming would be immediately after A.D. 70. A better solution is to see that 25:15–28 is one unit. The word  (“and”) in v.22 ties 24:15–21 to 24:22–28. Therefore the event which is “immediately” before the Second Coming is the great tribulation, which commences with the great abomination.
34 Wilkins, Matthew, 777.
35 The disciples addressed by Jesus in the Olivet Discourse represent Jewish tribulation saints in Matthew 24:15–31. They also represent both the church and Jewish tribulation saints in Matt 24:4–14, which cover the entire interadvent age (church age plus the tribulation). The parables in Matt 24:32–25:46 apply in one way or another to

The Identity of “This Generation” in Matthew 24:34: What Kind of People Do Not Pass Away
until All These Things Take Place?
View #1: The Contemporaries of Jesus Witness the Second Coming
Perhaps the most difficult phrase to interpret in the entire Olivet Discourse is “this generation will not pass away until all these things take place” (Matt 24:34).36 Some interpreters have concluded Jesus taught (erroneously it turns out) that his contemporaries would be alive at his Second Advent.37 The most decided criticism of this interpretation is that it makes Jesus a false prophet and the church perpetuated this error when it continued to pass on these words after the disciples had died.38 Yet Jesus in Matthew’s Gospel is portrayed as one who is absolutely true and who teaches the way of God truthfully (Matt 22:16). In Matt 24:35, the verse immediately following, Jesus stakes his truthfulness on this prediction and everything else in the discourse when he says: “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.” Jesus’ prophecies, including that of 24:34 are more dependable than the universe itself. Further, in Matt 24:36 Jesus strongly affirms: “But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only.” How could Jesus on the one hand assert that his own contemporary generation would see the fulfillment of all his prophecy and then assert just two verses later that no human, not even he, could know the time of fulfillment?39
both groups. All believers of both eras need to be faithful and ready for the Lord’s return. The Olivet Discourse was therefore specifically relevant to the first disciples and it remains relevant to all saints until the end of the age.
36 For a fuller study of “this generation” in Matt 24:34 see Neil D. Nelson, Jr., “’This Generation’ in Matt 24:34: A Literary Critical Perspective,” JETS 38 (Sept 1996): 369–85, and Nelson, “Exegesis of Matthew 24,” 159– 221.
37 E.g., Davies and Allison, Matthew, 3:367–68 affirm that Matt 24:34 teaches all the events of vv.4–31 including his return in glory would occur before all his contemporaries had died. Since some of Jesus’ contemporaries were probably alive when Matthew wrote, “he did not have the problem we do.” They say that most modern commentators take this view.
38 Bock, Luke 9:51–24:53, 1689.

View #2: The Contemporaries of Jesus Witness the Coming of Jesus in A.D. 70
The preterist interpretation of this phrase and Matthew 24 in general is a reaction to the interpretation above. Their view is that Jesus’ contemporaries will not pass away until they see all the things of Matt 24:4–31, but “all these things” must therefore be restricted to the events of A.D. 70.40 However, “all these things” in Matt 24:34, as demonstrated above, include the future abomination that causes desolation, the future great tribulation, and the Second Coming itself.41
View #3: The Contemporaries of Jesus Witness the Beginning of End Time Events
Another view takes the verb “take place” in 24:34 (  ) as an ingressive aorist, which would produce the meaning “this generation will not pass away until all these things begin to take place.”42 This view is unlikely for several reasons. First it ignores the comprehensive nature of the word “all.” To impose a limitation on the words “before all these things take place” really makes Jesus say: “before some of these things take place.”43 “All” has a naturally comprehensive force throughout the discourse (24:2, 8, 9, 14, 22, 30, 33, 34, 47; 25:5, 7, 29, 31, 32). Also, not all these things begin to happen by A.D. 70. The future abomination (24:15), great
39 This is an absolute prohibition of any knowledge of the time. The expression “day and hour” is a formula using synonymous parallelism which refers to time in general, with the word “day” being used frequently in Matthew for the time he will come in eschatological judgment (Matt 7:22; 10:15; 11:22, 24; 12:36). In the following context in the discourse “day,” “part (watch) of the night,” and “hour” are used interchangeably of the unexpected time of the coming of the Son of Man (Matt 24:42–44). Matt 24:50 and 25:13 again use “day” and “hour” in parallelism. See Blomberg, Matthew, 365.
40 Preterist-futurist interpreters such as Blomberg, Matthew, 363–64; Donald A. Hagner, Matthew 14–28, WBC (Dallas: Word, 1995), 715; and Craig S. Keener, A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1999), 588–90 have a similar interpretation, but they restrict the reference of “all these things” in Matt 24:34 to the events of Matt 24:4–26 or Matt 24:15–26 which they say were fulfilled in the fall of Jerusalem in the first century.
41 In Matthew, since the immediately following pericope (24:36–44) and the immediately preceding context (24:29–31) both speak of the parousia, this suggests that “all these things” in 24:34 include the end as well as the preliminary events which announce the certainty of its arrival. The words of Matt 24:35 also refer to the consummation of all things. When Jesus speaks of “all these things” in v. 34, he is surveying all the events he has just announced.
42 D. A. Carson, “Matthew,” 507; Toussaint, “Preterist View of the Olivet Discourse,” 485–86.
43 Anthony A. Hoekema, The Bible and the Future (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1979), 116.

tribulation (24:21–22), and the Second Coming (24:27–31) do not begin to take place during the lifetime of Jesus’ contemporaries. Moreover, the aorist subjunctive  is much more likely a consummative aorist in light of the prophetic nature of Jesus’ statement.44 In Matt 5:18, a verse with a very similar phraseology,  is certainly a consummative aorist. The verb
is used of consummated events in 24:6, 20, 21 [2x], and 32.45
View #4: This Generation Is Israel as a Race
An old view abandoned today by many dispensational interpreters is that “this generation” in Matt 24:34 refers to Israel as a race.46 However, while 24:34 implies that “this generation” will pass away after the events of 24:4–28 take place, Matthew envisions a mission to Israel until the parousia (10:23), a conversion of Israel before the Second Coming (23:39 cf. Rom 9–11; Isa 66:22; Zech 8, 13–14), and the presence of Israel in the kingdom (Matt 19:28).47 In other words, Israel in contrast will not pass away when “all these things take place.” The word “until” (  ß) means “up to the point at which and no farther” here, implying that “this generation” (unlike Israel) will “pass away” in judgment at the Second Coming of Christ.48Also the fig tree in the parable of Matt 24:32–35 is not a type of Israel. Jesus instead uses it to make a
44 See Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 558–61. It could also be a constative aorist, which is the most frequent use of the aorist tense.
45John Francis Hart, “A Chronology of Matthew 24:1–44,” Th.D. diss. (Grace Theological Seminary, 1986), 217.
46 E.g., This was the former view of Pentecost, Things to Come, 281 which he abandoned in The Words and Works of Jesus Christ (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1981), 405.
47 Toussaint, “Preterist View of the Olivet Discourse,” 484 says, “this would imply that Israel would cease to exist as a nation after the Lord’s return.” See also John F. Walvoord, The Prophecy Knowledge Handbook (Wheaton: Victor, 1990), 391; I. H. Marshall, Commentary on Luke, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1978), 780. R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Matthew’s Gospel (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1943), 953 and Eduard Schweizer, The Good News According to St. Matthew (Atlanta: John Knox, 1975), 458 say it means that Israel will remain wicked until the parousia, at which time it will be judged.
48 For a full discussion see Nelson, “Exegesis of Matthew 24,” 204–209. This “exclusive” use of  ß predominates in eschatological contexts in Matthew (e.g., 13:30; 23:39).The verb “pass away” means to come to an end or to perish. See Johannes Schneider, TDNT, s.v., “  .”

straightforward analogy.49 Just as the budding fig tree inevitably results in a harvest of figs, so the events of 24:4–25 will inevitably usher in the judgment of the Son of Man at his coming. “This generation” will pass away in judgment when Christ returns, but Matthew holds out the promise that Israel will be preserved and will enter into the kingdom.
View #5: This Generation Is an Evil Kind of People Who Oppose Christ and His Messengers
A fifth view, which is an old dispensational view and at the same time relatively new in current dispensational circles takes seriously both the Old Testament background of the word geneav (“generation,” rwd in the Hebrew OT) and how “this generation” (h` genea. au[th is
characterized throughout Matthew and the rest of the New Testament.  genea. au[th in Matt 24:34 describes unbelieving, rejecting humanity, unresponsive to God’s messengers and headed toward eschatological judgment.50 John Nelson Darby, the acknowledged father and developer of dispensational Premillennialism, made the point over a century and a half ago that h` genea. au[th in Matt 24:34 refers to an evil type of people. He wrote:
The difficulty as to ‘this generation shall not pass away’ is a prejudice flowing from the English use of the word ‘generation.’ It is quite as much used for a moral class in scripture, as for the period marked by human life; and if Deuteronomy 32:5, 20 (where this very subject is treated of) be referred to, the sense is plain.51
49 This is evident in the Lukan parallel where Jesus says: “Look at the fig tree, and all the trees.” Any deciduous fruit tree would make the same point.
50 Modern dispensationalists who take this view include David K. Lowery, “Matthew,” in the Bible Knowledge Key Word Study, 100; Joel F. Williams, “Mark,” 139, 161; and Nelson, “Exegesis of Matthew 24,” 159– 221; idem “This Generation,” 369–85. Darrell Bock, Bible Knowledge Key Word Study, 247–48 says this negative ethical view or the idea that once the end starts it will be completed in a generation are the most likely views.
51 John Nelson Darby, Apologetic, No. 2, Vol. 9, 277, In Synopsis of the Books of the Bible, vol. 3, 176.

Again Darby comments:
As to the generation not passing away, a reference to Deuteronomy 32:5, 20, will give the plain and sure sense of it, and that in reference to this very subject [the Lord’s coming]. The mere common use of the word is a class of persons, as, the generation of the wicked, not the period of a man’s life.52
The primary Old Testament background for Jesus’ reference to h` genea. au[th here is in the Old Testament descriptions of the rebellious Israelites during their wanderings in the wilderness.53 Adjectives such as “evil,” “perverse,” “adulterous” and “faithless” used by Jesus to characterize “this generation” (Matt 11:39, 45; 16:4; 17:17) come from the Song of Moses (Deut 32:5, 20). Culver notes that the Hebrew word rwd (“generation”) “is used widely to indicate a
class of men distinguished by a certain moral or spiritual character,” such as in the phrase “generation of the righteous” or “generation of the wicked.” He says this metaphorical (non- chronological) use of the word is theologically the most significant use of rwd in the Old
Testament and becomes the basis of Jesus’ use of genea. (“generation”) in the Gospels.54
Psalm 12:7 (11:8 LXX) uses the exact phrase h` genea. au[th and says: “You, O Lord, will
keep them (LXX “us”); You will preserve him (i.e., the godly man) from ‘this generation’ forever.” “This generation” is described in this context as lying, boastful, proud, violent and wicked. The godly do not belong to this generation, though they live among these evil people of their age (cf. Acts 2:40; Phil 2:15). Matthew seems to have juxtaposed the phrase “this generation” in 24:34 with his account of the days of Noah (24:37–39), an explicit type of the coming of the Son of Man. This seems to be a purposeful echo of Gen 7:1 where Noah is
52 John Nelson Darby, Collected Writings, vol. 11, Prophetic, no. 4, “Brief Remarks on the Work of the Rev. D. Brown,” ed. William Kelly (London: G. Morrish, n.d.: reprint, Sunbury, PA: Believer’s Bookshelf, 1972), 372.
53 Cf. Num 32:13; Deut 2:14; Ps 12:7; 78:8; 95:10. See Williams, “Mark,” 139. 54 R. D. Culver, Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, s.v. “dōr.”

described as the sole righteous man in “this generation” (  :/  /:  /::), which is described as wicked, violent, corrupt, and self-absorbed in Gen 6:5–11. Noah, like the godly man in Psalm 12, lived among, but did not belong to “this generation.”
A study of the use of h` genea. au[th (Matt 11:16; 12:41, 42, 45; 23:36; 24:34) and genea with other descriptive adjective (12:39, 45; 16:4; 17:17) used in the same sense, reveals that the kind of people referred to with the words “this generation” are characterized as those who reject Jesus and his messengers and the salvific message they preach, who remain unbelieving and unrepentant, who actively test and persecute Jesus and his messengers, and who will face eschatological judgment. The pejorative adjectives given to “this generation” (evil, adulterous, faithless, perverse) throughout the Gospel are qualities that distinguish between those who are subjects of the kingdom and those who are not.
The use of “this generation” in Matt 23:36 right before the Olivet Discourse is particularly instructive. There Jesus’ prophetic condemnation falls on “this generation” both for murdering the righteous men of the Old Testament (23:29–31, 35) from the beginning of the Hebrew canon (Abel) until the end (Zechariah in the last book of the Hebrew Bible,
2 Chronicles; note Jesus says: “whom you murdered”) and for scourging, and killing, and crucifying “prophets, and wise men, and scribes” (i.e., his disciples cf. Matt 5:12; 7:24; 10:41; 13:52) all the way up until the Second Coming. The contemporaries of Jesus did not murder Zechariah (23:35–36), nor will they murder Jesus’ disciples until the end of the age. Therefore the phrase “this generation” here and in 24:34 extends beyond Jesus’ contemporaries to also include the murderers of God’s servants in the Old Testament and forward to those who will persecute disciples until Jesus’ return (23:39). Since the persecution extends until the Son of Man comes (10:23; 23:34; 24:9–14, 15–26), the judgment also does not fall until that time.
The reader of Matt 24:34 should therefore interpret h` genea. au[th (“this generation”) in the same way it has been consistently used throughout Matthew, as a kind of people who reject Jesus, who remain hostile to Jesus’ disciples, who are blind to the signs of his coming, and who remain opponents of the gospel and its messengers until the end. Then finally they “will pass away” at the judgment when Christ returns.55 In the context of Matthew’s Gospel, the disciple is not above his teacher, nor is the servant above his master (10:24–25). The obedience of Christ in the midst of “an evil and perverse generation” as he endured its hostility and obstinate unbelief, becomes then the pattern for his disciples.56 The Lord’s teaching in Matt 24:32–35 is that the followers of Christ will continue to endure the persecution and opposition of “this generation.” This sinful class of opponents of Christ and his messengers will continue to be present right up to the coming of the Son of Man. Yet saints have the sure hope, based on Christ’s word (24:35) that Jesus as Son of Man will come and gather them into his kingdom and vindicate them by judging “this generation.” Just as Christ suffered, so will disciples in this age. Just as Christ was subsequently glorified, so they will “inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world” (25:34).
View #6: This Generation Is All the People Alive at the End
A final view, held by several dispensationalists is that “this generation” refers to all the people who are alive when Jesus returns.57 This view says that the end-time generation will see
55 The discourse says that this evil type of people (“this generation”) will be “swept away” (24:39), “taken” in judgment (24:40–41), dichotomized and put into hell (24:510, “shut out” of the marriage feast (25:11–12), “cast into outer darkness” (25:30), and they will go into the eternal punishment prepared for the devil and his angels (25:41, 46).
56 In Matt 17:17 Jesus was exasperated with a “faithless and perverse generation” ensnared in the grip of Satan. He exclaimed: “”How long am I to be with you?” But to his disciples at the end of the Gospel he proclaimed: “And behold I AM with you always, to the end of the age” (28:20).

the completion of the end-time signs. It seems somewhat tautologous to say that the last generation will not pass away until the end-time events conclude. Jesus hardly needed to state this sort of truism. However, the emphasis in this interpretation is that when the end comes, it comes quickly. The generation that experiences the great tribulation will also witness the end.58
The major problem with this view is that it ignores the negative force of h` genea. au[th (“this generation”) throughout the New Testament and Matthew in particular and the moral use of the phrase in the Old Testament. The negative connotation of the phrase as referring to ungodly people united in their opposition to God’s messengers is found in all previous uses of h` genea. au[th.59 The reader of the Gospel would naturally take the phrase to have the same connotation in Matt 24:34.
This view also ignores the implication that “this generation” will “pass away” at the Second Coming. Only the wicked belong to this type of people. This evil generation will be “swept away” in judgment and put into hell (24:39, 51). The righteous in contrast will inherit the kingdom and enter into eternal life in the presence of the Son (25:20–23, 34, 36). Therefore, “this generation” in Matt 24:34 refers to an evil and faithless people guilty of resisting the messengers and the message of Christ. This view best aligns with the use of the phrase throughout Matthew and the purpose of Jesus in the discourse and the Gospel to prepare the disciples to endure the rejection of unresponsive humanity as they obediently serve Christ and others and thus ready themselves for the Lord’s glorious return.
57 E.g., Stanley D. Toussaint, Behold the King: A Study of Matthew (Portland: Multnomah Press, 1980), 279–80; Glasscock, Matthew, 475; Paul N. Benware, Understanding End Times Prophecy (Chicago: Moody Press, 1995), 319; Pentecost, Words and Works, 405; Bock, Luke 9:51–24:53, 1688–92.
58 Bock, Luke 9:51–24:53, 1691–92.
59 Matt 11:16; 12:39, 41, 42, 45; 16:4; 17:17; 23:36.

One Taken, One Left: Does This Refer to the Rapture or to the Second Coming?
The language “one is taken and one is left” in Matt 24: 40, 41 suggests to some that the rapture of the church is being addressed.60 However, the only future coming of the Son of Man described in the discourse is the glorious and universally visible return of Christ (24:3, 27–31 cf. 24:14, 33, 50–51; 25:1–13, 14–30, 31–46). The language of 24:27–41 does not suggest that a different event is now addressed.61 Matt 24:40–41 occurs in the context of judgment. The future time of judgment at the Second Coming is compared with the day when Noah entered the ark and “the flood came and swept them all away” (24:39). The day of judgment, concerning which no one but the Father knows the timing, parallels the sudden judgment and loss of life of the unresponsive in Noah’s time. As the wicked were “swept away” in that day, so the world will “pass away” (24:34) at the future arrival of the Son of Man. This universal judgment is that of the Second Coming, not a pretribulational rapture. The parallel passage in Luke 17:26–37 makes it especially clear that the reference is to the judgment at the Second Coming. That passage after mentioning the destruction brought by the flood and the fire and sulphur raining down on Sodom, mentions that “one will be taken, and the other left” (Luke 17:35).When the disciples ask Jesus, “Where, Lord?” He responds with a grisly image of the gathering of vultures. (17:37).62
The synonyms h=ren (“taken away” or “swept away,” 24:39 from  ) and paralamba,netai (“taken,” 24:40, 41 from paralamba,nw) seem here to stand for analogous concepts. Just as the entire generation of the flood was “taken away” in the cataclysm of Genesis,
60 Hart, “Chronology of Matthew 24,” 242–44, is an example of a dispensationalist who takes this to speak of the pre-tribulation rapture.
61 Blomberg, Matthew, 366. Contra Hart, “Chronology of Matthew,” 242–44, elsewhere in Matthew the phrase peri. de. (24:36) is used to continue discussion of the same subject or to continue the movement of the narrative (20:6; 22:31; 27:46).
62 Bock, Bible Knowledge Key Word Study, 236 says: “The fact that the stress is on judgment means there is no rapture here.”

so “this generation” in its entirety will be “taken” in the judgment of the parousia. The thoughts are parallel, not contrastive. The difference in verbs may be due to precision of description (“swept away” ESV is an apt translation of h=ren in relation to the flood) or to stylistic variation. If “taken” in 24:40, 41 means being taken in judgment, this eliminates reference here to a rapture, that is being caught up to meet the Lord in the air. Yet granting that the reference in 24:36–44 is to the Second Coming, the point then becomes virtually moot as to whether “taken” in 24:40, 41 means gathered to meet the Lord (cf. 24:31) or taken in judgment (cf. 24:39). The essential point is that a permanent separation of humanity occurs at the Second Coming with the righteous being taken into the kingdom and the unrighteous being taken in judgment.63
Conclusion
This study has presented a futuristic, dispensational view of three important exegetical issues in Matthew 24. The evidence derived from a careful study of the Olivet Discourse in the context of Matthew’s Gospel suggests that both the preterist and the preterist-futurist views of Jesus’ teaching about the abomination of desolation and the great tribulation of Matt 25:15–26 are incorrect. Neither event occurred in A.D. 70. The abomination that causes desolation is a yet future event near the end of the age in which the image of the Antichrist is set up in the temple and Antichrist himself is worshipped as God. This is the meaning of Dan 9:27 and 12:11 (also indicated in 2 Thes 2:1–12; Mark 13:14; Rev 13:1–18). The great tribulation is also a yet future event which is of such severity that it exceeds the devastation of the universal flood in the days of Noah. All humanity would perish in this tribulation except for the intervention of God on
63 Carson, “Matthew,” 509. Lowery, “Matthew,” 100 says that paralamba,nw (“taken” in 24:40, 41) is often a positive term in the Gospel (e.g., 1:20, 24; 2:13, 14, 20, 21; 17;1; 26:37). But it is used in a bad sense significantly in 27:27 cf. 4:5, 8. vafi,hmi ( vafi,etai “left”) in 24:40, 41 can carry a negative connotation in Matthew (4;20, 22; 8:22; 19:29; 23:38; 26:56), but it also has positive connotations in 4:11, 20, 24; 6:12.

behalf of tribulation saints. This greatest of all tribulations occurs “immediately” before the Second Coming of Christ.
The preterist view that equates “the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory” (24:30) with his symbolic coming in the judgment of A.D. 70 is also in error. Rather this is the literal, visible coming of the Lord Jesus Christ in his full glory and power. The use of the vocabulary to describe his coming elsewhere in Matthew and in the Olivet discourse itself, and the stress on the universal visibility of the parousia should assure believers of the validity of Jesus’ own precious and great description of the his Second Coming.
A study of “this generation” as used in Matthew and in its Old Testament background shows that it speaks of a wicked kind of people through the ages who are steadfastly opposed to the messengers of God and who are described as faithless, evil, perverse, and adulterous. Jesus does not promise his saints a future mission free from difficulties. In fact the Olivet Discourse is full of predictions of tribulation and opposition. In the Parable of the Fig Tree (Matt 24:32–35) Jesus affirms that his followers will experience the difficulties mentioned in Matthew 24, but that as they see Jesus’ predictions come to past they may be assured “that he is near, at the very gates” (v.33). They will face opposition from the same sort of evil people who opposed the prophets and Jesus before them, but when all these things take place, “this generation” which is evil, will “pass away.” Then the faithful servants of Jesus (24:45–47) will be vindicated and they will enter into the kingdom and the joy of their master.
Finally, Matthew 24:40–41 does not speak of a pretribulation rapture. The rapture is not the subject of the Olivet Discourse. The Second Coming is. The Second Coming is certain, yet its timing is unknown. Therefore Jesus calls in the strongest terms for his saints to be faithful, prepared, and ready for his return. If this is the case in relation to the Second Coming, “how
much more important is it for people to be prepared for the unannounced and ‘sign-less’ resurrection and rapture of the church.”64
64 Mark Bailey and Tom Constable, The New Testament Explorer (Dallas: Word, 1999), 51.

MINCED OATHS

MINCED OATHS

--An Important Message for Believers--



"Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength [my Rock], and my Redeemer" (Psalm 19:14)


"Sound Speech, that cannot be condemned" (Titus 2:8)


The words of our mouth ought to be well pleasing to the Lord Jesus Christ who purchased us with His own blood "that He might redeem us from all iniquity [lawlessness] and purify unto Himself a peculiar people [a people of His own], zealous of good works" (Titus 2:14). May the fruit of our lips always honor "that worthy Name by the which ye are called" (James 2:7).

As blood-bought children of God we should be very thoughtful about the words that we use, and very careful in our choice of words. This is especially true at times of surprise or amazement or sudden pain or disappointment when we tend to burst out with an exclamatory word or comment. Those of the world blurt out all kinds of inappropriate words, not giving much thought to what they are really saying. All such careless speech and profane cursing should find no place on the lips of a redeemed saint: "Set a watch, O LORD, before my mouth; keep the door of my lips" (Psalm 141:3).

What is a MINCED OATH? The verb "mince" means "to lessen the force of, to weaken, as by euphemism." What does the word EUPHEMISM mean? A euphemism is "the use of a word or phrase that is less expressive or direct but considered less distasteful, less offensive, etc. than another" [from a tract entitled, "Christian Cursing" by J. W. Hiebert, published by Tabernacle Baptist Church in Lubbock, TX]. What we have then is one word or phrase being substituted for another. Instead of using the Name of God, we use a substitute word in place of God's name that sounds better and is less offensive. Instead of using a swear word we use a substitute word that actually means the same but does not sound as bad. Thus we can say that a MINCED OATH is "a form of cursing that replaces a direct curse word with a more acceptable word [better sounding word] which in effect does the same thing." [Ibid.]

"Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain" (Exodus 20:7) Consider some of the words that are used as substitutes for the Name of God. Look up these words in a good dictionary and you will find the following: GOSH is "a substitute for God used in minced oaths." GOLLY is "a euphemism for God." EGAD is "a softened or euphemistic form of the oath `by God.'" GOODNESS is a word substituted for God (compare Matthew 19:16-17).

GOODNESS GRACIOUS are two key attributes of God used in a careless and irreverent way. The expression MERCY or MERCY SAKES is another thoughtless use of a precious attribute of God. HOLY COW, HOLY MACKEREL, HOLY SMOKE are expressions that make fun and make light of the awesome holiness of our God. If we really believe Revelation 15:4 ("for Thou only are holy") then we will not call other things holy in a thoughtless and frivolous way. May the Holy Spirit control our lips.

Those who are outwardly lawless and wicked often are heard saying, "for God's sake" or "for Christ's sake." It is done in an irreverent, blasphemous way. Those who are more cultured use substitutes: "for Goodness sake" "for Pete's sake" "for the love of Mike" "for crying out loud" etc.

In a similar way the Name of Christ is abused. GEE is a "euphemistic contraction of Jesus." The same is true of other words such as GEE, GEEWHIZ, GEEZ or CHEEZ, CHEESE, CHEECE, SHEECE, "all of which relate back to the Lord Jesus Christ when used as an exclamatory remark" [Ibid.] It's not difficult to figure out the origin of such expressions as JIMINY CRICKETS and JEEPERS CREEPERS.

Curse words and swear words have also been softened by minced substitutes. Remember, garbage is still garbage, even if it is placed in a nice container. We need to detest all curse words and realize that the substitutes stink as well.

It is of interest how the ungodly so often speak on themes of judgment, hell and damnation. Deep in their hearts they blaspheme and rebel against a God whose right it is to damn all those who reject His beloved Son (John 3:18). DARN simply is a substitute for "damn, a euphemism for the curse." HECK is "an exclamation used as a euphemism for hell."

"All of this, while deplorable, is nevertheless a sort of backhanded acknowledgment that God is real and Biblical revelation is true. It is significant that adherents of other religions never take the names of their gods in vain! Who ever heard of a Buddhist, or a Muslim, or a Hindu do such a thing? If they want to swear, they also will often inadvertently use the Name of the true God, or His Christ, in vain. Even atheists frequently sprinkle their conversations with blasphemous Christian epithets, calling on God [whom they claim doesn't exist] to send someone to hell [which they claim doesn't exist]" [from Days of Praise by Henry Morris, October 25, 1990]. Satan, who energizes these people (Eph. 2:2), knows so very well the reality of God and hell, and his children (John 8:44) give evidence of this by their cursing.

"The third commandment requireth the holy and reverent use of God's Name, titles, attributes, ordinances, words and works" [The Westminister Shorter Catechism]. As heavenly citizens, may our God keep us from profanity and from "near profanity" (from anything that comes close to it). When other believers are found to use minced oaths, seek to gently and lovingly and tactfully point this out to them, remembering that at times we have all been guilty of the careless use of language (James 3:2). May the fruit of our lips consist of praise to God and thanksgiving to His Name (Hebrews 13:15).

"A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things. But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned" (Matthew 12:35-37)

"Out of the same mouth proceedeth blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought not so to be. Doth a fountain send forth at the same place sweet water and bitter?" (James 3:10-11)

"Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers" (Ephesians 4:29).

Why did Jesus have to die for our sins?

Why did Jesus have to die for our sins?
by Matt Slick

The reason Jesus had to die for our sins was so that we could be forgiven and go to be with the Lord. Jesus is God in flesh (John 1:1,14; Col. 2:9) and only God can satisfy the Law requirements of a perfect life and perfect sacrifice that cleanses us of our sins.

All people have sinned against God. But, God is infinitely holy and righteous. He must punish the sinner, the Law- breaker. If He didn't, then His law is not Law for there is no law that is a law without a punishment. The punishment for breaking the Law is death, separation from God. Therefore, we sinners need a way to escape the righteous judgment of God. Since we are stained by sin and cannot keep the Law of God, then the only one who could do what we cannot is God Himself. That is why Jesus is God in flesh. He is both divine and human. He was made under the Law (Gal. 4:4) and He fulfilled it perfectly. Therefore, His sacrifice to God the Father on our behalf is of infinite value and is sufficient to cleanse all people from their sins and undo the offense to God.

The following outline is an attempt to break this down, step by step, using scripture and logic. I hope that it helps you understand why God is our savior and not some created thing. Also, I hope that it helps you understand that you must trust in Christ alone for the forgiveness of your sins; that you can do nothing on your own to merit salvation from God.

God exists.
Gen. 1:1, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."
God is infinite
Psalm 90:2, "Before the mountains were born, Or Thou didst give birth to the earth and the world, Even from everlasting to everlasting, Thou art God."
Psalm 147:5, "Great is our Lord, and abundant in strength; His understanding is infinite."
Jer. 23:24, "Can a man hide himself in hiding places, So I do not see him?” declares the Lord. “Do I not fill the heavens and the earth?” declares the Lord."
God is holy
Isaiah 6:3, "And one called out to another and said, “Holy, Holy, Holy, is the Lord of hosts, The whole earth is full of His glory.”
Rev. 4:8 "And the four living creatures, each one of them having six wings, are full of eyes around and within; and day and night they do not cease to say, "Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord God, the Almighty, who was and who is and who is to come."
God is righteous
Neh. 9:32-33, "Now therefore, our God, the great, the mighty, and the awesome God, who dost keep covenant and lovingkindness, Do not let all the hardship seem insignificant before Thee, Which has come upon us, our kings, our princes, our priests, our prophets, our fathers, and on all Thy people, From the days of the kings of Assyria to this day. 33“However, Thou art just in all that has come upon us."
2 Thess. 1:6, "For after all it is only just for God to repay with affliction those who afflict you."
Therefore, God is infinitely holy and just.
Furthermore, God speaks out of the character of what He is.
Matt. 12:34, "...For the mouth speaks out of that which fills the heart."
God spoke the Law
Exodus 20:1-17, "Then God spoke all these words, saying, 2 “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. 3 “You shall have no other gods before Me...."
Therefore, the Law is in the heart of God and is a reflection of God's character since it is Holy and good.
Rom. 7:12, "So then, the Law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good."
Furthermore, to break the Law of God is to offend Him since it is His Law that we break. This sin results in an infinite offense because God is infinite.
Furthermore, it is also right that God punish the Law breaker. To not punish the Law breaker (sinner) is to allow an offense against His holiness to be ignored.
Amos 2:4, "Thus says the Lord, “For three transgressions of Judah and for four I will not revoke its punishment, because they rejected the law of the Lord And have not kept His statutes."
Rom. 4:15, "...for the Law brings about wrath."
God says that the person who sins must die (be punished). The wages of sin is death.
Ezekiel 18:4, "Behold, all souls are Mine; the soul of the father as well as the soul of the son is Mine. The soul who sins will die."
Rom. 6:23, "For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord."
The sinner needs to escape the righteous judgment of God or he will face damnation.
Rom. 1:18, "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness."
Matt. 25:46, "And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."
But, no sinner can undo an infinite offense since to please God and make things right, he must obey the Law, which is the standard of God's righteous character.
Gal. 2:16, "...by the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified."
Gal. 2:21, "I do not nullify the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly."
But the sinner cannot fulfill the law because he is sinful (in the flesh).
Rom. 8:3, "For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son..."
Since the sinner cannot fulfill the law and satisfy God, it follows that only God can do this.
This is simple logic. If we are unable to fulfill the Law, then we will be punished by it. But, since God desires us to be saved, the Law must be satisfied. Since we cannot keep the Law and it must be satisfied, then the only one capable of keeping the Law must keep the Law: God.
Jesus is God in flesh.
John 1:1,14, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.... 14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth."
Col. 2:9, "For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form."
Jesus was also a man under the Law.
1 Tim. 2:5, "For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus."
Gal. 4:4-5, "But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law, 5in order that He might redeem those who were under the Law, that we might receive the adoption as sons."
Jesus became sin for us and bore our sins in His body on the cross, thus fulfilling the Law.
2 Cor. 5:21, "He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him."
1 Peter 2:24, "and He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed."
Rom. 8:3-4, "For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh, 4so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit."
Therefore, salvation is by grace through faith since it was not by our keeping the Law, but by Jesus, God in flesh, who fulfilled the Law and died in our place.
Eph. 2:8-9, "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9 not as a result of works, that no one should boast."
Gal. 3:13, "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us — for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree."
Eph. 5:2, "and walk in love, just as Christ also loved you, and gave Himself up for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God as a fragrant aroma."

Ransom to Satan Theory of the Atonement

Ransom to Satan Theory of the Atonement

The view of the atonement that maintained that “the death of Christ constituted a ransom paid to Satan, in order to cancel the just claims which the latter had on man”1; also called the classical theory of the atonement.

From Systematic Theology by Wayne Grudem:
This view was held by Origen (c. A.D. 185—c. 254). a theologian from Alexandria and later Caesarea, and after him by some others in the early history of the church. According to this view, the ransom Christ paid to redeem us was paid to Satan, in whose kingdom all people were by virtue of sin.

This theory finds no direct confirmation in Scripture and has few supporters in the history of the church. It falsely thinks of Satan rather than God as the one who required that a payment be made for sin and thus completely neglects the demands of God’s justice with respect to sin. It views Satan as having much more power than he actually does, namely, power to demand whatever he wants from God, rather than as one who has been cast down from heaven and has no right to demand anything of God. Nowhere does Scripture way that we as sinners owe anything to Satan, but it repeatedly says that God requires of us a payment for our sins. This view also fails to deal with the texts that speak of Christ’s death as a propitiation offered to God the Father for our sins, or with the fact that God the Father represented the Trinity in accepting the payment for sins from Christ….

From The Christian Faith by Michael Horton:
Assuming that the devil was the rightful owner of sinners, Origen taught that Christ was a trap: his humanity ws the necessary bait for luring Satan into thinking that he had at last won out over Yahweh, and then he conquered the devil by his deity.

Understanding the Lordship Salvation Controversy

Understanding the Lordship Salvation Controversy

What must I do to be saved?

The answer to this question is so con­troversial that it has divided some quarters of evangelical Christianity into warring factions. The issue involved is the nature of salvation and saving faith: What is sav­ing faith? What does it mean to receive Jesus as Lord and Savior? How much must one surrender to the Lord at the time of salvation? What are the fruits of repentance?

“Lordship salvation” advocates say that in order to be saved, one must not only believe and acknowledge that Christ is Lord, but also submit to His lordship. In other words, there must be — at the moment one trusts in Christ for salvation — a willingness to commit one’s life absolutely to the Lord, even though the actual practice of a committed life may not follow immediately or completely. Non-lordship proponents argue that such a pre-salvation commitment to Christ’s lordship compromises salvation by grace.
The present debate is largely due to the publication of John F. MacArthur, Jr.’s The Gospel According to Jesus (Zondervan, 1988). According to an article by S. Lewis Johnson in the September 22 issue of Christianity Today, this book has pro­duced “an explosion of comment, discussion, and feisty debate.” MacArthur, Senior Pastor of Grace Community Church and president of The Master’s Seminary (both in Sun Valley, California) is a lordship sal­vation advocate. He wrote his book in response to (among others) a 1981 book by Zane C. Hodges entitled The Gospel Under Siege (Redencion Viva). Hodges, former professor of New Testament at Dal­las Theological Seminary, espouses the non-lordship view, and argues that much evangelical gospel-preaching is guilty of compromising the grace of the gospel. Hodges followed MacArthur’s book with still another book entitled Abso­lutely Free (Zondervan, 1989).
Another scholar responding to MacArthur’s book is Charles C. Ryrie (of The Ryrie Study Bible fame). Ryrie recently published So Great Salvation (Victor, 1989) in which he strongly affirms the non-lordship posi­tion. According to Ryrie, the non-lordship position states that accepting Jesus as Lord does not refer to a subjective com­mitment to Christ’s lordship in one’s life, but rather a repentance (or changing of one’s mind) about one’s ideas of who Christ is (i.e., He is the Sovereign and God) and exercising faith in Christ. Ryrie argues that repentance from sin is what follows in the Christian’s daily walk with the Lord.
Much confusion has overshadowed this controversy because of a lack of pre­cise definitions of key words (although Ryrie does provide some working defini­tions in his book). Neither side is saying that salvation is by works. Both affirm the clear teaching of Scripture that salvation is a gift freely given by God to man. Nor is either side advocating “easy­ believism,” a term coined by Lordship proponents to describe the idea that one receives salvation by simply giving intel­lectual assent to a set of doctrines.
The debate will no doubt continue. It is important, however, that in future dis­cussions of this issue, a clarification between the act of justification and pro­cess of sanctification be maintained. Jus­tification is the judicial declaration by God that the believer has a righteous standing before Him. This takes place the moment a person receives Jesus as his or her Savior by appropriating Christ’s redemptive work on the cross. Sanctification is the lifelong work of the Holy Spirit which conforms the believer into the image of Christ.
Martin Luther once said that “Faith alone justifies, but not the faith that is alone.” “Works,” Luther said, “are not taken into consideration when the ques­tion respects justification. But true faith will no more fail to produce them than the sun can cease to give light.”
Our responsibility as Christians is to present the claims of Christ to a lost and dying world. We may rest secure in the fact that a person’s acceptance of the Gospel will result in the fruit of repen­tance — but this is the work of the Holy Spirit, not man. — Bob Lyle

MERRY CHRISTMAS Matthew 1:18-25

Matthew 1:18-25
King James Version (KJV)
18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily.

20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.

21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins.

22 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,

23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:

25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus.

What are the origins of Christmas and can a Christian celebrate it?

What are the origins of Christmas and can a Christian celebrate it?
by Matt Slick

Christmas is the most popular holiday in America. Both the secular and the sacred celebrate it, but for different reasons. Some see it as the greatest business time of the year which is fueled by the exchange of gifts. Others consider it the time to celebrate the birth of Jesus. Either way, it is a very important holiday.

The word "Christmas" comes from two old words: Christes maesse. It means, "the Mass of Christ." This comes from the Catholic Mass, that practice where the priest re-offers the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross during the time of Communion.1

The Origins of Christmas

The origins of Christmas go back to before the time of Christ when many ancient cultures celebrated the changing of the seasons. In the northern hemisphere in Europe, for example, the winter solstice, which was the shortest day of the year, occurs around Dec. 25th. These celebrations were based on the decline of winter. Since during winter animals were penned, people stayed in doors, crops didn't grow, etc., to know that winter was half over and on its way out was a time of celebration.

In the ancient Roman system of religion, Saturn was the god of agriculture. Each year during the summer, the god Jupiter would force Saturn out of his dominant position in the heavenly realm and the days would begin to shorten. In the temple to Saturn in Rome, the feet of Saturn were then symbolically bound with chains until the winter solstice when the length of days began to increase. It was this winter solstice that was a time of celebration and exchange of gifts as the hardness of winter began to wane and the days grew longer.

December 25th specifically coincided the day of the birth of the sun-god named Phyrgia a culture in the ancient Balkans.

In the Roman Empire, by the time of Christ the winter festival was known as saturnalia. The Roman Church was unable to get rid of saturnalia, so early in the 4th Century, they adopted the holiday and tried to make it a Christian celebration of the Lord's birth. They called it the Feast of the Nativity. This custom has been part of western culture ever since.

The Christmas Tree and Mistletoe

One of the symbols of the life found in the celebration of saturnalia, was the use of evergreens. These plants which stayed green all year long, were often used in different cultures as symbols of life and rebirth. They were sometimes decorated as a form of worship in varied cultures in religious ceremonies dealing with fertility.

Mistletoe was considered a curative plant and was used in many ancient medicine recipes. The Celts even believed that the plant, which is a parasite that lives on trees, contained the soul of the tree on which it lived. The Druids used Mistletoe in their religious ceremonies. The Druid priests would cut it up and distribute it to the people who would place the cuttings over the doorways of their homes. This was supposed to protect the dwellers from various forms of evil.

On What Day Was Jesus Really Born?

No one knows for sure what was the month, not to mention which day, on which Jesus was born. Various theories have been raised that put Jesus' birth in April, October, and September. But no one knows for sure.

Additionally, our calendar is inaccurate. It set about 4 years too late. This is known by comparing the biblical accounts of gospels and the extrabiblical records known about Quirinius, the governor of Syria (Luke 2:2) and Herod the Great (Matt. 2:19) who died in 4 B.C. in the year of Jesus' birth. Humorously, that would make Jesus, born in 4 B.C.

Can the Christian Celebrate Christmas?

Is the Christian free to celebrate a holiday that not only has pagan origins, but also is used by the unbelieving world as a promotion of commercialism? In my opinion, it depends.

The Christian must hold his standard of righteousness and devotion to God above those of the world. The Old Testament says that we are to worship God in truth according to the dictates that He has established (Exodus 20:1-4; 24:12-31:18). Christmas was not established by God. In addition, there are no records at all of the early church celebrating the birth of Christ.

On the other hand, there are those who say we have freedom Christ and can celebrate any day we desire. Paul says, "All things are lawful, though not all are profitable" (1 Cor. 6:12). Should we then participate in the celebration of a festival whose origins are based on exceeding commercialism?

It is my opinion that we are free to celebrate the day. This is why.

In the Bible in 1 Cor. 10:23-33, Paul speaks about meat sacrificed to idols. This meat was often sold in the meat market and the question arose, "Should a Christian each such meat?" Paul said in verse 25, "Eat anything that is sold in the meat market, without asking questions for conscience' sake." The origins of the meat were, essentially, pagan. Many animals were raised for the purpose of sacrificing to pagan deities and their meat was offered in the market place. In reference to this Paul said it was okay to eat the meat.

Then in verses 28-29 he says, "But if anyone should say to you, 'This is meat sacrificed to idols,' do not eat it, for the sake of the one who informed you, and for conscience' sake; 29I mean not your own conscience, but the other man's; for why is my freedom judged by another's conscience?" (NASB). Paul is saying that if you are with someone who might be affected by your eating meat that was sacrificed to idols, then don't eat it -- not because of you, but because of the other person. In other words, eating that meat won't affect you. The false gods are not real. They have no power.

1 Cor. 8:-7-9 echoes this idea. It says, "However not all men have this knowledge; but some, being accustomed to the idol until now, eat food as if it were sacrificed to an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled. 8But food will not commend us to God; we are neither the worse if we do not eat, nor the better if we do eat. 9But take care lest this liberty of yours somehow become a stumbling block to the weak." Though this passage requires a bit more examination, it still carries the sense of freedom. And, Jesus has definitely set us free.

However, if you are not comfortable with this conclusion and you don't want to celebrate Christmas, that is okay. You must answer to the Lord.

Sanctification

The Lord, through His sacrifice, has cleansed us of our sins. When we came in contact with Him, it is we who were cleansed. It is not Him who was made dirty. The woman with the issue of blood who touched Jesus (Mark 5:25-34) was made clean. It was not Jesus who was made dirty. Likewise Jesus touched the unclean lepers and cleansed them (Matt. 8:3). Jesus came in contact with many people and it was never Him who was dirtied. It was they who were cleansed.

I think this principle can be applied to Christmas. Yes, Christmas has pagan origins. Yes, it is a highly commercial time. Yes, many do not have their eyes on Jesus. But for the Christian it is a time to reflect upon the birth of our Lord and to celebrate. We are making the day holy.

Angels, God’s Ministering Spirits

Angels, God’s Ministering Spirits


Introduction

Theologians have often viewed angels as a very difficult subject.1 Why? Because, while there is abundant mention of angels in the Bible, the nature of this revelation is without the same kind of explicit description we often find with other subjects developed in Scripture: Every reference to angels is incidental to some other topic. They are not treated in themselves. God’s revelation never aims at informing us regarding the nature of angels. When they are mentioned, it is always in order to inform us further about God, what he does, and how he does it. Since details about angels are not significant for that purpose, they tend to be omitted.2

Though theologians have been cautious in their study of angels we have been bombarded in recent years by what could easily be called Angelmania. In fact, this is the title of an article by Dr. Kenneth Gangel in “Kindred Spirit” on the widespread discussion and fascination with angels in our time by the secular world.3

Gangel writes, In his 1990 book, Angels: An Endangered Species, Malcolm Godwin estimates that over the last 30 years one in every ten pop songs mentions an angel. But that was just romantic fun.

Now our culture takes angels seriously, if not accurately. In the last two years Time, Newsweek, Ladies’ Home Journal, Redbook, and a host of other popular magazines have carried articles about angels. In mid-1994, ABC aired a two-hour, prime time special titled “Angels: the Mysterious Messengers.” In Newsweek’s November 28, 1994 issue an article titled “In Search of the Sacred” observed that “20% of Americans have had a revelation from God in the last year, and 13% have seen or sensed the presence of an angel” (p. 54).

Newsweek is right; modern society, so seemingly secular and hopelessly materialistic, desperately searches for some spiritual and supernatural meaning. If angels can provide it, then angels it will be.4 The bookstores abound with books on this subject. These books not only claim encounters with angels, but instruct people on how to contact them. We now have a weekly program on one of the major networks entitled “Touched By An Angel.” Certainly, one might argue, this is just a story for entertainment. However, this show not only demonstrates our fascination with this topic, but a illustrates a very poor grasp of what the Bible really teaches about angels and about God along with some very definite distortions of Scripture. By these comments I do not mean to discount all the so-called encounters with angels that we occasionally read or hear about. Why? Because, as will be discussed in more detail later, angels are servants of God and described by the author of Hebrews as, “ministering spirits, sent out to render service for the sake of those who will inherit salvation?” See also Psalm 91:11 and Matthew 4:11. So certainly, for those who believe the record of Scripture, we can trust completely in the Bible’s teaching on angels and, “with a perhaps lesser degree of certainty, consider the personal accounts of reputable Christians.” 5

A good illustration of the latter can be found in an article by Sue Bohlin entitled, “The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly.” She writes: I was about thirteen years old when I had my first encounter with an angel. I was going upstairs to my room, pulling my entire weight on the handrail, when it suddenly came off in my hand. I fell backwards, head first. Halfway into a terrible fall, I felt a strong hand on my back push me upright. There was nobody there—well, nobody visible!

Angel stories are always fascinating, and in this essay I address angels: the good, the bad, and the ugly. The good angels are the holy ones, the bad angels are the evil ones, which the Bible calls demons, and the ugly angels are demons disguising themselves as good angels. These ugly angels have deceived many people in a culture that has embraced “angel mania.” 6 While many details about angels are omitted in the Bible, it is important to keep in mind three important elements about the biblical revelation God has given us.

(1) The mention of angels is inclusive in Scripture. Depending on the Bible translation searched, these celestial beings are referred to from 294 to 305 times in the Bible. References to angels occur at least 116 times in the Old Testament and 175 times in the New Testament.

(2) These many references are found in at least 34 books from the very earliest books (whether Job or Genesis) to the last book of the Bible (Revelation).

(3) Finally, there are numerous references to angels by the Lord Jesus, whom Scripture declares to be the creator of all things, which includes angelic beings. Paul wrote, “For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities (a reference to angels)—all things have been created by Him and for Him” (Col. 1:16).

It is out of the this extended body of Scripture that the study presented here will be developed. The Bible will be the authority for this study and not the speculations of men nor their experiences nor what people think sounds logical.

A Simple Definition

Angels are spiritual beings created by God to serve Him, though created higher than man. Some, the good angels, have remained obedient to Him and carry out His will, while others, fallen angels, disobeyed, fell from their holy position, and now stand in active opposition to the work and plan of God.

The Nature of Angels

ANGELS ARE CREATED BEINGS

The fact of their creation is brought out in Psalm 148. There the psalmist calls upon all in the celestial heavens, including the angels, to praise God. The reason given is, “For He commanded and they were created” (Ps. 148:1-5).

The time of their creation is never stated, however, we know they were created before the creation of the world. From the book of Job we are told that they were present when the earth was created (Job 38:4-7) so their creation was prior to the creation of the earth as described in Genesis one.

The agent of their creation is specifically stated to be Christ as the One who created all things (cf. John 1:1-3 with Col. 1:16).7

The nature of their creation is as a host or a company, simultaneously. Unlike human beings and the animal kingdom created in pairs and who procreate, angels were created simultaneously as a company, a countless host of myriads (Col. 1:16; Neh 9:6). This is suggested by the fact they are not subject to death and they do not or were not to propagate. They are nevertheless an innumerable host created before the creation of the earth (cf. Job. 38:7; Neh. 9:6; Ps 148:2, 5; Heb 12:22; Dan 7:10; Matt 26:53; Rev. 5:11; with Matt. 22:28-30; Luke 20:20-36).

ANGELS ARE SPIRIT CREATURES

(1) Angels are spirit beings.

Though at times they have been given the ability to reveal themselves in the form of human bodies as in Genesis 18:3, they are described as “spirits” in Hebrews 1:14. This suggests they do not have material bodies as we do. Hence, they do not function as human beings in terms of marriage and procreation (Mark 12:25) nor are they subject to death (Luke 20:36). Mankind, including our incarnate Lord, is “lower than the angels” (Heb. 2:7). Angels are not subject to the limitations of man, especially since they are incapable of death (Luke 20:36). Angels have greater wisdom than man (2 Sam. 14:20), yet it is limited (Matt. 24:36). Angels have greater power than man (Matt. 28:2; Acts 5:19; 2 Pet. 2:11), yet they are limited in power (Dan. 10:13).

Angels, however, have limitations compared to man, particularly in future relationships. Angels are not created in the image of God, therefore, they do not share man’s glorious destiny of redemption in Christ. At the consummation of the age, redeemed man will be exalted above angels (1 Cor. 6:3).8 This also means they are not omnipresent. They cannot be everywhere at once.

(2) All angels were created holy, without sin, and in a state of perfect holiness.

Originally all angelic creatures were created holy. God pronounced His creation good (Gen. 1:31), and, of course, He could not create sin. Even after sin entered the world, God’s good angels, who did not rebel against Him, are called holy (Mark 8:38). These are the elect angels (1 Tim. 5:21) in contrast to the evil angels who followed Satan in his rebellion against God (Matt. 25:41).9

(3) As created beings, they are mere creatures.

They are not divine and are not to be worshipped (see Rev. 19:10; 22:9). As a separate order of creatures, they are both distinct from human beings and higher than humans with powers far beyond our abilities in this present age (1 Cor. 6:3; Heb. 1:14; 2:7). But as creatures they are limited in their powers, knowledge, and activities (1 Peter 1:11-12; Rev. 7:1). Like all of creation, angels are under God’s authority and subject to His judgment (1 Cor. 6:3; Matt. 25:41).

The Types of Angels
(Good and Evil)

While all the angels were originally created holy and without sin, there was a rebellion by Satan, who, being lifted up by his own beauty, sought to exalt himself above God and rebelled. In his rebellion, he took with him one-third of the angels (Rev. 12:4). This rebellion and fall is probably described for us in Isaiah 14:12-14 and Ezekiel 28:15 embodied in the kings of Babylon and Tyre.10

Prophesying of a future angelic conflict that will occur in the middle of the Tribulation, John wrote, “And there was war in heaven, Michael and his angels waging war with the dragon. And the dragon and his angels waged war” (Rev. 12:7). In other words, there are good angels and there are evil angels.

As is clear from Revelation 12:7 and many other passages, the leader of these fallen angels (or demons as they are also called) is Satan (cf. Matt. 12:25-27). Satan, the leader of unholy angels, is a liar, a murderer, and a thief (John 10:10). As God’s great antagonist, He hates God and God’s people. Scripture teaches us that he prowls about like a roaring lion in search of those whom he may devour by his nefarious schemes (1 Peter 5:8). As an angelic being, Satan, along with his demon-like angels who operate under his authority, is supernaturally powerful and brilliant, and he uses all his powers against humanity. Not only is he a liar, a thief, and a distorer, but that which characterizes him above all else is deception. John describes him as the one “who deceives the whole world” (John 12:9). In his cunning, he disguises himself as an angel of light (2 Cor. 11:14). So, in view of this, the Apostle Paul wrote, “Therefore it is not surprising if his servants also disguise themselves as servants of righteousness . . .” (2 Cor. 11:15). More will be said on this below.

The Ministry of Good Angels

The good and loyal angels are the mighty servants of God who constantly serve him always doing His will. The Psalmist described them as, “Bless the LORD, you His angels, Mighty in strength, who perform His word, Obeying the voice of His word! Bless the LORD, all you His hosts, You who serve Him, doing His will” (Ps. 103:20-21). It is no wonder, then, that the author of Hebrews, in showing the superiority of Christ to even the mighty angels, asked (the question here demands a positive answer both in the Greek text and contextually), “Are they not all ministering spirits, sent out to render service for the sake of those who will inherit salvation?” (Heb. 1:14). The answer is “Yes!” Though God can always act independently without the use of agents, He has chosen to use both angelic and human instruments to accomplish His will. In keeping with this, over and over again in the Bible, we find angels acting as God’s servants involved in variegated ministry to people.

ANGELS PROTECT

Perhaps no aspect of their ministry to man is more talked about than the idea of a “guardian angel.” Over the years, I have often been asked, “Does everyone have a guardian angel?” While no passage specifically states that every person has a guardian angel, the Bible does teach that angels do guard or protect as Psalm 91:11 declares.

In addition, Matthew 18:10 may suggest a guardian angel because of the statement Christ made regarding little children when He said, “See that you do not despise one of these little ones, for I say to you, that their angels in heaven continually behold the face of My Father who is in heaven.” But it should also be pointed out that Psalm 91:11 is directed to those who make the Lord their refuge. The psalmist explained that no harm or disaster can befall those who have made the Lord their refuge (mahseh, “shelter from danger”; . . . ) because He has commissioned angels to care for them. angels protect from physical harm and give believers strength to overcome difficulties, pictured here as wild lions and dangerous snakes. Satan, in tempting Christ, quoted 91:11-12 (Matt. 4:6), which shows that even God’s most marvelous promises can be foolishly applied.11

Some would claim that this Old Testament passage should not be applied in modern times, but the author of Hebrews does not seem to draw that distinction. That they are ministering spirits who minister to the saints is presented as a general truth of the Bible and should not be restricted to Bible times. Also, Scripture suggests that Michael, the archangel, is particularly involved in ministry to Israel. Concerning the reference to Michael in Daniel 10:13, Ryrie writes: Michael, which means “who is like God?” (v. 21; 12:1; Jude 9; Rev. 12:7), is the special guardian of the affairs of Israel (12:1) and is designated the archangel (Jude 9). One of the chief princes shows a hierarchy among the angels (cf. Eph. 1:21). I had been left there with the kings of Persia. The good angel (cf. vv. 5-6), with Michael’s help, was left in a place of preeminence in influencing Persia. But the battle between good and evil angels over the control of nations continues (see v. 20 and Rev. 20:3).

Regarding accounts of angelic protection, Dr. Kenneth Gangel gives the following account which is similar to others I have heard about, especially with missionaries: A veteran missionary friend of mine (now retired) tells the story about a woman missionary alone on a compound in northern Africa during a riot by one of the local tribes. She hid in a closet and prayed as warriors advanced along the dusty road toward the houses where the white intruders lived. Amazingly, she never heard them. No one ever entered her building, and there was no evidence of any turmoil. My friend learned later that the warriors, who intended to kill everyone at the missionary compound and burn it to the ground, instead retreated when they found the compound guarded by tall warriors dressed in white and carrying large swords. Angels?

Another and similar account was also reported by a medical missionary at his home church in Michigan: While serving at a small field hospital in Africa, I traveled every two weeks by bicycle through the jungle to a nearby city for supplies. This required camping overnight half way. On one of these trips, I saw two men fighting in the city. One was seriously injured, so I treated him and witnessed to him of the Lord Jesus Christ. I then returned home without incident.

Upon arriving in the city several weeks later, I was approached by the man I had treated earlier. He told me he had known that I carried money and medicine. He said, “some friends and I followed you into the jungle knowing you would camp overnight. We waited for you to go to sleep and planned to kill you and take your money and drugs. Just as we were about to move into your campsite, we saw that you were surrounded by 26 armed guards.”

I laughed at this and said I was certainly all alone out in that jungle campsite. The young man pressed the point, “No, sir, I was not the only one to see the guards. My Jave friends also saw them and we all counted them. It was because of those guards that we were afraid and left you alone.”

At this point in the church presentation in Michigan, one of the men in the church jumped up and interrupted the missionary, and asked, “Can you tell me the exact date when this happened?” The missionary thought for a while and recalled the date.

The man in the congregation told this side of the story: “On that night in Africa it was morning here. I was preparing to play golf. As I put my bag in the car, I felt the Lord leading me to pray for you. In fact, the urging was so strong that I called the men of this church together to pray for you. Will all of those men who met with me that day please stand?”

The men who had met that day to pray together stood—there were 26 of them! Again we ask, were these angels? While I cannot verify this story, I have no doubt whatsoever that it could be true.

ANGELS PROVIDE

As angels were sent by God to provide sustenance for the Lord at the end of his forty days in the wilderness (Matt. 4:1-11), so he has undoubtedly on occasion done so for believers in our day. Some would include the provision of bread and water for Elijah (1 Kings 19:5-6), but this was a ministry of “the Angel of the Lord” which could simply mean, angel sent from the Lord, but it’s probably best to understand this as a reference a theophany, a manifestation of God to Elijah.12

As an illustration of possible angelic provision, Sue Bohlin gives the following account: In 1944, the penniless wife of a pastor and evangelist in Switzerland, Susie Ware prayed, “God, I need five pounds of potatoes, two pounds of pastry flour, apples, pears, a cauliflower, carrots, veal cutlets for Saturday, and beef for Sunday.” A few hours later, someone knocked on the door, and there was a young man carrying a basket, who said, “Mrs. Ware, I am bringing what you asked for.” It was precisely what she’d prayed for—down to the exact brand of pastry flour she wanted.

The young man slipped away, and even though Rev. and Mrs. Ware watched at the window to their building, the man never exited. He just disappeared (Anderson, Joan Wester. Where Angels Walk, New York: Ballantine Books, 1992, pp. 60-62).13

My wife’s sister, Connie, had an experience about 15 years ago which is recorded in Jodie Berndt’s book, Celebration of Miracles.14 Connie, and her husband Geoff, were missionaries in Africa working with Hindu people and had an opportunity to visit missionaries in India. The trip involved a 38-hour train ride from New Delhi to an orphanage in the south. They had been warned not to eat the food on the train, but they had taken very little food with them and Connie was so famished she decided to take her chances. She ate some curried mutton, and was soon extremely ill.

After arriving at the orphanage, Connie went to bed where she remained for three days. Geoff was traveling during that time and the missionaries thinking she was reacting to the miserable poverty of their surroundings thought she didn’t want to be bothered and left her alone. It was not until it was time to move on to the next orphanage that they realized she was desperately ill. They realized she needed to get to a hospital fast so they set out for the nearest one which was three hours away. About fifteen minutes into the ride Connie’s muscles began to cramp. First her fingers then her knees and toes curled inward and her facial muscles contracted so she was unable to speak. Finally she found herself paralyzed as the jeep bounced along the primitive road.

They were concerned, thinking she might not make it because she was so dehydrated. Geoff cried out to God, “please do a miracle! Do something!” Suddenly the missionary who was driving spotted a small Red Cross building just off the trail. As the jeep pulled to a stop, Connie tried to protest. She was concerned about the rampant AIDS epidemic in these remote areas and the practice of reusing needles.

As the group made their way into the building which was well lit and very clean, an Indian man, dressed in white shirt and baggy pants, greeted them in perfect English. He said, “I know what’s wrong with her. She’s dehydrated. I have some electrolytes here in this packet. This water has already been boiled.” He mixed the electrolytes with the water and handed Geoff an eye dropper encased in a plastic bag. “It’s sterile,” he said, looking right at Connie.

Geoff was given instructions to put one drop at a time in Connie’s mouth (which had locked open) until they reached the hospital. When they reached the hospital an hour-and-a-half later, her muscles had relaxed and she was able to walk into the hospital. The doctor said it was the worst case of dehydration he’d ever seen. Her body had literally sucked the water out of the cells and she’d come within hours of dying.

A few weeks later, after returning to Africa, they received a letter from the missionary couple in India. They said, “You won’t believe this, but when we returned to our village via the route we had taken to get you to the hospital, that Red Cross building was gone. There was nothing there in the place where it was.” Was this the work of one of God’s ministering spirits? One day we will know, but in the meantime, we can certainly give praise to the Lord.

ANGELS PROCLAIM GOD’S TRUTH

Throughout the Bible we find angels involved in communicating God’s truth or message as the Spirit of God directed them.This is, of course, is very much in keeping with the basic meaning of the word angel. Both the Hebrew word for angel (mal`ak,) and the Greek word (aggelos, pronounced angelos) mean “messenger.” In a number of passages we are told that angels were instruments God used to reveal His Word (cf. Acts 7:38, 53; Gal. 3:19; Heb. 2:2). But that is only half the story. Numbers of times they appeared to announce an important message. They announced the birth of John the Baptist and Jesus (Luke 1:11f, 26f; Matt. 1:20f). In the Tribulation, God will use them to announce key events (cf. Rev. 14:6). Today, however, God’s canon of Scripture, the Bible, is complete. Beware, therefore, of anyone claiming to have new revelation as given by an angel or of anyone claiming to be an angel with new revelation. Remember, Satan is a deceiver with his own angels of deceit promoting false doctrine (2 Cor. 11:1-4, 12-13; 1 Tim. 4:1).

ANGELS PUNISH OR CARRY OUT GOD’S JUDGMENTS

With their enormous God-given power, they can carry out anything God sends them to do. It is no wonder then that we find them as vital agents in pouring out the awful judgments of the Tribulation as described in Revelation and even in doing battle with Satan and his evil angels to restrict them from any access to heaven, confining them to the realm of this earth and its immediate atmosphere in the middle of the Tribulation (Rev. 12:7f). This will be done in anticipation of Satan’s bondage and final defeat as described in Revelation 12 and 20.
But such is not the picture we find in our modern day fascination with angels. As Gangel writes, “I doubt that many figurines of punishing angels found their way into gift boxes last Christmas, but the Bible doesn’t hesitate to describe this part of their activity.” 15

FINAL THOUGHTS ON THE MINISTRY OF ANGELS

Surely it is comforting to know that God may protect, provide, and encourage us is supernatural ways, but this does not always guarantee such deliverance and certainly and we should never presume on this provision of God. So having consider the various ways angels minister, we should keep in mind that God does not always deliver us from danger or supply our needs in such miraculous ways whether by angels or by His direct intervention. For His own sovereign purposes in His plan for using suffering (a tool of growth, to manifest the character of Christ, to witness to others, etc.), the opposite is sometimes His will, as life clearly illustrates and Scripture declares (see Heb. 11:36-40).

The Deception of Evil, Fallen Angels

Just as people usually do not think of the punitive ministry of angels, so here is another area that is completely ignored by the popular ideas of angels, but that it is ignored is not without reason. The reason lies in Satan’s deception and in the vacuum of man’s heart as he seeks answers apart from God and His revelation of Himself and His plan of salvation as it is revealed in the Bible. As the arch deceiver and antagonist to God, the church, and mankind as whole, Satan is the master of disguise. It is clearly his masquerade as an angel of light with his servant angels ,who also disguise themselves in one way or another, that are behind the current Angelmania in our society today. As Bohlin points out: . . . there are many books, publications, and seminars that are filled with demonic deception of the ugliest kind. Because when you start talking to angels, you end up dealing with demons.16 Sue Bohlin has an excellent discussion of what to look for to discern the activity of these demonic, evil angels. She writes:
You know you’re around “ugly angels,”or demons masquerading as angels of light and holiness, when you see or hear these terms:

1. Contacting or communing with angels.

There are now books available with titles like Ask Your Angels (Daniel, Alma, Timothy Wyllie, and Andrew Ramer, Ask your Angels, New York: Ballantine, 1992) and 100 Ways to Attract Angels (Sharp, Sally, 100 Ways to Attract Angels, Minnesota: Trust Publications, 1994). But the Bible gives neither permission nor precedent for contacting angels. When people start calling on angels, it’s not the holy angels who answer. They’re demons, disguising themselves as good angels to people who don’t know how to tell the difference.

2. Loving our angels, praying to our angels.

Some self-styled “angel experts” instruct their followers to love their angels and call upon them for health, healing, prosperity, and guidance. But angels are God’s servants, and all this attention and emphasis and glory should go to God, not His servants. God says, “I will not share my glory with another” (Isaiah 42:8). Scripture makes no mention of loving angels—only God, His word, and people. And it never tells us to pray to angels, only to the Lord Himself.

3. Instruction, knowledge, or insight from angels, particularly ones with names.

Some angel teachers are proclaiming that angels are trying very hard to contact us, so they can give us deeper knowledge of the spiritual (Karyn Martin-Kuri, in an interview with Body, Mind and Spirit Journal, May/June 1993. Also, Albright, Naomi, Angel Walk, Tuscaloosa, Alabama: Portals Press, 1990). Invariably, this “angel knowledge” is a mixture of truth and lies, and never stands up to the absolute truth of Scripture.

There are four angel names that keep popping up in the angel literature: Michael, Gabriel, Uriel, and Raphael. Michael and Gabriel are the only angels mentioned by name in the Bible. The other two show up in the apocryphal First Book of Enoch, which includes a fanciful account of the actions of these four beings. Those who report modern day angel teachings are actually channeling information from demons.

4. Special knowledge or teachings from angels.

Naomi Albright distributes teachings about the deep meanings of colors, and numbers and letters of the alphabet which she claims is “knowledge given from above and brought forth in more detail by the High Angelic Master Sheate, Lady Master Cassandra, and Angel Carpelpous, and the Master Angel, One on High.” (Paths of Light newsletter, Angel Walk F.O.L., Followers of Light, No. 24, July 1994, p. 6-10). These same beings told Mrs. Albright to stress two main teachings: first, that God accepts all religions, and second, Reincarnation.(Albright, Angel Walk, p. 77-78). These two teachings keep showing up in much of the New Age angel literature, which shouldn’t be surprising since they are heretical lies that come from the pit of hell, which is where the angel teachers are from.

Other angel teachings are that all is a part of God (pantheism); the learner is set apart from others by the “deep” knowledge that the angels give (this is a basic draw to the occult); and that eventually, the one who pursues contact with these angels will be visited by an Ascended Master or a Shining Angel (which is a personal encounter with a demon).

We need to remember that God’s angels are not teachers. God’s word says they are messengers—that’s what “angel” means—and they minister to us. God has revealed to us everything we need for life and godliness (2 Peter 1:3), so any hidden knowledge that spirit beings try to impart is by nature occultic and demonic.

5. Human divinity

The message of the ugly angels is that we need to recognize that we are one with the divine, we are divine... we are God. In Karen Goldman’s The Angel Book: A Handbook for Aspiring Angels, she says things like, “Angels don’t fall out of the sky; they emerge from within.” (Goldman, Karen, The Angel Book—A Handbook for Aspiring Angels, New York: Simon & Shuster, 1988, p. 20). And, “The whole purpose in life is to know your Angel Self, accept it and be it. In this way we finally experience true oneness.” (Ibid., p. 95).

The following bit of heretical garbage was channeled from a demon posing an angel named Daephrenocles: “The wondrous light of the Angels, from the Elohim to the Archangels to the Devas and Nature Spirits, are all bringing to you the realization that you are magnificent—you are divine now and divine first.” (These Celestial Times newsletter, Vol. 3, No. 1, Gaithersburg, Maryland, p. 4).

Much of the angel literature refers to “the angel within.” But angels are a separate part of the creation. They were created before man as a different kind. They are not within us. The movie “It’s a Wonderful Life” notwithstanding, when we hear a bell ring it does not mean that an angel is getting his wings. Nor do good people, especially children, become angels when they die. We remain human beings—not angels, and certainly not God.

What our culture needs in response to the angel craze is strong discernment built on the foundation of God’s word. We need to remember, and share with others, three truths about angels:

1. The ministry of holy angels will never contradict the Bible.

2. The actions of holy angels will always be consistent with the character of Christ.

3. A genuine encounter with a holy angel will glorify God, not the angel. Holy angels never draw attention to themselves. They typically do their work and disappear.

It’s very true that many have “entertained angels unaware” (Hebrews 13:2). But we need to make sure we’re entertaining the right kind of angels!17

Some Warnings
(Things to Do and Not to Do)

In addition to the above warnings and in view of the deceptions of Satan, we need to be on our guard. In this regard, here are a number of things that I would like to suggest.
NEVER WORSHIP ANGELS

As pointed out in the introduction to this study, everywhere we find angels mentioned in the Bible, the reference to angels is incidental to some other issue. They are not the primary subject of the passage. God’s love and grace is. When they are mentioned, it is always in order to inform us further about God, what He does, and how He does it. This very fact should teach us that not only are angels not the focus, but they should certainly not be worshipped.

In two places in the book of Revelation, John was so awed by the revelation he had received from God through an angel, a very glorious creature, that he bowed down to worship the angel. Revelation 19:10 And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said to me, “Do not do that; I am a fellow servant of yours and your brethren who hold the testimony of Jesus; worship God. For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.” And then again in Revelation 22 we are told:

Revelation 22:8-9 And I, John, am the one who heard and saw these things. And when I heard and saw, I fell down to worship at the feet of the angel who showed me these things. 9 And he said to me, “Do not do that; I am a fellow servant of yours and of your brethren the prophets and of those who heed the words of this book; worship God.”

We told not to worship angels, but why? First, they are but “fellow servants” with believers called upon to serve the Lord. Then he was told to “worship God.” Angels are powerful and awesome in many ways, but, like us, they are only creatures and servants of the living God who alone deserves our worship. This means we don’t pray to them or trust in them, even though God may use them as our guardian. Our trust is to be in God, not angels. They minister at His bidding.
Remember, the church at Colossae had been invaded by false teachers who were teaching a false humility and the worship of angels, claiming special mystic insights by way of visions in connection with their worship of angels (Co. 2:18). This was demonic because it was usurping the preeminent place and sufficiency of Christ as Savior and Lord. The claim was, He is not enough for salvation and spirituality. What you need is to worship angels, etc.

DO NOT PARTICIPATE IN ANGEL GIMMICKRY

Closely associated with the worship of angels, but in a more subtle way, is all the angel gimmickry going on in our culture today. Sometimes this is not just a matter of collecting and enjoying angel figurines much as someone would collect and enjoy figurines and pictures of eagles. Regarding this, Gangel has a word of advice: Of course there is nothing wrong with enjoying angel figurines on the coffee table as long as they do not become icons that somehow replace our dependence upon God’s Word and the role of the indwelling Holy Spirit in our lives.18

DO NOT BECOME CRITICAL OF THE REPORTS OF ANGELS

When we hear of reports of angels, it is only natural for us to be skeptical, but and there is the need for a certain amount of skepticism, what Gangel calls “healthy skepticism.” The reasons a healthy skepticism is needed are the deceptions of Satan referred above and the spiritually bankrupt condition of our culture and its willingness to accept anything but the truth.

The gullibility of people today is due in part to pendulum swings of society. Society had swung from the gross mystical speculations of the middle ages to the rationalism of the late 1800s and early 1900s. Now due in part to the failure of rationalism, the vacuum that naturally occurs in the minds of people, and the rise of demonism and the occult in these last days, the pendulum has swung back to mysticism seen so prominently in the New Age movement, the occult, and in the cults.

So belief in Satan, demons and angels is more and more common place, not because people are believing the Bible, but because of the rise of their spiritual emptiness. Angels have become an easy substitute, a handy compromise to the reality of the Living God as He is revealed in Scripture. When asked “Do you believe in angels?” Jamal Mashburn, star forward of the Dallas Mavericks, responded, “Yes. For me it is like an inner voice that tells me what to do and what not to do, where to go and where not to go. It’s somebody like God that protects and cares for me” (Dallas Morning News, 18 December 1994).

Why not? God seems so distant and austere. Angels seem so friendly.19 On the other hand, angels are the ministering spirits of God and He can send them to anyone whom he pleases. I have never seen an angel or had an experience where I was sure an angel was involved, but I do believe many reports are true.

A good friend of ours who has gone through a whole series of very difficult health problems told me last Sunday that at one point he was so low that he’d given up hope of ever getting well again. During the night a nurse came into his hospital room to check his IV and she said to him, “You seem to be really down and are without hope, aren’t you?” He responded with, “Yes, I am.” She knelt down, took his hand, and prayed for him. Afterward, his spirits picked up and he quickly began to improve physically. He never saw this nurse again, though he asked about her and watched for her. He told his doctor about this, who happened to be a Christian, and he asked my friend if he had considered that this might have been an angel. Was this angel? Perhaps. We simply don’t know, but it certainly could be.

In addition, we need to avoid the critical spirit that questions and belittles the claims of others, especially those who do not know the Scripture. Laughing at or belittling their claims will only close the door to opportunities to witness and point them to the truth of the Gospel and the Bible.

SOME POSITIVE THINGS TO DO

First, when confronted with claims of angels about which we are skeptical, let us seek ways to use these claims to show interest in the person and to engage them in discussion about the realities of the Savior or the truths of God’s Word.

Second, let’s be thankful to God for the ministry of angels and for those reports that do not contradict Scripture and may very well be genuine cases of angelic ministry. Even though we may not be able to validate that it was an angel, we can and should certainly praise God for the aid or encouragement experienced, as with my friend in the hospital.

Finally, let’s know what the Bible teaches about God, Jesus Christ, salvation, true spirituality, and the ministry of angels that we might not fall for the satanic counterfeits that seek to cause people to bypass the sufficiency of the person and work of Jesus Christ. The book of Colossians is an excellent commentary on this.

Gangel closes his article on angels with the following fitting comment:

So you’ve never seen or heard an angel? Be patient—I guarantee it will happen. Like John we’ll all someday see and hear “the voice of many angels, numbering thousands upon thousands, and ten thousand times ten thousand.” With them we will praise the Savior singing, “Worthy is the Lamb, who was slain, to receive power and wealth and wisdom and strength and honor and glory and praise!” (Rev. 5:11-12).20

1 The following is a short study on angels in view of the present day fascination with angels. It will be followed by an in depth study on the doctrine of angelology, the study of angels as it is developed in the Bible. S

2 Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, 1983, p. 434.

3 “Kindred Spirit,” a magazine published quarterly by Dallas Theological Seminary, Summer 1995, pp. 5-7.

4 Gangel, p. 5.

5 Gangel, p. 7.

6 Sue Bohlin, “The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly,” Probe Ministries at http://www.probe.org. Probe is an excellent Christian resource and I highly recommend it.

7 The Son’s Creation includes “all” things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible. These indicate the entire universe, both material and immaterial. A highly organized hierarchy of angelic beings is referred to with the word “thrones” (qronoi), “powers” (kuriothtes), “rulers” (arcai), and “authorities” (exousiai). This not only indicates a highly organized dominion in the spirit world of angels, but shows that Paul was writing to refute an incipient form of Gnosticism that promoted the worship of angels in place of the worship of Christ (cf. Col. 2:18). In this, Paul demonstrates superiority and rightful place of worship as supreme (cf. Eph. 1:21; 3:10; 6:12; Phil. 2:9-10; Col. 2:10, 15).

8 Paul Enns, The Moody Handbook of Theology, Moody Press, Chicago, 1996, electronic media.

9 Charles C. Ryrie, Basic Theology, Victor Books, Wheaton, IL, 1987, electronic media.

10 The terms and descriptions given there certainly go far beyond that of any human monarch. Further, other passages clearly teach us that there are often angelic or demonic forces behind the reign of human kings or kindgoms (cf. Dan. 10; and Eph. 6:10-12).

11 The Bible Knowledge Commentary, OT, John F. Walvoord Roy B. Zuck, Editors, Victor Books, 1983, 1985, electronic media.

12 Regarding the mention of “the angel of the LORD” in Genesis 16:9, Ryrie writes: “A theophany, a self-manifestation of God. He here speaks as God, identifies Himself with God, and claims to exercise the prerogatives of God. See 16:7-14; 21:17-21; 22:11-18; 31:11, 13; Ex. 3:2; Judg. 2:1-4; 5:23; 6:11-24; 13:3-22; 2 Sam. 24:16; Zech. 1:12; 3:1; 12:8. Because the angel of the Lord ceases to appear after the incarnation, it is often inferred that the angel in the OT is a preincarnate appearance of the second person of the Trinity” (Charles Caldwell Ryrie, Ryrie Study Bible, Expanded Edition, 1986, 1995, Moody, p. 27).

13 Bohlin.

14 Jodie Berndt, Celebration of Miracles, Thomas Nelson, Nashville, 1995, p. 105-112.

15 Gangel, p. 7.

16 Bohlin.

17 Bohlin.

18 Gangel, p. 7.

19 Gangel, p. 7.

20 Gangel, p. 7.