Speaking in Tongues, Part 3 of 5

Most of the NT references to the gift of foreign languages ("tongues") are found in 1 Corinthians 12, 13, & 14. The congregation at Corinth (in ancient Greece) was the most dysfunctional of all the NT congregations. Roughly 85% of the content of 1st Corinthians is corrective in nature; that is, it was written to correct (either directly or indirectly) specific, identifiable errors in belief and practice. The Corinthian believers were hindered by such things as divisiveness (1 Cor.1:10-17), carnality (1 Cor.3:1-3), immorality (including incest; 1 Cor.5:1-13), rampant divorce and remarriage (1 Cor.7:1-16), idolatry (1 Cor.8:1-10), social snobbery (1 Cor.11:17-34), and the abuse of spiritual gifts—especially tongues.

So how do we sort out Paul's teaching on tongues? Well, in 1 Corinthians 14, the KJV translators wisely made a distinction between an "unknown tongue" (singular, referring to gibberish) and "tongues" (plural, referring to coherent, foreign languages). They supplied the word "unknown" (in italics) in contexts where they understood that Paul was talking about unintelligible, nonsensical speech. They never connected "unknown" with tongues in the plural (that is, real foreign languages). I personally think it's unfortunate that this distinction has been lost in our modern translations (although, admittedly, it's an editorial and not a translational issue).

The singular "tongue" refers either (1) to ecstatic utterance or gibberish, or (2) to a singular, specific earthly language (for instance, today we would say "the English language," not "the English languages"), depending on the context. The plural "tongues," however, found in Chapters 12, 13, & 14, always refers in these chapters to genuine foreign languages. Paul encourages the gift of foreign languages; but he discourages any "unknown tongue," especially in public meetings. Here's how the distinction between "tongue" and "tongues" helps us decipher Paul's meaning in these chapters:

• 1 Cor. 12:10 — Here the word is plural. "Tongues" and "interpretation of tongues" are both listed as gifts from the Spirit given "for the profit of all" (v. 7). Remember that the ancient world was much more provincial than today's world. Most people never traveled more than a few miles from their birthplace and spoke only local dialects (of which there were hundreds across the Roman Empire). The gift of languages was an indispensable tool in carrying out the Great Commission.
• 1 Cor.12:28 — "Varieties of tongues," or foreign languages—again, plural. If tongues was the language of heaven, it wouldn't come in different varieties.
• 1 Cor.12:30 — "Do all speak with tongues?" Not everyone should expect to receive the gift of languages. Gifts are distributed among members of the Body (v. 12) according to each person's special calling and function (vv. 14-26). The gift of languages was mainly for evangelism and was therefore for the benefit of unbelievers. Prophecy, on the other hand, was for the benefit of believers (14:3-4).
• 1 Cor.13:1 — Paul talks here about "the tongues of men and of angels." This doesn’t necessarily make a distinction between the languages that men and angels speak. We use languages to communicate. The multiplicity of earthly languages is a consequence of God's judgment on humankind at the Tower of Babel (Gen. 11:9). Angels communicate with us in these languages. Whenever an angel speaks in Scripture, it's always in an earthly language (e.g., Gen. 21:17; Zech. 1:14; Rev. 8:13, 10:9).
• 1 Cor.13:8 — He says here that the miraculous gifts are (1) inferior to love and (2) impermanent. Prophecies (in the sense of divinely-imparted truths and/or foreknowledge) will "fail," tongues (plural; that is, divinely-enabled speech in foreign languages) will "cease," and knowledge (that is, according to Hodge, the “gift correctly to understand and properly exhibit the truths revealed by the apostles and prophets”) will "vanish away." Remember that when Paul wrote these words (around AD 55), the NT didn't yet exist in its final form. The only Bible they knew was the OT. Can you imagine being put in charge of a group of believers who've never seen a NT? You can see the problem—and that's why their leaders needed supernatural endowments and revelatory gifts of the Spirit to help them protect, teach, and nurture the flock. What Paul is saying here is that love is permanent, but the miraculous gifts (including tongues) will stop either when the NT is finalized ("that which is perfect has come," v. 10) or when the Lord returns (some commentators say the latter view better reflects the meaning of the Greek teleios, or "perfect").
• 1 Cor.14:2 — This is Paul's first use of the word "tongue" (singular) in this discussion about the use and misuse of spiritual gifts. He says that gibberish (or ecstatic utterance) is something only God could decipher, so it's better to prophesy in a language that people understand (see v. 1).
• 1 Cor.14:4 — Paul says if someone speaks in an unknown "tongue" (again, singular), he's not building up the other brothers and sisters in the congregation. Instead, he's only building up himself (and possibly attracting attention to himself), which Paul discourages.
• 1 Cor.14:5 — He says the gift of prophecy (i.e., spontaneous promptings to speak out boldly and declare God's truth) is greater than the gift of foreign languages and should have precedence in their public meetings. An exception, he says, is when an interpreter is present. In that setting, with a translator, the entire congregation can be edified through a message or teaching in a foreign language.
• 1 Cor.14:6 — Speaking in foreign languages (plural) is of limited value unless it's accompanied by corresponding teaching, prophecy, knowledge, or revelation (we'll define the latter term later) in whatever language the hearers understand.
• 1 Cor.14:9 — When we speak in a tongue (singular; that is, unintelligible utterance or gibberish), we are essentially "speaking into the air." That is, no one understands it and it accomplishes nothing.
• 1 Cor.14:13 — This is an exception to our rule that the singular "tongue" refers to unintelligible utterances. In this instance, Paul uses the singular word "tongue" because he's referring to someone who speaks in a singular foreign language (which would have made the plural, if he had used it here, grammatically incorrect). His point is that when we speak in a foreign language it should be interpreted so the hearers can benefit.
• 1 Cor.14:14 — "For if I pray in a tongue [singular], my spirit prays, but my understanding is unfruitful." The fact that Paul speaks in the first person here doesn’t mean that he spoke in gibberish any more than my saying, "If I rob a bank, I go to jail" means I committed the crime. This becomes clear in the next verse, where he says it's better to pray "with the spirit" and "with the understanding" (v. 15), than to have one without the other.
• 1 Cor.14:18 — Paul says, "I thank my God I speak with tongues more than you all." The Apostle traveled extensively, covering much of the first-century Roman Empire during his three (or possibly four) missionary journeys. He was well educated and no doubt knew several languages by training (at the minimum, Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic) and may have exercised the gift of tongues to speak in other languages, as well.
• 1 Cor.14:19 — He says he would rather speak five understandable words than 10,000 words in an unknown tongue (singular). This is self-explanatory.
• 1 Cor.14:21 — Paul quotes here from Isaiah 28:11, where "another tongue" is the language of the Assyrians—an earthly language. Just as God spoke words of warning to unbelieving Israel through people who spoke a foreign language (Assyrian), the NT gift of foreign languages is also a sign to unbelievers. It’s intended to get their attention.
• 1 Cor.14:22 — Again, Paul contrasts the gift of foreign languages ("tongues," plural) with the gift of prophecy. Tongues is a sign to unbelievers (see the notes on 12:30 and 14:21 above), but prophecy is for believers, who are predisposed to receive God's truth.
• 1 Cor.14:23 — If an unbeliever comes into the congregational meeting and hears everyone speaking spontaneously and simultaneously in foreign languages, he might wonder if he’s stumbled into an insane asylum. But if everyone prophesies instead, the spontaneous proclamation of God’s message (although, again, that message is primarily directed to believers) may nudge that outsider toward a personal relationship with the Lord (vv. 24-25).
• 1 Cor.14:26 — There's a certain synergy that occurs when the various components of a public meeting complement each other. That is, someone sings a song, then another person offers a teaching from Scripture. If unbelievers are present, someone may share the Good News in the visitors' native language (provided that an interpreter is present so the whole group knows what's being said). In this verse, "tongue" is singular not because they're speaking gibberish, but because “each one” is speaking (that is, in one language at a time). Paul here says there might also be a "revelation" from someone as the Spirit of God begins peeling back layers of the proverbial onion and uncovering deeper applications of the truth of His Word. (The Greek word for "revelation" simply means to uncover something.)
• 1 Cor.14:39 — Paul says, "Do not forbid to speak with tongues." Evidently, some people in the Corinthian congregation were fed up with the confusion caused by people who were trying (without success) to speak in tongues (but only gibberish was coming out). They were ready to ban the practice altogether. Paul admonishes them, however, saying that they should allow the exercise of the legitimate gift of tongues. In other words, don't throw out the baby (the gift of speaking foreign languages) with the bathwater (a nonsensical tongue).

Speaking in Tongues, Part 2 of 5

Now we come to our analysis of the tongues phenomenon. Due to time and space limitations, this will be a condensed study.

1. There are two types of speaking in tongues—glossolalia and xenoglossia.

The term glossolalia (from two Greek words meaning "tongue" and "speak") refers to the phenomenon of ecstatic or unintelligible speech. Practitioners of glossolalia typically assert that they are either (1) speaking to God or worshiping Him in a heavenly language or (2) delivering a message directly from God to people here on earth.

Xenoglossia (lit., "foreign tongue") or xenolalia ("foreign speech") refers to a gifting from God that enables a believer to speak in a foreign language that he/she has never learned. It would be like me going to Germany and sharing the Gospel with someone in flawless German (which I have never studied), or going to Africa and speaking in some other language that I don't know.

Which came first? According to the biblical text, xenoglossia (foreign languages) was first. Does this mean that glossolalia (unintelligible utterance) was a later attempt to conjure up the original, biblical gift? Is it a counterfeit of the original? We cannot answer this question with absolute certainty because Paul does not specifically make such a connection between the two; however, it does seem to fit the biblical data. What we know for sure is that xenoglossia came first and Paul, in his first letter to the Corinthians, commends it; at the same time, however, he was wary of the practice of glossolalia and clearly tried to steer the early believers away from it.

Interestingly, even the founder of the modern tongues movement, Charles Parham (1873-1929), originally taught that the biblical gift of tongues was foreign languages. He established a Pentecostal Bible school and some of his early students traveled to foreign countries with the intention of using the biblical gift of tongues to share the Gospel with non-English speakers. These abortive forays into the mission field ultimately ended in failure. They tried to speak in tongues, but only gibberish came out—and there were no converts. Bewildered and disillusioned, they returned to the US and tried to regroup. However, Parham's ministry waned in later years amidst reports of sexual misconduct and allegations that he had ties to the secretive and racist Ku Klux Klan.

2. Tongues-speaking is mentioned in three books of the NT: Mark, Acts, and 1 Corinthians.

• The reference in Mark includes "new tongues" (Gk., glossais kainais) in a list of "signs" that "will follow those who believe" (16:17). Proponents of glossolalia say this refers to ecstatic speech as a manifestation of God's power. Proponents of xenoglossia, however, would say it refers to a supernatural gift whereby believers, as they take the Good News of Yeshua into the world, are enabled to speak in languages that are "new" (that is, unknown) to them. (If I suddenly started speaking in German, as I mentioned earlier, that would certainly be a "new" language to me.) Note that this verse in Mark occurs in a context where it's talking about carrying out the Great Commission (vv. 14-18), which, in my view, tips the interpretation toward xenoglossia. Also, the Greek word kainos means "new" in the sense of "unused" (see Bauer's A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, p. 394). Here, it’s the idea of speaking in a language one has never used before.

• There are three references in Acts, all of which are xenoglossia:
• Acts 2:4 — The Holy Spirit enables the 12 apostles to preach the Good News in the numerous languages of the thousands of people who were gathered in Jerusalem for the celebration of Shavuot (or Pentecost). Luke specifically mentions people from 15 different nations (vv. 8-11) and says they all "heard them speak in his own language" (v. 6).
• Acts 10:44-46 — This is the passage where God uses an object lesson to show Peter and his messianic Jewish brethren from Joppa that the new believing community (the ekklesia, or "called out ones") would include both Jewish and Gentile believers. Peter and the others had come from Joppa to visit the house of a Gentile God-fearer named Cornelius. When Peter shared the Good News with the Gentiles in Cornelius’ house, the Holy Spirit came upon them and they spoke "with tongues" (v. 46), just like the Jewish believers had experienced in Jerusalem a few years earlier (Acts 2). We know it wasn’t gibberish not only because it followed the pattern of Pentecost, but also because there were people present who understood that they were glorifying God. As a result, the sometimes-cliquish Jewish believers clearly saw that God was doing something new—and it would also include non-Jews who adopted the grace-based faith of Abraham and its fulfillment in Yeshua the Messiah (see Romans 4:2-16).
• Acts 19:5-6 — After baptizing a dozen or so OT believers (that is, followers of John the Baptizer) in Ephesus, Paul lays hands on them and when they receive the Holy Spirit, they begin speaking in tongues (foreign languages) and prophesying (that is, speaking out spontaneously and praising God; cp. 10:46, 11:15).

Speaking in Tongues, Part 1 of 5

From time to time, people write to us and ask about speaking in tongues.We've all witnessed the following scene (or something similar to it)—whether on TV, the Internet, or in person. A flashy, well-rehearsed evangelist is pacing back and forth across the stage, preaching to the faithful while clutching a microphone in one hand and his "sweat rag" in the other.

Suddenly, without warning, he breaks out in a strange language: Shanda da malaweesa nokimba ma da shalawanda. He loosens his tie before continuing: Shunda da da ma shunda, tonda, da da na munda! The crowd whoops and hollers with approval. They believe they have just witnessed something supernatural.

Some people say you can't be saved unless you speak in tongues. Others say you're not saved if you do speak in tongues.

So which is it? Is this phenomenon biblical or is it demonic? Is it to be pursued or should it be shunned?

Or should our position fall somewhere between those extremes?

Tongues is promoted today mainly by Pentecostal (or Charismatic) groups; and it's one of several key issues where Pentecostals have marked differences with other Bible-believing Christians.

CJF Ministries is not Pentecostal, but we have a unique connection to the Pentecostal movement.

First, a little background. The founder of CJF Ministries was a Jewish man named Charles Halff who became a believer in Jesus when he was a teenager.

When he first told his Jewish family that he believed Jesus of Nazareth was the promised Messiah of Israel, they chalked it up to a religious phase. They were hopeful that Charles would grow out of it. But a couple of years later, when they realized how serious he was, both parents (who had been divorced for some time and lived separately in Tulsa and San Antonio) banned him from their homes and said they never wanted to see him again.

Their response was not altogether unpredictable. After all, the Halffs were well-known in the Jewish community in San Antonio. In fact, they had been one of 44 founding families of Temple Beth El in 1874. So when young Charles made his profession of faith in Jesus, it was, quite frankly, embarrassing to his parents and other family members. An aunt offered him a large amount of money (in the form of savings bonds) if he would renounce his newfound faith. He turned it down. At age 17, Charles found himself homeless on the streets of Tulsa, carrying his earthly belongings in a cardboard box.

These events took place during a period when he had been living with his father and his uncle in Tulsa—and that's where the Pentecostal connection comes into play: an Assemblies of God (AOG) family in Tulsa, Mr. and Mrs. Luther Burnaman, heard about this homeless Jewish teenager and took him in. They not only provided him with food and shelter while he looked for a job and made the transition to his new circumstances, but they also prayed for him, encouraged him, and helped him become grounded in his faith.

Charles Halff never forgot their kindness. In fact, the daughter (Betty Burnaman Spangler, who was a little girl when he had come to live with her family in the 1940s) visited him here in Texas in 1991. They hadn't seen each other since he was a teenager, and it was an emotional reunion.

At one point, the AOG denomination wanted Charles to become a regional evangelist for Texas and Oklahoma. The offer included a car and a generous salary—and Charles, who was in his early 20s and struggling to build a ministry from the ground up, was tempted to accept it. He later said the "fly in the ointment" was the AOG's insistence that he speak in tongues. Their position back in those days was that speaking in tongues was the initial evidence of being "baptized in the Holy Ghost." That was why they felt they couldn't have a denominational evangelist who had never spoken in tongues.

Even at this early stage of his ministry, Charles had already developed the habit of "testing all things" by Scripture (1 Thess. 5:21). He had many AOG friends by this time and had preached in a number of AOG churches; so when he was challenged on the issue of tongues, he instinctively went to the Bible for an answer. After a great deal of study and reflection, he concluded that he did not agree with the Pentecostal position on tongues.

Around this same time, Oral Roberts set up a tent across the street from a church in Oklahoma where Charles was preaching in a revival. Oral was conducting healing meetings during the day, and Charles was preaching at night; so he took the opportunity to attend some of Oral's daytime services. He later said that what he observed in those meetings (that is, the theatrics and obvious crowd psychology techniques), although brilliantly executed, helped to solidify his non-Pentecostal doctrinal stance.

Some of his well-meaning AOG friends ignored his objections and even offered to teach him how to speak in tongues. They said, "Come on, Charlie—it's easy!" They instructed him to put his brain in neutral ("just let yourself go!") and repeat certain nonsensical syllables over and over until it "came naturally" (an interesting term for something that's supposed to be supernatural).

But to him, it was a matter of integrity. He didn't want to learn to speak in tongues just to appease his AOG friends—or to land a lucrative post with the denomination. It just wouldn't have been right. So he declined their offer.

Even so, he never forgot his Pentecostal friends and what they did for him in those early days. Throughout his life, he appreciated Pentecostalism's emphasis on personal holiness and spiritual fervor, even though he disagreed with several points of the movement's theology.

One of those points of disagreement, as we saw earlier, was the gift of tongues. Charles' study of Scripture led him to an understanding of the gift of tongues that differs from that of most Pentecostals.

Continued in Part 2

The Superheated Early Universe (NatGeo)

National Geographic is a well-oiled, money-making machine.

And an exceptionally profitable one, at that. NatGeo markets everything from books and magazines to DVDs and even genetic testing.

They're especially known for their award-winning photography and documentaries. The wildlife documentaries, especially, are pretty cool.

Now they even have their own television network.

I'd say NatGeo is on a roll.

Another thing they have is a Darwinian worldview. They use spectacular, breathtaking photos of far-flung regions of the universe to advance the standard Darwinian explanation for its history and origins.

I'm not a scientist, of course, so I've learned to be guarded in my pronouncements about scientific matters. We have working scientists on our mailing list who are also committed believers. In fact, one of them was a colleague of Edwin Hubble (for whom the Hubble Telescope was named) many years ago. (You may have read his story in our 2004–05 Messianic Jewish Home Calendar.) Occasionally, one of these scientists steps in to correct something I've said or written about some point of science that wasn't exactly right. They know I don't mind; in fact, I appreciate their help—and also their patience.

However, I do understand enough about these matters to know that there should be no contradiction or antagonism between the Bible and science when both are correctly interpreted. After all, God is the Author of true science. He established all of the scientific disciplines—like biology, physics, chemistry, mathematics (which has been called "the language of the universe"), and even astronomy. He created the universe with all of its seemingly infinite variety and complexity, and ordained the laws according to which it functions.

His Creation includes the micro-universe (molecules, atoms, particles, DNA, and other itty-bitty things we can't see with the naked eye) and the macro-universe (planets, stars, galaxies, nebulae, and the like—most of which are also invisible from earth without magnification). In many ways, God's Creation is an expression of His personality (Psalm 19:1-3; Rom. 1:20). It reflects the things that He values, like endless variety and individuality, beauty, creativity, purity, consistency, and order.

This is why it bothers me when I hear comments like, "I don't trust science; I just believe the Bible."

A statement like this, while well-intentioned, plays right into the hands of Darwinists because it creates a dichotomy between the Bible and science. This is exactly what they want. They want us to think that we have to make a choice between science and the Bible. They want us to think that if something is scientific, it's not biblical; and vice versa.

That dichotomy doesn't make sense to me. It's a little like saying we have to make a choice between the Mona Lisa and Leonardo da Vinci. Why can't we embrace both the creator and his creation?

Nonetheless, this is the sort of Neanderthalian thinking that goes on in some obscure corners of the Christian world: science bad, Bible good—ugh. Little wonder, then, that in pop culture, creationism is widely ridiculed as silly and empty-headed:

NatGeo reflects the scientific establishment's predominant worldview, which is Darwinism. As hard as Darwinists try to maintain a respectably objective persona, what they've actually done is set up a sort of anti-religion. It assumes that our world as we see it today is the byproduct of many aeons of random, natural processes with no divine guidance or intervention. It's a naturalistic, non-supernatural (and I would also say naive) way of looking at the world and its history. Darwin himself readily acknowledged that he had turned away from his former religious views and devised a system that essentially made God unnecessary.

Like other religions, the Darwinian anti-religion has its own priesthood (including anti-Christian fundamentalists like Richard Dawkins), seminaries (Yale and Harvard divinity schools, among others), and holy books (like Origin of Species). It even has its own dogma (materialism and natural selection), heresies (doubting the validity of materialism and natural selection), and more recently, its own eschatology prophesying how the world will end.

Furthermore, Darwinism must be accepted by faith. Facts that militate against it are simply ignored—or worse, suppressed.

The discussion about the "early universe" has been heating up (no pun intended) lately because astronomers are getting closer to seeing what they believe is the edge of our space-time universe—at a distance of roughly 15 billion light years in the Hubble Deep Field. That means (based on the assumption that everything started with a Big Bang about 15 billion years ago) we can actually "see" the aftermath of (and background radiation from) that infamous primordial explosion.

So if it's really true that we can detect light that's traveled 15 or so billion light years to reach earth, shouldn't that mean the universe is at least 15 billion years old? Well, that's the old-school Darwinian view—but let's not chisel it in concrete quite yet. Recent cosmological theories and ongoing research have opened up a whole vista of alternatives. For instance, check out “Anisotropic Synchrony Convention—A Solution to the Distant Starlight Problem” by Jason Lisle (PhD, Astrophysics), in Answers Research Journal 3 (2010), pp. 191-207. In the abstract, Dr. Lisle writes, “In particular, we find that an observer-centric anisotropic synchrony convention eliminates the distant starlight problem by reducing radially inward-directed light travel-time in the reference frame of the observer to zero. Such a convention implies that everything in the universe has an age of a few thousand years as we currently see it.”

Even more light might be shed on this by Einstein's concept of gravitational time dilation (that is, the idea that time isn't necessarily a constant because it can flow at different rates in different environments).

There are other possibilities, as well. The theoretical Einstein Rosen Bridge (dramatized in Carl Sagan’s best-selling novel Contact and later made into a movie starring Jodie Foster and Matthew McConaughey) suggests that hours, days, or even millions of earth-years might elapse in far-flung regions of the expanding universe (accessed through a "wormhole" in space-time) while only moments pass on earth.

Especially curious is the recent discovery that distant regions of the universe are moving outwardly much more quickly than had previously been thought. It's like we're on play but the outer regions of the universe are on fast-forward. The expansion of the universe is accelerating rather than slowing down.

Maybe some people shouldn't have been in such a hurry to throw out the Genesis Creation account after all. As it turns out, there are special circumstances where millions or billions of "years" might pass in far-flung regions of the universe while only hundreds or thousands of years elapse here on earth.

Who knew?

Why are we so anxious to cow-tow to unbelieving scientists whose conclusions may be tainted by unbiblical assumptions (like closed-system naturalism and uniformitarianism, for instance)? Modern science was pioneered by God-fearing people like Isaac Newton, Galileo, Rene Descartes, Francis Bacon, and Copernicus, just to name a few.

So who died and left the skeptics and unbelievers in charge of the scientific domain? I say it's time we took it back.

The more we learn about our time-space universe, the more "old school" Darwinism looks like it's just that: old and outdated.

Even now, in the 21st Century, the most profound words ever written are still these:

"In the beginning God ..." (Gen. 1:1).

What About Those "Illegal" West Bank Settlements?

I'm not going to say "I told you so" because I don't like it when people say it to me.

But I did.

In my September 4 blog entry ("Middle East Peace Talks ... Again"), I declared (with my characteristic sense of undying optimism), "The current talks are ... doomed to failure."

Before you hail me as a prophet, however, it should be noted that it didn't take a genius to figure this out.

Abbas, the Palestinian president, seems to be a nice enough guy. He looks like somebody's white-haired grandpa and I really don't believe he's a terrorist like Arafat was. But the poor guy is trying to rein in large-scale terrorist elements in his constituency. He's also going against the grain of a culture plagued with deeply-embedded anti-Semitism. He's up against wealthy and powerful anti-Israel interests who won't so much as acknowledge Israel's right to exist. I can sum it up in four words: they hate Jewish people.

You can argue and reason with these people until you're blue in the face—and they'll still hate the Jews. The Jewish people, to them, are a sub-human race that descended evolutionally from monkeys or pigs. They should be exterminated like a nest of cockroaches. That's the thinking. Palestinian children read this garbage in their grade school textbooks.

And that's not all. They tell their young people that if they end up killing themselves (say, with a strapped-on explosive device) while murdering Jewish men, women, and children, they'll get a special reward—namely, a free pass to Paradise. They're promised that the death itself will hurt no more than a "pinch." Not only that, but the martyr (shahid) can vouch for family members also to gain entrance to Paradise when they die. And if the martyr is a male, he'll also be rewarded with 70 virgins when he gets there. (Sorry, ladies, no word yet about what you get.)

Not all Palestinians believe these things, but many (and some would say most) do. You can get all the documentation you need on Palestinian anti-Israelism at the MEMRI website, including actual transcripts of Arabic sermons by the mullahs (translated into English and other languages). It's always interesting to hear (or read) what Islamic spiritual leaders are telling their congregations.

This is what Abbas is dealing with. He has to talk and act tough or the foaming-at-the-mouth elements (like Hamas) will call him soft—or even worse, irrelevant.

So it was a foregone conclusion that the peace talks would fail. The only thing we weren't sure about was what the sticking point would be. As it turns out, it's those bothersome Israeli settlements in the West Bank. That's what's about to do in the peace talks this time.

All of which leads me to something I don't understand: why can't Jewish people live in the West Bank if they want to?

We hardly ever hear anyone complain about the many Arab settlements in Israel. In fact, they're all over the place. Please don't dispute me on this. Some of my favorite restaurants are in Arab towns in Israel. They're the best ones.

So Arabs can live in Israel but Jewish people can't live in the West Bank? (Sorry, I still can't bring myself to call it "Palestine.")

What's the rationale for this? What's good for the goose should also be good for the gander.

If all the Jewish settlers pack up and move back into Israel, will the Arabs in Israel agree to relocate to the West Bank?

True, the settlers tend to be a different breed. We all know that. They are more militant than your typical, secular Israeli. But still, if you leave them alone they pretty much keep to themselves. There have been a few unfortunate episodes involving settlers over the years, but every bushel basket has a bad apple in it somewhere. After all, people are people. Like a surgeon friend told us one time, "Once I open them up, they all look the same."

But my question is still valid. If Arabs can live in Israel, why shouldn't Jewish people live in the West Bank?

Is it because these prosperous, clean, well-run Jewish settlements provide such a contrast amidst the poverty and squalor of so much of the West Bank? Or is it because these little pockets of prosperity and liberty are seen as symbols of freedoms the Palestinian people don't enjoy? Like the freedom of association, for instance, or freedom of the press, or the right to a fair trial if one is accused of wrongdoing. Palestinians have none of these freedoms (at least, not in reality).

Check out the Palestine Facts website for an interesting discussion of the term "illegal" that's often used in the press to describe the Jewish settlements.

So that's why it looks like this round of peace talks is about to fail. Hillary and George (Mitchell), I think, put forth an heroic effort. Here's a word picture for you: they gathered Netanyahu and Abbas (and their aides) around a campfire, roasted some hot dogs, sang Coombya, and asked, "Now can't we all just get along?"

Seriously, they gave it their best shot. The opening speeches were hopeful and inspiring. But colliding cultures can create chaos—and that (along with the sad fact that the Palestinian culture is so deeply anti-Semitic) also figures into what has happened here.

The Israelis represent a highly-developed, modern, largely westernized culture while many of the Palestinians are still living in the 15th century. They even make the Egyptians and Jordanians uncomfortable. Both Egypt and Jordan are fortifying their borders with Gaza and the West Bank.

Now think about that. If the Egyptians and Jordanians had as much compassion for the poor, oppressed Palestinians as liberal politicians in North America and Europe do, wouldn't they be reducing border fortifications rather than increasing them?

Really, now—wouldn't they?

These emerging, harsh realities in the Middle East only go to reinforce what we've been saying all along: the only real hope for lasting peace in that part of the world is the coming of Sar Shalom—the Prince of Peace (Isa. 9:6).

May He come soon.

One upside to all of this, however, is that the Obama Administration, the European Union, and perhaps other interested parties may now have a more realistic understanding of who the weak and unreliable partner is in these negotiations—and why these efforts persistently fail.

At least, I hope so.

Is ET Dropping by on October 12?

Almost every week, we receive a prophetic "warning" of one kind or another from someone who claims to have had "a word from God."

Sometimes these warnings are about the Rapture. Other times they're about imminent natural disasters, political happenings, or other prophetically significant events that these folks have allegedly been told (by God) to warn the rest of us about.

In some cases, these emails arrive after the fact (that is, after a predicted event has already happened—like a bridge collapse, tsunami, mudslide, or terrorist attack). The writer of the email claims to have predicted it before it happened. Forgive me, but I'm a skeptic by nature. I'm always left wondering why I didn't get the memo beforehand.

This latest warning is about a great fleet of extraterrestrial spaceships that will arrive on October 14 and "float above major world cities." Someone else had a dream that he says confirms this coming event and suggests that we need the protection of eagles and tortoises.

I'm serious. Eagles and tortoises—one million of each, in fact. This is really what they're saying.

Come on, folks; I can't make this stuff up.

So according to these people, UFOs will be floating over the world's major cities roughly a week from now. They say it's part of an elaborate "deception." Maybe someone fell asleep during an episode of ABC's "V" and subconsciously absorbed this idea by osmosis.

They claim that the whole scenario was outed by "a retired NORAD official." Hmm. I guess the air gets pretty thin up there in those Colorado mountains.

The Internet has proven to be an almost indispensable tool in missions and other areas of Gospel work. One of the downsides of the World Wide Web, however, is that any crackpot in the civilized world with a few bucks a month to spare can set up a website and broadcast his flaky prophetic theories to the world. What's equally unfortunate is that some professing believers possess so little in the way of spiritual perception or discernment. They're ready to jump on the bandwagon for whatever new theory the wind happens to blow across their path. The Apostle Paul says these folks need to grow up:

That we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting (Eph. 4:14).

The NT warns us frequently about this sort of "trickery" by certain people who want us to believe that they speak with divine authority when they are in fact deceivers. The Lord Jesus himself said that there would be a profusion of "false prophets" in the last days—and their deceptions would be so compelling and so convincing, they might "deceive, if possible, even the elect" (Matt. 24:24b).

But wait a minute. The NT also says that there will be a resurgence of supernatural gifts (specifically, prophecy, visions, and dreams) in the last days, particularly during the Tribulation (Acts 2:17-18), and possibly even before.

This means the true and the false will exist side by side—which begs the question: how can we tell a true prophet from a false one?

Fortunately, we don't have to reinvent the wheel here. The people of Israel dealt with this problem thousands of years ago. During the wilderness wanderings, their very survival hung in the balance. If the nation perished in the desert, the messianic prophecies wouldn't be fulfilled. God's plan of redemption might have been derailed (at least, in theory). So it was vital that they hear and obey God. Israel's very survival was on the line—and the devil knew it. So he did something very cunning and clever: he sent false prophets to confuse the people. The situation got so bad, evidently, that the people didn't know to whom they should listen.

Do you remember those "Where's Waldo" books? Our kids loved them. Each page was filled with hundreds or maybe even thousands of tiny, detailed images—and it really made it hard to pick out the real Waldo. This is what the devil tried to do to Israel. He cluttered up the prophetic pipeline with fake messages so the people couldn't pick out the real ones.

God moved swiftly and decisively to remedy this potentially disastrous situation. First, He decreed that prophetic deceivers should be dealt with by means of capital punishment: "But the prophet who presumes to speak a word in My name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or who speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet shall die" (Deut. 18:20).

I know we had a little fun with the UFO thing a moment ago; but now we've come to something that isn't funny. Presuming to speak for God is an extremely serious business. The Lord himself elevates it to a matter of life and death. The Lord says, in essence, "If you mislead My people, you're going to die."

The second thing He did was tell His people how they could differentiate between the true and the false: "When a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the thing does not happen or come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him" (v. 22).

How much clearer could it be? If someone claims to have a warning from God (whether he says it came through a dream, a vision, or some other form of divine revelation), and the predicted event doesn't come to pass, then that person is a false prophet and we shouldn't listen to him/her (cp. Jer. 29:8-9).

That's what God said, not me. If you disagree, feel free to take it up with Him.

The irony in all of this is that the warning about deception is itself a deception.

Some of us need to grow up and act like adults. There's enough juvenile clutter out there as it is. We don't need any more.

The New and Improved Israel, God's Timepiece

We're updating and republishing my booklet Israel, God's Timepiece. Our plan is to roll out the new edition at our prophecy conference in Branson, MO, next year (www.godisraelandyou.com). 

I originally wrote IGT in the late 1980s. Dr. Halff (the founder of our ministry who went to Heaven in November of 2000) suggested the title. A lot has changed in the world since then (the Soviet Union was still in business back in those days, if you can believe it!), so we felt it was time to revisit this important topic.

Once we started working on the rewrite, we realized that we all know a lot more about prophecy today than we did 25 years ago. And I mean a LOT. In fact, there's so much new material, we ended up tossing out the entire text of the old one and starting from scratch. The new version covers the topic much more thoroughly and makes the point with greater effectiveness.

The main point of the booklet, as you may have deduced from the title, is that the modern State of Israel can serve as a sort of prophetic "clock." By watching the Middle East, if we know what we're doing, we can gain a general idea of where we are on God's prophetic timetable.

But simply having a clock isn't enough. We have to know how to read the clock. I'm sure we all remember learning how to tell time when we were kids. We were told about the big hand and the little hand, and how their relative positions on the face of the clock pinpointed the time. If the big hand was on the 12 and the little hand was on the two, for example, we knew it was two o'clock.

Likewise, it's not enough simply to know that Israel can function as a timepiece. We have to learn how the clock functions and how to read it correctly. That's what this new booklet is about.

The booklet has two main sections. Part One of the new IGT is about prophecy in general—what it is and what it isn't. We distinguish between the extremes of (1) sensationalist date setting and (2) ignoring prophetic signs completely. Are there signs for the Rapture or is it a completely signless event? We respond to these questions in the new IGT.

We even touch on the relatively new phenomenon of Darwinian eschatology (an offshoot of the new scientific discipline of astrobiology). Yes, Darwinism is a religion in almost every sense of the word—and its high priests have developed their own system of eschatology! They agree with us that the world had a definite beginning (they call it the Big Bang) and that it will have a definite end someday—but of course, they disagree with us on when and how.

This new edition has several new charts. One compares the historical development and teachings of the three major prophetic systems: premillennialism (and its ancient forerunner, chiliasm), amillennialism, and postmillennialism. Another one is a side-by-side comparison of the two phases of the Second Coming. And a third one shows how the Eschaton (lit., "end things") fits into the overall scheme of "salvation history" (Heilsgeschichte in German)—and how this helps us understand the 2,000-year perceived "delay" in the Lord's return.

We also talk about the pre- versus post-Trib Rapture debate, concentrating on the two stages of the Second Coming (the Rapture and Messiah's coming in glory). There's even a chart that shows the dual profile of the Second Coming in the NT.

Some readers might be taken slightly aback by my rather blunt response to people who say, "When is the Lord coming back? For Pete's sake, we've been waiting for 2,000 years already!" I just said what I felt needed to be said. Next year, when you have a chance to read it for yourself, let me know what you think.

We also spend some time in IGT talking about the vast common ground we have (as biblical literalists and messianic evangelicals) with much of Orthodox Judaism. Both we and our conservative Jewish counterparts see the Bible as literally true and we both anticipate a literal coming of the Messiah. We also share a belief in a literal Kingdom on earth where the Messiah will reign from the throne of His father David in Jerusalem. The watershed issue between our two camps is the question of who the Messiah is. We believe He's been here before in the Person of Yeshua of Nazareth—and that He's coming again. Our Orthodox Jewish friends, on the other hand, say he will be a newcomer.

Part Two delves into the main thesis (about telling the time prophetically) and outlines the five prophetic convergences that come together to indicate our position on the prophetic timeline. In the military, they might call this something like "triangulation"; that is, using multiple points of reference to zero in on a target. Here we emphasize Israel's central role in future prophecy.

There are also two appendices—one showing the historical development of the modern messianic (Jewish-Christian) movement and another one documenting the United Nations' anti-Israel bias vis-à-vis its own recorded resolutions.

Roughly a third of the booklet consists of endnotes—which I think is somewhat unique. Rather than interrupting the flow of the text at various points where additional explanation was needed, we used endnotes to present the extra, explanatory material. Hundreds of hours of tedious work and research went into producing these endnotes. We're suggesting that you read the booklet twice—once without the endnotes and then a second time with them. We decided on endnotes rather than footnotes to minimize the disruption of the text. When there's a footnote at the bottom of a page, the reader is tempted to glance downward to see what it says. With endnotes, though, you have to flip back toward the end of the booklet to find the notations. It removes at least some of the distraction.

Since the booklet won't actually go to the printer until the beginning of next year (2011), there's still time to let us know if there are any particular questions or  issues you'd like us to address in the new IGT. Feel free to address your input to GHedrick@att.net.

Is Demon Possession Real?

This past weekend, we heard from a woman in Oklahoma City who says she's demon possessed and has been shunned by her family and friends. The message she left sounded like a desperate cry for help. Our pastoral staff has already set the wheels in motion to get this poor girl the spiritual assistance she needs—that is, if she really wants it.

In the meantime, however, this episode raises an issue that I think Bible-believers need to think about. What is our position on demon possession? Is it a legitimate spiritual problem or is it merely a throw-back to medieval and earlier biblical times when superstitious people thought evil spirits lurked under rocks and around every dark corner?

More specifically, the issue distils down to the following questions (and possibly others, as well). We'll take them one at a time.

1. Are demons real?

In ancient and medieval times, it was commonly believed that human beings are influenced to varying degrees by unseen spirits and forces, including "daemons." To the ancients, these spiritual entities were not usually evil. Sometimes they were seen as helpful. The physical world was animated for good or for evil by these invisible forces. Even Plato and Socrates wrote about this phenomenon.

In our enlightened age, however, secularists prefer to believe that all human behaviors and afflictions can be explained physically or chemically. There's no such thing as pure evil, we are told. Everything must have a logical and scientific explanation. But is this really true?

The Bible is our plumb line for truth—not worldly philosophies or popular mythologies. The OT (Tanakh) tells us that there's an unseen, spiritual world that is very much connected to what happens in our visible world (for example, see 2 Kings 6:14-17).

The NT confirms this. In Ephesians 6:12, the Apostle Paul outlines a hierarchy of satanic powers who fight and scheme against us: "For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities (Gk., archas), against powers (exousia), against the rulers of the darkness of this age (kosmokrataras tou skotous tou aionos), against spiritual hosts of wickedness (pneumatika teis ponerias) in the heavenly places."
 
There are over 30 references to demon possession in the Gospels. If we apply the "law of first mention," that takes us to Matthew 4:24: "Then His fame went throughout all Syria; and they brought to Him all sick people who were afflicted with various diseases and torments, and those who were demon-possessed, epileptics, and paralytics; and He healed them."

The broader category in this passage is "all sick people." Then it breaks down into finer distinctions between "diseases" and "torments"—and between people who were demon-possessed and others who were epileptics and paralytics (notice the contrast in those last two categories between people whose bodies move uncontrollably and those who can't move at all).

So yes, demons are real and what happens in the visible world can be influenced by forces at work in the unseen, spiritual realm.

However, we need to maintain our balance here. As my friend and fellow blogger John Turner (a local pastor who's on our CJFM board) pointed out recently, some people go to extremes: "Demons get blamed for a lot of things today: the demon of poverty, the demon of cancer, and even the demon of car trouble." How true!

Many years ago, when I was a pastor in Illinois, we had a young mother in our church who thought demons were everywhere. She was a sweet lady (and had her hands full with three small children), but she was a bit unbalanced when it came to the kingdom of darkness. One summer, during a church picnic, we were playing volleyball. She thought the referee made a bad call, so she threw up her hands and started verbally (and rather loudly) rebuking the devil. She was convinced that the ref's bad call was the work of the Evil One. The rest of us thought it was just ... well, a questionable call.

Again, balance is the key. C.S. Lewis wrote, "There are two equal and opposite errors into which our race can fall about the devils. One is to disbelieve in their existence. The other is to believe, and to feel an excessive and unhealthy interest in them. They themselves are equally pleased by both errors, and hail a materialist or magician with the same delight" (The Screwtape Letters). 

2. Are psychoses and other forms of mental illness sometimes mistaken for demon possession?

Yes, and very likely, vice versa.

I apologize for beating the same drum over and over—but again, balance is important here. It's wrong (and maybe even dangerous) to assume that every behavioral problem can be treated by drugs and/or medical therapies. If there's a spiritual component (like demonic influence, or guilt resulting from unconfessed sin, for example), that needs to be dealt with. Otherwise, you're treating symptoms rather than root causes.

On the other hand, I have friends who are convinced that Christians should never resort to psychological counseling or drug therapy. Their position is that virtually all psychological disorders—whether it's depression, ADHD, or whatever—have spiritual (rather than physical) causes. They are generally unwilling to entertain the possibility that the brain can malfunction in much the same way that other organs (e.g., the heart, liver, or pancreas) occasionally do.

With all due respect, I disagree. Is there something unspiritual or ungodly about having bypass surgery to correct a heart problem? Or having a kidney transplant if you need one? Or taking insulin if you're a diabetic? Of course not. Neither should we hesitate to get medical treatment for psychological or mental problems, when indicated. Depression, for example, often requires an integrated approach including counseling and medication. There have been far too many cases of Christians—including teenagers—who didn't receive proper treatment for depression and ended up committing suicide. It's a shame—and in most cases, unnecessary.

Is our culture overmedicated? I'm not a medical professional, but I think I can safely say the answer is yes, absolutely. They have a pill for everything. In some cases, it's been shown in double blind studies that placebos are nearly as effective as the drugs. This is all true. But it doesn't mean you shouldn't get professional help when you really need it.
 
3. Can a Christian be demon possessed?

This is a very old debate in Christendom. These days, many evangelicals make a distinction between possession and oppression, saying that true believers can be oppressed, but they can't be possessed. In real life, however, the distinction between the two can be largely academic. Believers I've known over the years have told me that they never experienced spiritual warfare before they came to faith in Yeshua. In many cases, they never even thought about it before. But once they were saved, the conflict began.

If you define possession as "taking ownership" of someone, then the answer is no, a true believer cannot be possessed by evil spirits. We have been bought with a price (the precious blood of the Lamb) and we therefore belong to Him (1 Peter 1:18-19). The devil can never, ever, under any circumstances take ownership of a blood-bought believer in Yeshua the Messiah (Rev. 12:11). That's one thing we can say with 100% certainty.

However, that's not to say that a believer cannot be influenced by evil spirits, or that he won't find himself in conflict with these forces at times (as we saw above in Ephesians 6:12). One of the Reformers once felt the presence of the devil so strongly, he reportedly threw a bottle of ink at him! We may sense that presence, too, sometimes. But it shouldn't intimidate us because the devil's power is very limited since he was conquered at Calvary. The only power he has over us is what we give him. He cannot force us to do anything we don't want to do. We can't use the excuse that "the devil made me do it." 

4. If we encounter a legitimate case of demon possession, how do we deal with it?

Christianity isn't for sissies. When you become a believer, you're enlisting in an army that's at war (2 Tim. 2:3). The NT tells us that we face a three-pronged attack by: (1) a world-system that's opposed to God (1 John 2:15-17), (2) the flesh (that is, our own, internal, fallen nature; James 1:13-15), and (3) the devil and his minions (1 Peter 5:8). Notice that 2/3 of the battle is not directly attributable to the devil.

However, in that other third of the cases, when it's a direct spiritual attack, these matters are best dealt with at a local church level. Pastors and elders are our God-ordained authorities in the Body of Messiah and it's their responsibility to watch over the flock of God (1 Peter 5:1-4). When church leaders discern that evil spirits are involved, it should be dealt with privately so it doesn't become a public spectacle or side-show. In the numerous NT instances where the Lord himself cast out demons, there is no indication that He announced it ahead of time or used it to attract a crowd—or that He ever did it in connection with a church/synagogue service. And I'm pretty sure He didn't take an offering afterward.

Above all, never forget: "He who is in you is greater than he who is in the world" (1 John 4:4b).

Religion: Harmful to Mental Health?

I feel your pain!

That was my first thought when I ran across the Recovering Religionists website this past weekend while doing some research online.

Their home page announces:

We are Recovering Religionists™, people who have given religion our best shot but just can’t bring ourselves to believe in virgin births, resurrections, 2,000 year old miracles and the “power of prayer.” We are recovering Baptists, Mormons, Catholics, Jehovah Wittnesses [sic], Hindus, Moslems, Lutherans, Pentecostals, Evangelicals, and more.

Just start clicking on the site's various links and you'll embark on a journey into a strange and sad universe of people who were involved in some form of religion at one time or another and later emerged from the experience embittered, disillusioned, and (very often) alone.

And yes, one of their core tenets is that religion is harmful to mental health. They say it renders us incapable of being good for its own sake (because religious people, they say, are good not just because they want to be good, but because they want to avoid the punishment for being bad). Religious people are delusional (they tend to see and hear things that other people don't see or hear) and their IQs are generally lower than their non-religious counterparts. Religion and its institutions seeks to control gullible people through guilt and manipulation. These are some of the things they say about religion.

Would it surprise you if I said they're not entirely wrong?

For instance, they say that religion is a tool for manipulation. All you have to do is take a look at church history and you'll see that religious authorities (both Catholic and Protestant) have, at various times, manipulated the masses for their own, selfish purposes. In Catholicism, for instance, when finances were tight in medieval times, "indulgences" became a common fund-raiser. Although the Catholic Church never officially said that people could pay money to be forgiven of their sins, that is nonetheless how many Catholics came to view indulgences. Pope Leo X was quick to capitalize on this trend and encouraged the selling of indulgences all across Europe to pay for a building project. A monk named Tetzel shamelessly marketed indulgences in Germany with the skill of a snake-oil salesman. The abuse of indulgences was one of Luther's main objections in his 95 Theses, in fact, and helped provide momentum for the Protestant Reformation. Even the Vatican eventually recognized the problem (better late than never, I suppose) and Pope Paul VI revised the Church's teaching in 1967 to downgrade indulgences and make them purely voluntary (Indulgentiarum Doctrina [AAS 59, 1967, nn. 5-24]).

Even today, Protestantism has its own religious con artists. Just flip through the religious channels on TV and you'll see any number of slick operators plying their trade and hawking everything from anointing oil to Jordan River water to prayer cloths. Some of them even promise a hundred-fold return on any amount of money you contribute (that is, if you send one of these guys a dollar, you'll get $100 back—such a deal!). It's pure manipulation and religious hucksterism at its worst.

No wonder some people think religion is bogus. If all you've ever been exposed to is this this superficial, self-absorbed, commercialized, slick-talking version of what passes for "Christianity" in our culture, then one logical conclusion (albeit not the only one) is that the whole thing is a fraud.

What these folks are missing, however, is that true Christianity is not so much a religion as it is a relationship. Religions are man-made—and yes, evil people have used them to manipulate the masses—or worse.

But religious abuses are not God's doing. It's sad that He often gets blamed for things He didn't do. How ironic that people end up blaming the existence of evil (and its consequences) on the most benevolent, loving, and just Being in the entire universe: Elohim (God).

It shows how inventive and self-deceived human beings can be. If we can't find a religion that suits our fancy, we just concoct one. Seriously, now—it's not that hard to do. L. Ron Hubbard, a science fiction writer back in the 1950s, did it. He created Scientology, almost instantly gained a following of enthusiastic followers, and today it claims to be one of the fastest-growing religions in the world (although some experts insist that the list of ex-Scientologists is almost as long as the list of active Scientologists). Current followers of Scientology reportedly include Hollywood personalities like Tom Cruise, John Travolta, and Anne Archer. Greta Van Susteren of Fox News is also a practitioner, along with Priscilla and Lisa Marie Presley (ex-wife and daughter of the late Elvis Presley), among others.

Again, religions per se are human inventions. But the Christian faith is something entirely different. It breaks all of the rules of religion-making because on almost every meaningful level, it says just the opposite of what we instinctively want to hear. For instance, it begins by telling us that we're sinners in need of redemption. We would much rather hear something to the effect that we're fundamentally okay and just need some fine-tuning or a new perspective. Then it tells us we must die (to self) before we can truly live (Gal. 2:20). Who wants to die? And worst of all, it says the Bible is the true and authoritative Word of God and anything that contradicts it is false. How narrow-minded! Most people are more comfortable with a more enlightened, inclusive approach.

The Bible's message is radical. It goes against the grain of many of our natural inclinations and preferences. But the reason it works is that it addresses our main problem: the God-shaped vacuum in our hearts (to borrow Pascal's phrase). It explains how we can connect with the Creator of the Universe in a personal and meaningful way through His Son, Jesus the Messiah:

For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved (John 3:16-17).

And guess what? Once you get a good, healthy dose of the real thing, you'll never have to "recover" from it.

I promise.

You, Me, & the Temple of God

Over the weekend, Rob Styler, our director of missions, sent me this link to "The New America" blog site: click here

What's particularly interesting about that blog entry is that it was written by Zach Duke, who went on our August 2010 "Live the Land" student tour to Israel. There were around 40 participants this year and by all accounts, it was a great experience for everyone who went.

Some of the things we try to do on these student tours include:

1. Exposing young believers from North America to Israeli culture and customs;
2. Educating them about the Jewish roots of their Christian faith;
3. Familiarizing them with the geopolitical situation in the Middle East;
4. Allowing them to interact one on one, as much as possible, with Israelis; and
5. Helping them understand the need (and biblical basis) for Jewish evangelism.

Zach obviously "got it."

He's not only smart, and a capable writer, but he also absorbed and processed the information we presented on the tour in precisely the way we like to see it happen. We know it's not easy. It's a lot of information to process in such a short time.

Zach's blog makes us feel like we're doing some good on these tours. It also speaks well of the quality of teaching on the tours. The teachers on our 2010 LTL tour were Rob Styler and Doug Robins (a member of the pastoral staff at Bandera Road Community Church here in San Antonio).

Let me hasten to say that Zach's blog isn't the only feedback we've had from tour participants. We've received numerous notes and emails from other people who went on the tour. We appreciated their words of gratitude and encouragement, too. Several of them mentioned how the Lord has used their "Live the Land" experience to make His Word come alive for them when they read it. So Zach wasn't the only one who got the point.

By the way, these student tours are the brainchild of my son Michael, who is currently a student at TEDS (Trinity Evangelical Divinity School) in the Chicago area. He went on his first tour to Israel in March of 1993, when he was almost nine years old, and he's been back at least once almost every year since. When he was in high school, he came up with the idea of having tours designed specifically for young people. They enjoy activities like rappelling down the cliffs at Qumran, hiking, bicycling, parasailing on the Red Sea, and even white-water rafting—in addition to the normal, touristy things that most tours do.

They also like to deliver care packages to Israeli military bases, where they sometimes have opportunities to spend time with the soldiers, who are typically around the same age as the young people who go on our tours. One year (when I was hitching a ride with the group), we arrived at the base late in the afternoon, after their work day was over. When they found out who we were, a couple of soldiers brought out their guitars. They started playing and singing, and the music attracted more soldiers. They sat around with our kids and taught them some traditional Hebrew songs. It was quite a sight.

This year, our group connected through JFK Airport in New York and flew from there to Tel Aviv on El Al Israel Airlines.

Planning is already underway for the 2011 tour, so please pray for wisdom and guidance for Michael, Cindy Castillo, and the rest of the team as they deal with the details.

While you're at it, pray that next year's group will "get it" like Zach and the other 2010 tour participants did.

And as always, "Pray for the peace of Jerusalem: 'May they prosper who love you'" (Psalm 122:6).