Category Archives: The Church

Is the premise of the “Before the Wrath” DVD biblical?

Comparison of some teachings promoted by the “Before the Wrath” DVD with what the Bible actually says.

(And why “After the Wrath” seems to make more sense)

by Dick Lentz

(All Scriptures cited come from the NIV2011 version of the Bible) 

I recently watched a DVD titled, “Before the Wrath.” It is a high-quality video produced and distributed by Ingenuity Films that compares the meal Jesus and His disciples shared the night before He was crucified with a marriage betrothal. It then suggests that Jesus’ second coming and the rapture of the Church will be comparable to a Galilean wedding.

Although I liked one of the premises this video reinforces, that Jesus’ followers will one day be gathered so they can be with Him, an event many Christians call “The Rapture,” I found the Scriptural basis for some of its conclusions to be questionable. I will point out some of them in the post below and at the end note why I feel it’s important to note these.

What meal was Jesus celebrating?

“Before the Wrath” alleges that Jesus’ disciples would have associated the meal they shared with Jesus the night before He was crucified with a traditional Galilean betrothal ceremony. And so, one of the things that first needs to be established is the type of meal the Bible says that Jesus actually shared with His disciples that evening.

Here is what Matthew wrote about this:

17 On the first day of the Festival of Unleavened Bread, the disciples came to Jesus and asked, “Where do you want us to make preparations for you to eat the Passover?”

18 He replied, “Go into the city to a certain man and tell him, ‘The Teacher says: My appointed time is near. I am going to celebrate the Passover with my disciples at your house.’” 19 So the disciples did as Jesus had directed them and prepared the Passover. (Matthew 26:17-19)

There is no question when noting the portions underlined in the passage above that the meal Jesus shared with His disciples the night before He was crucified was a Passover dinner.

Passover was a reminder of what God did to free the Israelites from slavery in Egypt. The account of this is found in Exodus 11 — 13. After Pharaoh refused to let the Israelites go, God informed Moses that He was going to cause the firstborn male of every family and their livestock to die. The Israelites would be spared however if they killed an unblemished one-year-old lamb, spread its blood on the doorposts of their homes, then cooked and ate the meat of the lamb along with some unleavened bread. God then told them to remember this event annually during a celebration called “Passover” to commemorate the day the angel of death passed over those who trusted that the blood of a lamb would save them.

Jesus compared what was going to happen to Him to a Passover lamb. Just as the shedding of a Passover lamb’s blood spared those who trusted that this was sufficient to save their firstborn, so would the shedding of His blood spare those who trusted that this was sufficient to secure their eternal salvation.

Here is what Matthew wrote about this:

26 While they were eating, Jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.”

27 Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. 28 This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. (Matthew 26:26-28)

When Jesus’ disciples looked back at this, Jesus wanted them to remember what He did so that they could be forgiven of their sins – so that their sins could in effect be “passed over.”

The early Christians understood this and celebrated something we now call “communion” in order to be reminded of the significance of what Jesus did to secure their forgiveness. Here’s what Paul wrote about this:

23 For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes. (1 Corinthians 11:23-26)

Neither Jesus nor Paul associated the meal Jesus shared with His disciples the night before He was crucified with a wedding betrothal. The meal was simply a reminder of the “passing over” that occurred when the angel of death spared the firstborn of those who trusted in the blood of the Passover lamb and that a similar “passing over” would occur to those who trusted in the blood of the Lamb of God for their forgiveness.

What covenant was Jesus’ establishing?

“Before the Wrath” not only suggests that the meal Jesus shared with His disciples the night before He was crucified was comparable to a Galilean wedding betrothal, it proposes that the covenant Jesus was referring to when He shared the cup of wine with His disciples was one a bridegroom would offer to his bride on the night of their formal engagement.

Most accounts of the meal Jesus shared with His disciples do say that Jesus associated the cup of wine He offered to His disciples with a covenant. Matthew for example wrote this:

27 Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. 28 This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. (Matthew 26:27-28)

Luke added “new” to this association when he wrote this:

20 In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you. (Luke 22:20)

And Paul wrote this when reminding the Corinthians what they were to remember when they celebrated the Lord’s Supper:

23 For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes. (1 Corinthians 11:23-26)

I believe the “new covenant” both Jesus and Paul were referring to comes from this passage in Jeremiah:

27 “The days are coming,” declares the Lord, “when I will plant the kingdoms of Israel and Judah with the offspring of people and of animals. 28 Just as I watched over them to uproot and tear down, and to overthrow, destroy and bring disaster, so I will watch over them to build and to plant,” declares the Lord. 29 “In those days people will no longer say,

‘The parents have eaten sour grapes,
and the children’s teeth are set on edge.’

30 Instead, everyone will die for their own sin; whoever eats sour grapes—their own teeth will be set on edge.

31 “The days are coming,” declares the Lord,
when I will make a new covenant
with the people of Israel
and with the people of Judah.
32 It will not be like the covenant
I made with their ancestors
when I took them by the hand
to lead them out of Egypt,
because they broke my covenant,
though I was a husband to them,”
declares the Lord.
33 “This is the covenant I will make with the people of Israel
after that time,” declares the Lord.
“I will put my law in their minds
and write it on their hearts.

I will be their God,
and they will be my people.
34 No longer will they teach their neighbor,
or say to one another, ‘Know the Lord,’
because they will all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest,”
declares the Lord.
For I will forgive their wickedness
and will remember their sins no more
.” (Jeremiah 31:27-34)

The above was prophesied at a time when the Jews were under national judgment for their corporate sin. The city of Jerusalem was under siege and would soon be destroyed by the Babylonians. God was promising that there would come a day when the Jews would no longer be judged as a nation for their sins but instead would only be judged individually for them. God said that there would come a day when He would make “new covenant” with His people (vs. 31), a day when He would “forgive their wickedness” and “remember their sins no more” (vs. 34).

Hebrews 10 refers to this passage in Jeremiah when it describes the effect of Jesus’ death. After noting that the sacrifices the priests performed were insufficient to forgive sins as, “It is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins” (vs. 4), it says, “We have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all” (vs. 10), as well as, “For by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy” (vs. 14).

This portion of Hebrews 10 concludes with this:

15 The Holy Spirit also testifies to us about this. First he says:

16 “This is the covenant I will make with them
after that time, says the Lord.
I will put my laws in their hearts,
and I will write them on their minds

17 Then he adds:

“Their sins and lawless acts
I will remember no more.”

18 And where these have been forgiven, sacrifice for sin is no longer necessary.

The verses underlined above are direct quotes from Jeremiah 31:27-34. What this indicates is that the new covenant Jeremiah spoke of was put into effect when Jesus was crucified. Based on this, it’s my conclusion that the covenant Jesus was referring when He shared the “cup of the covenant” with His disciples was not a marriage covenant but was the new covenant of forgiveness God promised through Jeremiah.

Who is the bride of Christ? And when will His marriage take place?

Although I believe that the comparison of the meal Jesus’s shared with His disciples the night before He was crucified to a Galilean wedding betrothal to be questionable, one of the main points of “Before the Wrath” is to offer support for the belief that the Church, who many consider to be the bride of Christ, will be taken from the world (raptured) before the period when God exercises His wrath upon those who have rejected Him.

There are a couple reasons I find this conclusion flawed. First, as I noted in a previous blog titled, “The Church may not be the bride of Christ,” the Bible does not explicitly state anywhere that the Church or that Christians in general are the bride of Christ. There is ample evidence however that the bride of Christ is Israel. Here are some verses I cited in support of this:

1 Then I saw “a new heaven and a new earth, ”for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea. 2 I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband. (Revelation 21:1-2)

9 One of the seven angels who had the seven bowls full of the seven last plagues came and said to me, “Come, I will show you the bride, the wife of the Lamb.” 10 And he carried me away in the Spirit to a mountain great and high, and showed me the Holy City, Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God. 11 It shone with the glory of God, and its brilliance was like that of a very precious jewel, like a jasper, clear as crystal. 12 It had a great, high wall with twelve gates, and with twelve angels at the gates. On the gates were written the names of the twelve tribes of Israel. 13 There were three gates on the east, three on the north, three on the south and three on the west. 14 The wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb. (Revelation 21:9-14).

The passage above identifies Jesus’ bride as the city of Jerusalem. But I don’t believe that this means that the city itself is Christ’s bride. I believe it is who the city represents. And it seems to me that who the city represents is indicated by what is on its gates: it is the twelve tribes of Israel (vs. 12).

The conclusion that Jerusalem, which the above passage says is Jesus’ bride, represents the Jews is consistent with this statement Jesus made a few days before He was crucified:

37 “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing. 38 Look, your house is left to you desolate. 39 For I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.’” (Matthew 23:37-39)

Jesus wasn’t accusing the city of Jerusalem of killing the prophets in these verses. He was accusing the people of the city – the Jews – of doing so. And He was indicating that He would not see them again (the Jews, not the city), until they acknowledged that He is Lord, an event that seems to be fulfilled when Jesus finally sees Jerusalem, His bride, coming down from heaven in Revelation 21:2.

A second reason I find the conclusion that the Church will be raptured “Before the Wrath” to be questionable is noting when Jesus’ wedding takes place as well as when His bride is revealed.

Here’s where Jesus’ wedding feast is mentioned in the book of Revelation:

6 Then I heard what sounded like a great multitude, like the roar of rushing waters and like loud peals of thunder, shouting:

 “Hallelujah!
For our Lord God Almighty reigns.
7 Let us rejoice and be glad
and give him glory!
For the wedding of the Lamb has come,
and his bride has made herself ready.

8 Fine linen, bright and clean,
was given her to wear.” (Revelation 19:6-8)

What occurs in these verses comes right before the final destruction of the end-time “beast” and those who follow him, events described in Revelation 19:11-21. But note that though the time for the wedding has begun and the bride is ready that the Lamb does see His bride “coming down from heaven” until the events prophesied in Revelation 21:1-14 take place. This lends support for my conclusion that Jesus will not join with His bride, whomever it may be, until nearly all the events in the book of Revelation have occurred, including those typically associated with the final period of wrath.

Rather than joining with His bride “Before the Wrath”, it seems to me that Jesus will not meet His bride until after it.

Why it matters

Even though “Before the Wrath” may be biblically questionable, does it matter? After all, the intent of the video is to strengthen our confidence that Jesus will return someday so that we can be rescued from the trials and tribulations of this world. And that’s a good thing. It’s also consistent with Jesus’ promise that a time will come when He will wipe every tear from our eyes, a time when “there will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain” (Revelation 21:4). But the means in which “Before the Wrath” reinforces this comes at the expense of what I consider to be some essential biblical truths.

The first truth that gets lost in the midst of comparing the meal Jesus shared with His disciples the night before He was crucified with a Galilean betrothal is the actual purpose and effect of Jesus’ death. Jesus died so we could be forgiven for our sins. When we celebrate communion by eating the bread and drinking from the cup of the covenant, we do so to remember why Jesus was crucified. Doing so for any other reason takes something away from the message of salvation and what Jesus did to secure our redemption. Believing when we celebrate communion that we are drinking from a wedding cup is not only questionable; it takes our focus off of the explicit things both Jesus and Paul said we are to remember.

The second truth that gets lost is Jesus’ warning that Christians will experience, witness, or be affected by nearly all of the events described in the book of Revelation. I wrote about this in a prior post titled, “Warning to Christians: We may be here for the duration,” a post based on the parable of the wheat and weeds in Matthew 13:24-30. In that post I noted Jesus’ statement that the good seed and the bad seed – Christians and non-Christians – will share the same field until the moment the harvest takes place. This means that both groups will experience the same trials, troubles, and tribulation until the very last moment. Spending too much time hoping for an early or quick release from this world can result in unrealistic expectations and a lack of preparation regarding the difficulties the Bible says we are destined to experience as we wait for Jesus to return.

The third truth that I believe gets lost is Jesus’ heart for the unsaved. At one point “Before the Wrath” depicts a groom entering his wedding banquet with his bride and guests and after doing so, shutting the door behind him and refusing to let anyone else in. Although it’s true that someday it will be too late for the un-redeemed to come to Jesus, one thing I’ve found consistent in Scripture is Jesus’ constant and passionate desire to seek and save the lost. A more accurate image of this is not the closed door of a wedding banquet depicted in “Before the Wrath” but the open door found in this verse:

20 Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with that person, and they with me. (Revelation 3:20)

I believe that the door is always open for the lost to be redeemed. And I also believe that this door will not be closed until the very last moment, after most of the events prophesied in the book of Revelation have taken place.

Here’s a verse that seems to confirm this:

6 Then I saw another angel flying in midair, and he had the eternal gospel to proclaim to those who live on the earth—to every nation, tribe, language and people. 7 He said in a loud voice, “Fear God and give him glory, because the hour of his judgment has come. Worship him who made the heavens, the earth, the sea and the springs of water.” (Revelation 14:6-7)

The event prophesied above occurs near the end of what I consider to be the second account of the return of Jesus in Revelation, right before the final harvest –  before the final “hour of judgment” (vs. 6). What this indicates to me that Jesus will do everything He can to bring the fallen into His realm, even up to the last moment of this world’s life. And if it’s Jesus’ desire to continually keep the door open to the lost – to keep asking to be invited in – to always be looking for ways to share the Gospel to the unsaved – perhaps that ought to be our focus as well.

And that is how I see it today

The Church may not be the Bride of Christ – Revelation 19:6-9; 21:9-14

When Jesus sees His bride coming from heaven, who His bride may actually be.

By Dick Lentz

6 “Hallelujah!” For our Lord God Almighty reigns 7 Let us rejoice and be glad and give him glory! For the wedding of the Lamb has come, and his bride has made herself ready. 8 Fine linen, bright and clean, was given her to wear.” (Fine linen stands for the righteous acts of the saints.) 9 Then the angel said to me, “Write: ‘Blessed are those who are invited to the wedding supper of the Lamb!’” And he added, “These are the true words of God. (Revelation 19:6-9, NIV)”

For years I’ve been told by various pastors and teachers that in the above passage, the Bride of Christ – the wife of the Lamb – is the Church. The picture they sometimes present when doing so is a wedding where Jesus, the Bridegroom, is waiting anxiously at an altar for His Bride, the Church, a bride clothed in white, walking towards her future husband. It’s been explained that this is a metaphor of how much Jesus longs for the day when the Church – all those who have made a commitment to follow Jesus – has perfect fellowship with Him, something that will occur only in the end-times when believers are unencumbered by the trials, travails, and temptations of this world.

I used to believe that this was true – that the Bride of Christ is the Church.  What caused me to question this were these verses:

2 I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband (Revelation 21:2, NIV).

 9 One of the seven angels who had the seven bowls full of the seven last plagues came and said to me, “Come, I will show you the bride, the wife of Lamb.” 10 And he carried me away in the Spirit to a mountain great and high, and showed me the Holy City, Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God. 11 It shone with the glory of God, and its brilliance was like that of a very precious jewel, like a jasper, clear as crystal. 12 It had a great, high wall with twelve gates, and with twelve angels at the gates. On the gates were written the names of the twelve tribes of Israel. 13 There were three gates on the east, three on the north, three on the south and three on the west. 14 The wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb. (Revelation 21:9-14, NIV)”

What struck me about these verses is how “un-church-like” they were. For the most part, they include symbols more commonly associated with the Jews – the Israelites – than with the Church. Jerusalem was the capital of the Jewish nation and the city where a temple was built so that God could dwell in the midst of His chosen people; the names written on the gates of the city are the names of the twelve tribes of Israel; and though the twelve apostles whose names are written on the foundations of the wall were among the early leaders of the Church, all twelve of them were Jews, and their initial converts were almost entirely from the people of Israel. Nothing in these verses has a “Gentile” flavor to it, and nothing in them explicitly refers to the Church.

And so, who is the “Bride, the wife of the Lamb”? Is it the Church?  Or could it be someone else?

Jesus does have a Bride

The first thing to establish is that Jesus does or will have a Bride. The verses in Revelation 19:6-9 and 21:9-14 noted above support this. So does the following:

28 “You yourselves can testify that I [John the baptist] said, ‘I am not the Christ but am sent ahead of him.’ 29 The bride belongs the bridegroom. The friend who attends the bridegroom waits and listens for him, and is full of joy when he hears the bridegroom’s voice. That joy is mine and is now complete. (John 3:28-29, NIV)”

John was acknowledging in the above that though Jesus is a Bridegroom that he, John, was not His Bride but instead was a friend of the Bridegroom.

Here’s another passage that supports this:

14 Then John’s disciples came and asked him [Jesus], “How is it that we and the Pharisees fast, but your disciples do not fast?” 15 Jesus answered, “How can the guests of the bridegroom mourn while he is with them? The time will come when the bridegroom will be taken from them; then they will fast. (Matthew 9:14-15, NIV)”

This passage not only identifies Jesus as a Bridegroom, it also indicates that there will be others attending His wedding as well, others described as “guests of the bridegroom.” The passage then tells us who these guests are; they are or will be His disciples – those who are followers of Jesus.

But the question for us is not if Jesus will be a Bridegroom but is instead if He is, who will His Bride be?

Is the Church the Bride of Christ?

There are verses in the New Testament that suggest that the Church could be the Bride of Christ. Here is a passage that is frequently cited to support this:

 21 Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.                25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless (Ephesians 5:21-27, NIV).

 Here’s another:

2 I am jealous for you with a godly jealousy. I promised you to one husband, to Christ, so that I might present you as a pure virgin to him. 3 But I am afraid that just as Eve was deceived by the serpent’s cunning, your minds may somehow be led astray from your sincere and pure devotion to Christ. 4 For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough … (2 Corinthians 11:2-4, NIV)

Although these verses seem to be describing Jesus as husband and the Church as His wife, none of them explicitly state that this is so. It seems to me that Paul is simply describing in Ephesians 5:21-27 how husbands and wives should treat each other; it is not saying that the marriage of a man and woman is a picture of the relationship between Jesus and the Church. And though Paul does use the word “husband” in 2 Corinthians 11:2 to describe what a believer’s relationship with Jesus ought to be like, his purpose in doing so was to voice his fear that some were being led astray by false teachers preaching a different Jesus or a different Gospel.

There are in fact no verses in the Bible that actually say, “The Church is the Bride of Christ.” This association comes from commentators and teachers, not from the actual words of Scripture.  It is not explicit; it is inferred. That doesn’t mean that it isn’t valid. It could be true even if not explicitly stated.  But it does present some problems if it is so. Consider these verses for example:

  • Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it (1 Corinthians 12:27, NIV).
  • And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills everything in every way (Ephesians 1:22-23, NIV).

These verses state  that the Church is the Body of Christ. But if this is so, then how can the Church also be the Bride of Christ? It seems to me that the Church cannot be both; it is either one or the other. In this case, I lean towards the association that is explicitly stated rather than the one that is inferred.

But there is another problem with concluding that the Church is the Bride of Christ.  I noted these verses earlier:

7 “For the wedding of the Lamb has come, and his bride has made herself ready. 8 Fine linen, bright and clean, was given her to wear.” (Fine linen stands for the righteous acts of the saints). (Revelation 19:7-8, NIV)”

To conclude that the Bride in this passage is the Church requires one to also conclude that believers aren’t yet ready to be received by Jesus and that something else has to be done to make the Church acceptable to Him before the wedding – that some “righteous acts” (vs. 8) are required for the Church to be made complete. But this would be in conflict with what is found in this passage:

8 For it is by grace that you have been saved, through faith — and this not from yourselves, it is a gift of God — 9 not by works, so that no one can boast (Ephesians 2:8-9, NIV).

If some acts of righteousness need to be performed in order for the Church to be ready to be presented to Jesus, then its relationship with Him is no longer based on faith alone. If however the Church’s relationship with Jesus is based entirely on faith but works are required to make the Bride ready for her Bridegroom, then the Bride of Christ cannot be the Church; it has to be someone else.

Could Israel be the Bride of Christ?

There is a much stronger case that the Bride of Christ is the people of Israel. Their relationship with God is compared frequently in Scripture to the one between a husband a wife. Consider these for example:

  • For your Maker is your husband — the Lord Almighty is His name — the Holy One of Israel is your Redeemer; he is called the god of all the earth (Isaiah 54:5-6, NIV).
  • “Return, faithless people,” declares the Lord, “for I am your husband. I will choose you — one from a town and two from a clan — and bring you to Zion. (Jeremiah 3:14, NIV)”
  • No longer will they call you Deserted, or name your land Desolate, but you will be called Hephzibah [which means “my delight is in her”], and your land Beulah [which means “married”]; for the Lord will take delight in you, and your land will be married. As a young man marries a maiden, so will your sons marry you; as a bridegroom rejoices over his bride, so will your God rejoice over you (Isaiah 62:4-5, NIV).
  • I will betroth you to me forever; I will betroth you in righteousness and justice, in love and compassion. I will betroth you in faithfulness, and you will acknowledge the Lord. (Hosea 2:19-20, NIV)”
  • “The time is coming,” declares the Lord, ”when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. It will not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they broke my covenant, though I was a husband to them. This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time,“ declares the Lord. “I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. No longer will a man teach his neighbor, or a man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest,” declares the Lord., “For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more. (Jeremiah 31:31-34, NIV)”

If you look up these verses and note their context, you’ll find that they are referring in some cases to God’ past relationship with Israel and in others to His future relationship with them following a time when they have fallen away from Him. They suggest that God did have and perhaps always has had a relationship with Israel that is similar to the relationship between a husband and wife. And even though Israel frequently committed spiritual adultery by serving other gods, there is no indication in Scripture that God ever divorced the nation of Israel or its people or that He ever will. God promised that He would always remain faithful to Israel even if the people of Israel were unfaithful to Him.

God’s promise in this regards is confirmed in the following passage:

35 This is what the Lord says, he who appoints the sun to shine by day, who decrees the moon and stars to shine by night, who stirs up the sea so that its waves roar — the Lord Almighty is his name: 36 “Only if these decrees vanish from my sight,“ declares the Lord, ”will the descendants of Israel ever cease to be a nation before me.” 37 This is what the Lord says: “Only if the heavens above can be measured and the foundations of the earth below be searched out will I reject all the descendants of Israel because of all they have done,“ declares the Lord (Jeremiah 31:35-37). 

What’s interesting is that the writer of Hebrews quotes from portions of Jeremiah 31:31-34 when describing the effects of Jesus’ sacrificial death:

16 “This is the covenant I will make with them after that time, says the Lord. I will put my laws in their hearts, and I will write them on their minds.”17 Then he adds: “Their sins and lawless acts I will remember no more.” 18 And where these have been forgiven, there is no longer any sacrifice for sin (Hebrews 10:16-18, NIV). 

And so, who is at the wedding?

Based on what I’ve noted above, It seems to me that it is the people of Israel and not believers in the Church who are the Bride of Christ.  If this is so, then the celebration described in Revelation 19:6-9 could be the result of the joy Jesus and the guests at His wedding express when the people of Israel finally acknowledge Jesus as their Savior.

Where is the Church in this? If it is the not the Bride of Christ, is it at the wedding supper of the Lamb at all?  I believe that it is. But instead of the Church being the Bride of Christ, I believe based verses noted earlier that the Church is either the Friend of the Bridegroom (John 3:28-29) or one of His guests (Matthew 9:14-15).

I believe that Jesus – the Lamb at the wedding supper in Revelation 19:6-9 and the Bridegroom mentioned in other passages – is patiently waiting for the arrival the Bride promised to Him centuries ago – a Bride that has to be made ready for Him but who will someday be clothed in white, fully prepared to be received into the arms of the One who has always longed to have a relationship with her.

As I see it today, that Bride – the Bride of Christ – is the people of Israel.

(For another article  regarding on my views of Israel, check out my post titled “Who are the rightful heirs of the land of Israel?”)

Are you presuming to be a teacher? – James 3:1

Ways you may already be teaching and why you need to be careful if you are!

By Dick Lentz

While attending a small group Bible study a number of years ago, I became concerned when one of the participants started defending an interpretation of a passage that I knew was very different than the writer’s original intent. I don’t recall what the specific verse was or what he was saying about it at the time. But I noted that several in the group seemed to be persuaded by his arguments even though the content of what he was sharing may have been biblically weak, perhaps because of the skill in which he articulated his viewpoint. After the study I cautioned my friend that he needed to be careful about what he shared as others could be influenced by what he said. I then quoted this verse to support my advice to him:

“Not many of you should presume to be teachers, my brothers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly (James 3:1, NIV).”

My friend responded by saying that since this verse is addressing only those who are in an official position of a pastor or teacher and that he was neither, it didn’t apply to him. Our pastor seemed to support my friend’s conclusion regarding this passage when his sermon some time later focused on this same passage and the pastor said, “Since most of you aren’t teachers, I guess this verse has little to do with you.”

This may be too limiting.

I think that my friend’s understanding of this verse as well as my pastor’s, that it applies only to those who feel called to teach or are in an official position of a pastor or teacher, is too limiting. I believe that this verse is actually addressing anyone who presumes to teach in any fashion, and it seems that there are a lot of situations where we do this without being in the actual position of a teacher.

One of those situations is in parenting. Consider for example these verses:

Fix these words of mine in your hearts and minds; tie them as symbols on your hands and bind them on your foreheads. Teach them to your children, talking about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road when you lie down and when you get up (Deut. 11:18,19).”

In this passage, God is commanding parents to make the spiritual nurturing of their children a full-time profession. Parents do this first by embracing God’s Word in their own hearts and minds and then by teaching it through their lives and their words. Parents may not feel called to be teachers in this context but God says that they are.

Parents are not the only ones called to teach. Jesus said that all Christians are supposed to be teachers. An example of this is  found in the instructions Jesus gave His disciples prior to His ascension to heaven:

”All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you (Matt. 28:18-20).”

This command is part of what some call, “The Great Commission.” God is asking all those who have made a commitment to Jesus to teach others the importance of obeying Him. Being a teacher in this respect is not an option. It’s an obligation.

A similar sentiment is found in this verse:

“Though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you the elementary truths of God’s word all over again. You need milk, not solid food (Hebrews 5:12).”

I believe that the writer of Hebrews was voicing in this verse his disappointment that some Christians had not matured enough spiritually to become the teachers God wanted them to be. The implication of this verse is that all Christians are called to teach what God says is true. The Christians the writer was addressing were apparently faltering in this role, perhaps because they themselves didn’t understand what is true from God’s perspective.

It ignores the context of the passage.

Pointing out areas where we are all called to be teachers doesn’t explain the full implications of James 3:1, however. The stumbling block in understanding this verse may be the phrase, “Not many of you should presume to be teachers.” Expanding the application of this verse to include situations where we are commanded to teach doesn’t address circumstances where we aren’t commanded to teach but are presuming to do so anyway. It also ignores the content of the next eleven verses which have little to do with teaching in general but instead are noting the effect of our words. Here are those verses:

We all stumble in many ways. Anyone who is never at fault in what they say is perfect, able to keep their whole body in check.

When we put bits into the mouths of horses to make them obey us, we can turn the whole animal. Or take ships as an example. Although they are so large and are driven by strong winds, they are steered by a very small rudder wherever the pilot wants to go. Likewise, the tongue is a small part of the body, but it makes great boasts. Consider what a great forest is set on fire by a small spark. The tongue also is a fire, a world of evil among the parts of the body. It corrupts the whole body, sets the whole course of one’s life on fire, and is itself set on fire by hell.

All kinds of animals, birds, reptiles and sea creatures are being tamed and have been tamed by mankind, but no human being can tame the tongue. It is a restless evil, full of deadly poison.

With the tongue we praise our Lord and Father, and with it we curse human beings, who have been made in God’s likeness. 10 Out of the same mouth come praise and cursing. My brothers and sisters, this should not be. 11 Can both fresh water and salt water flow from the same spring? 12 My brothers and sisters, can a fig tree bear olives, or a grapevine bear figs? Neither can a salt spring produce fresh water.

The focus of James 3:2-12 is on the danger of not weighing our words carefully and how harmful what we say can be to ourselves as well as to others. It’s warning about the damage that can be caused by a tongue that is out of control.

The effects of an uncontrolled tongue include the following:

  • It can reveal an area of life the speaker is stumbling in themselves, a part of their lives they are not able to keep under control.
  • Just like a rudder on a ship, it can affect the direction a person takes, whether that be for better or for worse.
  • Just like a forest fire that is started by small spark, it (an uncontrolled tongue) , though being very small, can cause great damage.
  • It reveals what is in one’s heart, and some of what is found there is not good.

It seems to me that all of James 3:1-12 including the first verse is addressing those who don’t weigh their words carefully and who tend to say what they want and to speak their minds without considering the consequences. It’s warning those who think they are off the hook because they aren’t in the official role of a pastor or teacher that they won’t get a “Get out of jail free” card if they speak rashly and what they say harms others or leads someone astray.

Be careful about every word you utter.

I believe that we presume to be a teacher anytime we share an opinion and that opinion has the potential of influencing someone else’s thinking or to affect their actions. And I cannot think of very many times when what we say cannot have an effect on someone else  Nothing we say can truly be considered trivial or inconsequential. Nearly all our words can affect what people think, can alter how others act, and can change what people feel about themselves, about others, and about God.

It seems to me that this verse is saying that we need to be careful about every word we utter and that we won’t get off the hook or get a free pass simply because we’re not in the official role of a teacher or a pastor.

That’s my understanding of this passage, at least as I see it today.

What the two or three coming together in Jesus’ name must do if they want Jesus to be with them – Matthew 18:20

When two or three are gathered in His name, what Jesus said they should be doing.

By Dick Lentz

I’ve always been a bit bothered but what some people say that Matthew 18:20 means, a verse that reads,

“For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them (NIV).”

My first exposure to this verse occurred nearly four decades ago. I was involved in a ministry to servicemen at the time and every Sunday the leaders of the ministry would gather as a group in our small prayer room to pray for the ministry and for each other. There were typically about ten to fifteen of us who gathered for prayer and the head of the ministry, our pastor, would invariably begin our prayer time by quoting this verse from Matthew and then reminding us that we could pray with confidence knowing that Jesus was in our midst.

Is this about praying in groups?

At first I thought this was pretty neat. Jesus was with us as we prayed and that was a pretty big deal. And why was He with us? According to our pastor, it was because we were gathered as a group praying in Jesus’ name. But at some point I began to question how our pastor was using this verse. It seemed that he was saying that because we were praying in a group that our prayers had more power than if we were praying for the same things individually. “if Jesus is only around when I’m praying in a group,” I thought as I considered this, “where is He the rest of the time? And if Jesus bestows some special blessing on those participating in sessions of group prayer, does that mean that when I pray alone that my prayers are less effective or that Jesus might not even be with me?”

I then remembered that Jesus said this regarding personal prayer:

“When you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done is secret, will reward you (Matthew 6:6).”

This verse seemed to indicate that when I prayed, I ought to find a private place where I could commune with God and that I could expect to be rewarded for doing so. This contradicted what our pastor was saying; that it’s when we pray as a group that we are assured of Jesus’ presence and any special blessings that come with it.

Is this about church discipline?

I came to a different understanding of what Matthew 18:20 means a number of years later when I went to a Christian conference on how to resolve interpersonal conflicts and heard the speaker explain what he thought the context of this verse was. He said that it was intended to be the capstone of a set of instructions given in Matthew 18:15-17 regarding how to deal with individuals in our churches who have sinned against us. These verses read,

“If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, threat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.”

The speaker said that if a brother in Christ sins against us, we are first to try to resolve it privately. If that doesn’t work, we should bring in one or two others who can confirm that this person sinned and are willing to confront that person with their sin. If that doesn’t resolve the issue, the person should be brought before the entire church and the issue explained so that the whole assembly can confirm who is at fault. If the errant party still refuses to repent, they should be asked to leave the church. The congregation is then to have nothing to do with the one who sinned. They are to treat this person like a non-believer, a pagan, or like tax collectors, who were hated by the Jews in Jesus’ day. The speaker concluded by saying that when two or three are gathered in Jesus’ name to confront a brother with his sin, that is where Jesus will be, overseeing and endorsing a process that could result in throwing an unrepentant sinner out of the church.

Is this about forgiving others?

I initially thought that what this speaker said about Matthew 18:20 made sense. I had even seen it become the written policy of some congregations if they found a need to discipline a member of their church. But I was a bit troubled by this understanding of the passage. For one thing, when I did see it applied this way, it rarely if ever resulted in the person repenting. It just humiliated them. It seemed to contract Paul’s statement in Romans 2:4 as well, a verse that says that it’s God’s kindness that leads sinners to repentance, not His harsh treatment of them. It also failed to take into consideration Peter’s question following Jesus’ instructions,

“Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother when he sins against me? Up to seven times (Matthew 18:21)?”

Peter seemed to be responding directly to Jesus guidance regarding how to deal with a brother who has sinned against a fellow believer. If this is so, then the outcome if that person refuses to repent is not to sever our relationship with them or to ostracize them but is to forgive them. Perhaps it’s when we’re willing to forgive a brother for his sins even if he refuses to repent where we’ll find Jesus in our midst blessing what we’re doing.

Is this about protecting the rights of the accused?

As I thought about this a bit more, I began to think that Jesus’ statement that He is with us when we’re dealing with the sins of a brother could be more of a warning than the endorsement of a process for confronting and disciplining those who have sinned. What Jesus may have been saying is that we need to tread lightly if our brother has sinned against us and we think we need to confront them with their sin. Matthew 18:15 indicates that this needs to initially be done discretely.The purpose of involving more people in the process is not to increase the number accusing the errant party, however, but is perhaps to make sure we’re on firm footing when doing so.

This makes sense when you consider Jesus’ reference in verse 16 to a principle established at the time of Moses; that when accusing a brother of something, it must be confirmed by two witnesses. According to instructions given to Moses by God, no one could be put to death for murder on the word of one witness alone (Numbers 35:30) and no one could be convicted of any crime or offense unless at least two witnesses confirmed it (Deuteronomy 19:15). The purpose of this was to protect people from unsubstantiated accusations against them. The passage in Deuteronomy continues in verses 16-21 by describing a process of escalation, one very similar to the one Jesus proposed, where the matter could be taken before the priests and judges in office at the time. The purpose of this was make sure that the accuser was telling the truth, however, not to lay further blame on the accused. If it was found that the one making the accusation was lying, those judging the issue were told,

“Do to him [the accuser] as he intended to do to his brother [the accused]. You must purge the evil from among you (vs. 19).”

What was evil in this context was not what the accused may have done but instead was making an unsubstantiated accusation.

By referring to this principle in Matthew 18:16, Jesus may have been warning those who feel compelled to confront a brother with his sin that Jesus will be there in their midst making sure that the rights of the accused are protected. Those who are guilty of falsely accusing a brother of sin or who do so without adequate evidence will not get Jesus’ approval for their actions and could face His condemnation.

Is this about seeking and restoring the lost?

I still felt that didn’t have a complete understanding of the context of Matthew 18:20, however. I understood that I needed to be on firm ground if I felt the need to accuse a brother in Christ of sin. But with what attitude did I need to approach this?

I thought I found the answer to this in verses further back in the chapter:

“What do you think? If a man owns a hundred sheep, and one of them wanders away, will he not leave the ninety-nine on the hills and go to look for the one that wandered off? And if he finds it, I tell you the truth, he is happier about that one sheep than about the ninety-nine that did not wander off. In the same way your Father in heaven is not willing that any of these little ones should be lost (Matthew 18:12-14).”

If the lost in this passage includes those who have sinned against us, then Jesus may be telling us that our goal in confronting them is not to beat them up emotionally or spiritually for what they’ve done wrong or to cut them off from the flock (our churches) if they wander away. It is to continually look for ways to bring them back into fellowship with the rest of the flock. Perhaps that is where Jesus is, in those situations where we know a brother has sinned and choose a path that restores them to fellowship rather than one that drives them away.

Is this about unlimited and unconditional forgiveness?

This understanding of Matthew 18:20, that its context could be how to restore a brother who has sinned against us and the importance of forgiving them, is consistent with the parable of the unmerciful servant that follows in Matthew 18:21-35.

This passage begins with Peter asking how often he needed to forgive a brother who sinned against him. Jesus responded by saying,

“I tell you, not seven times, but seventy-seven times (vs. 22).”

I don’t believe that Jesus was giving Peter a fixed number of times that he was required to forgiven someone and that when Peter had forgiven that person that many times, he could quit doing so. It’s more likely that Jesus was saying that our forgiveness of others should be limitless.

Jesus then told the story of servant who owed his master ten thousand talents, a sum equivalent today to millions of dollars. His master threatened to throw the servant and his family in jail until the debt was repaid. The servant begged to be given more time to repay the debt and his master took pity on him and canceled the entire debt.

Later, the servant encountered someone who owed him 100 denarii, equivalent today to just a few dollars. The servant grabbed and choked the one who owed him so little and demanded that the debt be repaid. The debtor asked for patience, much like the servant asked of his master, but instead of getting pity from the servant was thrown in prison. When the master heard how unforgiving the servant had been after being shown such great mercy,

“In anger, … [he] turned him [the servant] over to the jailers to be tortured, until he should pay back all he owed (vs. 34).”

Jesus concluded with these words,

“This is how my heavenly father will treat each of you unless you forgive your brother from your heart (vs. 35).”

That almost put the icing on the cake in terms of my understanding of this passage. Where two or three are gathered in Jesus’ name to forgive others to the same extent that they’ve been forgiven, that is where Jesus will be.

Is this about treating pagans, tax collectors, and sinners the way that Jesus treated them?

If this is what the passage is about, forgiving others to the same extent that we’ve been forgiven, then what did Jesus mean when He said,

“If he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector (Matthew 18:17).”

I continued to struggle with this final piece of the puzzle until I remembered how Jesus treated pagans, sinners, and tax collectors. Jesus didn’t cut himself off from them but instead deliberately sought ways to connect with them. When Jesus traveled to Jericho for example, He chose to stay at the home of a Zacchaeus, a Jew who was collecting taxes on behalf of the hated Romans (Luke 19:1-10). Jesus reminded those who objected to this that,

“The Son of Man came to seek and to save what was lost (vs. 10).”

Jesus also invited Matthew, a tax collector, to be one of His twelve disciples (Matthew 9:9-12). Jesus was criticized by the Pharisees for doing so as well as for socializing in general with tax collectors and others the Pharisees considered “sinners” (vs. 11). The Pharisees eventually labeled Jesus as a friend of tax collectors and “sinners” (Matthew 11:19), a label Jesus willingly and gladly embraced. Jesus told those accusing Him of hanging out with the “wrong” people that,

“It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. But go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’ For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners (Matthew 9:12-13).”

I suspect that Matthew had Jesus’ treatment of tax collectors and “sinners” in mind when he heard and later wrote that we’re to treat those who sin in the same way that Jesus treated them.

When is Jesus in our midst?

Jesus came to seek and save the lost, not to drive them away or to keep some space between “them” and “us”. He sought out the sinners, pagans, and tax collectors of His day and tried to connect with them. He showed them the way to the Kingdom of God not by beating them up emotionally or spiritually but by loving them and spending time with them. He socialized with those His religious culture rejected, forgave these “rejects” for their sin and tried to draw them into a relationship with Him so they could benefit from His love and forgiveness.

I believe that it’s when we treat those who have sinned against us in the same way that Jesus treated the pagans, sinners, and the tax collectors of His day that we’ll find Jesus in our midst.

That’s my understanding of Matthew 18:20, at least as I see it today.