The Mark of the Beast may be a concern only for Christians – Revelation 13:11-17

By Dick Lentz

11 Then I saw another beast, coming out of the earth. He had two horns like a lamb, but he spoke like a dragon … 15 He was given power to give breath to the image of the first beast, so that it could speak and cause all who refuse to worship the image to be killed. 16 He also forced everyone, small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on his right hand or on his forehead, 17 so that no one could buy or sell unless he had the mark which is the name of the beast or the number of his name. (Revelation 13: 11, 15-17, NIV)

What I have to say in the following post about the Mark of the Beast is not traditional; it will be controversial; it will be disputed.  And when you get done reading what I have to say about it, you may even consider me to be a heretic. For I believe that the Mark of the Beast can have little if any effect on non-believers; I believe it is something that can only affect Christians. I also don’t believe that it’s a physical mark; I believe it is symbolic of something less tangible but much more perilous, especially for those who have put their faith in Jesus.

I hope that you will read my justification for this conclusion. For if my understanding of the Mark of the Beast is correct, it has profound implications for Christians today who are living in the midst of increasing amounts of opposition because of what they believe about Jesus.

The Traditional View – It is a Literal or Physical Mark

Over the years there has been lots of speculation regarding Revelation 13:11-17 and what the Mark of the Beast might possibly be. Many have speculated that it could be some kind of physical indication that a person has given their sole allegiance to a world power whose goal it is to supplant Christ – a literal mark that indicates that one has made a commitment to worship the antichrist for example. Some believe that it could be a microchip or some other electronic device that is embedded in a person’s arm or head to distinguish between those who are followers of this antichrist from those who are not. At some point everyone’s economic and physical welfare will be based on their allegiance to this antichrist, and their willingness to accept its mark will prove that they are loyal to him or the power he represents.

But is the Mark of the Beast meant to be understood as a literal or physical mark? Or is symbolic of something? Could it for example be a symbol of a change in the condition of a person’s heart and if so, whose heart?

A Non-Traditional View – It is Symbolic of Something

One thing that needs to be noted about Revelation 13 as well as all of the book of Revelation is its widespread use of symbolic language. For the most part, John was not being shown actual images of future events; he was seeing symbolic representations of them.

Consider for example these images recorded in Revelation 13:1-17:

  • A beast comes out of the sea. It has ten horns and seven heads (vs. 1).
  • The beast looks like a leopard but has feet of a bear and the mouth of a lion (vs 2).
  • One of its heads has a fatal wound that is healed (vs 3).
  • The dragon (Satan – vs. 12:9) is worshiped because he gave authority to the beast (vs. 4).
  • The beast is given power to make war against the saints and to conquer them (vs. 7).
  • All whose names are not written in the book of life worship the beast (vs. 8).
  • Another beast comes out of the earth. He has two horns and speaks like a dragon (vs. 11).
  • The second beast has the same authority as the first (vs. 12).
  • The second beast sets up an image to honor the first beast (vs. 14).
  • The image is given breath. Those who refuse to worship it are killed (vs. 15).
  • No-one can buy or sell unless they receive a mark on their right hand or forehead (vs. 16-17).

Most if not all of these images symbolize something.  I don’t believe for example that an actual beast will arise from the ocean that has ten horns and seven heads and that people will fall down and worship it. This image is meant to be symbolic. Perhaps it represents a world power or an individual who will rule in the last days. The same can be said regarding the second beast; it too is symbolic of something. By association, shouldn’t the Mark of the Beast be considered equally symbolic?

The issue here is being consistent in how we treat associated elements in Scripture. If we know for example that A is symbolic of something and that A and B are meant to be treated the same, then B is symbolic as well. “Beast” in the phrase “the Mark of the Beast” is typically interpreted as being symbolic of something or someone. To be consistent, shouldn’t its mark be understood the same way? Shouldn’t it be interpreted as being symbolic of something as well?  Another way to put this is if the beast in the passage is not meant to be interpreted as an actual beast, then to be consistent, its mark should not be interpreted as an actual mark.

And so, if the Mark of the Beast is not a literal or physical mark, then what is it symbolic of? And who will it affect? To get some understanding of that, we’ll turn to the book of Ezekiel.

The Mark of the Angel

1 Then I heard him call out in a loud voice, “Bring the guards of the city here, each with a weapon in his hand.” 2 And I saw six men coming from the direction of the upper gate, which faces north, each with a deadly weapon in his hand. with them was a man clothed in linen who had a writing kit at his side. They came in and stood beside the bronze altar.

3 Now the glory of the God of Israel went up from above the cherubim, where it had been, and moved to the threshold of the temple. Then the Lord called to the man clothed in linen who had the writing kit at his side 4 and said to him, “Go throughout the city of Jerusalem and put a mark on the foreheads of those who grieve and lament over all the detestable things that are done in it.” 5 As I listened, he said to the others, “Follow him through the city and kill, without showing pity or compassion. 6 Slaughter old men, young men and maidens, women and children, but do not touch anyone who has the mark.” (Ezekiel 9:1-6, NIV)

Ezekiel was given this vision during the decline of Israel’s relationship with God, prior to the destruction of Jerusalem in 586 B.C. When I stumbled across it a number of years ago, I was stunned by how it mirrored what is recorded in Revelation 13:11-17.

Ezekiel 8 gives a glimpse of how bad things were in those days. Here’s a bit of what God said about the leaders of the Israelites:

12 “Son of man, have you seen what the elders of the house of Israel are doing in the darkness, each at the shrine of his own idol? They say, ‘The Lord does not see us; the Lord has forsaken the land.’” 13 Again, he said, “You will see them doing things that are even more detestable.” (Ezekiel 8:12-13, NIV)

I recommend reading Ezekiel 8 and Ezekiel 9 if you want a better understanding of what was happening in those days and how God was going to respond.  Here are a few things I’d like to note:

  • The primary issue was idolatry. The Israelites were giving themselves over to idols rather than worshiping God alone.
  • God said that the result of the Israelites’ detestable behavior would be the destruction of Jerusalem and the loss of their lives. Only those who grieved and lamented over the Israelites’ despicable behavior would be spared.
  • Prior to God pouring out His wrath on the Israelites and the city, He said that a “man clothed in linen” would put a mark on the forehead of all those who were to be spared.

I do not believe that the marking referenced above, one I call “the Mark of the Angel,” should be interpreted as a literal marking. I don’t believe that an angel actually walked through Jerusalem and physically marked those who had remained faithful to God; the text doesn’t compel us to understand it that way nor does history support that this is what actually took place. It seems to me that the Mark of the Angel is a symbolic representation of a separation that was going to take place – a demarcation – between those who had stayed faithful to God and those who hadn’t.

Note that the Mark of the Angel had nothing to do with those who were not Israelites. God’s dispute was not with non-Israelites. His wrath was aimed only at those among His chosen people who had decided not to remain faithful to Him.

Could it be that the Mark of the Beast is similar to the Mark of the Angel in its symbolic nature as well as in whom it affects? Before addressing that, it’s important to look at what comes both before and after Revelation 13:11-17.

An Epic Battle

Genesis 1-3 describes what things were like in the beginning.

In the beginning, God had an intimate and personal relationship with mankind. Genesis 3:8 says that God actually walked with Adam and Eve in the Garden. But when Adam and Eve were tempted by Satan and then sinned by eating fruit from the forbidden tree, that relationship was torn apart.

Here are some things God said would happen as a result Satan’s treachery and Adam and Eve’s disobedience:

14 “Cursed are you above all the livestock and all the wild animals! You will crawl on your belly and you will eat dust all the days of your life. 15 And I will put enmity between you and the woman and your offspring and hers; he will crush you head, and you will strike his heel.” (Genesis 3:1-15, NIV)

The one being cursed in verse 14 is Satan. It could be that the enmity between Satan and the woman noted in verse 15 is a prophecy that Satan and his minions would be at war from that point on with all of mankind; or it could be talking about the ongoing war that was going to take place between Satan and Jesus, the supernatural seed of women. But eventually “he”, Jesus, will decisively crush Satan even though Satan might have some limited victories in the meantime.

It’s possible that the images in Revelation 12 are providing more details on the conflict prophesied in Genesis 3:14-15. I recommend reading all of Revelation 12 so that you have a good handle on what some of these images are. Here are some things I’d like to note about them:

  • A pregnant woman is on the verge of giving birth to a child (vs. 2).
  • A dragon, who symbolizes Satan (vs. 9), wants to devour the child after it’s born (vs. 4).
  • The woman gives birth to a male child “who will rule all the nations with an iron scepter. (vs. 5)”
  • The woman and her child flee to the desert for 3 ½ years to escape from the dragon (vs. 13-16).
  • The dragon is enraged, perhaps because it was unable to kill the child (vs. 17).
  • The dragon decides to wage war against “those who obey God’s commands and hold to the testimony of Jesus. (vs. 17)”

It could be that Revelation 12 is describing in symbolic language some things about Jesus’ life as well as the history of the Israelites as a whole. For example, some of the attempts to annihilate the Israelites prior to the first century (Pharaoh in Exodus 1 for example and Haman in Esther 3) could have been sparked by Satan’s impassioned desire to prevent the birth of Jesus. Herod’s command to kill all the males two years or younger in Bethlehem following the birth of Jesus (Matthew 2:16) could have been an attempt by Satan to “devour the child” after Jesus’ birth. And when the empty tomb proved that Satan’s plans to prevent the birth of Jesus or kill Him afterwards had failed, could it be that Satan simply changed his game plan and began targeting Christians in the hope that He could keep the truth about Jesus hidden or cause it to be discredited?  Revelation 13:1-17 may in fact be describing the war that Satan has declared against Christians and what he’s trying to accomplish by doing so.

I want to point out something that comes after Revelation 13:11-17 that also needs to be taken into consideration.

The Final Judgment

8 A second angel followed and said, “Fallen! Fallen is Babylon the Great, which made all the nations drink the maddening wine of her adulteries.” 9 A third angel followed them and said in a loud voice, “If anyone worships the beast and his image and receives his mark on the forehead or on the hand, 10 he, too, will drink of the wine of God’s fury which has been poured full strength into the cup of his wrath. He will be tormented with burning sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and of the Lamb. 11 There is no rest day or night for those who worship the beast and his image, or for anyone who receives the mark of his name.” 12 This calls for patient endurance on the part of the saints who obey God’s commandments and remain faithful to Jesus.” (Revelation 14:9-12, NIV)

This passage seems to be describing the final judgment, perhaps the same separation of “sheep” from “goats” recorded in Matthew 25:31-46. Most would conclude that there are only two groups this passage is referring to – the saved and the unsaved, believers and unbelievers. But I contend that Revelation 14:9-12 is actually referring to three groups. There are those who drink the wine of Babylon’s adulteries and by implication end up experiencing the result of God’s wrath; there are those who worship the beast or receive its mark resulting in them drinking from the wine of God’s fury as well; and there are saints who have remained faithful to Jesus.

It seems to me that the first of these three groups is unbelievers – those who when given the opportunity to follow Jesus didn’t “Fear God and give him the glory” or who didn’t “worship him who made the heavens, the earth, the sea and the springs of water” (vs. 14:7). The third group is Christians who have remained faithful to Jesus. But then who is included in the second group?  I contend that it is Christians who have not remained faithful to Jesus – Christians who perhaps have not persevered in the midst of persecution – those who in the face of economic or physical threats deny knowing Jesus.

Christians believe that if you haven’t put your trust in Jesus – if you are an unbeliever – that you will not spend eternity with Him. It won’t matter if an unbeliever worships the beast or receives its mark; this will have no effect on their eternal destination. It will be their unbelief that is the issue, not whom they worship instead of Jesus. It seems to me that the only ones that can be affected by worshiping the beast or receiving its mark are therefore those who are followers of Jesus.

Here’s a passage that seems to share a similar sentiment:

1 Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away … 7 He who overcomes will inherit all this, and I will be his God and he will be my son. 8 But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars — their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death.” (Revelation 21:1, 7-8, NIV)

Although this passage seems to be describing multiple groupings of people, I believe that they can be put into three groups.

The first group is unbelievers who have no relationship with Jesus – those who have never put their trust in Him. These are referenced explicitly in verse 8; it is “the unbelieving”.

The second group is Christians who have “overcome” (vs. 7), perhaps by persevering to the end or as Paul put it, finishing the race (2 Timothy 4:7). I believe this is the same group described in Revelation 14:12; it is Christians who have endured by obeying God’s commands and remaining faithful to Jesus to the end, perhaps in the midst of the threats described in Revelation 13:1-17.

The third group is those described as cowards, murderers, sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, idolaters, and liars (vs. 8).  I don’t believe this is referring to unbelievers as they are mentioned elsewhere in the verse. And, as noted earlier, it is an unbeliever’s unbelief and not their lifestyle that separates them from God. There is no need to clarify this further my adding a list of what God considers despicable. If you are lost, you are lost. Being among those who do any of the other things mentioned in the passage doesn’t make one more lost than someone who isn’t. I believe that this list of abhorrent behaviors was meant to warn Christians that if they embrace behavior that is more indicative of the unsaved than the saved that they may suffer the same fate.

And it could be that the reference to those who are cowardly is referring to Christians who in the midst of threats to their economic or physical welfare deny knowing Jesus.

What this has to do with us

In the days of Nero, Christians facing lions in the arenas could sometimes get spared if they simply denied knowing Jesus. Christians today facing similar physical or economic threats because of their faith in Jesus are often given similar ways out; if they want to avoid ridicule, opposition, or persecution, all they have to do is to remain silent about what they believe about Jesus or deny that they are followers of Him. Could it be that this is what receiving the Mark of the Beast is meant to symbolize? Could it be something that can only affect Christians and that separates those who have remained faithful to Jesus from those who haven’t?

If this is so, than the Mark of the Beast is something that has existed in our world ever since the day that Jesus walked the earth and continues to be a threat for Christians living in our world today.

That is how I see it today.

 

 

Not every prayer offered in faith may be effective; but which ones always will – James 5:15

By Dick Lentz

Is any one of you in trouble? He should pray. Is anyone happy? Let him sing songs of praise. Is any one of you sick? He should call the elders of the church to pray over him and anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord, and the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise him up. If he has sinned, he will be forgiven. Therefore, confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of the righteous man is powerful and effective. (James 5:13-16)

I have had some concerns about the meaning of the above verses for years. It seems that they saying that if you are physically ill and are not getting better that you will get healed if you call in the elders to pray for you and they anoint you with oil in the name of the Lord. The prayer must be offered in faith of course which means praying without doubting that God will answer those prayers. And those who are doing the praying must be righteous, for it is seems that it is only the prayer of the righteous that is powerful and effective.

Although I do like the sentiment that if I pray hard enough or have enough faith or have achieved just the right amount of righteousness that my prayers for physical healing will be answered, I do have some questions about this understanding of the passage. For example, how fervently do I need to pray? How much faith is required? How righteous do I or the others praying need to be? And if my prayers for physical healing aren’t answered, does that mean that I wasn’t praying hard enough or that my faith was not strong enough or that I wasn’t righteous enough?

What I’ve also noted over the years is that some who pray for physical healing are healed even though they have doubts that they will or aren’t as righteous as God desires; that some who are godly and who have bucket loads of faith aren’t healed even though they pray with full confidence that their request will be honored by God; and some who are ungodly or who don’t pray at all are often healed of their ailments anyway. It seems to me that getting healed physically frequently has little to do with our faith or lack thereof, to our personal righteousness or the absence of it, to how fervently we pray, or to whether or not we ask others to pray for us or to anoint us with oil.

And so what exactly are these verses promising when they say that a prayer offered in faith will make a sick person well? Are they promising that if we pray with an appropriate amount of faith or righteousness that we will be healed from whatever ails us physically? Or are they promising a different kind of healing from a different type of ailment?

Clue #1 – What Follows “Therefore”

 One clue to what these verses are promising is found in the portion that follows the word “therefore”:

Therefore, confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. (vs. 16)

Note that the promise of being healed in this verse is conditional. What is required is mutual confession of sin and praying for one another. This suggests that the sickness the person is experiencing has something to do with their personal sin. This could mean that what ails them physically is a direct result of sin in their life and that they won’t be physically healed until their spiritual problem – their sin issue – has been addressed. But it could be that James was not talking about physical healing at all but instead was addressing how to get healed from what ails someone spiritually.

One thing to note in this respect is that James never mentions physical healing specifically in these verses. He simply mentions healing in general without indicating what type of healing he was addressing. Although James could have been talking about how to get healed from a physical ailment, it could just as well be that he was addressing how to get healed from a spiritual one.

Clue #2 – What the Trouble Is

Another clue in identifying what type of sickness James was addressing and what type of healing is being promised is to note what precedes the verses that talk about “a prayer of faith” and “the prayer of a righteous man”. Here’s what comes before these verses:

Is any one of you in trouble? He should pray. Is anyone happy? Let him sing songs of praise. (vs. 13)

Although “any one of you in trouble” could be interpreted as “anyone suffering from a physical ailment” or “anyone happy” could be understood as “anyone glad they are not”, it seems to me that James was referring to a different kind of trouble and a different source of happiness. If “trouble” in verse 13 is meant to be linked to what follows the word “therefore” in verse 16, then this person’s trouble may have something to do their spiritual condition. If that condition is healthy, they should praise the Lord for it. If not, then they need to pray to be healed from what is causing them to be sick spiritually. And if their prayers for spiritual healing are ineffective, then:

He should call the elders of the church to pray over him and anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord. (vs. 14)

And then follow this instruction:

Confess your sins to each other and pray for each other. (vs. 16)

Connecting “trouble” in verse 13 with “confess your sins” in verse 16 provides a significant clue about the type of sickness James was addressing. What follows verses 13-16 must also be taken into consideration however if one wants to have a better understanding of what kind of sickness James was talking about and what type of healing is being promised.

Clue #3 – Elijah’s Prayer

James followed verses 13-16 with an example of a prayer offered by a righteous man and what it accomplished. That man was the prophet Elijah. Here’s is what James said about him:

Elijah was a man just like us. He prayed earnestly that it would not rain, and it did not rain on the land for three and a half years. Again he prayed, and the heavens gave rain, and the earth produced its crops. (James 5:17-18)

It may seem at first glance that Elijah was praying about the weather and by noting this James was simply reinforcing that if you are righteous and have faith that your prayers, like those of Elijah, will most assuredly be answered. But there is much more to this incident than what James noted. The entire chronology is recorded in 1 Kings 16:29 thru 1 Kings 18:46. Here are some highlights of this:

  • Ahab, the king of Israel, provoked the anger of the Lord by serving Baal, setting up an altar for Baal in the temple, and doing “more evil in the eyes of the Lord than any of those before him. (16:29-33)”
  • In response to this evil, Elijah said, “As the Lord, the God of Israel, lives, whom I serve, there will be neither rain in the next few years except at my word. (17:1)”
  • The drought continued for three and a half years. At the end of this period God told Elijah to present himself to Ahab (18:1). Elijah did so.
  • Elijah then told Ahab that it was his disobedience of God that was the cause of the troubles Israel was experiencing. He also told Ahab and the Israelites that they needed to make a choice on whom they were going to worship; they had to choose either God or Baal (18:18-21).
  • The people did not respond; they remained silent (vs. 18:21).­
  • Elijah then set up a contest on Mount Carmel between the priests of Baal and himself to prove whose god was strongest – whose god was real. Elijah showed through what took place that Baal was powerless – that he didn’t exist at all –  and that the Lord God is in only God (18:22-38).
  • Upon seeing what happened on the mountain, the people “fell prostrate and cried, ‘The Lord — he is God! The Lord — he is God! (18:39).”
  • Following this act of contrition and repentance, Elijah said that the rains would return. And they did (18:41-45).

Note that the troubles the Israelites experienced were a direct result of sin and it wasn’t until they repented that their troubles ceased. Could it be that this is the type of trouble James was referring do when he asked, “Is any one of you in trouble?” Could it be that how the Israelites responded to their troubles – by contrition and repentance – is the action James was instructing believers to take when they are experiencing similar troubles – that they need to “confess their sins to each other and pray for one another”? 

Clue #4 – James’ Conclusion

Here’s how James concluded:

My brothers, if one of should wander from the truth and someone should bring him back, remember this: Whoever turns a sinner from the error of his way will save him from death and cover over a multitude of sins. (James 5:19-20) 

These verses describe a situation where a sinner who has wandered from the truth is turned back from the error of his way by a brother and as a result is saved from death and a multitude of other sins. Could this be further clarification of the type of trouble James mentioned in verse 13 and what to do about it? Could the troubles the Israelites experienced due to their sin and what it took to remedy this be an illustration of this in verses 17-18? Could the one who restores the brother in verse 19 be one of the elders the troubled person asks to pray for him in verse 14 or one of those this person confesses his sins to in verse 16?

Clue #5 – The Whole Context of James

One last thing worthy of note is the entire tone and context of the book of James. James was writing to believers who didn’t seem to understand that their faith needed to be evidenced by works. James then described what some of those works ought to be. When James did this, he didn’t say, “You need to have more faith,” or, “You need a better relationship with God.” What James did say is that how we speak and act provides evidence of what we believe. And if our faith doesn’t result in what ought to characterize a healthy relationship with God, then something is wrong with it; it is useless and ineffective; it is dead (James 2:26). It seems to me that the entire book of James is about what one needs to do to avoid being spiritually ineffective. And if our ineffectiveness is the result of being spiritually sick, maybe it’s time to call in someone who can be of help in turning us away from the error of our ways so that we don’t continue to wander away from the truth and fall into additional sin.

What prayers offered in faith will always be effective

And so, what prayers offered in faith will always be effective? I believe it is prayers for spiritual healing. If we are spiritually sick and have a sincere desire to be brought back into a healthy and fruitful relationship with God, and if we then do what James instructs us to do – if confess our sins to one another and ask others to pray for us – God promises that He will forgive ours sins and heal us from what ails us spiritually.

That’s my understanding of these verses, at least as I see it today.

Who are the rightful heirs of the land of Israel?

By Dick Lentz

My response to Stephen Sizer’s article, “Bible Prophecy – Promised Return of Impending Exile”,  regarding the return of the Jews to Israel

A number of years ago I read an article written by Stephen Sizer, a former vicar of the Anglican Church in England, regarding Christian Zionism. Christian Zionists believe that the establishment of the nation of Israel in 1948 is a direct fulfillment of Bible prophecy and that the tensions we are witnessing that region today can be attributed to this and other end time prophecies regarding Israel. Sizer who is known for his opposition to Christian Zionism believes that what is happening in Israel has little if anything to do with Bible prophecy.

The following are some statements Sizer made regarding this and my response to them. The page numbers refer to an article Sizer wrote regarding Christian Zionism that was published by the Christian Research Journal in 2006. A copy of his article can be found at the link above.

 A growing number of Christians…are left uneasy about the idea that God would bring the Jews back to Palestine while they are in unbelief since that is why they were exiled from it in the first place. (Page 35)

Here are some passages in the Bible that bear on this:

  1. God’s covenant with Abraham, the “Abrahamic covenant”, which included a promise that they would be given the land in and surrounding modern day Israel, was unconditional (Genesis 15). God asked Abraham to split a calf in two and to let its blood run down a channel between the two halves. In those days two parties making a covenant in this fashion would walk through the blood shed by the calf signifying that if either broke the covenant, the other could do to one violating the covenant what had been done to the calf. In Genesis 15:17, God, symbolized by a smoking pot, was the only one who passed between the halves signifying that He alone was responsible for upholding the covenant.
  1. God’s covenant with Abraham was never revoked. Galatians 3:17-18 says, “The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise. For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on a promise, but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise.”
  1. Another covenant was introduced through Moses. It is referred to as the “Sinaic covenant” as it was at Mount Sinai where it was given and confirmed. The Sinaic covenant was conditional. The Israelites had to obey the laws of God to reap its rewards. It is impossible to obey every aspect of God’s laws however. Jesus did something to remedy this. When He was crucified, the law was symbolically nailed to the Cross negating the power it and the Sinaic covenant, the Old Covenant, had to condemn people of sin (Colossians 2:13-15). The Sinaic covenant was replaced by a new covenant based on faith (Ephesians 2:8).
  1. One effect of the New Covenant is that that the Jews were no longer going to be held accountable collectively for their sin. Confirmation of this can be found in Jeremiah 31:27-37. Once the New Covenant was in effect, judgment for national sin would cease and “instead, everyone will die for his own sin” (vs. 30). When speaking about the effect of Jesus’ sacrificial death, the writer of Hebrews drew from this passage when he said, “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 … Their sins and lawless acts I will remember no more (Hebrews 10:16-17 and Jeremiah 31:33-34).”
  1. Zechariah said that the Jews would experience a time when they would no longer be under collective judgment for their sin (Zechariah 3). Speaking for God, Zechariah said, “I will remove the sin of this land in a single day (3:9).” This “single day” seems in context to be referring to the day that Jesus was crucified.
  1. God did not bring the Jews back to the land of Israel for their sake or because they were good. God did it for His sake (Ezekiel 36). Ezekiel 37 describes the return of both Israel and Judah, the names of the northern and southern kingdoms after Israel split into two nations following the death of Solomon, to the land of Israel. In the process the “two sticks” become one once again (37:15-17). In describing this, Ezekiel speaking for God said, “It is not for your sake, O house of Israel, that I am going to do these things, but for the sake of my holy name which you have profaned among the nations where you have gone. I will show the holiness of my name which you have profaned among the nations where you have gone. I will show the holiness of my great name, which has been profaned among them. Then these nations will know that I am the Lord, declares the Sovereign Lord, when I show myself holy through you before their eyes (36:22-23).” What God does to restore the Israelites to the land of Israel has more to do with Him then with them. He promised He would restore them to the land in spite of their disobedience so that He could be glorified.
  1. Zechariah prophesies that its opposition to the Jews after they’ve returned to Israel that ultimately leads to their collective spiritual redemption. Zechariah 12 describes a day when the Jews in Judah and Jerusalem are surrounded by those who want to destroy them and God miraculously saves them by destroying their enemies. When the Jews see that their victory has come from God, they end up mourning “the one whom they have pierced (12:10).” This may be the event Jesus had in mind when He wept on the Mount of Olives above Jerusalem a few days before His crucifixion and said, “You will not see me again until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord (Matthew. 23:37-39).’”

I believe that the Jews as a nation were forgiven when Jesus died on the Cross, perhaps at the moment when He said, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing (Luke 23:34).” Although the suffering they’ve experienced since then could be due to their collective disbelief, I believe that what they’ve experienced is simply an extension of Satan’s continued efforts to undermine the work of God by destroying the ones God has chosen to represent Him. I believe that the Jews’ return to the land of Israel is part of God’s plan to reveal His nature to the world through the way He fulfills His covenant with Abraham. It also may be the beginning of God’s final efforts to redeem the Jews individually and corporately.

The covenant was primarily relational, not material (page 36)

It’s unclear when Sizer makes this claim if he is referring to the Abrahamic covenant or the Sinaic one. The covenant with Moses, the Sinaic one, does have material and relational aspects to it. The Jews had to be obedient to God in order to reap its benefits. But as pointed out earlier, this covenant was revoked when Jesus was crucified and it was symbolically nailed to the Cross (Colossians 2:14). There is no biblical evidence that the Abrahamic covenant was ever revoked. It was unconditional and depended on God’s character alone.

This does not mean that the Abrahamic covenant does not have some relational aspects to. But some of it is clearly material. God promised to give the land of Israel to the Jews as an eternal possession, and God said that if He doesn’t fulfill His promises that He is not God.

God stipulated through blessings and curses that repentance is always a condition of return (page 38)

Leviticus 26 does state that Israel would face exile if they refused to obey God (vs. 27-35). Daniel drew from portions of Leviticus 26:40-45 in a prayer he made on the Jews’s behalf when they were living in exile in Babylon (Daniel 9:1-19). Daniel understood that their  exile was going to last 70 years and near the end of this period asked for God to forgive his people.

God responded by telling Daniel that the Jews’ guilt for their transgressions would be removed but that it would take 490 years (seventy weeks of seven) “to atone for wickedness [and] to bring in everlasting righteousness (Daniel 9:24).” The beginning point of this time frame was “the issuing of the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem (9:25),” an event that occurred in 453 B.C. when Cyrus gave Nehemiah permission to return to Jerusalem so the city could be rebuilt (Nehemiah 1-2). 490 years after this would be 36 A.D. Most scholars agree that Jesus’ crucifixion occurred sometime between 30 and 36 A.D. It was at this point that both Jeremiah 31 and Hebrews 10 indicate that the nation as a whole would no longer be held accountable for its sin. Somewhere in this time frame or shortly afterwards could be the end of the 490-year period Daniel prophesied about.

Also, as noted earlier, the conditions described in Leviticus 26 are part of the Sinaic covenant and this covenant was canceled on the Cross (Colossians 2:13-15). Since the Sinaic covenant is no longer in effect, there is no longer any conditions the Jews have or had to meet in order to return to the land of Israel.

It is no longer appropriate to describe the Jews as God’s “chosen people” (page 39)

 Paul addresses this in Romans 9-11. Here’s a bit of what he said:

  1. Speaking for God he said, “All day long, I have held out my hands to a disobedient and obstinate people.” (10:21)
  1. “Did God reject his people? By no means … God did not reject his people.” (11:1,2)
  1. “All Israel will be saved. The deliverer will come from Zion; he will turn godlessness away from Jacob. And this is my covenant with them when I take away their sins.” (11:26-27)
  1. “As far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs, for God’s gifts and his call are irrevocable.” (11:28-29)

One thing that is consistent throughout the Old and New Testaments is God’s unconditional commitment to fulfill the promises He made to Abraham and his descendants. Jeremiah 31:35-36 says this, “Only if these decrees vanish from my sight, declares the Lord, will the descendants of Israel ever cease to be a nation before me.” It’s as if God was saying, “If I don’t do what I’ve said I’m going to do for the children of Abraham, then I’m not God.”

Through the New Covenant, the exalted Christ rules sovereign over the entire world, from the heavenly Jerusalem. (Page 40) 

Sizer suggests that the Jews were never given an unconditional promise of a physical kingdom and that passages describing Christ’s eternal reign over one need to be interpreted figuratively rather than literally. But if references regarding the future Jerusalem and the eternal throne of Christ are figurative rather than literal – if they are only heavenly places and not real ones – then how do we make sense of the following verses?

  1. “The seventh angel sounded his trumpet, and there were loud voices in heaven which said, ‘The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ, and he will reign forever and ever’ (Revelation 11:15).”
  1. “I will gather all the nations to Jerusalem to fight against it…Then the Lord will go out and fight against these nations…On that day there will be no light, no cold, no frost… On that day, living water will flow out from Jerusalem…[and] The lord will be king over the whole earth (Zechariah 14:1-9).”

There are numerous passages in the Old and New Testaments that connect the coming of a messiah or the return of Jesus with a throne and a reign on earth. Although some of these could be interpreted figuratively, most cannot without significantly changing the context in which these promises were given. In addition, many don’t seem to fit events that have already occurred but seem to be referring to ones that happen in the future.

Jesus’ disciples were looking forward to the day when the kingdom God promised to the Israelites would be restored (Luke 24).  Many followed Jesus hoping that He was the one who would establish that kingdom. Their concept about this kingdom was not wrong. They just didn’t understand its timing. Isaiah prophesied about a time when God would sacrifice a lamb in order to forgive the sins of mankind (Isaiah 53). Jesus was that lamb. He was “the lamb of God who came to take away the sins of the world” (John 1:29). Jesus’ disciples didn’t initially understand that this sacrifice must take place first. But their error doesn’t invalidate God’s promise that the Israelites would one day have a physical kingdom overseen by an actual ruler sitting on a real throne.

Why it Matters 

Speaking to Abraham God said, “I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse (Genesis 12:3).” I believe that this is a declaration by God that it matters how we respond to the promises He made to Abraham and his descendants. Believing that the Jews were given all of the land of Israel should not result in turning a blind eye towards what they’ve done to protect themselves if what they’ve done is unjust. But it should give us a better understanding from a biblical perspective of what’s happening in that region of the world and perhaps more important, why it’s happening.

That is as I see it today.

 

The Value of “Small Churches”

By Dick Lentz

In the 1980’s,  I helped re-organize the adult Sunday School department at Fair Oaks Baptist Church in Walnut Creek, California into what we called “Small Churches.” Instead of adults attending classes oriented around a topic or teacher of interest, we asked leaders and members to see each group as a “small church” headed by a pastor-teacher whose goal it was to equip members for the work of a church. This same concept was adopted by Calvary Church in Longmont beginning in 1993. Calvary called these groups “flocks” instead of “small churches” and called the leaders “shepherds” instead of “pastor-teachers.” I became a flock-leader at Calvary in 1994 and still serve in that capacity today.

This paper, written in the late 1980’s as a result of the changes at Fair Oaks, describes both the philosophy and the value of “Small Churches.”

The Value of Small Churches

One upright man among a thousand, but no upright woman. Really? – Ecclesiastes 7:28

By Dick Lentz

“While I was still searching but not finding — I found one upright man among a thousand, but not one upright woman among them (Ecclesiastes 7:28, NIV).”

I’ve got to admit that the above verse may be one of the most perplexing in the entire Bible. On the surface it appears that Solomon, the writer of Ecclesiastes, was comparing men with women and that though he could find at least one upright or righteous man among a thousand men, he could not find even one upright woman among that same number of women. I’ve even heard a number of sermons over the years that were consistent with this understanding of the passage;  that men are somehow more upright than women, perhaps because it was Eve who was first tempted by Satan in the Garden of Eden.

I believe this understanding of the passage is flawed, that it results from a misunderstanding of the context in which it was written, and that taking into consideration Solomon’s background may give us a better understanding of what this verse means.

Solomon’s Thousand Wives

The first thing to note is that Solomon seems to have had at least one woman in his life who he deeply loved and respected. The Song of Songs, probably written by Solomon early in his life, is a vivid and wonderful expression of the longing he felt for this one woman.  Although we don’t know who this woman was, she could have been the daughter of Pharaoh (1 Kings 3:1). What is apparent is that Solomon had a very high opinion this woman and was totally enamored by her beauty and her charms.

The problem that Solomon may have had with regards to women is that he was not satisfied with having just one in his life. He eventually had a harem that totaled one thousand. 1 Kings 11:1-6 gives some details regarding this and what happened because of it:

King Solomon, however, loved many foreign women beside Pharaoh’s daughter — Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Sidonians and Hittites. They were from nations about which the Lord had told the Israelites, “You must not intermarry with them, because they will surely turn your hearts after their gods.” Nevertheless, Solomon held fast to them in love. He had seven hundred wives of royal birth and three hundred concubines, and his wives led him astray. As Solomon grew old, his wives turned his heart after other gods, and his heart was not fully devoted to the Lord his God, as the heart of David his father had been. He followed Ashtoreth the goddess of the Sidonians, and Molech the detestable god of the Ammonites. So Solomon did evil in the eyes of the Lord; he did not follow the Lord completely, as David his father had done. 

1 Kings 11:11 describes God’s response:

So the Lord said to Solomon, “Since this is your attitude and you have not kept my covenant and my decrees, which I commanded you, I will most certainly tear the kingdom away from you and give it to one of your subordinates.” 

Who then was Solomon referring to then when he said, “I found one upright man among a thousand?” I believe he was referring to himself. I don’t think he was saying, “I found one upright man, me, among a thousand men,” however.  I think he was saying, “I found one upright man, me, among a thousand women.” If this is so, then the women he was referring to were most likely the thousand he’d gathered into his harem. And it appears according to I Kings 11 that none of them, including the daughter of Pharaoh, worshipped God.

An Upright Man who Lost His Focus

What then does upright mean in this context? The mistake I believe many make at this point is bringing a New Testament understanding of uprightness into the passage and equating upright with being righteous. This can lead to concluding that the passage is talking about a righteous man who was unable to find a righteous woman. But I think that in the context of Ecclesiastes that being upright has more to do with where a  person decides to look for wisdom regarding how best to live life “under the sun (Eccl. 1:3),” and not the result of that decision.  Solomon was an upright man in the sense that he looked upwards to God for wisdom and guidance, at least early in his life. The same could not be said to be true regarding the thousand women he gathered into his harem. It seems that none of them was upright in their spiritual lives, not in the same sense that Solomon was or should have been. All of them worshipped other gods.

1 Kings 11:4 notes the influence that Solomon’s thousand wives had on his own spiritual focus:

As Solomon grew old, his wives turned his heart after other gods, and his heart was not fully devoted to the Lord his God, as the heart of David his father had been. 

Solomon may have been sharing his feelings about this in Ecclesiastes 7:25-26:

So I turned my mind to understand, to investigate and to search out wisdom and the scheme of things and to understand the stupidity of wickedness and the madness of folly. I find more bitter than death the woman who is a snare, whose heart is a trap and whose hands are chains. The man who pleases God will escape her, but the sinner she will ensnare.

If this verse is referring to how Solomon felt about his decision to have so many women in his harem, then he found the results to be more bitter than death, used words like stupid, madness, and folly to characterize his choice, and acknowledged that these women  became snares, traps, and chains

Solomon may have been an upright man at one point in his life. But because of his decision to have so many wives, he lost his upward focus and his heart turned to other gods.

Solomon concluded this portion of Ecclesiastes with these words:

This only have I found: God made mankind upright, but men have gone in search of many schemes (Eccl. 7:29). 

If Solomon is referring to himself in this verse, what he’s noting is that his life was characterized at one time by an upward or upright focus but that eventually he quit relying on God’s advice and instead followed his own schemes, a decision he came to regret.

A Better Choice

What would Solomon have done differently if he had an opportunity for a do-over in this area of his life?  I think he would have stopped at one. A clue to this is may be found in the advice he gave in Ecclesiastes 9:9:

Enjoy life with your wife, whom you live, all the days of this meaningless life that God has given you under the sun.

He also advised this is Proverbs 5:18-19:

May your fountain be blessed and may you rejoice in the wife of your youth. A loving doe, and a graceful deer — may her breasts satisfy you always, may you ever be captivated by her love. 

The focus of Ecclesiastes 9:9 is what do to when you feel that life is meaningless. The focus of Proverbs 5:18-19 is what to do if you are attracted to the charms of a person other than your own spouse. Both have the same message. They are urging men and women who are married to be satisfied with the spouse they have and to quit looking elsewhere for fulfillment in this area of their lives.

As we grow older and our lives, bodies, and circumstances change, we need to adapt to those changes and reject the notion that “changing models” or “adding to the harem” is somehow better than living in a committed and meaningful way with the spouse we already have.

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

Don’t Presume to be a Teacher – James 3:1

Ways you may already be one; and why you need to be careful what you say 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.

Train up a child according to his way – But whose way is “his” way? – Proverbs 22:6

By Dick Lentz

Training up a child – Proverbs 22:6

“Train a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not turn from it (Proverbs 22:6, NIV).”

I don’t know how many times I’ve heard the above verse quoted in church services during the dedication of someone’s child. And as I’ve heard it explained, “the way he should go” means, “The Lord’s way,” and that what God is promising is that if a parent raises a child according to the ways of the Lord that the child will continue to follow those ways when they become an adult.

This understanding of the verse seems to make sense when you note how it is footnoted in the New American Standard translation of the Bible. This version indicates that the “way he should go” literally means, “according to his way.”  If one substitutes the second phrase for  the first, the verse would read,

“Train a child according to his way, and when he is old he will not turn from it.”

The predominant conclusion among those who quote this verse with this understanding of it seems to be that “his way” means “God’s way” and that if we teach a child to follow God’s commandments and the ways of His wisdom when that child is young, when that child becomes an adult they will not turn away from those ways.

Is this a guarantee that if a child is raised right that they will pursue what’s right?

I used to think this was a pretty terrific promise. What parent would not want to know that they could ensure their child’s future spiritual health by teaching them the ways of God’s wisdom and exhorting them to follow His commandments.  This presumes of course that children simply need to be pointed in the right direction and that once they understand it and know its benefits will embrace it. Seems like a pretty good principle of parenting: teach what is right in God’s eyes and what follows will be a lifetime of obedience to Him.

Over the years I noted, however, that there is a huge gap between what is happening in the lives of the children of Christian parents and what some conclude this verse means; that if we parent right our children will follow what’s right when they grow older. Time after time I saw parents raise their children according to what they deemed to be sound biblical principles only to see those children abandon God’s ways when those children reached adulthood. I also observed that Christians who raised multiple children didn’t always have the same outcome even though they seemingly raised all their children according to God’s wise advice. One child might end up following the ways of the Lord when they became an adult, for example, while the other or others might choose a more worldly path. Godly parents who seemingly did everything right might not even have one child who stayed in a relationship with God into adulthood. It seemed that good Christian parenting no matter how much focused on what’s right in God’s eyes didn’t guarantee that a child would continue to be obedient to God when that child reached adulthood.

Treating this verse as a promise that if a child is trained according to the Lord’s ways that when that child grows old they’ll keep following those ways didn’t stand the test of reality. Although some might attribute bad results in this regard to bad parenting,  I suspected that it was my understanding of Proverbs 22:6 that was flawed.

Does “His way” mean “the Lord’s Way”? 

I then began thinking about the significance of the word “his” in “according to his way.” Since “his” is a pronoun, it has to have an antecedent; a noun it refers to. The general rule of thumb is that the antecedent for a pronoun is the closest noun in the same sentence or paragraph. The problem when assuming that the antecedent for “his” is “God” or “the Lord” is that neither is mentioned in this verse. There are references to “the Lord” in other verses in the chapter but these have no textual connection to Proverbs 22:6. The implication of this is that “his way” cannot be accurately interpreted “the Lord’s way.” It’s more likely therefore that “his way” is “the child’s way” since “child” is the only personal noun referenced in the verse.

If “his way” really means  “the child’s way,” then the passage would more accurately be translated, 

“Train up a child according to the child’s way, and when he is old he will not turn from it.”

What if “his way” really means “the child’s way”?

If this is the correct translation of the verse, if “his way” is really “the child’s way,” then it may be telling parents that if they train up a child according to the child’s natural inclinations that when that child grows old they will keep on living according to those inclinations.

In order to understand the implications of this, it’s important to understand what a child’s natural inclinations are. According to the Apostle Paul,

There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God. All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one (Romans 3:10,11).”

Paul said that no one inherently does what is good. Nobody is naturally inclined to be obedient to God. This includes children. So what happens if you let a child be themselves? If they have the choice between doing what is right in God’s eyes or pursuing what’s wrong, will they automatically embrace the good and forgo the bad? I suspect that if a child is raised according to what they are naturally inclined to do and those inclinations are wrong in God’s eyes that they’ll continue to live that way well into adulthood.

Many if not most children seem to have an abundance of good qualities, however. Whether these are caught, taught, or are innate is a subject for debate. But regardless of how a child has acquired these positive traits, what happens if those traits are nurtured? If children are raised according to their positive character traits whether they acquired or inherent, will they continue to embrace them when they become adults?  I suspect that they will.

Children also have natural talents and gifts. These as well as other paths they choose in life may have very little to do with right or wrong. They simply represent traits and desires that make them different from others, including their parents. If parents encourage their children to pursue and develop interests and abilities that are inherent within them, ones that may be neutral in God’s,  will that child continue to pursue those interests  when they become adults?  Once again, I believe that they will.

This verse could be both a warning and a promise.

If this verse means that when you train up a child according to the child’s way that when they grow old they won’t depart from it, then it could therefore be both a warning and a promise. It could be warning parents not to give into every whim a child has as many of these whims represent ungodly tendencies, ones a child will continue to pursue if not corrected early in their lives. It could also be a promise that when a child’s exhibits positive traits and gifts and these are nurtured and developed that these will continue to be a big part of the child’s life as well when they become adults.

That’s my understanding of Proverbs 22:6, at least as I see it today.