Have you read lately on a billboard or in a magazine ad that the Judgment Day will be May 21, 2011? I have so many issues with this I don’t even know where to begin.
According to a pamphlet I picked up at a gas station, God has given us a head- up on the Day of Judgment. According to the pamphlet:

“..The Holy Bible tells us that Holy God is a God of great mercy, compassion and love. That is why He has given us in advance of the destruction the exact time of the Day of Judgment.”

The Bible does state that God has great mercy, compassion and love. However, the pamphlet does not say where exactly the Bible says that He give us the exact time of the Day of Judgment.

As you read further, you find that they quote 2 Peter 3:8 and as soon as you see that, you know where they are going with this. They take the passage, literally, to mean that one of God’s days is 1000 of our years. But if you read further to 2 Peter 3:10 it states the day will come like a ‘thief’. Given the context of the discourse, I would tend to lean toward a metaphorical figure of speech for understanding 2 Peter 3:8. Be that as it may, let’s read further to see what they do with a literal, out of context, interpretation of this passage.

Next, the pamphlet takes God’s warning of impending judgment from Genesis 7:4 and Genesis 7:10-11, where God says he will make it rain for 40 days and nights, to mean that in 7000 years God will destroy the earth with fire for good. (Side bar: 2 Peter 3:7 says that the first destruction was by water and was Noah’s flood and the second destruction would be by fire.) Here is what the pamphlet says:

“Therefore, with the correct understanding that the seven days referred to in Genesis 7:4 can be understood as 7,000 years, we learn that when God told Noah there were seven days to escape worldwide destruction, He was also telling the world there would be exactly 7,000 years (one day is as 1,000 years) to escape the wrath of God that would come when He destroys the world on Judgment Day.”

Issue 1 Context
Here, the passages are taken completely out of context. It is obvious to the casual reader of Genesis 7:4 that the seven days were seven, literal, 24 hour days before the rain would start. Genesis confirms this understanding in Genesis 7:10-11 when it states that it ‘came to pass’ that the rains started exactly seven 24 hour days later. What the pamphlet does to get around this is to imply that there are two fulfillments to Genesis 7:4, one, literal, 24 hour days and one, metaphorical, 1000 years per day.

Issue 2 1000 Years
First, I have a difficult time reading 2 Peter 3:8 literally that a day to God is like 1000 years to us. I think when you look at it literally; you have to ignore that God is eternal, which is to say He exists outside of time and space all together. (Read a past blog post on eternal) Time was created and is part of our universe, and as Einstein proved and current astrophysics teaches us, time is relative.

Second, are all those years 360 day years or 365.25 days? Originally, the earth’s orbit was 360 days and at some time in the BC era (I forget when) there was a change in the orbit to 365.25 days. For more information on prophetic years of 360 days I would recommend the book ‘The Coming Prince’ by Sir Robert Anderson; He demonstrates in his book that by using 360 day years you can take, at least on prophecy, from the Old Testament about the first coming of our Messiah to the exact day it was fulfilled in the New Testament.

Issue 3 The Bible as Whole
In order to buy this premise, you have to ignore everywhere else in the Bible that says we won’t know the day or the hour of the end. Here are a few passages: Matthew 25: 13 and Matthew 24:44.

Final Thoughts
This isn’t the first Church or group to give a date. I am betting these guys are wrong too. The problem is, it gives all Christians a bad name. Just look at the comments to a blogger’s post on the Christian obsession with the end.

I do know one other little tidbit from the Bible. In Deut. 18:20-22 the punishment for a false prophet is execution. If the End is May 21, 2011, I am ready. If the End is not May 21, 2011, are they ready?

Investigation Baptismal Regeneration in Mark 16:16

I am going to look at a number of passages in their immediate context and then later in a broader context. I have to make a comment upfront and acknowledge that the authenticity of the longer ending or Mark (Mark 16:9-20) is questioned by many scholars. I do not intend to address this issue, rather, for argument sake, I will make the assumption that this longer ending is authentic. However, if we did find any significant meaning in a disputed section of scripture, we must be extremely cautious in building doctrine on questionable scripture.

ὁ πιστεύσας καὶ βαπτισθεὶς σωθήσεται, ὁ δὲ ἀπιστήσας κατακριθήσεται. (Mark 16:16) [Holmes, M. W. (2010; 2010). The Greek New Testament: SBL Edition]

“Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.” - Mark 16:16 HCSB

Let’s take a look at this passage logically and see what we can determine.

1. According to Mark 16:16 who will be saved?
2. According to Mark 16:16 who will be condemned?

When you read this passage, you will note that the passage talks about those that are saved and those that are not (condemned) and that there is an imbalance in the statement.¹  The question is, did the author of Mark imply that both belief and baptism are required to be saved and not condemned or did the author imply that only belief was needed to be saved and not condemned. This, then, raises the question as to why baptism was mentioned. Many possible explanations can be given from baptism being our response to our salvation to a work out of faith. However, this passage does not address this issue and anything we propose is speculation.

When we take the passage and balance the statement in order to determine the intent of the author, we have one of two possible meanings:

• Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe and is not baptized will be condemned
• Whoever believes will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned

	Salvation	Condemnation
Mark 16:16	belief and baptism	unbelief
Possibility A	belief and baptism	unbelief and no baptism
Possibility B	belief	unbelief

Because the statement is ambiguous, we must infer the intent of the author from one of two possible meanings. Those who believe in baptismal regeneration (the need of baptism for salvation) will insist that inference A is the correct meaning. While those who support sola fida (salvation by faith alone) will insist that inference B is the correct meaning.

Because the author of Mark gives no indication in this portion of the discourse, we cannot assume either possible meaning. If we infer either possible meaning, we run the danger of putting meaning into the text or taking meaning out of the text.²  With that in mind, this passage by itself is neutral to either possible meaning. It neither supports baptismal generation nor rejects it.

To understand what God has for us, we will need to take the scriptures as a whole.³

1. This is sometimes referred to as a negative inference.

2. The general exhortation in Revelation 22:18-19 and the command in Deuteronomy 4:1-2 warns us not to add or subtract anything from God’s Word.

3. With the assumption that the Bible is God inspired we have the principle of non-contradiction. Meaning that God inspired the words in the Bible and as such there is a logical consistency across 66 books with over 30 different authors.

I recently watched a show on the History Channel about Kabbalah. One thing that I found interesting was their belief that there are multiple layers of meaning in the text of the Torah.   This concept is not unique to Kabbalah they just take it to the extreme. That there is alternative meaning behind the literal read of the text is the subject of Proverbs 25:11.

"A word spoken in right circumstances is like apples of gold in settings (bowls) of silver ."

"Things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ." "For the Law, since it has only a shadow of the good things to come" "Shadow of the heavenly things"