Peter the Son of Jonah or John

Matt 16:17 says that Peter is the son of Jonah; while John 1:42 and 21:15-17 says that he is the son of John--though the KJV says son of Jonah. so we have two questions here: what does the most reliable Greek texts say (Jonah or John)?; and if John reads 'the son of John' then how do we address the discrepancy between Matt and John the reading in John 1:42; 21:15-17 is simply a manuscript issue. The issue is raised because John says that Peter is the son of John (1:42; 21:15-17); while the Gospel of Matt says that he is Peter the son of Jonah (Matt 16:17). This discrepancy likely led some copiests to change the mss of John so that it agrees with Matthew. The result is a question among the mansucripts. The KJV of John simply sides with the mss tradition that favors Jonah (the mss tradition of the KJV, in my opinion, is not usually the most reliable tradition; the best mss of John 1:42; 21:15-17; say ‘son of John’). So was Peter the son of Jonah (Matt) or the son of John (John)? There are several answers available. 1) ‘son of’ means ‘having the characteristics of.’ Thus, the Jews say they are ‘sons of’ Abraham and Jesus says, ‘then do the deeds of Abraham’ (John 8). Matthew may then have referred to Peter as someone like Jonah (with his father’s name being John as the Gospel of John says); note that Jonah is not a common 1st century name; 2) Peter’s father could have had multiple names--Jonah and John; 3) We don’t know I would opt for option 1 or 3: We would then ask, why was Matthew referring to Peter as someone like Jonah?

Daniel and the "7 year Tribulation"

I was recently perusing through some of my old folders when I came across some notes that I had written years earlier (probably 20 years ago; they were after all handwritten). There on the page I had 'calculated' the 483 years of Dan 9 so that it 'fits' with the life of Christ--actually the thought is that Dan 9 leads us exactly to the time of Christ's Triumphal entry, or the cross, depending on whom you ask. (As I have noted before, this was my upbringing. I was rasied to read the Scriptures in such a literalistic fashion--meaning that we are to take everything literally instead of letting the genre determine how we read the text). So, how might I respond to such a reading (that is, how do I respond to myself!): 1) Taking numbers in an apocalyptic text like Daniel literally are problematic; the first ‘time frame’ given in Dan is found in 7:25 which reads ‘a time, times, and half a time’—this is clearly an undefinable time frame (the plural use of 'times' cannot be defined); which is an apocalyptic way of saying that the time frame is symbolic and not to be taken literally. Numbers is apocalypses do not have as their primary referent a literally meaning (secondary or tertiary perhaps). To say that Daniel goes on to affirm that the time frame is 3 1/2 years (half of the 7 years) does not work either since Daniel gives us two numbers in ch 12 that don't work together (1290; 1335). 2) The 69 X 7 (or 483) years of Dan 9 must be manipulated to ‘fit’ with the Christ events (my notes have all the details as to how the numbers 'work out'; but my efforts are clearly an effort to make things work); hardly any scholar will date the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus in AD 32 (it was either in 30 or 33); also to make this date work one must assume it was the decree of 445 BC, when the context of Daniel favors the decree of Cyrus in 539 BC; even so, there were several other decrees; so one must arbitrarily take the decree of 445; furthermore, 445 BC to AD 32 does not equal 483 years (of course, such proposals come with many adjustments to make it fit, but such manipulations themselves should tell you that the proposal is highly suspect) The beauty of the Bible is found in its intricacies. The beauty of the text often transcends some literalistic surface reading. We must learn to be content with allowing the mystery and complexity of the Scriptures be what they are: namely, they point to realities of God's sovereignty; they are not riddles to be solved by our clever calculations Now let me be clear on what I am saying: Certainly, I absolutely affirm that Dan 9 leads us to Jesus. But I don't think that we have to decipher the 'exact time frame' that is supposedly hidden in the text. Instead, the text informs us of God's sovereign control of events and that He will bring them to fruition in accordance with His faithfulness (and not a time clock)!

Jesus the Messiah

This is a response to an email conversation in which I was invited to comment: (I omitted the names of individuals) Thanks for allowing me to peer into this conversation. I have been watching T and K’s replies. They have both been very articulate and it is a joy to watch people discuss and disagree with respect and dignity. Without attempting to get into the midst of the dialogue on the details, I would like to add, what I hope is clarity, with regards to the philosophical issues. Basically, the problem is that we often confuse what science can do and what science cannot do. K is correct when she says, “I'm not sure the idea of a Creator even belongs in a discussion about evolutionary theory as evolutionary theory does not suggest there IS a creator, or if there ISN'T one.” This is true because science cannot address “purpose” or “design”. This is in the realm of philosophy/theology, or metaphysics. Purpose cannot be tested in a laboratory. It is not subject to experimentation or falsification. Therefore, science cannot address the question of God’s existence or even God’s involvement in an event. Now, I do agree with K’s assertion that “And there are so many unexplained (by science) phenomena in this great big amazing universe ... there must something else to it other than science,” but we must understand that such a conclusion is beyond what science is allowed to do and is a metaphysical (theological) conclusion. Thus, K, is not correct when she makes the claim “there is no "intelligence" or "grand master plan" in evolutionary theory.” This is a metaphysical claim that science cannot weigh in on. That is, science cannot affirm nor deny that statement. It is beyond science. In the same way I would note that T’s claim that most evolutionists are Atheists is ultimately irrelevant when it comes to establishing the veracity of the scientific claims. (Furthermore, I don’t think it is true. Certainly, Atheists uses evolution to support their position; but it is not true that “atheism is the natural conclusion of belief in the evolutionary theory of the origins of life”, because that is a metaphysical claim that is beyond the ability of science). The key point, which most people on both sides of this debate fail to recognize, is that the debate about God’s existence cannot be part of the scientific arena. Scientists cannot assert whether or not God exists. This debate is for the philosophers and theologians. Now I fully agree with T that the deductions of intelligent design are strong evidences for the presence of a creator. I would add that the problem of the ‘Origin of life’ appears insurmountable at this time for one who postulates that God does not exist based on the evidences of evolutionary science. In fact, to say that God does not exist based on evolutionary science is downright silly. One more tangential point: faith is never blind and irrational—at least it is not supposed to be for Christians. The Bible tells us to ‘test and approve’ God’s will. To Love God with ‘our minds’. Jesus claimed to be ‘the Truth’. PS for those of you who are interested, I will be teaching a study on Genesis 1-12 beginning Tues Sept 6 at Cornerstone Fellowship Thanks

AntiChrist

We hear so much talk about the AntiChrist in certain circles of Christianity. He will come to Jerusalem and enter the rebuilt Temple, make a peace treaty with Israel, and then after 3 1/2 years he will break the treaty and force everyone to recieve a mark on their forehead or righthand with the number 666. Well, I would say that the devil, or the deceiver (Rev 12:9), is a lot smarter than this.

Paul, in a somewhat difficult passage (2 Thess 2), says that the 'man of lawlessness' enters into the "Temple of God" and proclaims himself God (2 Thess 2:4). Well, here's the key. The phrase, 'temple of God' occurs 11x in the NT and in every instance it refers to either the body of Christ Himself or to the Church as the body of Christ (Matt 26:61; 1 Cor 3:16, 17(2x); 2 Cor 6:16(2x); 2 Thess 2:4; Rev 3:12; 7:15; 11:1, 19; note the Matt 26:61 passage is not really an exception to this; see my book 'Revelation and the Two Witnesses'). This means that the 'anti-Christ/man of lawlessness' (assuming for now that they are the same) enters the Church and not a rebuilt temple in Jerusalem!

This accords with the rest of the NT. Jesus warned that 'false prophets will come to YOU (not ewe) in sheep's clothing' (Matt 7:15). Paul, in what he thought was his last meeting with the elders of Ephesus notes, 'savage wolves will come in AMONG you (Acts 20:29). And we could go on, for throughout the NT we are warned repeatedly that false prophets will enter the Church in order to led astray 'if possible, even the elect' (Matt 24:24).

This is precisely what 1 John is addressing in one of the few references to 'anti-christ' in the NT (the designation 'anti-Christ' appears 5x and only in 1-2 John). John notes that we know that certain people are anti-Christ's because they 'went out from us' (1 John 2:18-19).

Thus, the anti-Christ is not some secular person who is empowered by a revived Roman empire or such. Instead, he is a false prophet who endeavors to spread his influence in the Church! This is the NT warning!

If we are looking to Jerusalem for a rebuilt temple, and especially if we think that the anti-Christ will not arise until one is built, then we are looking in the wrong direction! And we have been greatly deceived by the devil!

Christianity and the Middle East

So, you're excited to see what is happening in Libya. First Hussein in Iraq, then Mubarak in Egypt, and now Gaddifi in Libya. More to come? Good for Iraq? Good for Egypt? Good for Libya? Good for the world? Good for the Church or the Kingdom of God?
As Christians the final question is far more important than the former. Not to deny, of course, that the world is important to God. What I am pointing out is that many Christians do not look at world affairs through the eyes of the Kingdom of God.
Instead, many Christians are heralding the current events in the Middle East as 'signs' of Jesus' imminent return (just do a google search the end-times and the Middle East). Besides having a poor view of the end-times, these voices fail to view the world through the lens of the Kingdom of God.
The reality is that many of the events in the Middle East are not good for the Christian communities. In saying this, many Christians in the west will stop to contemplate: 'there is a church over there?' I know that when I was first confronted with the awareness that there was indeed a church over there I was somewhat surprised. My American education never told me that. I thought they were all Muslims.
Of course, it is quite obvious that there is a church over there! It is, after all, where Christianity started! Moses, David, Jesus, Paul, Mary, were all Middle Easterners.
But this Church is dying! They are suffering greatly. Many are fleeing their ancestral lands and finding refuge in other parts of the world. The result is that Christianity is in danger of having no presence in the very part of the world in which Jesus walked, in which the Church began!
As Christians we are told that whatever we do for the least of these brothers of mine, we do for Jesus (Matt 25:31-46). For Jesus' sake, then, we must reach out to our brothers and sisters in Christ!
We are putting on a conference on Christianity, the End-Times, and the Middle East Nov 18-19 at Cornerstone Fellowship in Livermore.

When did Jesus become King?

This is in response to a question:

The idea that Jesus didn’t become Messiah till the resurrection, though I’m not sure I would say it is heresy, is surely quite mistaken and borders on ignorance of all that Jesus was and did. If one were to ask about His coronation it was the cross—hence the crown and the Titulus—King of the Jews. Rom 1:3-4 affirms that the resurrection is the proof or confirmation of the legitimacy of His claims. Or one could claim the baptism, since the Father pronounces Jesus as His ‘Son’—citing Ps 2, which was a coronation Psalm for the King of Israel. –this of course would lead us back to the cross where the Roman soldier affirms ‘surely this man was the Son of God’ (Mark 15:39).

The fact is that the entirety of Jesus’ ministry was of course the claim to be the rightful Messiah. The citation of Ps 110 and its application to Jesus during His ministry—where David calls Him Lord confirms this.