International Conference on Historic Premillennialism

The sessions from Denver Seminary's International Conference on Historic Premillennialism are now available to stream or download. All of the presentations are worth a listen, but I would especially recommend listening to Dr. Blomberg's three talks in which he presents the case for Historic Premillennialism against its three main competitors within evangelicalism: Postmillennialism, Amillennialism, and Dispensational Premillennialism. If none of those words make sense to you, make sure you start with Blomberg's first talk because you'll get a brief introduction to what in the world this stuff is even about. After each session the presenter took questions from the audience, and that was interesting too (I'm assuming they are included in the recordings, but I haven't checked to make sure yet).

There are seven sessions in all:

Plenary Speech 1: Dr. Craig Blomberg

"Why We Don't Have to Wait for the Great Commission to be Fulfilled Before Christ Returns: The Problems with Postmillennialism"

Session 1: Dr. Sung Wook Chung

"Who are the Two Witnesses of Revelation 11: An Integration of Western and Asian Proposals"

Session 2: Dr. Bruce Demarest

"What Did the Early Church Believe About the Tribulation?"

Session 3: Dr. Rick Hess

"The Seventy Sevens of Daniel 9: A Time Table for the Future?"

Session 4: Dr. Andrew Dearman

"Transformations of Jerusalem in the Bible"

Plenary Speech 2: Dr. Craig Blomberg

"The Need for a Millennium Beyond This Present Age: The Anticlimax of Amillennialism"

Plenary Speech 3: Gary Hoag (Delivered for an ailing Dr. Craig Blomberg)

"Inappropriately Privileging Israel: Why Historic Premillennialism Trumps Dispensationalism"

Swine Flu

The real cause of the swine flu epidemic.

$100 million: A visualization

I hope you're not sick of videos. I really don't want to be a "post every you-tube video you ever see" kind of guy. But I liked this one. Plus, if you're a visual learner, this will help you tremendously.

Singin' your order at Taco Bell

Here's a video that I found on a friend's blog. It's hilarious.

Blomberg lectures will be available soon!

For those of you who have been dying to hear Dr. Blomberg lecture ever since I started posting about him, you're in luck.

This weekend I'm attending a conference on campus on Historic Premillennialism, at which Dr. Blomberg is the plenary speaker (he's giving three lectures over a couple of days). The whole conference is being audio-recorded and will be posted on the Denver Seminary website at some point next week. When it's there I'll let you know where to find it.

Now, I understand that you'd have to be especially nerdy to listen to three 1.5-hour lectures on historic premillennialism (many of you probably don't even know what that means... but the first lecture will explain it to you -- I didn't really know until after that), let alone four other lectures from people you've never heard of. But if you ARE interested, it'll be available for you.

That's all.

Miss California, Perez Hilton, Same-Sex Marriage, and Unbelievable Stupidity

As far as I can tell, these are the facts: In the Miss USA pageant on Sunday night one of the two finalists, Miss California, was asked by gay celebrity/gossip blogger and judge Perez Hilton, "Vermont recently became the 4th state to legalize same-sex marriage. Do you think the other states should follow suit? Why or why not?" (that's pretty close to word-for-word)

Miss California responded something similar to, "In my family, the way I was raised, I think that marriage should be between a man and a woman, no offense to anyone, but that's what I believe."

Miss California did not win. She was the first runner-up to Miss North Carolina.

After the competition was over, Hilton posted a video blog on his website where he let out his anger and frustration over Miss California's response. He was "shocked" at her answer. He apparently couldn't believe that she would forget that her job is to inspire women. This morning Julie Chen of the Early Show interviewed Hilton. He said that he thought she should have been better prepared for that question. He pointed out that her job is not to be a politician. When asked how she could have answered differently without lying about her convictions, he said that she could have answered something like, "As Miss USA I would be thrilled to be a role model and an inspiration for women, and I'm glad that the states can decide that issue for themselves."

I'm quite certain that I don't even need to point out the complete and utter stupidity that has come out of Hilton in this case, but I will.

WHAT?!?!?! Are you serious, Mr. Hilton? You asked a yes or no question. Those kinds of questions have two possible answers: "yes," and "no." That's like asking, "Do you like bananas? Why or why not? What?! You don't!? Holy Cow?! How can you be so silly? Don't you realize you represent your state and you're supposed to be an inspiration to people throughout the country?"

He claimed he was upset because she shouldn't have tried to be a politician, yet his proposed answer (the one she should have given) was basically, "I'd like to avoid that question, so I'm glad it's a state issue," which is precisely the answer a politician would give.

Other critics of Miss California have expressed disappointment because she shouldn't have brought religion into her response. Every bit as stupid. Plenty of non-Christians are opposed to same-sex marriage. In fact, a majority of Californians who voted on Proposition 8 are opposed to it. If anything, she should be commended for voicing an unpopular opinion (at least, if you pay attention to the liberal news media) that corresponds to that of the state she represents.

I don't really know anything about Miss California, and this is not really the kind of story that usually comes across my radar, but our local news reported it this morning while we were getting ready to leave, and then the Early Show had the interview I mentioned above... and it got my blood boiling a little bit. I just have the hardest time being okay with rampant stupidity. That's why I wrote about it. Not because I care as much as it might seem.

Tweet tweet

I twitter. I mean, I don't really twitter often. I should say I have a twitter account. And I occasionally post "tweets" on it (though it'd be funnier if they were called "twits").

I haven't really got the twitter bug, though. I mean, I don't really understand how exciting and fun it is. Maybe I just don't have enough random things to say throughout the day. Maybe if I were a really funny person, or if I had a really interesting day-to-day life then I'd understand how amazingly fun twitter is. Instead I have to manufacture things to say. Every couple of days or so I try to think up something to post. Which is really pretty stupid. And when you sign up for Twitter, it gives you the option of having Twitter send you a text message if you haven't posted anything in 24 hours. In other words, if you go a full day without informing the world what you're up to, they'll gently nudge you with a text message that apparently says something like, "Hey, moron, you signed up for this thing where you're supposed to keep the world in the loop with what's going on in your life. It's been 24 hours since you informed us. Have you fallen off the grid? Are you in the hospital or something? What in the world is keeping you from tweeting?"

Anywho... maybe someday I'll get the hype.

Bart Ehrman

I don't know how he does it.

Ben Witherington, a prominent New Testament scholar, has a blog that I (try to) read regularly. He often writes reviews for books and movies which I often find very helpful. Lately he's been writing a review of Bart Ehrman's newest book, Jesus, Interrupted. For those of you who don't know, Ehrman is a textual critic who went to seminary and was once bound for ministry, but his studies led him to the decision that the Bible really is not trustworthy. He's now a skeptic, not a believer, and he writes prolifically about all the problems with the Bible specifically, and Christianity more generally. Think of him as a sort of Dan Brown, only with an education.

Anyway, my point isn't to talk about boring New Testament scholarship per se. I just want to point out the ridiculously long review of his book Ben Witherington has written... and I'm not sure he's done yet. So far his review has come in the form of five different "parts" (part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4, and part 5), and each one is super long. I began to read the first one thinking, "I'd like to hear what he has to say about this book." I read for about twenty minutes and then realized I was about 1/4 of the way through... and that was just part 1. Over the next few days he wrote parts 2-5. I don't know if he's done yet, either. It's possible that Witherington's review of the book is longer than the book itself.

If you're bored, a nerd, and have lots of time on your hands, read it! Also, here's a hilarious interview that Stephen Colbert did with Ehrman.

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Bart Ehrman
colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor NASA Name Contest

Weather

So here's the weird/slightly frustrating thing about weather in Colorado: A simple five-day forecast kind of look isn't enough. You have to watch a detailed forecast on the news or check out the hour-by-hour on weather.com

In Iowa, if it's going to be 65 degrees today, you can count on it being pretty cool in the morning and warming up gradually throughout the day, hitting it's hottest point around 3 or 4 in the afternoon and then slowly getting cooler throughout the evening.

In Santa Maria, if it's going to be 70 degrees today (and it is, because it always is), you can count on it being slightly cool in the morning and hitting 70 about 11am and staying 70 until about midnight (it's kind of disgusting, really).

In Denver our little five-day thing this morning said it's going to be 65 and snowy. Yeah. Those things don't go together. But in Denver when cold fronts move through, they're serious about it. So on any given day if a high is 65 that could mean that it's pretty warm out right now in the morning and it'll be 65 by about 9, and then the cold front hits and it's 30 degrees by noon with snow. OR, it could mean it's about 20 degrees right now and the snow is moving in, but then around 2 this afternoon the sun will come out and it will go from 30 degrees to 65 degrees in about 45 minutes. So, in order to really find out the situation you have to check out the details of the forecast. And it frustrates how you dress and which coat you wear too.

That's all.

Help me out here.

The NFL released the complete 2009 schedule about five minutes ago. The Cowboys will be playing here in Denver against the Broncos on Sunday, October 4th.

I have established the "Jake Really Wants to See the Cowboys Play" Fund in order to raise enough money to buy a couple of tickets (I'm sure Elizabeth would like to join me).

You can send your non-tax-deductible gifts to:

Jake Rohde

"Jake Really Wants to See the Cowboys Play"

1715 E Girard Place #1015B

Englewood, CO  80113

I'm not kidding. Please send money.

Easter: Praise God

Happy Easter, everyone. Today we celebrate one of the two most spectacular events in all of human history: the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

The other of the two events, as you may have guessed, was his crucifixion. I hope that both of these events are preached regularly in your church. I write about the resurrection today not because I think it to be more important than the crucifixion, but because

1. I just spent a couple of weeks immersed in a passage of the Bible that deals primarily with the resurrection, so I've studied it and have become especially jazzed about it,

2. In my experience it seems that the church talks about the crucifixion year-round, because it's easily connected to just about every other topic. We often remember, in different ways, that "Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures," and that "God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son..." and I guess I think we tend to leave resurrection talk for one very special Sunday per year: Easter. And

3. When we do talk about it on Easter we often relegate "the resurrection" to the single historical event of Jesus being brought back to life, which is cool because it means that his death really did accomplish what it was supposed to, and our sins really have been forgiven. And we also spend an awful lot of time explaining why the event is historically defensible (a topic, by the way, which I LOVE). There's obviously nothing wrong with that, except that I think there's more to "resurrection" than that.

Take a gander at 1 Corinthians 15. Especially verses 12-28. There are some in the church at Corinth who "say that there is no resurrection from the dead" (v. 12). Now, to clarify, it doesn't appear that they denied Christ's resurrection, only the future bodily resurrection of believers. But Paul doesn't think that logic holds any weight. The bodily resurrection of Jesus is inseparably linked to that of those who belong to him. Paul basically tells the Corinthians, "If there's no bodily resurrection of people, then Jesus wasn't bodily resurrected either. And if Jesus wasn't resurrected everything is very crappy indeed" (v. 13-18, New Revised Jake Version).

Seriously, read it. If there's no resurrection then the preaching of the apostles is worthless (v. 14). Faith is worthless (v. 14). The apostles are liars (v. 15) because they've proclaimed that God raised Christ from the dead, so they're not only lying but blaspheming. We are all still condemned in our sins (v. 17). Those who have believed in Jesus Christ as their savior who have already died are utterly lost (v. 18). Because of all of this, because of our devotion to an empty, worthless faith that has no power over death or sin, we as Christians are to be pitied more than all others (v. 19).

Don't stop reading.

"But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep" (v. 20). As Mark Prior points out, "This But must rank with the great 'buts' of the Bible." Firstfruits is an agricultural term identifying the first installment of an entire harvest of the same kind which is to come. That means that Jesus is just the beginning. Just as he was raised from his death, so will all of those who call on him and trust him as their Lord.

See, Corinthians? A bodily resurrection! For you and me! Don't forget, the word "asleep" (v. 18, 20) holds the promise of an awakening.

Paul's argument started with a refutatio, or a refutation of the Corinthians' stance. He explains to them why denial of the resurrection leads to unacceptable consequences. Verse 20 begins the second half of his argument; the confirmatio, or a reaffirmation of the logical alternative. Just as we were all affected by the sin of one human being (Adam), we will be affected by the resurrection and defeat of death itself of one human being (Jesus). So, without the resurrection our solidarity would still be with Adam. Bummer.

So you see? The resurrection has eschatological (end times) implications. Jesus' resurrection inaugurated the ultimate defeat of the "last enemy" (v. 26), which is death. But the fullness of salvation is not yet realized. We still experience death. Some of you know that all too well. There's still the pain and the sorrow and the suffering. If the resurrection is not true then death is never a conquered enemy. Even when all is said and done it would still have power. But since it is true, God wins. Someday death will be thwarted permanently.

Today we have "prosperity" churches all over the place (if you're not familiar with them, turn on your television on Sunday morning). They pretty much teach what the Corinthians apparently thought. "All we can expect is what we've got now, so live it up!" If some of these preachers and churches really understood the implications of the resurrection would that message change?

Other Christians of the more "liberal" sort deny the resurrection because it's too far-fetched. Christianity needs to be more palatable, so we'll do away with ridiculous notions like some dude came back to life. But they don't consider what that denial means. Without a resurrection you can't be a "Christian," because the entire faith is futile. Paul says so.

"The joy that characterizes the basic orientation of the Christian life is based on the confidence that Christ will return, the dead will be raised, and all wrongs will be made right. If that is not true, then joy is replaced by despair." -- David Garland

But it is true. So celebrate Easter, and keep trying, as I do, to fully understand what it means for us.

A few links that are cool

Check out Jesus Christ's facebook page. It's very funny. Also, if you read through the whole thing (and it's worth it) you'll get a humorous look at a little passion scene (very timely, don't you think?).

Check out Satan's facebook page. I haven't read this one, but I'm sure it's funny too.

If you click here you can read about the deaths of the Apostles (most of whom were martyred for their unrelenting faith in Christ), and also read about how important their deaths are in pointing toward the reality of the resurrection.

And, I still plan to write about Easter before Easter gets here.

Um, it's late (early?)

I just finished a paper. For Dr. Blomberg. I have to present for five minutes on it in class tomorrow (today?) afternoon. I'm not sure I'm going to be awake for five minutes in class.

It's 4:04 a.m.

I don't think my paper is very good, but it seriously jazzed me about Easter. Expect an Easter/resurrection-related post soon...

But for now... bed.

The point of the Gospel

If you ever want to subscribe to the podcast of a fantastic preacher, check out Matt Chandler.

Aside from that, though, this video clip is just penetrating. Watch it.

Flat Stanley: The pictures are finally here

This is Flat Stanley. You can read about him here. This post is mainly because when I posted about him originally I promised that pictures would come... and then a long time passed... and now I'm staying true to my word. Amanda, there you go.

Photo #1 is Stanley chillin' (no pun intended) at the lake where he and his friends played ice hockey.

Photo #2 is Stanley preparing to perform at the internationally renowned Red Rocks Amphitheater (This amphitheater won the award for the country's best outdoor concert venue so many times in a row that they decided to take Red Rocks out of the running and just name the award after it instead.)

Don't rush marriage. (this advice has nothing to do with my relationship with Elizabeth!)

Single people get trampled on in conservative evangelical churches in America.

Seriously. We treat singles like lesser beings. "Are you dating anyone?" "Have you found that special someone?" "How can someone as nice as you not be married yet?" Each of these is all too common among Christians (and, I suppose I should say, in society at large). We don't generally want to hire pastors who are single. We don't want council members or elders or deacons (or whatever other high offices you've got in your church) who are single. If you're single and female, forget about heading up a ministry of any kind. Find yourself a man and then you'll be valuable. Let's make sure our church hosts 26 marriage conferences/retreats/workshops this year (once every other week sounds about right), but we don't need to do anything special for singles. They obviously don't have any relationships important enough to care about.

And our "singles ministries"? That's where young single people go who are desperately trying not to be single anymore. It's a great place to meet nice young members of the opposite sex who are Christians and might be interested in marrying me someday. And in many cases the church's general attitude toward the singles ministry seems to be, "Well, if they all hook up with each other, then we won't have to bother with a singles ministry anymore -- they'll be able to join all of our couples ministries!"

Don't get me wrong. I think marriage is fantastic, and I think it's extremely important that the church do everything it can to help marriages succeed through whatever Biblically based programs it can get its hands on. I know women who have a deep longing to be a wife and a mother someday, and men who desperately want a woman with whom they can share their life and grow in Christlikeness. I have no problem with that.

But why do people in the church feel like it's their responsibility to check-in with singles every week and find out if they're dating anyone yet? How Biblical is that attitude? Where does inspired scripture say, "Make sure you're married by age 25 (or as soon as humanly possible thereafter), because until you have a spouse you're only a fraction of what you could be"?

Jesus was single.

And Paul spent seemingly half of 1 Corinthians (okay, maybe not that much) trying to convince his readers that singleness has its benefits. He told them not to be so concerned with a change of status (and this applies to any kind of status, not just marital status). You're single? Stay that way! You only make $20 grand a year? Don't worry about it. He tells them that married people will face a whole bunch of troubles, and if he can spare them from those troubles he'd be happy to. He points out that single people have a wonderful opportunity to be concerned only about the Lord's affairs -- not having to devote attention to a wife and family. Paul doesn't have a problem with marriage, but he has an awful lot more good things to say to single people than most of us seem to.

Why aren't our churches empowering that group of people that could easily have the potential to make an unparalleled impact for the Kingdom?