Luke 17:20-37 – The DeKrakenator Daily

Friday, August 13, 2021

Remember Lot’s Wife – Audio Version

Are you a Bible quiz whiz? How many Bible verses do you know by heart? Today, we will learn not one, but two Bible verses by heart, and in almost no time at all. Then you will be well on your way to that most desirable of designations: a Bible Quiz Whiz. Okay then, open up your Bibles and put on your Bible memorization caps, ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls. Is everyone ready to learn two very easy verses? Here we go…

The easiest of all Bible verses to memorize might be John 11:35. That’s the Gospel of John, chapter eleven, verse thirty-five. Has everyone found it? It contains just two short words: “Jesus wept.” See? It’s so simple and so very easy to memorize. Remind me now: What does John 11:35 say, aspiring Bible Quiz Whizzers? That’s right. It simply says, “Jesus wept.”

Good job! Now let’s learn the second super easy verse!

The second easiest Bible verse to memorize might be Luke 17:32. That’s the Gospel of Luke, chapter seventeen, verse thirty-two. Has everyone found it? It contains just three short words: “Remember Lot’s wife.” Again, it’s super simple and very easy. What does Luke 17:32 say, aspiring Bible Quiz Whizzers? That’s right. It says, “Remember Lot’s wife.”

Great job, everyone! You have now memorized not just one, but two very valuable verses: Jesus Wept and Remember Lot’s Wife. Repeat them after me one more time: Jesus Wept and Remember Lot’s Wife.

“Umm, Teacher, Teacher… excuse me.”

Yes, hold on, everyone. I see a hand over here. Do you have a question, kid?

“Umm, okay, yeah… so I don’t get it. Why did Jesus weep? And what are we supposed to remember about Lot’s wife?”

Oh my! Wow! Aren’t you inquisitive?! Those are two very good questions. For now, let’s wait on those questions until everyone has had a chance to perfectly memorize their verses; okay? Then maybe we will go to the pastor with what you just asked. Given all he has learned about the Bible, I am sure Pastor has the answers to your very good questions. Okay?

“Umm, okay. Do I have to wait, though? I just wondered why Jesus cried and what we’re supposed to remember about that guy’s wife. What was his name again?”

His name was Lot. Remember Lot’s wife.

“Yeah, Lot’s wife. Did she get into trouble for something? Did she do something bad?”

Well, hmm… if I recall the story correctly, Lot’s wife instantaneously turned into a pillar or statue of salt when she disobeyed an angel’s command to not look backwards at the very bad city they were fleeing from.

“Oh, wow. That is kinda weird. You say she instantly turned into a stone statue?”

Well, I think the Bible actually says that Lot’s wife turned into a pillar of salt. But she may have looked something like a stone statue. At least, that is always how I imagine it.

“Whoa. Still, I am confused. Why would the angel do that to her? Why did she have to turn into a statue of salt? What is so bad about turning around to look at a city? It seems like a really harsh punishment.”

Okay, kid, you’re asking a lot of tough questions. Do you really want the answers?

“Yes, I do, because Jesus specifically told us to remember Lot’s wife. Why would he tell us to remember Lot’s wife if it isn’t something important? Are we going to be in a similar situation someday? So honestly, yes, I do want some more answers. What exactly are we supposed to remember about her?”

Whether you realize it or not, you just put me in an awkward place, kid. The questions you are asking are actually very difficult. I would rather you just memorize the verse and quit with the inquisitive questions. Three short words, kid. I just wanted to entertain you with the two easiest memory verses ever. But then you started acting like you are genuinely interested in what Jesus was saying.

“Sorry, but I am genuinely interested in what Jesus said. I mean, shouldn’t we take him seriously? I thought the whole point of going to church is to take Jesus seriously.”

Fine, kid. I will give you some straightforward answers. Get ready, because this will require that you actually pay attention. Most people quickly lose interest when they realize that the answer is going to require a bit of time and effort.

“Umm, I am willing to try.”

That’s better than most people, kid. Let me try to explain some things to you. You asked a very good question a few minutes ago. You might not realize how good your question is. Your question was whether we will ever be in a similar situation to Lot’s disobedient backward-glancing wife. The shortest answer to that is yes, we will. If I say that, though, most people will think I am a bit crazy.

“It kinda does sound crazy, Teacher. Are we going to have to run away from a doomed city someday?”

Probably not. But from what I can see, Jesus was talking about a future event that will require us to make a hard and unequivocal choice between sticking with what is familiar (however evil it is) or suddenly leaving for the promise of something better but unknown.

“What does unequivocal mean?”

Lot’s wife equivocated. That means she hesitated because she was not sure what she really wanted. In her heart, she kind of liked the evil city, so she turned back, just to look. To make an unequivocal decision is to be completely decisive, and not hesitate.

“Was Jesus talking about a real event, though? Might he have meant it more generically or loosely?”

Sometimes people use the words literally and figuratively to ask that question. You are asking whether Jesus is talking about a literal future event or a figurative, hypothetical scenario. In this passage, it sure seems like Jesus is talking about a literal future event.

“But what event would that be?”

It could be one of two literal events. The first event was the siege and destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD. If that is the event Jesus had in mind, then Jesus command to remember Lot’s wife might not apply to us now. Perhaps Jesus just meant that the believers living way back then needed to instantly leave Jerusalem and head to the mountains when they recognized impending danger and realized his prophecy was about to be fulfilled. But in Luke 17:20-37 Jesus does not mention Jerusalem at all, so I think he has something different in mind. I think he is talking about when he comes back. Jesus refers to the event in question as “the day when the Son of Man is revealed.” To me, that sounds like it might be a future event from our vantage point in history — an event we might live to see ourselves someday.

“Do you mean Jesus’ Second Coming?”

Yes, I do. As I read Luke 17, I cannot help but conclude that Jesus is talking about when he comes back at the end of this age. And I will even go a bit further than that. I think Jesus is describing the Rapture. Have you heard of the Rapture?

“Isn’t that when all the believers just instantly go up to heaven and leave all the unbelievers behind on earth? I thought that Pastor does not believe that.”

Yes, that is the general idea. And you’re right, a lot of pastors do not believe in the Rapture, because they think that Luke 17 and passages like it are just talking about the destruction of Jerusalem way back in 70AD. But if Luke 17 is actually talking about a future event, then it seems to describe a Rapture scenario, especially if it is read literally.

“So Jesus is telling us to remember Lot’s wife in the event of the Rapture?”

That is how I read Luke 17, yes. Jesus tells us to be ready to leave without hesitation and without equivocating in the event of the Rapture.

“Whoa! That is intense! I never heard it explained that way before.”

Admittedly, it is not a common explanation. But then again, I have not heard many, if any, sermons on Luke 17:20-37. When I read Luke 17 with the Second Coming and Rapture in mind, it just makes a lot of sense of the passage. Otherwise, I am not sure what Jesus is talking about.

“Okay. I think I get it. Jesus told us to remember Lot’s wife because we are supposed to be ready and willing to immediately leave when the Rapture happens. That’s kinda what you are saying; right?”

Yes, it is.

Sunday, January 31, 2021

Inoculated Against – Audio Version

Thirty years ago, I asked a young defense attorney if he had ever won an acquittal for a defendant he knew without doubt to be guilty. He gave me an easy yes, and explained that he had prepared a believable but bogus line of defense, a misleading argument that the jury had naively fallen for. As a result, his guilty-as-sin client was wrongly ruled innocent and walked off as free as can be. The attorney had won his case; but justice was not served. Justice did not have its way that day. To my befuddled bewilderment, the young defense attorney was upfront about what happened, and yet completely unbothered. He felt no need to justify what he had done. He took a matter-of-fact and nonchalant attitude about it all. I probably should not have been as surprised as I was. Like the hoodwinked jury, I was rather naïve.

If I had to squeeze a somewhat positive takeaway from my bewildering conversation with the young attorney, it would be this: Well-presented arguments matter, matter a lot.

Regrettably, a wrong-headed and yet well-presented argument can win out against a better argument presented poorly. Falsehood can have its way if it is presented more persuasively than truth. Truth ought to prevail, to be sure and absolutely so. But how it is presented might matter quite a bit more, at least in the short term.

Why is that, though? The simple reason why the presentation of an arguable claim can matter as much as the truthfulness of its content is because people are often naïve and gullible. Yes, that was a wordy sentence. Sorry. But think it through. How something is presented can matter as much or even more than whether it is true; and that it is because people are gullible.

Most people will buy a lousy idea if it is spun persuasively enough, and if others they respect fall for it. Consider that an important axiom that you can pocket and revisit. Know as well that it explains a massive amount of foolishness that routinely plays out around you. A lot of people have been inoculated against the truth because they have heard persuasive or pervasive lies. That was well-worded, so I will repeat it: A lot of people have been inoculated against the truth because they have heard persuasive or pervasive lies. Yes, I ought to give you some examples. And yes, I need to explain why I am pointing this out to you.

As for why I am pointing this out to you, I intend to argue against a first-rate and very influential theologian, whom I will refer to as the Right Reverend. I hope to persuade you that the Right Reverend is quite wrong on something quite big. He once presented a persuasive correction of a controversial biblical doctrine known as the Rapture. And his persuasive correction has become pervasive. Succinctly stated, the Right Reverend says there will be no Rapture. But I mean to correct his correction. Although the Right Reverend is right about a lot, here he is wrong. There will be a Rapture. It is a doctrine that can be established biblically. And we are supposed to expect it.

But before I get into the nitty-gritty of my arguments for the Rapture, I want to talk about the influence of the Right Reverend. Over a dozen years ago, I went to a local church where a very popular young pastor referred pejoratively to the Rapture as “Evacuation Theology.” The very popular young pastor insisted that God has no intentions of evacuating us Christians out of the world, but instead intends to return to this world and make Heaven and Earth one — one habitation for God and the Redeemed of Humanity.

Fancy Phrase here: The very popular young pastor was right in what he affirmed, but wrong in what he denied. And that is another important axiom to pocket: A lot of pundits are right in what they affirm and wrong in what they deny. How was he right? The popular young pastor was right when he affirmed that God intends to return (Christ) to this world and make Heaven and Earth one habitation for Himself and the Redeemed of Humanity. True, that. But the popular young pastor was wrong when he denied that God will evacuate the Church. On the contrary, according to scripture God will evacuate the Church, albeit for just a little while.

The message I heard from the popular young pastor had the fingerprints of the Right Reverend. It is very, very likely that the popular young pastor came to his disparaging views of the Rapture — “Evacuation Theology” — either directly or indirectly from the Right Reverend. If I had to bet, I would bet that the popular young pastor read the voluminous and eloquent writings of the Right Reverend in seminary, just like me. Indeed, the Right Reverend is prolific, and one of today’s best-selling Christian writers. The Right Reverend’s name is N.T. Wright, more casually known as Tom Wright. He is a brilliant and important writer. But he is wrong about the Rapture. I need to do more than assert that, though. I need to explain why Wright is wrong and I am right. Did you catch the pun there?

Allow me to make a caveat here, though: I hardly think of N.T. Wright as a dangerous heretic. Much to the contrary, I think of N.T. Wright as a profoundly important, orthodox interpreter and theologian. He deserves his status as one of the most important living Christian thinkers. But the Right Reverend Wright does get this one very important point very wrong.

Since Jesus warned his listeners to be vigilant and ready for the eventuality of his appearance and the rapture/the evacuation that will accompany his appearance, it matters much that we affirm its reality (see Luke 17:20-37, which will be one of my key scriptural references). Jesus urged his followers to be ready upon his appearance to immediately and absolutely abandon everything near and dear. Like Noah’s family and Lot’s family — evacuees, in both cases — his followers need to be ready and willing to leave when the time comes. Jesus puts the onus on his followers to be ready, watchful, and willing to leave when the time comes and he appears. This all makes sense if the rapture involves an urgent angelic summons of those who are ready to go. However, it does not make sense if there is no rapture.

But beating N.T. Wright in a debate about the reality of the Rapture will take a lot more than just a few sloppy paragraphs. I have a negative task and a positive task in front of me. The negative task is to debunk his frankly persuasive arguments. The positive task is to more firmly establish my own arguments. Honestly, I might not convince my readers and listeners. But I am going to try, if only because I really do believe the rapture will happen, and could happen relatively soon. For now, though, I just want my readers to be introduced to what the issue is and whom I arguing against.