The Truth about Fearing The Reaper

The Truth about Fearing The Reaper

Ok, I'm not defending secular music here; but millions have misinterpreted a popular secular song, and I am all about correcting wrong thinking...so I am trying to change thinking and correct wrong thinking (please do not be afraid to correct my thinking when it is wrong.) I love it when I have a revelation about an idea or concept that I (or others) have held to be true for many years. A secular song has been misinterpreted since its release in 1976. Not only opponents of this kind of music have misinterpreted the lyrics of this song, but fans have misinterpreted it as well.

Now, I do not condone listening to this type of music in any way shape or form; but once one looks at the meaning of this song objectively a great truth can be proved, "Context is King." For those of you who are lucky enough to NOT have your minds tainted with this music (unlike myself) the song is (Don't Fear) The Reaper, written by Donald Roeser. This song has received much airplay on the radio, has been covered many times, featured in a video game, has been playing in the background of many movies, and even has been used as skit material for a couple of comedy TV shows. This song has been labeled evil because many believe it is about teenage suicide. But just because the song makes a reference to Romeo and Juliet and has Reaper in the title does not make it about suicide. Here is the lyric used in the song.

Romeo and Juliet are together in eternity (we can be like they are)

Most people think that Don meant that we should be like Romeo and Juliet, tragically eliminating ourselves because of unrequited love. However, he meant that we should not fear death because there is an afterlife. The context is not "we can be like they are," a tragic double suicide, but "we can be like they are," "TOGETHER IN ETERNITY." An earlier verse states that

Seasons don't fear the reaper; nor do the wind, the sun, or the rain (we can be like they are)

Should we be constantly changing like the seasons, or unpredictable and unseen like the wind, bright like the sun, or wet like rain? No, "we can be like they are." And how are they in this CONTEXT? They are in a state of not fearing death. That is how we should be. Fall cares not that winter is coming. We, as Christians, know there is more than just being together in eternity; for being together in a lake of fire for all eternity would not be an ideal afterlife.

Which brings me to a different point for a moment; we are never commanded to keep the world from being the world. We are commanded to not be in the world. (Forget for a moment that I am writing about a secular song.) Christians are not commanded to march on Hollywood and demand that they clean up their act, or sue record companies so they stop producing filth. We need to touch the lives of the people we pass by and have daily contact with. We need to show them there IS an afterlife; but only a pleasant one for those who have accepted Christ as Savior. And the reason to accept Christ is to glorify God, not a 'Get Out of Hell Free' card.

I do not believe the motive behind this song is to get the fans to kill themselves as ticket sales would drop. Don is a musician because it was his hobby; he taught himself how to play guitar. I do not believe he wanted to drag everyone who listens to his music into a lake of fire. He was just doing what he was interested in and became talented enough to become famous. The scenario he envisioned was that of a man consoling his terminally ill companion; saying that she should not fear death because death could not separate them from the love that they share. Love conquers death, was Don’s intent. The line at the end of the song, “it was clear she couldn’t go on” meant, to him, that she was unable to struggle anymore with her illness and was overcome. And Don does not give any notion that the man desires to follow her immediately into death. He never meant for people to interpret this song as promoting suicide.

So, if you ever meet a Blue Oyster Cult fan, ask them if they believe in an afterlife. And then hit them with the Gospel. And don’t forget: “Context is KING!”

TR

Where was Jesus Born?

Where was Jesus Born?

In this year’s Nov/Dec ARCHAEOLOGY magazine, they present an article about where exactly Jesus was born. The debate is between Bethlehem of Judea versus Bethlehem of Galilee. I’ll start with some quotes (from the "In this Issue" section) from the Editor in Chief, Peter A. Young.

This first one concerns Israel taking over Canaan.

“The conquest of the Promised Land is not about a rampaging band of desert nomads wiping out everyone in their path but serves rather as a powerful political metaphor for a profound social transformation in Canaan, during which the walls of Jericho never actually came tumbling down.”

This is, of course, a secular publication so I do not expect them to believe the miracles of the Bible. However there is a fatal flaw in his ideology, which I will address later (my 'glazed pot' analogy.)

He then addresses the Star of Bethlehem.

“Was the tale inspired by a supernova or a triple conjunction of Saturn and Jupiter in the constellation Pisces in 7 B.C., or was it simply made up by Matthew?”

I believe that many times God uses natural events, which have logical explanations, throughout history (of course many have no explanation other than they are God’s ‘magic.’) So, who is to say he did not use an alignment of planets or have a star collapse and go supernova to coincide with the birth of Jesus? Astrology is hardly an exact science; especially when working backwards. And historical literary accounts from differing cultures as to when these astrological events took place would never match up anyway.

This brings me to a quote from the actual article’s author, Aviram Oshri who is a senior archaeologist with the ISRAELI ANTIQUITIES AUTHORITY.

“Luke and Matthew may have deliberately made the association between Jesus and
David's Bethlehem to give greater credibility to Jesus as Messiah."

It is always easy to discount the Bible, just say they made it up; burden of proof falls on the believer, which is not possible because God requires FAITH...

Another quote from Aviram follows:

"Religious scholars had long questioned whether the Bible's only Nativity narratives set in Bethlehem in Judea were a deliberate attempt by Matthew and Luke to associate Jesus with the House of David and reinforce his status as Messiah among the early Jewish convert communities . . . Scholars only began to write about the possibility of Bethlehem of Galilee being the birthplace of Jesus in the late nineteenth century . . .”

Here is the problem I have with secular archaeologist's ideology (many of whom I would believe are atheists.) Archaeology is all about digging up artifacts and then postulating on how they were created, to what purpose they were created for, and from what time period they came from. Let us say one found a glazed and painted clay pot on a dig. The finder would never question that the artifact was created and designed by an intelligent maker. The pot itself would never have been able to fashion itself and then build a kiln, take itself out, compound pigments, make a brush, paint itself, and then glaze itself. That scenario would be ABSURD.

Which is why it boggles my mind when they look at nature; they do not see that it was designed and created by an intelligent maker. However, this idea that nature could have created and designed itself is just as absurd as the pot that glazed itself. God is the inetlligent maker who designed and created all of this universe; and He sent His Son to glorify Himself by undoing the effects of sin.

Aviram might not necessarily dis-believe in God, but he surely does not believe that Jesus was THE Messiah. And this slant overshadows all of his postulates about what he will find on all of his digs.

While searching at Bethlehem in Judea, Aviram was surprised that he "found nothing" when it came to looking for Herodian remains. Just because one did not find anything does not mean that it is not there or has not degraded totally or has not been removed in the past. I am not impressed with the level of scientific thinking presented in this magazine.

However, while searching at Bethlehem in Galilee he found the three following structures:
1. Church (one of the largest Byzantine churches in Israel)
2. Inn
3. Monastery

These structures had been fortified and, later, violently destroyed.

"Is it possible that, because of the hostility the Jews had toward Christians in this period, the residents of Bethlehem of Galilee fortified the site which they held to be the birthplace of the Christian Messiah?"

Yes, it is; it is also possible that these structures were destroyed for a myriad other reasons. And wouldn't the early Christians be guarding the Judean Galilee if they were trying to assert that Jesus was THE Messiah (I'm sure they knew the rules set up by the OT.) They would be thinking: If He is the Christ He would have to be from David's line. Guarding Galilee would only promote the idea that He was not the Christ.

Aviram's conclusion is the following:

"If the historical Jesus were truly born in Bethlehem, it was most likely the Bethlehem of Galilee, not that in Judea. The archaeological evidence certainly seems to favor the former, a busy center a few miles from the home of Joseph and Mary, as opposed to an unpopulated spot almost a hundred miles from home. At the very least, it is an improbable trip for a pregnant woman to have made on a donkey."

My conclusion is that Aviram's ideas about his findings are clouded by his preconceived notions that Jesus is not THE Christ; and as long as he holds this bias he will never be an objective archaeologist. Packed along with his pick-ax, shovel, and dust brush is his disbelief about Jesus being the Messiah, and this array of tools is no way to ever come up with open minded opinions about artifacts and sites he will uncover.

So, what should we do as Christians? Get together and get ARCHAEOLOGY magazine banned? No, I'll leave that up to the Baptists...I, as a Biblical independent fundamentalist, should pray that Mr. Young and Mr. Oshri would have the Holy Spirit open their minds and hearts to the FACT that Jesus was sent by God and IS the true Christ, the ONLY Messiah.

TR

II Samuel 13 or "Sibling Rivalry"

These are just some thoughts on where I am in devotions right now; this is not to be a perfect sermon outline or anything like that.

Sadly, Cain slaying Abel is not the only account of brother killing brother in the Bible. In this chapter, many horrific events take place; and as one can see, the effects of Amnon’s desire to have his half-sister sets in motion a chain of events that only brings sorrow upon sorrow to more and more people. As with most temptations, it begins with what Amnon sees.

Amnon sees that his half (I assume) sister, Tamar, is very beautiful. He dwells on his desire to have her, for he is “vexed.” The temptation to sin is persistent. His “subtle” friend (and I assume cousin) Jonadab helps him devise a plan of deception. It seems there is usually another person willing to help us get what we want when it comes to sin. Sin usually involves planning and that planning involves deception.

When Amnon goes about to commit the act, Tamar rationally explains that he could have her in marriage if he would only ask his father, the king, permission to do so. But Amnon, driven by lust at this point, refuses. Sin always clouds good judgment. After Amnon has sinned he is not satisfied for he realizes he hates her now; even more so than he first desired her. Sin never satisfies.

Now the effects of sin begin to take their toll. Tamar is shamed and she rends her virginal garments and cries. Sin always affects others. Absalom coldly tells his sister to keep quiet about the event; and he harbors resentment by not talking to his brother. He then devises a plan of deception himself to get revenge, which he carries out 2 years later. David is wroth with what Amnon has done. Sins effects are far reaching.

Absalom eventually carries out his revenge by having Amnon murdered. Sin has consequences. Absalom flees and stays hidden in Geshur for 3 years. Jonadab pops in here to tell David where Absalom is; contrast Jonadab and his council in this chapter with Joab’s council to David in the following chapters. David mourns the death of Amnon; and is angry with Absalom. Sins consequences are irreversible.

Amnon’s decision to plot and then carry out his lust cost Tamar her dignity and David his son and helped turn Absalom into a murderer; and also cost Amnon his own life.

What can we see about sin from this chapter?

• Temptation begins with what we see
• Temptation to sin is persistent
• There is usually another person willing to help us get what we want when it comes to sin
• Sin usually involves planning and that planning involves deception
• Sin always clouds good judgment
• Sin never satisfies
• Sin always affects others
• Sin’s effects are far reaching
• Sin has consequences
• Sin’s consequences are irreversible