The Lamb who was Slain

Revelation 5:1-7

When we come to chapter five, we’re essentially coming to a continuation of the previous chapter. John has seen a vision of the heavenly throne room, and God is illustrating to Him what things are like from His perspective.

5:1 Then I saw in the right hand of him who was seated on the throne a scroll written within and on the back, sealed with seven seals.

Throughout chapter 4 there was a strong parallel to Ezekiel 1-2, and Daniel 7 as well. Now as we get into chapter five, the Ezekiel references fade a bit into the background, but in verse one, there remains a very strong allusion to the scroll mentioned in Ezekiel. Yet as well see momentarily, there are also Isaianic and Danielic references that come to the forefront.

The passage in Ezekiel we ought to take note of it this:

And when I looked, behold, a hand was stretched out to me, and behold, a scroll of a book was in it. [10] And he spread it before me. And it had writing on the front and on the back, and there were written on it words of lamentation and mourning and woe. (Ezekiel 2:9-10)

Note that like the passage before us, this is a scroll written on both sides. The scroll in Ezekiel has to do with judgment that is about to befall Isarel, but the scroll here in Revelation has both judgment and redemption concerns. Therefore it is probably best to think of the scroll as containing those plans which God has for the world. The destiny of mankind is the topic of this scroll.

Note that it is sealed with seven seals. In Roman society, legal wills were sealed with seven seals (noted by everyone from Walvood to Beale). The imagery suggests that, like in Roman times, once the will was opened two things would happen 1. The will would be executed and 2. The time for waiting to see the contents of the will would be at a conclusion.

In terms of this imagery and the idea of the sealed will, many theologians see a clear reference to Daniel where twice the “sealing up” of a vision is mentioned:

The vision of the evenings and the mornings that has been told is true, but seal up the vision, for it refers to many days from now.” (Daniel 8:26)

But you, Daniel, shut up the words and seal the book, until the time of the end. Many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall increase.” (Daniel 12:4)

I heard, but I did not understand. Then I said, “O my lord, what shall be the outcome of these things?” [9] He said, “Go your way, Daniel, for the words are shut up and sealed until the time of the end. (Daniel 12:8-9)

The passages in Daniel 12 were written in the third year of the reign of Cyrus the Great. The people were back in the land, rebuilding of the temple had commenced, and yet things weren’t as they should be. The future that the prophets had promised with so much enthusiasm didn’t seem to be so glorious – at least not yet. It was a slow process – much like our own day, we wonder “when will Jesus come back and restore the earth”, well they likely wondered “when will the glory of Jerusalem return in the way prophesied? When will the line of David be restored to the throne?”[i]

Some see Isaiah 29 (verses 11-12 are instructive) as a background thought here as well. Consequently, Is. 29 is a parallel passage to some of Isaiah 6 – the portion that speaks of the people essentially not having ears to hear the word of God. The idea is that God has sealed the truth of this Revelation until the right time – the time of Jesus’ ministry. Thus, God has now allowed John to see and proclaim what Daniel was told to seal up, and what Isaiah bemoaned would never be seen or heard by the Israelites in his day because of their hardness of heart.[ii]

There is a possibility that the meaning of the scroll having been written on front and back has to do with 1. The fullness/completeness of the message and 2. The fact that when something was written front and back it was therefore not completely sealed off from all knowledge content-wise. That is to say that there was a portion of God’s revelation that was readable – some make the connection between this and the fact that Daniel (for instance) had to know what God had in mind, even if he didn’t share it with others. So in some sense at least one from among men knew God’s plan prior to the seal being opened. I’m not entirely sure how strong of an observation this is, but it made some sense in my mind – some of this is predicated upon the imagery of a scroll and not a codex being what is intended, I suppose.

5:2-4 And I saw a mighty angel proclaiming with a loud voice, “Who is worthy to open the scroll and break its seals?” [3] And no one in heaven or on earth or under the earth was able to open the scroll or to look into it, [4] and I began to weep loudly because no one was found worthy to open the scroll or to look into it.

Now I always found this interesting. Why would John be weeping about the scroll not being opened? It wasn’t until I put some study into this and realized that the scroll contains the future plans of God for both judgment and redemption that I began to understand the angst of the apostle.

Hermeneutical side note: If we are reading this literalistically, we’d get tripped up by the phrase “And no one in heaven or on earth or under the earth was able to open the scroll or to look into it.” Would not our immediate conclusion be that no one – including Jesus – was able to do this? The right way to read this is as a generalization/hyperbole on John’s part. We actually use this kind of language all the time. We say, “no one understands my point of view” or “no one on earth is good enough to marry my daughter” and so forth. When we don’t mean that not ever single person, rather it is a generalization and one that is usually limited to our own awareness of the situation. Now, no one that I have read from any camp sees this as an issue, but that’s because they don’t apply their own hermeneutic to it! Therefore we must be consistent in our understanding of grammar and literary forms and structures.

So why is John so upset? Because no one can open the scroll, which is tantamount to saying that all of God’s plans for the future of the world cannot be achieved. Sinners who hate God and His children will go on persecuting them, and Christians will never be united to their Savior. This would indeed be a sad state of affairs.

Beale helpfully comments:

Once the seals are opened, the readers can understand the decretive nature of the book and, therefore, the purpose of history. They can discern that even their “sufferings are according to the will of God” and can be comforted by “entrusting their souls to him,” since he employs suffering to “perfect, confirm, strengthen, and establish” them (1 Peter 4:19, 5:10). Despite the chaos and confusion of the world, there is an ordered eschatological plan, which cannot be thwarted and is, indeed, already being fulfilled.”[iii]

Lastly, just note the worldwide nature of the situation here. In the Isaiah 29 background, the author was speaking more specifically to the house of Israel, but Daniel 12 speaks to the entire world and deals with the consummation of world history. That isn’t to say that John didn’t have the Isaianic text in mind, but I point it out so that we can understand the contexts of each passage – only then are we able to see how they are transformed across the canon. But again, it is notable (according to Beale and others) that when you have read Daniel 7 and 12 you begin to see that the plans God has in this scroll are universal in nature. So there seems to be a specific aim in the Daniel passages that finding its teleos in Christ and is aimed at prophesying what John is seeing here, whereas the Isaianic passage had perhaps a dual role 1. To be fulfilled in their time by the invasion of Babylon and the captivity due to Israel’s disobedience and 2. To find even greater fulfillment in Christ in that it anticipates a day when One will come who will unseal the mysteries of God – not on the basis of the righteousness (or lack there of) of the people, but on His own righteousness and worthiness. He will soften the hardness of human hearts by supernatural work of the Spirit in the setting of a new covenant.[iv]

5:5-6 And one of the elders said to me, “Weep no more; behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has conquered, so that he can open the scroll and its seven seals.” [6] And between the throne and the four living creatures and among the elders I saw a Lamb standing, as though it had been slain, with seven horns and with seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God sent out into all the earth.

The elders end the weeping of John by pointing to the Lion of the tribe of Judah. In here there is a mini-Biblical theology of the conquering of Jesus. The key here is to think of the central idea of the conquering of Jesus. It begins with Genesis 49 as the background:

Judah is a lion’s cub; from the prey, my son, you have gone up. He stooped down; he crouched as a lion and as a lioness; who dares rouse him? [10] The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor the ruler’s staff from between his feet, until tribute comes to him; and to him shall be the obedience of the peoples. (Genesis 49:9-10)

Jesus is the seed of the woman who has sprouted from the tribe of Judah. This is then picked up in the prophets who call him the “root of David”

There shall come forth a shoot from the stump of Jesse, and a branch from his roots shall bear fruit. (Isaiah 11:1)

And…

In that day the root of Jesse, who shall stand as a signal for the peoples—of him shall the nations inquire, and his resting place shall be glorious. (Isaiah 11:10)

Then of course the text we all are familiar with from Isaiah is it pertains to the Lamb:

Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted. [5] But he was pierced for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his wounds we are healed. [6] All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned—every one—to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all. [7] He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth; like a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and like a sheep that before its shearers is silent, so he opened not his mouth. (Isaiah 53:4-7)

Jeremiah combines the image of the tree branch and the lamb:

But I was like a gentle lamb led to the slaughter. I did not know it was against me they devised schemes, saying, “Let us destroy the tree with its fruit, let us cut him off from the land of the living, that his name be remembered no more.” (Jeremiah 11:19)

And…

“Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will raise up for David a righteous Branch, and he shall reign as king and deal wisely, and shall execute justice and righteousness in the land. (Jeremiah 23:5)[v]

And the very last prophet in a long line of OT prophets, John the Baptist finally beholds the Lord incarnate and proclaims what we now have come to call the Angus Dei:

The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! (John 1:29)

All of these images are meant to bring to our minds the plotline of the Bible. God is in control of history and is moving it to a conclusion which centers around His Son. And His Son is worthy because of the redemption He achieved. Ironically, He died in order to live. He lost physically in order to conquer spiritually.

The atonement motif is especially vivid here, with the bloody sacrifice being portrayed in the imagery of the lamb.

It’s worth noting that the word “slain” here is in the perfect participle. So that in this sense He “continues to exist as a slaughtered Lamb” which “expresses an abiding condition as a results of the past act of being slain” (Beale).

Because of all of these things, and the great victory He has achieved on the cross, Jesus is worthy to execute and handle all of the events of judgment and redemption bound up in the scroll.

Horns and Eyes

Finally, the imagery here suggests characteristics which can only be appropriated to the Deity. The lamb is said to have 7 eyes and 7 horns. The 7 eyes are the Holy Spirit. The Spirit is the Member of the Trinity who appropriates the work of God’s redemption to individuals on earth. Jesus’ victory is appropriated to individuals, and that happens through spiritual renewal, through new spiritual life, the application of which comes from the Holy Spirit who is said to have fullness of knowledge – the 7 indicates fullness, and the eyes indicate the full knowledge of God.

When King Asa has relied on the Syrian king for help instead of God, a prophet told him this: “For the eyes of the LORD run to and fro throughout the whole earth, to give strong support to those whose heart is blameless toward him. You have done foolishly in this, for from now on you will have wars.” (2 Chronicles 16:9)

The point is that nothing is hidden from the eye of God. God’s eyes search the earth and He knows all. As it relates to the lamb who was slain, and there is an obvious redemptive tie. The Spirit only applies redemption to those whom God has foreordained to that end. Revelation knows nothing of man’s “free will” in matters of salvation or escape from judgment.

The horns on the lamb are indications of power – the fullness of power. This is OT imagery. A few examples should suffice.

When Moses blessed the tribe of Joseph he said:

A firstborn bull—he has majesty, and his horns are the horns of a wild ox; with them he shall gore the peoples, all of them, to the ends of the earth; they are the ten thousands of Ephraim, and they are the thousands of Manasseh.” (Deuteronomy 33:17)

When Ahab sought advice from prophets as to whether he’d be victorious in battle, we read of one prophet saying this:

And Zedekiah the son of Chenaanah made for himself horns of iron and said, “Thus says the LORD, ‘With these you shall push the Syrians until they are destroyed.’” (1 Kings 22:11)

The Psalmists says…

For you are the glory of their strength; by your favor our horn is exalted. (Psalm 89:17)

Of course the passages in Daniel 7 and 8 are replete with examples of this as well.

Summary of vss. 1-6

As the hymn says, “what shall we say to these great thing? To mysteries sublime, for if he is with us we can sing, now and for all time!”[vi]

Beale has two pages of wonderful conclusionary statements on these verses, but here is one of my favorite parts in which he is discussing the prominence of the “lamb” motif in this passage. What he is noticing is that Revelation 4 and 5 are parallel to Daniel 7, but the main difference seems to be that John substitutes the “son of man” title in these chapters for “lamb of God.” This is his conclusion:

…John is attempting to emphasize that it was in an ironic manner that Jesus began to fulfill the OT prophecies of the Messiah’s kingdom. Wherever the OT predicts the Messiah’s final victory and reign, John’s readers are to realize that these goals can begin to be achieved only by the suffering of the cross. That this is the intention of the juxtaposition of “Lion” and “Lamb” in 5:5-6 is discernible from the pattern elsewhere in the book: visions are placed directly after heavenly sayings in order to interpret them.[vii]

How does this apply to us? Beale says:

Consequently, the Lion conquers initially by suffering as a slain lamb. This juxtaposition implies that, in their struggle against the world, believers should remember that Christ also suffered at the hands of the world but triumphed over it. His destiny is to be theirs, if the persevere.[viii]

So there are two things I’d say that really impressed upon me as I studied this passage. 1. The imagery used here is meant to bring to mind the words and promises of God. All that was bound up in the Pentateuch was picked up and interpreted by the prophets, and found its “amen” in Christ the lamb who was slain. And 2. Because of His intercessory atoning work on our behalf, our sins have been forgiven, and because we have been united to Him through the baptism of the Spirit (Rom. 6), we share in His destiny – which we’ll see in chapters 6 onward is a good thing.

So often we hear the secular liberals of our time saying “you Christians are going to be on the wrong side of history” with regards to gay marriage or other social issues. But from what we read here, we’re on the right side of history. Our futures are tied to the one who has control over the future, and that is a very comforting thought indeed.

5:7 And he went and took the scroll from the right hand of him who was seated on the throne.

Just another hermeneutical side note: we must not press imagery too far inter literalistic oblivion. For example, if everything must be exactly literal, then how in the world are we to picture a slain lamb (that was supposed to be a Lion) handling a scroll? Last time I looked lambs have hooves, which make it rather difficult for them to clutch parchment. You see my meaning.

Now the idea of the image here is that the lamb is approaching the throne of the Father and is taking the scroll from his hand. This image really conveys a boldness that only one with the right to be there would have. I don’t want to blow this too far out of proportion, but if I were to ever enter the throne room of Queen Elizabeth, I might stand there on the sideline as a spectator, but I wouldn’t have the right or position to approach the throne. But the Lamb in this picture does just that. He approaches and takes the scroll, because He Himself is royalty, and because He is worthy to do so.

In this picture we see the authority of the conquering Christ. He reaches out and grabs the scroll, thereby taking charge of world history. He alone decides the fates of men, and is the only name by which any man may be saved.

Footnotes

[i] My thoughts on this passage were formed in part by E.J. Young and Ian Duguid’s commentaries on Daniel12.

[ii] Admittedly Beale says that Is. 29 forms more of a background, but I can tell that he wants to have the parallel made. I see a real connection there between God’s providence over the progressive revelation of His plan and the hardness of man’s hearts. But I am not an OT scholar.

[iii] Beale, longer commentary, Pg. 342.

[iv] Alex Motyer’s commentary on Isaiah has proven somewhat helpful here in understanding the background of this passage. Is. 29 really parallels Is. 6 post-call of Isaiah. In that passage the people are said to have ears that won’t hear and feet that won’t obey etc. And that Isaiah is being sent to them even though they won’t listen because they have hardened hearts. It is a mission of judgment, one might say. So even though these passages don’t form a direct prediction-to-fulfillment in the same way Daniel 12 does, they do provide the background against which the plotline is unfolding. And they (Is. 29 verses) give us an understanding for a fuller context in which the sealing up of God’s plans for His people was occurring. His people weren’t ready for the unsealing of His promises. And the world wasn’t ready either. Only when Christ came did these plans get really inaugurated – as Churchill once stated about a turning point in WWII, it wasn’t the beginning of the end, but only the end of the beginning. I don’t know if that is precisely accurate here, but Christ did inaugurate a new covenant with major consequences for humanity, solving a lot of the issues that Is. 29 was bemoaning (people’s hardness of heart + one worthy to bring God’s promises to consummation). That’s a long way around explaining some of the background thought that is built in to these images.

[v] Zechariah also says, “Hear now, O Joshua the high priest, you and your friends who sit before you, for they are men who are a sign: behold, I will bring my servant the Branch” (Zechariah 3:8).

[vi] These Great Things, a hymn from ‘Glory to the Holy One’ by R.C. Sproul and Jeff. L.

[vii] Beale, longer commentary, pg. 353.

[viii] Beale, longer commentary, pg. 353.

House of Cards

Perhaps this is just a sign of the times, but it seems like every week or so there is some well-known pastor jumping off the ship of orthodoxy and scrambling for the shores of easy-believism and worldliness. I used to consider Andy Stanley pretty mainline/mainstream – I certainly didn’t consider him in the category of Joel Olsteen.

So imagine my shock when only a few days ago Stanley clearly denied the inerrancy of scripture, and betrayed a lack of Christian maturity that is stunning for a man entrusted with so much responsibility. Here are the words I’m referring to (thanks to Sola Sisters blog):

“The foundation of our faith is not the Scripture. The foundation of our faith is not the infallibility of the Bible. The foundation of our faith is something that happened in history. And the issue is always, who is Jesus? That’s always the issue. The Scripture is simply a collection of ancient documents that tells us that story. So, when we talk about the Scriptures, and especially the reliability of the Scriptures, I think any time that we can tie, the Old Testament especially, back to Jesus, we have done everybody, Christians and non-Christians alike, an incredible service by letting them know, you know what? You can believe the Adam and Eve story is a creation myth, so what? Who is Jesus? And then to your point, when I deal with Adam and Eve, I’m quick to say hey, this is one of those odd stories. This is that story you heard growing up about two naked people running around in a garden. And who can believe that? And there are many creation myths. But here’s why I believe this actually happened: not because the Bible says so, but because in the gospels, Jesus talks about Adam and Eve. And it appears to me that he believed they were actually historical figures. And if he believed they were historical, I believe they were historical, because anybody that can predict their own death and resurrection, and pull it off, I just believe anything they say……The foundation of my faith is not an infallible Bible. It’s something that happened in history. Jesus came into the world, walked on the earth, represented God, was God, and rose from the dead.” (Andy Stanley, pastor of North Point Community Church, Atlanta, GA)

After I had read this, read it again, and then re-read it, I then watched the video interview from which the quote was taken…yup, that’s exactly what he said. Still shocked by the interview, I decided to find out what fellow Southern Baptists thought about this in order to reorient my mind and make sure I wasn’t off my rocker completely in thinking Stanley was denying the inerrancy of Scripture.

Southern Baptist professor Denny Burke responded with the following:

While it is true that Christ’s accomplishment in the cross and resurrection is the basis of our salvation, it is misleading to say that the “foundation of our faith is not the Scripture.” Our only access to what Christ accomplished for us in history is through Scripture! The message of salvation comes to us in the Bible, apart from which there is no salvation. This is why the apostle Paul can speak of the apostles’ message as the “foundation” of the church (Eph. 2:20). Without their testimony which has been inscripturated for us in the Bible, there is no salvation.

Stanley says that his belief in Adam and Eve is not “because the Bible says so,” but because Jesus says so. The first and most obvious problem with this formulation is the fact that our only knowledge of what Jesus says comes to us from the Bible. There can be no bifurcation between “what the Bible says” and “what Jesus says.” The former gives us the latter.

So why even write a post about this if others have so soundly refuted Stanley’s statements? Because there are many people within my own church and circles of influence who, sadly, are not aware of this man’s misinformed teaching. I claim to have been one of those people who simply didn’t know a lot about Stanley, until more recently. Stanley has received the benefit of his father’s name and popularity, and, without delving into Charles Stanley’s teaching, it is important for us to see that man for what he is – a pastor whose teaching is a house of cards (to use his own term re: Scripture).

There are two points that stick out in my mind that I’d like to address. First, it is abundantly clear to me that Andy Stanley is not very bright, and second, he is not teaching true doctrine. Those are two separate points, but both are valid (if not obvious) and I’ll address each separately.

He’s Not Very Bright

If you, as a Bible teacher and Pastor, deny the inspiration and authority of Scripture, then Stanley is right (in a way), you have a house of cards awaiting the inevitable collapse. Stanley basically asks us to consider “how can you believe what Moses wrote if those documents are so old, and the stories are so sensational? etc.” He responds to his own inquiries by stating that the only way we can know with certainty that Moses’s writing (on the Garden of Eden for instance) was accurate is by resting our faith on the words of Jesus. If Jesus said that Moses said it, well, the matter is settled. Stanley then cites the resurrection and other well known apologetics surrounding the person and work of Christ as foundation for the veracity of Christ’s words. “Bravo!” you say.  And you would be right…partially…

The problem is, of course, that Stanley is not using those apologetics to just back up what Jesus said, but what he (Stanley) says about all of Scripture. In one hand he wields the apologetic for the truth claims of Christ, in the other his misguided notions about the veracity and authority of all other Scriptures. Of course, the first part of the problem is that what we know about the person and work of Christ is passed onto us through old writings as well – writings that, to Stanley, must present another problem – namely that the stories surrounding Christ must seem even more fantastic than the Adam and Even story.

You tell me Mr. Stanley, what seems more fantastic to you, the raising of Lazarus from the dead, or two people named Adam and Even roaming around naked in the garden (to paraphrase your iniquitous commentary on the account from Genesis)?  You can see where I’m going with this…

But setting aside the comments on the nature of Old Testament histories, let me get back to the main point, which is that, ironically, if Stanley bases all his teaching simply on what Jesus said, and leaves the door open to question the authenticity of the rest of Scripture, how then can he say with confidence that what Jesus said is accurate? I won’t get into the amazing number of manuscripts, evidence, and the clear self-evidence of Scripture itself here. My point is not to serve up an apologetic for the veracity, historicity, or authenticity of Scripture, but rather to point out that if Stanley says that one area could be “off”, then doesn’t his own logic lead him to further questions regarding the authenticity of all Scripture, including that which was written about Christ?

To have made such illogical statements after thinking through the matter in a serious manner (which was apparent from the interview) leaves one to the obvious conclusion that Stanley simply is not very bright. With so many gifted (and sound) teachers of God’s Word filling pulpits, seminaries, and bookshelves today, why would you waste time listening to this guy?

He’s Not Teaching Sound Doctrine

The reason I started out addressing Stanley’s lack of intellect is not simply because I want to throw a cheap shot his way or tear the man down, but because I don’t want to let that fact distract from the responsibility he owes his congregation and those listening to him around the country. So let us acknowledge up front that the man simply isn’t very bright. But let us also take care not to shrug off his comments on this account alone.

Stanley’s comments would have gone entirely unnoticed if he were a liberal university professor, a skeptic, or a worldly philosopher, but he’s not!  He’s a professing Christian – and a leader in the church! James says, “Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness.” (James 3:1)

Those who are teachers and preachers of God’s Word are held to a higher standard of accuracy, for the sake of the many souls under their care.

So let us let Scripture’s own claims to authority (Old Testament and New) be mentioned now. The most obvious passage comes from the pen of the Apostle Paul, and therefore God’s own mouth, and says this:

All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, [17] that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work. (2 Timothy 3:16-17 ESV)

The passage speaks very clearly that all Scripture – not simply the words of Christ – are inspired and from God.

The doctrine of Sola Scriptura does not say that Scripture speaks to every conceivable thing in this world, but what it does say is that where the Bible speaks it is the supreme authority.  Stanley isn’t talking about DNA, age of the earth, evolution or the like.  He’s talking about matters in which Scripture speaks and speaks with great perspicuity. As Christians, we sit under the authority of Scripture. Stanley wants to simply sit under the authority of Jesus, but he forgets that Jesus was the Word made flesh (John 1) and that His apostles considered all of Scripture to be the Word of God and have authority over their lives.

As an aside  let me also remark that Stanley cannot defend himself on account of promoting a New Covenantal approach to hermeneutics, for in his desire to interpret the rest of Scripture through the lens of what Christ said (indeed commendable), he does not take into consideration the words of Paul (cited above). But I am giving him too much credit, he’s not that bright.

Lastly, while listening to Stanley’s mess this week, a passage in Luke came to mind:

And Zechariah said to the angel, “How shall I know this? For I am an old man, and my wife is advanced in years.” [19] And the angel answered him, “I am Gabriel. I stand in the presence of God, and I was sent to speak to you and to bring you this good news. [20] And behold, you will be silent and unable to speak until the day that these things take place, because you did not believe my words, which will be fulfilled in their time.” (Luke 1:18-20 ESV)

Zachariah had just heart the wonderful news that his wife Elizabeth was to have a son, but he responded in unbelief. The response of Gabriel is that he just came from the throne room of God – His words were straight from the Holy of Holies! Almost as if to say “how dare you doubt the veracity of my message!” Zechariah’s punishment was that he would be unable to form his own words until his son was born!

The same could be said of Stanley because he seems to doubt the veracity of very Word of God, and undermines its authority in the lives of his congregation and those who listen to his messages around the country. And since he has not (unfortunately) received the same sentence of muteness that afflicted Zechariah, we Christians must be discerning, testing every spirit (1 John 4:1), and diligently searching the Scriptures “to see if these things are so” (Acts 17:11).