1. Image of God
2. Son of David/God
3. Son of Man
Archives For Uncategorized
I grew up being shown in Revelation a miraculous rapture or “catching away” of the Church from a worldwide tribulation seven years prior to Christ’s millennial reign. In fact I read Left Behind before any of the other books were published. But I’ve since changed my mind about how Revelation is too be understood. And I think you should too.
My transformation began for a couple of key reasons.
1. A removal of the church from the suffering of this world is a faulty inference from Scripture. The rapture is certainly scriptural. In 1 Thessalonians Paul speaks about the church being caught up in the air with him. But it gives no indication of a time other than the return of Christ. I believe the a pre-tribue rapture holds a rather faulty theological assumption that God will remove his Church from the suffering in the world. But that is not the case. God may protect his church from destruction but he does not remove his church from the sufferings of this world. He did not spare his own Son what makes us think that he will not require us to do the same. In fact revelation has the emphasis – faithfulness even to death.
2. Revelation is not just simply meant for the last generation before Christ’s return. Pre-millennial dispensationalism in which the rapture is tied to a worldwide tribulation is a rather new doctrine. It began in the mid 19th century and was widely popularized after the horrific events of World War I. The view thrives on decerning the signs of the times and equating various instances in revelation with something going on now. Alla Hal Lindsey’s Late Great Planet Earth. In which Lindsey used revelation to decode his newspaper. Such a view of Revelation sees the book as if its meant simply for the generation before Christ’s coming, which is typically understood as the readers own. But in studying Church history I discovered an amazing fact. Revelation has been read by Christians for 2,000 years. And if its to be God’s word to every generation of Christian who reads it, it can’t possibly be read the way that many Christians today are reading it.
But as a pre-tribe rapture but I’ve since changed my mind about the nature and purpose of revelation.
A-millennialism is neither post nor pre-millennialism. It takes the 1,000 year reign as metaphorical. I believe Christ is reigning now in the church and that reign is advancing as His spirit empowers the church to win hearts and minds. But its not the complete reign. That will happen when Christ comes again to rule over all the world. But I also take the position that Christ’s coming will be in connection with the Church’s advancement in the world and not it’s marginalization or removal from the world. I take the words of the father to the son as the key. “Sit at my right hand until I make you’re enemies a footstool for your feet.” We are His empowered agents bringing about His reign.
This was the position of our Evangelical forefathers who initiated missions, abolition, temperance and a hole host of Christ inspired good works. And it seems to me we’ve still got a lot of work to do. 🙂 Pre-millennial dispensationalism in which the rapture is tied to a worldwide tribulation is a rather new doctrine which began in the 19th century and was popularized after the horrific events of World War I.
Revelation is structured around the worship of God before his throne.
Revelation Outline
Introduction (1:1-20)
Message to the Seven Churches (2:1-3:22)
Worship (4:1-11)
The Lamb Who Was Slain (5:1-14)
The First Six Seals (6:1-17)
The 144,000 (7:1-8)
Worship (7:9-17)
The First Six Trumpets (8:1-9:21)
Judgement Interrupted (10:1-11)
The Fate of the Two Witnesses (11:1-14)
Worship (11:15-19)
The Woman, Michael and the Dragon (12:1-18)
The Two Beasts (13:1-8)
The 144,000, judgement and the Harvest (14:1-20)
Worship (15:1-4)
The Seven Bowls of Wrath (15:5-21)
The Great Harlot (17:1-18)
Babylon’s Funeral (18:1-24)
Worship (19:1-10)
The Millennium (19:11-20:15)
The Bride, the New Jerusalem (21:1-22:5)
Epilogue (22:6-21)
What happens when a person knows absolutely nothing about Jesus or the Bible and is suddenly provided a banquet of nothing but the “Gospel” – What Trevin Wax calls the story for an individual?
- All have sinned.
- Sin deserves death.
- But Jesus died for our sins.
- Believe in Jesus and your sins will be forgiven.
- Now be a good person.
This simple and true has sometimes become the acid which undermines the whole of the Gospel. I’ve seen three major errors develop when this important emphasis because the whole of one’s theology.
1. A Disconnect between the Old and New Testament
If Jesus was the answer to the problem with the world what was God doing with Israel? Was it just a failed experiment? Marcion: God of the Old Testament is not the God of Jesus. This is happening today more and more. A belief in the “Gospel” forms the basis for rejecting the God of the Old Testament.
2. A Disconnect between the “Gospel” and the Gospels
A belief in the “Gospel” forms the basis for rejecting the life and preaching of Christ. The opposite is also the case. The life and teaching of Jesus is used to reject the teaching of Paul. Salvation and the life of Jesus. Paul and Jesus. God and man. Paul started a new religion. From Jesus to Christ. The Gospel of Paul is not the Gospel of Jesus. We have too choose one or the other.
3. A disconnect between Salvation and Discipleship
A belief in the “Gospel” forms the basis for rejecting the necessity of good works, the fight against sin or the need to live in community. Good works. Resist sin. Live in community. A radical break between grace and law, faith and works, savior and Lord, verbal witness and good works, accepting Jesus and participation in the church. What Jesus did for us and what he wants from us now. Savior and Lord
That is the Gospel! And yet it’s NOT the Gospel. It’s the Gospel without an essential context. It’s a summary for a people who already know the bigger story.
Chapter and verse divisions are a modern introduction to our bible, coming from Archbishop of Canterbury Stephen Langdon in the middle ages. The text of the bible originally had no divisions – not even gaps between words! It looked something like this.
This is entirely foreign to modern readers. In the Literary Structure of the Old Testament, David A. Dorsey states
Graphical signals bombard the reader of a book in modern western culture. Italics or underlining highlight words and phrases or special importance, while parentheses, footnotes, and appendices remove peripheral material from the direct course of the writer’s argument. Chapter headings, section titles, and paragraph indentations divide the text into segments whose limits coincide with units of the writer’s thought. Tables of contents outline the entire book, and sometimes even chapters or articles within the book.
The absence of such visual structure markers does not mean that the ancient authors were unmindful of the structure of their compositions had less rigorous structural patterns than our modern books.
Since most of the audience would not be reading the text but hearing it read aloud, ancient authors relied upon oral rather than graphic means to structure their works.
In Star Wars, Parallel Structures and the Bible I noted the way authors used parallels to structure there work. In this post I want to look at another form of paralell structures known as inverted parallelism or chaism.
The symmetric (or chiastic or introverted) pattern is also relatively common in the Hebrew Bible. Symmetry generally features two sets of units, in which the units of the second set match in reverse order the units of the first set: a-b-c II c’=b’=a’. There is often an unmatched central unit linking the two matching sets: a-b-c-b’-a’ (sometimes called “uneven chiasmus”). An example of a simple chiasmus from English literature is Pope’s line: “a wit with dunces, and a dunce with wits.”
The symmetric pattern has several compelling advantages:
- Beauty: humans appreciate the esthetic quality of a balanced presentation, whether it be in art, music, architecture, or literature.
- Coherence: a symmetry’s tight configuration reinforces its unity.
- Sense of completeness: the audience can recognize when the composition is “winding down,” and they know it has concluded when it echoes its beginning. A symmetrically arranged piece “comes full circle,” ending where it began.
- Central pivot: in a more extensive symmetry with an uneven number of units (e.g., a-b-c-d-c’-b’-a’), the central unit is the natural location for the turning point, climax, high point, or centerpiece, since it marks the point where the composition reverses its order. Both halves of the symmetry look toward the center unit, making it the natural focal point.
- Memory aid: both speaker and audience can remember the successive points of a speech more easily with the aid of the symmetric organization.
- Opportunities to exploit the repetitions: as with the parallel pattern, repetitions provide opportunity to do such things as compare, contrast, reiterate, emphasize, explain and illustrate.
Did I choose God or did God choose me? Now that I’m saved will I always been saved or can I lose my salvation? Is God all powerful or are there some things outside his control?
To most people these aren’t just academic questions they have profound significance for ones understanding of themselves and their relationship with God and others. So which is right? Am I free to choose or does God choose for me? Are my decisions pre-determined or do I have free will.
The answer is both! Here’s why.
Both Calvanism and Arminianism are Affirmed and Denied in Scripture
I think we should start with TULIP
T – Total Depratvity
U – Unconditional Election
L- Limited Atonement
I – Irresistable Grace
Once saved always saved or can you lose your salvation? Can’t it be both. I think it can. Here’s why. If case you didn’t know that’s a combination of the terms Calvanist and Arminian. A Calvanist sees the emphasis in scripture on God’s sovereignty. An Arminian sees the emphasis on man’s responsibility. But I see the two as two sides of the same coin. Because God is sovereign man is responsible. Man’s responsibility implies God’s sovereignty. Why am I a Calminianist. Here’s why.
P – Preservation of the Saints
2. Jesus teaching is based in paradox.
This Bible isn’t a game of chess where only one side can logically out maneuver the other. Throw your board away. Jesus taught in paradoxes. A paradox is: A seemingly absurd or self-contradictory statement or proposition that when investigated or explained may prove to be well founded or true
The first are last and the last first
If you want to lead you must become the servant
If you want to be in power you must become like a little child.
It’s upside down. The way of the cross is not a neat game of chess. It doesn’t make sense on an apparently rational level. Sure there are reasons. There is evidence, but locking in all down in some tighty arrangement fails to see the big picture of God.
3. Both help and harm.
Calvanism is comforting. It teaches us to trust in an all powerful God who works everything according to his plan. The God of Calvanism is a God I can trust in the good times and the bad. He has everything under control. God is on his throne.
But there’s a problem with this view. If everything is under God’s control. Why should I pray? Why should I ask God to change things. Why should I seek him? If everything is going to work out according to his plan then what need do I have to participate with him. He will do exactly what he wants to do. It tends toward fatalism and apathy.
Armininism is motivating. It teaches us that God wants us to come to him and seek him. And in seeking him he will change things for the better. He will make things right when we choose him first. He is honored, proud of us when we do right. When we praise him by our actions and our words. He has asked us to do things and when we do things he rewards us like he promised.
Arminisim however has the problem of fear. What If don’t? What if can’t? What if I haven’t? Will God still love me. Will he still hold my hand through this situation. Will abandon me because I have not upheld my end of the bargin. Will he forsake me because I have forsaken him? Fear in such situation can be gripping.
The calvanist says that if you truly trust in the sovereignty of God it will motivate you and you won’t be apathetic to his plan and power. The arminist on the other hand will say that if you truly seek God you won’t be fearful of your condition.
I see that both are right but neither one is truly a calvanist or an arminist. Sure they say they are. But what they have come to truly experience is something in the middle. A place where God’s sovereignty is motivating and motivation is due to God’s sovereignty. Niether one has gone to far to the edge but they have inched closer and closer to the center between the two.
The two notions are guards rails, keeping us from the dangers that lurk beyond them. When I fear, I know I can trust a sovereign God. When I apathetic I recognize that I must perform those things that he has asked me to do least I stumble and fall away. I fear and honor the one who is sovereign.