Concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him, we ask you, brothers, not to become easily unsettled or alarmed by some prophecy, report or letter supposed to have come from us, saying that the day of the Lord has already come. Don't let anyone deceive you in any way, for (that day will not come) until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction. He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God's temple, proclaiming himself to be God.
Don't you remember that when I was with you I used to tell you these things? And now you know what is holding him back, so that he may be revealed at the proper time. For the secret power of lawlessness is already at work; but the one who now holds it back will continue to do so till he is taken out of the way. And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will overthrow with the breath of his mouth and destroy by the splendor of his coming. The coming of the lawless one will be in accordance with the work of Satan displayed in all kinds of counterfeit miracles, signs and wonders, and in every sort of evil that deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness. (2 Thessalonians 2:1-10, NIV)
Showing posts with label The "When" of the Kingdom. Show all posts
Showing posts with label The "When" of the Kingdom. Show all posts
Monday, July 20, 2009
"Don't be fooled into thinking It has already come." - St. Paul (paraphrased)
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Creeds, Confessions, Traditions and the Kingdom of God: Part III
I am in the middle of a mini-series on why I think the Kingdom of God is not something that can be said to be here, but only something to anticipate. I have made six arguments, a "so what" post, and a number of quotation posts. Two nights ago I wrote a state of the union explaining my curiosity at finding Premillennialism suspiciously absent from the creeds and consensuses of the major branches of Christendom. Then, last night, I wrote a followup to it. Tonight I have something small to add to these two state of the union posts.
I was thinking that it could seem ironic that I accept Tradition's canon, then turn right around and use that canon to disagree with Tradition.
So I did some introspecting and I thought I would share with you why I think doing this is ok.
I don't accept the canonicity of books of the Bible because Tradition does. In other words, I don't view the authority of the Bible as being in any way derived from Tradition. Rather, I see Tradition as recognizing the divine inspiration of the scriptures. And I don't take their word for it. I am moved by their arguments.
And so since, as I mentioned in the previous post on this matter as well as in another older post on this blog, one has no choice but to think for oneself, rather than think about which Tradition is the right one to adopt as a religious authority, I will think about which Tradition is right.
Further, it is not clear that Jesus or the apostles meant for there to ever be a religious authority (at least not in the Roman or Eastern sense). And how would we adjudicate between competing authorities? The only way is to try and see which has accurate theology. But if we are able to determine theological matters on our own, what would we need a religious authority for?
Therefore I will respect tradition highly and count it as useful and trust that in some sense the Spirit is guiding it, but I will not elevate it so highly that I won't be bold enough to break from it where I think it's beliefs are unwarranted scripturally or philosophically (and this is only relevant to my view of the Kingdom of God if it is true that candidate religious authorities indeed teach contrarily to my Premillennialism, and I have already stated that I am not convinced Premillennialism is at least not incompatible with the earliest and most popular creeds).
I was thinking that it could seem ironic that I accept Tradition's canon, then turn right around and use that canon to disagree with Tradition.
So I did some introspecting and I thought I would share with you why I think doing this is ok.
I don't accept the canonicity of books of the Bible because Tradition does. In other words, I don't view the authority of the Bible as being in any way derived from Tradition. Rather, I see Tradition as recognizing the divine inspiration of the scriptures. And I don't take their word for it. I am moved by their arguments.
And so since, as I mentioned in the previous post on this matter as well as in another older post on this blog, one has no choice but to think for oneself, rather than think about which Tradition is the right one to adopt as a religious authority, I will think about which Tradition is right.
Further, it is not clear that Jesus or the apostles meant for there to ever be a religious authority (at least not in the Roman or Eastern sense). And how would we adjudicate between competing authorities? The only way is to try and see which has accurate theology. But if we are able to determine theological matters on our own, what would we need a religious authority for?
Therefore I will respect tradition highly and count it as useful and trust that in some sense the Spirit is guiding it, but I will not elevate it so highly that I won't be bold enough to break from it where I think it's beliefs are unwarranted scripturally or philosophically (and this is only relevant to my view of the Kingdom of God if it is true that candidate religious authorities indeed teach contrarily to my Premillennialism, and I have already stated that I am not convinced Premillennialism is at least not incompatible with the earliest and most popular creeds).
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Creeds, Confessions, Traditions and the Kingdom of God: Part II
I am in the middle of a mini-series on why I think the Kingdom of God is not something that can be said to be here, but only something to anticipate. I have made six arguments, a "so what" post, and a number of quotation posts. Last night I wrote a state of the union explaining my curiosity at finding Premillennialism suspiciously absent from the creeds and consensuses of the major branches of Christendom. Tonight I post a followup to that. Specifically, I have a two-pronged answer to why I think Premillennialism can't really be found in any of the creeds.
The other day Jon and I were talking and he was explaining to me a revelation he had had. As he's been dealing with government offices and policies and businesses and the business world he realized something like that we are all just people and this is a big mess.
As I have been studying (admittedly only a bit - I am no scholar), I have been realizing that historical Christianity is full of just a bunch of people and is a big mess. Now don't get me wrong - I think the Holy Spirit has moved in that mess and I think the History Books tell us stories of "just people" being used by God for His purposes. I think the Hero is always God and it is always Him despite humanity, and that's part of the whole point.
At any rate, my current thinking on the councils (those called "ecumenical" by various groups and otherwise) is pretty broadly stroked and fuzzy, but comprises two elements.
First, their creeds and canons were not divinely inspired like the scriptures were (and I think they would agree).
Second, they were conducted by humans (and I think they would agree with this too).
The second belief I list above in light of the first lowers my view of the veracity of the creeds. It is not clear which councils ought to be considered "ecumenical", much less what ecumenicity is exactly and exactly how it is relevant. Each council has its own set of controversies, dissenters, and amendments (some are even amended [contradicted?] by later councils that are also recognized as authoritative by certain groups recognizing the previous as authoritative).
If one wants to believe in the authority of church history, one has to pick a historical side on a ton of issues in succession, or work really hard at principally defining the scope of those to be considered authoritative while sifting through their disagreements to find the lowest common theological denominator (and is this even the right approach?).
Theology by democracy seems tricky when it isn't clear whose votes to count.
Further, how ought this picking, defining, and sifting be done? According to what criteria? At some point one has to think for oneself. This must be done to come up with the right criteria by which to pick, define, and sift, or one has to think about which authority's picks, definitions, and sifts to adopt.
But isn't thinking for oneself (in some qualified sense anyway) incompatible by the belief in religious authority?
Not to mention the fact that it is not clear how Jesus' promise, that the Holy Spirit will guide us, has or will occur exactly (viz. it is not clear that the councils were the direct and exclusive outworking of this promise, or that the majority of those who administered or attended them thought so).
As of tonight, I am not convinced that any creeds or authorities outside of the scriptures ought to be seen as inerrant. It seems like they are about extremely useful.
So on to my second prong. It seems like, while Premillennialism isn't explicitly taught by any of the major creeds, neither is any other eschatological system. It appears that they just weren't addressing Last Things yet. They were still worrying about basic things like, you know, condemning major Christological and Trinitarian heresies.
Either that, or they believed that there was room for eschatological disagreement within orthodoxy.
There is much to be studied on all of these matters. Still I maintain that the works that we have all agreed are canonical, teach Premillennialism, and I find it significant that most of the earliest and most respected church fathers, especially those said to have had direct ties to John himself, were evangelistically Premillennial. I hold these conclusions with an open mind.
Can a man be faulted for honestly struggling to understand these things?
The other day Jon and I were talking and he was explaining to me a revelation he had had. As he's been dealing with government offices and policies and businesses and the business world he realized something like that we are all just people and this is a big mess.
As I have been studying (admittedly only a bit - I am no scholar), I have been realizing that historical Christianity is full of just a bunch of people and is a big mess. Now don't get me wrong - I think the Holy Spirit has moved in that mess and I think the History Books tell us stories of "just people" being used by God for His purposes. I think the Hero is always God and it is always Him despite humanity, and that's part of the whole point.
At any rate, my current thinking on the councils (those called "ecumenical" by various groups and otherwise) is pretty broadly stroked and fuzzy, but comprises two elements.
First, their creeds and canons were not divinely inspired like the scriptures were (and I think they would agree).
Second, they were conducted by humans (and I think they would agree with this too).
The second belief I list above in light of the first lowers my view of the veracity of the creeds. It is not clear which councils ought to be considered "ecumenical", much less what ecumenicity is exactly and exactly how it is relevant. Each council has its own set of controversies, dissenters, and amendments (some are even amended [contradicted?] by later councils that are also recognized as authoritative by certain groups recognizing the previous as authoritative).
If one wants to believe in the authority of church history, one has to pick a historical side on a ton of issues in succession, or work really hard at principally defining the scope of those to be considered authoritative while sifting through their disagreements to find the lowest common theological denominator (and is this even the right approach?).
Theology by democracy seems tricky when it isn't clear whose votes to count.
Further, how ought this picking, defining, and sifting be done? According to what criteria? At some point one has to think for oneself. This must be done to come up with the right criteria by which to pick, define, and sift, or one has to think about which authority's picks, definitions, and sifts to adopt.
But isn't thinking for oneself (in some qualified sense anyway) incompatible by the belief in religious authority?
Not to mention the fact that it is not clear how Jesus' promise, that the Holy Spirit will guide us, has or will occur exactly (viz. it is not clear that the councils were the direct and exclusive outworking of this promise, or that the majority of those who administered or attended them thought so).
As of tonight, I am not convinced that any creeds or authorities outside of the scriptures ought to be seen as inerrant. It seems like they are about extremely useful.
So on to my second prong. It seems like, while Premillennialism isn't explicitly taught by any of the major creeds, neither is any other eschatological system. It appears that they just weren't addressing Last Things yet. They were still worrying about basic things like, you know, condemning major Christological and Trinitarian heresies.
Either that, or they believed that there was room for eschatological disagreement within orthodoxy.
There is much to be studied on all of these matters. Still I maintain that the works that we have all agreed are canonical, teach Premillennialism, and I find it significant that most of the earliest and most respected church fathers, especially those said to have had direct ties to John himself, were evangelistically Premillennial. I hold these conclusions with an open mind.
Can a man be faulted for honestly struggling to understand these things?
"For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus," (1 Timothy 2:5)
"But you are not like that, for you are a chosen people. You are royal priests, a holy nation, God’s very own possession. As a result, you can show others the goodness of God, for he called you out of the darkness into his wonderful light." (1 Peter 2:9, NLT)
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Creeds, Confessions, Traditions and the Kingdom of God: Part I
I am in the middle of a mini-series (when does a mini-series become a series? Sorry for posting so much lately!) on why I think the Kingdom is not quite here yet. I have posted seven major entires, and included some intermittent quotations. I have plans for a number of additional entries, but tonight I want to take a break and give you sort of a state of the union.
In my extra-Biblical research I have found a wide number of very early Christian leaders and thinkers, especially those who are said to have been disciples of John himself or of one of his disciples, who are Premillennial (most notably Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Terullian, Papias, and Polycarp - and arguably Clement, Barnabas, Hermas, and others). However, I have noticed that explicit Premillenialism is not taught in any of the Ecumenical creeds, nor really in any of the proceeding major creeds or confessions. Further, the Orthodox, Catholic, and Reformed traditions are all more or less Post- or Amillenial.
The only really major traditions I can find that are Premillennial are HIstoric Premillennialism (which includes a number throughout history, and a healthy number of the Reformers, such as Spurgeon), and pretty much all of the various modern Dispensationals (Classic and Progressive and whatever other flavors there may be). I think Premillennialism might still be the minority view if you tally up every Christian's vote for all time.
What do I make of this? I am not sure. I still think, and am willing to defend my position that, the Biblical authors intended to convey a Premillennial eschatology, and I also have the witnesses of a very large number of very early church fathers, and then the couple traditions I mentioned above.
But no creeds, confessions, or major branches of the church? Could I have missed something in the Biblical text? How high of a view do I have of the creeds?
I am thinking it through. I found this Preterist who makes an interesting case against hyper-creedalism. While I might disagree with his eschatological system, I think I might be willing to adopt his view on the creeds. It's still very high, but maintains that they are not to be considered scriptural and so may contain non-damnable errors. Thus when intra-mural theological disputes arise, we are permitted to break with the theology of the creeds if we have a scriptural basis for it.
Augustine, who is famously Amillennial, was Premillennial for a long time before becoming so and maintains that there is room within Orthodoxy for Premillennialism. He cautions Premillennials to not become too materialistic though, making sure we agree that that the goodness of the Kingdom is that we will be fully relationally restored with God, and not that we will inherit a nice shiny world to do with whatever we want.
It seems like he and a number of others maintain that Premillennialism is at least compatible with the creeds. He's a Compatibalist in that way I guess (ha, ha).
In addition to exploring this, today I took a bit of time to read some from Justin Martyr's Dialogue With Trypho, which is amazingly clear and Biblical and ancient and, as previously noted, Premillennial. It is highly recommended.
Stay tuned.
In my extra-Biblical research I have found a wide number of very early Christian leaders and thinkers, especially those who are said to have been disciples of John himself or of one of his disciples, who are Premillennial (most notably Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Terullian, Papias, and Polycarp - and arguably Clement, Barnabas, Hermas, and others). However, I have noticed that explicit Premillenialism is not taught in any of the Ecumenical creeds, nor really in any of the proceeding major creeds or confessions. Further, the Orthodox, Catholic, and Reformed traditions are all more or less Post- or Amillenial.
The only really major traditions I can find that are Premillennial are HIstoric Premillennialism (which includes a number throughout history, and a healthy number of the Reformers, such as Spurgeon), and pretty much all of the various modern Dispensationals (Classic and Progressive and whatever other flavors there may be). I think Premillennialism might still be the minority view if you tally up every Christian's vote for all time.
What do I make of this? I am not sure. I still think, and am willing to defend my position that, the Biblical authors intended to convey a Premillennial eschatology, and I also have the witnesses of a very large number of very early church fathers, and then the couple traditions I mentioned above.
But no creeds, confessions, or major branches of the church? Could I have missed something in the Biblical text? How high of a view do I have of the creeds?
I am thinking it through. I found this Preterist who makes an interesting case against hyper-creedalism. While I might disagree with his eschatological system, I think I might be willing to adopt his view on the creeds. It's still very high, but maintains that they are not to be considered scriptural and so may contain non-damnable errors. Thus when intra-mural theological disputes arise, we are permitted to break with the theology of the creeds if we have a scriptural basis for it.
Augustine, who is famously Amillennial, was Premillennial for a long time before becoming so and maintains that there is room within Orthodoxy for Premillennialism. He cautions Premillennials to not become too materialistic though, making sure we agree that that the goodness of the Kingdom is that we will be fully relationally restored with God, and not that we will inherit a nice shiny world to do with whatever we want.
It seems like he and a number of others maintain that Premillennialism is at least compatible with the creeds. He's a Compatibalist in that way I guess (ha, ha).
In addition to exploring this, today I took a bit of time to read some from Justin Martyr's Dialogue With Trypho, which is amazingly clear and Biblical and ancient and, as previously noted, Premillennial. It is highly recommended.
Stay tuned.
Justin Martyr on the Kingdom of God
CHAPTER LXXX -- THE OPINION OF JUSTIN WITH REGARD TO THE REIGN OF A THOUSAND YEARS. SEVERAL CATHOLICS REJECT IT.Justin Martyr is one of the earliest significant Christian apologists after the apostles. He is cited as a religious and philosophical authority by both Irenaeus and Tertullian. He suffered martyrdom at Rome under the Emperor Marcus Aurelius.
And Trypho to this replied, "I remarked to you sir, that you are very anxious to be safe in all respects, since you cling to the Scriptures. But tell me, do you really admit that this place, Jerusalem, shall be rebuilt; and do you expect your people to be gathered together, and made joyful with Christ and the patriarchs, and the prophets, both the men of our nation, and other proselytes who joined them before your Christ came? or have you given way, and admitted this in order to have the appearance of worsting us in the controversies?"
Then I answered, "I am not so miserable a fellow, Trypho, as to say one thing and think another. I admitted to you formerly, that I and many others are of this opinion, and[believe] that such will take place, as you assuredly are aware; but, on the other hand, I signified to you that many who belong to the pure and pious faith, and are true Christians, think otherwise. Moreover, I pointed out to you that some who are called Christians, but are godless, impious heretics, teach doctrines that are in every way blasphemous, atheistical, and foolish. But that you may know that I do not say this before you alone, I shall draw up a statement, so far as I can, of all the arguments which have passed between us; in which I shall record myself as admitting the very same things which I admit to you. For I choose to follow not men or men's doctrines, but God and the doctrines[delivered] by Him. For if you have fallen in with some who are called Christians, but who do not admit this[truth], and venture to blaspheme the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob; who say there is no resurrection of the dead, and that their souls, when they die, are taken to heaven; do not imagine that they are Christians, even as one, if he would rightly consider it, would not admit that the Sadducees, or similar sects of Genist , Meristae,Gelilaeans, Hellenists, Pharisees, Baptists, are Jews(do not hear me impatiently when I tell you what I think), but are[only] called Jews and children of Abraham, worshipping God with the lips, as God Himself declared, but the heart was far from Him. But I and others, who are right-minded Christians on all points, are assured that there will be a resurrection of the dead, and a thousand years in Jerusalem, which will then be built, adorned, and enlarged, the prophets Ezekiel and Isaiah and others declare.
CHAPTER LXXXI -- HE ENDEAVOURS TO PROVE THIS OPINION FROM ISAIAH AND THE APOCALYPSE.
"For Isaiah spake thus concerning this space of a thousand years: 'For there shall be the new heaven and the new earth, and the former shall not be remembered, or come into their heart; but they shall find joy and gladness in it, which things I create. For, Behold, I make Jerusalem a rejoicing, and My people a joy; and I shall rejoice over Jerusalem, and be glad over My I people. And the voice of weeping shall be no more heard in her, or the voice of crying. And there shall be no more there a person of immature years, or an old man who shall not fulfil his days. For the young man shall be an hundred years old; but the sinner who dies an hundred years old, he shall be accursed. And they shall build houses, and shall themselves inhabit them; and they shall plant vines, and shall themselves eat the produce of them, and drink the wine. They shall not build, and others inhabit; they shall not plant, and others eat. For according to the days of the tree of life shall be the days of my people; the works of their toil shall abound. Mine elect shall not toil fruitlessly, or beget children to be cursed; for they shall be a seed righteous and blessed by the Lord, and their offspring with them. And it shall come to pass, that before they call I will hear; while they are still speaking, I shall say, What is it? Then shall the wolves and the lambs feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the ox; but the serpent[shall eat] earth as bread. They shall not hurt or maltreat each other on the holy mountain, saith the Lord.' Now we have understood that the expression used among these words, 'According to the days of the tree[of life] shall be the days of my people; the works of their toil shall abound' obscurely predicts a thousand years. For as Adam was told that in the nay fie ate of the tree he would die, we know that he did not complete a thousand years. We have perceived, moreover, that the expression, 'The day of the Lord is as a thousand years,' is connected with this subject. And further, there was a certain man with us, whose name was John, one of the apostles of Christ, who prophesied, by a revelation that was made to him, that those who believed in our Christ would dwell a thousand years in Jerusalem; and that thereafter the general, and, in short, the eternal resurrection and judgment of all men would likewise take place. Just as our Lord also said, 'They shall neither marry nor be given in marriage, but shall be equal to the angels, the children of the God of the resurrection.' (Justin Martyr, "Dialogue With Trypho" c. 80 AD)
"Dispatches From the Front" and the Kingdom of God
Abraham Piper is giving away a DVD of a series about the frontlines of the mission field. The series' website points out that
Often our view of God’s Kingdom is too small and limited to what we have experienced.They have no idea just how true that statement is.
Irenaeus on the Kingdom of God
"If, however, any shall endeavour to allegorize [prophecies] of this kind, they shall not be found consistent with themselves in all points, and shall be confuted by the teaching of the very expressions [in question]. For example: "When the cities" of the Gentiles "shall be desolate, so that they be not inhabited, and the houses so that there shall be no men in them and the land shall be left desolate." "For, behold," says Isaiah, "the day of the LORD cometh past remedy, full of fury and wrath, to lay waste the city of the earth, and to root sinners out of it." And again he says, "Let him be taken away, that he behold not the glory of God." And when these things are done, he says, "God will remove men far away, and those that are left shall multiply in the earth." "And they shall build houses, and shall inhabit them themselves: and plant vineyards, and eat of them themselves." For all these and other words were unquestionably spoken in reference to the resurrection of the just, which takes place after the coming of Antichrist, and the destruction of all nations under his rule; in [the times of] which [resurrection] the righteous shall reign in the earth, waxing stronger by the sight of the Lord: and through Him they shall become accustomed to partake in the glory of God the Father, and shall enjoy in the kingdom intercourse and communion with the holy angels, and union with spiritual beings; and [with respect to] those whom the Lord shall find in the flesh, awaiting Him from heaven, and who have suffered tribulation, as well as escaped the hands of the Wicked one." (Irenaeus, "Against Heresies, Book V", c. 180 AD)Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp, who was said to be a disciple of John the Evangelist. He is one of the earlier witnesses to the recognition of the canonical character of all four gospels. He is recognized as a saint by both the Eastern Orthodox and the Roman Catholic Churches (and by Protestants, I suppose, since we follow St. Paul in calling all Christians "saints"). "Against Heresies" was written primarily as a defense against Gnosticism.
Tertullian on the Kingdom of God
"But we do confess that a kingdom is promised to us upon the earth, although before heaven, only in another state of existence; inasmuch as it will be after the resurrection for a thousand years in the divinely-built city of Jerusalem, "let down from heaven," which the apostle also calls "our mother from above"; and, while declaring that our... citizenship... is in heaven, he predicates of it that it is really a city in heaven. This both Ezekiel had knowledge of and the Apostle John beheld." (Tertullian, "Against Marcion")Tertullian lived in the 2nd and 3rd centuries after Christ and is credited with coining our term "Trinity". He spoke very clearly of three Persons, sharing a single Substance. He is also credited with coining the terms "Old Testament" and "New Testament".
Some Jews on MySpace and the Kingdom of God
This is the seventh argument in a mini-series on why I think the Kingdom of God is not quite here yet.
The first argument was based on the binding of Satan as part of the establishment of the Kingdom, the second was based on the separation of the sheep from the goats, the third had holes in it, and concerned John the Baptist, the fourth draws from the classic Christmas passage in Isaiah, the fifth continues exploring that passage, and the sixth does too.
Today's post is less of an argument, and more of a "so what".
"Jesus was not the messiah" claims an atheist based on some YouTube videos. I ran into this same thing when talking with a number of Jews in a MySpace chat room at 4am one night several years ago while working on a project for school. They were extremely well-versed in the Tanakh and were able to demonstrate to me, from the Hebrew, why Jesus did not fulfill all of the messianic prophecies. I didn't know what to say.
But today, I don't even have to view the videos to know that I agree, even though I am a Christian.
How can I agree with atheists and Jews who believe that Jesus didn't fulfill all of the messianic prophecies of the ancient Hebrew prophets and is therefore not the messiah? Doesn't "Christian" mean "follower of Christ", "Christ-like", or "little Christ"? Isn't "Christ" the Greek form of "messiah"? Didn't Jesus say to the woman at the well who spoke of the promised Christ, "I AM He."?
After President Obama was elected, but before he was inaugurated, he diffused a lot of pressure to bring immediate change by reminding voters that "there is only one POTUS at a time". Even though Obama was the one elected to bring hope and change, he was not the President yet. But when asked whether he was the one everyone was talking about who was going to bring hope, he would have said "I am he.".
I believe that Jesus was the One spoken of by God and the prophets the whole time. And I believe He meets all of the criteria to be the messiah. But I also think I see that He did not perform that role when He came. I think there is a reason for this that future Kingdom posts will get to, but the point is that I think Jesus is not the messiah yet, like Obama after election but prior to inauguration, was not the President yet.
Jesus is the Messiah Elect.
If I'm right, then insisting that Jesus is the messiah can hurt the case of Christ because Jews, and atheists like the one I cited, will be able to show us how our faith is inconsistent with our holy book.
[Disclaimer: I took a look at some of those videos and want you, dear reader, to know I do not agree with most of what they say. They make some arguments I think are misunderstood and I do think Jesus fulfilled a good deal of prophecy and is the messiah to come. As of today however, I continue to maintain that Jesus did not erect the promised Kingdom and so did not act as messiah during His first coming.
I also want to make clear that I believe the work He did accomplish during His first coming was extremely important - more important than the people could have ever realized - and it was a necessary foundation for the Kingdom of God.
His work just isn't finished yet.]
The first argument was based on the binding of Satan as part of the establishment of the Kingdom, the second was based on the separation of the sheep from the goats, the third had holes in it, and concerned John the Baptist, the fourth draws from the classic Christmas passage in Isaiah, the fifth continues exploring that passage, and the sixth does too.
Today's post is less of an argument, and more of a "so what".
"Jesus was not the messiah" claims an atheist based on some YouTube videos. I ran into this same thing when talking with a number of Jews in a MySpace chat room at 4am one night several years ago while working on a project for school. They were extremely well-versed in the Tanakh and were able to demonstrate to me, from the Hebrew, why Jesus did not fulfill all of the messianic prophecies. I didn't know what to say.
But today, I don't even have to view the videos to know that I agree, even though I am a Christian.
How can I agree with atheists and Jews who believe that Jesus didn't fulfill all of the messianic prophecies of the ancient Hebrew prophets and is therefore not the messiah? Doesn't "Christian" mean "follower of Christ", "Christ-like", or "little Christ"? Isn't "Christ" the Greek form of "messiah"? Didn't Jesus say to the woman at the well who spoke of the promised Christ, "I AM He."?
After President Obama was elected, but before he was inaugurated, he diffused a lot of pressure to bring immediate change by reminding voters that "there is only one POTUS at a time". Even though Obama was the one elected to bring hope and change, he was not the President yet. But when asked whether he was the one everyone was talking about who was going to bring hope, he would have said "I am he.".
I believe that Jesus was the One spoken of by God and the prophets the whole time. And I believe He meets all of the criteria to be the messiah. But I also think I see that He did not perform that role when He came. I think there is a reason for this that future Kingdom posts will get to, but the point is that I think Jesus is not the messiah yet, like Obama after election but prior to inauguration, was not the President yet.
Jesus is the Messiah Elect.
If I'm right, then insisting that Jesus is the messiah can hurt the case of Christ because Jews, and atheists like the one I cited, will be able to show us how our faith is inconsistent with our holy book.
[Disclaimer: I took a look at some of those videos and want you, dear reader, to know I do not agree with most of what they say. They make some arguments I think are misunderstood and I do think Jesus fulfilled a good deal of prophecy and is the messiah to come. As of today however, I continue to maintain that Jesus did not erect the promised Kingdom and so did not act as messiah during His first coming.
I also want to make clear that I believe the work He did accomplish during His first coming was extremely important - more important than the people could have ever realized - and it was a necessary foundation for the Kingdom of God.
His work just isn't finished yet.]
Sunday, July 12, 2009
David's Throne and the Kingdom of God
This is the sixth argument in a mini-series on why I think the Kingdom of God is not quite here yet.
The first argument was based on the binding of Satan as part of the establishment of the Kingdom, the second was based on the separation of the sheep from the goats, the third had holes in it, and concerned John the Baptist, the fourth draws from the classic Christmas passage in Isaiah, and the fifth continues exploring that passage.
Today's argument again continues exploring the Isaiah passage.
2. It is currently not true that "Jesus reigns on David's throne and over his kingdom" .
3, Therefore, it is currently not true that the KOG has been established.
Why think (2) is false? Because David's throne was destroyed, and Jesus is seated at the right hand of the Father at the moment.
"Why not think David's throne, while physically destroyed, became metaphorical and was relocated to the Father's right hand?" one might wonder. Before I answer, let me take a second to show some humility.
I don't have an extremely high degree of certainty that I'm on the right track about the nature and timing of the Kingdom. I have tried to edit the posts in this mini-series to reflect my uncertainty, but I have trouble wording things humbly. This is a flaw in myself and I am sorry. Now, I believe in owning convictions, but I also believe in humility and in being honest about one's varying degrees of certainty concerning different beliefs. And I recognize I haven't and am not currently doing a good job at that, which is my bad.
That said, the reason I am disinclined to think that David's throne, when destroyed, became metaphorical and was relocated to the right hand of the Father, is that David was a literal man and sat on a literal throne and the scriptures take great pains to demonstrate that Jesus is literally his heir and there is nothing in the text that I can find to motivate such abstraction.
Now don't get me wrong, I think the important thing about a throne is the authority that it symbolizes. I'm not saying Jesus will necessarily collect the fragments of the old throne and reassemble it (although, why not?). But it seems like when the throne was destroyed, it was destroyed both literally/physically and symbolically. It wasn't as if the physical throne was destroyed, but the authority that was in place remained powerful. If David's heir was in power, wouldn't he just rebuild another physical throne, so that he would have a place to sit, and a symbol of his authority?
I suppose one could still try to maintain that the prophecy wasn't straightforward and that, though it spoke of things very near and dear to the Jews' daily lives (things they were used to taking literally, eg. "David's thone"), it used them in very abstract ways without textual hints as to its meaning (or one could point me toward textual motivations for an abstract interpretation of this prophecy, or one could argue that I should look in places other than the text of the Bible for understanding).
But I would have to ask 'why?'. Why work so hard to try and force all these things into a picture allowing us to say that the Kingdom of God is now? Are we afraid these things will never come to pass, and so feel the need to show how they are poetic? Are we afraid that prophecies that primarily concern the future have no relevance to us today and feel the need to make everything in the scriptures practical? Is there some other place in scripture that plainly states that the Kingdom of God is present, and so we need to reinterpret all of the Kingdom prophecies in light of this?
I suspect many hold to the latter. Jesus plainly says "the Kingdom of God is at hand" in a couple of places, and "the Kingdom of God is in you" some others.
Stay tuned for posts about what I currently think Jesus meant when He said "the Kingdom of God is at hand" (including meta-commentary on the parables concerning the Kingdom of God), the Lord's Prayer and the Kingdom of God, Mark's account of the wine at the crucifixion and the Kingdom of God, whether I think the Kingdom of God is still at hand, the word "but" and the Kingdom of God, the apostolic understanding of the Kingdom of God, some Jews on MySpace and the Kingdom of God, and some practical alternatives to common rhetoric on the Kingdom of God!
The first argument was based on the binding of Satan as part of the establishment of the Kingdom, the second was based on the separation of the sheep from the goats, the third had holes in it, and concerned John the Baptist, the fourth draws from the classic Christmas passage in Isaiah, and the fifth continues exploring that passage.
Today's argument again continues exploring the Isaiah passage.
"He will reign on David's throne1. When the KOG has been established, it will be true that "Jesus reigns on David's throne and over his kingdom".
and over his kingdom,
establishing and upholding it
with justice and righteousness
from that time on and forever." (Isaiah 9:7b, NIV)
2. It is currently not true that "Jesus reigns on David's throne and over his kingdom" .
3, Therefore, it is currently not true that the KOG has been established.
Why think (2) is false? Because David's throne was destroyed, and Jesus is seated at the right hand of the Father at the moment.
"Why not think David's throne, while physically destroyed, became metaphorical and was relocated to the Father's right hand?" one might wonder. Before I answer, let me take a second to show some humility.
I don't have an extremely high degree of certainty that I'm on the right track about the nature and timing of the Kingdom. I have tried to edit the posts in this mini-series to reflect my uncertainty, but I have trouble wording things humbly. This is a flaw in myself and I am sorry. Now, I believe in owning convictions, but I also believe in humility and in being honest about one's varying degrees of certainty concerning different beliefs. And I recognize I haven't and am not currently doing a good job at that, which is my bad.
That said, the reason I am disinclined to think that David's throne, when destroyed, became metaphorical and was relocated to the right hand of the Father, is that David was a literal man and sat on a literal throne and the scriptures take great pains to demonstrate that Jesus is literally his heir and there is nothing in the text that I can find to motivate such abstraction.
Now don't get me wrong, I think the important thing about a throne is the authority that it symbolizes. I'm not saying Jesus will necessarily collect the fragments of the old throne and reassemble it (although, why not?). But it seems like when the throne was destroyed, it was destroyed both literally/physically and symbolically. It wasn't as if the physical throne was destroyed, but the authority that was in place remained powerful. If David's heir was in power, wouldn't he just rebuild another physical throne, so that he would have a place to sit, and a symbol of his authority?
I suppose one could still try to maintain that the prophecy wasn't straightforward and that, though it spoke of things very near and dear to the Jews' daily lives (things they were used to taking literally, eg. "David's thone"), it used them in very abstract ways without textual hints as to its meaning (or one could point me toward textual motivations for an abstract interpretation of this prophecy, or one could argue that I should look in places other than the text of the Bible for understanding).
But I would have to ask 'why?'. Why work so hard to try and force all these things into a picture allowing us to say that the Kingdom of God is now? Are we afraid these things will never come to pass, and so feel the need to show how they are poetic? Are we afraid that prophecies that primarily concern the future have no relevance to us today and feel the need to make everything in the scriptures practical? Is there some other place in scripture that plainly states that the Kingdom of God is present, and so we need to reinterpret all of the Kingdom prophecies in light of this?
I suspect many hold to the latter. Jesus plainly says "the Kingdom of God is at hand" in a couple of places, and "the Kingdom of God is in you" some others.
Stay tuned for posts about what I currently think Jesus meant when He said "the Kingdom of God is at hand" (including meta-commentary on the parables concerning the Kingdom of God), the Lord's Prayer and the Kingdom of God, Mark's account of the wine at the crucifixion and the Kingdom of God, whether I think the Kingdom of God is still at hand, the word "but" and the Kingdom of God, the apostolic understanding of the Kingdom of God, some Jews on MySpace and the Kingdom of God, and some practical alternatives to common rhetoric on the Kingdom of God!
R. A. Torrey on the Kingdom of God (again)
"Furthermore, it is possible for the intelligent student of the Bible who believes in the coming of our Lord as the only solution of all our political, commercial, and other problems to pray for peace, for in praying for peace, he is praying for the soon coming of Him who is the Prince of Peace, just as we can pray for God’s kingdom to come, knowing that the kingdom cannot come until the King comes." (R. A. Torrey, "Armageddon, the Great War, and the Prince of Peace)
R. A. Torrey on the Kingdom of God
"It has been the purpose of God from the very beginning to keep His people in ignorance as to the exact time of our Lord’s return, and while we believe most positively that He may come at any moment and that we should always be looking for His appearing (Luke 12:35-37) we should never set a date for His coming nor assert positively that He will come in our own generation, but always bear in mind our Lord’s own parting words to His disciples, “It is not for you to know times or seasons, which the Father hath set within His own authority” (Acts 1:7), and we should go on laying the best plans we can and make the best preparations we can for the most energetic prosecution of His work possible until He actually does come." (R. A. Torrey, "Premillennial, Not Near-Sighted")
Friday, July 10, 2009
C. H. Spurgeon on the Kingdom of God
"If I read the word aright, and it is honest to admit that there is much room for difference of opinion here, the day will come, when the Lord Jesus will descend from heaven with a shout, with the trump of the archangel and the voice of God.
Some think that this descent of the Lord will be postmillennial that is, after the thousand years of his reign. I cannot think so. I conceive that the advent will be pre-millennial that he will come first; and then will come the millennium as the result of his personal reign upon earth. But whether or no, this much is the fact, that Christ will suddenly come, come to reign, and come to judge the earth in righteousness." (C. H. Spurgeon, "Justification & Glory")
Peace and the Kingdom of God
This is the fifth post in a mini-series on why I think the Kingdom of God is not quite here yet.
The first post was an argument based on the binding of Satan as part of the establishment of the Kingdom, the second was based on the separation of the sheep from the goats, the third had holes in it, and concerned John the Baptist, and the fourth draws from the classic Christmas passage in Isaiah.
Today's argument continues exploring the Isaiah passage.
1. When the KOG has been established, it will be true that "there is no end to peace".
2. It is currently not true that "there is no end to peace".
3, Therefore, it is currently not true that the KOG has been established.
Notice how it says there will be no end to His government or to peace. While my link only concerns interpersonal peace, I think it's easy enough to see that there is an end to intra-personal peace for each of us in the age as well.
Even if the King is "reigning" in our hearts and lives as individuals in a metaphorical or spiritual sense today, it is bounded. At least for me; the messiah doesn't reign without end in my heart. Like Paul, I still sin. And there is an end to the peace I have in my heart as well. I get depressed. I despair. I experience anxiety. These aren't Kingdom dispositions! There may be some sense of Kingly rule or of divine peace, but there is an end to it. And I don't think it's just me. There are whole segments of humanity being spiritually ruled by the pretender to the throne (believers and unbelievers alike).
Sure, if we adhere to Jesus' teachings, we will instance in our hearts and relationships the type of order, love, righteousness, and peace that will be present in the Kingdom. We will 'glimpse' the Kingdom.
But our hope is that the remaining sin in our hearts will be vanquished, that the peace in our hearts will well up like a fountain and never be quenched, that these secular political rulers will be unseated, that Satan will be bound, and that Christ will reign as King - both in our hearts and on the earth - without end. And I think it is abundantly evident that we can't set this up on our own. We need Jesus to come back and reign as messiah.
And not just reign, but reign with a rod of iron (Psalm 2:9; Revelation 2:27, 12:5, 19:15).
The first post was an argument based on the binding of Satan as part of the establishment of the Kingdom, the second was based on the separation of the sheep from the goats, the third had holes in it, and concerned John the Baptist, and the fourth draws from the classic Christmas passage in Isaiah.
Today's argument continues exploring the Isaiah passage.
"Of the increase of his government and of peaceIn addition to the fact that I think this verse makes clear that this prophecy concerns a political entity of which the messiah will be head of state, I think it paves the way for the following.
there will be no end" (Isaiah 9:7a)
1. When the KOG has been established, it will be true that "there is no end to peace".
2. It is currently not true that "there is no end to peace".
3, Therefore, it is currently not true that the KOG has been established.
Notice how it says there will be no end to His government or to peace. While my link only concerns interpersonal peace, I think it's easy enough to see that there is an end to intra-personal peace for each of us in the age as well.
Even if the King is "reigning" in our hearts and lives as individuals in a metaphorical or spiritual sense today, it is bounded. At least for me; the messiah doesn't reign without end in my heart. Like Paul, I still sin. And there is an end to the peace I have in my heart as well. I get depressed. I despair. I experience anxiety. These aren't Kingdom dispositions! There may be some sense of Kingly rule or of divine peace, but there is an end to it. And I don't think it's just me. There are whole segments of humanity being spiritually ruled by the pretender to the throne (believers and unbelievers alike).
Sure, if we adhere to Jesus' teachings, we will instance in our hearts and relationships the type of order, love, righteousness, and peace that will be present in the Kingdom. We will 'glimpse' the Kingdom.
But our hope is that the remaining sin in our hearts will be vanquished, that the peace in our hearts will well up like a fountain and never be quenched, that these secular political rulers will be unseated, that Satan will be bound, and that Christ will reign as King - both in our hearts and on the earth - without end. And I think it is abundantly evident that we can't set this up on our own. We need Jesus to come back and reign as messiah.
And not just reign, but reign with a rod of iron (Psalm 2:9; Revelation 2:27, 12:5, 19:15).
Thursday, July 9, 2009
Government and the Kingdom of God
"For to us a child is born,This is the fourth post in a mini-series on why I think the Kingdom of God is not quite here yet.
to us a son is given;
and the government shall be upon his shoulder" (Isaiah 9:6a)
The first post was an argument based on the binding of Satan as part of the establishment of the Kingdom, the second was based on the separation of the sheep from the goats, the third had holes in it, and concerned John the Baptist.
The fourth goes something like this: scriptures, as in the verse cited above, teach that when the prophesied One comes as King, the government will rest on His shoulder. So below is a test I devised to determine whether the prophesied One has come as King or not.
1. When the KOG has been established, it will be true that "the government rests on the messiah's shoulder".
2. It is currently not true that "the government rests on the messiah's shoulder".
3, Therefore, it is currently not true that the KOG has been established.
Some might object to the subject of my link. Why select him to contrast with the messiah? I suppose I did this for a couple of reasons. Bypassing the obvious, the first reason is that at this moment, our government more or less rests upon his shoulder. Now, if you claim that it doesn't, because we have a three part government with checks and balances, then I say you are just driving my point home: our government is not the type of government that the Kingdom will be. And if you object by saying that this isn't the only government on earth and another one might be the Kingdom, (I have to first ask "which?" and then "why aren't you there?") I am forced to cordially point out that you are once again driving my point home: there currently isn't a single world government, which can be said to rest upon a single shoulder. Yet, that is what will happen when the prophesied One returns as King!
"Wait, wait wait!" you might say, "You've got it all wrong! The government, in a metaphorical sense, will rest on the shoulder of the prophesied One". If you find yourself in this camp, I can't help but ask: how it is possible that Satan was able to offer this world to Jesus? Could it be because Satan is the one governing this world (in the metaphorical sense)?
It appears that Jesus is neither the literal political King, nor the metaphorical spiritual King at the moment.
"Wait!" you might say again, "Jesus is the metaphorical King of believers!". It's funny how we're willing to restrict the extent of the Kingdom after diluting it's potency, just to be able to say that it's here. But at what cost? Why not let the full breadth and strength of the prophecies stand?
Alas, I hope my next argument will demonstrate why I don't think the promised Kingdom has only and metaphorically to do with less than a third of the earth.
Stay tuned for my next argument, which starts out with a verse from the same passage.
Sunday, July 5, 2009
John the Baptist and the Kingdom of God
"Truly, I say to you, among those born of women there has arisen no one greater than John the Baptist. Yet the one who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he." (Matthew 11:11)This is the third post in a mini-series on why I think the Kingdom of God is in no way "present" or "already", but only "not yet".
The first post was an argument based on the binding of Satan as part of the establishment of the Kingdom, and the second was based on the separation of the sheep from the goats.
Today my argument will have holes in it. Intentional holes. Or blanks, rather.
It goes something like this: Jesus, in the verse cited above, teaches that even the one who is least in the Kingdom is greater than John the baptist. So below is a test I devised to determine whether the Kingdom is present. You have to fill it out for yourself.
1. When the KOG has been established, it will be true that "I am greater than John the Baptist".
2. It is currently _______ ("true" or "not true") that "I am greater than John the Baptist".
3, Therefore, it is currently _______ ("true" or "not true") that the KOG has been established.
Leave a comment with your answers.
Saturday, July 4, 2009
Goats and the Kingdom of God
"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. And he will place the sheep on his right, but the goats on the left. Then othe King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world...This is the second post in a mini-series on why I think the Kingdom of God is not something that can be said to be here now, or at hand (as it was during Jesus' early ministry).
"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. " (Matthew 25:31-34 & 41)
The first post was an argument based on the binding of Satan as part of the establishment of the Kingdom.
Today I would like to take a look at another thing that Jesus says will occur as a part of the process of erecting the Kingdom.
In the passage cited above, Jesus teaches that when the Son of Man comes one day to establish the Kingdom, He will first separate the sheep from the goats. The sheep will enter into the Kingdom, but the goats will be sentenced to hell.
I think it is important to note here that the judgment upon the goats is due to their own choices, but pronounced by God Himself. So it seems that God is the judge, not man. In one sense, the choices of the goats did not condemn them and they did not send themselves to hell or create a metaphorical living hell for themselves. Rather, their choices made them guilty and therefore worthy of condemnation. But they are not the judges. God is the judge, and God is the one who pronounces the sentence.
I also think it is relevant that hell is a place where the Son of Man will send the goats. This implies that hell is a netherworld and unless one has the power to travel across time or dimensions or whatever it is that separates this world from hell, one cannot claim to be able to send oneself to hell.
Finally, the result of the Sheep and Goat Judgement is that there will be no more goats afterward. To put this more formally:
1. When the KOG has been established, it will be true that "there are no longer any goats".
2. It is currently not true that "there are no longer any goats".
3, Therefore, it is currently not true that the KOG has been established.
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
Satan and the Kingdom of God
There are a number of reasons why I think that the Kingdom of God is in no way currently present or at hand or within me or within you or within us or in our midst. The primary reason has to do with what I think the KOG is, according to the scriptures.
However today I will not be investigating what the KOG is exactly. Rather I will share the first in a series of short inconsistencies in the views that hold that KOG is or can be somehow currently present.
Today's has to do with what's going on with Satan. When the Kingdom comes, Satan will be "bound... for a thousand years".
Yet today "the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour".
So my argument, slightly more formally put, goes something like this:
1. When the KOG has been established, it will be true that "Satan has been bound".
2. It is currently not true that "Satan has been bound".
3, Therefore, it is currently not true that the KOG has been established.
However today I will not be investigating what the KOG is exactly. Rather I will share the first in a series of short inconsistencies in the views that hold that KOG is or can be somehow currently present.
Today's has to do with what's going on with Satan. When the Kingdom comes, Satan will be "bound... for a thousand years".
Yet today "the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour".
So my argument, slightly more formally put, goes something like this:
1. When the KOG has been established, it will be true that "Satan has been bound".
2. It is currently not true that "Satan has been bound".
3, Therefore, it is currently not true that the KOG has been established.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
