For those new to this conversation, I would encourage you to read the previous 4 posts:
One
Two
Three
Four
Jim, these were excellent questions. I hope you’ll be patient with me and this ridiculously long post as I seek to give answers that may help clarify the amillennial position.
Since three of your four questions deal with Revelation 20:1-10, and since this passage is pivotal in our debate, and since examining this passage will allow me to lay out more comprehensively the amillennial perspective, I will limit myself to trying to explain the amillennial interpretation of these few verses. I will first summarize the amillennial understanding of these verses, and then defend some key aspects of it – including those aspects you’ve questioned.
What does Revelation 20:1-10 teach? Put simply, I believe this passage teaches that Christ bound Satan through His resurrection, making it impossible for Satan to prevent His people in every tongue, tribe, and nation from being drawn to Him. This binding also prevents Satan from damaging in any way the salvivic security of Christians. Even when Satan appears to be winning the war (i.e., when Christians are killed for their testimony), it is actually the Christian who is the victor, since at his death he actually joins with Christ in reigning in heaven. Once the Gospel has been proclaimed to all nations and the full number of the elect have been gathered, Christ will allow Satan’s efforts to deceive the nations to have their full sway. All of the nations will be gathered together for a terrible battle against God’s people. Yet even at this time Christ will protect His people by totally destroying Satan and the nations.
Satan is defeated, Christ is victorious, and the saints are victors with Him. That is the message of Revelation 20:1-10.
Now, let me deal with five pertinent questions, including the three you brought up:
1. What is the connection between Revelation 19:11-21 and 20:1-10?
2. Why do Amillennialists believe that the binding of Satan occurred at Christ’s resurrection and lasts till just before the end of the church age?
3. Why do Amillennialists believe that the binding of Satan is a preventing of his ability to keep God’s elect throughout the world from being saved?
4. Why do Amillennialists believe that the resurrection of verse 4 is a spiritual resurrection rather than a physical one (especially considering that the resurrection in verse 5 is physical in nature)?
5. Why do Amillennialists understand the reign of believers to be a spiritual reign rather than a physical one?
I. What is the connection between Revelation 19:11-21 and 20:1-10? As you know, premillennialists hold that the events of 20:1-10 chronologically follow 19:11-21. Amillennialists believe that Revelation 20:1-10 retells the events of 19:11-21 from a different perspective. Let me give a few reasons why I believe that the events described in Revelation 20 do not sequentially follow the events in Romans 19.
1. As you well know, almost all scholars of Revelation acknowledge that John uses recapitulation (describing the same events from different perspectives in distinct visions) – the only disagreement is over distinguishing the various places he does so. Amillennialists assert that the phrase “I saw” is a major indicator that in chapter 20, John is introducing a new vision. Why? Because it is through this phrase or others like it that he has previously introduced visions in Revelation (cf. 4:1; 12:1-3, 13:1-3, 14:1, 17:1-3).
2. The allusions to Ezekiel 38-39 in 20:8-10 concerning the battle of Gog and Magog reveal that this is almost certainly a retelling of the same battle described in 19:17-21, which uses the same allusions. In fact, Ezekiel himself describes the same battle in two different passages: one in Ezekiel 38, the other in Ezekiel 39, and it is very likely that John is following Ezekiel’s example here. Revelation stands in line with Old Testament prophecy and particularly Ezekiel in describing the same events from different perspectives in distinct visions.
3. A comparison with 16:12-16 shows that John has not only described these events previously in chapter 19, but in chapter 16 as well.
4. The premillennial argument that the Greek conjunction kai (the first word of Rev. 20:1) indicates historical sequence does not stand when one looks closely at the parallel uses in 7:2, 10:1, and 18:1. Almost all scholars of any stripe acknowledge that kai in these places do not indicate historical sequence, but actually a transition to a new vision cycle.
5. As mentioned in an earlier post, a chronologically sequential connection between Revelation 19 and 20 not only fails to have exegetical support, but it does not logically make sense. How can Satan deceive nations (20:3) that have already been deceived (19:19-20; cf. 16:13-16) and have been utterly destroyed by Christ at His return (19:11-21)?
II. Why do Amillennialists believe that the binding of Satan occurred at Christ’s resurrection and lasts until just before the end of the church age? There are several passages of Scripture that teach this.
1. Within Revelation itself, we see this taught in relation to the “key” of Revelation 20:1. This key symbolizes Christ’s power and authority over Satan that was given to Christ as a result of His death and resurrection (cf. 1:18). What does it mean that Jesus is now the possessor of this key? In 3:7-9 we see that this means that Christ has authority and power to protect the church members in Philadelphia from the deceivers of “the synagogue of Satan.” Satan’s deception will not succeed because the Keeper of the Key will not allow it.
The main point for our discussion here, however, is that 3:7-9 and various other passages in Revelation speak of Jesus as Keeper of the Key using that authority to protect His people and to limit Satan not during some future period, but during the church age. As G. K. Beale says, “the ‘key of the abyss’ in 20:1 is similar to the keys in chs. 1, 3, 6, and 9, especially chs. 6 and 9, which all pertain to realities during the church age.”
2. There are a plethora of Biblical passages that affirm that Jesus’ decisive defeat of Satan (and thus His receiving of the “key”) occurred at His death and resurrection. See Mt 12:29; Mk 3:27; Lk 10:17-19; John 12:31-33; Col. 2:15; Heb 12:14; etc.
John 12:31-32 is particularly noteworthy. Jesus says, “Now is the judgment of this world; now will the ruler of this world be cast out. And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, I will draw all people to myself.” Jesus speaks of a moment when the ruler of this world (Satan) will be cast out, thus allowing Him to draw all people (i.e., the nations) to Himself. Do you see the similarity with Rev. 20:1-3? Satan is bound so that God’s people will not be prevented from receiving the Gospel. And Jesus says that the time of this casting out is “now”. Then, for further clarification, John adds verse 33: “He said this to show by what kind of death he was going to die.” In other words, the time of Satan’s binding and the beginning of the Great Commission began at the time of Christ’s defeat of Satan through His death and resurrection. This passage, from another place in Johannine literature, teaches the exact same thing as Revelation 20:1-3. And it clearly refers to the church age, not some future age.
3. Jesus used the same picture (of binding Satan) to describe His own ministry in Matthew 12:28-29. Any careful exegesis of this text shows that Jesus is explaining that the kingdom of God has come – He is the King who has come to inaugurate the kingdom through His life, death and resurrection! And one of the evidences that Jesus points to in order to prove His point is His own ability to cast our demons by the Spirit of God. He goes on to say, “Or how can someone enter a strong man’s house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man? Then indeed he may plunder his house.”
Jesus is not saying that He will bind Satan one day in the distant future, but that in fact He was already binding Satan! That was why He was able to cast out Satan’s demons with such power! This binding began in Jesus’ ministry, was clenched by His death, and began in its current fullness at His resurrection.
III. Why do Amillennialists believe that the binding of Satan is a preventing of his ability to keep God’s elect throughout the world from being saved? First, let me acknowledge that different Amillennialists speak about this binding in different ways. All amils agree that Satan has been bound in order to prevent him from deceiving the nations, but we differ in the nuances of what that means. My personal view is not that Satan is no longer seeking to deceive people, but that his power to deceive has been limited by God in order to make Gospel success possible. When Satan is unbound, his ability to deceive will lead to a worldwide effort to destroy God’s people (remember how Satan stirred up nations to come against Israel in the Old Testament?) But that time is being put off in order to allow for the Great Commission to be completed. God will save His people. Why do I hold to this interpretation?
1. That the purpose of Satan’s binding is to prevent him from having deceptive sway over the nations is explicitly stated in the passage.
2. That this is the purpose of his binding is also made clear in 20:7. When Satan is unbound, he deceives the nations and leads them into battle against God’s people. Thus, when he is bound, his efforts to deceive are checked by Christ’s power. But when he is unbound, his deceptions are believed by the nations.
3. That the purpose of this binding is to allow for Gospel success is explained by Christ Himself in the Johannine passage we examined earlier: John 12:31-32. Also, remember how Jesus began the Great Commission? “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore, go and make disciples of all nations…” The idea is that Jesus now has the authority to guarantee Gospel success among the nations, and so He sends His apostles out. This authority includes the power to overcome and make ineffective Satan’s attempts to keep in blindness those Christ has chosen for Himself.
You, Jim, argue that this understanding “weakens” the binding of Satan in Rev. 20:3. Weakens it compared to what? The passage itself describes the nature of the binding, and Amillennialists believe wholeheartedly that Satan is truly bound in this way – he will not be able to deceive the nations as he desires until Christ allows him. He is truly bound.
But does the language of the text require a more “complete” binding of Satan? I don’t think so. Remember, Jesus said in John 12 that at His death Satan was being “cast out” in order for “all people” to be drawn to him. Almost every scholar agrees that the casting out in that passage refers to our present age. So before you ever get to Revelation 20, we learn that there is a sense in which Satan is currently “cast out”, and yet can still be described as prowling around like a roaring lion. Note that 2 Thessalonians 2:6-12 also seems to indicate that Satan is both active and yet in some sense restrained.
Speaking about God’s victory over evil spiritual forces at the cross, Colossians 2:15 says “He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him [Christ].” So Satan and his forces are currently disarmed and put to open shame. Would we argue that this somehow contradicts the fact that Satan is still at work? Of course not! But it means his efforts cannot succeed. Also, read Jude 6. Is it not true that these demonic forces are both at work today and yet simultaneously “bound with everlasting chains”?
Hebrews 2:14-15 says that Christ took on our human flesh “that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil, and deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong slavery.”
Consider these words from Robert Strimple: “Prior to Christ’s ministry Israel was the one nation called out from all the nations of the world to know God’s blessings and to serve him. There were exceptions, of course – those who came to know God’s grace even though they were not of the children of Abraham after the flesh. But essentially all the nations on this earth were in darkness, under Satan’s deception. But then, praise God! Christ came and accomplished his redemptive work. On the day of Pentecost the Holy Spirit was poured out “on all people” (Acts 2:17), signifying the fact that the gospel of Christ is a gospel for all the nations, not just the Jewish people. The age of world missions had begun, and Satan’s deceptive work on that grand scale over so many centuries had come to an end.”
IV. Why do Amillennialists believe that the resurrection of verse 4 is a spiritual resurrection rather than a physical one (especially considering that the resurrection in verse 5 is physical in nature)? In your question, Jim, you suggest that there are no contextual clues that give us the right to interpret the resurrection in verse 4 differently than verse 5. But I would suggest that there are many such contextual clues – in the passage itself, in Revelation, in Johannine literature, and in the New Testament! Let me mention a few of these:
1. First, we must dismiss the idea that John would not speak of a spiritual resurrection and then immediately speak of a physical resurrection in similar language. In fact, we know that he has done this kind of thing before: in John 5:19-29. In that passage he uses the same language over and over again, yet sometimes referring to a physical resurrection, other times a spiritual resurrection. Paul does a similar thing in Romans 6. If you have not already checked out this essay, be sure and do so.
2. There is a big clue in the Revelation 20:1-10 that John expects us to understand this first resurrection as a spiritual resurrection – namely, that he also speaks of a second death. Thus, John is echoing previous Biblical teaching that there are two deaths and two resurrections (all referred to in John 5:19-29). There is a physical death and a physical resurrection, there is a spiritual death and a spiritual resurrection. (By the way, let me be clear that I do not think that this spiritual resurrection is regeneration per se, but is rather a reference to the soul’s translation into the intermediate state. Christians will experience one death and two resurrections (a physical death, a resurrection of being ushered into eternal life, and a physical resurrection), unbelievers will experience two deaths and one resurrections (a physical death, a death of being ushered into hell, and a physical resurrection.)
3. The same word used in Revelation 20:4 (elesan) is used in the Septuagint translation of Ezekiel 37:10, and it seems very likely that John is seeking to echo that verse. If this is right, then it is important to note that the word in Ezekiel 37:10 is used in a spiritual sense, not a physical sense. (And, by the way, John probably expected many of his first century Greek-speaking readers to know that he was alluding to Ezekiel. In other words, for those who speak Greek, the allusion to Ezekiel 37:10 was a very big contextual clue as to the nature of this resurrection.)
4. The Biblical teaching throughout is that there will be only one physical resurrection of the dead. See, for example, Isaiah 26:19-21; Daniel 12:2; John 5:28-29; John 6:39-40, 44, 54; Acts 24:15; 2 Thessalonians 1:7-10.
5. I wish I could say more here, but G. K. Beale’s commentary provides a 32 page tour-de-force explaining why this resurrection must be interpreted as a spiritual resurrection. His arguments are far to complex and lengthy for me to repeat here, but when followed they are quite convincing. I would strongly encourage you to check it out.
V. Why do Amillennialists understand the reign of believers to be a spiritual reign rather than a physical one?
1. Because verse 4 speaks of a particular group of saints who “come to life” in order to reign, namely, those “who had been beheaded.” In other words, these saints are physically dead. And since I understand their coming to life to refer to their translation into heaven and the intermediate state, their reigning would take place from heaven. Besides, they are reigning with Christ, and that is where He is!
2. Parallels in other passages seem to speak of a spiritual reign from heaven. See Rev. 6:9, 7:14-17, and Daniel 7:9-13 (note that the thrones in Daniel appear to be in heaven, not on earth).
3. Every other time thrones are mentioned in Revelation, they are in heaven. See 1:4, 3:21, 4:5, 6:16, 7:9ff., 8:3, 12:5, 14:3, 16:17, 19:4-5, 20:4, 20:11, 21:5, 22:1, 22:3. In fact, Revelation 20:4-6 is simply a fulfillment of what was promised in 3:21: “The one who conquers, I will grant him to sit with me on my throne, as I also conquered and sat down with my father on his throne.”
I love what Poythress says here: "The picture in 20:4-6 thus answers a pressing question during times of intense persecution. When Christians are a weak minority, when great imperial powers are arrayed against them, is there any hope for victory? What happens when Christians are viciously put to death? It appears to the world that they have been decisively defeated. The persecuting authorities are very much alive and as powerful as ever, whil Christians have been simply wiped out. Christianity appears to be a hopelessly weak religion. Does God not care? Is he really in conrol? Can anything undo the defeat that Christians have suffered through their martyrdom? Revelation 20:4-6 answers that heavenly realities must be included in assessing the situation. And when we see these realities, the tables are completely turned. It turns out that it is impossible to defeat Christians. Even when demonic forces are ravaging the church, they are only establishing Christians in positions of real and permanent power!"
4. I must disagree with your assertion that Paul is admonishing the Corinthians (1 Cor. 4:8) for acting as if they rule in this present age. Rather, Paul is admonishing the Corinthians for acting as if they rule already, before they had died and joined Christ in heaven. We will not reign until we have been made worthy of reigning – till we have been fully sanctified. The Corinthians were trying to live the exalted life before enduring the life of self-denial. Paul wasn’t telling them to wait till the millennium – he was telling them to wait till they were in heaven to live in exaltation. 2nd Timothy 2:12 is similar – we must endure in this life that we may reign in the next (i.e., after death).
5. Note, by the way, that this reign over the nations includes returning again with Christ to destroy Satan and the nations he deceives. You asked about Revelation 2:26-27? Compare it with Revelation 19:15. We who have died will return with Christ in judgment on this world (those Christians still on earth will be raptured up to join with us), and we will participate in the defeat of Satan.
Here is the great theme of Revelation! Those saints who seem to have been defeated through their death will actually prove to be the victors, participating with Christ in the outworking of the victory He achieved for us on the cross. We will be there the day that this world is judged, and we will see our great enemy the devil defeated. Praise God! Jesus is Lord!
Well, it’s really late, so I have to go to bed. Concerning your fourth question, let me point out that many Amillennialists do believe that there will be a restoration of national Israel before Christ comes back. Perhaps you think they are asking about a millennial kingdom? That doesn’t seem to be necessary. Therefore, I’m not so sure the question has much of an impact on our discussion.
For what it’s worth, I personally do not believe that there will be a restoration of Israel in the sense that some expect. But that’s a discussion for another time.
Good night all. God bless.
JN
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
Monday, July 30, 2007
On Critiquing Others' Evangelism Methods
JD Greear is a little ticked of at the moment. He's tired of how some "theologically precise" Christian churches settle for critiquing the methodology of others, without getting out there and "beating the hedges" for the sake of the gospel (especially good is the quote by Spurgeon at the end of the post).
You may remember my post last month on what I thought was a wrong-headed attempt at evangelism. I still have questions about how far is too far, and when are we just shooting ourselves in the foot. But I do think I just need to relax on the critiquing sometimes. Where's my evangelistic zeal? If I don't like the way "they" are doing it, why don't I get out and do something myself? Help me in this, guys. Let's stir up in each other a passion and burden for those who don't follow Christ and are on their way to destruction. Let's weep over them and plead with them to run to the Savior's refuge.
You may remember my post last month on what I thought was a wrong-headed attempt at evangelism. I still have questions about how far is too far, and when are we just shooting ourselves in the foot. But I do think I just need to relax on the critiquing sometimes. Where's my evangelistic zeal? If I don't like the way "they" are doing it, why don't I get out and do something myself? Help me in this, guys. Let's stir up in each other a passion and burden for those who don't follow Christ and are on their way to destruction. Let's weep over them and plead with them to run to the Savior's refuge.
The Pillar Commentary Series
In an earlier post Justin C. recommended Leon Morris' commentary in the Pillar Commentary series on Romans. I don't have that one yet, but I do agree that this series of commentaries is excellent. Go here to find out more about the series, the commentaries that are out, and the ones that are forthcoming. Carson on Galatians is definitely promising, and I'm sure his commentary on Revelation will be excellent as well (from an amil position.)Jim - I'll be getting those answers up tonight! We're headed out of town on Wednesday, so everything is kind of hectic right now. Anyway, I expect a free hour or so tonight to respond to your questions. Till then, you may want to check out this essay which addresses your first question.
Grace and peace,
JN
Saturday, July 28, 2007
Questions for My Amillennialist Friends
We continue our discussion of the end times... specifically two different views of the Millennium. Justin posted some questions to Historic Premillennialists, I gave some answers, and he responded to my answers. Now, here are some questions for my friends who hold to the Amillennialist view.
1) Why do Amillennialists inconsistently interpret the phrase "came/come to life" in Rev. 20?
Here's the text in question, "They came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended" (Rev. 20:4b-5). Is it likely that John uses this phrase in two very different senses (physical and spiritual) in such close proximity with no contextual clues that he is doing so? If those believers came to life in the spiritual sense, how can it be said of unbelievers that they come to life after the thousand years?
2) Why do Amillennialists insist on a spiritual/abstract reign of the saints, when the Bible seems to indicate something different?
Rev. 2:26-27 says, "The one who conquers and who keeps my works until the end, to him I will give authority over the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron, as when earthen pots are broken in pieces, even as I myself have received authority from my Father." These words to the church in Thyatira indicate that the authority to rule the nations is given to those who keep his works until the end. This goes along with 2 Tim. 2:12, where the condition for reigning with Christ is enduring.
In Paul's first letter to the Corinthians, he admonishes them for acting like they rule in this present age (4:8). Instead he says that he and the other apostles are exhibited as "last of all, like men sentenced to death," and "a spectacle to the world, to angels, and to men," and "the scum of the world, the refuse of all things." This life is characterized by persecutions and sufferings as we eagerly await our redemption and the coming of Christ in glory. In chapter 5, Paul rebukes the Corinthians for judging those outside. Rather they are to judge those inside the church.
In what sense, then, do we reign with Christ and rule the nations?
3) Why do Amillennialists weaken the binding of Satan and how do they get around verses that indicate Satan still deceives and must be resisted?
Amillennialists insist on weakening the figurative binding of Satan in Rev. 20. The words that describe his binding include him being thrown into a pit which is shut and sealed. Further, Satan is described as being "in prison" so that he might not deceive the nations. After he is released, then he will be able to deceive them again. This binding seems much greater than just a "restriction" and it seems that Satan is still at work "blinding" unbelievers to the gospel.
"...the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ..." (2 Cor. 4:4).
"Be soberminded; be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour. Resist him, firm in your faith, knowing that the same kinds of suffering are being experienced by your brotherhood throughout the world" (1 Pet. 5:8-9).
A bound and imprisoned dragon and a prowling and roaring lion are two very different images. Why do Amillennialists weaken the binding of Satan and how do they get around the previously cited verses?
4) Why didn't Jesus correct his followers in Acts 1:6-7?
Admittedly, this is not a strong question or argument (not really an argument at all). But, it is an interesting observation. The apostles asked Jesus if he would then, at that time, restore the kingdom to Israel. They were waiting for a physical kingdom in which Jesus ruled. This was the expectation of the Jews at the time. Of course, they got it wrong in that the Messiah first came as a suffering servant. But the apostles were still expecting a physical kingdom of which Jesus would be king.
It is interesting that Jesus doesn't correct them in their view of this. Instead he says that "It is not for you to know times or seasons that the Father has fixed by his own authority..." If the kingdom was only spiritual, then you would expect him to say something like, "You still don't get it do you?..." Again, this isn't an argument from silence... just an observation.
I think it is helpful and right for us to study and discuss these issues, for the Bible clearly teaches about the end times. I am thankful for good friends who stir up thinking and living for God. In our disagreements, let's remember some things on which we agree. There are others, but here are several that may turn our hearts to doxology:
1) Christ will return physically in power and glory to render to each one what is due, and to gather his people to himself, 2) We will be changed and mortality will be swallowed up by life, 3) We should live for him with all our might, not knowing he may return at any time, 4) We have a message (the gospel) and a mission to make Jesus known to all nations, for everyone is in desperate need of the good news. 5) We want him to come soon and our hearts cry together, "Come, Lord Jesus" (Rev. 22:20).
Footnote: In coming up with these questions, I've taken a lot from Russell Moore's chapter in Akin's "A Theology for the Church," especially pages 908-909.
1) Why do Amillennialists inconsistently interpret the phrase "came/come to life" in Rev. 20?
Here's the text in question, "They came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended" (Rev. 20:4b-5). Is it likely that John uses this phrase in two very different senses (physical and spiritual) in such close proximity with no contextual clues that he is doing so? If those believers came to life in the spiritual sense, how can it be said of unbelievers that they come to life after the thousand years?
2) Why do Amillennialists insist on a spiritual/abstract reign of the saints, when the Bible seems to indicate something different?
Rev. 2:26-27 says, "The one who conquers and who keeps my works until the end, to him I will give authority over the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron, as when earthen pots are broken in pieces, even as I myself have received authority from my Father." These words to the church in Thyatira indicate that the authority to rule the nations is given to those who keep his works until the end. This goes along with 2 Tim. 2:12, where the condition for reigning with Christ is enduring.
In Paul's first letter to the Corinthians, he admonishes them for acting like they rule in this present age (4:8). Instead he says that he and the other apostles are exhibited as "last of all, like men sentenced to death," and "a spectacle to the world, to angels, and to men," and "the scum of the world, the refuse of all things." This life is characterized by persecutions and sufferings as we eagerly await our redemption and the coming of Christ in glory. In chapter 5, Paul rebukes the Corinthians for judging those outside. Rather they are to judge those inside the church.
In what sense, then, do we reign with Christ and rule the nations?
3) Why do Amillennialists weaken the binding of Satan and how do they get around verses that indicate Satan still deceives and must be resisted?
Amillennialists insist on weakening the figurative binding of Satan in Rev. 20. The words that describe his binding include him being thrown into a pit which is shut and sealed. Further, Satan is described as being "in prison" so that he might not deceive the nations. After he is released, then he will be able to deceive them again. This binding seems much greater than just a "restriction" and it seems that Satan is still at work "blinding" unbelievers to the gospel.
"...the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ..." (2 Cor. 4:4).
"Be soberminded; be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour. Resist him, firm in your faith, knowing that the same kinds of suffering are being experienced by your brotherhood throughout the world" (1 Pet. 5:8-9).
A bound and imprisoned dragon and a prowling and roaring lion are two very different images. Why do Amillennialists weaken the binding of Satan and how do they get around the previously cited verses?
4) Why didn't Jesus correct his followers in Acts 1:6-7?
Admittedly, this is not a strong question or argument (not really an argument at all). But, it is an interesting observation. The apostles asked Jesus if he would then, at that time, restore the kingdom to Israel. They were waiting for a physical kingdom in which Jesus ruled. This was the expectation of the Jews at the time. Of course, they got it wrong in that the Messiah first came as a suffering servant. But the apostles were still expecting a physical kingdom of which Jesus would be king.
It is interesting that Jesus doesn't correct them in their view of this. Instead he says that "It is not for you to know times or seasons that the Father has fixed by his own authority..." If the kingdom was only spiritual, then you would expect him to say something like, "You still don't get it do you?..." Again, this isn't an argument from silence... just an observation.
I think it is helpful and right for us to study and discuss these issues, for the Bible clearly teaches about the end times. I am thankful for good friends who stir up thinking and living for God. In our disagreements, let's remember some things on which we agree. There are others, but here are several that may turn our hearts to doxology:
1) Christ will return physically in power and glory to render to each one what is due, and to gather his people to himself, 2) We will be changed and mortality will be swallowed up by life, 3) We should live for him with all our might, not knowing he may return at any time, 4) We have a message (the gospel) and a mission to make Jesus known to all nations, for everyone is in desperate need of the good news. 5) We want him to come soon and our hearts cry together, "Come, Lord Jesus" (Rev. 22:20).
Footnote: In coming up with these questions, I've taken a lot from Russell Moore's chapter in Akin's "A Theology for the Church," especially pages 908-909.
Evangelistic Methodology
As we begin thinking about the question of doing evangelism biblically, I want to ask you guys what you think about leading someone in a prayer for salvation. In the book of Acts, whenever people ask how to be saved, they are always told to either "believe", "repent", or "be baptized", but never to "pray" (though note Acts 8:22). Yet prayer seems like it must be an important aspect of conversion, since Paul said "Everyone that calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved." So what is the role of prayer in conversion?One reason I ask this questions is this: it seems to me that one of the things that has gone wrong with modern evangelism is that there is more emphasis on getting someone to "pray a prayer" than on getting them to "believe the gospel." Yet many thousands have "prayed a prayer" without being saved - unregenerate people can do that. But no once can truly believe the Gospel and not be saved - only those who have born again can believe.
So would you agree that while prayer is important in conversion, our focus ought to be on calling people to "believe the Gospel" rather than to "pray this prayer"?
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
JT on the Age of the Earth
It appears that Justin Taylor and I have similar thoughts about the age of the earth. I would encourage you to read this post. Note, by the way, that his arguments do not rest on the word "day" in Genesis 1 being translated as "age" (the old day-age argument). Instead, he follows the path of Waltke and many others in reading Genesis 1 as an analogical account to the human week. I find these arguments attractive, particularly as I have seen them presented by Waltke, Poythress, and others.
Pursue Love!
Pursue Love
1 Corinthians 13
A More Excellent Way
1 Corinthians 13
A More Excellent Way
In 12:31, Paul says, “And I will show you a still more excellent way.” With that, he introduces what has become one of the most cherished passages of Scripture in the Bible: the love chapter. 1st Corinthians 13 is probably the passage of Scripture quoted most often at weddings. Many of us have heard it so many times that we can quote parts of it. But sadly, like Psalm 23, it is a passage that is read more often than it is understood. And since we’ve heard it several times before, I need to ask you to try and hear it again now in a new way. Hear it now not just as a great work of prose, but as the teaching of an apostle of Jesus for our church.
So what does Paul mean when he says that he is showing us “a more excellent way”? He’s not saying that we should choose to pursue love instead of spiritual gifts, since he says in 12:31 “earnestly desire the higher gifts.” Rather, he is saying that love must be paramount. Our desire for gifts is only appropriate when it is motivated by a desire to show love to others. As Calvin says, “This, then, is the more excellent way, when love is the regulating principle of all our actions.”
I wonder, is love “the regulating principle” of your life? What does this look like? Consider with me how love should be the regulating principle of our lives in our thoughts, our words, and our actions:
First, consider the many thoughts that come into your head each day. Some are graciously prompted in you by the Spirit, and are good and pure thoughts. Others are motivated by the flesh, and are evil, selfish thoughts. Which do you allow to be entertained in your mind? As Christians, we should allow love to be the standard of our thoughts. If our thoughts contain love for God or love for others, then meditate on them. But if our thoughts are loveless, we should seek to put them as far away from us as possible as quickly as possible.
Or, consider the words we speak: Woe to the person who speaks whatever pops into his head! We should be slow to speak, thinking about what we are going to say before we say it. And we learn to how to test our words for love, not allowing any loveless words to pass from our lips. This is what Paul is getting at in Ephesians when he says
“Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear.” (4:29)
And love should be the regulating principle of our actions. Nothing should be done if it is not motivated by love. This is where the Corinthians had gone off track – they were pursuing gifts as a means for exalting themselves rather than as a means for serving others.
So let me ask you again: Is love the regulating principle of your life? What would your spouse say? What would your children say? Let me encourage you to ask them on your way home tonight. Ask, is my life characterized by love? Or is there some other quality that more accurately characterizes the way I live?
The Excellency of Love
So what does Paul mean when he says that he is showing us “a more excellent way”? He’s not saying that we should choose to pursue love instead of spiritual gifts, since he says in 12:31 “earnestly desire the higher gifts.” Rather, he is saying that love must be paramount. Our desire for gifts is only appropriate when it is motivated by a desire to show love to others. As Calvin says, “This, then, is the more excellent way, when love is the regulating principle of all our actions.”
I wonder, is love “the regulating principle” of your life? What does this look like? Consider with me how love should be the regulating principle of our lives in our thoughts, our words, and our actions:
First, consider the many thoughts that come into your head each day. Some are graciously prompted in you by the Spirit, and are good and pure thoughts. Others are motivated by the flesh, and are evil, selfish thoughts. Which do you allow to be entertained in your mind? As Christians, we should allow love to be the standard of our thoughts. If our thoughts contain love for God or love for others, then meditate on them. But if our thoughts are loveless, we should seek to put them as far away from us as possible as quickly as possible.
Or, consider the words we speak: Woe to the person who speaks whatever pops into his head! We should be slow to speak, thinking about what we are going to say before we say it. And we learn to how to test our words for love, not allowing any loveless words to pass from our lips. This is what Paul is getting at in Ephesians when he says
“Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear.” (4:29)
And love should be the regulating principle of our actions. Nothing should be done if it is not motivated by love. This is where the Corinthians had gone off track – they were pursuing gifts as a means for exalting themselves rather than as a means for serving others.
So let me ask you again: Is love the regulating principle of your life? What would your spouse say? What would your children say? Let me encourage you to ask them on your way home tonight. Ask, is my life characterized by love? Or is there some other quality that more accurately characterizes the way I live?
The Excellency of Love
Where do we begin in trying to express the excellency of love? Even the Biblical word itself speaks of its uniqueness. The word agape was not a commonly used word for love in the first century. Phileo and eros and storge were much more common. But Christians took the word agape and made it the word to describe the love of God – undeserved, sacrificial, divine love. It is this kind of love that we see displayed at the cross! And it is this kind of love that Paul is saying we should pursue above all else.
Of course, we all remember what Jesus said was the greatest commandment. “You shall love…”, He said. “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.” And what was the second greatest? “You shall love!” “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” And then Jesus says this remarkable statement: “On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.” (Mt. 22:37-40)
In other words, all that God requires of us is summed up in this word: Love! Now, of course, we need more words then that. We need words to tell us what love is and what it looks like. In the Bible we find stories that show us what is loving and what is not. We find promises that enable us to love. And most importantly, we find the God who is love. The Bible is a book about love!
All of the other virtues that God commands for us are brought together in love. Colossians 3:14 says, “And above all these put on love, which binds everything together in perfect harmony.” 1st Peter 4:8 says, “Above all, keep loving one another earnestly, since love covers a multitude of sins.” What is the primary fruit of the Spirit? It is love! What is the best evidence that we have come to know God? Love! “Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God.” (1 John 4:7)
Love is more excellent than spiritual gifts. That’s Paul’s point in verses 1-3. In verse 1, we see that love is more excellent that speaking in tongues. The “tongues of men and of angels” is probably a reference to speaking in tongues, though it certainly includes all human speech. The fact is, without love, all of our speaking of any kind is like a “noisy gong or a clanging cymbal.” It is obnoxious and repulsive to God!
Oh, how many times we repulse God with our words! Sometimes we sing a song called “I Love You, Lord”, that says:
I love You, Lord, and I lift my voice
To worship You, oh, my soul, rejoice!
Take joy, my King, in what You hear,
May it be a sweet, sweet sound in Your ear.
When we speak in love to one another, speaking truth, encouraging and admonishing, seeking to strengthen each other’s faith, that is a sweet sound in God’s ear! He delights in that! But when we use our words to exalt ourselves and to tear down others created in His image, it disgusts Him, it angers Him, and He would be right to condemn us. I thank God that all my repulsive words have been nailed to the cross, and that I have been forgiven for them. Let us resolve to only speak in love – this is the more excellent way.
In verse 2, Paul refers to three spiritual gifts that he has already mentioned in 12:8-10: the gift of prophecy, the gift of knowledge, and the gift of faith. These are the kinds of gifts that Paul would probably refer to as higher gifts, because of the good that can from them. Yet Paul says that even if a person has these gifts, without love, he is nothing.
Contrast God’s way of evaluating people with the world’s way of evaluating people. The world says that those who are talented, intelligent, wealthy, famous, or influential are something. They are of high value. God says that only people who love are something. Everyone else is nothing.
Why? Because nothing is good or beautiful in God’s eyes if it is lacking love! Love is the essential ingredient in goodness and beauty (which, by the way, are synonymous in the Bible.) Take love away, and everything becomes rotten.
Consider what I’m doing right now. Preaching in God’s eyes is a glorious thing when love is involved. When a pastor preaches out of love for the people, longing for them to know God’s love, God is delighted! He is rejoicing over us! But when a pastor preaches not out of love, but out of a desire for self-exaltation, or out of greed, that preaching is an abomination in God’s eyes.
This was the case with the spiritual gifts in Corinth. It wasn’t the gifts that were the problem. In fact, it really is amazing that despite all of the conflict the Corinthian church was experiencing over the issue of gifts, Paul still in the first chapter thanks God for the many spiritual gifts He had given them. And he does not tell the Corinthians to stop using their gifts, but actually encourages them to pursue the gifts even more! So the gifts themselves were not the problem – it was the motivation behind them. When spiritual gifts are used in pride, to exalt ourselves, they become hideous to God. But when they are used in love, they are honorable and good and pleasing to God.
Some have tried to suggest that in chapter 13 Paul is “chasing a rabbit” – he’s wandering away from his topic of spiritual gifts. But that’s not at all what he’s doing! Rather, he has put his finger on the main issue and is helping the Corinthians to understand that while they were wonderfully blessed with spiritual gifts, what they really needed was love!
In verse 3 Paul talks about the gift of generosity and self-sacrifice – both truly wonderful things. Oh how our world needs to see more self-sacrificing Christians, giving of themselves to lift up others, to care for the poor and the oppressed, the widow and the orphan, willing to die for the cause of Christ! Yet all of these things become ugly and sinful when they are not motivated by love. God is not glorified in loveless sacrifice! And there will be no reward in heaven.
Perhaps we could sum up these first three verses in two words: motives matter. When love is not our regulating principle, our driving force, then all of our good works truly are as filthy rags before God.
Love Described
Jerry Bridges says that love is “an inner disposition of the soul provided by the Holy Spirit.” This means that love is not mainly external, but internal, though true love will express itself in outward ways. Our thoughts, our words, and our actions all spring from our hearts; if love is in our hearts – in our very souls – then it will come out in everything we say, think, and do.
I appreciate Bridges’ description of love because it also reminds us that true love ultimately comes from the Holy Spirit. We can talk about unbelievers “falling in love”, but then we’re really talking about eros or storge – not agape. Agape love comes from God and only God – like faith, He must give it to us or we will not have it. This should send us to our knees every day crying out for more love that we might better reflect His character to our families, friends, etc.
Here in 1st Corinthians 13, Paul does not define love so much as he describes it. Some things are more easily described than defined. Verses 4-7 are Paul’s description of love. I do not intend for us to take the time to expound each line – that would take a whole series of sermons[1] - but I do want to make two comments about this description:
1. I want us to understand that Paul is not describing love here for academic or artistic purposes. It’s true that entire books have been written about the content of this chapter, and it’s true that it is a beautiful work of prose, but Paul’s desire for the Corinthians was not that they would read it and say “Oh, isn’t that nice” or “Oh, isn’t that deep.” Paul’s desire was for them to live this out! And God’s desire for us is that we would practice these things as well. Only God can make this happen, but He does so through our efforts to obey. “For it is God who works in you both to will and to work for his good pleasure.” (Philippians 2:13) So let’s not just marvel at this passage – let’s live it out!
2. It seems very likely that the descriptions of love that Paul chooses to use in verses 4-7 are exactly those that the Corinthians needed to hear. Paul says love is patient, yet one of the problems in the church at Corinth was those who were more knowledgeable about food sacrificed to idols were not being patient with those who had less understanding. Paul says love is kind, though in chapter 11 the wealthy in the church were going ahead with their meals while the poor had none. Paul says love does not envy, yet the Corinthians were jealous of those more gifted than they. Love is not arrogant, yet Paul had to instruct the Corinthians in chapter 1 to only boast in the Lord. Love is not rude, yet Corinth was plagued with disunity and the inability of the people to get along with each other. Love does not insist on its own way, yet the Corinthians were taking each other to court to get their own way. You get the point. Paul’s desire was that this description of love would serve the Corinthians as a mirror into which they could look and see just how sinful they were. Paul’s aim was repentance!
I wonder, do you need to repent of being impatient or unkind? Is your life characterized by envy or arrogance? Are you rude, or do you always insist on your own way? Then don’t treat these sins lightly, but be just as repulsed by them as God is, and resolve to be different. Pray that God would make you different, and that He would empower you to overcome your sins and to obtain virtue.
Love is Forever
1st Corinthians 13 is a love sandwich. The meat of the sandwich is the description of love in verses 4-7. The two slices of bread are the two reasons why Paul urges us to pursue love. Reason number one is in verses 1-3: love is so inherently excellent that we are nothing without it. Reason number two is in verses 8-13: love is eternal.
The argument in verses 8-13 is mainly that spiritual gifts will pass away, but love will not. This is most obvious in verse 8, where Paul is teaching that the spiritual gifts of prophecy, tongues, and knowledge will all pass away. Why will they pass away? Verses 9-10 tell us. They will pass away because they are imperfect gifts for an imperfect world. We are not meant to have perfect knowledge in this life – only glimpses of truth that God is gracious enough to reveal to us. Prophecy, tongues, and knowledge were all spiritual gifts that – when properly exercised – were used by God to reveal truth. But when the perfect come – that is, when Jesus comes back and we enter into eternal life – our knowledge will be perfect and we will not need these gifts anymore. They will have ceased.
Verse 11 is an illustration from our own lives. People do not remain children forever, but at some point put away childish things and grow up. So also, God’s children are not meant to remain in this sanctification process forever, but will be made perfect one day. We may be growing up now, but we will be made fully mature in heaven.
Verse 12 says that our knowledge today is like looking into a mirror dimly. Unlike our mirrors today, most mirrors in the first century had a dark tint and were not nearly as smooth as our mirrors. The result is that a person’s reflection would be distorted. Yet when we arrive in heaven, the distortions will be gone and we will see clearly.
What about the phrase “then I shall know fully”? Does this mean we will know everything when we get to heaven? It is hard to say. The Greek word is epiginosko, and can mean “to know accurately”. Paul could be saying that just as God knows us accurately – with no distortion – in heaven we will finally have an accurate knowledge of ourselves and of God.
The Bible never directly addresses the question of whether we’ll know everything in heaven or not, but my best guess is that we will not. God is infinite, we are finite. He is capable of infinite knowledge – but as finite beings, we are not. We will always be finite beings; we will never become gods. God alone is omniscient. My guess is that in heaven we will know all that we need – and perhaps heaven will be a place where we spend eternity learning more and more about God, thus giving us more and more reason to worship Him anew every day in the age to come.
In verse 13, we are told that faith, hope, and love remain. They are with us now. But the greatest of these is love. Why? Because only love will last forever. Faith will give way to sight. Hope will give way to possession. But love – that will last forever.
Heaven is a World of Love
I want to ask all of us to take seriously the command of 14:1 – pursue love! Let us ask God to make us more loving people. And to encourage us and lift up our hearts, I want to close by reading one passage from a sermon Jonathan Edwards preached around 250 years ago on this passage. He was focusing on the fact that love will endure forever, and that perfect love awaits us in heaven. The sermon was entitled, “Heaven, A World of Love”, and here is one short portion of it:
“There, even in heaven, dwells the God from whom every stream of holy love, yea, every drop that is, or ever was, proceeds. There dwells God the Father, God the Son, and God the Spirit, united as one, in infinitely dear, and incomprehensible, and mutual, and eternal love. There dwells God the Father, who is the father of mercies, and so the father of love, who so loved the world as to give his only-begotten Son to die for it. There dwells Christ, the Lamb of God, the prince of peace and of love, who so loved the world that he shed his blood, and poured out his soul unto death for men. There dwells the great Mediator, through whom all the divine love is expressed toward men, and by whom the fruits of that love have been purchased, and through whom they are communicated, and through whom love is imparted to the hearts of all God’s people. There dwells Christ in both his natures, the human and the divine, sitting on the same throne with the Father. And there dwells the Holy Spirit — the Spirit of divine love, in whom the very essence of God, as it were, flows out, and is breathed forth in love, and by whose immediate influence all holy love is shed abroad in the hearts of all the saints on earth and in heaven. There, in heaven, this infinite fountain of love — this eternal Three in One — is set open without any obstacle to hinder access to it, as it flows forever. There this glorious God is manifested, and shines forth, in full glory, in beams of love. And there this glorious fountain forever flows forth in streams, yea, in rivers of love and delight, and these rivers swell, as it were, to an ocean of love, in which the souls of the ransomed may bathe with the sweetest enjoyment, and their hearts, as it were, be deluged with love!”
Amen
Saturday, July 21, 2007
A Response to My Historic Premillenial Friend
(Guests: If you haven't already, you should read the previous two posts before reading this one.)
"Iron sharpens iron, and one man sharpens another." Proverbs 27:17.
Thanks, Jim, for these thoughtful answers. I look forward to your post on questions for amillenialists. In the mean time, let me respond to your answers and try and show where we agree and disagree.
First, I think we can agree on your point that "we should read literally things that were meant literally, and figuratively things that were meant figuratively." But you put your finger on the difficult issue when you recognize that different people disagree on what should fall into each category. Some premillenialists (particularly dispensational) believe that the 1000 years in Revelation 20 was intended to be taken literally. Amillenialists, most postmillenialists, and many historic premillenialists (i.e., George Eldon Ladd) believe the number should be taken figuratively. Since John isn't available for us to ask which he intended, we are left with a judgment call. Since I'm not sure whether you hold to a literal thousand year millenium or not, I won't press this further. If you'd like to know why I think this number should be taken figuratively, you can include it in your amil questions.
But what about the statement "The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended." You say that you see nothing symbolic in this verse. I almost agree (except I think the number 1000 is symbolic.) This resurrection is attested to in numerous other New Testament passages and is undoubtedly a physical, bodily resurrection. It's the first resurrection - the one in verse 4 - that marks the difference between premil and amil. Premillenialists hold that since the second resurrection is a physical, bodily resurrection, the first must be so as well. I disagree. The passage not only speaks about two resurrections - but note that it also speaks about a second death (implying a first.) So there are two deaths and two resurrections. And when we ask the New Testament to clarify this for us, the answer is clear (in my view): Just as there is a physical death and a spiritual death, so there is a physical resurrection and a spiritual resurrection. Coming to life in verse 4 is not the physical resurrection of believers, but the spiritual resurrection - being saved! This is why verse 6 says "Blessed and holy is the one who shares in the first resurrection! Over such the second death has no power..."
This answers a critical question that the first century churches undoutedly had: namely, what happens to those Christians who suffer and die under persecution for the name of Christ? Answer: They are presently reigning with Christ!
Moving on, John 5:28-29 says "Do not marvel at this, for the hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and come out, those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment."
You make the point that the word hour should not be constrained to mean a literal hour. I agree. However, it more difficult for me to see how it could be stretched to refer to a period of more than a thousand years!
You suggest that other passages (i.e., Phil. 3:11) support the idea of two resurrections. However, every millenial position recognizes that there will be two distinct resurrections - a resurrection of believers to eternal life and a resurrection of unbelievers to eternal death. The difference is over whether these two resurrections occur simultaneously or separated by a millenium. Thus, Phil 3:11 no more supports the premil position than it does the amil. We all agree that the resurrection Paul seeks is the one of believers to eternal life.
Concerning the third "age" added by premillenialists, you make several points. There's not a lot we agree on here. Your Isaiah reference (65:17-20) is commonly used as Old Testament evidence of a millenium. The passage describes a new earth, but since the passage mentions death, it is assumed that heaven cannot be in view. However, the New Testament apostles do not seem to share this assumption. Both Peter (2 Peter 3:13) and John (Revelation 21:1) draw from this passage not to describe a millenium, but eternity with God in glory. The real issue with this and other Old Testament prophet passages is that premillenialists fail to recognize that heaven is being foreshadowed the way other things are foreshadowed in the OT: using earthly types. Isaiah uses the picture of a perfect kingdom and declares that it is coming - but he uses earthly types, because the heavenly realities have not yet been revealed.
As for 1st Corinthians 15:23-28, doesn't this passage argue for amillenialism as much as against it? After all, when you put the pieces of the passage together as a timeline, what you get is: a. Christ rose from the dead, b. God has subjected all things under Christ, c. He must reign until all His enemies are defeated, d. Christ returns, e. His people are raised, f. Thus death is defeated (cf. v.54-55), and the end has come (i.e., Judgment Day). The passage does not mention the resurrection of unbelievers at all. Berkouwer says:
"The train of thought in 1 Corinthians 15:23f. is not the series: Christ's resurrection followed by the resurrection of believers, and finally by the general resurrection. The emphasis is on being in Christ and th epower of His resurrection. The interpretation of the sequence "epeita...eita" [both translated as "then"] as a Pauline reference to a millenium smacks of being too much influenced by Revelation 20."
Leon Morris agrees that we should not read anything about the resurrection of unbelievers into this text: "He speaks of two 'orders' only, Christ and believers; then he moves on to the final phase, and says nothing about the lot of unbelievers."
My response is getting too long for anyone to enjoy reading, so let me only very briefly repond to your last three answers:
You take the position that the renewal of the earth will take place after the millenium - at least a thousand years after Christ's return. You note that there are philosophical problems with having a glorified Christ physically reigning over a fallen world. We agree on this. There are theological problems as well. However, you suggest that there is no textual problem. Let me suggest that there is at least one that comes to mind: 2nd Peter 3:1-13. I believe if you study this passage closely, you will see that it assumes that the renewal of the earth takes place when Christ returns - not many centuries later.
As for your response to 2nd Thessalonians 1, I think it would be very difficult to read verses 6-7 and not conclude that both God's affliction on the wicked and His relief for the righteous are both presented as appearing with Christ in His coming. To read a millenium into this makes Paul's word almost deceptive, or even erroneous. (Is that too strong?)
Finally, as for who exactly will be ruled over in the millenium, you suggest that only the armies - not everyone - is destroyed at the end of chapter 19. My real goal in the question, of course, was to make us consider more carefully whether it is right to see chapter 19 flowing chronologically in to chapter 20. I'm sure I'll get to address this more fully later. For now let me point out that in 19:15 Jesus comes to "strike down the nations", and in 20:3 Satan is bound so that he will not "deceive the nations any longer." Yet how can Satan deceive nations that have been destroyed? The word "struck down" in 19:15 literally means "to smite" or "to kill". How can dead nations be deceived?
Well, there you go. While we seek to understand these things, we can rejoice in our agreement that our Savior is coming back, in glorified body, to bring us to Himself, that where He is we may also be!!
"Iron sharpens iron, and one man sharpens another." Proverbs 27:17.
Thanks, Jim, for these thoughtful answers. I look forward to your post on questions for amillenialists. In the mean time, let me respond to your answers and try and show where we agree and disagree.
First, I think we can agree on your point that "we should read literally things that were meant literally, and figuratively things that were meant figuratively." But you put your finger on the difficult issue when you recognize that different people disagree on what should fall into each category. Some premillenialists (particularly dispensational) believe that the 1000 years in Revelation 20 was intended to be taken literally. Amillenialists, most postmillenialists, and many historic premillenialists (i.e., George Eldon Ladd) believe the number should be taken figuratively. Since John isn't available for us to ask which he intended, we are left with a judgment call. Since I'm not sure whether you hold to a literal thousand year millenium or not, I won't press this further. If you'd like to know why I think this number should be taken figuratively, you can include it in your amil questions.
But what about the statement "The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended." You say that you see nothing symbolic in this verse. I almost agree (except I think the number 1000 is symbolic.) This resurrection is attested to in numerous other New Testament passages and is undoubtedly a physical, bodily resurrection. It's the first resurrection - the one in verse 4 - that marks the difference between premil and amil. Premillenialists hold that since the second resurrection is a physical, bodily resurrection, the first must be so as well. I disagree. The passage not only speaks about two resurrections - but note that it also speaks about a second death (implying a first.) So there are two deaths and two resurrections. And when we ask the New Testament to clarify this for us, the answer is clear (in my view): Just as there is a physical death and a spiritual death, so there is a physical resurrection and a spiritual resurrection. Coming to life in verse 4 is not the physical resurrection of believers, but the spiritual resurrection - being saved! This is why verse 6 says "Blessed and holy is the one who shares in the first resurrection! Over such the second death has no power..."
This answers a critical question that the first century churches undoutedly had: namely, what happens to those Christians who suffer and die under persecution for the name of Christ? Answer: They are presently reigning with Christ!
Moving on, John 5:28-29 says "Do not marvel at this, for the hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and come out, those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment."
You make the point that the word hour should not be constrained to mean a literal hour. I agree. However, it more difficult for me to see how it could be stretched to refer to a period of more than a thousand years!
You suggest that other passages (i.e., Phil. 3:11) support the idea of two resurrections. However, every millenial position recognizes that there will be two distinct resurrections - a resurrection of believers to eternal life and a resurrection of unbelievers to eternal death. The difference is over whether these two resurrections occur simultaneously or separated by a millenium. Thus, Phil 3:11 no more supports the premil position than it does the amil. We all agree that the resurrection Paul seeks is the one of believers to eternal life.
Concerning the third "age" added by premillenialists, you make several points. There's not a lot we agree on here. Your Isaiah reference (65:17-20) is commonly used as Old Testament evidence of a millenium. The passage describes a new earth, but since the passage mentions death, it is assumed that heaven cannot be in view. However, the New Testament apostles do not seem to share this assumption. Both Peter (2 Peter 3:13) and John (Revelation 21:1) draw from this passage not to describe a millenium, but eternity with God in glory. The real issue with this and other Old Testament prophet passages is that premillenialists fail to recognize that heaven is being foreshadowed the way other things are foreshadowed in the OT: using earthly types. Isaiah uses the picture of a perfect kingdom and declares that it is coming - but he uses earthly types, because the heavenly realities have not yet been revealed.
As for 1st Corinthians 15:23-28, doesn't this passage argue for amillenialism as much as against it? After all, when you put the pieces of the passage together as a timeline, what you get is: a. Christ rose from the dead, b. God has subjected all things under Christ, c. He must reign until all His enemies are defeated, d. Christ returns, e. His people are raised, f. Thus death is defeated (cf. v.54-55), and the end has come (i.e., Judgment Day). The passage does not mention the resurrection of unbelievers at all. Berkouwer says:
"The train of thought in 1 Corinthians 15:23f. is not the series: Christ's resurrection followed by the resurrection of believers, and finally by the general resurrection. The emphasis is on being in Christ and th epower of His resurrection. The interpretation of the sequence "epeita...eita" [both translated as "then"] as a Pauline reference to a millenium smacks of being too much influenced by Revelation 20."
Leon Morris agrees that we should not read anything about the resurrection of unbelievers into this text: "He speaks of two 'orders' only, Christ and believers; then he moves on to the final phase, and says nothing about the lot of unbelievers."
My response is getting too long for anyone to enjoy reading, so let me only very briefly repond to your last three answers:
You take the position that the renewal of the earth will take place after the millenium - at least a thousand years after Christ's return. You note that there are philosophical problems with having a glorified Christ physically reigning over a fallen world. We agree on this. There are theological problems as well. However, you suggest that there is no textual problem. Let me suggest that there is at least one that comes to mind: 2nd Peter 3:1-13. I believe if you study this passage closely, you will see that it assumes that the renewal of the earth takes place when Christ returns - not many centuries later.
As for your response to 2nd Thessalonians 1, I think it would be very difficult to read verses 6-7 and not conclude that both God's affliction on the wicked and His relief for the righteous are both presented as appearing with Christ in His coming. To read a millenium into this makes Paul's word almost deceptive, or even erroneous. (Is that too strong?)
Finally, as for who exactly will be ruled over in the millenium, you suggest that only the armies - not everyone - is destroyed at the end of chapter 19. My real goal in the question, of course, was to make us consider more carefully whether it is right to see chapter 19 flowing chronologically in to chapter 20. I'm sure I'll get to address this more fully later. For now let me point out that in 19:15 Jesus comes to "strike down the nations", and in 20:3 Satan is bound so that he will not "deceive the nations any longer." Yet how can Satan deceive nations that have been destroyed? The word "struck down" in 19:15 literally means "to smite" or "to kill". How can dead nations be deceived?
Well, there you go. While we seek to understand these things, we can rejoice in our agreement that our Savior is coming back, in glorified body, to bring us to Himself, that where He is we may also be!!
Friday, July 20, 2007
Answers from a Historic Premillennial Friend
In the previous post here on R & R, Justin raised some questions for those who hold to the Historic Premillennial view of the end times. The questions are indeed challenging and have caused me to think and study. I've learned a lot about my agreements and disagreements with the Historical Premillennialist view. I'll try to summarize his questions so you don't have to go back and forth, and then give my answers.
Question 1. Why do premillenialists continue to insist on a "literal" approach to Revelation 20?
Answer: Not all of Revelation is symbolic. Some things are taken literally and others symbolically. I think the problem is that amils tend to treat almost everything symbolically.
The binding of Satan in a great chain is symbolic. But, he is bound so that he literally cannot deceive the nations until he is released again.
And frankly, I don't see what's symbolic about "The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended."
I also believe that the devil and all who follow him will be literally and eternally tormented. We should read literally things that were meant literally, and figuratively things that were meant figuratively. We might disagree on what those things are, but we agree in the principle.
Question 2. Why do premillenialists insist that all of these Scriptures must conform to Rev. 20's two resurrections rather than looking for a way for Rev 20 to conform to the rest of the New Testament?
Answer 2: I'm not so sure that "everywhere else in the NT we are taught of one resurrection of both believers and unbelievers at the return of Christ."
First, we know that some of the dead already rose (Matt. 27:52-53, also Lazarus). I know these are exceptions, which is why there is a second.
Second, John 5:28-29 may indicate different resurrections, the resurrection of life for those who did good, the resurrection of judgment to those who did evil.
I don't know why the word "hour" must mean a literal hour... does that mean it will take a full hour, no more and no less? And "all" doesn't mean "all at the same time."
Third, Paul says in Phil. 3:11 that he earnestly desires the "resurrection from the dead." Does this makes sense if there is only a general resurrection? Does it make sense if he'd already been resurrected and reigning with Christ? The best way to make sense of this is to say that he is hoping for a separate resurrection unto life. There are other passages that also seem to indicate separate resurrections.
Question 3. Why do premillennialists add a third age to "this age" and "the age to come?"
Answer: There are a few reasons why premils add a third age to the mix. Some passages of Scripture indicate an age that is different from the present one and also different from heaven.
Isaiah 65:20 indicates an age in which people live out their days. Isaiah also speaks of a time when the "wolf will dwell with the lamb..." and "the sucking child will play over the whole of the asp..." and that in that day "the Lord will extend his hand yet a second time to recover the remnant" (Isa. 11:6-11).
Also 1 Cor. 15:23-25 seems to indicate an order to the end... 1) "Christ the first-fruits," 2) "then at his coming those who belong to Christ." 3) Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father 4) after destroying every rule and every authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet."
(Arguments from Grudem's Systematic, 1127-1130)
Russ Moore says that "it seems that God's glorification of Christ entails a public vindication in the presence of his enemies, a final, visible subjugation of the rivals of Christ's throne (Ps. 110; 1 Cor. 15:24-28)" (Akin's Systematic, 912-913).
Question 4. How do my premillenialist brothers handle the renewal of the earth?
Answer: The renewal of the earth will come after the mil and after the final judgment. The new heavens and the new earth are inhabited only by God's people. The fact that the glorified Christ reigns physically over a fallen creation may present problems, but they are mainly philosophical problems, not textual. Each view has it's problems and this is one for the premils.
Question 5. How do you guys handle 2 Thessalonians 1:5-10, which says that when Jesus returns He will inflict vengeance on those who do not know God and that they will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction? Is it not clear that these two events are meant to be held together - Jesus' return and His judgment on the wicked?
Answer: I don't think I have a good answer for this yet, but here goes... The Thessalonians are being persecuted, but are standing strong in the midst of it. Paul's purpose in these verses is to assure the Thessalonian believers that those who are afflicting them will be repaid with affliction and that they themselves will be relieved when Jesus returns. I don't think he is laying out a time-table for these things, but just encouraging them that their "day" is coming. If you think I'm taking it too loosely... if you took this absolutely literally, the wicked would be receiving an "eternal destruction" on the "day" Jesus returned (how does that happen on a single day?)... and, they would suffer it "away from the presence of the Lord and the glory of his might," "when he comes" (how do they suffer away from his presence when he arrives?)... Anyway! I gave it a shot.
Question 6. If believers are going to rule with Christ in the millenium, and the wicked have been slain in the last verse of chapter 19, exactly who is being ruled over?
Answer: As I said in Answer 4, each view has it's problems. This seems to be one of the biggest for those of us who hold to the historic premil. position. Russ Moore simply says that "The armies fighting against the returning Messiah at Armageddon are destroyed, but, presumably, this does not mean that every unconverted person is killed. The survivors of the nations--who submit to the rule of Christ--continue to live, marry, and repopulate the earth. The curse is rolled back though not completely reversed" (911).
What answers to you find legitimate? Where did I fudge a little? Have your fun and next I'll post some questions about the Amil position.
Question 1. Why do premillenialists continue to insist on a "literal" approach to Revelation 20?
Answer: Not all of Revelation is symbolic. Some things are taken literally and others symbolically. I think the problem is that amils tend to treat almost everything symbolically.
The binding of Satan in a great chain is symbolic. But, he is bound so that he literally cannot deceive the nations until he is released again.
And frankly, I don't see what's symbolic about "The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended."
I also believe that the devil and all who follow him will be literally and eternally tormented. We should read literally things that were meant literally, and figuratively things that were meant figuratively. We might disagree on what those things are, but we agree in the principle.
Question 2. Why do premillenialists insist that all of these Scriptures must conform to Rev. 20's two resurrections rather than looking for a way for Rev 20 to conform to the rest of the New Testament?
Answer 2: I'm not so sure that "everywhere else in the NT we are taught of one resurrection of both believers and unbelievers at the return of Christ."
First, we know that some of the dead already rose (Matt. 27:52-53, also Lazarus). I know these are exceptions, which is why there is a second.
Second, John 5:28-29 may indicate different resurrections, the resurrection of life for those who did good, the resurrection of judgment to those who did evil.
I don't know why the word "hour" must mean a literal hour... does that mean it will take a full hour, no more and no less? And "all" doesn't mean "all at the same time."
Third, Paul says in Phil. 3:11 that he earnestly desires the "resurrection from the dead." Does this makes sense if there is only a general resurrection? Does it make sense if he'd already been resurrected and reigning with Christ? The best way to make sense of this is to say that he is hoping for a separate resurrection unto life. There are other passages that also seem to indicate separate resurrections.
Question 3. Why do premillennialists add a third age to "this age" and "the age to come?"
Answer: There are a few reasons why premils add a third age to the mix. Some passages of Scripture indicate an age that is different from the present one and also different from heaven.
Isaiah 65:20 indicates an age in which people live out their days. Isaiah also speaks of a time when the "wolf will dwell with the lamb..." and "the sucking child will play over the whole of the asp..." and that in that day "the Lord will extend his hand yet a second time to recover the remnant" (Isa. 11:6-11).
Also 1 Cor. 15:23-25 seems to indicate an order to the end... 1) "Christ the first-fruits," 2) "then at his coming those who belong to Christ." 3) Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father 4) after destroying every rule and every authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet."
(Arguments from Grudem's Systematic, 1127-1130)
Russ Moore says that "it seems that God's glorification of Christ entails a public vindication in the presence of his enemies, a final, visible subjugation of the rivals of Christ's throne (Ps. 110; 1 Cor. 15:24-28)" (Akin's Systematic, 912-913).
Question 4. How do my premillenialist brothers handle the renewal of the earth?
Answer: The renewal of the earth will come after the mil and after the final judgment. The new heavens and the new earth are inhabited only by God's people. The fact that the glorified Christ reigns physically over a fallen creation may present problems, but they are mainly philosophical problems, not textual. Each view has it's problems and this is one for the premils.
Question 5. How do you guys handle 2 Thessalonians 1:5-10, which says that when Jesus returns He will inflict vengeance on those who do not know God and that they will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction? Is it not clear that these two events are meant to be held together - Jesus' return and His judgment on the wicked?
Answer: I don't think I have a good answer for this yet, but here goes... The Thessalonians are being persecuted, but are standing strong in the midst of it. Paul's purpose in these verses is to assure the Thessalonian believers that those who are afflicting them will be repaid with affliction and that they themselves will be relieved when Jesus returns. I don't think he is laying out a time-table for these things, but just encouraging them that their "day" is coming. If you think I'm taking it too loosely... if you took this absolutely literally, the wicked would be receiving an "eternal destruction" on the "day" Jesus returned (how does that happen on a single day?)... and, they would suffer it "away from the presence of the Lord and the glory of his might," "when he comes" (how do they suffer away from his presence when he arrives?)... Anyway! I gave it a shot.
Question 6. If believers are going to rule with Christ in the millenium, and the wicked have been slain in the last verse of chapter 19, exactly who is being ruled over?
Answer: As I said in Answer 4, each view has it's problems. This seems to be one of the biggest for those of us who hold to the historic premil. position. Russ Moore simply says that "The armies fighting against the returning Messiah at Armageddon are destroyed, but, presumably, this does not mean that every unconverted person is killed. The survivors of the nations--who submit to the rule of Christ--continue to live, marry, and repopulate the earth. The curse is rolled back though not completely reversed" (911).
What answers to you find legitimate? Where did I fudge a little? Have your fun and next I'll post some questions about the Amil position.
Thursday, July 19, 2007
Questions for My Historic Premillenial Friends
I hope Jim doesn't mind. He asked me to suggest a few critical questions to help him assess premillenialism. I've decided to do it here so Randy and anyone else interested can consider the questions as well.
There are several questions to ask, but here are just a few:
Question 1. Why do premillenialists continue to insist on a "literal" approach to Revelation 20 when...
a. The word semaino in Revelation 1:1 literally means "to signify", therefore instructing us from the very first verse of the book that that its contents are largely symbolic.
b. Over and over again John makes obvious the symbolic nature of his visions. We learn that lampstands represent churches (1:20), eyes represent the Spirit (5:6), incense represents prayers (5:8), a serpent represents Satan (12:9), heads represent mountains (17:9), horns represent kings (17:12), and waters represent people (17:15). And those are just the symbols that are interpreted for us. Alongside these we read of creatures full of eyes and six wings (4:6), a seven-eyed lamb (5:6), people talking to mountains (6:16), people washing robes in blood (7:14), locusts with human faces (9:7), lion-headed horses (9:17), fire-breathing prophets (11:5), a woman clothed with the sun while standing on the moon (12:1), a seven-headed dragon that pulls stars down from heaven (12:3-4), a serpent vomiting out a river (12:15), a seven-headed beast (13:1), frogs coming out of the mouth of a dragon (16:13), a blood drinking harlot (17:6), Jesus returning from heaven on a horse and with a sword in his mouth (19:11, 15), a 1,500 mile-high city floating down out of the sky (21:16), one tree bearing twelve different fruits (22:2) - and more.
While any of these things certainly could be real, the very fact that they appear in visions in an apocalyptic book give every indication that we should not assume so.
(This question is derived from post-millenialist Kenneth Gentry.)
Question 2. Considering that everywhere else in the New Testament we are taught of one resurrection of both believers and unbelievers at the return of Christ, why do premillenialists insist that all of these Scriptures must conform to Rev. 20's two resurrections rather than looking for a way for Rev 20 to conform to the rest of the New Testament? Especially when there are at least two exegetically defendable interpretations that make sense of Revelation 20's two resurrections and do not negate nor reinterpret the rest of the N.T. Didn't John himself record Jesus speaking of all people being raised on the same day in John 5:28-29?
"Do not marvel at this, for the hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and come out, those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment."
There is simply no getting around that Jesus teaches that all people will be raised at the same hour, whether they be righteous or wicked. So how can premillenialists stick a thousand years in here? (since, as you know, historic premillenialists believe that believers will rise at the return of Christ and unbelievers at the end of the millenium)
Question 3. How do premillenialists deal with fact that all throughout the New Testament we are taught of "this age" and "the age to come"? In these passages, "the age to come" clearly refers to heaven (i.e., Mark 10:30). So Jesus and the Apostles split history from the advent of Christ into these two sections - today (this age) and eternal life (the age to come). Yet Premillenialists add a third age in the middle of these two. And on what grounds? Only Revelation 20. Again, premillenialists allow one passage in one book to reinterpret everything else the New Testament teaches. Why?
Question 4. How do my premillenialist brothers handle the renewal of the earth? After all, the Bible is clear that this world as we know it will be "baptized by fire" and made new. But will this happen when Jesus returns (before the millenium) or on the great day of judgment (after the millenium)? Either answer has serious problems. If you say before the millenium, then according to Revelation 20 you will have nations deceived by Satan and rebelling against Christ while living in the New Earth! If you say after the millenium, then yo have the glorified Jesus reigning physically over an earth still under the curse. Neither one of these is Scriptural (in my view). Does not the teaching of Scripture emphasize that Jesus will return and when He does all things will be made new and will be so forever?
Question 5. How do you guys handle 2 Thessalonians 1:5-10, which says that when Jesus returns He will inflict vengeance on those who do not know God and that they will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction? Is it not clear that these two events are meant to be held together - Jesus' return and His judgment on the wicked? How can we squeeze a thousand years between the two?
Question 6. Since premillenialists do not believe that chapter 20 is a seperate vision, but rather a continuation of chapter 19, then considering that every unbeliever is slain in the great battle at the end of chapter 19, who is left to be ruled over and deceived no longer in the millenium? If believers are going to rule with Christ in the millenium, and the wicked have been slain in the last verse of chapter 19, exactly who is being ruled over?
That's enough for now. I'll be happy to answer questions about the amil position, and would love to hear your answers to these. I know you guys are still considering these things, and I am happy to be able to say that whether you are pre, post, or amil, it is still an honor to call you my friends and co-laborers in the Gospel. I hope all this serves for edification, not just debate.
There are several questions to ask, but here are just a few:
Question 1. Why do premillenialists continue to insist on a "literal" approach to Revelation 20 when...
a. The word semaino in Revelation 1:1 literally means "to signify", therefore instructing us from the very first verse of the book that that its contents are largely symbolic.
b. Over and over again John makes obvious the symbolic nature of his visions. We learn that lampstands represent churches (1:20), eyes represent the Spirit (5:6), incense represents prayers (5:8), a serpent represents Satan (12:9), heads represent mountains (17:9), horns represent kings (17:12), and waters represent people (17:15). And those are just the symbols that are interpreted for us. Alongside these we read of creatures full of eyes and six wings (4:6), a seven-eyed lamb (5:6), people talking to mountains (6:16), people washing robes in blood (7:14), locusts with human faces (9:7), lion-headed horses (9:17), fire-breathing prophets (11:5), a woman clothed with the sun while standing on the moon (12:1), a seven-headed dragon that pulls stars down from heaven (12:3-4), a serpent vomiting out a river (12:15), a seven-headed beast (13:1), frogs coming out of the mouth of a dragon (16:13), a blood drinking harlot (17:6), Jesus returning from heaven on a horse and with a sword in his mouth (19:11, 15), a 1,500 mile-high city floating down out of the sky (21:16), one tree bearing twelve different fruits (22:2) - and more.
While any of these things certainly could be real, the very fact that they appear in visions in an apocalyptic book give every indication that we should not assume so.
(This question is derived from post-millenialist Kenneth Gentry.)
Question 2. Considering that everywhere else in the New Testament we are taught of one resurrection of both believers and unbelievers at the return of Christ, why do premillenialists insist that all of these Scriptures must conform to Rev. 20's two resurrections rather than looking for a way for Rev 20 to conform to the rest of the New Testament? Especially when there are at least two exegetically defendable interpretations that make sense of Revelation 20's two resurrections and do not negate nor reinterpret the rest of the N.T. Didn't John himself record Jesus speaking of all people being raised on the same day in John 5:28-29?
"Do not marvel at this, for the hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and come out, those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment."
There is simply no getting around that Jesus teaches that all people will be raised at the same hour, whether they be righteous or wicked. So how can premillenialists stick a thousand years in here? (since, as you know, historic premillenialists believe that believers will rise at the return of Christ and unbelievers at the end of the millenium)
Question 3. How do premillenialists deal with fact that all throughout the New Testament we are taught of "this age" and "the age to come"? In these passages, "the age to come" clearly refers to heaven (i.e., Mark 10:30). So Jesus and the Apostles split history from the advent of Christ into these two sections - today (this age) and eternal life (the age to come). Yet Premillenialists add a third age in the middle of these two. And on what grounds? Only Revelation 20. Again, premillenialists allow one passage in one book to reinterpret everything else the New Testament teaches. Why?
Question 4. How do my premillenialist brothers handle the renewal of the earth? After all, the Bible is clear that this world as we know it will be "baptized by fire" and made new. But will this happen when Jesus returns (before the millenium) or on the great day of judgment (after the millenium)? Either answer has serious problems. If you say before the millenium, then according to Revelation 20 you will have nations deceived by Satan and rebelling against Christ while living in the New Earth! If you say after the millenium, then yo have the glorified Jesus reigning physically over an earth still under the curse. Neither one of these is Scriptural (in my view). Does not the teaching of Scripture emphasize that Jesus will return and when He does all things will be made new and will be so forever?
Question 5. How do you guys handle 2 Thessalonians 1:5-10, which says that when Jesus returns He will inflict vengeance on those who do not know God and that they will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction? Is it not clear that these two events are meant to be held together - Jesus' return and His judgment on the wicked? How can we squeeze a thousand years between the two?
Question 6. Since premillenialists do not believe that chapter 20 is a seperate vision, but rather a continuation of chapter 19, then considering that every unbeliever is slain in the great battle at the end of chapter 19, who is left to be ruled over and deceived no longer in the millenium? If believers are going to rule with Christ in the millenium, and the wicked have been slain in the last verse of chapter 19, exactly who is being ruled over?
That's enough for now. I'll be happy to answer questions about the amil position, and would love to hear your answers to these. I know you guys are still considering these things, and I am happy to be able to say that whether you are pre, post, or amil, it is still an honor to call you my friends and co-laborers in the Gospel. I hope all this serves for edification, not just debate.
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
Books on Romans
As I mentioned in an earlier post, my sights are now set on Romans. Of course, my church will still be in Matthew through March, and there is a lot there that I cannot wait to preach on (i.e., the Olivet Discourse, Lord's Supper, Crucifixion, Resurrection, Great Commission). But I do like to plan these things well ahead (just ask my wife). So here are the books I've found useful as I have begun my prep work for Romans. 
1. Douglas Moo, Romans, NICNT
2. Tom Schreiner, Romans, BEC
3. John Murray, Romans, Eerdmans
4. Martin Luther, Commentary on Romans, Kregel
5. John Calvin, Romans
6. Karl Barth, The Epistle to the Romans
(consult with care, of course)
7. Herman Ridderbos, Paul: An Outline of His Theology
8. Frank Thielman, Paul and the Law
9. Frank Thielman, The Law and the New Testament
10. James Boice, Romans: An Expositional Commentary
11. Gunther Bornkamm, Paul
12. Edgar J. Goodspeed, Paul
13. Gerald Bray (ed.), Romans, ACCS
BOOKS I DON'T HAVE BUT WOULD LIKE TO GET
Lloyd-Jones, Exposition of Romans
(One day...)
William Dumbrell, Romans: A New Testament Commentary
1. Douglas Moo, Romans, NICNT
2. Tom Schreiner, Romans, BEC
3. John Murray, Romans, Eerdmans
4. Martin Luther, Commentary on Romans, Kregel
5. John Calvin, Romans
6. Karl Barth, The Epistle to the Romans
(consult with care, of course)
7. Herman Ridderbos, Paul: An Outline of His Theology
8. Frank Thielman, Paul and the Law
9. Frank Thielman, The Law and the New Testament
10. James Boice, Romans: An Expositional Commentary
11. Gunther Bornkamm, Paul
12. Edgar J. Goodspeed, Paul
13. Gerald Bray (ed.), Romans, ACCS
BOOKS I DON'T HAVE BUT WOULD LIKE TO GET
Lloyd-Jones, Exposition of Romans
(One day...)
William Dumbrell, Romans: A New Testament Commentary
A Few Good Amillennial Resources
Justin Taylor has linked to a talk by Steve Baugh at Westminster Seminary California here. He also linked to a handout for the talk here. While I am still looking at Scripture, I am becoming more convinced that this view is not as far fetched as I once believed.
I also came across this which is a helpful presentation from Vern Poythress.
I also came across this which is a helpful presentation from Vern Poythress.
Monday, July 16, 2007
Fast or Slow? Preaching Through Books of the Bible
Since we started this conversation in the comments section of the last post, I wanted to give it a post of its own. We're discussing preaching methodology, and whether one should follow the Piper / Lloyd-Jones philosophy of taking several years and hundreds of sermons on a single book, or the Dever / Cov. Life philosophy of covering a book in a few sermons. Here is what has been said so far:
THE QUESTION: "Since several pastors read this blog, let me ask you all, which method do you think is best and why? What are the pros and cons? And those of you who aren't pastors, which would you prefer from your pastor?"
THE ANSWERS:
1. (From Randy) I have a hard time preaching more than a few verses at a time. I have thought about preaching chapters or longer passages, but I never have been successful. I am not opposed to the style of Dever, but my preference is more like Piper. However, I am not nearly as smart or experienced as either of them, so I take full advantage of learning from them both.
2. (From Justin C.) One of the important aspects of Dever's preaching that we need to think deeply about is his emphasis on communicating the main point of the passage.When we take just a few verses each week, we may be missing the point of the entire text. In other words, we are in danger of missing the forest by focusing on individual trees.
Dever tries to break passages up so that the author's entire argument is communicated.I think there has to be a balance. When we preach just a few verses at at time, we must labor to make the connections to the entire flow of thought.
Here is a question for pondering: Could we be mishandling the text when we take too few verses?
I love D. Martin Lloyd-Jones. However, I often find his preaching to be lacking. He would break a text apart and do an entire theological treatise on each word. His sermons are great for systematic theology, but not good if you want to know what Ephesians is all about.
With all that said, I lean toward smaller passages. I try to make sure I connect each message to the main point of the passage/book.
3. (From Randy) That is very true. I can say that I have found myself guilty of this on more than one occasion as I preach through books of the Bible. I think it is good to preach smaller portions of Scripture, but not at the expense of missing the forest. Thanks for the reminder brother.
4. (From Justin N.) I agree to a point. However, there is often as much glory to see by looking at a particular tree than at looking at the whole forest. Moreover, there are many wonderful truths in the Bible that never make an appearance as the "main point".
For me, however, the main thing is helping my people to see how rich with truth the Bible is. When we spend a couple of weeks on a single verse, the congregation begins to realize just how much their is to learn and meditate on in the whole canon of Scripture. They are taught not to skip over words or phrases they don't understand, but to spend time meditating on them and trying to find answers.
Justin C. is right - it is possible to lose the forest for the trees. So those of us who choose to move slowly through a book need to always keep the main point central. But the good thing about moving slowly is that you get to hold up that main point for several weeks in a row, exploring it from several different angles. Since I tend to learn by repetition and hearing things more than once, this is attractive to me.
Just some thoughts
SO, what do you think?
Allow me to make one more point: that the way we preach should probably differ according to the genre of the book we're preaching. When we're preaching narratives, such as we find in the OT histories or the NT gospels / Acts, it makes sense to take longer chunks as your preaching text. When you are preaching epistles - particularly complex ones like Romans or Galatians - it makes sense to take a much smaller chunk (in my opinion). In a book like Revelation, for example, taking too small a chunk could actually lead you into all sorts of troubles (i.e., speculation about the meaning of a symbol and then building a whole sermon around that speculation.)
THE ANSWERS:
1. (From Randy) I have a hard time preaching more than a few verses at a time. I have thought about preaching chapters or longer passages, but I never have been successful. I am not opposed to the style of Dever, but my preference is more like Piper. However, I am not nearly as smart or experienced as either of them, so I take full advantage of learning from them both.
2. (From Justin C.) One of the important aspects of Dever's preaching that we need to think deeply about is his emphasis on communicating the main point of the passage.When we take just a few verses each week, we may be missing the point of the entire text. In other words, we are in danger of missing the forest by focusing on individual trees.
Dever tries to break passages up so that the author's entire argument is communicated.I think there has to be a balance. When we preach just a few verses at at time, we must labor to make the connections to the entire flow of thought.
Here is a question for pondering: Could we be mishandling the text when we take too few verses?
I love D. Martin Lloyd-Jones. However, I often find his preaching to be lacking. He would break a text apart and do an entire theological treatise on each word. His sermons are great for systematic theology, but not good if you want to know what Ephesians is all about.
With all that said, I lean toward smaller passages. I try to make sure I connect each message to the main point of the passage/book.
3. (From Randy) That is very true. I can say that I have found myself guilty of this on more than one occasion as I preach through books of the Bible. I think it is good to preach smaller portions of Scripture, but not at the expense of missing the forest. Thanks for the reminder brother.
4. (From Justin N.) I agree to a point. However, there is often as much glory to see by looking at a particular tree than at looking at the whole forest. Moreover, there are many wonderful truths in the Bible that never make an appearance as the "main point".
For me, however, the main thing is helping my people to see how rich with truth the Bible is. When we spend a couple of weeks on a single verse, the congregation begins to realize just how much their is to learn and meditate on in the whole canon of Scripture. They are taught not to skip over words or phrases they don't understand, but to spend time meditating on them and trying to find answers.
Justin C. is right - it is possible to lose the forest for the trees. So those of us who choose to move slowly through a book need to always keep the main point central. But the good thing about moving slowly is that you get to hold up that main point for several weeks in a row, exploring it from several different angles. Since I tend to learn by repetition and hearing things more than once, this is attractive to me.
Just some thoughts
SO, what do you think?
Allow me to make one more point: that the way we preach should probably differ according to the genre of the book we're preaching. When we're preaching narratives, such as we find in the OT histories or the NT gospels / Acts, it makes sense to take longer chunks as your preaching text. When you are preaching epistles - particularly complex ones like Romans or Galatians - it makes sense to take a much smaller chunk (in my opinion). In a book like Revelation, for example, taking too small a chunk could actually lead you into all sorts of troubles (i.e., speculation about the meaning of a symbol and then building a whole sermon around that speculation.)
Thursday, July 12, 2007
Why I Want to Preach on Romans Next...
Martin Luther: "This Epistle is really the chief part of the New Testament and the very purest Gospel, and is worthy not only that every Christian should know it word for word, by heart, but occupy himself with it every day, as the daily bread of the soul. It can never be read or pondered too much, and the more it is dealt with the more precious it becomes, and the better it tastes."
John Calvin: "When anyone understands this Epistle, he has a passage opened to him to the understanding of the whole Scripture."
F. Godet: "Every great spiritual revival in the church will be connected as effect and cause with a deeper understanding of this book."
John Calvin: "When anyone understands this Epistle, he has a passage opened to him to the understanding of the whole Scripture."
F. Godet: "Every great spiritual revival in the church will be connected as effect and cause with a deeper understanding of this book."
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
The 4th Chapter of "Believer's Baptism"
As I mentioned in an earlier post, this chapter alone is worth the price of the book. And if you only had time to read one chapter, this would be the one to read. Whether you are a Baptist or a Presbyterian, Stephen Wellum (of Southern Seminary) brings remarkable clarity to what is really at the heart of the debate over infant baptism: the relationship between the old and new covenants. This chapter is also the longest in the book, but I will do my best to relate the main point in a concise way.First, Wellum helps us understand the covenental argument for paedobaptism. It starts with what covenant theologians call the covenant of grace - the one, overarching covenant that God has with all His people, whether Old Testament or New Testament. This is the covenant in which God graciously saves His people through Christ, granting them a faith that leads to obedience.
According to most Presbyterians, the old covenant (i.e., the Mosaic covenant, God's covenant with Israel) and the new covenant (i.e., God's covenant with the New Testament church) are really two dispensations of the same covenant of grace. Thus, Presbyterians tend to emphasize the unity of these covenants and the ways in which they are similar. The basic structure remains the same, but some of the elements have changed. According to covenant theologians, in both the old and the new covenants God makes a covenant with His people (Israel in the old, the Church in the new), calls them to trust and obey Him, and gives them a sign to show that they are members of the covenant (circumcision in the old covenant, baptism in the new).
The argument, then, is that since infants were to be given the sign of the covenant in the Old Testament (at 8 days old), before they were capable of exercising faith and obedience, infants are also expected to receive the sign of the covenant in the New Testament. In other words, since all Israelite males were expected to receive the sign at infancy - though many were not elect and would not ultimately be saved - therefore, infants in the new covenant should receive the sign of baptism - though, again, many will not ultimately believe and be saved . Since God's Old Testament people were a "mixed community", Presbyterians say, His New Testament people should be as well. Wellum says:
"..covenant theology's discussion of [the "newness" of the new covenant] fails to reckon that in the coming of Christ the nature and structure of the covenant has changed, which at least entails that all those within the "new covenant community" are people, by definition, who presently have experienced regeneration of heart and full forgiveness of sin (see Jer 31:29-34). Obviously this view of "newness" implies a discontinuity at the structural level between the old and new covenant - a view which is at the heart of the credobaptist position - but which covenant theology rejects. So, for example, paedobaptists continue to view the nature of the new covenant like the old, namely, as a mixed covenant which includes within it both the elect (covenant keepers) and the non-elect (covenant breakers) simulatenously. Suffice it to say, how one understands the nature and structure of the new covenant vis-a-via the previous biblical covenants takes us to the heart of the baptismal divide."
So here is the issue clearly laid out: in the New covenant, are God's covenant people a "mixed community" of adult believers and infant unbelievers, or are they a purely regenerate community in which every member has been quickened to salvation?
At this point one should go to the New Testament Scriptures and see what is taught. This is exactly what was done in the first three chapters of this book (see previous posts), chapters that probably would have been better placed after this chapter. In the third chapter, however, Tom Schreiner argued quite convincingly from the epistles that water baptism is the initation rite whereby one symbolizes their spiritual baptism and their inclusion into the new covenant people of God. The structure of the covenants has changed.
(As a parenthesis, let me say that I believe the new covenant is truly new. The Old Covenant was fulfilled in Christ, and the new covenant has been inaugurated through His death on the cross. No longer are we bound to the Mosaic law written in stone, but rather to the law of Christ that has been written on our hearts. The implications of this are far-reaching, but among other things explain why I am not a Sabbatarian.)
Let me close this post by quoting another important and helpful passage from the essay:
"No doubt there is only one people of God throughout the ages; that is not in dispute. However, in the OT promises of the new covenant (Jer 31:29-34) and its fulfillment in Christ (see Luke 22:20; Heb 8-10), the nature of the covenant communities are not the same, which entails a difference in the meaning and application of the covenant sign. Specifically, the change is found in the shift from a mixed community to that of a regenerate community with the crucial implication that under the new covenant, the covenant sign must only be applied to those who are in the covenant, namely, believers. The covenant sign of circumcision did not require faith for all those who received it, for a variety of reasons, even though it marked a person as a full covenant member. However, the same cannot be said of baptism. Because the church, by its very nature, is a regenerate community, the covenant sign of baptism must only be applied to those who have come to faith in Christ. It is at this point that we see the crucial discontinuity between the old and new covenant communities, a point the paedobaptists fail to grasp."
I do not intend to comment on the remaining chapters of this book, though they are helpful in different ways. Just so you know, here are the rest of the chapters in the book:
"Baptism in the Patristic Writings" - Steven A McKinion (SEBTS)
"Confessor Baptism: The Baptismal Doctrine of the Early Anabaptists" - Jonathan H. Rainbow
"Baptism and the Logic of Reformed Paedobaptists" - Shawn Wright (SBTS)
"Meredith Kline on Suzerainty, Circumcision, and Baptism" - Duane A. Garrett (SBTS)
"Baptism in the Stone-Campbell Restoration Movement" - A. B. Caneday (Northwestern College)
"Baptism in the Context of the Local Church" - Mark Dever
Can Your Kid Do This?
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
Chapter 3 of "Believer's Baptism"
In this chapter, entitled "Baptism in the Epistles", the book becomes very helpful. Tom Schreiner (of Southern, wrote the BEC commentary on Romans), does a great job of exegeting each passage in the Epistles that addresses water baptism. He makes three important points that show the error of paedobaptism:1. Several passages (such as Galatians 3:1-5) show that receiving the Spirit is "the indisputable mark of entrance into the people of God". Yet we receive the Spirit by faith - something infants are not capable of. Moreover, there is a clear connection in Paul between water baptism and spirit baptism; namely, water baptism is the visible expression of having received the Spirit's baptism. Paedobaptism loses this connection.
2. Schreiner rightly shows that it is not true that baptism in the New Covenant merely replaces circumcision in the Old Covenant. Particularly useful is his point that in Paul's polemic against the Judaizers in Galatians, he never once argues that baptism has replaced circumcision. Had he held to the theology of our Presbyterian brothers, we would have expected him to do so (since that would have settled the issue quite nicely.)
Schreiner says "If Paul adopted the view customary in paedobaptist circles, we would expect him to say that circumcision is no longer required because baptism has replaced circumcision as the covenantal sign. Paul does not prosecuts such an argument in Galatians or anywhere else in his letters, nor, incidentally, did the early church advance such an argument during the apostolic council of Acts 15. It would seem that the simplest argument Paul could make in Galatians would be as follows: 'Of course, circumcision is not required, dear Galatians, because you all know that baptism has replaced circumcision as the initiation rite for the people of God.' Instead of making such an argument, however, Paul insists that demanding circumcision for salvation nullifies the cross of Christ."
Some may point out that Schreiner is making an argument from silence, but it is a very loud silence!
3. Finally, Schreiner prepares the way for Wellum's 4th chapter and the deathblow to paedobaptistic thought by showing the discontinuity between the Old and New covenants that many covenant theologians overlook. In my opinion, this is the most important paragraph in Schreiner's essay:
"It is precisely here that the difference between the old covenant and the new shines forth. In the new covenant everyone knows the Lord (Jer 31:34), but in the old covenant physical circumcision did not necessarily translate into spiritual circumcision of the heart (see Deut 10:16; Jer 4:4 with Deut 30:6). Those who belonged to Israel were not necessarily spiritually regenerate. Physical circumcision was to be succeeded by spiritual circumcision and regeneration. But the new covenant community is the community of the Spirit. Only those who have the Spirit of God belong to God (Rom 8:9) and are his sons and daughters (Rom 8:14; Gal 3:26). Baptism is applied to those who have received the Spirit by faith (Gal 3:1-5), not to those whom it is hoped will receive the Spirit in the future. The Christian church is not tied to any nation or ethnic group, but comprises all believers in Jesus Christ everywhere. We have seen that baptism is a sign of unity in the church, but it is a unity among those who believe, as Gal 3:26-29 clarifies. Those who are the seed of Abraham believe like Abraham, and therefore they belong to Jesus Christ."
Next up: Stephen Wellum on the old and new covenants.
Since We're Talking About Books...
This is one of the best books for your church members on Revelation - from an amillenial perspective, of course. Its great for pastors too, though you'll probably want to have a more substantial commentary as well (Beale, for example). Anyway, we are using this book for one of our Sunday School classes in the Fall.Here is the best part - it's only $7.50 at Westminster Books! (It kind of makes me sad, since I paid $15 for mine). Get yours before July 24th!
Monday, July 9, 2007
Chapters 1 and 2 of "Believer's Baptism"
As promised, I want to make a few comments about each chapter of the book "Believer's Baptism: Sign of the New Covenant in Christ" (edited by Tom Schreiner and Shawn Wright".) Here I'll address the first two chapters.
(Be sure and check out Randy's previous post if you haven't already - we all need to examine ourselves and move to greater action in the area of evangelism!)
Chapter 1 of this book is entitled "Baptism in the Gospels", and is written by SEBTS' Andreas Kostenberger. I have appreciated much of his work in the past - particularly his book God, Marriage, and Family - and therefore was disappointed that this chapter seems to be one of the weakest in the book. This is not entirely his fault: its hard to say very much of value about Christian baptism from the Gospels, considering that true Christian baptism doesn't begin till the book of Acts. His most substantial portion is concerned with the Great Commission, and rightly recognizes that MT 28:16-20 seems to presuppose that it is believing adults who will be baptized - not infants. While his main point is made, there is a sense that he may have mistook Dan Doriani's arguments about the passage - arguments that he seeks to critique. (Dan Doriani is a paedobaptist - and a fine professor at Covenant College.) Moreover, and this may have simply been an oversight, I was surprised by Kostenberger's assertion that "regeneration occurs upon personal repentance and faith in Christ." This is certainly contrary to the ordo salutis that I see in Scripture, namely, that personal repentance and faith in Christ occur upon regeneration. This is a pretty serious error (IMHO), in essence a rejection of total depravity.
The second chapter is entitled "Baptism in Luke-Acts", and is written by Southern's Robert Stein. (He also wrote the NAC commentary on Luke).
This chapter, like the first, leaves one wanting a bit more, but still gets its point across. Stein's assignment gives him more Biblical material concerning Christian baptism to work with than Kostenberger's, but it also gave him a bit more to work through, such as the relationship of faith, repentance, receiving the Spirit, forgiveness of sins, and baptism. In Acts, sometimes people are baptized and then receive the Spirit, at other times they receive the Spirit and then are baptized. Stein rightly points out that the pattern of Acts is one of faith, repentance, receiving the Spirit, forgiveness of sins, and baptism typically happening to an individual all on the same day, though in varying orders. Thus, disconnecting baptism from these other things (as paedobaptism does) is inappropriate. The most valuable part of Stein's chapter is his brief overview of those places in Acts where households are baptized. While some paedobaptists look to these passages as possible evidence for their view, Stein shows that even these passages seem to point to adults - or at least children old enough to repent (Acts 11:18) and rejoice in their new faith (Acts 16:34).
Next time: Schreiner on the epistles.
(Be sure and check out Randy's previous post if you haven't already - we all need to examine ourselves and move to greater action in the area of evangelism!)
Chapter 1 of this book is entitled "Baptism in the Gospels", and is written by SEBTS' Andreas Kostenberger. I have appreciated much of his work in the past - particularly his book God, Marriage, and Family - and therefore was disappointed that this chapter seems to be one of the weakest in the book. This is not entirely his fault: its hard to say very much of value about Christian baptism from the Gospels, considering that true Christian baptism doesn't begin till the book of Acts. His most substantial portion is concerned with the Great Commission, and rightly recognizes that MT 28:16-20 seems to presuppose that it is believing adults who will be baptized - not infants. While his main point is made, there is a sense that he may have mistook Dan Doriani's arguments about the passage - arguments that he seeks to critique. (Dan Doriani is a paedobaptist - and a fine professor at Covenant College.) Moreover, and this may have simply been an oversight, I was surprised by Kostenberger's assertion that "regeneration occurs upon personal repentance and faith in Christ." This is certainly contrary to the ordo salutis that I see in Scripture, namely, that personal repentance and faith in Christ occur upon regeneration. This is a pretty serious error (IMHO), in essence a rejection of total depravity.
The second chapter is entitled "Baptism in Luke-Acts", and is written by Southern's Robert Stein. (He also wrote the NAC commentary on Luke).
This chapter, like the first, leaves one wanting a bit more, but still gets its point across. Stein's assignment gives him more Biblical material concerning Christian baptism to work with than Kostenberger's, but it also gave him a bit more to work through, such as the relationship of faith, repentance, receiving the Spirit, forgiveness of sins, and baptism. In Acts, sometimes people are baptized and then receive the Spirit, at other times they receive the Spirit and then are baptized. Stein rightly points out that the pattern of Acts is one of faith, repentance, receiving the Spirit, forgiveness of sins, and baptism typically happening to an individual all on the same day, though in varying orders. Thus, disconnecting baptism from these other things (as paedobaptism does) is inappropriate. The most valuable part of Stein's chapter is his brief overview of those places in Acts where households are baptized. While some paedobaptists look to these passages as possible evidence for their view, Stein shows that even these passages seem to point to adults - or at least children old enough to repent (Acts 11:18) and rejoice in their new faith (Acts 16:34).
Next time: Schreiner on the epistles.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)