Give Us Likeness to Jesus

"It is not great talents God blesses so much as likeness to Jesus. A holy minister is an awful weapon in the hand of God."
-Robert Murray M'Cheyne

posted by JC

Intro to Revelation

As promised, here are the teaching notes from our first SS class on Revelation.

The Purpose of This Class
It seems that Christians tend to hold one of two extreme positions concerning the book of Revelation: they either obsess about it, or disregard it. On the one hand, I’ve met some Christians who love the book of Revelation. They view the book as a complex puzzle to be solved, and spend great time and energy in striving to make sense of its most intricate details. They love to talk about “the signs of the time”, and often find themselves in passionate debate with others about the identity of the Beast, the meaning of the number 666, the coming of the Anti-Christ, the timing of the Rapture, etc. On the other hand, there are many more Christians who find themselves intimidated by the book. They find its contents strange and somewhat repelling, and may believe that they do not have what it takes to make sense of such a difficult book. The consequence is that they tend to avoid it altogether.

The purpose of this class is to offer a guide to Revelation that will help shed light on its meaning and message, hopefully drawing a path between the middle of these two positions. My prayer is that those who are apprehensive about the book will find that its message is not nearly as difficult to grasp as they may think, and to equip and encourage them to read the book with benefit regularly both privately and with others. For those in the other camp, I hope to help them approach the book not as a puzzle to be solved and debated, but as Scripture to be believed and obeyed. The ultimate aim of this class is one that can only be accomplished by God, namely, that He would glorify Himself by using this book to save and sanctify His people.

Author
Revelation 1:1 explains how the book came into existence:

“The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants the things that must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John…”

Let’s consider this verse one phrase at a time. First, we have the identification of the book: it is “the revelation of Jesus Christ”. This means that the chief subject of this book (like every other part of the Bible) is the person and work of Jesus. It is the revelation concerning Jesus Christ. Second, we are told that this revelation was given from God to His Son. This means that God is the ultimate author of the book. Third, we have the purpose of the book: to show the followers of Jesus “the things that must soon take place.” This emphasizes the prophetic nature of the book. Fourth, we learn that Jesus gave the revelation to “his servant John”, but not directly. Rather, “he made it known by sending his angel.”

So we can point to four distinct persons involved in the creation of this book: God the Father (its ultimate Author), Christ the Son, the angel who delivered it, and the Apostle John who wrote it down. We could also add to this list the Holy Spirit, the very breath of God who inspires all of Scripture (cf. 2Tim. 3:16; 2Pet. 1:21).

Some people question whether the John who wrote Revelation is the same as the Apostle who walked with Christ and wrote the fourth Gospel. They point out that “John” was a very popular name in the first century (as it is today), and that the writer of Revelation could easily be another follower of Jesus by that name. However, there are two chief reasons to doubt that this is the case:

1. It seems unlikely that anyone but the Apostle John could have used his name without qualification and expected to be recognized. Any church receiving this letter would have immediately assumed from that it was from the apostle since there was no other John in early Christendom that shared his status, nor any other that shared his apostolic authority over the churches.

2. The early literature of the Christian church is unanimous in ascribing this book to the Apostle. Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian seem all in agreement on this. Considering their closer chronological proximity to the writing of Revelation, it would be foolish for us to disregard their assessments unless their was a great deal of evidence to justify doing so.[1]

Date:
Revelation was probably written around 95 A.D. We arrive at this date by noting that Revelation (a) seems to assume that emperor worship is a current phenomenon, (b) recognizes a current persecution of Christians and anticipates its worsening, (c) speaks to conditions within the churches of Asia Minor that seem to point to a date later in the first century, (d) uses “Babylon” as a symbolic title for Rome (a not uncommon feature of Jewish Apocalyptic literature beginning in the last quarter of the first century), and (e) is dated during the reign of Emperor Domitian by the early church fathers (Irenaeus, Victorinus of Pettau, Eusebius, and others). There are some who argue for an earlier date (usually 65 A.D, during the reign of Nero), but the evidence above points best towards a later date.

Genre:
One of the first keys to understanding the book of Revelation is to recognize its genre. We would not read a poem the same way we would read a newspaper, nor would we read an essay in the same we way we would read the back of a cereal box. Once we understand what kind of book Revelation is, we will find that many of the difficulties in interpreting it begin to dissipate.

In considering the genre, we should first note that the book is a book of prophecy (cf. 1:3). In the Old Testament, prophecies were messages from God spoken through a prophet promising future blessings or curses for present obedience / disobedience. Prophecies also often remind people of God’s past acts of redemption or judgment. In Revelation, we encounter this past-present-future nature of prophecy in a unique way. It is as if the invisible world of spiritual warfare is unveiled to us through symbolism. We learn about the history of this warfare, the nature of this warfare during our age, and the future outcome. As in the Old Testament prophecies, Revelation does speak of future blessings and curses as well: future blessing for those who belong to Christ, and future judgment for the wicked (including particularly wicked powers, be they political or demonic.)

Second we should note that Revelation has many things in common with apocalyptic literature. In fact, the word translated “revelation” (1:1) is actually the Greek word “apocalypse”, which is why you may have heard this book referred to as “The Book of the Apocalypse”. Apocalyptic literature was a unique genre that flourished during the first and second centuries. This kind of literature often used symbolic pictures and visions to reveal divine truths hidden to the majority of mankind. When Revelation is considered alongside other apocalyptic works from the same time period, we find that there are a number of similarities, but also a large number of differences. This recognition leads scholar Vern Poythress to say

“We must not expect too much from comparisons of Revelation with extrabiblical apocalyptic literature. We learn mainly one thing: the use of complex symbolism was ‘in the air’ at the time when John was writing. It would not have seemed as strange then as it does now.”

Poythress then applies the point:

“Some people today come to Revelation with the recipe, ‘Interpret everything literally, if possible.’ That recipe misunderstands what kind of book Revelation is. Of course, John literally saw what he says he saw. But what he saw was a vision. It was filled with symbols, like the Beast of 13:1-8 and the seven blazing lamps in 4:5. It never intended to be a direct, nonsymbolical description of the future. People living in John’s own time understood this matter instinctively, because they recognized that John was writing in an ‘apocalyptic’ manner, a manner already as familiar to them as a political cartoon is to us today.”

Third and finally, we should recognize that Revelation also fits into the genre of the epistle. The Revelation was not given to John solely for his own enlightenment and edification. Within the book are letters to seven different churches in Asia Minor, and the first verse makes clear that Jesus wanted its message to be heard and understood by all His servants. Thus, Revelation is a letter from Christ to all His followers – those alive when the book was written, and the millions who have come after them.

Interpretation:
Throughout Christian history, there have been four different approaches to interpreting Revelation:

1. The Preterist Approach. Preterists emphasize that the message of Revelation was a message intended to serve churches in the first century, and that the book reveals “things that must soon take place” (1:1) to those that lived during that time. Therefore, the Preterist argues that much of Revelation describes events that were in the future for the early church but are now in our distant past. These climactic events include that fall of Jerusalem and/or the fall of the Roman Empire (i.e., the Beast). Preterists acknowledge that Revelation has much to teach us today, but emphasize that the events pictured are past, not future events.

2. The Futurist Approach. Futurists take the opposite approach from Preterists. They argue that the events described in Revelation are almost entirely future events that will take place at the very end of the present age. While most scholars lean towards a Preterist approach, most popular authors (i.e., Tim Lahaye, Hal Lindsey, etc.) teach a Futurist understanding. They rightly point out that many events pictured in Revelation do not appear to have already taken place (i.e., the second coming, the marriage supper of the Lamb, the creation of a New Earth, etc.)

3. The Historicist Approach. Though popular in past centuries, this approach has proven to be unworkable, and therefore has few proponents today. Historicists taught that Revelation describes in chronological order the main events of history from the first century to the end of all things. They try and find in Revelation pictures that can describe the medieval period, the Renaissance, the establishment of the U.N., etc. Some historicists, for example, argue that the Pope is the anti-Christ and that the locusts in Revelation are a picture of the rise of the Islamic empire.

4. The Idealist Approach. Unlike the three previous approaches, the Idealist approach argues that the visions of Revelation do not necessarily find fulfillment in one event (past or future), but apply to every generation of Christians. So, for example, the Beast in Revelation refers not only to the Roman Empire, but to every government throughout the church age that seeks to harm God’s people.

So which approach is best? Having previously considered the three primary genres of Revelation, (prophecy, apocalypse, and epistle) I think we can say with confidence that a combination of these approaches is appropriate. Consider:

Since Revelation is an epistle intended for real churches in the first century, it makes sense that we should approach the book asking what the visions in this book were intended to teach them. And since Jesus says that Revelation reveals things “that must soon take place” (1:1), we should expect at least a partial fulfillment of John’s visions during that time.

Since Revelation is a book of prophecy intended for all Christians at all times, we should expect that a future fulfillment of many of these prophecies is a legitimate expectation. When we look to the Old Testament book of Isaiah, for example, we see that many of the prophecies in that book had more than one fulfillment. Many of the prophecies that spoke about the coming of Christ actually spoke more immediately about the rise of Cyrus of Persia. The Biblical pattern is that prophecies have more than one fulfillment, and so we should approach Revelation with a similar expectation.

Finally, since Revelation is an apocalyptic book, there is real validity to the Idealist approach. It is highly unlikely that John wanted us to interpret many of the visions in this book literally. Rather, they are intended to teach real truths and speak of real events in a symbolic way.

But what about the historical approach? Of all the possible approaches, this one is the weakest. It is correct in noting that the visions in Revelation cover the period between the first and second comings of Christ, but it is incorrect in seeking to read the book as a chronological picture of history. Approaching the book this way leads to all sorts of fanciful speculation. In Revelation, consecutive visions often describe the same events, though from different perspectives. The historical approach fails to take this into account.

When we approach the book with these things in mind, we will see that the message of Revelation is that Jesus is coming again, evil will be defeated, and Christ and His people will reign victorious. The purpose of the book is to call Christians to endure till the end, holding fast to Christ and His commands even through periods of difficult persecution. I trust that this message and exhortation will be heard time and time again as we study Revelation.

Encouragement to Read
Before we end this lesson, I’d like to draw our attention to two points from the first three verses that should encourage us to take up and read Revelation. First, note that in 1:1 this book is called “the revelation of Jesus Christ”. In this title we see that this book is intended to reveal truth, not hide it. So be encouraged – Revelation has not been written as a puzzle to be figured out, but as a message to be understood. Despite what some have said, when we accept the book on its own terms, understanding the message of Revelation is easier than you may think.

Second, note that Revelation is the only book in Scripture that begins with a blessing on those who read it. “Blessed is the one who reads aloud the words of this prophecy, and blessed are those who hear, and who keep what is written in it…” [2] Those who consider what this book says and take it to heart will be blessed by God. So let’s ask God for His help, and read with an expectation to understand and to benefit.

[1] Some would argue that the difference in style between the Greek of Revelation the Greek of John’s Gospel and Epistles is so vast that this alone constitutes reason to second-guess the assessments of these early church fathers. Dionysius (an Egyptian bishop of the third century) was the earliest figure known to have made this argument. The point is that the Greek of the Gospel / Epistles is very polished, whereas the Greek of Revelation seems rough and unusual. However, there are several satisfying arguments that have been made to explain the difference in style, certainly enough to say that the stylistic differences are not convincing enough to reject the Apostle as the writer of Revelation. For a summary of these arguments, see Morris, 29-32.

[2] The practice of reading a book silently did not exist in the first century. Rather, this letter would have been read aloud at gatherings of the seven churches it was sent to (and perhaps others), and the people would have listened intently.

Comments / Questions / Criticisms appreciated.

Rethinking Divorce and Remarriage?

We've discussed the "Divorce and Remarriage" issue before... Divorce and Remarriage: A Difficult Subject and Divorce and Remarriage Revisited. Now, after reading more of Kostenberger, I find myself thinking about... rethinking my view. He makes some pretty good points regarding the issue in his book, God, Marriage, and Family. I read the book while in seminary, but somehow I'm finding his arguments more convincing the second time around (pages 227-258 if you have the book).

On page 233 he discusses the meanings and usages of porneia and moicheuo in light of Jeremiah 3:8-10 and Hosea 2:2-5a. Here's a quote from the bottom of the same page:

In both of these passages, porneia and the related verb... refer to the breaking of Israel's marriage covenant with Yahweh by way of spiritual "immorality," whereby the juxtaposed terms porneia and moicheia are mutually referring. Not only is there no sharp distinction between these two expressions, there is in fact essential continuity between them.

In his concluding paragraphs Kostenberger says the following on page 257:

Unless one is very certain, therefore, that Scripture absolutely prohibits divorce and remarriage under any and all circumstances (only remarriage in the case of the death of one spouse excepted), it would seem wise to err on the side of mercy and to allow for divorce and remarriage in the cases of adultery and abandonment, lest people are held to a standard that may be higher even than the biblical one.

What do you think?

Preach The Word!

Brothers, preach the Word! Lean on the Spirit's power. Preach as a dying man to dying men, as if never to preach again!
I'm praying for you and believing God for awakening in your churches.
-Justin Childers

Johnny Mac Defending the Faith on Larry King Alive (again)

KING: You’re definitely a fundamentalist Christian.

MACARTHUR: Yes, in the positive sense of proclaiming the fundamental truths of the Scripture.

KING: Is there a danger in some aspects of fundamental Christianity?

MACARTHUR: No, I don’t think there’s any danger in it. I think there’s a danger in the prostitution of Christianity. Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world.”

Jesus said to Peter, “Put away your sword.”

There’s nothing in Christianity that calls for any kind of dominant power, national power, government power, takeover, war, none at all. This is about a personal relationship with God through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.

KING: But so many of the fundamentalist Christians are what might be called political hawks, aren’t they?

MACARTHUR: They are. And that is not, in my judgment, a true representation of biblical Christianity.

* * * *

MACARTHUR: . . . the [political] power will never belong to me [or to] those who represent true biblical Christianity because the Kingdom advances one soul at a time through the belief in the Gospel in Jesus Christ. Anything [else] is a prostitution. Look, the New Testament says the powers that be are ordained of God. That was the word of God to people living under Roman government, under a Caesar. Don’t overthrow that power. That’s what God has put in place. We work within that to advance the Kingdom one person at a time.

KING: Barry?

[BARRY] LYNN: See, I would disagree with that. That is a literal belief. Many of us do not have a literal belief in the words of the — not God written and produced but man written and produced Holy Bible for Christians.

MACARTHUR: Well, there’s the huge divergence right there.

LYNN: That’s a huge difference. It is a huge divergence, but it’s one of the things that makes the Christian community and many of the other communities we’re talking about here very diverse and very different.

MACARTHUR: Barry, if you don’t believe the words of the Bible, then you can’t be legitimately called a Christian because that’s all the Christianity there is, [it] is what is revealed in the word of God, not the Christianity you can invent outside of the meaning of Scripture.

- A couple of questions for anyone that wants to answer:

1. I have always struggled in seeking to discern what role Christians are to play in cultural and political activism or reform. MacArthur has said for years that Christians should focus less on passing laws and more on spreading the Gospel. I find this approach refreshing, yet have a sense that it may be unbalanced. What do you think?

2. Would you be willing to call yourself a fundamentalist? What about all the baggage that term seems to carry today?

3. Didn't MacArthur do a wonderful job at getting to the real issue in that last comment? If we are serious about pursuing reformation and revival in our churches, is not a main issue whether or not our people can rightfully call themselves Christians and yet cheerfully deny both the doctrines and commands of the Bible? Mustn't we help our people see that to be a true Christians is to submit ourselves fully to His Word, trusting His wisdom better than ours, and doing what He says?

JN

Keith Green on "Gospel Shots"

"It pains me to see the beautiful truths of Scripture being plastered about like beer advertisements. Many think it is wise to “get the word out” in this way, but I believe that we are really just innoculating the world with bits and pieces of truth - giving them their “gospel shots.” (And we’re making it hard for them to “catch” the real thing!) People become numb to the truth when we splash our gaudy sayings in their eyes at every opportunity. Do you really think this is “opening them up to the Gospel”? Or is it really just another way for us to get smiles, waves, and approval from others in the “born-again club” out in the supermarket parking lot, who blow their horns with glee when they see your “Honk if you love Jesus!” bumper sticker?"

What do you guys think? Is it bad to put catchy Bible verses on your church signs? Is it dangerous to wear Christian T-shirts? Does the use of tid-bits of Scripture on coffee mugs and armbands "innoculate" those around us to the supreme worth of Scripture (or to its message)?

JN

Jesus Isn't Laughing

It's the old joke: The Southern Baptist Convention is reported to have 16 million members...but the FBI could not find 5 million of them!

Jesus isn't laughing.

The joke appears again in this CT editorial, this time spoken by our President Frank Page. I'm not trying to be critical of Dr. Page - I've heard variations of that joke my entire life (since I grew up Southern Baptist and attended many coventions with my dad). Rather, I want to openly say that I do not believe that Southern Baptists grasp the seriousness of this matter. If we're joking about it, we do not share God's perspective.

What does it mean that we are missing 5 million of our members? It means that our churches are failing to communicate to our people the seriousness of church membership. It means that we are failing to practice biblical church discipline. It means that we are not reporting our numbers with integrity. It means, quite simply, that we are being disobedient to God.

How did we come to this? By placing numerical success above faithfulness to God. By thinking that getting a lot of people to pray a prayer is the same thing as seeing them born again. By being theologically immature and pragmatically driven. By having a zeal without knowledge.

The problem is not that we have failed to disciple our converts. Our problem is that we have been too quick to call goats sheep. And we've been too slow to call sheep to accountability.

The CT editorial drives the point home:

"A fate worse than insignificance awaits us if we fail to be honest. The numbers trap tempts evangelicals to implement programs that will boost the bottom line, regardless of their biblical warrant. "What works?" begins to replace, "What does God's Word teach us?" Such programs may appear to succeed for a time. But Jesus told a parable about what happens when we do not build on the foundation of his Word. The rains will come, the floodwaters will rise, and the winds will blow against that house. Sooner or later, the house will fall. And great will be that fall, Jesus warned (Matt. 7:24-27)...One day, the elements will test what we have built in our churches, crusades, and mercy ministries. The greater the exaggeration, the greater the fall."

JN

What's the Point?

I'm preparing for the Sunday school lesson this week. Sometimes LifeWay's lessons are good, other times not so much. I was a bit frustrated at this weeks lesson, so I scrapped the whole thing and decided to use the Scripture passage, but not the rest of the lesson.

So, here the test (without looking at the LifeWay curriculum if you have it). What is the point of 2 Kings 5:1-16? How would you teach it?

After some responses I'll give LifeWay's lesson and how I decided to teach it instead.

A Most Important Subject: Book Allowance

Would be interested in hearing your opinion on pastor's book allowances. What is a good amount to spend on books in a year?

To get the discussion going, here are some opinions:

C.J. Mahaney is an advocate for unlimited book allowances for pastors. He encourages churches to let their pastors buy as many books as desired.

Daniel Akin says that pastors should be spending about $2000 per year on books.

Justin Childers

A Great Article by Justin Childers

Our good friend Justin C. has a great article in the Wilson Daily Times today about growing in Christ. You can read it here.

JN

Evangelism Update

At our last meeting we had said we would try to be more intentional about sharing the gospel with others. I was just wondering how it's going with you guys. I need your accountability, and I graciously offer you mine. Let's endeavor together for this great task.

Great Books Coming from Crossway!

We've been looking forward to some of these books for awhile!


THE GOSPEL AND PERSONAL EVANGELISM
by Mark Dever
(foreward by C. J. Mahaney [who else?!])

Release Date: September 11th, 2007
128 Pages
Paperback

DESCRIPTION:
Evangelism is not only misunderstood, it is often unpracticed. Many Christians want to share the gospel with others, but because those Christians don’t grasp the fundamentals of witnessing, they feel intimidated and incapable of sharing the truth of the gospel.

Yet those believers fail to recognize that God has already established who and how we are to evangelize. In The Gospel and Personal Evangelism, Dr. Mark Dever seeks to answer the four basic questions about evangelism that many Christians ask: Who should we evangelize? How should we evangelize? What is evangelism? Why should we evangelize? In his answers Dever draws on New Testament truths and helps believers apply those truths in practical ways. As readers understand the fundamentals of evangelism, they will begin to develop a culture of evangelism in their lives and their local churches.

THE GREAT EXCHANGE: MY SIN FOR HIS RIGHTEOUSNESS
by Jerry Bridges
(forward by Sinclair Ferguson)

Release Date: September 11th, 2007
304 pages
Paperback

DESCRIPTION:
Believers often take for granted the great act of salvation provided to us by the work of Jesus Christ. Beginning with the Old Testament sacrifices and the prophecies that foreshadowed Christ, authors Jerry Bridges and Bob Bevington guide believers through the biblical overview of Christ’s atonement. The Great Exchange helps believers see how the Old Testament practices tie in with the New Testament discussion of Christ’s great work of salvation.

As believers work through these principles, they will begin to recognize that even though we deserve condemnation and punishment from a holy God, he has given us the opportunity to experience his great riches through his Son, Jesus Christ. The clear gospel message presented throughout the entire book offers a great appreciation of Christ for believers and an opportunity for salvation for unbelievers.

THE FUTURE OF JUSTIFICATION: A RESPONSE TO N. T. WRIGHT
by John Piper

Release Date: October 23rd, 2007
240 Pages
Paperback

THE DISCIPLINE OF SPIRITUAL DISCERNMENT
by Tim Challies

Release Date: December 25th, 2007
288 Pages
Paperback

DESCRIPTION:
Spiritual discernment is good for more than just making monumental decisions according to God’s will. It is an essential, day-to-day activity that allows thoughtful Christians to separate the truth of God from error and to distinguish right from wrong in all kinds of settings and situations. It is also a skill—something that any person can develop and improve, especially with the guidance in this book.

Written by a leading evangelical blogger, The Discipline of Spiritual Discernment is an uplifting, scripturally grounded work that explains the need for discernment, its challenges, and the steps that will cultivate it. Author Tim Challies does not do the discerning for readers; he simply shows them how to practically apply scriptural tools, principles, and wisdom so that their conclusions about everything—people, teachings, decisions, media, and organizations—will be consistent with God’s Word.

Presidential Politics

Here is a poll to help you know which presidential candidates share your values. It's kind of interesting - though the poll doesn't allow for nuanced opinions!

JN

(HT: Parableman)

Sunday is Coming

Sorry I'm not much help on the age of the earth question.

Here is a great article I found for pastors about how quick Sunday comes each week. He has some good suggestions for beginning sermon preparation on Monday.

Justin C.

Books You Hope to Read One Day

The A-Team has posted some books they can't wait to read. They followed suit from Reformed Baptist Thinker, Pyromaniacs, and Triablogue.

Here are a few of my favorites to whet your appetite for the whole post:

• Believers Under Water: The True Reformed View of Baptism by Kim Riddlebarger & R. Scott Clark
• Wasting Ages: Why You Shouldn't Spend Any of Your Time Worrying About the Age of the Earth by Hugh Ross & Ken Ham
• The Unchanging Truths About Prophecy Throughout the Bible by Wayne Grudem
• A Postmodern Creed: What I Truly Believe in Plain English by Brian D. McLaren

Do you have any others you'd like to add to the list?

Building Bridges

Here is the link for those who are planning to head to the conference on Southern Baptist and Calvinism. Registration is now open.

The Young Earth Just Looks Old?

A common defense of the "young earth" view of the age of the world is that God created the world to look old, but it is actually young. "Old earthers" usually respond to this idea by saying that God wouldn't have created the world to look young when it is actually old... that would be deceptive.

A view I've heard recently, and for the first time, goes like this: "God intentionally created the world to look young in order to make foolish the wisdom of the wise."

I'm sure you're familiar with the first chapter of 1 Corinthians where Paul says that the cross is foolishness to the world, but the power of God for those who are being saved. This idea is then carried over to Creationism and natural revelation. I don't think the person who told this view to me thinks that it's a textual argument. Rather, I think he would say that it just seems to fit something God might do. It is a way to reconcile the "young earth" accounts in Scripture with what we find in science.

What do you think? Not necessarily about whether you're "young earth" or "old earth," but what do you think about this possibility? Are there any textual issues you can think of? Any theological implications that come from this view?

Our Wives Have Blogs Too!

While we guys discuss topics like evangelism and eschatology on this blog, several of our wives are blogging about the adventures of being a Christian wife / mom. These blogs are sometimes much more interesting than ours (and always more adorable!)

Grace Upon Grace

His, Yours & Mom

Our House