Why so much rebuttal to a nonessential, theological concept?

4 12 2008

Our critics and retractors use our foolishness against us in a big way. We give our enemies the bullets for our own downfall in reason, the relevance of faith, and the impact of the Church. To the thinking critic, who may have embraced Christianity if it was explained effectively and modeled effectually, sees religion as harmful. So say the secular humanists and contemporary philosophers from Bernard Russell to Kant (1872-1970 British philosopher and atheist), who said “He (Jesus) thought His second coming was to come before the death of people living at that time in clouds of glory.” His criticism was that it did not happen as Jesus (Matt. 10:23) said it would, or as preachers have interpreted. Thus, he argued that the Bible has no credibility. And on to Niche and the current attack on the Pledge of Allegiance.

The secular view is fueled by our unreasonable, irrational, ever-changing trends and infighting. This premise from our waywardness is we cannot know God, and Jesus did not exist or at best was a good teacher. Thus religion is destructive. Opponents point to the fanatic movements and wars over the century, ignoring the fact that it was not God but evil people using God’s name for their prideful gain. If they had proper instruction of what the Bible was saying, biblical Eschatology may have won the day.

Thinking that there will be rapture as taught by the TV preacher crowd and popular books is not unorthodox or heretical. Believe it as you may. I will keep buying cars with sunroofs as I used to call them “rapture roofs,” because if God wants to take us up in that way, He certainty may and can. If so, I hope it is when I am in traffic. A rapture is even not worth debating. There are far more important subjects to look at such as godly church leadership, effectual discipleship, and biblical literacy. But what it does is bad, just the same. Because it gets us, as Christian communities, continued infighting and/or focused away from what is really important, and that is the development and deployment of our faith. Focusing on the minors and forgetting about the majors just creates a major hole of personal and spiritual growth and very minor faith in our churches.

You may be as upset over this as I was; sorry. I do not want to be a party-pooper on end times. Yes, there will be a rapture of sort, but not the one from TV preachers; rather, it will be one far, far more magnificent.

One where Jesus Christ is truly glorified as He is coming back and we will be caught up in whatever way He sees fit. I firmly believe this will be far, far more impacting and spectacular than any wild, speculative theory that usually misses the main point. The main question is this: are you ready for His return?

If you disagree with me on this subject, we are still friends. I suspect this will be controversial. But as brothers and sisters in Christ, we can agree to disagree on these minors; let’s focus on the majors such as sharing the gospel and building up our faith. By the way, I will not respond to any emails or letters on this; I do not have the time. I have laid out my thoughts, references, and arguments in the best way I can. You can post your thoughts on this blog, or my other at intothyword blog, where I will read them. But my answer is this to any replies: Just got to the Word and remember context, context, and context; and it helps to look up words we may not understand.


Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
Categories : Rapture

Interpreting Apocalyptic Literature

4 12 2008

We have to be careful how we interpret the Bible. Most of the time, we are to take His Word literally; it means what it means and says what it says. However, in “apocalyptic” literature or genre, the language is clear, such as the word, “lamb,” which is used often. We know what a lamb is and we may know that Christ is described as a lamb, but do we also know that Jesus is the Lamb… been slain which means that Christ is the sacrifice? A lamb is the common animal that was “slain” and sacrificed for the atonement of sin and used for commerce. Jesus replaces this lamb as the ultimate sacrifice—the sacrifice for our redemption. When you see the word, Lamb, it is most likely referring to sacrifice and our Lord who offers us salvation (John 1:29; 1 Pet. 1:18-20). In contrast to the image of a lion which means Sovereign and Judge, the lamb was considered the weakest of all animals, needing constant attention and care just to survive. A lamb would die in the wild, whereas the lion would thrive. The image of the lamb was common in apocalyptic literature, also meaning victory and power through, and sometimes over death (Ex. 12:12-13; Isaiah 53:7; John 1:29; 21:15; Rev. 17:14). You can see that these images and themes have or will have history and significance.

When we come to words that seem peculiar to our modern minds, such as “stars,” the first-century Jews would know that it meant “angels.” Lampstands meant “churches;” the phrase, “wife of the Lamb” meant “Jerusalem,” and the great prostitute was a covert slogan to refer to “Nero” or any corrupt leader in power. Babylon usually referred to Rome (Rev. 1:20; 17:1-5, 18; 21:9-10). Babylon the Great mainly referred to Isaiah’s mockery of sin and those who follow it as a “harlot” does. It is a contrast of evil governments in antagonism to God and God’s Kingdom, the captivity of the Jews under Babylon and its moral decadence, and the early Christians under Rome, which was also steeped in immorality. This is also a reference to how people are led captive into sin. It was a metaphor that meant to sin and fall into seduction, meaning what lures us away from faith and what replaces faith. The application of this word/term is that seduction becomes corruption; this can range from pagan worship and atheism to following what is fruitless and meaningless while ignoring our Lord. This is not necessarily referring to one specific ominous person or entity or political system, but pointing the faithful to what is evil in general. Nor, does this mean that Babylon will be rebuilt or restored in some way. This theme is about enmity to God and people’s participation in it which is in direct contrast to what Christ offers and is—Pure and Holy (Is. 21:9; Jer. 51:7-8; Dan. 2:35, 4:30; 44; Rev. 13:1-18; 16:19; 17:1-5; 18:3; 18:2, 10, 21, also 4 Ezra).

Another apocalyptic word is star. A star in ancient cultures was a colloquialism for divinities or angels; context is the key. Is it talking about messengers, things to come, or stellar events such as astrology? If it is a message being delivered, it could refer to a mighty angel, or refer to a cosmic disturbance, an Angel or servant, or an instrument of God (Rev. 8:10; 9:1-11; 20:1). Context and commonsense are the keys. These images are “metaphoric,” or symbols of specific themes in judgment. The obvious is that the actuality of this passage is pointing to God’s power, but these events are not necessarily verbatim, as it would be seemingly impossible. How could one star, much less billions upon billions land on this plant that is a billion times a billion smaller? The answer is, it is figurative, and it is a mystery how this will be eventually played out and what we will see. This is a depiction, just as a first century Jew would read and write. What we do know is that it will not be the same! The point of this metaphor is that no one is immune from experiencing God’s judgment. The entirety of the universe will bear witness to God’s will as an incredible phenomenon, displayed in the cosmos, that will herald Christ’s Second Coming (Mark 13:24-26; Luke 2:25-27).


Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Categories : hermeneutical rules

Rule 2: Context, Context, and Context…

3 12 2008

What does the passage say in its surrounding, in its history, and/or the nature of the word used? The definition of a word is predicated (attached) to the situation and context of the sentence. Is it a metaphor, such as object is defined by how it is described and used in the surrounding sentences? Or it may be a symbol, such as; we come to a fork in the road. Do we eat with it? Context tells us, because the Bible was not written to us, it was written to a specific people, situation, and culture, yet, it is still God’s Word. In addition, God’s Word was not just written to them, it also is written for us. Therefore, we can easily extract its meaning and make effectual applications for today’s and tomorrow’s Christian living, including cross culturally. Then there are other contexts such as the language and the relevance of the audience. For example, what did it mean to the original hearers and readers? We do this before we come up with an application today, because our application must not contradict the intended meaning. If we do not follow this rule, we can easily make any passage mean whatever we want it to mean, or make it apply to whomever or whatever we desire while disregarding what God has to say!

For example, in Revelation 14:14-20, John is giving us a portrayal of the “Last Days” and the “Second Coming” of Christ our Lord where Christ is the great Director, directing His representatives in the reaping and the harvesting of humanity’s souls. This passage represents the quintessence of how most people, including many Christians, see Revelation. Yes, this is correct to a point; but, it is also so much more. Thus, most commentators miss the main points. It is not just about judgment; it is about how we are called to life too! It is a great hope for the faithful who bear good fruit for Him, and a great fear to the godless who bear rotten fruit (Gen. 19:24; Psalm 112:10; Joel 3:12-16; Dan. 7:13-14; Matt. 13:36-43; 24:14; Luke 3:17; John 15:1-8; Gal. 5; Rev. 1:13).

Thus, many commentators come to this passage and see this as just the horrific, ultimate judgment of the wicked while Christ gathers His saints to safety. The Son of Man is seen as Christ Himself and His Second Coming, of His judging the wicked. They see no problem with the angel giving commands to Christ, as it is a message of the Father to the Son. The sickle represents God’s love and the gathering of the faithful as they are separated from the unfaithful. Some see this happening after the rapture and these as the Christians who are saved post-rapture (a pre-tribulation view), while others hold a view that the rapture takes place (post-tribulation view) when Christ comes—after the tribulation. Some see this as the battle of Armageddon and these as literal images of that battle. In addition, there are lengthy views of this battle and what it means; very speculative, but not essential doctrine. A problem with this view is this: according to the Bible, the battle of Armageddon never takes place; it is only prepared for, “gathered” (Rev. 16:16).

Thus, to get this theory that the battle took place and many of the theories in this camp, you have to take a whole bunch of passages out of their context, string them together, and ignore the context and actual meanings of the words. You would have to create your own word meanings, ignore Jewish culture, and completely disregard the Old Testament, Matthew 24, and the original languages in order to create this view. This is very minor stuff theologically; I am not sure how Christ would feel about that, do you? Perhaps, a look into 2 Peter should cause us to tremble if we dare seek to twist and/or read in our ideas to His Word. Always be careful not to read into the Bible what you want it to say; rather, seek what The Word actually says, even if it goes against your personal thinking!


Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , , , ,
Categories : hermeneutical rules

Rule 1: Scripture Interprets Scripture.

3 12 2008

The Bible is its own commentary. This means, we ask was that said before? and if so, where and what was the context? We are to interpret the words literally and in their historical sense, unless the “context” or “manner” in which they are used seems to be out of context or a contradiction or dissimilar. An example would be the OT Prophets or Apocryphal language that would indicate symbolic meanings. This does not diminish the meaning; it actually extenuates it when we have the key to the metaphor, and Scripture is always the key to Scripture.

Did you know that a lot of the Book of Revelation is found in Ezekiel, Jeremiah, and Isaiah, and not so much in Daniel? Thus, before we come to any eschatological conclusions, we are to make sure the passage about which we are reading or writing is clear and is backed up by other passages of Scripture and that we use these other passages to help us make sense of the meaning. For example: there is a lot of confusion over the mark and 666. Many people see them as the mark of the antichrist tricking people into worshipping the beast or himself. Or, a counterfeit Jewish messiah or a slick false preacher is the “false prophet” mentioned in Rev. 16:13. These images bring all kinds of speculations—from an idol coming to life to a robot, a computer chip implanted in people, or some other technology that God can’t do anything about, while others see this as the rebuilt Temple captivating people. The mark and buying and selling are also seen as the world changing to a cashless society, ripe for corruption and control by the antichrist. One crazy theory after the other appears while no one seems to bother to take a look into the Old Testament such as Ezekiel 9:4-6 that John was quoting and see what these images meant, or look at Deuteronomy 13:1-11; or John Himself telling us what the antichrist is all about in 1 John 2:18, 22; 4:3; or 2 John 1:7. Not sure? See for yourself on the Bible study in Revelation 13:11-18, http://70030.netministry.com/articles_view.asp?articleid=33585&columnid=3803&contentonly=true

This rule is simple: we use the Bible to see what other parts of the Bible say and this clears it up. What we do not do is come up with a theology by ignoring contexts, word meanings, and other passages. The Bible does not contradict itself; it does bring more light and insight, so use it.


Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , ,
Categories : hermeneutical rules

Next Entries »