Posts
I will no longer be blogging at this site. My new blog can be found here.
The URL is http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevindeyoung/
Please adjust all your computer gizmo stuff accordingly. Sorry for the inconvenience. But I think you will be happy with the new platform.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Monday, October 12, 2009
Monday Morning Humor
It sounds like Lucky Day has heard one too many sermons on David and Goliath...
Friday, October 9, 2009
Fishers of Men
While working on my sermon for Mark 1:16-20, I found this song. It's a nice bluegrass acapella song by Rhonda Vincent.
Making Sense of the Millennium, Part 2
Here's a portion of my second sermon on Revelation 20:1-6. It's a bit long to read in one sitting, but maybe some will find it helpful.
*****
There is a third question that we will look at in detail this morning.
Question Number Three: How are we to understand, the end of verse four, where it says, "They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years.”
Now I hope you are a little bit awake, at least, this morning and can think of with me, now, for the next several minutes. I’m going to do some teaching now, but at the end we will get back to some preaching, and I'll probably start sweating and all sorts of stuff. We will finish with a bang, hopefully. But now we have to do some teaching on this first. So you need to think carefully with me. What does this mean, "They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years"? Because here is what premillennialists would say, "Christ comes back, and the dead in Christ, those who believe in Jesus and are dead, they are raised up from their graves, bodily, and they meet Christ in the air and they go back up to Heaven. Then Christ establishes his thousand-year reign on the Earth. It is a literal 1,000 years, where he is on a literal throne in Jerusalem. At the end of that Millennium Age, then those who did not believe in Jesus, their bodies are now resurrected and they are sent off to judgment.”
So the premillennialists would see there are two resurrections. There is a first resurrection, the believing dead, and then a thousand years later, the unbelieving dead. This is not a terrible interpretation. Many godly people would offer that. It is just not what I think that the text teaches. So we are going to move through this beginning at verse four.
In order to answer this question, we need to start by figuring out where are we? What are we looking at in this text? The simple answer is we are looking at a scene in Heaven. This isn’t Earth. This is Heaven. We know that, because we see thrones. Almost every other time in Revelation where there are thrones, it is a Heavenly scene. Think back to Revelation Chapter 4, John's vision of Him who sits on the throne, holy, holy, holy is the Lord God Almighty. He is on the throne. And around that are what? Twenty-four other thrones on which sit 24 elders representative of the 12 tribes of Israel and the 12 apostles of the Lamb. Twenty-four being a symbolic number, not for a cool TV show that gets kind of old after a while, but Christ's people in both Testaments, old and new, 24 being Christ's people. And they are sitting on thrones. That is Heaven.
We also know this is Heaven, because we are looking at disembodied souls. The second sentence in verse four says, “I saw the souls of those who have been beheaded.” This is similar to the heavenly scene described in Daniel Chapter 7. Daniel said,
“I looked and thrones were set in place, and the Ancient of Days took His seat. His clothing was as white as snow. His hair was white as snow. His throne was flaming with fire. A river of fire was flowing coming out before Him thousands upon thousands attended Him. 10,000 times 10,000 stood before Him. The court was seated and the books were opened.”
So what we are looking at is a heavenly scene.
Now, who are talking about? Well it is one group of people described in two different ways. Narrowly, the group of people we are talking about are martyrs. “I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony for Jesus and because of the Word of God.” Now, Revelation does this in a number of places. It looks at God’s people in one sense as martyrs, because many of them were, but that is also something of a metaphor. God's people here are facing the temptation to compromise. So if they withstand this temptation, they maintain their testimony to Jesus in one sense they will all be persecuted. They will all be martyrs of a type. So, narrowly, what we are looking at are those who literally were killed because they were Christians. But more broadly, we are looking at anyone who has maintained faithful testimony to Jesus. Look at the next sentence in verse four. So first they are described as martyrs, and then it says, “They had not worshiped the beast, or his image, and had not received his mark on their foreheads or their hands." So we are talking, narrowly, about martyrs, more broadly about God's people, about overcomers, about you, I hope, who do not receive the mark of the beast, but maintained your faithfulness to Christ. Revelation 3:21 says, “To him who overcomes, I will give the right to sit with me on my throne just as I overcame and sat down with my Father on his throne." So we are looking at Christians who did not give in, did not compromise. These are overcomers. And they have received their reward, now, in heaven, sitting on thrones. So these are dead Christians in heaven as disembodied souls sitting on thrones with the authority to judge. And we will say more about that at the end.
So this brings us to the end of verse four, our question: “They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years.” Now that is just a summary sentence of what I have just explained. This is a picture of believers who upon death come to life as disembodied souls and reign with Christ. Now, let me deal with a couple of problems with this interpretation. The first is the Greek word "zao." Zao means "they came to life." They live. Think of the word zoology. It has that Greek prefix of life, of living things. Zao means to live. And zao, often in the New Testament, means a physical resurrection. Matthew 9, Romans 14, I could give you a number of passages. But I want to argue that this is not a physical resurrection here. When it says, “They came to life,” it does not mean that their bodies came out of the ground and were made immortal. It is talking about a spiritual resurrection upon death. As a Christian, our ultimate hope it is the resurrection of the dead. But there is what theologians call an intermediate state. Before Christ comes back, and before they resurrection, our souls are with Christ in Heaven. They are not asleep. They are not just bodies in the ground, and we go out of existence for a while. Our souls--I do not know how it works–but our souls are separated from our bodies for a time during this intermediate state.
Remember premillennialists will say, “There is a first resurrection, that is the believers. And there is a second resurrection, and thousand years later, that is the unbelievers.” But Scripture seems to teach consistently that there is only one resurrection. Daniel 12:2, “Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the Earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt.” You do not get the sense that there is a thousand years between this. But all people are brought up out of their graves. Somehow, Christ puts all of their atoms together again, and some are sent to their reward, and some to punishment. Jesus says the same thing in John 5, “Do not be amazed at this, for an hour...” He means a specific time, a moment. Not over the course of a thousands of years. “…An hour is coming when all who are in their tombs will hear His voice and to come out.” Just like Jesus said, “Lazarus, come forth.” What is Lazarus going to do? He is going to come forth. That is what Christ will say, “Dead, arise.” And in a twinkling of an eye, all of these atoms from in the ground, and decomposed into the earth, and in urns somewhere, are all going to come together. And Christ says, “Those who have done good will go to the resurrection of life. And those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment.” So Christ talks about this resurrection of the good and the bad happening at the same time.
And there is confirmation that zao does not refer to physical resurrection here. There’s confirmation from 1 Corinthians 15. Now, just follow this train of thought with me. 1 Corinthians 15 is where Paul is talking about the resurrection. And he says in verse 54, “When the perishable,” that is our dead bodies, “have been clothed with imperishable,” our new resurrection bodies, “and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true. Death has been swallowed up in victory.” In verse 26 of 1 Corinthians 15, he says that “Death is the last enemy.” So do you follow what Paul is saying? When the resurrection happens, when our bodies are clothed with immortality, then we will know that death has been defeated. Death is finally over. Death, our last enemy, has been conquered. And yet if verse four is talking about a physical resurrection, and then another thousand years, and then another final battle royale, we can hardly say that death has been conquered. We can hardly say that there are no more enemies, because we have a thousand years and we still have the whole thing to finish. There is plenty of death left to come. So Paul's words in 1 Corinthians 15 would not be true that when we have our new resurrection bodies, then we know death has been defeated.
So zao, this word, they live, they come to life, means that they live with Christ in heaven. What John sees here are believers who, though dead, are more alive than ever before. The coming to life describes the souls of believers who have died, but now share, even without their bodies, in the reign of Christ. Think of Paul in 2 Corinthians 5:8 where he says, “I would rather be away from the body and at home with the Lord.” Or Revelation 14:13, “Blessed are those who die in the Lord.” Or look at Luke Chapter 20:38. If you read the books that I do, people will say, “Well, this Greek word zao it never means this kind of spiritual resurrection. It always refers to real flesh and blood kind of life.” Except for Luke 20:38. This is where the Sadducees and Pharisees are arguing. Pharisees believed in the resurrection of the dead, and the Sadducees didn't. And so they are having this debate. And Jesus takes the side of the Pharisees, because he believes in the resurrection. And there was the sort of intramural Jewish debate about whether the Torah, or anywhere in the Old Testament, taught the resurrection. Could you prove the resurrection from the books of Moses? This sort of what rabbis might do for a good time.
And so Jesus weighs in on this. And he solves the riddle, maybe not to their satisfaction, but he solved the riddle. And he says, “God is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.” And they are saying, “Yes, that is true.” And then he says, “God is the God of the living, not the dead.” Zao, there. In other words, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are living in a very real sense. They are living and yet there bodies are in the ground, not resurrected. Jesus used that to demonstrate to the Sadducees that there will be a resurrection, because we already have life in heaven. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are living, are zao.
So the hope offered to the saints in verses four and five is the same hope that has been offered time and time again in Revelation. This vision is saying, “Look, Christians, it may appear that evil is winning.” Why do we have 24-hour news channels? I don't know except to make us all scared and paranoid, so we can know every single time some child somewhere is missing; every time someone in the country has been killed. It is fearful. But this vision says, “Christians, take heart. If you overcome in this life, you will be triumphant in death.” This is the picture right now, the saints--some of your kids, some of your grandparents, some of your siblings, some of your spouses--saints already sitting on thrones, judging, reigning with Christ during this thousand years; living as glorified souls in heaven even as they await their final hope, the resurrection from the dead. That is the first resurrection. The first resurrection is the saints who died, whose souls now reign with Christ in heaven. It is the reality of 2 Timothy 2, “If we died with Him, we will also live with Him. If we endure, we will also reign with Him.” So that if you experience the first resurrection, where you live and reign with Christ after death, then you will not experience the second death.
One More Issue
We come now to verse five. There is one more issue to deal with before we can be fully convinced of the interpretation of I am giving you. Verse five, the NIV puts it as parentheses, which I think is the sense of things. “The rest of a dead” -- so we have been talking about the believing dead, now, this is the unbelieving dead. “The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended.” So here's the problem. Okay, if what I have been saying is true, and coming to life, this first resurrection, means that you live and reign with Christ, what about verse 5? Verse five seems to be saying, “Well, the rest of the dead, the unbelieving dead, after the thousand years or over, they are going to have the same life.” And we know that that is not true, because it says that “They who do not experience the first resurrection will experience the second death.” Do you see why this book is confusing? So how does that work? Because we do not want to say, “Yes, if you are an unbeliever, you die and you just lay there, but then a thousand years from now, when this church age is over, then you're going to reign with Christ.” That clearly is not what Revelation teaches. So some have argued that, well, we are talking about two different kinds of coming to life. Verse four is talking about a spiritual resurrection, and verse five is talking about a physical resurrection. So when it says, “The rest of the dead do not come to life,” it just means they did not have their bodily resurrection until the end of the Millennium. And that is possible, but it seems unlikely that zao -- it is the same word -- would be used in two totally different ways so close together. And besides, the points of verse five seem to be one of contrast. That while the dead, the deceased saints had the privilege of coming to life, those who do not believe in Christ did not have the privilege. So if this contrast is to hold, the coming to life must be of the same kind. In other words, you say, “Well, they came to life and the rest of them, well, they didn't have this totally other kind of coming to life.” The contrast doesn't fit then.
So how are we to resolve this difficult that the unbelieving dead do not live or reign with Christ during the thousand years? They have no part in the first resurrection. They did not share in the privilege of reigning with Christ in Heaven, nor will they ever have that privilege. What do we do? The key to understanding this verse is the little word “until.” Do you see that and verse five? The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended. Let me give you just one more Greek word. It’s the word achri. Most of us have probably read it to mean something like this. “The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended, and then after the thousand years they did come to life.” We read “until” as indicating a change in their situation after the thousand years. But I want to argue that that is not how we should read “until.” The word “until” can have the force of during, or right up to, or throughout, and does not have to indicate a change in the circumstances after the time. Let me give you an example, because is probably murky in your head.
I sang in the choir in college. Our favorite stuff to sing was usually spirituals. And so we sang the song, “I’m Gonna to Sing ‘Till the Spirit Moves in my Heart.” And I was a tenor. And it was a great song for tenors, because tenors get to start out. “I'm going to sing until the spirit moves in my heart.” You do all this little cool stuff. And the basses come in and do their stuff. And at the end of it, it would just keep repeating, I’m going to sing till the spirit moves” -- and then you say, “I'm going to sing till Jesus comes. I'm going to sing till Jesus comes.” That is what the basses do. “I'm going to sing until Jesus comes.” Now would you understand that song to mean, “And then after Jesus comes, I stop singing”? “I'm going to sing until Jesus comes, and when he comes back I’m done singing.” I think we instinctively understand ‘until’ in that sentence means I'm going to sing right up to when Jesus comes. All the way until Jesus comes. And it doesn't give any indication of, “Well, when he comes, I stop singing.”
Or let me give you another example. Suppose you are out of town for a day, and you get one of these nice young ladies here to babysit. And you return late at night and you ask how the kids did. “Well, the two oldest did really well. They were obedient. The youngest was just squirrely. Was just acting up. I don't understand.” And then the next day, you are talking with your friends who have kids, and they are also thinking about blowing this joint and dropping their kids off somewhere. And that sounds like a good idea to them. And they say, “So how did it go? With the babysitter? How did your kids do? Being away from them for a whole day?” “I don't understand it,” you say. “You know, our youngest was just so rascally and disobedient, and the two oldest kids were obedient right until we came home.”
Now, you would probably understand that to mean our kids, the two older, were obedient and respectful the whole time we were gone. You would not be praising them if you meant, “They were obedient until we came home, and when we set foot in the door, they got out the matches and started lighting things on fire.” You instinctively know until does not always mean that the situation changes after the given time.
Now, let me just give you some verses where this happens in Scripture. And then, we will be wrapping up the answer to this question. Acts 23:1, I'll just read it. Paul looked straight at the Sanhedrin and said, “My brothers, I have fulfilled my duty to God in all good conscience until (achri) this day.” Now, does Paul mean I've been fulfilling my duty until this day, and starting right now, I don't have to do my duty anymore? No. In Acts 26:22 Paul says, “But I have had God’s help to (achri) this very day, and so I stand here and testify to small and great alike.” Until, achri, this very day. Now, does Paul mean that God has helped me until this day, and I'm glad that I made it here. But after today I am not going to get any help? No. He doesn't mean to say that until indicates a change in circumstance. Romans 5:13, “For before the law,” actually, until (achri) the law, “was given sin was in the world, but sin is not taken into account where there is no law.” So until the law was given, sin was in the world. Does Paul mean that after the law was given, then sin was no longer in the world? No. He is clearly making the point right in up until this time, this was true. I will give you one more. Romans 8:22, “We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to (achri) the present time.” Right up to the present time. Nobody understands Paul to be saying, “All of creation has been groaning and suffering until I wrote this down in 60 A.D., and now creation has stopped suffering.” No, the “until” has the force of right up to, or during.
So go back to verse five. We will put this together. “The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended.” This does not mean that they then came to life after the thousand years were ended, and suddenly reigned with Christ. All it means is right up to the end of the Millennium, during this whole church age, the unbelieving dead did not have the privilege of living and reigning with Christ. If it was to indicate that something changed after the thousand years, it probably would have said so. Look at verse three for example. “He threw the Devil into the abyss. Locked and sealed it over him to keep him from deceiving the nations anymore until the thousand years were ended,” and now it makes it clear that something changes. “After that, he must be set free for a short time.” So there we have “until,” but it shows us very clearly that a change is indicated--after that time the situation will be different. But it does not say that in verse five. So the point is that the unbelieving dead will not be made to live with Christ during this age, nor ever. Meanwhile, the believers who die, once they die, will live and reign with Christ as disembodied souls awaiting the resurrection during this church age. And those who live with Christ now in heaven will not die later in hell. And those that are not living with Christ, now, will experience the second death later in the lake of fire.
Two More Points of Application
All right. So what? That's a lot of little Greek words. Let me just close by hopefully making this seem real and important by giving you two points of application. Just a couple observations from the text.
Number one, death means reigning with Christ. Not just going to Heaven and you won’t hurt, you won't have pain, death means, right then, you live and you reign with Christ. Now, what does it mean? We could think about this a long time. What does it mean that your grandmother, my grandmother, is on a throne, not as big as Christ's throne, but is on a throne? She's got a crown. She lays it out at Jesus’ feet. But she is still on a throne reigning. Does that mean she is affirming Christ's judgments? Certainly. Does it mean that her being there, your loved ones being there, is a kind of a vindication on all of those who oppress us, or made war with Christians? Does it mean that your loved ones, who believed in Christ, are somehow under the sovereignty of God, participating in decision making for the Earth? Meditate on that for a while—Jesus asking, “Grandma, what do you think? Bill, what do you think we should do here?” Somehow the saints are now reigning with Christ.
I think at the very least, the presence of believers in heaven as overcomers will be a testimony to their innocence and to the guilt of those who persecuted them. But I think it's more than that. I think it means that we will be restored to our rightful place of God-given dominion over the earth. Genesis 1 says we are image bearers. What do we do as image bearers? We replenish the earth, and we subdue it. We are given to be creation kings over the earth. You do not just die and learn the harp. You do stuff. You make decisions. You think. You reign. In some mysterious way we will be co-laborers just like we are co-laborers with Christ, now. And if we can participate with Christ and his work here on earth, cannot we also, as glorified souls, participate with Christ in his reign in heaven. He uses angels, and he uses our loved ones who have died. Under his sovereignty of course, but making judgments, working with Him as He works out His will on the Earth. You get to be a little king, a little queen, with Christ. You want to be a somebody? You want to have authority? You want to make decisions? You want to have significance on the Earth, you're not going to get much more impact than that. Reigning with the King of Kings!
And here is the last observation or application. Death means reigning with Christ, and therefore death means life. Most often when someone you love dies, it is not pretty. There are times someone dies peacefully in their sleep, and that is wonderful. Much more often, somebody is shot in battle. Somebody is mangled in a car accident. Somebody has cancer, which literally can eat away at the flesh. And they can look shriveled, or they can look diseased. All of us have had the experience of being at the funeral home, going up to a casket, and saying, “That just doesn't look like Dad. It just doesn't look like Grandma.” And it’s sad, the deterioration of our physical bodies. And what we need to have assured in our head is that we will stand at those caskets, and look at those made-up faces and know, right at that very moment, she lives. You look at father lying in his casket, dead. But he lives!
Death for the Christian means life. And when they die, they live and they do not die again. They will be priests of God and Christ and will reign with Him during this entire church age. Now, I hope you know this. And believe it. There are people that are not Christians in the world who never think of death. They do everything else except their own mortality. Our whole culture, sometimes it seems, our economy is built on not dying, getting healthy, getting fit, having all the insurance you need, always being safe, and never dying. I understand that a non-Christian would feel that way. What I don't understand is the way some Christians talk. You would be hard-pressed to think that life after death even matters.
I read one author who explained why eternal life is called eternal. Eternal life is called eternal, he says, not because it has to do with eternity after we die, but because it touches God the Spirit, who is eternal. So we have this life here on earth, which is kind of an eternal life that touches the spirits. That’s not the whole story, not by a long shot. There are other Christians, and I want to say this with all due respect, because I do not want to exchange one imbalance for another, but there are some Christians who are so busy only--that is the important word -- only talking about making the world a better place, or bringing shalom, or renewing creation that they never talk about what happens when you die. But face it, you are going to die. I am going to die. And we can talk all about how we follow Christ and we make the world a better place. And we help the poor. And we want to help the poor, but you also have to think what are the new heavens and the new Earth? It is just not no more cancer, it's not just that people are no longer sad. The new heavens and the new earth is where God reigns and is All in All, and where we are ultimately, abundantly satisfied in Christ. And if that is not part of your mission to the poor, you're not fully bringing the kingdom that is to come.
If your Christian faith does not help you die well, then either your faith isn't worth much, or your Christianity isn't worth much. People live and talk and preach and they make decisions in life as if there were no eternity. And it is an absolute travesty that it happens in the church. I’m fired up because I spent a week at our denomination's General Synod and I wondered, “Does anybody here believe that Hell is real? That Heaven is real?” Or are we just playing games. Do we mourn as those who have no hope, or more likely, do we live as if there were no hope beyond this life? Paul says it very clearly, “There is no hope beyond this life, if there is no resurrection.” If there is no living and reigning with Christ, we are of all men most to be pitied. If you don't get anything with Christ after you die, forget it. Don't put another dollar in the plate, walk out of here, forget it. You are wasting your time as a Christian. If you do not really believe that something happens after you die, do not come here. Well I shouldn't say that. Come and learn, but don't just sit and pretend like you're a Christian.
Death means life. It is always sad when someone is sick. It is always sad when somebody dies. It is always sad when someone is dying. But as Christians we do not mourn as those who have no hope. Pity those who are left behind, no pity for those who go ahead of us and die and reign. You see this Millennium, which Christians argue about, it is not some esoteric thing to write PhD’s on. If I am correct in what I have explained this morning, the Millennium is a great engine of hope. This is what it was meant to do for the first Christians. This is what it is meant to do for us. Love has won. Christ has conquered. The nations belonged to Him. All of you who call upon the name of Jesus belong to Him. And in a moment of your death -- and you'll have loved ones who will mourn and weep and right they should. But in the moment of your death, you go on to live and reign for a thousand years. Blessed and holy is the one who shares in the first resurrection! Over such the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ as they will reign with Him a thousand years.
*****
There is a third question that we will look at in detail this morning.
Question Number Three: How are we to understand, the end of verse four, where it says, "They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years.”
Now I hope you are a little bit awake, at least, this morning and can think of with me, now, for the next several minutes. I’m going to do some teaching now, but at the end we will get back to some preaching, and I'll probably start sweating and all sorts of stuff. We will finish with a bang, hopefully. But now we have to do some teaching on this first. So you need to think carefully with me. What does this mean, "They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years"? Because here is what premillennialists would say, "Christ comes back, and the dead in Christ, those who believe in Jesus and are dead, they are raised up from their graves, bodily, and they meet Christ in the air and they go back up to Heaven. Then Christ establishes his thousand-year reign on the Earth. It is a literal 1,000 years, where he is on a literal throne in Jerusalem. At the end of that Millennium Age, then those who did not believe in Jesus, their bodies are now resurrected and they are sent off to judgment.”
So the premillennialists would see there are two resurrections. There is a first resurrection, the believing dead, and then a thousand years later, the unbelieving dead. This is not a terrible interpretation. Many godly people would offer that. It is just not what I think that the text teaches. So we are going to move through this beginning at verse four.
In order to answer this question, we need to start by figuring out where are we? What are we looking at in this text? The simple answer is we are looking at a scene in Heaven. This isn’t Earth. This is Heaven. We know that, because we see thrones. Almost every other time in Revelation where there are thrones, it is a Heavenly scene. Think back to Revelation Chapter 4, John's vision of Him who sits on the throne, holy, holy, holy is the Lord God Almighty. He is on the throne. And around that are what? Twenty-four other thrones on which sit 24 elders representative of the 12 tribes of Israel and the 12 apostles of the Lamb. Twenty-four being a symbolic number, not for a cool TV show that gets kind of old after a while, but Christ's people in both Testaments, old and new, 24 being Christ's people. And they are sitting on thrones. That is Heaven.
We also know this is Heaven, because we are looking at disembodied souls. The second sentence in verse four says, “I saw the souls of those who have been beheaded.” This is similar to the heavenly scene described in Daniel Chapter 7. Daniel said,
“I looked and thrones were set in place, and the Ancient of Days took His seat. His clothing was as white as snow. His hair was white as snow. His throne was flaming with fire. A river of fire was flowing coming out before Him thousands upon thousands attended Him. 10,000 times 10,000 stood before Him. The court was seated and the books were opened.”
So what we are looking at is a heavenly scene.
Now, who are talking about? Well it is one group of people described in two different ways. Narrowly, the group of people we are talking about are martyrs. “I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony for Jesus and because of the Word of God.” Now, Revelation does this in a number of places. It looks at God’s people in one sense as martyrs, because many of them were, but that is also something of a metaphor. God's people here are facing the temptation to compromise. So if they withstand this temptation, they maintain their testimony to Jesus in one sense they will all be persecuted. They will all be martyrs of a type. So, narrowly, what we are looking at are those who literally were killed because they were Christians. But more broadly, we are looking at anyone who has maintained faithful testimony to Jesus. Look at the next sentence in verse four. So first they are described as martyrs, and then it says, “They had not worshiped the beast, or his image, and had not received his mark on their foreheads or their hands." So we are talking, narrowly, about martyrs, more broadly about God's people, about overcomers, about you, I hope, who do not receive the mark of the beast, but maintained your faithfulness to Christ. Revelation 3:21 says, “To him who overcomes, I will give the right to sit with me on my throne just as I overcame and sat down with my Father on his throne." So we are looking at Christians who did not give in, did not compromise. These are overcomers. And they have received their reward, now, in heaven, sitting on thrones. So these are dead Christians in heaven as disembodied souls sitting on thrones with the authority to judge. And we will say more about that at the end.
So this brings us to the end of verse four, our question: “They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years.” Now that is just a summary sentence of what I have just explained. This is a picture of believers who upon death come to life as disembodied souls and reign with Christ. Now, let me deal with a couple of problems with this interpretation. The first is the Greek word "zao." Zao means "they came to life." They live. Think of the word zoology. It has that Greek prefix of life, of living things. Zao means to live. And zao, often in the New Testament, means a physical resurrection. Matthew 9, Romans 14, I could give you a number of passages. But I want to argue that this is not a physical resurrection here. When it says, “They came to life,” it does not mean that their bodies came out of the ground and were made immortal. It is talking about a spiritual resurrection upon death. As a Christian, our ultimate hope it is the resurrection of the dead. But there is what theologians call an intermediate state. Before Christ comes back, and before they resurrection, our souls are with Christ in Heaven. They are not asleep. They are not just bodies in the ground, and we go out of existence for a while. Our souls--I do not know how it works–but our souls are separated from our bodies for a time during this intermediate state.
Remember premillennialists will say, “There is a first resurrection, that is the believers. And there is a second resurrection, and thousand years later, that is the unbelievers.” But Scripture seems to teach consistently that there is only one resurrection. Daniel 12:2, “Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the Earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt.” You do not get the sense that there is a thousand years between this. But all people are brought up out of their graves. Somehow, Christ puts all of their atoms together again, and some are sent to their reward, and some to punishment. Jesus says the same thing in John 5, “Do not be amazed at this, for an hour...” He means a specific time, a moment. Not over the course of a thousands of years. “…An hour is coming when all who are in their tombs will hear His voice and to come out.” Just like Jesus said, “Lazarus, come forth.” What is Lazarus going to do? He is going to come forth. That is what Christ will say, “Dead, arise.” And in a twinkling of an eye, all of these atoms from in the ground, and decomposed into the earth, and in urns somewhere, are all going to come together. And Christ says, “Those who have done good will go to the resurrection of life. And those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment.” So Christ talks about this resurrection of the good and the bad happening at the same time.
And there is confirmation that zao does not refer to physical resurrection here. There’s confirmation from 1 Corinthians 15. Now, just follow this train of thought with me. 1 Corinthians 15 is where Paul is talking about the resurrection. And he says in verse 54, “When the perishable,” that is our dead bodies, “have been clothed with imperishable,” our new resurrection bodies, “and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true. Death has been swallowed up in victory.” In verse 26 of 1 Corinthians 15, he says that “Death is the last enemy.” So do you follow what Paul is saying? When the resurrection happens, when our bodies are clothed with immortality, then we will know that death has been defeated. Death is finally over. Death, our last enemy, has been conquered. And yet if verse four is talking about a physical resurrection, and then another thousand years, and then another final battle royale, we can hardly say that death has been conquered. We can hardly say that there are no more enemies, because we have a thousand years and we still have the whole thing to finish. There is plenty of death left to come. So Paul's words in 1 Corinthians 15 would not be true that when we have our new resurrection bodies, then we know death has been defeated.
So zao, this word, they live, they come to life, means that they live with Christ in heaven. What John sees here are believers who, though dead, are more alive than ever before. The coming to life describes the souls of believers who have died, but now share, even without their bodies, in the reign of Christ. Think of Paul in 2 Corinthians 5:8 where he says, “I would rather be away from the body and at home with the Lord.” Or Revelation 14:13, “Blessed are those who die in the Lord.” Or look at Luke Chapter 20:38. If you read the books that I do, people will say, “Well, this Greek word zao it never means this kind of spiritual resurrection. It always refers to real flesh and blood kind of life.” Except for Luke 20:38. This is where the Sadducees and Pharisees are arguing. Pharisees believed in the resurrection of the dead, and the Sadducees didn't. And so they are having this debate. And Jesus takes the side of the Pharisees, because he believes in the resurrection. And there was the sort of intramural Jewish debate about whether the Torah, or anywhere in the Old Testament, taught the resurrection. Could you prove the resurrection from the books of Moses? This sort of what rabbis might do for a good time.
And so Jesus weighs in on this. And he solves the riddle, maybe not to their satisfaction, but he solved the riddle. And he says, “God is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.” And they are saying, “Yes, that is true.” And then he says, “God is the God of the living, not the dead.” Zao, there. In other words, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are living in a very real sense. They are living and yet there bodies are in the ground, not resurrected. Jesus used that to demonstrate to the Sadducees that there will be a resurrection, because we already have life in heaven. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are living, are zao.
So the hope offered to the saints in verses four and five is the same hope that has been offered time and time again in Revelation. This vision is saying, “Look, Christians, it may appear that evil is winning.” Why do we have 24-hour news channels? I don't know except to make us all scared and paranoid, so we can know every single time some child somewhere is missing; every time someone in the country has been killed. It is fearful. But this vision says, “Christians, take heart. If you overcome in this life, you will be triumphant in death.” This is the picture right now, the saints--some of your kids, some of your grandparents, some of your siblings, some of your spouses--saints already sitting on thrones, judging, reigning with Christ during this thousand years; living as glorified souls in heaven even as they await their final hope, the resurrection from the dead. That is the first resurrection. The first resurrection is the saints who died, whose souls now reign with Christ in heaven. It is the reality of 2 Timothy 2, “If we died with Him, we will also live with Him. If we endure, we will also reign with Him.” So that if you experience the first resurrection, where you live and reign with Christ after death, then you will not experience the second death.
One More Issue
We come now to verse five. There is one more issue to deal with before we can be fully convinced of the interpretation of I am giving you. Verse five, the NIV puts it as parentheses, which I think is the sense of things. “The rest of a dead” -- so we have been talking about the believing dead, now, this is the unbelieving dead. “The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended.” So here's the problem. Okay, if what I have been saying is true, and coming to life, this first resurrection, means that you live and reign with Christ, what about verse 5? Verse five seems to be saying, “Well, the rest of the dead, the unbelieving dead, after the thousand years or over, they are going to have the same life.” And we know that that is not true, because it says that “They who do not experience the first resurrection will experience the second death.” Do you see why this book is confusing? So how does that work? Because we do not want to say, “Yes, if you are an unbeliever, you die and you just lay there, but then a thousand years from now, when this church age is over, then you're going to reign with Christ.” That clearly is not what Revelation teaches. So some have argued that, well, we are talking about two different kinds of coming to life. Verse four is talking about a spiritual resurrection, and verse five is talking about a physical resurrection. So when it says, “The rest of the dead do not come to life,” it just means they did not have their bodily resurrection until the end of the Millennium. And that is possible, but it seems unlikely that zao -- it is the same word -- would be used in two totally different ways so close together. And besides, the points of verse five seem to be one of contrast. That while the dead, the deceased saints had the privilege of coming to life, those who do not believe in Christ did not have the privilege. So if this contrast is to hold, the coming to life must be of the same kind. In other words, you say, “Well, they came to life and the rest of them, well, they didn't have this totally other kind of coming to life.” The contrast doesn't fit then.
So how are we to resolve this difficult that the unbelieving dead do not live or reign with Christ during the thousand years? They have no part in the first resurrection. They did not share in the privilege of reigning with Christ in Heaven, nor will they ever have that privilege. What do we do? The key to understanding this verse is the little word “until.” Do you see that and verse five? The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended. Let me give you just one more Greek word. It’s the word achri. Most of us have probably read it to mean something like this. “The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended, and then after the thousand years they did come to life.” We read “until” as indicating a change in their situation after the thousand years. But I want to argue that that is not how we should read “until.” The word “until” can have the force of during, or right up to, or throughout, and does not have to indicate a change in the circumstances after the time. Let me give you an example, because is probably murky in your head.
I sang in the choir in college. Our favorite stuff to sing was usually spirituals. And so we sang the song, “I’m Gonna to Sing ‘Till the Spirit Moves in my Heart.” And I was a tenor. And it was a great song for tenors, because tenors get to start out. “I'm going to sing until the spirit moves in my heart.” You do all this little cool stuff. And the basses come in and do their stuff. And at the end of it, it would just keep repeating, I’m going to sing till the spirit moves” -- and then you say, “I'm going to sing till Jesus comes. I'm going to sing till Jesus comes.” That is what the basses do. “I'm going to sing until Jesus comes.” Now would you understand that song to mean, “And then after Jesus comes, I stop singing”? “I'm going to sing until Jesus comes, and when he comes back I’m done singing.” I think we instinctively understand ‘until’ in that sentence means I'm going to sing right up to when Jesus comes. All the way until Jesus comes. And it doesn't give any indication of, “Well, when he comes, I stop singing.”
Or let me give you another example. Suppose you are out of town for a day, and you get one of these nice young ladies here to babysit. And you return late at night and you ask how the kids did. “Well, the two oldest did really well. They were obedient. The youngest was just squirrely. Was just acting up. I don't understand.” And then the next day, you are talking with your friends who have kids, and they are also thinking about blowing this joint and dropping their kids off somewhere. And that sounds like a good idea to them. And they say, “So how did it go? With the babysitter? How did your kids do? Being away from them for a whole day?” “I don't understand it,” you say. “You know, our youngest was just so rascally and disobedient, and the two oldest kids were obedient right until we came home.”
Now, you would probably understand that to mean our kids, the two older, were obedient and respectful the whole time we were gone. You would not be praising them if you meant, “They were obedient until we came home, and when we set foot in the door, they got out the matches and started lighting things on fire.” You instinctively know until does not always mean that the situation changes after the given time.
Now, let me just give you some verses where this happens in Scripture. And then, we will be wrapping up the answer to this question. Acts 23:1, I'll just read it. Paul looked straight at the Sanhedrin and said, “My brothers, I have fulfilled my duty to God in all good conscience until (achri) this day.” Now, does Paul mean I've been fulfilling my duty until this day, and starting right now, I don't have to do my duty anymore? No. In Acts 26:22 Paul says, “But I have had God’s help to (achri) this very day, and so I stand here and testify to small and great alike.” Until, achri, this very day. Now, does Paul mean that God has helped me until this day, and I'm glad that I made it here. But after today I am not going to get any help? No. He doesn't mean to say that until indicates a change in circumstance. Romans 5:13, “For before the law,” actually, until (achri) the law, “was given sin was in the world, but sin is not taken into account where there is no law.” So until the law was given, sin was in the world. Does Paul mean that after the law was given, then sin was no longer in the world? No. He is clearly making the point right in up until this time, this was true. I will give you one more. Romans 8:22, “We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to (achri) the present time.” Right up to the present time. Nobody understands Paul to be saying, “All of creation has been groaning and suffering until I wrote this down in 60 A.D., and now creation has stopped suffering.” No, the “until” has the force of right up to, or during.
So go back to verse five. We will put this together. “The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended.” This does not mean that they then came to life after the thousand years were ended, and suddenly reigned with Christ. All it means is right up to the end of the Millennium, during this whole church age, the unbelieving dead did not have the privilege of living and reigning with Christ. If it was to indicate that something changed after the thousand years, it probably would have said so. Look at verse three for example. “He threw the Devil into the abyss. Locked and sealed it over him to keep him from deceiving the nations anymore until the thousand years were ended,” and now it makes it clear that something changes. “After that, he must be set free for a short time.” So there we have “until,” but it shows us very clearly that a change is indicated--after that time the situation will be different. But it does not say that in verse five. So the point is that the unbelieving dead will not be made to live with Christ during this age, nor ever. Meanwhile, the believers who die, once they die, will live and reign with Christ as disembodied souls awaiting the resurrection during this church age. And those who live with Christ now in heaven will not die later in hell. And those that are not living with Christ, now, will experience the second death later in the lake of fire.
Two More Points of Application
All right. So what? That's a lot of little Greek words. Let me just close by hopefully making this seem real and important by giving you two points of application. Just a couple observations from the text.
Number one, death means reigning with Christ. Not just going to Heaven and you won’t hurt, you won't have pain, death means, right then, you live and you reign with Christ. Now, what does it mean? We could think about this a long time. What does it mean that your grandmother, my grandmother, is on a throne, not as big as Christ's throne, but is on a throne? She's got a crown. She lays it out at Jesus’ feet. But she is still on a throne reigning. Does that mean she is affirming Christ's judgments? Certainly. Does it mean that her being there, your loved ones being there, is a kind of a vindication on all of those who oppress us, or made war with Christians? Does it mean that your loved ones, who believed in Christ, are somehow under the sovereignty of God, participating in decision making for the Earth? Meditate on that for a while—Jesus asking, “Grandma, what do you think? Bill, what do you think we should do here?” Somehow the saints are now reigning with Christ.
I think at the very least, the presence of believers in heaven as overcomers will be a testimony to their innocence and to the guilt of those who persecuted them. But I think it's more than that. I think it means that we will be restored to our rightful place of God-given dominion over the earth. Genesis 1 says we are image bearers. What do we do as image bearers? We replenish the earth, and we subdue it. We are given to be creation kings over the earth. You do not just die and learn the harp. You do stuff. You make decisions. You think. You reign. In some mysterious way we will be co-laborers just like we are co-laborers with Christ, now. And if we can participate with Christ and his work here on earth, cannot we also, as glorified souls, participate with Christ in his reign in heaven. He uses angels, and he uses our loved ones who have died. Under his sovereignty of course, but making judgments, working with Him as He works out His will on the Earth. You get to be a little king, a little queen, with Christ. You want to be a somebody? You want to have authority? You want to make decisions? You want to have significance on the Earth, you're not going to get much more impact than that. Reigning with the King of Kings!
And here is the last observation or application. Death means reigning with Christ, and therefore death means life. Most often when someone you love dies, it is not pretty. There are times someone dies peacefully in their sleep, and that is wonderful. Much more often, somebody is shot in battle. Somebody is mangled in a car accident. Somebody has cancer, which literally can eat away at the flesh. And they can look shriveled, or they can look diseased. All of us have had the experience of being at the funeral home, going up to a casket, and saying, “That just doesn't look like Dad. It just doesn't look like Grandma.” And it’s sad, the deterioration of our physical bodies. And what we need to have assured in our head is that we will stand at those caskets, and look at those made-up faces and know, right at that very moment, she lives. You look at father lying in his casket, dead. But he lives!
Death for the Christian means life. And when they die, they live and they do not die again. They will be priests of God and Christ and will reign with Him during this entire church age. Now, I hope you know this. And believe it. There are people that are not Christians in the world who never think of death. They do everything else except their own mortality. Our whole culture, sometimes it seems, our economy is built on not dying, getting healthy, getting fit, having all the insurance you need, always being safe, and never dying. I understand that a non-Christian would feel that way. What I don't understand is the way some Christians talk. You would be hard-pressed to think that life after death even matters.
I read one author who explained why eternal life is called eternal. Eternal life is called eternal, he says, not because it has to do with eternity after we die, but because it touches God the Spirit, who is eternal. So we have this life here on earth, which is kind of an eternal life that touches the spirits. That’s not the whole story, not by a long shot. There are other Christians, and I want to say this with all due respect, because I do not want to exchange one imbalance for another, but there are some Christians who are so busy only--that is the important word -- only talking about making the world a better place, or bringing shalom, or renewing creation that they never talk about what happens when you die. But face it, you are going to die. I am going to die. And we can talk all about how we follow Christ and we make the world a better place. And we help the poor. And we want to help the poor, but you also have to think what are the new heavens and the new Earth? It is just not no more cancer, it's not just that people are no longer sad. The new heavens and the new earth is where God reigns and is All in All, and where we are ultimately, abundantly satisfied in Christ. And if that is not part of your mission to the poor, you're not fully bringing the kingdom that is to come.
If your Christian faith does not help you die well, then either your faith isn't worth much, or your Christianity isn't worth much. People live and talk and preach and they make decisions in life as if there were no eternity. And it is an absolute travesty that it happens in the church. I’m fired up because I spent a week at our denomination's General Synod and I wondered, “Does anybody here believe that Hell is real? That Heaven is real?” Or are we just playing games. Do we mourn as those who have no hope, or more likely, do we live as if there were no hope beyond this life? Paul says it very clearly, “There is no hope beyond this life, if there is no resurrection.” If there is no living and reigning with Christ, we are of all men most to be pitied. If you don't get anything with Christ after you die, forget it. Don't put another dollar in the plate, walk out of here, forget it. You are wasting your time as a Christian. If you do not really believe that something happens after you die, do not come here. Well I shouldn't say that. Come and learn, but don't just sit and pretend like you're a Christian.
Death means life. It is always sad when someone is sick. It is always sad when somebody dies. It is always sad when someone is dying. But as Christians we do not mourn as those who have no hope. Pity those who are left behind, no pity for those who go ahead of us and die and reign. You see this Millennium, which Christians argue about, it is not some esoteric thing to write PhD’s on. If I am correct in what I have explained this morning, the Millennium is a great engine of hope. This is what it was meant to do for the first Christians. This is what it is meant to do for us. Love has won. Christ has conquered. The nations belonged to Him. All of you who call upon the name of Jesus belong to Him. And in a moment of your death -- and you'll have loved ones who will mourn and weep and right they should. But in the moment of your death, you go on to live and reign for a thousand years. Blessed and holy is the one who shares in the first resurrection! Over such the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ as they will reign with Him a thousand years.
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Making Sense of the Millennium, Part 1
Over at Justin Taylor's blog, there's been talk of the millennium and Revelation 20. That has prompted me to trot out (portions of) some transcribed sermons from a few years ago. This first message is part of my first sermon on Revelation 20:1-6.
*****
Now let’s come to Revelation 20. You’ll notice quickly that I believe that the text lends itself to an amillennial interpretation. And hopefully, that’s not just because I want to pick a camp that Reformed people are in, but because it is, in fact, biblical. But I encourage you to be Bereans and search the scriptures for yourselves on these things. The millennium question does matter, but I certainly think it’s less important than many people have made it to be. So, let’s look at the text, and try to answer three questions. Number 1: When does the millennium occur? And if I convince you of that, well then you’ve bought it all. Number 2: What is meant by Satan being bound for 1000 years? And then, in the following sermon, we’ll do Number 3: How are we to understand verse 4, where it says they came to life and reigned with Christ 1000 years?
Question Number One: When does the Millenium occur?
Here’s the simplest way to put it. The millenium occurs before Christ’s second coming, before Christ’s second coming. Look at verse 7. “When the 1000 years are over”–so this is after the millenium--“Satan will be released from his prison.” This is what I understand to be a time of tribulation where Satan is given a short time to persecute the church as he never has before. “Satan will be released from prison and will go out to deceive the nations and the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them for battle. In number they are like the sand on the seashore. They march across the breadth of the earth, surrounding the camp of God’s people. Fire came down and devoured them, and the devil is thrown into the lake of burning sulfur.”
All of this happens after the Millenium. Now anybody can see that. It says right here, when the 1000 years are over. So, the key is understanding that this battle scene describe here is the same as the battle scenes we’ve seen described three or four times in Revelation already. The premillennialists, again not our enemies, I just disagree with them on this point, the premillennialists would say Chapter 19, Christ comes, he takes up the believers, and then he sets up his kingdom. And then Chapter 20, there’s some sort of coming again, at least if you’re dispensational. And there’s a final battle where he destroys the devil, after the Millennial Age. And I want to argue, as I have before, that the battle in Chapter 20 is the same as the ones we’ve seen before.
So, turn back to Chapter 9. I did this last week, I’ll do it very briefly this week. There are at least four times where there is a final battle scene described. Chapter 9, verse 13, the sixth angel sounded his trumpet, said release the four angels who were bound at the great river Euphrates. And they were released to kill a third of mankind, and the number of the mounted troops was 200,000,000. So, there is a final battle scene--all these troops gathering at the Euphrates, which I understand to be symbolic.
That was the sixth trumpet, now look also at 16:12, the sixth bowl poured out on the river Euphrates. The waters dry up, three spirits looking like frogs perform miraculous signs. They go out to the kings of the whole world. They deceive them, they gather them for battle on the great day of the Lord. There’s another – same battle scene,
Chapter 19, verse 19, then I saw the beasts and the kings of the earth, and their armies gathered together to make war against the rider on the horse, and the beast was captured and with him, the false prophets. There’s another final battle scene. Three times in Revelation, we have ho polemos. Polemos is the word for war in Greek. Ho is the definite article, the. Three times, Chapter 16, Chapter 19, and Chapter 20, we read of THE battle, or THE war.
So, Chapter 20, the beginning takes us back prior to the end of Chapter 19, and we’ve seen this time and time again in Revelation. That Revelation works in parallelism. You have the three seals, and boom, the end of the world, lighting thunders, and then let’s look at it again, and there’s three trumpets, end of the world. Back up, three bowls. And each time it’s not exactly the same. Each time gets a little more intense, and it catapults us a little closer to the end. We keep zooming in closer to the end. So, the trumpets look a little bit more at the end. The bowls look a little more at the end, and now we’re focusing mostly on the end of the age. But it’s repeating. This has happened before in Chapter 6, the seals. At end, who can stand the wrath of the Lamb. And then Chapter 7 opens with a vision of the 144,000 who are sealed. Which takes us back prior to those events to show us who will stand.
Or, if you look in Chapter 16, at the very end, verse 19. God remembered Babylon the Great and gave her the cup filled with the wine and the fury of his wrath. So, Babylon is taken down in Chapter 16. But then we back up the truck in Chapters 17 and 18, and we zero in on Babylon again. And so time and time again, we see Revelation does not work in a strictly chronological order. And so that’s what’s happening here. Chapter 19, we have the battle, Christ returns at the end, and then we take a step back now and we’re looking at what happens before that battle, leading up to one more final battle scene in Chapter 20, verse 7. You with me? This is why nobody gets the book.
Now, if the binding of Satan takes place chronologically after Chapter 19, we are left with a puzzling question. What’s the point? Look at Chapter 19, verse 17. An angel stands, calls to the birds, come and gather together for the great supper of God so that you may eat the flesh of kings, generals, mighty men, horses, riders, flesh of all people, free and slave, small and great. That’s pretty comprehensive. I mean the bad guys are totally wiped out. So, if that happened and then the binding of Satan happens, you have to ask, “What’s the point? Why does Satan need to be bound? There’s nobody left.” Christ has already destroyed everybody. The birds are circling. They’re poking their eyes out. So, it makes much more sense that we’re looking back now before this end. So, I would argue that the Millennium is the age of the triumph of the gospel inaugurated by Christ in his death, resurrection, and ascension. Let me say that again. The millenium is the age of the triumph of the gospel inaugurated--that means begun--by Christ in his death, resurrection, and ascension. So, this church age, stretching from Christ’s first coming to his second coming, is the Millennium. So, I argue that we are in the Millennium. So, amillennial doesn’t mean I don’t believe in the Millennium. It means I don’t believe in earthly Millennium where Christ is sitting on the throne reigning. But we are in this Millennial Age.
And it goes without saying by this point that I don’t believe that the Millennium is a literal 1000 years. We’re already over 2000 years getting there. But you think what number in Revelation has been literal? We’ve argued the 144,000 are not literal. The 1260 days, the times, times, and half of times, the 200,000,000 mounted troops, all of the sevens, the twelves, the fours. The numbers are symbols. And think of all the symbols that have not been taken literally. Even, I think the strictest dispensationalist would not take most of these literal. A prostitute, a beast, a second beast, a pregnant woman, a bride, a groom, eating a scroll, seven heads, ten horns, fire coming from the mouths of the two witnesses, Christ killing people with a sword in his mouth, blood as high as a horses bridle for 200 miles. John saw all of these things. It’s not that they’re untrue, don’t hear that. But they point to something else. Just look at the immediate context here. Think of what John sees. Well, we had the dragon chained up in an abyss. To me, this seems to be more than a little metaphorical. There’s not literally a dragon somewhere in the core of the earth chained up. And so it makes sense that the 1000 years are also part of the symbolism not to be taken literally. So, when does the Millennium occur? It’s occurring right now, prior to Christ’s return.
Question Number Two: What is meant then by Satan being bound for 1000 years?
This is our last question for this morning. We’ll do number three next week.
At this point you may be saying, “I’ve been here for enough of Revelation. I’m sort of tracking with the first question. I understand the parallelism. I mean goodness, you say that every single week. I think I’m getting the hang of it now. Okay, I can get that, but is Satan really bound right now? Come on. Look at my life. Look what’s going on in the world. Is Satan really bound?”
I’m going to take you to a few passages in the gospels. First is Mark, Chapter 3. I will explain in just a few minutes what it means that Satan is bound, because it certainly doesn’t mean he’s inactive in the world. But I do believe that the binding of Satan occurred in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Turn to Mark 3:23. This is where some of the teachers of the law are accusing Jesus of being possessed by demons. And Jesus says, “How can Satan drive out Satan?” In other words, “I’m casting out demons. I can't do that by the power of demons.” “If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. If a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand. And if Satan opposes himself and is divided, he cannot stand. In fact, no one can enter a strong man’s house and carry off his possession unless he first ties up the strong man. Then he can rob his house. I tell you the truth, all the sins and blasphemies of men will be forgiven, but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven. He is guilty of eternal sin. He said this because they were saying he has an evil spirit.” I want to look in particular at verse 27. Jesus is implicitly giving an explanation of what his ministry is like. He’s saying, “I don’t cast out demons by demons. A house divided against itself can't stand.” And he describes himself as one who is entering a strong man’s house to carry off his possessions, to expel these demons. He says you can't do that unless you first tie up the strong man, who is Satan. Now, the word translated “ties up” is the Greek word deo. And it is the same word used in Revelation, Chapter 20, that’s translated bound. Satan is tied up. The strong man is tied up. Jesus understood himself, that in his ministry, he was, in effect, tying up Satan in knots.
Let me give you another example. Luke, Chapter 10. Luke Chapter 10, verse 17, Jesus here has sent out the 72 disciples to go on a short-term mission trip, and to go preach about the kingdom, and to do signs and wonders. And then they return in verse 17. It’s says the 72 return with joy and said, “Lord, even the demons submit to us in your name.” Then verse 18, he replied, “I saw Satan fall like lightening from heaven.” In other words, Jesus tells the disciples, in your ministry, in your gospel kingdom ministry, I saw Satan fall. I saw him cast down. The word here is similar to the word – actually, to the concept in Revelation, Chapter 12, which we’ll see in just a moment, where the great dragon is hurled down. So, Jesus understands that, in the ministry of the gospel, Satan has already fallen. He’s already been cast down.
One more passage. John, Chapter 12. And this is maybe most significant. John, Chapter 12, verse 31. Jesus says, “Now is the time. Now is the time for judgment on this world. Now the prince of this world will be driven out.” Jesus says in my ministry, in my death and resurrection, the prince of this world, Satan, will be driven out. The word is ekballo. The word used in Revelation 20, verse 3, when it says Satan was thrown down into the abyss is ballo, they’re cognates. And then look at verse 32, because this is significant. But when I, “when I’m lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself.” Now why is that significant? Because in Revelation, Chapter 20, as we’ll see more in just a moment, the purpose of binding Satan is so that he can no longer deceive the nations. And so you see the connection. In Revelation, Chapter 20, Satan is bound so that he can no longer deceive the nations. In John 12, Jesus says the prince of the world is cast out, he’s thrown down, he’s driven out. And then “I’ll draw all men unto myselves.” Not meaning every person everywhere will believe, but all men, all types of men, all peoples. It’s the truth of Colossians 2:15, “Having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them trifling over them by the cross.” We underestimate what Jesus did on the cross, and the defeat that he handed to Satan.
Now let me show you a couple of other places in Revelation, and then we’ll conclude with some application. Look at Revelation, Chapter 11. We won’t read through the account of the two witnesses, but the two witnesses are metaphors for the church. And Chapter 11 shows us a picture of the church that is both vulnerable and invincible. They’re trampled upon, but they also breathe out fire. And they’re also brought back to life. This is a picture of the church in this age. Yes, persecuted. Yes, attacked. Yes, under assault. But ultimately, God has promised us she’ll be victorious. Which is the point of Chapter 20.
Let me show you the other passage, which is more to the point. In Revelation, Chapter 12, look at verse 7. Now if we had time, I could show you, there’s about seven or eight parallels between Revelation 12 and Revelation 20. Verse 7 says there was war in heaven. So, we’re looking at heaven. Revelation 20 is a scene of throne rooms and souls in heaven. Michael and his angels fought against the dragon and the dragon and his angels fought back, but he was not strong enough. They lost their place in heaven. The great dragon was hurled down. That ancient serpent called the devil or Satan. It’s the same fourfold description of the devil that we have in Chapter 20.
But what about, “Who leads the whole world astray?” Now here’s where we need to hold two truths intention. And there’s a word that’s very important, that’s different. Satan is the one who leads the whole world astray, and yet Satan is bound so that he may no longer deceive the nations. Not the same thing. The world is according to John the lust of the eyes, the pride of life, fleshliness, its corruption. Satan leads the world astray. But he’s bound such that the nations, people groups, countries, missions can be successful. So, he is a deceiver. He is leading astray. But the nations are also coming to Christ. And it goes on in Chapter 12 and it talks about those who are martyrs for the testimony. It’s very similar scene. We don’t have time to look at it any more than this.
Two Points of Application
So, here’s where we need to finish. You’re saying, I see some parallels with the gospels, and Satan maybe is bound and he’s defeated. But what exactly does it mean to say Satan is bound now? Look at verse 3 of Chapter 20. It gives us the answer. They threw him into the abyss and locked and sealed it over him to keep him from deceiving the nations any more till the 1000 years were ended. After that, he must be set free for a short time. The binding of Satan does not mean that he can’t harm, or that he isn’t active, or that he doesn’t tempt you, or that he doesn’t need to be resisted, or fled from. The binding of Satan means two things in particular.
First, the binding of Satan means that he cannot deceive the nations and gather them together to wipe out the church. When it says in verse 3, cannot deceive the nations, compare that with verse 7. Here’s what he will do when he deceives the nations. When the 1000 years are over, Satan will be released from his prison, will go out to deceive the nations, and the four corners of the earth, to gather them for battle. So, the deception here is to gather all of his forces, to gather the nations against Christ and his church. And because of Christ’s work in the gospel, Satan is unable to do that. No matter what persecution there is, he will not be able to wipe out the church. If Satan were not bound, the church would’ve been gone long ago. That’s the first thing.
Second, the binding of Satan means that the nations will no longer be in times of ignorance, but will be responsive to the gospel. That’s where it says “he will keep him from deceiving the nations anymore.” So, Paul, in Acts, Chapter 14, speaking in Lystra, says, “In the past, God let all nations go their own way.” In Athens, he said, “In the past, God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. In Ephesians 2, he says, “The nations used to be strangers and aliens to God’s promise.” And in John’s gospel we read that Christ is drawing all men, all peoples to himself. Revelation 20, read in light of these passages, becomes a missions text. Satan’s reign has come to an end and Christ is conquering the nations.
In A.D. 100, less than 1% of the world’s population was Christian. And only 6% had been evangelized. By A.D. 500, 20% of the world were Christians, 30% had been evangelized. And then Christendom takes place, and the growth of the church numerically stagnates. But then by the end of the 18th Century, the modern missionary movement begins, so that by 1900 now 35% of the world were Christians, and 46 % had been evangelized. And by the year 2000, roughly the same percentage of the world, much larger in total number, are Christians, and now 73% of the people, 3/4th have a viable witness to Jesus Christ. There are 12,000 people groups on the planet, and most of them have a church. Now there are still thousands, small ones, interior tribes, that don’t. But peoples have been coming to Christ. Matthew 24:14, “The gospel of the kingdom will be preached and the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.” So, I am confident that evil will grow. And I am equally confident that the gospel will go forth and the great commission will be completed. Nobody likes goals that you never intend to make. But the church will fulfill the great commission. And all nations will hear of Christ. So let this be an encouragement.
Here’s the application. Go to the hard places if you hear Christ calling you there. Far away places that scare mom and dad. Urban centers, not just the cool ones where all the young professionals live, the burned over ones. Dangerous ones. Let this be a call to pour ourselves into international ministry. Resources, time, people, prayers, because the nations will come to Christ. Because Satan is bound. Let this be an incentive for personal evangelism. Who know who Christ is right now drawing unto himself. I hope that by the fall we can have an evangelism program and some people trained to do an evangelism program in our church, and maybe in our communities, and your office, in your neighborhood. Backyard vacation bible schools going on.
Be bold in your witness. Christ has conquered. The nations belong to Him. We are not serving a defeated king, but one who is triumphed and has so bound Satan, not so that we will never be tempted. But so that the nations, Afghanistan, North Korea, Iraq, Japan, the Netherlands, Ireland, can come to know Christ. And there will be a witness among every people to Jesus because of his work.
*****
Now let’s come to Revelation 20. You’ll notice quickly that I believe that the text lends itself to an amillennial interpretation. And hopefully, that’s not just because I want to pick a camp that Reformed people are in, but because it is, in fact, biblical. But I encourage you to be Bereans and search the scriptures for yourselves on these things. The millennium question does matter, but I certainly think it’s less important than many people have made it to be. So, let’s look at the text, and try to answer three questions. Number 1: When does the millennium occur? And if I convince you of that, well then you’ve bought it all. Number 2: What is meant by Satan being bound for 1000 years? And then, in the following sermon, we’ll do Number 3: How are we to understand verse 4, where it says they came to life and reigned with Christ 1000 years?
Question Number One: When does the Millenium occur?
Here’s the simplest way to put it. The millenium occurs before Christ’s second coming, before Christ’s second coming. Look at verse 7. “When the 1000 years are over”–so this is after the millenium--“Satan will be released from his prison.” This is what I understand to be a time of tribulation where Satan is given a short time to persecute the church as he never has before. “Satan will be released from prison and will go out to deceive the nations and the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them for battle. In number they are like the sand on the seashore. They march across the breadth of the earth, surrounding the camp of God’s people. Fire came down and devoured them, and the devil is thrown into the lake of burning sulfur.”
All of this happens after the Millenium. Now anybody can see that. It says right here, when the 1000 years are over. So, the key is understanding that this battle scene describe here is the same as the battle scenes we’ve seen described three or four times in Revelation already. The premillennialists, again not our enemies, I just disagree with them on this point, the premillennialists would say Chapter 19, Christ comes, he takes up the believers, and then he sets up his kingdom. And then Chapter 20, there’s some sort of coming again, at least if you’re dispensational. And there’s a final battle where he destroys the devil, after the Millennial Age. And I want to argue, as I have before, that the battle in Chapter 20 is the same as the ones we’ve seen before.
So, turn back to Chapter 9. I did this last week, I’ll do it very briefly this week. There are at least four times where there is a final battle scene described. Chapter 9, verse 13, the sixth angel sounded his trumpet, said release the four angels who were bound at the great river Euphrates. And they were released to kill a third of mankind, and the number of the mounted troops was 200,000,000. So, there is a final battle scene--all these troops gathering at the Euphrates, which I understand to be symbolic.
That was the sixth trumpet, now look also at 16:12, the sixth bowl poured out on the river Euphrates. The waters dry up, three spirits looking like frogs perform miraculous signs. They go out to the kings of the whole world. They deceive them, they gather them for battle on the great day of the Lord. There’s another – same battle scene,
Chapter 19, verse 19, then I saw the beasts and the kings of the earth, and their armies gathered together to make war against the rider on the horse, and the beast was captured and with him, the false prophets. There’s another final battle scene. Three times in Revelation, we have ho polemos. Polemos is the word for war in Greek. Ho is the definite article, the. Three times, Chapter 16, Chapter 19, and Chapter 20, we read of THE battle, or THE war.
So, Chapter 20, the beginning takes us back prior to the end of Chapter 19, and we’ve seen this time and time again in Revelation. That Revelation works in parallelism. You have the three seals, and boom, the end of the world, lighting thunders, and then let’s look at it again, and there’s three trumpets, end of the world. Back up, three bowls. And each time it’s not exactly the same. Each time gets a little more intense, and it catapults us a little closer to the end. We keep zooming in closer to the end. So, the trumpets look a little bit more at the end. The bowls look a little more at the end, and now we’re focusing mostly on the end of the age. But it’s repeating. This has happened before in Chapter 6, the seals. At end, who can stand the wrath of the Lamb. And then Chapter 7 opens with a vision of the 144,000 who are sealed. Which takes us back prior to those events to show us who will stand.
Or, if you look in Chapter 16, at the very end, verse 19. God remembered Babylon the Great and gave her the cup filled with the wine and the fury of his wrath. So, Babylon is taken down in Chapter 16. But then we back up the truck in Chapters 17 and 18, and we zero in on Babylon again. And so time and time again, we see Revelation does not work in a strictly chronological order. And so that’s what’s happening here. Chapter 19, we have the battle, Christ returns at the end, and then we take a step back now and we’re looking at what happens before that battle, leading up to one more final battle scene in Chapter 20, verse 7. You with me? This is why nobody gets the book.
Now, if the binding of Satan takes place chronologically after Chapter 19, we are left with a puzzling question. What’s the point? Look at Chapter 19, verse 17. An angel stands, calls to the birds, come and gather together for the great supper of God so that you may eat the flesh of kings, generals, mighty men, horses, riders, flesh of all people, free and slave, small and great. That’s pretty comprehensive. I mean the bad guys are totally wiped out. So, if that happened and then the binding of Satan happens, you have to ask, “What’s the point? Why does Satan need to be bound? There’s nobody left.” Christ has already destroyed everybody. The birds are circling. They’re poking their eyes out. So, it makes much more sense that we’re looking back now before this end. So, I would argue that the Millennium is the age of the triumph of the gospel inaugurated by Christ in his death, resurrection, and ascension. Let me say that again. The millenium is the age of the triumph of the gospel inaugurated--that means begun--by Christ in his death, resurrection, and ascension. So, this church age, stretching from Christ’s first coming to his second coming, is the Millennium. So, I argue that we are in the Millennium. So, amillennial doesn’t mean I don’t believe in the Millennium. It means I don’t believe in earthly Millennium where Christ is sitting on the throne reigning. But we are in this Millennial Age.
And it goes without saying by this point that I don’t believe that the Millennium is a literal 1000 years. We’re already over 2000 years getting there. But you think what number in Revelation has been literal? We’ve argued the 144,000 are not literal. The 1260 days, the times, times, and half of times, the 200,000,000 mounted troops, all of the sevens, the twelves, the fours. The numbers are symbols. And think of all the symbols that have not been taken literally. Even, I think the strictest dispensationalist would not take most of these literal. A prostitute, a beast, a second beast, a pregnant woman, a bride, a groom, eating a scroll, seven heads, ten horns, fire coming from the mouths of the two witnesses, Christ killing people with a sword in his mouth, blood as high as a horses bridle for 200 miles. John saw all of these things. It’s not that they’re untrue, don’t hear that. But they point to something else. Just look at the immediate context here. Think of what John sees. Well, we had the dragon chained up in an abyss. To me, this seems to be more than a little metaphorical. There’s not literally a dragon somewhere in the core of the earth chained up. And so it makes sense that the 1000 years are also part of the symbolism not to be taken literally. So, when does the Millennium occur? It’s occurring right now, prior to Christ’s return.
Question Number Two: What is meant then by Satan being bound for 1000 years?
This is our last question for this morning. We’ll do number three next week.
At this point you may be saying, “I’ve been here for enough of Revelation. I’m sort of tracking with the first question. I understand the parallelism. I mean goodness, you say that every single week. I think I’m getting the hang of it now. Okay, I can get that, but is Satan really bound right now? Come on. Look at my life. Look what’s going on in the world. Is Satan really bound?”
I’m going to take you to a few passages in the gospels. First is Mark, Chapter 3. I will explain in just a few minutes what it means that Satan is bound, because it certainly doesn’t mean he’s inactive in the world. But I do believe that the binding of Satan occurred in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Turn to Mark 3:23. This is where some of the teachers of the law are accusing Jesus of being possessed by demons. And Jesus says, “How can Satan drive out Satan?” In other words, “I’m casting out demons. I can't do that by the power of demons.” “If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. If a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand. And if Satan opposes himself and is divided, he cannot stand. In fact, no one can enter a strong man’s house and carry off his possession unless he first ties up the strong man. Then he can rob his house. I tell you the truth, all the sins and blasphemies of men will be forgiven, but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven. He is guilty of eternal sin. He said this because they were saying he has an evil spirit.” I want to look in particular at verse 27. Jesus is implicitly giving an explanation of what his ministry is like. He’s saying, “I don’t cast out demons by demons. A house divided against itself can't stand.” And he describes himself as one who is entering a strong man’s house to carry off his possessions, to expel these demons. He says you can't do that unless you first tie up the strong man, who is Satan. Now, the word translated “ties up” is the Greek word deo. And it is the same word used in Revelation, Chapter 20, that’s translated bound. Satan is tied up. The strong man is tied up. Jesus understood himself, that in his ministry, he was, in effect, tying up Satan in knots.
Let me give you another example. Luke, Chapter 10. Luke Chapter 10, verse 17, Jesus here has sent out the 72 disciples to go on a short-term mission trip, and to go preach about the kingdom, and to do signs and wonders. And then they return in verse 17. It’s says the 72 return with joy and said, “Lord, even the demons submit to us in your name.” Then verse 18, he replied, “I saw Satan fall like lightening from heaven.” In other words, Jesus tells the disciples, in your ministry, in your gospel kingdom ministry, I saw Satan fall. I saw him cast down. The word here is similar to the word – actually, to the concept in Revelation, Chapter 12, which we’ll see in just a moment, where the great dragon is hurled down. So, Jesus understands that, in the ministry of the gospel, Satan has already fallen. He’s already been cast down.
One more passage. John, Chapter 12. And this is maybe most significant. John, Chapter 12, verse 31. Jesus says, “Now is the time. Now is the time for judgment on this world. Now the prince of this world will be driven out.” Jesus says in my ministry, in my death and resurrection, the prince of this world, Satan, will be driven out. The word is ekballo. The word used in Revelation 20, verse 3, when it says Satan was thrown down into the abyss is ballo, they’re cognates. And then look at verse 32, because this is significant. But when I, “when I’m lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself.” Now why is that significant? Because in Revelation, Chapter 20, as we’ll see more in just a moment, the purpose of binding Satan is so that he can no longer deceive the nations. And so you see the connection. In Revelation, Chapter 20, Satan is bound so that he can no longer deceive the nations. In John 12, Jesus says the prince of the world is cast out, he’s thrown down, he’s driven out. And then “I’ll draw all men unto myselves.” Not meaning every person everywhere will believe, but all men, all types of men, all peoples. It’s the truth of Colossians 2:15, “Having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them trifling over them by the cross.” We underestimate what Jesus did on the cross, and the defeat that he handed to Satan.
Now let me show you a couple of other places in Revelation, and then we’ll conclude with some application. Look at Revelation, Chapter 11. We won’t read through the account of the two witnesses, but the two witnesses are metaphors for the church. And Chapter 11 shows us a picture of the church that is both vulnerable and invincible. They’re trampled upon, but they also breathe out fire. And they’re also brought back to life. This is a picture of the church in this age. Yes, persecuted. Yes, attacked. Yes, under assault. But ultimately, God has promised us she’ll be victorious. Which is the point of Chapter 20.
Let me show you the other passage, which is more to the point. In Revelation, Chapter 12, look at verse 7. Now if we had time, I could show you, there’s about seven or eight parallels between Revelation 12 and Revelation 20. Verse 7 says there was war in heaven. So, we’re looking at heaven. Revelation 20 is a scene of throne rooms and souls in heaven. Michael and his angels fought against the dragon and the dragon and his angels fought back, but he was not strong enough. They lost their place in heaven. The great dragon was hurled down. That ancient serpent called the devil or Satan. It’s the same fourfold description of the devil that we have in Chapter 20.
But what about, “Who leads the whole world astray?” Now here’s where we need to hold two truths intention. And there’s a word that’s very important, that’s different. Satan is the one who leads the whole world astray, and yet Satan is bound so that he may no longer deceive the nations. Not the same thing. The world is according to John the lust of the eyes, the pride of life, fleshliness, its corruption. Satan leads the world astray. But he’s bound such that the nations, people groups, countries, missions can be successful. So, he is a deceiver. He is leading astray. But the nations are also coming to Christ. And it goes on in Chapter 12 and it talks about those who are martyrs for the testimony. It’s very similar scene. We don’t have time to look at it any more than this.
Two Points of Application
So, here’s where we need to finish. You’re saying, I see some parallels with the gospels, and Satan maybe is bound and he’s defeated. But what exactly does it mean to say Satan is bound now? Look at verse 3 of Chapter 20. It gives us the answer. They threw him into the abyss and locked and sealed it over him to keep him from deceiving the nations any more till the 1000 years were ended. After that, he must be set free for a short time. The binding of Satan does not mean that he can’t harm, or that he isn’t active, or that he doesn’t tempt you, or that he doesn’t need to be resisted, or fled from. The binding of Satan means two things in particular.
First, the binding of Satan means that he cannot deceive the nations and gather them together to wipe out the church. When it says in verse 3, cannot deceive the nations, compare that with verse 7. Here’s what he will do when he deceives the nations. When the 1000 years are over, Satan will be released from his prison, will go out to deceive the nations, and the four corners of the earth, to gather them for battle. So, the deception here is to gather all of his forces, to gather the nations against Christ and his church. And because of Christ’s work in the gospel, Satan is unable to do that. No matter what persecution there is, he will not be able to wipe out the church. If Satan were not bound, the church would’ve been gone long ago. That’s the first thing.
Second, the binding of Satan means that the nations will no longer be in times of ignorance, but will be responsive to the gospel. That’s where it says “he will keep him from deceiving the nations anymore.” So, Paul, in Acts, Chapter 14, speaking in Lystra, says, “In the past, God let all nations go their own way.” In Athens, he said, “In the past, God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. In Ephesians 2, he says, “The nations used to be strangers and aliens to God’s promise.” And in John’s gospel we read that Christ is drawing all men, all peoples to himself. Revelation 20, read in light of these passages, becomes a missions text. Satan’s reign has come to an end and Christ is conquering the nations.
In A.D. 100, less than 1% of the world’s population was Christian. And only 6% had been evangelized. By A.D. 500, 20% of the world were Christians, 30% had been evangelized. And then Christendom takes place, and the growth of the church numerically stagnates. But then by the end of the 18th Century, the modern missionary movement begins, so that by 1900 now 35% of the world were Christians, and 46 % had been evangelized. And by the year 2000, roughly the same percentage of the world, much larger in total number, are Christians, and now 73% of the people, 3/4th have a viable witness to Jesus Christ. There are 12,000 people groups on the planet, and most of them have a church. Now there are still thousands, small ones, interior tribes, that don’t. But peoples have been coming to Christ. Matthew 24:14, “The gospel of the kingdom will be preached and the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.” So, I am confident that evil will grow. And I am equally confident that the gospel will go forth and the great commission will be completed. Nobody likes goals that you never intend to make. But the church will fulfill the great commission. And all nations will hear of Christ. So let this be an encouragement.
Here’s the application. Go to the hard places if you hear Christ calling you there. Far away places that scare mom and dad. Urban centers, not just the cool ones where all the young professionals live, the burned over ones. Dangerous ones. Let this be a call to pour ourselves into international ministry. Resources, time, people, prayers, because the nations will come to Christ. Because Satan is bound. Let this be an incentive for personal evangelism. Who know who Christ is right now drawing unto himself. I hope that by the fall we can have an evangelism program and some people trained to do an evangelism program in our church, and maybe in our communities, and your office, in your neighborhood. Backyard vacation bible schools going on.
Be bold in your witness. Christ has conquered. The nations belong to Him. We are not serving a defeated king, but one who is triumphed and has so bound Satan, not so that we will never be tempted. But so that the nations, Afghanistan, North Korea, Iraq, Japan, the Netherlands, Ireland, can come to know Christ. And there will be a witness among every people to Jesus because of his work.
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Thinking About the Kingdom
Last week I preached on Mark 1:14-15 where Jesus delivers his first sermon: “The kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.” In this one sentence we find four of the most important words in the New Testament: kingdom, gospel, repent, and believe. Although we are familiar with these four terms, many Christians would struggle to articulate an accurate definition of each.This is especially true of “kingdom.” Clearly the kingdom is central to the story of the gospels (basileia occurs 162 times in the New Testament). But what does the word mean? Let me suggest three complementary ways to look at the kingdom. I realize this is not an exegetical study. But perhaps the theological overview will be helpful.
What is the Kingdom ?
1. The kingdom is God’s reign and rule. At its simplest, the kingdom is where the King is. Where God is acknowledged, where his subjects are saved, where his enemies are vanquished, where his ways are obeyed, there we see the coming of the kingdom.
2. The kingdom of God is the long-awaited Messianic rule. Jesus’ prefaced his preaching of the gospel of the kingdom by announcing, “The time is fulfilled...” God’s Messianic rule was explicitly predicted in the Old Testament (e.g., Psalm 2). It was also prefigured in different ways. The Garden of Eden, with its peace, prosperity, absence of sin and suffering, and perfect relationship between God and man, was a picture of the kingdom of God. So was the nation of Israel in the promised land. The covenant blessings were blessings of the kingdom: safety, security, health, prosperity, God’s presence. These blessings reached their zenith under King David. He was a type of the Messianic King to come.
3. The kingdom of God is the age to come breaking in to the present age. Think of what we see in the visions from John and Isaiah of the new heaven and new earth. We see a new kind of Eden: no more tears, no evil, no impurity, perfect security, abundance, and holiness, a place where God is all in all, where the Lamb is worshiped, adored, and obeyed. This is the heavenly age that has broken in to our world with the coming of Christ. In Jesus’ ministry we see the signs of the kingdom. The sick are healed. The hungry are fed. Demons are defeated. Sinners repent and come to God in faith.
With Jesus, the kingdom has arrived, but it hasn’t fully set up shop. The kingdom of this world has not yet become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ (Rev. 11). We have the kingdom now as an appetizer. We can taste it. It is real food, but it’s not the main dish.
A Few Cautions
Whenever we try to define something as big, broad, and potentially confusing as the kingdom, it’s important we state our definition in positives and negatives. So in addition to the three statements above, let me suggest five cautions.
1. Don’t be afraid to talk about the kingdom. Some conservatives avoid preaching the gospel of the kingdom, believing that kingdom talk is for liberals. But Jesus and the apostles showed no such hesitation. The message about God’s reign and rule was hugely significant to their theology and should be to ours as well.
2. Don’t have a truncated view of the kingdom. For many people the kingdom of God equals social services. But the kingdom is not just the alleviation of suffering, it means conquering God’s enemies, ridding the world of impurity, and acknowledging the splendor of the King. So before we get all excited about “doing kingdom work” we should remember that the coming kingdom will not just be devoid of hunger, it will also be devoid of the wicked and unbelieving.
3. Don’t drive a wedge between the church and the kingdom. The church does not equal the kingdom, but in this age the kingdom is largely manifested in the church. That’s where we find the people of the King. That’s where we are supposed to see reconciliation, the alleviation of poverty, the mitigation of suffering, the conquering of evil powers, and the worship of King Jesus. A vision for the kingdom is a vision for the growth, reformation, and revival of the church.
4. Don’t think we build the kingdom. The kingdom is something brought by the King, not something we build. The verbs related to the kingdom in the New Testament aren’t verbs like “build” or “expand,” but verbs like “receive,” “inherit,” and “enter.” The kingdom is a gift that God gives to us, not a project that God expects us to accomplish.
5. Don’t forget to talk about how we enter the kingdom. As Greg Gilbert has pointed out before, we haven’t proclaimed the gospel of the kingdom unless we have told how people they can enter into this kingdom. The good news of the kingdom is not simply that God is in the world establishing his rule, conquering his enemies, righting wrongs, forming a holy people for himself, and reversing the effects of sin and suffering. The good news must also include the message that through Christ’s wrath-bearing death and his glorious resurrection we can be a part of this kingdom. The gospel of the kingdom is no good news unless we tell people how unrighteous, unholy, undeserving sinners can receive this kingdom through repentance for our sins and faith in Jesus Christ, the Son of God.
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
This is Not Good
Rob Bell's theological trajectory is not good. Case in point, this article from the Boston Globe.
Here, for example, is Bell's definition of an evangelical, completely devoid of any theological or historical meaning.
And here's Bell's take on the heart of Christianity:
He gets two points for mentioning resurrection and minus ten points for not mentioning the resurrection, the resurrection of Jesus Christ for the justification of sinners (Rom. 4:25). I think Bell believes in the historical resurrection of Christ, but to tell the Boston Globe that the heart of Christianity is simply our belief that God can bring good out of evil is to sell the farm.
At one point the interviewer notices the Rob doesn't talk about religion or even mention Jesus very much. To which Bell replies:
This is just so confused and unhelpful. It is classic old-school liberalism: Jesus as the fullest flower of fair humanity. The emphasis on creation has swallowed up the biblical notion of redemption. The shocking, vibrant apostolic message centered on the life, death, resurrection, coming kingdom, and coming judgment of Jesus Christ has morphed in a banal, same-old-same-old message about actualizing our humanity.
Yes, there are hucksters for the "faith" trying to cajole people into the kingdom. But before we chide those interested in conversion, we should remember that when King Agrippa asked Paul if he was trying to persuade him to be a Christian, Paul said "I would to God that not only you but also all who hear me this day might become such as I am" (Acts 26:29). And this was after he talked openly--to secular people mind you--about repentance, the sufferings of Christ, and the resurrection of Jesus from the dead.
I want to think Rob's theology is better than what comes across in print. But the fact is that I never hear him in an interview (nor elsewhere for that matter) give an explanation of the gospel or a summary of the heart of Christianity that sounds anything like what we read from Peter, Paul, or Jesus. Rob is trying to help people. I bet he's a nice, sincere guy. I'm sure he faces demands and pressures that I can't imagine. But he keeps getting the most important questions wrong, and his theology keeps getting worse and worse.
I don't know how to say this without sounding really condescending, but we should pray that the Lord would give Rob a clearer sense of the gospel and a courage to share it with all the winsomeness, cultural relevance, forthrightness, and biblical fidelity that Paul displayed at the original Mars Hill in Acts 17. No matter the extremes he may have seen in some unhealthy backwards churches out there, there's no excuse for so frequently and so painfully botching the basic plotline of the Bible and ignoring the most important contours of the faith. With Rob's notoriety, he has no choice but to ignore most of what people say about him. But I hope that he is open to thoughtful criticism. Not from me, but from someone he trusts who can ask some hard questions prod him back to surer ground.
I wouldn't bother to mention Bell except that his influence and his church are larger than life in my old hometown. Emergent Village may be a falling star, but Rob Bell still draws a crowd. Talk to most youth group kids in America and they've not heard of Brian McLaren; they're not reading Joel Osteen; most of them (unfortunately in my opinion) are probably not reading John Piper, and they're certainly reading Kevin DeYoung less than any of those other guys. But they know Rob Bell. He is reaching many people, especially the young.
But, as always, the question is: what is he reaching them with? Not with the good stuff of the good deposit I'm afraid (2 Timothy 1:8-14).
HT: Team Pyro
Here, for example, is Bell's definition of an evangelical, completely devoid of any theological or historical meaning.
I embrace the term evangelical, if by that we mean a belief that we together can actually work for change in the world, caring for the environment, extending to the poor generosity and kindness, a hopeful outlook. That's a beautiful sort of thing.
And here's Bell's take on the heart of Christianity:
At the heart of the Christian story is resurrection, the belief that this world is good, and that, as a follower of Jesus, a belief that God hasn’t abandoned the world, but is actively at work in the world. Even in the midst of what can look like despair and destruction there is a new creation present.
He gets two points for mentioning resurrection and minus ten points for not mentioning the resurrection, the resurrection of Jesus Christ for the justification of sinners (Rom. 4:25). I think Bell believes in the historical resurrection of Christ, but to tell the Boston Globe that the heart of Christianity is simply our belief that God can bring good out of evil is to sell the farm.
At one point the interviewer notices the Rob doesn't talk about religion or even mention Jesus very much. To which Bell replies:
I think we have enough religious people who are going around trying to convert people. My guard is up when somebody is trying to convert me to their thing. Are you talking to me because you actually are interested in this subject, because you care about me as a human, or am I one more possible conversion that will make you feel good about your religiosity? I don’t have any embarrassment about my religion, and it’s not that I'm too cool, but I would hope that the Jesus message would come through, hopefully through a full humanity. If you have something to say, whether you're religious or not, if it is truly Christian and Jesus-centered, then it will help and be interesting and compelling to people, regardless of their world view. But I’m not just interested in talking to Christians. I'm interested in what does it mean to be fully human.
This is just so confused and unhelpful. It is classic old-school liberalism: Jesus as the fullest flower of fair humanity. The emphasis on creation has swallowed up the biblical notion of redemption. The shocking, vibrant apostolic message centered on the life, death, resurrection, coming kingdom, and coming judgment of Jesus Christ has morphed in a banal, same-old-same-old message about actualizing our humanity.
Yes, there are hucksters for the "faith" trying to cajole people into the kingdom. But before we chide those interested in conversion, we should remember that when King Agrippa asked Paul if he was trying to persuade him to be a Christian, Paul said "I would to God that not only you but also all who hear me this day might become such as I am" (Acts 26:29). And this was after he talked openly--to secular people mind you--about repentance, the sufferings of Christ, and the resurrection of Jesus from the dead.
I want to think Rob's theology is better than what comes across in print. But the fact is that I never hear him in an interview (nor elsewhere for that matter) give an explanation of the gospel or a summary of the heart of Christianity that sounds anything like what we read from Peter, Paul, or Jesus. Rob is trying to help people. I bet he's a nice, sincere guy. I'm sure he faces demands and pressures that I can't imagine. But he keeps getting the most important questions wrong, and his theology keeps getting worse and worse.
I don't know how to say this without sounding really condescending, but we should pray that the Lord would give Rob a clearer sense of the gospel and a courage to share it with all the winsomeness, cultural relevance, forthrightness, and biblical fidelity that Paul displayed at the original Mars Hill in Acts 17. No matter the extremes he may have seen in some unhealthy backwards churches out there, there's no excuse for so frequently and so painfully botching the basic plotline of the Bible and ignoring the most important contours of the faith. With Rob's notoriety, he has no choice but to ignore most of what people say about him. But I hope that he is open to thoughtful criticism. Not from me, but from someone he trusts who can ask some hard questions prod him back to surer ground.
I wouldn't bother to mention Bell except that his influence and his church are larger than life in my old hometown. Emergent Village may be a falling star, but Rob Bell still draws a crowd. Talk to most youth group kids in America and they've not heard of Brian McLaren; they're not reading Joel Osteen; most of them (unfortunately in my opinion) are probably not reading John Piper, and they're certainly reading Kevin DeYoung less than any of those other guys. But they know Rob Bell. He is reaching many people, especially the young.
But, as always, the question is: what is he reaching them with? Not with the good stuff of the good deposit I'm afraid (2 Timothy 1:8-14).
HT: Team Pyro
Monday, October 5, 2009
Battle of the Cartoon Theme Songs: Final Four
Update
Congratulations to our fine feathered friends, Duck Tales has won the Battle of the Cartoon Theme Songs. The crime fighting ducks took 44% of the vote, followed by Pinky and the Brain with 34%. Transformers came in third with 12% and G.I. Joe limped home with 8%. Thanks for playing along.
*****
Here it is. The day you've all been waiting for. The day that dozens of people may be talking about for up to three minutes. The Final Four in the battle for cartoon theme song supremacy.
The number one seed is Transformers, which pulled in 60% of the vote in the Robot-Techie division. Transformers has cool toys, successful movies, and some very cool voice-0vers. Most of these players will leave the cartoon early and turn pro. The robots in disguise will be tough to beat
The number two seed is Duck Tales, with over 50% of the vote in the Disney Spin-Off division. Those McDuck nephews are happy, scrappy and full of feathers. They play hard and play as a team. They play with all of Duckberg in the hearts.
The number three seed is G.I. Joe, which garnered 47% of the vote in the Good Guys Saving the Universe division. Admittedly, winning this league is like coming into the tournament out of the Ivy league in basketball. But don't underestimate Joe. He carries a lot of patriotic swagger and can do one-armed push-ups.
The number four seed is Pinky and the Brain, who made it out of the competitive Warner Brothers division with 34% of the vote. Pinky and the Brain is a real dark horse. No one quite knows whether to take their plans for world domination seriously. Could they shock the cartoon world? We'll soon find out.
The theme songs are below. The poll is on the left. Voting will shut down tomorrow. May the best cartoon win.
1. Transformers
2. Duck Tales
3. G.I. Joe
4. Pinky and the Brain
Congratulations to our fine feathered friends, Duck Tales has won the Battle of the Cartoon Theme Songs. The crime fighting ducks took 44% of the vote, followed by Pinky and the Brain with 34%. Transformers came in third with 12% and G.I. Joe limped home with 8%. Thanks for playing along.
*****
Here it is. The day you've all been waiting for. The day that dozens of people may be talking about for up to three minutes. The Final Four in the battle for cartoon theme song supremacy.
The number one seed is Transformers, which pulled in 60% of the vote in the Robot-Techie division. Transformers has cool toys, successful movies, and some very cool voice-0vers. Most of these players will leave the cartoon early and turn pro. The robots in disguise will be tough to beat
The number two seed is Duck Tales, with over 50% of the vote in the Disney Spin-Off division. Those McDuck nephews are happy, scrappy and full of feathers. They play hard and play as a team. They play with all of Duckberg in the hearts.
The number three seed is G.I. Joe, which garnered 47% of the vote in the Good Guys Saving the Universe division. Admittedly, winning this league is like coming into the tournament out of the Ivy league in basketball. But don't underestimate Joe. He carries a lot of patriotic swagger and can do one-armed push-ups.
The number four seed is Pinky and the Brain, who made it out of the competitive Warner Brothers division with 34% of the vote. Pinky and the Brain is a real dark horse. No one quite knows whether to take their plans for world domination seriously. Could they shock the cartoon world? We'll soon find out.
The theme songs are below. The poll is on the left. Voting will shut down tomorrow. May the best cartoon win.
1. Transformers
2. Duck Tales
3. G.I. Joe
4. Pinky and the Brain
Saturday, October 3, 2009
Book Log: September 2009
1. John Piper. The Justification of God: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Romans 9:1-23, Second Edition. Written while Piper was teaching at Bethel College, this is an academic book not for the faint of heart. But the payoff is tremendous. Richard Muller’s blurb is right: “The Justification of God [is] the most compelling and forceful exposition of Romans 9:1-23 that I have ever seen.”
2. Ted Kluck. The Reason for Sports. Funny, entertaining, thought provoking. If you love sports you’ll love this book.
3. Richard Stearns. The Hole In Our Gospel: What Does God Expect of Us? The Answer that Changed My Life and Might Just Change the World. Much to commend–compelling personal story, humble spirit, passion for those suffering and in need. But theology of the gospel, criticisms of the church, and plan for changing the world are off the mark at times. (I'm going to write a longer review on this book in the future.)
4. Jim Belcher. Deep Church: A Third Way Beyond Emerging and Traditional. Orthodox in theology. Avoids and exposes the worst of the emerging movement, but I’m not sure this is genuinely a third way.
5. Cornelis P. Venema. Christ and the Future: The Bible’s Teaching About the Last Things. A wonderful resource and introduction to eschatology from an amillennial perspective. Reads like an updated Hoekema.
2. Ted Kluck. The Reason for Sports. Funny, entertaining, thought provoking. If you love sports you’ll love this book.
3. Richard Stearns. The Hole In Our Gospel: What Does God Expect of Us? The Answer that Changed My Life and Might Just Change the World. Much to commend–compelling personal story, humble spirit, passion for those suffering and in need. But theology of the gospel, criticisms of the church, and plan for changing the world are off the mark at times. (I'm going to write a longer review on this book in the future.)
4. Jim Belcher. Deep Church: A Third Way Beyond Emerging and Traditional. Orthodox in theology. Avoids and exposes the worst of the emerging movement, but I’m not sure this is genuinely a third way.
5. Cornelis P. Venema. Christ and the Future: The Bible’s Teaching About the Last Things. A wonderful resource and introduction to eschatology from an amillennial perspective. Reads like an updated Hoekema.
Friday, October 2, 2009
A Few More Thoughts on Church Membership
When I wrote about the importance of membership earlier this week a few people objected that I only provided pragmatic reasons for church membership, not actual biblical reasons. I happen to think that my pragmatic reasons were rooted in biblical principles, but nevertheless, there are more explicitly chapter-and-verse arguments that can be made in support of church membership.
My good friend Jason Helopoulos, a PCA church planter in East Lansing, offers this by way of bolstering my argument:
Likewise, R. Scott Clark weighed in on his blog with biblical support for official church membership:
The bottom line is that if you are looking for a verse that talks about a membership class and certificates of transfer, you won't find it. But if you are looking for the concepts of a defined in/out community, record-keeping, covenant making, and submission to a recognized body that exercises authority over the circumscribed group, you can find all of that in both testaments.
Oh yeah, and the word member is in the Bible too.
My good friend Jason Helopoulos, a PCA church planter in East Lansing, offers this by way of bolstering my argument:
It saddens me when I hear people make the claim that the Scriptures are not definitive on the need for church membership. It seems to me that even in just looking at the New Testament (let alone the passages in the OT that we could cite) that there is sufficient reason to not only suggest, but promote the need for church membership. 1 Corinthians 5 is a classic passage in this regard. Paul’s whole argument is based upon the idea that there is a defined church which includes membership. He writes, “Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge?” There is an inside and an outside. They are to “purge the evil person” from their midst. He is to be cast outside the church. What is outside and what is inside if the membership itself is not defined? Paul does the same thing in 2 Corinthians 2:6, “For such a one, this punishment by the majority is enough.” How does one define a “majority” if there is no defined body? These two passages are sufficient for arguing the case, though we could also look at the list of widows in 1 Timothy 5 or even the fact that the Lord Himself keeps a list of those within the Church (Rev. 21:27). All this to say, in addition to the arguments you made in your post, there are biblical “proof texts” for church membership that I would like to suggest to those who are hesitant to embrace it.
Likewise, R. Scott Clark weighed in on his blog with biblical support for official church membership:
In the Old Covenant, God is a bookkeeper. In Exodus 32:32 we see a very interesting phrase. In a prayer, Moses pleads with God not to blot him out of “the Book you have written.” The Lord replies to Moses that He will indeed blot anyone who sins out of His “Book.”46 David declares in Psalm 9.5 that the Lord has “blotted out” the name of his enemies forever.47 In Psalm 40:7 David is assured that his righteousness is written on God’s scroll...
Because God is revealed as a book keeper His Covenant people were also (according to the commandments of God) also book keepers.
There is significant evidence that in the Old Covenant there were membership rolls with the names of all the Covenant families and the Covenant heads of households. Genesis 5:1ff. speaks of the “book of the generations.” Moses worked from existing books in compiling his (selective) genealogies. This idea of membership roll figured conspicuously in the life of the Qahal. Later after the exile when the beginnings of the Synagogue can be traced, there is archeological evidence that there were membership rolls there as well. It took at least twelve men in good standing in the community to form a synagogue.
God commanded Moses in Exodus 17:14 to write down the destruction of the Amelakites because without this record there would not be any. In turn (Deutronomy 25.19), God will “blot out” the Amelakites. In Exodus 24:7 we read of the “Book of the Covenant” which contained the laws by which God’s Covenant people were to live. God commanded Moses to take a census of the people and to make a record of them (Exodus 30:11). Psalm 87:6 speaks of a “register of the peoples” (NIV). Ezekiel 13:9 speaks of a “register of the house of Israel” (NASB). There was a written record of the descendents of Aaron (Nu 3:10). It would seem to be beyond controversy that God’s people kept written records during the Mosaic theocracy. The question remains then whether similar practices continued into the New Covenant era.
There is a great deal of unity and continuity between the Old Covenant conception of the Qahal and the New Covenant Ekklesia. Thus there is good reason to suspect that there is continuity in the practice of record keeping. Remember that in both the Old Covenant and the New Covenant, one had to join the visible assembly and take the sign of the Covenant.
The bottom line is that if you are looking for a verse that talks about a membership class and certificates of transfer, you won't find it. But if you are looking for the concepts of a defined in/out community, record-keeping, covenant making, and submission to a recognized body that exercises authority over the circumscribed group, you can find all of that in both testaments.
Oh yeah, and the word member is in the Bible too.
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Deep Church: A Third Way?
Ah yes, another book on the emergent church. I admit I both really wanted to read this book and really didn’t. The wanting is because, as you may know, I too wrote a book on the emerging church. So naturally I was curious what another author–one with blurbs from the likes of Mark Driscoll, Tim Keller, Rob Bell, Scot McKnight, and Tony Jones–had to say about the movement.But a big part of me didn’t want to read the book. Believe it or not, I don’t live for controversy and I don’t wake up in the morning hoping to jump back into emergenty thoughts. I spent a year of my life researching and writing about the emergent church and then another year teaching and doing interviews about it. That was enough for me. Besides, perhaps I’m naive, but I think most people can now see the emergent movement for what it is. There are enough resources out there now for people to make up their minds and decide whether this is a healthy reform movement or a conversation pushing the boundaries of evangelical faith and sometimes jumping the bounds of orthodoxy itself.
Keeping Up With the Conversation
But, alas, I feel some obligation to keep informed of the conversation. So it was with a feeling of apprehension and intrigue that I read Jim Belcher’s book Deep Church: A Third Way Beyond Emerging and Traditional. I was preparing for the worst when I read in the blurbs that this book “avoids the clamor for extremes” (Scot McKnight), is “the first to be truly gracious” and is great “for any who are tired of straw man arguments and polarizations” (Mark Oestreicher), and rises above “the usual shallow, facile critiques of the emergent church movement” (Tony Jones). I can't help but assume that Why We’re Not Emergent is one of the “extreme”, “straw man”, “facile” critiques they’re thinking of. What would I be getting into with this book?
I am always skeptical of “third way” books anyways. Usually, the “third way” is basically the same as one of the other two ways, only a little nicer. In this case, I was expecting the third way to be emergent-lite with a less caustic attitude toward evangelicals. But actually Belcher was just the opposite. He is an evangelical–a traditional evangelical I would argue–who seems sound in his theology (he is a PCA minister after all), but wants to be non-traditional in a few ways. If I were titling the book I would call it “Why I’m Not Emergent, But I Like Many of the Emergent Folks and I Want to Do Church Differently Too.”
What is Deep Church?
The heart and soul of Deep Church is Belcher’s dream for traditional and emerging camps to find unity in the Great Tradition and not blast each other over second-tier differences (67-68). Chapter 3, “The Quest for Mere Christianity”, is the most important chapter in the book for understanding what Belcher is aiming for with his third way. On the one hand, Belcher wants to avoid the fundamentalist error of seeing every other kind of church as heretical and suspect. On the other hand, he also wants to avoid the liberal error of seeing theology as infinitely malleable. Belcher’s vision is for the traditional church and the emerging church to find common ground in the consensual tradition summed up in the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed (54ff.).
Second-tier doctrines are not unimportant. Many of them are weighty, and individual churches will come down in different places relative to these doctrines. But binding all churches together is a tradition of orthodoxy. It’s the Great Tradition, then, that matters most, not our respective traditions. For the Great Tradition unifies us and ought to arouse our greatest passion. Belcher's book is a winsome plea for a return to Mere Christianity and the humility and unity that goes with it.
What Are the Camps?
The traditional camp is not well-defined by Belcher (a weakness I’ll come back to later). At times it seems to be the same as fundamentalism (61). In other places, the traditional camp refers to anyone who has critiqued the emergent movement, including John MacArthur, Ron Gleason, Kevin DeYoung, Ted Kluck, and D.A. Carson. Belcher acknowledges the traditional camp is not monolithic. But he suggests “the groups comprising traditional evangelicalism share similar views of culture, epistemology and the church” (10). Still, in the end, I’m not sure what makes someone a part of the traditional camp in Belcher's estimation, other than that they have been critical of the emergent camp.
Having said that, Belcher’s analysis of the emergent side is much more helpful. I won’t retell his own story, but Belcher has the advantage of having been an insider in the movement at its inception. He knows the journey of the emerging church well and he knows well many of the key players. This is what makes his book unique and why the emergents have received it more warmly. Carson was a total outsider in their minds. Ted and I were at least demographically similar and culturally conversant, but still outsiders. Jim is a true insider.
But also an outsider. He writes: “As much as I feel like an insider to the conversation, I also feel at times like an outsider because of some reservations I have with aspects of the emerging conversation” (28). Similar to what Ted and I said in Why We’re Not Emergent, Belcher feels like emerging voices are raising good questions, but their answers are often disturbing. Similar to Carson, Belcher defines the emerging movement (which he makes clear is not identical to Emergent Village) as a protest movement.
The emerging church is protesting against the traditional church on seven fronts: (1) Captivity to Enlightenment rationalism. (2) A narrow view of salvation. (3) Belief before belonging. (4) Uncontextualized worship. (5) Ineffective preaching. (6) Weak ecclesiology. (7) Tribalism.
Under the label “emerging” are three different camps: the relevants (e.g. Driscoll, Kimball, and some Young, Restless, and Reformed types) who are trying to contextualize ministry while still maintaining conservative theology; the reconstructionists (e.g., Cole, Hirsch, Barna, Viola) who are experimenting with organic house churches and monastic communities; and the revisionists (e.g., McLaren, Jones, Pagitt) who are questioning key evangelical doctrines on theology and culture (45-46). Belcher’s analysis focuses mostly on the reconstructionists and the revisionists because they have gotten the most attention and faced the most push back.
Protesting Protestants
The bulk of the book deals with the seven areas of protest. Each chapter follows a similar pattern. Belcher usually begins with a personal experience that led him to see a problem with the traditional approach to church. Then Belcher explores the emerging solution, often interviewing key leaders in the movement and raising some possible objections along the way. Next, Belcher looks at the response of the traditional church to the emerging answers. And finally he proposes a third way that seeks to combine the best of both camps while avoiding the worst extremes.
Here’s a thumbnail sketch for each chapter/protest:
1. Deep Truth - Emergents reject classic foundationalism, which is good. But while they are right to reject self-evident truth, they are wrong to embrace a postmodern “constructivist” epistemology. “Even though I reject classical foundationalism,” Belcher writes, “I am not comfortable adopting a relational hermeneutic. I believe that God’s revelation in the Word tells us what is real and provides the authority for Christian community. We build our metaphysics on divine revelation. It gives us confidence that we substantially know ‘ready-made reality’” (82). In short, deep church rejects foundationalism built on reason, but accepts foundations built on belief.
Similarly, deep church is centered-set instead of bounded-set or relational-set. This means the church focuses on drawing people to the Well (Jesus Christ) instead of guarding all the fences (like the traditional church). It also means the church knows what it should be focusing on (the center), instead of allowing the community to determine truth for itself (like in the emerging church).
2. Deep Evangelism - The traditional church insists that belief must precede belonging. This has the effect of slamming the door on spiritual seekers. The emerging church insists on belonging before belief. But every community must have some standards and everyone in the church must be challenged to repentance, faith, and obedience at some point. So is there a third way? According to Belcher the third way understands that there are two circles around Jesus. There is an outer circle of seekers and an inner circle of commitment disciples. Deep church welcomes everyone into the outer circle, regardless of their beliefs, but challenges them to become a part of the inner circle.
3. Deep Gospel - The traditional church has made salvation too personalized, too much like fire insurance. The message of individual salvation is important, but it must be balanced with Jesus’ teaching on the kingdom. We must avoided reductionist gospels and remember the gospel has a public dimension. We must not shrink the gospel to the forgiveness of sins. But, Belchers adds, penal substitution and justification must form the foundation for everything else we say about the gospel. The kingdom cannot be ignored, but it must be linked to the doctrines of atonement, justification, union with Christ, and our need to be forgiven (118).
4. Deep Worship - The emerging church tries to contextualize its worship, but in so doing it sometimes becomes untethered to history and too much a product of the culture around it. What is needed is not just a sampling of tradition, but a return to the Great Tradition. Belcher’s third way looks like this: “worship that embodies a genuine encounter with God, had depth and substance, included more frequent and meaningful Communion, was participatory, read more Scripture in worship, creatively used the senses provided more time for contemplation, and focused on the transcendence and otherness of God” (124).
5. Deep Preaching - Traditional preaching is often boring and uninspired. There is little drama to it. Most sermons boil down to two things: you suck; try harder (142). The emerging church tries to suggest a better way. In practice their “sermons” sound like sermons, except with a little more interaction from the congregation. But underneath the emergent view of preaching (at least that espoused by Doug Pagitt and Tony Jones) is a radical shift, a hermeneutic of community that says nothing is privileged, not even the Bible, over the community in discovering and living out truth (145). Belcher rejects this hermeneutic, seeing that it leads to a rejection of classical orthodoxy. So neither traditional nor emergent preaching will work. We need a third way that is not deductive and legalistic like traditional preaching, nor open-ended like emergent preaching. Instead, those who belong to deep church “preach Christ in every text, laying out and analyzing the human condition through Scriptures and experience, and exposing the radical, shocking grace of God that enters our situation, transforms us and empowers us to live differently” (157).
6. Deep Ecclesiology - Traditional church gets bogged down in meetings, paperwork, and organizational bureaucracy. This is bad. So the emerging church calls for a more organic, open-source model for church. But even organic churches cannot survive long without structure and accountability. What we need is a third way that calls the church to be both institution and organism, respects the offices of elder and deacon, celebrates worship as a means of grace, and cultivates and learns from tradition.
7. Deep Culture - The third way between traditional and emerging approaches to culture accepts Abraham Kuypers distinction between the church as institution and the church as organism. The church as an institution focuses primarily on preaching, sacraments, worship, and caring for the body. The church as organism works to train secret agents who go out into the world, work for the shalom of the city, and create culture. With this institution/organism approach, our churches can have a deep culture, one that is neither a copy-cat of culture nor irrelevant to it.
Evaluation
As you can see, there is much to affirm in these chapters. Belcher understands the issues well and clearly rejects the worst of the emerging movement. His church sounds like a good church, and Belcher (whom I never met) strikes me as an honest, thoughtful, irenic pastor. I agreed with much more in this book than I thought I would. As a part of the PCA, Belcher is not only tied to the Great Tradition, but to the Reformed/Presbyterian tradition. As such, I imagine our theology is quite similar. We are on the same team. My agreements with him outnumber my disagreements.
Nevertheless, I have a few critiques for Deep Church. Let me mention four, each in the form of a question.
1. What is the gospel?
Belcher makes clear that he affirms penal substitution. He thinks it is foundational to the other views of the atonement. He believes that Jesus died on the cross to pay for our sins and take away our guilt. This is all wonderful. But I’m still a bit perplexed.
Belcher’s church holds to four core commitments: gospel, community, mission, and shalom. He admits that the church struggled the most to define the first of these four. “We had spent five years translating or contexualizing the gospel to the Orange County setting, and we wanted to be sure we had not reduced it any way” (120). First of all, I’m puzzled by the effort to translate the gospel. It seems to me that the news is still the same: Jesus Christ died on the cross for our sins and rose again on the third day. Ministries may need to contextualize, but the gospel?
More importantly, I’m puzzled by the definition of the gospel Belcher’s church came up with.
The "gospel" is the good news that through Jesus, the Messiah, the power of God’s kingdom has entered history to renew the whole world. Through the Savior God has established his reign. When we believe and rely on Jesus’ work and record (rather than ours) for our relationship to God, that kingdom power comes upon us and begins to work through us. We witness the radical new way of living by our renewed lives, beautiful community, social justice, and cultural transformation. This good news brings new life. The gospel motivates, guides, and empowers every aspect of our living and worship (121).
This is a fine statement of Christian theology, but is it the gospel? Surely, 1 Corinthians 15 gives us the best summary of the gospel and there we find no mention of cultural transformation or renewing the whole world. But we do here about sin, the cross, and the resurrection–three items given no specific mention in Belcher’s definition of the gospel. This is a problem.
2. Is unity possible?
Belcher’s dream is that traditional and emerging camps would find unity in the first-tier doctrines of the faith. But what if the Great Tradition is not a controlling tradition for the emergent church? “John and I,” Belcher writes speaking of John Armstrong and himself, “concluded that they [Jones and Pagitt] seemed to reject any commitments to the classical orthodoxy of the Great Tradition...I asked John, ‘If we are understanding them correctly, does this view put them outside of evangelical bounds as to many of their critics have been saying?'” (146). To which I wanted to reply, “Yes! And not just evangelical bounds, the bounds of orthodoxy too.” Belcher recognizes that Pagitt does not hold to the “rule of faith” or “classical orthodoxy." The Apostles’ Creed and the Nicene Creed do not define mere Christianity for him (148). So why do people keep talking about Jones and Pagitt as if they are part of the evangelical conversation, when they aren’t even orthodox Christians?
In the end Belcher agrees that the traditional camp is not overstating its case when it comes to Pagitt’s views (152). So I don’t have a problem with Belcher’s theology on this point. In fact, I commend him for providing an honest assessment of the revisionist camp of the emerging movement. But I wish he would have stated more strongly and clearly that unity is not possible with those who reject the Great Tradition. True, Tony, Doug, and Brian are on the far left of the movement, but then at least let’s warn people about the far left of the movement. The hall of heterodoxy is not the same as the hall of Mere Christianity, and those standing in one hall cannot share spiritual unity with those standing in the other.
As much as Belcher doesn't want to have a bounded-set church, if orthodoxy is to be a defining part of his church, it must have boundaries and those outside those boundaries are dangers to the sheep and the church's shepherds should say so.
3. Is the Great Tradition enough?
I’m all for making the main things the main things. I’m all four differentiating between first- and second-tier issues. But is it enough to say the Apostles’ Creed, Nicene Creed, and Athanasian Creed define orthodoxy, let alone evangelicalism? These creeds addressed certain pivotal issues that faced the church in its first few centuries. But what about other issues that have arise since then, like the atonement, justification, the authority of the Bible? I would say these are first-tier issues too, even though they were not specifically addressed by an early council or creed.
Along these lines. I was bothered by the references to “the version of the doctrine of the atonement that Piper holds dear” and “Pagitt and Jones don’t hold to Piper’s view of the atonement” (11, 12). Elsewhere Belcher explains that McLaren and others are not against “atonement theories” (111). This sort of language about the cross rubs me the wrong way. When evangelicals talk about Christ’s death in our place to propitiate the wrath of God as a "version of the atonement" or one favored theory, they give away too much.
True, there are different aspects to the atonement. But penal substitution is not a mere version. "So substitution is not a 'theory of the atonement,'" writes John Stott. "Nor is it even an additional image to take its place as an option alongside the others. It is rather the essence of each image and the heart of the atonement itself." Penal substitution is the plain truth of Scripture. I know that sounds hopelessly modern, but sometimes I just can’t help it. Christ dying in the place of guilty sinners deserves to be called more than “a view of the atonement that Piper holds dear.”
4. Is Deep Church a genuine third way?
In the end, the thing I liked most about the book is also my biggest criticism. Belcher’s way, despite is few differences in shape and tone (see critiques above), is not a genuine third way but the traditional way mediated through Tim Keller. Don’t get me wrong. I like that way. I love Tim Keller. I wasn't disappointed to see that I agreed with Belcher on a lot. But if I'm traditional (which I am in the Deep Church taxonomy) then I think Belcher is too. Come to think of it, D.A. Carson is in the traditional camp too (in Deep Church) and he and Keller are very close friends. They started the Gospel Coalition together so I assume they agree on an awful lot. So is Carson another third way?
Deep church is essentially traditional doctrine with a softer edge and more cultural engagement. That's not bad. It can be very good if done faithfully. But I don’t think it is a third way. Very few of the extremes of the traditional camp rejected by Belcher are footnoted or attributed to any leader in the traditional church. Consequently, I don't think he is rejecting the traditional church as much as a bad experience of it.
Likewise, most of what Belcher offers as a third way are not new ideas to the traditional church. Almost all the conservative Christians I know reject classic foundationalism. Every conservative church I know of welcomes seekers and allows unbelievers to be a part of the church in the outer circle, even if they can’t be members until they believe certain things. Every good homiletics course teaches the difference between imperatives and indicatives and the need to preach Christ from all the Scriptures. In fact, I don’t think there is a single insight from the emergent church that cannot be gleaned from the best of the evangelical, and specifically the Reformed, tradition. We don’t need a third way between emergent and traditional. We need a revitalized, reformed evangelical church.
Conclusion
Deep Church confirms again that there are very serious problems with some of the theology coming out of the emerging church. It also confirms again that hide-bound, legalistic, unfriendly, uncaring traditionalism is not the way to go. If you need a refresher on either of these two points, this book will do the trick. Jim Belcher has given us an insider's and outsider's look at the most controversial church movement of the last decade. And though I have some disagreements with the book, in the end, he reaffirms the importance of the faith delivered once for all for the saints. And that’s a very good thing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Monday, October 12, 2009
Monday Morning Humor
It sounds like Lucky Day has heard one too many sermons on David and Goliath...
Friday, October 9, 2009
Fishers of Men
While working on my sermon for Mark 1:16-20, I found this song. It's a nice bluegrass acapella song by Rhonda Vincent.
Making Sense of the Millennium, Part 2
Here's a portion of my second sermon on Revelation 20:1-6. It's a bit long to read in one sitting, but maybe some will find it helpful.
*****
There is a third question that we will look at in detail this morning.
Question Number Three: How are we to understand, the end of verse four, where it says, "They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years.”
Now I hope you are a little bit awake, at least, this morning and can think of with me, now, for the next several minutes. I’m going to do some teaching now, but at the end we will get back to some preaching, and I'll probably start sweating and all sorts of stuff. We will finish with a bang, hopefully. But now we have to do some teaching on this first. So you need to think carefully with me. What does this mean, "They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years"? Because here is what premillennialists would say, "Christ comes back, and the dead in Christ, those who believe in Jesus and are dead, they are raised up from their graves, bodily, and they meet Christ in the air and they go back up to Heaven. Then Christ establishes his thousand-year reign on the Earth. It is a literal 1,000 years, where he is on a literal throne in Jerusalem. At the end of that Millennium Age, then those who did not believe in Jesus, their bodies are now resurrected and they are sent off to judgment.”
So the premillennialists would see there are two resurrections. There is a first resurrection, the believing dead, and then a thousand years later, the unbelieving dead. This is not a terrible interpretation. Many godly people would offer that. It is just not what I think that the text teaches. So we are going to move through this beginning at verse four.
In order to answer this question, we need to start by figuring out where are we? What are we looking at in this text? The simple answer is we are looking at a scene in Heaven. This isn’t Earth. This is Heaven. We know that, because we see thrones. Almost every other time in Revelation where there are thrones, it is a Heavenly scene. Think back to Revelation Chapter 4, John's vision of Him who sits on the throne, holy, holy, holy is the Lord God Almighty. He is on the throne. And around that are what? Twenty-four other thrones on which sit 24 elders representative of the 12 tribes of Israel and the 12 apostles of the Lamb. Twenty-four being a symbolic number, not for a cool TV show that gets kind of old after a while, but Christ's people in both Testaments, old and new, 24 being Christ's people. And they are sitting on thrones. That is Heaven.
We also know this is Heaven, because we are looking at disembodied souls. The second sentence in verse four says, “I saw the souls of those who have been beheaded.” This is similar to the heavenly scene described in Daniel Chapter 7. Daniel said,
“I looked and thrones were set in place, and the Ancient of Days took His seat. His clothing was as white as snow. His hair was white as snow. His throne was flaming with fire. A river of fire was flowing coming out before Him thousands upon thousands attended Him. 10,000 times 10,000 stood before Him. The court was seated and the books were opened.”
So what we are looking at is a heavenly scene.
Now, who are talking about? Well it is one group of people described in two different ways. Narrowly, the group of people we are talking about are martyrs. “I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony for Jesus and because of the Word of God.” Now, Revelation does this in a number of places. It looks at God’s people in one sense as martyrs, because many of them were, but that is also something of a metaphor. God's people here are facing the temptation to compromise. So if they withstand this temptation, they maintain their testimony to Jesus in one sense they will all be persecuted. They will all be martyrs of a type. So, narrowly, what we are looking at are those who literally were killed because they were Christians. But more broadly, we are looking at anyone who has maintained faithful testimony to Jesus. Look at the next sentence in verse four. So first they are described as martyrs, and then it says, “They had not worshiped the beast, or his image, and had not received his mark on their foreheads or their hands." So we are talking, narrowly, about martyrs, more broadly about God's people, about overcomers, about you, I hope, who do not receive the mark of the beast, but maintained your faithfulness to Christ. Revelation 3:21 says, “To him who overcomes, I will give the right to sit with me on my throne just as I overcame and sat down with my Father on his throne." So we are looking at Christians who did not give in, did not compromise. These are overcomers. And they have received their reward, now, in heaven, sitting on thrones. So these are dead Christians in heaven as disembodied souls sitting on thrones with the authority to judge. And we will say more about that at the end.
So this brings us to the end of verse four, our question: “They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years.” Now that is just a summary sentence of what I have just explained. This is a picture of believers who upon death come to life as disembodied souls and reign with Christ. Now, let me deal with a couple of problems with this interpretation. The first is the Greek word "zao." Zao means "they came to life." They live. Think of the word zoology. It has that Greek prefix of life, of living things. Zao means to live. And zao, often in the New Testament, means a physical resurrection. Matthew 9, Romans 14, I could give you a number of passages. But I want to argue that this is not a physical resurrection here. When it says, “They came to life,” it does not mean that their bodies came out of the ground and were made immortal. It is talking about a spiritual resurrection upon death. As a Christian, our ultimate hope it is the resurrection of the dead. But there is what theologians call an intermediate state. Before Christ comes back, and before they resurrection, our souls are with Christ in Heaven. They are not asleep. They are not just bodies in the ground, and we go out of existence for a while. Our souls--I do not know how it works–but our souls are separated from our bodies for a time during this intermediate state.
Remember premillennialists will say, “There is a first resurrection, that is the believers. And there is a second resurrection, and thousand years later, that is the unbelievers.” But Scripture seems to teach consistently that there is only one resurrection. Daniel 12:2, “Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the Earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt.” You do not get the sense that there is a thousand years between this. But all people are brought up out of their graves. Somehow, Christ puts all of their atoms together again, and some are sent to their reward, and some to punishment. Jesus says the same thing in John 5, “Do not be amazed at this, for an hour...” He means a specific time, a moment. Not over the course of a thousands of years. “…An hour is coming when all who are in their tombs will hear His voice and to come out.” Just like Jesus said, “Lazarus, come forth.” What is Lazarus going to do? He is going to come forth. That is what Christ will say, “Dead, arise.” And in a twinkling of an eye, all of these atoms from in the ground, and decomposed into the earth, and in urns somewhere, are all going to come together. And Christ says, “Those who have done good will go to the resurrection of life. And those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment.” So Christ talks about this resurrection of the good and the bad happening at the same time.
And there is confirmation that zao does not refer to physical resurrection here. There’s confirmation from 1 Corinthians 15. Now, just follow this train of thought with me. 1 Corinthians 15 is where Paul is talking about the resurrection. And he says in verse 54, “When the perishable,” that is our dead bodies, “have been clothed with imperishable,” our new resurrection bodies, “and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true. Death has been swallowed up in victory.” In verse 26 of 1 Corinthians 15, he says that “Death is the last enemy.” So do you follow what Paul is saying? When the resurrection happens, when our bodies are clothed with immortality, then we will know that death has been defeated. Death is finally over. Death, our last enemy, has been conquered. And yet if verse four is talking about a physical resurrection, and then another thousand years, and then another final battle royale, we can hardly say that death has been conquered. We can hardly say that there are no more enemies, because we have a thousand years and we still have the whole thing to finish. There is plenty of death left to come. So Paul's words in 1 Corinthians 15 would not be true that when we have our new resurrection bodies, then we know death has been defeated.
So zao, this word, they live, they come to life, means that they live with Christ in heaven. What John sees here are believers who, though dead, are more alive than ever before. The coming to life describes the souls of believers who have died, but now share, even without their bodies, in the reign of Christ. Think of Paul in 2 Corinthians 5:8 where he says, “I would rather be away from the body and at home with the Lord.” Or Revelation 14:13, “Blessed are those who die in the Lord.” Or look at Luke Chapter 20:38. If you read the books that I do, people will say, “Well, this Greek word zao it never means this kind of spiritual resurrection. It always refers to real flesh and blood kind of life.” Except for Luke 20:38. This is where the Sadducees and Pharisees are arguing. Pharisees believed in the resurrection of the dead, and the Sadducees didn't. And so they are having this debate. And Jesus takes the side of the Pharisees, because he believes in the resurrection. And there was the sort of intramural Jewish debate about whether the Torah, or anywhere in the Old Testament, taught the resurrection. Could you prove the resurrection from the books of Moses? This sort of what rabbis might do for a good time.
And so Jesus weighs in on this. And he solves the riddle, maybe not to their satisfaction, but he solved the riddle. And he says, “God is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.” And they are saying, “Yes, that is true.” And then he says, “God is the God of the living, not the dead.” Zao, there. In other words, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are living in a very real sense. They are living and yet there bodies are in the ground, not resurrected. Jesus used that to demonstrate to the Sadducees that there will be a resurrection, because we already have life in heaven. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are living, are zao.
So the hope offered to the saints in verses four and five is the same hope that has been offered time and time again in Revelation. This vision is saying, “Look, Christians, it may appear that evil is winning.” Why do we have 24-hour news channels? I don't know except to make us all scared and paranoid, so we can know every single time some child somewhere is missing; every time someone in the country has been killed. It is fearful. But this vision says, “Christians, take heart. If you overcome in this life, you will be triumphant in death.” This is the picture right now, the saints--some of your kids, some of your grandparents, some of your siblings, some of your spouses--saints already sitting on thrones, judging, reigning with Christ during this thousand years; living as glorified souls in heaven even as they await their final hope, the resurrection from the dead. That is the first resurrection. The first resurrection is the saints who died, whose souls now reign with Christ in heaven. It is the reality of 2 Timothy 2, “If we died with Him, we will also live with Him. If we endure, we will also reign with Him.” So that if you experience the first resurrection, where you live and reign with Christ after death, then you will not experience the second death.
One More Issue
We come now to verse five. There is one more issue to deal with before we can be fully convinced of the interpretation of I am giving you. Verse five, the NIV puts it as parentheses, which I think is the sense of things. “The rest of a dead” -- so we have been talking about the believing dead, now, this is the unbelieving dead. “The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended.” So here's the problem. Okay, if what I have been saying is true, and coming to life, this first resurrection, means that you live and reign with Christ, what about verse 5? Verse five seems to be saying, “Well, the rest of the dead, the unbelieving dead, after the thousand years or over, they are going to have the same life.” And we know that that is not true, because it says that “They who do not experience the first resurrection will experience the second death.” Do you see why this book is confusing? So how does that work? Because we do not want to say, “Yes, if you are an unbeliever, you die and you just lay there, but then a thousand years from now, when this church age is over, then you're going to reign with Christ.” That clearly is not what Revelation teaches. So some have argued that, well, we are talking about two different kinds of coming to life. Verse four is talking about a spiritual resurrection, and verse five is talking about a physical resurrection. So when it says, “The rest of the dead do not come to life,” it just means they did not have their bodily resurrection until the end of the Millennium. And that is possible, but it seems unlikely that zao -- it is the same word -- would be used in two totally different ways so close together. And besides, the points of verse five seem to be one of contrast. That while the dead, the deceased saints had the privilege of coming to life, those who do not believe in Christ did not have the privilege. So if this contrast is to hold, the coming to life must be of the same kind. In other words, you say, “Well, they came to life and the rest of them, well, they didn't have this totally other kind of coming to life.” The contrast doesn't fit then.
So how are we to resolve this difficult that the unbelieving dead do not live or reign with Christ during the thousand years? They have no part in the first resurrection. They did not share in the privilege of reigning with Christ in Heaven, nor will they ever have that privilege. What do we do? The key to understanding this verse is the little word “until.” Do you see that and verse five? The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended. Let me give you just one more Greek word. It’s the word achri. Most of us have probably read it to mean something like this. “The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended, and then after the thousand years they did come to life.” We read “until” as indicating a change in their situation after the thousand years. But I want to argue that that is not how we should read “until.” The word “until” can have the force of during, or right up to, or throughout, and does not have to indicate a change in the circumstances after the time. Let me give you an example, because is probably murky in your head.
I sang in the choir in college. Our favorite stuff to sing was usually spirituals. And so we sang the song, “I’m Gonna to Sing ‘Till the Spirit Moves in my Heart.” And I was a tenor. And it was a great song for tenors, because tenors get to start out. “I'm going to sing until the spirit moves in my heart.” You do all this little cool stuff. And the basses come in and do their stuff. And at the end of it, it would just keep repeating, I’m going to sing till the spirit moves” -- and then you say, “I'm going to sing till Jesus comes. I'm going to sing till Jesus comes.” That is what the basses do. “I'm going to sing until Jesus comes.” Now would you understand that song to mean, “And then after Jesus comes, I stop singing”? “I'm going to sing until Jesus comes, and when he comes back I’m done singing.” I think we instinctively understand ‘until’ in that sentence means I'm going to sing right up to when Jesus comes. All the way until Jesus comes. And it doesn't give any indication of, “Well, when he comes, I stop singing.”
Or let me give you another example. Suppose you are out of town for a day, and you get one of these nice young ladies here to babysit. And you return late at night and you ask how the kids did. “Well, the two oldest did really well. They were obedient. The youngest was just squirrely. Was just acting up. I don't understand.” And then the next day, you are talking with your friends who have kids, and they are also thinking about blowing this joint and dropping their kids off somewhere. And that sounds like a good idea to them. And they say, “So how did it go? With the babysitter? How did your kids do? Being away from them for a whole day?” “I don't understand it,” you say. “You know, our youngest was just so rascally and disobedient, and the two oldest kids were obedient right until we came home.”
Now, you would probably understand that to mean our kids, the two older, were obedient and respectful the whole time we were gone. You would not be praising them if you meant, “They were obedient until we came home, and when we set foot in the door, they got out the matches and started lighting things on fire.” You instinctively know until does not always mean that the situation changes after the given time.
Now, let me just give you some verses where this happens in Scripture. And then, we will be wrapping up the answer to this question. Acts 23:1, I'll just read it. Paul looked straight at the Sanhedrin and said, “My brothers, I have fulfilled my duty to God in all good conscience until (achri) this day.” Now, does Paul mean I've been fulfilling my duty until this day, and starting right now, I don't have to do my duty anymore? No. In Acts 26:22 Paul says, “But I have had God’s help to (achri) this very day, and so I stand here and testify to small and great alike.” Until, achri, this very day. Now, does Paul mean that God has helped me until this day, and I'm glad that I made it here. But after today I am not going to get any help? No. He doesn't mean to say that until indicates a change in circumstance. Romans 5:13, “For before the law,” actually, until (achri) the law, “was given sin was in the world, but sin is not taken into account where there is no law.” So until the law was given, sin was in the world. Does Paul mean that after the law was given, then sin was no longer in the world? No. He is clearly making the point right in up until this time, this was true. I will give you one more. Romans 8:22, “We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to (achri) the present time.” Right up to the present time. Nobody understands Paul to be saying, “All of creation has been groaning and suffering until I wrote this down in 60 A.D., and now creation has stopped suffering.” No, the “until” has the force of right up to, or during.
So go back to verse five. We will put this together. “The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended.” This does not mean that they then came to life after the thousand years were ended, and suddenly reigned with Christ. All it means is right up to the end of the Millennium, during this whole church age, the unbelieving dead did not have the privilege of living and reigning with Christ. If it was to indicate that something changed after the thousand years, it probably would have said so. Look at verse three for example. “He threw the Devil into the abyss. Locked and sealed it over him to keep him from deceiving the nations anymore until the thousand years were ended,” and now it makes it clear that something changes. “After that, he must be set free for a short time.” So there we have “until,” but it shows us very clearly that a change is indicated--after that time the situation will be different. But it does not say that in verse five. So the point is that the unbelieving dead will not be made to live with Christ during this age, nor ever. Meanwhile, the believers who die, once they die, will live and reign with Christ as disembodied souls awaiting the resurrection during this church age. And those who live with Christ now in heaven will not die later in hell. And those that are not living with Christ, now, will experience the second death later in the lake of fire.
Two More Points of Application
All right. So what? That's a lot of little Greek words. Let me just close by hopefully making this seem real and important by giving you two points of application. Just a couple observations from the text.
Number one, death means reigning with Christ. Not just going to Heaven and you won’t hurt, you won't have pain, death means, right then, you live and you reign with Christ. Now, what does it mean? We could think about this a long time. What does it mean that your grandmother, my grandmother, is on a throne, not as big as Christ's throne, but is on a throne? She's got a crown. She lays it out at Jesus’ feet. But she is still on a throne reigning. Does that mean she is affirming Christ's judgments? Certainly. Does it mean that her being there, your loved ones being there, is a kind of a vindication on all of those who oppress us, or made war with Christians? Does it mean that your loved ones, who believed in Christ, are somehow under the sovereignty of God, participating in decision making for the Earth? Meditate on that for a while—Jesus asking, “Grandma, what do you think? Bill, what do you think we should do here?” Somehow the saints are now reigning with Christ.
I think at the very least, the presence of believers in heaven as overcomers will be a testimony to their innocence and to the guilt of those who persecuted them. But I think it's more than that. I think it means that we will be restored to our rightful place of God-given dominion over the earth. Genesis 1 says we are image bearers. What do we do as image bearers? We replenish the earth, and we subdue it. We are given to be creation kings over the earth. You do not just die and learn the harp. You do stuff. You make decisions. You think. You reign. In some mysterious way we will be co-laborers just like we are co-laborers with Christ, now. And if we can participate with Christ and his work here on earth, cannot we also, as glorified souls, participate with Christ in his reign in heaven. He uses angels, and he uses our loved ones who have died. Under his sovereignty of course, but making judgments, working with Him as He works out His will on the Earth. You get to be a little king, a little queen, with Christ. You want to be a somebody? You want to have authority? You want to make decisions? You want to have significance on the Earth, you're not going to get much more impact than that. Reigning with the King of Kings!
And here is the last observation or application. Death means reigning with Christ, and therefore death means life. Most often when someone you love dies, it is not pretty. There are times someone dies peacefully in their sleep, and that is wonderful. Much more often, somebody is shot in battle. Somebody is mangled in a car accident. Somebody has cancer, which literally can eat away at the flesh. And they can look shriveled, or they can look diseased. All of us have had the experience of being at the funeral home, going up to a casket, and saying, “That just doesn't look like Dad. It just doesn't look like Grandma.” And it’s sad, the deterioration of our physical bodies. And what we need to have assured in our head is that we will stand at those caskets, and look at those made-up faces and know, right at that very moment, she lives. You look at father lying in his casket, dead. But he lives!
Death for the Christian means life. And when they die, they live and they do not die again. They will be priests of God and Christ and will reign with Him during this entire church age. Now, I hope you know this. And believe it. There are people that are not Christians in the world who never think of death. They do everything else except their own mortality. Our whole culture, sometimes it seems, our economy is built on not dying, getting healthy, getting fit, having all the insurance you need, always being safe, and never dying. I understand that a non-Christian would feel that way. What I don't understand is the way some Christians talk. You would be hard-pressed to think that life after death even matters.
I read one author who explained why eternal life is called eternal. Eternal life is called eternal, he says, not because it has to do with eternity after we die, but because it touches God the Spirit, who is eternal. So we have this life here on earth, which is kind of an eternal life that touches the spirits. That’s not the whole story, not by a long shot. There are other Christians, and I want to say this with all due respect, because I do not want to exchange one imbalance for another, but there are some Christians who are so busy only--that is the important word -- only talking about making the world a better place, or bringing shalom, or renewing creation that they never talk about what happens when you die. But face it, you are going to die. I am going to die. And we can talk all about how we follow Christ and we make the world a better place. And we help the poor. And we want to help the poor, but you also have to think what are the new heavens and the new Earth? It is just not no more cancer, it's not just that people are no longer sad. The new heavens and the new earth is where God reigns and is All in All, and where we are ultimately, abundantly satisfied in Christ. And if that is not part of your mission to the poor, you're not fully bringing the kingdom that is to come.
If your Christian faith does not help you die well, then either your faith isn't worth much, or your Christianity isn't worth much. People live and talk and preach and they make decisions in life as if there were no eternity. And it is an absolute travesty that it happens in the church. I’m fired up because I spent a week at our denomination's General Synod and I wondered, “Does anybody here believe that Hell is real? That Heaven is real?” Or are we just playing games. Do we mourn as those who have no hope, or more likely, do we live as if there were no hope beyond this life? Paul says it very clearly, “There is no hope beyond this life, if there is no resurrection.” If there is no living and reigning with Christ, we are of all men most to be pitied. If you don't get anything with Christ after you die, forget it. Don't put another dollar in the plate, walk out of here, forget it. You are wasting your time as a Christian. If you do not really believe that something happens after you die, do not come here. Well I shouldn't say that. Come and learn, but don't just sit and pretend like you're a Christian.
Death means life. It is always sad when someone is sick. It is always sad when somebody dies. It is always sad when someone is dying. But as Christians we do not mourn as those who have no hope. Pity those who are left behind, no pity for those who go ahead of us and die and reign. You see this Millennium, which Christians argue about, it is not some esoteric thing to write PhD’s on. If I am correct in what I have explained this morning, the Millennium is a great engine of hope. This is what it was meant to do for the first Christians. This is what it is meant to do for us. Love has won. Christ has conquered. The nations belonged to Him. All of you who call upon the name of Jesus belong to Him. And in a moment of your death -- and you'll have loved ones who will mourn and weep and right they should. But in the moment of your death, you go on to live and reign for a thousand years. Blessed and holy is the one who shares in the first resurrection! Over such the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ as they will reign with Him a thousand years.
*****
There is a third question that we will look at in detail this morning.
Question Number Three: How are we to understand, the end of verse four, where it says, "They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years.”
Now I hope you are a little bit awake, at least, this morning and can think of with me, now, for the next several minutes. I’m going to do some teaching now, but at the end we will get back to some preaching, and I'll probably start sweating and all sorts of stuff. We will finish with a bang, hopefully. But now we have to do some teaching on this first. So you need to think carefully with me. What does this mean, "They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years"? Because here is what premillennialists would say, "Christ comes back, and the dead in Christ, those who believe in Jesus and are dead, they are raised up from their graves, bodily, and they meet Christ in the air and they go back up to Heaven. Then Christ establishes his thousand-year reign on the Earth. It is a literal 1,000 years, where he is on a literal throne in Jerusalem. At the end of that Millennium Age, then those who did not believe in Jesus, their bodies are now resurrected and they are sent off to judgment.”
So the premillennialists would see there are two resurrections. There is a first resurrection, the believing dead, and then a thousand years later, the unbelieving dead. This is not a terrible interpretation. Many godly people would offer that. It is just not what I think that the text teaches. So we are going to move through this beginning at verse four.
In order to answer this question, we need to start by figuring out where are we? What are we looking at in this text? The simple answer is we are looking at a scene in Heaven. This isn’t Earth. This is Heaven. We know that, because we see thrones. Almost every other time in Revelation where there are thrones, it is a Heavenly scene. Think back to Revelation Chapter 4, John's vision of Him who sits on the throne, holy, holy, holy is the Lord God Almighty. He is on the throne. And around that are what? Twenty-four other thrones on which sit 24 elders representative of the 12 tribes of Israel and the 12 apostles of the Lamb. Twenty-four being a symbolic number, not for a cool TV show that gets kind of old after a while, but Christ's people in both Testaments, old and new, 24 being Christ's people. And they are sitting on thrones. That is Heaven.
We also know this is Heaven, because we are looking at disembodied souls. The second sentence in verse four says, “I saw the souls of those who have been beheaded.” This is similar to the heavenly scene described in Daniel Chapter 7. Daniel said,
“I looked and thrones were set in place, and the Ancient of Days took His seat. His clothing was as white as snow. His hair was white as snow. His throne was flaming with fire. A river of fire was flowing coming out before Him thousands upon thousands attended Him. 10,000 times 10,000 stood before Him. The court was seated and the books were opened.”
So what we are looking at is a heavenly scene.
Now, who are talking about? Well it is one group of people described in two different ways. Narrowly, the group of people we are talking about are martyrs. “I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony for Jesus and because of the Word of God.” Now, Revelation does this in a number of places. It looks at God’s people in one sense as martyrs, because many of them were, but that is also something of a metaphor. God's people here are facing the temptation to compromise. So if they withstand this temptation, they maintain their testimony to Jesus in one sense they will all be persecuted. They will all be martyrs of a type. So, narrowly, what we are looking at are those who literally were killed because they were Christians. But more broadly, we are looking at anyone who has maintained faithful testimony to Jesus. Look at the next sentence in verse four. So first they are described as martyrs, and then it says, “They had not worshiped the beast, or his image, and had not received his mark on their foreheads or their hands." So we are talking, narrowly, about martyrs, more broadly about God's people, about overcomers, about you, I hope, who do not receive the mark of the beast, but maintained your faithfulness to Christ. Revelation 3:21 says, “To him who overcomes, I will give the right to sit with me on my throne just as I overcame and sat down with my Father on his throne." So we are looking at Christians who did not give in, did not compromise. These are overcomers. And they have received their reward, now, in heaven, sitting on thrones. So these are dead Christians in heaven as disembodied souls sitting on thrones with the authority to judge. And we will say more about that at the end.
So this brings us to the end of verse four, our question: “They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years.” Now that is just a summary sentence of what I have just explained. This is a picture of believers who upon death come to life as disembodied souls and reign with Christ. Now, let me deal with a couple of problems with this interpretation. The first is the Greek word "zao." Zao means "they came to life." They live. Think of the word zoology. It has that Greek prefix of life, of living things. Zao means to live. And zao, often in the New Testament, means a physical resurrection. Matthew 9, Romans 14, I could give you a number of passages. But I want to argue that this is not a physical resurrection here. When it says, “They came to life,” it does not mean that their bodies came out of the ground and were made immortal. It is talking about a spiritual resurrection upon death. As a Christian, our ultimate hope it is the resurrection of the dead. But there is what theologians call an intermediate state. Before Christ comes back, and before they resurrection, our souls are with Christ in Heaven. They are not asleep. They are not just bodies in the ground, and we go out of existence for a while. Our souls--I do not know how it works–but our souls are separated from our bodies for a time during this intermediate state.
Remember premillennialists will say, “There is a first resurrection, that is the believers. And there is a second resurrection, and thousand years later, that is the unbelievers.” But Scripture seems to teach consistently that there is only one resurrection. Daniel 12:2, “Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the Earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt.” You do not get the sense that there is a thousand years between this. But all people are brought up out of their graves. Somehow, Christ puts all of their atoms together again, and some are sent to their reward, and some to punishment. Jesus says the same thing in John 5, “Do not be amazed at this, for an hour...” He means a specific time, a moment. Not over the course of a thousands of years. “…An hour is coming when all who are in their tombs will hear His voice and to come out.” Just like Jesus said, “Lazarus, come forth.” What is Lazarus going to do? He is going to come forth. That is what Christ will say, “Dead, arise.” And in a twinkling of an eye, all of these atoms from in the ground, and decomposed into the earth, and in urns somewhere, are all going to come together. And Christ says, “Those who have done good will go to the resurrection of life. And those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment.” So Christ talks about this resurrection of the good and the bad happening at the same time.
And there is confirmation that zao does not refer to physical resurrection here. There’s confirmation from 1 Corinthians 15. Now, just follow this train of thought with me. 1 Corinthians 15 is where Paul is talking about the resurrection. And he says in verse 54, “When the perishable,” that is our dead bodies, “have been clothed with imperishable,” our new resurrection bodies, “and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true. Death has been swallowed up in victory.” In verse 26 of 1 Corinthians 15, he says that “Death is the last enemy.” So do you follow what Paul is saying? When the resurrection happens, when our bodies are clothed with immortality, then we will know that death has been defeated. Death is finally over. Death, our last enemy, has been conquered. And yet if verse four is talking about a physical resurrection, and then another thousand years, and then another final battle royale, we can hardly say that death has been conquered. We can hardly say that there are no more enemies, because we have a thousand years and we still have the whole thing to finish. There is plenty of death left to come. So Paul's words in 1 Corinthians 15 would not be true that when we have our new resurrection bodies, then we know death has been defeated.
So zao, this word, they live, they come to life, means that they live with Christ in heaven. What John sees here are believers who, though dead, are more alive than ever before. The coming to life describes the souls of believers who have died, but now share, even without their bodies, in the reign of Christ. Think of Paul in 2 Corinthians 5:8 where he says, “I would rather be away from the body and at home with the Lord.” Or Revelation 14:13, “Blessed are those who die in the Lord.” Or look at Luke Chapter 20:38. If you read the books that I do, people will say, “Well, this Greek word zao it never means this kind of spiritual resurrection. It always refers to real flesh and blood kind of life.” Except for Luke 20:38. This is where the Sadducees and Pharisees are arguing. Pharisees believed in the resurrection of the dead, and the Sadducees didn't. And so they are having this debate. And Jesus takes the side of the Pharisees, because he believes in the resurrection. And there was the sort of intramural Jewish debate about whether the Torah, or anywhere in the Old Testament, taught the resurrection. Could you prove the resurrection from the books of Moses? This sort of what rabbis might do for a good time.
And so Jesus weighs in on this. And he solves the riddle, maybe not to their satisfaction, but he solved the riddle. And he says, “God is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.” And they are saying, “Yes, that is true.” And then he says, “God is the God of the living, not the dead.” Zao, there. In other words, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are living in a very real sense. They are living and yet there bodies are in the ground, not resurrected. Jesus used that to demonstrate to the Sadducees that there will be a resurrection, because we already have life in heaven. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are living, are zao.
So the hope offered to the saints in verses four and five is the same hope that has been offered time and time again in Revelation. This vision is saying, “Look, Christians, it may appear that evil is winning.” Why do we have 24-hour news channels? I don't know except to make us all scared and paranoid, so we can know every single time some child somewhere is missing; every time someone in the country has been killed. It is fearful. But this vision says, “Christians, take heart. If you overcome in this life, you will be triumphant in death.” This is the picture right now, the saints--some of your kids, some of your grandparents, some of your siblings, some of your spouses--saints already sitting on thrones, judging, reigning with Christ during this thousand years; living as glorified souls in heaven even as they await their final hope, the resurrection from the dead. That is the first resurrection. The first resurrection is the saints who died, whose souls now reign with Christ in heaven. It is the reality of 2 Timothy 2, “If we died with Him, we will also live with Him. If we endure, we will also reign with Him.” So that if you experience the first resurrection, where you live and reign with Christ after death, then you will not experience the second death.
One More Issue
We come now to verse five. There is one more issue to deal with before we can be fully convinced of the interpretation of I am giving you. Verse five, the NIV puts it as parentheses, which I think is the sense of things. “The rest of a dead” -- so we have been talking about the believing dead, now, this is the unbelieving dead. “The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended.” So here's the problem. Okay, if what I have been saying is true, and coming to life, this first resurrection, means that you live and reign with Christ, what about verse 5? Verse five seems to be saying, “Well, the rest of the dead, the unbelieving dead, after the thousand years or over, they are going to have the same life.” And we know that that is not true, because it says that “They who do not experience the first resurrection will experience the second death.” Do you see why this book is confusing? So how does that work? Because we do not want to say, “Yes, if you are an unbeliever, you die and you just lay there, but then a thousand years from now, when this church age is over, then you're going to reign with Christ.” That clearly is not what Revelation teaches. So some have argued that, well, we are talking about two different kinds of coming to life. Verse four is talking about a spiritual resurrection, and verse five is talking about a physical resurrection. So when it says, “The rest of the dead do not come to life,” it just means they did not have their bodily resurrection until the end of the Millennium. And that is possible, but it seems unlikely that zao -- it is the same word -- would be used in two totally different ways so close together. And besides, the points of verse five seem to be one of contrast. That while the dead, the deceased saints had the privilege of coming to life, those who do not believe in Christ did not have the privilege. So if this contrast is to hold, the coming to life must be of the same kind. In other words, you say, “Well, they came to life and the rest of them, well, they didn't have this totally other kind of coming to life.” The contrast doesn't fit then.
So how are we to resolve this difficult that the unbelieving dead do not live or reign with Christ during the thousand years? They have no part in the first resurrection. They did not share in the privilege of reigning with Christ in Heaven, nor will they ever have that privilege. What do we do? The key to understanding this verse is the little word “until.” Do you see that and verse five? The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended. Let me give you just one more Greek word. It’s the word achri. Most of us have probably read it to mean something like this. “The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended, and then after the thousand years they did come to life.” We read “until” as indicating a change in their situation after the thousand years. But I want to argue that that is not how we should read “until.” The word “until” can have the force of during, or right up to, or throughout, and does not have to indicate a change in the circumstances after the time. Let me give you an example, because is probably murky in your head.
I sang in the choir in college. Our favorite stuff to sing was usually spirituals. And so we sang the song, “I’m Gonna to Sing ‘Till the Spirit Moves in my Heart.” And I was a tenor. And it was a great song for tenors, because tenors get to start out. “I'm going to sing until the spirit moves in my heart.” You do all this little cool stuff. And the basses come in and do their stuff. And at the end of it, it would just keep repeating, I’m going to sing till the spirit moves” -- and then you say, “I'm going to sing till Jesus comes. I'm going to sing till Jesus comes.” That is what the basses do. “I'm going to sing until Jesus comes.” Now would you understand that song to mean, “And then after Jesus comes, I stop singing”? “I'm going to sing until Jesus comes, and when he comes back I’m done singing.” I think we instinctively understand ‘until’ in that sentence means I'm going to sing right up to when Jesus comes. All the way until Jesus comes. And it doesn't give any indication of, “Well, when he comes, I stop singing.”
Or let me give you another example. Suppose you are out of town for a day, and you get one of these nice young ladies here to babysit. And you return late at night and you ask how the kids did. “Well, the two oldest did really well. They were obedient. The youngest was just squirrely. Was just acting up. I don't understand.” And then the next day, you are talking with your friends who have kids, and they are also thinking about blowing this joint and dropping their kids off somewhere. And that sounds like a good idea to them. And they say, “So how did it go? With the babysitter? How did your kids do? Being away from them for a whole day?” “I don't understand it,” you say. “You know, our youngest was just so rascally and disobedient, and the two oldest kids were obedient right until we came home.”
Now, you would probably understand that to mean our kids, the two older, were obedient and respectful the whole time we were gone. You would not be praising them if you meant, “They were obedient until we came home, and when we set foot in the door, they got out the matches and started lighting things on fire.” You instinctively know until does not always mean that the situation changes after the given time.
Now, let me just give you some verses where this happens in Scripture. And then, we will be wrapping up the answer to this question. Acts 23:1, I'll just read it. Paul looked straight at the Sanhedrin and said, “My brothers, I have fulfilled my duty to God in all good conscience until (achri) this day.” Now, does Paul mean I've been fulfilling my duty until this day, and starting right now, I don't have to do my duty anymore? No. In Acts 26:22 Paul says, “But I have had God’s help to (achri) this very day, and so I stand here and testify to small and great alike.” Until, achri, this very day. Now, does Paul mean that God has helped me until this day, and I'm glad that I made it here. But after today I am not going to get any help? No. He doesn't mean to say that until indicates a change in circumstance. Romans 5:13, “For before the law,” actually, until (achri) the law, “was given sin was in the world, but sin is not taken into account where there is no law.” So until the law was given, sin was in the world. Does Paul mean that after the law was given, then sin was no longer in the world? No. He is clearly making the point right in up until this time, this was true. I will give you one more. Romans 8:22, “We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to (achri) the present time.” Right up to the present time. Nobody understands Paul to be saying, “All of creation has been groaning and suffering until I wrote this down in 60 A.D., and now creation has stopped suffering.” No, the “until” has the force of right up to, or during.
So go back to verse five. We will put this together. “The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended.” This does not mean that they then came to life after the thousand years were ended, and suddenly reigned with Christ. All it means is right up to the end of the Millennium, during this whole church age, the unbelieving dead did not have the privilege of living and reigning with Christ. If it was to indicate that something changed after the thousand years, it probably would have said so. Look at verse three for example. “He threw the Devil into the abyss. Locked and sealed it over him to keep him from deceiving the nations anymore until the thousand years were ended,” and now it makes it clear that something changes. “After that, he must be set free for a short time.” So there we have “until,” but it shows us very clearly that a change is indicated--after that time the situation will be different. But it does not say that in verse five. So the point is that the unbelieving dead will not be made to live with Christ during this age, nor ever. Meanwhile, the believers who die, once they die, will live and reign with Christ as disembodied souls awaiting the resurrection during this church age. And those who live with Christ now in heaven will not die later in hell. And those that are not living with Christ, now, will experience the second death later in the lake of fire.
Two More Points of Application
All right. So what? That's a lot of little Greek words. Let me just close by hopefully making this seem real and important by giving you two points of application. Just a couple observations from the text.
Number one, death means reigning with Christ. Not just going to Heaven and you won’t hurt, you won't have pain, death means, right then, you live and you reign with Christ. Now, what does it mean? We could think about this a long time. What does it mean that your grandmother, my grandmother, is on a throne, not as big as Christ's throne, but is on a throne? She's got a crown. She lays it out at Jesus’ feet. But she is still on a throne reigning. Does that mean she is affirming Christ's judgments? Certainly. Does it mean that her being there, your loved ones being there, is a kind of a vindication on all of those who oppress us, or made war with Christians? Does it mean that your loved ones, who believed in Christ, are somehow under the sovereignty of God, participating in decision making for the Earth? Meditate on that for a while—Jesus asking, “Grandma, what do you think? Bill, what do you think we should do here?” Somehow the saints are now reigning with Christ.
I think at the very least, the presence of believers in heaven as overcomers will be a testimony to their innocence and to the guilt of those who persecuted them. But I think it's more than that. I think it means that we will be restored to our rightful place of God-given dominion over the earth. Genesis 1 says we are image bearers. What do we do as image bearers? We replenish the earth, and we subdue it. We are given to be creation kings over the earth. You do not just die and learn the harp. You do stuff. You make decisions. You think. You reign. In some mysterious way we will be co-laborers just like we are co-laborers with Christ, now. And if we can participate with Christ and his work here on earth, cannot we also, as glorified souls, participate with Christ in his reign in heaven. He uses angels, and he uses our loved ones who have died. Under his sovereignty of course, but making judgments, working with Him as He works out His will on the Earth. You get to be a little king, a little queen, with Christ. You want to be a somebody? You want to have authority? You want to make decisions? You want to have significance on the Earth, you're not going to get much more impact than that. Reigning with the King of Kings!
And here is the last observation or application. Death means reigning with Christ, and therefore death means life. Most often when someone you love dies, it is not pretty. There are times someone dies peacefully in their sleep, and that is wonderful. Much more often, somebody is shot in battle. Somebody is mangled in a car accident. Somebody has cancer, which literally can eat away at the flesh. And they can look shriveled, or they can look diseased. All of us have had the experience of being at the funeral home, going up to a casket, and saying, “That just doesn't look like Dad. It just doesn't look like Grandma.” And it’s sad, the deterioration of our physical bodies. And what we need to have assured in our head is that we will stand at those caskets, and look at those made-up faces and know, right at that very moment, she lives. You look at father lying in his casket, dead. But he lives!
Death for the Christian means life. And when they die, they live and they do not die again. They will be priests of God and Christ and will reign with Him during this entire church age. Now, I hope you know this. And believe it. There are people that are not Christians in the world who never think of death. They do everything else except their own mortality. Our whole culture, sometimes it seems, our economy is built on not dying, getting healthy, getting fit, having all the insurance you need, always being safe, and never dying. I understand that a non-Christian would feel that way. What I don't understand is the way some Christians talk. You would be hard-pressed to think that life after death even matters.
I read one author who explained why eternal life is called eternal. Eternal life is called eternal, he says, not because it has to do with eternity after we die, but because it touches God the Spirit, who is eternal. So we have this life here on earth, which is kind of an eternal life that touches the spirits. That’s not the whole story, not by a long shot. There are other Christians, and I want to say this with all due respect, because I do not want to exchange one imbalance for another, but there are some Christians who are so busy only--that is the important word -- only talking about making the world a better place, or bringing shalom, or renewing creation that they never talk about what happens when you die. But face it, you are going to die. I am going to die. And we can talk all about how we follow Christ and we make the world a better place. And we help the poor. And we want to help the poor, but you also have to think what are the new heavens and the new Earth? It is just not no more cancer, it's not just that people are no longer sad. The new heavens and the new earth is where God reigns and is All in All, and where we are ultimately, abundantly satisfied in Christ. And if that is not part of your mission to the poor, you're not fully bringing the kingdom that is to come.
If your Christian faith does not help you die well, then either your faith isn't worth much, or your Christianity isn't worth much. People live and talk and preach and they make decisions in life as if there were no eternity. And it is an absolute travesty that it happens in the church. I’m fired up because I spent a week at our denomination's General Synod and I wondered, “Does anybody here believe that Hell is real? That Heaven is real?” Or are we just playing games. Do we mourn as those who have no hope, or more likely, do we live as if there were no hope beyond this life? Paul says it very clearly, “There is no hope beyond this life, if there is no resurrection.” If there is no living and reigning with Christ, we are of all men most to be pitied. If you don't get anything with Christ after you die, forget it. Don't put another dollar in the plate, walk out of here, forget it. You are wasting your time as a Christian. If you do not really believe that something happens after you die, do not come here. Well I shouldn't say that. Come and learn, but don't just sit and pretend like you're a Christian.
Death means life. It is always sad when someone is sick. It is always sad when somebody dies. It is always sad when someone is dying. But as Christians we do not mourn as those who have no hope. Pity those who are left behind, no pity for those who go ahead of us and die and reign. You see this Millennium, which Christians argue about, it is not some esoteric thing to write PhD’s on. If I am correct in what I have explained this morning, the Millennium is a great engine of hope. This is what it was meant to do for the first Christians. This is what it is meant to do for us. Love has won. Christ has conquered. The nations belonged to Him. All of you who call upon the name of Jesus belong to Him. And in a moment of your death -- and you'll have loved ones who will mourn and weep and right they should. But in the moment of your death, you go on to live and reign for a thousand years. Blessed and holy is the one who shares in the first resurrection! Over such the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ as they will reign with Him a thousand years.
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Making Sense of the Millennium, Part 1
Over at Justin Taylor's blog, there's been talk of the millennium and Revelation 20. That has prompted me to trot out (portions of) some transcribed sermons from a few years ago. This first message is part of my first sermon on Revelation 20:1-6.
*****
Now let’s come to Revelation 20. You’ll notice quickly that I believe that the text lends itself to an amillennial interpretation. And hopefully, that’s not just because I want to pick a camp that Reformed people are in, but because it is, in fact, biblical. But I encourage you to be Bereans and search the scriptures for yourselves on these things. The millennium question does matter, but I certainly think it’s less important than many people have made it to be. So, let’s look at the text, and try to answer three questions. Number 1: When does the millennium occur? And if I convince you of that, well then you’ve bought it all. Number 2: What is meant by Satan being bound for 1000 years? And then, in the following sermon, we’ll do Number 3: How are we to understand verse 4, where it says they came to life and reigned with Christ 1000 years?
Question Number One: When does the Millenium occur?
Here’s the simplest way to put it. The millenium occurs before Christ’s second coming, before Christ’s second coming. Look at verse 7. “When the 1000 years are over”–so this is after the millenium--“Satan will be released from his prison.” This is what I understand to be a time of tribulation where Satan is given a short time to persecute the church as he never has before. “Satan will be released from prison and will go out to deceive the nations and the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them for battle. In number they are like the sand on the seashore. They march across the breadth of the earth, surrounding the camp of God’s people. Fire came down and devoured them, and the devil is thrown into the lake of burning sulfur.”
All of this happens after the Millenium. Now anybody can see that. It says right here, when the 1000 years are over. So, the key is understanding that this battle scene describe here is the same as the battle scenes we’ve seen described three or four times in Revelation already. The premillennialists, again not our enemies, I just disagree with them on this point, the premillennialists would say Chapter 19, Christ comes, he takes up the believers, and then he sets up his kingdom. And then Chapter 20, there’s some sort of coming again, at least if you’re dispensational. And there’s a final battle where he destroys the devil, after the Millennial Age. And I want to argue, as I have before, that the battle in Chapter 20 is the same as the ones we’ve seen before.
So, turn back to Chapter 9. I did this last week, I’ll do it very briefly this week. There are at least four times where there is a final battle scene described. Chapter 9, verse 13, the sixth angel sounded his trumpet, said release the four angels who were bound at the great river Euphrates. And they were released to kill a third of mankind, and the number of the mounted troops was 200,000,000. So, there is a final battle scene--all these troops gathering at the Euphrates, which I understand to be symbolic.
That was the sixth trumpet, now look also at 16:12, the sixth bowl poured out on the river Euphrates. The waters dry up, three spirits looking like frogs perform miraculous signs. They go out to the kings of the whole world. They deceive them, they gather them for battle on the great day of the Lord. There’s another – same battle scene,
Chapter 19, verse 19, then I saw the beasts and the kings of the earth, and their armies gathered together to make war against the rider on the horse, and the beast was captured and with him, the false prophets. There’s another final battle scene. Three times in Revelation, we have ho polemos. Polemos is the word for war in Greek. Ho is the definite article, the. Three times, Chapter 16, Chapter 19, and Chapter 20, we read of THE battle, or THE war.
So, Chapter 20, the beginning takes us back prior to the end of Chapter 19, and we’ve seen this time and time again in Revelation. That Revelation works in parallelism. You have the three seals, and boom, the end of the world, lighting thunders, and then let’s look at it again, and there’s three trumpets, end of the world. Back up, three bowls. And each time it’s not exactly the same. Each time gets a little more intense, and it catapults us a little closer to the end. We keep zooming in closer to the end. So, the trumpets look a little bit more at the end. The bowls look a little more at the end, and now we’re focusing mostly on the end of the age. But it’s repeating. This has happened before in Chapter 6, the seals. At end, who can stand the wrath of the Lamb. And then Chapter 7 opens with a vision of the 144,000 who are sealed. Which takes us back prior to those events to show us who will stand.
Or, if you look in Chapter 16, at the very end, verse 19. God remembered Babylon the Great and gave her the cup filled with the wine and the fury of his wrath. So, Babylon is taken down in Chapter 16. But then we back up the truck in Chapters 17 and 18, and we zero in on Babylon again. And so time and time again, we see Revelation does not work in a strictly chronological order. And so that’s what’s happening here. Chapter 19, we have the battle, Christ returns at the end, and then we take a step back now and we’re looking at what happens before that battle, leading up to one more final battle scene in Chapter 20, verse 7. You with me? This is why nobody gets the book.
Now, if the binding of Satan takes place chronologically after Chapter 19, we are left with a puzzling question. What’s the point? Look at Chapter 19, verse 17. An angel stands, calls to the birds, come and gather together for the great supper of God so that you may eat the flesh of kings, generals, mighty men, horses, riders, flesh of all people, free and slave, small and great. That’s pretty comprehensive. I mean the bad guys are totally wiped out. So, if that happened and then the binding of Satan happens, you have to ask, “What’s the point? Why does Satan need to be bound? There’s nobody left.” Christ has already destroyed everybody. The birds are circling. They’re poking their eyes out. So, it makes much more sense that we’re looking back now before this end. So, I would argue that the Millennium is the age of the triumph of the gospel inaugurated by Christ in his death, resurrection, and ascension. Let me say that again. The millenium is the age of the triumph of the gospel inaugurated--that means begun--by Christ in his death, resurrection, and ascension. So, this church age, stretching from Christ’s first coming to his second coming, is the Millennium. So, I argue that we are in the Millennium. So, amillennial doesn’t mean I don’t believe in the Millennium. It means I don’t believe in earthly Millennium where Christ is sitting on the throne reigning. But we are in this Millennial Age.
And it goes without saying by this point that I don’t believe that the Millennium is a literal 1000 years. We’re already over 2000 years getting there. But you think what number in Revelation has been literal? We’ve argued the 144,000 are not literal. The 1260 days, the times, times, and half of times, the 200,000,000 mounted troops, all of the sevens, the twelves, the fours. The numbers are symbols. And think of all the symbols that have not been taken literally. Even, I think the strictest dispensationalist would not take most of these literal. A prostitute, a beast, a second beast, a pregnant woman, a bride, a groom, eating a scroll, seven heads, ten horns, fire coming from the mouths of the two witnesses, Christ killing people with a sword in his mouth, blood as high as a horses bridle for 200 miles. John saw all of these things. It’s not that they’re untrue, don’t hear that. But they point to something else. Just look at the immediate context here. Think of what John sees. Well, we had the dragon chained up in an abyss. To me, this seems to be more than a little metaphorical. There’s not literally a dragon somewhere in the core of the earth chained up. And so it makes sense that the 1000 years are also part of the symbolism not to be taken literally. So, when does the Millennium occur? It’s occurring right now, prior to Christ’s return.
Question Number Two: What is meant then by Satan being bound for 1000 years?
This is our last question for this morning. We’ll do number three next week.
At this point you may be saying, “I’ve been here for enough of Revelation. I’m sort of tracking with the first question. I understand the parallelism. I mean goodness, you say that every single week. I think I’m getting the hang of it now. Okay, I can get that, but is Satan really bound right now? Come on. Look at my life. Look what’s going on in the world. Is Satan really bound?”
I’m going to take you to a few passages in the gospels. First is Mark, Chapter 3. I will explain in just a few minutes what it means that Satan is bound, because it certainly doesn’t mean he’s inactive in the world. But I do believe that the binding of Satan occurred in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Turn to Mark 3:23. This is where some of the teachers of the law are accusing Jesus of being possessed by demons. And Jesus says, “How can Satan drive out Satan?” In other words, “I’m casting out demons. I can't do that by the power of demons.” “If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. If a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand. And if Satan opposes himself and is divided, he cannot stand. In fact, no one can enter a strong man’s house and carry off his possession unless he first ties up the strong man. Then he can rob his house. I tell you the truth, all the sins and blasphemies of men will be forgiven, but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven. He is guilty of eternal sin. He said this because they were saying he has an evil spirit.” I want to look in particular at verse 27. Jesus is implicitly giving an explanation of what his ministry is like. He’s saying, “I don’t cast out demons by demons. A house divided against itself can't stand.” And he describes himself as one who is entering a strong man’s house to carry off his possessions, to expel these demons. He says you can't do that unless you first tie up the strong man, who is Satan. Now, the word translated “ties up” is the Greek word deo. And it is the same word used in Revelation, Chapter 20, that’s translated bound. Satan is tied up. The strong man is tied up. Jesus understood himself, that in his ministry, he was, in effect, tying up Satan in knots.
Let me give you another example. Luke, Chapter 10. Luke Chapter 10, verse 17, Jesus here has sent out the 72 disciples to go on a short-term mission trip, and to go preach about the kingdom, and to do signs and wonders. And then they return in verse 17. It’s says the 72 return with joy and said, “Lord, even the demons submit to us in your name.” Then verse 18, he replied, “I saw Satan fall like lightening from heaven.” In other words, Jesus tells the disciples, in your ministry, in your gospel kingdom ministry, I saw Satan fall. I saw him cast down. The word here is similar to the word – actually, to the concept in Revelation, Chapter 12, which we’ll see in just a moment, where the great dragon is hurled down. So, Jesus understands that, in the ministry of the gospel, Satan has already fallen. He’s already been cast down.
One more passage. John, Chapter 12. And this is maybe most significant. John, Chapter 12, verse 31. Jesus says, “Now is the time. Now is the time for judgment on this world. Now the prince of this world will be driven out.” Jesus says in my ministry, in my death and resurrection, the prince of this world, Satan, will be driven out. The word is ekballo. The word used in Revelation 20, verse 3, when it says Satan was thrown down into the abyss is ballo, they’re cognates. And then look at verse 32, because this is significant. But when I, “when I’m lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself.” Now why is that significant? Because in Revelation, Chapter 20, as we’ll see more in just a moment, the purpose of binding Satan is so that he can no longer deceive the nations. And so you see the connection. In Revelation, Chapter 20, Satan is bound so that he can no longer deceive the nations. In John 12, Jesus says the prince of the world is cast out, he’s thrown down, he’s driven out. And then “I’ll draw all men unto myselves.” Not meaning every person everywhere will believe, but all men, all types of men, all peoples. It’s the truth of Colossians 2:15, “Having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them trifling over them by the cross.” We underestimate what Jesus did on the cross, and the defeat that he handed to Satan.
Now let me show you a couple of other places in Revelation, and then we’ll conclude with some application. Look at Revelation, Chapter 11. We won’t read through the account of the two witnesses, but the two witnesses are metaphors for the church. And Chapter 11 shows us a picture of the church that is both vulnerable and invincible. They’re trampled upon, but they also breathe out fire. And they’re also brought back to life. This is a picture of the church in this age. Yes, persecuted. Yes, attacked. Yes, under assault. But ultimately, God has promised us she’ll be victorious. Which is the point of Chapter 20.
Let me show you the other passage, which is more to the point. In Revelation, Chapter 12, look at verse 7. Now if we had time, I could show you, there’s about seven or eight parallels between Revelation 12 and Revelation 20. Verse 7 says there was war in heaven. So, we’re looking at heaven. Revelation 20 is a scene of throne rooms and souls in heaven. Michael and his angels fought against the dragon and the dragon and his angels fought back, but he was not strong enough. They lost their place in heaven. The great dragon was hurled down. That ancient serpent called the devil or Satan. It’s the same fourfold description of the devil that we have in Chapter 20.
But what about, “Who leads the whole world astray?” Now here’s where we need to hold two truths intention. And there’s a word that’s very important, that’s different. Satan is the one who leads the whole world astray, and yet Satan is bound so that he may no longer deceive the nations. Not the same thing. The world is according to John the lust of the eyes, the pride of life, fleshliness, its corruption. Satan leads the world astray. But he’s bound such that the nations, people groups, countries, missions can be successful. So, he is a deceiver. He is leading astray. But the nations are also coming to Christ. And it goes on in Chapter 12 and it talks about those who are martyrs for the testimony. It’s very similar scene. We don’t have time to look at it any more than this.
Two Points of Application
So, here’s where we need to finish. You’re saying, I see some parallels with the gospels, and Satan maybe is bound and he’s defeated. But what exactly does it mean to say Satan is bound now? Look at verse 3 of Chapter 20. It gives us the answer. They threw him into the abyss and locked and sealed it over him to keep him from deceiving the nations any more till the 1000 years were ended. After that, he must be set free for a short time. The binding of Satan does not mean that he can’t harm, or that he isn’t active, or that he doesn’t tempt you, or that he doesn’t need to be resisted, or fled from. The binding of Satan means two things in particular.
First, the binding of Satan means that he cannot deceive the nations and gather them together to wipe out the church. When it says in verse 3, cannot deceive the nations, compare that with verse 7. Here’s what he will do when he deceives the nations. When the 1000 years are over, Satan will be released from his prison, will go out to deceive the nations, and the four corners of the earth, to gather them for battle. So, the deception here is to gather all of his forces, to gather the nations against Christ and his church. And because of Christ’s work in the gospel, Satan is unable to do that. No matter what persecution there is, he will not be able to wipe out the church. If Satan were not bound, the church would’ve been gone long ago. That’s the first thing.
Second, the binding of Satan means that the nations will no longer be in times of ignorance, but will be responsive to the gospel. That’s where it says “he will keep him from deceiving the nations anymore.” So, Paul, in Acts, Chapter 14, speaking in Lystra, says, “In the past, God let all nations go their own way.” In Athens, he said, “In the past, God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. In Ephesians 2, he says, “The nations used to be strangers and aliens to God’s promise.” And in John’s gospel we read that Christ is drawing all men, all peoples to himself. Revelation 20, read in light of these passages, becomes a missions text. Satan’s reign has come to an end and Christ is conquering the nations.
In A.D. 100, less than 1% of the world’s population was Christian. And only 6% had been evangelized. By A.D. 500, 20% of the world were Christians, 30% had been evangelized. And then Christendom takes place, and the growth of the church numerically stagnates. But then by the end of the 18th Century, the modern missionary movement begins, so that by 1900 now 35% of the world were Christians, and 46 % had been evangelized. And by the year 2000, roughly the same percentage of the world, much larger in total number, are Christians, and now 73% of the people, 3/4th have a viable witness to Jesus Christ. There are 12,000 people groups on the planet, and most of them have a church. Now there are still thousands, small ones, interior tribes, that don’t. But peoples have been coming to Christ. Matthew 24:14, “The gospel of the kingdom will be preached and the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.” So, I am confident that evil will grow. And I am equally confident that the gospel will go forth and the great commission will be completed. Nobody likes goals that you never intend to make. But the church will fulfill the great commission. And all nations will hear of Christ. So let this be an encouragement.
Here’s the application. Go to the hard places if you hear Christ calling you there. Far away places that scare mom and dad. Urban centers, not just the cool ones where all the young professionals live, the burned over ones. Dangerous ones. Let this be a call to pour ourselves into international ministry. Resources, time, people, prayers, because the nations will come to Christ. Because Satan is bound. Let this be an incentive for personal evangelism. Who know who Christ is right now drawing unto himself. I hope that by the fall we can have an evangelism program and some people trained to do an evangelism program in our church, and maybe in our communities, and your office, in your neighborhood. Backyard vacation bible schools going on.
Be bold in your witness. Christ has conquered. The nations belong to Him. We are not serving a defeated king, but one who is triumphed and has so bound Satan, not so that we will never be tempted. But so that the nations, Afghanistan, North Korea, Iraq, Japan, the Netherlands, Ireland, can come to know Christ. And there will be a witness among every people to Jesus because of his work.
*****
Now let’s come to Revelation 20. You’ll notice quickly that I believe that the text lends itself to an amillennial interpretation. And hopefully, that’s not just because I want to pick a camp that Reformed people are in, but because it is, in fact, biblical. But I encourage you to be Bereans and search the scriptures for yourselves on these things. The millennium question does matter, but I certainly think it’s less important than many people have made it to be. So, let’s look at the text, and try to answer three questions. Number 1: When does the millennium occur? And if I convince you of that, well then you’ve bought it all. Number 2: What is meant by Satan being bound for 1000 years? And then, in the following sermon, we’ll do Number 3: How are we to understand verse 4, where it says they came to life and reigned with Christ 1000 years?
Question Number One: When does the Millenium occur?
Here’s the simplest way to put it. The millenium occurs before Christ’s second coming, before Christ’s second coming. Look at verse 7. “When the 1000 years are over”–so this is after the millenium--“Satan will be released from his prison.” This is what I understand to be a time of tribulation where Satan is given a short time to persecute the church as he never has before. “Satan will be released from prison and will go out to deceive the nations and the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them for battle. In number they are like the sand on the seashore. They march across the breadth of the earth, surrounding the camp of God’s people. Fire came down and devoured them, and the devil is thrown into the lake of burning sulfur.”
All of this happens after the Millenium. Now anybody can see that. It says right here, when the 1000 years are over. So, the key is understanding that this battle scene describe here is the same as the battle scenes we’ve seen described three or four times in Revelation already. The premillennialists, again not our enemies, I just disagree with them on this point, the premillennialists would say Chapter 19, Christ comes, he takes up the believers, and then he sets up his kingdom. And then Chapter 20, there’s some sort of coming again, at least if you’re dispensational. And there’s a final battle where he destroys the devil, after the Millennial Age. And I want to argue, as I have before, that the battle in Chapter 20 is the same as the ones we’ve seen before.
So, turn back to Chapter 9. I did this last week, I’ll do it very briefly this week. There are at least four times where there is a final battle scene described. Chapter 9, verse 13, the sixth angel sounded his trumpet, said release the four angels who were bound at the great river Euphrates. And they were released to kill a third of mankind, and the number of the mounted troops was 200,000,000. So, there is a final battle scene--all these troops gathering at the Euphrates, which I understand to be symbolic.
That was the sixth trumpet, now look also at 16:12, the sixth bowl poured out on the river Euphrates. The waters dry up, three spirits looking like frogs perform miraculous signs. They go out to the kings of the whole world. They deceive them, they gather them for battle on the great day of the Lord. There’s another – same battle scene,
Chapter 19, verse 19, then I saw the beasts and the kings of the earth, and their armies gathered together to make war against the rider on the horse, and the beast was captured and with him, the false prophets. There’s another final battle scene. Three times in Revelation, we have ho polemos. Polemos is the word for war in Greek. Ho is the definite article, the. Three times, Chapter 16, Chapter 19, and Chapter 20, we read of THE battle, or THE war.
So, Chapter 20, the beginning takes us back prior to the end of Chapter 19, and we’ve seen this time and time again in Revelation. That Revelation works in parallelism. You have the three seals, and boom, the end of the world, lighting thunders, and then let’s look at it again, and there’s three trumpets, end of the world. Back up, three bowls. And each time it’s not exactly the same. Each time gets a little more intense, and it catapults us a little closer to the end. We keep zooming in closer to the end. So, the trumpets look a little bit more at the end. The bowls look a little more at the end, and now we’re focusing mostly on the end of the age. But it’s repeating. This has happened before in Chapter 6, the seals. At end, who can stand the wrath of the Lamb. And then Chapter 7 opens with a vision of the 144,000 who are sealed. Which takes us back prior to those events to show us who will stand.
Or, if you look in Chapter 16, at the very end, verse 19. God remembered Babylon the Great and gave her the cup filled with the wine and the fury of his wrath. So, Babylon is taken down in Chapter 16. But then we back up the truck in Chapters 17 and 18, and we zero in on Babylon again. And so time and time again, we see Revelation does not work in a strictly chronological order. And so that’s what’s happening here. Chapter 19, we have the battle, Christ returns at the end, and then we take a step back now and we’re looking at what happens before that battle, leading up to one more final battle scene in Chapter 20, verse 7. You with me? This is why nobody gets the book.
Now, if the binding of Satan takes place chronologically after Chapter 19, we are left with a puzzling question. What’s the point? Look at Chapter 19, verse 17. An angel stands, calls to the birds, come and gather together for the great supper of God so that you may eat the flesh of kings, generals, mighty men, horses, riders, flesh of all people, free and slave, small and great. That’s pretty comprehensive. I mean the bad guys are totally wiped out. So, if that happened and then the binding of Satan happens, you have to ask, “What’s the point? Why does Satan need to be bound? There’s nobody left.” Christ has already destroyed everybody. The birds are circling. They’re poking their eyes out. So, it makes much more sense that we’re looking back now before this end. So, I would argue that the Millennium is the age of the triumph of the gospel inaugurated by Christ in his death, resurrection, and ascension. Let me say that again. The millenium is the age of the triumph of the gospel inaugurated--that means begun--by Christ in his death, resurrection, and ascension. So, this church age, stretching from Christ’s first coming to his second coming, is the Millennium. So, I argue that we are in the Millennium. So, amillennial doesn’t mean I don’t believe in the Millennium. It means I don’t believe in earthly Millennium where Christ is sitting on the throne reigning. But we are in this Millennial Age.
And it goes without saying by this point that I don’t believe that the Millennium is a literal 1000 years. We’re already over 2000 years getting there. But you think what number in Revelation has been literal? We’ve argued the 144,000 are not literal. The 1260 days, the times, times, and half of times, the 200,000,000 mounted troops, all of the sevens, the twelves, the fours. The numbers are symbols. And think of all the symbols that have not been taken literally. Even, I think the strictest dispensationalist would not take most of these literal. A prostitute, a beast, a second beast, a pregnant woman, a bride, a groom, eating a scroll, seven heads, ten horns, fire coming from the mouths of the two witnesses, Christ killing people with a sword in his mouth, blood as high as a horses bridle for 200 miles. John saw all of these things. It’s not that they’re untrue, don’t hear that. But they point to something else. Just look at the immediate context here. Think of what John sees. Well, we had the dragon chained up in an abyss. To me, this seems to be more than a little metaphorical. There’s not literally a dragon somewhere in the core of the earth chained up. And so it makes sense that the 1000 years are also part of the symbolism not to be taken literally. So, when does the Millennium occur? It’s occurring right now, prior to Christ’s return.
Question Number Two: What is meant then by Satan being bound for 1000 years?
This is our last question for this morning. We’ll do number three next week.
At this point you may be saying, “I’ve been here for enough of Revelation. I’m sort of tracking with the first question. I understand the parallelism. I mean goodness, you say that every single week. I think I’m getting the hang of it now. Okay, I can get that, but is Satan really bound right now? Come on. Look at my life. Look what’s going on in the world. Is Satan really bound?”
I’m going to take you to a few passages in the gospels. First is Mark, Chapter 3. I will explain in just a few minutes what it means that Satan is bound, because it certainly doesn’t mean he’s inactive in the world. But I do believe that the binding of Satan occurred in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Turn to Mark 3:23. This is where some of the teachers of the law are accusing Jesus of being possessed by demons. And Jesus says, “How can Satan drive out Satan?” In other words, “I’m casting out demons. I can't do that by the power of demons.” “If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. If a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand. And if Satan opposes himself and is divided, he cannot stand. In fact, no one can enter a strong man’s house and carry off his possession unless he first ties up the strong man. Then he can rob his house. I tell you the truth, all the sins and blasphemies of men will be forgiven, but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven. He is guilty of eternal sin. He said this because they were saying he has an evil spirit.” I want to look in particular at verse 27. Jesus is implicitly giving an explanation of what his ministry is like. He’s saying, “I don’t cast out demons by demons. A house divided against itself can't stand.” And he describes himself as one who is entering a strong man’s house to carry off his possessions, to expel these demons. He says you can't do that unless you first tie up the strong man, who is Satan. Now, the word translated “ties up” is the Greek word deo. And it is the same word used in Revelation, Chapter 20, that’s translated bound. Satan is tied up. The strong man is tied up. Jesus understood himself, that in his ministry, he was, in effect, tying up Satan in knots.
Let me give you another example. Luke, Chapter 10. Luke Chapter 10, verse 17, Jesus here has sent out the 72 disciples to go on a short-term mission trip, and to go preach about the kingdom, and to do signs and wonders. And then they return in verse 17. It’s says the 72 return with joy and said, “Lord, even the demons submit to us in your name.” Then verse 18, he replied, “I saw Satan fall like lightening from heaven.” In other words, Jesus tells the disciples, in your ministry, in your gospel kingdom ministry, I saw Satan fall. I saw him cast down. The word here is similar to the word – actually, to the concept in Revelation, Chapter 12, which we’ll see in just a moment, where the great dragon is hurled down. So, Jesus understands that, in the ministry of the gospel, Satan has already fallen. He’s already been cast down.
One more passage. John, Chapter 12. And this is maybe most significant. John, Chapter 12, verse 31. Jesus says, “Now is the time. Now is the time for judgment on this world. Now the prince of this world will be driven out.” Jesus says in my ministry, in my death and resurrection, the prince of this world, Satan, will be driven out. The word is ekballo. The word used in Revelation 20, verse 3, when it says Satan was thrown down into the abyss is ballo, they’re cognates. And then look at verse 32, because this is significant. But when I, “when I’m lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself.” Now why is that significant? Because in Revelation, Chapter 20, as we’ll see more in just a moment, the purpose of binding Satan is so that he can no longer deceive the nations. And so you see the connection. In Revelation, Chapter 20, Satan is bound so that he can no longer deceive the nations. In John 12, Jesus says the prince of the world is cast out, he’s thrown down, he’s driven out. And then “I’ll draw all men unto myselves.” Not meaning every person everywhere will believe, but all men, all types of men, all peoples. It’s the truth of Colossians 2:15, “Having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them trifling over them by the cross.” We underestimate what Jesus did on the cross, and the defeat that he handed to Satan.
Now let me show you a couple of other places in Revelation, and then we’ll conclude with some application. Look at Revelation, Chapter 11. We won’t read through the account of the two witnesses, but the two witnesses are metaphors for the church. And Chapter 11 shows us a picture of the church that is both vulnerable and invincible. They’re trampled upon, but they also breathe out fire. And they’re also brought back to life. This is a picture of the church in this age. Yes, persecuted. Yes, attacked. Yes, under assault. But ultimately, God has promised us she’ll be victorious. Which is the point of Chapter 20.
Let me show you the other passage, which is more to the point. In Revelation, Chapter 12, look at verse 7. Now if we had time, I could show you, there’s about seven or eight parallels between Revelation 12 and Revelation 20. Verse 7 says there was war in heaven. So, we’re looking at heaven. Revelation 20 is a scene of throne rooms and souls in heaven. Michael and his angels fought against the dragon and the dragon and his angels fought back, but he was not strong enough. They lost their place in heaven. The great dragon was hurled down. That ancient serpent called the devil or Satan. It’s the same fourfold description of the devil that we have in Chapter 20.
But what about, “Who leads the whole world astray?” Now here’s where we need to hold two truths intention. And there’s a word that’s very important, that’s different. Satan is the one who leads the whole world astray, and yet Satan is bound so that he may no longer deceive the nations. Not the same thing. The world is according to John the lust of the eyes, the pride of life, fleshliness, its corruption. Satan leads the world astray. But he’s bound such that the nations, people groups, countries, missions can be successful. So, he is a deceiver. He is leading astray. But the nations are also coming to Christ. And it goes on in Chapter 12 and it talks about those who are martyrs for the testimony. It’s very similar scene. We don’t have time to look at it any more than this.
Two Points of Application
So, here’s where we need to finish. You’re saying, I see some parallels with the gospels, and Satan maybe is bound and he’s defeated. But what exactly does it mean to say Satan is bound now? Look at verse 3 of Chapter 20. It gives us the answer. They threw him into the abyss and locked and sealed it over him to keep him from deceiving the nations any more till the 1000 years were ended. After that, he must be set free for a short time. The binding of Satan does not mean that he can’t harm, or that he isn’t active, or that he doesn’t tempt you, or that he doesn’t need to be resisted, or fled from. The binding of Satan means two things in particular.
First, the binding of Satan means that he cannot deceive the nations and gather them together to wipe out the church. When it says in verse 3, cannot deceive the nations, compare that with verse 7. Here’s what he will do when he deceives the nations. When the 1000 years are over, Satan will be released from his prison, will go out to deceive the nations, and the four corners of the earth, to gather them for battle. So, the deception here is to gather all of his forces, to gather the nations against Christ and his church. And because of Christ’s work in the gospel, Satan is unable to do that. No matter what persecution there is, he will not be able to wipe out the church. If Satan were not bound, the church would’ve been gone long ago. That’s the first thing.
Second, the binding of Satan means that the nations will no longer be in times of ignorance, but will be responsive to the gospel. That’s where it says “he will keep him from deceiving the nations anymore.” So, Paul, in Acts, Chapter 14, speaking in Lystra, says, “In the past, God let all nations go their own way.” In Athens, he said, “In the past, God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. In Ephesians 2, he says, “The nations used to be strangers and aliens to God’s promise.” And in John’s gospel we read that Christ is drawing all men, all peoples to himself. Revelation 20, read in light of these passages, becomes a missions text. Satan’s reign has come to an end and Christ is conquering the nations.
In A.D. 100, less than 1% of the world’s population was Christian. And only 6% had been evangelized. By A.D. 500, 20% of the world were Christians, 30% had been evangelized. And then Christendom takes place, and the growth of the church numerically stagnates. But then by the end of the 18th Century, the modern missionary movement begins, so that by 1900 now 35% of the world were Christians, and 46 % had been evangelized. And by the year 2000, roughly the same percentage of the world, much larger in total number, are Christians, and now 73% of the people, 3/4th have a viable witness to Jesus Christ. There are 12,000 people groups on the planet, and most of them have a church. Now there are still thousands, small ones, interior tribes, that don’t. But peoples have been coming to Christ. Matthew 24:14, “The gospel of the kingdom will be preached and the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.” So, I am confident that evil will grow. And I am equally confident that the gospel will go forth and the great commission will be completed. Nobody likes goals that you never intend to make. But the church will fulfill the great commission. And all nations will hear of Christ. So let this be an encouragement.
Here’s the application. Go to the hard places if you hear Christ calling you there. Far away places that scare mom and dad. Urban centers, not just the cool ones where all the young professionals live, the burned over ones. Dangerous ones. Let this be a call to pour ourselves into international ministry. Resources, time, people, prayers, because the nations will come to Christ. Because Satan is bound. Let this be an incentive for personal evangelism. Who know who Christ is right now drawing unto himself. I hope that by the fall we can have an evangelism program and some people trained to do an evangelism program in our church, and maybe in our communities, and your office, in your neighborhood. Backyard vacation bible schools going on.
Be bold in your witness. Christ has conquered. The nations belong to Him. We are not serving a defeated king, but one who is triumphed and has so bound Satan, not so that we will never be tempted. But so that the nations, Afghanistan, North Korea, Iraq, Japan, the Netherlands, Ireland, can come to know Christ. And there will be a witness among every people to Jesus because of his work.
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Thinking About the Kingdom
Last week I preached on Mark 1:14-15 where Jesus delivers his first sermon: “The kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.” In this one sentence we find four of the most important words in the New Testament: kingdom, gospel, repent, and believe. Although we are familiar with these four terms, many Christians would struggle to articulate an accurate definition of each.This is especially true of “kingdom.” Clearly the kingdom is central to the story of the gospels (basileia occurs 162 times in the New Testament). But what does the word mean? Let me suggest three complementary ways to look at the kingdom. I realize this is not an exegetical study. But perhaps the theological overview will be helpful.
What is the Kingdom ?
1. The kingdom is God’s reign and rule. At its simplest, the kingdom is where the King is. Where God is acknowledged, where his subjects are saved, where his enemies are vanquished, where his ways are obeyed, there we see the coming of the kingdom.
2. The kingdom of God is the long-awaited Messianic rule. Jesus’ prefaced his preaching of the gospel of the kingdom by announcing, “The time is fulfilled...” God’s Messianic rule was explicitly predicted in the Old Testament (e.g., Psalm 2). It was also prefigured in different ways. The Garden of Eden, with its peace, prosperity, absence of sin and suffering, and perfect relationship between God and man, was a picture of the kingdom of God. So was the nation of Israel in the promised land. The covenant blessings were blessings of the kingdom: safety, security, health, prosperity, God’s presence. These blessings reached their zenith under King David. He was a type of the Messianic King to come.
3. The kingdom of God is the age to come breaking in to the present age. Think of what we see in the visions from John and Isaiah of the new heaven and new earth. We see a new kind of Eden: no more tears, no evil, no impurity, perfect security, abundance, and holiness, a place where God is all in all, where the Lamb is worshiped, adored, and obeyed. This is the heavenly age that has broken in to our world with the coming of Christ. In Jesus’ ministry we see the signs of the kingdom. The sick are healed. The hungry are fed. Demons are defeated. Sinners repent and come to God in faith.
With Jesus, the kingdom has arrived, but it hasn’t fully set up shop. The kingdom of this world has not yet become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ (Rev. 11). We have the kingdom now as an appetizer. We can taste it. It is real food, but it’s not the main dish.
A Few Cautions
Whenever we try to define something as big, broad, and potentially confusing as the kingdom, it’s important we state our definition in positives and negatives. So in addition to the three statements above, let me suggest five cautions.
1. Don’t be afraid to talk about the kingdom. Some conservatives avoid preaching the gospel of the kingdom, believing that kingdom talk is for liberals. But Jesus and the apostles showed no such hesitation. The message about God’s reign and rule was hugely significant to their theology and should be to ours as well.
2. Don’t have a truncated view of the kingdom. For many people the kingdom of God equals social services. But the kingdom is not just the alleviation of suffering, it means conquering God’s enemies, ridding the world of impurity, and acknowledging the splendor of the King. So before we get all excited about “doing kingdom work” we should remember that the coming kingdom will not just be devoid of hunger, it will also be devoid of the wicked and unbelieving.
3. Don’t drive a wedge between the church and the kingdom. The church does not equal the kingdom, but in this age the kingdom is largely manifested in the church. That’s where we find the people of the King. That’s where we are supposed to see reconciliation, the alleviation of poverty, the mitigation of suffering, the conquering of evil powers, and the worship of King Jesus. A vision for the kingdom is a vision for the growth, reformation, and revival of the church.
4. Don’t think we build the kingdom. The kingdom is something brought by the King, not something we build. The verbs related to the kingdom in the New Testament aren’t verbs like “build” or “expand,” but verbs like “receive,” “inherit,” and “enter.” The kingdom is a gift that God gives to us, not a project that God expects us to accomplish.
5. Don’t forget to talk about how we enter the kingdom. As Greg Gilbert has pointed out before, we haven’t proclaimed the gospel of the kingdom unless we have told how people they can enter into this kingdom. The good news of the kingdom is not simply that God is in the world establishing his rule, conquering his enemies, righting wrongs, forming a holy people for himself, and reversing the effects of sin and suffering. The good news must also include the message that through Christ’s wrath-bearing death and his glorious resurrection we can be a part of this kingdom. The gospel of the kingdom is no good news unless we tell people how unrighteous, unholy, undeserving sinners can receive this kingdom through repentance for our sins and faith in Jesus Christ, the Son of God.
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
This is Not Good
Rob Bell's theological trajectory is not good. Case in point, this article from the Boston Globe.
Here, for example, is Bell's definition of an evangelical, completely devoid of any theological or historical meaning.
And here's Bell's take on the heart of Christianity:
He gets two points for mentioning resurrection and minus ten points for not mentioning the resurrection, the resurrection of Jesus Christ for the justification of sinners (Rom. 4:25). I think Bell believes in the historical resurrection of Christ, but to tell the Boston Globe that the heart of Christianity is simply our belief that God can bring good out of evil is to sell the farm.
At one point the interviewer notices the Rob doesn't talk about religion or even mention Jesus very much. To which Bell replies:
This is just so confused and unhelpful. It is classic old-school liberalism: Jesus as the fullest flower of fair humanity. The emphasis on creation has swallowed up the biblical notion of redemption. The shocking, vibrant apostolic message centered on the life, death, resurrection, coming kingdom, and coming judgment of Jesus Christ has morphed in a banal, same-old-same-old message about actualizing our humanity.
Yes, there are hucksters for the "faith" trying to cajole people into the kingdom. But before we chide those interested in conversion, we should remember that when King Agrippa asked Paul if he was trying to persuade him to be a Christian, Paul said "I would to God that not only you but also all who hear me this day might become such as I am" (Acts 26:29). And this was after he talked openly--to secular people mind you--about repentance, the sufferings of Christ, and the resurrection of Jesus from the dead.
I want to think Rob's theology is better than what comes across in print. But the fact is that I never hear him in an interview (nor elsewhere for that matter) give an explanation of the gospel or a summary of the heart of Christianity that sounds anything like what we read from Peter, Paul, or Jesus. Rob is trying to help people. I bet he's a nice, sincere guy. I'm sure he faces demands and pressures that I can't imagine. But he keeps getting the most important questions wrong, and his theology keeps getting worse and worse.
I don't know how to say this without sounding really condescending, but we should pray that the Lord would give Rob a clearer sense of the gospel and a courage to share it with all the winsomeness, cultural relevance, forthrightness, and biblical fidelity that Paul displayed at the original Mars Hill in Acts 17. No matter the extremes he may have seen in some unhealthy backwards churches out there, there's no excuse for so frequently and so painfully botching the basic plotline of the Bible and ignoring the most important contours of the faith. With Rob's notoriety, he has no choice but to ignore most of what people say about him. But I hope that he is open to thoughtful criticism. Not from me, but from someone he trusts who can ask some hard questions prod him back to surer ground.
I wouldn't bother to mention Bell except that his influence and his church are larger than life in my old hometown. Emergent Village may be a falling star, but Rob Bell still draws a crowd. Talk to most youth group kids in America and they've not heard of Brian McLaren; they're not reading Joel Osteen; most of them (unfortunately in my opinion) are probably not reading John Piper, and they're certainly reading Kevin DeYoung less than any of those other guys. But they know Rob Bell. He is reaching many people, especially the young.
But, as always, the question is: what is he reaching them with? Not with the good stuff of the good deposit I'm afraid (2 Timothy 1:8-14).
HT: Team Pyro
Here, for example, is Bell's definition of an evangelical, completely devoid of any theological or historical meaning.
I embrace the term evangelical, if by that we mean a belief that we together can actually work for change in the world, caring for the environment, extending to the poor generosity and kindness, a hopeful outlook. That's a beautiful sort of thing.
And here's Bell's take on the heart of Christianity:
At the heart of the Christian story is resurrection, the belief that this world is good, and that, as a follower of Jesus, a belief that God hasn’t abandoned the world, but is actively at work in the world. Even in the midst of what can look like despair and destruction there is a new creation present.
He gets two points for mentioning resurrection and minus ten points for not mentioning the resurrection, the resurrection of Jesus Christ for the justification of sinners (Rom. 4:25). I think Bell believes in the historical resurrection of Christ, but to tell the Boston Globe that the heart of Christianity is simply our belief that God can bring good out of evil is to sell the farm.
At one point the interviewer notices the Rob doesn't talk about religion or even mention Jesus very much. To which Bell replies:
I think we have enough religious people who are going around trying to convert people. My guard is up when somebody is trying to convert me to their thing. Are you talking to me because you actually are interested in this subject, because you care about me as a human, or am I one more possible conversion that will make you feel good about your religiosity? I don’t have any embarrassment about my religion, and it’s not that I'm too cool, but I would hope that the Jesus message would come through, hopefully through a full humanity. If you have something to say, whether you're religious or not, if it is truly Christian and Jesus-centered, then it will help and be interesting and compelling to people, regardless of their world view. But I’m not just interested in talking to Christians. I'm interested in what does it mean to be fully human.
This is just so confused and unhelpful. It is classic old-school liberalism: Jesus as the fullest flower of fair humanity. The emphasis on creation has swallowed up the biblical notion of redemption. The shocking, vibrant apostolic message centered on the life, death, resurrection, coming kingdom, and coming judgment of Jesus Christ has morphed in a banal, same-old-same-old message about actualizing our humanity.
Yes, there are hucksters for the "faith" trying to cajole people into the kingdom. But before we chide those interested in conversion, we should remember that when King Agrippa asked Paul if he was trying to persuade him to be a Christian, Paul said "I would to God that not only you but also all who hear me this day might become such as I am" (Acts 26:29). And this was after he talked openly--to secular people mind you--about repentance, the sufferings of Christ, and the resurrection of Jesus from the dead.
I want to think Rob's theology is better than what comes across in print. But the fact is that I never hear him in an interview (nor elsewhere for that matter) give an explanation of the gospel or a summary of the heart of Christianity that sounds anything like what we read from Peter, Paul, or Jesus. Rob is trying to help people. I bet he's a nice, sincere guy. I'm sure he faces demands and pressures that I can't imagine. But he keeps getting the most important questions wrong, and his theology keeps getting worse and worse.
I don't know how to say this without sounding really condescending, but we should pray that the Lord would give Rob a clearer sense of the gospel and a courage to share it with all the winsomeness, cultural relevance, forthrightness, and biblical fidelity that Paul displayed at the original Mars Hill in Acts 17. No matter the extremes he may have seen in some unhealthy backwards churches out there, there's no excuse for so frequently and so painfully botching the basic plotline of the Bible and ignoring the most important contours of the faith. With Rob's notoriety, he has no choice but to ignore most of what people say about him. But I hope that he is open to thoughtful criticism. Not from me, but from someone he trusts who can ask some hard questions prod him back to surer ground.
I wouldn't bother to mention Bell except that his influence and his church are larger than life in my old hometown. Emergent Village may be a falling star, but Rob Bell still draws a crowd. Talk to most youth group kids in America and they've not heard of Brian McLaren; they're not reading Joel Osteen; most of them (unfortunately in my opinion) are probably not reading John Piper, and they're certainly reading Kevin DeYoung less than any of those other guys. But they know Rob Bell. He is reaching many people, especially the young.
But, as always, the question is: what is he reaching them with? Not with the good stuff of the good deposit I'm afraid (2 Timothy 1:8-14).
HT: Team Pyro
Monday, October 5, 2009
Battle of the Cartoon Theme Songs: Final Four
Update
Congratulations to our fine feathered friends, Duck Tales has won the Battle of the Cartoon Theme Songs. The crime fighting ducks took 44% of the vote, followed by Pinky and the Brain with 34%. Transformers came in third with 12% and G.I. Joe limped home with 8%. Thanks for playing along.
*****
Here it is. The day you've all been waiting for. The day that dozens of people may be talking about for up to three minutes. The Final Four in the battle for cartoon theme song supremacy.
The number one seed is Transformers, which pulled in 60% of the vote in the Robot-Techie division. Transformers has cool toys, successful movies, and some very cool voice-0vers. Most of these players will leave the cartoon early and turn pro. The robots in disguise will be tough to beat
The number two seed is Duck Tales, with over 50% of the vote in the Disney Spin-Off division. Those McDuck nephews are happy, scrappy and full of feathers. They play hard and play as a team. They play with all of Duckberg in the hearts.
The number three seed is G.I. Joe, which garnered 47% of the vote in the Good Guys Saving the Universe division. Admittedly, winning this league is like coming into the tournament out of the Ivy league in basketball. But don't underestimate Joe. He carries a lot of patriotic swagger and can do one-armed push-ups.
The number four seed is Pinky and the Brain, who made it out of the competitive Warner Brothers division with 34% of the vote. Pinky and the Brain is a real dark horse. No one quite knows whether to take their plans for world domination seriously. Could they shock the cartoon world? We'll soon find out.
The theme songs are below. The poll is on the left. Voting will shut down tomorrow. May the best cartoon win.
1. Transformers
2. Duck Tales
3. G.I. Joe
4. Pinky and the Brain
Congratulations to our fine feathered friends, Duck Tales has won the Battle of the Cartoon Theme Songs. The crime fighting ducks took 44% of the vote, followed by Pinky and the Brain with 34%. Transformers came in third with 12% and G.I. Joe limped home with 8%. Thanks for playing along.
*****
Here it is. The day you've all been waiting for. The day that dozens of people may be talking about for up to three minutes. The Final Four in the battle for cartoon theme song supremacy.
The number one seed is Transformers, which pulled in 60% of the vote in the Robot-Techie division. Transformers has cool toys, successful movies, and some very cool voice-0vers. Most of these players will leave the cartoon early and turn pro. The robots in disguise will be tough to beat
The number two seed is Duck Tales, with over 50% of the vote in the Disney Spin-Off division. Those McDuck nephews are happy, scrappy and full of feathers. They play hard and play as a team. They play with all of Duckberg in the hearts.
The number three seed is G.I. Joe, which garnered 47% of the vote in the Good Guys Saving the Universe division. Admittedly, winning this league is like coming into the tournament out of the Ivy league in basketball. But don't underestimate Joe. He carries a lot of patriotic swagger and can do one-armed push-ups.
The number four seed is Pinky and the Brain, who made it out of the competitive Warner Brothers division with 34% of the vote. Pinky and the Brain is a real dark horse. No one quite knows whether to take their plans for world domination seriously. Could they shock the cartoon world? We'll soon find out.
The theme songs are below. The poll is on the left. Voting will shut down tomorrow. May the best cartoon win.
1. Transformers
2. Duck Tales
3. G.I. Joe
4. Pinky and the Brain
Saturday, October 3, 2009
Book Log: September 2009
1. John Piper. The Justification of God: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Romans 9:1-23, Second Edition. Written while Piper was teaching at Bethel College, this is an academic book not for the faint of heart. But the payoff is tremendous. Richard Muller’s blurb is right: “The Justification of God [is] the most compelling and forceful exposition of Romans 9:1-23 that I have ever seen.”
2. Ted Kluck. The Reason for Sports. Funny, entertaining, thought provoking. If you love sports you’ll love this book.
3. Richard Stearns. The Hole In Our Gospel: What Does God Expect of Us? The Answer that Changed My Life and Might Just Change the World. Much to commend–compelling personal story, humble spirit, passion for those suffering and in need. But theology of the gospel, criticisms of the church, and plan for changing the world are off the mark at times. (I'm going to write a longer review on this book in the future.)
4. Jim Belcher. Deep Church: A Third Way Beyond Emerging and Traditional. Orthodox in theology. Avoids and exposes the worst of the emerging movement, but I’m not sure this is genuinely a third way.
5. Cornelis P. Venema. Christ and the Future: The Bible’s Teaching About the Last Things. A wonderful resource and introduction to eschatology from an amillennial perspective. Reads like an updated Hoekema.
2. Ted Kluck. The Reason for Sports. Funny, entertaining, thought provoking. If you love sports you’ll love this book.
3. Richard Stearns. The Hole In Our Gospel: What Does God Expect of Us? The Answer that Changed My Life and Might Just Change the World. Much to commend–compelling personal story, humble spirit, passion for those suffering and in need. But theology of the gospel, criticisms of the church, and plan for changing the world are off the mark at times. (I'm going to write a longer review on this book in the future.)
4. Jim Belcher. Deep Church: A Third Way Beyond Emerging and Traditional. Orthodox in theology. Avoids and exposes the worst of the emerging movement, but I’m not sure this is genuinely a third way.
5. Cornelis P. Venema. Christ and the Future: The Bible’s Teaching About the Last Things. A wonderful resource and introduction to eschatology from an amillennial perspective. Reads like an updated Hoekema.
Friday, October 2, 2009
A Few More Thoughts on Church Membership
When I wrote about the importance of membership earlier this week a few people objected that I only provided pragmatic reasons for church membership, not actual biblical reasons. I happen to think that my pragmatic reasons were rooted in biblical principles, but nevertheless, there are more explicitly chapter-and-verse arguments that can be made in support of church membership.
My good friend Jason Helopoulos, a PCA church planter in East Lansing, offers this by way of bolstering my argument:
Likewise, R. Scott Clark weighed in on his blog with biblical support for official church membership:
The bottom line is that if you are looking for a verse that talks about a membership class and certificates of transfer, you won't find it. But if you are looking for the concepts of a defined in/out community, record-keeping, covenant making, and submission to a recognized body that exercises authority over the circumscribed group, you can find all of that in both testaments.
Oh yeah, and the word member is in the Bible too.
My good friend Jason Helopoulos, a PCA church planter in East Lansing, offers this by way of bolstering my argument:
It saddens me when I hear people make the claim that the Scriptures are not definitive on the need for church membership. It seems to me that even in just looking at the New Testament (let alone the passages in the OT that we could cite) that there is sufficient reason to not only suggest, but promote the need for church membership. 1 Corinthians 5 is a classic passage in this regard. Paul’s whole argument is based upon the idea that there is a defined church which includes membership. He writes, “Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge?” There is an inside and an outside. They are to “purge the evil person” from their midst. He is to be cast outside the church. What is outside and what is inside if the membership itself is not defined? Paul does the same thing in 2 Corinthians 2:6, “For such a one, this punishment by the majority is enough.” How does one define a “majority” if there is no defined body? These two passages are sufficient for arguing the case, though we could also look at the list of widows in 1 Timothy 5 or even the fact that the Lord Himself keeps a list of those within the Church (Rev. 21:27). All this to say, in addition to the arguments you made in your post, there are biblical “proof texts” for church membership that I would like to suggest to those who are hesitant to embrace it.
Likewise, R. Scott Clark weighed in on his blog with biblical support for official church membership:
In the Old Covenant, God is a bookkeeper. In Exodus 32:32 we see a very interesting phrase. In a prayer, Moses pleads with God not to blot him out of “the Book you have written.” The Lord replies to Moses that He will indeed blot anyone who sins out of His “Book.”46 David declares in Psalm 9.5 that the Lord has “blotted out” the name of his enemies forever.47 In Psalm 40:7 David is assured that his righteousness is written on God’s scroll...
Because God is revealed as a book keeper His Covenant people were also (according to the commandments of God) also book keepers.
There is significant evidence that in the Old Covenant there were membership rolls with the names of all the Covenant families and the Covenant heads of households. Genesis 5:1ff. speaks of the “book of the generations.” Moses worked from existing books in compiling his (selective) genealogies. This idea of membership roll figured conspicuously in the life of the Qahal. Later after the exile when the beginnings of the Synagogue can be traced, there is archeological evidence that there were membership rolls there as well. It took at least twelve men in good standing in the community to form a synagogue.
God commanded Moses in Exodus 17:14 to write down the destruction of the Amelakites because without this record there would not be any. In turn (Deutronomy 25.19), God will “blot out” the Amelakites. In Exodus 24:7 we read of the “Book of the Covenant” which contained the laws by which God’s Covenant people were to live. God commanded Moses to take a census of the people and to make a record of them (Exodus 30:11). Psalm 87:6 speaks of a “register of the peoples” (NIV). Ezekiel 13:9 speaks of a “register of the house of Israel” (NASB). There was a written record of the descendents of Aaron (Nu 3:10). It would seem to be beyond controversy that God’s people kept written records during the Mosaic theocracy. The question remains then whether similar practices continued into the New Covenant era.
There is a great deal of unity and continuity between the Old Covenant conception of the Qahal and the New Covenant Ekklesia. Thus there is good reason to suspect that there is continuity in the practice of record keeping. Remember that in both the Old Covenant and the New Covenant, one had to join the visible assembly and take the sign of the Covenant.
The bottom line is that if you are looking for a verse that talks about a membership class and certificates of transfer, you won't find it. But if you are looking for the concepts of a defined in/out community, record-keeping, covenant making, and submission to a recognized body that exercises authority over the circumscribed group, you can find all of that in both testaments.
Oh yeah, and the word member is in the Bible too.
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Deep Church: A Third Way?
Ah yes, another book on the emergent church. I admit I both really wanted to read this book and really didn’t. The wanting is because, as you may know, I too wrote a book on the emerging church. So naturally I was curious what another author–one with blurbs from the likes of Mark Driscoll, Tim Keller, Rob Bell, Scot McKnight, and Tony Jones–had to say about the movement.But a big part of me didn’t want to read the book. Believe it or not, I don’t live for controversy and I don’t wake up in the morning hoping to jump back into emergenty thoughts. I spent a year of my life researching and writing about the emergent church and then another year teaching and doing interviews about it. That was enough for me. Besides, perhaps I’m naive, but I think most people can now see the emergent movement for what it is. There are enough resources out there now for people to make up their minds and decide whether this is a healthy reform movement or a conversation pushing the boundaries of evangelical faith and sometimes jumping the bounds of orthodoxy itself.
Keeping Up With the Conversation
But, alas, I feel some obligation to keep informed of the conversation. So it was with a feeling of apprehension and intrigue that I read Jim Belcher’s book Deep Church: A Third Way Beyond Emerging and Traditional. I was preparing for the worst when I read in the blurbs that this book “avoids the clamor for extremes” (Scot McKnight), is “the first to be truly gracious” and is great “for any who are tired of straw man arguments and polarizations” (Mark Oestreicher), and rises above “the usual shallow, facile critiques of the emergent church movement” (Tony Jones). I can't help but assume that Why We’re Not Emergent is one of the “extreme”, “straw man”, “facile” critiques they’re thinking of. What would I be getting into with this book?
I am always skeptical of “third way” books anyways. Usually, the “third way” is basically the same as one of the other two ways, only a little nicer. In this case, I was expecting the third way to be emergent-lite with a less caustic attitude toward evangelicals. But actually Belcher was just the opposite. He is an evangelical–a traditional evangelical I would argue–who seems sound in his theology (he is a PCA minister after all), but wants to be non-traditional in a few ways. If I were titling the book I would call it “Why I’m Not Emergent, But I Like Many of the Emergent Folks and I Want to Do Church Differently Too.”
What is Deep Church?
The heart and soul of Deep Church is Belcher’s dream for traditional and emerging camps to find unity in the Great Tradition and not blast each other over second-tier differences (67-68). Chapter 3, “The Quest for Mere Christianity”, is the most important chapter in the book for understanding what Belcher is aiming for with his third way. On the one hand, Belcher wants to avoid the fundamentalist error of seeing every other kind of church as heretical and suspect. On the other hand, he also wants to avoid the liberal error of seeing theology as infinitely malleable. Belcher’s vision is for the traditional church and the emerging church to find common ground in the consensual tradition summed up in the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed (54ff.).
Second-tier doctrines are not unimportant. Many of them are weighty, and individual churches will come down in different places relative to these doctrines. But binding all churches together is a tradition of orthodoxy. It’s the Great Tradition, then, that matters most, not our respective traditions. For the Great Tradition unifies us and ought to arouse our greatest passion. Belcher's book is a winsome plea for a return to Mere Christianity and the humility and unity that goes with it.
What Are the Camps?
The traditional camp is not well-defined by Belcher (a weakness I’ll come back to later). At times it seems to be the same as fundamentalism (61). In other places, the traditional camp refers to anyone who has critiqued the emergent movement, including John MacArthur, Ron Gleason, Kevin DeYoung, Ted Kluck, and D.A. Carson. Belcher acknowledges the traditional camp is not monolithic. But he suggests “the groups comprising traditional evangelicalism share similar views of culture, epistemology and the church” (10). Still, in the end, I’m not sure what makes someone a part of the traditional camp in Belcher's estimation, other than that they have been critical of the emergent camp.
Having said that, Belcher’s analysis of the emergent side is much more helpful. I won’t retell his own story, but Belcher has the advantage of having been an insider in the movement at its inception. He knows the journey of the emerging church well and he knows well many of the key players. This is what makes his book unique and why the emergents have received it more warmly. Carson was a total outsider in their minds. Ted and I were at least demographically similar and culturally conversant, but still outsiders. Jim is a true insider.
But also an outsider. He writes: “As much as I feel like an insider to the conversation, I also feel at times like an outsider because of some reservations I have with aspects of the emerging conversation” (28). Similar to what Ted and I said in Why We’re Not Emergent, Belcher feels like emerging voices are raising good questions, but their answers are often disturbing. Similar to Carson, Belcher defines the emerging movement (which he makes clear is not identical to Emergent Village) as a protest movement.
The emerging church is protesting against the traditional church on seven fronts: (1) Captivity to Enlightenment rationalism. (2) A narrow view of salvation. (3) Belief before belonging. (4) Uncontextualized worship. (5) Ineffective preaching. (6) Weak ecclesiology. (7) Tribalism.
Under the label “emerging” are three different camps: the relevants (e.g. Driscoll, Kimball, and some Young, Restless, and Reformed types) who are trying to contextualize ministry while still maintaining conservative theology; the reconstructionists (e.g., Cole, Hirsch, Barna, Viola) who are experimenting with organic house churches and monastic communities; and the revisionists (e.g., McLaren, Jones, Pagitt) who are questioning key evangelical doctrines on theology and culture (45-46). Belcher’s analysis focuses mostly on the reconstructionists and the revisionists because they have gotten the most attention and faced the most push back.
Protesting Protestants
The bulk of the book deals with the seven areas of protest. Each chapter follows a similar pattern. Belcher usually begins with a personal experience that led him to see a problem with the traditional approach to church. Then Belcher explores the emerging solution, often interviewing key leaders in the movement and raising some possible objections along the way. Next, Belcher looks at the response of the traditional church to the emerging answers. And finally he proposes a third way that seeks to combine the best of both camps while avoiding the worst extremes.
Here’s a thumbnail sketch for each chapter/protest:
1. Deep Truth - Emergents reject classic foundationalism, which is good. But while they are right to reject self-evident truth, they are wrong to embrace a postmodern “constructivist” epistemology. “Even though I reject classical foundationalism,” Belcher writes, “I am not comfortable adopting a relational hermeneutic. I believe that God’s revelation in the Word tells us what is real and provides the authority for Christian community. We build our metaphysics on divine revelation. It gives us confidence that we substantially know ‘ready-made reality’” (82). In short, deep church rejects foundationalism built on reason, but accepts foundations built on belief.
Similarly, deep church is centered-set instead of bounded-set or relational-set. This means the church focuses on drawing people to the Well (Jesus Christ) instead of guarding all the fences (like the traditional church). It also means the church knows what it should be focusing on (the center), instead of allowing the community to determine truth for itself (like in the emerging church).
2. Deep Evangelism - The traditional church insists that belief must precede belonging. This has the effect of slamming the door on spiritual seekers. The emerging church insists on belonging before belief. But every community must have some standards and everyone in the church must be challenged to repentance, faith, and obedience at some point. So is there a third way? According to Belcher the third way understands that there are two circles around Jesus. There is an outer circle of seekers and an inner circle of commitment disciples. Deep church welcomes everyone into the outer circle, regardless of their beliefs, but challenges them to become a part of the inner circle.
3. Deep Gospel - The traditional church has made salvation too personalized, too much like fire insurance. The message of individual salvation is important, but it must be balanced with Jesus’ teaching on the kingdom. We must avoided reductionist gospels and remember the gospel has a public dimension. We must not shrink the gospel to the forgiveness of sins. But, Belchers adds, penal substitution and justification must form the foundation for everything else we say about the gospel. The kingdom cannot be ignored, but it must be linked to the doctrines of atonement, justification, union with Christ, and our need to be forgiven (118).
4. Deep Worship - The emerging church tries to contextualize its worship, but in so doing it sometimes becomes untethered to history and too much a product of the culture around it. What is needed is not just a sampling of tradition, but a return to the Great Tradition. Belcher’s third way looks like this: “worship that embodies a genuine encounter with God, had depth and substance, included more frequent and meaningful Communion, was participatory, read more Scripture in worship, creatively used the senses provided more time for contemplation, and focused on the transcendence and otherness of God” (124).
5. Deep Preaching - Traditional preaching is often boring and uninspired. There is little drama to it. Most sermons boil down to two things: you suck; try harder (142). The emerging church tries to suggest a better way. In practice their “sermons” sound like sermons, except with a little more interaction from the congregation. But underneath the emergent view of preaching (at least that espoused by Doug Pagitt and Tony Jones) is a radical shift, a hermeneutic of community that says nothing is privileged, not even the Bible, over the community in discovering and living out truth (145). Belcher rejects this hermeneutic, seeing that it leads to a rejection of classical orthodoxy. So neither traditional nor emergent preaching will work. We need a third way that is not deductive and legalistic like traditional preaching, nor open-ended like emergent preaching. Instead, those who belong to deep church “preach Christ in every text, laying out and analyzing the human condition through Scriptures and experience, and exposing the radical, shocking grace of God that enters our situation, transforms us and empowers us to live differently” (157).
6. Deep Ecclesiology - Traditional church gets bogged down in meetings, paperwork, and organizational bureaucracy. This is bad. So the emerging church calls for a more organic, open-source model for church. But even organic churches cannot survive long without structure and accountability. What we need is a third way that calls the church to be both institution and organism, respects the offices of elder and deacon, celebrates worship as a means of grace, and cultivates and learns from tradition.
7. Deep Culture - The third way between traditional and emerging approaches to culture accepts Abraham Kuypers distinction between the church as institution and the church as organism. The church as an institution focuses primarily on preaching, sacraments, worship, and caring for the body. The church as organism works to train secret agents who go out into the world, work for the shalom of the city, and create culture. With this institution/organism approach, our churches can have a deep culture, one that is neither a copy-cat of culture nor irrelevant to it.
Evaluation
As you can see, there is much to affirm in these chapters. Belcher understands the issues well and clearly rejects the worst of the emerging movement. His church sounds like a good church, and Belcher (whom I never met) strikes me as an honest, thoughtful, irenic pastor. I agreed with much more in this book than I thought I would. As a part of the PCA, Belcher is not only tied to the Great Tradition, but to the Reformed/Presbyterian tradition. As such, I imagine our theology is quite similar. We are on the same team. My agreements with him outnumber my disagreements.
Nevertheless, I have a few critiques for Deep Church. Let me mention four, each in the form of a question.
1. What is the gospel?
Belcher makes clear that he affirms penal substitution. He thinks it is foundational to the other views of the atonement. He believes that Jesus died on the cross to pay for our sins and take away our guilt. This is all wonderful. But I’m still a bit perplexed.
Belcher’s church holds to four core commitments: gospel, community, mission, and shalom. He admits that the church struggled the most to define the first of these four. “We had spent five years translating or contexualizing the gospel to the Orange County setting, and we wanted to be sure we had not reduced it any way” (120). First of all, I’m puzzled by the effort to translate the gospel. It seems to me that the news is still the same: Jesus Christ died on the cross for our sins and rose again on the third day. Ministries may need to contextualize, but the gospel?
More importantly, I’m puzzled by the definition of the gospel Belcher’s church came up with.
The "gospel" is the good news that through Jesus, the Messiah, the power of God’s kingdom has entered history to renew the whole world. Through the Savior God has established his reign. When we believe and rely on Jesus’ work and record (rather than ours) for our relationship to God, that kingdom power comes upon us and begins to work through us. We witness the radical new way of living by our renewed lives, beautiful community, social justice, and cultural transformation. This good news brings new life. The gospel motivates, guides, and empowers every aspect of our living and worship (121).
This is a fine statement of Christian theology, but is it the gospel? Surely, 1 Corinthians 15 gives us the best summary of the gospel and there we find no mention of cultural transformation or renewing the whole world. But we do here about sin, the cross, and the resurrection–three items given no specific mention in Belcher’s definition of the gospel. This is a problem.
2. Is unity possible?
Belcher’s dream is that traditional and emerging camps would find unity in the first-tier doctrines of the faith. But what if the Great Tradition is not a controlling tradition for the emergent church? “John and I,” Belcher writes speaking of John Armstrong and himself, “concluded that they [Jones and Pagitt] seemed to reject any commitments to the classical orthodoxy of the Great Tradition...I asked John, ‘If we are understanding them correctly, does this view put them outside of evangelical bounds as to many of their critics have been saying?'” (146). To which I wanted to reply, “Yes! And not just evangelical bounds, the bounds of orthodoxy too.” Belcher recognizes that Pagitt does not hold to the “rule of faith” or “classical orthodoxy." The Apostles’ Creed and the Nicene Creed do not define mere Christianity for him (148). So why do people keep talking about Jones and Pagitt as if they are part of the evangelical conversation, when they aren’t even orthodox Christians?
In the end Belcher agrees that the traditional camp is not overstating its case when it comes to Pagitt’s views (152). So I don’t have a problem with Belcher’s theology on this point. In fact, I commend him for providing an honest assessment of the revisionist camp of the emerging movement. But I wish he would have stated more strongly and clearly that unity is not possible with those who reject the Great Tradition. True, Tony, Doug, and Brian are on the far left of the movement, but then at least let’s warn people about the far left of the movement. The hall of heterodoxy is not the same as the hall of Mere Christianity, and those standing in one hall cannot share spiritual unity with those standing in the other.
As much as Belcher doesn't want to have a bounded-set church, if orthodoxy is to be a defining part of his church, it must have boundaries and those outside those boundaries are dangers to the sheep and the church's shepherds should say so.
3. Is the Great Tradition enough?
I’m all for making the main things the main things. I’m all four differentiating between first- and second-tier issues. But is it enough to say the Apostles’ Creed, Nicene Creed, and Athanasian Creed define orthodoxy, let alone evangelicalism? These creeds addressed certain pivotal issues that faced the church in its first few centuries. But what about other issues that have arise since then, like the atonement, justification, the authority of the Bible? I would say these are first-tier issues too, even though they were not specifically addressed by an early council or creed.
Along these lines. I was bothered by the references to “the version of the doctrine of the atonement that Piper holds dear” and “Pagitt and Jones don’t hold to Piper’s view of the atonement” (11, 12). Elsewhere Belcher explains that McLaren and others are not against “atonement theories” (111). This sort of language about the cross rubs me the wrong way. When evangelicals talk about Christ’s death in our place to propitiate the wrath of God as a "version of the atonement" or one favored theory, they give away too much.
True, there are different aspects to the atonement. But penal substitution is not a mere version. "So substitution is not a 'theory of the atonement,'" writes John Stott. "Nor is it even an additional image to take its place as an option alongside the others. It is rather the essence of each image and the heart of the atonement itself." Penal substitution is the plain truth of Scripture. I know that sounds hopelessly modern, but sometimes I just can’t help it. Christ dying in the place of guilty sinners deserves to be called more than “a view of the atonement that Piper holds dear.”
4. Is Deep Church a genuine third way?
In the end, the thing I liked most about the book is also my biggest criticism. Belcher’s way, despite is few differences in shape and tone (see critiques above), is not a genuine third way but the traditional way mediated through Tim Keller. Don’t get me wrong. I like that way. I love Tim Keller. I wasn't disappointed to see that I agreed with Belcher on a lot. But if I'm traditional (which I am in the Deep Church taxonomy) then I think Belcher is too. Come to think of it, D.A. Carson is in the traditional camp too (in Deep Church) and he and Keller are very close friends. They started the Gospel Coalition together so I assume they agree on an awful lot. So is Carson another third way?
Deep church is essentially traditional doctrine with a softer edge and more cultural engagement. That's not bad. It can be very good if done faithfully. But I don’t think it is a third way. Very few of the extremes of the traditional camp rejected by Belcher are footnoted or attributed to any leader in the traditional church. Consequently, I don't think he is rejecting the traditional church as much as a bad experience of it.
Likewise, most of what Belcher offers as a third way are not new ideas to the traditional church. Almost all the conservative Christians I know reject classic foundationalism. Every conservative church I know of welcomes seekers and allows unbelievers to be a part of the church in the outer circle, even if they can’t be members until they believe certain things. Every good homiletics course teaches the difference between imperatives and indicatives and the need to preach Christ from all the Scriptures. In fact, I don’t think there is a single insight from the emergent church that cannot be gleaned from the best of the evangelical, and specifically the Reformed, tradition. We don’t need a third way between emergent and traditional. We need a revitalized, reformed evangelical church.
Conclusion
Deep Church confirms again that there are very serious problems with some of the theology coming out of the emerging church. It also confirms again that hide-bound, legalistic, unfriendly, uncaring traditionalism is not the way to go. If you need a refresher on either of these two points, this book will do the trick. Jim Belcher has given us an insider's and outsider's look at the most controversial church movement of the last decade. And though I have some disagreements with the book, in the end, he reaffirms the importance of the faith delivered once for all for the saints. And that’s a very good thing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)