A few verses to ponder

2.216: Fighting is enjoined on you, and is an object of dislike to you; and it may be that you dislike a thing while it is good for you, and it may be that you love a thing while it is evil for you, and Allah knows, while you do not know.

5.33: The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His apostle and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement,

8.12-13: When your Lord revealed to the angels: I am with you, therefore make firm those who believe. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them. This is because they acted adversely to Allah and His Apostle; and whoever acts adversely to Allah and His Apostle -- then surely Allah is severe in requiting (evil).

9.29: Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book [Jews and Christians], until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.

(Emphasis added—probably unnecessarily)

You can see if these are taken out of context by reading more with this online Koran.

Note there is no analogy between these verses and the difficult passages in the Old Testament, such as in Joshua, where entire cities are laid to waste at God's command. Those were specific this-place this-time one time only commands that, while they hard for us to understand, are far different from the open-ended license to kill and mutilate found in the Koran.

Comparative Views of the End Times (Lesson 2)

Timelines and Other Parameters

It is useful to, in a purely (well, mostly) objective sense, to understand the relevant timelines and other parameters that characterize eschatology.

Before we start, let us remind ourselves of the very basic differences among the different views. We have not formally looked at any of them yet, but keeping in mind their simple definitions will help you to make more sense of the discussion. Soon enough we will be looking at them in detail.

Premillennialism

Premillennialists anticipate Christ’s return, following which He will establish on earth a literal, physical and political kingdom. This kingdom will last for a 1000 years (the millennium) during which Satan is bound. To premillennialists, Satan is not presently bound. There are two major flavors of premillennialism, with (among other things) the following timeline difference:

• Dispensational Premillennialism: Looks for the church to be ruptured, followed by a seven year tribulation (pre-trib rapture), followed by the visible return of Christ to initiate the millennial kingdom.
  
  
• Historic Premillennialism: The tribulation will include the church, followed by Christ’s return to rapture the church (post-trib rapture) and initiate the millennial kingdom.

Amillennialism

Amillennialists (many of whom prefer the term present or realized millennialist) do not believe in a literal earthly physical/political kingdom. They believe the kingdom is spiritual, and the millennium is now. It consists of the reign of deceased saints with Christ in heaven. To amillennialists, Satan is presently bound (restrained). They anticipate the end of this age to include a period of increased apostasy and (possibly) the appearance of the antichrist, followed by the return of Christ, resurrection and final judgment, and the onset of the eternal state. Note that amillennialists, while they differ from postmillennialists in many ways, are nevertheless postmillennial—they see the Second Coming as occurring after the millennium. Factoid: Amillennialism has been the dominant view throughout the history of Christianity.

Postmillennialism

Postmillennials view the millennium as a glorious era of increased righteousness, gospel vitality, and world-wide domination of the church. This leads to an outlook that is unique to postmillennialism: things are going to get better on earth, not worse. Postmillennials look for Christ’s return after this golden age, preceded by a short period of increased apostasy. Christ’s return will herald the general resurrection, the final judgment, and the onset of the eternal state. Postmillennialists are divided over many issues, such as when the millennium begins (or even if it has already begun) and whether the world gradually and almost imperceptibly enters into it, or whether its beginning is a more dramatic event, for example with a readily identifiable defeat of the antichrist and binding of Satan, and a distinct difference between before and after. In many ways an amillennialist is a sort of pessimistic postmillennialist who views the millennium as having started when Satan was defeated on the cross and ending with the Second Coming.

Parameters of the Discussion

With these mini sketches in mind, it is useful to break out some of the points over which the views differ. Some of these differences will not be addressed until we examine the views in greater detail.

The Millennium

The questions regarding the millennium of Rev. 20 include:

1. Is it literally 1000 years?
   
2. Does it refer to the present age or a future golden age?
   
3. Will Christ rule from heaven or (physically and literally) from earth?

It is interesting and instructive to look once again at Rev. 20, the only passage in the bible that mentions 1000 years, and ask, stand-alone, which end-times view does it support? That is not critical—we should interpret scripture with scripture, but it is not insignificant either. In particular, what it does not say includes: ⁵

• Anything whatsoever about the Second Coming
  
  
• Anything about bodies, resurrected or otherwise (it talks about the souls of those who died)
  
  
• Anything about an earthly kingdom or throne
  
  
• Anything about a rebuilt temple or animal sacrifices
  
  
• Anything about Jerusalem, or Palestine, or Israel
  
  
• Anything about Jewish conversion
  
  
• Anything about righteousness prevailing on the earth
  
  
• Anything about worldwide conversion
  
  
• Anything about Christianization of the nations

In short, this famous passage, taken by itself supports neither the premillennial or postmillennial positions, but (somewhat ironically) the amillennial view. That is because none of the missing elements, each critical for the pre or post millennial view, is relevant for the amillennialists.

The timing of the (visible) Second Coming

Perhaps the most significant question that highlights the differences among the viewpoints is: When will Christ return relative to the millennium? Of the four viewpoints we will examine two (dispensational and historic premillennialism) hold that Christ will return before the millennium. The other two (postmillennialism and amillennialism) teach that Christ will return after the millennium.

Is there one resurrection or two?

Premillennialism anticipates two resurrections, one at the rapture which occurs at the onset of the millennium (give or take seven years), and another at the end of the millennium. Amillennialism and postmillennialism looks for one general resurrection at the end of the millennium, coincident with the Second Coming. It is interesting to not that the historic creeds of the church are not premillennial in a couple of important ways. For example the Nicene Creed includes: He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end. It would appear to teach a single, coincident judgment of all men, with no intervening gap of 1000 years. It also mentions nothing of an earthly kingdom, and in fact the only kingdom mentioned is the eternal one. Whether the creeds favor the amillennial or postmillennial position can not really be determined.

The Nature of the Kingdom

This is an important topic and when to which we will return often. Basically there are four broad categories of views:

1. The kingdom is physical and political (chiliasm). Christ is ruling the nations (and an Israel restored to world-wide prominence) on earth.
   
   
2. The kingdom began with Christ’s first advent, but is incomplete. It will be consummated with a physical and political kingdom with Christ ruling on earth.
   
   
3. The kingdom is now. It is spiritual and consists of (un-resurrected) dead saints ruling with Christ in heaven.
   
   
4. The kingdom began at the cross. It is both spiritual and redemptive and will continue to grow as the New Testament church flourishes.

What is God’s plan for the Jews?

The views differ on their view of the future role of national Israel. The different positions can be broken down into three distinct outlooks:

1. National Israel and ethnic Jews play no further "special" role in God’s redemptive plan. We hope for a massive conversion of Jews to Christianity, but all God’s promises to the Jews were either (a) fulfilled, (b) void because they were conditional promises and the Jews, through apostasy, did not need meet the conditions, or (c) are fulfilled or will be fulfilled in the new Israel, the New Testament church.
   
   
2. A second view, very similar to the first, except that it views a massive conversion of Jews to Christianity as promise. It can be anticipated with certainty, not just hope. This view also holds that the church is the new Israel.
   
   
3. God will fulfill all promises to the Jews with the ethnic Jews. The church is not the new Israel. God has major redemptive work left with the Jews distinct from His dealings with the Gentile church.

The Rapture

All views agree that there will be a rapture, where living believers are caught up in the air with our returning Lord. Most see it as occurring coincident with the visible Second Coming. One view (dispensational premillennialism) anticipates the rapture seven years before the visible Second Coming in what has been described (by opponents and proponents to the view) as a secret second coming that precedes the Second Coming.

Imminence of Christ’s Return

Views differ on whether they believe that Christ's return is immanent, completely unpredictable, or most likely quite far off. Belief in the imminent return of Christ is nothing new. Every generation has had groups of devout Christians (including such luminaries as Martin Luther) that looked around at political and social conditions (and at contemporary antichrist candidates such as the Pope, the Papacy itself, the Turkish Empire, Hitler, etc.) and declared that the end is near. Many today believe the end is near. I don’t, but I hope they are right. ⁶ Still, it is a fair question to ponder for those who hold that view: Why do you suppose every generation was wrong, but this one is right?

What is to be taken literally?

No consistent view of the end-times has ever been developed that takes all relevant scripture literally. It is a question of which passages are taken literally and which are viewed as symbolic. Dispensationalism prides itself on viewing all prophetic text literally. For example, consider this snippet from the Olivet discourse: "Immediately after the distress of those days " 'the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.' (Matt. 24:29) Dispensationalists take this passage literally, and look for the tribulation to include the astronomical calamities as described. Other views hold that such apocalyptic writing is never meant to be taken literally, and is merely symbolic of the unleashing of God’s wrath. On the other hand, the same Olivet discourse includes timeline references, such as: I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. (Matt. 24:34). Dispensationalists (and others) view "this generation" as meaning something other that its literal interpretation, since they believe the events described have yet to occur some two thousand years after Christ made this prophetic utterance. Others take the "this generation" literally. (You’ll have to wait to see how that works out.)

Outlook for human history

In short, one view is optimistic about the future of human history (postmillennialism) while the other views vary from very to moderately pessimistic. Also under this heading is the question of the extent of human involvement in the advent of the millennium. How much will God employ human efforts? A view that expects a sudden, catastrophic rapture has a very different answer to this question from one that looks for a gradual strengthening of the Church leading to a golden age of Christian world domination. And within the latter view, there is a question of whether humans should push for political change—kind of bringing in the millennium through the ballot box (theonomy and reconstructionism) or just concentrate on evangelistic activities.

The Antichrist

Views will differ as to whether there is or will be a single person identifiable as the antichrist who has yet to appear on the scene, or whether the antichrist is an institution (the papacy has been a favorite candidate). Finally there is the view that the antichrist has already come and gone (usually, in this view, identified as Nero.) Somewhat related is the question of whether Satan is presently bound (restricted from deceiving the nations), will be bound before the Second Coming, or not bound until the Second Coming. All views agree that at the end of the millennium there will be an increased apostasy and Satan will be loosed for a while.

The Seventieth Week of Daniel

We have talked about this a little already. Views differ on the literality of the prophecy, and whether the seventieth week (c.f. Dan 9:27) is contiguous with the first 69 weeks and, more dramatically, whether it is a Messianic prophesy or a portent of the antichrist.

The Day of the Lord

Questions of the meaning of this phrase will arise. In the Old Testament, the phrase "the day of the Lord" is always associated with the terrible appearance of God’s wrath: Wail, for the day of the LORD is near; it will come like destruction from the Almighty. (Is. 13:6) For the day is near, the day of the LORD is near- a day of clouds, a time of doom for the nations. (Ezek. 30:3) The sun will be turned to darkness and the moon to blood before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD . (Joel 2:31) "The day of the LORD is near for all nations. As you have done, it will be done to you; your deeds will return upon your own head. (Obadiah 1:15) Woe to you who long for the day of the LORD ! Why do you long for the day of the LORD ? That day will be darkness, not light. (Amos 5:18) "The great day of the LORD is near- near and coming quickly. Listen! The cry on the day of the LORD will be bitter, the shouting of the warrior there. (Zeph 1:14) "See, I will send you the prophet Elijah before that great and dreadful day of the LORD comes. (Mal 4:5) And in the New Testament: The sun will be turned to darkness and the moon to blood before the coming of the great and glorious day of the Lord. (Acts 2:20) for you know very well that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night. (1 Th. 5:2) not to become easily unsettled or alarmed by some prophecy, report or letter supposed to have come from us, saying that the day of the Lord has already come. (2 Th. 2:2) But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything in it will be laid bare. (2 Pet. 3:10) The question that we face is what, especially (but not exclusively) in terms of New Testament prophecy, is the Day of the Lord? Is it the rapture? The Second Coming? The final judgment? the destruction of Jerusalem? Armageddon? Or does it refer to different events.

---

⁵ This argument is based on a self-published tract called The Millennium by Pastor John L. Bray. ⁶ Okay, here is a confession. Last year when I taught Calvinism vs. Arminianism, I believed I was right (after all, who doesn't believe they are right?) and I hoped I was right, for I see nothing but hopelessness and despair in the Arminian view. However, for this class while I still think I am right, I hope I am wrong, because I would welcome an immanent rapture that instantly ended our earthly struggles.

The Day of the Lord

In 1 Th. 4, we read of the Second Coming:

¹³Brothers, we do not want you to be ignorant about those who fall asleep, or to grieve like the rest of men, who have no hope. ¹⁴We believe that Jesus died and rose again and so we believe that God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in him. ¹⁵According to the Lord's own word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left till the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep. ¹⁶For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. ¹⁷After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever. ¹⁸Therefore encourage each other with these words. (1 Th. 4:13-18)

It is beyond dispute that this passage refers to the Second Coming and the rapture. It speaks of the coming of the Lord, not the day of the Lord. It also answers the concern as to the fate of those that have already died. There is some issue of "tense" in verse 14, but I believe it means that those who have died are already in heaven, just not with a resurrected body. Others believe they are sleeping until the bodily resurrection. No matter, they are/will be with Christ (if they were saved by faith). If we look at another passage:

We are confident, I say, and would prefer to be away from the body and at home with the Lord. (2 Cor. 5:8)

We see that Paul seems to teach that there is a way to be with the Lord while without a body, which argues that the dead saints are not sleeping but in heaven. For at the end of the age, all the saints will have resurrected bodies, and so if the dead saints are presently "sleeping" until the final judgment, that would imply at no time would they be "away from the body and at home with the Lord."

That is a secondary issue. Most importantly, there is not much contention among the different eschatologies (except for full preterism, which we are not addressing) that Paul's is writing in 1 Th. 4 of the Second Coming. When we look into the next chapter of 1 Thessalonians, things get dicey.

¹Now, brothers, about times and dates we do not need to write to you, ²for you know very well that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night. ³While people are saying, "Peace and safety," destruction will come on them suddenly, as labor pains on a pregnant woman, and they will not escape. ⁴But you, brothers, are not in darkness so that this day should surprise you like a thief. (1 Th. 5:1-4)

Hmm. This is tough. The common evangelical interpretation is that the rapture (with or without the visible Second Coming) comes like a thief in the night, that is, without warning. That may be a correct interpretation. It is a natural one in the sense that everyone agrees 1 Th. 4 is about the Second Coming, so it is reasonable to assume that 1 Th. 5 is speaking of the same event.

But maybe not. There are some issues. They are:

• Paul writes of the day of the Lord coming like a thief in the night. Is the day of the Lord synonymous with the Second Coming? Hold that thought for now.

• Dispensational Premillennialists who interpret this as speaking of the rapture, also argue that the signs of the times (especially the establishment of Israel) indicate the end is near. How can pinpointing Christ’s return to this generation be consistent with a "thief in the night" metaphor?

• Is Paul misleading them? He writes "this day should [not] surprise you like a thief." He did not write: "Should it occur in our lifetime, and I don' know that it will, it should not surprise you like a thief." His writing seems to go beyond hoping for the event to prophetic certainty.

The key to this is in the meaning of the day of the Lord. It is a theme that we will come back to again and again throughout this course.

Let us now turn to 2 Thessalonians:

¹Concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him, we ask you, brothers, ²not to become easily unsettled or alarmed by some prophecy, report or letter supposed to have come from us, saying that the day of the Lord has already come. ³Don't let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction. ⁴He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God's temple, proclaiming himself to be God. ⁵Don't you remember that when I was with you I used to tell you these things? ⁶And now you know what is holding him back, so that he may be revealed at the proper time. ⁷For the secret power of lawlessness is already at work; but the one who now holds it back will continue to do so till he is taken out of the way. ⁸And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will overthrow with the breath of his mouth and destroy by the splendor of his coming. ⁹The coming of the lawless one will be in accordance with the work of Satan displayed in all kinds of counterfeit miracles, signs and wonders, ¹⁰and in every sort of evil that deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. ¹¹For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie ¹²and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness. (2 Th. 2: 1-12).

I would suggest that there are two self-consistent exegeses:

If 1 Th. 4 and 5 refer to the Second Coming, and 1 Th. 5 uses the phrase day of the Lord, then it would seem that 2 Th. 2, which uses the same phrase, also refers to the second Coming. This is the common evangelical position.

Alternatively, if 1 Th. 4 refers to the Second Coming, and 1 Th. 5 refers to something else, then 2 Th. 2 would also refer to that "something else", the so-called day of the Lord.

So in the first view, 2 Th. 2 also refers to the Second Coming. Mathison in his book on Postmillennialism points out but a few of the problems with this interpretation. I will paraphrase his points:

• If it is referring to the Second Coming, how could the Thessalonians be worried that it had already occurred? Given that Paul taught them in 1 Thessalonians that it was associated with the rapture and resurrection. Did they think that everyone in their entire community was "left behind?" Did they think Paul was left behind? Or were they thinking of some other event, and wondering if it had occurred? (As had apparently been reported in a counterfeit epistle.)

• If Paul is trying to reassure them that the Second Coming has not yet occurred, why would he do so by telling them "the man of lawlessness has not been revealed and is being held back?" Such a scenario is not consistent with any view of what the earth would be like had the Second Coming occurred. Would he not appeal to more obvious rebuttals, such as: hey I’m still here, and all of you are still here, let's get real people.

• All of this passage refers to something that has not yet happened, but is categorically about to happen. It is not "hoped" that it will happen, as in we hope Christ returns today, but Paul is talking about something that definitely will happen soon. He spoke of the man of lawlessness (a man, not Satan) who was being restrained now, and about the power already at work. So it is hard to imagine that he is speaking of the Second Coming, unless once again we assume he misled the Thessalonians.

The second view suffers none of these problems. It does have the following presupposition:

In the first epistle, Paul is answering two concerns from the Thessalonians. The first is what will happen to those who have already died? This is answered in 1 Th. 4. The second concern is: When is the day of the Lord? This unspecified event is addressed in 1 Th. 5 and later in 2 Th. 2, when there is another question raised, one of a false report that it had already occurred.

For many of us, the answer seems obvious (although that doesn't make it right.) The day of the Lord refers to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D., an event we will talk about more. This is an event that is underestimated in terms of its awfulness, it significance, and its role in redemptive history. The man of lawlessness (he doesn't have to be identified as the antichrist, although he might be, if there is such a man) who was already alive at the time would then be Caesar Nero.

What is missing in Revelation 20?

It is interesting and instructive to look once again at the only passage in the bible that mentions "1000 years" and ask, stand alone, which end-times view does it support? This is not critical—we should interpret scripture with scripture, but it is not insignificant either.

So, once again, here is the millennium passage:

¹And I saw an angel coming down out of heaven, having the key to the Abyss and holding in his hand a great chain. ²He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan, and bound him for a thousand years. ³He threw him into the Abyss, and locked and sealed it over him, to keep him from deceiving the nations anymore until the thousand years were ended. After that, he must be set free for a short time.
⁴I saw thrones on which were seated those who had been given authority to judge. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony for Jesus and because of the word of God. They had not worshiped the beast or his image and had not received his mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years. ⁵(The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended.) This is the first resurrection. ⁶Blessed and holy are those who have part in the first resurrection. The second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for a thousand years. ⁷When the thousand years are over, Satan will be released from his prison ⁸and will go out to deceive the nations in the four corners of the earth--Gog and Magog--to gather them for battle. In number they are like the sand on the seashore. ⁹They marched across the breadth of the earth and surrounded the camp of God's people, the city he loves. But fire came down from heaven and devoured them. ¹⁰And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown. They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever.
(Rev 20:1-10, NIV).

Now let us look at, not what this passage says, but what it doesn't say. ¹

In particular, what it does not say includes:

• Anything whatsoever about the Second Coming
  
  
• Anything about bodies, resurrected or otherwise (it talks about the souls of those who died)
  
  
• Anything about an earthly kingdom or throne
  
  
• Anything about a rebuilt temple or animal sacrifices
  
  
• Anything about Jerusalem, or Palestine, or Israel
  
  
• Anything about Jewish conversion
  
  
• Anything about righteousness prevailing on the earth
  
  
• Anything about worldwide conversion
  
  
• Anything about Christianization of the nations

In short, this famous passage, taken by itself supports neither the premillennial or postmillennial positions, but (somewhat ironically) the amillennial view. That is because none of the missing elements, each critical for the pre or post millennial view, is relevant for the amillennialists.

Just some food for thought.

---

¹ This argument is based on a self-published tract called The Millennium by Pastor John L. Bray

The Troublesome "reasonableness" of symbolic interpretation

In studying eschatology, we are often confronted with difficult apocalyptic writings, for example in Daniel, Revelation, and the synoptic gospels. While they cannot be avoided, they will never serve as satisfactory "proof texts" for a position, for they can be twisted to support any view.

The apocalyptic and symbolic passages become more "plausibility arguments" than direct support. My favorite example is from Daniel:

And he will make a firm covenant with the many for one week, but in the middle of the week he will put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering; and on the wing of abominations will come one who makes desolate, even until a complete destruction, one that is decreed, is poured out on the one who makes desolate. (Dan. 9:27)

Premillennialists interpret the "he (who) will put a stop to sacrifice" as the antichrist. Other views interpret as Christ. The antichrist in some views, Christ in others, and in all cases "reasonable" given their presuppositions.

Another example is in Revelation. In chapter 19 we read of the rider of the white horse:

¹¹ And I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse, and He who sat on it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness He judges and wages war.
¹² His eyes are a flame of fire, and on His head are many diadems; and He has a name written on Him which no one knows except Himself.
¹³ He is clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God.
¹⁴ And the armies which are in heaven, clothed in fine linen, white and clean, were following Him on white horses.
¹⁵ From His mouth comes a sharp sword, so that with it He may strike down the nations, and He will rule them with a rod of iron; and He treads the wine press of the fierce wrath of God, the Almighty.
¹⁶ And on His robe and on His thigh He has a name written, "KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS." (Rev 19: 11-16)

This is followed in Revelation 20, by the (only) description of a 1000 year millennium.

In one of the stronger arguments in favor of premillennialism, its proponents view the rider of the white horse in Rev. 19 as Christ, and the event symbolized in Rev. 19 as the second coming. Then the two chapters, reasonably assumed to be chronological, place the second coming before the millennium. Bad da bing, you proved premillenniealism.

Not so fast. The postmillennialists also acknowledge the rider as Christ. They also agree that the two chapters are chronological. However, they differ on what Rev. 19 is describing. Their view is that it is not symbolic of the second coming. Rather it is symbolic of the triumph of the gospel throughout the church age and the means by which the nations are Christianized. They view the sword and the Word being used to "strike down the nations" as another promise of the success of the Great Commission. They also point out the similarity with this verse in Hebrews:

For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart. (Heb 4:12)

This is the parallel evangelical version, with the same elements, the word and the sword. Striking down the nations refers, in this view, to invading and liberating them through evangelism. Also sounds reasonable.

And then there are the preterists and amillennialists, who have different (reasonable) interpretations.

Therein lies the problem, for obviously at most only one view can be correct. That is why we should turn first, when possible, to non apocalyptic writings.

616 or 666?

Just a mini-post today. A small reminder of something most of you probably know.

We all are familiar with this verse from Revelation:

This calls for wisdom. If anyone has insight, let him calculate the number of the beast, for it is man's number. His number is 666. (Rev. 13:18)

The problem is, some very early manuscripts contain not 666 but 616! Think of all the Herculean efforts that have gone to waste in symbology and numerology.

New Comment System

I have switced comment systems. Alas, all old comments are lost. Hopefully this system will be more stable.

Rail number 3: The role of women.

The third rail of the modern Christian church is the issue of the role of women.

When a pastor is courageous enough to mention a controversial man-woman-differences passage, for example about women being weaker vessels, the standard practice is to hit the passage quickly, almost in passing, and then spend the rest of the sermon beating up on the men regarding their considerable and neglected responsibilities to their wives. The theory seems to be that we can placate the women if we don't dwell on such passages too much, and if we spend considerably more time on the roles of husbands and on what jerks men are.

Who can blame them? Virtually nothing can cause deeper and more rapid divisions in a church. Not many people, pastors included, have an overwhelming desire to lean into a left hook.

Possibly no issue is more vexing or more contentious.

Still, there are those pesky passages.

And danger abounds. The history of Israel, Christ's treatment of the Pharisees, and the letters in Revelation teach us that:

1. God will treat gently the church that errs despite an honest attempt to discern His intent from scripture and prayer.
   
2. He will deal much less gently with churches that flagrantly and willfully ignore unambiguous instruction. Liberalism is not God honoring.
   
3. He will also deal forcefully with those that impose rules and regulations that he never intended. Legalism is not God honoring.

The Gut Instinct Rule

Personally, I like the gut instinct rule, which is more biblically based than it sounds. And it is not really a rule, but more of a gut instinct guideline. We must employ a hermeneutic when interpreting these passages, and I think this is a proper one. It involves the technical subject of wiggle room.

Wiggle Room

Wiggle room is imprecise, but we know when it is exceeded. Wiggle room means that reasonable people, with the intent of interpreting scripture properly and not just to fit their agenda, can disagree. Views on eschatology fall into that category. Tolerating unrepentant homosexual activity does not.

Wiggle room does not mean that you can stretch the words in a passage to their most inclusive possible meaning and then drive through. Scripture is not written with the precision of a legal contract. Violation of the clear spirit of the words is as bad as violating the letter.

Since the bible is (a) inspired and (b) at times difficult, it then follows that God purposely made his word, in places, hard to understand. Why? I don't know. My guess is that it is more glorifying for us to dig into scripture and submit ourselves in prayer seeking discernment than just to follow a crystal clear set of rules.

With a scientific appreciation for wiggle room, we are ready for the gut instinct guideline:

On areas where there is no wiggle room, the church must hold firm. Prohibition on women pastors and elders is such an area.

The above is an example of a corporate regulation on church conduct and government. The worship service and leadership structure should reflect such clear biblical teachings in no uncertain terms.

There are also personal rules with no wiggle room, for example, the prohibition against adultery. Violations of such rules must not be tolerated by the church, either by policy or by ignoring the problem and hoping it goes away. They must be addressed proactively.

Where there is wiggle room we must again distinguish between the corporate and the personal. If it is a personal issue, then we must be tolerant, despite the negative connotations of that word.

It is when there is wiggle room and the issue is corporate that we find the thorny problems. What to do if reasonable God-fearing people disagree on an issue that affects the whole body, for example an issue of church order. You cannot accommodate both a belief that women should be silent and a belief that women are permitted to pray in front of the body. A decision has to be made.

Here we must, under the guidance of the elders and with input from the body, establish a tradition for the local church. They (the leadership) must do so after struggling mightily to discern God's instruction. They must cast aside bias and concern for role counts. The body must pray for wisdom for its leadership. And then, that leadership must announce and explain its conclusions unambiguously. Traditions are always subject to a periodic revisit, but for the next period, of whatever duration, the church's stance must be clear. Those who in good conscience disagree might leave. If they do, both they and the church should handle the separation with love, sadness, hope, and prayer.

With the gut instinct guideline in mind, let's look at a few troublesome passages. One of the more puzzling is from 1 Corinthians:

²I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the teachings, just as I passed them on to you.
³Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. ⁴Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. ⁵And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head--it is just as though her head were shaved. ⁶If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head. ⁷A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. ⁸For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; ⁹neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. ¹⁰For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head.
¹¹In the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. ¹²For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God. ¹³Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? ¹⁴Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, ¹⁵but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering. ¹⁶If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice--nor do the churches of God. (1 Cor. 11:2-16)

One of the arguments brought to bear on this discussion is that the passage is (a) highly cultural and (b) possibly directed to a particular obnoxious group of disruptive and contentious Corinthian women.

There may be some truth to that. Some aspects, namely those that address personal appearance, appear to be so specific as to be arguably aimed at a particular group at a particular place and time. It is a red herring, however, to argue that if part of the passage has a cultural explantion then all of the passage does.

The wearing of head coverings is a personal issue. The possible cultural aspects provide enough wiggle room when it comes to head coverings in church, the relevant tolerance clause in invoked. No rule should be made regarding head coverings. We are simply saying God we are unable to unambiguously discern your instruction, so on this matter we are leaving it to each individual's conscience with the recommendation that they seek your will.

Verse 3 is clearly universal, not personal. And no matter how one interprets "head" it establishes a comparison:

God::Christ as Christ::man as man::woman

Here we must be speaking of Christ incarnate who voluntarily became "a little lower than the angels." And man cannot mean humankind, for its substitution renders the verse nonsensical.

I don't know what this verse means in detail, but it is clear that (a) it is universal and so cannot be ignored and (b) its only reasonable general interpretation is that a difference exists in the roles of men and women and (c) the difference between men and women is one that includes an aspect of authority, since that is evident in the God to Christ (incarnate) and Christ to man relationships to which the man to woman relationship is compared.

Verse 5 is also significant. It possibly repudiates those who would use other verses to say that women should be utterly silent in church, for it clearly indicates that there are times when a woman is vocal. The key is whether the entire passage, especially in the context of the complete epistle, must be taken as instruction on church order, not private behavior in the home. If this passage describes church order, then if there is a proper way for women to pray, then it is clear that woman may pray. However, one can also argue, reasonably, that in chapter 10 Paul is speaking of basic Christian behavior, At the beginning of chapter 11 he is writing not of church order but generically on men and women, and around verse 16 of chapter 11 he segues into church order.

I am of the former persuasion, that Chapter 11 is applicable in toto to church order. Thus I believe that it demonstrates that utter silence is not demanded of women in church. Other passages do place restrictions, I believe, on the manner in which a woman can pray aloud before the body.

However, I see this as a wiggle room issue. I can understand someone who comes to the latter conclusion, that this applies to women in private and therefore does not repudiate the view that women should be silent in church. A tradition is in order here. I would not join a church in which the women had to remain utterly silent. On the other hand, I could not say that they were categorically wrong or had crossed over into pharisaic legalism.

Note also that wiggle room should not accommodate inconsistency. It seems to me, for example, an interpretation of this passage that (a) demands women wear head coverings in church and (b) does not refute utter female silence is inconsistent because in reaches the first conclusion by interpreting the passage as applying to the worship service and the second conclusion by interpreting the same passage (indeed the same verse) as applying to private conduct.

So, to summarize my understanding of this difficult passage:

1. We are unambiguously told that men and women have different roles, although those differences are not spelled out. Furthermore, v8 and v9 demonstrate that this difference was built into creation; it is not a result of the fall. The fall exacerbated the differences, and also made them contentious.
   
2. The question of head coverings, hair length, etc. is difficult to understand because of possible cultural specificity. It is therefore best left to the conscience of the individual.
   
3. Reasonable people might differ on whether v5 repudiates a regulation on utter and total silence for women in church. I think it does, with stipulations to be found elsewhere.

Another relevant passage is found in 1 Timothy:

¹¹A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. ¹²I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. ¹³For Adam was formed first, then Eve. ¹⁴And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. ¹⁵But women will be saved through childbearing--if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety. (1 Tim. 2:11-15)

Verse 11 certainly subject to some interpretation. One way to look at it suggests that women should be good students: they should pay attention (no talking in class) and be submissive to the instructor. Looked at this way, Paul must have had experience with women who were disruptive, for he clearly addresses women in particular, even though it is obvious that men should be good students as well. (Kind of like when I got married, the pastor, aware of rampant divorce in my family, said "David, marriage is a life-long bond." The specificity was not because the rule applied only to me, but based on history.) Another way to look at it is that Paul is providing additional restrictions on the freedom of women in a situation of public instruction. Be extra quiet. Do not be argumentative. Be in submission.

To me the latter interpretation "smells" right.

Verse 12 is totally unambiguous. No wiggle room. Women should not teach men, nor have authority over them. In this regard, she must be silent. Nothing can change the plain meaning of this passage, so there are no possible debates among reasonable people.

Alas, nothing is ever so easy. There is still the difficult question of when does a boy becomes a man? We are going to need a church tradition here, for the bible does not specify a precise age, although a compelling argument based on Jewish tradition can be made that 13 is a reasonable though imperfect cutoff.

I tend to agree. At 13, most boys have entered or are about to enter puberty. Some women argue that this is when they most need instruction from women, especially on how to treat girls and women. I could not disagree more. They know in theory how to treat girls and women. The problem is that culture and their male buddies (even in Christian schools) are telling them something different: Nod your head when a woman says you should treat us with respect. Go along with it. But we know the truth is that they are toys for us to play with. To me it is clear that boys need a strong man, one that they respect, to tell them how to treat women properly. To hear from a man the implications of the fact that both Adam and Eve were created in God's image, equal before God as persons while distinct in their manhood and womanhood.

But those are just common sense reasons. I have no biblical support. My input would be that women should not teach boys (in a formal Sunday school setting) above the age of 13. I believe exceptions occur (we hold back our older son who is autistic, because he is not ready for advanced high school instruction.) I would not leave the church if the elders stated that, after careful biblical consideration, our policy is that it is acceptable for women to teach junior high. I probably wouldn't leave if the church said it was acceptable for women to teach high school, although I would pull my boys out and put them in the adult Sunday school. I would leave if the church had female teachers in the adult class. All I can do, like everyone else, is to try my best to discern God's truth and then draw my line in the sand.

I have no confidence that I understand the application of verses 13-15. However, that is not relevant for this discussion. For even if I don't know what they mean, in this context, it is clear that they affirm that differences, traceable to creation, exist between men and women. More telling, those differences are used to justify the role distinctions of verses 11 and 12. In what manner they justify is not obvious, but the intent is clear, for Paul begins v13 with the word For. That clearly implies that what follows is a justification for what was just asserted.

Enough said. Go forth and argue.

One Point of Calvinism

Many times on this blog I have discussed the so called five points of Calvinism under the TULIP acrostic:

• Total Depravity
  
• Unconditional Election
  
• Limited Atonement
  
• Irresistible Grace
  
• Perseverance of the Saints

Today I just want to point out quickly (what many others have already pointed out) that in fact there is just one point of Calvinism: Total Depravity. From that one doctrine, all the other four are natural consequences.

As a corollary, there is no such thing as a "four point" Calvinist. If you accept Total Depravity you cannot rationally reject any of the other four. Often it is Limited Atonement that gets tossed out. This is because it is the most misunderstood of the five planks.

Interestingly, the other four points do not have to be merely accepted as consequences of Total Depravity. They can be postulated as stand alone doctrines and then independently supported in scripture. To me, this is one of the great comforts of the doctrines of grace and sovereignty. If the bible proclaims Total Depravity, then our only hope is Unconditional Election (predestination). Anything else and all men are damned. Lo and behold, that is what the scriptures teach. And if scripture teaches Unconditional Election, them it had better teach Irresistible Grace otherwise the whole system collapses on itself since, without Irresistible Grace, man can thwart God's plan, rendering Him sovereign no more.

In a nutshell then:

Total Depravity refers to the state we are in as a consequence of original sin. This is key: original sin is sometimes misunderstood as meaning that we are born, not with balanced books, but with a debit on our account. That is not true. A just God would not condemn a righteous man to hell because of someone else's sin. Original sin means we are not just born but conceived as sinful. In the womb we sin. Original sin refers to the radical nature of the fall and our subsequent inability to do anything that is pleasing to God. Anything.

If you accept that the bible teaches Total Depravity, then your only hope is that you will be saved in spite of what you do, not because of what you do. That is the essence of Unconditional Election. If it is impossible for us to choose God, He better choose us, or nobody will be saved. I believe anyone searching the scriptures recognizing the necessity of predestination will come away comforted by what he finds.

Limited Atonement should not be controversial. It is a requirement for everyone except universalists, who are in such violation of the whole of scripture as to be properly labeled as heretics. Everyone else, i.e., Calvinists and Armininians, believes the same thing: Christ's atonement was sufficient for the entire human race, but is applied redemptively only to believers. As long as you do not believe that everyone is saved, then you believe in a Limited Atonement, not in extent but in application.

If we are so utterly lost that we cannot choose God, and so God chooses us, and has sent his Son to pay the price, then we must accept that the call of God is (ultimately) irresistible. A better way to put it is that an omnipotent and sovereign God will not make any ineffectual calls; every call He makes to the elect is effectual. The Holy Spirit does not lose a tug of war for a soul, either with the person in question or with Satan. If we can forever resist God's saving grace, then we have clearly undone the concept of Unconditional Election.

Likewise, if God doesn’t sovereignly preserve His saints, then everything once again collapses. The Holy Spirit is not along for the ride. He is our helper, comforter, and teacher. God promises eternal life to those who believe. Once you have the gift of eternal life, it cannot be revoked, otherwise it wasn't eternal and God has become a liar. If losing one's salvation were possible, then surely some (if not all) men would oblige. God must preserve the saints, to fulfill His promise and save a people for Himself.

Comments Down

The comments are not working. The nice folks at YACCS are repairing their server. Their website currently states that the system will be back tomorrow (Tuesday) or Wednesday.

No post today. It's a holiday!