Archive for category Prophecy

God’s Evacuation Plan? A Different Take on the ‘Rapture’

Tchividjian is an amillenialist and offers a rather, to me anyway, unique explanation of the ‘one taken, another left’ motive generally used to describe the mythical Rapture,

But a closer look at the context reveals that in those pictures Jesus gave of men in the field and women at the mill, those “left behind” are the righteous rather than the unrighteous. Like the people in Noah’s day who were “swept away,” leaving behind Noah and his family to rebuild the world, so the unrighteous are “taken,” while the righteous are left behind. Why? Because this world belongs to God, and he’s in the process of gaining it all back, not giving it all up.

When it comes to this world’s future, God will follow the same pattern he engineered in Noah’s day, when he washed away everything that was perverse and wicked but did not obliterate everything. God will not annihilate the cosmos; he’ll renew, redeem, and resurrect it. As Randy Alcorn writes, “We will be the same people made new and we will live on the same Earth made new.”

God’s Evacuation Plan? – Tullian Tchividjian.

It’s an interesting concept, I believe. Check out his post and see what you think…

 

,

1 Comment

2 Peter 3:3-10, Amillennialism and Preterism – Thoughts?

From a valued reader and friend, I would like to submit to you the question submitted to me –

‘Tis evident that when Christ speaks of his coming; his being revealed; his coming in his Kingdom; or his Kingdom’s coming; He has respect to his appearing in those great works of his Power Justice and Grace, which should be in the Destruction of Jerusalem and other extraordinary Providences which should attend it.” (Jonathan Edwards; Miscellany #1199)

Now that I know that you are a Partial Preterist – I would like to ask you – what (if anything) is harmful or wrong with believers re-evaluating Peter’s words in 2 Peter 3:3-10? Why wouldn’t the ‘ LAST DAYS ‘ (2 Peter 3:3) and the ‘ US ‘ in (3:9) refer to specifically to Israel and the 40 years that was given them to repent before Jesus’ coming in judgment against them in A.D.70 ( Matthew 24:27). I do not see how Jesus comparing his coming to the flash of lightning can be for the good of those he’s visiting.

If we are to read scripture with a degree of logic – then why not question if what Peter wrote before A.D.70 and under inspiration – applies to readers of this age? The Lord has not return YET for the sake of souls that may come to repentance and faith TODAY? I mean really – From his ascension in A.D. 30 to the present (2010) countless souls have been BORN and have DIED without him the world over. IF Peter was not referring to the coming judgment against apostate or unbelieving Israel in A.D.70 then his statement in 3:9 makes no sense at all…

Furthermore Peter uses the same apocalyptic/prophetic language in 3:10 as Amos does in 9:5. Moreover,Jesus coming with (non literal) clouds (Rev 1:7) and his famous ” I come quickly ” cannot be for the good – anymore than God coming into Egypt riding on a (non literal) swift cloud – in his judgment against them (Isaiah 19:1)

What I’m asking you is this – do you believe that Jesus in his own words ever promised a physical/bodily return? I do believe that Rev 20:7-10 is yet future and not a ‘ recounting ‘ of the battle of Rev 19:11-21. Satan is still bound (from deceiving nations) so Perhaps Rev 20:9 (Lightning coming down from Heaven) may be a picture of Jesus’ coming – only this time it cannot be for the good of those who attack the camp of the saints (The beloved city) Not Jerusalem – but his church…

You said that you are Amil – so you believe that we are living in the thousand (not 1000) year reign of Christ too then?

Furthermore Peter like John uses the same apocalyptic/prophetic language in 3:10 as Amos does in 4:13; 8:8; and 9:5 as does Micah in 1:3-4

This was my initial response,

Seroled, I believe that all doctrine and Scripture must constantly be re-evaluated. As to these questions, umm…

I believe that Peter very well may have been writing to his fellow Jews who were simply refusing to follow Christ, relying on skepticism. We know that after 70ce, the Church shifted dramatically in cultural make-up, if you will, so I think that you may be on to something…

I don’t really like using Revelation any longer as an eschatological road map, finding enough eschatology in Peter and Paul to suffice. However, if we use Revelation as a prophetic revealing of what was going on around them, it may be that when Satan was bound from deceiving the nations, the Gentile mission really took off.

Feel free to contribute, warmly.

 

, ,

2 Comments

Ezekiel and the Oracles against Tyre – Use of Prophecy in the Old Testament

Fellow blogger and political ally, Steve, left a comment pointing me to this article. Thought I might share. It concerns the nature of prophecy in the Old Testament, something which must be understood as we read Matthew and even Revelation. While you may disagree, I would urge you to support yourself in doing so. Also, for a prophecy primer, if you will, read Amos who I find is a key in understanding the roll of an Old Testament Prophet, and thus, the use of prophecy.

The example to consider is from the book of Ezekiel. The middle section of Ezekiel contains a series of what are known as “Oracles Against Foreign Nations” (chs. 25-32). All of the major prophetic books contain these. They are indictments against surrounding nations, often listing their crimes against humanity and sins against God, as a way to universalize accountability to God. They are highly stylized and poetic, but often contain specific predictions of the judgment of God against those nations for their self-sufficient arrogance, pride, and worship of false gods. Often the nations are evaluated specifically in terms of how they have treated Israel as God’s people.

Pick up your bibles, and begin to read,

Ezekiel and the Oracles against Tyre.

 

,

5 Comments

Revelation as Prophecy: What is Prophecy?

For some background on my argument here, see this post.

The Book of Revelation is often called, rightly, a prophecy, but far too often does that mean in the minds of most readers, something in the future. Many believe that ‘prophecy’ is always in the future, but I believe that this is a fallacy based on misunderstanding of what prophecy is. Simply, prophecy is not the fore-telling of far distant events, but the inspired message for the audience there and then. It is not a secret code to be worked out by later readers, nor should the genre be ignored, but everything to be understood correctly but be put in its place.

The author clearly denotes that the work is a prophecy in Revelation 1.3 (and several other places), meaning of course, that he is a prophet.

Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of the prophecy, and heed the things which are written in it; for the time is near. NASB

God blesses the one who reads the words of this prophecy to the church, and he blesses all who listen to its message and obey what it says, for the time is near. NLT

Μακάριος ὁ ἀναγινώσκων καὶ οἱ ἀκούοντες τοὺς λόγους τῆς προφητείας καὶ τηροῦντες τὰ ἐν αὐτῇ γεγραμμένα, ὁ γὰρ καιρὸς ἐγγύς.

It’s that key word, προφητείας, which plagues us and which we must attempt to discover what it actually meant, still means, and not what we subjectively wish it to mean today.

First, I note that in the Septuagint, we see the word used by Tobit (2.6) in reference to the prophet Amos who spoke in his own time about the destruction coming to Israel because of the injustices done to the poor.

Then I remembered the prophecy of Amos, how he said against Bethel, “Your festivals shall be turned into mourning, and all your songs into lamentation.” And I wept. (NRSV)

καὶ ἐμνήσθην τῆς προφητείας Αμως καθὼς εἶπεν στραφήσονται αἱ ἑορταὶ ὑμῶν εἰς πένθος καὶ πᾶσαι αἱ εὐφροσύναι ὑμῶν εἰς θρῆνον καὶ ἔκλαυσα

Amos wasn’t speaking about Tobit, and Tobit knew that. Instead Tobit fulfilled what Amos had said, then went and did what Amos said. Amos was dead, but Tobit took what Amos said and applied to his own life.

Paul would later use say that gifts were bestowed through prophecy,

Do not neglect the gift that is in you, which was given to you through prophecy with the laying on of hands by the council of elders. 1 Timothy 4:14 NRSV

μὴ ἀμέλει τοῦ ἐν σοὶ χαρίσματος, ὃ ἐδόθη σοι διὰ προφητείας μετὰ ἐπιθέσεως τῶν χειρῶν τοῦ πρεσβυτερίου.

In a pseudepigraphical book, prophecy is connected to nothing more that delivering God’s Law or ruling Israel,

And Eupolemus says in a certain ‘Concerning the Prophecy of Elijah,’ that Moses prophesied for forty years, then Joshua the son of Nun [prophesied] for thirty years. [Joshua] lived for one hundred ten years, and set up the holy Tabernacle at Shiloh. Eupolemus Concerning Moses 2:1

Εὐπόλεμος δέ φησιν ἔν τινι Περὶ τῆς Ἠλίου προφητείας Μωσῆν προφητεῦσαι ἔτη μ· εἶτα Ἰησοῦν, τὸν τοῦ Ναυῆ υἱόν, ἔτη λ· βιῶσαι δ᾽ αὐτὸν ἔτη ρι πῆξαί τε τὴν ἱερὰν σκηνὴν ἐν Σιλοῖ.

Philo, in line with the mention above, cites Moses and defines prophecy,

But since there is an infinite variety of both human and divine circumstances which are unknown both to king, and lawgiver, and chief priest, for a man is no less a created and mortal being from having all these offices, or because he is clothed with such a vast and boundless inheritance of honor and happiness, he was also of necessity invested with the gift of prophecy, in order that he might through the providence of God learn all those things which he was unable to comprehend by his own reason; for what the mind is unable to attain to, that prophecy masters. De vita Mosis 2:6

ἀλλ᾽ ἐπειδὴ μυρία καὶ βασιλεῖ καὶ νομοθέτῃ καὶ ἀρχιερεῖ τῶν ἀνθρωπείων καὶ θείων ἄδηλα γενητὸς γὰρ οὐδὲν ἧττον καὶ θνητός ἐστιν, εἰ καὶ τοσοῦτον καὶ οὕτως ἄφθονον περιβέβληται κλῆρον εὐπραγιῶν, ἀναγκαίως καὶ προφητείας ἔτυχεν, ἵν᾽ ὅσα μὴ λογισμῷ δύναται καταλαμβάνειν, ταῦτα προνοίᾳ θεοῦ εὕροι· ὧν γὰρ ὁ νοῦς ἀπολείπεται, πρὸς ταῦθ᾽ ἡ προφητεία φθάνει.

Prophecy, so far, has been defined as ruling, law giving, comprehension and bringing representing God’s legal case against Israel. We could boil it down to this, that prophecy and thus prophets are those who claim direct inspiration from God. Rather, a prophet who claims direct inspiration from God issues words (these are prophecies) which he claims are from God, under the inspiration of the Spirit. The notion of inspiration by the breath of God (Spirit) can be derived easily enough from Philo –

And if, indeed, any one assuming the name and appearance of a prophet [Deuteronomy 13:1], appearing to be inspired and possessed by the Holy Spirit, were to seek to lead the people to the worship of those who are accounted gods in the different cities, it would not be fitting for the people to attend to him being deceived by the name of a prophet. For such an one is an impostor and not a prophet, since he has been inventing speeches and oracles full of falsehood, De specialibus legibus 1:315

κἂν μέντοι τις ὄνομα καὶ σχῆμα προφητείας ὑποδύς, ἐνθουσιᾶν καὶ κατέχεσθαι δοκῶν, ἄγῃ πρὸς τὴν τῶν νενομισμένων κατὰ πόλεις θρησκείαν θεῶν, οὐκ ἄξιον προσέχειν ἀπατωμένους ὀνόματι προφήτου· γόης γὰρ ἀλλ᾽ οὐ προφήτης ἐστὶν ὁ τοιοῦτος, ἐπειδὴ ψευδόμενος λόγια καὶ χρησμοὺς ἐπλάσατο.

In Josephus, he notes that the Temple was chosen by Prophecy (Ant. 4.200). In 7.72, David is seen asking the Prophets about the will of God while in 8.418, it is said that by prophecy, people know the will of God and what they should avoid. Still, the sense of the future events is immediate which is echoed in 10.93 when describing Jeremiah’s predictions about what would soon happen. For Josephus, prophecies were meant to be fulfilled quickly (I note Revelation 22.20 here) which in accordance with Deuteronomy 13 would allow for testing of the prophet.

What about the actual meaning of the word?

Friberg –

προφητεία, ας, ἡ prophecy; (1) as the gift (χάρισμα) of inspired speaking granted to believers by the Spirit prophecy, ability to prophesy (RO 12.6); (2) as the utterance of a prophet prophetic words, inspired saying, prophecy (1C 14.6); (3) as a foretelling of future events prediction, prophecy (MT 13.14); (4) as the work of a prophet prophetic activity, prophesying (RV 11.6)

Louw-Nida –

33.460 προφητεία, ας f: an utterance inspired by God – ‘inspired utterance, prophecy.’ καὶ ἀναπληροῦται αὐτοῖς ἡ προφητεία Ἠσαΐου ‘so that the prophecy of Isaiah comes true in their case’ Mt 13.14; εἴτε δὲ προφητεῖαι, καταργηθήσονται ‘and if there are inspired utterances, they will cease’ 1 Cor 13.8. It is possible that προφητεία in 1 Cor 13.8 refers to the action of producing such inspired utterances rather than to the resulting verbal form of the utterances themselves.

Liddell-Scott –

προφητεία, ἡ, the gift of interpreting the will of the gods, Orac. ap. Luc.
II. in N.T., the gift of expounding scripture, of speaking and preaching.

Thayer –

προφητεία, προφητείας, ἡ (προφητεύω, which see), Hebrew נְבוּאָה, prophecy, i. e. discourse emanating from divine inspiration and declaring the purposes of God, whether by reproving and admonishing the wicked, or comforting the afflicted, or revealing things hidden; especially by foretelling future events. Used in the N. T. — of the utterances of the O. T. prophets: Matt. 13:14; 2 Pet. 1:20,21 (on this passage see γίνομαι, 5 e. α.); — of the prediction of events relating to Christ’s kingdom and its speedy triumph, together with the consolations and admonitions pertaining thereto: Rev. 11:6; 22:19; τό πνεῦμα τῆς προφητείας, the spirit of prophecy, the divine mind, to which the prophetic faculty is due, Rev. 19:10 ; οἱ λόγοι τῆς προφητείας, Rev. 1:3; 22:7,10,18; — of the endowment and speech of the Christian teachers called προφῆται (see προφήτης, II. 1 f.): Rom. 12:6; 1 Cor. 12:10; 13:2; 14:6,22; plural the gifts and utterances of these prophets, 1 Cor. 13:8; 1 Thess. 5:20; — specifically, of the prognostication of those achievements which one set apart to teach the gospel will accomplish for the kingdom of Christ, 1 Tim. 4:14; plural 1:18 (see προάγω, 2 a. and compare the commentaries). ((The Septuagint, Josephus); among native Greek writers used only by Lucian, Alex. 40, 60; (to which add inscriptions (see Liddell and Scott, under the word, I.)).)*

So, the generally agree – it is an inspired speech from a person sent of God to tell about His will. The ‘future’ is generally immediate or better yet, it is generally about the prophet applying the ‘how come’ to the ‘what’s happening now.’ Prophets do not make ‘predictions’ because what they say are to be the words of God, nor do they tell of events thousands of years hence. A prophecy is the words of a prophet which is a person sent by God to tell about the will of God.

Eschatology is a part of Christianity, but I have seriously doubts if Revelation is apart of Eschatology, or at least not in the way we’ve been told to think about Eschatology.

 

30 Comments

Socialism and the Environment – Yep, the world is ending next week

Naff, writing at the HuffPost, has a piece up about the collusion of Scientists and Evangelicals and the coming end of the world

There are two major differences between these doomsday criers. First, scientists base their conclusions on a systematic review of evidence in the real world. Evangelicals rely on that hall of magic mirrors called biblical prophecy. Funny thing about the Bible: you can read whatever you want into it.

Take LaHaye, for example: He thinks that a) the Bible prophesies that four global empires will arise, and that b) four global empires have arisen. Bingo! It’s Armageddon time! Never mind that the Bible authors thought the world was flat and had no idea that empires existed in China or Meso-America. LaHaye’s got it all taped out. Never mind that there has never been a truly global empire. (The Brits came closest, but even they controlled only a fraction of humanity.) It’s all in the interpretation!

Second, scientists generally deplore the extinction of megafauna (including us). Some even gnash their teeth, and for all I know, rent their garments. Physicist Bob Park is a good example. In his weekly newsletter he cries out like a prophet in the wilderness about our failure to recognize the dangers of overpopulation.

Clay Farris Naff: The End of Times: Do Scientists and Fundamentalists Concur?.

Yup… next week. Seriously. Or maybe the ides of March. Oh, I don’t know…

By the way, I don’t agree with every characterization which Naff places on biblical prophecy….

 

, ,

5 Comments

Kim Riddlebarger: Amillennialism 101 (Mp3s)

Dr. Kim Riddlebarger (Ph.D., Fuller Theological Seminary) is senior pastor of Christ Reformed Church in Anaheim, California, and visiting professor of systematic theology at Westminster Seminary California. He is also a co-host of the White Horse Inn radio program, which is broadcast weekly on more than fifty radio stations.

There are free mp3′s on a historical understanding of Revelation (ht to a friend via email). You can download them and listen to them to your heart is content…

Monergism :: Amillennialism 101.

While I don’t view eschatology as something to divide Christians, sometimes, especially dispensationalism, does.

 

,

No Comments

Early Church Fathers – Not all that Premillenial, it seems

Still discussing T.C.’s blog post this morning, I find an interesting chart on early Christian writers.

Mathetes — 90 A.D. Not premillennial
Hermas — 99 A.D. Not premillennial
Clement of Rome — 99 A.D. Probably not premillennial
Didache — 100 A.D. Not premillennial
Ignatius — 110 A.D. Premillennialists claim that Ignatius was a premillennialist but he wrote nothing about it one way or the other.
Papias — 115 A.D. He is premillennial (but it is unclear what his specific views were). In any case, his view is inconsistent with modern premillennialism.
Barnabas — 130 A.D. Probably not premillennial. Refers to 6,000 years of human history which is wrong.
Justin Martyr — 150 A.D. Clearly believed in a 1,000 year millennium. But his ideas about the conditions in the millennium would horrify modern premillennialists.
Irenaeus — 150 A.D. Probably not premillennial. Refers to 6,000 years of human history which is wrong.
Polycarp — 155 A.D. No end-time writings except to confirm the resurrection and eternal state.
Aviricius Marcellus — 163 A.D. He is clearly premillennial. Refers to 6,000 years of human history which is wrong. Has an allegorical style of interpretation which would horrify premillennialists (it horrifies me).
Tatian — 110-172 A.D. Says nothing one way or the other.
Hegesippus — 170 A.D. Not premillennial
Apollinaris — 175 A.D. No end time writings.
Melito — 180 A.D. No end time writings.
Theophilus — 181 A.D. He teaches nothing about a 1,000 year millennium.
Tertullian — 206 A.D. He is clearly premillennial but his concept of the 1,000 year millennium is nothing like modern premillennialists. And he asserts that the church = Israel which is an amillennial idea.
Clement of Alexandria — 215 A.D. Probably believed in a 1,000 year millennium.
Origen — 232 A.D. No one considers Origen to be a premillennialist. Origen himself refutes the idea of a physical millennium.
Hippolytus — 236 A.D. Probably believed in a 1,000 year millennium. However, he made two serious mistakes: (1) refers to 6,000 years of human history and (2) stated that the end would come in 500 A.D.
Julius Africanus — 245 A.D. Says nothing one way or the other.
Cyprian — 258 A.D. Probably believed in a 1,000 year millennium. However, he made two serious mistakes: (1) refers to 6,000 years of human history and (2) believed that the end of the world would come soon (which it didn’t).
Victorinus of Pettau — 270 A.D. An amillennialist.
Nepos — 280 A.D. He is premillennial.
Coracion — 280 A.D. He was premillennial but changed his opinion after a debate with Dionysius.
Caius — 296 A.D. Unclear what his view was.
Methodius, Bishop of Tyre — 300 A.D. Although he uses the word “millennium” he uses it figuratively to mean “life after salvation.” In my opinion he was an amillennialist.
Commodianus — 305 A.D. Clearly believed in a 1,000 year millennium. Refers to 6,000 years of human history which is wrong. His view is inconsistent with modern premillennialism and his ideas about the conditions in the millennium would horrify modern premillennialists.
Lactantius — 325 A.D. Clearly believed in a 1,000 year millennium. Refers to 6,000 years of human history which is wrong. Superficially his view sounds a lot like modern premillennialism but he has some serious inconsistencies (as do modern premillennialists).
Eusebius — 341 A.D. Not premillennial.
Augustine — 386 A.D. Augustine was clearly amillennial.

Also check out Jerome on a literal understanding of the 1000 years – he wasn’t the friendliest to this disposition. You may also find this post interesting on overall views of some of the Church Fathers. This is an interesting history of modern dispensationalism, to be honest, I find abhorrent to good theology. I don’t want to say that Robert Darby was cult minded, but…. This is a good series on how to minister to those under the influence of dispensationalism. This article attempts to show that the Athanasian Creed was amillennialist.

I still maintain that these issues really arose when the cultural foundation of the genre was removed.

p class=”k32gn37bbjqxvtiwh”> 

5 Comments