Thursday, July 5, 2012

Gospel Centered Preaching and Dispensationalism

Why are dispensationalists often left out of the conversation?!!  Two years ago I went to the National ETS conference because I wanted to see an epic debate between John Piper and NT Wright over the biblical concept of justification.  I was a little disappointed when Piper was replaced by Schreiner, but I was still amped up to see NT Wright and he did not disappoint.  BUT . . . you know what I walked away thinking?  Where were the dispensational voices?  You had Wright and you had reformed voices, but no real dispensational thinkers.  Aren't they allowed to have an opinion?

It seems to me that the same type of prejudice is in the new gospel Centered preaching movement, made popular by the T4G conferences and the Gospel Coalition.  As a Progressive Dispensationalist, I think this movement represents an awesome move away from moralism and toward the gospel, but again it seems like many in the movement tend to diminish dispensationalists or try to push them out of the discussion.  Do reformed people have a corner on gospel centered preaching?  Is their way of articulating it consistent with dispensationalism and and/or a dispensational hermeneutic?  Here are my two cents, and you are getting exactly what you pay for!!

1.  What is the Gospel?

First of all, we need to address the question, "What is the Gospel?"  Is the gospel merely a belief in the penal substitutionary atonement?  Is the gospel just the doctrine of double imputation?  Is the gospel a belief in the death, burial and resurrection of Christ?  Or . . . is the gospel the entire story of what God is doing in history? Scot McKnight in King Jesus Gospel makes (in my opinion) a very helpful distinction between the gospel and the plan of salvation.  When we talk about the gospel we are often reductionistic and apply it only to the plan of salvation (Admit your sin, believe in the sacrifice of Christ, and confess him as Lord).  The gospel, however, is the story of what God is doing in the world.  He is seeking to re-establish his kingdom on earth and to redeem a people for himself.  As I have read gospel centered preachers' writings they tend to struggle with this idea.  They want to include the second coming in their gospel preaching, but the way they define gospel (double imputation) makes them have to jump through hoops in order to allow it.  If we broaden our definition of gospel to what God is doing in history, culminating in Jesus, it will help us to fit our preaching into the story of God's word rather than to impose the plan of salvation on every text.  Which leads us to our next question . . .  

2.  Is there continuity or discontinuity between the testaments?

This is a very complicated hermeneutical question.  I don't want to dive overly deep into it here; I just want to point out that there is a major difference in how reformation thinkers, traditional dispensationalists, and progressive dispensationalists view the relationship between the testaments.  Reformed thinkers tend to focus on the continuity between the two testaments, traditional dispensationalists tend to focus on the discontinuity, and the progressives tend to focus on both continuity and discontinuity.   Now, with the advent of thinkers like NT Wright, I think there is a more helpful way of articulating the relationship between the Testaments and that is the idea of story.  The gospel story binds the two testaments together.  The story of what God is doing in history, culminating in the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus.  This story is the good news! 

God created man in his image and made him a steward of his creation.  Man transgressed the one boundary that God put in place and mankind fell into sin, and because of that relational breach God cursed not only mankind but the entirety of creation.  God, however, did not give up on man.  He pursued him through covenants (Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, Palestinian, Davidic, and New), culminating in Jesus who is the ultimate answer and fulfillment of those covenants.  Jesus, the eternal second person of the trinity, willingly became a man, lived a perfect life, called men to repentance, gave his own life as a sacrifice for sin, and rose again from the grave putting a nail in the coffin of sin, death, and the devil.  Then he ascended to heaven where he now reigns as king in the hearts of his people as he awaits the time when he will return to earth to establish his kingdom in its full form and judge the world, condemning unbelievers and rewarding his own.  This is the story of what God is doing in the world.  This story is the good news.

If this is the story of what God is doing, then there is continuity between the testaments because both testaments are part of God's one story, but there is also discontinuity because each testament was written by people who were fully invested in their own part of the story.  True gospel preaching then will recognize the part of the gospel story every event and author was a part of and then ask the question, "What does this text mean in its own part of the gospel story, and what does it mean to me in my part of the story?"  True gospel preaching should never impose my part of the story onto another text at least at the level of meaning (perhaps at the level of extrapolation).  Which leads us to perhaps the distinguishing hermeneutic that divides reformed brothers and sisters from their dispensational conterparts, the analogy of faith.

3.  The Analogy of Faith hermeneutic

Since reformed people see continuity between the testaments, many of them often feel free to impose later New Testament truth back onto Old Testament passages.  This can be helpful at times, but it all depends on how you phrase what you are doing.  Modern dispensationalism does not lead to this type of hermeneutic (Classic Dispensationalists and to an extent Revised Dispensationalists were prone to similar thinking, they just called it typology). 

I think I am going to have to give an example to explain what I mean.  Let's use the story of David and Goliath as an example.  Here is a good video from Matt Chandler, exemplifying how gospel centered advocates believe we should approach this Old Testament narrative when we preach.

If you followed the link, you will find that Matt believes that when we preach about David and Goliath, we should really preach about how Jesus slayed the giants of sin, death, and the devil.  That, to him, would be gospel-centered or Christ-centered preaching.  What I learned from this is that when reformed people say that Gospel Centered preaching will lead you away from dispensationalism, that is what they are referring to.  Dispensationalism will lead you away from a hermeneutic that allows you to read the story of Jesus back onto the story of David and Goliath.  Was the original intent behind the telling of story of David and Goliath to prefigure the work of Christ?  Of course not.  If we preach that as the intent of the passage, we are not exegeting the text, but imposing a foreign idea onto it.  Now, does that mean that we can't both find out the original intent of the story, preach that intent, AND focus on the gospel?  Of course not!.  

So, how should we preach the original intent AND focus on the gospel story at the same time.  First we have to discover the original intent.  I believe as you look at the book of 1 Samuel as a whole you will find that it is a mainly a contrast between two personalities, David and Saul.  David was a man of faith in God who depended on him for success.  Saul was a man of pride who depended on himself for his success.  These two personalities convene in a very telling way in the story of David and Goliath.  Saul will not fight Goliath, because he is afraid.  He looks at Goliath and his strength and he looks at himself and his lack thereof and makes the logical choice that fighting him would end in death.  This reaction is just part of who he is, a man dependent on himself.  David, on the other hand, is a man of faith.  He believes that God is active and wants to save his people, he is just waiting for a faith filled servant to use. 

The author was trying to hold David up as a model of faithfulness to God and his covenant.  He was in essence teaching through story that we should be like David and not like Saul.  If we want to be faithful to the text, our sermon should also focus on the faith of David.  In other words, if we interpret the text properly, it does lead to a moral.  Christ centered preaching (as enumerated by many reformed thinkers) tries to tell us that if we preach a moral, then it is somehow not Christ centered or gospel centered.  The Bible does, however, teach morals and ethics for God's people to live by.  Preaching a moral is not moralism, especially if the point of the text we are studying is to get across a moral.  Moralism is when we teach that God loves us more for following the moral, or loves us less if we don't.  The Bible is absolutely filled with morals.  I believe that we can both hold to a dispensational/progressive dispensational hermeneutic (not imposing NT theology on OT texts) and still be gospel centered when we preach them.  Gospel centered preaching allows me to preach a moral, but at the same time it does NOT allow me to just leave it at that.  Here is where you need to put the story of David and Goliath into the gospel story.  

Like David and Saul, we are fallen people and live in the midst of other fallen people.  That fallenness leads us to be afraid of the circumstances of life, like Saul.  We too have an option of how to react to those circumstances.  We can trust ourselves or we can trust in God.  Therefore, the proper way to preach this text is to call people to faith in God no matter the circumstances of life.  

We also need to understand that because we live in a different part of the story, that our application is going to need to be re-contextualized.  We do not live under the Mosaic covenant any more.  Under the law, faith and faithfulness to the covenant resulted in physical blessings, while unfaithfulness led to curses.  That is different between our situation and David and Saul's.  We cannot then preach that if we have enough faith in God, that he will enable us to slay all of our personal giants.  So, when we preach David and Goliath, we, like the author, should call people to have big faith in a big God who loves his people and wants what is best for them, while at the same time not promising the people that they can manipulate God by their faith.  If they just have enough faith, that God will do whatever they ask of him.

Which leads us back to our initial question.  Can people hold to a dispensational hermeneutic and still be gospel centered in their preaching?  Yes!!  If we focus on the story of the gospel and let it inform our preaching.  We don't just preach the moral, "Have faith!"  We also must preach the why.  Why should we have big faith in a big God?  Because that God loves us, pursues us, and ultimately sent his own son to free us from sin and death.  It is not moralism to understand that certain passages of Scripture teach morals.  It only becomes moralism when we at the same time preach that the goal of the Christian life is to be moral.  The goal of the Christian life is to have a relationship with God, and we can only do that when we see everything through the lens of the gospel.

So, when gospel centered preachers say that being gospel centered will lead them to be reformed, that really isn't the case.  Using the analogy of faith and reading the plan of salvation into the meaning of Old Testaments texts might, but that hermeneutic is not the only way to be gospel centered and reject moralism.

Friday, June 22, 2012

Is America the New Israel?

A few months ago a great man in my church suggested I read a book called "The Last Harbinger."  I asked him what it was about and he told me that I just needed to read it.  "It will tell you where we are headed as a country" he said.  Whenever someone from the church suggests I read something, I do.  It think it is my desire for their protection that drives me to do so.  I went on-line and I purchased the book.

What I found there both horrified me and taught me something very valuable about how some modern evangelicals look at America.  Let me start with a disclaimer.  I love America.  I am so glad that I was blessed to be born in this great nation.  Do not in any way take the rest of this post and me bashing on America.  I am not.

BUT . . .

What horrified me was that the author, Jonathan Cahn, teaches that America is the new Israel in God's plan.  He suggests that America is a distinctly Christian nation, qualitatively different than every other nation, except Israel.  I don't think so and I will explain why in a moment.  It did, however, help me understand those "America is a Christian nation" people a little better.  It helps me make sense of their constant complaint about prayer being taken out of schools or their propensity to be the morality police for the nation at large.  The book brings up a subject that we probably need to address in our churches.  Is America some great nation that God treats differently than every other secular nation on the surface of the earth or not?

Cahn compares the United States of America to the nation of Israel.  He says that they are the only two nations in history that were established with a covenant between the nation and God.  Then, he uses this link to apply prophecies made to ancient Israel to modern day America.  These links between ancient prophesy about the idolatry and decline of the Northern Kingdom and America's post 9-11 experience are clearly impressive, and I do think that we can learn something from the pattern of how God interacted with Israel, but I think there are some huge errors in logic and some very dangerous and wrong conclusions that we could draw by equating God's dealings with Israel to God's dealings with America.

First of all, God chose Israel. He picked out Abraham from every other man on the face of the planet, and he chose him.  He didn't choose him, because he was great, or because he was already worshiping him.  He just chose him, and made promises to him to make him the father of a great nation.  A nation through whom all other nations would be blessed.  God never chose America in this way.  God has a purpose for America; I firmly believe that.  America, however, is not a "chosen" nation in the way that Israel was a "chosen" nation.  God doesn't work in America in ways that are different from how he interacts with any other nation.

One of the ways that Cahn makes this connection is by pointing out that there has been a breach in the walls of America.  A trouble that has beset us that proves that God is judging us.  We were falling away from our job as being the light that draws people to God, so God sent planes into our buildings and killed thousands of people to get our attention on 9-11.  REALLY?  Sounds like a Pat Robertson soundbite to me.  Also, why is this tragedy the breach in our walls?  What about the civil war?  What about the Great Depression?  What about Pearl Harbor?  Why choose just this tragedy?  Also, are all tragedies sent by God to teach us lessons?  Surely the principle is true that we reap what we sow, but we need to be careful when we say why God allows something to happen, when we really aren't sure why.  Calling people to repentance in the face of tragedy is a good thing, but to stand on your soap box and say that these towers fell because America did this or does that is going beyond what we know.

Second, we are in a different part of God's story today.  In the Old Testament, God was pursuing his people through covenants.  Promises that he made to specific people.  These people were members of one nation, Israel.  Through the covenants God held Israel up as an example to all the other nations.  He wanted to draw other nations and people to him through their story.  That is why God chose a nation that wasn't that great, because he wanted people to look at them and see God.  Because of sin, however, Israel never did the job as they were intended to.  Therefore, when the time was right, God sent his son, Jesus.  Now, God's primary way of reaching people is not through a nation or a people, but through the church (1 Pet. 2:9; Rom. 11:17, 24; Phil. 3:3) with the message of Jesus on their lips.  The church is the center of God's plan in this part of the story, not one particular nation.

America is not a special chosen nation instituted by God to draw people to salvation in the same way that Israel was.  Has America had successful missionary efforts?  Of course!!  God's plan, though, is not to use America to reach the world, but to use his church.

I think this misunderstanding about America is common today.  I also think that this misconception can be dangerous.  These people firmly believe that until we get back to our roots as a nation that there is no hope for our country.  Our hope does not come from America; our hope comes from God.  God working through his church to reach the world.  Don't put your hope in America going back to a certain set of ethics or back to being a more "Christian" nation.  Also, this philosophy will lead you to try to reclaim culture and to Christianize America, rather to focus on transforming hearts with the power of the gospel one at a time.  Love your country.  Hope for the best, but remember that we are citizens of heaven first!  America is not the greatest good in the world, God is!!  He is our only hope!  The gospel is the only means of salvation.

Thursday, February 11, 2010

The Antichrist: Alive and Well? - Part Three

Anybody out there remember Baghdad Bob? He was probably the best (or perhaps worst) propagandist out there. He was the Iraqi "minister of information," or more accurately "disinformation". His real name was Mohammed Saeed, but because our geniuses in our news media couldn't pronounce his name, they nicknamed him "Baghdad Bob".

During the war in 2003 he repeatedly made the claim that the Iraqi forces were decisively winning every battle against the US and coalition forces. He became best known for his daily press conferences near the end of the war, because they were borderline comedy routines. His newest story would be even more far-fetched than the last, culminating when he exclaimed that there were no American troops in Baghdad and that they were committing suicide by the hundreds at the city gates. But . . . if you looked carefully at the footage of that interview, you could see American tanks rolling down the streets of Baghdad not even 100 yards from his press conference. In the US, Baghdad Bob gained somewhat of a following. People made T-shirts of him holed up in the Death Star as it was being destroyed, claiming that everything was fine. Unfortunately, many in the Arab world believed everything this guy said and were shocked when Baghdad fell, because they really believed Iraq was winning.

When I think about the Antichrist, I think about Baghdad Bob. Satan has been defeated already by the cross of Christ. According to Revelation 12 he is confined to the earth and is striking out in rage. However, he still thinks he can win, so Satan drafts two more soldiers in his army, the antichrist (the beast) and the false prophet. These guys are going to be his ministers of information, finding him worship and deceiving people into believing his lies, even though they know that he is already a defeated power. The Antichrist will stand up and declare victory for Satan, even while God's tanks are rolling by in the background.

We have learned some things about the Antichrist from some very clear passages. In 2 Thessalonians we learned that he will exalt himself above every god, set up an abomination of desolation, perform false miracles, and deceive many. In the Synoptics and 1 John we learned that a large "A" Antichrist is coming in the future, but a more pressing concern is the small "a" antichrists which are already here and leading many astray. Now I want to look at the last and most difficult NT passage about the Antichrist, Revelation 13.

It is difficult, because it is embedded in an apocalyptic work. Apocalyptic language is filled with allusion and metaphor, and can be difficult (or even impossible) to interpret precisely. It is exactly this imprecision that makes apocalyptic language beautiful and emotional. It is more art than science. It is more like throwing paint onto a canvas and creating a picture than rational explanation.

Let's start with the description of the beast in 13:1-2 and see what we can learn:

1. Dripping wet (just came out of the sea)
2. Seven heads
3. Ten crowns (ten crowns on seven heads?)
4. Ten horns
5. A blasphemous name written on each head
6. The appearance of a leopard
7. The feet of a bear
8. The mouth of a lion

So, is this otherworldly description what the beast actually looks like? No, this isn't a description of the Antichrist's physical appearance, instead each attribute is meant to tell us something about the Antichrist. In this passage he comes up out of the sea. In chapter 11 he came up out of the abyss. The abyss is associated with Satan and the sea often personified evil in ancient Jewish thought. So, this description teaches us right away that this guy is a minion of Satan.

The fact that he has seven heads associates him with his master, the dragon, who also has seven heads. So, the Antichrist's power and authority derive from the dragon, and he is an enemy of the church. The ten horns most likely refer to military might and the fact that there are crowns on each one suggests that he will rule politically probably through this military might. The blasphemous names were probably names of other gods or of Caesars claiming to be god like many did in John's day.

So who is this beast from the sea? Who do you associate this beast with? What pops into your mind when you read this description?

Who would John most likely have associated this beast with? Most likely John would have thought of the Roman Empire. Doesn't the Roman Empire fit this description? The Roman Empire fulfilled the will of Satan by killing and torturing saints The Roman Empire blasphemed when its emperors declared themselves "gods". The Empire made war against God's people at many times. The Empire received worship from the pagan world.

The Roman Empire DOES fit this description at many points, but I personally believe that the beast is broader than just the Roman Empire, a revived Roman Empire, or any empire for that matter. This image finds partial fulfillment in any government or power that wars against God and his people, but I think that 2 Thessalonians makes clear that ultimately it refers to a man at the end of history. He will rise up and call himself "god" and demand total allegiance and praise.

This beast has a jumble of characteristics from Daniels four beasts in Daniel 7. He is not like just one of the beasts, he is like them all. He has the mouth of a lion, associating him with the winged lion that represented the Neo-Babylonian Empire. He has the legs and feet of a bear, associating him with the bear that represented the Medo-Persian Empire. He has the appearance of a leopard, wrapping his image up with the four-headed leopard that represented Alexander's Greek Empire. He also has many horns associating him with the fourth beast that represented the Roman Empire. In combining these beasts which were all opposed to God at one point or another, John sets forth the Antichrist as the epitome of opposition to God and his saints.

All the power and authority that the Antichrist possesses are given to him by Satan. Satan offered this same type of power to Jesus, wanting him to not wait for the Father's timing. But . . . Jesus turned him down. This beast will have no such will power.

What have we learned about this guy so far, from the first two verses of Revelation 13?

1. He is a minion of Satan
2. He is evil
3. He is powerful
4. He is the embodiment of all previous opposition to God and his saints
5. His end is wrapped up in Satan's end
6. His will power is weak

The main point though is that he will team himself up with a defeated power. He will focus worship on Satan and proclaim loudly from the rooftops that Satan is winning, but in the end it will have all turned out to be just propaganda. God will win.

Thursday, February 4, 2010

The Antichirst: Alive and Well - Part Two

People have thrown the term Antichrist at many people over the centuries. Today, if you go to you can even see an entire article debunking the claim that Barack Obama is the Antichrist. He is not the only one that has been branded with this title over the years. Here are some more . . .

1. Antiochus Epiphanes - The little horn of Daniel who is a type of Antichrist and did many of the same things that a future Antichrist is likely to do (like desecrate the temple and outlawing the true religion).

2. Nero - Nero was a Roman Emperor who persecuted the church like crazy. After his death, people didn't believe he was dead. Many thought he left Rome and went over to their enemy and was going to lead an army back into Rome to destroy it. Many Christians today still believe that Nero was the Antichrist.

3. Many Popes - Many Protestant believers have assumed that the Antichrist will come from this powerful Christian denomination. Although, from even a superficial reading of 2 Thessalonians and Revelation 13 it appears that the Antichrist is more of a political figure who will push down ALL religions and make himself out to be God.

4. Emperor Charlemagne - He lived mostly in the 8th century. He conquered much of Europe feeding the idea that he was the Antichrist, whom some believe will gather together a revived roman empire.

5. Napolean - Same thing as Charlemagne. He loved war and tried to conquer Europe.

6. Aleister Crowley - A English male witch who was so evil that he was called "the beast" by his contemporaries. Many rock and roll singers have immortalized him in their tunes like the Doors and Ozzy Osbourne.

7. FDR - If you add up the letters of his name by Gematria, his name equals the number 666. The same thing is actually true for Nero. Many thought FDR was the Antichrist because of his power hungry ways, including trying to add Justices to the Supreme Court so that he could push through his New Deal.

8. Mussolini - A dictator of Italy, the seat of the former Roman Empire. He was arrogant, which fits the picture of Antichrist that we get from 2 Thess. 2 and Rev. 13.

9. Hitler - Just because he was evil incarnate

10. Stalin - Killed 30 million people. Believed to be the biggest mass murderer of all time.

11. JFK - He was slick and everybody loved him, which many people believe will be a character trait necessary to deceive the masses. He was also the first Roman Catholic president, and at the Democratic Convention he received 666 votes to acquire the nomination. After he was shot in Dallas, many Christians waited for his head wound to be healed, but of course it never was.

12. Henry Kissinger - Because of his constant work in the Middle East

13. Ayatollah Khomeini - Just another evil dude

14. Gorbachev - Have no idea why! But people still have their beady eyes on him

15. Reagan - What? Reagan? Please no!!! He has six letters in all three of his names: 666.

16. Barney the Dinosaur - a beast who is definitely evil

Also, Sun Myung Moon, Yassir Arafat, Farrakhan, Clinton, Bill Gates, Prince Charles, and Chirac. All this to say that Christians have guessed and been wrong so many times, I wonder why we keep guessing. Is it really that important? Let's hold fast to what is clear and let God worry about the rest.

Last time we looked at 2 Thessalonians 2 and saw a number of things we should clearly believe about this guy. He will exalt himself above every god, set up an abomination of desolation, perform false miracles, and deceive many. Now I want to look at the only other references to the Antichrist in the NT that aren't in Revelation. They can be grouped into two: (1) the Synoptic references to false messiahs, and (2) the Johannine reference to small "a" antichrists.

Let's start with John (1 John 2:18-22; 4:3; 2 John 7). 1 John 2:18 says, "Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come." John points out that a big "A" Antichrist will come in the future, or at least he acknowledges that this is a generally accepted truth. The big "A" Antichrist will come in the last hour.

Then, he moves on to point out what seems to be a more important truth for him, that many small "a" antichrists have already come. These are men (or women) who were once part of the church, but have moved away from orthodox doctrine and are now trying to lead others into their heresy. The small "a" antichrists of John's day were Proto-Gnostics, holding to a Docetic view of Christ. In other words, they rejected the humanity of Christ, believing that his body was an illusion or that the spirit of Christ was separate than the human Jesus. In John's mind these false teachers are antichrists. Why worry about a future big "A" antichrist, when these small "a" guys are running around. In John's mind then the last hour is already here because of these small "a" guys.

I think this is instructive for us because we need to stop worrying so much about a future big "A" guy and who he is, and instead worry about the small "a" guys that we deal with day in and day out. That is the more pressing concern, keeping God's people from fatal heresies.

Finally, let's look at the Synoptics (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) and their references to the Antichrist (Mark 13 par. Matt. 24 and Luke 21). In these passages we find Jesus talking about the future destruction of the temple, but is he talking about a third temple during the period of the end (?) or the destruction of the second temple (66-70 CE)? Some of the language points in each direction. As I have studied these sections, I have concluded that Luke refers mainly to 70 CE (i.e. "When you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies"), Matthew refers mainly to the end (i. e. "At that time the Son of Man shall appear in the sky. . . coming on the clouds with power and great glory"), and Mark seems to point in both directions. I think that what happened in 70 CE, like what happened with Antiochus in 167 BCE, is a pattern for what will again happen in the end. So, I believe in a both/and approach. But . . . interestingly, we have a mention of the abomination of desolation here in the Synoptics but no specific mention of an Antichrist. Our attention is directed again to small "a" antichrists which pop up and try to deceive the many, including the "elect".

It seems to me that these two portions of Scripture are trying to discourage us from worrying about identifying the large "A" Antichrist, and instead focus on safeguarding God's people from the false doctrine of the small "a" guys. But . . . that's just not as much fun is it? What do you think? Who do you think our big small "a" guys are today?

Thursday, January 28, 2010

The Antichrist: Alive and Well?

Did you know that the Antichrist is alive and well today? I once learned that in Sunday school class. We were studying the book of Daniel and our teacher said that he firmly believed that the Antichrist was a strapping young lad alive and well somewhere in the Balkans. How did he know that he was alive and well? I don't know! I've heard many people saying that we are living in the end-times, because our culture is falling away from Christianity, maybe that influenced his thinking. But . . . people have believed they we're in the end of times for thousands of years. We could have thousands of years to go. Cultures have also fallen away from God before (think about the Roman Empire for instance), what makes ours more important than other cultures in God's program.

Why did he think he was living in the Balkans? I also don't know! It probably has something to do with the Dispensationalist idea of a revived Roman Empire, and then they associate this Empire with the European Union. I just had someone tell me two week ago that there are 21 nations in the EU at the moment, the Bible says that there will only be 10. He was predicting some bloody wars coming down the pike for Europe. They get this number 10 from the book of Revelation, but is that really what that passage says? I've even heard recently that Barack Obama is the Antichrist, but I heard the same thing about Bill Clinton when he was in office. Many times people just call politicians they don't like the Antichrist. I had a friend recently who wrote an article on why he could be the Antichrist (tongue in cheek, I believe).

So, what does the Bible really say about this enigmatic figure? We live in an era where anyone can get a platform, whether through the internet or on TV. So, we need to ground our understanding not in what we have heard people say, but in a proper interpretation of what God's word says. That of course is not going to answer all of our questions, but it will narrow down possibilities.

I want to take a look at this topic, and I would like your feedback. Has the Antichrist already come? Preterists believe that. The Antichrist is Titus or Caligula or some other historical figure. Is the Antichrist still to come? Futurists believe that a really evil dude is yet to appear on earth immediately prior to Christ's Second Coming. If he is still future, what will he be like? I'm going to start by analyzing fairly straight-forward descriptions of the Antichrist and move on to the crazier ones.

First, I want to take a look at what 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12 says about the Antichrist, or as Paul calls him, the man of lawlessness. In 2 Thessalonians the church in Thessalonica was dealing with false teachers, who were proclaiming that the Day of the Lord had already taken place. Paul writes this letter mainly to correct this faulty doctrine. Paul contends that this day of rest and retribution hasn't taken place yet. Indeed, there are still many things that need to happen first:

1. A rebellion or apostasy (3a)
2. A rebel revealed - The Man of Lawlessness (3b-4, 8-9)
3. A restrainer is removed (5-7)
4. A great deception (10)
5. A delusion sent from God (11-12)

Paul's argument is that these these haven't happened yet and that is proof that the Day of Lord hasn't come yet. Therefore, I take it that whoever Paul is talking about is not a contemporary of his, but someone to come at some point in the future. Another clue that this has yet to happen is that Paul tells us that this man of lawlessness will be destroyed by the breath of Christ at his 2nd coming. I wasn't there, but I don't believe that Christ came back in 70 CE. I personally think this passage is talking about a figure who will be revealed in the future, just prior to the return of Christ. So, if that is true, then what does this passage teach us about the Antichrist?

First of all let's look at what he is called:

1. Man of Lawlessness

The KJV translates this as man of sin, but the actual word more commonly refers to the idea of lawlessness. In other words, the first thing we learn is that this guy pays no attention to God or what God would want.

2. Son of Destruction

This is said of one other figure in the New Testament, Judas. In John 17 we learn that Judas was a son of destruction, which meant that he was destined for destruction before he was even born! Is that what Paul means here? If that is true, then the Antichrist is also destined for destruction. It just makes sense to compare the Antichrist with Judas. In both cases these men allowed themselves to be used by Satan to do his bidding, and because of that they will be judged severely.

We also learn some other things about the Antichrist here:

3. He will exalt himself above every god

It doesn't matter the god or object of worship, the Antichrist will set himself above it, whether it be Bhudda, Allah, the true God, or a soda pop can. He will make himself the object of worship.

4. He will set up an abomination of desolation

This language comes from Dan. 7, 8, 9, and 11, which hopefully I will take a closer look at later. Daniel predicted that a lawless one would come and desolate the altar in the Temple. This prophecy was fulfilled with Antiochus Epiphanes in 167 BCE. He outlawed Judaism and sacrificed a pig on the altar. However, Jesus, John, and Paul all pick up on this prophecy from Daniel and describe another lawless one still to come who will also set up an abomination of desolation. Antiochus declared Olympian Zeus to be god, but the Antichrist will declare himself to be god.

5. He will be destroyed by the Lord

The Antichrist might seem powerful, but his power is nothing compared to the power of the Lord. When Christ returns he will destroy him with the breath of his mouth (Is. 11:4) and wipe out any reminder of him. The Antichrist is not someone to be feared, because this guy is no match for our savior.

6. He will perform false miracles by Satan's power

The Antichrist will perform signs, wonder, and miracles, probably seeking to parody the work of Christ. When Peter preaches in Acts 2 he tells the crowd that Jesus' ministry was confirmed by signs, wonders, and miracles. These "signs" won't be illusions, magic tricks, or card games. These will be real miracles by the power of Satan and will lead many astray. We will see more of this when we talk about Revelation 13.

7. He will deceive many

He won't deceive the elect, but only those who are perishing, and God will help him out. God will sened a delusion on this group of people so that they believe the propaganda of the man of lawlessness. We see the same phenomenon in Romans 1. The people turned to idols and worshipped them, so God turned them completely over to their idolatry. God's spirit no longer strived with them, instead he let their evil reach its fullest. The same thing will be true in the end. Those who believe the deception will be further deluded by God because of their delight in evil and their rejection of the truth.

It is easy to get caught up in an eschatological frenzy and believe someone who tells you that they have all the answers. You watch a guy on TV who picks up a newspaper and demonstrates how all the headlines are fulfillments of prophecy. It sounds cool. We do have some information about this fellow, but we don't know everything, especially whether or not he is alive and living in the Balkans. I want to leave you with this today. Would you only chew gum that someone else already chewed for you? I urge you to search the scriptures for yourself, don't eat ABC gum! Anchor yourself in what the Bible says for sure, and what it doesn't say for sure let go.

Thursday, January 21, 2010

Daniel 8: Part 2 - The goat with comsetic difficulties

Every winter I get a cold sore on my lower lip, and let me tell you, there are few things I hate more. They look terrible, feel gross, and you can tell by the look in people's eyes that you disgust them. The up side is that they are temporary and go away after a week. This poor goat wasn't as lucky. His cosmetic difficulty was a big horn right between the eyes, that breaks off and is replaced by all sorts of other wacky horns. I guess at least I don't have a big horn problem every winter. Let's take a look at the prophecy about this cosmetically challenged goat.

Prophecy #2 (Dan. 8:5-8) The goat:

The ram is powerful, but not as powerful as our next colorful character, the goat. What do we learn about the goat?

1. He was from the west of where Daniel was located (which was Babylon, modern day Iraq).
2. He crossed the land so swiftly that he didn't even touch the ground.
3. He possessed a super long horn right between his eyes.
4. He charged directly at the ram and stuck it as hard as he could.
5. He broke off the rams two horns, so that the ram was helpless.
6. He trampled the ram and no one could rescue the ram from the power of the goat
7. The goat continued to become more and more powerful.
8. Until one day, the large horn was broken inexplicably.
9. Then, four horns grew in its place extending north, south, east, and west.

Angelic Interpretation of Prophecy #2 (Dan. 8:21-22)

Gabriel tells us a few things about this goat in his angelic explanation. He lets us know the identity of the goat; he is the king of Greece. He also tells us that the large horn that was in between the goat's eyes was an image for the first king of the Greek Empire. The four other horns demonstrate that the Greek Empire will be broken into four sections, each with their own king. Yet, none of these kings will be as powerful as the first.

The fulfillment of Prophecy #2

First off, the large horn represents the king of Greece. It couldn't be clearer that this prophecy is about Alexander the Great, who instituted a policy of expanding Greece and Dominating Darius and the Persians. However, Alexander was never technically "king" of the Greek Empire. He was "king" of Macedonia, and was technically just the "governor" of a coalition of Greek city states. which his father assembled. Is it a problem that the prophecy doesn't use the precise political title for Alexander and merely calls him king?

Also, Gabriel calls Alexander the FIRST "king" or more technically "governor" of the Greek Empire. But . . . his position and title were the exact same as his father, Philip, making him the second "king" not the first. Wouldn't we then assume by just reading the propehcy that Philip is being spoken about? The fulfillment makes us take a second look. Maybe first doesn't necessarily mean first. Maybe it means the first important king of Greece. Alexander is the one who started to push the boundaries of the Greek Empire, first by liberating, then by conquering. So, for observers from foreign lands, Alexander would appear as the first and pre-eminent leader of Greece. What I want you to take note of is the lack of precision in prophecy about titles and even about some details, like Alexander not technically being the first king of the Greek Empire. If this is true in prophecy that has already been fulfilled, we should expect in prophecies that are yet to be fulfilled.

When the prophecy speaks about the collapse of the ram (Medo-Persian Empire) at the hands of the goat (Greek Empire), it mentions only one great battle. As history plays out, it does not happen in one main battle, but several decisive defeats at different locations. Also, when the ram is defeated, we see that its horns are broken off. In the image of the goat, the horns represent kings, first Alexander and then the kings after the Empire is broken apart. However, in the image of the ram, the horns represent the kingdoms of Media and Persia respectively. So, just because a horn represents something in one image, it doesn't necessarily mean that it will mean the same thing in another image. Notice the versatility of images as they relate to prophecy even within a few verses of text.

Finally, let's take a look at the breaking up of the Empire. We are told by Gabriel that the great horn breaking off represents the death of Alexander. After Alexander's untimely death, four prominent horns step up into his place, and we are told that these horns represent four kingdoms that would arise from Alexander's Empire. History doesn't fit this prophecy as conveniently as we would like. The death of Alexander led to many great power struggles over who will rule what. Originally the plan was for Alexander to have a successor. Some believed it should be his brother, but he had mental problems. Others thought it should be Alexander's son by Roxana, but he was still in the womb. When this original plan fell apart, a guy named Perdiccas took control of the empire and appointed Satraps who were loyal to him over many different regions of the empire. This struggle led to six main wars over 60 years and finally ended with three main kingdoms (Antigonids, Seleucids, and Ptolemys), not four. What should we think about this?

For a very brief period during this time of struggle, there were four separate kingdoms (Cassander took Macedonia and Greece, General Lysimachus took Asia Minor and Thrace, Seleucus I Nicator went with Mesopotamia and Syria, and Ptolemy I, Egypt and Palestine). However, this was very brief, complicated, not what was true immediately after Alexander's death, and soon settled into just three. So, was Daniel merely referring to this brief period in the middle of the struggle? Didn't he foresee that only three would end up surviving in the end? What is clear is that if we were living in the period of Daniel and reading this prophecy, we would assume that the Greek Empire would end up in four sections, north, south, east, and west, and that the transition would have been easy. We would have been wrong.

Thursday, January 14, 2010

The Ram Down By the River (Daniel 8)

The other night I was sitting across the table from an old friend. An old friend who just happened to have finished his dissertation on the latter part of Ezekiel. I thought that this was a good opportunity to pick his brain. I had just been reading through the book of Ezekiel in my own personal Bible reading and had a few questions. So, I winged a few his way. I forgot momentarily that this was a man who had spent years with this passage reading everything that had ever been written on the subject. As he dived into his answer, I found myself drowning in new information. My original question was answered very well, but his treatise brought many more questions to mind. In other words, his explanation created more questions in my brain than answers.

When we are dealing with prophecy, often we have a corresponding fulfillment either later on in the text or in history itself. These fulfillments when compared to the original prophecy answer many questions, but they also raise just as many. I want us to take a look at Daniel 8, an apocalyptic prophecy about events fulfilled in the intertestamental period, and we will see that the fulfillment and prophecy when compared raise many questions, in spite of the fact that we also have an angelic interpretation of the prophecy in the chapter as well. (For a detailed look at this passage and others like it cf. Sandy, D. Brent, Plowshares and Pruning Hooks, (Downer's Grove, IL: IVP, 2002), pp. 112-116).

Prophecy #1 (Dan. 8:3-7) The ram with two long horns

We meet in these verses a ram down by the river (No, I didn't say "a van down by the river"). He has two horns and one of them is longer than the other. While Daniel is watching, the shorter horn grows to be longer than the long one. This ram charged out to the west, the north, and the south, and no one could stop it or help its victims. The ram was so powerful it could do as it pleased.

The Angelic Interpretation of Prophecy #1 (Dan. 8:20)

Gabriel gives us one clue about the ram, his identity. The ram represents the kings of Media and Persia.

The fulfillment of Prophecy #1

The interpretation tells us that the ram is the KINGS of Media and Perisa, however, Persia only had one king at the time the Greeks conquer it. Is this a problem? Also, when Daniel wrote the kingdoms of Media and Persia were in partnership like Daniel describes, but by the time Greece comes along Media has been swallowed up by the Persian empire. In other words, there is only one horn on the ram left, though there are still two when the goat defeats the ram in the vision. If we were interpreting this passage in the time of Daniel, wouldn't we assume that the kingdom of Media-Persia had two kings at the time of its defeat, since the ram had two horns and the angel tells us they represent the KINGS of Media and Persia?

We are also told that the ram was very powerful and butted its way out to the west, north, and south. In Esther 1:1 we are told that Perisa extended itself east as well, all the way to modern day India. Is this a difficulty? Why doesn't Daniel forsee in his vision the butting out to the east? If we were just reading Daniel's prophecy and interpretation without the historical fulfillment, we might think that the Persian empire wouldn't extend itself into the east in the future, but we would be wrong.

Finally, we are told that no one could stand against the Persian empire, however, in 490 BCE and in 480 BCE the Greeks successfully resist the Persians. Is this a difficulty? I believe it highlights the fact that Daniel was focusing on the power of the Persian empire and was using hyperbole, overstatement, or exaggeration to get this point across. If this is true, how much unfulfilled prophecy might contain overstatement or hyperbole? It is a frightening question to ask, because we don't know. We will look at some more of this passage next week. What do you think? Do you see this as having bearing on our interpretation of similar visions in Revelation or not?