So I haven't posted anything on Eschatology in quite a while. In my defense, I was out of town at a high school summer camp and then on a mission trip for 10 days, and then I preached a couple Sundays ago. So now I'm finally getting back to a normal routine.
However, it's not like this subject is an extremely easy one to write about anyway.
Before I get into it, here are some of my previous posts on the subject, in case you want to get caught up before you continue reading:
Part 1: Hermeneutics of Apocolyptic Literature
Part 2: Millennial Views
Part 3: What We Know For Sure
I'm also looking at the "Left Behind" theology from a historical perspective. This series is not done yet.
Left Behind Theology Part 1
Left Behind Theology Part 2
Well, the new Left Behind movie is now on Netflix, so I turned it on the other day to watch it. As I was sitting on the couch, my son came into the room and sat down next to me.
He said, "what are you watching Dad?"
I replied, "Left Behind."
He then logically responded, "who gets left behind?"
I said, "people."
He asked, "how many people?"
I concluded, "watch and find out"
As most days go with a family of little ones, we didn't get to finish the movie because something else seemed to be more urgent...I don't really remember what it was, but it may have been a dirty diaper, some coloring on the wall, or some sort of mess in the kitchen...and so goes my life.
I couldn't help but think in that moment, "I'm going to have explain a whole lot of weird stuff after we watch this movie", but he lost interest so while he saw the people disappear out of their clothes, he didn't think much of it since most movies these days seem to have some sort of strange sci-fi twist.
The character Chloe is literally hugging her younger brother when he disappears out of his clothes, then all of the sudden the movie goes straight to the air plane where a bunch of people disappeared mysteriously.
At one time in my life, I was an adamant promonent of "Left Behind" theology. I would argue tooth and nail that a pre-trib rapture and a premillenial view of the end times was the only good theological view out there...I truly feel foolish at this point in my life.
I'm also not a fan of scaring people to heaven. Honestly, I don't think this movie is going to scare anyone or make them think, "Oh no, I better accept Jesus or I will get left behind when the rapture happens."
Salvation comes when someone comes to the realization that they are a sinner, and that sin separates them from God because God is holy and perfect, and they don't measure up. Salvation comes when someone repents of their sin and trusts their life into the hands of Jesus. Salvation comes when someone submits to Christ as the author and finisher of their faith...their Lord and Master.
In my humble opinion, I don't think this movie will do much more than (as Switchfoot says) add to the noise.
So where Do I find myself right now?
I grew up with watching videos like The Thief In the Night, Distant Thunder, and Prodigal Planet. When I went to Bible College I took my mother’s 8 volume Lewis Sperry Chafer’s Systematic Theology with me. I had a Ryrie Study Bible and a MacArthur Study Bible, and I thought I would go to Dallas Theological Seminary when I graduated.
I was all about the pre-tribulational rapture until one of my professors had me do a debate on the Rapture. He made me take the position that the pre-tribulational rapture was false.
So I started doing research on the Historic Premillenial position. I started reading George Eldon Ladd's The Blessed Hope. I bought the Counterpoint series on the Rapture and the Millennium. I bought a commentary of the book of Revelation that used different hermineutics and laid them out side by side as you turned to any particular passage.
As I studied this view, I was startled at my findings. This pre-tribulational rapture business wasn't the historic view of the church. It wasn't the view that most good scholars held. It was the layman's pop culture view. I couldn't believe it because it was all I was ever taught in church growing up.
This was mind-blowing to me. So I finished my prep and went into the debate. I don't remember who the other student was, but he was not even close to being as prepared as I was. I knew what arguments he was going to use, and I had so much Scripture to refute what he was saying that most of the class began to entertain the thought that the Left Behind Series really was, simply fiction.
When I graduated I camped out in the Historic Premillennial camp and haven’t budged until recently.
Last August, I became a pastor at church plant in Clearwater. The senior pastor and I began having conversations about eschatology. We both came from the same background and while we believed eschatology was important, we simply did not want something that scholars had argued over for centuries to be something that defined who we were as a church. Nevertheless, we both felt like it was an important topic. We began to engage the other pastors as well, and they felt the same way. We all thought it was something we needed to wrestle though, so each of us began to study the topic on our own.
I have started reading a Sam Storms book called Kingdom Come. Sam Storms is the pastor of Bridgway Church in Oklahoma. He sits on the board from Desiring God Ministries and The Gospel Coalition. He is a graduate of Dallas Theological Seminary, and a former avid Dispensationalist. The first part of his book talks about his experience being taught the dispensational view. I find myself empathizing with his experience since it is very similar to my own.
I tell you all this so that you can see my journey. I'm trying to be honest. I want you to see that path that God laid out to bring me where I am.
I have read the first 6 chapters and I am currently in chapter 7 titled The Eschatology of Jesus: Matthew 24 and The Olivet Discourse. I will honestly say that I find many of his arguments compelling.
My next series of blogs will take us on a biblical journey. I am going to take specific passages of Scripture and we are going to ask some hard hitting questions about Premillenialism.
Today, lets start with 1 Corinthians 15:22-28.
"For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made
alive. 23 But each in his own order:
Christ the firstfruits, then at his coming those who belong to
Christ. 24 Then comes the end, when he
delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule
and every authority and power. 25 For he must reign until he
has put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27 For “God has put all things in subjection under his
feet.” But when it says, “all things are put in subjection,” it is plain that
he is excepted who put all things in subjection under him. 28 When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself
will also be subjected to him who put all things in subjection under him,
that God may be all in all."
Starting in verse 12 of this chapter, Paul begins to tell his reader the reason why the
resurrection of Christ is so important. He tells his reader that without the
resurrection, everything we believe is futile...it's nonsense and Christians
should be pitied, but since the Christ actually did rise from the dead, we have
assurance of eternal life.
Paul then goes on to describe the resurrection of believers at the end of the
age. Now, lets make note of some important parts of this passage. Reading it
normally, (and literally, mind you) it becomes evident from verse 22-23 that
Paul is speaking of the second coming of Christ. Verse 24 starts out with,
"Then comes the end..."
From a very normal, literal reading of this passage, Paul tells his reader that
the END comes when Christ comes. If your next question is "the end
of what?" then you, like me, have most likely been engrained with a
pre-mill way of thinking since you were very young, because those that were
never thought to think like that come to the obvious conclusion that when Paul
says the "end", he is talking about the end of history or time as we
know it. "It's the end of the world as we know it." ha ha...
Okay, so let's entertain that question. Does the text lead us to what
"end" Paul is referring? Why yes, yes he does. Notice the little
comma after the word "end"... that means the following words describe
what the "end" is.
So the "end" is the time where Jesus delivers the Kingdom to God the
Father after he has destroyed all his enemies. Please make sure you notice the
word "all" in verse 25. This passage doesn't say he's going to do
away with some of his enemies when he returns, and then a 1,000 years later due
away with the rest, it says, at his second coming he is going to wipe out ALL
of his enemies.
So this is a problem for premillenialists. We have got to play some major
hermeneutical gymnastics to figure out how we can throw a 1,000 years in there
somewhere so that Jesus doesn't hand over the kingdom to God prematurely. So how do they try and get around this problem? Glad you asked...
A premillenial response will say that the word, "then" at the beginning of verse 24 "may imply an interval of time between the resurrection at His coming and the establishment of His kingdom." (John MacArthur's 1 Corinthians Commentary).
My response: Really...we are going to trade a very normal, literally reading of this passage for a "possibility" that the Greek word for "then" might mean something other than what it normally means...I don't buy it!
So lets understand what the premillenialist wants us to believe about this passage. They want us to believe that between verses 23 and 24 there is 1,000 years that pass. I simply don't think that's good hermeneutics. I'm not going to trade a normative approach to this passage for an unlikely, illogical possibility...Tim, tell us how you really feel? :)
I really have a hard time reading this passage and thinking that Paul intended his readers to believe in an additional 1,000 years of history between two of his words. I know you see a period between verse 23 and verse 24, but there's no period in the Greek text after verse 23, there's a comma...hmmm...I wonder what that means then??? It's one complete thought people. There is no millennium in view here.
But wait...I'm not done with this passage quite yet...So verse 26...what about
DEATH?
We know the context of this passage is about the second
coming. We know that it tells us when Christ returns we go to be with him. We
know he defeats ALL his enemies upon his return, and we also know that DEATH is
defeated at his return. Now I understand that Christ defeated death at the
cross, and that is completely true. However, it's very difficult, hermeneutically,
to argue that the defeat of DEATH at the cross is the only thing Paul has in mind when the context of these verses refer
to our PHYSICAL resurrection at the end of the age.
When read in context, these verses tell us that DEATH is COMPLETELY defeated
when Christ returns. Death is no more...it won't ever ever ever happen
again!
So wait a second...if "death" dies when Christ returns, then you
would have to concede that no one dies in the millennium.
If no one dies during the millennium, then what is the point? What in the world
is going on? Why are any of us hanging around this unredeemed earth still stained
by sin? How can death be defeated if sin is still present?
The premillenial view teaches that Christ returns, has a judgment then we enter
the millennium where Jesus physically reigns from Jerusalem as a king over the
world (much like what unbelieving Israel taught about the messiah) and those
who enter the millennium in their unredeemed bodies (because they weren't
raptured and got saved somehow during a future tribulation) will still have
babies and live life as we do now. They will get old, and their bodies will
decline, and they will physically die. That view seems to be in direct CONTRADICTION with 1Corinthians 15:22-28.
Why we are all living in a sin scorned earth with Christ as a monarch while
some of us are in our glorified bodies and others of us still have a sin nature
is a question for another time.
For now, I hope this helps you see how important hermeneutics
are when looking at Scripture.
Be Edified.
