The Lord's Prayer: Luke 11

The law-gospel distinction is the most important aspect of understanding Scripture, according to Martin Luther. If we fail to get this part correct, it is likely that we will do great damage to our understanding of Scripture. Akin to this law-gospel distinction is the distinction between imperative and indicative. This reformed notion of identification based upon the grammar of the text dovetails nicely with the law-gospel distinction of Martin Luther. Without burying my dear reader in intellectualizations on this topic, let us look at some practical examples.

In the past, we have examined Matthew 5 in some detail. We have discussed the issue of the several subplots of metanarrative occurring in that text, the difference between indicative and imperative, and the law-gospel distinction.  In particular, once again, let us draw attention to the conclusion of Jesus in this passage: You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect. (Matthew 5:48 ESV) That is our starting point for looking at today’s passage from Luke 11.

The first half of Luke 11 concerns prayer, and it is the place where Luke includes the Lord’s Prayer.  This is followed by a parable and then three imperatives followed by encouragement.  Let us begin this section by first connecting the framework of this passage with the rest of redemptive history.

The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. (Genesis 6:5)

And when the Lord smelled the pleasing aroma, the Lord said in his heart, “I will never again curse the ground because of man, for the intention of man's heart is evil from his youth.” (Genesis 8:21)

You brood of vipers! How can you speak good, when you are evil? For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. (Matthew 12:34)

If you then, who are evil…. (Luke 11:13 ESV)

You know that we can keep going and going with this theme, but this is enough for our purposes today.  If we examine the three imperatives of verse 9, ask, seek and knock, the question that strikes us most immediately is what are the indicatives?  It does not seem likely that the evil nature of man is the proper indicative for these imperatives.  Therefore, where do we find the indicatives?

Chapter 10, while containing several rather famous tidbits and stories, also contains the context and the indicative of Chapter 11.  Let’s examine the parameters.  Luke talks about the 72, who he sends out in pairs to do great wonders, leaving and then returning.       

“Nevertheless, do not rejoice in this, that the spirits are subject to you, but rejoice that your names are written in heaven.” (Luke 10:20 ESV)

The power over demons is not the amazing thing in the mind of Jesus.  The amazing thing is that some lot of this evil brood known as mankind might be heirs of heaven, and for that amazing event, this group should rejoice.  The ultimate power is in Salvation, not in power on earth, even over demons and spirits.

Finally, in Luke 11:1 we find:

Now Jesus was praying in a certain place, and when he finished, one of his disciples said to him, “Lord, teach us to pray, as John taught his disciples.” (Luke 11:1 ESV)

Jesus is with his disciples, of whom there are at least 72, and they are all (with one notable exception) men and women who will receive Salvation.  And yet the exception proves the rule.  The indicative of the imperatives of 11:9 are those who have been chosen for Salvation.  Who will pray earnestly to God in the name of Jesus?  Only those for whom Salvation is sure will pray in this way.  Ask, seek, knock.  Will we receive the answers that we seek?  Will we be given the path to the place we desire to go?  Judas was not of the elect, and the doors did not open for him.  Judas asked questions, and even when he was given answers, he did not understand them.  Judas was seeking something, and yet what was most to be desired was sitting right next to him, and he could not see it.  These imperatives are for the elect.

But the issue runs deeper than just for whom are these imperatives meant.  The issue is also for what do we seek and where do we wish to go.  The answer for this question has also been given by Jesus just above.  Our target is Salvation, not power over the things of this world.  Do not be blinded by the power and miss the source.  These signs and wonders were given so that we might know that Jesus is exactly who He said that He is.  Ultimately, the gift is Salvation.

Look at the Lord’s Prayer, again.  Hallowed be your name.  The irony of this line should not be lost.  Jesus is teaching his disciples how to pray to Him.  Notice that the familiar phrase “who art in heaven” is missing in the Luke text.  Who is speak to them and standing right before them?  He was not, at that moment, actually in heaven!  He was standing right before them.  There are buckets full of references to the name of God in the Old Testament.  But now, we know that there is no name above Jesus in heaven and on earth.  How can that be?  Only because He who IS, has condescended to be among us, one of us, fully God and fully human.  Hallowed be His name. 

Your kingdom come.  How many people say these words with no thought to their meaning.  This is eschatology 101, and we are taught to proclaim it in prayer.  Your kingdom come.  The Age to Come is that time when Jesus Christ will return (the Advent) and all will be bodily raised.  What is also inextricable from this time is Judgment.  Salvation is revealed not by what occurs in this world, but what befalls at Judgment.  Your kingdom come is a phrase thick with promise for the elect for whom this prayer is intended, and equally thick with foreboding for those who do not believe in the promise.  This phrase, uniquely Christian, professes a belief that Christ will come again and usher in the Age to Come.

Give us each day our daily bread, and forgive us our sins….  Jesus actually tells us for what we should pray!  Pay attention to His words.  Jesus is quoting scripture.

Remove far from me falsehood and lying; give me neither poverty nor riches; feed me with the food that is needful for me, (Proverbs 30:8 ESV)

I have not departed from the commandment of his lips; I have treasured the words of his mouth more than my portion of food. (Job 23:12 ESV)    

How sweet are your words to my taste, sweeter than honey to my mouth! (Psalm 119:103 ESV)

But he said to them, “I have food to eat that you do not know about.” Jesus said to them, “My food is to do the will of him who sent me and to accomplish his work.” (John 4:32, 34 ESV)

So often, I have heard this passage likened to manna in Exodus 16, the bread from heaven.  Types and shadows, once again, these words reveal to us.  In that day, during the Exodus, Israel needed real food.  But Jesus likens our needs not only to worldly food, but also to the Word of God.  As John 1 says, Jesus is the Word.  So, when in communion, we hear the words “the Body of Christ, the bread of heaven,” the analogy has come full circle.  We feast on the body of Christ that is the bread of heaven that is the Word of God.  So, this bread we crave is the Gospel.

But the passage means more than this still.  The whole Exodus story is teaching us to understand that each day is a gift, and that the end of the Age could come at any moment.  This is an idea that, when paired with Your Kingdom Come, reinforces the eschatological aspect of the prayer.  We are praying for Salvation, for the Gospel, for the Age to Come.  These are not the everyday sort of mundane desires of the flesh that we frequently associate with supplication.

Moving on to the next portion, the forgiveness of sins is asked of God.  This is an interesting grammatical nuance at this point.  Notice that Jesus does not ask for the forgiveness of sin.  This is not a prayer for initial Salvation, because the persons who say this prayer are the elect, already declared righteous on Judgment day by virtue of the gift of faith in the promise.  This is asking forgiveness for the sins that we commit because we are still in this present evil age, under the curse of Adam, and fail through our inherent wickedness to fulfill the Law.  The difference is that we now can recognize this fault and ask for forgiveness and receive absolution.  Finally, it is during this period that Jesus forgives sins Himself, thereby claiming the authority of God.  Check out Luke 5:17- 26.   This is the real issue that got Him in hot water with the Pharisees.  Jesus claims very publicly to be God.

…for we ourselves forgive everyone who is indebted to us.  Really?  Do we, now?  Look at the story in Luke 7:41-50.  The question asked is in response to a question by a Pharisee, who had invited Jesus over to his house for a meal.  He chastises Jesus for allowing a sinner to touch him.  Jesus turns the question on an issue of debt and debtors.  He who is forgiven little, loves little. Therefore, we who have been forgiven eternally and immeasurably, how much shall we forgive?  How much shall we love our neighbor?

And lead us not into temptation.  Clearly, God does not truly lead us into temptation.  But we might find ourselves in situations that will test us.  We are instructed to count it as joy when these situations arise, for we are strengthened by them.  But that is a far cry from seeking out these situations and asking to be lead to them.  We are in essence beseeching God to spare us from these trials.  And yet, we will be joyful in our hardships and be strengthened by them.

Now, look at Matthew 6 and see the same prayer.  Notice the differences between this Luke version and the fuller version in Matthew.  This fuller version in Matthew brings more of the context of our present evil age and our lives and responsibilities while we are still on this earth.  In each step of the prayer, there is a slightly wider context.  But we are in Luke, currently.  And we have come to the imperatives.

The parable offered is interesting and may just turn on one word: impudence.  This is the only occurrence of this word in the New Testament.  The Greek is anaideia, and it is possibly translated as persistence as well.  But let’s run through both meanings.  His friend rises and gives him what he asks because of his impudence and/or his persistence.  The lesson is that we must be bold, fearless, immodest, persistent.  But there is the other connotation of the word impudent: disrespectful, improper, impertinent.  Are we being disrespectful, improper and impertinent with our supplications?  Let us continue.

Does this passage say or imply that we who pray earnestly, who ask, seek and knock, will actually receive exactly that for which we pray?  We have an interesting comparison here.  God would not give us a serpent or a scorpion in lieu of a fish or an egg.  But here we have very specifically the gift we receive from prayer: the Holy Spirit.  This is interesting on so many levels.  First, Jesus is implying rather directly that the object of our supplication should be related to the works of the Holy Spirit.  We have seen in the Matthew version a more worldly presentation of this prayer.  Yet, here in Luke, the theme has been a more eschatological one, and this response from Jesus is in line with that theme.  Once again, we should be praying for knowledge and wisdom concerning the Gospel.  Second, concerning this line of questioning, we should be bold with our prayer.  Fearlessly and with impudence, we pray for understanding of the Gospel through the power of the Holy Spirit.  This is completely consistent with the John 14 and 16 passages concerning the work of the Holy Spirit.  Third, and most importantly, there is no direct connection between our supplication and the gift.  In other words, we may not receive that for which we ask, for which we seek.  But how much more than that is our gift?  How much more than the mundane and worldly things of our prayer is our actual gift?

But, as it is written, “What no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man imagined, what God has prepared for those who love him”—(1 Corinthians 2:9 ESV)

Paul is quoting Isaiah 64, an intense passage for bedtime reading, and links the idea that we cannot see the mind of God with the revelation of what God has prepared.

Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. (Matthew 25:34 ESV)

Once again, the gift is eschatological in nature.  We are talking about the Kingdom, the Age to Come.  This is not a worldly kingdom in this present evil age, this is the Kingdom of God in the Age to Come.

The richness of the context of the passage is once again vastly more impressive than the mundane desires of our evil hearts.  The context of this Luke passage is slightly different than the same story in Matthew.  Luke focuses on a wider view by paring down the verbiage.  In Luke, we hear Jesus discuss prayer and supplication in a grander context than mere earthly needs.  We learn that the gift of prayer is not always that which we seek, but much more than what we think we need, and much more wonderful and amazing.

What the true proverb (26:11) says has happened to them: “The dog returns to its own vomit, and the sow, after washing herself, returns to wallow in the mire.” (2 Peter 2:22 ESV)

We have heard the Gospel, and because our hearts are evil, the temptation is to run back to the Law.  The Law can only demonstrate our sin.  The Law has no power to save.  Salvation is in the Gospel.  The Gospel is the true gift, and a much better object for prayer.

--Ogre--

A Review of Eschatology

In this post, I am going to attempt to lay out the various views of eschatology, and then suggest which I believe makes the most sense.  To begin, I have posted a two part series on Daniel 9 in the past, (Daniel 9, part 1 post, Daniel 9, part 2 post), which gives a good background for this discussion.  Daniel 9 is important because one particular interpretation of those passages drives much of the popular apocalyptic fiction available today.  After reading this background post, tackling those two posts on Daniel 9 will be significantly more easily accomplished.

While eschatology is the study of redemptive history from Genesis to Revelation, it is often condensed to a discussion of end times.  The reason that this occurs is that there are presuppositions concerning which events have already occurred.  As Christians, we can generally agree that Jesus, the messiah, has already come incarnate, died, arose and ascended into heaven.  This covers a lot of time, but it is important to state explicitly what is assumed to have already occurred before discussing what is potentially yet to come to pass and also what may or may not have already come to pass.  That particular event in redemptive history we will call the First Coming.

How we interpret the whole Old Testament, particularly the prophets, Jesus, Acts and the Epistles will weigh heavily on how we view end times.  You will notice that I have not even mentioned Revelation.  Eschatology is contained in every word of the Bible.  The mistake that is easily made is to try to interpret John’s Revelation without any redemptive historical context, or with an inaccurate historical context.  Before we even wade into Revelation, at least some sort of framework or grid for dealing with that book is very helpful.

Let us start with a concept called the millennium.  This is literally a thousand year period.  Most views of eschatology that we are going to discuss will be either named or classified based upon their understanding of that term.  To begin, from where in the Bible does this term originate?  For the rest of this discussion, you will find these charts helpful.  Follow this link and then click on the pdf file link on that page to get the charts.  By the way, I want to take this opportunity to plug both the series of lectures found on the right column of that link on eschatology called Amillennialism 101 as well as both of Dr. Riddlebarger’s books on this topic, A Case for Amillennialism and The Man of Sin.  Back to the Bible, let’s try 1 Chronicles 16 for a moment.  I do not believe that this is the first mention of this idea of a thousand generations, but it is certainly clearly expressed here.  In verses 15-16, we see the idea of a thousand generations for the duration of Abraham’s covenant.  Interestingly, the Genesis text uses words like everlasting to describe the duration of the covenant.  So this reference is clearly a mixture of texts by David.  Even the Davidic Covenant prophesy in 2 Samuel 7 contains the word forever.  In fact, it is clear that this reference refers to the Mosaic Covenant found in one instance in this section of Deuteronomy 7.  We can therefore begin to understand the confusion among the Jews concerning the covenants when David himself is quoted (perhaps misquoted) as saying that there is a thousand generation duration to the Abrahamic Covenant.  In Psalm 105, David is again quoted as saying the same thing regarding this time span and Abraham.  But the point of this verbal gymnastic is this: perhaps this is a metaphor for a very long time that equates with forever.  Psalm 90, called A Prayer of Moses, seems to suggest this very point.  We’ll come back to that thought in a moment.

Now, let’s go to the back of the book, Revelations 20.  This clearly talks about a thousand years.  Go to the charts for a moment and notice that in all four charts, the millennium comes prior to the Last Day of Judgment.  The differences lie in two important areas.  The first difference depends upon the idea of whether the thousand years are literal or metaphorical.  In the first two charts, Dispensationalism and Historic Premillennialism, there is a clear and definite literal millennium.  But these two also have a second difference.  In these two, first Christ comes back to establish the Millennial Kingdom, then He comes back again at the end of the Millennium for the Last Day of Judgment.

Now, let’s break down the differences between the first two and the second two, Postmillennialsim and Amillennialism.  Dispensationalism is a subset of Premillennialsm in which, not only is there a second period of apostasy after the Millennial Kingdom and an actual second revolt before Judgment Day, but the dispensations and periods are marked by the changing focus of Redemptive History.  We are in the pre-Rapture period where God is dealing primarily with Gentiles.  Notice in the chart that in the post bodily second coming millennial period of Jewish conversion, that there is a return to Temple Worship.  This should be a red flag to your Christology that absolutely sinks this system beyond any possible consideration, and yet this is the most commonly held position in the US today.  So many passages suggest that there is no role for the Temple after the Ascension that this idea is preposterous.  The Historic Premillennialism view softens some of the rhetoric, no rapture and no post second coming temple worship, but still has a revolt of believers after the second coming of Christ, and the split of the second coming into two events separated by a thousand years.  Even if you turn my prophets seeing two mountains as one argument from a few weeks ago back on me now, do you really think that having believers in a millennial kingdom revolting against Christ is theologically sound?  And the last issue against these premillennial systems is the splitting of the Second Coming and Judgment Day into two events.  There are simply too many passages that suggest that these are one event.  Let’s try out this passage of Matthew 25 for starters.  It all sounds like one event when Christ comes back to me, and, frankly, to the reformers as well.

The other two systems either do not look at a millennial kingdom at all, or that the millennial kingdom is figurative.  The idea of pre- versus post- millennialism is based upon whether the Second Coming is before or after the millennium.  In these last two systems, since the Second Coming is concurrent with Judgment, the Second Coming is after the millennial period.  The difference between these two models is that Post-Millennialism still requires the transformation of this present age into a predominantly Christian realm prior to the Second Coming, while Amillennialism doesn’t care about the state of this present evil age, only that the Gospel has reached all corners of the world.  This difference between the need to actually convert the majority of the world versus actually just deliver the Gospel to all corners of the world is subtle, but important.  One could certainly argue that Christ may come back at any time now if you are Amillennial in your views.

So, which system do I support, if I haven’t made this clear yet?  The millennial arguments did not come into popular believe until the last 150 years.  The Chilists, or historical premillennialist appeared in the fourth century, but their view was refuted by Augustine and later the reformers.  Amillennialism as a system satisfies all of the pertinent texts without leaving unanswered questions and contradictions.  Therefore, the hour of the King’s return is completely unknown, and it could be tonight, and it might not be for thousands of years still.

The most important aspect of eschatology is that your hermeneutic for Biblical interpretation determines your eschatology.  A completely Christocentric hermeneutic combined with Covenant Systematic Theology yields an amillennial view of the end times.  These things go together naturally and easily.  If you keep those charts available whenever you read passages that have eschatological importance, and they are everywhere in the Bible, and then go through the exercise of deciding how to interpret these passages in each of the four systems that I presented, you will soon see both which system you prefer, and what assumptions you have to make for that eschatology to work.

—Troll—

Hebrews introduction

Two topics leapt to mind on our opening day of Hebrews.  First, there was the example of God’s redemptive story that was played before us.  I discussed this with our fearless leader afterwards and would embellish upon it now.  Second, there is the issue of redemptive history and its conclusion in the Apocalypse.  Some system of eschatological organization should be agreed upon.  Otherwise, the discussion of eschatology in the New Testament can be easily diverted to various distractions.  Therefore, in this post we will tackle the former issue, and in the next post we will address the latter issue.

In Hebrews 1:1-4, several assumptions are made by the author.  He can make these assumptions because he is writing to a mature church, but one that probably consisted primarily of converted Jews.  The writer’s main theme as we move through the book will be one of endurance and perseverance in Christ.  Therefore, he will assume much of the Gospel is known.  These assumptions are manifest in these first four verses as we saw our leader flesh this out on Tuesday. 

These verses are the beginning of a lengthy argument concerning the person of Jesus.  Starting with verses 1-2, we have the declaration that there has been a change in the manner of God’s revelation of redemptive history.  There has been a sentinel event from which historical accounts will be measured.  History is divided between Long Ago and these Last Days (note to Mormons: Last Days, not latter days).  The implication is clear: these Last Days will lead up to a Second sentinel event about which we will converse in the next post.  Also, there is a declaration of who Jesus is, consistent with the first chapter of the Gospel of John.

The next two verses tell us more about Jesus; particularly that He is of the same nature as God, an exact imprint in fact.  Jesus upholds the universe by the word of His power.  This language is consistent with Isaiah as well as John, and it sets the stage for the whole book in which the writer will be making many references to the Old Testament with which he will assume that his readers are familiar.  But in this post, I want to spend time focusing on verse 3b.  In this short phrase, the writer summarizes all of Christ’s redeeming work on the Cross.  This is the assumed to be known reference to the Propitiation, Romans 3:25, given to us through the meritorious work of Jesus on the Cross.

In the example that we staged in the room, I would modify the drama in these ways in order to introduce the missing player.  In this passage of Hebrews, the focus is squarely upon Jesus.  In our Bible study drama, we added God the Father.  I would like to include the third person of the Trinity as well.  Let’s proceed with our drama, then.

Humanity was arrayed in a circle around God.  This is a good image with God in the center of our world and lives.  However, after the fall, we all turn our backs on God.  Picture everyone in the room spinning their chairs around and facing away from the center, away from God.  Now, we are all enemies of God.  If we make a move, it will be away from God.  From God’s perspective, all He sees now are dead people, doomed people.  The gap that sin has created between us and God is huge and we cannot bridge it, because we are facing away from God; we are His enemies.  Therefore, God does something remarkable.  While we were still enemies of God, He sends His Son to intervene.  His son takes the sin of the believers upon Himself, and places His coat of perfect righteousness upon His flock.  Next, He sends the Holy Spirit into the world.  The Holy Spirit goes and turns some of the chairs back around to face God.  Then, the Holy Spirit points the way to Jesus, who bridges the gap to God.  All whom the Holy Spirit turned will receive a white robe of righteousness from Jesus that will cover them so that God sees us through the perfect righteousness of Jesus.  God is now pleased with us, and He grants us the inheritance in Jesus. 

All three Imputations are represented in this drama.  The imputation of sin upon all of us by Adam turned all of us away from God.  The imputation of the sin of the believer is taken back by Jesus.  Finally, the imputation of righteousness from Jesus to the believer is also portrayed.  All three persons of the Trinity are portrayed.  Jesus is now next to God, and the Holy Spirit moves the elect to face the creator.  All persons of the Trinity are of the same substance, “the exact imprint of His nature.” Jesus is also fully human, so that He can be that bridge for the believer back to God.

And finally, as I said during Bible study, all of the verb tenses in the first paragraph are perfect tense.  All of the action is complete.  The only exception is verse 3a, which is the declaration of the Divinity of Christ that I just quoted.  That declaration is an eternal truth rather than an action.  The events that justify the believer, to which the writer refers in verse 3b, are all completed actions.  Again, this dovetails with John 19:30, in which Jesus says, “It is finished.”

This concludes the discussion of the dramatic demonstration.  In verse 4, the writer will launch into his first example of Jesus being much more than something else, in the first case, angels.  In my next post, we will discuss various views of the whole study of redemptive history, eschatology.

--Troll--

Pre-Rapture's Eve or J-Day minus 2

It would be just like Jesus to actually select the timing of His Second Coming in Judgment to be on the very day that Harold Camping has predicted for the "rapture." I posted a link this morning to a great article discussing the theological problems of the rapture and dispensationalism.  There is plenty more I can add to the pile, but let's get back to my original thesis.

The scripture says that no one will know when the day is coming, and it will come like a thief in the night.  Who will suspect the Second Coming on or just after Harold Camping's prediction?  It is the ideal time.  Personally, I think that for theological closure, it should be a Sunday.  I also think that the bursted dispensational bubbles from Saturday will be completely unsuspecting of a Sunday event.  It is perfect.

Keep in mind that I'm not talking about a rapture.  The Bible talks about a Second Coming in Judgment, not a bunch of theologically silly events leading up to a Second Coming after which there is still another revolt against the returned Christ from post judgment people, people who passed judgment.  I am talking about Judgment Day.  The big one.  The Last Day.

So, wouldn't it be cool if Jesus planned it all for Sunday?  I'm ready, but I'm not holding my breath.  OK, yes, I am.  Talk to you again on Monday...maybe.

--Ogre--

Time to Leave Behind the Rapture

Time to Leave Behind the Rapture

Enough is enough. This is a great review from Chaplain Mike, who runs the late Michael Spencer's blog at internet monk. Please read.

--Troll--

Online Book Recommendation: One chapter from Horton

Horton's Chapter 29

This is a real treat.  This book was just released last month and has become one of the texts for Systematic Theology at Westminster Seminary in California.  This has been made available for free due to the huge amount of attention garnered by Rob Bell.  Please enjoy at your leisure.  I'll be reading the whole book eventually, but obviously I am thrilled to have this opportunity to get a head start.

--Ogre--

Daniel 9, Part 2

Part 2.  There are two important points to this portion of the discussion.  Let’s start with verse 27. 

27 And he shall make a strong covenant with many for one week, and for half of the week he shall put an end to sacrifice and offering. And on the wing of abominations shall come one who makes desolate, until the decreed end is poured out on the desolator.”

That verse is very dense and worthy of considerable conversation.  Let’s start with the word “he.” The antecedent of pronouns is a subject that causes grammar teachers to turn blue in the face discussing, and perhaps Daniel should have been subjected to such a tirade.  Much has been made of the issue of the antecedent of this one pronoun.  The history of the 20^th century is punctuated by a lack of understanding of this one word.  I am referring, of course, to the recreation of the political state of Israel in 1948.  But, I’m moving ahead; let’s go back to the text.  Who can “he” be?  The dispensational view is that “he” is the desolator at the end of the verse.  Also, in verse 26, the prince who is to come and destroy the temple is read as the devil as opposed to some earthly and human prince.  Therefore, they believe that the devil is in the covenant making business.  This concept is nowhere else seen in scripture.  In fact, throughout scripture, it is God who is in the covenant making business.  Instead, in the Christocentric view of this pronoun, it is Jesus who makes a strong covenant.  Jesus does put an end to sacrifices and burnt offerings.  Jesus does declare the end of the Old Covenant and states that there is a New Covenant in Him.  It is amazing that Dispensationalists will work so hard to make the numbers fit to get Jesus into this prophesy, but then will clearly miss the prophesy about the New Covenant in Christ, who ends sin. 

The second point is that Jerusalem and the Temple were destroyed in 70 A.D.  While the final apostasy is what is probably meant in verse 27, dovetailing with Revelations, it is this temple destruction that seems to be spoken of in verse 26.  The secular accounts of Titus’ reign of carnage over Jerusalem would make a grotesque movie even by modern standards.  It is interesting that the preterist position looks at this whole passage as being completed by 70 A.D.  As horrible as the sacking of Jerusalem was, the final apostasy most would hold involves the whole world.

We could go farther about which half of the last week Gabriel is discussing, but most people believe that it is the first half of the week.  Christ has a ministry on the world for about 3 ½ years.  At the end of his ministry, His death and resurrection occur, and that changes everything.  The end of the Old Covenant, the end of the bondage of man to sin, the end to the curse of the first Adam, the binding of the desolator, for all who believe in Christ, this all comes with His death, resurrection and ascension.  The second half of the week is interpreted by Revelation, according to the amillennial position as representing all of the time between the first and second Advent, however long that might be.  The point of 70 x 7 again is symbolic, and the leftover half of a week gets us to the Second Advent.  This is not the same as the gap that follows in an important way.  All of the events of prophesy except for the final apostasy and the Second Coming are finished by the end of 70 A.D.  This means that the last 3 ½ weeks represent the whole inter-advental period.  The final apostasy is a result of the unbinding of Satan and his lashing out against the world one final time before the second coming and judgment.

And finally, dispensationalists, where is the second gap, the one between week 69 and week 70?  I’m reading along, Gabriel is telling us a smashingly good story, and then Gabriel says, that there will be a gap of 700 weeks between weeks 69 and 70.  What?  You don’t see those words?  Neither do I.  The Dispensational view requires some clarification so that you will see the problem.  In the dispensational view, remember that the “he” is the devil.  The devil has to make a covenant with Israel.  And notice that it has to be national Israel.  Gabriel says that the covenant will be with “many.” Importantly, there is no mention of Israel in this place.  Gabriel knows that Jesus will be redefining the elect in His own covenant.  And so “many” is intentionally vague at this point in redemptive history.  Assuming that Daniel means ethnic and political Israel by the word “many” flies in the face of logic.  It seems more likely that many will be chosen, but some will not.  It is easy to see that the Apostles would initially look at this as meaning that many of the ethnically Jewish will be saved and miss at first glance that Christ’s ministry was much larger than that.  But it is equally clear that they understood that the New Covenant was with individuals, not with the state of Israel.  This is where that often abused idea of a personal relationship with Jesus comes into play.  In Christ, there is no corporate deal; personal and individual redemption is on the table.  The New Covenant is not with the whole of any nation.

The temple in Ezekiel 40-48 is part of the Dispensational problem.  This temple is a real earthly building in their literalistic hermeneutic.  The problems for this begin immediately, however.  This temple is supposed to be built on a mountain, a mountain that overlooks Jerusalem.  Such a mountain doesn’t exist.  Secondly, as the temple grows in the text to the size of the whole city, the obvious imagery of the spread of the temple beyond its traditional boundaries is lost.  In the NT, this spread, according to Jesus, is to the whole world.  See Revelation 21.  Read the whole chapter, then look carefully at verses 22-27.  Look at verse 22 again.

22 And I saw no temple in the city, for its temple is the Lord God the Almighty and the Lamb.

Remember that the dispensationalist takes the Bible literally.  Does the OT interpret the NT or does the NT interpret the OT?  Look at verse 27.  There is that pesky Book of Life, the one that Daniel had to shut.  John is looking at it.  There is no temple in the city, for its temple is the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb.

Getting back to the Dispensational view, the idea of the rapture is that Jesus comes and quietly calls his elect from the world just before this new covenant with the Devil is made.  In the passage I sited in part one from Matthew 24, it seems that Christ’s second coming will be rather loud and obvious, not the sort of stealth move implied by the idea of the rapture.  I will deal with the rapture specifically in a later post, but the implications of this theology in redemptive history are startling and probably not what any Christian really wants to believe, if they just thought it through.  For our current purposes, let us just ask the Dispensationalist to show us the 2000+ year gap in the text.  If their hermeneutic is that they take the Bible literalistically, and it is, then where is the gap?

Why is this important to the modern Geopolitical debate?  If you are a dispensationalist, you need Israel to be back in the land.  In order for the end to come, in order for there to be a second coming, in order for there to be a treaty between Satan and Israel, you need an ethnic and political entity called Israel to be in that ground.  Not only that, but they expect to achieve national borders that resemble Biblical borders.  If you haven’t noticed, somewhere in the last 1000 years, this other group build a mosque in Jerusalem, to follow a descendant of a different of Abraham’s sons.  They claim this same real estate and want to convert everyone to their theology or else kill them.  And so, while Christ came into this world and made a new Covenant with His elect, the Dispensationalists want another covenant, with a national Israel, after reestablishing old borders, so that they can help bring about the second coming of Christ.

This really is what is at the heart of this whole post WWII drama.  We have leaders, who with good intentions, but with really bad theology, who felt really badly for the Jews after Hitler, who took advantage of the political climate to force Israel back into the land.  In the book by Hal Lindsey, The Late, Great Planet Earth, in 1970, this was all laid out for us, as plain as day.  The thought was that 1948 plus half of 70 or 35 is 1973; there was a war that year in Israel.  That year came and went and the rest of the story didn’t unfold.  And so the Dispensationalists have had to recalculate.  Add another 35 and you get 2018.  If you subtract 7 for the rapture, you get 2011.  If you pile on the Mayan Calendar and Nostradamus and some planetary alignment that will happen this year, you get a lot of people who are nervous about events in the world and the period around May 21 of this year.  My son plans to have a party on May 22.  I hope that he comes up with an appropriately clever name for that bash, perhaps the Hal Lindsey earth renewal celebration.

*Is it necessary for Israel to be in the land?  No.  The land promise of Sinai was broken.  Daniel and other OT prophets make that clear.  The land promise of Abraham is expanded by Christ to mean the whole world.  *Did Jesus make a specific land Covenant with His people?  No, not really.  He made a wholly, and Holy, different type of Covenant.  *Does this make me an anti-Semitic bigot?  Absolutely not.  The Jews have access to the same Covenant that I do.  In fact, it can be argued that they may get one last chance at it before the end (again, for another post.) Many Jews will be saved, but through their faith in the promise that is manifested in Christ Jesus.  *Is it horrible that we have such incredible tension in our day in the Middle East?  Absolutely, but the Bible is silent about this.  Remember Matthew 24. (There are other similar passages, for another post.) *Why is Israel back in the land?  Because a bunch of secular rulers decided to make it happen.  There is no Biblical prophecy that requires it, nor forbids it.  The Bible is silent about this issue.  *Is there a reason to be nervous about current events?  Yes, for their own sakes, yes.  For more, I refer you to Kim Riddlebarger, here: see the right column Amillennialism 101—Audio Resources, or here and here: the printed versions of the material in the audio series.

--Troll--  and  --Ogre--

Daniel 9, Part 1

Daniel 9:24-27 is the key to modern Middle Eastern politics.  The whole understanding of the Premillennial, Dispensational view of eschatology hangs upon the interpretation of this passage.  What I am going to attempt to do in two posts is summarize about 40 hours of lectures that I will cite at the end.  Why should we care about this topic?  Many of the leaders of our country subscribe to this flawed world view and make decisions that affect our future based upon these ideas.

There is one basic hermeneutic that runs throughout scripture.  The whole Bible from Genesis to Revelation is about the redemptive work of Jesus.  It is incredible that so many learned men can miss this point.  The first corollary to this principle is that Jesus and the Apostles, in the New Testament, interpret the Old Testament for us; the Old Testament does not tell us how to interpret the New Testament.  This notion is called Christocentricity and is the proper way to interpret scripture.  One of the best descriptions of this I heard recently was from Rod Rosenbladt who said that when we read the OT today, it is like watching the movie “The Sixth Sense” for the second time; we already know the ending and we can now see how the OT events clearly point forward toward the first Advent.

Dispensationalists have a different hermeneutic.  They claim to interpret the Bible literally.  While this sounds faithful and proper on the surface, it is not exactly what Jesus and the Apostles did.  Frequently, we find Jesus quoting OT passages and referring them to himself.  The Apostles likewise do this from Acts to Revelation.  But the Dispensationalist will argue that you cannot do this because it changes the clear and obvious meaning of the text.  The best example of this is the term Israel.  While Israel means ethnic and political Israel in the OT, it is clearly expanded by Jeremiah and Isaiah as well as Jesus, Peter and Paul to mean all of the elect in the whole world, Jews and Gentiles.  This is the beginning of our problem.

In the lead in to the passage in question, I’d like to bring up a couple of points.  First, the genre of Daniel is apocalyptic literature.  It is written with allegory and symbolism.  You clearly need to understand the historical background behind the passage and also which OT passages are being cited and quoted in order to understand the meaning.  Daniel is having a prophetic vision.  This is not a clear snapshot of the future, but rather a dream.  Another example of this genre is Revelations, which will be discussed as we go along. 

As far as this apocalyptic literature goes, the key item of interest is the Book of Life.  Daniel is told to close it, but John gets to open it and have a look.  This is a very important point.  If John gets a better look at the book, then it is John who should be used to interpret Daniel, not the other way round.  Going back to the movie analogy, if you know that Bruce Willis’ character died at the beginning of the movie, you can no longer make assumptions that his wife hears their conversation during the earlier portions of the movie.  The end has changed our understanding of the beginning.  Such is also the case concerning Revelation and our understanding of Daniel.  But it can also be said that Jesus speaks prophesy regularly and that all of the New Testament should be viewed as relevant to the interpretation of the Old Testament.  Since Jesus fulfills the OT prophesy, what he says about the OT matters.  This is also true of the Apostles.  Putting on blinders to the NT makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

To begin our discussion of Daniel 9, let’s look at verses 4-5.  In this section, Daniel makes two key points: God is a covenant maker, but He expects the other side to keep the Commandments.  He is talking about the Sinai Covenant and this refers back to Deuteronomy 7.  Israel in that passage is clearly national and ethnic Israel.  Let us continue and see what happens next.

I often wonder if Dispensationalists have actually read the next ten or so lines of Daniel.  Daniel describes in no uncertain terms that Israel has broken the Sinai Covenant and that God, as promised, has already delivered His wrath, in accordance with the broken Sinai covenant, upon his people.  It is already done.  This is why Daniel is praying for Israel.  He is already in captivity in Babylon.  What is remarkable is that Daniel records that the angel Gabriel answers his prayer and Gabriel’s response is recorded in verses 24-27.

24 “Seventy weeks are decreed about your people and your holy city, to finish the transgression, to put an end to sin, and to atone for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal both vision and prophet, and to anoint a most holy place. 25 Know therefore and understand that from the going out of the word to restore and build Jerusalem to the coming of an anointed one, a prince, there shall be seven weeks. Then for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again with squares and moat, but in a troubled time. 26 And after the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one shall be cut off and shall have nothing. And the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. Its end shall come with a flood, and to the end there shall be war. Desolations are decreed. 27 And he shall make a strong covenant with many for one week, and for half of the week he shall put an end to sacrifice and offering. And on the wing of abominations shall come one who makes desolate, until the decreed end is poured out on the desolator.”

Now we need to break down the reply.  The first and most obvious question to ask is whether 70 weeks means a literal 70 weeks.  There seems to be some consensus on this point that a week is actually a year, and that there is an implied multiplication by 7 meaning that the actual time frame is 490 years.  I have cited a chart that discusses the possible interpretations of each of the three main eschatological systems.  Notice that after the 70 years of captivity, the next 483 years added brings us up to about one group of 70 from Christ’s life on earth.  The starting point of these years is variably held to be based on a decree of Cyrus versus a decree of Artaxerxes.  Let’s compare the differences between these two passages in Ezra.

In Ezra 1, we read the decree from Cyrus for the Israelites to return to Jerusalem and rebuild the temple.  The next 5 chapters are about the red tape and obstruction that came to hinder the effort.  In Ezra 7, Ezra is commended by Artaxerxes to return to the now completed temple and teach.  The number of years of this gap is 80.  What 80 years does is close the gap in the number of years between Daniel 605 B.C. to Christ’s life and ministry 26-33 A.D.  Therefore, to literalists, it makes sense to number the years from Ezra’s arrival with the later decree rather from the first decree, for mathematical reasons.  The point here is that both sides are going to have to do some funny business with numbers, because there is this extra 80 years.

Next, the issue is the word “week.” Since we have already decided to deal with this term figuratively, a week is a year, perhaps we should investigate whether a week is some other measurement.  Let’s start with the captivity.  Jeremiah prophesied the captivity as 70 years and this is supported in three other places in the Bible.  Therefore, it seems that those 70 years are literal.  Particularly important in this regard is that the historical years of the exile are known and rooted in the lives of non-Jewish kings.  Cyrus existed and is documented in literature outside of the Bible.  But what of the gap? 

Ezekiel 4:5-6 uses days to mean years, so it is reasonable to accept this idea of prophetic speech having symbolic uses for numbers when dealing with Daniel.  There is much agreement on this issue.  So what does Gabriel actually say to Daniel in the vision.  The time from the setting out with the decree to rebuild to the coming of an anointed one, a prince, shall be 7 weeks.  I’ve tried several times to make 49 years fit much of anything, but the 80 years between Cyrus’ edict and Ezra’s arrival in Jerusalem seem to fit the best.  What can we say about this apparent discrepancy?  First, once we start saying that the numbers are not exact, this will affect all of the calculations.  Second, it seems rather clear to me that Gabriel is talking about the edict from Cyrus.  There is no 80 year gap in the Passage the way that I read this.  Is there a translation issue for this word “week?” Maybe, there is some use of the word “seven” in place of week.  With this type of thinking, 7 is the number of the Sabbath, the number of perfection, the number of God.  One less is 6, repeated three times is the number of another.  So 70 x 7 is a period that symbolizes God, but is not meant to be an exact number.  There is help in this vein from Jesus in discussion over the timing of His second Advent.  If we are not to know the exact timing of His second Advent, perhaps the exactness of the prophesies concerning his first Advent are also purposefully vague.  There are many other theories of how to calculate these sevens or weeks, and each runs into a problem.  So, let us shift our conversation to the issue of the second gap, the Dispensationalists' gap between the 69^th and 70^th week.  End part one.

Jars of Clay

Reformed theology provides categories that enable us to handle tough passages in the Bible with a great deal more ease.  One of the more important groups of categories is based on the amillennial eschatology idea of two kingdoms.  Eschatology is the study of redemptive history as revealed in scripture.  Amillennialism takes its name from the idea that the 1000 years of Revelations 20 may not be a literal 1000 years, but rather a figurative number that means a long time.  After all, 2 Peter 3:8 suggests just this sort of inexactitude, and Matthew 25 hammers home the fact that the Second Coming and Judgment happen together with no 1000 year gap.  However, amillennialism represents far more than this limited statement about time.  The two kingdom model changes how we read scripture and opens up much of the riches of the Bible that are hidden to the casual observer.

Jesus sets out early in His ministry discussing the Kingdom of Heaven, the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom yet to come.  These are all synonymous.  The other kingdom is the domain of man, the already, the right now, the world of man.  When reading both Old Testament prophets and New Testament Gospel and Epistles, pay particular attention to differences drawn between the world of man and the Kingdom of God.  All of the Gospels are thick with this language, particularly John.  Paul’s arguments are particularly rich in this imagery as well.  The prototype genre of the New Testament for these delineations is the parable.

Parables usually are working on three levels.  Let us take for example the parable of the rich young ruler.  In this parable, the man asks Jesus how to inherit the Kingdom of heaven.  Jesus answers him on several levels.  First, He states that there is only One who is good, meaning Himself as the One who kept the Law.  He refers the man to the Law and the Commandments, the Covenant of Sinai.  The man makes the typical mistake of the Pharisee assuming that he has always kept the Law.  Paul certainly recognized this error after his conversion.  What else, the man asks?  “If you would be perfect….” Jesus amps up the Law in order to demonstrate the full extent of the Law and the futility of man keeping the Law.

Most everyone focuses attention on the man’s wealth.  This is the surface layer.  Coupling this wealth with the eye of a needle comment, the assumption is that wealth is an idol that rules man and, therefore, it is nearly impossible for the wealthy to enter the Kingdom of Heaven.  This is a shallow, sort of an Aesop’s fables approach, with some moral point to make, and it just plain misses the mark.  The next level of understanding concerns the Pharisees.  In most parables, Jesus is talking to the Pharisees, who are the logical foil for Jesus as they embody the Covenant of Law.  Therefore, in each parable, the Pharisees easily see themselves in the parable represented as a character that ultimately is doomed.  The rich young ruler is clearly a Pharisee, a keeper of the Law.  

The third level is that of eschatology, the story of redemptive history unfolding.  The contrasts in the parables between the Covenants of Law and Grace parallel the contrasts between the already and the not yet, the world of man and the Kingdom of God.  This is particularly clear in the prodigal son analogy.  The young man returns and throws himself at the mercy of his father (Our Father) who sees him through the eyes of the Promise and offers him the full inheritance.  The older son, who has kept the Law, is jealous of the younger son who has done nothing and still gets the inheritance.  We see this same jealousy operating in the parable of the Laborers in the Vineyard.  The man who arrives last gets a full wage and the first present are jealous.  These parables paint a true picture of the Kingdom of Heaven.  The Jews, the older son and the early arrivers, who believe that they are the true Israel are jealous of the Gentiles who come late.  Jesus is demonstrating through the parables that the true Israel is in Him.  He may choose whomever He will. 

After the Resurrection, Jesus becomes the first member of the Kingdom of Heaven in a resurrected body.  Jesus Christ ushers in the Kingdom of God.  The amillennial view is that all of the time from Pentecost to the Second Coming and Judgment is the millennial time.  During that time, Christians are members of both kingdoms.  By virtue of their Baptism and faith alone in Jesus alone through Grace alone, Christians are transformed.  The problem is that we still inhabit these earthly bodies.  These earthly bodies are still bound by the Fall of Adam.  Therefore, we have a tension set up between our bodies in Adam and our transformation in Christ.  We are simultaneously members of both the kingdom of this world, the Creation, and the Kingdom of God.  We have dual citizenship, so to speak.

This is not to say that our souls are part of the Kingdom of God while our bodies are of Adam.  That is the Gnostic heresy.  When we become members of the Body of Christ, we become transformed.  When we inherit our resurrected bodies on the Last Day, those new resurrection bodies are reunited with our souls to create the perfection in Christ that is the promise.  Both body and soul are part of the promise.

Therefore, having set up the concept of the Two Kingdoms, each existing now with us Christians having dual citizenship, we return to the passage referenced in the title.  Paul writes to the church in Corinth concerning a number of topics.  In chapter 4, he refers to the Light of the Gospel that is in all Christians.  This light is held within Jars of Clay, our earthly bodies in Adam.  These bodies are fragile and break (die.)  When they do break, the Light within is released and goes on to the Kingdom of God, no longer bound by the Adamic Covenant.  Notice the language of verses 16-18.  The outer self is wasting away while the inner self is being renewed.  How do we renew this inner self?  By receiving Grace regularly (weekly) through receiving the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper and by the hearing of the Gospel preached to us correctly.  We do not look to that which is seen, this earthly body, but rather to that which is unseen, the Gospel and the promise of the resurrection.

If the Jars of Clay that are Christian jars of clay contain the Light of the Gospel, evangelism is the spreading of this Light.  The amazing thing about Light is that it fills all of the available space.  Therefore, the not yet converted can fill their empty jars from your jar, full of the Light of the Gospel.  What is also true is that the jars of clay of the reprobate remain empty.  So, focus on the Light within, unseen and yet clearly present.  That, the Great Commission, is our ministry as Christians according to Jesus, Paul and the Bible.

--Troll--