My understanding of the End

Someone asked, so here is my 'timeline' regarding the kingdom and the end of history:

- Jesus' birth and life showed the kingdom was inaugurated (Mark 1:14-15). Jesus clearly taught that this kingdom was a spiritual kingdom (John 18:36). Entering his kingdom require a spiritual rebirth (John 3:3).

- His ministry, especially his death and resurrection bind Satan so his house can be plundered (Matthew 12:29, Mark 3:27, Revelation 20:1-3). Note specifically in the Revelation 20 passage, the binding of Satan means he is not free to deceive the nations any more, not that his activity has completely ceased. He is still free to harass the church, as much of Revelation depicts; however, people from every nation and tribe will be welcomed into the kingdom.

- The outpouring of the Holy Spirit signals that we are in the last days (Joel 2:28-32, Acts 2:14-21). The last days covers the whole span of history from Christ's first advent to his second coming. The last days are marked by the unique and climactic revelation of God in His Son (Heb. 1:2), by the unprecedented scope of the Spirit's work (Joel 2:28-32), scoffers (2 Peter 3:3), godlessness and difficulties (2 Timothy 3:1-5). John refers to this time period as 'the last hour' during which the church must be on guard against 'antichrists' (1 John 2:18).

- The last hour and last days will climax in 'the last day' (The Day of the Lord) in which Jesus promises to raise up all those who have been given to him (John 6:39-44; John 6:54). It will also be a day when those who reject Christ will be judged (John 12:48). As the Day of the Lord is still in the future, the church is active in preaching the gospel, urging rebels to accept the amnesty the King is offering (2 Corinthians 5:18-20).

- The kingdom is a present reality. Saints are presently reigning with Christ who is presently on his throne. Here taking a close look at Revelation 20 is in order:

[20:1] Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, holding in his hand the key to the bottomless pit and a great chain. [2] And he seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years, [3] and threw him into the pit, and shut it and sealed it over him, so that he might not deceive the nations any longer, until the thousand years were ended. After that he must be released for a little while.
[4] Then I saw thrones, and seated on them were those to whom the authority to judge was committed. Also I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for the testimony of Jesus and for the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. [5] The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended. This is the first resurrection. [6] Blessed and holy is the one who shares in the first resurrection! Over such the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ, and they will reign with him for a thousand years.
(Revelation 20:1-6 ESV)

It is my understanding that the number 1000 is symbolic - as are virtually all the numbers in the book of Revelation - representing a full period of time. Moreover, I don't think it is appropriate to read the book of Revelation as though it proceeded chronologically. Revelation 19 depicts the climatic battle between Satan and God. On my view, Revelation 20 happens prior to that battle. Much of Revelation is cyclical. As I understand it, Revelation 20:1-15 is the seventh cycle of the book, each one recording the same period of history, adding vivid imagery to give us a composite picture. The binding of Satan refers to the the limitation of Satan's power by Christ so that the church would be successful in fulfilling its Great Commission (see above). The battle of Revelation 20:7-10 is the same battle as Revelation 19:11-21.

I believe the saints are reigning above with Christ now, not in future kingdom on earth. What John sees are the disembodied souls of the saints in heaven (see also Rev. 6:9). I don't think the privilege of reigning is necessarily limited to the martyrs, but the martyrs (those beheaded) is a subset of all the faithful 'who had not worshiped the beast or its image.' Scripture makes it clear that Christ is already reigning on the throne (Eph 1:19-23).

What about the 'first resurrection', 'first death', 'second resurrection', and 'second death'? As I understand it, there is a neat symmetry here. The first resurrection and the second death are spiritual in nature. The first resurrection refers to the believers rebirth, from being brought back from the dead spiritually (Eph. 2:1-5, Col. 2:12-13). The second death is the unbelievers spiritual death - an eternal death (Matthew 10:28). The first death is a physical death that all will experience (except for those alive when Christ returns). The second resurrection is a physical resurrection all will experience (except those alive when Christ returns). Believers will experience this second resurrection, a reuniting of the bodies and souls for a blessed eternity; unbelievers will experience this resurrection for judgment.

1 Corinthians 15 is also helpful:
[20] But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. [21] For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. [22] 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.
(1 Corinthians 15:20-28, ESV)

Paul says in verse 24 that the end will come after Christ has destroyed every rule and every authority and power. That process is begun and will conclude at the climatic battle on the Day of the Lord. Paul specifically says the last enemy to be destroyed will be death (v. 26). That, the resurrection of the dead and the casting of Death and Hades into hell, marks the absolute end.
After that we enter into the eternal state, the New Heavens and New Earth (Rev. 20:11-21:8). There is not intermediate 1000 kingdom on earth in my view.

A few more points:

- The church will be successful in winning people for Christ from every tribe and nation. However, that does not mean the world will be Christianized (see the Parable of the Weeds, Matthew 13:24ff).

- All the promises made to Abraham and David are fulfilled in Christ (the True Israel of God) and his Church (see second point in my post 'Should the US Support Israel'). Hence, there is no interpretive need for an earthly millennium.

- The kingdom will not be established by the work of the church. Christ alone will establish his kingdom when he returns in glory.

- Maranatha. Come Lord Jesus!

A few really good books on Revelation:

1.The Returning King: A Guide to the Book of Revelation, by Vern Poythress

2. Triumph of the Lamb: A Commentary on Revelation, by Dennis Johnson

3. Case for Amillennialism, A: Understanding the End Times, by Kim Riddlebarger

My Picnic Table

Here's some pictures of the picnic table I just finished. It took me about 4-5 hours of solid work. For someone who knew what they were doing, it would probably take 3 hrs. I followed some plans I found online. The plans were good except one thing. If you're going to countersink the bolts, you'll need a spade bit bigger than 3/4". Using a 3/4" bit didn't give my ratchet enough room to bite the nut and tighten it. It was the biggest frustration of the whole project (which could have easily been solved by going and buying a 1" spade bit. The whole project cost $110 dollars for wood, nails, bolts, etc. (that doesn't count the $150 saw I bought this spring, without which the job would have been much harder). It's a massive picnic table - 8ft long and approaching 250lbs. Its' a Sherman Tank of a table - but it's mine.

Song (s) of the Week

I mentioned listening to the Dropkick Murphys while I mowed the lawn. They are the best Irish punk rock band out there (is there another - if so, someone tell me!). Here's two great, very different songs.

Dropkick Murphy's, Warriors Code:



Dropkick Murphy's, Green Fields of France:

I want roots!

It has been a weird day internally. During Luke's nap I watched The Boondock Saints II and wished I was Irish. Mowing the lawn I listened to the Dropkick Murphy's - an Irish punk band, and really wished I was Irish (so I could say cool words like 'lassie' and not sound stupid). Honestly, being Irish is just one dream. In reality, I just want to be something. I've been told I'm part Dutch (my mom's maiden name is Dutch), part Scottish (Waugh is of Scottish origin), part Native American (from my paternal grandmother and maternal grandmother, but not of the same tribes), and I'm sure there's a few more things thrown in there for good measure. In other words, I'm so much I'm nothing. I don't have any roots or heritage I can claim.

I even find it hard to claim a hometown. I hate it when people ask where I'm from. Born in New York, lived for seven years in Florida, back to New York till I graduated from college. From there it was Missouri, Pennsylvania, Chicago, back to Pennsylvania and then, lastly (and hopefully for av very long time) Indiana. Am I a Yankee? A Hoosier? I lived in New York for 15 years total, more than anywhere else, but I hate the freakin Yankees.

Theologically, my muttness is also annoying. I wish I was still Baptist. I grew up a Baptist, was on staff at a Baptist Church in PA. But I'm a paedobaptist at heart, and in practice. So no Baptist church would hire me know (not that I'm looking). I went to a Wesleyan College. I'm not Wesleyan by any stretch of the imagination. I attended a CMA church while there, but wouldn't fit in that church context now. After that, went on to an Evangelical free church and an Evangelical Free Church Seminary (Trinity). I loved the church and the seminary, but again, I'd be denied ordination or employment in the denomination.

Over the years I've grown to consider myself Reformed (growing from an inconsistent Calvinist to a more consistent Calvinist to a full blown Reformed guy). I'm currently pursuing a ThM from a Reformed (PCA) seminary, but it's hard to consider myself a part of that denomination, or any other Reformed denomination. I have no history (and I doubt I have any future) in them. Besides being Reformed, I also have charismatic leanings. That's like mixing a German Shepherd and a Chihuahua.

Maybe that's why I love ECC. We're a mutt church. Not everyone is as mutt as me - certainly not ethnically and not theologically either. But at ECC we bring together Koreans, Kenyans, Colombians, Singaporeans, Malaysians, Brits, and people from all over the US. We blend people from Anglican/Episcopalian, Missionary Alliance, Baptist, Wesleyan, Catholic, Presbyterian, CRC, AOG, and more. The church, the one body, is mutt - and it's beautiful.

At the same time, ECC is a church of rootless people. Most in the church aren't Bloomingtonians. Even those who are haven't been here for generations (unlike the church we served in rural Western, PA). So I'm not alone in my rootlessness. We don't have roots, but we all need roots. What are we to do? Find deep roots in being a part of the ancient people of God. Certainly we trace our roots theologically back to the Reformation. That's pretty good - a 500 yr. heritage. We can and should learn and rely more on these roots. But it get's better. We stand in the stream of orthodox Christianity that stretches back to Anselm, Augustine, Irenaeus, Ignatius, Clement, Origin, Tertullian, Polycarp, John, Peter and Paul. Now that's a 2000 yr. heritage, and quite an impressive family tree. But, if we take our cues from Hebrews 11, we realize that as the people of God, our roots do deeper still - all the way to Abraham - even back to Seth, if not Adam and Eve.

Ok, I still want to be Irish, or something. I want some fest to celebrate! But that's a passing (odd) desire. The realization that I'm not rootless and not floating isn't necessarily new, but increasingly precious.

Beginnings Causing Trouble (& Costing Jobs)

Over the past year or two, the interpretation of first couple chapters of the Bible have created quite a stir among evangelical theologians, and derailed several careers. First, Peter Enns [formerly] of Westminster Theological Seminary was ousted after the publication of Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament. In the short book, Enn's asserts that the Biblical accounts of beginnings are similar to other Ancient Near Eastern accounts and should be considered myth, not historical fact. Since his departure, he has gone on to question the historicity of Adam and Eve, arguing that they "could be viewed symbolically as a story of Israel’s beginnings, not as the story of humanity from ground zero." Of Enn's theology as outlined in the book, Bruce Waltke, OT Professor at Reformed Theological Seminary commented, "Each of us has his or her own walk with God; in that connection I do not call into question Enns’s integrity. I know he is a man of unflinching honesty. But as for me, his theology is unstable and the exegesis that supports it is flawed."

Ironically, within 12 months of Waltke's comments, he would be on the chopping block for a video posted by BioLogos, "Why Must the Church Accept Evolution", in which Waltke made the following comment: "if the data is overwhelmingly in favor of evolution, to deny that reality will make us a cult…some odd group that is not really interacting with the world. And rightly so, because we are not using our gifts and trusting God’s Providence that brought us to this point of our awareness." (The video has since been removed at the request of Dr. Bruce Waltke). Doug Wilson has a pretty short and good critique of Walke's assumptions/logical errors.

While I disagree with Walke's conclusion, I greatly admire his charity through the whole process. His letter of resignation shows no ill will (he believes the administration of RTS did the right thing), shows grief over having brought controversy to the institution, and seeks to clarify his statements. I believe he will be taking up a teaching position at Knox Theological Seminary, but haven't heard definitely.

In addition, RTS disinvited Tremper Longman III from his regular spring teaching assignment due to his expressed doubts about the historicity of Adam.

So, should these men have been fired, suspended, disinvited, forced to resign, yaddayaddayadda?

Yes. I think so. I'm not a strict seven day creationist, and believe there are interpretation of Genesis 1-2 that make room for an old earth (see Sailhamer's view of Creation) and possibly even theistic evolution (only maybe). Yet, all three of these men seem to go beyond the scope of what Scripture legitimately allows. That is certainly up for debate; however, what isn't up for debate is that WTS and RTS are confessional schools, holding fast to the Westminster Confession of Faith. They are narrowly and militantly Reformed. These men, teaching at these schools, knew they would be held to that standard. Despite their attempts to show their teaching was in keeping with these standards, it was the decision of the institutions that the teaching/writing of these men did not uphold the standard.

Some will certainly argue that this impedes academic freedom. Yes it does. That goes with being a Christian seminary, and certainly with being a confessional seminary (whether Reformed or Lutheran, etc.). Being Christian means holding certainly beliefs. Seem intolerant. It is. But it's necessary. If a church/denomination isn't properly intolerant (of who will teach, pastor, serve as elders and be allowed as members), they will entirely loose their identity and distinctiveness. If the church allowed nonbelievers to serve as elders or even admit them as members, what then is the church. Just another social institution.

This was, in a nutshell, the debate Machen had with the liberals in his day. He argued that the liberals should feel free to believe what they wanted regarding the inerrancy of Scripture, the virgin birth, the reality of miracles, the exclusive nature of Christ's work, the historicity of the resurrection, etc. However, denying those things and you cease to be Christian. So don't call yourselves that and withdraw from historic Christian churches and institutions.

Similar issues of the confessional nature of the church and the seminaries/college that serve the church pop up frequently. Calvin College has gone through some rough waters of recent regarding it's policy that faculty not openly advocate homosexuality. Again, the tension is between academic freedom and confessional standards.

Does being confessional mean sticking your head in the sand and not engaging those with another point of view? No, certainly not. Doug Wilson gets at it, "there is a difference between 'staying in the discussion' with unbelievers [I would add, 'believers with a different point of view'] and sitting down and believing what you are told by unbelievers to believe. Paul was in a real dialogue with the philosophers on Mars Hill, and it did not consist of him getting into a high chair and having them cut his meat for him." So stay in the dialogue. However, if you are convinced to change your mind and your views are no longer in keeping with the standards of the institution/church you serve, have enough integrity to resign.

I remember my dad telling me, 'if you're going to break the rules, don't bitch about the consequences'. I broke lots of rules, don't think I ever complained about the consequences (but didn't usually get caught either).