The Revelation repeatedly refers to itself as “prophecy.”
Many people assume that Revelation is a prophetic book in the sense of predicting, in rather explicit detail, “the way the world will end.” The most popular approach to Revelation, dispensationalism, both creates and reinforces this assumption.
A theological movement that began in the 19th century, dispensationalism holds that history is divided into various ages, or dispensations, each characterized by different ways in which God deals with humanity. With respect to eschatology, it includes the doctrine of the rapture, or the removal of true believers to heaven before the return of Christ, an idea unknown in Christian teaching before the 19th century.
Popular dispensationalism, disseminated by such best-selling sources as the Scofield Reference Bible, Hal Lindsey’s writings (e.g., The Late, Great Planet Earth), and most recently the “Left Behind” series of books and movies by Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins, interprets Revelation as portraying, in literal and linear fashion, the course of historical events.
Gorman, Michael J. (2011-01-01). Reading Revelation Responsibly: Uncivil Worship and Witness: Following the Lamb into the New Creation (Kindle Locations 666-675). Cascade Books, an imprint of Wipf and Stock Publishers. Kindle Edition.
The Churches of Christ have largely rejected Premillennialism, so much so that, in the 1970s, a controversy erupted as to the exclusion of Premillennialist Churches from Where the Saints Meet, a book listing all Church of Christ congregations! They were added back in but with a footnote warning possible visitors of their Premillennial views.
(A similar controversy arose only a couple of years ago regarding the exclusion of instrumental Churches of Christ from 21st Century Christian’s Churches of Christ in the United States. And again the excluded churches were returned to the next edition but with a footnote. I wondering whether heaven has a special room for footnoted Christians. Maybe the thermostat is set too high but not hell fire and brimstone high?)
And yet Premillennialism is closely tied to Dispensationalism, a doctrinal error that the mainstream Churches of Christ have adopted with great vigor because so many were converted by use of the Jule Miller Filmstrips — which presented a Dispensational view of biblical history based on the same Scofield Bible notes that created the Rapture theology of Left Behind and similar books. Both theories are creations of the 19th Century.
Now, obviously, there is some truth in Dispensational teaching. The error is in seeing each dispensation as the repeal of the previous covenant and the enactment of a new covenant, rather like nations repealing and adopting constitutions. The teaching makes the OT irrelevant — so much so that we in the Churches of Christ constantly refer to ourselves as “New Testament Christians,” I suppose in contrast to those Old Testament Christians down the road that we imagine to exist. It’s really almost delusional because no one on the planet thinks of themselves as Old Testament Christians.
Rather, many — all who’ve read Paul and the Sermon on the Mount carefully — teach that the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants continue in effect and haven’t been repealed. They’ve been fulfilled, but they continue to be important. Thus, Paul teaches in Gal 3 and Rom 4 that we are saved by faith because of God’s covenant with Abraham. And Paul often cites the Torah as authority for such principles as no one should be convicted except on the testimony of two or three witnesses and we are still bound by “Love your neighbor.” We covered this in the series on covenant theology last year.
It’s astonishing how many Christians in Alabama want to insist that the OT has been “repealed” while also lauding Roy Moore for placing a marble monument to the Ten Commandments in the state judiciary building. You really can’t have it both ways. And how can we be “New Testament” Christians while treating Sunday as the “Christian Sabbath” (you won’t find that one in the NT), insisting that we wear our “Sunday best” because the Torah requires us to give the best of the flock (it’s not as though we’re leaving our suits for the poor), and so on.
Some preachers have taken Dispensationalism to the extreme that they see Jesus as an “Old Testament prophet,” and hence they declare our Savior’s words as no more authoritative than the kosher laws of the Torah. Really. We get bent out of shape over a sermon on the Rapture while allowing our preachers to deny the words of Jesus Christ. Again, we are strange tribe.
But prophecy, in the biblical tradition, is not exclusively or even primarily about making pronouncements and predictions concerning the future. Rather, prophecy is speaking words of comfort and/or challenge, on behalf of God, to the people of God in their concrete historical situation. Old Testament prophets were called by God, sometimes in the context of a visionary experience (see Isaiah 6 and Ezekiel 1), to proclaim the message that God gave them, usually in the form of various oracles that were later written down, but also occasionally in visions, and often in poetic or symbolic language. Whatever the form, the message was one of judgment (on them or on their oppressors) or salvation—and usually both.
(Kindle Locations 679-684).
Since Revelation is a word of prophecy in the biblical tradition, we must take care to understand that its primary purpose is to give words of comfort and challenge to God’s people then and now, not to predict the future, and much less to do so with precise detail. Visions of the future, that is, are not an end in themselves but rather a means—both to warn and to comfort.
(Kindle Locations 694-696).
Now this observation is surely key to the interpretation of the Revelation. That is, if a proposed interpretation wouldn’t comfort or warn the churches of Asia Minor, it’s likely a mistaken interpretation.
This term “NT Christian” vexes me somewhat. A family move to our congregation from Brazil and wanted to place “membership” so our preacher wanted me to, since I was giving announcements, to announce that they were “NT Christians”. After trying to get him to explain why I should say that in this way, he just simply said, “OK just announce they want to assemble with us.” which I did.
I was kind of under the impression that all Christians were born out of the NT, but on the back of the OT, thus we are just simply Christians.
Or were the early Christian Jews “Old and New Testament Christians”?
An “NT Christian” likely means the person went to a church with a fairly correct order of service, was baptized correctly, took communion weekly not a liturgical church, not Catholic, no women in pulpit, no IM, etc.
I don’t see any message in The Old Covenant (Old Testament) nor any message in The New Covenant (New Testament) which would identify that there are any Christians among those who did not accept Christ and follow him. There is no infiltrating of the identity of Christian back into Jewish people who were faithful to The Law who did not accept Christ.
There is messages in the present Covenant instituted by Christ that we cannot apply many of the rules and regulations of the Law into the present Covenant without becoming obligated to obey all of the Law. That appears to create a definite division between the Law of the time before the coming of The Messiah (Christ) and the time since Christ. Paul discussed this very thoroughly in Galatians.
Larry, I would counter that this is not really true. Paul had Timothy circumcised and yet this didn’t place him back into the law. I was circumcised and am not in the law. there was a difference between trying to obey the Law as the savior and believing in Christ as the savior even while doing the law. In Col.2 they were being given the latitude to do the feast, Sabbath, new Moon without judgment. There were Christians who were Jews that did the things of the Law like go to the Temple to worship…Jesus and the apostles.
What many of the Christian Jews were doing was going back the Law and Judaism and turning thier backs on Jesus, not holding to Christ as the savior.
I don’t know of a list of acceptable practices that would argue for “we cannot apply many of the rules and regulations of the Law into the present Covenant without becoming obligated to obey all of the Law.”
In reality the Law covered more than worship, actually the Jewish life. If we gave up eating pork and all of the animals that are called unclean by God in the OT, this would not place us back into the Law. We can dedicate a day to God, or not.
Dwayne,
How can I possibly respond to a charge that is so vaguely worded?
Let’s walk through some examples.
“The Churches of Christ have largely rejected Premillennialism” Who? Which Churches of Christ? Where did you find this fact? How can you make such a statement about a non-denominational denomination, one that doesn’t have an established book of agree-upon doctrines?
“And yet Premillennialism is closely tied to Dispensationalism, a doctrinal error that the mainstream Churches of Christ have adopted” Who tied the two together? Who declared one or both of these a “doctrinal error?” Again, same as above, which Churches of Christ? Where are you finding official “mainstream Church of Christ doctrine?”
“based on the same Scofield Bible notes that created the Rapture theology of Left Behind and similar books” How do you base the Left Behind books on the Scofield Bible? Did you interview the author of those books?
“Both theories are creations of the 19th Century” How do you know that neither of these “theories” existed before the 19th century? What writings have you found from the 19th century declaring that these are entirely new ideas? Are you certain that no one before the 19th century believed this way?
“Dispensational teaching…makes the OT irrelevant” Who said so?
“we in the Churches of Christ constantly refer to ourselves as ‘New Testament Christians'” Same as above. Who? Which Churches of Christ? Have you taken an exhaustive survey recently that reveals this fact?
I expect much better basis of statement from you.
Please provide references or clarify your statements.
For example, you could write, “I find that the ideas expressed in the Scofield Bible notes to be reflected in the Left Behind books. For example… I haven’t interviewed the Left Behind author, but it seems to me that… If anyone knows the author…”
or you could write, “I have visited several dozen Church of Christ congregations in Alabama. None of the Elders in these congregations profess to believe in Premillenialism or know of any congregations in Alabama who do so. I would welcome the opportunity to visit any if someone knows of them.”
Do these thoughts make any sense? I would like to read what you think about Revelation—what I find to be the most neglected section of the Bible. I, however, expect you to do better than this post because I have read much, much better and learned much from you on other topics.
Jay,
You have stated,
“And yet Premillennialism is closely tied to Dispensationalism, a doctrinal error that the mainstream Churches of Christ have adopted with great vigor because so many were converted by use of the Jule Miller Filmstrips — which presented a Dispensational view of biblical history based on the same Scofield Bible notes that created the Rapture theology of Left Behind and similar books. Both theories are creations of the 19th Century.”
I am very familiar with both The Jule Miller Filmstrips and the concepts which are drawn from the scriptures. I would challenge you in the statement that the divisions of time portrayed in them were drawn from the Scofield Bible notes. You seem to be saying that you do not recognize that God has modified the instructions given to mankind from beginning until now in the scriptures.
Leading to the statement that seems to be saying there are no newer covenants which have replaced any prior covenants and to teach such would be teaching “error”.
“The error is in seeing each dispensation as the repeal of the previous covenant and the enactment of a new covenant, rather like nations repealing and adopting constitutions. The teaching makes the OT irrelevant — so much so that we in the Churches of Christ constantly refer to ourselves as “New Testament Christians,” I suppose in contrast to those Old Testament Christians”
Well it only takes a few keystrokes on a computer to do some searches on (covenant/s) to find much that God and his writers have written about covenants being replaced with another called (a new covenant).
There is even a Book of The Covenant. That was given to the Jews.
2Ch 34:30 ESV And the king went up to the house of the LORD, with all the men of Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem and the priests and the Levites, all the people both great and small. And he read in their hearing all the words of the Book of the Covenant that had been found in the house of the LORD.
The scriptures promise and for tell and identify that there is a new covenant which has been established by Jesus’ Blood.
(Jer 31:31 ESV) “Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah,
(Luk 22:20 ESV) And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.
(1Co 11:25 ESV) In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.”
(2Co 3:6 ESV) who has made us sufficient to be ministers of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit. For the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.
(Heb 8:8 ESV) For he finds fault with them when he says: “Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will establish a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah,
(Heb 8:13 ESV) In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.
(Heb 9:15 ESV) Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant.
(Heb 12:24 ESV) and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel.
Heb 8:13 appears to me to be making a statement that you are denying to exist as you make this statement, “The error is in seeing each dispensation as the repeal of the previous covenant and the enactment of a new covenant, rather like nations repealing and adopting constitutions”.
I hope I have misunderstood your conclusion.
Jay,
Thank you. Much better. You are now backing your statements with references and personal experience.
We still have the issue of stating what Churches of Christ hold as doctrine. As a non-denominational denomination, we don’t have a book of doctrine. I find it “sloppy” to state that “the majority of Churches of Christ believe or practice fill-in-the-blank.” My experience seems to differ from yours in the anecdotal evidence. I have not found any detailed surveys of CoC beliefs or doctrine. If anyone knows of any from graduate school studies or other research, please provide references.
Jay,
I have reproduced all those posts so I can review them. I noticed that there were very few comments throughout the whole series. I was very busy during that time of year and did not post much, I do remember reading the material and having many conflicts with your concepts. The brief scan that I have made so far has led me to believe that there still is no place in that system which will coordinate with a concept of covenants not being replaced by a later covenant.
I think there are plenty of concepts that argue for a new covenant which replaces the older covenant. The new wine in the old wineskins and the new cloth and the old cloth. Trying to force one to merge with the other will be disastrous and won’t work. One must wholly replace it in concept and yet it is still a cloth and wine in a wineskin in nature.
Gal.3:24-25 “Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.”
The law went away.
But not the faith in God….that is faith in Jesus.
The law looked forward to the savior and the savior replaced the law, he was superior. Hebrews.
The difference in the new covenant reflects a better sacrifice and redeemer, Jesus, and a freedom from sin and a freedom to worship God not seen in the other one, but built within this freedom to worship freely is the concept that worship in general even if Jewish in nature is not bad or to be rejected.
Col.2 reflects that they could still practice the things of the law within the context of Jesus as the savior, but could not go back to relying on the law as the way to God.
Rom.3:1-2 “What advantage then has the Jew, or what is the profit of circumcision? Much in every way! Chiefly because to them were committed the oracles of God” was about not rejecting being a Jew and the things of the Jew but placing these in the proper context of Jesus. There was profit in them, but just not profit to justify, as only being in Christ could justify.
Larry,
In Gal 3 and Rom 4, Paul says were saved by God’s covenant with Abraham. Therefore, that covenant remains in effect.
Israel is promised circumcision of the heart if they return to God in Deu 30:6. The prophets identify this promise with the Holy Spirit — as does Paul in Rom 2 — and Paul says the Gentiles are saved by this very promise — in the Torah! Therefore, that covenant remains in effect. The “covenant” is not just the commands but also the blessings and curses.
God promised David that his descendant would sit on the throne of Israel forever. Therefore, that covenant remains in effect.
Obviously, each covenant has been transformed by those that followed. But it’s fulfillment, not repeal. Jesus himself said,
Paul wrote,
Dispensationalism treats the covenants as “laws.” I’ve read plenty of CoC authors who speak of Jesus or Paul “legislating.” We begin with the assumption that it’s all law, interpret everything in this “light,” and ignore all that’s inconsistent — and so “prove” a legal system. But the covenant system is far more subtle, deep, and rich.
After you read the covenant posts in the How to Study the Bible series, read the “Salvation of the Jews” series that follows. You’ll see how it plays out in understanding the OT. For example, if Abraham was saved by faith, and we’re saved by faith, then how were the Jews saved? Did the Abrahamic covenant go into hiding during the Mosaic age?
It’s a radically different way of looking at Torah, which in turn changes how we understand the NT.
Yes, Jay. I’ve heard many lessons on that the OT law was earthly and worldly (IM included in this)in that people were just expected to do it out of obedience (no faith involved) and yet we are talking of God’s law here. God hasn’t changed and always wanted faith in the following of his law. The great thing about David is his demeanor of following God in that he not only did the law, but more as he wrote many psalms, worshipped in song and music, etc. He was devoted to God in a time when most of us would argue that they couldn’t possibly do that under the OT covenant. And even in the NT we find those that bucked the perceived system in this as well, even some gentiles. God always required the heart and soul and love of man.
The things of the OT were shadows of what was to come and then we see what was to come in Jesus and yet the shadow is still being cast, but now we can see both the shadow and the one who cast it. Jesus is the focus of the NT and was the focus of even the OT of a savior and reconciliation.