I find it funny that one of the recent presidential candidates remarked that the poor in the U.S. aren't really poor, that they have access to cable T.V., air conditioning, and computers. They are exceptionally privileged and have an “entitlement mentality.” The picture painted is someone living off of the state, receiving free housing, food stamps, large welfare checks, not having to do anything for it, and not wanting to do anything to get themselves out of it. At best, this is an ignorant image of poverty in the U.S. At worst, it is a deliberate twisting of the truth to turn public opinion against the poor. I know this because we've had to be on state assistance more often than we wanted.
Truth is, it's hard to get onto social services. Without a consistent paycheck it's nearly impossible to stay on, and it barely covers your basic expenses when you're on it. The largest “check” you can get is about $190 a month. If you're single with no kids and make any kind of a paycheck at all, they won't help you with anything. The rules which regulate the social services system are geared to make it as difficult and as uncomfortable as possible and to make you feel as shameful as possible so that you will either want to leave it as quickly as possible, or be forced off of it. Often, from what I've seen, social workers tend to try and bend those rules or teach people how to go around them so that they can help the people who really need it.
So, who are the poor? Well, if we go by legal definitions, it's anyone who makes below a certain amount of income per year depending on whether or not they're married or single, and depending on how many kids they have. So, if someone is married and has three kids, they're considered below the poverty level if they make something like $30,000/year. This works out to $2500/month for a family. Doesn't sound like poverty does it? If these are the poor that this candidate was talking about, then yes, our nation's poor aren't really all that bad off if they just manage their resources and live within their means (depending on where in the country they live, $2500/month for a family of five in a place like Orange County, CA, for example, is almost impossible).
But the problem is that while these people may be struggling, they're not really the poor which need the help the most, and are the most hurt by these kinds of politics. The example of the poor which I gave above are what would be called in Greek, “tapeinoi”. These are people in humble circumstances. The poor people which are hurt by these kinds of politics are what are called in Greek “ptokhoi”. This word has an interesting etymology. It appears to be related to the word for “spit.”
These are the people who are spit on. These are the ones who cannot defend themselves, and have no resources whatsoever. And these days, their ranks are swelling as more homes are foreclosed on, more savings accounts are wiped out, and more jobs are lost. This is the immigrant, illegal or legal, as he tries to provide for himself or his family. This is the kid who doesn't know where their next meal is coming from because his or her parents are either out of work, or not there. This is the elderly person for whom social security doesn't pay enough to make ends meet for basic necessities. These are the people now forced to live in tents if they're fortunate because, not being able to pay, they were forced from their homes. I read an article recently about a Hollywood director or producer who was forced into the position of staying in homeless shelters with his wife and children. Their “friends” criticize them for taking their children down there at night, but I read nothing about any of them opening up their homes to them. There are millions of people like this in the U.S. right now, and their numbers are growing not shrinking.
What's really disturbing me is the attitudes which are being taken about the poor by professing Christians. The thinking seems to be that, somehow, the poor deserve to be in the state they're in, and nothing should be done to help them. If they can't help themselves, no one else should help them either. Hmm, what does God think on the matter?
The Old Testament, in particular the Law, is a covenant which was superceded by the New Covenant in Jesus Christ. But it is useful at times in seeing where God's mind is on a subject. The passages which deal with the treatment of the poor are most instructive:
Deuteronomy 15:7-11 (WEB)
“If there be with you a poor man, one of your brothers, within any of your gates in your land which Yahweh your God gives you, you shall not harden your heart, nor shut your hand from your poor brother; but you shall surely open your hand to him, and shall surely lend him sufficient for his need in that which he wants. Beware that there not be a base thought in your heart, saying, The seventh year, the year of release, is at hand; and your eye be evil against your poor brother, and you give him nothing; and he cry to Yahweh against you, and it be sin to you. You shall surely give him, and your heart shall not be grieved when you give to him; because that for this thing Yahweh your God will bless you in all your work, and in all that you put your hand to. For the poor will never cease out of the land: therefore I command you, saying, You shall surely open your hand to your brother, to your needy, and to your poor, in your land.”
Deuteronomy 27:19 (WEB)
"Cursed be he who wrests the justice due to the foreigner, fatherless, and widow. All the people shall say, Amen.”
Leviticus 19:9-10 (WEB)
“‘When you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not wholly reap the corners of your field, neither shall you gather the gleanings of your harvest. You shall not glean your vineyard, neither shall you gather the fallen grapes of your vineyard; you shall leave them for the poor and for the foreigner. I am Yahweh your God.”
Leviticus 25:35-38 (WEB)
“If your brother has become poor, and his hand can’t support him among you; then you shall uphold him. As a stranger and a sojourner he shall live with you. Take no interest from him or profit, but fear your God; that your brother may live among you. You shall not lend him your money at interest, nor give him your food for profit. I am Yahweh your God, who brought you forth out of the land of Egypt, to give you the land of Canaan, and to be your God.”
Throughout the Scriptures, the mind and heart of God has always that those with resources are to see to the welfare of those who don't have any. Repeatedly, He demands that the poor, the foreigner, the widow, and the orphan be cared for by His people. In the Old Testament, those who were called His people and chose to ignore or abuse these poor and destitute risked, and suffered, the wrath of Almighty God.
In the New Testament, St. James links how we treat the poor with whether or not our profession of faith is worth anything:
James 2:1-18 (WEB)
"My brothers, don’t hold the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ of glory with partiality. For if a man with a gold ring, in fine clothing, comes into your assembly, and a poor man in filthy clothing also comes in; and you pay special attention to him who wears the fine clothing, and say, “Sit here in a good place;” and you tell the poor man, “Stand there,” or “Sit by my footstool;” haven’t you shown partiality among yourselves, and become judges with evil thoughts? Listen, my beloved brothers. Didn’t God choose those who are poor in this world to be rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which he promised to those who love him? But you have dishonored the poor man. Don’t the rich oppress you, and personally drag you before the courts? Don’t they blaspheme the honorable name by which you are called? However, if you fulfill the royal law, according to the Scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” you do well. But if you show partiality, you commit sin, being convicted by the law as transgressors. For whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he has become guilty of all. For he who said, “Do not commit adultery,” said also, “Do not commit murder.” Now if you do not commit adultery, but murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. So speak, and so do, as men who are to be judged by a law of freedom. For judgment is without mercy to him who has shown no mercy. Mercy triumphs over judgment. What good is it, my brothers, if a man says he has faith, but has no works? Can faith save him? And if a brother or sister is naked and in lack of daily food, and one of you tells them, 'Go in peace, be warmed and filled;' and yet you didn’t give them the things the body needs, what good is it? Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead in itself. Yes, a man will say, 'You have faith, and I have works.' Show me your faith from your works, and I by my works will show you my faith.”
If we possess the means to help someone who is in need of food, shelter, water, clothing, or any of the basic necessities of life, then it has always been God's heart that we use what we have to help them as members of our own family. This is especially true of those who are members of the Church. We are just as responsible for them as we are for our own lives because we are all members of the same body. We are answerable to God for each other's welfare.
Saturday, October 29, 2011
Thursday, October 27, 2011
A Ramble about Interfaith Dialogues
I just read an article about a meeting in Rome at the Vatican of representatives from many different religions and faith traditions. It was compared to a similar meeting held by John Paul II in 1986. Several differences were noted by the author of the article, like that the group this time did not share a common prayer by retired to private rooms to pray, reflect, or meditate. This also reminds me of a section of the news the other night about a Methodist seminary that has begun accepting students from other faiths, and teaching those other faiths such as Islam and Judaism.
I have often written that we as Christians can learn from the perspective of other faith traditions, and use these to understand our own faith better. I have used examples from Buddhism, and have quoted Lao Tzu.
But there is a line which needs to be drawn somewhere. St. Paul told the Athenians that God put up with people's ignorance in times past, but that He now commands everyone everywhere to repent. The line to be drawn is Jesus Christ and whether or not that person believes that He is the Son of God, that He is the Christ, and that He died for our sins according to the Scriptures, was buried, rose from the dead, and ascended.
It is wrong for we who have the Truth of Jesus Christ to then pretend like it's just as valid or invalid as the next person's in any way. He is either Truth, or He is not, and there's really no middle ground. This knife cuts two ways though. We must not only profess this Truth with our mouths, we must also profess it in our actions by doing what He taught and remaining in Him. This is a far more powerful witness to Him than anything we could say. If we preach this Truth to those who don't believe, then we must act like it is the Truth with our lives, or else it will be no different than any other "truth" the hearer might encounter.
There is a difference between the disparate members of the Church coming together to work out their differences, and the Church coming together with different religions to affirm their mutual validity. There is only One Truth, One Way, and One Life. All those baptized into Christ Jesus are a part of Him, whether they like it or not, and as a result we are all a part of each other whether we like it or not. We have to come to terms with that, and we don't always like that fact. But, those who are outside of the Church are a different matter altogether. They are something different. They are not a part of us, nor will they until they choose to become a part of the Church. They are to be cared for, loved, and had compassion on just as Christ has loved us and had compassion on us even while we were yet enemies. But they are not a part of us. We have this fundamental difference and it won't change.
It seems that these days this line is being crossed more and more. From my understanding of Scripture, nothing angers God more than intercourse with foreign gods.
I have often written that we as Christians can learn from the perspective of other faith traditions, and use these to understand our own faith better. I have used examples from Buddhism, and have quoted Lao Tzu.
But there is a line which needs to be drawn somewhere. St. Paul told the Athenians that God put up with people's ignorance in times past, but that He now commands everyone everywhere to repent. The line to be drawn is Jesus Christ and whether or not that person believes that He is the Son of God, that He is the Christ, and that He died for our sins according to the Scriptures, was buried, rose from the dead, and ascended.
It is wrong for we who have the Truth of Jesus Christ to then pretend like it's just as valid or invalid as the next person's in any way. He is either Truth, or He is not, and there's really no middle ground. This knife cuts two ways though. We must not only profess this Truth with our mouths, we must also profess it in our actions by doing what He taught and remaining in Him. This is a far more powerful witness to Him than anything we could say. If we preach this Truth to those who don't believe, then we must act like it is the Truth with our lives, or else it will be no different than any other "truth" the hearer might encounter.
There is a difference between the disparate members of the Church coming together to work out their differences, and the Church coming together with different religions to affirm their mutual validity. There is only One Truth, One Way, and One Life. All those baptized into Christ Jesus are a part of Him, whether they like it or not, and as a result we are all a part of each other whether we like it or not. We have to come to terms with that, and we don't always like that fact. But, those who are outside of the Church are a different matter altogether. They are something different. They are not a part of us, nor will they until they choose to become a part of the Church. They are to be cared for, loved, and had compassion on just as Christ has loved us and had compassion on us even while we were yet enemies. But they are not a part of us. We have this fundamental difference and it won't change.
It seems that these days this line is being crossed more and more. From my understanding of Scripture, nothing angers God more than intercourse with foreign gods.
Sunday, October 23, 2011
A Ramble about a Whoring Wife
I've been reading through Jeremiah lately. I started reading it for a couple of reasons. The first is that a lot of the readings in the lectionary for the last few weeks have been from Jeremiah, and the second is that the version of Jeremiah that's in my Bible is from the Septuagint, and is a little different from the ones I've read before. There's nothing new in it, it's just arranged differently in the Septuagint than it is in the Hebrew.
There's something that's really been sticking out to me this time around through Jeremiah. God is angry with Judah. I know this should be a "duh," but it really stuck out to me how angry He was. He was flat out pissed off (forgive my crudeness but there really are few good terms in English that express how angry He was). He was so pissed off that He told Jeremiah several times, "don't bother praying for these people. I won't hear any prayers to deliver them." He reinforced it by saying something to the effect of "It wouldn't matter if Moses or Samuel pleaded for them."
What made Him so angry? They kept worshiping idols and then they would turn around and say "what? We didn't do anything wrong. Why are You mad at us?" The illustration He uses is that of a wife who blatantly prostitutes herself with every man who comes her way, and then wonders why her husband is upset. In God's eyes, they broke their marriage contract with Him not just once or even twice, but brazenly like a whore who can't get enough. It was because of this that God "divorced" Israel and Judah and used Assyria and Babylon to cart them off of His land. He still loved them. He had plans to restore them once they had learned their lesson. But for the moment, He was pissed off by them.
The thing which keeps going through my mind is that the New Covenant is also like a marriage contract between God and the Church. It seems like most people believe that there are no terms to this contract. But Jesus actually did give terms to it. He said "remain in Me, and I in you." And He said, "If anyone doesn't remain in Me, he is cast out, withers, and is thrown into a fire." He also said, "A New commandment I give to you, that you love one another as I have loved you." And also, "remain in My love." The terms of the New Covenant, the new marriage contract between God and His Church can be summed up in these few statements which He said at the Last Supper.
God doesn't change. This is a fundamental fact of His Existence. He is love, but He is also a jealous husband. He is patient and forgiving. He also doesn't put up with His bride disrespecting and defiling the marriage bed. St. Paul warned about provoking God by drinking the cup of idols as well as drinking the cup of Christ.
The commands to love are all too often ignored in practice by Christians today. All too often we are told that the command to remain in Him is something deep that most Christians won't understand. All too often, the terms of the marriage contract which we made with our Lord are violated with impunity, and like the whoring wife we come home to Him expecting Him to overlook our infidelity and pretend nothing's wrong. We look Him in the eye with a straight face and say "but you still love and forgive me, right?" And then the next day we go out and do it again.
God does love us, passionately. It kills Him every time we go out and it drives a wedge into our marriage between us and Him. Struggling with something He understands and is willing to help us through it. Flaunting our enjoyment of it in front of Him is another matter altogether. It hurts our relationship with Him. It hurts Him. And because of this, it hurts us whether we know it or not.
Knowing that it causes all this damage, do we really expect Him to stand by and do nothing about it? This is the same God that brought the superpowers of the world to nuke (metaphorically speaking) Israel and Judah for their infidelity. Do we really think He'll stand by forever with us?
Another troubling correlation between us and the events in Jeremiah is that there are so-called "prophets" today who have risen up and told us that everything's cool. God wants to make us rich and make us be happy! He wants to give us a whole bunch of "stuff!" Even when Jesus said very clearly that you can't serve both God and wealth (mammon).
God is love. God gets angry because He loves, not because He doesn't. The person who can hurt you the most is the one who is closest to your heart, and we are closest to His. He gets angry to cause positive change, not because He wants to cause harm.
As I've been reading Jeremiah, I often get the sense these days that God is angry with His bride once again. I get the sense too, like in Jeremiah's day, that we may be past the point of no return on this. "Don't even bother praying about it." Truth is, it makes me sick to think about what that means.
There's something that's really been sticking out to me this time around through Jeremiah. God is angry with Judah. I know this should be a "duh," but it really stuck out to me how angry He was. He was flat out pissed off (forgive my crudeness but there really are few good terms in English that express how angry He was). He was so pissed off that He told Jeremiah several times, "don't bother praying for these people. I won't hear any prayers to deliver them." He reinforced it by saying something to the effect of "It wouldn't matter if Moses or Samuel pleaded for them."
What made Him so angry? They kept worshiping idols and then they would turn around and say "what? We didn't do anything wrong. Why are You mad at us?" The illustration He uses is that of a wife who blatantly prostitutes herself with every man who comes her way, and then wonders why her husband is upset. In God's eyes, they broke their marriage contract with Him not just once or even twice, but brazenly like a whore who can't get enough. It was because of this that God "divorced" Israel and Judah and used Assyria and Babylon to cart them off of His land. He still loved them. He had plans to restore them once they had learned their lesson. But for the moment, He was pissed off by them.
The thing which keeps going through my mind is that the New Covenant is also like a marriage contract between God and the Church. It seems like most people believe that there are no terms to this contract. But Jesus actually did give terms to it. He said "remain in Me, and I in you." And He said, "If anyone doesn't remain in Me, he is cast out, withers, and is thrown into a fire." He also said, "A New commandment I give to you, that you love one another as I have loved you." And also, "remain in My love." The terms of the New Covenant, the new marriage contract between God and His Church can be summed up in these few statements which He said at the Last Supper.
God doesn't change. This is a fundamental fact of His Existence. He is love, but He is also a jealous husband. He is patient and forgiving. He also doesn't put up with His bride disrespecting and defiling the marriage bed. St. Paul warned about provoking God by drinking the cup of idols as well as drinking the cup of Christ.
The commands to love are all too often ignored in practice by Christians today. All too often we are told that the command to remain in Him is something deep that most Christians won't understand. All too often, the terms of the marriage contract which we made with our Lord are violated with impunity, and like the whoring wife we come home to Him expecting Him to overlook our infidelity and pretend nothing's wrong. We look Him in the eye with a straight face and say "but you still love and forgive me, right?" And then the next day we go out and do it again.
God does love us, passionately. It kills Him every time we go out and it drives a wedge into our marriage between us and Him. Struggling with something He understands and is willing to help us through it. Flaunting our enjoyment of it in front of Him is another matter altogether. It hurts our relationship with Him. It hurts Him. And because of this, it hurts us whether we know it or not.
Knowing that it causes all this damage, do we really expect Him to stand by and do nothing about it? This is the same God that brought the superpowers of the world to nuke (metaphorically speaking) Israel and Judah for their infidelity. Do we really think He'll stand by forever with us?
Another troubling correlation between us and the events in Jeremiah is that there are so-called "prophets" today who have risen up and told us that everything's cool. God wants to make us rich and make us be happy! He wants to give us a whole bunch of "stuff!" Even when Jesus said very clearly that you can't serve both God and wealth (mammon).
God is love. God gets angry because He loves, not because He doesn't. The person who can hurt you the most is the one who is closest to your heart, and we are closest to His. He gets angry to cause positive change, not because He wants to cause harm.
As I've been reading Jeremiah, I often get the sense these days that God is angry with His bride once again. I get the sense too, like in Jeremiah's day, that we may be past the point of no return on this. "Don't even bother praying about it." Truth is, it makes me sick to think about what that means.
Saturday, October 22, 2011
A Ramble about the Rapture
Several decades ago, an Evangelical Protestant author by the name of Hal Lindsey wrote several books on the subject of eschatology, or “end times theology”. In these books, he popularized a particular paradigm of the End Times from certain interpretations of Daniel, Ezekiel, and the Revelation of John. Some thirty or more years later, this paradigm tends to be the only accepted paradigm within the Evangelical Protestant churches, and all others are condemned as heresy. This paradigm has been popularized even more by the relatively recent publication of the “Left Behind” series of books by Tim LaHaye and Jerry B. Jenkins, and the subsequent movies which were based on that series.
This paradigm, as simply put as possible goes something like: Rapture of Christians, a seven year Great Tribulation, return of Jesus Christ, a 1,000 year rule of Jesus Christ on Earth, New Heavens and New Earth into Eternity. This is the interpretation of the Scriptures and eschatological paradigm I was taught in Bible School by very sincere and godly professors.
Recently, a pastor from an Evangelical church declared that the Rapture was going to occur on May 21, 2011. When that didn't occur, he revised his estimate for it to have occurred yesterday as of this writing, October 21, 2011. It has been the obsession of many within the Church for a very long time to attempt to decode secret number systems and dates within the Scriptures to give an exact date for the end of this world. It doesn't seem to matter that Jesus Himself said that He didn't know either, only God the Father knew for certain. I think that it should go without saying that if God the Son didn't know after His incarnation, then the odds are beyond astronomical that anyone else outside of God the Father will be clued in.
The biggest problem with all of this is that it's not what the ancient Church taught. In fact, this kind of paradigm was explicitly anathematized by the Ecumenical Church Council which finalized the Nicene Creed. Specifically, the separate 1,000 year reign of Christ on Earth (also known as “Chiliasm”) was anathematized because it was being taught by a heretical group, the Montanists (whose founder, Montanus, believed he was the “paraclete”, the Comforter spoken of by Jesus at the Last Supper). It was also taught by the Ebionites, who saw Jesus, not as God, but only a prophet like Moses and demanded strict adherence to the Mosaic Law. It was condemned outright at the Second Ecumenical Council, and the words “and His kingdom shall have no end” were included in the Nicene Creed to reflect this. The thousand year reign talked about in the Revelation of John has generally been interpreted by the Church metaphorically because of this.
That there will be a “Great Tribulation” has never been in dispute, although the ancient Church never really attempted to assign a time frame as to how long it would take (if you can correct me with a reference from the Fathers I would appreciate it). There were several times in the centuries following the Apostles when many believed they were in the middle of it during the persecutions, and the Bishops and priests of the Church had to calm them down and direct them otherwise. St. Paul had to even reassure those churches which he founded regarding this in the 1st letter to the Corinthians, and the 1st letter to the Thessalonians.
That Jesus Christ will return bodily has always been believed and professed by the Church in the same way as His Resurrection. This was professed all the way up to the Councils, who then made sure to state it directly in the common profession of faith, the Nicene Creed, so that there would be no misunderstandings, “He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and His kingdom will have no end.”
So then, for the purposes of this Ramble, this leaves the Rapture with which to contend. What did the ancient Church teach about this?
The first reference to it in Scripture is in 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 (ESV):
"But we do not want you to be uninformed, brothers, about those who are asleep, that you may not grieve as others do who have no hope. For since we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so, through Jesus, God will bring with him those who have fallen asleep. For this we declare to you by a word from the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will not precede those who have fallen asleep. For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord. Therefore encourage one another with these words.”
In the primary passage of the New Testament dealing with this, St. Paul explicitly links the transformation of the living Christians with the Resurrection and transformation of those who have died in Christ. The primary passage dealing with the Resurrection in the New Testament, also written by St. Paul, is in 1 Corinthians 15. Verses 35-55 (WEB) say this:
"But someone will say, 'How are the dead raised?' and, 'With what kind of body do they come?' You foolish one, that which you yourself sow is not made alive unless it dies. That which you sow, you don’t sow the body that will be, but a bare grain, maybe of wheat, or of some other kind. But God gives it a body even as it pleased him, and to each seed a body of its own. All flesh is not the same flesh, but there is one flesh of men, another flesh of animals, another of fish, and another of birds. There are also celestial bodies, and terrestrial bodies; but the glory of the celestial differs from that of the terrestrial. There is one glory of the sun, another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for one star differs from another star in glory. So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption. It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness; it is raised in power. It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body and there is also a spiritual body.
“So also it is written, 'The first man, Adam, became a living soul.' The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. However that which is spiritual isn’t first, but that which is natural, then that which is spiritual. The first man is of the earth, made of dust. The second man is the Lord from heaven. As is the one made of dust, such are those who are also made of dust; and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. As we have borne the image of those made of dust, let’s also bear the image of the heavenly. Now I say this, brothers, that flesh and blood can’t inherit the Kingdom of God; neither does corruption inherit incorruption.
“Behold, I tell you a mystery. We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we will be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. But when this corruptible will have put on incorruption, and this mortal will have put on immortality, then what is written will happen: 'Death is swallowed up in victory.'
'Death, where is your sting? Hades, where is your victory?'”
So then, in St. Paul's mind, and his writings are the primary source material for this subject, the Rapture, the transformation of living Christians, would occur after the Resurrection of those who had died in Christ as a part of the same process of the bodily transformation of all Christians into the same kind of Resurrected and ascended body as our Lord. And he states very clearly that it would happen when Jesus Christ returned.
So, when does Jesus Christ return in relation to the Great Tribulation? All sources from Scripture, including Jesus Himself, and all sources from the Fathers profess that He would return after the Great Tribulation, or at it's apex depending on how you look at it. Thus, the transformation of the bodies of all Christians, either in the body or with the Lord, will occur after the Great Tribulation.
And this is what we find that the ancient Church taught regarding it as St. Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons in the second century, writes: “'There will be tribulation such as has not been since the beginning, neither will be.' For this is the last contest of the righteous, in which they are crowned with incorruption—when they overcome.”
So then, if this is the clear teaching of the Church, and always has been, why did this kind of a pre-Tribulation Rapture teaching come about?
The first real mention and teaching of this kind occurred in 1830 with the birth of modern Pentecostalism and the followers of a minister who was dismissed from the Presbyterian Church in Scotland named Edward Irving. One of his followers, Margaret MacDonald, was very ill and apparently receiving “visions” during her illness. During these visions, she believed that she had received a prophecy of a two stage second coming of Christ, with a pre-Tribulation Rapture. Fairly soon after this, the entire group was professing and singing about a deliverance from the coming Great Tribulation through the Rapture. The teaching became more widespread after John Darby visited this group in Scotland, and even Miss MacDonald in her home. Contemporary Bible scholars and teachers took it from there, and soon it spread to nearly every Evangelical Protestant Bible School in the English speaking world.
So, where do we go from here? We need to be careful of any teaching that promises an “easy out” for Christians. Jesus never promised an easy out. All of His Apostles were tortured, and nearly all of them died in horrible ways. The first three hundred years of the Church were written in the blood of those who refused to deny Him. Our faith in Him should not be based on an expectation that we will be spared any suffering. That's not what He taught. To be a follower of Jesus Christ is to suffer with Him, and if you aren't experiencing this then maybe it's time to re-evaluate your personal discipleship. Are you actually doing what He taught.
The Christian path is the hard path. There are no easy outs except for death, and only when He chooses. And when it does come it is not something to be feared, but is our release and rest until that final transformation. It is this transformation which is our hope in Him.
This paradigm, as simply put as possible goes something like: Rapture of Christians, a seven year Great Tribulation, return of Jesus Christ, a 1,000 year rule of Jesus Christ on Earth, New Heavens and New Earth into Eternity. This is the interpretation of the Scriptures and eschatological paradigm I was taught in Bible School by very sincere and godly professors.
Recently, a pastor from an Evangelical church declared that the Rapture was going to occur on May 21, 2011. When that didn't occur, he revised his estimate for it to have occurred yesterday as of this writing, October 21, 2011. It has been the obsession of many within the Church for a very long time to attempt to decode secret number systems and dates within the Scriptures to give an exact date for the end of this world. It doesn't seem to matter that Jesus Himself said that He didn't know either, only God the Father knew for certain. I think that it should go without saying that if God the Son didn't know after His incarnation, then the odds are beyond astronomical that anyone else outside of God the Father will be clued in.
The biggest problem with all of this is that it's not what the ancient Church taught. In fact, this kind of paradigm was explicitly anathematized by the Ecumenical Church Council which finalized the Nicene Creed. Specifically, the separate 1,000 year reign of Christ on Earth (also known as “Chiliasm”) was anathematized because it was being taught by a heretical group, the Montanists (whose founder, Montanus, believed he was the “paraclete”, the Comforter spoken of by Jesus at the Last Supper). It was also taught by the Ebionites, who saw Jesus, not as God, but only a prophet like Moses and demanded strict adherence to the Mosaic Law. It was condemned outright at the Second Ecumenical Council, and the words “and His kingdom shall have no end” were included in the Nicene Creed to reflect this. The thousand year reign talked about in the Revelation of John has generally been interpreted by the Church metaphorically because of this.
That there will be a “Great Tribulation” has never been in dispute, although the ancient Church never really attempted to assign a time frame as to how long it would take (if you can correct me with a reference from the Fathers I would appreciate it). There were several times in the centuries following the Apostles when many believed they were in the middle of it during the persecutions, and the Bishops and priests of the Church had to calm them down and direct them otherwise. St. Paul had to even reassure those churches which he founded regarding this in the 1st letter to the Corinthians, and the 1st letter to the Thessalonians.
That Jesus Christ will return bodily has always been believed and professed by the Church in the same way as His Resurrection. This was professed all the way up to the Councils, who then made sure to state it directly in the common profession of faith, the Nicene Creed, so that there would be no misunderstandings, “He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and His kingdom will have no end.”
So then, for the purposes of this Ramble, this leaves the Rapture with which to contend. What did the ancient Church teach about this?
The first reference to it in Scripture is in 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 (ESV):
"But we do not want you to be uninformed, brothers, about those who are asleep, that you may not grieve as others do who have no hope. For since we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so, through Jesus, God will bring with him those who have fallen asleep. For this we declare to you by a word from the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will not precede those who have fallen asleep. For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord. Therefore encourage one another with these words.”
In the primary passage of the New Testament dealing with this, St. Paul explicitly links the transformation of the living Christians with the Resurrection and transformation of those who have died in Christ. The primary passage dealing with the Resurrection in the New Testament, also written by St. Paul, is in 1 Corinthians 15. Verses 35-55 (WEB) say this:
"But someone will say, 'How are the dead raised?' and, 'With what kind of body do they come?' You foolish one, that which you yourself sow is not made alive unless it dies. That which you sow, you don’t sow the body that will be, but a bare grain, maybe of wheat, or of some other kind. But God gives it a body even as it pleased him, and to each seed a body of its own. All flesh is not the same flesh, but there is one flesh of men, another flesh of animals, another of fish, and another of birds. There are also celestial bodies, and terrestrial bodies; but the glory of the celestial differs from that of the terrestrial. There is one glory of the sun, another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for one star differs from another star in glory. So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption. It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness; it is raised in power. It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body and there is also a spiritual body.
“So also it is written, 'The first man, Adam, became a living soul.' The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. However that which is spiritual isn’t first, but that which is natural, then that which is spiritual. The first man is of the earth, made of dust. The second man is the Lord from heaven. As is the one made of dust, such are those who are also made of dust; and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. As we have borne the image of those made of dust, let’s also bear the image of the heavenly. Now I say this, brothers, that flesh and blood can’t inherit the Kingdom of God; neither does corruption inherit incorruption.
“Behold, I tell you a mystery. We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we will be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. But when this corruptible will have put on incorruption, and this mortal will have put on immortality, then what is written will happen: 'Death is swallowed up in victory.'
'Death, where is your sting? Hades, where is your victory?'”
So then, in St. Paul's mind, and his writings are the primary source material for this subject, the Rapture, the transformation of living Christians, would occur after the Resurrection of those who had died in Christ as a part of the same process of the bodily transformation of all Christians into the same kind of Resurrected and ascended body as our Lord. And he states very clearly that it would happen when Jesus Christ returned.
So, when does Jesus Christ return in relation to the Great Tribulation? All sources from Scripture, including Jesus Himself, and all sources from the Fathers profess that He would return after the Great Tribulation, or at it's apex depending on how you look at it. Thus, the transformation of the bodies of all Christians, either in the body or with the Lord, will occur after the Great Tribulation.
And this is what we find that the ancient Church taught regarding it as St. Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons in the second century, writes: “'There will be tribulation such as has not been since the beginning, neither will be.' For this is the last contest of the righteous, in which they are crowned with incorruption—when they overcome.”
So then, if this is the clear teaching of the Church, and always has been, why did this kind of a pre-Tribulation Rapture teaching come about?
The first real mention and teaching of this kind occurred in 1830 with the birth of modern Pentecostalism and the followers of a minister who was dismissed from the Presbyterian Church in Scotland named Edward Irving. One of his followers, Margaret MacDonald, was very ill and apparently receiving “visions” during her illness. During these visions, she believed that she had received a prophecy of a two stage second coming of Christ, with a pre-Tribulation Rapture. Fairly soon after this, the entire group was professing and singing about a deliverance from the coming Great Tribulation through the Rapture. The teaching became more widespread after John Darby visited this group in Scotland, and even Miss MacDonald in her home. Contemporary Bible scholars and teachers took it from there, and soon it spread to nearly every Evangelical Protestant Bible School in the English speaking world.
So, where do we go from here? We need to be careful of any teaching that promises an “easy out” for Christians. Jesus never promised an easy out. All of His Apostles were tortured, and nearly all of them died in horrible ways. The first three hundred years of the Church were written in the blood of those who refused to deny Him. Our faith in Him should not be based on an expectation that we will be spared any suffering. That's not what He taught. To be a follower of Jesus Christ is to suffer with Him, and if you aren't experiencing this then maybe it's time to re-evaluate your personal discipleship. Are you actually doing what He taught.
The Christian path is the hard path. There are no easy outs except for death, and only when He chooses. And when it does come it is not something to be feared, but is our release and rest until that final transformation. It is this transformation which is our hope in Him.
Saturday, October 1, 2011
A Ramble About the Death Penalty
After the execution of a certain prisoner back east, and the comments made by Republican presidential candidates, the death penalty has been on my mind. This isn't the easiest subject to write about, especially since so many people have such strong opinions. I suppose that hasn't stopped me before, and it obviously isn't going to stop me now as I sit here with my laptop pounding away at the keyboard. But, the truth is, I'm not entirely sure where I come down on this one.
To say that the death penalty is unbiblical is to betray a total ignorance of Holy Scripture, especially of the Pentateuch. To say that it is entirely consistent with Christian teaching and Sacred Tradition is to betray a total ignorance of the historical teaching of the Church and Sacred Tradition. Like many, many subjects the death penalty is complex, and to be quite honest I don't even know where this Ramble is going to end up.
The Holy Scripture is pretty clear in the Old Testament as far back as God talking to Noah:
“And for your lifeblood I will require a reckoning: from every beast I will require it and from man. From his fellow man I will require a reckoning for the life of man. Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image.” (Genesis 9:5-6, ESV)
And I would be writing a book on just this subject if I were to repeat every time the death penalty is proscribed for not just murder, but every other horrendous or damaging crime in the Mosaic Law, even for crimes regarding certain forms of idolatry and adultery. It is safe to say that the death penalty is entirely biblical, and even encouraged, where the Old Testament and the Mosaic Covenant are concerned.
The ancient Church however did not see things the same way. For them, the words of Jesus took precedence over the Mosaic Law:
“You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.” (Matthew 5:38-39, ESV)
St. Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage in North Africa around 250 AD, writes this:
“Christians do not attack their assailants in return, for it is not lawful for the innocent to kill even the guilty.”
Athenagorus, a Christian apologist around 175 AD, writes this:
“When they know that we cannot endure even to see a man put to death, though justly, who of them can accuse us of murder? … We consider that to see a man put to death is much the same as killing him. Therefore, we have sworn away from such [gladiatorial] spectacles. We do not even look on, lest we might contract guilt and pollution. So how can we put people to death?”
The prohibition against killing anyone, whether they deserved it or not, was so strong that for the first three hundred years of the Church, holding public office (and thus being in the position to have to order an execution or torture) or serving in the military was a serious moral question and was largely discouraged among the members of the Church. Clergy in particular were forbidden from serving in the military for this very reason.
There was a severe disconnect with the commands to execute in the Old Testament, and the practice of the Early Church which they based on the words of Jesus Himself. They chose to take what Jesus taught over and above the Law, and apply it across the board to every area of their lives. They made the distinction between the Old and New Covenants, and recognized that the Old Covenant held no authority over them because of the New Covenant (which, by the way, is the fundamental argument of the letter to the Hebrews).
For them, it seems like the fundamental issue is that the death penalty implies a desire for vengeance. It's the desire to take a life for a life, in contravention to what Jesus taught. Because it was such a temptation for this kind of sentiment,vengeance, and because it could open the door to something even more sinister, bloodthirst, the early Church renounced it altogether. They did not try to prevent the public officials and courts from doing their appointed duties, and neither did they pass judgment on them for doing so. But they refused to be a party to taking a human life, regardless of the circumstances.
So, where does that leave us today, in the modern Church, who profess Jesus Christ and His Covenant by Grace? Should we protest the government when they choose to exercise the death penalty for someone who has been convicted of the crime of murder under the law? No, I don't think so. Do we cheer the execution of said convicted murder? No, absolutely not. Do we support the death penalty? My question in response would be, why would we? What would be our motive in doing so? If our motive would be to see that the duly convicted gets what he deserves, perhaps we should rethink our motive. Consider that if God took that attitude, then He never would have sent His Son to die for us. Instead, we would all be consigned to die in our sin and remain separated from Him forever.
What about the motive of simply removing a threat from the general populace? Well, there is life imprisonment. There is also simply deporting the person to a place on earth which is remote enough from the general population that they couldn't harm anyone. But both of these options have their own sets of problems from a variety of perspectives.
One thing is clear, the desire for vengeance (whether you euphemize it as “justice” or not) is contrary to the teachings of Jesus Christ. Jesus taught to turn the other cheek. Jesus taught to forgive every time someone comes asking for forgiveness. Jesus taught not to judge so that we wouldn't be judged. If we make the judgment that someone deserves to die for what he has done, what then is the judgment that should be leveled against us? If we refuse to forgive those convicted of the most heinous crimes, then why should we be forgiven of our own?
It is also far too easy to make the jump from taking satisfaction in the execution of a murderer, to taking satisfaction in the deaths of others you feel who “deserve it”. And once this jump is made, the list of those who “deserve it” can get very long very quickly. This is the beginning of bloodthirst. And then where does it end?
If we profess to follow Jesus Christ, we must in fact follow what He taught, and not what feels good, or what satisfies our own ideas of right and wrong.
To say that the death penalty is unbiblical is to betray a total ignorance of Holy Scripture, especially of the Pentateuch. To say that it is entirely consistent with Christian teaching and Sacred Tradition is to betray a total ignorance of the historical teaching of the Church and Sacred Tradition. Like many, many subjects the death penalty is complex, and to be quite honest I don't even know where this Ramble is going to end up.
The Holy Scripture is pretty clear in the Old Testament as far back as God talking to Noah:
“And for your lifeblood I will require a reckoning: from every beast I will require it and from man. From his fellow man I will require a reckoning for the life of man. Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image.” (Genesis 9:5-6, ESV)
And I would be writing a book on just this subject if I were to repeat every time the death penalty is proscribed for not just murder, but every other horrendous or damaging crime in the Mosaic Law, even for crimes regarding certain forms of idolatry and adultery. It is safe to say that the death penalty is entirely biblical, and even encouraged, where the Old Testament and the Mosaic Covenant are concerned.
The ancient Church however did not see things the same way. For them, the words of Jesus took precedence over the Mosaic Law:
“You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.” (Matthew 5:38-39, ESV)
St. Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage in North Africa around 250 AD, writes this:
“Christians do not attack their assailants in return, for it is not lawful for the innocent to kill even the guilty.”
Athenagorus, a Christian apologist around 175 AD, writes this:
“When they know that we cannot endure even to see a man put to death, though justly, who of them can accuse us of murder? … We consider that to see a man put to death is much the same as killing him. Therefore, we have sworn away from such [gladiatorial] spectacles. We do not even look on, lest we might contract guilt and pollution. So how can we put people to death?”
The prohibition against killing anyone, whether they deserved it or not, was so strong that for the first three hundred years of the Church, holding public office (and thus being in the position to have to order an execution or torture) or serving in the military was a serious moral question and was largely discouraged among the members of the Church. Clergy in particular were forbidden from serving in the military for this very reason.
There was a severe disconnect with the commands to execute in the Old Testament, and the practice of the Early Church which they based on the words of Jesus Himself. They chose to take what Jesus taught over and above the Law, and apply it across the board to every area of their lives. They made the distinction between the Old and New Covenants, and recognized that the Old Covenant held no authority over them because of the New Covenant (which, by the way, is the fundamental argument of the letter to the Hebrews).
For them, it seems like the fundamental issue is that the death penalty implies a desire for vengeance. It's the desire to take a life for a life, in contravention to what Jesus taught. Because it was such a temptation for this kind of sentiment,vengeance, and because it could open the door to something even more sinister, bloodthirst, the early Church renounced it altogether. They did not try to prevent the public officials and courts from doing their appointed duties, and neither did they pass judgment on them for doing so. But they refused to be a party to taking a human life, regardless of the circumstances.
So, where does that leave us today, in the modern Church, who profess Jesus Christ and His Covenant by Grace? Should we protest the government when they choose to exercise the death penalty for someone who has been convicted of the crime of murder under the law? No, I don't think so. Do we cheer the execution of said convicted murder? No, absolutely not. Do we support the death penalty? My question in response would be, why would we? What would be our motive in doing so? If our motive would be to see that the duly convicted gets what he deserves, perhaps we should rethink our motive. Consider that if God took that attitude, then He never would have sent His Son to die for us. Instead, we would all be consigned to die in our sin and remain separated from Him forever.
What about the motive of simply removing a threat from the general populace? Well, there is life imprisonment. There is also simply deporting the person to a place on earth which is remote enough from the general population that they couldn't harm anyone. But both of these options have their own sets of problems from a variety of perspectives.
One thing is clear, the desire for vengeance (whether you euphemize it as “justice” or not) is contrary to the teachings of Jesus Christ. Jesus taught to turn the other cheek. Jesus taught to forgive every time someone comes asking for forgiveness. Jesus taught not to judge so that we wouldn't be judged. If we make the judgment that someone deserves to die for what he has done, what then is the judgment that should be leveled against us? If we refuse to forgive those convicted of the most heinous crimes, then why should we be forgiven of our own?
It is also far too easy to make the jump from taking satisfaction in the execution of a murderer, to taking satisfaction in the deaths of others you feel who “deserve it”. And once this jump is made, the list of those who “deserve it” can get very long very quickly. This is the beginning of bloodthirst. And then where does it end?
If we profess to follow Jesus Christ, we must in fact follow what He taught, and not what feels good, or what satisfies our own ideas of right and wrong.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)