Revelation I - Literalistic or Symbolic

I vividly recall my first encounter with the book of Revelation.  I was in eighth grade.  I had just begun to develop a taste for science fiction and fantasy and Revelation contained everything that I had loved about them.  There were dragons and monsters, meteors falling from the sky, rivers turning to blood, and armies in vibrantly colored armor clashing for control of earth.  I loved it.  I read it through twice.  But I did not understand it.

Three years later I chose the book of Revelation as the topic for my final paper in my Junior year composition class.  There was a wealth of information suddenly showing up on bookstore shelves at the time.  The OPEC oil crisis had recently ended, inflation had recently been in the double digits and pollution, the cold war and the ever present possibility of nuclear annihilation were favorite topics of debate and speculation in classes.  Using books like “The Late Great Planet Earth,” I wrote my paper pointing out how the present world situation had clearly been predicted in the Bible and confidently demonstrating that the Middle East would shortly explode in all-out war, inflation would rise to famine levels, the alignment of the planets in 1984 would cause massive earthquakes that would herald the end and that the sores and massive deaths mentioned in Revelation could only be caused by a nuclear incident such as the one that had just happened at Three Mile Island that March.  Thirty years have gone by since then and none of it has come to pass.

I remember my mother’s response as I excitedly predicted the amazing disasters the near future surely held.  “Many people missed Christ’s arrival the first time,” she said, “because He did not come the way they expected Him to.  What if these books are making the same mistake about His second coming?

With my mother’s words in mind, I left for college where I found the opportunity to research and see if there was a way to read Revelation other than the literalistic manner of the popular books I had been familiar with.  On the library shelves I found dozens of books that never made it into the local Christian bookstores because they were not “popular” enough.  They were far more scholarly and far less exciting than the predictions of a sudden snatching away of all believers and subsequent all out war made by the popular Christian authors.  These books saw the visions in Revelation as symbolic, a depiction of the struggles, challenges and joys each and every believer would face as we live our lives between Christ’s Ascension and His return. While not as exciting as the predictions of future disaster the literalistic view gave, I found that this interpretation made Revelation much more meaningful.  Instead of being located sometime in the future, the heart of Revelation was active in my life, today, here and now. I began to realize why it had caught the imagination of so many Christians over the years and I began to see why so many hymns had been written based on it’s words.

There are those like Tim LaHaye, co-author of the popular “Left Behind” series, who would say that the only way to look at revelation is as a literal chronology of specific events that will happen just before the end of the world.  Some of these writers even go so far as to hint that anyone who would take Revelation symbolically are violating Scripture.

These writers would be correct if, in fact, we tried to claim that Revelation was a work of fiction, if we tried to say that John was not on the Island of Patmos, that he did not see Jesus or that he did not see the visions he records. But we believe that he was indeed where he said he was, that Jesus spoke to him, and that he really did see visions of angels and trumpets and armies and a great red dragon.  We believe that Revelation is, in fact, an accurate and truthful account of what John experienced on Patmos, just as he said.  The question is not whether John saw these visions but strictly what do the visions mean.

And, in fact, there are many strong reason to accept a spiritual meaning for these visions rather than force them to be literal descriptions of events just prior to the return of Christ.

1. 1: It is actually impossible to take all the visions literalistcally.  Men like LaHaye are being dishonest (unintentionally, I believe) when they say they do not take Revelation symbolically.  They take nearly every word symbolically.  The difference is the “literalists” believe these visions symbolize single events at the end of the world while we believe the visions symbolize the state of the Church on earth from the time of Christ’s ascension to His return.  BOTH sides of the debate use a symbolic interpretation. 
2. 2: The “symbolic” interpretation makes Revelation practical for today.  Christ said we were to live as if He would return at any moment.  If the visions of Revelation symbolize events that are always being fulfilled in the Christian life then it forces us to live as if the end could come at any moment.  
3. 3: The “symbolic” interpretation makes Revelation agree with the rest of Scripture without having to twist verses and meanings beyond recognition.  Much of the imagery of Revelation flows from the rest of the Bible.  If Revelation is meant to be read according to the literalistic method, many verses in the Bible have to be interpreted in different and artificial ways to make them fit this book.  The symbolic method allows Revelation to fit well with the rest of Scripture without altering anything to fit them together. We'll take a look at this in future posts
   
4. 4: The symbolic method fits the structure of the book. As we will see in the next blog, the structure of Revelation follows the structure of Hebrew poetry, rather like an extended Psalm, except much more complex and intricate than any of the Psalms.
5. 5: Most importantly, the symbolic interpretation, while not sugar coating sin and evil, turns the book into one of the most hopeful, encouraging and uplifting books in the Bible.

I hope you will enjoy our study of this incredible and beautiful book of the Bible.  Next up: The Poetic Structure of Revelation.

Leviticus I - The Laws of the Old Testament Still Apply

One of the most challenging and interesting subjects to study in the Bible concerns the laws of the Old Testament.   Firstly, they give us an insight into the culture of the people to whom God spoke directly through His prophets.  Secondly, they give insight into God and our relationship to Him.  And thirdly, they shed light on the New Testament and the life of our Savior.

It is especially important for a Christian to be aware of these laws because many attacks on our faith come from those who do not understand us or the Bible.  It usually goes something like this, “You Christians are hypocrites.  You don’t really believe the Bible because if you did you would follow all the laws of the Old Testament.” 

Those who want to change morality in modern times will often argue that we do not keep many of the laws of the Old Testament.  We eat pork.  We wear clothes of mixed fibers.  We do not sacrifice.  We happily eat shellfish.  So why can’t homosexual action or abortion be treated in the same way, as a Law that was appropriate for the Old Testament but not today?  How do we decide which laws to obey and which to ignore?

Usually the answer is that the moral laws (all of which are repeated in the New Testament) apply at all times and in all places while the dietary/ceremonial and civil laws no longer apply.  That is true, as far as it goes.  But, what we often fail to point out is that even when the outward practice of a law no longer applies, the intent behind the law still does.  All of God’s laws are valid at all times though the way in which they are implemented may change.

As an example, we no longer practice circumcision or sacrifice as sacramental worship.  Both were confirmation of God’s promise of salvation pointing ahead to the coming Savior.  Once the Savior came, the outward practice of the law no longer made sense.  Circumcision, which pointed ahead to the fulfillment of the promise that one of Israel’s descendants would be the Savior, no longer made sense once the Savior had arrived.  However, the intent behind that Law, to give us confirmation of God’s promises and to strengthen our faith, remains and is proclaimed in the practices of baptism and communion.

Another example, each Israelite man was to wear tassels at the hem of his garment with at least one blue thread.  Tassels on clothes, because they were merely decorative, and blue, because of the expense of the dye, both represented nobility.  Each member of Israel, therefore, gave testimony that, no matter their earthly circumstances, they were members of the family of the King of the universe and, therefore, free and noble in His eyes.

We are no longer required to wear blue or tassels.  Paul, however, when speaking to the Greek believers of Corinth, told the men not to wear hats to worship and the women to cover their hair.  In 1st century Greek society male slaves wore hats while free men did not and vice versa for woman.  The outward practice changed but the intent behind the law did not.  Believers of all times come before God as His children, noble and free, no matter our earthly circumstances.

So, the argument that any Law of the Old Testament may be ignored because it no longer fits our society and times does not hold.  While the practical application may be fluid, the intent and moral foundation behind the laws of the Old Testament remains solid and immutable. 

In this study we will look at these laws and see what they have to say about us, the God Whom we serve, and how He relates to us.

Major Doctrines I - the Trinity

We are starting something new and exciting in our Bible Study on Sunday mornings.  We will be looking at each of the major doctrines (teachings) of the Church at a depth very seldom explored in a lay Bible study.

In this day and age it seems that the major teachings of the Church are pushed aside as "too divisive."  We are urged to ignore major differences between denominations for the sake of "unity" or "tolerance." As a result, we have, to be honest, become a society of shallow believers.  Though faith as small as a mustard seed may move mountains, shallow faith does little to change us and nothing to change the world.

Hold your breath, therefore, because we are jumping into the deep end.

We start at the center of faith.  Faith means trust.  For trust to exist there must be someone or something in which to trust.  Growing our faith, therefore, means getting to know better the God in whom we trust, even, perhaps especially, when we do not understand Him.

Perhaps the most controversial and most difficult facet of God to understand is the Trinity.  Trinity comes from the Latin word "tri" (three) and the latin word "unus" (one).  It expresses the doctrine that God is One God yet Three Persons (Father, Son and Holy Spirit)

This is NOT meant in the same way that we might say I am one person with three roles (father, pastor and friend, for instance).  In the Bible the oneness of God is always presented as absolute and complete.  But so are the three persons, as completely independent and unique individuals.

1. Deuteronomy 6:4 reads "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one"  
2. Yet in Matthew 28: 19, we read of three persons "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in£ the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."
3. Not only that but Jesus, called "the Word" in John 1:1 is explicitly said to be God "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." 
4. The Old Testament also shows God as One yet More Than One by using a plural word for God (Elohim - "im" is  the plural ending of a noun in Hebrew) but using singular verbs as in Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God (plural) created (singular) the heavens and the earth."

As we will see in future lessons, the three persons are each rightfully a person independent in themselves.  In other words, they are not merely roles that God plays.  Yet God is One, not many.

That is a brief overview of the Trinity.  Seem a little confusing and boring?  Just wait - it may get more confusing in future lessons but I think you will find it exciting.  In any case, it certainly is important for three reasons:

1. It points us to the real God Who invites us into a relationship with Him. Anyone who denies the Trinity is not worshiping the real God.  They are worshiping a figment of their imagination.  Contrary to modern opinion Judaism of today and Islam do not worship the God of the Old Testament.  The God of the Old Testament is Triune.  God as described by modern Judaism and Islam is not, and is, therefore, not real.  Faith is all about having a relationship with God and you can not have a relationship with a fake God anymore than you can find satisfaction by falling in love with a picture of woman instead of a real person.  We are invited to have a relationship with a real God.
   
2. It means that Jesus is true God.  Christianity only works if the One who died for us is God.  No created being could pay for sin because the life of no created being is worth the entire universe.  If God is not Triune then Jesus is not God and our faith is a lie.  but God is Triune, Jesus is God, and we are saved through His sacrifice on the cross.
3. It tells us that God is beyond our understanding.  For all our arrogance in believing we can solve all the problems of the universe, we humans are limited in our knowledge and power.  A God we could understand with our small minds would be a small God - useless and powerless.  But in revealing Himself as Three in One, God tells us He is beyond our understanding and power, a God big enough to be relied on.

For all these reasons the Church has vigorously defended the doctrine of the Trinity for 2000 years.  It was not "developed" "or invented"  It is a Biblical truth the Church has fought hard to hold on to.  It is just as important that we fight equally as hard for this truth in 2009.  For our whole faith in God depends on standing firm on the Word and holding on to God as He has shown Himself in it

So hold onto your seat - over the next few weeks you are in for a wild ride!

Issues I - How Should We Respond to the ELCA's Decisions Regarding Homosexuality?

On Friday, Aug. 21, the Churchwide Assembly of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America voted to open the ministry of the ELCA to gay and lesbian pastors and other professional workers living in "committed relationships."  In an earlier action, the assembly approved a resolution that commits the ELCA "to finding ways to allow congregations that choose to do so to recognize, support, and hold publicly accountable life-long, monogamous, same-gender relationships."

The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod has repeatedly affirmed as its own position the historical understanding of the Christian church that the Bible condemns homosexual behavior as "intrinsically sinful." It is therefore contrary to the will of the Creator and constitutes sin against the commandments of God (Lev. 18:22, 24,20:13; 1 Cor. 6:9-20; 1 Tim 1:9-10; and Rom. 1:26, 27).

In addressing the ELCA in convention, President Kieschnick said the following:

"The decisions by this assembly to grant non-celibate homosexual ministers the privilege of serving as rostered leaders in the ELCA and the affirmation of same-gender unions as pleasing to God will undoubtedly cause additional stress and disharmony within the ELCA. It will also negatively affect the relationships between our two church bodies. The current division between our churches threatens to become a chasm. This grieves my heart and the hearts of all in the ELCA, the LCMS, and other Christian church bodies throughout the world who do not see these decisions as compatible with the Word of God, or in agreement with the consensus of 2,000 years of Christian theological affirmation regarding what Scripture teaches about human sexuality. Simply stated, this matter is fundamentally related to significant differences in how we [our two church bodies] understand the authority of Holy Scripture and the interpretation of God's revealed and infallible Word."


Doctrinal decisions adopted already in 2001 led the LCMS, in sincere humility and love, to declare that we could no longer consider the ELCA "to be an orthodox Lutheran church body" (2001 Res 3-21A). Sadly, the decisions of this past week to ignore biblical teaching on human sexuality have reinforced that conclusion. We respect the desire to follow conscience in moral decision making, but conscience may not overrule the Word of God*.

We recognize that many brothers and sisters within the ELCA, both clergy and lay, are committed to remaining faithful to the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, are committed to the authority of Holy Scripture, and strongly oppose these actions. To them we offer our assurance of loving encouragement together with our willingness to provide appropriate support in their efforts to remain faithful to the Word of God and the historic teachings of the Lutheran church and all other Christian churches for the past 2,000 years.

(Material up to this point is from the LCMS website.)

As we criticize the decision by the ELCA, however, we can not help but examine ourselves as well.

We ask those who find themselves attracted to their own gender to abstain from sex and remain celibate.  Often, however, we fail to acknowledge the cost to those who chose to follow God's Word in this matter.

Many of the most precious gifts God has given are the result of a sexual relationship between a man and a wife.  Marriage, children and grandchildren, the very things which make life worth living for most of us, are not availble for those who, for one reason or another, choose to remain celibate.

Those who experience homosexual temptation but remain celibate because of their dedication to God's Word also find themselves feeling separated from others who share the temptation of same sex attraction because of the gulf between their own beliefs and those held by the gay subculture.

Because of their love of God, these people place themselves in a very lonely position, caught between two very different group of people while feeling at home in neither.  Yet they choose this position because their love of God outweighs their love of the world or of self.

For this reason, we should offer Christian fellowship and respect to those who experience such temptation yet knowingly pay a heavy price to maintain celibacy in obedience to God's word.  As Christians it behooves us, therefore, to watch our words and actions that we do not do damage to those who strive to stay true to their Lord at such a cost to themselves.

As we rightly criticize the ELCA, it would be wise for us to dedicate ourselves to responding not only with the Law but also by demonstrating the Gospel through Christian compassion by:

1. refraining from crude jokes and comments about homosexuals
   
2. expressing respect and admiration for those who are tempted yet choose dedication to God's Word over their own desires
3. inviting those who who struggle with such temptation to be open with us so that we can walk beside them and support them in their struggle to remain faithful to the Word
4. acting in sincere friendship towards those who are open with us about their struggle, offering a listening ear and fellowship to ease the loneliness they often feel
5. ALWAYS pointing to the forgiveness and restoration Christ earned for us on the cross
   

We must respond to the ELCA, then, by standing firmly on God's Word that homosexual action is sinful and by standing just as firmly on God's Word and invitation to "bear each other's burdens."

(ref: http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=15620)