Author Archives:

On Theologizing 2 (organic continuity)

24 Monday Sep 2012

Posted by in Biblical Theology, Gospel, Systematic Theology

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

, , , , , ,

The intro to this series may be found here.

In a recent journal article, Kaiser explores whether the object of faith in the OT is the same as in the NT.[1] This query is usually, as it is in Kaiser’s article, discussed along the lines of Dispensational Theology (DT) vs Covenant Theology (CT). There is not really any debate as to whether salvation is by grace through faith, but rather what the object of saving faith was in the OT. That Jesus is set forth as the object of saving faith in the NT is beyond dispute. However, Dispensationslists have often denied that Jesus is the object of saving faith in the OT. Instead, it is proffered that faith in God in general, and derivatively faith in whatever he promised at the time, is in fact the object of saving faith which OT saints possessed.

Kaiser cites Ryrie as representative of the common DT position, ”The basis of salvation in every age is the death of Christ; the requirement of salvation in every age is faith; the object of faith in every age [however,] is God; the content of faith changes in the various dispensations.”[2] Kaiser then cites the Westminster Confession (Chapter VII, section 3) as representative of the common CT position,[3]

Man by his Fall, having made himself incapable of life by that covenant, the Lord was pleased to make a second, commonly called the covenant of grace: wherein he freely offered unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them faith in him, that they may be saved; and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto eternal life his Holy Spirit, to make them willing and able to believe.

In his article, Kaiser goes on to discuss the implications of some who have gone beyond Ryrie and adopt an inclusivist approach: whereby it is argued that anyone who comes to believe in monotheism is basically exercising the faith of Abraham and the rest of the OT saints. Our interest here, however, is the continuity/discontinuity contrast between CT and DT. It should be pointed out that Kaiser’s antithesis appears to only take into account classical and revised DT. A progressive dispensationalist position would not necessarily understand the content of faith as changing over the various dispensations. As such, Kaiser’s antithesis is a false one in terms of CT vs DT.
Continue reading »

On Theologizing

09 Saturday Jun 2012

Posted by in Theology

≈ 5 Comments

Tags

, , , , ,

It has occurred to me that when it comes to spectrally viewing Dispensational Theology vis-á-vis Covenant Theology, as their various formulations happen to appear along the axis of continuity/discontinuity, something is left to be desired. I think this is because such a paradigm not only tends to intensify discussion along the line of continuity vs. discontinuity (which can certainly be helpful), but also tends to minimize discussion along the lines of continuity per se and discontinuity per se. Continuity vs. discontinuity does not tell the whole story.

It would also be profitable to theologize along the lines of organic continuity vs. synthetic continuity, and organic discontinuity vs. synthetic discontinuity. I use “organic” in the following sense: that which is integral, or basic, to the constitution of a thing. I use “synthetic” in the following sense: that which is contrived, or manufactured, and foreign to a thing. The “thing” I am speaking of is Scripture. So “organic continuity” is continuity which is basic to Scripture; the continuity that Scripture itself inculcates. Conversely, “synthetic continuity” is continuity that is foreign to what Scripture inculcates; rather, it is manufactured by the theologian: often as a means to give coherence to the overall structure of divine revelation. The respective categories are what are intended concerning discontinuity as well.

I am, of course, assuming there is a basic, unified structure to divine revelation. I doubt that many would object to the thought that within this basic structure of divine revelation there are mysteries, the whitespaces in Scripture. Synthetic theology is basically the attempt to fill in those whitespaces with necessary logical inferences derived from the premises of what Scripture actually communicates. These necessary logical inferences become, in the mind of the theologian, part of the unified structure of divine revelation upon which they theologize.

I am not saying, nor do I think, that what I have described is necessarily a conscious process. I doubt that any Christian theologian would intentionally put their logical inferences on par with Scripture itself; no matter how necessary those logical inferences seem to be. That said, I do think that I have accurately described what can happen in doing theology: especially when one is attempting to describe the unified structure of divine revelation.

The difficulty in doing big picture theology is that once the theologian’s inferences are unconsciously stuffed into the whitespaces of Scripture they function as a foundation upon which further theological formulations are constructed. It should not be too difficult to admit that there is a difference between using Scripture as a foundation and using such inferences a foundation for theological formulations. I think the difference is akin to the Empire State Building resting on its present foundation vs. resting on a Jell-O mold.

I suppose these pesky, little inferences affect many parts of theology. I do not believe myself immune to confusing my own inferences with Scripture, but I certainly try and keep on the lookout for them. If I find them, and I do, I do what any respectable theologian would do: I do whatever I can to hold on to them. Then, once exhausted, I toss them out. Anyway, my hope is that over the next decade (I have to leave myself some wiggle room) I will sporadically post random thoughts on organic continuity and discontinuity integral to the structure of divine revelation and synthetic continuity and discontinuity manufactured and placed in that structure by theologians.

Part V: Evaluating the Rapture

07 Saturday Apr 2012

Posted by in Eschatology, Theology

≈ 10 Comments

Tags

, , ,

In part iv of this series, Jason pointed out that the various rapture views are built from drawing inferences from the biblical data. There is nothing wrong with this, unless, of course, the inferences drawn do not correspond to reality, but that’s only a problem for mid- and post-tribulation, and pre-wrath rapture views ;-) . In the same post, Jason demonstrated how drawing a few (I think solid) inferences from 1 Thessalonians leads one to a pre-trib view of the rapture. In today’s post, we look at another passage that does not teach a pre-trib rapture per se: 1 Corinthians 15. It is worth pointing out that 1 Corinthians 15 is also urged by some to completely rule out premillennialism. This contention will be touched upon below.

In 1 Corinthians 15 Paul is writing to correct some misconceptions about, and false teachings concerning, the bodily resurrection that had crept into the Corinthian church (15:12-19, 29-34). The issue is that some in that church were denying the resurrection. Paul responds that if Christ was not raised from the dead then the Christian faith is worthless, and we may as well just go party while we still can. However, Jesus was raised from the dead; and, after relating that just as all those united to Adam will die, so all those united to Christ will be made alive. Paul then explains that will be a sequence of resurrections.

The sequence of resurrections began with Jesus himself (15:23a). The next resurrection in the sequence is those who are raised at Jesus’ return (15:23b). What happens next is,

Then comes the end, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father, when he has brought to an end all rule and all authority and power (15:24).

This is where things get interesting. Gentry (a partial preterist postmillennialist) maintains, “At his second coming history is over in that the resurrection occurs at ‘the end’; there will be no millennial age on the present earth to follow.”[1] In verse 24, cited above, it is clear that the end comes when Jesus hands the kingdom over to the Father. It is equally clear that Jesus hands over the kingdom to the Father when he has brought an end to all other rule, power, and authority. Gentry views this as happening virtually simultaneously with Jesus’ return. The difficulty for Gentry’s view (and also all other a- and post-millennial views) is the next verse:

For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet (15:25).

In other words, Jesus reigns for a time (here unspecified) until he has put all enemies under his feet (i.e., brings an end to all rule, power, and authority). So, for all but premillennial positions, Christ must be presently reigning and putting all his enemies under his feet. Once Jesus has accomplished this, he will return, those that belong to him will be resurrected, and he will turn the kingdom over to the Father. Again, the last three events happen virtually simultaneously. However, if this is a correct understanding of this passage, then Jesus will never actually physically rule over the nations! As soon as he returns, he delivers the kingdom to the Father. There is another approach.

I would argue that it is simply to read one’s theology into the text to make the reigning of Jesus in verse 25 precede his coming in verse 23. A more natural way of reading these three verses would be that, in the sequence of events that Paul is describing, Christ will return and those who belong to him will be resurrected, he will then reign until he has placed all his enemies under his feet, and once this is accomplished he will turn over the kingdom to the Father. What is more, since Paul is actually describing a sequence of resurrections, it would be natural to understand that in the event of Jesus handing the kingdom over to the Father another bodily resurrection is implied.

Interestingly enough, this would appear to be the same sequence of events we find described by John in Revelation 20. Except that in Revelation 20 John reveals the length of Jesus’ reign between his second coming and turning the kingdom over to the Father. John also explicitly states that there is a resurrection after the reign of Christ, whereas it is only implied by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15.

Well, ok, premillennialism is great, but what about the rapture? The rapture part comes later in the chapter. If what has been advocated so far is correct, and a pre-trib rapture position is correct, then none of what Paul has discussed so far concerning resurrections directly applies to the Corinthians. They won’t be resurrected at the second coming. They will be returning with Christ to reign with him. They certainly won’t be resurrected at the end, when Christ delivers up the kingdom to the Father (i.e., the end of the millennium). John reveals that it is unbelievers who are resurrected at this time. Incidentally, this may be one reason Paul does not explicitly mention this resurrection when he is discussing the sequence of resurrections in 1 Corinthians 15. In 1 Corinthians 15 Paul is discussing the resurrection of those who are united to Christ, not resurrection in general (which would include all believers and unbelievers alike).

Paul’s discussion of the rapture begins in verse 50. After arguing that the Father is excepted from Jesus subduing all other power and authority, and demonstrating the absurdity of certain rituals if the dead are in fact not raised, and exposing the foolishness of incredulity concerning what kind of body people will have in the resurrection; Paul tells the Corinthians that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom. Some have urged this fact against certain premillennial positions because said positions allow that some non-glorified (i.e., flesh and blood) people who survive the tribulation would enter into the millennial kingdom. In response it may be noted that Paul has already discussed the kingdom up through Jesus turning it over to the Father. This would be the eternal state phase of the kingdom then that Paul is speaking of, not the millennial phase of the kingdom, when he says that flesh and blood cannot inherit it. There will be no non-glorified people in the eternal state.

This is exactly the difficulty though. What Paul has said so far concerning resurrections does not cover when the Corinthians, and everyone else who is a believer in this age, will be resurrected. In 1 Corinthians 15:51-58 Paul teaches about a resurrection of the dead believers of this age and a glorification of the surviving Christians at the time. Paul calls it a “mystery” and what he describes is an event that happens at once and out of the blue. The only thing that precedes it is a trumpet blast, but that hardly qualifies as the various elaborate signs that Jesus says would signal his return to establish the kingdom of God on earth (cf., Matt 24). The resurrection/glorification that the Corinthians will participate in had not been revealed in previous revelation. It was only after the resurrection of Christ that this mystery began to be revealed by the NT writers.

The timing element of the rapture here spoken of by Paul is not mentioned. It is in comparing the data found in this passage with others that it appears the rapture discussed by Paul here is a pre-tribulational one. I hold that conclusion lightly, as it is an inference that I make rather than a deduction made from what is explicitly taught in Scripture (e.g., the Trinity). At the same time I want to embrace all that may be understood from this passage because the totality of what the passage contains is motivation for following Paul’s admonition to the Corinthians:

So then, dear brothers and sisters, be firm. Do not be moved! Always be outstanding in the work of the Lord, knowing that your labor is not in vain in the Lord (1 Cor 15:58).

[1] Gentry, Kenneth L., “Postmillennialism,” in The Views on the Millennium and Beyond, ed. by Stanley N. Gundry (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999), 48.

Part II: Evaluating the Rapture

22 Thursday Mar 2012

Posted by in Eschatology

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

,

The worst enemy of the pre-trib rapture position is hands-down, bad arguments sometimes employed by dispensationalists. Being a dispensationalist myself, of the progressive sort, I feel a certain freedom to speak badly about arguments made by other dispensationalists not as enlightened as me (i.e., classic and revised), so here goes (the arrogance is not real, but feigned for the sake of humor).

It is occasionally argued by dispensationalists that in John 14:1-3, Jesus teaches his disciples about the rapture (pre-trib of course). Whether πιστεύετε “believe” in verse one is indicative or imperative in one or both clauses need not detain us here. It is in verse two where the real action begins. In verse two Jesus comforts his disciples with the fact that he is going away to prepare a place for them in his Father’s household; in which, there are many dwelling places. In verse three Jesus relates that he will return and receive the disciples to himself, so that where he is, they may be also.

We are told by many interpreters that Jesus’ “going to prepare a place” is a reference to his ascension into heaven forty days or so after the resurrection. The actual “preparing” of the places is not always elaborated on, but it is safe to assume that the “dwelling places” are actual and the preparation real. The location of these dwelling places would seem to be heaven since that is where Jesus is going to in order to prepare them. If what has been said is a proper understanding thus far, then in verse three Jesus’ “coming again” to receive the disciples must be a return from heaven. At this point pre-tribbers differ from those of other eschatological persuasions.

Those who do not hold to a pre-trib rapture, but understand verses one and two in the same manner as described above, argue that verse three is describing the Second Coming that either begins the millennium, or the eternal state. The difficulty with these views is that if it is understood in verse one and two that Jesus is ascending to heaven in order to prepare dwelling places for the disciples then it would seem that his returning for the disciples implies that he will then take them to dwell in these dwelling places that he has prepared for them. However, if this is the Second Coming, then Jesus is not going to take anyone anywhere. He is going to stay on earth and either establish his millennial kingdom, or rule on a new earth for the rest of eternity. So, if Jesus’ “going to prepare a place” for the disciples in verse two is a reference to the ascension, then it is doubtful that his “coming” to receive the disciples in verse three is a reference to the Second Coming.

Those who hold to a pre-trib rapture sometimes argue that, rather than a reference to the Second Coming, verse three is a reference to the rapture. Before the tribulation, Jesus will return and take the disciples to heaven where he has prepared a place for them. From that point on they will be where Jesus is, and presumably accompany him on his return (Second Coming) at the end of the tribulation. If verse two does indeed refer to the ascension then the rapture understanding of verse three would seem to make more sense than a reference to the Second Coming.

However, both the Second Coming and rapture views of verse three share a common problem. It is doubtful that verse two refers to the ascension. The first indication that Jesus is not talking about the ascension in verse two is the dialogue in verse four and following. In verse four Jesus tells the disciples that they know the way to the place he is going. It may be useful to point out here that if Jesus is speaking of his ascension into heaven when he told the disciples that he was going away to prepare a place for them in the Father’s household, then the way to where he is going is up through the clouds into heaven.

The disciples, via Thomas, disclaim such knowledge. In fact, they don’t even know where he is going, so how in the world would they know the way he is taking to get there. Jesus then responds that he is the way…. For our purposes here, we will focus on that little bit of Jesus’ response. Jesus says in verse six that he is the way to where he is going to prepare a place for the disciples. Jesus is not the way that Jesus took when he ascended into heaven some forty days after the resurrection. There is a better explanation of these verses.

Jesus had just told the disciples that, as he had told the Jewish leaders, he was going away and where he was going they could not come (13:33). I take it for granted that given the context most will recognize that Jesus is talking about his death under the euphemism of going somewhere. It is in this context that Jesus communicates to his disciples that he is going away to prepare a place for them in the Father’s household. I would propose that what Jesus is saying in John 14:1­–6 is that by going away (i.e., dying on the cross) he will prepare a way for the disciples to dwell in the Father’s household. Jesus is not talking about going to clean up the New Jerusalem to get it ready for all the pre-tribulationally raptured folks. He is making a soteriological statement about how he is about to lay down his life so that his disciples might dwell with him and the Father forever.