Longing for His appearing. And singing about it.

Here.

deductive eschatology

Jesus said the kingdom was here. Peter says in his Acts 2 Pentecost sermon that we are now living in the last days. There is not a lot of ambiguity here. We have been in the end times since Jesus.

I think most modern approaches to eschatology start on the wrong foot, namely, Revelation 20. I'm not seeking to be a trendy deconstructionist here, but seriously, who defines a theological position out of six verses in the Bible. The only place in the Bible that clearly talks about a "millennium" is Rev 20.1-6. Yet, from this text you can have postmillennialists, several kinds of premillennialists, and a couple kinds of amillennialists. How absurd. Of course Rev 20.1-6 matters. But state with clarity the eschatological kingdom realities replete in the gospels and in St Paul and then maybe you'll have a healthier frame of reference for interpreting John's Apocalypse.

So, because St Peter says that Jesus left us an example of suffering [1 Pe 2] and because persecution was an assumed part of most first century Christianity, I can deduce that any eschatological position that wants to avoid tough times might not be the most faithful to the flavor of biblical Christianity.

So, goodbye pretribulational premillennialism.

Furthermore, to say that the gospel will spread and spread to the point of near-global takeover is to fall off the other side of the horse. We are ambassadors who wage war [Eph 6]. We will continue to wield the sword of the Spirit until Jesus' return.

So, goodbye postmillennialism.

Wine/Alcohol in the Bible

It's quite unique to note the way that the biblical writers talk about wine/alcohol. There are primarily two ways that it is referred to.

First, it is seen negatively as that which, because of irresponsibility, should incur judgment and wrath. This negative view of alcohol can be symbolic or literal. Paul says to not be drunk with wine. This is irresponsible and cannot yield living life rightly. On the other hand, Isaiah and the Apostle John write of the the wine press of the wrath of God. See Prov 20.1, Is 51.17-23, Jer 25.15-29, Job 21.17-20, Rev 14.9-10, Eph 5.18, Is 5.11-12, and Rev 16.19.

Secondly, wine/alcohol in the Bible is seen as something celebratory, joyous, or satisfactory. The fact that God gives wine for man to enjoy is grounds for praise for the psalmist. Before you arrive at the end of chapter 12, some of the only snapshots of fulfillment in Ecclesiastes are when Solomon says that we should eat, drink, and be merry. Shockingly, this is not a reference to Welch's. Jesus even kept a wedding fiesta going by making 120 gallons of tasty wine. Conservatively, this is about 2,500 glasses. See Ps 104.14-15, Ecc 5.18, Ecc 9.7, Is 55.1, Mt 26.26-29, Mk 14.22-25, Lk 22.14-20, and Jn 2.1-11.

Maybe, just maybe, balance is the key to many things. Here's the point though: The emphasis on wine in the NT is that it serves as a two-fold eschatological metaphor.

In Revelation, John writes several times about the cup of wine of the fierce wrath of God. This is the negative.

Conversely, in each synoptic gospel, Jesus holds forth hope to His disciples by telling them that He will one day drink New Covenant wine with them in the Kingdom. This is the positive. And I'm looking forward to it.

[i just couldn't stop looking at this]

is there a future Israel?

Russ Moore discusses it here.

i hate

I think it's good to be passionate and hate dumb stuff. Never people, of course, but wanting to hate what God hates. So, here are a couple of specific words/ideas that I'm not crazy about. Keep in mind: the most spiritual people around town, the most religious folk you could find - Jesus hated their actions [Matthew 23, John 2].

First off, I hate the word PROTESTANT. If people actually read my blog, I'm sure I'd get some flack for this. But think about it. It is absurd, minimalistic, and ridiculous to define yourself by what you're against. That is the plain idea behind the word PROTESTANT. It is precisely the same as being resolved to vote for one candidate because you think the other one is wrong. Wanting to be known for that which you oppose says nothing directly about what you actually do stand for. If one's religiosity is merely a listing of things they do not participate in [drinking, smoking, cussing, movies, sexual promiscuity, etc, etc], these things say nothing about treasuring our Lord, being obedient to the Spirit, and/or wanting the gospel of grace to go forward. The term "Reformed" carries close to the same historical significance. If I'm forced, I prefer it instead. But PROTESTANT seems to me to be immature and fruitless.

For those who are still with me and think, "Wow. Thompson is really wrangling over words." Well, you're dang straight. Language is one of our primary vehicles for gospel, truth, relationship, and hope. When we aren't precise and intentional in our employment of it, we fail. Alright then. Moving right along.

On most occasions I want to say that I detest or abhor this word. But for the sake of clarity and precision I will say that it often leaves a bad taste in my mouth - CHRISTIAN. What a stupid adjective: Christian music, Christian art, Christian t-shirts, Christian radio, etc. It works far better as a reality than an adjective. I understand that this word has to be used in this way sometimes for delineation, but why do the things described as such always feel so lame to me? I know this is an over-generalization. The term is only used three times in the Bible [Ac 11.26, Ac 26.28, 1 Pe 4.16] and was originally not too positive of a title. Why can't "Christian music" just be music by guys who are believers? I don't get it.

Further, CHRISTIAN as an adjective detracts from Christ the person. It does this in a couple ways. First, the focus slides from Him to His followers and we're sure to blow it real fast. Second, an adjective is an a-relational part of speech. However, the proper noun, Christ, points toward His personhood and calls out for relationship!

I could go on. I just long for the church to be the church. I hate seeing myself and other believers diluted by the sway of cultural cuteness. I want my inaugurated eschatology to be a fully realized eschatology. I'm ready to be with Him, like Him, and for Him world without end.

Shalom.

you must download and listen

Edwards said that being in the presence of God for all ages to come will give way to ever-increasing joy, knowledge, and love. Here, Sam Storms gives a talk on Edwards' thoughts on heaven and eternity. It's incredible.

But be careful. Listening to this sermon all the way through will likely make you a full-blooded charismatic.

SURPRiSED BY HOPE [helpful tid-bits, interaction, review, and reflection]

After discussing prayer in general as a part of the church's mission, Wright says that there are four roots of biblical prayer: transcendence, intimacy, celebration, and covenant.

He expresses his frustration with how Easter Sunday is treated theologically and ecclesiastically. Wright says that

Easter week ought to be an eight-day festival, with champagne served after morning prayer or even before, with lots of alleluias and extra hymns and spectacular anthems. Is it any wonder people find it hard to believe in the resurrection of Jesus if we don't throw our hats in the air? Is it any wonder we find it hard to live the resurrection if we don't do it exuberantly in our liturgies? Is it any wonder the world doesn't take much notice if Easter is celebrated as simply the one-day happy ending tacked on to forty days of fasting and gloom?

Regarding "new creation" as a hermeneutic we employ rather than a experience that is simply spiritual, Wright relates justice, beauty, and evangelism to this "new creation" hermeneutic and Jesus' resurrection. Of beauty, he states,

We are moving away, I think, from the old split in which it was expected that good Christians couldn't be good artists and good artists couldn't be good Christians. We now have, thank God, some wonderful Christian painters, sculptors, and even poets who are showing the way forward. I want to offer a proposal about where the artistic endeavor belongs - within the discipline of the Christian mission, within the map of creation and new creation.

[Along these same lines, my father-in-law is an art professor. He always says that the first thing anyone knows about God when they read the Bible is that He is an Artist: "In the beginning, God created..." There's some aesthetically satisfying image-bearing that needs to happen because that is true.]



Wright's subtitle is: "Rethinking Heaven, the Resurrection and the Mission of the Church." His purpose in this book is accomplished. He gives excellent and corrective insights throughout. However, Wright also seems to ease the weight of a couple issues that should be equally related to eschatology, resurrection, and mission.

Concerning the rapture, he dishes out some academically tactful blows to those who swear Tim LaHaye and Hal Lindsey should be canonized. Isn't it logical to study how the apocalyptic genre functioned in Second Temple Judaism rather than interpret Revelation with the lens of CNN? Wright does excellent Jewish and Roman background work to bring many of the second coming passages to light. Speaking on 1 Ths 4.16-17 and how Paul mixes metaphors when speaking of Jesus' coming, Wright says,

In the next chapter, 1 Ths 5, Paul says that the thief will come in the night, so the woman will go into labor, so you mustn't get drunk but stay awake and put on your armor. As the television programs say, don't try this one at home.

Overall, this is a great read. Tom Wright's correctives are quite helpful. I thank God that the world's leading New Testament scholar is not a flaming liberal whose denial of the supernatural is as simple as eating and breathing. On several occasions, Wright says things like, "I am compelled by the New Testament..." We should be as well. Don't be a stuck-up Calvinist and hate him.

[He is also friends with Bishop John Inge, who did my wedding. He gives "Uncle John" a shout-out in his last chapter. This gives me 4 cool points.]

Lastly, thinking critically and spiritually is a challenge. It is also a necessity. It is what I tell my students they must do, it is what all Christians must do, and it is what I feel that Tom Wright does in his new book. Take that approach and go read. Shalom.

prayers for Election Day

If you're reading this on Election Day 2008, join with God's people in prayer for His "will to be done and His kingdom to come on earth as it is in heaven" [Mt 6.10]. Also, go read and join Dr Mohler in prayer.

Don't forget, our King of kings doesn't question the extent His reign. He is not curious to whether His term as commander and chief will end. His kingdom is not of this world. To the increase of His government there will be no end. He will bring shalom.

"Behold, I am coming like a thief"

• Mt 24.43-44
  
• Lk 12.39-40
  
• 1 Ths 5.2
  
• 2 Pe 3.10
  
• Rev 3.3
  
• Rev 16.15
  

HOPE

I read this quote this morning. It reminded me of the chasm of distinction between the New Testament's meaning of the word "hope" and how we often use it. Ladies and gentlemen, Thomas Adams:

Hope is a virgin of a fair and clear countenance; her proper seat is upon the earth, her proper object is in heaven. Faith is her attorney-general, prayer her solicitor, patience her physician, charity her almoner, thankfulness her treasure, the promise of God her anchor, peace her chair of state, and eternal glory her crown.

St Paul First Reformed Bapti-costal Holiness Tabernacle of the Second Coming

Here's a random list of things I believe. I think it is important try to articulate some of this stuff. I try to explain why at the bottom. And if these beliefs had a local church name, I'm hoping it would be the one above :)

Eschatologically, I'm probably an optimistic Amellinialist. People get beat up for that sometimes. But Augustine, Greg Beale, NT Wright, and Tim Keller are decent company. Moreover, we are the temple [1 Cor 3.16, 6.19]. He has made us a kingdom of priests [Rev 1.6-9]. The kingdom is here AND it is coming [Mt 4.17, 6.10].

Ecclesiastically, I am congregational and baptistic. Of course, if we are in Christ, we must all be catholic with a little "c" because this just means universal. When Paul wrote to Thessalonica, he addressed them as the church. He also said that Jesus died for the church. These aren't the same. We are part of A church local and THE church universal and eternal.

Soteriologically, I'm more Reformed. God saves people for the great glory of Jesus. Quit fighting about it already. Just believe and behave the gospel.

Spiritually and affectionately, I have a little charismatic in me. The gifts of the Spirit are still here. He Himself is still here and moving mightily! Get your head out of the theoretical and Dispensational ground. They were not just for the apostles. They are for us too [Rom 8, Gal 3, 1 Cor 12-14, Jn 14-17, 1 Ths 5, Rom 12]! If you abide by a system, you don't abide fully in Christ.

Sacramentally, I believe that baptism should follow faith and repentance. This seems to be the pattern in Acts and the NT. But as far as the weight given to the Lord's Table and Baptism, I'm somewhere between an Anglican and a Baptist [don't worry Presby friends, I understand the covenantal hermeneutic as well]. I enjoy some of the liturgy as well. I also respect how the Free Will Baptist denomination holds a third ordinance: foot-washing [Jn 13, 1 Tim 5.10].

Regarding church polity and church offices, the NT always refers to elders in the plural. I'm all for that. I believe women can and should be deacons [Rom 16.1-5]. I believe the office of elder-bishop-pastor-shepherd should only be held by a man. Call me sexist.

I say all of this for several reasons:

1. I've been thinking for a while about what a theological mutt I am. It makes me laugh.
   
2. Nobody fits a mold. Fitting a mold is arelational and not gospel-centered.
3. I'm not trying to be Brian McLaren and throw everybody's name in the hat so I'll be loved by millions [I'm sure Brian is a nice guy, but he needs to read the pastoral epistles and get a theological backbone].
4. I am saying this because I feel [after being with God, with His church, and in His Scriptures] that these are views that most honor Jesus in some way or another. Go ahead and shoot me for this, but this is what we're called to do - not just give a WHAT we believe, but a WHY we believe it.

SO... to Him and for Him and from Him are all things. To Him be glory in the Church both now and forevermore. Amen.

REVELATiON 1.1

[a small running commentary if you will]

The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to His bond-servants, the things which must soon take place; and He sent and communicated it by His angel to His bond-servant John....

This revelation [apokalupsis] is "about" Jesus rather than "from" Jesus. The genitive in the Greek hints at this. Also, I think it should be noted that John uses both His earthly name and His title name. This likely encapsulates His humanity and divinity and who He is and what He's done.

John uses "bond-servants" [doulos] or "slaves" to remind those in the seven churches that the way they live in the last days should be as contrite servants and not prideful heirs, especially in the midst of persecution [1.9].

"Must" [dei] is small, but significant. It is a reminder of God's absolute control over future events before the return of His Son.

The words "to show" [deiknumi] and "communicated" [semaino] are both words that imply more than mere description. They suggest demonstration, indication, and the use of pictures and/or symbols [even in 1.20 John begins to explain some of his imagery]. No one should take this and interpret Revelation to mean whatever was on CNN last night, but should seek to understand why OT prophets/writers used the symbols they did and further, why John picks up on them here in the Apocalypse.

watch

Stephen Colbert is a sarcastic Catholic from South Carolina who sticks his neck into politics and social odds and ends. He has his own show on Comedy Central. He just interviewed Tom Wright. It's fun to watch their wits interact.

how to read the NT [future]

Jesus’ first recorded words in the NT are that “the kingdom of heaven is at hand” [Mt 4.17]. Shortly after this, Jesus is found teaching that we should pray for the kingdom to come [Mt 6.10]. So, is the kingdom here or is it coming? Jesus and all the other NT writers would say “yes.” It is both here and coming. This “already/not yet” tension is a unique, but vital lens with which to read the NT.

Those under the old covenant thought that the Messiah’s arrival would immediately right all wrongs, usher in shalom, and bring justice to the world’s chaos. How surprising though that He is doing this in a two-fold way: inaugurating the kingdom at His first coming and consummating the kingdom at His second coming.

This is not simply seen in the use of the word “kingdom” in the NT, but in various other ways. One example is how Paul encouraged and challenged his friends in Rome. He told them that they were dead to sin [Ro 6.2] and then turned right around and told them to consider themselves as dead to sin [Ro 6.11]. Moreover, Paul sometimes says that we have been saved and on other occasions he says that we will be saved. This language can partially be rooted in this “already/not yet” tension.

So, in Christ we currently experience some of the blessings of the future kingdom. With these blessings, we should also be looking for that day in which He will return to gather His saints, judge the nations, and restore all things for His sake.

eschatological HALLELUJAH

The book of Psalms is really five books [1-41, 42-72, 73-89, 90-106, and 107-150]. There are only 9 psalms in the whole Psalter than begin and end with the unique Hebrew word “Hallelujah” [106, 113, 117, 135, 146, 147, 148, 149, and 150; often called “Hallel Psalms”]. All of these psalms are in book 5 of the Psalter, except Psalm 106; it is the last psalm in book 4, awaiting the unhindered praise of book 5.

Furthermore, the last 5 psalms in book 5 are all Hallel Psalms. It seems to me that this joyous and triumphant praise is saved for last because of the sense of finality that it carries. Derek Kidner says that “the psalms are a miniature of our story as a whole, which will end in unbroken blessing and delight.” But further still, the revelation of Jesus to John on Patmos appears to give insight here.

Nowhere in the NT do we find the word “Hallelujah” until we arrive at Rev 19. The great Babylon of Rev 18 has fallen. The table at the marriage supper of the Lamb is set for its guests. Also, the choir of voices that echo this distinct praise includes: a great multitude in 19.1 and 19.6; the 24 elders and the 4 living creatures in 19.4; and the bond-servants of God in 19.5. Some even see Rev 19.1-6 as the last of 5 doxological scenes in John’s apocalypse [4.5-11, 5.11-14, 7.9-17, 15.2-8, and 19.1-6]. Even if this is stretching it, there is no doubt that the Biblical shape of Hallelujah directly entails eschatological hope and consummative jubilee.