Never figured it out

I have always been somewhat surprised / perplexed by a number of women who convert to Islam and submit to their male counterpart in such a visible way. Growing up in that culture and living within it I understand, and perhaps if they are able to look at the West with the sexual exploitation of women the conclusion might be a way that it can be justified… but educated (and liberated) Western women converting? That I have not understood.

And beyond the above scenario the rise of a new ‘men need to be men’ emphasis (patriarchy and misogyny IMHO) and a number of women (not so many women as men) who advocate that the woman’s place is in the home is equally surprising. There is a movement to which is attached the adjective ‘Christian’ that is rooted in God is all powerful and the more powerful (bullying) a man can be the more that man is in the image of the all powerful god (cannot capitalise ‘god’ at this point as that definition of power does not relate to the God of Scripture)… take for example the critique in the book Jesus and John Wayne (author: Kristin Kobes du Mez). Jesus the tough man who crushes all opponents, so let us vote for those in positions of power who will be like that Jesus / John Wayne.

And into that setting come certain women who advocate men at the top as the divine order!

All forms of abusive power (Imperial spirit / Babylon) offer benefits to those who comply, and there will be certain benefits – safety, and in the words of Revelation ‘allowed to buy and to sell’. But the majority of (in this situation) women will not benefit at all – and just look at the statistics of women in the work place.

To the Bible for a mo…

The household codes that we find in Paul (wives submit to; children submit; slaves behave in this way… etc) are present for apologetic purposes. They follow the pattern that is recorded in the literature of the day, but Paul transforms the content. He moves them away from ‘you at the top (male husband, slave-owner, father) are the boss so keep everyone else in order’ and the most famous passage in Ephesians does not begin with ‘wives submit to your husbands’ but the verb is present in the preceding verse with ‘submit yourselves to one another in the fear / reverence of Christ’ (Ephes. 5:21 this is where the verb appears not in verse 22). That transforms everything, and all relationships. I don’t think it goes the whole way, no more than the NT comments on slavery go the whole way in the NT… but the gospel goes the whole way. There is in Christ, ‘no male and female’ (Gal. 3) – the change of language from neither… nor to ‘and not male and female’ indicates Paul is quoting Genesis 2. Make of what you want of the creation narratives but once we touch Jesus ALL hierarchy disappears, for all former categories are no longer relevant (Paul’s comments on ‘a new creation’ in 2 Cor. 5).

The challenge of Jesus is there to hit at all exploitation. Read the Proverbs and the male is warned over the seductive woman. Read Jesus and he hits the issue hard… ‘If a man looks at a women to lust after her’. Dress appropriately – for sure; seductiveness is an issue… but the blame game and therefore the need to control through legislation – no not the gospel.

Marriages need to work out how they partner together. Probably no one size fits all, but hierarchy, patriarchy, bullying – no, no, no.

Men need to be men. But the image is not John Wayne, but Jesus. Children, women, the marginalised – he came to lift them up… and far from being incarnated as male to show a superiority he is male as that is where the root of the issue lies. Scripture is consistent – it does not address the marginalised to rebel but the ones who abuse position to repent. And that is also why he comes as a Jew. No more at the top and let’s keep it that way, but emptying out power. ‘Being in the image of God he emptied himself’.

How far can we go along the trajectory of the gospel? One day the perfect will come – until then we are provoked to go further than yesterday… with no desire to restore a former era.

Let’s give a shout for humanity

If I were to write further articles on ‘eschatology’ – and I plan to – the next one would be on ‘I don’t expect a millennium,a great tribulation nor an antiChrist‘. Now there are smarter people than me that tick all those boxes and there is a strong (and sensible) history of thought behind all three (as well as some fanciful stuff). As I need to reserve all my bright ideas to that article I will not give them away here!

But in short reply why don’t I expect that trilogy? Well a millennial-rule is only found in Revelation, a book unveiling the reality of Babylon (Imperial rule), and being of the genre of apocalyptic literature. A literal 1000 years? Maybe. And in the same chapter the devil is bound by chains. Literal chains? Maybe not. Early church history certainly records those who believed in a (pre-) millennial time as well as those who took an a-millennial approach. But those writers are predominantly from the Hellenistic (Graeco-Roman) world not the world of Jewish apocalyptic writings. I probably don’t fit any of the three main schools of thought (pre-, post. and a-) on the millennium.

The ‘tribulation’ is found throughout Scripture cos that is our world. Two kingdom / values / commitments in total opposition to each other; and if we push for a ‘great tribulation’ we are back to Revelation and Jesus’ words in Matthew 24 (and parallels) where ‘all these things will be fulfilled in a generation’ (i.e. by 70AD/CE). So we expect tribulation but I am not so sure we are to expect a final great tribulation.

Then the antiChrist? Diverse Scriptures have to be shoe-horned together that do not seem to be addressing the same issue. So no…

Overall my main reason for not ticking those three boxes is Scripture itself. There is so little in the book concerning what is thought to be the ‘end times’, and there is so much in there that informs us that since Pentecost we have been living in a new era – the ‘end times’. Speculation is not a word, regardless of what accent is used, that spells the word Scripture. Leave that to the world of the horoscopes.

But hang on a minute. I actually think an antiChrist is highly likely, not because Scripture says there will be one but if we do not get our act together we will create the space where an antiChrist (or many) can appear. So I genuinely do not think that Scripture predicts one, but Scripture informs us there will always be one if we continue on a certain path – one or many.

If we gave Scripture a voice and there was a recognisable antiChrist around I don’t think Scripture would say ‘look I told you so, I predicted that in various texts’ but rather ‘look I told you so, this is the inevitable outcome’.

These last few days the world of AI has come central. Whistle-blowers who have left that world saying that within a decade AI could wipe out the human race; Claude is now at the point where the next iteration does not need coding – it can code the next upgraded release! And from there? Well we should not think of a team working on coding and a new release coming out, for example, annually.

I posted what might well be an AI generated video of robots running the 100metres and physically attacking others in the race. I suggested that we could caption the video ‘and humanity created in their own image’.

AntiChrist is not simply a major attack on God, it is an attack on humanity. John (who is the only one to use the term!) says that at the core there is a denial that Jesus was human. It is an attack on humanity.

It is not only whistle-bowers from the inside who have grave reservations about AI, I do too. Theology has not helped with a distant God and a perspective on humanity that denegrates them all in the name of preserving the glory of God (I don’t think that is our responsibility, God can take care of that).

Beasts from the land and the sea find their fulfilment in history, but history is ongoing. People, systems and the like are ever present to fill space.

If I were to shout two warnings – the first would be take note of the rise of narcissism (well documented how it has recognisably grown over the last 40+ years). I once spoke with a psychotherapist (no I was not lying on a couch!) who talked to me about narcissism. I replied with the wrong observation that such people ‘love themselves’ and he replied with ‘absolutely not; they love the image of themselves’. Image. And the second warning would be related to AI. Created in human image. (AI is here to stay and is part of our world, and will also be ‘good’.)

There is an eternal gospel, but that eternal gospel has to be incarnated in time and space, in the here and now.

There is one Saviour of this world (there is my eschatology in a nutshell) who is the image of the invisible God and the one into whose image we are being changed.

AI might wipe us all out… maybe that is the ‘end’ but I thank God for the ‘I see a new creation’ vision we find in Scripture.

I might not believe in an antiChrist in the classic sense of what that means but I want to make sure I am on my guard concerning every antiChrist manifestation that is present. The level of that presence grows and shrinks… let’s see how much it can shrink regardless of what is created and what anxieties are voiced.

Big (good or bad?) words

Here then are the words: leadership, accountability, submission, discipleship… and I am sure a host of other words that I don’t know or don’t know how to spell!

Words to have meaning but their effective meaning is more tied to how they are understood (and used) rather than ‘this word means…’

I remember talking to someone who was strongly in relationship with people he had been journeying with for decades but was not attending a regular gathering (to which had been ascribed the word ‘church’). He met one who was to be found ‘in the right place on a Sunday’ who was somewhat put out by his lack of attendance is such a setting. The conversation went,

Where do you worship?

With the response ‘Normally when I get out bed I turn my heart to the Lord, when I wash my face in the morning I am always thankful and praising God, then I take time to worship the Lord as I thank God for family, friends and the food on the table. I like to start the day in worship.’

Out of interest where do you worship?

That question was conveniently not responded to as the hard hitting, deeply penetrating question was next:

Who are you accountable to?

Such a penetrating question and the answer went as follows:

A great question, I guess I could answer that a number of ways, but as you are asking it, let me suggest I also become accountable to you, and maybe we could do something that is mutual. Here is the phone number of my wife. Why to give her a call and ask her to be honest about her observations and experience of me; I can easily give you access to my bank account and I would love to hear what you think about how I am stewarding what we have.Maybe then you could do that also in return and we become mutually accountable to each other? How would that sound to you?

Surprise, surprise… that conversation ended there.

The questions were not the questions. The two questions were to find out if this person ticked the two boxes with the right answers. But the answers would not have answered the questions. I often think about Paul (did he write those ‘pastoral’ letters) and his check list for leadership. They essentially came down to two categories: go check out their home and find out from neighbours what they think. (Oh and something on having some ability to teach and not being a novice in the faith.) Wow… practical.

A few comments on those words above. If we think institutionally we might answer them one way but if we think relationally we will go down a different route.

Leadership is not title-oriented (Paul is not ‘Apostle Paul’) nor is it hierarchical. Tom Marshall said that when truth flows one way and honour and respect the other we have a problem. Jesus pointed out the leadership pattern among the ‘gentiles’ with the statement that was not to be that way ‘among you’. And I think we have to extend this to affect our understanding of God. How does God ‘rule’? Top down? I understand what people mean by ‘God is in control’ but it often means that God is not taking any nonsense and controls, then we have a little internal conflict (did I write ‘little’?) because too much seems out of control! The mess is not down to God… and here comes another word (extra bonus I did not put it in the initial list) – delegate!

The way God works is to distribute not simply delegate. Leadership often delegates and at times there is the need to delegate, but God loves to divest. On the day of Pentecost there is not a delegated outpouring. First on Peter (that would help if we wanted to really think he was personally the ‘rock’) then Peter could bestow the Spirit to James and John… then we draw in the 12 and so on to the 120. God comes equally to all at the same time.

The work of God is hindered as ‘there is no king in the land and everyone does what is right in their own eyes’ and it is hindered as ‘there is a king in the land and no one can do what is right in their own eyes’ (second quote is not in the Bible!). The book of Judges has a ‘king is right’ lens and is very critical of the situation, and maybe a ‘king’ would have temporarily helped but it eventually led to Egypt coming back into Israel. We need an eye-test as not everything goes and we need corrective lenses (a Jesus-lens for life, Scripture, and particularly so as we no longer see people according to conventional categorisation). But with those lenses on – and getting them checked out regularly – we discover that there is to be no ‘king’ in the land and that we are to do what is right in our own eyes. Not stubbornly, nor independently but inter-relationally. So to one of the other words:

Submit… and always in the ‘middle voice’ and expressed relationally. Submit yourself to one another. Not I am at the top and I will subject you!

‘Where do I worship? And who am I accountable to?’ remain two really good questions. Imagine if we made the questions relational and not institutional. Maybe we could move toward ‘there was no king among them; there was a flow of life and openness; approval and push back was visible, and each person seemed to have sight on what they should do’. Maybe ‘the kingdom’ could just be ‘at hand’ if such was the case.

In the image of…?

The world of technology never stops and how do we respond? AI – another step in removing the human relational level, and yet it will be presented in a positive light so that we will build a relationship with it. And very soon (probably already) robots will offer whatever connection one wants. This is our world… a challenge to theology which is why a theology of humanity is so key.

In the meantime a little humour. We read ‘in the beginning God created… humanity.’ In the image of the divine. And the sobering side is I wonder in the following clip should we simply write and ‘in the beginning humanity created… robots in their own image’??? The challenge remains – a humanity truly in the image of God.

I do not know if the above was AI generated or not but it remains a provocative likelihood.

Empire or Love

Regular visitors here will know that occasionally I publish what someone else has written. Simon Swift has sent me a few articles of the past months and he has just sent me this. Simon writes clearly with a wonderful humility that invites thought. See what you think of this one particularly in the context of the rising Christian Nationalism.


The world is full of trouble, wars, and political upheaval fill the news streams. Economic collapse is threatened, and the cost of living is getting worse. Exceptional weather here in Europe with threats of extended and record breaking heatwaves, wild fires and draughts brings fear of ecological disaster. Freedoms under threat in countries that once championed liberal democracy. One could be forgiven for thinking this is all heading towards the Apocalypse. In the so called West, certain politicians have been using fear and hate to stir up nationalism as a vehicle to power and empire. A new brand of Christianity has been born just for the West: Christian Nationalism. Where does the Way of Jesus figure in all this? Is Jesus the answer?

The short answer, of course, is yes. But I have never liked short answers and just saying Jesus is the answer, is not good enough. Perhaps the question is wrong, too vague for a real answer, and why the question in the first place? Maybe you are happy that there are leaders willing to use what ever means to protect a national identity as part of the Faith. That democracy has failed us and we need a hero who can sort it all out, a populist politician giving easy slogans as answers.

Does Jesus’ story, message, and resurrection fit within this new brand of Christianity?

The use of the word Kingdom is found all over the bible and Jesus himself used it. Yet I find it a difficult term to use as it can lead to empire building instead of freedom. Perhaps it is used a lot, because as the Jewish scriptures were edited and developed, those involved lived in the kingdom of Israel. Again it seems that the people wanted a charismatic leader to provide all the answers for them. A search was begun to look for a leader with anointing to lead his people in the right direction, one dedicated to the kingdom of Israel, or should that be kingdom of Heaven? God was soon disappointed with their first king and he was replaced by their most famous one, David. Yet he too became corrupted by power. Humanity then had to wait a long time till God’s Word became flesh to be worthy of the title of king.

The title of Christ, or Messiah given to Jesus means the Anointed One. To me, this speaks more of Priesthood than kingship, of Aaron than of David. Of course we can see it as bringing the two together. It reminds us of the character Melchizedek; Jesus as priest/king. If a king he must have a kingdom. But what of that kingdom, what is it, and what does it mean to live in it?

One of Jesus’ own descriptions of his kingdom is of a small seed becoming a large tree and the birds coming to perch on its branches. Though I like to think of them as nesting in the tree making it their home. For me, this speaks of possibilities, of emergence and nurture rather than dominion and authority. The Word, an idea that is spoken in to reality. Or in this case planted into its hearers hearts and minds. Will it germinate? What will emerge from this planting? Another parable of Jesus comes to mind: the sower spreading the seed over different types of terrain. The parable gives us an understanding of how the environment is so important to the seeds growth. If the seed does begin its transformation into a tree, it emerges into an environment, it does not do so in isolation. Its shape will be effected by outside influences. A question we can ask is does it dominate the land it grows in or does it become a source of life for all that grows up around it? When the birds come to nest in it, do they find a home or prison, partnership, or master?

Jesus’ ministry was one of love and invitation, not command and judgement. The Anointed One as priest rather than king? The parable of the prodigal son is a good picture of what Jesus’ ministry was doing. Its effect on the establishment as well as to the lost children. The context is family, not institution or even religion. God is father, the lost come home to be sons & daughters. The older brother, upset at the father’s grace, complains and the father’s answer is quite remarkable. He tells the brother that everything is his. This speaks of inheritance. When we become followers of Jesus, do we become his father’s servants or his children?

If we choose to follow Jesus, we become his students. We are expected to become imitators of him: The Way of Jesus. This means the Way of love, it includes giving, mercy, resurrection, and humbleness and I’m sure you could add more this list. The Way starts with forgiveness and repentance. It is to chose to live a new kind of life; a change in direction and relationships. A movement away from the world’s empires and their expectations of conformity. A move towards eternal life.

The trouble with Kingdoms and their empires is they have an us-and-them view of the world. Empire requires ownership, all are resources to be used and discarded as necessary. You are either useful or not, loyal or the enemy. And if not useful, you are expelled; a type of death. If not loyal then death is the final solution. That’s what empires do. They are a hungry beast that exploit and devour the resources they have.

So I find the idea of Christian Nationalism worrying as it is more interested in gaining dominance in culture and social life that excludes those that do not conform; a type of empire. Exclusion (a type of death) being its main weapon, it can so easily turn into racism and incorporate ethnonationalism; ideas that go against the Way. After all our allegiance is to the Christ and his Way not to some western pattern of life and culture.

When we talk of the new age, the new heaven and earth becoming one. Is it a dramatic day of judgement where heaven and the old earth is literally destroyed and replaced by a new one? Or has the new age already begun and we who claim to follow Jesus are the planters of the seed with the intention of transformation to the Divine Commonwealth (or Kingdom of Heaven if you prefer)? Jesus does talk of judgement at the end, but he speaks of angels removing the weeds from the crop. But it is angels not us humans. Perhaps we should concentrate on being not the king’s judges, but priests. Ministers inviting people into the Divine Commonwealth. Practitioners of hope instead of judgment and fear. The way we walk, talk, and do our daily lives is our tilling of the soil. Preparing it for planting so when the Word comes and plants the seed: a mighty tree grows and birds come to rest.

Dispensationalism – history and critique

Here is a final pdf… pretty much what the former posts contained but with footnoting.

Dispensationalism_history_and_critique.pdf

Click on the link above to read / download. I often offer an ‘open Zoom’ to discuss the contents of each pdf I write (this is the 9th volume) but am not convinced that the contents deserve that. If you think otherwise let me know.


If interested this the 9th volume and I intended them to be a follow on from the four initial books I wrote in 2020. CHeck out the others:

Vol 1: Paul’s Gospel in Galatians (pdf).

Vol 2: Understanding Transitions (pdf).

Vol 3: A historico-narrative approach to Scripture (pdf).

Vol 4: Eschatology: an introduction (pdf).

Vol 5: Eschatology: The Second Horizon (pdf).

Vol 6: Eschatology: Here not There (pdf).

Vol 7: Reconciliation in four directions (pdf).

Vol 8: All Israel will be saved (pdf).

Vol. 9: DIspensationalism – history and critique (pdf).

Dispensationalism – history and critique #6

The Dispensationalist program for the end

Daniel’s vision of the 70 weeks (Dan. 9:24-27) is seen to be a key. Sometime toward the end of the 69th week the anointed one will be cut off – this being a reference to Jesus. There then ensues a gap in the time sequence with the 70th week yet to be fulfilled in the future. (Each of these 70 ‘weeks’ being a period of 7 years, 69 ‘weeks’ are past but there will be a final 7 year period that has not yet begun.)

[This parenthesis – the break between the 69th and the 70th week – is absolutely key to the Dispensational pattern, although nothing in the text gives this indication.]

In the parenthesis the church age is experienced.

  • At the end of the church age there is the secret rapture (church being taken to heaven), and then the final week begins to unfold. [There are some who hold that the church is raptured half way through this final week, so 3½ years into this final period.]
  • The Supper of the Lamb will take place in heaven during these last 7 years, the presence of the Spirit is removed from the earth, and in this setting antiChrist appears and in the middle of this final week he comes and destroys the rebuilt Temple in Jerusalem.
  • He will then gather the armies together to fight Israel and the battle of Armageddon will take place.
  • Then we have the Second Coming of Jesus who destroys these forces that have gathered against Israel (and this is understood as a literal battle).
  • Through the persecution that took place Jews will now be able to receive Jesus as Messiah.
  • Following this battle the Millennial kingdom of 1000 years will be established with all nations subject to the Davidic king, Jesus.
  • During this millennial reign people will be born and also die, and some will not turn to Jesus, so that at the end of the period when Satan is released one more time he is able to deceive the nations, and there is a final battle (Rev. 20:7-9).
  • Following this there is a final judgement, and eternity then dawns with the church enjoying God”s Presence in the new heaven and Israel the promises to David in the kingdom on the new earth.

[There are variations on the scheme I have laid out here, but this is sufficiently typical that when there is another pattern that differs, it can still be seen to be shaped Dispensationally.]

The influence of Dispensationalism is strong and although there are those who no longer hold to a ‘secret rapture’ other aspects ‘hang on’. Under Dispensationalism: the return of Christ is said to take place in 2 stages. First a whisking away of the believer to heaven – some 7 years before the end and during those 7 years the Supper of the Lamb takes place in heaven while on earth great tribulation and persecution of the Jews as the world ruler, the Antichrist sets up his one world government. Only after those 7 years does Christ appear visibly to set up the millennial kingdom, having dealt with Antichrist at the battle of Armageddon.

(Please remember that there is no evidence for a teaching about a secret rapture that will occur either 7 years before the Great Tribulation (the so-called pre-Trib view) or half way through the Great tribulation (the mid-Trib view) before 1830.)

The central ‘Rapture’ Scripture – 1 Thess 4:13-18

Once we read this we will see how weak the biblical basis for the rapture (as well as the forced Dispensational grid) is.

But we do not want you to be uninformed, brothers and sisters, about those who have died, so 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 died. For this we declare to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will by no means precede those who have died. For the Lord himself, with a cry of command, with the archangel’s call and with the sound of God’s trumpet, will descend from heaven, and the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up in the clouds together with them to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will be with the Lord forever. Therefore encourage one another with these words.

In Dispensationalism this text is supposed to teach that believers are caught up to meet the Lord in the air some 7 years before there is a public ‘appearing’ of the Lord. However!

This whole passage is to answer the question that Paul frames as ‘about those who have died’. He answers it saying that although grief is present there is hope, and that they are to ‘encourage one another with these words’.

He does not answer it with ‘no worries they are in heaven’ (this could be true but is not the hope of Scripture!) nor does he answer it with ‘we will be secretly raptured’. The question is not about ‘us’ alive at his coming but about those who had died. We have to align the answer to the question rather than impose a system on the text that gives a non-answer to the question!

Why the question?

A Hellenistic approach would not ask such a question, for the hope that was expressed in that world-view was that anyone who had died had escaped the prison of materiality. (A phrase that summarised that view was ‘soma sema’, the body is a tomb, hence death was an escape!) Sadly this has infected so much of Western theology and been exported around the world.

The Hebraic world-view is solidly focused on creation and the journey toward new creation. The hope was that God would indeed come to bring this world to its fulfilled state (the NT refers to the ‘restoration of all things’). This then presented an issue. Those who were righteous and have died clearly are not present, even though their bones were present, so what does this physical restoration mean for them? They are in very real danger of missing out when the great reversal / restoration takes place, except… God is faithful and they will not miss out, but will be raised from death. The Hebraic answer was ‘resurrection of the dead’; this was the hope, that hope being expressed very eloquently by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15.

Paul in this Thessalonian passage follows this same Judeo-Christian path.

Why the hope? Because ‘we believe that Jesus died and rose again’. The resurrection of Jesus marked that he overcame the final enemy and so those who are in him will likewise be resurrected. When he comes the dead in Christ will come also.

God will bring with him those who have died.

And this coming with him will be anything but secret! For it will be,

with a cry of command, with the archangel’s call and with the sound of God’s trumpet.

And those who have died at that coming will rise (first) and those who are in Christ but have not died prior to the coming (parousia) of the Lord will be transformed (here I borrow from 1 Cor. 15) in a moment at the last trumpet. In 1 Corinthians Paul does not separate in time the resurrection of those who have died and those alive at the parousia,

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 imperishable, and we will be changed (1 Cor. 15:51, 52).

In 1 Thessalonians he puts in a time sequence, but when it all happens in the blink of an eye is he really trying to distinguish or simply underline that God will take care of those who have died in Christ.

Thus far I have focused on the answer to the question, but what about that verse,

Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up in the clouds together with them to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will be with the Lord forever (1 Thess. 4:17).

The phrase that contains the preposition and noun (εἰς ἀπάντησιν: eis apantesin) was part of vocabulary and culture of that time. When the emperor visited a city, colony or province, the dignitaries of that location would go to meet him at some distance from the city. This was a mark of their respect so that the emperor did not arrive at the gates as though his subjects couldn’t be bothered to greet him properly. When they met him, they would not then stay out in the open country; they would escort him royally into the city itself. The emperor came with him into the city. He had left Rome and was arriving at (e.g.) Thessalonica and they would then complete the journey with him to Thessalonica. Pau is using language that would be understood – those in Christ who were alive at his coming would meet Jesus in the air… and then return with the one who had left heaven and was coming to this planet.

We see the same use of the preposition and noun in Acts 28:15, 16:

The brothers and sisters from there, when they heard of us, came as far as the Forum of Appius and Three Taverns to meet (εἰς ἀπάντησιν: eis apantesiin) us . On seeing them, Paul thanked God and took courage.
When we came into Rome.

The final destination? Rome. The brothers and sisters did not stay out at the ‘Three Taverns’! The meeting will be ‘in the air’ and the instant final destination will be planet earth!

Is Paul thinking literally (an ‘up’ and then an instant ‘down’)? Perhaps but given this is all instantaneous any idea of a literal up and a literal back down is not something we should push. The heart of it is that those who have died will not ‘miss out’, indeed if pushed they will be raised then instantaneously any who are alive will be transformed and all together will be one. The Lord is not snatching them to heaven, but the Lord who has descended from heaven (like the emperor who left Rome) will continue that triumphant journey to the final destination. In Johannine language,

See, the home of God is among mortals.
He will dwell with them;
they will be his peoples,
and God himself will be with them and be their God;
he will wipe every tear from their eyes.
Death will be no more;
mourning and crying and pain will be no more,
for the first things have passed away (Rev. 21: 3, 4).

God’s dwelling place with humans (not described as humans dwelling with God) and death being no more (resurrection and transformation) lines up with what I have suggested is what Paul is presenting in 1 Thessalonians 4 and in 1 Corinthians 15 where at the last trumpet death is swallowed up (1 Cor. 15:51-56).

Beyond the exegesis of the passage in 1 Thessalonians we encounter an immediate problem for the Dispensationalist ‘secret rapture’ view when we turn a few pages to the later letter of 2 Thessalonians. The believers had received a report that the day of the Lord had already come, but under the Dispensationalist view the day of the Lord will take place some 7 years ( some say 3½) after the rapture! If Paul taught a rapture the response is easy – it has not arrived because you have not been raptured! This is not the response he gives. This would be similar to receiving a letter  in August 2009 saying that October 2019 has already occurred! Not too convincing – and quite easy to refute!

This passage in 1 Thessalonians cannot support a ‘secret rapture’ belief and once this passage is taken away from such a position it is easy to dismiss other passages such as in Matt. 24 that ‘one will be taken and the other left behind’. Those verses are likened to how it was in the days of Noah when one was taken and swept away in  judgement. Those chapters (Matt. 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21) are related to the Jewish war of 66-70AD when the Roman armies devastated the land and one was taken and the other left. 

We could add into the discussion the parables Jesus speak of the wheat and the weeds both growing till harvest, and in his High Priestly prayer prays that they will not be taken out of the world but protected while in it. So there are no clear Scriptures of a removal of the church from here – indeed quite the opposite.

The evident thrust of Scripture is of his coming (not our going) and of our waiting (here) for a Saviour to come from heaven. Paul writes to the Roman city of Philippi using the analogy of the citizenship that those who were born in (or had obtained) that status, and they would certainly not have read it as a hope of escape from their location. He wrote,

But our citizenship is in heaven, and it is from there that we are expecting a Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ (Phil. 3:21).

Phillippian (free) inhabitants lived in a Greek city but they were citizens (πολίτευμα: politeuma) of Rome. Their ‘task’ in Phillippi was to bring the values and culture of Rome to Philippi. They were certainly not to live there hoping to get to Rome (and certainly not to hope that one day the emperor would come and ‘snatch them away’ to Rome!). Life might be tough, there could be opposition but the hope was for the emperor to come at some future time. That is the natural story that Paul is alluding to, and transforming it from a mere citizenship of an earthly city to that of being citizens of heaven.

When Jesus, the Saviour, comes from heaven a physical transformation would take place (3:21). Just as there was no encouragement to expect a movement from Philippi to Rome, Paul is not encouraging them with a movement from earth to heaven and if we take out the chapter divisions and continue to read the opening verse of chapter 4 it simply re-enforces that Paul was never encouraging those believers to hope for the ‘rapture’ but to be engaged within the city where they lived, to pray and work so that there might be some evidence of the culture and values of heaven entering the city (‘let your kingdom come…’).

Therefore, my brothers and sisters, whom I love and long for, my joy and crown, stand firm in the Lord in this way, my beloved.

We could describe movement from earth to heaven as temporary (death for the believer – for those who are united in Christ are joined eternally – and resurrection / ascension for Jesus (until… (Acts 3:19-21)), but the longing (hope) is for there to be a final movement from heaven to earth to bring about a culmination to the ‘project’ that God began.

Personal Conclusions

  • I find no unequivocal support for a secret rapture that removes believers from earth in history prior to the early 1830s. It is of course possible that this belief was held by a few, but if it was what was developed by J.M. Darby cannot be found prior to his formulations. It is also telling that in no historical creed nor statements of faith is there any hint of a secret rapture.
  • The dividing up of Scripture is not what is called for by 2 Tim. 2:15 and the divisions that make the various ‘dispensations’ are something imposed on Scripture.
  • Eschatology is related to protology, or in simple language all things related to the ‘end’ have a connection to ‘the beginning’. Scripture is a story of God and creation, hence God creates and restores all that has been damaged; the end is of God making all things new (rather than God is making all new things). The redemption of God draws all that has been to completion.
  • In this story from creation to new creation there is a people who are called to co-labour toward the eschaton. That one people are given various titles and descriptions and it is a false divide to seek to give a different destiny to Israel. All of Scripture is centred on Jesus, the truly human one, the Messiah of Israel.
  • Likewise there is one coming, not divided into two stages. With resurrection / transformation as the outcome.
  • We are not to confuse a historic pre-millennial approach with the pre-millennial approach of Darby et al. It  is apparent that many in the early church held to a pre-millennial understanding; for example Irenaeus was one such person who sought to refute what has been termed an a-millennial view indicating that both views were present in the early centuries.
  • Likewise a belief in (the) ‘great tribulation’ can be, and is, held by those who are not Dispensationalist.
  • Regardless of how one works out their eschatological view we have to be intensely practical and engage with the here and now as opposed to being full of knowledge as to time-tables. The latter has a history of moving goalposts and watching history unfold from the side-lines. On many issues a better eschatology is probably ‘I haven’t got a clue’!

Dispensationalism – history and critique #5

Next part… the final pdf will be footnoted for the various references.


Hal Lindsey (1929-2024)

A prolific writer and one who claims to be able to interpret current events in the light of prophetic Scriptures, he is a major influencer on the Dispensationalist believers.

His books include:

  • Late Great Planet Earth (1970)
  • There’s a New World Coming (1973)
  • The 1980′s Countdown to Armageddon (1980)
  • The Final Battle (1994)
  • Planet Earth 2000 A.D. (1994, & 1996)
  • Apocalypse Code (1997)
  • Planet Earth: The Final Chapter (1998).

(A number of the books are re-writes of earlier titles.)

It is inevitable that there have been revisions regarding the predictions within the book (this is inevitable whenever there is an attempt to make current events fit into biblical prophecy). Here is one such revision (the first quote from a publication in 1980 and the second from 1998):

The goal of this book is not merely to show which prophecies have been fulfilled since Late Great came out in 1970, however. Even more important, it is intended to analyze what will occur in the decade we have just entered… The decade of the 1980”s could very well be the last decade of history as we know it.

This book doesn”t dwell on the past, it looks to the future. Because we are so close to the final, climactic stages of world history, it is considerably easier today for the student of Bible prophecy to see with some accuracy what”s coming next… I am certain… The Second Advent will occur in the next few years – probably in your lifetime.

The first book written in 1980 predicts the 80s as the final decade; the second book written in 1998 pushes it a few years forward!! Of course words and phrases such as ‘probably’ and ‘could very well be’ covers the possible accusation of ‘you said’ but for the reader with book in one hand and TV remote in the other, inside knowledge of the times is right there for them! Given that we are now a few years beyond 1998, we might be due a new prediction! Throughout he has consistently held to the interpretive perspective that the current generation is the one that the Bible is talking about when it comes to the fulfilment of Scripture:

It is clear that the Bible can”t be talking about any other time in history but today. No man knows the day or hour this dramatic climax is going to occur. But there can be little doubt that this is the generation. It could start tomorrow.

He interprets current nations as being the nations in the Bible such as the Palestinians are the Philistines of Scripture, Lebanon is the Tyre of old. This is without warrant.

The apocalyptic visions of Revelation are to be taken literally (or at least literal once re-interpreted through Lindsey’s grid). John did not have language to describe what he saw, so with Lindsey’s guidance we know that John″s ‘locusts’ are really helicopters:

‘horses prepared for battle’ are heavily armed attack helicopters, ‘crowns of gold’ are the helmets worn by pilots, and the ‘sound of their wings’ are the thunderous sound of many attack helicopters flying overhead.

The ‘bow’ wielded by the antichrist in Revelation 6:1-2? Well John had no way of describing what Lindsay knows were inter-continental ballistic missiles. All now becomes clear for the reader!

This type of interpretation is what makes the books both popular and also dangerous. Popular because the reader now has inside information as to the progress of history, and dangerous because there is no need to bring about any level of change to the world we live in. The world is hurtling toward destruction, but wonderfully the believer will be raptured from the scene thus avoiding all the troubles.

Regarding celebrations for the new millennium (the 2st Century) Lindsey wrote:

Just for the record: I’m not planning to attend. In fact looking at the state of the world today, I wouldn″t make any long-term earthly plans. We may be caught up to meet Christ in the clouds, between now and then – just as I described in an earlier chapter. Could I be wrong? Of course. The rapture may not occur between now and the year 2000. But never before in the history of the planet have events and conditions so coincided as to set the stage for this history-stopping event… I want to spend the final pages of this book discussing what I expect to see happen in the hours and minutes we have left.

The imminence of the ‘end-times’ can be seen in Lindsey’s assertions that the antichrist is alive, in Europe, and imminently getting ready.

Antichrist is alive and ready in Europe:

Here are a number of quotes from Lindsey’s writings:

I believe this man is alive today-alive and waiting to come forth… I believe this leader is alive somewhere in Europe; perhaps he is already a member of the EEC parliament.

He will immediately rise to prominence in the EEC and from that post he will offer the world amazing solutions to all its complex and terrifying problems. Because of his superhuman powers and his solutions to the world’s conflicts, the anti-Christ will be chosen to lead the EEC.

Heading up what will evolve into a 10-nation confederacy will be a man of such magnetism and power that he will become the greatest dictator the world has ever known… And he is alive today. There is a potential dictator waiting in the wings somewhere in Europe who will make Adolf Hitler and Josef Stalin look like choir boys. Right now he is preparing to take his throne, inflaming his soul with visions of what he will be able to do for mankind with his grand schemes and revolutionary ideas… Is alive and well on planet Earth… Let’s go meet him.

The focus in this article is not to discuss all the details of this (and other) author(s), but simply to try and track the development of the theology and also to show how embedded it has become within much Christian thought. After a brief summary of the Dispensationalist scheme (next post) I will then turn to the issue of the rapture itself.

Dispensationalism – history and critique #4

Cyrus Ingerson Scofield (1843-1921)

There are many controversies surrounding the life of Scofield, and questions regarding his integrity have never been adequately answered. However, the key issue in this article is to do with his popularising of the Dispensational viewpoint.

Scofield was a disciple of James Brookes (minister of Walnut Street Presbyterian Church, St. Louis) who was influenced by J.N. Darby, and Scofield in turn was a major influence on D.L. Moody (and it was Scofield who officiated at his funeral).

Scofield took the text in 2 Timothy 2:15 about ‘rightly dividing the word of truth’ to indicate that there were divisions within Scripture that were to be rightly discerned. This was the foundation to his understanding of the different dispensations in Scripture. The Moody Bible Institute and Dallas Theological Seminary gave their support to the book Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth that Scofield wrote, thus giving it a major boost. (And since those early years the book has been often reprinted.)

The influence of the Scofield Bible (Scofield Reference Bible (1917); The New Scofield Study Bible (1984)) cannot be underestimated. The ‘genius’ of it was that the way to interpret the Bible was actually now written within its own pages. There was no need for an add-on book, the whole system was self-contained.

The following quotes will illustrate the influence of the Scofield Bible:

The most important single document of all fundamentalism… which has been the normal religious diet of many millions of readers. Its name itself makes clear what it is, a private interpretation… Both serious biblical scholarship and the established traditions of the major churches were alike ignored.

The Scofield Reference Bible became the Bible of fundamentalism, and the theology of the notes approached confessional status in many Bible schools, institutes and seminaries established in the early decades of this century.

The Bible itself sold phenomenally. In the USA alone by 1945 there had been some 2 million copies that had been sold.

Scofield’s seven dispensations

Although there are differences between the Dispensations in the original Bible of 1917 and the revised work in 1984, the underlying shape remains the same. Here I outline the newer list:

  1. Innocence (Gen. 1.28)
  2. Conscience or Moral Responsibility (Gen. 3.7)
  3. Human Government (Gen.8.15)
  4. Promise (Gen. 12.1)
  5. Law (Ex. 19.1)
  6. Church (Acts 2.1)
  7. Kingdom (Rev. 20.4)

To state that these are divisions imposed on Scripture I hope is clear. (The clear division in Scripture is between the Law and the Prophets and Gospel that came through Christ. We read that ‘all the Prophets and the Law prophesied until John’ (Matt. 11:13). But in the Scofield division, Jesus is ministering under the dispensation of law!)

In Dispensationalism the Gospels are for the Jew, so for example the Lord’s Prayer and the phrase ‘forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us’ is not applicable to the church as it is based on ‘legal ground’. The Letters then are for the church age, and the age of grace will end with the apostasy of the church. When the church age ends in failure and apostasy it will be replaced by a revived national Israel who will enjoy the blessings of the final kingdom dispensation. In making the divide between Israel and the church Scofield can even insist that Israel is the wife of Yahweh, while the church is the bride of Christ.

The end of the church era (or dispensation of grace) will be the apostasy of the church, with the confusion of a false unity based around the papacy. The Babylon of Revelation takes two forms: an ecclesial-Babylon and a political Babylon, with the latter eventually destroying the former (Rev. 17:15-18).

There are obvious contradictions to Scripture in the system developed, but this work has shaped the way for those who follow. Writers such as Hal Lindsey (the next person I will look at), particularly with the encouragement of the foundation of the state of Israel in 1948, have seen in this step the clear fulfillment of Scripture, and developed an expectation of a revival among Jews and the imminent return of Christ.

Dispensationalism – history and critique #3

John Nelson Darby (1800-82)

Although Darby did not acknowledge his sources most scholars point to Irving as a very significant influence on his developing views. Darby was a charismatic figure, a dominant personality, a persuasive speaker and had a zeal for mission regarding his dispensationalist beliefs. He personally founded Plymouth Brethren churches as far away as Germany, Switzerland, France and the United States, and translated the entire Scriptures.

The churches Darby planted with the seeds of a separatist premillennial dispensationalism, in turn sent missionaries to Africa, the West Indies, Australia and New Zealand, so that by the time of his death in 1882, around 1500 Plymouth Brethren churches had already been founded world-wide.

His views also came to influence the Bible and Prophetic Conferences associated with Niagara and other centres in North America from 1875. The shift of interpretation that Darby brought has been noted:

Roy Coad, writing a history of the Brethren Movement, admits that,

For the traditional view of the Revelation, another was substituted.

James Barr is considerably more forthright and argues that premillennial dispensationalism was,

…individually invented by J. N. Darby… concocted in complete contradiction to all main Christian tradition…

It is almost certain (and Coad claims this) that the ‘futurist view’ of the end times, so evident in Darby’s writings can be traced to the work Irving had translated: “The Coming of the Messiah in Glory and Majesty”.

Clarence Bass concludes that with respect to Darby”s views that:

Such a concept is singularly missing from historic Christian theology… Darby is pointedly correct in stating that this came to him as a new truth, since it is not to be found in theological literature prior to his proclamation of it. It is not that exegetes prior to his time did not see a covenant between God and Israel, or a future relation of Israel to the millennial reign, but they always viewed the church as the continuation of God’s single program of redemption begun in Israel.

It is here that we note an important point is being made:

  • Darby does not see the church as the continuation of God’s single redemptive program, rather the church becomes a parenthesis in the work of God. The purposes of God were centred on Israel (past) and will again (future).

Darby began publishing his prophetic speculations in 1831. Both he and Edward Irving began to postulate two stages to Christ”s imminent return. First, there would be an invisible ‘appearing’ when Christians would meet Christ in the air and be removed from the earth, a process which came to be known as ‘the rapture of the saints’. Then with the restraining presence of the Holy Spirit removed from the world, the antiChrist would arise and the seven year tribulation would begin. His rule would finally be crushed only by the public ‘appearing’ of Jesus Christ.

Darby had an increasing influence on other venues including the Powerscourt Conferences in Dublin held in the 1830”s (he was originally an ordained Anglican priest in Dublin), in New York in 1868, London in 1873, Chicago in 1875, and then culminating in the Bible Conference Movement and the Niagara Conferences of 1883 to 1897. Regular topics covered included speculations on the Second Coming.

Regarding the rapture, Darby admitted as much that his doctrine of the rapture was an innovation, the result of ‘express revelation’, indeed he seemed quite pleased with the reaction to it.

Although his influence on Brethrenism in Britain waned, Darby’s influence in North America increased and he made seven journeys there over a twenty year period. It has been estimated that he spent 40% of his time in the United States during those 20 years, and had considerable influence on leaders such as James H. Brookes, Dwight L. Moody, William Blackstone and C. I. Scofield, as well as on emerging evangelical Bible Schools and Prophecy Conferences.

George Marsden, in his history of the rise of fundamentalism between 1870 and 1930, says (and note the names he lists):

This new form of premillennial teaching, imported from England, first spread in America through prophecy conferences where the Bible was studied intently. Summer conferences, a newly popular form of vacation in the age of the trains, were particularly effective. Most importantly, Dwight L. Moody had sympathies with the broad outlines of dispensationalism and had as his closest lieutenants dispensationalist leaders such as Reuben A. Torrey (1856-1928), James M. Gray (1851-1925), C. I. Scofield (1843-1921), William J. Erdman (1833-1923), A.C. Dixon (1854-1925), and A. J. Gordon (1836-1895). These men were activist evangelists who promoted a host of Bible conferences and other missionary and evangelistic efforts. They also gave the dispensationalist movement institutional permanence by assuming leadership of the new Bible institutes such as the Moody Bible Institute (1886), the Bible Institute of Los Angeles (1907), and the Philadelphia College of the Bible (1914). The network of related institutes that soon sprang up became the nucleus for much of the important fundamentalist movement of the twentieth century. Dispensationalist leaders, in fact, actively organised this antimodernist effort. Notably, they oversaw the publication between 1910-1915 of the widely distributed twelve-volume paperback series, The Fundamentals.

If it had not been for the connection with these influential leaders in North America, Dispensationalism might well have simply become a minor perspective on eschatology. And it is probably the Scofield Bible that became the singularly most powerful tool in enabling a Dispensational interpretation of Scripture to take root.


The reason for giving the amount of time that I am on addressing Dispensationalism / the Rapture is not simply the widespread belief in the Rapture but the influence this type of eschatology has had. Dispensationalist type of thinking has also influenced other theologies and we often end up with Dispensationalism with a twist. Of course someone might decide that the approach is also biblical.

So not all might believe in a Rapture but the popularity of the Left Behind series shows the effect this approach to Scripture has. End-time scenarios are a great fascination!

The widespread influence (to summarise what has gone before) flows through to where we are this time in history in this way:

  • Irving and Darby at the roots.
  • Then an influence on D.L. Moody the very influential north American revivalist (most influential?).
  • The publication of the Scofield Bible (and off-shoots such as Charles Ryrie study Bible) where the way to interpret Scripture is placed within the very pages of Scripture.
  • The reaction to liberalism and the publication of the twelve-volume paperback series, The Fundamentals (1910-15) – influenced greatly by Dispensational teachers.
  • Pentecostalism which borrowed its eschatology from Dispensationalism. Even great parts of the Charismatic movement have done the same.

In the mid-90s I studied the eschatology of the new church movement (a MS is available) and noted in a presentation on the restoration of the church a question in the margin (what about Laodicea?). This showed the tension. The eschatology that was assumed by the person writing the note was Dispensationalist (Laodicea being the ‘lukewarm’ church and a description of the last church was understood to be a letter to the church in the final era before the return of Chris) but the presentation was on the restoration of the church. That tension was expressed in the note. I see this again in places today. Revival, restoration of the five-fold ministry, but no consistent teaching on eschatology either to moderate the (over-the-top-optimistic) belief or to counteract the pessimism of Dispensationalism.

Let us make a little jump ahead and see the danger of these interpretations. Is the Bible being looked at and wrestled with regard to historical context and meaning, or is it the current scenario that the Bible has to line up with. What sometimes is called newspaper exegesis:

Charisma magazine published an article in April 1991, entitled ‘The Gulf War and Beyond: Respected Church Leaders Address Questions About War, Peace, Prophecy and the Middle East’.

One leader interviewed in this article said this:

Isaiah 21 speaks of the fall of Babylon. Verse 1 mentions a storm coming from the desert: “As whirlwinds in the South (the Negeb) sweep through, so it [the judgment of God by hostile armies] comes from the desert” (Amp.). This could be Operation Desert Storm!

[For those that remember the war in 1991 was called ‘Operation Desert Storm’! The name given then was the judged to be the same as the one in Isaiah.]

At first glance, this may sound quite reasonable; there seem to be some remarkable parallels between Isaiah 21 and the Gulf War. But look again. Is this what Isaiah had in mind?

The parallels are coincidental… and once the war was over the connection was conveniently forgotten. This moving on to the next ‘news’ article has always been present in these approaches. I noted earlier how Napoleon Bonaparte was understood to be the antiChrist – not a suggestion that is made today for obvious reasons.

Why should the terrors of Revelation be around the corner… why not past? Why not suggest that the fulfilment was the bubonic plague that killed 1/3 of the population of Europe… or why not another interpretation all-together?

Perspectives