Evaluating the Council of Trent, Part II

As we saw last time, Trent claims the following:

. . . seeing clearly that this truth and discipline are contained in the written books, and the unwritten traditions which, received by the Apostles from the mouth of Christ himself, or from the Apostles themselves, the Holy Ghost dictating, have come down even unto us, transmitted as it were from hand to hand; (the Synod) following the examples of the orthodox Fathers, receives and venerates with an equal affection of piety, and reverence, all the books both of the Old and of the New Testament–seeing that one God is the author of both –as also the said traditions, as well those appertaining to faith as to morals, as having been dictated, either by Christ’s own word of mouth, or by the Holy Ghost, and preserved in the Catholic Church by a continuous succession.

I noted last time that I would evaluate the claims that (1) Christ has spoken through a tradition that is carried through time by a succession of popes and (2) that the argument that sola Scriptura "Scripture supreme" is false because the tradition has the same authority that Scripture has is a self-defeating claim.

So now the second proposition that the claim that Scripture and tradition have an equal authority is a self-defeating claim. It is self-defeating because one can only have one supreme authority, not two. Either both are the same primary authority, and therefore, not different authorities or one must bow to the other. In this case, although Trent is claiming here that both are equal in their authority, the real claim is that the church is the only supreme authority and the Scripture is a product of that authority. This is a very different claim than the one made by the council. 

If Scripture is equal in authority to tradition then tradition cannot say anything contrary to it since it is the same authority. If tradition is equal in authority to Scripture then Scripture cannot say anything contrary to it because it is the same authority. This is simple enough. The problem is that this is not how claims are examined. Because of the claim made by Trent, all scriptural interpretation must conform to tradition, not vice versa. The claim that the Bible is God's Word is not in dispute between Roman Catholicism and Protestants. It is the claim that tradition carries the same level of authority as the Bible, and contrary interpretations mean that the argument is not merely over what the Bible says but whether the tradition accurately interprets the Bible. But this in itself somewhat admits that the Bible is superior to tradition since what is claimed to be the Word of God must be judged by what is known to be the Word of God. Hence, in practicality, the Roman Catholic doctrine implies sola Scriptura in that it must argue that its traditions rightly interpret and harmonize with the biblical text. No one is arguing that the text of Scripture must be altered in order to adhere to tradition (even though this was done a few times in church history). Everyone is arguing that what they believe is biblical or in harmony with the Bible, and in this regard, Trent has already conceded without knowing it. 

The reason why most Roman Catholics don't realize that their doctrine implies sola Scriptura is because they usually have some ridiculous caricature of it. No one is arguing that Scripture contains all truth or that it alone has any authority, etc. It is simply the norm that must norm all other norms, and Trent treats it this way as well. Tradition and Scripture must be in harmony, but only one is claimed to be from Christ (tradition) and the other known to be from Him (Scripture). The one (tradition) is then only made known to be the Word of God by its harmonization with the other (Scripture), which then means that Scripture is supreme. 

Now, modern Roman Catholic apologists have seen this dilemma and shoot back that Scripture is unknown without tradition in terms of what books belong in the canon. The problem with this is that it becomes an impossible dilemma, as the claim that tradition has authority either comes from the Bible, which is supposedly unknown without the authority of tradition or it comes from tradition which is unknown without the known Word of God from the Bible. Again, this ends up being self-defeating. Anyone can claim to have a tradition from Jesus that is authoritative. What is to authenticate such a claim? And this brings us to our next discussion.

In order to escape this dilemma, certain traditions like EO or RC set up the tradition of the physical succession of the apostolic office. Hence, if one has the physical office, he has the authority of the apostles, and if he has the authority of the apostles, then one can authenticate what is the Word of God that way.

Leaving for a moment the idea that this is yet another tradition itself that needs authentication, and is therefore just kicking the can down the road to become self-defeating, how does an EO make a claim against an RC? Which tradition is the apostolic one? "Oh, it's ours because we have the physical seat of Peter talked about in Matthew 16, which we interpret to be the singular bishopric of Rome not mentioned either by that text or anywhere else in the Bible." "Oh, no, it's ours because we have the conciliar authority of the apostles we see in John 20 and Acts 15 that makes no prescriptive argument that apostles transfers to singular patriarchs and bishops that come together in councils." However, even if the Scripture was explicit for any one of these two traditions, this is implying that Scripture is known already in order to establish the tradition that would be rightly interpreting the Word of God. How was it known before it was known? The tradition establishes what the Word of God is among the writings which establishes what the Word of God is in the tradition so that it can establish what the Word of God is in Scripture? This doesn't quite work without assuming that the Word of God is known in Scripture either already without tradition or what the known Word of God is already in tradition without the Scripture being known. Either way, one has to assume which one has a self-authenticating nature to it or one ends up on the merry-go-round.

I would suggest that Trent didn't just get this wrong because it conflicts with Protestant beliefs. It got it wrong because it's illogical. 

Now, one could argue that both are self-authenticating but this begs the question to anyone on the outside of this belief and also as to why Prots accept the Scripture as the Word of God, something that we would argue can only be true of the regenerate ("My sheep hear My voice"), but do not hear Christ's voice in traditions that they see as contradicting Scripture or are unnecessary to knowing Christ. How can they hear Jesus' voice in Scripture and say, "Amen," but not hear His voice in traditions if it is the same self-authenticating voice to those who can only hear if they are genuinely regenerate (1 Cor 2:6-16)? How can one have an ear to hear what the Spirit says to the churches in Scripture but not hear what He says to the churches in tradition if "having an ear to hear" means you hear what He says regardless of the medium?

There is nothing to say that Christians can't hear too much and mistaken their traditions for Christ's voice, but there is plenty in Scripture to suggest that whatever Christ says, His people have an ear to hear it. In fact, this seems to be the point of the new covenant in Jeremiah 31. Everyone, from greatest to smallest, will know Him because His law, i.e., the Scripture, will be written on their minds. Any promise that traditions will be written on their minds too?

There is still all the more to mention how traditions through both popes speaking with authority and councils also speaking with authority have contradicted one another. So what is done? They were judged by Scripture as to whether they were faithful to the apostolic teaching in Scripture. This is the teaching passed down through the creeds and councils we only now accept as the orthodox ones, but at the time, all of that was in dispute, so much so that you even had the bishop of Rome adopt what all sects of Christendom now consider heresies (e.g., Honorius). Where was the physical seat then? (And, no, the claim that no one called him a heretic then only magnifies the fact that no one knew what the heresies were yet because there was no seat of authority that could decide the matter. The teachings of Scripture had to be discussed and debated.)

And who had the right interpretation of the Filioque? Who is to decide? Our tradition versus your tradition? And how do we establish those without an established Scripture? And how do we establish Scripture without an established tradition? To say it like the Reformed Bros., "By what authority?"

I'm going to continue through the council because I think it would be beneficial but this, of course, is a massive problem and why such confusion allows for the altering of so many beliefs and practices through the ages. When there is no real fixed Word of God that is known through self-authentication, and one can interpret it based on tradition rather than via the exegesis of the text itself that already contains what is needed to do so, one ends up being at the beck and call of the zeitgeist (hence, Trent looks different from Vatican I and both look very different from Vatican II and they all will look different from whatever councils we get in the future, but the Scripture says what it says from its creation to this very day). 

 

Hebrews 2:5-8, the Lord's Prayer, and the Devil's Holy Distractions

Rearranging the furniture in a burning house. Sure, why not? If you have to live there while its burning, I guess you can make it more comfortable for yourself. But is it the primary duty of a person to paint the walls and organize the house that will be in ashes not a few minutes later? Probably not. I would think the person should realize that the house is burning and try and save/preserve as many people as he can from the house. If he can do both, fine. But more often than not, one becomes exclusive to the other because like anything we are finite and can only fix our minds and purposes on one thing at a time. The question really becomes whether Christ wants us to rearrange the furniture or save those in the house so that they may live in a better, rebuilt house. After all, what good is rearranging furniture if there is no one left to sit in it? 

It may seem holy to cultivate the environment. It certainly is. But if in cultivating the environment we get distracted from being procreational, we will end up like the world represented by the line of Cain, preserving an environment with very few people to live in it. Much of this debate stems from the idea that the Lord's prayer, specifically the phrases, "Thy Kingdom come, Thy will be done in earth as it is in heaven," reference Christ's current rule over the earth as its mediatorial king, and therefore, carry an ethic that we also should take this current world, its governments, its cultures, etc., and place them under Christ's feet. I'm going to argue that the premise that Christ rules this world mediatorially is false, and therefore, the conclusion that this is what He wants us to do is false. Instead, I will argue that Christ has been given the world to come, so that there is nothing more for us to do but join Him in what He is doing now, which is filling up the world to come with people He has redeemed. We do this through procreation, literally via procreative sexual unions in permanent marriages and spiritually via the gospel. Just like in Genesis, God accomplishes the preservation Himself so that those who pit the two against one another and so focus on preservation have no excuse that they neglected procreation. (Note: I am talking about focus as opposed to the devil's holy distractions with what would otherwise be good things. Of course one is to create environments that are preserving of life, but this is not the primary problem with the world. It is that men's minds are wicked even from their youth, and therefore, they must be not only born but born again. This procreative emphasis is due to Jesus filling up His world to come.)

One of the many texts that teach that Christ's kingdom is not universal until His coming (e.g., the cycles in Daniel and Revelation) is Hebrews 2:5-8. It reads,

For it was not to angels that God subjected the world to come, of which we are speaking. It has been testified somewhere, 

   “What is man, that you are mindful of him, or the son of man, that you care for him? You made him for a little while lower than the angels; you have crowned him with glory and honor, putting everything in subjection under his feet.” 

Now in putting everything in subjection to him, he left nothing outside his control. At present, we do not yet see everything in subjection to him. 

We note a couple things here. 1. That, at present, everything is not subject to Christ in this world, and 2. God has not subjected this world to Christ but rather has subjected the world to come to Him. 

Yet, we are told that Christ is exalted above all things and is seated at the right hand of God the Father. Eph 1:19-21 states:

. . . when he raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly places, far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and above every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come. And he put all things under his feet and gave him as head over all things for the church, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills all in all.

Now, universal kingdom advocates have a problem here. Either Christ reigns over everything right now or He doesn't; and by "everything" I mean, not just in an imperial capacity but also as a mediatorial king. Think of the Roman Empire (or any empire for that matter). The Emperor rules over the empire but he is only the mediatorial ruler of Rome, which is the seat from which He oversees the rest of the empire. Now, think of not the cities that are under Rome, but the nations that are in rebellion against Rome but are within its domain. Perhaps a better analogy is one I've given many times before and that is the contrast between David and Saul. Saul has reign over all of Israel but David is anointed/messiahed as king of Israel. Saul still rules Israel. David is waiting for the time when Saul's rule will come to an end even though he is anointed as king long before that time. In the meantime, David is simply overseeing the kingdom from the outskirts. It is not a stretch to see Saul as the Satanic figure in the story and far less a stretch to see David as Christ. 

Those who do not claim that Christ is ruling over all things as a mediatorial king can explain both of these texts. Christ is the rightful ruler of heaven and earth and has been exalted as such at His resurrection and ascension. He is seated on the Father's throne, which is the throne of the Emperor/King of Kings and Lord of Lords, where He rules over all the earth sovereignly but only over Israel mediatorially (Deut 32:7-14) until the time the Father has appointed for Christ to return upon which that sovereign role of the Father is handed back to Him and Christ takes the earthly mediatorial role over Israel/the Church that rules the entire world (1 Cor 15:23-28) as the city of Rome becomes the Roman Empire when all of the nations are subject to it. This is the vision in Daniel 2 and 7. It is not that Christ rules over separate empires but that one empire/kingdom/peoples are left upon the earth for Him to rule and all other authorities and powers, including Saul/the devil, no longer have any mediatorial rule upon the earth. 

In fact, this seems to be exactly what Ephesians 1 is saying. He is exalted to the Father's throne which is above every name and every thing. But then it says that He made Him head/leader/ruler of the Church. What a weird thing to say if He was already the ruler over everything in a mediatorial sense. Then He's head of every nation, not just the Church, but this clearly indicates a distinction between the sovereign reign and the mediatorial reign Christ is given now. As the Auctor says, we do not presently see all things subject to Him because God has subjected, not this world, but the world to come to Him. 

So God has both subjected all things under His feet in one sense (i.e., the imperial one) but not all things yet under His feet in another (i.e., the mediatorial sense). This is why God has exalted Him. "For He must rule until He has put all of His enemies under His feet" (1 Cor 15:25). And this subjection of His enemies in terms of the other powers and authorities in the heavenly places, the devil being the emperor over those entities, is not a continual one, but one that happens at the resurrection, at the end, as 1 Cor 15:23-28 states.

But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ. Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death. For “God has put all things in subjection under his feet.” But when it says, “all things are put in subjection,” it is plain that he is excepted who put all things in subjection under him. When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things in subjection under him, that God may be all in all. 

Nor is it the case that this is a rule that just continues on into eternity as Christ's sovereign rule is handed back over the Father, at which time the Son subjects Himself, as the mediatorial ruler of the world, to the Father, the sovereign emperor of the universe. That seat, although Christ is on it for the sake of preserving and gathering His Church/the kingdom, for the world to come, is the Father's throne (Rev 2:26-27; 3:21). Hence, Christ's eternal throne is different than the Father's.

This is why it can be said that God has both exalted Him above all rule and authority and yet Christ must abolish all contrary rule and authority at His coming and is therefore now only head/ruler over the Church/new covenant Israel, which at that time will be resurrected and rule over all the earth with Him.

All of this to say, the phrase in the Lord's prayer, "Thy Kingdom come" carries all of this theology. It notes that the kingdom in terms of its universal mediatorial rule upon the earth has not yet come. That God's will is not yet done in the earth as it is in heaven because God rules sovereignly from heaven but only mediatorially over Israel/the Church. The prayer is a cry to God to bring the world to come, to send Jesus back so that God's will is done in the earth as it is in heaven. It is the cry that John gives at the end of the Apocalypse, "Come, Lord Jesus," and the longing of every orthodox believer who has loved his appearing. The theology above is the only theology that makes sense of this prayer. Otherwise, it would say, thanks for bringing in your kingdom and that your will is done already in heaven and earth. That's not what it says. It tells us the same thing that all of these texts tell us, which is that we wait for the blessed hope of the world to come, not a reorganization of this world, a rearranging of the furniture in a burning house, into yet another shadow of what is to come. 

Hence, we do the work of Christ and it is an eternal work that moth and rust do not destroy because even if those in Christ die, they will return to fill up the world to come. Not so with the wood, hay and straw of rearranging the furniture in a burning house. What can be destroyed in this world will not last in the world to come. Only what is connected to Christ will remain, and so this, not the obtainment of land and title, is our work in the world.

The Heresy of the Universal Kingdom

 There are those who in recent days have not only declared the biblical doctrine that Christ reigns over heaven and earth upon the transcendent seat of the Father but also as the mediatorial King over the entire earth. The biblical doctrine is that Christ reigns sovereignly as the Emperor of the Universe, but is only the mediatorial King of Israel, which is the Church. 

We've gone over verses before that clearly teach He does not reign as the mediatorial regent over the entire world. The Bible clearly teaches that the devil rules the world and that spiritual powers in the heavenly places rule the individual nations other than Christ's nation, Israel/the Church. 

But the question I want to ask today is whether the universal mediatorial regency of Christ view is heresy according to the creeds, specifically the creed upon which all orthodox creeds assume, the Apostle's Creed.

I would argue that it is. The text says that Christ is seated at the right hand of God. That's His sovereign rule as emperor. However, it also says that He will return to judge the living and the dead. This phrase means that He is not judging the world now, and yet, a king must judge his domain and not delay in doing it if he is a righteous king. A righteous king judges His domain quickly. But if Christ will return to judge the entire world then He is not judging it now. 

Instead, the biblical teaching of Christ is that He is not judging the world now but that God has appointed a day upon which He will judge the world. However, we do see Him judge His domain now because He is a righteous judge. That domain is Israel/the Church. Hence, Revelation 2-3 show Christ as judging His people as a righteous king because that is the domain of His kingship. James 5:9 echoes Revelation 3:21 by saying that Christ as judge of the church is right at the door/gates and ready to judge those within His covenant community who mistreat others in His kingdom. Hence, judgment for the church, according to Peter, is now; but the judgment of the world is later when Christ makes the whole world His kingdom when He returns to judge the living and the dead, i.e., the entire world. 

The domain of His judgment now reveals the extent of His domain upon the earth now. Hence, Paul, as an emissary of Christ, states that he has nothing to do with judging the world but his apostolic office that represents the authority of Christ is to be used to judge the church (1 Cor 5:12-13).

What this all means is that the creed assumes the biblical teaching that Jesus sits on God's throne, which is the sovereign throne over all the universe as the emperor, but only mediatorially now as the King of Israel/the Church. Israel/the Church does not rule over the world now, so Jesus does not rule over the world now as the mediatorial king, since the only nation that belongs to Him mediatorially is Israel/the Church, as He is the Davidic King, not the King of Assyria, Babylon, Greece, Rome, etc. When He returns He will cause Israel/the Church to rule over the world and He will be the emperor over the entire world, having given up the Father's sovereign rule over the universe to the Father (1 Cor 15:24-25). 

Christ isn't the ruler of each nation. He is the ruler of one nation, a holy nation, a priestly nation, and that is the Church. The devil is called the god of this world, the ruler of this age, the prince of the power of the invisible world, the authority at work among the sons of disobedience.

So the idea that Christ rules over the world now is a denial of the statement that Christ is seated at the right hand of the Father and will judge the living and the dead at His return, not now, a phrase which summarizes the theology above; and in that regard, is a denial of orthodoxy.

The Crime of Sola Summa Theologica

Cities are not made for those who will not submit to the proper authorities. They are not made for those who do not wish to submit to the rules of those right authorities. They are made for those who wish to learn laws and customs and abide by them. These are citizens. The others are criminals. Criminals submit to all sorts of rules and authorities, usually their own or some criminal organization or leadership, but not to the right authorities, and hence, they are not true citizens of that city. They have made their own within it and merely exist within a place that does not belong to them.

It is often thought that Reformed Christians are the Christians of the Bible. After all, they teach through the Bible verse by verse, don't they? We identify them as citizens of the kingdom because they quote verses like a rooster crowing at 3am. They talk about theology and are faithful to their theologies, whatever they may be. They are the intellectual side of Christendom. But are they in submission to the right authority?

After being among Reformed churches for some time now, I can definitively say that many, not all, of them are actually Christians of Systematic Theology more than they are of the Bible. Their confessions, although stating that they are summaries of the Bible and that the Bible alone is the supreme authority, the norm that norms all other norms, are often treated above the Bible. 

After all, if the interpretation of the Bible can be easily understood and the Bible itself is difficult to understand then a document that is seen as interpreting the Bible correctly is surely superior to the Bible as a reference for truth. 

I'm sure many will disagree with my analysis, but I do want to point out that people are far more faithful to their theologies than they are to the Bible, especially when the Bible, accurately exegeted, may not support their theologies in the end. 

Now, I believe systematic theologies are important as placeholders, but they must not supplant the rigorous application of exegesis to the text of Scripture. It rather should be assumed by every interpreter of the Bible that it will, as it intends to, supplant his theology. 

Sometimes, it will supplant a superficial understanding of that theology and give it layers and nuance it did not have before. Sometimes, it will completely refute it. Other times, it will simply reveal to the interpreter that it does not say anything one way or another about an issue that he thought it said much about before. In any case, sola Scriptura demands more than just a meme hung on the wall. It demands absolute allegiance to the voice of the one who spoke it so that His words are considered above our first, second, and third impressions of it. It demands that we read it again, and then read it again, and then when you're sure of what it says, read it again. Then read it in the Hebrew or Aramaic or Greek. Then read the context again. Then act like the only thing you have is the immediate context and nothing else. Then act like the literary context of the book is all you have to interpret it and nothing else. Then read it again. 

Systematics are summaries of topics one believes the Bible is addressing. They haven't historically been all that exegetical in nature, although some are attempting to change that. It relies heavy on impressions of the text and the individual depth of knowledge of the theologian of that text so that if the theologian is not also a biblical scholar the chances of misunderstanding the very texts upon which his theology is founded are high. 

Yet, people see faithfulness to Christianity as a faithfulness to their confessions, their particular church's theology, some theological consensus in church history, the theology of their family or what they were taught when they first became committed to Christ. None of this is faithfulness to Christ because it makes Him second tier by making His Word second tier to our systematic expressions of it.

There is nothing wrong with confessions and systematic theologies unless they give people the impression that its all they need. These are the milk of the faith, not the meat of it, and if they are treated as milk then we do well to move up to the richer and meatier food of the Scripture. If we treat them as meat, however, we will inevitably mistake what we are eating as God's Word when it is merely the words of men summarizing, often superficially and out of context, the Word of God.

I hold to confessions. I think the Three Forms are, for the most part, true. But my faith is supported by a much deeper foundation and a much stronger substance than mere summaries of frankly what the writer of Hebrews calls "basic teachings about Christ" (Heb 6:1).

Exegesis is superior to systematizing because it tends toward reading out of the text rather than read into it. Biblical scholarship trumps systematics for this reason, not because systematics are not important and held by everyone but because one should challenge and change the other and the other should not challenge and change the one. He who's theology is not in submission to the exegesis of Scripture is not in submission at all. He is a criminal in a city made for the free.

Why the Bible Doesn't Teach There Will a Millennial Kingdom, Part II

 "Kids, we're going to Disneyland next month!" The screams of excitement and delight cannot be exaggerated enough. The father proclaims with absolute certainty that a magical trip will take place in the near future. That's the way the children take it. It is going to happen. Period. But then a month goes by and the father has lost his job, they can't make rent and are eating their last can of beans from a now barren pantry. Disneyland is no longer their future.

So what do the kids say? "You lied to us, Dad. You said that we were going to Disneyland and would be doing all sorts of fun things but it never happened."

This response is understandable. Children understand everything in absolutes. I once had one of my kids say to me, "Dad, why do you lie to us? You say you're going to give us a spanking but then you give us two or three?" (referring to the fact that my hand went up and down two or three times as though the term "a spanking" means a single swipe of the hand). There is no nuance in their understanding, and therefore, there is little understanding that most of what is spoken has a context to it.

The context of the above scenario is that the father was really just saying that they were going to Disneyland if he didn't lose his job, if the car didn't break down, if the father didn't die, if Disneyland didn't burn down before they got there. In other words, if the contingencies that are needed in order for the promise to take place, that promise will happen. If the contingencies for the promise do not take place, then the promise will not take place.

This is especially true of when we talk about Old Testament prophecies that deal with God fulfilling His part in the Deuteronomic blessings to old covenant Israel.

The first thing to note about Old Testament prophecy is just that. Most of it does not consist of new things being promised to Israel. The prophets are God's lawyers and the Deuteronomic covenant is the law they are using to both prosecute Israel and give a defense as to why God is not bringing about the blessings but rather the cursings of that covenant.

So what was that covenant about? What were the blessings? Deuteronomy 28:1-14 presents the blessings.

“If you indeed obey the LORD your God and are careful to observe all his commandments I am giving you today, the LORD your God will elevate you above all the nations of the earth. All these blessings will come to you in abundance if you obey the LORD your God: You will be blessed in the city and blessed in the field. Your children will be blessed, as well as the produce of your soil, the offspring of your livestock, the calves of your herds, and the lambs of your flocks. Your basket and your mixing bowl will be blessed. You will be blessed when you come in and blessed when you go out. The LORD will cause your enemies who attack you to be struck down before you; they will attack you from one direction but flee from you in seven different directions. The LORD will decree blessing for you with respect to your barns and in everything you do—yes, he will bless you in the land he is giving you. The LORD will designate you as his holy people just as he promised you, if you keep his commandments and obey him. Then all the peoples of the earth will see that you belong to the LORD, and they will respect you. The LORD will greatly multiply your children, the offspring of your livestock, and the produce of your soil in the land which he promised your ancestors he would give you. The LORD will open for you his good treasure house, the heavens, to give you rain for the land in its season and to bless all you do; you will lend to many nations but you will not borrow from any. The LORD will make you the head and not the tail, and you will always end up at the top and not at the bottom, if you obey his commandments which I am urging you today to be careful to do. But you must not turn away from all the commandments I am giving you today, to either the right or left, nor pursue other gods and worship them.

Notice the contingency for these blessings to occur is explicitly stated here. In other words, it should already be assumed that if blessings are promised they are promised contingent upon whether the things in the covenant are obeyed. And inclusio exists between vv. 1 and 14 in that If you indeed obey the LORD your God and are careful to observe all his commandments I am giving you today and But you must not turn away from all the commandments I am giving you today, to either the right or left, nor pursue other gods and worship them both convey the contingent nature of these blessings.

The curses also follow, and this is what the prophets argue are happening to an unfaithful Israel. So what are the promises in the Prophets? They are exhortations that if Israel will turn away from their sin they will receive the covenant blessings instead. That is all they are. 

This is what is being assumed in the background of the Prophets. Don't read them without understanding this context or you will end up like the little children who think their father lied to them.

Now, it is important to note that the blessings are tied to the specific land of Israel and what will happen to old covenant Israel in that land. It is also extremely important to note that these are not general promises to anyone outside the land of Israel who would obey them. This covenant is for Israel in order to "exalt Israel above all of the other nations," so it is not a universal covenant being made with mankind, but only with the ancient peoples who were going to occupy the land of Israel. There is nothing here about the other nations being exalted if they do all of this covenant. There is nothing here about individual blessings or cursings being applied if these commandments are obeyed or disobeyed, and this brings us to something important that is often missed here. The blessings end with the warning to not follow after other gods. This is in parallel to obeying all of the commandments because, in Deuteronomy, obedience to the commandments has to do with those within the land of Israel having a particular relationship with God through them. Hence, the commandments are about knowing and worshiping YHWH, not just doing things that are generally and inherently good and that simply may have good consequences regardless who does them. This covenant is about knowing YHWH and worshiping Him above all other gods so that Israel could be a nation of priests to the nations and be revered as such. 

Now, we know that God wants to make a picture of Israel for the world so that the world ultimately knows what YHWH will do to the world if He rules it, and we know that this is ultimately fulfilled in the new heavens and new earth to come, a world that is completely ruled by Him and is rid of chaos. However, Israel fails to become that picture and so they do not take hold of the blessings described here and are kicked out of the land. After this, the new covenant through Christ begins and so the old covenant, which is filled with these specific blessings and cursings for Israel in the land, has passed away and is no longer in effect. This means that even if a bunch of Jews were to try and fulfill the contingencies of the old covenant, it would not matter. But this also means that if the new covenant does not contain these blessings in shadow form anymore then no Christian can obtain them either since the old covenant is not in effect. And this is obvious since very few of the Christians on earth live in Israel and God is not necessarily granting to them perfect success in all things and a freedom from hostilities both foreign and domestic. They still miscarry, have financial ruin, die young, etc.

Now, what does this have to do with whether the Bible teaches that there will be a Millennial Kingdom? It has everything to do with it because if the Bible isn't teaching that all of the old covenant prophecies and promises to Israel must be fulfilled if they fulfill the old covenant then the Bible isn't teaching that any of these prophecies that are contigent upon the Deuteronomic covenant have to ever be fulfilled. And if they never have to be fulfilled then there is not a time when God must fulfill them. And if there is not a time when God has to fulfill them then all of these prophecies in the Old Testament that surround the Deuteronomic covenant are about Israel in the old covenant, not about some Millennial Kingdom in the future. That's why they talk about Israel have slightly larger borders. That's why they talk about Israel as a physical nation ruling the other nations. That's why they talk about sacrificing animals still. That's why they surround the temple and its cultus. That's why they promise a continuous Levitical priesthood and a continual succession of kings upon the Davidic throne. They are bound to the time and place and circumstances of the old covenant, and so should not be applied universally or to some future kingdom that follows the advent of Christ and the new covenant in His suffering and blood, in His lack of success in the physical world. 

In fact, new covenant believers are not promised any of these things before the new world begins. Instead, they are promised suffering as their Master suffered. They are not promised a reverence from and exaltation over the nations. Rather, they are promised rejection by the world. Paul says he is now considered as the dregs of the world. Jesus was called the devil and His followers will be considered evil all the more so. We are promised the breaking up of our families with the sword of Christ's gospel, dishonor, even death. Quite the contrast between living a really long time and having absolute success in the land/world. 

The promises of the old covenant are a shadow, a picture, for everyone who might long for God and His Messiah to rule over all things and rid us of chaos and death, but they are not promises for anyone, Jew or Gentile, after the inauguration of the new covenant. They remain only relics of what could have been had Israel remembered its God. They are a hope to those who seek the new world and a warning to those who would treat God's covenant, old or new, with a presumption of entitlement without obedience to that covenant's stipulations. But they don't ever need to be fulfilled.

A good example of this is Jeremiah 33:17-18:

For thus says the LORD: David shall never lack a man to sit on the throne of the house of Israel, and the Levitical priests shall never lack a man in my presence to offer burnt offerings, to burn grain offerings, and to make sacrifices forever.

Do you know when David lacked a man on the throne? Immediately after this was said. In fact, no one ever sat on the throne of David again until Jesus sat upon it in His resurrection, and even then, He hasn't physically taken that seat over the land of Israel which is to what this promise refers.

Do you know when the Levitical priests lacked a man to burn offerings and grain offerings and make sacrifices continually? Right after this was said. Because the temple was destroyed and even when rebuilt for a short time, was destroyed again and no levitical priests remain making sacrifices to this very day. 

Now, notice, this never happens nor could it even happen if you plug Christ into it because it says that there will never be a lack, meaning there is a lack before Christ comes for about 500 years. There is a lack of a priest who can give sacrifices in a temple for about 100 years and then after Christ for 2000 years. So this will never be fulfilled, nor does it need to be because it is contingent upon whether Israel turns and obeys YHWH as their God. It is contingent upon the stipulations of the old covenant blessings and promises being upheld. They were not, so it did not happen. It does not need to ever happen and so there is no need to find some time in the future before the new world to make sure they happen. 

I've often brought up Jonah as an example of the absolute nature of language when it comes to contingent promises or warnings. Jonah does not say that Nineveh will be overthrown within 40 days if they don't repent. He just makes the absolute statement, "Forty more days and Nineveh will be overthrown!" Notice that there is no contingency applied. That's because those in the ancient world understand that the warning itself has a contingency. If it were just going to happen then there would be no warning. And, of course, we know there is a contingency to the absolute language because the people do repent and the city is not overthrown in forty days.

The promises are the same. There would be no exhortation to repent so that the promises could happen unless it was possible that the promises could never happen. 

So all of this said, if all of the passages of the Old Testament that are used to argue for some Millennial Kingdom, and there are many, don't actually teach anything about a Millennial Kingdom, then where in the Bible is there any teaching about a Millennial Kingdom needing to occur? We've already spoken about the fact that Revelation 20 doesn't necessarily teach that there will be one, and now we've talked about the fact that the common assumption that one must exist in order for old covenant prophecies to be fulfilled is false. So where now is the biblical basis for the idea that there absolutely will be one and you must pick which version of it you're going to shove into ever biblical text you come across?

Sorry to burn your Disneyland down but we must look for the world come that has been given to Christ (Heb 2:5-18) and not some magic kingdom that God will cut out for His people in this world (whether He will end up doing that or not).

Why the Bible Doesn't Teach There Will Be a Millennial Kingdom, Part I

I used to love watching the Wizard of Oz every year that it would come on TV. We didn't have cable so it was one of the few movies for kids I got to see in my own home every year. Dorothy landed in Oz but needed to get home and all she had to do was follow the yellow brick road and it would lead her to the Emerald City. When she finally got there, I remember how richly green the city looked, and of course, everyone was wearing green. In the original story, however, the Emerald City isn't actually emerald at all. The Wizard, a con man, had simply tricked the city into wearing glasses with green lenses that made the city and everything in it look like it was green. The city was just a regular city but try arguing that with one of its patriotic citizens who might curse you for saying otherwise. 

Premill? Postmill? Amill? These debates have dominated biblical hermeneutics for the past few centuries. Someone thinks the Bible says something about these and then proceeds to shove it down the throat of every unsuspecting text they come across. One text in Revelation 20 speaks of a millennium but does it tell us that there will actually be one? I'm going to argue now that the answer to the question is, No. 

Now, to caveat, I am not saying that there will not be one or that the Bible tells us that there will not be one. Hear me correctly. I am saying that the Bible does not tell us that there will be one. There may be unicorns in the new world, and the Bible does not say there will not be, but it doesn't say there will be either. So if you are a hardcore adherent, a citizen of the Emerald City who sees the millennium where there isn't one, what I am going to do now is to show you a hole in the matrix that you can look through to see the Bible as it is and not what those who have conned themselves and others into believing it says through what they think they read in the Bible but didn't.

Let's start by saying that if the only text that teaches about a millennium is literally telling us that there is one then both Postmill and Amill are false. Only Premill is supported by Revelation 20 if it is John's purpose to tell us about actual reality and not merely a possible reality. 

Why do I say that? Well, let's look at the text for a moment.

    Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, holding the key of the abyss and a great chain in his hand. and he laid hold of the dragon, the serpent of old, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years; he threw him into the abyss, and shut it and sealed it over him, so that he would not deceive the nations any longer until the thousand years were completed (after these things he must be released for a short time). Then I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was given to them. Then I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony of Jesus and because of the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received the mark on their forehead and on their hand; and they came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were completed. This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy is the one who has a part in the first resurrection; over these the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with Him for a thousand years. When the thousand years are completed, Satan will be released from his prison, and will come out to deceive the nations which are in the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together for the war; the number of them is like the sand of the seashore. Then they came up on the broad plain of the earth and surrounded the camp of the saints and the beloved city, and fire came down from heaven and devoured them. Then the devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are also; and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.

We, who don't have emerald glasses on, can see here that the resurrection of the body must take place before the millennium, so Postmills and Amills are out. If the resurrection of the body must take place first, and this has not happened nor will happen before Christ returns, then any millennial view that posits a pre-resurrection millennium is not supported by the only text that talks about a millennium.

Now, you may say what every Postmill or Amill says, "Yeah, but I see resurrection here as regeneration and so its just the regeneration of Christians that is necessary to take place first, and since that has happened, Amill and Postmill can be supported by this text." 

To which I say, "Thanks, Scarecrow, never thought about that one before." But actually, the text doesn't allow it. Hear me. THE TEXT DOES NOT ALLOW IT! Not me and my theology and preconceived notions. Not my traditions or personal, subjective longings for a particular idea to be true. THE TEXT DOES NOT ALLOW IT!

Why do I say that? Because key elements are being ignored by those trying to make that argument. It truly is a lesson in horrible hermeneutics. Someone who doesn't understand how to exegete will go through all of these texts that refer to regeneration as a type of resurrection or coming to life from other passages in the Bible, i.e., from other contexts with foreign referents, and then shove that meaning into this text and the phrase "they came to life." 

So what does the text mean in context? Let's read it and find out.

Then I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony of Jesus and because of the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received the mark on their forehead and on their hand; and they came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were completed. 

When does regeneration take place in a believer's life? Before or after he receives Christ, lives for Him and dies for Him? Obviously before. When would this regeneration happen here is "coming to life" meant regeneration? After they became Christians and testified of Jesus and obeyed the Word of God and refused therefore to bow down and worship the beast (whether the Roman Emperor it refers to or the system of the world doesn't matter here). So after they testified of Jesus, after they obeyed the Word of God, and after they refused to worship a false Christ, they became spiritually dead and were regenerated?

And that's another problem. They became spiritually dead after they received Jesus, testified of Him by doing so, obeyed the Word of God, stood in perseverance for their faith under the pressure of the beast (who was physically killing Christians in the rest of the book btw)? And what a weird way describing one becoming spiritually dead, "they who had been beheaded."

"Oh, well, I don't believe it's chronological," you might say. To which I would say, "The text makes it clear that it is by putting it in logical and temporal order. For instance, why were they "brought to life"? Because they previously had been beheaded? Why were they beheaded? Because what preceded the beheading was their not worshiping the beast, obeying the Word of God, and testifying of Jesus. We might then add, Why were they doing all of that? To which we would answer, Because they were already regenerated. So the one logically and temporally follows the other.

But not only that, Revelation has cycles that recapitulate the time from John to the ending of the devil's world and the beginning of Christ's world taking over all things. There is a progression from John's present to the end and this part of this final cycle is at the end, not in John's present. All rule and authority has been abolished in this scenario in Chapter 19, the beast/emperor and his kings, the false prophet, and the devil have all been toppled, which is where Christ begins to reign completely over all things with no opposition. In this cycle alone, John suggests a final push by the devil to take back his kingdom from Christ that fails so completely that the battle isn't even described. It begins and then immediately we are brought to the final judgment with the obvious losers being thrown into the lake of fire.

So both in the immediate context and in the overall context, this is meant to be temporal and a logical sequence of events where one thing must precede the other in order to happen, i.e., these saints must become Christians who testify of Christ and obey the Word of God, this causes them to be beheaded/killed, and this causes Christ to bring them to life.

I mean, they are even paralleled with the souls in Revelation 6, which speaks of the same group in extremely similar language:

When the Lamb broke the fifth seal, I saw underneath the altar the souls of those who had been slain because of the word of God, and because of the testimony which they had maintained; and they cried out with a loud voice, saying, “How long, O Lord, holy and true, will You refrain from judging and avenging our blood on those who dwell on the earth?” And there was given to each of them a white robe; and they were told that they should rest for a little while longer, until the number of their fellow servants and their brethren who were to be killed even as they had been, would be completed also. 

Not only is the fifth seal here late in the cycle, although not as late as Revelation 20 is in its cycle, showing the progression of the temporal sequence of events within each cycle, but notice that the same language is used of these people who are told to wait for God to do what He does in Revelation 19-20 because all Christians have to join them first in death. And they have died. They are crying out to God to take vengeance upon those who have shed their "blood," which is a synecdoche for "murder." They are told to wait until the rest of their brethren "who were to be killed even as they had been." So these "souls" as John calls them are physically dead.

And why are they dead here in the cycle of Revelation 6? They "had been slain because of the Word of God and because of the testimony which they had maintained." Notice the parallel language: "Souls" // souls, "slain" // "beheaded" in Rev 20, "because of the Word of God" // "because of the Word of God," "their testimony" // "the testimony of Jesus." 

I don't know about you, but I'm with the Sixth Sense kid, I see dead people. And they're not spiritually dead. They're physically dead but in the presence of God, i.e., spiritually alive and well, i.e., having been brought to life spiritually long before they died since it was the entire reason that they were murdered in the first place.

What this means is that the "souls" in Revelation 20 are souls. The word "beheaded" refers to their being executed for their faith. That means that that the making of them alive is from the only death they are suffering from at the time of their being made alive, i.e., physical death, i.e., it's the physical resurrection from the dead to which Revelation 20 is referring. And you know what that means? The physical resurrection must take place first before the millennium in this passage, again, the only passage that actually speaks of a millennium, not only within the rest of the Bible but in the book itself. In Amill, we're in the millennium now. Is that supported by the only text speaking about a millennium? Nope. In Postmill, we or people before Christ's return and the physical resurrection will enter the millennium. Is that supported by this text? Nope. Sing it with me, "So goodbye yellow brick road."

Now before you feel all lost like someone just whipped you out of your home in a tornado so that you no longer feel like you're in Kansas anymore, let me suggest that the visceral reaction you might be having to what I've just said might be because you made something the Bible isn't even teaching into an entire hermeneutic that we now see you didn't actually get from the Bible. 

Likewise, lest Premills rejoice in their victory, let me point out that John gives multiple scenarios that might happen in the end throughout the Book of Revelation and there is nothing to indicate that whatever one he ends with is the one that is going to happen. Revelation 6-7 ends with nothing about a millennial kingdom after Christ takes His victory. Likewise, there is no millennial kingdom when He takes the world from the devil in Revelation 8-11. Only in the final cycle of 12-22 does one find the millennial kingdom idea as one of three possible endings John gives the devil's world in the book. This tells us that it is not his purpose to describe the details of the end to us but rather use possible ends to say that no matter how the devil's world ends, it will end. The devil and those who follow him will lose. Christ and those who follow Him will have the victory and inherit the world to come.

This means that a millennial idea should not dominate your hermeneutic. No hermeneutic that isn't clearly and sufficiently supported by exegesis should be your hermeneutic, not for interpreting the Bible and not for interpreting your life. It is adding and taking away from this book. It adds concepts that are not taught by it and it takes away the true message that has nothing to do with these concepts. What we really need is to understand John's message as our entire hermeneutic of the Bible because that is actually what is taught here. Jesus wins. So if you're tired, if you're outcast, if you're hungry, if you're thirsty, if you're killed, you can endure it because Jesus and those who have the testimony of receiving Him and obey the Word of God win. So we acquire wisdom to rule the world to come now. We acquire the love that will fill that world now. We become like the Lord who will rule that world now. 

Revelation isn't the witch's crystal ball that shows us specific details of events. It's our ruby slippers that get us home. So take off your green-glazed glasses, realize where you are, and start tapping those shoes instead. I promise you. Far better than an uninspired speculative theology, the real message of the book will get you home.