The Book of Revelation - Part 19 - Two Beasts

Revelation 13 is undoubtedly the most troubling to some people most because of verse 18 and the 666 thing. That is not what is most troubling to me. What is most troubling to me is who these or what these beasts represent. It is not as easy as you might think.

What gets interesting here is most people's interpretations. For the most part these symbolic representations can either represent persons or political entities or both and the problem is I believe the symbolism is deliberately designed to conceal these things to all but those who understand the symbolism. The problem is those that probably would have understood it are long dead.

What's left; I mean, what can we then know?
1. Neither of these beasts are good guys. They defy God and worship Satan (The Dragon).
2. Secondly there is a hierarchy in this relationship: The Dragon over the Beast from the Sea; The Beast of the Sea over the Beast from the Earth. A kind of unholy trinity.
3. They are on a mission to destroy the saints and exalt the Devil.
4. They have real spiritual power.
5. The have both political and economic power.

The whole number of the beast issue has lead some to believe that the Beast is every thing from Nero to George W. Bush. The problem is that the people who would have truly understood this are dead and so what ever it will be or is, I think will be made apparent when genocide is declared. What the actual number 'is', has been speculated to be anything from micro chips to tattoos. No hard clad answer on any point is really available as all we really can do is speculate. It does make for good Chrisitan science fiction but it is all completely specualtive.

Next: The 144,000 Return

Theology for Dummies - Dialectical Theology

Dialectical Theology is also known as Neo-orthodoxy. It was in large part the child of two theologians -- Karl Barth and Emil Brunner although Barth himself felt uneasy about being labeled. Dialectical theology is in large part a reaction to the liberalism of the 19th century and basically sought to reevaluate the teachings of the Reformation.

In Dialectical theology there are basically four main themes: 1) A rejection of natural revelation in favor of completely embracing special revelation; 2) A emphasis on the transcendence of God with a strong critique of systems that belived in immanence of God; 3) Existentialism -- the idea that the decision to become a Christian is not a rational decision but a 'leap of faith' and 4) a renovation and re-emphasis on the doctrine of original sin.

I have studied this one a lot in seminary, I became fascinated by Karl Barth and his work. The ultimate problem I had was that this is basically a reformation of the Reformation but it seemed to be contradictory.

1. By rejecting natural revelation and placing emphasis on special revelation Barth still did not reject the liberal criticism of part of the bible itself. (Jesus' miracles not being real for example). That's what leads him to the whole 'leap of faith' idea. So we can only trust special revelation but that special revelation is untrustworthy?

2. The emphasis on the transcendence of God puts God out there and not with us which seems to be the whole point of the gospels.

3. The 'leap of faith' concept has its weaknesses could one not have a 'leap of faith' then to become a Buddhist or any other religion for that matter.

If you notice though a lot of their concepts still exist today. People still in many respects believe in a God who is out there somewhere, that they can't help themselves when they sin and that parts of the Bible are myth but still remain the only way to know God. Crazy but true. The whole 'leap of faith' concept still exists in many forms.

Most of this I rejected ultimately but the idea of a faith beyond the use of reason and religion did have its appeal to me once upon a time.

Next: liberation theology

Re-Thinking God: God is Love

No definitions on this one because the Bible has THE definition of love in 1 Corinthians 13:4-7 and there is a declarative statement in 1st John 4:8 "God is love". In short, if you look up the definition of love in the dictionary, what should be there is the word: 'GOD'. I think however the implications of these two passages escape people. To start with: If God is indeed love; then the definition and qualities of love as described in 1st Corinthians apply to him.

The first implication of this is that all the definitions we like to put here for 'love' do not work. This is especially true if we create a definition of 'love' that is self serving. The one thing we can say about the definition of love in 1st Corinthian 13 is that there is absolutely no self serving idea in it. That means when God defines himself as this kind of love, there is nothing about him that is self-serving, even when He adds to his own glory or protects his name, it is not from an attitude of self-service but one of love.

The second implication, or in this case a set of implications, is on the nature of God itself based on this definition:

1. Love is patient, therefore God must be patient -- what sense though does patience have for God if He is given the traditional definitions of all-powerful, all-knowing and all-present. To be patient means to have forbearance under strain or to not be hasty. But if traditional omnipresence is maintained then God is everywhere at all times so how does this makes sense. God being patient only makes sense if He is just as much a part of time as the rest of us, or as I have defined it because time is part of his nature. Also why be patient if your the one absolutely being everything about or you know the absolute outcome? Neither makes sense in the light of God being patient.

2. When considering verse seven of First Corinthians 13; it has much the same implications: 'Bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.' For God to display all of these qualities implies a God working through love to change things, not one that exercises absolutes. A God who has hope, means he is expecting and working for better in each person, not that he sees each person's fate as an unchangeable thing, even to Him.

3. All of these qualities imply relationship with people not absolute exercise of power. It means letting the other person having the power of give and take, just as much as God does. It means God takes risks because to love is to risk hurt. God being love means his very nature is to risk relationship with each person even though each person can indeed hurt him in the context of that relationship.

Next: God is holy

Marriage and the Bible - Part 27 - Exile and Reconstruction

The End of history of the Old Testament has Israel in exile. The northern kingdom destroyed by Assyria and the southern kingdom destroyed by Babylon. During the exile, the issues of mixed faith marriages become more apparent. Not only the fact that there is less control by the people of God as a slave/conquered people class in these empires, but opportunity to keep marriages in the faith diminishes.

Ezra records the people returning to Jerusalem and rebuilding the temple. In the midst of this Nehemiah reconstructs the walls of the city. Noteworthy for Marriage discussion is chapter 9 and 10 of Ezra where it is reported that Israelite men had married foreign women. The actions that follow are somewhat controversial.

The fact that the elders require these men to divorce their wives, even if they had children by them seems harsh as well as the fact that both wives and children are asked to leave. What makes it seem odd to me is that the Law allowed for the marriage of Israelite men to foreign women, if those women were virgins, and thus by covenant made Israelite. It also seems to violate the law requiring women and their children to be taken care of by the man.

Further complicating the issue of mixed marriage and what to do about it is Queen Esther, who marries a Persian King and joins his harem of women. Once she does this she still considers herself to be Israelite although based on the culture she became Persian the moment she slept with King Ahasuerus. So it is OK for a Jewish woman to engage in mixed marriage if it saves the Jews, but it is not OK for Jewish man to do it because it violates God's law?!

Possible what needs to be considered is this is one of those situations where Ezra records what happened but given that God himself is not recorded as doing or saying anything, it may simply be like the end of Judges. Everybody thinks they are doing the right thing, but really God's mind is unknown. Also, given the list of offenders in Ezra 10 is short, this may be a case of men marrying women who were not virgins.

If this is the case, divorce for the purpose of purity of faith is presented and we shall see if any other writer picks this idea up.

Next: Marriage Imagery in the Major Prophets

The Book of Revelation - Part 18 - The Woman, The Dragon and the Man Child

Wow! has it really been over a year since I stopped working on this series. I quit mostly because I am now even more convinced that to understand it fully we need to know what the seven churches knew as far as symbolism and some of that has been lost.

Revelation 12 has three symbolic characters and reports a war between them.

The Woman is not identified and theories abound as to whether she represents Israel, the church or Mary or whatever. The best guess I can give is Israel seems best based on what the seven churches would have known. The twelve stars representing the twelve tribes seems likely. Out of Israel comes Christ.

The Dragon is identified in the chapter itself: it is Satan.

The Man Child being Christ is most likely given the context of 'ruling with a rod of iron' which is mentioned of Christ earlier and later in the book. The child is caught up to heaven to be with God while the woman is left to face the dragon.

This vision is complicated further by the fact it seems to be an interruption to what had been going on up to this point.

What seems to be symbolized is the war between Satan, Israel (as the bride of God) and Christ and it may be a symbolic representation of Israel's history, not a future action. Taking the real events of Israel producing Christ by God's power and the war over it with Satan and putting it in symbolic form to conceal to readers what is being talked about except those who understand the symbolism is a hallmark of apocalyptic literature.

Michael and the angels drive the devil to earth and then the devil tries to kill the woman -- every attempt fails and the woman is both preserved and unharmed. The the vision abruptly stops.

Next: Two Beasts

Theology for Dummies - Covenant Theology

Wikipedia: "The standard description of covenant theology views the history of God's dealings with mankind in all of history, from Creation to Fall to Redemption to Consummation, under the framework of three overarching theological covenants — the covenants of redemption, of works, and of grace."

Yeah, that about covers it. It also should be noted that this forms the basis and foundation of a couple of theological systems: Calvinism and Dispensationalism.

The idea is that over time God has changed the way he deals with people. No argument there, but the rub comes when you start saying that at different times God saved people differently. That is where I say this is a dangerous theology.

Paul is very clear in Romans and other places that everyone has been saved by one thing - faith. He sites Abraham to prove to a skeptical Jewish population of his day that just like the Gentiles, Abraham was saved by faith. When you start saying as a certain time people were saved by works or grace depending on the time they lived it seems to counter this idea and it does. Paul's whole point is that every man and woman has been saved by the grace of God through faith and that faith leads to action through obedience and love of God. Covenant Theology departs from this and that is why I rejected it long ago and the Calvinism and dispensationalism that goes with it. More on those later.

This theology also has the problem of presupposition. If you are always assuming these three covenant times exist; it will color your interpretation of Scripture. It means your setting yourself up for reading into Scripture what you want to see.

Next: Dialectical Theology

Mozart, Metallica and Ministry - A Lesson in Musical Taste.

Nothing like music to cause a little controversy.

I think on some of the great ironies of life and one of the greatest may simply be if the late Cliff Burton, bassist for the heavy metal band Metallica hadn't introduced the other guys to classical styles from his upbringing, Metallica would probably faded from history as a footnote in the speed metal scene of the 1980s. Because of Cliff, who died in a bus crash in 1986 while the band was on tour, they became highly skilled in the art of blending different melodies with their guitars and the rest is history.

The connection between the two genres of music is actually closer than some realize. In my own life I started out as a classical guy, my mother introducing me to Mozart and Beethoven before I even started school. I loved strings especially concertos with four parts. Still do. I branched out as a child into gospel because I liked four part harmony with voices. Jazz entered because I liked the blending of sounds, but the icing on the cake came with my introduction to hard rock and later heavy metal. The electric guitar has to be the best invention to hit music since the trumpet. To me the switch was not a big deal, I recognized the connection between metal and classical almost immediately although others said I was nuts.

Others did come along and make that case for me though, a Christian band called Shout did a quick little number where their guitarist played Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata in thirty-second notes. To any metal fan it was a perfect guitar solo. The Metallica came along in 2000 and played with the San Fransisco Symphony and proved not only were the two genres related but they could be perfectly blended. Music was never the same again.

Growing up though, my musical tastes always brought frowns in Christian circles. Bertha Better-Than-Yous live everywhere. (Ray Stevens is also awesome). One pastor confronted me and told me the beat of rock was demonic, I handed him my Bible and and asked him to prove it. He said the beat came from Africa where it was used to conjure up demons, I pointed out to him that the idea was not only not provable but racist and also not a Bible based argument. So he ran to First Corinthians where it talks about using our liberty to cause those who are weak to stumble. Being the smart butt teenager I was at the time, I told him that I had no such stumbling blocks in my life as music was just music to me, but for HIS sake, THE SAKE OF MY WEAKER BROTHER, I would abstain from listening to it in his presence. He never spoke to me again on the subject.

The theological point is that the Bible in no way defines one musical form as more holy than another or that some musical forms are holy and others sinful. It simple does not exist. Music gets defined this way by certain holiness groups but it is largely a matter of cultural convention not any reasonable argument. Christian culture says this music form is OK and the other NEW one is not. Unfortunate but true. I often wondered what would have happened to rock and roll if the preacher that offended Buddy Holly because he insulted his music form had instead asked Buddy if he would put some Christian lyrics to it instead. Maybe the youth of America would have more readily embraced the church in the following decades.

What I have learned though is not to confuse message with artistic value. I do not always like or agree with what singers and bands say in their lyrics, but that does not means I have to reject the artistic value of their music. Trust me there are some hymns that the theology of the verses makes me cringe a little but it still does not stop me from thinking that the music itself is not beautiful. Oddly enough though, there are some songs from the secular world that speak volumes of truth.

Music is largely a matter of taste and what often bugs me is that some Christians can't see that and want it to be a matter of their own righteousness -"I am a better Christian because I do not listen to that type of music." Why is it that we seem to always seek ways to divide ourselves from others. 'In the world, but not of it' is what Christians are supposed to be. Music gives us another way to bridge the gap between those in the church and outside it; if we are only willing to listen to what the artist is saying and appreciate his or her talent.