Category: Inerrancy

Context, Context, Context!

Published by mhelbert on February 22, 2018

We now have an idea about where the idea of dividing history into Ages or Dispensations came from.

Theologians, trying to make sense of how God seems to change the way that God relates to humans, came up with a structure that allowed the ‘unchanging’ God to actually ‘change.’

This idea grew and morphed until Darby and Friends created the Dispensationalism that we have all grown to know and love. They devised a mechanism that allows God to judge the World with wrath and fire. At the same time they added an escape hatch for “true believers.” (And, we all know that “true believers” were ONLY those who believed exactly as they did.)

So, let’s begin to take a closer look at the so-called Biblical basis for this.

DISCLAIMER:
I realize that some of you who read this blog have not spent a lot of time studying the Bible. You may not have opened one since you were a teenager. Some of what I write here may seem strange. That’s because, well, it is. At least for those of us living in the 21st century. I will attempt to keep my assumptions and language accessible to everyone. PLEASE, if I am not clear about something, let me know in the comments and I’ll try to explain things better.
Thanks!

Context! Context! Context!
Anyone who has seriously studied ancient texts knows that context is everything. Not just literary context, how one part of the text is related to others around it. But, the social and cultural contexts of the writer and original reader of the text is also necessary. Missing this piece may cause folks to read an ancient text and assume that their own contemporary context is what’s important in any interpretation. It is Not! That’s where folks like Darby get things seriously wrong.

There are a few primary Biblical texts that dispensationalists use to build their fantasy. The first one that I want to deal with is in St. Paul’s first letter to the Church at Thessalonica. These people lived in an area of Macedonia, (modern day Greece), on the northern tip of the Aegean Sea. It’s location as a port city meant that the population was pretty diverse. It also meant that the population was decidedly pagan. Yes, there was a small community of Jewish folks. We know that because the story of Paul’s arrival recorded in Acts 17 states that there was a “synagogue of the Jews.” It was Paul’s custom to go to the synagogue of each city he came to. In the synagogue he would attempt to reason with the Jews in order to prove that Jesus of Nazareth was, in fact, their long-awaited Messiah. However, like in most Greek cities Paul & Co. visited, there were a number of non-Jewish people who also attended the synagogue. These folks were referred to as “God fearing Greeks.” As Paul spoke he convinced some of his Jewish sisters and brothers about Jesus. It was also recorded that a “large number” of the Greeks were convinced as well. This ultimately lead some of the Jews to stir up opposition to Paul and his team. So much so, that they had to hurriedly leave Thessalonica to save their skin.

That leads us to Paul’s letter.

Most scholars believe that after Paul got kicked out of Thessalonica he worried so much about the people that he’d left that he sent an envoy back to check on them and to encourage them. Paul was that kind of guy. He didn’t simply blow into town, sell some snake oil, and skate out of town. He was truly a pastor who cared about people.

When his partner, probably a guy named Timothy, returned he gave a report that both encouraged and concerned Paul. The small community that he had established was doing well in some areas. They understood what it meant to love one another and that it was necessary to stick together in the face of mounting opposition from others in the city. You see, it was very difficult for people to try to follow a God who was not Caesar. But, they seemed to be doing ok.

There were, however, a couple areas of concern for Paul. Because he had to leave in a hurry, he did not have the time to teach them fully. There were things that were lacking in the Thessalonians’ knowledge base that Paul needed to address. One of those things had to do with what would happen when Jesus returned to Earth. “Returned to Earth!” you say. Yes, you read that right. One of the foundational beliefs of the Christian Church is that one day Jesus will return to Earth as King and Judge. Paul had apparently begun to talk about this to the Thessalonian believers. However, it seems as though he didn’t really get to elaborate much about the details. We don’t have any letters or other documentation to show exactly what the Thessalonians were wondering about. But, from Paul’s responses we can get an idea.

Apparently, the Thessalonians were under the impression that when Jesus returned the people who were alive would see that and receive whatever blessing and advantage that Jesus brought. But, since Paul had left, some members of the community had died. What was going to happen to them? Would they be totally left out?

Hence, Paul’s letter of explanation.

Well, this post is getting pretty long. So, Paul’s explanation and what I, and many others, believe about this rapture thing will need to wait til the next post.

Again, if you have questions or other ideas, let me know in the comments.

Leave a Comment

Dispensationalism: The Short Version

Published by mhelbert on February 16, 2018

Ok, class. It’s time for a vocabulary quiz.

What was that word I used in the last post?

“Dispossessed?”

“Antidisestablishmentarianism?”

“Dipsy-doodle?”

Nope, none of the above.

It was “dispensationalism.”

Yeah, I know, it’s a mouthful.

But, what exactly is it? And, what does it have to do with that thing called the Rapture?

Besides being a thing that fundamentalists like to say in order to sound intelligent, it’s an idea that has it’s roots in the earliest writings of the Church.

In his seminal work, City of God, Augustine of Hippo viewed history as divided into various stages. In books 15 – 17 Augustine divides the history of the world by Biblical events. The time of Adam’s sons, Cain and Abel until Noah’s flood. From the flood up to Abraham, the father of the Jewish nation. He then follows Abraham until the time of Israel’s kings; the kings through until the time of Christ. For him these were distinct eras that revealed how God related to humanity.

Darby, too, viewed history through the lens of the Christian scriptures. His view, as reconstructed by C.I. Scofield after him, was a bit more detailed and religious sounding. His view looked a bit like this:

Innocence, between creation and the Fall.
Conscience, between the Fall and Noah’s flood.
Human government, from the flood to the call of Abraham.
Promise, from Abraham to Moses.
Law, from Moses to the death of Christ.
The Church, from the resurrection to the present.
The Millennium.¹

Such divisions are tools that some theologians use to describe how God relates to God’s universe so we may perhaps understand how God works. People like patterns. We see them in the wood grain of doors and in the clouds. Theologians see patterns in Holy Writ and try to describe them so that we might better understand God.

The problem with Darby and Scofield’s view is that in order for it to work the Bible must be taken literally. Every historic event must have happened just as it was written. God must have created the earth ex nihilo, out of nothing. There must have been only two humans created by God, Adam and Eve. From them all the humans who have ever lived must have been descended. An actual Earth ending flood must have occurred in which only a handful of people survived aboard a big boat. And, that boat contained representatives of every species of animals from the whole earth!

The parts of the Bible that are considered ‘prophetic’ are also read literally. And, this misunderstanding is the foundation of dispensationalism. One writer noted, “The hermeneutic [interpretation] of ethnic and geographic literalism in prophecy is base on the assumption that prophecy is nothing but history ahead of time. Consequently, it ascribes to the prophetic portrayals the exactness of a photographic picture in advance.²”

Ok, ok…I get it. This theological mumbo-jumbo is all well and good. But, what does it have to do with the so-called ‘rapture’?

It all ties in with Darby’s view of history. Another writer stated,

What separated Darby’s dispensationalism was his novel method of biblical interpretation, which consisted of a strict literalism…and the separation of the rapture (the “catching away” of the church) from Christ’s Second Coming. At the rapture, he said, Christ will come for his saints; and at the Second Coming, he will come with his saints.³

Ah, there it is! The Rapture! What Darby was saying was that at the end of the sixth dispensation, “The Church,” Jesus was going to return to Earth and ‘snatch’ all of the Christians who had ever lived up into the clouds to join Him. He then would take them to heaven. This would happen just before the Great Tribulation and the 1,000 year reign of Christ. (All of this was mentioned in my previous post.)

Darby added a couple of things. Instead of the dispensation of the Church leading right into the 1,000 year reign of Christ, (the Millennium), he added the rapture and the tribulation.

But, why did he do that?

It goes back to his literal reading of the Bible. There are several passages that he used to develop this idea. And, in the next post we’ll begin to dig into those passages to see what the writers were actually trying to say.

¹ McGrath, Alister E., Christian Theology:An Introduction, 4th ed., Blackwell, Oxford, 2007, p. 476.
² LaRondelle, Hans K., The Israel of God in Prophecy, Berrien Springs, Mich., Andrews University Press, 1983, p. 141. Qtd. In Bloesch, Donald G., The Last Things: Resurrection, Judgment, Glory, IVP Academic, 2004, p. 97-98.
³ http://www.christianitytoday.com/history/people/pastorsandpreachers/john-nelson-darby.html. Accessed 01/27/2018.

Leave a Comment

I Wish We’d All Been Ready

Published by mhelbert on February 6, 2018

A couple weeks ago a friend of mine on Facebook mentioned that she had talked with someone about Jesus. During the conversation an old song was brought up. The song was “I Wish We’d All Been Ready” by Larry Norman. The song was released in 1969. It became a hit among Christian evangelicals who were becoming caught up in what might be called “rapturemania.” Films like “A Thief in the Night” produced by Donald W. Thompson and a book by Hal Lindsey entitled “The Late Great Planet Earth” became popular during this time.

I was a freshman in High School when I read Lindsey’s book. At that time, I was what later became known as a ‘seeker.’ I was searching for my identity and finding the idea of Jesus and the Christian faith a viable option. Lindsey seemed to be able to unlock secrets in the Bible and link them to the condition of the world at that time. This “revelation” made the Bible something other than an ancient document written by a bunch of dead people. It made it alive and relevant. To a 15 year old kid Lindsey’s book was transforming.

The reason I mention this is because the imagery of Biblical language, like that found in the books of Daniel and Revelation touches people at a deep, emotional level. It’s not like the legal and history-like language that makes up much of the Scripture. This type of literature, called apocalyptic, is full of exciting images of beasts and fire. There is cosmic warfare and people who loom larger than life. All of this can touch people at a visceral level like no other genre of literature can. When someone like Lindsey comes along and links these images to current reality, people sit up and listen. We ask, “Can this really be true?” We then may answer ‘Yes.’ At that point we are drawn into something that is larger than we are. Something with Earth changing potential. And, it’s still a secret to everyone else. It’s a secret that we’re privy to. And, that adds to the allure of these things.

So, what exactly am I talking about?

I’m talking about how the concept of the ‘end times’ as explained by Norman, Lindsey, and others like Tim LaHaye and John Hagee have turned people’s hearts and minds to something that at best is an errant theology. And, at worst a heresy that has the potential of destroying people’s lives.

I hope to explain some of this in this post and subsequent ones by showing where these ideas came from, why it is misleading, and why it is so very toxic to people and to the Church.

First, let me share the lyrics to Norman’s song. This song is a snippet of what many in the Evangelical church believe as ‘rapture theology.’

“I Wish We’d All Been Ready” by Larry Norman
Life was filled with guns and war,
And everyone got trampled on the floor,
I wish we’d all been ready
Children died, the days grew cold,
A piece of bread could buy a bag of gold,
I wish we’d all been ready,
There’s no time to change your mind,
The Son has come and you’ve been left behind.

A man and wife asleep in bed,
She hears a noise and turns her head, he’s gone,
I wish we’d all be ready,
Two men walking up a hill,
One disappears and one’s left standing still,
I wish we’d all been ready,
There’s no time to change your mind,
The Son has come and you’ve been left behind.

Life was filled with guns and war,
And everyone got trampled on the floor,
I wish we’d all been ready,
Children died, the days grew cold,
A piece of bread could buy a bag of gold,
I wish we’d all been ready,

There’s no time to change your mind,
How could you have been so blind,
The Father spoke, the demons dined,
The Son has come and you’ve been left behind.
Larry Norman, “I Wish We’d All Been Ready”, 1969, Capitol Records, Prod. Hal Yoergler

The words are a poetic take on a portion of the Bible found in the Gospel According to St. Matthew. These images are part of Jesus’ discourse with his disciples about something Jesus had just said to them. They were leaving the Temple in Jerusalem after Jesus had pretty much dismissed the religious leaders as a bunch of self-seeking men who took advantage of people in order to look good themselves, (and improve their own image).

Jesus began by stating that the Temple was going to be completely destroyed. He said, “There will most certainly not be one stone upon another left here that will not be torn down.” Then the writer recorded a long litany of things and events that would happen before the Temple’s ultimate destruction.

These things and others will be the topic of future posts.

So, stay tuned!

3 Comments

Thoughts About Original Sin

Published by mhelbert on June 4, 2017

Detail from Jan Breughel & Peter Paul Rubens: The Garden of Eden (1615)

According to some Western Christians, sometime between 7 and 10 thousand years ago, God created the Universe. This event is recorded, “In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth.” As the story unfolds, we read that every plant and animal came into being ex nihilo,(out of nothing), through Divine fiat. God spoke it; it came into being. At the end of this first part of the story, God created humans. And, it must be noted, God created the original humans in God’s own image. For millions of people this is historical fact.

In the next part of this story, we learn a little bit more. The actual physical location where God created these humans isn’t known. The story only tells us that after forming the first Human, God put this person in a garden in order to serve and protect it. It was there, in that garden, that God formed the first Woman from a rib taken from the Man. These first Humans lived in that God-made paradise until they were duped by a talking reptile. This talking reptile,(from here known as, the serpent), talked the Woman into eating the fruit from a tree that God had expressly forbidden the humans to eat from. She ate and gave some to the Man, and he ate. This meal even has a name, “Original Sin.”

The whole concept of Original Sin has been discussed among Christians since very early in the Church’s history. However, it really took off in the late 4th century C.E. when a guy named Augustine of Hippo included it in his autobiography, “Confessions.” Taking the Biblical story as his starting point he was able to trace his own personal proclivity toward sin back to the Original couple. Now, we need to understand that there was a belief in the ancient world that character traits could be passed from one generation to the next through semen. Therefore, Augustine understood that the guilt of Adam was passed to every subsequent person ever born. And, this also allowed Jesus to be born without that taint. (Virgin birth and all.)

Later, John Calvin doubled down on this idea. He concluded that not only death and guilt were part and parcel of Original Sin. But, shame and total depravity came along for the ride. And this, my friends, is the heart of reformation theology. There is absolutely nothing good about humanity. In fact, it is impossible for anyone to think or do anything good. God’s wrath and hatred are hanging over us. Only by looking at Jesus can God’s Holy anger be placated. But, heaven help us if God should happen to get a glimpse of our worthless and hated selves.

But, what if that’s not how things happened? What if 7,000 years have not passed since the Earth was formed, but rather, over 4 billion years? What if all the stuff that science has discovered is the truth and there was no first couple? And, therefore, no Original Sin?

This can, (and should), turn the Reformed way of thinking on its head. If there was no Original Sin, then why did Jesus come, live and die? I mean, many of us who were involved with the Fundagelical world of religion preach that Jesus HAD to die in order to break the bonds of Original Sin. He cleansed us from that and enabled us to start over with a clean slate. For lack of a better term, to be “born again”! If Original Sin is out of the mix that whole house of cards crashes.

What’s interesting is that sin isn’t even mentioned in the first chapters of Genesis. God never pointed a Divine finger and said, “Oh, you guys! You really sinned now.” No. God said that death would now become a part of their lives. In fact, sin doesn’t enter into the equation officially until Gen. 4 when God spoke to Adam’s son Cain. God said that sin was crouching at Cain’s door. Cain was encouraged to ‘master’ sin. If there was an Original Sin that was so dire that nothing could ease its effects, how was Cain supposed to be able to master it? No, I don’t think that Original Sin as the Western Church has understood it is a reality. I don’t believe that humans are born depraved as Calvin and Co. would have us believe. But, I do believe that there is an enemy to be overcome. A reason that God chose to come and “pitch a tent,” (John 1:14), among us. And, that enemy is death.

Let this thought percolate for a bit. What does it mean if there was no Original Sin? How does that affect the meaning of Jesus’ life, death, resurrection and ascension? Use the comments to express your own thoughts.

Admittedly, this asks more questions that it provides answers. But, it may also open locks on chains that bind many people…too many people.

Leave a Comment

Symbols and Metaphor…Paths to the True Destination

Published by mhelbert on July 22, 2013

For those of you who have followed my blog for any length of time, you’ll know that one of my favorite bloggers of all time if Jennifer D. Crumpton. Today I read her most recent post. In it she looks at a new book by Reza Aslan, entitled Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth. He considers what the writers and original readers of the gospels would have understood about the truth of their stories. His is not a new take on this topic by any stretch. It is focused on people who say they have faith, they’re just not religious. Of special interest in Jennifer’s post is a video of an interview she did with Aslan. Both the blog and the video are a bit lengthy. So, if I had to choose, I’d watch the video. Pay special attention to the historic and literary context that Aslan identifies for the writing of the Gospel texts. A link to this particular post is here.

What do you think of the position taken regarding Scripture? Is it possible that fiction can bear truth?

Leave a Comment

Knowing God

Published by mhelbert on May 14, 2012

Awhile back I had a discussion, well, let’s say a momentary interchange, with one of the pastoral leaders of the church I was attending. I was excited about the scriptures, in that they were becoming alive for me in ways that I had not experienced previously. I mentioned to him that I did not think that the Bible was a users manual for humans. It’s purpose is not so much to tell us how to behave as it was to reveal God’s love for the Cosmos. Although, there are things that point to how God expects those who are called as God’s children to live and act, this was secondary. My point being that unless we allow God’s word to transform us internally, the external things are of little importance. His response was that the Bible is a guide to living a morally and godly life. That it is imperative to follow the guidelines and precepts present in the text in order to please God.
Hmmm….I don’t think so. In Jesus’ day there were groups of people who thought like this pastor. We know them as Pharisees and Sadducees. The Pharisees loved Yahweh. They tried to follow the Torah in their everyday lives. They followed all of the prescribed behaviors in order to respond in righteousness to the grace they had received as God’s chosen people. This kind of thinking led Paul to state that he was, in fact, righteous according to the Law. But, the Pharisees missed something. Jesus said about them, “You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me; and you are unwilling to come to Me so that you may have life” (John 5:39-40). Many today, like this pastor, think that by reading, memorizing, and attempting to apply the scripture as if it is law, they will achieve righteousness and, ultimately, eternal life. Yet, like the Pharisees, they aren’t able to “come to me” and receive life.
Like the Sadducees who were mistaken about the resurrection, people today impose on God presuppositions that limit what they allow God to be. They have an idea of how God is supposed to work, and try to fit the scriptures to that small understanding of the Creator/Yahweh who walked among us. Jesus’ response? “Is this not the reason you are mistaken, that you do not understand the Scriptures or the power of God?” (Mark 12:24). We all try to fit the infinite Yahweh Elohim into our finite minds. We are not built to grasp and understand the transcendent. But, we do God, the very good creation, and ourselves a great disservice when we try to do that very thing. God will not be fitted to our image. God, on the other hand, will try to make us into the image dei.

Leave a Comment

Published by mhelbert on May 13, 2012

I saw this cartoon over at Dr. John Byron’s blog. For me, it sums up the position of biblicists. Folks who come to the scripture with presuppositions that specify how God must act, speak, exist in order to shore up a poorly designed position of biblical inerrancy. More on that to come.

Leave a Comment

Peter Enns and Adam

Published by mhelbert on March 28, 2012

There is an interesting thread beginning over at http://thebiblicalworld.blogspot.com/.
Dr. John Byron has blogged about Peter Enns’ book, The Evolution of Adam: What theBible Does and Doesn’t say about Human Origins (Brazos Press, 2012).
The book has the potential to free many from the shackles of biblical idolatry, (bibliolatry). So many of us put the scripture in bondage to something that it was never intended to be. It is not a history, although it contains some. It is not intended to be science. Regarding some of the factors that Enns proposes we approach Adam today, Dr. Byron wrote, “(1) literalism is not an option, (2) that the Bible and science speak different languages and ask different questions, (3) that inspiration should embrace God’s use of cultural idioms, and (4) that a rapprochement between evolution and Christianity requires a synthesis, not just adding evolution to theology.”
I am waiting anxiously for Amazon to get my copy of Enns’ book into my hands. It sounds like a refreshing take on an old discussion.

Leave a Comment

The Whole Truth, and Nothing but the Truth

Published by mhelbert on March 15, 2012

The ongoing discussions about biblical inerrancy continues to fascinate me. I’ve read the Chicago definition. I find it wanting. Mostly, because it tries to define God in an extremely narrow manner. It also, I feel errantly, raises the biblical text to the place of godhood. It is, as they say, bibliolatry. What really got me thinking about this was the nastiness that many display when this question comes up.
While struggling with this, and other issues related to the biblical literalist position, a professor of Old Testament asked an interesting question. While considering both Ruth and Esther as stories that most likely were not accounts of actual events, he asked if it was possible for truth to be expressed in fiction. Hmm….Heck Yeah! I began to think about the story of Scripture as narrative…a love story from Yahweh to creation. The inconsistencies in the text disappeared as did the battle between science and theology. In this world all can live together in the discussion. Inspiration has never been an issue with me. The text is inspired. It is, however, free to express God’s love, mercy, compassion, etc. without the hindrance of having to line up with, or do away with observable truth. Yea, God!
Anyway, I bring this up to share a link to another blog where this topic is being chewed on once again.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2012/03/15/absolute-perfection-oh-my-rjs/
Enjoy!

Leave a Comment

The Virgin birth…fact? Does it really matter?

Published by mhelbert on December 15, 2011

There has been quite a reaction to an article written by Albert Mohler. This article was in response to another by Nicholas Kristof in the New York Times. Mohler’s argument that one must accept the virgin birth of Jesus as fact or risk one’s position as a Christ follower. He wrote, “This much we know: All those who find salvation will be saved by the atoning work of Jesus the Christ — the virgin-born Savior. Anything less than this is just not Christianity, whatever it may call itself. A true Christian will not deny the Virgin Birth.”
While I personally do believe in the birth of Jesus as recorded in the Gospels, Mohler’s inflamed rhetoric does little to convince anyone who is not a Christ follower of the truth of Christ’s life and mission to reconcile the Cosmos to Yahweh. It does, however, point to the narrow focus of some. Having read some other articles by Mohler, I think that this recent one reveals more about Mohler’s view on biblical inerrancy than to anyone’s faithfulness to Christ.

Leave a Comment