Is now available at WTS books. Whether you like two kingdoms theology or not, Jason’s book will definitely be a thoughtful and challenging read. Jason emphasizes the pilgrim nature of the Christian life, something that is sometimes eclipsed in other formulations. It is as someone living between the first and second coming of Christ, the already and the not yet, that we make our way, God’s grace enabling to His glory.
My Friend Jason’s New Book
September 10, 2009 at 5:13 pm (Books (reviews and recommendations), Eschatology)
On Ministering to the Dying and Bereaved
August 25, 2008 at 10:52 am (Anthropology, Assurance of Salvation, Eschatology, Evangelism)
Most of what I have learned about this topic I learned from other people, but I have tested it against Scripture, and have also put it to the test in ministry (16 funerals in almost 4 years), and I find it extremely helpful.
To the Bereaved:
1. While it is true to say that the dead Christian is in a better place, that is not the most helpful thing to say. I mean, it’s great for the dead person that he’s in another better place, but what about the people left behind mourning? In a very real sense, it is a physical bereavement. The bereaved miss the physical presence of the one who has died. They miss the touch, the personality, the talking, the eye contact. This is where it hurts most. Therefore, talking about the resurrection should have a focus not only on the new body that the dead believer will have, but also on the reunion with the bereaved that will occur. This reunion can also be a great gateway into the Gospel message: “How do you know you will see this person again? Only if you trust in Jesus and then have the hope of the same resurrection to eternal life.”
2. Going along with the first point: do not underestimate the power of touch in ministry at this point. Great care must be taken such that touching will always be appropriate. However, I have yet to have anyone misinterpret a hug at such a time. It is a great ease of the sharpness of physical bereavement to have physical contact.
3. Resurrection texts I find are the most appopriate for funerals, even at the funeral of an unbeliever. No other texts in the Bible show us so clearly that death is not the end. No other texts show us so clearly that death is a homegoing and that it is temporary. No other texts offer such hope in the midst of grief. Going right along with this is preaching that death is UNnatural, not natural. Death is an intruder into the created order. We lose sight of this sometimes, especially when we say that death are taxes are inevitable. Make a strong connection between death and sin, as the former is the full flower of the latter. Funerals are the best opportunities to share the Gospel. Nowhere else will people have the results of sin staring them right in the face. Nowhere else can we so legitimately face people with their own mortality and uttermost need of Jesus.
4. Do not advise people to seek to avoid grief. The only way to deal with grief is to go through it, pain and all, recognizing (and 1 Thessalonians 4 is essential here) that the grief of a believer mourning the death of a believer is of a fundamentally different sort than the grief of a non-believer. It is a grief laced with hope. That tempers grief, though it does not eliminate it. Encourage people to take their grief in all honesty to God. The Psalms are important here. We cannot escape grief. The problem with trying to avoid it is that we will bury it, and it will fester, quite possibly into bitterness. It is much better to deal with it immediately and thoroughly, for healing and a measure of peace will come much more quickly that way.
To the Dying:
5. People who are dying want to know about the afterlife. Tell them about where the soul goes, and where the body stays until the Resurrection. It is surprising how many people think that souls sleep after death.
6. People who are dying and know that they are going to heaven will want to know if they can still know things and recognize people. Point to Hebrews 12 in this regard and the passage in Revelation of the souls crying out to God “How long?”
7. People who are dying and do not know where they are going obviously need the Gospel, especially a Gospel of grace. Such people are usually worried about whether their lives have been good enough for God. This is an especially dangerous time for them. They need the full grace of justification by faith alone at this time more than anything else. Machen’s deathbed quotation about the active righteousness of Christ imputed is appropriate also.
8. Ask the dying person about their regrets. Tell them that their past misdeeds and lack of positive deeds can be forgiven in Christ.
Revelation 20 and Amillennialism
March 15, 2007 at 10:22 am (Eschatology, Revelation)
This is not going to be an exhaustive post on Revelation 20, about which several forests have been demolished in trying to explain. I am merely going to argue for the amil position in Revelation 20. The key issue turns on whether Revelation 20:1-10 follows chronologically after 19:11-2, or whether it follows non-chronologically (following a sequence of visions). Here are the two best arguments that 20:1-10 follows a visionary sequence, and not a chronological sequence: 1. The battle in 19:11-21 destroys all the enemies of God. The beast (vs 20), the false prophet (vs 20), and all the rest (vv. 18 and 21) are thrown into the lake of fire. This battle is certainly the final climactic battle, the result of which is that all the enemies of God are destroyed. Well, if they are all destroyed, then who is left for Satan to deceive in 20:3? The terms of 19:11-21 are so final (especially the lake of fire imagery) that nothing is really left after that. Poythress explains how it is that anything follows literarily in the book:
“In view of the structure of the whole book, it makes more sense to see 20:1-15 as the seventh and last cycle of judgments, each of which leads up to the Second Coming…Thus, 20:1-15 is to be seen as the seventh cycle leading to the Second Coming. It parallels all the other cycles, rather than representing a unique period chronologically later than any of the others” (The Returning King, pg. 179).
In short, the premil position needs to explain why there are any people left for Satan to deceive in Revelation 20, if that chapter follows chronologically from chapter 19.
Secondly, 20:7-10 is clearly describing the same battle as 19:11-21. The quotations from Ezekiel 38-39 point clearly in the direction of Armaggedon in 20:7-10. But most commentators refer 19:11-21 also to Armageddon, in which case we have recapitulation (for a more extended defense of this position, see Beale’s excellent excursus on the relationship of 20:1-10 with 19:11-21, found on pp. 972-983 of his commentary). For an excellent article exhaustively dealing with the evidence for recapitulation in Revelation 20:1-15, see Fowler White in the Westminster Theological Journal 51.2 (1989), pp. 319-344.
What is Amillennialism?
March 14, 2007 at 9:24 am (Eschatology)
Some folk are wondering what in the world is amillennialism, in view of recent comments by John MacArthur consigning all amillennialists to hell.
Amillennialism is the belief that the 1,000 year reign mentioned in Revelation 20 is a true reign of Christ, but that the 1,000 years is symbolic of the entire period in-between Christ’s first and second coming.Many people misunderstand this belief when they say that amillennialists don’t believe in a literal reign. The reign is literal, though the 1,000 years are not. The exegetical question revolves around whether Satan is already bound (Revelation 20:2) or not. Amillennialists point to Revelation 12:7-11, where the blood of the Lamb is what conquers Satan. Furthermore, Matthew 12:29 is an exceedingly strong passage in favor of amillennialism, since the verse describes Christ’s mission while on earth. John 12:31 describes something that happens “now” in reference to the time of Jesus’ statement. Colossians 2:15 makes a similar point. 2 Thessalonians 1 plays havoc with the detailed timelines of premillennialism, not allowing years in-between events, but stating that all happens on one day.
Some objections levelled against amillennialism include the following: 1. The interpretation is not literal. Answer: symbolism is all over the book of Revelation. Numbers in particular are symbolic. Just look at 666, for instance. Debate still rages over what that number really means. Furthermore, in the Bible 1,000 is a symbol of completeness (cattle on a 1,000 hills; 1,000 years is as a day, etc.). We must distinguish between the Bible being literally true versus being true literally. The former means that we interpret each genre of Scripture according to the way in which it should be interpreted. There is much symbolic imagery in Revelation which should therefore be interpreted symbolically. The latter runs one into insuperable difficulties. If every statement in the Bible has to be true in a literal fashion, then Christ is a piece of wood (“I am the door”), or a space of road (“I am the way”), or a piece of bread (“This is my body”). These statements of Christ (as is everything in scripture) are all true. But not all statements in Scripture are true in a literal fashion. “Your eyes are doves” does not mean that one’s oculi consist of a couple of aviary critters from the family Columbidae. That won’t fly in any hermeneutics class in any seminary worth its salt. One would get a failing, dropping, mournful, cooing grade in the class.
Second objection: the events in Revelation 20 seem to follow a certain timeline. This is a much more defensible position exegetically. However, there are several points to note: firstly, Revelation 20 is the only place in Scripture where a 1,000 year reign is mentioned. Secondly, there is evidence of literary recapitulation (rehashing the same events from several different angles in order to come up with a more complete picture) in Revelation (see Beale’s magnificent commentary on Revelation), such that making timelines is quite risky exegetically. In fact, it is quite tenuous. Making doctrinal orthodoxy stand or fall with premillennialism is certainly out of court.
Third objection: Satan really does not seem to be bound right now. He seems to be alive and well in the world. Answer: Satan is bound in the sense that the Gospel has free reign to cover the earth with its message, and try as he might, Satan cannot hinder its progress. Furthermore, Satan, death, and sin were dealt their death blow at the resurrection of Jesus Christ. They are still thrashing around. But they are thrashing around in their death throws, knowing that they are defeated already.
There are a couple of really good books to read if one wants to delve further: Kim Riddlebarger’s book is certainly the most thorough modern treatment in defense of amillennialism, and is well worth picking up. Second, for those who love debate, the counterpoints book is a must. All the positions receive their due weight from proponents of those views. On a more popular level (but still with a great deal of research behind the work) is Poythress’s great book, as well as Dennis Johnson’s book.
Amillenialism
March 12, 2007 at 6:04 pm (Eschatology)
John MacArthur has unfortunately committed a rather bad blunder. He says that Amillenialism is intrinsically Arminian. I personally am stunned that he could possibly be so wrong on an issue, when the majority of Calvinists have been Amil. In view of this, it is a hot topic in the blogosphere at the moment. For those who wish to research the issue, they can do no better than to go to this enormous list of resources (from Sam Storms).
greenbaggins
glwjohnson
jeffhutchinson
davejes1979
reformedmusings
Reed Here
Andrew Webb
RSS - Posts