Dispensationalism (again)

All Christians believe that the Lord will come again. We don't all agree on what that will look like. Where I live, Christians appear to be divided into two groups: the convinced Postmillennialists, and those with no real conviction on the issue. 

It seems to me that the majority view in the 70s and 80s when I was growing up was a Dispensationalist Premillennialist view, but that may have been more a reflection of where I was than of the time itself.

I remain convinced of the Dispensationalist Premillennialist view, and I think it might be useful to explain some of the reasoning behind that. To be clear, I'm not trying to convince anyone else, merely to explain what convinces me.

It seems to me that we can learn a great deal about the Lord's return by looking at His first coming. That was paradoxically a strictly literal fulfillment of prophecy that looked nothing like what people expected. 

When the wise men came to Herod to learn where Christ had been born, the "chief priests and scribes" were able to predict exactly where He had been born based on "the prophet" (Micah 5:2, Matthew 2:1–6). The prophet had said He would come from Bethlehem Ephratah, and the chief priests and scribes took that as a literal reference to a literal place. And, of course, they were right. 

At the same time, the story continues on to say that His parents were told to flee to Egypt; and this, too, was fulfillment of prophecy (Hosea 11:1, Matthew 2:13–15). So we have two prophecies that are both fulfilled literally,  perhaps not in a way that we'd have expected: the Son of God was born in Bethlehem, but came out of Egypt.

Matthew's and Luke's genealogies of  the Lord both run through David, but through two different sons (Matthew 1:1–16, Luke 3:23–38). I take Matthew's record to be the "legal" genealogy through the Lord's adoptive father Joseph, while Luke's is the "biological" genealogy through the Lord's mother Mary. (I realize not everyone agrees on that point.) Again, the prophets had predicted that the Lord would be the "Son of David," the Branch out of Jesse (Isaiah 11:1–5),  and that was fulfilled literally. The pharisees admitted they were looking for David's Son (Matthew 22:41–46).

After the Lord's resurrection, after He had spent six weeks with the disciples, they asked Him, "Lord, is it at this time that thou restorest the kingdom to Israel? " (Acts 1:6–9). This question reveals that the disciples were aware there were large chunks of Old Testament prophecy about the coming of the Lord that hadn't [yet] been fulfilled. And the Lord's answer is oblique: "It is not yours to know times or seasons, which the Father has placed in his own authority, " but they would receive power when the Holy Spirit had come upon them (Acts 1:7–8).

I draw several inferences from these verses. First, the Lord's first coming was a literal fulfillment of prophecy. He was born in Bethlehem. He came out of Egypt. The prophets named these specific places, and those prophecies were fulfilled literally. Now, it's true that it would have been difficult for us to predict just how that fulfillment would work out, but there's no question that it was fulfilled literally.

Second, the Lord's genealogies both literally run through David. There is no sense in the Gospels that David is used symbolically or "spiritually" to describe the Lord. He is literally David's descendant.  Again, it might be been difficult for us to predict Luke's genealogy beforehand, but there's no question it is a literal fulfillment.

Third, the Old Testament prophecies are to be fulfilled in more than one coming. Now, I realize that not everyone will understand Acts 1:1–9 the way I do. I expect some Postmillennialists or Amillennialists would point out that the Lord doesn't actually say, "I'm going to restore the kingdom to Israel when I come back." Indeed, they likely see the promise of the disciples receiving power after the coming of the Holy Spirit as the prediction that the coming kingdom would be through them. Let's address that shortly. Let's just say at the moment that as of Acts 1:6, the disciples expected the Lord to do a good deal more, and were wondering when (not if) He would do it.

I take the Lord's answer in Acts 1:7–8 to mean that He will, indeed, restore the kingdom to Israel, but it's not their (our) place to know God's timing. Rather, the Holy Spirit's descent will bring power to equip us for the tasks He has for us until He comes back to restore the kingdom. 

I think Acts 3:19–21 clarifies Acts 1:6ff. In Acts 3, Peter urges the Jews to repent, promising that God would send Jesus Christ and "times of refreshing" if only they'd repent. Of course they did not. Notice how this parallels Daniel's prediction that the Son of Man would descend with clouds to receive a kingdom (Daniel 7:13–14). What Peter is describing here is a literal kingdom involving the physical return of Christ at the outset, and it was available to them immediately.

We notice that the disciples' expectation was that the Lord would restore the kingdom to Israel. Maybe that's worth a lot more digging, but I want to keep on the main point for now...

From the perspective of the Old Testament prophets, the Lord's coming was one event. From the perspective of the disciples in Acts 1, it would be split into two. To me this entirely justifies the Dispensationalist view that we expect the Lord to come again for His saints, and them to come again with His saints. In other words, I have no problem with a "secret rapture," because we know already that what the Old Testament prophets saw as a single event was at least two, separated by at least two thousand years. I have no trouble accepting that this second coming would itself be split in two.

Again, I am not in any way trying to convince anyone else. I am merely outlining what convinces me. I see that the Lord's first coming was marked by literal fulfillment of prophecies: He was born in the exact geographical place Micah named, He was born to the physical descendant of David. I see no reason not to expect His coming again will be fulfilled just as literally: I expect Him to stand on the Mount of Olives (Zechariah 14:1–4). I expect Him to come from Edom (Isaiah 63:1). I expect Him to come down to Armageddon (Revelation 16:16, Revelation 19:11ff). I expect those three prophecies will be worked out in a way that's as obvious in retrospect as the Bethlehem/Egypt prophecies were worked out the first time He came.

I'm expecting that the Lord will gather up all twelve tribes of Israel, and return them to the land. And I expect He will make the New Covenant with them when Ephraim repents (Jeremiah 31:31ff, Ezekiel 36:24ff, Hosea 14:4ff). I expect all this will be fulfilled just as literally as His first coming fulfilled Old Testament prophecy.

 

Not now, not here

1 Corinthians 14:27–33 presents us with some scenarios that should surprise us, if we're paying attention. In the first, we have someone in the assembly who wants to speak in a tongue, but there is no interpreter. So he is told to speak to himself and to God, but not out loud (1 Corinthians 14:28). In the second, we have someone who is prophesying – giving a word from the Lord – but someone else rises to speak, so he is to sit down and let the other person speak (1 Corinthians 14:30). And then we're given a remarkable statement, "spirits of prophets are subject to prophets" (1 Corinthians 14:32).

What's surprising here is that the text treats both the tongues-speaker and the interrupted prophet as having a legitimate thing from God. Neither one is treated as "out of order" in what they would say, but they would be "out of order" to say it at that time, in that place.

In other words, we are responsible to assess the situation, see how it lines up with 1 Corinthians 14, and then possibly refuse to say what the Spirit of God has given us to say. It's entirely possible that He will give us something to say, and then expect us not to say it, according to 1 Corinthians 14:32.

The first few times I experienced this, I tended to echo the disciples in John 9:2, "Who is in sin? Is it me for thinking I had something from the Lord? Or is it that other guy who stood up third, so now I can't?" But I've come to understand it might be more like the Lord's answer to the disciples, "Neither you nor he sinned, but this is the for the glory of God" (John 9:3).

There is a story in the Old Testament that seems appropriate to bring up here. David had a genuine exercise to build a temple for the Lord (2 Samuel 7:1–2). Nathan the prophet recognized it was a genuine exercise from the Lord, and told him so (2 Samuel 7:3). But the Lord spoke to Nathan, and told him that it would be David's son, not David, who would build the temple (2 Samuel 7:4–17).

So I've become a little more comfortable with the idea that I've gotten a genuine exercise from the Lord, but it wasn't ever His intention for me to be the one to act on it.

I'm not saying that third guy who stood up to speak in the assembly wasn't wrong to do so. Maybe he was, maybe he wasn't. I confess there are a lot of times someone stands up and I am quite convinced they had nothing to say. But to be honest, there are a lot of times someone else stood up, and it was a great act of love for me not to roll my eyes... but then someone else would tell me afterwards that they felt the Lord gave them something they really needed in that message. In other words, He knew much better than I what was best for the assembly.

And that's the big lesson in 1 Corinthians 14. There is real responsibility in the assembly, but at the end of the day, the Lord doesn't need me. He is perfectly capable of doing what is best for the believers there without my help. 

Underneath a whole lot of what we do is the fear that if we don't intervene, things will go sideways. That's not even close to what Scripture teaches. God who raises the dead might well use me, but He certainly doesn't need me.

Sacrifice for sins

1 Corinthians 15:1–8 tells us "Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures". 

We understand that Christ fulfilled each of the sacrifices in the Mosaic Law when He died for us. He was at the same time a burnt offering for our acceptance (Leviticus 1:2–3), a trespass offering for our guilt (Leviticus 5:1–6), and a sin offering for our sin (Leviticus 4:2–3). And those are just three of the offerings! He was the one single sacrifice to which each of the Old Testament sacrifices looked forward.

It's not the Christ died several times, but that in His one single offering, God saw every one of those prescribed in the Old Testament.

The value of the offerings to the Old Testament saints was a forward look to Christ. The value of those offerings to the New Testament saints is a clearer picture of what God saw in that once-for-all sacrifice.

I've heard many people say that the Levitical offerings are laid out from God's point of view, but we tend to see them in reverse. We tend to see the trespass offering first, because we are troubled by our sins. Then we move onto the sin offering, as we come to understand not merely that we have sinned, but that we are sinners. We might eventually come to appreciate the peace offering as making a place for us to sit in fellowship with God. Then we begin to understand the meal offering and see that value of the One who gave Himself for us. Finally we grasp that we are accepted by God, because of Christ, our burnt offering. That's probably a little simplistic, but there's more than a grain of truth in it. I'm not sure any lesson is ever learned only once, and it seems to me like we go through these progressions over and over, perhaps moving a little deeper each time.

I was struck a few years ago by the realization that the New Testament uses remarkably consistent language to describe Christ's offering His body and His blood for us. 1 Peter 2:24 tells us that Christ bore our sins in His body. Colossians 1:20 tells us He made peace through the blood of His cross. While those are certainly summed up in a single sacrifice, they're not at all the same thing. And they're illustrated in some detail in the Leviticus 16.

Leviticus 16:7–10 gives us a summary of two goats on the Day of Atonement. One goat is offered as a sin offering, the other is sent away into the wilderness. Both goats make atonement, but they do so in  different ways.

The goat offered for a sin offering is slaughtered, and his blood is taken "inside the veil" and sprinkled on the mercy seat (Leviticus 16:15–19). That goat's blood, we are told, makes atonement for the sanctuary (Leviticus 16:16), and for the tabernacle and the altar (Leviticus 16:20).

The goat who is sent away alive is taken, and all the sins of Israel are confessed over his head, then he is led into the wilderness (Leviticus 16:20–22). That goat, too, makes atonement (Leviticus 16:10).

Both goats make atonement, but they do it differently. The one goat makes atonement with his blood, propitiating God. The other goat, by bearing away the sins of the people.

One of my favorite papers by J. N. Darby draws the distinction between those two aspects of atonement. It's one of his shortest papers, and well worth the read:  "Propitation and Substitution" (Collected Writings, Vol. 29, pp. 286–288).

We need both of these sides of atonement. If God is propitiated, but we still bear our sins, then we're still guilty before Him. If, on the other hand, our sins are borne away, but God is not propitiated, then we find ourselves not guilty, but still estranged. We need to have our sins borne away, and God on our side.

In the New Testament, we find the language of propitiation is connected with the blood of Christ, while the language of substitution is connected with His body. He made peace with the blood of His cross (Colossians 1:20). He bore our sins in His own body on the tree (1 Peter 2:24). So it's not a stretch to say the goat for a sin offering prefigures the blood of Christ, while the scapegoat prefigures His body.

This touches on the burial of Christ (1 Corinthians 15:1–6). Having borne our sins in His body, He was buried. We've discussed before how "buried" in Scripture is all about hiding from view. The last time God saw our sins, they were buried out of His sight. He doesn't see them now.

Propitiation is a little harder to wrap our minds around. Substitution is particular, both in the Old Testament and the New. Aaron was to confess the sins of Israel over the head of the scapegoat (Leviticus 16:21). The Lord bore our sins (notice the plural) in His own body. Those are referring to specific sins. But there is no confession when the goat for a sin offering is slaughtered, nor when his blood is taken and sprinkled behind the veil. It's universal, as opposed to particular.

The idea is really that Christ's sacrifice has made God able to righteously act in love toward fallen men and women. Romans 3:25–26 tells us that the death of Christ allowed God to justly justify sinners. Notice it is the blood of Christ that Romans specifically references. It's worth meditating on Romans 3:25–26. Those verses give us a glimpse at God in a way we normally don't think of Him.

We see some connection with what theologians call "common grace." Common grace is the idea that God acts in grace in this life, quite apart from eternal salvation. God might well bless those who do not believe, even if those blessings are only temporal, limited to this life. Matthew 5:45 tells us that God causes the rain to fall on the unjust as well as the just. That blessing is surely limited to this life, but it's still a blessing that comes from God, and is a tangible form of His grace.  Paul's words to the men of Lystra are overflowing with this idea. He declares to them

God, who made the heaven, and the earth, and the sea, and all things in them; who in the past generations suffered all the nations to go in their own ways, though indeed he did not leave himself without witness, doing good, and giving to you from heaven rain and fruitful seasons, filling your hearts with food and gladness (Acts 14:14–18).

The blood of Christ, offered to God, forms the basis of God's righteously acting in grace to fallen men and women.

One last thought: J. N. Darby applies the distinction between propitiation and substitution to the Calvinist/Arminian controversy. His diagnosis is that their disagreement on the Atonement is because they each see only one part of it:

If we look at the difference of Arminian and Calvinistic preaching, we shall see the bearing of this at once. The Arminians take up Christ's dying for all, and generally they connect the bearing of sins with it; and all is confusion as to the efficacy and effectualness of Christ's bearing our sins, for they deny any special work for His people. They say, If God loved all, He cannot love some particularly; and an uncertain salvation is the result, and man often exalted. Thus the scapegoat is practically set aside.

The Calvinist holds Christ's bearing the sins of His people, so that they are effectually saved; but he sees nothing else. He will say, If Christ loved the church, and gave Himself for it, there can be no real love for anything else. Thus he denies Christ's dying for all, and the distinctive character of propitiation, and the blood on the mercy-seat. He sees nothing but substitution.

"Propitiation and Substitution," Collected Writings, Vol. 29,  pp. 287–288

 

Resurrection of the just

About a year ago we moved from the city to the middle of nowhere. We like it better here, but it was a pretty drastic move. Obviously we're not remembering the Lord with the same small group in the city. It's not that we were trying to get away from them or anything, just that we're now too far away to make regular visits. And then Coronavirus hit and changed a whole lot of things quickly.

Around the same time we moved, I'd begun to see that I'd allowed a lot of my views on Scripture to lead me into some problems. I wrote about that in "Best Wine" and "Losing Sight". So I've been doing a lot of thinking and reading, re-examining my ideas, questioning my beliefs, trying to throw away what isn't Scripture, embracing what Scripture actually says.

I've been meditating on 1 Corinthians 15:1–8, which naturally led me to contemplate the Resurrection of Christ, and resurrection more generally. The core belief of Christians is that Christ has risen from the dead. All through Acts, this is the central message of the Apostles. A great deal (if not all) of the teaching of the Epistles stems from this one fact. The Resurrection proves who Christ is, what He has done, and what He will do. It is proof that He is the Son of God (Romans 1:4), that He has been appointed Judge of all men and women (Acts 17:31), and that He will raise us too (1 Corinthians 15:20).

Scripture doesn't speak about "resurrection life", but it does talk about the power of His resurrection (Philippians 3:10) as something we can personally know. Sadly, we seem to try and turn that into some statement about the power of God in the sense of what God can do. But that's not really what the Epistles are teaching. It's not merely that the Resurrection is a demonstration of what God can do – it is that, but it's much more – it's that we are participators in Christ's Resurrection because God sees us "in Christ." We have died with Him, we have been buried with Him, we are raised with Him, we shall be seen with Him (Colossians 3:1–4).

The Lord spoke about two distinct resurrections: the resurrection to life, and the resurrection to judgment (John 5:29).  Revelation 20 talks about the "first resurrection" (Revelation 20:1–5) and the "second death" (Revelation 20:12–15). Those line up very clearly with what the Lord said of two resurrections.

Interestingly, Revelation 20:5 places the two resurrections 1,000 years apart, which might give us some hints about eschatology in Scripture. In one passage they're mentioned closely together (John 5:29), in another we're given more concrete information about their spacing in time. This is worth noting as we read through the Scriptures.

1 Corinthians 15:51–57 and 1 Thessalonians 4:13–18 both describe a resurrection when the Lord comes. I don't think this is the same event described in Revelation 20:5, but clearly they're related.  The statement in Revelation 20, "this is the first resurrection," appears to me to be clarifying that the resurrection of the martyrs is part of the first resurrection. I don't think it's saying that the first resurrection is solely comprised of those martyrs, but that those martyrs are also included in the first resurrection that began earlier. 1 Corinthians 15:20 leads me to believe that the first resurrection began with the Lord's Resurrection, continues on through the event in 1 Corinthians 15:51–57 and 1 Thessalonians 4:13–18, and comes to a close when the martyrs are raised in Revelation 20:1–5. These three are each part of one single resurrection. Those who are part of that resurrection are not to be hurt of the second death.

Scripture teaches that we are raised with Christ already (Colossians 3:1). But we are waiting for the resurrection of the body, described in Romans 8:23 and Philippians 3:20–21. But the epistles put us on the ground of that resurrection as far as our conduct, behavior, and testimony in this world are concerned. We are to live in un-resurrected bodies as though we had already been raised. Because in Christ, our resurrection is an accomplished fact.

But we notice that our destiny is not to be disembodied spirits. We aren't looking forward to going to heaven to live there as spirits forever (2 Corinthians 5:1–4). We are looking forward to our bodies being raised, being changed to be like His. My eternal destiny is to see the Lord with these eyes (Job 19:25–27), to see Him standing on the earth. It's easy to lose sight of this.

This idea anchors our thoughts to reality. We're not to be content with this world as it is. We're not to be content with ourselves as we are. We expect the Son of God to come from Heaven to claim us (1 Thessalonians 4:13–18), to redeem our bodies (Romans 8:23), to change us (1 Corinthians 15:51–57),  and to make us like Him (Philippians 3:20–21). And we expect the Son of God to come from Heaven to rule personally, bodily on the earth (Revelation 20:4). And we expect Him to judge all the living and the dead in the last day (Acts 17:31; Revelation 20:11–15).

We expect these things in the real, physical world. We're not talking about some "other", some sort of spiritual reality. We expect the feet of the Son of God to touch the ground in some actual, physical location on the Mount of Olives (Zechariah 14:4).

To be clear, I believe these things will happen in three distinct events, separated in time by the others. I don't believe the Son of God will come to claim us and to rule and to judge all at the same time. There are too many distinctions in Scripture between those events for me to think they all happen at once. Certainly the second and third are separated by 1,000 years in Revelation 20, but I'm convinced the first is distinct from the second as well.

But at the end of the day, Resurrection anchors our hopes to this physical reality. That is a profound thought.

Horse, Robe, and Crown

As far as I can tell, there are only two times Christ is shown to be riding in Scripture. He is almost always seen as walking – a couple times He is in a boat – but twice He rides: when He is presented as the King of Israel (Matthew 21:1–11), and when He comes as King of Kings (Revelation 19:11–16).

We tend to miss that God Himself established the time of the Gentiles (Jeremiah 27:1–11; Daniel 2:37–44; Luke 21:24) starting with Nebuchadnezzar – the king of kings (Daniel 2:37) – and leading until finally the Son of Man will descend from Heaven to be given an everlasting kingdom (Daniel 7:9–14).

(We notice this kingdom isn't established until after the fourth beast is slain and its body destroyed with fire (vv. 11–12). This echoes Daniel 2:34–35, where the stone destroys the image and then grows into a great mountain. Isaiah 63 fills in some of the gap here: the Redeemer comes to Israel, His garments stained with blood from a tremendous battle.)

God only has one purpose, to "head up all things in Christ" (Ephesians 1:9–10). God gave the kingdom of Israel to David, with the ultimate goal that Christ would reign as King in Zion (Psalm 2). God gave the Gentile kingdoms to Nebuchadnezzar with the ultimate goal that the Son of Man would be established as King of Kings (Daniel 2:44, 7:13–14). Christ is David's Successor as King of Israel. He is Nebuchadnezzar's as King of Kings.

Scripture doesn't tell us a whole lot about the customs of the Gentile kings. Certainly the empires of Babylon, of Persia, of Greece, and of Rome had very different cultures and customs. But Scripture does tell us about the man the king delights to honor (Esther 6:6–10). There we read the the king's pleasure was shown with a horse, a crown, and a robe. Of course there are some clear differences between Esther 6 and Revelation 19, but those same elements are highlighted when Christ is revealed as the King of Kings, coming to destroy the beast and establish His own kingdom.

I think we can look at Esther 6 and Revelation 19 and say, "Aha! This is the Man whom the King Immortal delights to honor."

Olives

Zechariah tells us that the Lord will come back and stand in the Mount of Olives. When He does, the mountain will split down the middle (Zechariah 14:3-5). Then He'll travel up from the mountain into the east gate of Jerusalem (Ezekiel 44:1–4).

My friend Caleb says that all through the Gospels, whenever Christ is on the mount of olives, He is sitting, not standing. As Caleb says, if He were to stand there it would split in two, and it wasn't time for that yet.

I haven't actually fact-checked him on that, but I thought I'd share it.

Two kingdoms

At a bible conference this last weekend,  someone read Ephesians 5:5 and said,  "We are in the kingdom of heaven. There are people in the kingdom of heaven who do all these things, but they won't be in the kingdom of God. "

With that one sentence, he explained the difference between those two kingdoms better than everything I've read on the subject.

Ruin (Part 4)

We've considered the idea of "the Church in Ruin". We haven't examined it fully, of course. We've mainly been looking to understand the basic idea. The whole idea of "the Church in Ruin" is based on two postulates:

1. the Church was infiltrated by apostates early in its history: before the Apostles had died out
2. this will continue until the Lord Jesus comes back to judge: the damage is irreparable

We've looked to Scripture to see what it has to say about this, and we've seen that the Lord Jesus predicted there would be "tares" mixed in with the wheat until the "completion of the age". We saw, too, that the Apostle Paul warned the Ephesian elders of apostates arising from among the leaders in Ephesus. We also considered some of the later epistles (1 & 2 Timothy, Jude, and 1 John) and found they are consistent with the testimony of the Lord Jesus and the Apostle Paul: they contemplated apostasy as a present fact within the Church. What's more, they contemplate the apostasy as being irreversible: it will continue until the Lord Jesus comes to judge.

I have very deliberately only looked at Scripture to this point. I've been careful not to appeal to empirical evidence in the Church around us.

There's a lot more to write about. We've not even really addressed Revelation 2–3, which are very important chapters in understanding the dispensational responsibility of the Church. And we haven't talked at all about the post-captivity books in the Old Testament, which have some bearing on the issue. But right at the moment I want to address some more practical concerns.

I'm going to come right out and say this: many "brethren" groups have found in this doctrine an excuse for their own fleshly actions. The flesh is really, really good at taking the truth of God and turning it into an excuse. Liberty can become a cloak for malice (1 Peter 2:16). Grace can become an excuse to sin (Romans 6:15).

I believe the Church is in ruin. I don't believe that because of what I see around me: I believe that because I think that's what Scripture teaches. That doesn't mean I'm allowed to have a heart that's cold towards God's children. It doesn't mean I can arrogantly claim the Lord's presence and accuse others of sitting at the table of demons. It doesn't mean I can see myself as separate from the Ruin. Truth is a poor excuse for sin.

Ruin (Part 3)

Well, we've been looking at the ruin of the Church. We started out in Part 1 by establishing that God sees the assembly from two perspectives: from an eternal, "God is sovereign" perspective, He sees the assembly as perfect. But from a temporal, "Man is responsible" perspective, He sees that the assembly has failed in its responsibility on earth. In Part 2 we went on to demonstrate that apostasy began very early on in the assembly: by the time Jude was written, it was an accomplished fact. Finally, we demonstrated that the testimony of Jude is corroborated by the testimony of the Apostles and of the Lord Jesus.

In this section, we'll attempt to demonstrate that apostasy is a fixture in the assembly. Not (although I've said it before) that the assembly is "characterized" by apostasy, but that Scripture contemplates it is something that won't be "cured" until "the completion of the age". In other words, we want to demonstrate the Scripture teaches the apostasy is irreparable.

We've already looked at the parable of the darnel of the field (Matthew 13:24–30) and the interpretation the Lord Jesus gave for it (Matthew 13:36–43). So we can ask the question: did the Lord Jesus expect things to get better and better? No, He didn't. He predicted that there would be darnel (or tares) sown in the field "while men slept". So He predicted that there would be false professors mixed in with true believers. Further, He specifically predicted that they wouldn't be sorted out until "the completion of the age". In fact, in the parable the farmer specifically forbids the pulling up of the tares, because it's possible that genuine wheat would be pulled up in the process.

So we can ask the question, did the Lord Jesus expect things would get better and better until He comes back? The answer, of course, is "No". He predicted false professors would come in, and would stay mixed in with the true believers until the end of the age.

So what about the epistles? Don't they teach things are generally going to get better and better? Not really. We've already considered Jude's epistle, let's reconsider what it has to say about the "ungodly persons" (v. 4) who've infiltrated the assembly.

14 And Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied also as to these, saying, Behold, the Lord has come amidst his holy myriads, 15 to execute judgment against all; and to convict all the ungodly of them of all their works of ungodliness, which they have wrought ungodlily, and of all the hard things which ungodly sinners have spoken against him. (Jude 14–15)

We noticed before that Jude's epistle doesn't warn apostasy is coming, rather it warns that it already has come. The ungodly persons in Jude 4 were already in the assembly. At the same time, Jude's epistle tells the end of those ungodly persons. It says the Lord will come and judge them. So as far as Jude is concerned, those ungodly persons are in the assembly, and they're there to stay until the Lord comes in judgment.

This is essentially what we expect based on the parable of the darnel of the field. The main point of that parable is that the Son of Man has no intention of differentiating between the wheat and the tares until the "completion of the age".

As an aside, I find Jude 14 is interesting with respect to the question of the "rapture". The "ungodly persons" will be judged when the Lord comes to execute judgment. On the other, the Lord is coming with His saints. That seems to me to fit in nicely with the whole idea that the Lord will come and get His saints, then come in judgment as a sort of a second stage. Is it a slam-dunk? Nope. But I think it fits.

But the point is that both Jude and Matthew predict an ongoing infiltration that will continue until the Lord comes back.

What about the other epistles? Not all the epistles discuss the issue of ruin, but those that do agree in at least the general outline. We might consider 1 Timothy 4:1, "the Spirit speaks expressly, that in latter times some shall apostatise from the faith, giving their mind to deceiving spirits and teachings of demons". 2 Timothy 3:1–9 says something similar, "in the last days difficult times shall be there; for men shall be lovers of self, lovers of money, etc." Both 1 and 2 Timothy explicitly teach that "the last days" are characterized by apostasy. That is to say, it's not going to get better and better. It's going to get worse and worse. But we have to look over to 1 John to fit the puzzle pieces together: "Little children, it is the last hour, and, according as ye have heard that antichrist comes, even now there have come many antichrists, whence we know that it is the last hour" (1 John 2:18). So the "last hour" has already begun. It began in the time of the Apostles. And (this is significant), 1 John produces the presence of "many antichrists" as evidence that the "last hour" has already begun. In the next verse, it is clarified what these "many antichrists" are: they are apostates (1 John 2:19).

What do these epistles say about the resolution to this apostasy? Do they predict a repentance? No, they don't.

The first few verses of 2 Timothy 4 might shed some additional light on our contemplation:

1 I testify before God and Christ Jesus, who is about to judge living and dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom, 2 proclaim the word; be urgent in season and out of season, convict, rebuke, encourage, with all longsuffering and doctrine. 3 For the time shall be when they will not bear sound teaching; but according to their own lusts will heap up to themselves teachers, having an itching ear; 4 and they will turn away their ear from the truth, and will have turned aside to fables. (1 Timothy 4:1–4)

We notice there is a connection with the return of Christ "who is about to judge the living and the dead". The connection is apocalyptic: "and by his appearing and his kingdom". And what does the epistle say? That there is a time coming when "they" will not bear sound teaching. Once again, we see a picture of decline. The Scripture doesn't contemplate things getting better and better. The Lord Jesus asked, "when the Son of man comes, shall he indeed find faith on the earth?" (Luke 18:8). It is important for us to understand this: the entire testimony of Scripture is moral decline between Christ's first and second advent.

So the testimony of the Lord Jesus, the Apostle Paul, and the epistles is that apostasy has set in. It set in early: Jude considers it was an accomplished fact, 1 John says it [was] already "the last hour". And the Scripture presents this apostasy as continuing until the Lord Jesus comes back to judge "at the completion of the age".

We've now considered the basic idea of the "church in ruin". Scripture teaches that apostasy would set into the church early; and, having set in, it would be irreparable. We must bear in mind that this is only from one particular perspective. God's eternal purposes are not frustrated by man's failures. But the assembly has dispensational responsibility on the earth. We are here on Christ's behalf, and we've not been faithful. We'll discuss that in more detail in another installment.

Ruin (Part 2)

Last time we established that the assembly ("Church") is presented from two perspectives in Scripture. In one perspective, it is God's building: God places living stones in it, building it up into a holy temple. But in the other perspective, God has fellow-workmen. They build with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, and stubble. God's work cannot be less than perfect, but man's work can.

We might say that this is yet another "God is sovereign"; "man is responsible" paradox. If we look at the assembly only as God's work, then we see His sovereign hand in it, and we understand that the assembly is turning out exactly as He wants. On the other hand, if we only see man's responsibility in the assembly, then we understand that the Lord Jesus walks in the midst of the candlesticks, judging our work. And of course both are true. Just like God is sovereign in saving sinners, but sinners are still responsible for their choices, God is at work in the assembly, but that doesn't mean we're not responsible for how we build on that One Foundation.

What I want to demonstrate this time, is that Scripture teaches that apostasy set into the assembly even before the Apostles died. Next time we're going to attempt to show that the apostasy in the assembly is irreparable: there might be isolated and localized reformations and revivals, but Scripture shows that, the apostasy having begun, it generally gets worse and worse until judgment.

The epistles warn that apostasy had already set into the assembly when the Apostles were still alive. We could demonstrate this from 2 Timothy, 2 Peter, Jude, 2 John, and Revelation 2–3. It would take a lot of time to look into all those passages, so let's consider Jude:

4 For certain men have got in unnoticed, they who of old were marked out beforehand to this sentence, ungodly persons, turning the grace of our God into dissoluteness, and denying our only Master and Lord Jesus Christ. 5 But I would put you in remembrance, you who once knew all things, that the Lord, having saved a people out of the land of Egypt, in the second place destroyed those who had not believed. 6 And angels who had not kept their own original state, but had abandoned their own dwelling, he keeps in eternal chains under gloomy darkness, to the judgment of the great day; 7 as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities around them, committing greedily fornication, in like manner with them, and going after other flesh, lie there as an example, undergoing the judgment of eternal fire. (Jude 4–7)

14 And Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied also as to these, saying, Behold, the Lord has come amidst his holy myriads, 15 to execute judgment against all; and to convict all the ungodly of them of all their works of ungodliness, which they have wrought ungodlily, and of all the hard things which ungodly sinners have spoken against him (Jude 14–15)

There are two things we notice in Jude. First, there were "certain men" who'd already come into the assembly. They are apostates, and they're compared to three great apostasies in the Old Testament:

1. the unbelieving Israelites who were destroyed in the wilderness
2. the angels who fell, and are kept in "eternal chains" until judgment
3. the men of Sodom and Gomorrha, who are under the judgement of "eternal fire"

It's important to note Jude doesn't warn about apostates "out there", it warns against apostates who are in the assembly.

Second, the apostates are the object of God's judgment. It's interesting to note that the three Old Testament apostasies in Jude 4–7 are mentioned in connection with judgment. But the case is made more explicitly in vv. 14–15, where we're told that these men are the subject of Enoch's prophecy: the prophecy that the Lord is coming "to execute judgment" against them.

What is very interesting in Jude is that there's no word of these apostates repenting. I don't doubt that God saves the ungodly sinner who believes, regardless of whatever sin or wickedness he has done; but Jude doesn't present these "ungodly persons" as needing to repent, it presents them as reserved for judgment.

We might notice, too, that Jude is silent about removing these people from the assembly. It doesn't present this as a problem that can be fixed. The "solution" in Jude is

20 But *ye*, beloved, building yourselves up on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Spirit, 21 keep yourselves in the love of God, awaiting the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life (Jude 20–21)

As far as Jude's concerned, the response of the faithful is to rest in God, "awaiting the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ".

We might look to the testimony of the Apostles as well. Let's consider Acts 20

28 Take heed therefore to yourselves, and to all the flock, wherein the Holy Spirit has set you as overseers, to shepherd the assembly of God, which he has purchased with the blood of his own. 29 For *I* know this, that there will come in amongst you after my departure grievous wolves, not sparing the flock; 30 and from among your own selves shall rise up men speaking perverted things to draw away the disciples after them. 31 Wherefore watch, remembering that for three years, night and day, I ceased not admonishing each one of you with tears. 32 And now I commit you to God, and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up and give to you an inheritance among all the sanctified. (Acts 20:28–32)

Here Paul is addressing the Ephesian elders at Miletus. And he warns them that "grievous wolves" will come in after he leaves (v. 29). But the interesting statement is in the next verse "from among your own selves shall rise up men speaking perverted things to draw away the disciples after them" (v. 30). So he warned them that apostasy would set in after he leaves, and that it would particularly come from among the overseers, in this case in Ephesus.

That might remind us of Diotrephes (3 John 9–10).

So the testimony of the Apostle Paul was the apostasy would arise "after [his] departure". But when we come to 3 John, we find that the apostasy has already begun, and there was a man who had gained some power over the assembly, so that he rejected Apostolic authority. But it wasn't only that he personally rejected Apostolic authority, he had "the brethren" put out of the assembly (v. 10).

We might consider Revelation 2–3 as well, but the testimony of Scripture is consistent on this point: apostasy had set into the assembly even in the time of the Apostles.

What did the Lord Jesus say about it? Did He predict the state of things would get better and better? Or did He predict that things would get worse and worse until He came to judge? Let's consider Matthew 13:

24 Another parable set he before them, saying, The kingdom of the heavens has become like a man sowing good seed in his field; 25 but while men slept, his enemy came and sowed darnel amongst the wheat, and went away. 26 But when the blade shot up and produced fruit, then appeared the darnel also. 27 And the bondmen of the householder came up and said to him, Sir, hast thou not sown good seed in thy field? whence then has it darnel? 28 And he said to them, A man that is an enemy has done this. And the bondmen said to him, Wilt thou then that we should go and gather it up? 29 But he said, No; lest in gathering the darnel ye should root up the wheat with it. 30 Suffer both to grow together unto the harvest, and in time of the harvest I will say to the harvestmen, Gather first the darnel, and bind it into bundles to burn it; but the wheat bring together into my granary. (Matthew 13:24–30)

This is a most interesting parable, and I've heard it "expounded" in all sorts of interesting ways. But the Lord Himself interpreted it to the disciples later in the chapter:

36 Then, having dismissed the crowds, he went into the house; and his disciples came to him, saying, Expound to us the parable of the darnel of the field. 37 But he answering said, He that sows the good seed is the Son of man, 38 and the field is the world; and the good seed, these are the sons of the kingdom, but the darnel are the sons of the evil one; 39 and the enemy who has sowed it is the devil; and the harvest is the completion of the age, and the harvestmen are angels. 40 As then the darnel is gathered and is burned in the fire, thus it shall be in the completion of the age. 41 The Son of man shall send his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all offences, and those that practise lawlessness; 42 and they shall cast them into the furnace of fire; there shall be the weeping and the gnashing of teeth. 43 Then the righteous shall shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He that has ears, let him hear. (Matthew 13:36–43)

So the parable of the darnel of the field teaches us this: the Son of Man has sown good seed in the world. The devil as also sown seed, "while men slept". (Notice it wasn't the Son of Man who slept, it was "men" who slept.) When it became apparent that there is a mixture of darnel and wheat, the question was, should we pull up the darnel? No, the Son of Man says, wait until the harvest (the completion of the age).

What do we learn from the parable of the darnel of the field? We learn that there is an intermingling of true believers and false professors, and they are really, really hard to tell apart. But it's not the Lord's intention to sort it out until the "completion of the age," when He will cast the darnel into the "furnace of fire".

There is a significant difference between the parable of the darnel and the book of Jude. The Lord Jesus explicitly says that "the field is the world" in the parable of the darnel of the field. But Jude is written to warn of apostates who'd "crept in unawares". They weren't in the world, they were in the assembly.

So what have we demonstrated? Neither the Lord Jesus, nor the Apostles, nor the Epistles looked to see things get better and better. In every case, the expectation is that we see things get worse and worse, until judgment. I don't doubt the Lord is working, and there will be local revivals, renewals, and reformations. But the whole arc of the narrative of the New Testament is that apostasy will increase until the Lord Jesus comes to execute judgment.

God's King

I want to spend some time considering God’s King. The Scripture spends a good deal of time discussing Christ as King, and I can’t help but think that indicates it’s worthwhile to spend some time meditating on it.

The first mention Scripture makes of a kingdom is Nimrod's in Genesis 10:8–10. It says that Nimrod's kingdom began in Babel, Erech, Accad, and Calneh, in Shinar.

8 And Cush begot Nimrod: he began to be mighty on the earth. 9 He was a mighty hunter before Jehovah; therefore it is said, As Nimrod, the mighty hunter before Jehovah! 10 And the beginning of his kingdom was Babel, and Erech, and Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar.

The first person called "king" in Scripture is Amraphel the king of Shinar (Genesis 14:1). Whether we consider Nimrod the first king, or whether we consider Amraphel the first king, it's apparent that the Scriptural record of kingship begins in Shinar, or Babylon. This is significant, as it is from Babylon that the great Gentile kingdoms begin.

Jeremiah 27 contains the remarkable statement that God gave all the kingdoms of the earth to Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon (vv. 27:5–11). While there are many Gentile kings in Scripture that precede Nebuchadnezzar, this statement is remarkable insofar as it is the beginning of what we might call the Times of the Gentiles, when God Himself made the center of power on the earth to move from Jerusalem to the Gentiles.

Daniel 2 gives us a further view into this transfer: in it Daniel tells Nebuchadnezzar the meaning of his dream,

37 Thou, O king, art a king of kings, unto whom the God of the heavens hath given the kingdom, the power, and the strength, and the glory; 38 and wheresoever the children of men, the beasts of the field, and the fowl of the heavens dwell, he hath given them into thy hand, and hath made thee ruler over them all: thou art this head of gold.

So Daniel tells Nebuchadnezzar that God had given him power over the whole earth, and he confers a title on Nebuchadnezzar, "King of Kings". This title is echoed in Ezekiel 26:7, also with respect to Nebuchadnezzar. Then in Ezra 7, Artaxerxes addresses a letter to Ezra and refers to himself as "King of Kings." So "King of Kings" is really a title of the Gentile kings, and it's conferred by God Himself upon Nebuchadnezzar.

Israel was God's chosen people (and will take that title up again some day), and they had their own kings. There is a remarkable statement in 1 Chronicles 5:1–2, which says that Rueben was Israel's firstborn, but the birthright was given to Joseph because of Rueben's sin. But the prince, we are told, is reckoned from Judah. We recall that Joseph's younger son was Ephraim, and Jacob blessed him as the elder (Genesis 48:13–20). So we see the Israelites leaving Egypt under Moses (a Levite), but they enter the Land under Joshua (an Ephraimite): Ephraim had the leadership among the tribes. When they entered the Land, the Tabernacle was set up first in Gilgal, then Shiloh---both in Ephraim.

But Psalm 78 tells us in some detail how what we might call the Ephraimite order of things fell, so that God "forsook the tabernacle at Shiloh... he rejected the tent of Joseph, and chose not the tribe of Ephraim, but chose the tribe of Judah" (vv. 60, 67–68). And so Judah took the lead among the tribes. And we've considered this in an earlier post ("The Tabernacle at Gibeon"): that the Ark of the Covenant was taken from the tabernacle in Shiloh under Eli's sons and captured by the Philistines, then returned to Israel at Kirjath-Jearim, in Judah; but the tabernacle, sans Ark ended up in Gibeon, in Benjamin.

The Israelite kings began with Saul, who was a Benjaminite. Saul's kingdom was taken away from him and given to David, from Judah. David's reign began the longest dynasty in the Old Testament record, continuing through his son Solomon and finally ending in Zedekiah.

But the prophets declare that God will once again set up a king in Jerusalem. Psalm 2 gives this probably the most clearly: the nations chafing under the reign of God's king, whom He will establish in Zion. And to this King God says, "ask of me and I will give thee the nations for an inheritance". That is, this King will be set up not only over Israel, but over the nations too.

The Scripture is consistent in its declaration that Jesus Christ is the Son of David. But David's line ended with Zedekiah's captivity in Babylon (2 Kings 25:1–7). Luke 3 gives us the solution to this apparent contradiction: Christ's lineage traces through David's son Nathan (rather than Solomon) to Mary. Joseph's line traces from David as well, but Joseph was descended from Jechoniah (Jehoiachin), and God had cursed Jehoiachin, saying no descendent of his would ever sit on the throne (Jeremiah 22:24--30). So Christ is indeed David's Son, but He is not of the royal line that traced through Solomon. That line has been explicitly ended by God, both in Jehoiachin and Zedekiah.

God has appointed Christ as King both as heir of the Gentile kings and as heir of David, the Jewish king. He is David's Son, and He will sit on David's throne, reigning from Zion (Psalm 2, Isaiah 9:7, Luke 1:32). But Revelation 19:16 introduces Him as the King of Kings, the title God gave to Nebuchadnezzar. So we might consider Christ to be both the heir of David and the heir of Nebuchadnezzar.

And really this is the whole point of the book of Daniel: the Most High rules in the kingdoms of men and gives them to whomsoever He wills. But Daniel tells us that there will come a day when the transitory nature of the kingdoms of men will end: both in chapter 2 and in chapter 7 he says that there will be another kingdom set up that will never end. I believe this kingdom is seen (prophetically) coming to fruition in the first few verses of Revelation 19, where heaven rejoices because God takes the kingdom. And what does John see? He sees the Word of God coming from Heaven, with the title "King of Kings and Lord of Lords" written on His robe and His thigh.

I really think this is the point of Christ's brief conversation with Nathanael in John 1:

49 Nathanael answered and said to him, Rabbi, thou art the Son of God, thou art the King of Israel. 50 Jesus answered and said to him, Because I said to thee, I saw thee under the fig-tree, believest thou? Thou shalt see greater things than these. 51 And he says to him, Verily, verily, I say to you, Henceforth ye shall see the heaven opened, and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of man. John 1:49–51

Nathanael (correctly) understands Christ is the One described in Psalm 2: the Son of God who will reign in Israel. The Lord Jesus responds by asserting He's not only the Son of God who'll reign in Israel, He's the Son of Man who'll inherit the Gentile kingdoms as well. He is the heir both of David and Nebuchadnezzar: the Son of God as well as the Son of Man.

Dwelling

Shan left a comment  almost a year ago:

Mark, just a quick question: a blogger friend recently noted this:

"The holiness of God, or holy, or sanctification, or any word in that family, is not mentioned in the Bible between the 7th day of creation (Genesis 2:3) and Moses (Exodus 3:5). That's quite a gap! It seems like the topic should have come up with Abraham. Or Isaac. Or Jacob. If it did, it didn't make it into the Biblical record."

Any thoughts on why that might be?

I stewed over this for quite some time.  But it was during some (unrelated) reading that I found an answer. I've given the answer a lot of thought, and I think it's correct. So I'm going to pass it on. I think the article that caught my attention was Darby's comments on Exodus 15 in the Synopsis. I was going to copy some of his comments in here, but it's really long.

The key is Psalm 93:5

holiness becometh thy house, O Jehovah, for ever. (JND) 

The issue in Exodus is that God has taken up a habitation with men:

 44 And I will hallow the tent of meeting, and the altar; and I will hallow Aaron and his sons, that they may serve me as priests.

 45 And I will dwell in the midst of the children of Israel, and will be their God.

 46 And they shall know that I am Jehovah their God, who have brought them forth out of the land of Egypt, to dwell in their midst: I am Jehovah their God.  (Exodus 29:44--46, JND)

God told Moses that He had taken the children of Israel out of Egypt to "dwell in their midst". This is something quite different than His relationship with the patriarchs.  It's true that Abraham was the friend of God, but there is not a word in Scripture that God dwelt with Abraham. We don't read about God dwelling with men until Exodus.

God's habitation introduces the responsibility to holiness.

From Exodus on, there is a history of God's dwelling with men. When Joshua led the people into the land, they set up the Tabernacle at Shiloh (Joshua 18:1). We've gone over the history of the ark and its location before (The Tabernacle at Gibeon), so we needn't repeat it here. But Psalm 78 details God's rejecting Shiloh and choosing Jerusalem as the place where He would put His name.  Jerusalem remained the place where God put His name until the Holy Spirit descended at Pentecost (Acts 2). Notice this occurred in Jerusalem. Now, Paul says, the assembly is the "habitation of God in the Spirit" (Ephesians 2:22).

God will once more choose Jerusalem as the place where He puts His name: that's plain from the prophets (Zechariah 1:17, 2:12). It is God's intention that His King will reign in Zion (Psalm 2), but that day hasn't come yet. It will: Christ will descend onto the Mount of Olives and come up into Jerusalem through the east gate (Zechariah 14, Ezekiel 43).

So to answer the question: holiness (or sanctification) is connected with God's habitation. In fact, "holiness" is first mentioned in Exodus 15, which is also the first mention of God's dwelling place:

 11 Who is like unto thee, Jehovah, among the gods? Who is like unto thee, glorifying thyself in holiness, Fearful in praises, doing wonders?

 12 Thou stretchedst out thy right hand, the earth swallowed them.

 13 Thou by thy mercy hast led forth the people that thou hast redeemed; Thou hast guided them by thy strength unto the abode of thy holiness. (Exodus 15:11--13, JND)

There is no question that God is holy, and always was. It's not like Abraham got a free pass, consider Genesis 17:1

And Abram was ninety-nine years old, when Jehovah appeared to Abram, and said to him, I am the Almighty *God: walk before my face, and be perfect. (JND)

Abraham was told to "be perfect". So we ought not to think that God's standard was low for Abraham. But the issue of holiness comes out of the responsibility of God's habitation. It's God's dwelling with men that brings the responsibility for holiness (cf. Numbers 5:2--3).

1 Timothy is interesting in this light: it's the epistle of how to behave oneself in God's house (1 Timothy 3:15). There is a responsibility in the house of God that is over and above the responsibility of the redeemed creature.

There is a tendency in "evangelical" Christianity to reduce everything to the individual. Scripture is full of teaching about God's dealing with individuals, but that's not the whole counsel of God. The whole counsel of God includes what I call "dispensational responsibility". This is really the bulk of Paul's epistles: there is a thing on the earth called the assembly (or church, or congregation, or gathering if you prefer), which Scripture calls the "habitation of God in the Spirit."  There is an order to be observed in the assembly, which is given in 1 Corinthians, 1 Timothy, etc. The order of Scripture isn't very popular today, but it's what God has laid out, and it's what He calls us to now as 2000 years ago. This is above and beyond individual justification, redemption, and salvation. It's how God calls us to behave in His house.

Well, I can feel a rant coming on, so I'll end this now.  Shan, I hope this answers your question.  I freely admit I got this from Johnny D., but as I've mulled this over, read Scripture, and researched the question, I've become convinced he was right. So I wanted to pass it on.

Ezekiel 8

I gave a talk on Ezekiel 8 the other day. It didn't come out at all like I had thought: I had a lot of trouble expressing what I was thinking. So I thought I'd give it another try here.

The book of Ezekiel starts with Ezekiel standing on the banks of the Chebar, in Babylon. There he sees a vision of the glory of the Lord. He sees what looks like a man made of burning brass on a throne, with four "living creatures" under the throne, and four "wheels within wheels" with the living creatures. He describes this vision in some detail in the first two chapters. Ezekiel sees this same vision three more times, or four times in total. He sees it again seven days later "in the valley" in chapter 3, then in Jerusalem in chapters 8--11. Finally, he sees the same vision in chapter 43.

These four appearances of the glory of the Lord form a simple outline of the book. Each appearance of this vision is followed by specific messages. We might think of these as "sections" of the book:

1. chapters 1--3:31 Following the vision on the banks of the Chebar (vv. 1:1--3:15), the Lord speaks to Ezekiel and gives him the rules of the watchman (vv. 3:16--3:21). That is, He tells Ezekiel his duty as a prophet. This section closes at v. 3:21, after essentially only one message from God.
2. chapters 3:22--7 The second section begins with the Lord revealing Himself "in the valley" (vv. 3:22--3:27). Ezekiel notes (v. 23) that this is the same vision he saw on the banks of the Chebar. Ezekiel's vision is followed by messages specifically for Jerusalem and her inhabitants (ch. 4--7). The key verse in this section is v. 5:5, "this is Jerusalem". All the messages God gives Ezekiel in this section are about Jerusalem and the surrounding area.
3. chapters 8--39 The third section begins with the same vision Ezekiel saw "in the valley" (v. 8:4) and "by the river Chebar" (v. 10:20). The Lord takes Ezekiel "in the visions of God" to Jerusalem (v. 8:3). I assume this means he wasn't looking at the literal Jerusalem, but a spiritual vision of it. The vision that begins in v. 8:2 continues through chapter 11. Following the vision in ch. 8--11, the Lord gives Ezekiel several messages. Unlike the previous section, these messages address not only Jerusalem, but the captives in Babylon, and the nations as well. This section is the largest in the book.
4. chapters 40--48 The fourth and final section is millenial: it starts with the Millenial temple and describes the nation and its worship under the Son (cf. Psalm 2). Ezekiel sees a vision "like the vision that I saw by the river Chebar" (v. 43:3). It's in this section that he sees the glory of God return from the mountains in the east back into the Temple.

There is a clear moral symmetry between the vision in ch. 11 and that in ch. 43. In chapter 11, he sees the glory of the Lord leave them Temple and head east into the mountains. In chapter 43 he sees it come back from the mountains through the east gate and into the Temple.

Ezekiel is characterized by conversations between the Lord and his prophet. Unlike Isaiah (largely composed of the messages the Lord has for His people) or even Jeremiah, Ezekiel is mainly the Lord telling Ezekiel what to tell the people. It doesn't really record that he actually passed the messages on. It's not a book about the prophet speaking to the people, it's a book about the Lord speaking to the prophet.

The characteristic title of Ezekiel is "son of man". He's one of two men called that in the Old Testament: the other is Daniel. This gives us a hint of where we'd look to see Christ in this book. Isaiah and Daniel describe the One who is coming: Ezekiel doesn't. In Ezekiel, the prophet himself stands in the place of the coming Son of Man. In type, Ezekiel is a book where the Father talks to the Son.

This brings us to chapter 8. Chapter 8 comes a little more than a year after the vision in Chebar (cf. v. 1:1--2; v. 8:1). Ezekiel is brought by the Lord into Jerusalem "in the visions of God" (v. 8:3). The story starts outside the Temple, by the gate (vv. 8:3--6). There is an image in the gate of the Temple, which Ezekiel describes as "the image of jealousy" (v. 8:3). Next the Lord has him dig a hole through the Temple wall, and he finds a chamber full of men burning incense to idols (vv. 8:7--13). Then the Lord brings him into the court of the temple, where women are wailing for Tammuz (vv. 8:14--15). Finally, the Lord takes him into the inner court, where 25 men are worshipping the sun, with their backs to the altar (vv. 8:16--18).

The first thing we notice in this sequence is the transitions between the visions. After the first three visions, the Lord asks Ezekiel if he sees what he people are doing, and He says Ezekiel will see something even worse (vv. 8:6, 13, 15). So we understand that these visions are actually a progression. It's not just that there are four different idolatrous practices going on, but each is worse than the one before. We also notice that the trend is inward from the Temple gate toward the sanctuary.

I'm not sure what the "image of jealousy" is (v. 3), but it seems to be an idol. That is, there was an idol in the entrance to the Temple. If we remember our Sunday School lessons, we recall that at least two kings of Judah set up idols in the Temple itself: Ahaz built an altar modelled after the idolatrous altar he saw in Damascus, and put it into the Temple, moving the brazen altar out of the way to make room for it (2 Kings 16:10--16). Manasseh also set up his idols in the Temple (2 Kings 21:1--9). No doubt there are others: these two spring to mind.

There's an enormous difference between going to bow down to an idol in its temple, and bringing the idol into the house of God. But that's exactly what these two kings did.

There are four steps from the "image of jealousy" in the gate to the sun-worshippers inside the Temple:

• the image of jealousy
• burning incense in the room of idols
• wailing for Tammuz
• worshipping the sun

These four steps form a sort of progression: inward into the Temple, as we mentioned earlier; but also a progression of the heart. First, there is an image in the gate (v. 3). No one is worshipping the image: it's just there. We might think of this as passive idolatry. Second, we have active worship on the part of Jaazaniah and the seventy elders of Israel (v. 7). Then we have emotional idolatry, the women wailing for Tammuz (v. 14). Finally, we have complete obeisance in the twenty-five men bowing with their backs to the altar (v. 16).

It's interesting there are four steps here. They remind us of the four downward steps in Romans 1:21--32 and those in Proverbs 30:11--14.

But the main point is the progression not only towards to the center of the Temple, but in the hearts of the idolaters. And we notice again that this is all in the Temple: in the center of the worship God Himself established. We might remember the last verse of 1 John: "Children, keep yourselves from idols" (1 John 5:21). There is a danger--- a very real danger--- of dabbling in idolatry, especially in the house of God. God doesn't have an house anymore, "The God who has made the world and all things which are in it, *he*, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands" (Acts 17:24). But the Scripture tells us that God has chosen the Church as "a habitation of God in the Spirit" (Ephesians 2:22). So there is a parallel, isn't there? The Israelites brought idolatry into God's habitation, and it offended Him. We ought not do the same. We need to be careful that we aren't dabbling in idolatry.

There's another thread in this story: it's the thread of God looking for a man He can confide in. The whole book of Ezekiel is characterized by the idea the God is baring His heart to the prophet, but it's particularly brought out here in chapter 8. At every step, the Lord asks Ezekiel, "Do you see what they're doing?" There's a sense where God is looking for someone to take His side against His people.

It's significant that the prophet who is so intimate with God's heart should be the prophet most particularly called "son of man". Really, God has found exactly one Man to whom He could completely pour out His heart. The Son of Man walked on this earth, and He saw exactly what grieved God. And there were conversations between the Father and the Son about it, although we only read one explicitly (John 17) and catch other small glimpses (John 5, etc.). The Lord Jesus, while eternally God, was here as the Man that God was looking for. He was the Man that God could take completely into His confidence.

And it's a sobering thought that He was the one Man who actually understood exactly how evil this world is. I will never know just how bad my sin is, because I'll never be required to pay its price. The Lord Jesus knows exactly how bad my sin is, because He suffered for it.

Can we imagine what it must have been like for the Eternal Son of the Eternal Father to walk down here in this wicked world? The Pharisees said, "This man receives sinners and eats with them" (Luke 15:2), which indicates just how seared their consciences were. Yes, this Man did eat with sinners: and had He eaten with the Pharisees, He wouldn't have been in any better company. He was the Son of God, He had come down from Heaven. To imagine there's any significant difference between different degrees of fallen men in comparison with Him is sheer foolishness.

And once again, we remember the God has found the Man He was looking for. Indeed, He had to provide the Man He was looking for, because there's no other man, woman, or child that is good enough. And now that God has found Him, He's not looking for another. He has found what He wanted, and He is content in Him. We ought to be content in Him too.

Well, that's more or less what I ought to have said the other day. What I actually did was go on long digressions through the histories of Ahaz and Manasseh, as well as a diversion through the identity of Tammuz. It was frankly a bit of a mess. Hopefully I'll be a little more to the point next time.

Kingly Titles

We had an open meeting yesterday, and one brother gave an address on the three groups of people in Scripture: Israel, Gentiles, and the Church (1 Corinthians 10:32). Another brother gave an very short little talk (really more of a homily) where he pointed out that all three failed equally in their responsibilities on the earth (Isaiah 5, Daniel 5, Revelation 3).

This got me to thinking.

Christ is shown to be King over all three groups in Scripture, but with a different title for each group. So Nathanael told the Lord Jesus, "Rabbi, You are the Son of God; You are the King of Israel." (John 1:49, NASB). The Lord Jesus responded, "Truly, truly, I say to you, you will see the heavens opened and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man." (v. 51, NASB). Notice the Lord Jesus used a different title than Nathanael used: Nathanael talked about the Son of God, the Lord Jesus talked about the Son of Man. Both apparently were referring to the Old Testament: Nathanael seems to have been thinking about Psalm 2, the Lord Jesus was apparently referring to Daniel 7. There is, right away, a difference between these prophecies. Psalm 2 is the Son of God as King in Israel. He does rule over the nations, but He's the King in the Holy Hill of Zion. Daniel talks about the Son of Man descending from Heaven, receiving an everlasting kingdom. Daniel uses Gentile imagery and terminology to describe the rule of the final King: and here the Son of Man isn't really seen as the King of Israel, but as the King of the whole earth.

This is something I don't fully understand, but it's worth mentioning. The titles "Son of God" and "Son of Man" both refer to Christ, but they carry subtly different meanings. The Lord Jesus uses the title Son of Man frequently in the Gospels, but He only uses it after He's rejected by the Jews. In John's Gospel He uses it in the first chapter, but in John's Gospel the Lord Jesus is rejected in the 11th verse, "He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him." (John 1:10 & 11, NASB).

Two prophets in the Old Testament use the title Son of Man, as well as several of the Messianic Psalms. The two prophets are Ezekiel and Daniel. Daniel refers to Christ as "Son of Man" in chapter 7, but he himself is addressed as "son of man" in ch. 8:17. Ezekiel is addressed as "son of man" something like 90 times. It is interesting to note that neither Daniel nor Ezekiel is referred to as "the Son of Man." That title is for Christ alone.

It is further interesting to note that of everyone in Scripture who has a vision of God, only Daniel and Ezekiel describe what they see. Isaiah (ch. 6) had a vision of God in the Temple, but describes only the throne He sits on and the angels around Him. Moses and the elders of Israel had a vision of God on Sinai (Exodus 25), but the description is merely what He was standing on. John's vision of "Him that sits on the throne" (Revelation 4) is a little more detailed, but not much. Ezekiel and Daniel both describe in detail what God looks like when they see Him. I can't help but think this is because they are "son of man". It is the Son of Man alone who can reveal God (John 1:18).

So the "Son of God" is the King of Israel, the "Son of Man" is the King of the nations. Where does that leave the Church? Well, Colossians 1 answers that question: "For He rescued us from the domain of darkness, and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son" (Colossians 1:13). The Christian has been delivered from the "kingdom of darkness" into the "kingdom of the Son of His [God's] love." As far as the Church is concerned, the Lord Jesus is "beloved Son."

There is at least one contrast between this last kingly title and the two former. As "King of Israel", the Lord Jesus succeeds his father David (Luke 1:32). As "King of Kings", the Lord Jesus will succeed Nebuchadnezzar (Ezekiel 26:7). God chose both David and Nebuchadnezzar and conferred those titles on them. But as the "beloved Son" Christ succeeds no one. The "kingdom of His beloved Son" is (as far as I can tell in Scripture) a totally new thing, beginning with Christ.

There is a whole subset of dispensationalists who object to the idea of Christ as King of the church. After all, they reason, if the Church is the Bride, then Christ is really much closer to her than a King to the kingdom. There is a shade of truth to that, but they miss the point. Sarah called Abraham "lord" (1 Peter 3:6). Bathsheba referred to David as both "lord" and "my lord the king" (1 Kings 1:15--21, 31). The idea that somehow the because we are the Bride He isn't our King is nonsense: it flies in the face of the clear testimony of Scripture. Colossians 1:13 ought to completely stamp it out, we've been transferred into "the kingdom of [God's] dear Son." 1 Timothy 6:14--16 is an even stronger statement: "He who is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords".

The day is coming when the Lord Jesus will come and take control of the earth. I don't at all believe that's the next item on God's timeline: I believe He's coming to get the Bride first, then He'll come and take over. As a Christian I look forward to His transforming my vile body to be like His (Philippians 3:21). But there's a sense where the greater hope is to manifested with Him in glory (Colossians 3:4). Perhaps a higher and holier hope is for Him to be vindicated publicly as God's Man. And so we look for the day when He reigns as God's Son from Zion, and as Son of Man with the everlasting kingdom.

But day to day, we have the privilege of acting now like it's then and acknowledging Him "voluntarily". This, I believe, is what it means to be "translated into the kingdom of His dear Son."

Updates

I've been meaning to share some updates, but I've been very, very busy--- too busy to post on my blog.

Weekend before last (November 10 & 11), we had a sort of mini-conference at the meeting hall. It was really the outgrowth of some conversations some of us had been having about perhaps having some sort of classes on foundational doctrine. The target audience was middle school children and older, but we didn't want to exclude anyone.

Well, with one thing and another, we ended up with a little more complicated deal than I (for one) had envisioned. But there were a lot of people who jumped in and made things work. If it weren't for Ames (and several others), it would have been a disaster. But it actually worked out rather well.

One thing I hadn't planned on was taking some of the sessions. We'd hoped to get others in to give the talks, but we couldn't get anyone on such short notice, and we ended up a giving the talks ourselves. It wasn't what I had in mind, but it seems to have worked.

I gave two talks, one on the Gospel, another on the Church. We also planned a couple Q&A sessions where the kids could ask questions, make comments, etc. on the talks we'd had. I ended up being more involved in that than I'd planned.

My buddy gave a talk on Christ as King, Priest, and Bridegroom. He gave another talk on an overview of dispensationalism. I enjoyed both of them. Another brother gave two talks, one was a sort of lexicon on doctrinal terms (What is the difference between "sin" and "sins"? What is "redemption"?) and the other was an overview of Romans. They, too, were excellent.

For the two sessions I took, I prepared handouts and gave them to the kids. I promised to share them online, so they're here: The Gospel and The Church.

We learned some lessons for next time. I suppose the main take-away lesson is that there ought to be a next time. Everyone seemed to enjoy it, and everyone seems to think it was worth the weekend. But there were some challenges, and lessons for next time. We ordered lunch from Subway Catering, and it was great. We also ordered pizza from a delivery place a mile or so from the meeting hall, and they got our order wrong. Oops. We also realized we tend to be last-minute people, and most people require more advanced notice than we gave. So here are some logistical considerations we need to take next time:

• We need to start praying about the next one now.
• We need to plan further in advance: a month isn't long enough. Next time we'll try three.
• People will show up to help, even if we don't ask and don't expect them to. Next time we need a list of things for helpers to do: they'll be there.
• We need to publicize our plans better, and included more schedule details. We did send them 'round, but people still asked what the plans were. Next time we'll inundate people with email notices, on Facebook, etc.
• People don't RSVP. We just need to accept that.
• Catering is absolutely worth the cost. Subway Catering in particular is good food, reasonably priced. It's a life-saver.
• Next time we'll choose a closer pizza place, and call an hour in advance to confirm the order before pickup. We called both Subway and the pizza place 24 hours in advance, but Subway called back to confirm order details, the pizza place didn't.
• People were confused about who was invited: we'd mentioned the idea that we were targeting middle schoolers and up, and people thought we only wanted kids there. Next time we'll not say anything about a target audience.

So it wasn't perfect, but it went well. Everyone I've talked with was pleased with the results, and we're looking to have another go in the Spring. All in all, I'm very pleased.

The Father and the Son

John 5 is to me one of the highest and most mysterious passages in Scripture. It takes us back into eternity before there was anything except God, and it takes us to the last day when Christ will judge all men. It pulls back the curtain a bit and gives us a rare and touching glimpse into the Godhead so we can see a bit of the eternal relationship between the Father and the Son.

The chapter opens with the Lord Jesus healing a man on the Sabbath, a man who'd been bed-ridden for 38 years. The Pharisees accuse Him of working on the Sabbath (which He had, in fact, done). The response of the Lord Jesus to the accusation of the Pharisees opens into an astonishing treatise on relationships in the Godhead.

The Lord Jesus' answer to the charge of working on the Sabbath is actually fairly subtle, and I have to admit I didn't really understand it until fairly recently. The argument basically boils down to this: the Son can't do anything on His own, He only does what He sees the Father do (v. 19). And the Father works on the Sabbath (v. 17), so the Son must work on the Sabbath. It's what the Father has taught Him to do.

I find it interesting that the Scripture doesn't tell us that Christ didn't really break the Sabbath. That's not the point. The Son had been told to do something by the Father, and that meant He wasn't going to keep the Sabbath. Interestingly, there is an Old Testament precedent for this in Joshua. It was a few years ago that an older brother pointed out that Joshua and the people were told to encircle Jericho once every day for six days, and seven times on the seventh. No matter how you figure it, those people broke the Sabbath. But they did it because God told them to. Similarly, Christ broke the Sabbath because He was obeying the Father.

But He goes beyond explaining His actions in vv. 19--30. He starts with an explanation of the relationship between the Father and the Son: "the Father loves the Son and shews him all things which he himself does" (v. 20). There is an interesting image here: the Father is bringing the Son into the family business. The Son doesn't do what He wants, He does what He sees His Father do. The Father deliberately shows the Son what it is He's doing.

Notice the titles Christ uses for Himself here: He mainly refers to Himself in John 5 as "the Son", but in v. 25 He's the "Son of God" and in v. 27 He's the "Son of man." Each of these titles holds a distinctive meaning. When the Lord Jesus refers to Himself in relationship with the Father, He calls Himself "Son." When He talks about raising the dead, He's "Son of God"; and when He talks about eternal judgment, He's "Son of man". In fact, it's because He's Son of man that all judgment is given to Him (v. 27).

(We should be very careful when we discuss Christ, because none of us can really understand Him: "no one knows the Son but the Father" (Matthew 11:27, JND). But I think it's worth emphasizing that when the Scripture talks about eternal relationships in the Godhead, it uses the title "Son", not "Son of God". Certainly Christ is the eternal Son of the eternal Father, but the title that conveys that isn't "Son of God," it's "Son". I say that carefully, because I've heard a lot of people insist that Christ is the "eternal Son of God". I don't think that's what Scripture teaches: He's the "eternal Son"; the title "Son of God" is different. This certainly isn't a hill I'm willing to die on--- I appreciate they're only trying to highlight Eternal Sonship--- but I think a careful reading of Scripture indicates the eternal title is "Son", rather than "Son of God". cf. Hebrews 1 & 2.)

There are several passages in Scripture that specifically outline God's purpose. For example, in John 4 the Father is seeking worshipers. Exodus 29 tells us Jehovah saved the children of Israel "out of the land of Egypt, to dwell in their midst: I am Jehovah their God" (Exodus 29:46, JND). Here in John 5 we have another purpose of God verse, v. 23. It is the Father's goal that all men should honour the Son just like they honour the Father. This verse has been very important to me over the last 15 or 20 years. It's like God's grand plan is really just for all men to honour His Son.

Now, the Lord Jesus gives us three specific similarities between the Son and the Father:

1. He raises the dead (v. 21)
2. He is the judge of all men (v. 22)
3. He has life in Himself (v. 26)

Raising the dead is God's exclusive right. It's not simply that only God has the right to raise the dead, but only God has the power to do so. We can't raise the dead, no matter how much we'd like to. Sure, we might witness a "medical miracle" where someone who's as good as dead recovers. Or we might even see someone "clinically dead" recover after a brief time. But the Lord Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead four days later. He'd been wrapped and buried: he wasn't in a coma, he was dead. But death is no barrier to the Son of God, He raises the dead. And He quickens "whom He will" (v. 21). It's not that He's under any obligation: He raises whomever He wants to raise. No one else gets a say in the matter.

Now, He applies this to two cases. The first is what we might call a spiritual resurrection in v. 25. The Scripture often refers to man's fallen state as a spiritual death. Christ's solution to that is to raise and quicken us. Notice Ephesians and Colossians follow this same thread, but Romans takes the opposite view. In Romans it's the lost who are alive (Romans 1--3), and the saved are dead (Romans 6).

The second application is two physical resurrections in vv. 29 & 30. One is a resurrection to life, the other a resurrection to judgment. You can't be in both groups: if you're in the resurrection to judgment, you're not in the resurrection to life. Notice this is what He insists on in v. 24. If we hear His word and believe on Him who sent Him, we have life and don't come into judgment. It's not just that we're judged and acquitted, but we're never even summoned.

This brings up an important point: judgment is always related to our physical bodies. When the dead are judged, they're raised first. And how are they judged? They're judged for what they did in their bodies.

There is no escaping the judgment of God. If you die first, He'll raise you from the dead to judge you. There's no statute of limitations, there's no way to avoid the bailiff. The only escape is to believe and pass from death into life: Christ has already been judged for those who believe. He has taken their punishment, so there's no judgment left for them.

I should think to the Pharisees at the time, certainly the next claim would be been shocking. They would have known that Abraham called God "the Judge of all the earth" (Genesis 18:25, JND), and here Christ is claiming that He is the exclusive Judge (v. 22). The Father has given all judgment to the Son. The Father won't judge anyone, the Son will judge everyone. Now certainly the Lord Jesus is God. I'm not denying that. But within the Godhead it's the Son who will judge.

I find it interesting that He is Judge because He is Son of man. This is closely echoed by Paul on Mars Hill: it's by this Man God will judge the world (Acts 17:31). Paul goes further than John 5 and tells us God has announced this publicly through the Resurrection. The message of the Resurrection, Paul says, is that God has publicly named His Judge by raising Him from the dead. But again, it's the "Man Christ Jesus" that will be Judge. Christ won't judge all men as God (although He is God), but as Man. He will judge as One who knows exactly what it's like to be a Man in a fallen world.

William Kelly says God created this world for Christ to have dominion over it:

Man is called to rule, to have dominion. God was looking on to His Son, the Son of man. For Him the habitable earth is destined. God has not made it in vain. (William Kelly, Hebrews, Chapter 2)

God created the world and gave it to man to have dominion over it. But it wasn't really Adam God intended to rule; it was the Last Adam, Jesus Christ. It is as Man that He will take dominion, and it is as Man that He will judge.

The last similarity Christ reveals is "as the Father has life in himself, so he has given to the Son also to have life in himself" (v. 26, JND). I find this one of the most mysterious and difficult verses in Scripture. Here's a time when the Son pulls back the curtain and lets us see into the light unapproachable where God dwells, and we can't really understand what we see there.

I have no idea what it means that the Father has "given to the Son also to have life in himself." No clue.

But little as I understand it, this verse forms the basis of Christianity in a sense. Colossians 3 says, "When the Christ is manifested who [is] our life, then shall *ye* also be manifested with him in glory" (Colossians 3:4, JND). It's not just that Christ has life in Himself, but that He shares it with us. And it's not that He gives us a little piece of it and sends us on our way: but He Himself actually is our Life. John says it a little differently: "God has given to us eternal life; and this life is in his Son" (1 John 5:11, JND).

God has no blessing for me that's not in Christ, and He has no intention of ever taking it out of Christ to give it to me. God doesn't give me blessings per se. He gives me Christ, and in Him are all the blessings God has.

Christianity is not just that Christ has died for me. That's important, but it's not really Christianity. That's not much more than Abraham, Moses, and the prophets expected. The really amazing thing about Christianity is that the Son of God has died for us and has given us an eternal claim on Him. Christianity is not so much justification: it's the ongoing, eternal, and uninterrupted relationship we have with the Son of God. He's died for us, He also lives for us. And He is personally our Life.

We're going to spend eternity getting a better idea who Christ is. And when we get to the end of eternity (you know what I mean), we won't be done. Of course, the real goal is not to wait until we're there to get to know Him. I'm not sure I'll ever understand this chapter: I'm just a creature after all. But it's in looking at Christ that we become like Him (2 Corinthians 3:18). So maybe the point isn't understanding, but just in looking and enjoying.

Resurrection

I've been thinking a lot about resurrection, and I wanted to jot down some of those thoughts.

The Resurrection of Christ is probably the single most important point of Christian doctrine. It's arguably true that Christianity is the belief that Christ rose bodily from the grave. This was the watershed issue when Paul spoke to the Athenians; it was when he introduced the resurrection that his listeners decided he might be crazy. 1 Corinthians 15 makes the stunning statement that without the bodily resurrection of Christ there is no Gospel.

But if there is not a resurrection of those that are dead, neither is Christ raised: but if Christ is not raised, then, indeed, vain also is our preaching, and vain also your faith. (1 Corinthians 15: 13 & 14, JND).

The Lord Jesus spoke about three different resurrections in John's gospel:

1. His own, the Resurrection of Christ (John 2:19--22)
2. the resurrection of life (John 5:29)
3. and the resurrection of judgment (John 5:29)

The Lord seems to put the last two at the same time ("the last day"), but I'm not sure they happen precisely together. Revelation 20 certainly discusses the "resurrection of judgment" in vv. 11--15, which comes at least 1,000 years after the "first resurrection" of vv. 4--6: "the rest of the dead did not live till the thousand years had been completed. This is the first resurrection" (Revelation 20:5, JND).

There is a fourth resurrection discussed in 1 Thessalonians 4:13--18. There, we have "for the Lord himself, with an assembling shout, with archangel’s voice and with trump of God, shall descend from heaven; and the dead in Christ shall rise first;" (v. 16, JND). I suppose those who don't hold a premillenial view consider this to be a parallel account of the "first resurrection" of Revelation 20. It seems to me it can't be, because Paul sees this as an "any moment" thing, where the timing of the resurrection in Revelation 20 is fairly well detailed. But ultimately I'm not interested in eschatological argument at the moment.

My favourite expositors claim the resurrection in Daniel 12:2 isn't a literal, bodily resurrection. They interpret that as a figurative resurrection along the lines of Ezekiel 37. Certainly Ezekiel 37 is a figurative resurrection: the passage itself provides the interpretation for the vision. I'm not so sure about Daniel 12. Revelation 20 makes it clear that the millenial kingdom starts with the resurrection of the tribulation saints who've been beheaded for Christ (v. 4), while "the rest of the dead did not live till the thousand years had been completed" (v. 5, JND). I don't see a real problem in connecting this with Daniel 12.

At any rate, regardless of your eschatological views, Scripture makes it clear that the Resurrection has already begun: it started when Christ rose bodily from the grave. This is why 1 Corinthians 15:23 refers to the Resurrection of Christ as the "first-fruits". He began something totally new that He will share with us. Not "us" as merely the Church, but "us" including every saint as far back as Abel. We will all be raised to everlasting life.

Of course, 1 Thessalonians 4 and 1 Corinthians 15 reveal a "mystery": some of us will participate in Resurrection without actually dying (1 Corinthians 15:51, 1 Thessalonians 4:15--18). Some of us will actually be raised without dying! This is the hope of the Christian:

for *our* commonwealth has its existence in the heavens, from which also we await the Lord Jesus Christ as Saviour, who shall transform our body of humiliation into conformity to his body of glory, according to the working of the power which he has even to subdue all things to himself. (Philippians 3:20 & 21, JND)

We are waiting for God's Son from Heaven, whom He raised from the dead (1 Thessalonians 1:10). He will change our "vile bodies" to be like His, and we'll be with Him forever.

Morally, Christians are called to live out a life of resurrection, even though we haven't yet seen it happen. This isn't just a motivational technique, it's the ontological doctrine of the Epistles. Romans teaches we're free from sin because we've been crucified with Christ: we're no longer the "old man" we were, we're now to walk in newness of life (Romans 6:4--11). Colossians 2 & 3 take this further: not only have we been crucified with Christ, we were raised with Him and are thus in a totally separate sphere. Having died with Him, we're not to subject ourselves to fleshly ordinances (Colossians 2:20--23). Religious rules and shibboleths aren't part of the new life we are to live in Christ: they appeal to the flesh, but have no value to us. And, having been raised with Him, we're to have our affections where He is, at God's right hand (Colossians 3:1--4). One day Christ will be manifested, and we too will be manifested with Him in glory.

Ephesians takes this even farther: we've been raised with Christ, quickened, and taken to Heaven "with Christ". God's estimation is that we're so completely "with Christ" that we're even sitting with Him "in the heavenlies" (Ephesians 2:5--9).

The Christian is one who lives between the Resurrections: he has already been raised spiritually, he awaits the bodily resurrection that will complete the deal. Really, all our problems come from the fact that we have a foot in both the old and new creations. We ourselves are risen with Christ: we are new creations (2 Corinthians 5:17). But we're still in old creation bodies. We're new creatures, but we're in old bodies. So Romans 6 tells us we're free from sin: we've been crucified with Christ; but Romans 7 tells us we have "the flesh"--- not the "old man", but "the flesh"--- we're in old bodies, there's a "law of sin" in our members so that whenever we want to do good, evil is there with us. Romans 8 gives us the solution: our bodies will one day be redeemed and we'll be free of the sin in them. But until that day, we need our Deliverer because we are utterly powerless over the sin in our flesh.

Our hope is not that we'll die and go to heaven. Our hope is that the Son of God will come and transform our vile bodies. When He comes, He will bring those who have "fallen asleep in Jesus" with Him: they won't miss out on the transformation just because they've died. In fact, the departed saints in Heaven are waiting for the very same event. We don't long to be out of our bodies: it's not our longing to be "unclothed" (2 Corinthians 2:4). The departed saints haven't yet arrived: they are waiting for the shout much more diligently and earnestly than we. The Lord Jesus is coming to get us: He will bring them with Him, and they'll be raised in new bodies. Those of us who are still here will be changed in a moment into bodies like His, and we'll all leave together with Him. That's our hope. That's what the Apostles waited for, that's what we've been called to wait for.