Retractiones: The Rapture Biblically Refuted

Retractiones:

Preface to Retractions:

            In the course of my life and studies, I have undergone some fairly drastic shifts in my own theological paradigm.  Some of these shifts occurred slowly and other fairly rapidly.  I have decided to take a point from Saint Augustine of Hippo and put together a list of beliefs that I wish to retract.  Sadly, at one time or another I have both espoused and taught others to believe the points listed in these posts.

            Please do not take any of critiques personally.  These posts are an exercise in theological reflections from a more mature (and hopefully correct) understanding.  I know many people who are far holier than I am who hold to many of the views with which I will disagree.

The Rapture Biblically Refuted

            In this post I will outline some of the major points that led to abandon belief in a rapture.  I am limiting myself to an argumentation from the Bible alone at the request of my mom.  This is not my preferred mode of argumentation, but it is more than adequate to discuss the rapture since it was from the Bible alone that I became convinced to abandon belief in the rapture.  I will write another post that will address the historical evidence for the doctrine of the rapture.

            Before I can begin my critique, I think it would be helpful to outline the doctrine of the Rapture.  The rapture is generally understood to be a distinct event that precedes the second coming of Jesus.  At this event, Jesus comes part of the way to earth and calls up his followers out of the world.  This rapture takes place before, during, or after a seven year time period of the great tribulation (depending upon whom you speak with). 

            There are two primary theological considerations that I have encountered with those who try to persuade others of the veracity of the rapture.  The first is the place of Israel in prophecy, which I have previously addressed here.  The second is the fact that the tribulation is a time when God pours his wrath out upon the world and because Christians are not objects of wrath.  Therefore they must be removed prior to the experience of such divine wrath upon the world as a whole.

           

            The greatest difficulty (biblically speaking) with the doctrine of the rapture is that it is not explicitly mentioned in Scripture.  Apart from an explicit teaching, the doctrine of the rapture must be buttressed via various passages interpreted to support this view.  I will walk through what I consider to be the best biblical arguments and explain how I found them to be lacking.  Once I found the passages used to support the rapture were not supportive of the rapture, I quickly abandoned belief in the rapture.

Meeting the Lord in the Air

            The best exegetical argument for the rapture comes from 1^st Thessalonians 4:13-17.  I have quoted the entirety of this passage below for the sake of context.

¹³ But we do not want you to be uninformed, brothers, about those who are asleep, that you may not grieve as others do who have no hope.  ¹⁴ For since we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so, through Jesus, God will bring with him those who have fallen asleep.  ¹⁵ For this we declare to you by a word from the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will not precede those who have fallen asleep.  ¹⁶ For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first.  ¹⁷ Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord.

            For the purposes of discussing the rapture, the key portion is “And the dead in Christ will rise first.   Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord.”  I had been convinced that the logic of Christians going up to Jesus required that we continue on up with him.  It seemed utterly ridiculous that Christians would go up to meet Jesus and then just turn around and follow Jesus the rest of the way to earth.  Then I read the Bible and the illogic of this view collapsed.

            What had seemed to be an illogical action suddenly became a logical understanding when I noticed the biblical and ancient practices for how one should meet a returning King/conqueror.  The first biblical example is the tragic story of Jephthah, who after defeating the Amorites came home. “And behold, his daughter came out to meet him with tambourines and with dances” (Judges 11:34).  Then there is the example after David killed Goliath, “As they were coming home, when David returned from striking down the Philistine, the women came out of all the cities of Israel, singing and dancing, to meet King Saul, with tambourines, with songs of joy, and with musical instruments” (1^st Samuel 18:6).  Both of these passages reveal that people came out to meet and rejoice with the returning leader.  Even outside of the Scriptural texts, we can see the Roman Triumphs similarly started outside the city and entered the city and the people of Rome would exit Rome to meet and watch the triumph (which could take up to three days).  The conclusion from these points is that from a biblical or even a Greco/Roman worldview, we would expect Christians to go out to meet Christ and then come rejoicing with him at his return to earth.

Resurrection of the Dead

            There is also the issue of the resurrection of the dead.  Here in 1^st Thessalonians 4:16 we read that the dead in Christ will arise first at his second coming and then those Christians who are alive will rise up with them and meet Christ in the air.  This then leaves not only the living unbelievers, but also the dead bodies of the unbelievers, who still await their resurrection.  This is a problem, because it conflicts with what Jesus had to say about the resurrection in John 5:28-29:

“Do not marvel at this, for an hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and come out, those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment.”[1]

It is important to notice that Jesus spoke about “an hour” at which both the dead and the just will be resurrected.  If the just are resurrected at the rapture, then, when are the unjust resurrected?  If one holds to a rapture and literal millennial reign, then the answer is that the unjust will be resurrected after the end of the millennium at the final judgement.  This is problematic because Jesus spoke about one moment in time at which the dead are raised and not to two different events separated by his 1,000 year reign!  As a basic interpretive guide, I weight clear statements made by Jesus significantly more than speculations about eschatology from other passages.

Wrath

            Now, the issue of wrath also occurs in 1^st Thessalonians 5:9, “For God has not destined us for wrath, but to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ.”  From a dispensationalist point of view, this clearly means that God will not allow Christians to undergo the tribulation when the wrath of God is poured out upon the earth.  I disagree with this position.  When Paul refers to wrath, he is generally making a reference to the final judgement.[2]  Examples of Paul’s use of wrath to refer to the final judgement can be seen in Romans 2:5-8, 3:5, 4:15, 5:9, 12:19-13:5, Colossians 3:6, etc…  If then Paul frequently used the term “wrath” to refer to a negative outcome at the final judgement, then the natural reading of wrath in Thessalonians 5:9 would be a statement about how God has not destined Christians for a final judgement resulting in the experience of wrath.  Therefore this does not directly speak to the wrath experienced in the tribulation.

            Indeed, there is a repeated call in the book of Revelation that makes it sound as though Christians will endure suffering.  An example is this is Revelation 13:10, “If anyone is to be taken captive, to captivity he goes; if anyone is to be slain with the sword, with the sword must he be slain. Here is a call for the endurance and faith of the saints” (Italics mine).  It is important to note that the suffering of Christians as described in the Book of Revelation occurs primarily at the hands of those who oppose God (c.f. Revelation 14:12).  However, it would seem more than a little disingenuous if I did not also note that the description of plagues and or punishments sent upon the earth would not also effect Christians.  For example it would be quite odd to view a plague or a famine upon the earth that did not afflict Christians.  This is part of why there is call for the endurance and faith of the saints.  Furthermore, the very idea that God would send a calamity upon the earth and somehow exempt Christians from its effect would be contrary to the way God has operated in the past.  In times of illness and famine, Christians have not magically avoided the effects of illness and hunger.  In the Early Church, Christians were the ones caring for the sick and seeking ways to feed the hungry, while experiencing sickness and hunger themselves.

The Promise of Revelation 3:10

            The understanding of wrath and the suffering ties directly into a larger Biblical theme that needs to be addressed.  I will being by addressing Revelation 3:10

“Because you have kept my word about patient endurance, I will keep you from the hour of trial that is coming on the whole world, to try those who dwell on the earth.”

The issue that is particularly important for this post is the promise made to the church at Philadelphia that God would keep them from the hour of trial that is coming.  This appears to be a rather particular promise.  It is made to one out of seven of the churches mention at the beginning of Revelation.  Further, there are passages in other New Testament books which present the idea of trials as something that should elicit rejoicing from Christians.  1^st Peter 4:12 speaks about how Christians should not think it is strange to have a fiery trial come upon them, but that they should rejoice.  Likewise, James 1:2 encourages his reader to count it all joy when faced with trials.  These two passages appear to speak more generally about trial(s) that the passage in Revelation does.  From this we can see that trials should be met with rejoicing by Christians and that there was a particular promise to the Philadelphians that they would be spared an upcoming trial because they had already kept the word of God with patient endurance.  After all, the point of trials is to produce patience and endurance and so strengthen the faith of those Christians who undergo trials.  Indeed, there are a plethora of verse in which Jesus and the Apostles warn us about suffering and how we ought to prepare and receive it.  Indeed, only one of the Disciples even died a natural death after various forms of imprisonment.  The Christian life a life that should be prepared for suffering.

            As we interpret Revelation 3:10, it is also important to reflect upon the High-priestly prayer of Jesus in John 17:14-15:

I have given them your word, and the world has hated them because they are not of the world, just as I am not of the world.  I do not ask that you take them out of the world, but that you keep them from the evil one.

It is very important to note that the Son of God does not pray for his followers to be taken out of the world, which is exactly what the rapture would be.  Rather, than praying for a rapture, Jesus prays that his followers would be protected from the evil one.  So then we can understand the promise to the church in Philadelphia to be a particular promise possible tied to protection from the effects of the evil one.  However, what is lacking from Revelation 3:10 is the idea that God will take the Philadelphians and all other Christians up from the earth before this coming hour of trials.  Such an idea runs contrary to the prayer of Jesus, and that is a problem.  Again, I would place more emphasis upon a clear statement from Jesus than an improbable speculation about Revelation 3:10.

The Removal of the Holy Spirit

            Perhaps the most bizarre and down-right confusing belief that I have encountered associated with belief in the rapture is that the Holy Spirit will be removed from the earth.  This belief is based upon an interpretation of 2^nd Thessalonians 2:7, “For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only He who now restrains will do so until He is taken out of the way.”  This verse is understood to be speaking about the Holy Spirit who will depart when the Church is raptured.  This is not a view of the fringe.  John F. Walvoord wrote,

“The fact that the Holy Spirit has not been taken out of the church is evidence that the Day of the Lord has not begun.  His removal, however, will mean that the Holy Spirit will be with believers but not in them.”[3]

This interpretation of 2^nd Thessalonians 2:7 is so replete with unintended theological consequences that I am nearly at a loss of how to critique it.[4]

            For sake of simplicity, I will start with the one that Walvoord mentioned in his comment.  That is the idea that the Spirit’s work will somehow be different regarding believers after the rapture.  Even Walvoord acknowledges the stickiness of the issue in that he changes the prepositions used to describe how the Holy Spirit relates to believers post-rapture.  This is compounded by his arguments that we know the Day of the Lord has not come because the Spirit has not been taken out of the church.  Well, by his later logic that the Holy Spirit is still with believers but not in them, then there does not appear to be a solid argument that the Spirit has not already been taken up, since the removal of the Holy Spirit is not an actual removal, but an alteration in His relation with believers.  This is further complicated by the lack of textual support for the idea that the Spirit’s work in/with believers is expected to change in anyway after Pentecost.  Indeed, Jesus stated the exact opposite of this in John 14:16-17:

            And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper, to be with you forever,      even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor       knows him. You know him, for he dwells with you and will be in you.

Notice, how in this passage Jesus speak both about how the Spirit will be in his disciples and will remain with them forever.  Walvoord interpretation attempts to divide the promise of the Spirit into two parts instead of accepting Jesus’ promise of how the Spirit will interact as a singular explanation.  This conclusion is further support by Jesus statement in John 7:37-39:

            On the last day of the feast, the great day, Jesus stood up and cried out, "If anyone thirsts,           let him come to me and drink.  Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, 'Out of       his heart will flow rivers of living water.'" Now this he said about the Spirit, whom those        who believed in him were to receive, for as yet the Spirit had not been given, because      Jesus was not yet glorified.

Jesus is here speaking in metaphor using water and a sign that signifies the Holy Spirit (just as he did with the Samaritan woman at the well in John 4).  We are even told this so that we would not misunderstand the words of Jesus at this point.  Jesus spoke of the Spirit as water coming forth from the heart of a believer.  This image cannot be adequately described as the Spirit being with and not in a believer.  Therefore, once again, we are faced with a situation in which either Jesus did not know what he was talking about, or the interpretation of another passage has gone astray and we should not expect the Holy Spirit to be taken away.

            There is a further problem of considering how anyone would be able to convert to Christianity if the Holy Spirit were removed.  Jesus stated, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit” (John 3:5-6).  Apart from the Holy Spirit, entering the kingdom becomes seriously problematic.  Further, the Holy Spirit bears witness about Jesus (John 15:26) and convicts the world (John 16:8-11).  Apart from these actions it is difficult to understand how there would be conversions among people who did not convert when the Holy Spirit was present.

            In conclusion, there is no clear scriptural mandate for a rapture from the texts of Scripture.  This lack of clear support is compounded by the problem that the biblical interpretations which support the rapture are contrary to statements Jesus made during his incarnation.  Therefore, Christians should not expect a rapture, but should expect to meet Jesus in the air at his Second Coming as they would greet a returning king.  We Christians should also expect to suffer and undergo trials for the strengthening of our faith, giving thanks when they come and giving thanks when God spares us from them.

---

[1] Note, Chrsystom understands that there will be one resurrection event, Homily 39 on the Gospel of John.  The full text can be found here.

[2] This topic is worthy of its own blog post for a complete exposition.

[3] John F. Walvoord, Understanding Christian Theology, 1267.

[4] There are significant Trinitarian issues that I felt obliged to omit due to space consideration and the fact that they were not necessary for a full rebuttal of the erroneous nature of this proposition.

Retractiones: Ethnic Israel in Eschatology

Retractiones

Preface to Retractions

            In the course of my life and studies, I have undergone some fairly drastic shifts in my own theological paradigm.  Some of these shifts occurred slowly and other fairly rapidly.  I have decided to take a point from Saint Augustine of Hippo and put together a list of beliefs that I wish to retract.  Sadly, at one time or another I have both espoused and taught others to believe the points listed in these posts.

            Please do not take any of critiques personally.  These posts are an exercise in theological reflections from a more mature (and hopefully correct) understanding.  I know many people who are far holier than I am who hold to many of the views with which I will disagree.

Retractiones: Ethnic Israel in Eschatology

            If you were raised in baptistic circles in the 80’s and 90’s, you were probably a dispensationalist by default.  I was.  I remember the first time I found out that a respectable member of my church was not a dispensationalist, I was shocked.  In my mind, there were no viable eschatological alternatives.  Then I went to Bible College and my dispensationalism began to crumble and crumble quickly.  There were two points that crumbled rather simultaneously: the rapture and ethnic Israel in prophecy.

            This post is the first part in my attempt to answer a question from my most faithful reader, my mom.  She has read every paper of import that I have ever written.  She asked me to outline why I no longer believe in the rapture without relying upon church history.  This post will begin to provide that answer.  I will however make some use of Church History in this post and in a later post.  Sorry mom, but it is an indispensable line of argumentation for delineating doctrines and understanding how they came about.

            Before I can discuss the doctrine of the rapture, I think that it would be useful to outline the place of Israel in prophecy.  The doctrine of the rapture (as classically expounded by people such as John Walvrood) is bound up in the distinction between Israel and the Church.[1]  The Church is understood to be an interim state in God’s dealings with ethnic Israel.  The rapture removes the Church and God fulfills His covenant promises with ethnic Israel.  The promises in Torah (the first five books of the Bible) and the prophets are fulfilled in a very literal and physical manner.  Thus issues such as dwelling in the land become important as fulfillments of covenant promises.

            I view this as superfluous, a misreading of Scripture, and without support from the Fathers.  The Apostle Paul addressed the differences between ethnic Jews and Gentiles at length.  His words are worth noting as they do provide a clear example of the Apostolic understanding of the distinction between ethnic Jews and ethnic Gentiles.

            Romans chapter 4 begins with Paul asking this question, “What then shall we say was gained by Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh?”  Paul then goes on to argue that Abraham gained nothing in the flesh because circumcision came after his righteousness by faith (Romans 4:11).  The conclusion then is that those who believe are the children of Abraham without regard to their state of their ethnicity or foreskins.  This conclusion is repeated in Romans 9:6, “For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel.”  

            The benefit to being ethnically Jewish, according to Paul is no way explicitly connected to an eschatological blessing that is distinct from the Gentiles.  Indeed, the point of Romans 11, in which Paul addressed the Gentiles as a Gentile,[2] is that the Gentiles have no room for boasting.  His metaphor of branches being removed and grafted is focused on the lack of anyone to boast, not about the certainty with which ethnic Israel would receive a blessing distinct from the Church.

            Paul even addressed the churches of Galatia, which were predominately Gentiles, as the Israel of God.  This can be seen in Galatians 6:16, “And as for all who walk by this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God.”  The true Israel then has nothing to do with ethnicity but with faith.  This is the teaching of the Apostle Paul and there is no record or tradition of the other Apostles disagreeing with him. 

            The best argument for a separate future for ethnic Israel from the believing Gentiles is made from the promises found in the Old Testament.  The argument goes as follows: God promised things to ethnic Israel.  God will keep his promises.  Therefore there must be a moment in the future in which God will keep these promises.  This is a fairly compelling argument if one holds to a grammatical-historical method of biblical interpretation.  However, the Apostles did not utilize a grammatical-historical method of exegesis.[3]  Neither did the Apostles speak about how God would fulfill these promises in a literalistic manner to ethnic Israel while excluding the Gentiles.

            As with the Apostles, the Fathers of the Church did not present a view that the ethnic people of Israel would receive a blessing apart from the Church.  This can be seen as early as the Epistle of Barnabas.  In 1-17, Barnabas argues that the Old Testament prefigures the person and work of Christ along with demonstrating that the Church is the people of God because the younger receives the blessing over against the older (in saying this, Barnabas reads the blessing of Jacob over Esau as a type referring to the Church being blessed over Israel).[4]  These and other points are repeated throughout the Fathers[5] with moments that could be considered anti-Semitic.[6]  The point however is that the ancient and consistent view of the Church has been to understand the promises made to Israel to be fulfilled in the Church which is the true Israel.

            My conclusion, following Paul and the Fathers, is that the Church is the true Israel.  The promises of the Old Covenant are fulfilled and will be fulfilled in the Church.  Therefore, there is no need to posit a future in which ethnic Israel receives quantitatively distinct blessings by virtue of being ethnically Jewish.  This conclusion does not lead me to look for any future state of eschatological blessing for ethnic Israel apart from Christ and his Church.

---

 [1] I am limiting myself to the more classical presentations of dispensational theology.  I am doing this because there is quite a spectrum of views that could fall into the dispensational category and discerning the nuances to the various tweaks by sundry authors is far more than I can adequately accomplish in a blog post.

[2] Romans 11:13, “Now I am speaking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch then as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry.”

[3] This will be the topic of an upcoming blog post.

[4] For the full text in English, click here.

[5] See Tertullian, Apology, 21, and Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho a Jew for a couple early examples.

[6] The issue of anti-Semitism ought to be viewed in light of the general name calling and character assassination that was a cultural part of argumentation of the late Roman Empire.  When the anti-Jewish comments are viewed in parallel with other such comments made against fellow Christians, they are far less problematic.  Tertullian wrote of Hermogenes that “he mistakes pointless verbiage for eloquence and believes that it is the duty for a man of good conscience to speak ill of all men.”  Jerome’s writing are likewise replete with similar statements (Jerome is the grumpy uncle of the Church Fathers).  With this in mind, here is a link to Chrysostom’s sermon Against the Jews.

Biblical Counseling and the Prosperity Gospel: The Same Side of the Same Coin.

Biblical Counseling and the Prosperity Gospel:

The Same Side of the Same Coin.

            It might sound odd at first to hear that Biblical Counseling and the Prosperity Gospel share the same premise.  This statement must be patently absurd!  After all, those places most noted for Biblical Counseling are bastions of reformed thought that vie relentlessly against the encroachment of the Prosperity Gospel.[1]  Yet, despite this apparent divergence, the Prosperity Gospel is alive and well being actively propagated by these schools.  No, you will not hear John MacArthur saying things like a health and wealth preacher, but you will find Biblical Counseling being actively promoted. 

            Before going further, it is appropriate to define what I mean by Biblical Counseling.   The Biblical Counseling Coalition says on their website, that God “comprehensively addresses the sin and suffering of all people in all situations.”  This of course is done in Scripture.  This clearly means that Biblical Counseling is founded upon the use of Scripture.  A second point to this is that Biblical counseling does not rely upon psychology because “When systems of thought and practice claim to prescribe a cure for the human condition, they compete with Christ (Colossians 2:1-15). Scripture alone teaches a perspective and way of looking at life by which we can think biblically about and critically evaluate information and actions from any source (Colossians 2:2-10; 2 Timothy 3:16-17).”  Biblical counseling in a nutshell is the use of the Bible centered on Christ to address the problems of the “whole” person.  (To be clear, psychotherapy seeks to help a person in their distress, and does not claim to prescribe a cure for the human condition this definition is overtly polemical at his point.)

            How then can such an obviously good thing centered on the Bible, Jesus, and helping people be compared in qualitative manner with the Prosperity Gospel?  Simply put, they make the similar claims about similar aspects of life.  It is not difficult to find Prosperity Gospel speakers equate physical suffering and financial difficulties with sinful behavior (which is often gussied up under the term “lack of faith/trust/belief”).  God will bless those who trust in Him in a demonstrable manner.  And to be honest there are Bible passages which can be used to support this.  Biblical Counseling makes that claim that by dealing with sin and exercising demonstrable faith in the Word of God that God will bring mental and emotional health.  In both cases, the thing that separates you from the blessings of God is your sin and a lack of repentance.  Likewise both promise that once that faith is enacted God will act to bring the state of blessing into one’s life.  The only serious difference is that Biblical Counseling posits that it can take a long time to bring this change, while the prosperity peoples typically do not offer very long time frames.

            Just as the Prosperity Gospel can lead people to ignore medical advice from Doctors and defy economic common sense, so also Biblical counseling leads people to ignore the right use of doctrine and the collected wisdom of the field of psychology.[2]  Although Biblical Counseling is touted as truly operating upon the doctrine of the Sufficiency of Scripture, it offers a distorted Gospel from a distorted doctrine.  The doctrine of the Sufficiency of Scripture was used to speak about how Scripture contains those things which are necessary for salvation and that these same things are clearly seen from Scripture.  Therefore Scripture is sufficient for one to know what one must do to be saved.  This is evident in the Westminster confession, which I have previous argued is incorrect on this point.[3]  Yet, what was once a doctrine of Scripture speaking about salvation has now been used as a means of rejecting psychology!  The Bible does have quite a lot to say about how our souls can be healed by God.  However, it is not a manual of how to heal mental disorders nor was it written as a post-enlightenment psychotherapeutic manual despite its insights.  Attempts to force the Bible into this paradigm are guilty of fundamentally misusing the Bible and forcing it to address things that it did not directly address.[4]

            In a move befitting the fundamentalist caricature, the “Sufficiency of Scripture” is being used to support a worldview that does not need to accommodate the learning of any field outside of Biblical Scholarship (which itself must be treated with abject horror if it does not conclude within the proper confessional boundaries).  Mental illnesses are cured through exegesis and repentance.  This might be more of a classical Fundamentalist attempt to regain influence in a sphere (counseling) while eschewing the principles of counseling.  I speculate that this goes back to a perceived need for authority and clear answers, which (from its perspective) are primarily found in the Bible (but only when interpreted in a particular way within a particular confessional model).

            The Biblical Counseling movement offers the same answer for mental health as the Prosperity Gospel does for physical health and financial soundness.  Trust Jesus and He will provide.  Neither of these assertions fits with reality.  Historically, there have been many who have been very faithful Christians who suffered from various physical and financial difficulties (the Apostle Paul comes to mind).  In the same way, there have been many Christians (and even saints)[5] who have experienced mental illness perhaps even without healing.  There is even a category for this in Russia Fool-for-Christ.  Further, John Cassian and other monastic authors frequently engage with topics of mental and emotional health in direct relation to living the monastic life and being aware of one’s own soul and body.[6]  These issues were not new topics that emerged in the 1960’s, but there is a long Christian tradition that addresses many of the same things today, but in a manner quite distinct from the Biblical Counseling movement.

            It is important to note that Biblical counseling affirms a good thing in affirming the need for repentance.  Indeed, the life of a Christian is a life of repentance.  The problem comes when there are mental/emotional/relational problems that cannot be solved through my repentance.  Rape, abuse, bullying, etc… leave damage upon the victims that cannot be healed through repentance alone.   This is the ultimate failure of Biblical Counseling.  It cannot address the wounds on a soul wounded by another’s sin.

---

[1] Based upon the sound advice of my wife, no schools are named herein.

[2] There are a couple of evidence based psychological theories which are largely ignored by Biblical counseling (possibly because they do not fit the polemical bent of the movement).  For example, see: Attachment Theory.

[3] For other examples, see The Scientific Veracity of the Bible or The Ambiguity of Scripture.

[4] Anecdotally, my first encounter with Biblical Counseling was when I visited a friend and went with him to his counseling class.  I was horrified by how the Bible was being used.  Proverbs 7:21-23 was used as an example of how the Bible speaks to the alcoholic.  Contextually, this is speaking about the adulteress woman who is the counter-part to Wisdom:

“With much seductive speech she persuades him; with her smooth talk she compels him.  All at once he follows her, as an ox goes to the slaughter, or as a stag is caught fast till an arrow pierces its liver; as a bird rushes into a snare; he does not know that it will cost him his life.” 

Apparently arrow and liver along with the invitation to drink were all that was required to clearly demonstrate how this addressed the alcoholic.  Because otherwise, I would have understood this to teach me about resisting temptation and the dangers of self-gratification to my soul and body.

In defense of the prof who taught this, when confronted, he said that it seemed a little odd to him and that he would revise his lesson for the next time he taught the class.

[5] I am not going to attempt to retroactively diagnose anyone.  Such attempts are utter folly and go against the very nature of professional behavior in the fields of counseling and history.

[6] Here is a link to John Cassian’s work the Institutes.  Note his section on the spirit of dejection.

Questions in Genesis: The Scientific Veracity of the Bible

Questions in Genesis: The Scientific Veracity of the Bible

           

Any time I encounter discussions of the Bible being or not being scientifically accurate, I am reminded of the story of Brer Rabbit and the tar baby.  Brer Rabbit was unwilling to allow the tar baby to be a tar baby and got so upset that this inanimate object would not speak to him that he ends up punching and kicking the tar baby.  The end result is that the tar baby was unmoved and Brer Rabbit ended up in quite a mess.[1]  I see the same thing happen when one tries to fit the Bible into the modern understanding(s) of scientific accuracy.  The Bible does not fit nicely into these categories, and forcing it is not generally helpful.  The reason for this is as follows:

1.      The Bible is an ancient text.  It records history and speaks about the world largely in keeping with the accepted practices of its time periods.  This very nature of the Bible makes it difficult to fit with a post-enlightenment view of science.  The standards of scientific accuracy are a rather recent invention within human history.

2.      The Bible is a religious text.  It addresses reality from a religious perspective.  It even gives two disparate accounts of the creation of the world each of which made a different theological point.[2]  This does not mean that the Bible does not convey truth about reality.  This does mean that the Bible has other concerns than being a scientific textbook.

As a Christian, I view the Bible as the product of God’s condescension to reveal something of Himself to humanity.  As such, I rather expect the language to reflect an ancient worldview and terms to convey the message.  As Saint Augustine taught me, words are signs that signify something beyond themselves.[3]  As such, I do not view the ancient terms and concepts to necessary be the ultimate or intended things signified.  This means that I am not reading the Bible to see what it has to tell me about the science of the physical world, but about the spiritual world and realities.  At the same time, the Bible does address the reality of the physical world.  This is why the Bible is often used with great reliability by archeologists. This does not make the Bible a scientific work.

Some have successfully read portions of the Bible as a science book.  The greatest example of this was Matthew F. Maury.  He was inspired by the phrase “the paths of the seas” in Psalm 8:8.  Partly because of this passage he devoted countless hours of his life to charting the ocean currents while an officer in the U.S. Navy.  His works proved to be of immense benefits to the speed and effectives of modern navigation. 

While this Biblical phrase here was the impetus of his discovery it does not necessarily follow that this was the intended meaning of the text.  Indeed, it is important to consider whether or not Psalm 8:8 is actually referring to oceanic currents or simply using metaphor to describe the movement of sea creatures.  This is a particular difficulty when one is finding scientifically accurate statements embedded in poetic and prophetic works. 

There are examples even within the same poetic book that can be viewed as scientifically accurate and clearly not scientifically accurate.  In Job 26:7 we read, “He hangs the earth on nothing.”  Some have taken this as evidence that the Bible affirms that the globe is suspended in space.  However, we also read earlier in the same work, “who shakes the earth under heaven from its foundations and its pillars tremble” (Job 9:6).  This leads to the rather obvious question of our “scientifically accurate” work, “Does the earth rest upon pillars or is it a sphere suspended in the vacuum of space?”  As a work of science, the Bible is contradictory at this point.  As a work of poetry however, the theological truths are conveyed with powerful imagery, the way that poetic works do those things.

Therefore, when I encounter well-meaning statements along the lines of “The Bible is not a scientific text book, but everything it says about science is true and reliable,”[4] I slightly grimace.  In Joshua chapter 10, our solar system is presented as the sun orbiting around the earth instead of the earth orbiting around the sun.  That is kinda of a problem if we were to read the Bible as being scientifically accurate in all that it says.

To put it colloquially, the Bible is often quite unconcerned with the “actual factual”.  This is clear when one reads the “historical” books of the Old Testament.  The history is told from a prophetic point of view.  The reason Israel suffers military defeat is not because they were yet another region being conquered and ruled by powerful expansionistic empires of the days, but because Israel did not keep the law and so God handed them over to be punished.  This is to say that the Bible was composed by people whose concern was not “history” as we would define “history” today.  Rather, they wrote history from the divine perspective.  This does not negate the things described in the Bible as being a-historical events, but it does mean that we should read the Bible from the perspective of the divine interaction with “human events.” 

This leads me to my concluding point.  If one chooses to read the Bible as though it were written from a post-enlightenment worldview when discussing the world, then one would either have to discount it as being untruthful or attempt to argue that the world is not how it is.  Either approach ultimately fails to read the Bible as it was written; as multiple accounts by multiple authors reflecting on the workings and revelations of God through the medium and world view of their times.  When I apply this conclusion to the Genesis creation accounts, I find that I am not reading these accounts for the sake of gleaning scientific knowledge, but about understanding something about God and how I ought to think and act.

---

[1] For the full account of this story, consult Uncle Remus.

[2] For further discussion on the disagreements between the two Genesis creation accounts, see my earlier post: https://johnmarkbeazley.blogspot.com/2017/01/questions-in-genesis-part-1-which.html

[3] This is even the case for Derrida, who despite his best efforts cannot be understood if signs did not have particular (even if at times ambiguous) referents.

[4] For an example see  Rick Warren http://pastorrick.com/devotional/english/the-bible-is-scientifically-accurate_579