History of the Doctrine of the Rapture

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 others 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 many of the views with which I will disagree.

History of the Doctrine of the Rapture

            A historical defense of the doctrine of the rapture is incredibly difficult.  There is no support for the rapture in at least the first thousand years of Christianity.  As a basic rule of thumb, if a doctrine suddenly appears, say 1,800 years into the existence of the Church, it is a deviation from Christian belief and practice.  I have generally ended my historical arguments against the rapture with that point, because it covers everything that is necessary.  However, for the sake of argument, I am going to walk through some “historical” arguments for the doctrine of the rapture. 

            The difficulty of interacting with the history of the rapture in Christian thought before the 1800’s is that I cannot find anyone who taught it during those years. After a little searching, I uncovered the closest thing that could qualify as a scholarly historical defense of the rapture.^[1]  I will respond by focusing on the strongest historical points from my research.  These points are as follows: The Shepherd of Hermas and the “Tribulation,” (Psuedo) Ephrem’s sermon On the Anti-Christ and the End, and The History of Brother Dulcino the Arch-Heretic.  Before engaging with these earlier sources, it is important to sketch when the doctrine of the rapture was first espoused.

Darby and his Deleterious Doctrine[2]

            Here are the historical facts as best as I have assembled them.  The doctrine of a rapture is a creation from the middle of the 1800’s.  John Nelson Darby is the man generally credited with the idea, but it is likely that he had been influenced by others in his circle of acquaintances.[3]  The real issue is on what basis does one promulgate a hitherto untaught doctrine?  Darby was aware that no other Christian body held to his newly minted view of eschatology.  How he defended the novelty of it I do not know for certain (at least not the footnoteable level of certainty).  I suspect that his argument would involve some argument from new revelation but I have not yet tracked down a reliable source to confirm this suspicion.  Regardless of my suspicions, the facts are: Darby is rightly associated with first promulgating the doctrine of the pre-tribulational rapture as a part of his dispensationalism,[4] and that he did so in the middle of the 19^th century.  Any argument that attempts to find the doctrine of the rapture prior to the 1800’s is lacking any textual support.

            Darby was not alone in reimagining Christianity in the 1800’s.  There are some interesting parallels during the 1800’s in the religious landscape of the English speaking world.  Between the 1820’s to 1840’s, Joseph Smith reimagined the church and created the new religion of Mormonism.  His basis for creating Mormonism was the claim that he had received new revelation.  The Seventh Day Adventists also trace their origin to the 1840’s and came into being because of a focus on eschatology and a new revelation of when the world would end.  Charles Taze Russell founded the group which became known as the Jehovah’s Witnesses in the 1870’s.  He modified Darby’s dispensationalism with a few of his own special revelations about when the world would end (which needless to say were somewhat amiss).  At approximately the same time, Mary Baker Eddy started Christian Science in the 1870’s.  She understood herself to be a source of new revelation, and also reimagined eschatology.

            While it is tempting to delve in to the causes of this impressive amount of religious and doctrinal innovation in the 1800’s, it would be somewhat superfluous to this post.  What can be stated is that the spirit of that age was clearly one which produced a great amount of creativity regarding how the Church was to be understood based upon the practice of new revelation.  Dispensationalism entered into the world at the very time when historical support and continuity was not necessary.[5]  Indeed, creating new doctrines and religious understandings appears to have been a rather successful model at this time.  I contend that dispensationalism falls squarely into the category of new and never before seen especially as it pertains to the doctrine of the rapture.

            The spread of dispensationalism in America has its roots in the late 1800’s.  Dispensationalism was spread by Darby himself and then by evangelists such as D. L. Moody and through schools founded by dispensationalists such as Dallas Theological Seminary.  Part of the reason for the spread of dispensationalism is that it provided a literalistic manner to read the Bible (particularly prophecy) and served as a concrete set of beliefs that could withstand the growing theological liberalism of that day.  Indeed, in the modernist/fundamentalist controversy of the 1920’s and 1930’s, dispensationalists proved themselves to be squarely on the side of the fundamentalists.

            Perhaps the largest influence on the growth of dispensationalism was the publication of the Scofield Reference Bible (1909), which was filled with dispensational notes.  As a bulwark of “orthodoxy,” dispensationalism continued to grow in numbers and influence especially after World War II and the founding of the modern state of Israel.  The popular expression of dispensationalism reached a high mark with the publication of The Late Great Planet Earth by Hal Lindsey in 1970.  This was repeated a generation later by the Left Behind (book) series by Tim LaHaye.  These best-selling fictional works did a lot to form the eschatological expectations and beliefs in American culture from 1970 until the present.

Pretribulational Rapture in the Patristic Era

            There were several early Christian writers who either affirmed or could be understood to have affirmed a literal millennial reign.[6]  Among these authors, there is no hint of anything approaching a doctrine of the rapture.  The belief in the millennium in the early Church was nowhere near univocal until the mid-late 300’s.  In the middle of the second century, Justin Martyr noted that there were other Christians who did not agree with his millennialism.[7]  The millennial view quickly faded, and was implicitly condemned in the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed in 381.[8]

            Despite the utter lack of historical evidence for anyone ever articulating the doctrine of the rapture prior to the 1800’s, there are some who still try to argue this doctrine from the Early Church.  In my conversations with my mother, she sent me an e-mail of an excerpt of something she had read.  It is as follows:

            One of the early Church Fathers, The Shepherd of Hermas, writing in the early 2nd           Century, makes an interesting observation about “the great tribulation that is coming.” He    says, “If then ye prepare yourselves, and repent with all your heart and turn to the Lord, it    will be possible for you to escape it, if your heart be pure and spotless, and ye spend the rest of the days of your life in serving the Lord blamelessly.”

           

The Shepherd of Hermas is worthy of some examination because Hermas does speak of coming great tribulation and how it might be escaped.  Prior to the quotation above, Hermas sees a great beast large enough to destroy cities walk past him without harming him.  The lady who represents the Church said to Hermas, “You deserved to escape it (the great beast) because you cast your cares on God and opened your heart to the Lord, believing that you could not be saved by anything except the great and glorious name.  Therefore the Lord sent his angel who has authority over the beasts, whose name is Thegri, and he shut its mouth so that it might not hurt you.  You have escaped the great tribulation because of your faith, and because of you were not double minded, even though you saw such a huge beast.  Go, therefore, and declare to the Lord’s elect his mighty works and tell them that this beast is a foreshadowing of the great tribulation that is coming.  So, if you prepare yourselves in advance and turn to the Lord with all your heart, you will be able to escape it, if your heart is clean and unblemished and you serve the Lord blamelessly for the rest of the days of your life” (The Shepherd of Hermas, 23.4-5).

            The point Hermas is making in this passage is not eschatological.  Rather, he is focused on the need for purity in believers.  The great beast who represents the tribulation is escaped through purity of heart and mind.  Indeed, we even have a named angel who has the power to protect Hermas from this beast.  This is not the imagery of a pretribulational rapture, but of how the pure will be protected in the coming tribulation.  Hermas is not removed from the beast, but only protected as the beast went by.  This tribulation may or may not be eschatological in nature in this passage.  Further, Hermas speaks about how some Christians require suffering to purify them.  Hermas even speaks of an angel of punishment whose task is to oversee the torment of Christians who engage in luxuries and evil deeds so that they may turn and be saved (64-66).  This has nothing to do with a doctrine of rapture, but much to do with a doctrine of purity and repentance.

The Nicene Creed

            The Nicene Creed[9] is quite important to consider because in affirming the Creed, a particular eschatology is also affirmed.  There a temporal ordering of events in the Nicene Creed.  This is not unimportant nor accidental.  The most relevant section for the discussion of the rapture is found in the section on Jesus.

Who for us men and for our salvation
came down from heaven and was incarnate
of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and became man.

He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate,
and suffered and was buried;

And He rose on the third day,
according to the Scriptures.

He ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father;

And He will come again with glory to judge the living
and dead. His kingdom shall have no end.

The ordering of events here is quite important to understanding the Nicene Creed.  There is the incarnation, the crucifixion, burial, resurrection, ascension, second coming, and an endless kingdom.  These events are all listed in sequential and temporal order.  What is missing from the creed is any affirmation that His kingdom will end after 1,000 years of reigning on earth.  The significance of this should not be lost.  This means that in the 300’s the Church affirmed an eschatology that precludes a literal millennial reign.  At the least, this means that the Church confessionally abandoned one of the major and necessary precursors to belief in a rapture. 

(Pseudo) Ephrem’s Sermon

            James F. Stitzinger quoted a line from a sermon by (Pseudo) Ephrem which sounds very much as though the preacher believed in a pre-tribulational rapture.  Stitzinger’s quote is as follows:

            His important sermon, “On the Last Times, the Antichrist and the End of the World,” (ca. 373) is preserved in four Latin manuscripts and is ascribed to St. Ephraem or to St. Isidore. If not written by Ephraem, it is written by one greatly influenced by him. This Pseudo-Ephraem sermon declares the following: “All the saints and elect of God are gathered together before the tribulation, which is to come, and are taken to the Lord, in order that they may not see at any time the confusion which overwhelms the world   because of our sins.”[10]

Being a nerd with Church History skills, I did a double take when I read this quote.  I was quite surprised to encounter a quote like this.  Therefore, I did some research and found a copy of (Pseudo) Ephrem’s Sermon “De fine extremo: De Antichristo.”[11]  I am immensely thankful that James F. Stitzinger cited the original document, as this saved me a good deal of time. However, the text which he cited had no correlation to what he said that the text said.  The Latin utterly lacks anything that could be considered an affirmation of the rapture.  I could not even find something resembling the quote which Stitzinger gave.  I did find a discussion of how the elect will flee from before the man of iniquity during the tribulation and how those days would be cut short for the sake of the elect (10).  There is not even a hint about a rapture.  Rather, the preacher speaks about how Christians will suffer during the last days.

            The issues with (Pseudo) Ephrem’s sermon are not even matters of interpretation, but of the actual wording of the sermon.  If another text of this sermon has been uncovered, which said all the things that Stitzinger affirmed it did, then there would still be some very serious text critical issues to resolve in that there would be two texts of the same sermon saying very different things indeed!  As it stands, there is nothing in (Pseudo) Ephrem’s sermon that clearly affirms a rapture.  This sermon does speak about the suffering which Christians will undergo during the tribulation and how the entire order of the world will be changed during this time which precedes the Second Coming (after which there is no millennial reign though according to the sermon).

The Medieval Era

            Stitzinger argued that 14^th century work entitled The History of Brother Dolcino the Arch-Heretic presented a pre-tribulational rapture.[12]  This assessment is shared by Francis X. Gumerlock who presented a paper entitled “Before Darby: Expanding the Historical Boundaries of Pretribulationism.”[13] He was kind enough both to quote the Latin and to offer an acceptable translation of the Latin as befits a scholar and gentleman.  Both are quoted below:

“Item [credidit et predicavit et docuit] quod intra illos tres annos ipse Dulcinus et sui sequaces predicabunt adventum Antichristi et quod ipse Antichristus veniret in hunc mundum finitis dictis annis tribus cum dimidio et postquam venisset, ipse tunc et sui sequaces transferrentur in paradisum, in quo sunt Enoc et Elias et sic conservarentur illesi a persecutione Antichristi, et quod tunc ipsi Enoc et Elias descenderent in terram ad predicandum Antichristum, deinde interficerentur ab eo vel eius ministris et sic regnaret Antichristus per plura tempora. Eo vero Antichristo mortuo, ipse Dulcinus, qui tunc esset papa sanctus, et sui sequaces reservati descendent in terram et predicabunt fidem Christi rectam omnibus et convertent eos, qui tunc erunt vivi, ad veram fidem Iesu Christi.”

“Again, [Dolcino believed and preached and taught] that within those three years Dolcino himself and his followers will preach the coming of the Antichrist. And that the Antichrist was coming into this world within the bounds of the said three and a half years; and after he had come, then he [Dolcino] and his followers would be transferred into Paradise, in which are Enoch and Elijah. And in this way they will be preserved unharmed from the persecution of Antichrist. And that then Enoch and Elijah themselves would descend on the earth for the purpose of preaching [against] Antichrist. Then they would be killed by him or by his servants, and thus Antichrist would reign for a long time. But when the Antichrist is dead, Dolcino himself, who then would be the holy pope, and his preserved followers, will descend on the earth, and will preach the right faith of Christ to all, and will convert those who will be living then to the true faith of Jesus Christ.”

            Before commenting on the eschatological details, it is important to note that what has been related above is a second hand report by an author who was not kindly disposed towards the depart arch-heretic.  Dulcino himself was executed after his followers were crushed by a papal crusade in 1307.[14] 

            These statements could be interpreted to be an event similar to a mid-tribulational rapture.  The difficulty with this interpretation is that is does not fit with the content of the lines directly after the above quoted portion.  Because directly after this Dulcino is reported to have spoken of how his followers would enter into paradise if they remained in Dulcino’s teachings when burned (at the stake) or handed over to death (page 9, lines 5-9).[15]  That is, it is not clear at all that the first arrival of Dulcino and his followers into heaven would not happen through physical death in a sort of martyrdom.  In fact, the context of the quotations appear to lend to the reading of the entrance into paradise coming through physical death and not a “rapture.”

            Apart from the context demanding an interpretation other than a rapture, there are further eschatological difficulties for this text supporting a dispensational understanding of the rapture.  Dulcino returns after the tribulation (which lasts for a long and indefinite amount of time) and reigns as pope and preaches the true faith of Jesus.  I have yet to find any dispensationalist who expects the raptured to return to earth and preach the true faith after the tribulation let alone have a pope leading the way.

            As I have briefly demonstrated, a careful reading of The History of Brother Dulcino the Arch-Heretic does not present a doctrine of the “rapture” prior to Darby.  Hitherto, I have yet to find an honest and careful reading of any text prior to the 1800’s the clearly presents the doctrine of the rapture let alone anything approximating that doctrine as espoused by dispensationalists.  Rather, dispensationalism struggles in vain to find a historic connection to Christian faith and practice before it entered the scene as a doctrinal innovation in the 1800’s.  Therefore I view the rapture as a doctrine created in the 1800’s and a divergence from the faith once and for all delivered to the saints.

            Dispensationalism, unlike many of these other innovations of the 1800’s, did not change the ontology of Jesus, the Protestant cannon of Scripture, nor the style of worship.  This meant Dispensationalism was accepted as a stream of fundamentalist (and then later evangelical thought).  This is the reason why, despite having no historical antecedents, it was acceptable in American Protestant world.

            It is important to note that dispensationalism did however alter the view of how God relates to humanity, particularly Christians.  That is, dispensationalism with its doctrine of the pre-tribulational rapture made God into a god who would protect his people from suffering.  Even though this is a departure from the biblical presentation of suffering and Christians, it was not so great a departure as to make dispensationalism appear to be a completely different religion.  Indeed, the aspectual alteration to the relation of God with His people fits with the American religious ethos of the “god” given rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  Despite its natural fit within the American ethos, the dispensational understanding of a pre-tribulational rapture was never a part of the Christian faith until it was invented in the 1800’s and has a deleterious effect upon a biblical understanding of suffering.

---

[1] The closest thing I have found to a “scholarly” presentation of the rapture in history is this article written by James F. Stitzinger, "The Rapture in Twenty Centuries of Biblical Interpretation." The Master's Seminary Journal 13, no. 2 (Fall 2002): 149-71.  Here is a link to the article (this link takes you to the Master’s Seminary Website).  If you have an interest in seeing someone interact with primary sources and thoughts from outside the tradition of the writer, do not read the pdf on the other side of the link.  You have been warned.

[2] For an explanation of how Darby’ concept of a rapture does not comport with what Jesus actually said, see my earlier post. 

[3] Edward Irving (died 1834) appears to have first developed the theory of a post-tribulational rapture, but this is still missing some of the nuances which Darby latter added.

[4] Dispensationalism is the belief that God divided human history into a series of sections called dispensations and that the rules of his relation to humanity are different in each of these dispensations.

[5] For another example there is the Landmarkism that arose in Baptist circles in the middle of the 1800’s.  Landmarkism argued that Baptists were not Protestant because they were the one true Church which traced itself back to apostles.  This was done without any shred of historical evidence.

[6] Papias, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus of Lyons, Tertullian, Lactantius, etc…

[7] Justin Martyr, Dialoge with Trypho, 80.  Link here.

[8] I suspect that the diminishment of the millennial view in the Early Church was tied directly to the interpretation of prophecy in light of how the Apostles interpreted Old Testament prophecy regarding the Messiah.  This would likely take an entire dissertation to prove.

[9] This is the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed which was originally composed at Nicaea in 325 and then expanded at Constantinople in 381.

[10] James F. Stitzinger, "The Rapture in Twenty Centuries of Biblical Interpretation,” 157.

[11] Starting on column 188 you can read the sermon here:

https://archive.org/details/sanctiephraemsy04lamygoog

See, also, the more up to date text critical Syriac by Edmund Beck, Des heiligen Ephraem des Syrers Sermones III (CSCO 320; Louvain: Secrétariat du Corpus, 1972), 60-71.

Note, I have not been able to view this newer text critical work because I would need to drive at least two hours to get to a library to have a look at it.  After engaging in such behavior during my dissertation writing, I have little desire to do it again for the sake of a blog post.

[12] Full Latin text here.  I have not found an accessible English translation of this work.  The section quoted begins at the bottom of page 8 on the link.

[13] Francis X. Gumerlock, “Before Darby: Expanding the Historical Boundaries of Pretribulationism” presented at the 53rd Annual Meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society Colorado Springs, Colorado November 14-16, 2001.

[14] Among other interesting aspects of Dulcino reported in the history is that Dulcino did not believe in all the books of the Old Testament.

[15] “He believed, preached and taught that his sect and congregation having been judged heretics by those who were church leaders and inquisitors of heretics, having been left to the judges of the world, after having been burned (at the stake), and others having been handed over to death, they have been saved, if they remain until the very end in the teaching of Dulcino, they will come into paradise or at least purgatory.”

Hank Hanegraff’s Conversion to Orthodoxy and a Lesson in Charity.

Hank Hanegraff’s Conversion to Orthodoxy and a Lesson in Charity.

A few weeks ago, The Bible Answer Man Hank Hanegraff was received into the Orthodox Church.  Thing like this interest me, so I followed the story.  I was less surprised by what I found that what I did not find.  What I found out was that the initial story was true (it was even mentioned on his show, here, at around the 10:30 mark is when he is asked the question).  What I struggled to find was a response that examined the Biblical reasons for such a shift (the closest I found was this post on Orthodox Reformed Bridge, which linked to earlier posts).

What I initially encountered was from the fake news source entitled Pulpit and Pen.  Sadly, aside from giving fake theological news, their initial treatment lacked basic Christian charity.  To make matters worse, there were some who responded to that initial work less than charitably (as evidenced in this post, which also was uncharitable it its response).  Anyone who took the time to paste the authors face along with some faces of the Reformers in the flames of hell should really reexamine what St. John Chrysostom had to say about fasting.  This is perhaps even more uncharitable than the initial hit piece.  Then to really top everything off, I read that someone actually went to Hank’s Church at the Pascha service in the hopes of confronting him, and yet left before the service was over. 

This makes sense, because if I was hoping to confront someone, I would go to the Easter service.  It is not as though I would be trying to make a scene at Church.  There would not be a lot of visitors or family visiting on an Easter Sunday.  I would also make certain to leave before the service was over.  I would then blog about how horrible it all was without trying to understand why things happened the way they did.  Because all of this makes more sense than trying to have coffee time with a conversation.  Also, if someone writes un-loving things about me or my beliefs, I would make certain to craft a pic of them and their children burning in hell.  That is the epitome of fulfilling what Jesus said about turning the other cheek and how his followers should respond to slander on his account.  Just as he said:

Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you.  To one who strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also, and from one who takes away your cloak do not withhold your tunic either.  Give to everyone who begs from you, and from one who takes away your goods do not demand them back.  And as you wish that others would do to you, do so to them (Luke 6:27-31, ESV).

Christians should care deeply about doctrine.  We should also care just as deeply about how we treat one another.  It is possible to espouse the correct doctrine and not practice it.  It is not possible to believe the truth and not have it come out in your actions.  I think that moments like this should be a reminder to practice charity even in dispute and especially when slandered.  May God forgive us for the mess that we have made.

On the brighter side of things, Christianity Today had several actually useful articles on this point.  There was this post which gave the details in a news worthy way, which appears to have been both professional and without any overt agenda.  Ed Stetzer even wrote a piece that was a fair handed response to Hank’s move to the Orthodox Church from a non-supportive perspective.  I think the piece could have been better written and made several statements that reveal a certain level of ignorance about the Orthodox Church’s own beliefs.  Regardless of misrepresentation, Ed did not resort to name calling or anathematizing.  He managed to express disagreement without vitriol.  This is a commendable and Christian practice when writing on the internet.

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