The One Question I Would Ask The Apostle John

2010 © Gregory Scott

A few weeks ago I was in Ephesus and saw the tomb of the disciple, John, author of the Gospel of John, the Epistles of John and the Book of Revelation. As I stood there I entertained the obvious thought, “Wow, I’m just a few feet away from the remains of a person who walked with Jesus.”

But I also had a burning question, the one question I would ask John if I could only ask him one question: “When did you write the Book of Revelation?” The question is not just an academic one but one with profound consequences. If John wrote the Book of Revelation in the early 90s A.D. then futurists–those who believe much of what is written in Revelation, including the Great Tribulation, is in the future–probably have the better argument.

If, however, John wrote Revelation in the early 60’s A.D. before Emperor Nero’s persecution of Christians, which followed the great fire in Rome in 64 A.D., the postmillennialist view actually makes more sense. And instead of cowering in fear of a coming Great Tribulation and living in a timid expectation the kingdom of God will fail on earth, Christians can go forth confidently building the kingdom, knowing it will continue to permeate the earth like leaven.

I am firmly in the second group, believing Revelation was written in the early 60s A.D., before Nero’s persecution and before the destruction of Jerusalem.  The best book I’ve seen on the dating of the Revelation is Dr. Kenneth Gentry’s book, The Beast of Revelation. There are arguments of course for a later dating of Revelation, but I believe the more convincing case is for an early dating.

Too bad though we can’t just ask John. GS


4 Misconceptions About The Kingdom

Jesus said Christians are to “seek first the kingdom.” (Matt. 6:33). To seek the Kingdom first, we should have a proper understanding of what the Kingdom is and what it is not. With that in mind, here are 4 common misconceptions about the kingdom of God:

1. That the kingdom of God is the same thing as heaven. As I addressed in another post, while the kingdom of God includes heaven, it is broader than that, also encompassing people, places and things on earth under the delegated authority of Jesus.

2. That the kingdom of God is the same thing as the Church. As I also addressed in a previous post, while the kingdom of God includes the Church, i.e. Christians, it is broader than that. Jesus made this clear in explaining the Parable of the Wheat and Tares, when He said that at the end the wicked (tares) would be gathered “out of His kingdom.” (Matt. 13:41). This doesn’t mean non-Christians will go to heaven; only the righteous (those covered by the blood of King Jesus) inherit the Kingdom.

3. That the kingdom of God is purely a future phenomenon. Jesus told his followers the Kingdom was in their midst (Luke 17:21), and if He cast out demons the Kingdom had come upon them (Luke 11:20)– He did, therefore, it had. And, Daniel prophesied that the kingdom of God would be set up during the days of the Roman Empire (Daniel 2:36-45). Jesus planted the flag of the kingdom of God on the earth and the Kingdom has been for 2,000 years.

4. That the kingdom of God will be unsuccessful on earth until Jesus comes back to jump-start it. Once established on earth (see misconception #3), the kingdom of God will “never be destroyed”, “will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms”, and “it will endure forever.” (Dan. 2:44). Jesus describes the growth of the Kingdom as steady and progressive, not dormant or latent. (Matt. 13:33).

Have you embraced any of these misconceptions? GS

Righteousness & Competence

In the United States we’ve had some seemingly good Christian men who were not good Presidents, and we’ve had some seemingly bad men who were very good Presidents. Having just finished reading several books on the Byzantine Empire I think it would be easy to prove the same point there, as it would be in the market place, the arts, athletics and just about any other field.

Some of you reading this post may be thinking, “Yeah, so what? What does one have to do with the other?” Others of you understand why this perplexes me as a Christian.

If righteousness is the act of being and acting rightly, i.e in accordance with Truth, then it seems that should translate into success or excellence for Christians in their earthly endeavors. The reality is that a different common denominator is found in those who tend to succeed in earthly endeavors–competence. It seems that competence trumps righteousness.

In fact, I think one can confidently say that all other things being equal, competence is probably the best indicator of whether one will be successful in life.  And yet competence is not righteousness.  Or is it?

We think of righteousness as being limited to morality, i.e. acting right morally. But why should it be so limited? Why shouldn’t righteousness extend to areas of our lives other than ethics? To put it another way, maybe everything is moral. And if everything is moral, then competence is righteousness.

I don’t mean to suggest being excellent at what you do is your pass to heaven. I do mean to suggest that competence is part of righteousness in the same way that temperance, discretion, kindness and selflessness are constituent elements of righteousness.

In the Parable of Talents, Jesus commended the competence of those servants who took their master’s money and turned it into more money.  He did more than commend, He called the servant who failed with his masters money–who was incompetent–“wicked.” (Matthew 25:14-30).  If I am correct, it shouldn’t surprise us then that Jesus’ followers said of Him, “Behold, He does all things well.” (Mark 7:37).

I don’t know, it’s just a thought, but it makes sense to me. GS

Can An Abortion Advocate Be A Christian?

I believe abortion is the taking of a human life. I’ll spare you all the reasons because you have probably heard them before. If you don’t agree that abortion is the taking of a human life, then I won’t try to persuade you that it is, but I would challenge you to read yesterday’s post because even if you don’t believe abortion is the taking of a human life, I believe logic and the most universal of ethics demand that you be against it.

Having said that, I would like to pose a question to fellow citizens of the kingdom of God: “Can an abortion advocate really be a Christian?” It’s an important question.

I ask the question because I believe there are a fair number of Christians who would answer “No” to the question, and even those who believe it’s possible would have to admit that knowing a person sees nothing wrong with abortion would cause them to doubt that person’s faith.

But if you find yourself in one of those two groups, let me ask you a question: Do you think it’s possible to be a Christian and believe there is nothing wrong with race-based slavery? If you answer “No,” you have just eliminated most of the American South for more than 200 years. I think one has to admit that it was possible to be right about Jesus and wrong about slavery.

If Christians can be blind enough not to see that slavery is wrong, they can be blind enough not to see that abortion is wrong. And, if Christians can be wrong on these matters, I suppose they can also be wrong on issues like the role of the government in our lives and the level of taxation we should endure.

As I said above, I believe abortion is the taking of a human life, in other words, murder. I believe slavey is abhorrent. I believe, as a general rule, the less government and taxes the better. So, my point is not to assert the opposite positions here but to argue against the tendency to make one’s politics a litmus test for whether they are a citizen of the kingdom of God.

The advancement of the kingdom of God is not as dependent upon its citizens being right on political issues as it is on its citizens being righteous.  Politics are are neither all-important nor unimportant.  If we are to seek first the kingdom of God (Matt. 6:33), then we cannot allow something less important, like politics, to separate us from fellow citizens of the kingdom of God who also desire to see it advance in the earth. GS

A Different Approach To The Issue Of Abortion

 

With health care at the forefront of the public debate, the issue of abortion is back in the news again.  I realize this is a very controversial and emotional issue, and my intent is not to polarize people further. I even debated whether to publish this post, but I decided to do so because I believe there is a rational path toward resolution on this issue.

The problem with the issue of abortion is both sides start from opposing presuppositions.  Pro-lifers presuppose a fetus is a human life.  Abortion-advocates presuppose a fetus is not a human life, or that it is not until it becomes viable, or they are agnostic and believe a woman’s choice trumps all.  Because both sides start from opposing presuppositions they will never reach the same conclusion.  Any resolution is dependent on one or both sides starting from a different place.

I propose both start from a more humble and honest place: the place of uncertainty.  The great jurist, Learned Hand said, “The spirit of liberty is the spirit that is not sure it is right.”  That is a great place to start.

I think there is great evidence, both scientific and Biblical, that a fetus is a human life, but I am willing to set that aside and state that I might be wrong.  If you are on the other side of the issue you will surely admit you cannot know for certain that a fetus is not a life.  It may be. It may not be.  You may have an opinion, but you cannot honestly say you know for certain.  Now that we are at the same place–the place of uncertainty–we have something to talk about.

Suppose we were out hunting and you saw something moving in the thicket in the distance you thought was a deer, but you were not sure.  It might be a deer, but it might also be a man. You are uncertain.  Would you pull the trigger?  Would anyone? Would you take the chance of killing a human being? Of course not.  The issue of abortion is no different.  If you cannot be certain a fetus is not a human life you cannot advocate abortion; and the truth is you cannot be certain.

What happens is people allow expediency or the mother’s preferences and desires to trump their uncertainty.  But this is not rational, nor in the face of uncertainty can it be ethical.  It’s just expedient.  It’s no different than slave owners deciding African-Americans were not fully human because slave owners didn’t want to give up their cotton and tobacco profits.  I’ve never had to deal with an unwanted pregnancy and while I can guess, I cannot say I fully understand what a mother of an unwanted pregnancy feels in the moment of decision.  But I don’t need to know because we are trying to arrive a rational, ethical decision, not an emotional one.

Anyway, that’s how I see it, but I may be wrong.  GS