[This is another article I wrote a few years ago (September 2003). But in light of what I see taking place around the world, I believe that it is still relevant.]
"Liberty has not subsisted outside of Christianity."
Lord Acton
Western Civilization is running as fast as it can from its Christian heritage, denying the very “mother” that gave it birth. In rejecting its Christian roots it undermines the very foundation that its freedom is built upon. Allow me to very briefly summarize the role that Christianity played in bringing political liberty to the West. This is not the usual “stuff” taught in Western Civilization 101 in most major universities.
The most liberating political force in the history of mankind has been Christianity (Jn. 8:36). Christianity branched from the trunk of godly Old Testament Hebrew religion, and the ancient Hebrew commonwealth (before the era of the kings [1 Sam. 8]) was arguably the most libertarian society in the history of mankind. Christianity inherited from Old Testament faith the bedrock belief in the sovereign, transcendent God Who stands above and judges all humanity, including its systems of civil government. The political order is never ultimate.
Christianity shattered the unity of the ancient, pagan world. The source of that unity was the state, usually identified with society itself, at the head of which was a great political ruler, a king or emperor, thought to be a god or god-like. The unity of the ancient, pagan world consisted of the divinization of the temporal order in the form of the state.
Christianity recognized "another king" (Ac. 17:7). The early Christians recognized that no earthly authority, especially political authority, could be ultimate. God¹s authority is ultimate.
In articulating the doctrine of Jesus Christ, the Council of Chalcedon (A.D. 451) laid the foundation of Western liberty. Jesus Christ alone is both divine and human, fully God and fully Man, the unique link between heaven and earth. He is the only divine-human Mediator. This decision dramatically repudiated every divinization of the temporal order. No state, no church, no family, no man could be God or God-like. This perspective set the early Christians on a collision course with the politic power of Caesar. Christians were savagely persecuted not because they worshipped Jesus Christ, but because they refused to worship the Roman emperor. Polytheistic societies encourage the worship of deities. What they resist is the exclusion of all deities, particularly the state, except the true Deity, the God of the Bible.
Though at times during the medieval period, the Roman church overstepped its authority and acted in tyrannical ways, it often functioned as a countervailing force against the tyranny of the state. The medieval world, despite its many defects, supported a large measure of political liberty in fostering several human institutions besides the church which claimed the allegiance of man: the family, the guild, the feudal lord, and so forth. This meant that the state had to share its authority with other equally legitimate human institutions. No human institution may exercise ultimate authority.
Constitutional limitations on political power, which gave birth in the eighteenth- and nineteenth-century to constitutional democracies, started in Christian England with the Magna Carta. England also delivered the first successful assault against the evil doctrine of the divine right of kings during the Puritan Revolution in the first half of the seventeenth century, and in 1688-89 during the Glorious Revolution of William and Mary it secured political liberty. The founding of the United States was the greatest experiment in political liberty of the age, and it operated self-consciously on certain distinctly Christian premises. The Founding Fathers, for example, recognized the Biblical doctrine of original sin and human depravity, and therefore fashioned a system of civil government that divided decision making among several branches and did not give any single branch of civil government with too much power. Second, they argued that the role of civil government is to secure the rights of "life, liberty, and happiness," with which God as Creator endowed all men. Third, recognizing the Biblical doctrine that civil government should protect minorities (Ex. 23:9), they drafted a constitution to which they attached a Bill of Rights, thus inhibiting tyranny arising from quick political change at the whim of democratic opinion.
Political liberty as reflected in the separation of powers, as well as checks and balances; the role of the state in protecting life, liberty, and property; and the constitutional protection of the rights of minorities all these were the outgrowth of Christianity.
In our day abortion, euthanasia, homosexuality, materialism, socialism, and the injustice of racism plague the Western world. These tyrannies are all the direct result of the abandonment of Biblical Christianity. The Western world has increasingly accepted the proposal of that first modern political liberal, Jean Jacque Rousseau: the state will emancipate you from responsibility to all non-coercive human institutions like the family, church, and business, if only you submit yourself to the coercion of the state. Modern man has been willing to trade away responsibility to the family and church and business for subjugation to an increasingly coercive civil government. We are returning to the classical, pagan world in which the coercive state is the unifying principle for all of life.
The most vicious, dictatorial, and murderous political regimes in the history of mankind have been non- or anti-Christian: ancient Egypt, Babylon, Persia, Greece, and Rome, revolutionary France, the Soviet Union, Red China, Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and other modern secular states. Humanism is and always has been a recipe for political tyranny.
The only hope for the return of political liberty and the freedom it fosters is a return to orthodox, Biblical Christianity. Christianity is not merely a matrix in which political freedom flourishes; it is the only foundation on which to build a free society.
Monday, November 29, 2010
Friday, November 26, 2010
The Bible and Feasting
No, the title is not a misspelling. I am writing about feasting not fasting. I do believe in fasting (though my appearance may be deceiving), but I also believe in feasting. In fact, the Bible has more to say about feasting than it does fasting. I know that that conflicts with our religious, ascetic spirit, but nevertheless it is true. Under the Old Testament Law the Israelites were required to fast one day out of the year (Lev.23:26-32), but God required them to celebrate with feasting 21 days out of the year (Deut. 16:1-17). Three whole weeks out of the year they were to "party." God even told them that if for some reason they could not make it to the place appointed for the feast, take their "tithe" (one of the three Old Testament tithes) and throw a party at home (Deut. 14:24-26). This tithe is sometimes referred to as the "rejoicing tithe." Think about that for a minute, if your income is $40,000 a year that means you would have $4,000 to party with. (I don’t know about you, but I could party pretty good with four grand.) It doesn’t stop there because every 50th year the Israelites were to cease from work and celebrate for the whole year (Lev.25:8ff.). This was the "Year of Jubilee." [As far as Biblical scholars have been able to ascertain, the Israelites never observed the year of Jubilee. There were all sorts of rationalizations given by the rabbis to try and justify their not observing this aspect of the Law.]
I do take note that the first miracle that Jesus performed was at a wedding feast, and that He supplied the wine. I might also point out that Jesus was falsely accused of being a "glutton and a drunkard" (Matt.11:19) by the Pharisees due to his appearances at parties. Jesus made reference to feasts frequently in His parables, for instance, the feast that was celebrated when the prodigal returned, or the wedding feast in Matthew 22:1-14. In the first-century church the Lord’s Supper was more than a "cracker and a thimble full of grape juice" (as a friend of mine calls it "a sip and a nip"), it was a true meal known as a "love feast," celebrating the Resurrection. Need I point out that the "Marriage Supper of the Lamb" (Rev. 19:7-10) is a celebratory feast? You know it seems like feasting is throughout the Bible. In fact, I would have to agree with Tony Campolo, not someone I agree with all that frequently, who entitled one of his books: The Kingdom of God is a Party.
Who has a better reason to celebrate than the people of God do? Who has a justification for feasting than those who are living under the blessing of God Almighty? There are better reasons for feasting than the Super Bowl. We ought to be showing the world how to party. (Obviously, within righteous boundaries, not in a decadent way.) We should set the standard for celebration, and show the unbelievers how it ought to be done. We should be provoking the world to jealousy with our rejoicing.
I know that there are battles, struggles, and valleys as we pass through this world. It is at times, as one writer described it, a "vale of tears" that we are passing through. I, like you, have had my share of valleys, and times when the pain of life seems to be overwhelming, but I would agree with Michael Card, "There is joy in the journey." If I focus on Christ rather than the "valley," I find reason for celebrating. Celebration is not just an event it’s an attitude.
I do take note that the first miracle that Jesus performed was at a wedding feast, and that He supplied the wine. I might also point out that Jesus was falsely accused of being a "glutton and a drunkard" (Matt.11:19) by the Pharisees due to his appearances at parties. Jesus made reference to feasts frequently in His parables, for instance, the feast that was celebrated when the prodigal returned, or the wedding feast in Matthew 22:1-14. In the first-century church the Lord’s Supper was more than a "cracker and a thimble full of grape juice" (as a friend of mine calls it "a sip and a nip"), it was a true meal known as a "love feast," celebrating the Resurrection. Need I point out that the "Marriage Supper of the Lamb" (Rev. 19:7-10) is a celebratory feast? You know it seems like feasting is throughout the Bible. In fact, I would have to agree with Tony Campolo, not someone I agree with all that frequently, who entitled one of his books: The Kingdom of God is a Party.
Who has a better reason to celebrate than the people of God do? Who has a justification for feasting than those who are living under the blessing of God Almighty? There are better reasons for feasting than the Super Bowl. We ought to be showing the world how to party. (Obviously, within righteous boundaries, not in a decadent way.) We should set the standard for celebration, and show the unbelievers how it ought to be done. We should be provoking the world to jealousy with our rejoicing.
I know that there are battles, struggles, and valleys as we pass through this world. It is at times, as one writer described it, a "vale of tears" that we are passing through. I, like you, have had my share of valleys, and times when the pain of life seems to be overwhelming, but I would agree with Michael Card, "There is joy in the journey." If I focus on Christ rather than the "valley," I find reason for celebrating. Celebration is not just an event it’s an attitude.
Friday, November 12, 2010
Will the Real Literalist, Please Stand Up?
[I originally wrote this in 2002, I'm posting here today and hope you will find it helpful.]
What do we mean when we say, "I take the Bible literally?" Does that mean for instance that when Jesus said: "Out of your innermost being shall flow rivers of living water, " that we believe that He meant actual "water?" Or do we believe that Jesus was using "symbolic" language to describe the Holy Spirit flowing forth from the believer? Is the Bible to be taken "literally" as some would define it, or is it to interpreted in light of the "symbols" God uses throughout the Scriptures? Both in the Old and New Testaments we find symbols and figures borrowed from history, the surrounding culture, and from creation. On the other hand, we must recognize that not everything in the Bible is to be interpreted "symbolically." For instance, the Ten Commandments are not to be "symbolically interpreted." God was not speaking figuratively when He said, "Thou shalt not commit adultery."
The Bible is literature, divinely inspired and inerrant literature, but nevertheless, it is literature. That means we must read it as literature. Some parts are meant to be literally understood, and they are written accordingly – as history, or theological propositions. But one would not expect to read the Psalms or the Song of Solomon by the same literary approach as the Book of Romans. We cannot understand what the Bible really means unless we appreciate its use of literary styles.
Even the most ardent "hyper-literalist" is forced at times to abandon his so-called "literal" approach. No one for example (at least to my knowledge) believes that the Beast of Revelation 13 is really an animal; or that a pregnant woman will stand on the moon and be clothed with the sun (Rev. 12:1-2). I seriously doubt that anyone understands Satan to be actually "a great red dragon with seven heads" (Rev. 12:3). I have encountered "literalists" who were convinced that the Bible taught that the earth was flat ("flat-earthers"). They base this ridiculous idea on the fact that the Bible speaks of the "four corners of the earth" (Isa. 11:12; Rev. 7:1, 20:8). It is apparent to most readers of the Scripture that these passages are poetic and symbolic. In a similar vein, the Bible speaks of trees and rivers having hands (Isa. 55:12; Ps.98:8).
To take the Bible literally means that we read and interpret it in respect to the Bible’s own literary structure. All languages use symbols and figures of speech. When we use those figures of speech with those unfamiliar with their meaning it can be quite confusing. If for example, I say to someone, unacquainted with our figures of speech, that the car that I am driving is a "lemon," they could mistakenly believe that I am using citrus fruit for transportation. Likewise, someone unacquainted with the figures of speech used in the Scriptures is likely to misinterpret its meaning. We must learn the "language" of the Bible, meaning we must learn how God consistently uses certain symbols throughout His Word to convey His message. I do not mean by this that there is a "code" that God has written in, nor am I saying that one must have a "special revelation knowledge" in order to understand God’s message. What I am saying is that the Bible interprets the Bible.
The book of the Revelation, which contains a great deal of imagery, can only be interpreted by examining the symbols in light of their use in the other 65 books of the Bible. You do not interpret the book of the Revelation by using the newspaper or Time magazine. Such an approach only ends up in speculation, not scriptural exegesis. The symbols used in the book of the Revelation are found in the language of the Old Testament, particularly in the prophetic literature. In other words, the book of the Revelation, along with the rest of the Bible, is self-interpreting.
Those who claim to interpret the book of the Revelation in a "literal" manner, in fact do not. If it is to be taken "literally," as they propose, there is no need for interpretation. The fact that they are rendering interpretations of the symbols in Revelation (often derived from a vivid imagination) reveals that they are not true "literalists" at all. For instance, the locusts in Revelation 9 are interpreted by the so-called "literalist" Hal Lindsey to be Cobra helicopters. No! It "literally" says they are locusts – Mr. Lindsey! Furthermore, he is interpreting the Bible out of his imagination rather than by the Scriptures themselves. This is why these books on prophecy have to be re-written every few years. Because they are interpreting the Bible by "speculation," their interpretations must change with the advancement of technology. "Cobra helicopters" will be an outdated interpretation in 25 years.
J.L. Martin, writing in 1873, offered his interpretation of Rev. 9:17-19 where it says: "The riders had breastplates of fire and of hyacinth and of brimstone; and the heads of the horses are like heads of lions; and out of their mouths proceed fire and smoke and brimstone. A third of mankind was killed by these three plagues; by the fire and smoke and brimstone, which proceeded out of their mouths. For the power of the horse is in their mouths and in their tails; for their tails are like serpents and have heads; and with them they do harm." While today’s "speculative interpreters" view this in terms of lasers and missile launchers, Martin had another interpretation in light of the military technology of his day, the time when Custer and the Seventh Calvary where fighting the Sioux Indians:
"John is pointing to the modern mode of fighting on horseback, with the rider leaning forward, which, to his sight, and to the sight of one looking on at a distance, would appear as the great mane of a lion; the man leaning on his horse’s neck. He would in fighting with firearms, have to lean forward to discharge his piece, lest he might shoot down his own horse that he was riding. In John’s day the posture was very different . . . .Now, I want to ask my friendly hearers if it is not as literally fulfilled before our eyes as anything can be? Are not all nations engaged in this mode of warfare? Do they not all kill men with fire and smoke and brimstone? . . . Do you not know that this is just ignited gunpowder? . . . Could an uninspired man, in the last of the first century, have told of this matter?"
J.L. Martin was speculating out of his own mind, to try and determine what John was saying in Revelation 9:17-19. This is unfortunately what many have done, rather than study the language of symbols in which God has spoken; they put their imagination to work. In order to be to be "faithful workmen that need not be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth" (II Tim. 2:15), we must understand Biblical imagery. Allow me to list several books I have found helpful in this regard:
Images of the Spirit by Meredith G. Kline (ISBN: 1-57910-205-0)
Through New Eyes by James B. Jordan (ISBN: 157910259X)
Dictionary of Biblical Imagery by Leland Ryken (editor) (ISBN: 0830814515)
Paradise Restored by David Chilton (ISBN: 0-930462-52-1)
Typology In Scripture by Richard M. Davidson (ISBN: 1-943872-34-0)
Biblical Hermeneutics by Milton S. Terry (ISBN: 01310-36831-6)
What do we mean when we say, "I take the Bible literally?" Does that mean for instance that when Jesus said: "Out of your innermost being shall flow rivers of living water, " that we believe that He meant actual "water?" Or do we believe that Jesus was using "symbolic" language to describe the Holy Spirit flowing forth from the believer? Is the Bible to be taken "literally" as some would define it, or is it to interpreted in light of the "symbols" God uses throughout the Scriptures? Both in the Old and New Testaments we find symbols and figures borrowed from history, the surrounding culture, and from creation. On the other hand, we must recognize that not everything in the Bible is to be interpreted "symbolically." For instance, the Ten Commandments are not to be "symbolically interpreted." God was not speaking figuratively when He said, "Thou shalt not commit adultery."
The Bible is literature, divinely inspired and inerrant literature, but nevertheless, it is literature. That means we must read it as literature. Some parts are meant to be literally understood, and they are written accordingly – as history, or theological propositions. But one would not expect to read the Psalms or the Song of Solomon by the same literary approach as the Book of Romans. We cannot understand what the Bible really means unless we appreciate its use of literary styles.
Even the most ardent "hyper-literalist" is forced at times to abandon his so-called "literal" approach. No one for example (at least to my knowledge) believes that the Beast of Revelation 13 is really an animal; or that a pregnant woman will stand on the moon and be clothed with the sun (Rev. 12:1-2). I seriously doubt that anyone understands Satan to be actually "a great red dragon with seven heads" (Rev. 12:3). I have encountered "literalists" who were convinced that the Bible taught that the earth was flat ("flat-earthers"). They base this ridiculous idea on the fact that the Bible speaks of the "four corners of the earth" (Isa. 11:12; Rev. 7:1, 20:8). It is apparent to most readers of the Scripture that these passages are poetic and symbolic. In a similar vein, the Bible speaks of trees and rivers having hands (Isa. 55:12; Ps.98:8).
To take the Bible literally means that we read and interpret it in respect to the Bible’s own literary structure. All languages use symbols and figures of speech. When we use those figures of speech with those unfamiliar with their meaning it can be quite confusing. If for example, I say to someone, unacquainted with our figures of speech, that the car that I am driving is a "lemon," they could mistakenly believe that I am using citrus fruit for transportation. Likewise, someone unacquainted with the figures of speech used in the Scriptures is likely to misinterpret its meaning. We must learn the "language" of the Bible, meaning we must learn how God consistently uses certain symbols throughout His Word to convey His message. I do not mean by this that there is a "code" that God has written in, nor am I saying that one must have a "special revelation knowledge" in order to understand God’s message. What I am saying is that the Bible interprets the Bible.
The book of the Revelation, which contains a great deal of imagery, can only be interpreted by examining the symbols in light of their use in the other 65 books of the Bible. You do not interpret the book of the Revelation by using the newspaper or Time magazine. Such an approach only ends up in speculation, not scriptural exegesis. The symbols used in the book of the Revelation are found in the language of the Old Testament, particularly in the prophetic literature. In other words, the book of the Revelation, along with the rest of the Bible, is self-interpreting.
Those who claim to interpret the book of the Revelation in a "literal" manner, in fact do not. If it is to be taken "literally," as they propose, there is no need for interpretation. The fact that they are rendering interpretations of the symbols in Revelation (often derived from a vivid imagination) reveals that they are not true "literalists" at all. For instance, the locusts in Revelation 9 are interpreted by the so-called "literalist" Hal Lindsey to be Cobra helicopters. No! It "literally" says they are locusts – Mr. Lindsey! Furthermore, he is interpreting the Bible out of his imagination rather than by the Scriptures themselves. This is why these books on prophecy have to be re-written every few years. Because they are interpreting the Bible by "speculation," their interpretations must change with the advancement of technology. "Cobra helicopters" will be an outdated interpretation in 25 years.
J.L. Martin, writing in 1873, offered his interpretation of Rev. 9:17-19 where it says: "The riders had breastplates of fire and of hyacinth and of brimstone; and the heads of the horses are like heads of lions; and out of their mouths proceed fire and smoke and brimstone. A third of mankind was killed by these three plagues; by the fire and smoke and brimstone, which proceeded out of their mouths. For the power of the horse is in their mouths and in their tails; for their tails are like serpents and have heads; and with them they do harm." While today’s "speculative interpreters" view this in terms of lasers and missile launchers, Martin had another interpretation in light of the military technology of his day, the time when Custer and the Seventh Calvary where fighting the Sioux Indians:
"John is pointing to the modern mode of fighting on horseback, with the rider leaning forward, which, to his sight, and to the sight of one looking on at a distance, would appear as the great mane of a lion; the man leaning on his horse’s neck. He would in fighting with firearms, have to lean forward to discharge his piece, lest he might shoot down his own horse that he was riding. In John’s day the posture was very different . . . .Now, I want to ask my friendly hearers if it is not as literally fulfilled before our eyes as anything can be? Are not all nations engaged in this mode of warfare? Do they not all kill men with fire and smoke and brimstone? . . . Do you not know that this is just ignited gunpowder? . . . Could an uninspired man, in the last of the first century, have told of this matter?"
J.L. Martin was speculating out of his own mind, to try and determine what John was saying in Revelation 9:17-19. This is unfortunately what many have done, rather than study the language of symbols in which God has spoken; they put their imagination to work. In order to be to be "faithful workmen that need not be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth" (II Tim. 2:15), we must understand Biblical imagery. Allow me to list several books I have found helpful in this regard:
Images of the Spirit by Meredith G. Kline (ISBN: 1-57910-205-0)
Through New Eyes by James B. Jordan (ISBN: 157910259X)
Dictionary of Biblical Imagery by Leland Ryken (editor) (ISBN: 0830814515)
Paradise Restored by David Chilton (ISBN: 0-930462-52-1)
Typology In Scripture by Richard M. Davidson (ISBN: 1-943872-34-0)
Biblical Hermeneutics by Milton S. Terry (ISBN: 01310-36831-6)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
