The Twenty-four Elders

24 is a significant, symbolic number in the Apocalypse.

It's symbolic content can be understood in terms of two: two covenants and two flocks becoming one in Christ, the Good Shepherd. Twelve is an obviously significant number since there are 12 tribes in Israel and twelve apostles. 24 is merely the whole of twelve times two, and so represents the one people redeemed by Christ out of Israel and the Gentiles. That is clearly a major theme in the Apocalypse, though it leads dispensationalists and non-dispensationalists to vastly different conclusions.

This theme is visited rather dramatically for the last time in chapter 21 as the New Jerusalem which comes down out of heaven to a new earth is described. The eternal home of the saints has twelve foundations and twelve gates. The combination of 12 and 12 in the structure of the New Jerusalem (which is 24, though not explicitly mentioned) is used to encompass the entirety of God's salvivic people, and picks up the theme which streams throughout the Apocalypse. Jew and Gentile who believe in Christ, though distinctive in some ways, form one eternal people of God.

The 24 are elders (presbyters) which means, basically, they are old men who are wise and worthy of respect. I think the use of the generic term, "elders," accentuates their symbolic quality, and yet excludes seeing them as non-human living creatures, or even angels, because those things are specified in the Apocalypse when they are meant. How long they've been there, or how they got there is not mentioned, so it's either unimportant or so obvious it's assumed to be known. Could they represent the sons of Jacob and the twelve apostles?

Although John is viewing and recording the vision, not much of an objection could be raised to the 24 representing the 12 Apostles (Paul substituted for Judas). It's a bit more difficult to see them representing the actual, less than exemplary, sons of Jacob. Throughout biblical history the names of the twelve tribes was always more important than the twelve people that gave those tribes their names, so specification as to person is not so important with the twelve representing Israel, which fits well if this was merely a generic identification. They could represent some exemplary member of each of the associated tribes, but that is not actually necessary if the identification is purely generic.

They are given thrones placed in close conjunction with that of God, which, along with their victory (but not regnal) crowns, implies they are engaged in judgment and administration with him. That jives well with Matthew 19:28, which would tend to verify seeing at least twelve of them as representing Christ's Apostles. If that is the case, then it's hard to avoid the math and see the other twelve as faithful representatives from each of the twelve tribes. They are clothed in white which is always associated with purity or righteousness in the Apocalypse, so, in effect, the 24 elders are clothed in righteousness.

Aside from judgment, the 24 seem occupied with worship. They hold censers and harps. They fall to their knees (the implication of proskuneo), cast their victory crowns at the feet of God, extol the Creator's virtues, and sings songs of praise to God and the Lamb. The force of their worship is to attribute to God the action that accomplishes his salvivic and magisterial aims--God is the actor, everyone else is the benefactor.

We are told explicitly that the incense signifies the prayers of saints. That is not an endorsement for the doctrine of the Intercession of the Saints, but merely represents that the prayers of the saints rise directly before God. The elders, though themselves men and therefore representative in some fashion of all believing humans, are not the makers nor mediators of the prayers (interceders), but, really, only witnesses of such. The harps, in very similar fashion, signify the praise of those same saints.

So the prayer and praise of the saints rises to the throne of God, symbolically carried by those representative of all who follow. As they are before God in prayer and praise, symbols in the heavens, so are those they represent also before God as they praise and pray on earth.

Replacement Theology Undermined by Jesus

"...they were asking Him, saying, “Lord, is it at this time You are restoring the kingdom to Israel?” He said to them, “It is not for you to know times or epochs which the Father has fixed by His own authority..."   Acts 1"6-7 NASB

Was the church intended by God as a replacement to Israel? There is no doubt that the new covenant in Christ displaced the old covenant of Moses. That was a covenant of works entered into primarily by the children of Jacob, whereas the new is a covenant of faith entered into by whoever will. If the point of the old was to make way for the new, than a justifiable question arises as to the continuing need or viability of a covenantal people whose identifying covenant is obsolete. What would be the point of a covenant-people if their covenant is defunct?

The church, most definitely, is the new kingdom of God. It is the one and only locus of right relationship with God in this and in the ages to come. In regard to covenantal relationship with God it displaces Israel, encompassing Jew and Gentile in one body as the people of God. Those selected for inclusion in this kingdom are chosen, not on the basis of geneology and faith, but on the basis of faith alone. It is the only game in town.

But even if the old is defunct and discarded as to it's ability to establish and regulate covenantal relationship with God, God's promise to Abraham concerning the land given to his offspring and God being their God still remains in force. The defunct Mosaic covenant cannot regulate their fellowship with God (only the Messiah's can do that), nonetheless, the Abrahamic covenant is still in force and controls their geopolitical destiny here on earth.

Acts 1:7 is proof. Jesus was asked specifically about Israel's earthly destiny--his answer was not that they did not have one any more. He answered that the timing of the restoration of Israel's earthly kingdom was information God was keeping to himself. In other words, there was coming a restoration of earthly kingdom to Israel in the future, but the time and date was unknown to all but God. Ultimately, that kingdom will be governed in its covenantal relationship with God by the covenant of Messiah not of Moses, but there is most certainly still purpose in God for the continued existence of national Israel, despite their present unbelief.

After his resurrection and just prior to his ascension, in Jesus' mind there was still a kingdom to restore to Abraham's descendants in the promised land. In his mind there was still a place and purpose for national Israel. That they would have to relate to God in the same way as Gentiles in order to be right with God (i.e. faith in Christ) does nothing to mitigate the fact of God's continuing purpose for their existence. In his plans at that time there was still a place for the kingdom of the Jews.

That tells me that there still is.

What Happens After We Die: Inclusivism III

We continue our talk on what happens after we die by delving further into the subject of inclusivism, which posits that people who do not know Christ directly or perfectly will be included in the salvation he has wrought.

If there are any clear biblical grounds for inclusivism concerning children, the best would have to be found in 1 Corinthians 7:14 (and even that is iffy). A decent case can be made that the verse deals in context merely with the legitimacy (clean vs. unclean) of an existing marriage in the eyes of God when one party comes to faith but the other does not. If that union was considered spiritually unacceptable by God, the children would be the products of fornication and unclean. If the marriage is valid spiritually (clean) in the eyes of God, then the children produced by it are clean too.

The thought would have to be Jewish at it's root, developed ultimately from Malachi 2:11-16, as I see it. If legitimacy is the prime concern, then Paul would have to be saying that the principle of Malachi 2:11 cannot be applied to an existing marriage between one who remains an unbeliever and one who becomes a Christian. In these cases, the presence of the believer in the union sets apart the unbeliever so that the union is seen as acceptable by God, and the progeny resulting would be holy. Whereas I see the merit in such an interpretation, I don't think it quite captures the entirety of the thought--more than legitimacy or illegitimacy seems to be at stake to me.

The point of sanctified children is that they would be considered part of the covenant community, benefactors of the covenant blessings. If the marriage was acceptable, then the offspring produced as a result of it are considered part of the Israel. And here is where inclusivism both hits a rock and sets sail for me. If the inclusivist thought is true (i.e. all children are born innocent, and under the blood that was shed for everyone) then why reference the uncleanness or unacceptability of children at all? In what meaningful way could children from a mixed marriage be unsanctified?

Interpretations that refer the thought to being exposed to the gospel or in a better place to come to faith (extrapolated from the spousal argument Paul makes) are unsatisfying. They just don't explain the hullaballoo in the passage. If there is an inclusivist claim that can be made here, the only one that stands up, imo, would be one that says the children of believers are included in salvation until they decide they don't want to be. In fact, I do see the verse substantiating that very thought.

When it comes to children, or even the infirm in general, I cannot say with any certainty what happens after death to those who were born of unbelievers. Good arguments exist to see them as included in Christ: what doesn't exist is a bible verse or verses that say as much. There are, on the other hand, verses that call into question whether or not such is the case. What I can say with some confidence is that children born of believers will be included, and that, at least, is a comfort to me.

What Happens After We Die: Inclusivism II

We continue our talk on what happens after we die by delving further into the subject of inclusivism, which posits that people who do not know Christ directly or perfectly will be included in the salvation he has wrought.

Even the case of the immature and the infirm being included in salvation is anything but airtight. At best a hopeful biblical principle, rather than an explicit statement, can be derived for their salvation. As I see it, three possible grounds exist for inclusivism concerning the immature and infirm: (1) infants have nothing to repent of and so would be included in Christ's resurrection; (2) the immature and infirm are not able to apprehend creation's witness of God, are not truly able to meet the condition of salvation (faith in Christ), and so would be included in the provision of atonement which was made for everyone; and (3) the children of a believer are included in the the body of Christ unless they decide not to believe.

I do not see how infants could have anything of which to repent. Even though they are born into sin and death, separated from God, they have not sinned personally. They have not even had the opportunity to ignore God's witness in creation, so including them in judgment would seem a travesty of justice. It is a God-given principle that children are not made to pay for the sins of their fathers, so it would appear they must be safe.

We do have some disturbing precedents in scripture, however. I wonder, how many infants died in the Flood, or why infants and children were killed by the invading Israelites under the command of God? It seems evident to me that there are mysteries in understanding how God views the situation of children. I search in vain for that one clear, unequivocal passage of scripture that answers these questions.

To me, inclusivist doctrines purporting to understand what God will do in these instances reflect more what the author would like God to do than they report what God said he would actually do. Given Christ's universal atonement, I see the logic in formulating an exclusion to the condition of faith in Christ for those incapable to express such faith through disability. What I do not see is that clearly demonstrated by scripture.  

Purpose in Relation to Moses

There are things that the Pentateuch reveals about God and his purpose, and there are things that it does not. The Law is not God's picture of an ideal society--sin and failure are in inextricably embedded within it. It was, in fact, written for a specific lineage of unregenerated sinners for control and maintenance rather than any grand revelation of how God made people to live. That's a far cry from God's ideal society and not very reflective of his purpose in any profound way by any means.

Though the Law frequently speaks of defilements, abominations, and prohibitions, it is not even a trustworthy statement about how God is eternally-minded about some of those issues. If it was the Gentile church of the NT would not even exist. There was a purpose to such transitory statements, but it wasn't an eternal one: can you really perceive of cattle chutes in heaven? The law schoolmastered the purposed of God until they could step into the purpose of God.

What, then, does Moses tells us about the purpose of God? Well, that God is motivated to rescue a people from bondage to be his people, to live with them in harmony, and to bless them and share his goodness with them. That purpose cannot be achieved with broken Adamic humanity, because righteousness is essential to the purpose but impossible with them. Despite that, God's purpose remains fixed. Adamic humanity cannot enter into it, but people raised in Christ can.

Purpose In Noah and Abraham

From Adam to Abraham, God's governance of man and time appears somewhat chaotic. Violence filled the earth, to which God responded by violently overturning the earth. God commanded the survivors to disperse and repopulate the earth. They refused and instead began planting the seeds of idolatry, to which God responded by overturning their ability to communicate and enforcing dispersal and tribalism upon them.

God apparently adopted silence thereafter until confronting a single pagan. God called upon him to drop all his relational ties (one's safety and security in that day), and travel hundreds of miles across the desert to a destination unknown. Abram believed what God said and acted upon it (eventually) and the covenant of relationship was established. Later, in perhaps the most significant event in Abraham's life, God's love was graphically illustrated and the blessing that would come to all the world presaged in the actions of a father and son.

How does one make sense of this human wasteland of violence and sin or God's reaction to it? At least the prediluvian sinners lost in the flood saw the promise of redemption eventually; the postdiluvian sinners do not appear to have fared so well. Why did God do what he did they way he did? Covenant or Dispensation can, at best, describe the scenerio; neither reasonably explicates it. Unraveling the knot, I think, is what this reveals about God's purpose:

• The saved found grace in the eyes of the Lord, not merit, as they have always;
• The blessed had to respond to God's promise by the obedience of faith until the end;
• In God's eyes, love is demonstrated in the sacrifice of an only son;
• Though specific historical events appear exclusionary, the ultimate aim of God's actions in history are inclusionary.

Though God cannot uphold sin or sinfulness, there is a loving compassion in the heart of God for humanity. Because of his grace, an intimate relationship with him that will last for eternity can be established now which begins and ends with faith. What can a human do in light of the purpose of God? Trust him, believe what he says, and to follow him into life.

The Purpose of God

When I contemplate the overarching theme of the Bible, and what might order its interpretation and theology into a cohesive framework, I do not find the concepts of covenant or dispensation very useful. To such an end, I find the concept of purpose (specifically, the purpose of God) a much better construct. Everything in scripture can be understood in its relation to God's purpose; everything in theology can be seen through this lens. The Bible is, according to this view, the revelation of the God of Purpose and how his purpose effects the past, present and future.

In regard to God's purpose, I do not think, generally, that mankind has had a grand enough vision. In my opinion, we tend to concentrate on God's transcendence in understanding such and bypass his associativeness (despite the well developed doctrine of the Trinity). The result has been, it seems to me, a reliance on form to define our relationship with God instead of the experience of relationship. When emphasis is placed on form, which is the very essence of covenant and the backbone of dispensation, distance from God is baked in the cake of our conception of our relationship with him. Jesus, in his high priestly prayer, revealed that he has something much more than that in mind for us.

I do not believe that Covenantalism or Dispensationalism adequately capture the overarching message of the Bible or provide a sufficient framework to order theology. Either misses that intimacy and faith color everything. Covenants establish relationship between two parties at arms length on the basis of boundaries for acceptable action by the participants. Dispensations seem scarcely different to me than a series of laboratory experiments performed on lab rats.

It is not that there are not aspects to either approach that recommend them to the student of God and his Word. Either, however, leaves the student who can't see past them dawdling, waxing cars for Mr. Miyagi, without a true apprehension of what is ultimately in the master's mind. From a practical standpoint, unregenerate sinners could never have confidence in their standing with God apart from a covenant, and prophesy is a muddle without seeing Israel in a dispensational sense. But God is aiming for more than sinners daring to come out from behind the bushes or for folks to get a history lesson from God's timeless perspective.

What, then, is the purpose of the covenant? Is it not merely an agreement with sinners that God will declare them righteous and make them new if they'll turn to him and put their trust in Christ? After one has come to that point then what? That is where covenant ceases and purpose must take over. It has never been God's purpose to leave sinners as sinners (but at least on friendly terms), and it certainly isn't his purpose to wait until the Rapture to get on with his purpose.

Covenant as the framework for understanding the overarching message of scripture falls short of the purpose of God. A covenant may give a sinner comfort, but God isn't aiming at sinners' comfort--his purpose is transformation. Dispensations are no better a framework: at best they are merely mile markers along the road of progress to God's purpose. God has made mankind to walk in eternal fellowship with him, a meeting of mind and spirit. That purpose is what gives all of the Word and theology cohesive structure.

Covenant

Hebrews 8:6-9:15

2 Corinthians 3:5-18

Luke 22:19-20

Jeremiah 31:31-34

Purpose

Romans 8:28-30

Ephesians 1:9-2:22
Ephesians 3:11-19
John 17
1 Corinthians 13:8-12

Chronology of Apocalypse: Historical

One of my congregants thought an itemized chronology of the end times would be helpful. Maybe it would, so here it goes, starting with those things prophesied which have already occurred (not enough to make me a partial preterist, however).

30 CE - Jesus ascends to the throne room of God bearing the sacrifice of his own blood, and receives all authority and dominion from his heavenly Father.

30 CE - Jesus sends the Holy Spirit to endue his followers with power and turns them lose on their global mission to spread the Gospel to every nation. The rider on the white horse sets out to overcome.

70 CE - The Temple in Jerusalem in destroyed, signifying the end of the Mosaic Covenant and the transition to the Age of the Gentiles. From that time to the time (which has not yet occurred) the Temple is reestablished, God's redemptive work is focused on Gentiles, with a mere trickle of Jews coming to Christ.

95 CE - The last handpicked witness of Christ sets forth the last Apostolic testimony concerning Christ. His vision mirrored, although is much more extensive than, that of Daniel who was the last prophet who saw the glory of the Davidic Kingdom.

192 CE - The Emperor Commodus rises to the throne and destroys the reality of the Pax Romana. Never again will Roman realms be as peaceful or the empire as coherent as they were before his rule. Never again would the world know such a golden age. The second seal was broken.

313 CE - Constantine issues the Edict of Milan that made it legal to be a Christian in the Roman Empire. In 316 he intervenes in the Donatist controversy and calls the Council of Nicea in 325. A marriage of church and state began to be apparent, but no doubt was left in 380 by the enactments of the edicts of Theodosius. The Whore of Babylon had settled in Rome.

1315 CE - The Little Ice Age starts, bringing recurring cycles of famine and death to the temperate zones (particularly of Christendom) which were dependent on cereal grains. The third seal had been broken.

1347 CE - Someplace in the East, a disease became particularly pestilent and was carried by vermin across the civilized globe. Truly an epidemic of biblical proportions, within just a few years the Black Death had taken at least a quarter of the world's population. The fourth seal had been broken.

1535 CE - Although persecution and martyrdom was not unknown from the earliest days of the church (e.g. James, Stephen, Peter, Paul, the Roman persecutions under Decius and Diocletian), nor in the Middle Ages (e.g. the Waldenses, the Lollards, the Hussites), it was the scale of death of true believers initiated with the Huguenot Persecutions that warrants an emphasis on martyrdom. The influx of martyred souls into the presence of God in the 1500's signifies the fifth seal being broken.

1917 CE - Anticipating the British occupation of Palestine during WWI, the Balfour Declaration officially undoes almost 1800 years of Roman policy excluding the Jews from Palestine. It is the signal event that revealed the end of the end times was upon us.

1933 CE - Hitler rises to power, the seventh king in the Antichrist Scheme. In 1938 he stepped up his campaign against the Jews to wholesale physical violence, confiscation of property, imprisonment, and death. Ultimately, two-thirds of the Jews within his reach were killed.

1948 CE - The State of Israel declares its independence and a nation is born in a day.

1967 CE - Israel captures East Jerusalem, the West Bank, the Golan Heights, the Gaza Strip, and the Sinai in the Six Day War. Israel was well on the way to capturing Cairo and Damascus in the Yom Kippur War which followed in 1973. In both wars, against overwhelming odds, Israel all but miraculously defeated all her enemies. She has since signed formal peace treaties with Egypt (1979) and Jordan (1994), but as yet has to sign a covenant with many which would give her unfettered access to the Temple Mount.

Yet To Come... the Rapture

My Dispensationalesque Eschatology Defines Anti-semitism

In light of a discussion I had with a friend and a comment on an earlier post, it dawns on me that an exploration of what I consider devilish and anti-semitic due to my eschatological view could be helpful. In my "dispensationalesque" approach to eschatology, I have said that the primary characteristic of the Devil's Antichrist Scheme throughout history has been anti-semitism. Not that the Devil merely dislikes Jews, but that he cold-bloodedly works to dispossess them of Canaan or to destroy them as a people, or both at the same time.

It is my contention that either aspect betrays an influence from the Devil on the people who share such goals with him. For instance, Palestinians (whether Christian or Muslim) who seek to kick the Jews out of Canaan evidence a devilish influence whether they are aware of it or not. Similarly, anyone who tries to obliterate the Jews existence as a particular people, whether by assimilation into other cultures or by actual death, betrays a devilish influence as well. The law may have ceased being a measure of rightness with God for Jew or Gentile, but that doesn't mean that a Jew is not a Jew (or should cease considering himself one) because he accepts the righteousness of Christ by faith.

I think the reasons for the Devil's approach are obvious: to dispossess the Jews of the Promised Land or to destroy them as a particular people undercuts the Abrahamic Covenant and affords the Devil the opportunity to put forward his shill in the place of the Promised One. Ultimately, the Devil's aim is to raise up an Antichrist. To do this, the source for the real one has to be obfuscated or even obliterated. Even now, after the fact of Christ Jesus' incarnation, to pull the old switcheroo the Devil will still have to undercut foundation of Jesus, the Jewish Messiah.

Replacement Theology is not an option for dealing with the question of the Jews' status with God, in my mind, because such a belief does irreconcilable damage to Romans 11 and Daniel 9, not to mention the Abrahamic Covenant. Even though the church represents a fulfillment of God's promise to Abraham regarding the blessing to come to all peoples, the existence of the church has not displaced the specific promises of God to Abraham regarding his physical descendants through Isaac nor the land apportioned unto them in perpetuity. If anything, the church is added on to the reality of such blessing rather than replacing the beneficiaries of it.

So to be clear, it is not anti-semitic for one to question Israeli policy regarding the human rights of Palestinians (Gentiles), or even Messianic Jews, living under the governance of Israel. It is not anti-semitic to seek accommodation between Jew and Gentile living within the hegemony of the State of Israel. It is not anti-semitic to say Jews are not right with God by following the Tanach or by merely being Jewish. It is anti-semitic with a devilish flair to assert the Jews have no claim to Canaan, or that "Jewishness" has no point or purpose with God.

Does God Want Us To Be Sick?

We continue with the subject of Divine Healing, with a reminder of some pertinent scripture verses before we deal with the subject at hand: Isaiah 53:3-5; 1 Corinthians 13:9-10; Romans 8:10-11; Ephesians 1:13-14; John 9:1-3; Luke 10:1-12; Mark 16:15-18; I Corinthians 12; Matthew 9:28-30; Mark 9:23-24; Mark 6:1-6; 1 Corinthians 11:27-32; James 5:14-20; Revelation 22:1-3

As I have said in an earlier post, it was God's justified curse on man for sin which resulted in death and led to decay, infirmity and disease. A reasonable person might assume from that nugget of truth that God's will for fallen humans is that they be ill, at least at times. However, that same God sent his son Jesus to become the curse for us so that we could be freed from its effects. The penalty of death (and with it infirmity, decay and disease) was eradicated by the substitutionary death of the sinless lamb of God. 

Since God's wrath against sin was fully expended upon Christ in suffering his passion, none of God's wrath is left for the heirs of salvation. Logically (even if there was no passage like Isaiah 53:4-5), for the sacrifice of Christ to exhaust and expunge the curse of death, it would also, by necessity, wipe out the effects of death, namely, decay, infirmity and disease. Therefore, people who embrace Christ's vicarious sacrifice for sin through faith, should not only have the blessing of sins forgiven and eternal life, but they should also have the provision of healing, now.

The promise of divine health and healing for those within the covenant of faith is well attested in scripture. It is an established pattern, from of old, that clues us into God's management style. He wants those he redeems to be well. That Isaiah makes it clear that healing is provided for within the atonement of Christ only strengthens the point. Some of the last verses of the Apocalypse clarify the ultimate intention of God that those that are his be well.

But wait a minute here, we still grow old, get sick and die. Why, if all that I've written above is true? According to the Apostle Paul, these mortal frames formed from Adam and Eve's flesh (genes) must be put off before new bodies untinged by Adam's sin and not subject to death may be put on. We have a very rich inheritance in Christ, but we can only receive a portion of it now while in these dead bodies. We'll have to wait until the resurrection for the full package.

Until then all humanity, even the believing, will continue to die in their time. And while in dying bodies, even Christians can get sick, despite the provision of healing in the atonement. Is there anything that can be done about that? We'll take up that question and the whys and wherefores in the next post on the subject.