Hank March 10th, 2008
Here is a link to an excellent discussion of the whole debate on NPP and justification in Paul. Do enjoy this fascinating post.
I am curious about what the authors here might think of Dr. Ben Witherington’s comments on the New Perspective on Paul. Is this a good middle ground between the two sides?
Here is the article: The New Perspective on Paul and the Law– Reviewed
tom January 15th, 2008
I don’t think I’ve detected any rampant Dispensationalism here at Mass Theology. However, here are some thoughts/observations on the White Horse in Revelation 6. As you can tell from my previous posts and this one - I sure do love inner-book word studies. They just seem to clear up so much bad theology.
In Revelation 6:2, when the Lamb who was slain unfastens the first of 7 seals, a white horse comes forth carrying a rider who holds a bow, but no arrows. This rider is given a crown and rides out as a conqueror to conquer. Dispensationalists often interpret this rider to be the anti-Christ – the eschatological one who will come and dupe the world into following him. He fools them by bringing peace (hence no arrows), and for 3.5 years is a peaceful chap until something snaps in him and he goes berserk in a cosmic sort of way.
Contrary to this popular interpretation, though, this figure in chapter 6 is hardly some eschatological anti-messiah. This figure really is the actual Messiah, Jesus Christ. He comes forth to conquer, but does not do so with violence – again, the lack of arrows in his bow.
This fact of the crucified, peacemaking Jesus being the figure represented as riding a white horse is supported by simple word studies in the passage. And here’s where I will spend the rest of my time.
First, the Gk. word for white (λευκὀς) only, only, only occurs in reference to Jesus, God, or the faithful followers of Jesus in John’s apocalypse. White is the color of righteous triumph, the color of those who have overcome, the color of the One who delivers the revelation of God. In fact, in 19:11, another (probably the same) white horse comes out with a rider on it who is explicitly shown to be Jesus – the One called Faithful and True. Now, John’s imagery is often difficult to interpret, but I seriously doubt he would put both Jesus and the anti-Christ on the same white horse (or even two horses that came from the same mother). This color is strictly reserved for the righteous and the Righteous One, not the world or Babylon.
Second, the crown this rider receives is the Gk. word (στέφανη) employed only, only, only in reference to the believers and Christ in Revelation. The Beast and other antagonists in Revelation sport a different crown altogether – a completely different Gk. word. The one time an antagonist does wear this righteous crown, Revelation says it is “like a στέφανη of gold” (ὥ στέφανοι χρυσοί ), not an actual στεφανόη. That is, this is a fake στέφανοη.
Third, the Gk. word for conquer (νικών) – from which we get the word “Nike” – is employed only, only, only in relation to Jesus and the saints who faithfully followed him. There are 2 exceptions to this in Revelation, but the overwhelming evidence points to the use I have mentioned here. Furthermore, in the previous chapter – the immediate context, that is - (5:5) the imagery directly pointed to Jesus being the conqueror. John expects his readers to still have that imagery in their mind when they come to this horse.
Fourth, I would look at the bow. Dispensationalists often say that the anti-Christ will conquer with peace, but unfortunately miss that Jesus has already conquered with peace. Jesus brings peace, not through a sword, not through military might, but through being the Lamb that was slain. They got the peace right – they just gave it to the wrong person.
Finally, offering an argument from silence, I would also note that the word “anti-Christ” not only never occurs in this passage, but never occurs outside the books of 2 & 3 John. And there the anti-Christ’s were among the people – they were not some eschatological figure waiting to deceive the world – the deception is occurring now!
Ok, more later, but for now, let me know what you think – especially you Dispensationalists out there in Mass Theology land. Why must this figure be the anti-Christ? In the end, I think the evidence I have provided here is overwhelming, but I’m up for someone making an attempt….(I say with a challenging wink and sly smile).
Hank October 25th, 2007
Here is a video clip of John Hagee describing his book In Defense of Israel. Has his dispensationalism gone too far? How would you describe his thesis? My first reaction once I picked my jaw up off of the floor was the man is a heretic or a blasphemer, some may consider that to be an overreaction. Some of my thoughts can be found here.
Hank July 27th, 2007
Watch this video and see if you think people are going too far with their eschatology, and profiting from it.
H/T: Ben Witherington III
Honzo June 25th, 2007
Honestly, once I had shaken out of the bonds of Despensationalism, I no longer had a good basis in which to frame my views on the “end times.” One of my central questions centered around what to do with that Millennial Kingdom everyone keeps talking about.
Hank, over at his personal site, has just finished a six-part serries on this very topic. Check it out.
Part 1 Introduction
Part 2 Reading the Bible.
Part 3 Revelation 20:1-3
Part 4 Revelation20:4-6
Part 5 A Jewish Kingdom?
Part 6 Amil. or Postmil.?
HT comes to the conclusion that the postmillennial view is the best, although it is not without its problems; it is the same view I have been slowly leaning towards for several years. I recommend giving the series a good look over.
Hank June 14th, 2007
| You scored as Amillenialist, Amillenialism believes that the 1000 year reign is not literal but figurative, and that Christ began to reign at his ascension. People take some prophetic scripture far too literally in your view. |
|
Amillenialist |
|
95% | |
|
Preterist |
|
75% | |
|
Moltmannian Eschatology |
|
50% | |
|
Postmillenialist |
|
50% | |
|
Premillenialist |
|
45% | |
|
Left Behind |
|
10% | |
|
Dispensationalist |
|
5% |
What’s your eschatology?
created with QuizFarm.com
Personally I prefer anitchiliast (which refers to believing in a non-literal millennium) because I’m not pure amillennial but have some post-millennialism in me. I have heard it called “optimistic amillennialism.” I’m curious to see how the authors of this blog would turn out on this quiz.
Hank May 22nd, 2007
This is the final and concluding post on the arguments of preterism as concerned with the Olivet Discourse in R. C. Sproul’s book The Last Days According to Jesus. In this post, I seek to distinguish between full/radical/consistent preterism and partial/moderate/inconsistent preterism. The primary difference between the two is this: full preterism sees all of the eschatological and prophetic passages in the New Testament as already fulfilled. They believe that the resurrection has already occurred as well as the New Heavens and New Earth of Revelation 21-22. Partial preterism believes that certain events have already been fulfilled but other events (i.e. resurrection, final judgment, eternal state) are yet future. To distinguish the two positions more definitively, I expound upon the opposing views of the resurrection.
Hank May 17th, 2007
As a Calvinist, I do not get along with Hank Hanegraaff, president of the Christian Research Institute and host of the Bible Answer Man radio show. Also, like myself, his temper can get the best of him sometimes when he his debating someone–I think I see too much of me in him sometimes and I don’t like it–and he can be just down right rude. However, he has published a string of books lately that I have just loved. The first two in mind are The Last Disciple Series: The Last Disciple, The Last Sacrifice. These are his counter to the Left-Behind series that has been published in recent years. It is a fictional account of the fulfillment of the Olivet Discourse and Revelation in AD 70. If you don’t agree with that type of eschatology, you will still benefit much from reading these two books. He does an excellent job bringing to life what it was like to live as a Christian in the Roman Empire during Nero’s reign, especially after he went loony. I felt like I was reading Suetonius’ The Twelve Caesars all over again. The other book is his recently published book The Apocalypse Code: Find Out What the Bible Really Says About the End Times and Why It Matters Today. This is my review of the book. I am not going to focus on the specific arguments, but rather what he argues for in general.
Hank May 17th, 2007
This is the second to last post in my series on the Olivet Discourse being fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem by General Titus in AD 70 and the case for partial preterism (a system of eschatology that I kind of subscribe to) based upon R.C. Sproul’s book The Last Days According to Jesus. In this post, I want to chronicle the destruction of Jerusalem and bring into the picture Flavius Josephus and that his account of its destruction is a large key to the preterist case for both Revelation and the Olivet Discourse referring to AD 70.
Hank May 8th, 2007
This is my final post on the moderate preterist arguments for the Olivet Discourse referring not to some distant post-twentieth century event but rather a prophecy describing the fall of the Second Temple and the end of the Jewish era in AD 70. I have been following R. C. Sproul’s book The Last Days According to Jesus. So let us further immerse ourselves in Dr. Sproul’s arguments that he presents from J. Stuart Russell. I will post two more posts in this series: one documenting the fall of Jerusalem and the other using the resurrection to distinguish between radical/full preterists and moderate/partial preterists.
Bad Behavior has blocked 797 access attempts in the last 7 days.