End Times Stuff Part 2

So I have said that I disagree with both the stance that Paul took recently, and the decision to preach that stance from the pulpit in my previous post, but I have not really put together an argument on why I think it was in error. I think it’s only fair to do so or else it is simply a case of just shouting ‘Yarboo sucks’ very loudly and I would like to try to be more constructive than that.

First, I think that the reading of the book of Revelation as one continuous vision and sequence of events  is incorrect.  I have a number of reasons for thinking so and will outline them here.

1. It takes no account of the type of literature which Revelation is. The literalistic approach treats Revelation as if it is a historical narrative (ie gospel or history), when it is in fact a separate type of literature know as apocalyptic literature.  This type of literature is known to be non sequential and  symbolic.
2. The often repeated symbolism (3 lots of seven judgements) and events (multiple appearances of multiple beasts) in the chapters of revelation would lead one to believe that we are reading multiple descriptions from different viewpoints of the same thing as God seeks to build up a more complete picture of events  for us.
3. The the passage in Revelation 12. This passage is clearly referring to the birth of Jesus, from Israel(the woman) as the male child who will rule the nations, that Satan attempts to kill via Herod and the flight into Egypt. The passage reads:
   

   Then I witnessed in heaven an event of great significance. I saw a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon beneath her feet, and a crown of twelve stars on her head. She was pregnant, and she cried out because of her labor pains and the agony of giving birth.

   Then I witnessed in heaven another significant event. I saw a large red dragon with seven heads and ten horns, with seven crowns on his heads. ⁴ His tail swept away one-third of the stars in the sky, and he threw them to the earth. He stood in front of the woman as she was about to give birth, ready to devour her baby as soon as it was born.

   She gave birth to a son who was to rule all nations with an iron rod. And her child was snatched away from the dragon and was caught up to God and to his throne. And the woman fled into the wilderness, where God had prepared a place to care for her for 1,260 days.

   Then there was war in heaven. Michael and his angels fought against the dragon and his angels. And the dragon lost the battle, and he and his angels were forced out of heaven. This great dragon—the ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, the one deceiving the whole world—was thrown down to the earth with all his angels.

   The bold items are images of items which I  believe had clearly happened by the end of the gospels, and this being the case it is impossible for the book of Revelation  to be seen as a logical train of future events

My second reason for disagreement is the sheer amount of conjecture that the stance requires and creates. Let me explain what I mean by conjecture.

 I see four levels of interpretation that can come from teaching the Bible.

1. Direct teaching of the simple truths of scripture with no level of interpretation required. ie God is Love, Jesus saves, Forgive your enemies, Turn the other cheek, Pray to God, be full of the spirit.
2. Doctrines which are simple explanations of Biblical truths, which the church has held from the beginning, ie the trinity, justification by faith alone, baptism of the holy spirit.
3. Positions are beliefs that require further distilling and abstracting of  simple biblical truths and usually require balancing one set of difficult scriptures against another. Examples would be, once saved always saved vs conditional salvation, freewill vs predestination.
4. Conjecture is believing things which  require  a level of biblical interpretation where the best we can say is that they could be true. It is us applying our thoughts, view points, and experiences into scripture. These things may be true , but on the same hand they may not be. This happens mainly when we seek to relate prophetic scripture to world events or other scriptural events where scripture draws no real linkage. Example, was Melkizadeck in Genesis Jesus?

When preaching, I believe it is advisable to stay with direct biblical teaching and doctrine whenever possible, be careful when taking theological positions, and avoid conjecture as much as possible.

Unfortunately, the literalistic stance which Paul took lends itself all to readily to conjecture. The assumption that Jesus will return 7 years after the temple is rebuilt is conjecture (I am being very nice there), anything in the book of revelation referring to the EU is conjecture and the precise nature of the anti Christ is conjecture.

The belief system Paul expounded to my mind does nothing but pile conjecture upon conjecture. The central truths that Jesus taught about about his return in the gospels gets lost in 1/2 baked ideas about the temple, the role of Israel, who the anti Christ is and why anyone left wing politically is to blame.

But why does this matter ?  Why am I still kicking up a  fuss about this ? I will write about that in part three of this mini series