Category Archives: Controversial Issues

7 Church Ministry Models in Light of the Ideal

Posted on by

Small single-service churches . . . home churches with rotating locations . . . mega-churches with thousands of seats . . . large churches with home groups . . . mega-churches with multi-services at different times and days . . . multi-site churches with recorded messages and online campuses . . .  multi-site churches with live feed from the main campus . . . multi-service churches with rotating preachers . . . single-service churches with rotating preachers . . .

When it comes to American church ministry models, if you can imagine it, it exists.

In RetroChristianity, I describe six essential building blocks of a local church: orthodoxy, order, and ordinances as the essential marks of a local church, and evangelism, edification, and exaltation as its essential works. I also present a biblically, theologically, and historically-informed ideal worship model as pulpit/altar-centered—the effective proclamation of the Word (pulpit) and the effectual consecration of the worshipper (altar), centered on Christ’s person and work, and bounded by the Trinitarian creation-redemption narrative. The former includes reading of Scripture (1 Tim. 4:13), instructional music (Col. 3:16), and other forms of proclamation; the latter involves confession of sin (Jas. 5:16), prayers (1 Tim. 2:1), responsive music (Eph. 5:19–20), offerings (1 Cor. 16:2), and the communion meal (1 Cor. 11:20). The first is embodied in the leader’s sermon; the second is incarnated in the Lord’s Supper.

But how does a missionary or church planter move from the ideal to the real in a particular cultural context? Or how does an existing church move from the real to the ideal without a major upheaval? If given the opportunity for modifying the ministry model of your church, in which direction should you lead it? When evaluating your church’s ministry emphases and general direction either in setting short-term ministry priorities or casting a long-term vision, how do you critique your current trajectory?

In an attempt to think through these questions more carefully and to provide a frame of reference for discussion, I have established a spectrum reflecting a range of ministry models. Each model poses unique opportunities and challenges when it comes to living out the marks and works of the church as well as emphasizing a pulpit/altar-centered worship. (For a presentation and defense of these ecclesiological models, see RetroChristianity chapters 8, 9, and 10.) So, let me briefly describe these seven models. Within (and probably between) these models we can imagine numerous shades, nuances, and varieties, but I believe these seven serve as sufficient (though not perfect) “types” of modern evangelical church ministries for the sake of discussion.

Model 1: The Small Community. Small, intimate, manageable community with qualified personal pastoral presence for discipleship, accountability, and encouragement. To maintain intimacy and manageability, a single-meeting community desires to remain small—between 100 and 250 people. Among this community, the pastoral leadership strives to maintain direct relationships with church members. The pastor and elders know their flock well, understand their strengths and weaknesses, and are attuned to their needs. This incarnational presence among the community makes discipleship more intuitive and natural rather mechanical and programmatic. Accountability is a natural part of a covenanted life together. And encouragement toward faithfulness emanates from both the pulpit and interpersonal relationships. The small community model may often function as part of a larger mother-daughter network model (Model 2) or even as well-ordered, intentional smaller groups within a larger church model (Models 4, 5, and 6). And it does not preclude the possibility of denominational or inter-ecclesial associations to cooperate and pool resources for larger-scale projects.

I believe that pulpit proclamation can be more intimately and effectively crafted for a smaller group known personally by the preaching pastor. This intimacy and efficacy is easily lost when a large audience (or especially a non-present audience) is preached at from a stage or behind a camera without a personal relationship between the pastor and the congregation. I also believe it is self-evident that a full-bodied, efficacious Lord’s Supper is best observed in a single smaller community. Such an intimate observance can easily include all (not just a few) of the elements that should center about the Table—the confession of sins to one another, prayer for one another, material and spiritual support for one another, individual and corporate consecration, covenant renewal, corporate discipline, and a solemn community participation in the bread and wine as a mark of unity and means of spiritual blessing. As the crowd gathering around the altar grows, so will the tendency to emphasize one aspect of the multi-faceted eucharistic worship over other aspects. The altar will inevitably lose its significance, intimacy, and efficacy as a means of sanctification.

This small community of 100-250, however, can have its challenges. If a medium congregation (Model 3) or larger church (Model 4) shrinks in size to a smaller community, it can be difficult to the numerically declining church to adjust to a new ministry model. Members will often have a hard time adjusting to a more intimate fellowship and more volunteer-driven ministry. Also, small communities without some relationship to other local churches will often find they lack the critical mass of people necessary to carry out certain types of ministry, often leading to burn-out or weariness by volunteers. Also, a very small church can be marred by a lack of energy and excitement that can stimulate worship and service and motivate outreach and evangelism. This can be especially true when such small communities are in a larger metropolitan area. These challenges are less severe when such churches are part of suburban or rural community.

Model 2: The Mother-Daughter Network. Small to medium churches in a network with qualified on-site pastoral presence in each local church plant. Many growing churches have made the conscious decision to cap the numerical growth of a local church by strategically planting smaller “daughter” churches as evangelism and discipleship begin to cause membership in the church to increase and sprawl. Rather than treating all small groups as interdependent communities under the umbrella of a larger local body, smaller groups serve as seed groups for future church plants. The goal is not to maintain financial and organizational control and oversight (though this is a necessary stage in the cultivation of the daughter church). Rather, the goal is to establish a fully-functioning, self-sustaining small community bearing in itself all of the essential marks and works of a local church. In this case a pulpit/altar-centered worship can be easily maintained in all of its intimacy and efficacy. Usually the daughter churches maintain some kind of formal or informal association with the mother church, and they also usually cooperate with sister churches in the city or region even if there is no denominational structure enforcing such inter-church fellowship.

It should be noted that as larger churches move toward planting daughter churches, they may temporarily pass through Models 3-6 toward that goal. Many daughter churches begin as branch campuses of a multi-site church, with the intention of eventually establishing the site as an autonomous (though not independent) congregation with its own pastoral leadership, pulpit ministry, etc. The difference between a small group in a mega-church or a campus of a multi-site church on the one hand and a daughter church in association with a mother church and its various siblings is whether the congregation has its own local pastoral leadership distinct from the mother church and its own pulpit/preaching ministry.

Of course, the mother-daughter church network presupposes a trajectory of numerical growth from the small community toward a medium-to-large community. Such sustainable growth is not always possible in small towns or rural communities. Also, a mother-daughter church planting strategy requires intentional leadership training over the course of several years. Often numerical growth for churches takes place too quickly to effectively plan and execute the movement from Model 1 to Model 2. Thus, many growing churches understandably choose to (or are forced to) embrace Model 3 instead.

Model 3: The Medium Congregation. Medium congregation of smaller groups with pastoral personnel among the groups for discipleship, accountability, and encouragement. By “medium” I mean churches between 300 and 1000 people. Of course, the larger the church community, the more difficult it is to maintain a meaningfully intimate fellowship of the entire church membership (though intimate relationships can occur in smaller segments of the church’s membership) . While organizational and financial unity can be maintained, intimate community and mutuality among members must take place in subsets of the larger body. The smaller groups within a church variously manifest themselves as home groups, Sunday school classes, fellowship groups, or discipleship groups. A healthy ideal medium congregation strives to be a church of small groups, not a church with small groups. In other words, church membership implies smaller group membership. These smaller groups, then, each under qualified pastoral leadership, carry out the basic functions of the “small church” (Model 1). A generally healthy pulpit/altar-centered worship of the entire congregation can still be maintained, but often at the cost of its intimacy and efficacy, especially with regard to a loss of the Table’s multi-faceted function and significance.

Model 4: The Larger Church. Large multi-service church with voluntary opportunities for intimate community among smaller flocks under qualified pastoral leadership. The challenges toward whole church unity, intimacy, and authenticity that begin to surface in the medium congregation grow more acute in the larger church of between 1000 and 2000 members. Eventually a decision must be made to either build a larger facility or hold two or more services. Planting daughter churches as in Model 2 is usually not part of the larger church’s strategy (though such decisions can still be made). A move from personal pastoral presence to professional executive leadership occurs when trained, ordained leaders usually become disconnected from the congregation. This distancing is not intentional, but accidental. There are simply limits to how many close relationships can be maintained in very large organizations.

In some of the less ideal iterations of the larger church model, actual personal pastoral care is often delegated to lay leaders who may or may not have adequate biblical, theological, and historical training. The pulpit/altar-centered worship suffers under this kind of leadership model as messages may become detached from close relationships with the people and as members of the congregation are distanced from each other. For all practical purposes, multiple services begin to function as distinct congregations. Pastoral presence and intimacy decline, and the Table no longer functions as the obvious point of unity. In some cases, bureaucracy, personnel issues, budget concerns, and facility issues take a considerable amount of time, energy, and especially finances. As such, the direction in which a church decides to move at this stage—either upward toward Model 1 or downward toward Model 7—will often determine the church’s virtually inevitable trajectory.

However, larger churches can manage their growth well when they intentionally foster smaller groups within the larger church body, providing such groups are led by trained (and preferably ordained) qualified pastoral leaders. In such small groups, discipleship, accountability, care, outreach, and other works of the church would take place in ways similar to Model 1. Also, some larger churches may choose to attend to the ordinances in these smaller groups to allow for a more meaningful and frequent observance of baptism and especially the Lord’s Supper. However, all of this requires maximal intentionality and the prioritizing of on-going leadership development and training.

Model 5: The Mega-Church. Large auditorium multi-service campus with opportunities for programmed events and voluntary flocks led by less-qualified lay leaders. The “mega-church” is more of a mentality and methodology than a matter of head-count. However, the financial and facilities resources necessary to maintain the programming usually require at least 2000 people—often many more.

In less ideal versions of the mega-church, the model is sustained by shaping its ministries around an attractional methodology—“If we build it, they will come.” The growth strategy is usually epic—“If too many come, we build bigger.” Those who initially attend a mega-church ministry are often drawn to specific aspects of the church—youth, singles, marrieds, discipleship, worship, special programs, contemporary atmosphere, a well-known pastor, etc. All of these various elements must therefore be maintained to sustain high attendance, which must be sustained to support the high cost of maintaining the various ministry elements. An inescapable circle can develop from which there is no easy escape. Church members may become more deeply assimilated into the life of the church usually through affinity groups, which are joined voluntarily. As such, intersecting circles of social fellowship develop, and these fellowships are almost never structured around a pulpit/altar-centered ministry. Also, this model allows for many attenders or members of the church to be practically severed from discipleship and accountability. For practical purposes, many flourishing mega-churches often find themselves forced to make moves toward the multi-site church (Model 6).

Positively, mega-churches provide excellent opportunities for entry and assimilation. They naturally maintain an energetic atmosphere appealing to people of every generation. Also, as in Models 3, 4, and 5, effective and efficient aspects of mega-church ministries can occur in smaller groups, as long as these are under the care of well-trained, well-experienced pastoral leadership. Though it is possible to handle the large size of a mega-church in ways that do attend to the necessary marks and works of a church, this requires a great amount of intentionality and effort.

Model 6: The Multi-Site Church. Multi-site church campuses with broadcast messages from main campus, local pastoral presence, and voluntary flocks. The multi-site church should not be confused with the early planting stages of the mother-daughter church network (Model 2). In the multi-site mentality, the mother church has no real intention of actually establishing autonomous daughter churches. The sprouts are not church plants but merely branches of the same tree. The multi-site campus is usually a function of three elements: 1) a sprawling church membership scattered throughout a usually metropolitan area (as opposed to a localized community church membership drawn from a neighborhood); 2) a strong devotion and dedication to a well-known, well-loved preacher whose messages become the basis for unity between various campuses; and 3) a willingness to simulcast preaching from the main church or play recorded messages from the preacher as the sole or primary pulpit ministry. One practical motivation for the multi-site campus model may be an unmanageable exponential growth within the mega-church model to the degree that a single location simply cannot sustain multiple services nor accommodate traffic. However, this model can lead to a kind of “branding” in which each branch campus functions as a “franchise.” In my opinion (and in many churches’ experiences), ultimately the multi-site campus approach exacerbates unaddressed problems already inherent in the mega-church model, in which the pulpit becomes increasingly detached from a relationship with the congregation, rendering a generic “message” able to be broadcast to anybody rather than a message crafted for the focused edification of a specific body of believers. It also makes accountability, discipline, and especially a frequent and full-bodied observance of the Lord’s Supper as “one body” less practical, though not impossible. In short, a pulpit/altar-centered worship is not easily maintained in a multi-site worship. To do so requires maximum intentionality and effort.

Since originally writing this essay, I have had many opportunities to engage with leaders of multi-site churches. It seems that some have achieved a kind of balanced approach in which the individual satellite campuses function somewhat like the ministries of Models 3, 4, or 5, though without a local preaching pastor. Others have moved away from a simulcast preacher from the mother campus and have essentially become daughter churches (similar to Model 2), a model sometimes called “multi-church” rather than “multi-site church.” In the last few years we have also seen the intentional reorganizing, forced dismantling, or even scandalous implosion of several large multi-site churches. In light of both my ecclesiological critiques and practical realities observed in multi-site ministries, it is my contention that most multi-site church models are inevitably temporary arrangements that will eventually need to be reorganized. It is not a question of if the model will eventually become unsustainable, but when. This, I believe, is a reality many multi-site churches must consider in advance and prepare for responsibly.

Also, many have read my evaluations of Models 4-6 as fueled by a personal preference for smaller churches and a jealousy of successful large church ministries. This is simply not true. The fact is, even though I attend what would be regarded as a “smaller community” (Model 1), I would personally prefer a larger church and could function quite contentedly in any of the models (except Model 7). Each has its strengths and weaknesses, and each has challenges that must be carefully thought-through and addressed. The fact is, I have seen very large, mega-church ministries that do, in fact, handle their “bigness” quite well, maintaining a strong pulpit/altar-centered ministry, membership, accountability, discipleship, and the essential marks and works of the church. Sadly, however, I have seen more churches of this size neglect church membership, accountability, leadership training, and especially a proper observance of the Lord’s Supper.

Model 7: The Remote or Online Church. Self-styled “churches” encouraging remote (radio/television) or online-only experiences with no real pastoral or community presence. Before explaining why this model is unacceptable, I need to clarify that we should not confuse this model with any of the previous models that may have a radio, television, or online ministry. Model 7 is distinct in that these churches encourage the remote or online church experience as a full and sufficient relationship to the church. This is the otherwise acceptable multi-site model (Model 6) radically individualized and taken to an extreme. It completely detaches the pulpit from a real pastoral relationship with a congregation, and it utterly trivializes the biblical, theological, historical, and practical significance of the altar. Neither intimacy nor efficacy characterizes the ministry of the remote or online “church.” The marks and works of the church, if present, are not functional in any significant way. That is, orthodoxy cannot be enforced; order is non-existent; ordinances are detached from authentic community; evangelism has been reduced to a message and detached from baptismal initiation into the community; edification has been reduced to receiving information and having an emotional (or, often, financial) response; and exaltation is strictly individualistic. Though purely online-only churches are currently rare (and will hopefully remain so), many mega-churches and multi-site campus churches have incorporated online-only options into their “made to order” approach to church ministries. (For a more pointed and detailed critique of the online church movement, see my essay, “Rise of the Anti-Church: Online Virtual ‘Church.‘”)

Conclusion

Having surveyed this spectrum of church ministry models, let me make a few closing comments. My overarching question in this essay is: “Which ministry models make it easier to maintain a healthy balance of the essential marks and works of a local church and protect a meaningful pulpit/altar-centered worship?” In answer to this question, it seems the “small church” (Model 1) and “mother-daughter network” (Model 2) have the potential to more closely incarnate the ideal without having to overcome great practical and organizational challenges. The medium congregation (Model 3) is also sustainable, though in my mind it does begin to require some conscious planning and implementation. A consideration of the “larger church” (Model 4), “mega church” (Model 5), and “multi-site church” (Model 6), lead me to issue a few cautions, not so much against these models per se, but against the temptation to neglect the marks and works of the church and a pulpit/altar-centered worship simply because of the logistical and practical challenges involved. It seems to me that as one moves from Models 1 through 6, the need for wise, well-informed, intentional, and consistent attention to the marks and works increases, perhaps exponentially. Church leaders and members need to be aware of these challenges and plan accordingly.

The Dating Game (Round Two): Harold Camping’s Imminent (Second) Failed Calculation of Judgment Day

Posted on by
I’ll never forget September 6, 1994. Not because of what happened on that day, but because of what didn’t happen.
That was the day Jesus didn’t Rapture the church.
That was the day that Harold Camping, president of Family Radio, calculated that the Rapture of the church described in 1 Thessalonians 4:17 would take place. Though he acknowledged the possibility that he could be wrong, he defended his arguments with passion. After Camping’s failed attempt at playing the “Dating Game,” I lost track of him. I assumed he had simply drifted off into the backwaters of the evangelical fringe as false teachers usually do.
Boy, was I wrong! He and other contenders have reemerged with a vengeance, ready for round two of the Dating Game. This time the date set for the Rapture is May 21, 2011. This time these contenders have provided a simpler calculation for the end of the world—easy to follow, easy to explain, easy to promote. (Also quite easy to refute.) And this time they’re playing the game with billboards in major metropolitan areas to get the word out.
So What’s Supposed to Happen on May 21?
To get a clear picture of what we’re told to expect on May 21, 2011, let me quote from the Family Radio website (http://www.familyradio.com/facts/):

On May 21, 2011 two events will occur. These events could not be more opposite in nature, the one more wonderful than can be imagined; the other more horrific than can be imagined.

A great earthquake will occur the Bible describes it as “such as was not since men were upon the earth, so mighty an earthquake, and so great.” This earthquake will be so powerful it will throw open all graves. The remains of the all the believers who have ever lived will be instantly transformed into glorified spiritual bodies to be forever with God. 

On the other hand the bodies of all unsaved people will be thrown out upon the ground to be shamed. 

The inhabitants who survive this terrible earthquake will exist in a world of horror and chaos beyond description. Each day people will die until October 21, 2011 when God will completely destroy this earth and its surviving inhabitants.

Got that? On May 21 a mega-earthquake will toss the dead from their graves and kick off five months of earthly horror until October 21, 2011, at which time the earth will be demolished. Also on May 21 the believers will be resurrected and raptured, taken to heaven to be with God forever. In other words, these are “front-page,” “special-report,” “we-interrupt-this-program,” “this is not at test” kinds of events. In other words, there will be no question at all whether the players of the Dating Game win or lose.
How the Dating Game Is Played
Like the first round back in 1994, the second round of the Dating Game is doomed to failure. Let me present just a few of the straightforward arguments for the commencement of Judgment Day on May 21, 2011.
First, as odd as it may seem, the argument for May 21 begins with creation and the flood. By analyzing the chronology and genealogies in the Bible, the interpreters have precisely dated the year of creation at 11,013 B.C. The global flood in Genesis 7 is dated at 4990 B.C. This specific dating of the flood is essential to the whole May 21 dating game. In fact, we might say that the strict, detailed, and indisputable chronology of events in the Old Testament may be likened to the field, stage, or board on which the Dating Game is played. Without this precise dating, the whole calculation collapses.
Second, the players also use 2 Peter 3:8 as a key to interpreting the often hidden prophetic meaning of Scripture. Peter wrote, “But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years” (ESV). With this key in hand, the secrets of Scripture can now be unlocked, because when certain parts of Scripture refer to days, they can now be interpreted as thousands of years! Without this formula of “1=1000,” the whole calculation fails
Third, the date-setters use Genesis 7:4, 10–11 as their prophetic text. With a precise dating of the flood and the prophetic key of 1=1000 firmly in hand, they read these verses not as an historical account of the flood, but as a hidden prophecy of the end of the world: “For in seven days I will send rain on the earth forty days and forty nights, and every living thing that I have made I will blot out from the face of the ground. . . . And after seven days the waters of the flood came upon the earth. In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep burst forth, and the windows of the heavens were opened” (Gen. 7:4, 10–11). They read this account as a prophecy of the end of all things—each of the seven days leading up to the flood being seven thousand years from the flood until the end of the world. Without interpreting this historical record as a cryptic prophecy, the whole Dating Game flops.
So, in one publication entitled, “The End of the World Is Almost Here,” the author concludes, “Therefore, with the correct understanding that the seven days referred to in Genesis 7:4 can be understood as 7,000 years, we learn that when God told Noah there were seven days to escape worldwide destruction, He was also telling the world there would be exactly 7,000 years (one day is as 1,000 years) to escape the wrath of God that would come when He destroys the world on Judgment Day. . . . Amazingly, May 21, 2011 is the 17th day of the 2nd month of the Biblical calendar of our day” (http://www.familyradio.com/PDFS/jd_en.pdf). The math is quite simple. Seven thousand years after 4990 B.C. (the year of the Flood) is the year A.D. 2011: 4990 + 2011 – 1 (since there is no year “0”) = 7,000.
So, should we print up some pamphlets, hit the streets, and start proclaiming the end of the world?
Not so fast.  
Cheating at the Dating Game
Each of the three pillars supporting the May 21, 2011 date for Judgment Day is simply ridiculous. First, based on the data given to us in the Bible, it is impossible to date creation and the flood . . . impossible. The reality is that the Old Testament doesn’t intend to give us the precise dating of creation and the flood. In fact, great Bible scholars throughout history who have attempted to work out these dates have always come up with different answers. Nothing like a consensus has ever developed. Rather, the scholars generally agree that Scripture doesn’t give us enough information to date the flood with any degree of certainty. So, the precise dating of the flood at 4990 B.C.—an essential dating for the May 21 calculation—is mere speculation. It is not based on an informed and balanced interpretation of the Bible.
Second, the “1=1000” key to prophecy is also impossible to maintain. In 2 Peter 3:8, Peter is not answering the question, “With what secret key can I decode Old Testament prophecies?” Rather, the question is, “Why has God delayed the judgment for so long? Why hasn’t Christ made good on His promise to return soon?” The answer? From God’s perspective of timelessness, a day is like a thousand years and a thousand years is like a day! That is, earthly time is completely irrelevant to God. In fact, Peter is paraphrasing Psalm 90:4—“For a thousand years in your sight are but as yesterday when it is past, or as a watch in the night.” That is, from our finite human perspective a 1000 years feels tedious; for God it is but a moment. Notice that Peter reverses the formula as well—“and a thousand years [is] as one day” (2 Pet. 3:8). Therefore, using 2 Peter 3:8 as a key for interpreting a day in the Old Testament as a thousand years is simply wrong. It is not based on an informed and balanced interpretation of the Bible.
Third, the use of Genesis 7:4, 10–11 as a prophecy looking forward to the final conflagration of all things also fails to pass scrutiny. Anybody with sensitivity to the genre and context of this passage can see that nothing in this text warrants these verses to be read as an end-times prophecy. Rather, Genesis 7:4 is simply a one-week count-down to the global flood given to Noah so he would know when to load the Ark. Then verses 10-11 is historical narrative explaining that the flood came just as God had said and giving us the exact time of year the rain began. This is historical narrative, not end-times prophecy. There’s nothing in this text that suggests the chronology of this account is to be taken typologically or prophetically in anticipation of the end of the world. Even if it were legitimate to interpret the seven days until the flood as indicating “seven thousand years” until the final Judgment Day, why, then, are the forty days of rain upon the earth not taken to represent 40,000 years of judgment upon the earth? Wouldn’t that be consistent? The fact remains that this prophetic interpretation of Genesis 7 is simply arbitrary and indefensible. It is not based on an informed and balanced interpretation of the Bible.
To summarize: 1) We cannot date the time of the flood with any degree of accuracy, and 4990 is a wild speculation. 2) The “1=1000” formula is not a key for unlocking prophetic chronology. 3) The historical narrative of Gen. 7:4, 10–11 is not a prophecy of the end times.
The Presumptuous Sin: God Knows and Tells?
Jesus, Paul, Peter, and the entire early church believed that nobody can calculate or know the hour, day, year, or even season of Christ’s return. Jesus said, “But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone” (Matt. 24:36). To clarify that not even the disciples could have known, Jesus added, “Therefore be on the alert, for you do not know which day your Lord is coming” (Matt. 24:42). And to underscore the fact that even those who would believe in subsequent generations could not know the time of Christ’s return, Jesus said, “Take heed, keep on the alert; for you do not know when the appointed time will come. . . . What I say to you I say to all, ‘Be on the alert’” (Mark 13:33, 37).
Later the apostle Paul reiterated this teaching that nobody knows the day or the hour but that all believers of every generation must remain alert and ready for judgment to come at any moment. He wrote, “Now as to the times and the epochs, brethren, you have no need of anything to be written to you. For you yourselves know full well that the day of the Lord will come just like a thief in the night” (1 Thess. 5:1–2). Believers, however, will not be overtaken by the suddenness of this coming (5:4), not because they will know the times, epochs, year, and day, but because they will be ready for Christ’s return regardless of when it occurs! Later the apostle Peter himself echoes this same thought: “But the day of the Lord will come like a thief” (2 Pet. 3:10, emphasizing the suddenness of the coming of Christ in judgment.
Finally, an early Christian writing called the Didache (A.D. 50–75), used for instruction of new Gentile believers in Christ, included a brief account of Christian expectations of the end times. The author of that text wrote, “Watch over your life: do not let your lamps go out, and do not be unprepared, but be ready, for you do not know the hour when our Lord is coming” (Didache 16.1). Thus, the pattern of teaching in the early orthodox church was the same as that of Jesus and the apostles: we do not know (and cannot know) the time of Christ’s return. It could happen in their lifetime as well as ours. Therefore, we must be ready for it every day and every moment of our lives.
Yet these facts of Christian faith don’t stop those high-risk gamblers playing the Dating Game. Instead, they suggest that these warnings are for unbelievers, or that God has chosen to progressively illuminate His church to discover the secret knowledge long hidden in Scripture, or they quote passages like Amos 3:7, concluding that God would never suddenly judge the world without adequate warning. They write, “However, the Holy Bible tells us that Holy God is a God of great mercy, compassion and love. That is why He has given us in advance of the destruction the exact time of the Day of Judgment. The Bible tells us in Amos 3:7: ‘Surely the Lord GOD will do nothing, but He revealeth his secret unto His servants the prophets’” (http://www.familyradio.com/PDFS/jd_en.pdf). There are, of course, a few problems with this, besides the obvious problem of presumptuously ripping this Old Testament verse out of its context and then pitting it against Jesus, Peter, Paul, the early church, and the vast majority of orthodox believers from the first century to the twenty-first century.
First, God’s New Testament prophets, including Jesus, has already given sufficient warning to every generation that Day of the Lord would come suddenly, unannounced “like a thief,” urging believers to be on their guard at all times. Note that this warning is for believers, not unbelievers. He has already fulfilled the principle of Amos 3:7 by telling us to be ready at any moment. This is God’s last warning before the period of judgment begins.
Second, in the classic belief of the earliest church, the unannounced, any-moment commencement of the time of final judgment on earth, which will last seven years (see Rev. 11–13), will be filled with numerous additional warnings, calls to repentance, and opportunities for mercy and salvation. We don’t need a special date-setting revelation today prior to the beginning of that tribulation for Amos 3:7 to be fulfilled quite literally. In fact, the book of Revelation shows us that God’s final seven-year period of judgment will grow in intensity and severity in order to grant people opportunities to repent and be saved.
Finally, the promise of Amos 3:7 refers to God giving a special revelation to His prophets to warn the people of coming judgment. This is different from granting an individual or group special abilities to interpret God’s inspired Scripture in order to calculate the time of Judgment Day. Unless Family Radio and other supporters of the May 21, 2011 date are claiming authoritative divine revelation directly from God, Amos 3:7 does not apply to their flimsy and faulty calculations. 
We’ve Got Some Bigger Problems
Besides the unbiblical and presumptuous nature of playing the Dating Game, there are several very serious theological and practical problems with this latest error of date-setting. In fact, when we consider the theological consequences of the inevitable failed prophecy of May 21, 2011, these problems expose implicit heretical implications.
The Christological Problem. Jesus clearly said that nobody knew the day or hour, not even He Himself in His humbled earthly state, having submitted His power to the will of the Father so that even things He could have by nature miraculously accomplished, He temporarily set aside to accomplish His earthly mission (as in Matt. 26:53). However, the date-setters say that the date of May 21, 2011 is clearly set forth in the Bible in the “prophecy” of Genesis 7:4, 10–11. All one needed to do was to calculate the date of the flood based on the clear testimony of Scripture and follow the “1=1000” principle already revealed in Psalm 90:4. This means that had Jesus simply put two and two together, He should have been able to interpret the Bible and would have known the date. This means that either Jesus didn’t know His Bible as well as Harold Camping and Family Radio or that He couldn’t do the math. That is, if the Father had already revealed this date in the Old Testament, how could Jesus have said that He didn’t know it? In fact, not even angels knew it! How is it that frail and fallible humans today can read and interpret their Bibles better than Jesus Himself? The only solution to this problem that doesn’t make Jesus look like an ignorant buffoon is to face the simple fact that only the Father knows the Day of Judgment and He has not revealed it either in the Bible or to any prophet. Harold Camping, then, is simply a false teacher two twists the Scripture to his own destruction (2 Pet. 3:16).
The Theological Problem. Jesus is not the only member of the Godhead that ends up slandered by the date-setters. God the Father, who revealed Scripture through the Holy Spirit (2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Pet. 1:20–21), will also be placed in a bad light when the prophecy of May 21, 2011 fails to come to pass. The simple fact is that Judgment Day will not begin on May 21, 2011. (Note: nobody knows the day, which will come when it is not expected; Family Radio has gone international claiming to know the day; therefore, it will not be May 21, 2011.) However, Family Radio has posted billboards claiming that God has provided clear clues in the inspired, inerrant Word of God that May 21, 2011 is the very day! In fact, they have placed a golden seal on some of their signs that says, “The Bible Guarantees It!” If this is true, then God must fulfill this guarantee. Yet, if these things do not come to pass on May 21, 2011 (and they won’t), then we have two options: 1) God changed His mind, as He did when He threatened judgment against Nineveh through Jonah, or 2) God genuinely threatened to send Judgment Day on May 21, 2011 in order to bring about repentance, knowing all along that He wouldn’t really judge the earth. However, in either case, God becomes a deceptive, untrustworthy, promise-breaking liar. If God, through His Holy Spirit, placed the “guarantee” of Judgment Day for May 21, 2011 in Genesis 7:4, 10–11, and then if He doesn’t fulfill that guarantee, then God is a liar. The only solution to this problem is that God has not, in fact, guaranteed the Judgment Day will fall on May 21, 2011, nor on any other day anybody past, present, or future, might set. Harold Camping, then, is a false teacher, guilty of ignorance and instability (2 Pet. 3:16).
The Practical Problem. Finally, by claiming that “the Bible guarantees” that Judgment Day will begin May 21, 2011, Harold Camping and Family Radio have contributed to the further undermining of the Bible’s perceived authority in our increasingly skeptical and cynical culture. How so? Well, when May 21, 2011 doesn’t pan out, weak believers, unbelievers, skeptics, critics, and scoffers will likely conclude one of two things: 1) Christianity and the Bible are utterly untrustworthy, legitimately leading to the question, “What else does it guarantee that isn’t really true?” Or 2) The Bible is hopelessly ambiguous, because if careful interpreters can read it so wrongly that they can say it “guarantees” Judgment Day on May 21, 2011, then Scripture can apparently be interpreted to say anything people want it to say. In either case, nothing good at all comes from failed date-setting. Rather, those who play the Dating Game make authentic, Bible-believing Christians look bad, as they lump us all together and regard us as misguided, brainless zealots. 
Our Enduring Response
Christians can learn something from yet another failed attempt at pinpointing the time of Christ’s return. We must all make a conscious decision to resist two perennial errors with regard to end-times expectations. First, we must ban, shun, and reject those who play the Dating Game. Setting a date for the return of Christ or some other end-time event(s) is completely unacceptable. It was unacceptable in the first century. It is unacceptable in the twenty-first century. We must exercise a policy of “ZERO TOLERANCE” for this unwise and borderline blasphemous practice.
Second, we must also inoculate ourselves against the much more common disease of “This-is-that-itis,” which is the common practice of interpreting the Bible’s prophecies in light of current events and presumptuously concluding (or at least hypothesizing) that our generation must be the last generation. This was unacceptable in the first century. It is unacceptable in the twenty-first. We simply cannot know the hour, day, week, month, year, decade, or generation. Christ could come in our lifetime. Or He could come in a thousand years.
God only knows.
(And He’s not telling.)   

Is the Virgin Birth Doctrine Really All That Necessary?

Posted on by

How important is it that Christians believe in the virgin birth? This may seem like a strange question, as most reading this probably wouldn’t dream of doubting the miracle of the virgin conception. It’s clearly taught in Scripture (Matt 1:18, 23; Luke 1:34–35), consistently believed throughout church history, and once we’ve accepted miracles like the resurrection of Jesus or the splitting of the Red Sea, it’s really not all that hard to believe that God could pull off a virgin conception. In fact, our understanding of the physiology of human procreation—especially in light of modern developments in reproductive technology—makes the miracle of a mother having a child without a father seem less, well, miraculous.

Nevertheless, the contemporary minimalist focus on things “absolutely essential for salvation” has pushed the virgin birth to the margins of what are often called “primary doctrines.” Now, it’s not that evangelicals are eager to abandon the virgin birth. Rather, almost all retain the doctrine “as is,” but some are now allowing for less conservative (let’s avoid the label “liberal” for now) Christians to redefine the doctrine and still claim to be heaven-bound believers. The argument goes like this: all that’s necessary for salvation is belief that Jesus is God and man who died for our sins and rose from the dead. According to some, that’s the sum of the tightly-packaged “simple gospel message” in the key New Testament passages (Romans 1:1–4; 1 Corinthians 15:1–4). There’s no clear mention of the virgin birth outside the Gospels, and only two of those, Matthew and Luke, bothered to include it. So, some less strict evangelicals, still regarding the doctrine as true, don’t make it an indispensable part of the Gospel message. And if it’s not a necessary part of the Gospel, then it’s not necessary for salvation. At least that’s how the argument tends to unfold with the “minimalist message” approach to the Gospel. For fear of adding too much confusing (or unbelievable?) content, the so-called superfluous elements are stripped away, leaving such secondary items to be handled after initial conversion.

So, three tendencies emerge when dealing with the doctrine of the virgin birth—1) rejecting it (flat out disbelief); 2) redefining it (finding the spiritual meaning of the mythical metaphor); or 3) re-categorizing it (demoting it to a secondary doctrine, true and good, but unnecessary for salvation).

My question to those who reject or redefine the doctrine of the virgin birth is always the same—why? What’s so offensive about the miracle of a virgin conception that would force us to regard it as either a loony legend or a meaningful myth? If a person reads a passage like Matthew 1:18 and says, “That’s ridiculous” or “That can’t possibly mean this,” I wonder what that same person does with the miracle of Christ’s bodily resurrection. (That’s a rhetorical question. I know what they do with it.) I have no patience for this kind of rejection or redefinition of the virgin conception. Those positions have no place within the Christian tradition. Never have, never will.

But is the miracle of the virgin conception of Jesus necessary for orthodox theology? Is it best to re-categorize it from “dogma” to “doctrine”? From “central” to “peripheral”? From “primary” to “secondary”? Often evangelical theologians and pastors argue for retaining the centrality of the virgin conception for a soteriological reason related to the work of Christ—His atoning death on the cross. The argument is that if Jesus had been the natural child of Joseph and Mary, then He would have inherited the stain of Adam’s sin. Jesus would have then been born a sinner who was Himself in need of redemption and therefore unable to pay the price for other sinners. Sounds reasonable enough, doesn’t it? But it assumes that sin and guilt are passed down only through the father’s seed, a doctrine not clearly taught in Scripture.

Another reason often cited for keeping the virgin conception primary is a bibliological reason. The argument goes like this: the Bible clearly teaches the virgin birth of Christ. In fact, it even prophesies the virgin birth in Isaiah 7. So, to deny the virgin birth is to deny the truthfulness of the Bible. And to deny the truthfulness of the Bible leads to potential doubt about everything it teaches. Such doubt undermines what the Bible says about sin, Christ, and salvation. So, every clear doctrine—and especially the virgin birth—becomes a primary issue for the Christian faith. Okay, I get it. But is an unbeliever really expected to believe everything in the Bible before he or she is regenerated by the Spirit? Would we need to convince a person that Peter literally found a coin in a fish’s mouth before we regarded that person’s confession of faith to be genuine? Would we check our new convert’s salvation pulse if she thought the story of Jonah might be a parable? Probably not. Most of us would likely say that a proper understanding of the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture comes early in the process of discipleship, not as a pre-requisite for conversion.

Yet there’s more important reason for retaining the centrality of the virgin conception—a christological reason. For me the necessity of the virgin birth relates primarily to the person of Christ—one of the fundamental pillars of the Gospel message itself. You see, the miracle of the virgin conception is not so much a miracle of a woman becoming pregnant without the contribution of a man. There are scientists alive today who could pull that off! The real miracle of the virgin conception is the incarnation of God the Son. The fact is, without the virgin conception, there could be no incarnation. There could be a Jesus of Nazareth possessed by a divine being, but not the God-man, two complete natures in one unique Person. Rather, He would be a complete human person who was adopted by the divine Person, an “indwelled” human being, no different from the way the Holy Spirit indwells a believer in Christ. In short, rejecting the doctrine of the virgin conception results in an adoptionist—not incarnational—christology.

When God the Son took on humanity, He did not adopt a human person. Yes, He took on full humanity—with body and soul, with human mind, human emotion, and human will. But to accomplish true incarnation (rather than adoption), there could be no personhood in the womb apart from incarnation. When the person, Jesus of Nazareth, began to grow in the womb, He had to already be divine and human, two natures in one person. Had Mary become pregnant the natural way, the divine Son would have descended upon a human being who was already a person. This would have resulted in two natures and two persons, the opposite of incarnational Christology. What would have been the result? A radically different Jesus than the One who died and rose again. Paul warns against those who preach “another Jesus” other than the One He preached (2 Corinthians 11:4). A different Jesus quite clearly constitutes a “different gospel, which is really not another” (Galatians 1:6–7).

So, Christians should not only take a stand against rejecting or redefining the doctrine of the virgin conception of Christ. We should resist the trend to re-categorize it as non-essential, or we’ll lose the essential truth of the Gospel—the Person of Jesus Christ, who alone, as fully God and fully man in one Person, is able to accomplish the work of redemption for us.

[Originally posted April 20, 2010 at www.retrochristianity.com]

Will God Annihilate the World? Part IV

Posted on by

(…Continued from Part III)

A Plea for Redemption, not Annihilation

Besides the exegetical concerns discussed in this essay, several other theological and historical matters should be brought to our attention.

I would like to especially appeal to my fellow premillennialists (whether dispensational or not), asking them to reconsider their belief in a re-created heavens and earth. Premillennialists of all people should stand against the “disposable world” perspective precisely because of their premillennialism. They ought to believe that Christ’s reign on this present world for a thousand years will remove the curse, spread the glory of God throughout the planet, and “Re-Edenify” the world. It seems strange that premillennialists, then, would teach that this same renewed world will be sent to God’s trash heap by annihilation and completely replaced by “Earth 2.0.” Those who view the release of Satan from the Abyss and his subsequent rebellion do not see God’s judgment on the Dragon and his armies in Revelation 20:7–10 as another period of tribulation like the seven-year conflagration that had ushered in the millennium. Rather, the rebellion of Satan and the final resurrection should be viewed as a “comma” within the eternal reign of Christ at the end of its first thousand years . . . not as an exclamation mark that ends Christ’s reign and the world. Why would God spend one thousand years removing the curse, perfecting creation, and re-populating the earth, only to destroy all matter and start over? This does not fit God’s ultimate plan of redemption.

And redemption is the key word. God’s plan is not one of surrendering to the destructive work of Satan and fallen humanity. Rather, His plan is to reverse the degeneration of creation through resurrection and regeneration. As our human bodies have been redeemed and will be resurrected and glorified, so the physical world will be redeemed, restored, and glorified at the return and reign of Christ (Romans 8:18–25). God’s redemptive purpose would be thwarted if He were to simply annihilate this creation and re-create it ex nihilo. It would mean that Satan succeeded at destroying God’s creation after all, and that God was either unable or unwilling to redeem creation through Christ. At stake is the ultimate cosmic defense of the goodness and greatness of God! At stake is the only Christian theodicy—that through Christ’s redemptive work this wicked, fallen universe will be reclaimed, restored, and glorified in a way that leaves no doubt that God is, in fact, all-powerful and all-good in spite of the millennia of distortions and degenerations experienced because of the Fall.

This view is also consistent with a proper incarnational Christology and all that this profound truth implies. The permanent character of the incarnation of Christ should itself be viewed as a promise that true deity is now inextricably connected to the fate of the physical creation. Christ is fully God—uncreated Creator. He is also fully human—created creature. The fate of both divinity and humanity, eternity and temporality, heaven and earth, are wrapped up in the destiny of this One divine-human Person. Colossians 1:19–20 says, “For it was the Father’s good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him, and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross; through Him, I say, whether things on earth or things in heaven.” All things in heaven and earth are summed up in Christ by virtue of the incarnational union of the divine and human natures. Therefore, the purpose of any judgment on this physical world is purification, restoration, and renewal, not destruction, disposal, or annihilation. Christ’s is a cosmic ministry of reconciliation, not divorce. His is a mission of summing up, not subtracting from.

Finally, it must be recognized that the view that God will create a new universe out of nothing after disposing of this universe by annihilation is not the view of the earliest Christians close to the apostles, but the view of the Gnostics who saw no need for a future physical universe. Irenaeus of Lyons (c. A.D. 180), who grew up in the church of Polycarp of Smyrna, a disciple of the apostle John, explicitly rejected the idea that this physical universe was to be annihilated. He wrote:

For since there are real men, so must there also be a real establishment, that they vanish not away among non-existent things, but progress among those which have an actual existence. For neither is the substance nor the essence of the creation annihilated (for faithful and true is He who has established it), but “the fashion of the world passes away;” [1 Cor 7:41] that is, those things among which transgression has occurred, since man has grown old in them. And therefore this [present] fashion has been formed temporary, God foreknowing all things; and I have also shown, as far as was possible, the cause of the creation of this world of temporal things. But when this present fashion of things passes away, and man has been renewed, and flourishes in an incorruptible state, so as to preclude the possibility of becoming old, then there shall be the new heaven and the new earth, in which the new man shall remain continually, always holding fresh converse with God. (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 5.36.1)

Even Irenaeus’s amillennial counterpart, Origen of Alexandria, writing by about A.D. 220, explicitly rejected the idea of a complete annihilation of the universe. After quoting 1 Corinthians 7:31 and Psalm 102:26, he wrote:

For if the heavens are to be changed, assuredly that which is changed does not perish, and if the fashion of the world passes away, it is by no means an annihilation or destruction of their material substance that is shown to take place, but a kind of change of quality and transformation of appearance. Isaiah also, in declaring prophetically that there will be a new heaven and a new earth, undoubtedly suggests a similar view. For this renewal of heaven and earth, and this transmutation of the form of the present world, and this changing of the heavens will undoubtedly be prepared for those who are walking along that way which we have pointed out above, and are tending to that goal of happiness to which, it is said, even enemies themselves are to be subjected, and in which God is said to be “all and in all.” And if any one imagine that at the end material, i.e., bodily, nature will be entirely destroyed, he cannot in any respect meet my view, how beings so numerous and powerful are able to live and to exist without bodies, since it is an attribute of the divine nature alone—i.e., of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—to exist without any material substance, and without partaking in any degree of a bodily adjunct. (Origen,
First Principles 1.6.4)

Yes, this present heaven and earth will undergo an intense judgment characterized by fire. The very foundations of the world will be shaken. The principalities and powers of spiritual and political wickedness will be forever destroyed. But the world itself will undergo a restoration, transformation, and glorification. It will not be absolute annihilation, but an extreme make-over befitting a God whose goal is to reign—not resign—as King of all creation.

Will God Annihilate the World? Part III

Posted on by

(…Continued from Part II)

Peter’s Apocalyptic Problem

But doesn’t 2 Peter say that the universe—nay, even the elements—will melt with intense heat prior to the creation of a new heavens and new earth? Isn’t this a clear support for an annihilation of the present creation in preparation for a completely new creation? To answer this we need to examine Peter’s entire argument more closely. Let me first set up the general context of the letter.

Throughout Peter’s second epistle he makes reference to the coming judgment, which we call the tribulation—the judgment that culminates in the second coming of Christ on earth to establish His kingdom. In chapter 2 Peter uses past judgments as types of the coming judgment. He refers to the days of the flood, during which the “world of the ungodly” was destroyed (2:5). Sodom and Gomorrah are also examples. These cities were condemned to “destruction by reducing them to ashes” and they are thus an example of the coming tribulation judgment (2:6). Yet in the midst of these statements Peter reminds his readers that God knows how to rescue the godly from “tribulation” (2:9), referring to Lot as an example (2:7–8).

Peter then describes the character of the ungodly of this world who await judgment. He notes that they will “in the destruction of those [animal] creatures also be destroyed” (2:12). Peter also refers to the scoffers who make fun of those who are expecting the Lord’s return: “In the last days mockers will come with their mocking, . . . and saying, ‘Where is the promise of His coming?’” (3:3–4). Peter has in mind here the condition of skepticism and cynicism characterizing the end of the age.

In response to this skepticism about the Lord’s return, Peter again draws on the analogy of the flood in the ancient world—a world that was utterly destroyed. He writes: “It escapes their notice that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water, through which the world at that time was destroyed, being flooded with water” (3:5–6). So, just as the initial order of the world of humanity, animals, and even the earth itself was “destroyed,” leaving only a remnant to return and repopulate the earth, the future coming judgment will similarly destroy our present world. But in Peter’s mind the coming judgment at Christ’s return would be more severe, for instead of judgment by water, it will be judgment by fire.

Peter writes, “But by His word the present heavens and earth are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men” (3:7). Given the context of this passage in Peter’s letter, we must connect this coming judgment with the judgment of the world that accompanies the return of Christ, that is, the tribulation judgment. This is the anticipated “day of the Lord,” during which the current world system will be destroyed, just as the pre-flood world ceased to exist, having been replaced by the new order after the flood. Peter refers to this coming judgment as “the day of the Lord” that would come “like a thief” (3:10). There is no basis for understanding this as anything other than the anticipated tribulation period, to which Jesus and Paul had already referred in similar terms (Matthew 24:42–43; 1 Thessalonians 5:2; Revelation 3:3; 16:15). This coming judgment is what Peter describes with vivid terms of destruction:

But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a roar and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat, and the earth and its works will be burned up. Since all these things are to be destroyed in this way, what sort of people ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness, looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be destroyed by burning, and the elements will melt with intense heat! (2 Peter 3:10–12)

 

Who or what are the “elements” that will be destroyed? The Greek word stoicheion (“elements”) must not be read anachronistically as a reference to the atomic “elements” of modern science. According to Gingrich (Shorter Lexicon of the Greek New Testament), this term may refer to angelic beings in Galatians 4:3, 9 and Colossians 2:8, 20. In this sense, it may be a reference to the destruction of Satan and his wicked angelic hosts who currently reign over the heavens, but who will be destroyed and cast into the Lake of Fire—or, in the case of Satan, consigned to the Abyss—at the coming of Christ. This would fit the similar language of the removal of heavenly and earthly powers in Isaiah 24:21–22, a passage we’ve already examined above. It is also possible that the text refers to the destruction of earth, water, and air regarded as “elements” in the ancient world, which destruction we see described in great detail in the book of Revelation (Revelation 8:1–9:21; 16:1–21). This drastic change—not annihilation—of elements in judgment is also seen in Wisdom of Solomon 19:18–20—“For the elements (stoicheia) were changed in themselves by a kind of harmony, like as in a psaltery notes change the name of the tune, and yet are always sounds…. For earthly things were turned into watery, and the things, that before swam in the water, now went upon the ground. The fire had power in the water, forgetting its own virtue: and the water forgot its own quenching nature.” In any case, it would be very misleading to conclude that Peter had in mind the absolute annihilation of atoms or subatomic particles when he used the word stoicheion in 2 Peter 3:12.

So, Peter anticipates this judgment of fire as coming upon the present world system at the return of Christ, that is, in the final days of the tribulation. In a premillennial view of the end times, this tribulation period will destroy the present system, including all evil and sin. It will also include the destruction of demons and a razing of the world’s geography. The world that comes when Christ returns to reign on the new post-tribulation millennial order, then, Peter describes thusly: “But according to His promise we are looking for new heavens and a new earth,” qualifying this statement with regard to its righteous quality, not its creation ex nihilo: “in which righteousness dwells” (3:13).

Peter was no doubt familiar with the Old Testament background of his phrase “new heavens and new earth.” Peter’s reference to the “new heavens and new earth” must be understood in his own context of the anticipated coming of Christ in judgment on the present world during the tribulation and in light of the “new heavens and new earth” promises in Isaiah 65 and 66—both of which refer to the restoration of the world after the tribulation and during the reign of the Messiah and His saints over the redeemed earth.

Therefore, we must understand the destruction language of 2 Peter 3:10–13 as a vivid picture of judgment referring to the tribulation and coming of Christ preceding the millennial reign. It is not a reference to a post-millennial, pre-eternal annihilation or “un-creation” of the universe and its physical elements. Nor is the “new heavens and new earth” in Peter a reference to a re-creation ex nihilo of a world that has no relationship to the present physical world. Just as the pre-flood earth was renewed after the judgment of water, the current world will be renewed after a judgment of fire. However, Peter’s language implies that the coming judgment at the return of Christ will be just as severe as the world-altering flood of Noah.

Return to Revelation

It is in light of Isaiah 65–66 and 2 Peter 3 that we must understand John’s vision of the new heavens and new earth. To read this as annihilation and re-creation out of nothing would be to read into it meanings for “pass away” and “new heavens and new earth” that are foreign to the sum of biblical teaching. In fact, Revelation 21:3–5 actually interprets its own language precisely in keeping with the idea of qualitative renewal and redemption similar to Isaiah and 2 Peter. Note how the voice from heaven interprets the vision for John:

And I heard a loud voice from the throne, saying, “Behold, the tabernacle of God is among men, and He will dwell among them, and they shall be His people, and God Himself will be among them, and He will wipe away every tear from their eyes; and there will no longer be any death; there will no longer be any mourning, or crying, or pain; the first things have passed away.” And He who sits on the throne said, “Behold, I am making all things new.” And He said, “Write, for these words are faithful and true.”

 

Revelation 21:4 interprets the symbols of the vision that heaven and earth “passed away”—“the first things have passed away.” What things are these? Not elements, not atoms, not molecules—but the evil order of things: the death, wickedness, grief, suffering, pain, degeneration, and deterioration that had long held all of these physical and spiritual elements in bondage. Look at the clear statement: “There will no longer be any death; there will no longer be any mourning, or crying, or pain; the first things have passed away” (Revelation 21:4).

In light of this, I believe the greatest misunderstanding concerning the “new heavens and new earth” described in Revelation 21 has been to take the symbolic vision in Revelation 21:1–2 too literally rather than learning the meaning of the vision from the prophetic interpretation in 21:3–5 and the use of the same phrase in the Old and New Testaments. When we understand “new creation” language in light of the Bible’s entire teaching on this matter, we should conclude that this creation is bound for regeneration and redemption, not annihilation and re-creation ex nihilo.

(Concluded in Part IV…)