Do you remember what was supposed to have happened on May 21st of last year?

Have you seen the movie 2012?

Have you read any of the Left Behind novels?

Have you heard of the term apocalypse?

Have you heard of the term rapture?

I bet you have heard of at least one of the above. Our culture is, in one way or another, obsessed with the end of time, with the almost total destruction of everything. So, the question is, as disciples of Jesus, what do we do with all of this? What should discipleship look like in a culture obsessed by the end of the world? Of course, who you ask this question will greatly determine what kind of answer you get. Some answers include:

  1. As followers of Jesus, we should try to understand if we are living in the final days of our existence so that we can feel the urgency to bring the gospel to the world.
  2. As bible believing people, we should take seriously its message about the end of time laid out in the prophetic books of the bible and use those details as a way of witnessing to non-believers.

Still yet, some Christians take this perspective:

  1. No matter what “time” we are in, we are called to take up our cross and follow Jesus in the world, living a life like he lived, and praying that God’s kingdom would come on earth as it is in heaven. We should be wary of certain end-times focuses as they could distract us from discipleship.

This third perspective is the perspective that I would like to promote by way of linking you to a 24 minute film produced by a student as a final for his master’s class in university. The film details the history and development of the idea of “the rapture,” especially as it became popular in America. Throughout this short film, several terms are used, some of which are defined for you in the film and one important one which is not. The one important one that is not defined I want to define for you before you jump into the film so that you are not totally out of the loop. That term is:

Millennialism – Of course, you will all know the term millennium as it relates to the number 1000 but you may not know its theological history. In the book of Revelation, a book filled with powerful and odd imagery, we read this in chapter 20:1-6:

“Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, holding in his hand the key to the bottomless pit and a great chain. He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the Devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years, and threw him into the pit, and locked and sealed it over him, so that he would deceive the nations no more, until the thousand years were ended. After that he must be let out for a little while.

Then I saw thrones, and those seated on them were given authority to judge. I also saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their testimony to Jesus and for the word of God. They had not worshipped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. (The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended.) This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy are those who share in the first resurrection. Over these the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ, and they will reign with him for a thousand years.”

On the surface we can see that the basic idea of the millennium or the 1000 year reign of Christ is that sometime in human history there will be a period of peace and improvement on the earth before the final judgment and establishment of the new heavens and the new earth. But beyond that basic description of the millennium, endless interpretations are offered in Christian history as to what this thousand years really means and what it really will look like. The most common interpretations can be classified into three perspectives: Premillenialism, Postmillenialsim, and Amillenialism.

First, Pre-millenialism is the belief that Jesus will physically return to earth and reign for 1000 years before the final judgment of all.

Post-millenialism, on the other hand is the belief that Jesus will reign spiritually through the church for 1000 literal years, bringing peace and worldly improvement during that time and then return physically after (post) that time is up.

Finally, A-millenialism is the belief that the 1000 years mentioned in revelation is a symbolic number, not literal, that we are in the millennium right now and that, after an unknown amount of time, Jesus will indeed return to judge the living and the dead.

So, now that you have way too much information in your head, take some time to watch this film and discuss it in the comment thread afterwards. Here is the link:

https://vimeo.com/12166965

Hey All,

I’m guessing this post may not sound exciting at first glance, but let me tell you, it is! And here is why. Take a look at this passage of scripture from John 9:1-3

“As he walked along, he saw a man blind from birth.  His disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?”  Jesus answered, “Neither this man nor his parents sinned; he was born blind so that God’s works might be revealed in him.”

On first glance, what strikes you about Jesus’ response? Is it that Jesus said that the man/his parent’s sin was not the cause of his blindness? Or was it that Jesus said that “he was born blind so that God’s works might be revealed in him.” I know that when I first read this passage, it was the latter that struck me, and not in a good way. On the surface, Jesus’ response almost seems to imply that God purposed/made this man be born blind so that Jesus could come along and show off how powerful God is. BUT, wait! There is another option.

In the greek, there is this interesting little word called “hina” and it is usually translated: “so that” or “in order that”. So, when Jesus says, ”he was born blind so that God’s works might be revealed in him” he uses the word, at least as it would be spoken in the Greek of the time, “hina”. But what might this little word mean or imply here? Does it mean “he was born blind for the purpose of God’s works being revealed in him? Is there any other option? Yes there is! In Greek there are multiple uses of the word “hina” and its uses does not always need to imply purpose. In Greek language studies, you learn there is this thing called a “Hina result clause.” This clause is a way of using the word “hina” that does not so much care about implying purpose in a sentence (“he was born blind with the purpose…”) as much as it is trying to emphasize the result (“the works of God may be revealed in Him…”). According to theologian Gregory Boyd then, this passage in John 9 could just as accurately be translated as follows:

“He was born blind. But let the works of God be manifested.”

In other words, as Jesus stated at the beginning of the passage, the evil of blindness is not something we can easily link back to either a sin on behalf of the man or his parents. Blindness is a disorder in the realm of creation and so belongs to the bondage that creation finds itself in. But in spite of this bondage, Jesus comes to give God glory. God does not orchestrate the bad to glorify Himself. If God had to do this, he would not be God, but a monster.

At The ConneXion we have been working through the EMC’s newly released lectionary. This last Sunday we explored the chapter on Hermeneutics: Interpreting Scripture with a Focus on Christ. During the teaching time, we explored three principles in biblical hermeneutics: i.) the bible is often its own best interpreter ii.) knowledge of the historical context in which a text was written, while not necessarily essential, is extremely helpful for fully grasping its significance iii.) reading scripture through the lens of Jesus’ life. To further explore these three points, I offer two quotes from theologian Karl Barth which I think draw out even more of the significance of these three principles in biblical hermeneutics:

“The statement that the Bible is God’s Word is a confession of faith, a statement of the faith which hears God Himself speak through the biblical word of man.” CD, Vol.I.1, p.110

“Why and in what respect does the biblical witness have authority? Because and in the fact that he claims no authority for himself, that his witness amounts to letting that other itself be its own authority. We thus do the Bible poor and unwelcome honour if we equate it directly with this other, with revelation itself.” CD, Vol.I,1, p.112

What Karl Barth so helpfully points out here is that the biblical authors are the most faithful and radical form of witnesses. What does a witness do? A witness “claims no authority for itself” but instead points to the “other” to whom it is witnessing. The bible is authoritative, therefore, not because we say it is. And here is the danger, isn’t it? When we enter into the task of hermeneutics, we can sometimes assume that the task is one where we seek to “grasp” or “understand” the text as if it were some kind of “idea”. While there is nothing wrong with putting the matter this way, it can be dangerous if we assume that we control the Word of God under a category. When we assume this type of control, we actually mistake Jesus for a concept that we have made up (“word of God”), which is really our own particular perspective on the word of God. In other words, the only way for the Bible to truly be authoritative is for us to always allow it to speak a new word to us. This requires that we believe in the bible as the Word of God only by faith, faith that the entirety of the bible is a witness to Jesus, faith that no matter what the context was in which God spoke to the biblical authors and faith that no matter what context it is that we find ourselves in, that we can in fact encounter the true Word of God, Jesus, in our listening to the written word. Thoughts?

Disclaimer: This post should be read seriously and with a grain of salt.

So, I was browsing Christianbook.com today, and I stumbled upon this gem for $.99:

Now, I don’t want to be overly cynical without having read this book, but it strikes me that a “cliff notes” version of the bible “for the busy Christian” (this was what one reviewer/commenter summed it up as) is idolatrous. If we cannot be the kind of people that are formed around the scriptures, but can only browse through them as we do a flyer in our mail box, or have someone else mine them for an “explanation”, then something has gone amiss. Perhaps the author addresses this problem in the preface, but even so, I’m not so convinced it is a very helpful tool for discipleship. Thoughts?

Update: If you are interested in equally “good” options, check out, “The Bible in a Nutshell” or “The Bible made Easy

© 2013 The ConneXion Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha