;)
The New Testament Role of Nation-States
Posted by David Rogers in Bible & Theology
There are certain questions related to the Word of God and our service in the Kingdom of God about which I freely admit I do not yet have a firm grasp. Some of these questions are more complicated, and some of them more consequential in their implications, than others. The one (or ones) I am dealing with in this post is (or are), as I understand it, both complicated and potentially consequential. And that is the question of what is the role, in the overall plan of God, especially from a New Testament perspective, for the entities we alternatively call “countries,” “nations,” or, in more scientifically precise language, “nation-states.”
Unfortunately, I have not yet had the opportunity to do any full-fledged research on this question. As a result, I don’t have many answers to contribute. One of the things I like so much about the medium of blogging is the opportunity for interactive commenting on issues of shared interest with people with whom you may not otherwise have the opportunity to discuss these same issues on an everyday basis. It is in that spirit that I throw out the following observations and questions, hoping to gain some insight from any one of you out there who may happen to have reflected on similar concerns at one time or another.
Observations …
- It seems clear to me that God has had, and may well continue to have, a special plan, throughout history, for the political entity we know today by the name of Israel. Of course, there are some important differences between God’s People in the Old Testament, the province of the Roman Empire that came under the delegated governance of Herod in the New Testament, and the modern nation-state of Israel that officially came into being in 1948. There are also significant differences of interpretation between those who see relative degrees of continuity and discontinuity in God’s dealings with this entity, regardless of how we may choose to classify it at different stages of history.
- It also seems clear to me that, in the Old Testament, God has revealed that He has specific plans in history for other countries, nations, peoples, and/or political entities. At the same time, it seems that, in practically every case, these plans are tied in, in one way or another, to His plans for Israel. Take for instance, God’s dealings with the nation of Egypt, or of the various nations that occupied the Promised Land previous to Israel’s conquest of it, or of Assyria, or Babylon, etc. In the writings of various Old Testament prophets, there are specific prophecies given not only with relation to Judah and Israel, but also to nations such as Edom, Ammon, Moab, Philistia, Arabia, Syria and Cush. Some of these nations have since ceased to exist as political entities in the world today. There is also some degree of disagreement among biblical interpreters as to what extent other modern-day political entities are to be taken as the legitimate successors of their Old Testament counterparts. The book of Daniel especially seems to acknowledge the importance, in the plans of God in human history, of various world empires, such as those of the Babylonians, the Medes and the Persians, the Greeks, and the Romans. Once again, there are differences of opinion on whether or not certain modern-day political entities correspond to entities referenced in the book of Daniel.
- In the New Testament, in general, it appears that the emphasis is not so much on God’s dealings with nations as a whole as with individuals from within those nations He is redeeming out from among them in order to form part of His new covenant people, the Church. In the Great Commission, especially in the version recorded in Matthew 28:16-20, we have the command of Jesus to make disciples of every “nation.” In the book of Revelation, we see a reference to people “from every tribe, language, people and nation” gathered around the throne of the Lamb. The word that is translated “nation” in these passages is the Greek word ethnos that refers, according to most scholars, more to ethnic groups than it does to political entities. Also, in Revelation 11:15, in the KJV, the seventh angel with the seventh trumpet proclaims triumphantly that “the kingdoms of this world have become the kingdoms of our Lord and of His Christ, and He will reign forever and ever.” However, most modern versions have rendered this in the singular: “the kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of His Christ.” The implications for the matter at hand are enormous. From what I am able to gather, the best textual evidence definitely seems to favor the second option.
- Another element to take into consideration here appears to be the relative significance given in the New Testament to cities (as opposed to countries or nation-states) as divisions of human organization and governance. For instance, Jesus seems to place a collective “woe” over the entire cities of Bethsaida and Chorazin, and not just to specific individuals residing within those cities. He also wept over the entire city of Jerusalem. Evidently, Jerusalem, both in its literal and symbolic sense, takes on an important role in the New Testament, as do the cities of Rome and Babylon (depending on whether “Babylon” in the book of Revelation can be safely identified as a cryptic name for Rome). I believe it may also be significant that the church is primarily depicted as advancing city by city, rather than country by country, or region by region. This, of course, may be due to a less prominent role played by specific regions under the domination of Rome. Also, it must be admitted that there are certain references to regional proclamation of the Gospel and establishment of churches (i.e. Galatia, Macedonia, the province of Asia, Crete, Spain…).
In any case, what difference does all of this make for us as 21st century Christians trying to be faithful servants of our Lord and good stewards in the carrying out of His Great Commission? Personally, I think that quite a bit. I believe that the correct answers to these questions will shed some light on the degree of importance we should give towards working, as Christians, and as the Church, to reforming political structures, as well as to various other questions related to missiology.
Questions
- As Christians, are we primarily in the business of making disciples for Christ from among the various ethnic groups around the world, encouraging them to come out, be separate, and join together, finding their primary identity with the new people God is building up? Or, are we also to be engaged in the business of discipling the nations themselves, in the sense of seeking to bring the political and social structures of the nations more into line with the moral and ethical dictates of God? When we pray for revival, and preach about revival, do we have biblical warrant for focusing our prayers and preaching along national lines? Should we be more concerned for the spiritual condition, for instance, of the nation of America, or for that of the Church of God around the world, independently of the particular country in which it is located?
- On another front, what eschatalogical hope do we have to expect a significant turning to Christ from among all of the people groups and nations in the world? Are there some nations, who collectively, on the Day of Judgment, will be sent into eternal condemnation? Should we hold out hope that even the most ungodly and deliberately rebellious peoples will someday come, collectively as nations, to a more Christ-honoring and righteous state of being? Or should we rather prepare the individual disciples we make from among those nations to expect persecution and rejection from their fellow countrymen, and to joyfully embrace their minority status as pilgrims on the narrow path to life?
- Also, when we have gone to a certain country, or city, or people group, and it seems that collectively they have heard, considered, and rejected the Gospel, when is it time to shake the dust off of our feet and move on? Or, should we hold out longer, believing that God wants to save a certain percentage of people from among all nations? What about the civilizations and nation-states down through history that have not had a significant chance to hear the Gospel preached to them? Will they be represented at the gathering around the throne of the Lamb as well?
As I said at the beginning, I still am not certain exactly what I believe in regard to the answers to these questions. At this stage, I do think they are worthwhile asking, though. And, I would love to hear any insight any of you might happen to have as I continue my search to better understand what the Word of God teaches concerning these matters.
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
Boy, David, you certainly do enjoy opening up large cans of worms! There are a lot of intertwined issues in this column, and it would be difficult to unpack them all. However, let me comment at least on your three final “questions” or groupings of questions.
1. As I see it, the biblical answer is found in the overall “mission” of God. Biblically, salvation is both individual and corporate. God is not content with saving only souls but entire groups of people. God is concerned not only with people but also with social structures which effect large groups of people. It would be difficult to say that the OT prophets were not concerned with politics. A regular biblical pattern is that God strategically places one of His chosen people in a position of political influence to be His agent of change there (e.g. Joseph, Moses, Nehemiah, Esther), even in a foreign or pagan setting.
2. When someone comes to Christ, their identity and highest loyalties have changed. After all, Christ has created the “one new man” out of Jew and Gentile. Our hope and prayer is that the congregation in heaven will be composed of multitudes of every ethnic group, “every tribe and tongue.” We evangelize and preach with the persistent hope that God’s Spirit will bring a great turning of the hearts of that people group to the Lord. Everyone deserves to hear the truth — that’s why we preach.
3. As to the question of “when is it time to shake the dust off of our feet and move on?” that answer should be left up to the Lord. God has a plan and a desire in each specific situation. The servant must hear directly from Him what His intent is for the servant at that point in time. Personally, in our ministry there have been times we have asked the Lord for a definite “invitation” to stay, and He gave none, so we took that as His word to move on to other pastures. We left in good confidence that the seeds we sowed were not in vain, and God would send another worker into the field to cultivate what we planted.
As for the ones who have not had a significant chance to hear the Gospel, that’s why we are in the work we are in. If the scripture means what it says that “God is not willing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance” (2 Pet 3:9), then God must have a way for all to have a chance to hear.
I’m going to comment more on our view of the end times than Israel, and it may accidentally redirect the conversation, but here goes anyway…
I especially like that you’ve brought up the issue of Israel. It is important to remember the various differences in political units and structure of the nation throughout the years, as well as the prophecies concerning it (I assume that is what you were referring to). I personally haven’t done a lot of study on Israel as it relates to end time events, partially because the discussion tends to be dominated by the belief that God has specifically blessed Israel at this time and as a chosen nation, it’s practices and activities are completely defensible before the world.
Much of what we believe about Israel has to do with our worldview. Are we near the end-time events mentioned in Revelation? How soon is Jesus coming back? For many people, Jesus is coming back within the next 10 years. A friend of mine worked at a publishing house that asked Jerry B. Jenkins, the author of the Left Behind series, if he would write a book about living as a Christian in the 21st century (this took place in the 80′s or early 90′s). He declined because he honestly felt that Christ would return and rapture the church before then. Unfortunately, they didn’t get that on tape, but the message is quite common: Christ is coming back in the immediate future. That surely affects our view of the nature of Israel and God’s work with it. I personally prefer not to guess when Christ is returning simply because I’ve found it to be too much of a distraction to my walk.
All in all, we take too generalized a view of politics, prophecy, and Israel to have what I’d call a truly biblical stance on the subject. This is really a good chance for us to discuss it and weigh it against God’s Word (notice I haven’t referenced any verses of scripture yet? That’s most of the problem). Until we quit just saying, “Israel is God’s chosen nation,” and start looking at what God’s promises to Israel actually were, we aren’t going to have any conclusion worth accepting.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying anything either way. I just think we tend to look at these events through “Hagee”- or “Left Behind”-tinted glasses without first looking to the scriptures. What do you think?
O, y señor Rogers, ¿cuál es su correo electronico? Yo querría conocerte mejor. Mi correo es wencl1440@gmail.com
David,
AMEN AMEN AMEN to this Post!!!This is my belief in regard to Israel being the Church. Sorry for the length of this comment from the ecperts.
Title: Disciples Study Bible
GALATIANS 6:16
The Church, True Israel—The church is the true Israel. All people come to
God by faith, both the Jew and the Gentile. See note on 3:6-25. Paul used Israel
as an image for the church. All Israel will be saved; however, this Israel is not the
Israel of the flesh but those who receive the promise by faith. See Ro 9:4-9, note;
11:26-28, note.
GALATIANS 3:6-25
The Church, Covenant People—God’s work in Christ is consistent with His
eternal purpose—to bring all people unto Him. Through Abraham the promise
came. See note on Ge 17:1-21. Abraham received the promise in faith. Others
outside the people of Israel receive the promise in the same way. They show
God’s call to Abraham to bring blessing to the nations is being realized. God’s
promises are sure. All He has done has prepared the way for Christ, who fulfilled
the promise to Abraham and His plan of justification by faith for all people. See
note on Ro 9:22-23.
ROMANS 9:4-6
Revelation, Events—God’s choice of Israel, His revelation in personal
manifestations (glory), giving of laws, covenants, promises, and the Temple
worship set Israel apart as recipients of God’s revelation. Jesus Christ is God’s
greatest and most significant revelation. He also was designed to communicate
the truth to Israel. None of God’s attempts to reveal Himself have failed. They
will be used in history not only for the Jew, but also for the Gentile (vv. 23-24).
ROMANS 9:4-9
The Church, Covenant People—Tradition and family cannot make us part of
God’s family. The Israelites had received God’s call to the patriarchs (Ge 17:1-
21), His glorious revelation to Moses; His covenant (Ex 19-24); His Law,
instructing in the way of life with Him; His Temple, signifying His presence with
them; and His promises, especially those of the Messiah. Still they rebelled
against Him and did not accept His Messiah. Thus, they did not become the true
Israel and could not be called God’s children. God desires that all people know
Christ, including those to whom He first revealed Himself.
ROMANS 11:25-27
Last Things, Return Purposes—Christ’s final return will show that God has
faithfully accomplished His covenant with Israel, a covenant which promised
blessing to the nations (Ge 12:3). This passage has led to differing interpretations
of “all Israel”: (1) universal salvation for all people, Jews and Gentiles, a view
opposed by Paul’s strong insistence on judgment on sinners and salvation by
faith alone; (2) the church as spiritual Israel, a view perhaps opposed by the
contrast between Gentiles and Israel and by the use of Zion and Jacob; (3)
believing Jews led to belief by the Gentiles’ example and showing God has been
faithful to His covenant, a view opposed by the historical sequence Israel,
Gentiles, Israel; (4) the conversion to faith of the Jewish generation living when
Jesus returns, a view which may be the best solution to a difficult problem. That
generation will recognize in the returning deliverer the one who had been all
along their promised Messiah. Thus Christ’s return will accomplish God’s
covenant promise to take away Israel’s sins. This achievement is coordinate with
the gathering of the full number of the Gentiles into God’s redemptive plan.
ROMANS 11:26-28
The Church, Covenant People—God is faithful to His covenant and promises
to save Israel in fulfillment of His promises to the patriarchs.
Kevin,
Thanks for your interaction on this. BTW, I am very much enjoying your “Can Two Walk Together” series, and am only withholding comments there contingent on your final conclusions. I am following and in agreement with your argument on that, thus far, though.
1. I agree that from a specifically OT perspective, there seems to be a place for God’s people to become involved in politics, even, as you point out, in a foreign or pagan setting. A big part of my struggles with these questions, however, have to do with the degree of continuity or discontinuity between OT and NT paradigms. Where, for instance, do we see the parallels of a Joseph, Moses, Daniel, Nehemiah or Esther in the NT? Would it even perhaps seem out of place or anachronistic were we to find such examples in the NT?
2. Yes, we both seem to agree on the priority of the Great Commission, and the gathering of one redeemed people to God from among “every tribe and tongue,” which will ultimately be fully manifested in the eschaton. In the meantime, though, even though the KJV translation of the “kingdoms of the world” becoming the “kingdoms of our Lord and of His Christ” seems to be deficient, is the idea expressed therein biblically sound? That is, is there an on-going purpose for individual nations (or “kingdoms”) in God’s eternal plan, or is His ultimate plan for them to converge into one singular Christo-centric entity of governance? Some additional passages I have found that may (or may not) have a bearing on this are: Isaiah 66:17-24; Daniel 7:27; Matthew 19:28, 24:14, 25:32, 26:34; Luke 22:29-30; Acts 17:26; 1 Cor. 6:2; Revelation 20:4-6, 21:24; 22:1-2.
3. At the bottom line, I think you are on-target here. Sometimes, when you don’t see the fruit for your labors you would hope to see, it leads you to start asking questions regarding about if you are in the right place, though. Thanks for your thoughts on this.
Andrew & Wayne,
I suppose that indeed a lot of the answers one might give to the questions I ask here will be related to one’s particular views on covenant theology and dispensational eschatology. I am not really meaning to argue so much in favor of one view or another of these questions here. If you want to know my views, I would describe myself, at present, as a hybrid premillenialist-”panmillenialist” (“it’s all going to pan out one way or another in the end”). The “panmillenialist” in me makes me somewhat skeptical to oversimplifications and speculations on these questions.
In any case, though these questions on dispensations and eschatology are all related, I wonder if the answers to my questions here on the post necessarily hinge on one’s view of these things. The key issue I am asking about is, as the title of post suggests, the NT role of nation-states, in general, not just that of Israel and end-times prophecy. I am especially interested in the missiological implications. What does “making disciples of all nations” really mean? And how should we prioritize our efforts towards the fulfillment of the Task?
Andrew,
Mi correo electrónico es:
loveeachstone@gmail.com
Encantado de corresponder contigo.
David, I would like to respond here to question #1. I don’t make a major distinction between OT and NT paradigms. Rather, the OT tends to portray spiritual realities more in concrete terms and metaphors that are described in spiritual or abstract metaphors in the NT. For instance, “kingdom” in the OT is rather concrete with all of the trappings of king, land, power, influence, etc. Such is the case also with “land,” “temple,” “priesthood,” “battle,” etc.
I liken the OT saints I mentioned as the paradigm for “hyphenated Christians.” Like “Chinese-American,” “Latin-American,” etc., the hyphen indicates that one belongs in the new society, yet they will always stick out. God’s people live in a foreign land (this world) while their true citizenship and loyalties are elsewhere. This is what Jesus means by being “in” this world but not “of” this world. That is the story of each and every Christian today. This world is not our true home, yet we live here. At some point for each one of us those citizenships will clash, and the question we must face will be, “Whom do we obey, the earthly king or our true King?” God still places His people in positions of influence to affect His purposes.
Brother David,
Very interesting post and your questions definitely makes one think about a lot of different things….
After thinking a while, I worked through God’s announcement to us in Genesis concerning the gospel of God and tried to put that into the context of the whole of scripture in light of people and nations. I do find it interesting that God dealt with a limited number of people initially to “guard the way” and then expands the theater of the revelation to greater objects of mercy , then ultimately shrinks the group in Noah, and then begins again through a Man to build a people, crowning Israel as the crescendoer that ushers in the incarnation of the promise seen in Genesis 3.
Genesis3:24b ……… He stationed the cherubim and the flaming sword which turned every direction to guard the way to the tree of life.
Then as the promised one is among His people the pattern repeats through the other nations and then finally returns to those that have ultimately turned from their rejection to an ultimate coronation.
The picture that came to my mind as I thought through God’s continuing revelation of Himself through The Book,…is that I am the mercy livened vessel to testify of Him alone. My existence within a nation is simply a mere grace of the changeless promise of God above the mercy seat from Genesis 3.
Daniel explained it this way concerning the value of kings and with whom the light dwells.
Daniel 2:20-22 Daniel said, “Let the name of God be blessed forever and ever, For wisdom and power belong to Him. (21) “It is He who changes the times and the epochs; He removes kings and establishes kings; He gives wisdom to wise men And knowledge to men of understanding. (22) “It is He who reveals the profound and hidden things; He knows what is in the darkness, And the light dwells with Him.
Daniel 7:27 ‘Then the sovereignty, the dominion and the greatness of all the kingdoms under the whole heaven will be given to the people of the saints of the Highest One; His kingdom will be an everlasting kingdom, and all the dominions will serve and obey Him.’
The object of God’s highest honor is never man or earthly kingdoms, people of any tribe or nation,…it is the Highest One. I believe the context of our living within a nation is to recognize the promise of God in Christ and obey the commissioning command. Not unlike Israel who failed miserably, we will fail miserably as well…yet to obey is better than sacrifice as Samuel would say, because our singular allegiance within the nation of His choosing is to Christ alone in this life and sustained by Him throughout eternity.
So, to try and answer question 3: As I am content with God’s promise in Christ, I make His gospel known as Paul would say… 1 Thessalonians 2:4 “but just as we have been approved by God to be entrusted with the gospel, so we speak, not as pleasing men, but God who examines our hearts.”
It is not so much about the nations or percentages thereof…it is about obedience to His introducing me to the commission of the only Word that changes the heart, which was promised in the beginning, and seen above the mercy seat.
Less of me or my nation,… more of Him.
Blessings,
Chris
Kevin & Chris,
Thank you both for your valuable contributions here. You have given me some good things to think about in regard to all this.
David,
This post may exceed the Private Prayer Language in responses as everyone has something to say about Israel and the end times. I would like to answer on two points. The first is the purpose of nation states and the second has to do with the land, especially Israel.
When we speak of nations, or ethnic groups, there is an underlying reference to the confounding of the languages at Babel. There was a time when all could be considered one nation speaking with one tongue. Often I have heard that God confused their language as judgment upon them when in fact God was manifesting His grace to them. As one people they sought their own way, which was away from God. There are peculiar verses in Acts 17 that tells us why God divided the people into groups. Verses 26 and 27 tell us that God preappointed the boundaries of their dwellings so that they should seek the Lord in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him. This sure sounds like God is concerned about the groups as a whole. However, as far as national repentance goes, other than Israel, Nineveh, under the preaching of Jonah, is the only biblical example of a national awakening. I would like to think that America would some day do the same.
Concerning Israel of today and the land itself their is a unique message to the world today regarding its future. It begins in Galatians 3:16 where Paul makes a big deal about the promises to Abraham being fulfilled in a singular seed, which is Christ. If we go back to Genesis 12 and 13 an amazing picture begins to unfold. Whenever a promise is made concerning the land it was to Abram’s seed, which is singular. This happens in 12:7 and 13:15. One could assert that this is Isaac but Paul tells us that the singular form of seed refers to Christ. Seed is used in its plural form as well with Abram but it only referred to the multitudes that would come from his loins. This promise to the seed, which is Christ, is further demonstrated in Psalm 2:7-9 where it says that the Son will receive the nations as an inheritance and He will rule them with a rod of iron. For this reason alone I am a premillennialist as we see Christ returning in Revelation 19 to rule the nations with a rod of iron. The setting up of Christ’s kingdom on earth is a fulfillment of the promise made to Abram concerning the seed and the land. Though we can see that God has a plan for Israel, it will only come to pass through the work and inheritance of the seed.
Thanks for your post and allowing all of us to chime in freely.
Scott
Scott,
Some very interesting thoughts.
Looking back over the Genesis relation of the Tower of Babel, I find it interesting that ch. 10, in which the genealogical and geographic extensions of the descendents of Noah are outlined, comes before ch. 11. It appears to me that in ch. 11 a move towards a one-world government is depicted.
My thought is that perhaps what God saw as so problematic about this move was the basis upon which it was to be built, e.g. man’s independent and self-sufficient endeavors and ingenuity. It leaves me to wonder, however, if God’s ultimate plan is, through history, to accomplish such a unity of mankind (e.g. a reversal, if you will, of the dispersion that took place at Babel), yet totally submitted to the sovereign guidance and rule of His Anointed Son Jesus.
Also, I agree that Acts 17:26-27 is a very relevant passage in this discussion. It does indeed seem undeniable, from this passage, that God’s long-term plan for mankind does include the repartition into different “nations” (whether this be understood primarily as ethnic groups, or political nation-states). What remains unclear to me is whether or not, under the new dispensation of grace, and the advent of the NT church, our efforts as Christ’s disciples are best spent trying to maintain or prop up these distinctions, or rather working towards the promotion of a new paradigm, in which none of us who submit to the rule of Christ are “foreigners” or “aliens,” but rather “fellow citizens with God’s people and members of God’s household” (Eph. 2:19). In other words, as Kingdom citizens, are we to be about cooperating with Christ in destroying barriers and dividing walls of hostility (Eph. 2:14-15) in the world? Or is there a dualism between our unifying task within the Church, and our role in the world?
Once again, your example of revival in Nineveh is also relevant. However, I would call it more of a city-wide revival than a national revival. Of course, I would not think true Spirit-led, Christ-honoring, national revival would be a bad thing if it were to occur. But, as a pre-millenialist, I maintain enough of what I consider to be a biblically realistic pessimism to not expect that the majority in most places is ever going to truly turn to Christ. “Wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.” I do think it is vitally important that we teach the disciples we make to remain faithful to our Master both in times of national revival and in times of national persecution and perversion.
In general, I think you are on-target here on what you say about Abram’s seed. I also tend to think that God does have a special plan in the future for Israel. Though, the “pan-millenialist” in me keeps me from making a whole lot of pronouncement about exactly what that will look like.
Thanks for your excellent thoughts on this. They have really been helpful.
You bring up some great questions.
A couple of comments on this subject:
1) I get so frustrated sometimes at the shallow “Left-Behind” theology that some people have concerning the modern state of Israel. Many equate “loving Israel” with pressuring the US Government to rubber stamp anything the Knesset wants–implying that the Knesset=the Israel of the Bible. Big leap in my opinion. I want the best for Israel, the modern state, but I have a problem with fully connecting their current secular, Christ-rejecting, Christian-oppressing leadership with the Israel of the Bible.
2) Many Christians are unaware that the percentage of Christians (nominal and evangelical) was larger prior to 1948 among Palestinians than it is today. They presume that all Palestinians are Muslims. While they almost are now, there were decidedly more Christians prior to the recasting of Israel as a legal state in 1948 by the UN. Whatever one’s view of the state of Israel is, it must be noted that much of the Pro-Israel sentiment out of the Christians in the West came with it a similar amount of anti-Arab sentiment from the same crowd. This effectively polarized Arab sentiment against Christianity. The effect on the Arab Church was staggering. The effect on Arab Christians and missions in the Arab world continues to be felt to this day.
A quick read of history will help us know the dangers of over-simplifying our theology concerning nation-states in the New Testament era. Combined with a quick read of history, we must be ever diligent in our long read of Scripture.
Together in the Task,
Shane
As I re-read my post, I need to clarify a point that sounded crass and maybe insulting to some of my friends out there.
By “shallow ‘Left Behind’ theology,” I mean theology that is based on the books and the movies rather than a deep study of the Word.
While I cannot wholeheartedly endorse pre-millenial dispensationalism, I do not think all dispensationalists are shallow. I have many friends who lean toward Lahaye’s camp but are similarly frustrated by folks who develop their theology by reading fiction rather than the truth in Scripture.
Shallowness among those with whom I disagree is my issue–not to say that all those who espouse their point are shallow.
There. I feel better now. Don’t you?
Brother Shane,
I feel better now. Not only that, but I also agree with the substance of comment #13.
Peace to you brother,
From the Middle East
Shane,
I also agree with you.
You may find interesting what I posted about “Evangelical Zionism and World Missions” here:
http://loveeachstone.blogspot.com/2006/11/evangelical-zionism-and-world-missions.html
I just read the post “loveeachstone” blog above. Great stuff. Thank for pointing me to that, David.
Thanks, Middle East.
Together in the Task,
Shane
[...] This Great Article and the great responses Here Posted in Christianity, Cultural Relevance, Faith, Family, Life, Love, Personal, Relationships, [...]
1.) Both. Christ’s Kingdom is all-encompassing. Proper Evangelism goes well beyond just making convert, but making disciple “of” all nations (not “in” all nations), and teaching them to observe all things that Christ has commanded us (including His commandments for civil government.) John the Baptist called sinners to repentance, but also confronted the King for doing things that were not lawful.
2.) The answer is we expect the world to be Christianized before the Second Advent. See my latest series on postmillennialism.
3.) There is a time to shake off the dust, satisfied that God’s will is done in the life of unbelievers. But that would be a decision for individual missionaries. Collectively, the church should not give up on any group of people.
Puritan Lad,
Thanks for your contribution to the discussion. It would be helpful to me if you could flesh out the rationale behind your views a little more, especially giving Scripture to back them up. Also, I couldn’t find your series on postmillenialism. Where it that located?
David,
Sorry for the delay. Been a busy month,
I’ll expound more later.
Blessings,
PL
[...] on October 1, I posted an article here on SBC Impact entitled The New Testament Role of Nation-States, in which I confessed I do not yet have a good grasp on what the Bible teaches on various questions [...]