Question 119, from RW

I have read and reread Matthew chapter 24 and from what I see, Jesus was talking directly to the apostles about what would happen to them specifically. As far as the “generation” He spoke of, how could He mean something thousands of years away? I am beginning to see why Jews have nothing to do with Christ.

I smell a cover up and seriously wonder if the Christian community will ever come clean on this issue.

This question highlights a major difficulty with eschatology (the study of the ‘end times’). Certainly, a number of studies of the Christian belief about the end of the world ignore sections of the Bible, such as Matthew chapter 24, which suggest the second coming/judgement day is just about to happen, although this shouldn’t perhaps be viewed as a deliberate “cover up”.

In Matthew chapter 24, Jesus is recorded as warning his disciples about the imminent destruction of the Temple (verse 2), and how they could tell when the destruction is going to happen. It is generally accepted that (more…)

Question 101 – from JG, United Kingdom

What would have happened if the Jews had accepted Jesus as their Messiah? It follows that if they had, then Jesus would not of died, thus there would be no salvation.

This kind of consequential (‘what if’) question is very interesting. Of course, it does depend on how you view the life and death of Jesus in terms of God’s plan of salvation. For theologians who emphasise God’s foreknowledge, this question is irrelevant because it was God’s pre-ordained plan that the messiah would be rejected and crucified. So this is only a relevant subject if it is assumed that human beings have genuine free will and so there would have been an option for ‘the Jews’ to accept Jesus.

It is worth remembering that many Jews did accept Jesus. In fact, as far as can be deduced from the text, it must be assumed that every believer present at the ‘birth of the Church’ on Pentecost was Jewish. There is definitely a sense that these early believers were ‘called out’ from among the chosen people, and many New Testament commentators note the theme of the earliest Church being the ‘true Israel’ as differentiated from their fellow Jews.

Over the centuries the view has developed in Christian thought, that salvation hinges solely on the death of Jesus. In classic protestant evangelical terminology, Jesus’ death ‘pays the price’ for human sin and thus negates the effect of sin on human beings (the effect being eternal separation from God). This is not the only view of salvation ever promoted across the Christian denominations, but a variant of this idea is probably the most common. However, in some senses this ‘substitutionary’ theory (Christ dying in the believer’s place) is one that has been reached ‘after the fact’. Because the historical events of Jesus’ life, as recorded in the gospels, happened a certain way, it has been presumed that salvation had to happen that way.

There are several views on what would have happened had Jesus been accepted, or enthroned, as the messiah. One view, that has been voiced in Christian Zionist circles, is that there would have been no salvation for the Gentiles. Israel would have become the prime mover among nations and the Jews would have been the only people ever to be saved.

Another possibility is that Jesus would have been installed as a kingly ruler over Israel. Certainly it would seem that this was how some of his followers thought the Kingdom of God would be established, even after his resurrection (see Acts chapter 1, verse 6).

The covenant God made with Abraham in Genesis includes the promise that “all nations will be blessed through him” (Genesis chapter 18, verse 18). Traditionally, Christians have interpreted this verse to mean that form the nation of Israel the messiah would come to save the world (through his death), but equally it leaves open the option for the messiah to rule the world. Despite emphasising the ‘chosen’ status of Israel, the worship of Yahweh always had a universalistic edge, with a special place in the Temple given to the gentiles. The prophetic idea that the Temple would be a house of prayer ‘for many nations’ (found in Isaiah 56, verses 6-7, and quoted by Jesus when he caused a riot in the court of the Gentiles in e.g. Matthew chapter 12, verse 13) indicates this potential ‘political’ salvation.

One final option is that the Jews, as a race, accept Jesus as their messiah – they just haven’t done it yet. This theory is frequently found in dispensationalist teaching regarding the end of the world. According to dispensationalist predictions, after the Church is raptured, the Jews convert en masse and recognise Jesus as their messiah, and then evangelise the world during the reign of the Antichrist. Certainly it would seem from Paul’s statements in Romans chapter 11, that he believed that eventually “all Israel will be saved” (chapter 11, verse 26), once certain other events have happened.

So, maybe this question should not be ‘what would have happened…’, but ‘when will it happen…’ The answer to that is best summed up by Jesus in Acts chapter 1, verse 7: “It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority.”

Thanks for your question JG.

Question from CB, United Kingdom
I’ve been told that my position on the relationship between Israel and the Church is ‘replacement theology’ and is heretical. I’ve lived in Israel and worked with Jews, Arabs, Messianic Jews and Christians. I am certain that the fulfilment of Jewish faith is faith in Jesus as Messiah. I am uncomfortable with the idea that I should pray for the advancement of Israel as a political and military force to the cost of neighbouring people in order to fulfil biblical promises. What biblical perspectives are there about this?

In terms of Christian tradition, the idea that the Church, which transcends ethnicity, is the fulfilment of God’s covenant with Abraham is the traditional orthodox belief. However, within the last two hundred years, the belief has grown up, mainly among evangelical North American Christians that the Jews remain the ‘true’ children of the promise and will convert en masse to a belief in Jesus as their messiah during the apocalyptic end of the world. The establishment of the modern state of Israel in 1948 is seen as a mark of the ‘end-time prophecies’ coming true.

This belief is often referred to as Christian Zionism and is driven by modern-day attempts to interpret world events as correlating with the Book of Revelation, and the idea of an imminent rapture of Christians, after which the believing Jews will convert the rest of the world. Despite best-sellers like The Late Great Planet Earth by Hal Lindsay and the theology-crudely-dressed-as-fiction Left Behind series by Tim LaHaye and Jerry B. Jenkins giving the Zionist position a large profile in the Christian subculture, there are a number of flaws with it.

It is chiefly linked with both a selective and literalist reading of Scripture, which, for example, ignores the context of where Revelation was written and the community to whom it was written. Much of Revelation, which is interpreted by the contemporary writers mentioned above as yet to come, is written about events happening to a persecuted community already under the rule of ‘the Beast’, namely the Roman emperor.

A major problem with taking a literal reading of Revelation and identifying characters such as ‘the Beast’ with key players on the world stage, is that very often such claims go out of date. For years Soviet Russia was going to be a major instigator of Armageddon. Now, the Soviets seem to have dropped out of the picture, with other world powers, like China, branded as the bad guys [compare The Late Great Planet Earth with Lindsay’s later book Planet Earth 2000AD to see how the changes on the world stage lead to reinterpretations].

Zionism is also inextricably linked with, and dependent upon, the dispensationalist worldview, which was the preserve of edgy sectarian theologians in the nineteenth century, until given massive prominence by C.I. Scofield’s famous Reference Bible, first published in 1909. Scofield believed that history was divided into seven historical eras, based on the way God revealed himself to human beings, with this current era being the sixth one, ‘age of the Church’.

Interestingly, in his translation of the Bible, Scofield marked out his dispensationalist theology in the text. An example of Scofield’s interference with the text can be found in Isaiah chapter 11 under the heading ‘The Davidic Kingdom Set Up’ where six headings break up the first ten verses to show how it can be read as a dispensational ‘proof-text’. Scofield also had a highly selective attitude towards the Bible, believing that because the gospels dealt with what happened in the fifth dispensation, ‘the age of the law’, they only applied to Jews, not to Christians [Stephen Sizer, Christian Zionism: Road-map to Armageddon?, IVP 2004, p116].

As a side-note, Scofield’s obsession with dividing the Bible up into ‘dispensations’ is based on some very poor scholarship. In his earlier book Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth, published in 1888, Scofield quotes 2 Timothy chapter two, verse 15 where, in the Authorised Version, Paul instructs Timothy to “rightly divide the word of truth“. Scofield took that to mean that the Bible must have ‘right divisions’, which need to be followed in order to understand the course of human history. However, the Greek verb translated as ‘rightly dividing’ only appears in this verse and while literally it means cutting something straight, figuratively it means to handle something correctly. Paul is using the word to tell Timothy to use ‘the word of truth’ properly. [see Sizer, op cit, pp 116-117]. Even if Scofield’s defective understanding of Paul’s statement was right, it would only apply to the Old Testament anyway. It would be at least two centuries before the whole Bible as we have it now, was considered the Word of God.

Zionism as a movement has an interesting history and has had some interesting champions over the years, including Napoleon Bonaparte. However, the idea that Jews held an automatic right to the land of Israel only gained momentum when the idea started to gain common credence in Christian circles, mainly through Scofield’s Bible. With the growth in apocalyptic premillennial theology, that sees among other things an epic battle at Armageddon (Mount Megiddo in Israel) as inevitable, Christian Zionist organisations and influential church leaders, mainly in the USA, have actively campaigned on behalf of Israel.

The key element in Christian Zionism is the belief that the covenant God made with the Jews as his chosen people has not been rendered obsolete by the life, death and resurrection of Christ. As said before, this is in direct contrast with received Christian tradition, which, it must be noted, frequently swung too far in the direction of anti-Semitism and persecution of the Jews.

The argument made by many Christian Zionists is that through Christ, God has made a new covenant with his heavenly people – the Church – but God’s old covenant with his earthly people – the Jews – still applies. To this end, Zionists believe that by aiding and ‘blessing’ Israel, Christians are actively supporting God’s purposes by upholding his still-relevant covenant. In this theology, God’s purpose for his earthly people is to fulfil promises made to Abraham by ‘restoring’ the nation of Israel, rebuilding the temple in Jerusalem and restarting the observance of the Mosaic Law, complete with ritual sacrifices.

The big question is whether the promises made to the ancient Kingdom of Israel and the chosen covenant people who inhabited it still apply to the modern state of Israel. There are good theological reasons to reject this idea, but many Christian Zionists would argue that Christians who don’t accept their worldview are ‘spiritualising’ or ‘Christianising’ the Hebrew prophecies. This insistence on literally interpreting passages that refer to Israel as being about Israel, and not about the Church, seems to be consistent. But it does miss that point that the Bible frequently contains figurative language (much of what Jesus tells people in John’s gospel is misunderstood when taken literally, e.g. Nicodemus wondering how he could return to his mother’s womb to be born again in John chapter 3, verse 4).

One interesting point to be made about this ‘literalism’ is that the interpreters of Scripture who insist that passages referring to Israel must be taken literally, are ‘inconsistent literalists’ – for example, where God’s judgment is referred to as “torrential rains, hailstones, fire and brimstone” in Ezekiel chapter 38, verse 22, Hal Lindsey interprets this to be the use of tactical nuclear weapons [The Late, Great Planet Earth, Zondervan 1970, p. 161. NB: in the New International Version of the Bible ‘fire and brimstone’ is translated as “burning sulphur”]. It would seem that some words in the Bible mean exactly what they say, and some need creative interpretation. This is done at the whim of the translator, which is why ‘literal’ interpreters often disagree on the details.

However, a more serious theological problem is that by claiming both God’s covenants (with the Jews and the Church) are still active, Christian Zionists are effectively saying there are two forms of salvation available – namely through the Law and through Grace. In fact, one Christian Zionist theologian, John Hagee, has gone as far as saying that if the Jews had accepted Jesus as their messiah “every Gentile would have been forever lost” [quoted in Sizer, op cit, p.140]. The idea that observing the Jewish Law still offers a way of salvation is in direct conflict with most of Christian theology.

Ironically, Christian Zionists who insist that the old covenant with the Jewish nation still holds do not tend to quote the prophecy that Jeremiah gives about a new covenant. Found in Jeremiah chapter 31, verse 31, the new prophecy is explicitly unlike the covenant made with the Jews following the exodus. The writer of Hebrews comments on Jeremiah’s prophecy, saying that Christ has rendered the old covenant obsolete “and ready to vanish away” (Hebrews chapter 8, verse 13). Added to this, Paul in Galatians chapter 3 notes that the Law could not save people, which is why the covenant made with Moses had to be superseded.

Where they do quote Scripture and covenantal blessings, Christian Zionists divorce them from their historical contexts, placing them either as contemporary or future promises. Doing this therefore undermines the view of the Hebrew prophets whose oracles are recorded. The prophets usually saw themselves as speaking into their current situation, calling back their contemporaries to the covenant that binds them to their God, not about events to come two and a half thousand years later.

Similarly, the use of the Old Testament by Jesus and the New Testament writers is ignored when the Church is clearly cited as the focus of the new covenant that supersedes the old. The idea that the two covenants continue in tandem has no support in the New Testament. In fact one of the main metaphors used for the Church is the ‘new Israel’ – “a continuation of [God’s] plan expressed throughout the Old Testament to call a people to himself.” [Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology, IVP 1994, p.861].

In Romans chapter 9, the ‘true’ children of Israel are not those who are physically descended from Abraham (i.e. ethnic Jews), but those who have believed in Christ. In Romans chapter 9, verse 25, a prophecy from Hosea is quoted to justify the Church being regarded as the people God has chosen. The idea of a separate covenant for the ‘original’ chosen people is rejected in Romans 11 – when the ethnic Jews “are saved in large numbers at some time in the future, they will not constitute a separate people of God or be like a separate olive tree, but they will be ‘grafted back into their own olive tree’ (Rom 11:24)”. [Grudem, op cit, p 861]

The restorationist idea that believes the Temple must be rebuilt in Jerusalem [Hal Lindsey, op cit, p.152] also undermines the saving death of Jesus on the cross. According to Christian theology, Jesus’ death put an end to the sacrificial system focussed on the Temple. “To suggest, therefore, that the temple must be rebuilt and sacrifices reintroduced in a restored Jewish kingdom centred on Jerusalem is to reverse the flow of biblical revelation and to suggest in some sense that the work of Christ was unfinished or incomplete.” [Sizer, op cit, p.205]

While there are several theological concerns with Christian Zionism, it is a force to be reckoned with in contemporary Christianity. As a theology, some of its keenest followers have a large amount of political influence in North America, encouraging the government to support Israel in every political venture. A practical result of this theology is the belief that war in the Middle East is inevitable, indeed even divinely ordained, which is worrisome as these Christian leaders often have the ear of senior American policy-makers. Given the current state of world events, the fragile and increasingly fractured peace in Israel is probably under threat from those who want to ‘bless’ Israel, but see world events in such a way that they are expecting God’s planned devastating war to occur at any time.

Thanks for your question about this large and involving topic, CB.

Question from JM, United Kingdom

In light of the Left Behind phenomenon, what is the correct view of the resurrection with regard to pre- or post- tribulation? And how does that relate to Ladd’s Kingdom theology of a first and second resurrection of the dead and the millennium period of God’s reign upon the earth?

George Eldon Ladd is a twentieth century Christian writer whose central concept, of the Kingdom of God’s existence being in a tension between already present and still to arrive, has proved very popular within charismatic Christian circles. Popularised by notable charismatic leaders like John Wimber, the idea that the Kingdom is both ‘now’ and ‘not yet’ explains some of the difficulties associated with ‘signs and wonders’ Christianity, particularly the difficult puzzle of why some people are healed miraculously, while others are not.

The term ‘kingdom of God’ was in popular usage in Jesus’ day, referring to the hoped-for Messianic restoration of Israel as an independent nation. Jesus often uses the phrase ‘kingdom of God’ in that kind of context, but also widens the scope to indicate a time in history when God will bring everything to a close (‘the consummation’). It is an interesting facet of New Testament theology that the Incarnation of God in the person of Jesus is regarded as establishing the kingdom, so it is both a historical, concrete reality and yet at the same time something that is going to one day come in fullness, when Jesus returns (the second coming).

With this in mind, any discussion of the Kingdom of God has to take into account Christian eschatology (a study of the end times, from the Greek word eschaton, meaning ‘end’). It is usually about this point that many people become confused regarding eschatology, so for ease of use, what follows is a quick guide to eschatological viewpoints.

Lots of terms: The Rapture, the Tribulation, the Resurrection and the Millennium

Central to most views of the end times are some key themes in the parts of the New Testament that purport to reveal the future (for ease of reference, these sections are usually called ‘apocalyptic’ literature). The Tribulation and the Millennium are periods of time marked out in the book of Revelation. The Tribulation is a seven-year long time of suffering, during which numerous horrible plagues will sweep the globe and the Antichrist will rule the world. The Millennium follows the destruction of the Antichrist, whereupon Christ will rule on Earth for a thousand years. The widespread resurrection of the dead and final judgement is attested to in most of the New Testament books and the earliest Christian creeds. The Rapture is slightly different to the resurrection and involves Christians who are alive at the time being lifted bodily up into heaven.

There are two differing viewpoints regarding when the Rapture happens, either before or after the Tribulation. Left Behind assumes the former, with the heroes of the story ‘left behind’ when their loved ones all disappear. The fictional series then follows typical fundamentalist theology as the world becomes a police state ruled by the Antichrist, the Jews convert to following Jesus en masse (because God gives his chosen people a second chance and they see the error of their ways) and the political forces of the world centre on Babylon and prepare for a final showdown at Megiddo (Armageddon). This projected series of events has been popular in fundamentalism since the publication of C.I. Schofield’s Reference Bible in 1909.

Schofield, drawing on earlier evangelical literalist interpretations, almost managed to turn the whole of Scripture into a field-guide to the last days, with nearly everything being interpreted in light of current world events that pointed to the end. This trend continued throughout the twentieth century, especially through the million-selling Christian paperback The Late, Great Planet Earth by Hal Lindsay, published in the 1970s. While there is nothing intrinsically wrong with employing a literalist methodology when interpreting Scripture, Lindsay, and other writers like him, firmly identified key contemporary movements and individuals with figures from Biblical apocalyptic passages. Examples include comparing the “giant locusts” of Revelation chapter 9 to helicopter gunships, identifying “Babylon” with Rome, the Pope as the Antichrist and the nations of “the North” (Gog and Magog in Ezekiel chapter 38) as the Soviet bloc.

Of course, the sudden collapse of communism in the early 1990s forced a rethink over branding a now-destitute and ailing country as an aggressive force of evil. But in Left Behind chapter one, post-Soviet Russia has been resuscitated and as ‘Gog and Magog’ naturally attack the nation of Israel. Similar predictions of Russian revival have now been built into ‘end times’ literature. It would be easy to point out the flaws in this kind of fundamentalist interpretation. One key problem is that spiritualising ideological conflict blinds a person to more obvious realities. It could be argued – quite sanely – that the Soviet Union was an enemy of Israel because the United States was Israel’s staunch ally, not because of any divinely authored plan for the end of the world.

If there is debate over whether Christians will avoid the Tribulation through being conveniently raptured, or will suffer along with the rest of humanity, the real debate then unfolds regarding the Resurrection in relation to the Millennial reign of Christ. The most common view in evangelical and fundamentalist circles is pre-Millennialism, the idea that after the tribulation Jesus will return to Earth to reign, coinciding with the resurrection of the Christian dead. Both resurrected and living believers will be given transformed, eternal (‘resurrection’) bodies and will rule with Christ for a thousand years.

Unbelievers still living on Earth will presumably become believers, but regardless of their belief will be subject to Christ’s kingly rule. At the end of the Millennium, a second resurrection will take place of everybody who has ever lived and they, and those still living on Earth but refusing to acknowledge Jesus as Lord, will be judged and punished accordingly. At this point believers will take their place in the ‘New Heaven and New Earth’ as depicted in the book of Revelation. The two-stage resurrection seems to be implied in Revelation chapter 20, verses 4-5, but elsewhere in the New Testament only one resurrection, of both believers and unbelievers who will be separated out on judgement day, is mentioned.

Post-millennialism differs from this. It assumes that the Church has a mission and divinely-given mandate to convert the world to Christianity. As a result of an increase in the number of Christians, human society will more closely resemble God’s ideal and eventually a ‘millennial age’ of peace and righteousness will occur on Earth, at the end of which Christ will return to a glorious church, believers and unbelievers will both be raised at the same time, Christ will pronounce judgement and those who have acknowledged him as Lord will join him in the new Heaven and new Earth. Post-millennialism is therefore much more optimistic about the future and was very popular in the nineteenth century and into the twentieth, until the carnage of the First World War, followed in a few short years by the Final Solution and the development of nuclear weapons; all things that breed pessimism regarding human achievement and progress.

Another eschatological point of view is that of a-millennialism. This would be the declaration that there will be no millennial reign on earth before judgement day and the institution of a new Heaven and a new Earth. The benefits of the a-millennial view is that it hold to Jesus’ eschatological declarations (e.g. ‘the Son of Man coming like a thief in the night’ in Luke chapter 12, verse 39) and it does not rely on one, fairly obscure Bible passage to construct a complicated theological system. The Millennium is only explicitly mentioned in Revelation chapter 20, verses 1-6 and a-millennialists would interpret the passage to mean that Jesus’ earthly ministry ‘bound Satan’ as found in verse 1 of that passage. Elsewhere the New Testament implies that all the events of the end times happen at about the same time. A-millennialism also dispenses with the troubling idea that during the earthly reign of Christ, unbelievers could still persistently live sinful lives.

Ladd’s ‘Kingdom theology’ was developed within a pre-millennial framework. His book The Blessed Hope advocates the post-tribulational, pre-millennial standpoint. The sudden return of Christ parallels His original advent and in terms of waiting for the Kingdom to be fulfilled, pre-millennialism fits neatly into the idea that Christians are currently caught ‘between the ages’, the ‘now and the not yet’. However, Ladd’s idea can be applied to Christian experience regardless of the eschatological viewpoint adopted.

There is an old joke that when faced with the choice between pre-millennialism, post-millennialism and a-millennialism, most people opt for pan-millennialism: the hope that it will all pan out in the end. In many respects this is the truest interpretation of apocalyptic literature. In trying to make it fit projected timelines of the end of the world, the central point is missed. Biblical apocalypses indicate one thing: no matter what happens, God is still in control. That is the kind of affirmation that Ladd makes in his assertion that the Kingdom is both here and also still to come, even if it does not feel like it right here, right now.

Question from SL, United Kingdom

Some would say that we are seeing increasingly changeable weather not typical of the season. I believe there are references to events in both the old and new testaments. Can you supply a few of these and comment accordingly. Does global warming fit any of them?

There is an old saying that ‘the seasons will change’, although the modern translations of Scripture certainly do not seem to have a statement as bald as that. It has, however, become part of the late twentieth century pre-millennial myth (as found in author Hal Lindsay, the Left Behind series and other popular works) that ‘global warming’, climate change and the like are part of the Last Days.

The book of Daniel is one of the best-known Old Testament apocalyptic books, containing the visions of the prophet Daniel/Belteshazzar in Babylon around the time of the Jewish Exile. Daniel, and the genre of apocalyptic literature generally, is hard to translate to our modern mind-set. There is a tendency to over-literalise apocalyptic Scriptures and try and apply modern events to the fantastical visions of these ancient seers.

In Daniel chapter 2 verse 21, the prophet praises God, saying “He changes times and seasons…” Given the apocalyptic themes that run throughout Daniel, where even in the earlier chapters God’s judgement and the need for the faithful to stand firm under persecution are common elements, this verse could be the source of the inclusion of changing seasons in eschatological events. However, this verse could merely be stating that God is in ultimate control of earthly events – which is, of course, the defining element in apocalyptic literature.

In the ‘little apocalypse’ found in the gospel of Mark chapter 13, warnings of impending doom are followed by a quote lifted from Isaiah that in the last days “the sun will be darkened and the moon will not give its light” (verse 24 in Mark / Isaiah chapter 13, verse 10 & chapter 34, verse 4). In Revelation similar portents in the heavens occur regularly as a sign of the imminent end. Such changes in the natural order were widely regarded in Biblical times as having some meaning.

In using apocalyptic literature today, Christians generally fall into two camps: those who want to ‘interpret it’ in concrete terms by linking various apocalyptic events or figures with what is happening in the news or with certain persons; and those who regard it as having little or no relevance. Without wanting to get into a ‘Late, Great Planet Earth’ mindset, apocalyptic literature is important as much today as ever. It reminds Christians that the last days are real – and have been ever since the time of Christ, that God is in control of history, regardless of whether that is obvious and that Christians need to stand firm in the face of evil.

In terms of global warming, there are two apocalyptic viewpoints. One would be that the world is going to get burned up anyway, so what’s the point in worrying? The second (and more thoughtful viewpoint) would see the destruction of the planet through the wanton use of limited resources as going against the job description of human beings as stewards of this fragile globe. To recognise global warming as a result of human selfishness and propensity for squander and, therefore, as a physical symptom of spiritual evil, should lead the Christian apocalyptist to oppose global warming and do what they can to prevent it.

This is the main thrust of my community talk on Sunday June 20. The Biblical passages read out were from Revelation: chapter 13 vv 16-18, chapter 20 v 4, Chapter 21 vv 1-7 & 22-27 and chapter 22 vv 1-5.

As Christians we have a capacity to get used to things being a certain way. I’m pretty sure that if you have heard these passages from Revelation before, you may have got some idea of what I’ll probably be speaking about. Stop me if I’m wrong, but the likelihood is that you’re expecting to hear about the end of the world.

We are conditioned to think of Revelation as future history – stuff that is going to happen as the world comes to an end. Now there’s nothing wrong in looking for that sort of thing in Revelation – in fact the book purports to be a timeline of the end times. But we miss a lot if we think about it solely that way because we remove the relevance to our own life when we think that the events described in Revelation are yet to happen and therefore assume there isn’t much we can draw from it for use in the here and now.

Let’s do some basic groundwork about Revelation. Well it’s a form of literature usually described as ‘apocalyptic’, which is a word based on the Greek word ‘apokalupsis’, which is derived from the Greek word ‘reveal’, hence ‘revelation’. It’s a complicated book, which starts with sections addressed to prominent churches in the Roman province of Asia Minor (modern day Turkey). It’s self-proclaimed author is ‘John’, about whom we know next to nothing, although he is traditionally associated with the apostle John and therefore with the fourth gospel and the short letters found near the end of the Bible. It is assumed from the way verse 9 of chapter 1 is phrased that the writer had been exiled to the slave-labour camps on the island of Patmos because he was a Christian.

The book possesses an urgency in the writing – and not just because it seems to be about doom and destruction. John has a need to tell this story and the fact that it was addressed to churches in different cities and situations implies that the writer believed there was something essentially practical about his revelation.

Running throughout the rather confusing narrative about dragons and beasts and plagues and judgements, there is a twin message: firstly, God is in control; secondly, God will win and those who steadfastly serve God’s purposes will be vindicated. Those are important messages for a church in any age and along the way we can read the stories as repeatedly affirming that true Christians resist anything that is not of God – even to the point of death.

So, what is the context of the time in which John witnessed his revelation? The church was emerging as a separate entity to the Jewish faith and was coming under persecution. The main factor in this was the unwillingness of Christians to participate in Emperor worship. In the Roman world this was treasonable behaviour – the Emperor required the citizens of the Empire worshipped him and there was huge popular support for this. It showed you belonged to the culture, to the Empire. In fact, Emperor worship was very much a grass-roots movement, with cities trying to outdo each other to show how much they valued the opportunity to worship the Emperor, who was regarded as both a ‘living god’, but also the embodiment of the Empire. So, in effect both were worshipped: the Emperor and the Empire.

Now, it has to be said here that the main focus of Revelation in terms of what was happening then is a pretty damning attack on Rome and on Empire worship. The ‘Babylon’ built on seven hills is a coded reference to Rome and some of the prominent evil characters in Revelation (the Beast and the Antichrist) probably refer to the Emperor and the Empire itself. At times John the writer gives Rome and Empire-worship both barrels. There is no way a Christian can tolerate such an idolatrous notion and those who ignorantly worship the Empire end up in the ‘Lake of Fire’.

When I was eleven I went with my parents to the USA. As part of that trip I attended a school where every day the kids would stand up, place their hand on heart, say the pledge of allegiance and salute the flag. In a Christian young people’s group I went to, the same pledge of allegiance went on.

Now I felt uncomfortable with this as a child and I didn’t really know why, apart from the fact that I’m not an American. It was only a few years later that I realised why this struck me as so wrong – it’s Empire worship. It’s standing up and saluting a man-made thing. It’s swearing allegiance to a human-created nation. You might think I’m making a big deal out of nothing, but as I see the American ‘might-is-right’ philosophy exercised on the world stage, it leaves me feeling uncomfortable.

I find it very difficult reading some of the very right wing Christian literature produced these days that makes patriotism and the ‘American way’ essential facets of Christian belief. ‘My country, right or wrong’ is not a Biblical tenet. Even in the God-instituted state of Israel, it was not a case of ‘my country, right or wrong’ – the Prophets calling the rulers of Israel repeatedly to account are proof of this. Revering ‘old glory’ and exalting a human-penned constitution is the kind of deluded idolatry that Revelation warns leads directly to the spirit of Antichrist.

At this point, I’m hoping that we beginning to see how Revelation isn’t just about the future – it’s also about the present.

The bit we read on here about the ‘mark of the beast’ is also something that we can apply to the present. Now a lot of mental energy has been expended on trying to work out what this mark could be. Some people have said its credit card numbers or social security identifications. If you read the fictionalised end times books like Left Behind and the several clones (and I would recommend that you don’t read those books), then the mark of the beast is always something very literal like a microchip inserted under the skin or whatever.

But let’s take a step back from literalism for a moment and consider some of the underlying symbolism. Why foreheads and hands? Well these two important parts of the body are the focal points for our thought life and our actions. We think and we do.

In Jewish tradition at the time it was customary for men to wear phylacteries. These were small leather pouches or wooden boxes attached to the forehead and wrist. They contained the laws of Moses written on tiny scraps of parchment. (This followed on from God’s command to do this in Deuteronomy chapter 6, verse 8). The phylacteries were a memory aid; a sign of whose law you were keeping; a reminder of whose side you were on. The ‘mark of the beast’ betrays the fact that you are on the other side – anti-God and siding with Antichrist. As we seek to follow Jesus we must be aware that our thoughts and our deeds betray which side we are on.

If we are obsessed with earning money or respect from other people, if we are spending our time plotting Machiavellian ways to climb the corporate ladder, if we are more concerned with how things look than with how things actually are, then this betrays which law we are following. If we are bitching about people behind their back, actively doing things we know are wrong, being two-faced and breaking confidences, then this betrays whose side we are on. If we are going to act as fallen humans then we may as well have the mark of the beast on our hands and on our foreheads. To assume that the beastly mark is going to be the product of the reign of Antichrist is missing the point that our thoughts and actions have to come entirely under Christ’s control.

That isn’t always easy. We do slip up as human beings, although we have to be aware that because as human beings we fail doesn’t mean we should accept failure as inevitable. We are on a journey and every time we wander slightly off the path, which is perhaps bound to happen, we are faced with choices. We can try and get back on the path, we can carry on into the undergrowth and see where we end up, or we can slump down in a dejected heap.

In Revelation those with the beastly mark are in opposition to those who are remade in the image of God through believing in Christ. Revelation has a very high view of redeemed humanity. Redeemed humans are marked out for Christ. They don’t carry the mark of the beast. In Revelation 22 God’s servants carry his name on their foreheads. As we walk this journey together we must appreciate this fact: We carry God’s name. We bear the image of God in us. We take God to a Godless world. In effect, we bring Heaven to those who are going to hell.

Heaven is another idea that we have been conditioned to think about and the conditioning works two ways. Firstly, heaven is meant to be the most positive thing in the life of the believer – look at this promise: a place “with no death, mourning, crying or pain”, where everything is new, where the nations are healed, where the glory of God illuminates everything and there is no more curse, a place that is forever. Yet when we think about heaven, what do we think about? We think about dying.

What a way to remove the power of the promise of heaven! ‘Yeah, it’s going to be great, but first you’re going to have to die, probably painfully, and everyone you know will have to die too. But once you’re dead and the misery is over it’s something to look forward to.’ Why do we do this to ourselves? It’s almost as if someone decided ‘Ooh this heaven thing is nice to think about, we’d better spoil it.’

We are already citizens of heaven, which leads me onto the second part of our conditioning. Not only do we think about heaven only as a result of our dying, but we assume that because heaven will be perfect there’s no need for us to try and make this world a bit better.

I don’t believe that’s how we should be looking at it. As citizens of heaven we should be seeking to bring heaven into everyday life. This is shown in Revelation 21. Heaven descends to Earth and God will dwell with human beings. We are already citizens of heaven, even though we are living this life here and now. In some way heaven has come to Earth through our being displaced citizens of heaven as a prophetic statement of what will eventually happen when the New Jerusalem comes down. We are not just remade in the image of God, bearing the mark of Christ – we are also bearers of Heaven, actually bringing God to people and being the means in which God dwells among humans this side of the New Jerusalem.

Do we still feel pain? Yes. Will we still die? Yes. We’ll get sick, we’ll hurt, we’ll be emotionally wounded. The victory of Christ is in the crucifixion so when we are living the life of victory we are living out the crucifixion and that is obviously not a way of avoiding suffering. We die so that our bodies that “are sown perishable are raised imperishable”, “and just as we have borne the likeness of the earthly man, so shall we bear the likeness of the man from heaven” (1 Corinthians 15 v 42 and v 49). But we begin bearing the likeness of the man from heaven from the moment we die to sin and allow our old lives to be nailed to the cross.

Bearing the mark of true humanity – redeemed humanity – as we bear the mark of Christ means heaven begins at the cross. We carry heaven wherever we tread in the name of God. For us, heaven begins right here, right now. The promise of the New Jerusalem becomes our world-view as we seek to bring this world closer to heaven.