I recently went on vacation to the U.S. and was just blown away by the “Christian” right wing movement that seems to be rampant. I had no problem using my dusty memories from bible college to defend my “socialist” ideas of health care, but drew a blank when it came to being eco-friendly. Somehow the Genesis passage about subduing the earth became the rallying cry for consumption, the earth was made for us to use (and apparently abuse.) I know we are to be good stewards of the gifts that God has given us and I believe the environment is a gift. How is a “pinko liberal communist tree hugger” to respond?

The following article was written by guest theologian, Abi.

This is an interesting question, especially in the light of lots of international talk about carbon footprints, zero gas emissions and reaching Kyoto protocol targets! Theologically, the issue of ecology, climate change and the environment can be a confusing one, and with so many approaches it is difficult to know how respond. Therefore, in order to answer your question, it seems best to first look at the creation narrative with which the Bible begins, especially as it is being used to justify environmentally damaging activity.

In Genesis chapter 1, verse 18, God commands Adam and Eve to “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground.” However, the English word ‘subdue’ doesn’t really do justice to the meaning of the God’s command. By definition, ‘subdue’ has negative connotations. The Oxford Dictionary states the word to mean “Conquer and bring into subjection with military force. Overcome or overpower with physical strength or violence.”[1]

For some then, to ‘subdue’ the earth means to bring under control by forceful dominance, intimidation and ultimately, consumption and abuse. Almost as if creation itself is rebellious and unruly and needs humanity to take it under control and submission.

However, even before humankind comes into existence on day 6 of the account, the rest of the creation has already been described as ‘good’. [2] Creation then, isn’t a bad thing that is defiant and disobedient but has an intrinsic value. The ‘use and abuse’ philosophy of ecology doesn’t seem to fit in with how God defines what He has made.

The commands to ‘rule’ and ‘subdue’ come before the fall of man in Genesis chapter 3. If the earth was perfect before the fall, then the outworking of these commands will also be perfect. Therefore, the verbs to rule and to subdue cannot have negative connotations in the context of the creation story. As man was created “in the image of God” [3], humanity’s ‘rule’ over creation should mirror God’s rule over all things: loving, patient, leading, caring and compassionate.

Additionally, although humans were made in the image of God, putting the human race above and of more value than the rest of creation [4], the Bible states multiple times that creation in its entirety, humanity included, belongs to and is ruled by God.[5] As it belongs to God, it is of immeasurable value.

It therefore follows that humans are not the owners of creation; rather, it has been entrusted into their care. Psalm chapter 115 verse 16 says that “The highest heavens belong to the Lord, but the Earth has given to man.” The world has been gifted to humans, to make use of and enjoy but not to abuse and destroy.

Another common view in fundamentalist theology is that the earth is in a state of increasing decline until the point where Jesus returns. Therefore, destroying the environment, or leaving it to be destroyed by others, essentially speeds Jesus’ coming.

This viewpoint is often held by Christians with a dispensational premillennialist view of the end times (for more on this viewpoint, see this previous article on freelance theology).This view would see ecological collapse and destruction such as famines, droughts, floods and pestilence to be signs of the forthcoming apocalypse.[6]

Although this is not the place to get into a discussion about the views about the end times, a response would be to reiterate that creation is of intrinsic value, and that God has entrusted humanity with the care of His creation. Is speeding the fate of the world through destructive action really the way Christians should act? If the apocalyptic destruction of Earth is due to evil and sin, maybe Christians should do all they can to oppose it? To do otherwise is to surrender to evil.

In conclusion, Christisn theology states that it is humanity’s privilege as the pinnacle of God’s creation to care for and rule lovingly over the rest of the Earth. This should inspire Christians to recognise the value that God has given creation and act accordingly.

Related articles
Millennial Fever
Global Warning

Notes and references
[1] ‘Subdue’ in Oxford Shorter Dictionary (5th Edition): Volume 2, Oxford University Press, 2003.
[2] Genesis chapter 1 verse 10, 12, 18, 21, 25.
[3] Genesis chapter 1 verse 26.
[4] For example: Matthew chapter 6 verse 26; Matthew chapter 10 verse 31; Matthew chapter 12 verse 12; Luke chapter 1 verse 27; Luke chapter 2 verse 4.
[5] Psalms chapter 24 verse 1,Psalms chapter 104 verse 24, Deuteronomy chapter 10 verse 14, Job chapter 41 verse 11, 1 Corinthians chapter 10 verse 26.
[6] See for instance Matthew chapter 24 verse 7.

The talk began with a rough “timeline” of what is often taught in churches about satan. An adapted version is shown here:

In the beginning, God exists alone (but in Trinity). Angels are created. Lucifer is created as one of the angels.

The world is created. Human beings are created ‘in the image of God’. Lucifer becomes jealous of the relationship God has with human beings and leads an angelic rebellion against God, which fails. Lucifer battles with the arch-angel Michael and is ‘cast down’ from Heaven. (Sometimes this is placed before the creation of the world, with Lucifer jealous of God’s plans to create humanity.)

In Eden, Lucifer takes the guise of a serpent, and persuades Eve to eat the forbidden fruit, thus sparking off the Fall of Man.

Later in Genesis, the fallen angels (‘the sons of God’) copulate with the daughters of men and produce a race of ‘giants’, which some creationists think is a reference to dinosaurs. All these creatures presumably die in the Great Flood.

In the Old Testament, Satan is described as ‘the accuser / adversary’. He accuses Job of only being righteous because God has blessed him. God tests Job as a result. Satan also ‘rises up’ against Israel and incites David into disobeying God (1 Chronicles, chapter 21, verse 1).

In the gospels, Satan plays a key role. Satan attempts to tempt Jesus with promises of food and power, and tries to trick Jesus into testing God. Jesus tells his disciples that “I saw Satan fall from Heaven like lightning” and refers to satan as “the prince of this world” and “the father of lies”.

Jesus and his followers cast out many “evil spirits”. Notable exorcisms include ‘Legion’ from the Gadarene Demoniac and the seven spirits from Mary Magdala. Luke’s gospel records that satan “entered” Judas Iscariot, when Judas chose to betray Jesus. Jesus rebukes Peter at one point and calls him satan. (“Get behind me, Satan.”)

In the Garden of Gethsemene, Jesus tells Peter that satan has “requested to sift you like wheat.” Jesus dies on the cross. He descends into hell and liberates the captive souls of righteous people who died under the old covenant – this is called the ‘Harrowing of Hell’ and is referenced in the Apostle’s Creed. Through the resurrection satan is defeated.

In the Age of the Church, the devil is still active as a tempter and adversary. Typically regarded as ‘lord of hell’, satan is said to rule over various demonic spirits – some of whom dwell in human beings, and others that rule over various territories (‘territorial spirits’). These are also known as ‘principalities and powers’. Christians are called to engage in “spiritual warfare” against these beings.

In the End Times visions of St John, recorded in Revelation, the devil, ‘all his angels’, a human figure called the antichrist and a monstrosity called the Beast are thrown into the Lake of Fire (“the second death”). Satan is removed utterly from the cosmos.

This particular ‘history’ of satan is ancient. Tertullian, writing in the second century recounts the story of a prehistoric fall of the angels and Augustine gives an account too.

But there are a few problems with it, not least of which a lack of Biblical evidence for most of the first bit.

Being limited by our own understanding of ‘being’
But before we discuss Biblical references to satan, I’d like to address something that I think is quite crucial regarding how we think about satan or the devil.

One of the problems we face in trying to understand anything is that we do so informed by our experience as human beings. So when we talk about ‘Satan’ or ‘the Devil’ we imagine a being a bit like us.

We imagine a created being with free will, perhaps. We imagine a being with a moral sense of right and wrong. And we use words like ‘rebellion’ to indicate this free will being misused. People may refer to the ‘Fall of Satan’ as if there was some kind of moral choice in the matter.

Three issues with this are:
1) We are never told that angels, whether fallen or otherwise, have the same attributes as human beings. ‘Angelou’, the Greek word, literally translates as ‘Messenger’. An angel is a messenger acting on behalf of God. Or, sometimes in the Old Testament, an angel carries out God’s business (e.g. the Angel of Death during Passover). Angels are thus created for a purpose and have no separate existence apart from the purpose they were created for.

Human beings on the other hand were created in the ‘image of God’, which means they have a separate existence. We can exist separately from God. We can be, in a sense, ‘self-sufficient’. That existence may be lesser, it may be ‘fallen’, it may be less good, but it is still existence.

2) ‘Personhood’ in the sense that we are persons and individuals is, I think, part of that Godly image that still resides in us. So I don’t think it’s right to regard other beings as ‘persons’. Especially not angels, which, whatever they are, are not human, and are not made in the image of God. We are persons because God is personal.

3) Regarding ‘Satan’ as a ‘personal being’ implies creation of that being with either a tendency towards evil, or as evil. Regarding ‘Satan’ as a personal being makes God ultimately responsible for the existence of ‘Satan’. But there isn’t much evidence that God created a personal being called ‘Satan’ to cause evil and suffering in the world.

That has been a viewpoint in Christian theology, as it helps to explain why a personal being called ‘Satan’ exists. But if you don’t accept that ‘Satan’ is a ‘personal’ being in the way that we are personal beings, then you don’t need to invent explanations for why God created such a being.

Using a lower case ’s’
So, having made those points, is it right to talk of the devil or satan as a person? On freelance theology satan is usually written with a lower case s, and the devil with a lower case d, precisely to undermine the ‘personal’ element. And satan is referred to as ‘it’, not ‘he’.

And the reason for doing that is very simple. As Christians it is right to believe there is a negative spiritual force at work in the world, which opposes God and opposes God’s followers. That viewpoint can be based on the words of Jesus, the tradition of the Church, and sometimes from personal experience.

But Christian theology insists that God has the mastery over that force; the battle is won and is being won as we speak. The force we call satan has no place in this universe, and ultimately will have no existence to speak of.

So if we say satan exists, what form does it take? One way to think of it is that satan exists ‘parasitically’. It has no form of its own and seeks to mimic the most powerful things it can. Human beings are immensely powerful. We are made in the image of God and like God we can shape worlds and futures. We have freedom and individuality and conscience and imagination. We exist self-sufficiently.

When human beings personalise or embody evil in a character or persona called ‘Satan’, we, in a way, give power and validity to the force that opposes God’s plans and purposes and will. Thinking of satan as a being a bit like us is both perfectly natural, and yet wrong, because in doing that we give this opposition form, and voice, and being.

It’s natural to think of satan as personal, though, because we have a tendency to anthropomorphise. We treat out pets as people. We ascribe human emotions to dogs, cats and hamsters. We even name our cars and talk to our appliances. We caress out phones and iPods. We imbue these things with a sense of us, and they become important to us as a result.

But even though it’s natural, when it comes to satan it’s wrong, because when we anthropomorphise satan we ascribe it more power, more validity, and more personality than we should. Many Christians believe that ‘Satan’ is a powerful, malevolent, intelligent being bent on their destruction. And for those Christians that may be true. But only because they gave that being form and existence, even if only in their own heads.

Having said that, let’s return to the traditional view, and some of the problem areas around it:

Wars and rumours of wars
There is no real Biblical evidence for a pre-historic ‘war in Heaven’ between rebellious angels and God. Let’s consider the references that are sometimes cited for this, but first two ‘non-references’.

There is no mention in Genesis, the ‘Book of Origins’, or in the writings of the Apostle Paul, who is probably the biggest source of quotes from Genesis in the New Testament and uses Genesis to support many of his arguments. The ‘Fall’ is a pivotal part of his theology, and he adheres to the Genesis account as literally true. It seems strange that there is no mention of Lucifer’s fall from grace.

The Old Testament references sometimes used to back this idea up are Ezekiel chapter 28, verses 13-17.

“You were in Eden, the garden of God; every precious stone adorned you: ruby, topaz and emerald, chrysolite, onyx and jasper, sapphire, turquoise and beryl. Your settings and mountings were made of gold; on the day you were created they were prepared.

“You were anointed as a guardian cherub, for so I ordained you. You were on the holy mount of God; you walked among the fiery stones.

“You were blameless in your ways from the day you were created till wickedness was found in you.

“Through your widespread trade you were filled with violence, and you sinned. So I drove you in disgrace from the mount of God, and I expelled you, O guardian cherub, from among the fiery stones.

“Your heart became proud on account of your beauty, and you corrupted your wisdom because of your splendour. So I threw you to the earth; I made a spectacle of you before kings.”

That does read very much like the traditional view of the Fall of Satan. Thing is, if you look up these verses, they come in a prophetic section labelled “A Prophecy against the King of Tyre”. In fact, verses 11-12 say: “The word of the LORD came to me: “Son of man, take up a lament concerning the king of Tyre and say to him: ‘This is what the Sovereign LORD says’…”

So, this text may have been applied to satan after it was written to support a tradition of a pre-historic angelic fall. But it probably wasn’t written that way.

Similarly Isaiah chapter 14, verses 12-15 is about the King of Babylon, which isn’t a metaphorical name for satan. It really was the King of Babylon. This is the section where the name Lucifer comes from. The King of Babylon is called ‘morning star; son of the dawn’ – or in Latin, luciferous.

In the New Testamant we have three possible references to a pre-historic angelic rebellion.

Firstly, Jesus tells his disciples that “I saw Satan fall from heaven like lightning” (Luke chapter 10, verse 18). However, this conversation takes place just after the 72 disciples had gone out and done amazing acts of healing and exorcism.

Jesus may be referring to what has just happened – the actions of the disciples have pushed back the effects of evil. There is no way of knowing whether it’s a reference to a pre-historic fall, or whether Jesus is just using it as a symbolic way of saying ‘yeah, you have guys have done God’s work, and you have done good.’

The other NT references are:
Jude, verse 6 “And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their own home—these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgement on the great Day.”

2 Peter chapter 2, verse 4 “God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell, [Greek: ‘Tartarus’] putting them into gloomy dungeons [or chains of darkness] to be held for judgement.”

These two verses present their own difficulties. Jude also refers to the devil ‘disputing’ with the archangel Michael over Moses’ body (verse 9) and a prophecy of Enoch (verses 14-15). Neither is found in the Old Testament. It appears the writer of Jude is using stories from Jewish legend to appeal to those he is writing to. So, how much credence we should give any of the stories he refers to is a matter of personal opinion.

The 2 Peter reference may well refer to the strange reference in Genesis chapter 6, verses 1-2. “When men began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose.” However, this occurred after the creation events and the ‘Fall of Man’ in Eden, not beforehand. So the chronology is out of sync.

In fact, the only clear reference to a ‘war in Heaven’ is found in Revelation chapter 12, verses 7-9. “And there was war in heaven. Michael and his angels fought against the dragon, and the dragon and his angels fought back. But he was not strong enough, and they lost their place in heaven. The great dragon was hurled down—that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him.”

Confusingly, though, this is in John’s vision of the future, not the past. So the only clear reference to this idea locates the fall from Heaven at a future point. And, in addition, care needs to be taken in the use and interpretation of apocalyptic writings, because they are highly symbolic and may not have been designed to be read in any way literally in the first place.

There are good reasons for believing in a pre-historic ‘fall’ of angels. It offers an explanation of sorts for the existence of a negative spiritual force known as satan. It also locates satan firmly within the created sphere – evil is not something breaking into, or impinging upon, creation. God’s mastery over satan is assured because God has created the sphere in which satan has arisen.

So there are good reasons, even if there are no good Biblical reasons.

“The old serpent…”
And so to the Eden story, where satan is often identified as one and the same as one of the main protagonists: the serpent. As I’ve already said, there is nothing in the Eden narratives to suggest a pre-historic fall of angels, and similarly there is no textual evidence that the serpent is satan. Apart from the fact that it talks to Eve, it’s an ordinary serpent.

There’s no way to know exactly who first identified the serpent as satan. When Paul refers to it in 2 Corinthian’s chapter 11, verse 3, he doesn’t make the link. However, in Revelation, John identifies satan as ‘that old serpent’, twice (Revelation chapter 12, verse 9, and chapter 20, verse 2). So, this idea has some New Testament provenance, but equally there are other things it could be.

The Genesis creation stories have borrowed a lot of language and style from Babylonian creation myths (see this previous article on freelance theology). In Babylonian mythology, there are dragons (serpents) and they represent chaos. The article about evil mentioned that one way of looking at evil is that God imposes order on chaos, but chaos fights back. Isaiah uses the imagery of Leviathan, “the serpent of the sea” to represent chaos, and God’s mastery over it, in Isaiah chapter 27, verse 1.

So, is the reference to a serpent a creative way of expressing something else? A serpent represents destruction and chaos. Disobeying God brings destruction and chaos (the ‘Fall’ and the introduction of sin into the world). The serpent of Eden may be a ‘literary device’ to warn the reader about the perils of doubting God’s words.

Satan the lawyer
The Job story is very interesting. Satan appears to be allowed into Heaven. Satan comes, like a lawyer, to bring a case against Job. Job, it is claimed, is only so righteous because God has blessed him – God is ‘buying his love’. God accepts it may look that way and removes all of Job’s blessings. Job does not recant his faith in God and his righteousness is proven to all.

It’s noticeable that Satan appears to fulfil a similar function in Zechariah chapter 3, verses 1. “Then he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the LORD, and Satan standing at his right side to accuse him.”

Jesus and satan
Without a doubt Jesus referred to satan as a personal being or described satan as having personal attributes. Jesus’ ministry is marked by significant temptations, spiritual encounters, exorcisms, and references to satan as ‘the prince of this world’ and ‘the father of lies’.

As an aside, it is worth pointing out that even as God incarnate, Jesus was born into a culture that believed in the existence of ‘Satan’ as a personal being. In his human-ness it would be only natural for Jesus to think of ‘Satan’ this way. We need to exercise caution about saying that the way Jesus talks about ‘Satan’ is an indicator that ‘Satan’ exists that way.

But the life of Jesus does reveal some very clear indicators about the nature of satan. There are several different ways of interpreting these key events and I just want to throw out a few of them:

The Temptation
This is an important part of Jesus’ life at the start of his ministry. He knows who he is, and has had that confirmed at his baptism. Now he must decide what kind of messiah he is going to be?

Is he going to use his power to look after his own needs (bread)? Is he going to be a military leader (commanding angels)? Is he going to be a political leader (ruling countries)? All three options are open to him.

However, the accounts don’t really talk about Satan in any external way. “The tempter” ‘comes to’ Jesus, in the same way that thoughts come or doubts come. These ideas take the form of ‘You could make bread’. Jesus identifies it as a wrong thought.

How did his followers know about the temptation he faced? He must have told them. He may have identified these thoughts as satanic, because they are not relating to the way of God. So we can look at this ‘spiritual experience’ as an internal experience without losing any of the power or the meaning, or the wonderful truth that Jesus chose to go God’s way.

I’m not trying to explain away the Temptation of Jesus as ‘he was hearing voices’. What I’m trying to show is that the fact of Jesus being tempted by the devil, is not evidence of the devil’s self-sufficient existence. To put it another way, the devil wasn’t waiting for Jesus in the desert. If Jesus had not gone out there, satan would have ‘come’ to him in another place.

Exorcism and liberation
I think its very interesting that exorcisms are carried out by Jesus in much the same context as healings. They have very similar effects. For example, Jesus heals Peter’s mother-in-law and she gets up and starts to make them dinner (Luke chapter 4, verses 38-39). She gets back to normal. Jesus drives out Legion from the Gaderene demoniac and then the next vignette is of Jesus sitting chatting with the man who is now in his own mind (Mark chapter 5, verse 15).

A way of looking at the exorcism of evil spirits is to regard them like sickness. These are people who have been profoundly affected by something that goes against the will of God. Sickness is not in the original plan of God therefore Jesus opposed sickness and cured people. Possession by something other than God is also not in God’s original plan, so Jesus opposes it and drives it out.

But note how these ‘demons’/’evil spirits’ are defined only within a context of ‘occupying’ things that exist – mainly humans. Legion is interesting. Legion begs not to be destroyed and asks to be driven into the pigs (Mark chapter 5, verse 12). This (slightly bizarre) story seems to imply that the evils spirits can’t exist apart from a ‘host’.

Peter = satan?
What does Jesus mean when he calls Peter ‘Satan’ in Matthew chapter 16, verse 23? Is he identifying the ‘opposition’ in Peter – the adversary that was thinking and acting counter to God’s plans?

This is the same kind of thing that affected Judas. It’s interesting that Luke claims that satan entered Judas when Judas decided to betray him (Luke chapter 22, verses 3-6). It was as if, at the point when Judas fell out with Jesus, Judas fell under the influence of something else.

‘Spiritual warfare’ and the power of satan in the age of the Church
Throughout the New Testament the influence and ‘power’ of satan is regarded as temporary. The Revelation of John predicts an end to satan, and claims that in the new heaven and new earth there will not be any ‘sea’ – again a word that could be read as a reference to the primordial chaos.

God will put an end to sin and suffering, death and chaos. Order will be restored, the order that always meant to be there. Satan, whatever satan was, will be out of the picture.

In Ephesians chapter 6, verse 12 Paul talks about battling against spiritual forces, ‘principalities and powers’, and often that is interpreted literally, as if there are areas of the world controlled by particular demons. That’s not particularly helpful as it breeds a ‘devils under the bed’ mentality, where we ascribe everything that goes awry as part of a satanic plan to oppose us. The danger in that is we spend all our time looking for demons at work, and too little time looking for God at work.

Paul may be speaking metaphorically. Yes, he was talking about those things that oppose the will of God, but he wasn’t laying out a systematic demonology. This is a rhetorical exhortation to suit up as a soldier for God and resist evil wherever you find it.

In fact, you could say that a phrase like “against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms” implies that the first three are human, worldly elements. Maybe we have missed the point of Paul’s words by overly spiritualising them and applying them only to ‘spiritual warfare’.

So, what is satan?
Satan as a ‘function’
The problem is that we think of Satan in personal terms – to the point where we write Satan or the Devil with capital letters as proper nouns, as if those words were proper names.

But what evidence do we have that those are proper names. In Job, the accuser / adversary is a function; a role, not a name. Is satan a function?

When Jesus is tempted by satan, is this just ‘testing’. Is ‘Satan’ a personalisation of a function within creation? Is satan an in-built element of creation that holds it to account? It tests. It’s a stress-test. And when it gets out of hand there are problems.

I think there is an element of truth to this. I think it can be helpful if you want to maintain that satan is a semi-personal force that is allowed to exist in opposition to God. It does tie in with the idea of satan tempting humans. It does allow you to think of satan as force with its own existence and more than just parasitically drawing on existence.

Satan as the ‘nothing option’
Another way of regarding satan is that idea of chaos, interloping into order. We have two potential alternatives: order and chaos, or lets call them existence and nothing. God creates order, according to Christian theology. God calls existence into being – ‘creatio ex nihilo’, or creation from nothing, is a standard starting point for most systematic theologies – and the alternative is non-existence.

For the purpose of this exercise, let’s assume the literal truth of the Genesis story about the Fall of Man. When Eve doubts God’s words, and acts in accordance to her own wisdom, trouble follows. She makes a choice – a wrong choice – and something is set up apart from God. But what can be apart from God, and yet exist? Nothing can, according to Christian theology, so trusting in anything – ‘leaning on your own understanding’ – is an exercise in trusting in nothing.

When Eve chose to trust something other than God, she chose the path of non-existence. She is warned that is she disobeys God she will surely die. Death is ceasing to live; to exist. She disobeys God and non-existence enters the existing world, bringing with it discreativity and chaos. Or evil, if you want to call it that.

Satan then is this ‘option’. If you choose not-God, non-existence, then you choose to be apart from God and to be in opposition to God. Jesus calls Peter ‘Satan’ when Peter is expressing terms that are counter to God’s plan. This is how satan ‘enters’ into Judas, because Judas sets himself in opposition with Jesus who is God incarnate. For whatever reason Judas chose to do it, in that choice satan enters him and he becomes the enemy of Christ.

The frightening thing about this is that all human beings have the capacity to be either divine or satanic, depending on which side of the barricades we choose to stand.

Satan as anything that opposes God
A third way of making sense of satan is to define it as anything that is not of God. Doubting God, opposing God, self-worship, idolatry, falsehood, sin, all of it could be classed as satanic because it is in opposition to God.

In the verse already quoted from Ephesians we are to stand “against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms”. Anything that is arraigned against God is ‘of the devil’. That’s the stuff we label as satan. And sometimes that may include persons and cults of personality, and in that sense the devil may take on personality, but only ‘borrowed’ as it were, from corrupted persons.

Conclusion
So, should we believe ‘in’ the devil?

I would say, no. Even if I’m wrong and there is a real, spiritual entity who was thrown out of Heaven before the creation of the world, and has subsequently messed up the whole of human existence, I would still say ‘No’.

If anything we must believe ‘against’ the devil. We must deny satan or lucifer or the devil or whatever we call it, its validity. One way we do that is be refusing to think of it as a personal being.

We must say ‘whatever this is, it has no reason to exist’. Whether it’s a fallen angel, or a sinful system, or a parasitic incursion into our universe, we need to say ‘no, we do no recognise the legitimacy of anything or anyone who would seek to oppose our God.’

I said earlier the battle is won, and it is being won. We know where the devil will end up. There is no place for it in the renewed cosmos. There may still be a struggle in this world. The promise is there will be no such struggle in the next.

So when we think of the way things should be, there should be no place for the devil.

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 the reference to “the abomination that causes desolation” – a phrase used in the book of Daniel – was probably a coded reference to the standards of the Roman legions, which were considered to be idols. According to the ‘prophecy’, When the Roman standards were placed in the Temple, the city would be destroyed.

While there are a number of different theories as to when the gospel we call Matthew was written, the majority of scholars would say it was written after the destruction of Jerusalem. The debate then hinges on whether this is a genuine prophecy from Jesus regarding the destruction of the Temple, or whether it’s been written ‘after the fact’ to explain why the Temple has been destroyed.

If there was a Jewish-Christian faction who saw Christianity as a renewal movement in Judaism rather than a new religion in its own right, the destruction of the Temple would have cast significant doubt on the veracity of Christ’s teaching. Matthew, long recognised to be the most ‘Jewish’ gospel, may have included this whole passage precisely to counteract the argument that the destruction of the Temple disproved Jesus’ claims to be the Jewish messiah.

The destruction of Jerusalem is closely linked with Jesus’ description of the end times. In fact, Jesus is recorded as telling his disciples that the “days will shortened” (verse 22) between the destruction of Jerusalem and when the ‘Son of Man’ comes in glory (verse 30). After telling his disciples to be mindful of the ‘signs of the times’, he then says that all this will happen before “this generation” passes away.

The New Testament is definitely written anticipating the future return of Christ within a lifetime. In the fourth gospel, there is a story included to disavow the rumour that Jesus would return within the lifetime of the ‘beloved disciple’ (John chapter 21, verses 22-23). But the common thread to all references to the second coming/end of the world is that nobody knows when it will be. In Matthew chapter 24, verse 36, Jesus is recorded as saying even he doesn’t know when the end would come. Previously in Matthew, Jesus refers to the time ‘being short’ (chapter 10, verse 23) and explicitly states that “some standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom” (chapter 16, verse 28).

The fact that the New Testament anticipates Jesus’ return “soon” (Revelation chapter 22, verse 20), without defining how long that ‘soon’ will be, has led to a number of different possibilities being put forward.

The simplest solution to the conundrum is that Jesus was prophesying and got it half right – the destruction of Jerusalem, but not the follow on end of the world. Obviously, Christians who hold that Jesus was the incarnate Son of God would be very unhappy at this interpretation. However, it has been a long-standing tradition within Christian theology that as a human being, Jesus felt hunger, thirst and grief, but as the incarnate Son, he exhibited divine characteristics such as prophecy and miraculous acts. It would be possible to claim that in his human person, Jesus made a mistake, stemming from the human limits to his knowledge (chapter 24, verse 36). This mistake would have no bearing on his deity, or his divine nature.

Another explanation is that the gospel writer got it wrong. It is simply impossible to know that the words recorded as coming from Jesus were actually spoken by him. If the writer(s) of Matthew was of the Jewish-Christian tradition, maybe for him the destruction of the Temple felt very much like a prelude to the end of the world. Jesus’ words may have been recast to reflect the writer’s state of mind.

Tying in to this is the alternative translation of the word ‘genea’, which can mean ‘generation’ or ‘race’ (it is the root of our English word genealogy). If Jesus meant ‘race’, then he was saying there would still be ethnic Jews present to witness the second coming, which, given the situation under the Roman occupiers may have looked uncertain at the time the gospel was written. However, ‘genea’ is ambiguous, and certainly it would seem, from context, that the word ‘generation’ was meant.

In terms of understanding how apocalyptic predictions are not necessarily future predictions, it helps to think of ‘apocalyptic’ literature being rooted in its contemporary culture. Certainly Revelation reflects the first century experience of the church in a hostile society. Matthew’s gospel also reflects a particular expression of early Christian culture, in this case the believing Jews who still practised elements of the Jewish faith, including Temple worship.

There is, of course, a large subculture within the Christian faith dedicated to studying the ‘end times’ and predicting the future return of Christ. For them explaining why Jesus promises an imminent end of the world, which is still yet to happen, becomes a challenge.

One method of explaining confusions in Scripture is to use Scripture to interpret itself. So, those who would hold that Jesus didn’t make mistakes when prophesying, and that the Bible is accurate, would probably appeal to the ‘Great Commission’ that appears in Matthew chapter 28, verse 16-20. In this Jesus tells his followers to “go and make disciples of all nations” (verse 19). Not only has this phrase inspired centuries of dedicated missionary work, it has become a key element in ‘predicting’ the end of the world. According to this theory, until this condition is met, and there is a believer in every nation (or ‘people group’), Christ will not return.

In terms of understanding Matthew chapter 24, it’s interesting that this phrase appears only a short while later, admittedly after Jesus’ death and resurrection. Given that it’s a later statement, it can be regarded as superceding Jesus’ previous prophecy. There is, of course a religious historical precedent for prophecies of destruction not coming true referred to in Matthew – the case of Jonah’s prophecy about Ninevah. The gospel writer(s) describe the resurrection as ‘the sign of Jonah’ in chapters 12, verses 38-41 and 16, verse 4. It is interesting if Jesus’ ‘prophecy’ followed the same pattern as Jonah’s.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.