This psalm contains a three-fold theme. Creation, the law, and forgiveness serve as testimonies to the glory of God. Creation does not serve as an equal manifestation to the Law-Word, but rather in submission to the Word of the Lord, which is perfect and all together righteous. Creation is personified in the passage. This is a poetic way of explaining the world as a harmonious choir praising the excellence of God.
One way to begin to consider this passage is by acknowledging the Creator/creature distinction. Creation is not God. Creation speaks of God. Insofar as creation speaks of God, man is called to respond to that message. However, creation is not the end of that message. Creation points us to the words of God, which are sweeter than honey.
A parishioner gave me a copy of Randy Alcorn’s collection of quotations about heaven, the new earth, and the life after death. The book is over 600 pages, and I can already imagine myself enjoying it for years to come. What will appear here for many months will be various quotations from the book. I hope they will be satisfying and provide a taste of heaven.
Everyone raised his hand to pick the fruit he best liked the look of, and then everyone paused for a second. This fruit was so beautiful that each felt, “It can’t be meant for me…surely we’re not allowed to pluck it.”
“It’s all right,” Peter. “…I’ve a feeling we’ve got to the country where everything is allowed.”
Welcome once again to our study of David Chilton’s Days of Vengeance. I am Uri Brito and I blog at apologus.wordpress.com.
We are going to delve briefly into Chilton’s introduction. There are two important elements in understanding Revelation, and they are to know the author and the date of the book. Concerning the author there is virtually unanimous testimony that it was the same John who wrote the Fourth Gospel (1). John, according to Chilton, writes in an “authoritative, “apostolic” style, not to individuals merely, but to the Church” (1). There is little to no dispute John wrote this letter. In fact, Revelation uses Johannine language like the expression Lamb of God, which is distinctly used by John in his gospel.
The same question is a lot more complicated. When did John write Revelation? This is a highly disputed question, because once you come to a conclusion on the date, you will most likely be led to a particular hermeneutic; and that hermeneutic will drive your view of the entire book. Chilton’s premise is that Revelation was written before the destruction of the temple in AD 70. This position is typically called Preterism. Preterism means past. That is, the events of Revelation are not primarily futuristic–though there are many principles we can apply to our context– but primarily, Revelation has the first century audience in mind. If you have the energy to pursue this topic further, Kenneth Gentry has written a lengthy and scholarly work entitled Before Jerusalem Fell, which makes a strong case for a pre-AD 70 reading of this book.
David Chilton offers a few reasons as to why he believes John, the Apostle, wrote this letter to his first century audience:
First, as we referenced in our first video, Chilton argues that Revelation is a book about worship. Naturally, the book is full of liturgical allusions; and it actually contains minute details. Who could have known of these details unless he were intimately familiar with the actual service in theTempleitself. John fits the bill. John, as Chilton argues, was a priest. If this is the case, John was writing about aTemplestill in existence, which would lead to a pre AD 70 letter.
Second, Chilton argues that there is an a priori teaching from Scripture that all special revelation ended by AD 70. The argument is that Daniel’s prophecy in chapter 9:24-27 of the seventy weeks would end at the destruction ofJerusalem. And what would happen then, according to Daniel? That period would seal up the vision and prophecy. In other words, the sealing up of vision and prophecy referred to the Word of God, which would be completed before the destruction of the temple. Revelation was not a late first century book, but actually written closer to the other books in the New Testament canon.
Finally, there are time references in chapter one that lead us to conclude that the book is an early book. John says these things will happen “soon,” “quickly,” etc. These are time indicators proving that John was intentional about his language. Soon meant within that generation, not two thousand years later. For John, Revelation was the final judgment on apostateIsrael. It would mark the transition from an old world to a new world with a new Lord, Jesus Christ.
We will stop here, but feel free to leave a comment or any question both here on the youtube page or on my blog apologus.wordpress.com. We will continue our look at Chilton’s introduction next time. Peace be with you.
Marva Dawn has been one of the most gifted voices into my own life. Over the years I have been struck by her profound insights into worship, and her counsel to bathe our souls in the psalms. In preaching through the psalms this Lenten Season, I have been meditating on her book I’m Lonely, Lord–HOW LONG? Her Lutheran background offers helpful liturgical observations as she works through many of the psalms of lament. In a section entitled YHWH Understands Even Betrayal, Dawn pauses to meditate on the poetry of Psalm 55. She focuses her attention on the importance of rest, and concludes:
“We Christians need a better theology of rest. We are often so eager to serve the LORD or are so caught up in our occupations or projects that we forget to balance our work with genuine rest. Somehow we have neglected the importance of the First Testament Sabbath in our New Testament faith. The Jews worked hard for six days and rested on the seventh. They recognized the rhythms of life; they realized that we need space to be restored, to rest, to find healing.”
“Augustine often states that justification includes the idea of ‘making righteous,’ not simply ‘declaring/reckoning’ as righteous.” How closely does Augustine anticipate Martin Luther? McGrath emphasizes an important distinction:
Augustine has an all-embracing transformative understanding of justification, which includes both the event of justification (brought about an operative grace) and the process of justification (brought about by cooperative grace). Augustine himself does not, in fact, see any need to distinguish between these two aspects of justification; the distinction dates from the sixteenth century.
Marcion argued that the works of believers will not be weighed by God in the final judgement. Origen objects, and argues that faith and good works are ‘two complementary conditions of salvation that must not be separated.’ And what is Thomas Scheck’s conclusion? Scheck concludes that “on the theme of justification, faith, and works, Augustine does not differ substantially from Origen.”
In wondering why there isn’t a Lutheran view represented in the Five Views book, the editor observes:
Our response is that Horton’s traditional Reformed view is functionally identical in all the significant theological aspects to the traditional Lutheran view.
I first heard of Andrew Bacevich about two years ago. I came across one of his interviews with Bill Moyers. Moyers always asked the right questions. His liberal bias was so obvious that it actually made for good television. I was so fascinated by his style that I bought one of his books and reviewed it. But it was that lengthy interview with Bacevich that consolidated my allegiance with the Old Right. Here was a Vietnam Veteran who laid out his presuppositions with intense vigor and who had personally lived the pain of the Iraq war in the death of his son. It has now been several years since that interview and recently I ordered a copy of Bacevich’s The New American Militarism: How Americans are Seduced by War.
The preface to the book is quite stimulating since Bacevich lays out his background and what led him to interpret America’s wars through these lenses. After years, as a conservative political writer for Weekly Standard and National Review (both ardent neo-conservative voices), Dr. Bacevich began to dissolve his relationship with the conservative literary establishment (xi). In the end, Bacevich came to realize that “the Republican and Democratic parties may not be identical, but they produce nearly identical results (xi).”
Bacevich is a conservative with all the credentials, but his vast background (Historian, international relations expert and former US Army Colonel) has led him to different conclusions about the U.S. military pursuits around the world. His conclusions are bound to make both the left and the right uncomfortable.
Ian Hewitson, defending Norman Shepherd, insists that baptism is a point of transition from death to life. Though this transition does not happen only through baptism, “neither can it be restricted to regeneration (200).” Shepherd quotes John Murray in Christian Baptism:
Baptism is not an addendum to discipleship but that by which discipleship is consummated…Since discipleship is not consummated without baptism we must regard baptism as an indispensable mark of the church. The person who refuses baptism and declines the reproach of Christ, which it entails, cannot be received as a member of Christ’s body.
To the common and infantile charge that this appears Romish, Shepherd writes:
The position here advocated should not be confused with the sacramentalist doctrine of baptismal regeneration…Baptism is not to be construed here as the instrumental cause of our union with Christ, as in the Roman Catholic sense of ex opere operato. Union with Christ is accomplished not by virtue of baptism but by virtue of the power of the Spirit.
For Shepherd, the Spirit is sovereign over the means of grace (205).
A parishioner gave me a copy of Randy Alcorn’s collection of quotations about heaven, the new earth, and the life after death. The book is over 600 pages, and I can already imagine myself enjoying it for years to come. What will appear here for many months will be various quotations from the book. I hope they will be satisfying and provide a taste of heaven.
Marcion argued that the works of believers will not be weighed by God in the final judgement. Origen objects, and argues that faith and good works are ‘two complementary conditions of salvation that must not be separated.’ And what is Thomas Scheck’s conclusion? Scheck concludes that “on the theme of justification, faith, and works, Augustine does not differ substantially from Origen.”