Showing posts with label good news. Show all posts
Showing posts with label good news. Show all posts

Friday, August 7, 2009

The Giant Flying Cube (No, not the Borg. The Bride.)


It’s strange, isn’t it, that John mixes his metaphors for the church side by side? The church, he says in the Book of Revelation, is both the Bride of Christ and a giant cube-shaped city called the New Jerusalem

Revelation 21:2 And I saw the holy city, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.

Why both a woman given in marriage and a city? It’s really quite simple. 

John is contrasting fornication with a whore (Rome – the unholy city) and marital union with a virgin Bride (the church – the holy city).

Compare Revelation 21:2 (above) with selected verses from Revelation 17:1-9:

Revelation 17:1-9 "Come, I will show you the judgment of the great whore who is seated on many waters, 2 with whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication, and with the wine of whose fornication the inhabitants of the earth have become drunk." 3 So he carried me away in the spirit into a wilderness, and I saw a woman sitting on a scarlet beast that was full of blasphemous names, and it had seven heads and ten horns. . . . 7 But the angel said to me, "Why are you so amazed? I will tell you the mystery of the woman, and of the beast with seven heads and ten horns that carries her. . . . 9 . . . the seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman is seated . . .”

(This is referring symbolically to Rome’s seven surrounding hills for which it is famous.)

Fornication with the whore in the unholy city of Babylon (Rome and her idolatrous abominations), or union with the lamb-husband in the holy city called the New Jerusalem (the Lamb-husband’s kingdom and marital union with him)? Which will it be? John asks.

In John’s vision: Jesus is a Lamb, a groom, and a husband. The church is a bride, a wife, and a city. Rome is evil Old Testament Babylon, the unholy city, and the great whore.

Mixed metaphors? Yes. Strong language? You betcha!

So should we literalize John’s vision? Look to these mixed metaphors for your answer. Are Christ’s company of believers literally a bride? Obviously not. The bride is an image in a vision. Then is his New Jerusalem literally a massive cube flying down from the sky? Of course not. But see for yourself:


Revelation 21:16 The city lies foursquare, its length the same as its width; and he measured the city with his rod, fifteen hundred miles; its length and width and height are equal.*

*This New Jerusalem is in the form of a cube. Fifteen hundred miles cubed has a volume of eleven thousand million cubic kilometers, which is about half the volume of earth’s moon.

The New Jerusalem is a giant flying cube? If you take John’s image literally, yes! It’s a cube that’s about half the size of the moon with walls 1,500 miles tall (John’s highly symbolic 12,000 stadia or furlongs). 

A mile is 5,280 feet. Commercial jets fly at an altitude of about six miles (31,680 feet). So a wall that is 1,500 miles tall is about 8,000,000 feet high. That’s over 250 times higher than a commercial jet. That’s outer space, people! Earth’s atmosphere is only about 100 miles thick.

A cube that huge stuck to the side of our planet would destroy earth’s atmosphere, disrupt earth’s orbital spin, and catastrophically distort earth’s solar orbit and the moon’s earth orbit. In a nutshell, a cube that big landing on our planet would result in the extinction of all life, if not the tearing apart of the earth.

This is clearly not what John has in mind by marriage

John is trying “by means of the reported measurements to give the impression of a city which in magnitude, symmetry, solidity, and splendour transcends the power of man to envisage.” He’s bursting “the bonds of language in an attempt to hint at what is essentially beyond imagination.” (Caird, The Revelation of Saint John, p. 272) 

John is sharing the inexpressible Good News of God’s eternal, earth-heaven uniting presence in the Lamb-Groom and his New-Jerusalem-Bride. John is telling his churches that we are his Bride and we are his City, and that he is our husband and he is our home. What we will become is beyond words.

1 John 3:2 . . . what we will be has not yet been revealed. What we do know is this: when he is revealed, we will be like him, for we will see him as he is.

So let’s not take it literally. If the New Jerusalem is not a giant cube coming in for a landing, then what is it? 

It’s clear to me that The End in John’s apocalypse is not a distant time or a massive place. The End-time Place John is describing is an eternal union with the person who is the Alpha and the Omega, the Great I AM. He is the Eternal Emmanuel, God with us, forever. All that is required of us is to open ourselves to trusting our “husband,” says John. Prepare to be his Bride and his City as he always meant for you to be. Be his bride and his home.

I call your attention to John 14:2 where Jesus says, “I go to prepare a place for you.” (italics mine) He goes (via death, resurrection, and ascension) to prepare a “room” (mone = abode) for you in his Father’s “house.” He goes to prepare a place, yet he is the place, he promises to bring you to himself (John 14:3) and he is in the Father:

John ..1:18.. No one has ever seen God. It is God the only Son, who is close to the Father’s heart (literally “in the bosom of the Father”) who has made him known. (italics mine)

The closeness of the relationship between God the Father and God the Son is expressed biblically by speaking of close proximity in space. They are in a place together, yet they are the place.

When Jesus spoke of an afterlife place he painted it symbolically by picturing a house with guest rooms. By preparing a place for you in the house of God, Jesus is preparing a place for you in the heart of the Father.

He’s speaking of something much more heavy duty than lodging. Jesus is talking about being “moved in” to the persons of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit and their relationship of mutual love, admiration, and respect. He’s talking about utter union, not unlike a marriage.

In the archaeological excavations of Capernaum, Bethsaida, and other New Testament Jewish villages, we have learned that rooms were often added onto houses. It’s believed that when a son married, his father added a room on the house for the son and his bride. The new wife thus joined the household of her father-in-law. 

Among Palestinians in the West Bank there is a similar practice. The Quran prohibits borrowing money even to build a home, and Palestinians, even if they aren’t particularly religious, might nevertheless avoid borrowing. So they only build the first floor when they have the money saved. But, they put very tall rebar in place to support another floor that they plan to build later when funds again are available. The purpose of such an addition is often a marriage. 

Not long ago, a friend of mine who lives on the Mount of Olives in Jerusalem completed the third floor of his home on the occasion of his second son’s marriage. But rather than give the new third floor to his son and new daughter-in-law, my friend moved up to the third floor with his wife (with a great view of the Dead Sea and Jericho up there). The oldest son (already married with children) moved up from the first to the second floor. The newlyweds got the first floor.

So when Jesus said that he goes to his Father to prepare a room for you in his Father’s house, he’s exactly referring to what would happen in his culture when a son expects his father to help him prepare a room for him and his new bride

Jesus calls his followers “brides.” The bride lives in a new room readied by the Son in the Father’s house. The relationship the believer has with Jesus is likened to a marriage relationship, arguably the most intimate human union possible. The two become one flesh. (Genesis 2:21; Matthew 19:5-6; Mark 10:8; 1 Corinthians 6:16; Ephesians 5:31) 

This bride and groom analogy matches the verses in the Bible that refer to the church as Jesus’ Bride.

Ephesians 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her,

Revelation 19:7 Let us rejoice and exult and give him the glory, for the marriage of the Lamb has come, and his bride has made herself ready;

Revelation 21:2 And I saw the holy city, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.

Revelation 21:9 "Come, I will show you the bride, the wife of the Lamb."

These are John’s powerful portraits of Jesus’ followers, members of John’s congregations, those Christians who endure faithfully to their wedding day, their New Jerusalem day. And John’s key portrait of Jesus is that of a lamb, the one who is your lamb-groom and your lamb-husband. No need to remind you to avoid taking that literally!

I’m confounded by those today who insist on a literal cubed city coming down from a doomsday sky. If Jesus is not a literal lamb, if the lamb is not a literal groom and husband, and if the church is not the lamb’s literal bride and wife, then the church is not a literal flying cube-shaped city either!

John isn’t showing us future catastrophe. He’s showing us marital bliss in the newlywed’s abode—symbols of our eternal union and mutual indwelling with Christ.


For more on the Book of Revelation see my blogs 666Rapture InterruptedThe MillenniumPearly Gates and Streets of GoldNames In the Book of Life, and The Lake of Fire Defined.

Friday, March 20, 2009

Don't You Hate Christian Tracts?

I found a “Christian” tract in the airport. It’s a good example of modern evangelicalism’s unfortunate cluelessness about the Gospel. It’s entitled “You have God’s Word on It.”

When you open this little tract, the very first three words inside are these:



“THE BAD NEWS”

I’m not kidding. Modern evangelicalism begins with bad news. That in itself should clue you in that something is wrong here. Like this tract, the message of the church, especially from modern evangelical circles, begins with bad news, not good.

What is this bad news that so many churches begin with? I’m following the tract word for word. If you doubt me, order the tract for yourself. Ways to order it are listed below.

The tract quotes below are in italics with quotation marks. My rebuttals, occasionally dripping with sarcasm, are in parenthesis:

1. “You are a sinner.” (What a shock!)

2. “You will die [damned]. . . because of your sin.” (The reason that damnation is God’s factory default setting for you is because, the tract writer assumes, you are a sinner and God is holy. And since God supposedly can’t even look at your sin, he can’t accept you as you are. He can’t even come near to you. You are separated from God. He’s turned away from you and is far away. Hmm. Funny how God the Son, Jesus Christ, the one who said, “When you’ve seen me you’ve seen the Father,” the one who said that he “came to seek and save the lost,” entered a sinful world, loved sinners, welcomed sinners, touched sinners, and ate with sinners. Hey, Paul wrote that Jesus even became sin. (Romans 8:3; 2 Corinthians 5:21) But if God the Father is far from me and can’t accept me and can’t come near to me because I’m a sinner, and Jesus can do all those things easily, then Jesus and the Father aren’t alike. And if they’re not alike, how can they be one? Does this tract expect me to believe that the loving side of God sent a sinner-friendly Jesus to take my whipping to appease God’s holy side? Please pardon my sarcasm. The God of this tract is double-minded about me.)

3. “[You will] be cast into the lake of fire.” (God’s very first impulse toward me, a creature he made in his own image, a creature he supposedly loves, is to reject me and punish me forever? Is this supposed to be the “gospel”—a word that means good news?)

Then the tract presents a “solution” to God’s bad news, calling it:


“THE GOOD NEWS”

1. “God doesn’t want you to perish.” (Wait a minute. God doesn’t want to fry me, but that’s his first impulse toward me because he’s holy and I’m a sinner? Again, pardon my sarcasm, but following the logic of the tract, God’s Eternal Plan A is to torture me. Though his loving side really doesn’t want to do it, he has to do it because he’s a holy, legal God. How comforting to know that God is bound by law to reject me! (Dripping sarcasm. I apologize again.) There’s nothing God can do about it. His hands are tied. Rules are rules. He’s regretful, but he has to follow regulations. I wonder who came up with these laws that GOD has to follow?)

2. “God has provided the only way to be saved from hell.” (Is it just me, or does this sound like he’s trapped me like a rat and gone away? Is he an absent rejecting Trapper who requires me to love him? That makes sense . . . NOT. And not only that, but rather than salvation being about universal grace, here in this tract, you are saved from your sentence to hell. But who sentenced you to hell? The tract says God did. That means Jesus came to earth to save you from God! Think about that. The tract is telling you that the “good news” is that God sent Jesus to earth to save you from himself! Is that what the Scriptures say Jesus came for? Did he come to save you from God? Do you see how utterly bankrupt this theology is? If a legal, non-relational God must avoid sin and must punish sin, then why would he bother to send Jesus to stop himself?)


3. “God saves you forever when you trust Jesus.” (The distant Trapper’s holiness demands my blood. But the Trapper has a split personality. He sends someone (Jesus) to spring the trap he set for me. Does that make God holy or psychotic?)

Finally the tract instructs you on how to implement your escape from God’s eternal sinner roast. This section is entitled.



“IT IS YOUR DECISION”

Well, at least the tract is consistent. If your theology is decisional rather than relational at the beginning, it should remain decisional throughout. Who wants personal relationships anyway—not when you can have the comfort and warmth of legal, decisional individualism instead? (I’m truly sorry about the sarcasm. One of my friends says I can sometimes get a bit snarky. I have no idea what snarky means, but I don’t think it’s good.)

1. “You must turn from your way and completely trust Jesus.” (Turn from my way? I guess that means turn from sinning. So all I have to do is obey all the Trapper’s rules from here on out. If I can manage to be a perfect peach, then maybe he’ll come back. Maybe he’ll accept me. But wait. It also says I have to “completely trust Jesus.” But if I try to turn from sin and keep Gods laws, then I’m not trusting Jesus. And if I completely trust Jesus, why do I have to keep all the laws? There is a contradiction here. Which do I do? Trust completely that Jesus has taken care of me? Or work hard as hell to keep all the rules so Trapper-God won’t zap me? I can’t do both! What’s the point of having a savior if we do all the saving?)


2. “Will you . . . ask Jesus Christ to save you?” (I have one more question. If Jesus saved humanity 2000 years ago, being the Lamb of God who took away the sin of the world, then why do I have to ask him to save me? I thought Paul said God saved us while we were still sinners to prove the Father’s love for us. Why can’t I just say, Thanks, Jesus? And by the way, what’s the difference between “the sinner’s prayer” and a Harry Potter incantation? Yeah, I know. I’m being snarky again.)

3. “If you will accept Christ as your Lord and Savior, please pray the sinner’s prayer with all of your heart.”
(So what words exactly do I use to make sure this “sinner’s prayer” works? How can I make sure that I really mean it? Will it help if I kneel and cry a lot when I ask? Do I get dramatic and throw myself prostrate on the ground? How will I know when I’ve groveled enough? Do I have to walk the isle of a religious institution? Do I have to shake the “right” preacher’s hand? Wait a minute. Come to think of it, if it’s up to me believing enough, then I’m just thrown back on myself. I’m not believing in Jesus. I’m believing in believing enough! I’m having faith in having enough faith. But how do you ever know you have enough faith? How do you know that you believed in believing enough for Jesus to save you from God? How much screwier can decisional evangelism get? Parenthetically, I have a comment about acceptance: I thought that the point of the incarnation and crucifixion and resurrection and ascension was Jesus accepting us into the heart and Life of his joyful relationship with his Father, not us accepting him into our hearts. Who made your heart anyway, and if he made it, how could he not be in it from the start?)


OK, let me get this straight. (I’m on a snarky roll! Sorry, I can’t help it.) According to this tract, the only thing standing between me and eternal punishment is whether or not I can stop sinning and then believe completely without a doubt that I’ve convinced Jesus in a very sincere prayer and/or religious ceremony to stand between me and the blood-rage of a rule-driven G-O-D? How should I word the prayer? “Jesus, please save me from your Dad. Amen.”?

Then the tract ends with a warning and a plea:

1. The Warning: “If you reject Jesus Christ—condemnation.” If you don’t turn from sin and ask Jesus to save you from God’s destiny for you in hell and believe with all your heart that Jesus has saved you from God’s plan, you are rejecting him. If you reject Jesus, you will burn in “a lake of fire” as planned from the beginning by G-O-D. You’re toast.

2. The Plea: “Please don’t reject the Gospel.” In this tract, the Gospel, which is supposed to mean Good News, is that God’s eternal plan to roast you might be changed provided you stop sinning and start praying earnestly the “Jesus-provision prayer.”

Let me personalize this:

1. God’s initial plan for Bert is to burn him forever because he’s a dirty sinner.


2. If Bert doesn’t improve his morals dramatically, and if Bert doesn’t pray sincerely enough, God will burn Bert as planned.


3. But if Bert cleans up his act and convinces Jesus of the sincerity of his I-wanna-get-saved prayer, then Jesus will try to stop G-O-D from burning Bert.

I have one question: In what sense is this Good News?

First, it’s certainly not good news about God. The tract portrays him non-relationally. He’s an automaton bound by rules. He doesn’t love first. He doesn’t love last. He’s absent from you and cannot reverse your sentence unless you invoke the Jesus clause. His first impulse toward you is fire-torture. Good News about God in this tract? There is none.

Second, what about the relationship between Jesus and his Father? In this tract there is none. They are at crossed purposes. They are bound together by rules, not love. It’s God’s job to broil you. It’s Jesus’ job to stop God. Your job is to convince Jesus to stop God. If you don’t, he won’t. Good news? Hardly.

Third, what about Jesus? No good news there either. Jesus not only doesn’t have a relationship with his heavenly Father in this tract, he doesn’t have a relationship with you or anyone else either. Jesus is a mere legal loophole. He’s a provision. If you invoke the Jesus clause, Jesus is legally bound to try to stop God from microwaving you as planned. It’s legal, decisional, and contractual, but not relational. Is that Good News? No way.

Enough said. If you love laws, rules, verdicts, sentencing, punishment, and no loving relationships whatsoever, you’re going to love this tract. If you’d like a copy, you may order it at:

Fellowship Tract League (A non-relational tract is produced by a “Fellowship”? How ironic.)
P.O. Box 164, Lebanon, OH 45036

They are not for sale. Request © Tract 134


If you love the gospel, however, you might like this quote from author Wayne Jacobson:

“When you realize sin doesn’t make you worthless it just makes you lost, you will know God’s compassion for people caught in sin, not contempt for them.”


For more evangelical bad behavior:
Hell House
The Prosperity Gospel: God In a Box
Katrina - The Wrath of God?
The Christian Ambush: A True Story