by Alan Bandy

In the earliest period after the apostles, most of the discussions on the end-times focused on the nature of the future Kingdom of Christ when he comes to inaugurate 1,000 years of ruling with the resurrected saints on Earth based on Rev. 20:1-6.

The belief in a literal 1,000-year earthly reign of Christ to be realized at some point in the future is called chiliasm—from the Greek word for a thousand. The vast majority of interpreters during the second and third centuries were chiliasts. Their literalistic interpretation of Rev 20:1-6, however, was eclipsed by more allegorical and spiritual approaches emphasizing the timeless and successive fulfillment of these prophecies throughout church history.

In modern times, the premillennial position enjoys pride of place among most evangelical Christians, which affirms a futurist approach for interpreting the Book of Revelation that views chapters 4–22 as referring to future events. Not all premillennialists, however, agree as to how Revelation portrays the unfolding of these future events. Therefore they usually take one of two basic forms: (1) historic premillennialism deriving from the chiliasm of the early church; and (2) dispensational premillennialism that developed during the 19th Century in Great Britain and popularized in America with the Scofield Study Bible.

I want to highlight historic premillennialism and share some of the core beliefs maintained by its proponents. Historic premillennialism has been increasingly adopted or adapted by a number of conservative evangelical and Southern Baptist scholars over the last 40 years. For a more exhaustive study, I recommend the helpful book titled A Case for Historic Premillennialism: An Alternative to ‘Left Behind’ Eschatology, edited by Craig Blomberg and Sung Wook Chung.

At the heart of historic premilliennailism is an uncompromising belief in the inspiration, inerrancy and authority of the Bible. Due to this commitment, they believe in the future fulfillment of prophecy, especially a literal, visible, glorious and victorious return of Christ to Earth at the end of the age. When Jesus returns, He will bind Satan, the saints will be raised (first resurrection), and they will reign with Christ over the nations on Earth for a millennium of peace and prosperity. At the end of this millennium, Satan will be released to allow one last attempt to rally the nations in battle against Christ—a futile effort doomed to failure and the lake of fire. The great white throne will descend, followed by a general resurrection (second resurrection) of all people who ever lived and they will all stand judgment. After the final judgment, God will create a new Heaven and new Earth, where He will dwell with His people for eternity.

Historic premillenialists affirm only one return of Christ and typically believe that the church will persevere through the tribulation. This differs from dispensationalists, who maintain that the second coming of Christ will involve a secret return for the church prior to the tribulation followed by his visible return after seven years. One reason they do not necessarily affirm the need for the pretribulation rapture is due to the reality of the new covenant that makes all believers in Jesus the spiritual descendants of Abraham and, therefore, covenant members of the people of God—true Israel (Rom. 11:1-24; Eph. 2:11-22; Gal. 3:28-29).

However, this does not mean that they deny a future hope for ethnic Israel (Rom. 11:25-32), but God’s promises include, rather than exclude, the church with His plan for Israel. What is more, they believe that the Kingdom of God has already been inaugurated with the resurrection and ascension of Christ, but is not yet fully realized on Earth. We now live between “this age” and the “age to come” in that the Kingdom is already a reality, but not yet fully consummated on Earth.

Historic premillennialism is appealing because it enables interpreters to maintain the future orientation of John’s vision, while affirming a historically sensitive approach that utilizes the best interpretative methods used today by conservative evangelical scholars. They recognize that Revelation was originally written to churches in Asia Minor at the end of the First Century, and must have had meaning for the original audience. That meaning, then, is something that would be true and applicable for all Christians as they seek to remain faithful to Christ in the midst of a satanically influenced society. The primary strength of historic premillieniallism, in my opinion, is that it treats the Book of Revelation as Scripture to be obeyed with a message that has always been relevant for the church throughout church history—both past and present.

Recommended readings:
• Gospel of the Kingdom: Scriptural Studies in the Kingdom of God by George Eldon Ladd
• A Case for Historic Premillennialism: An Alternative to Left Behind Eschatology, Sung Wook Chung and Craig L. Blomberg, editors.

Alan S. Bandy is Rowena R. Strickland assistant professor of New Testament & Greek at Oklahoma Baptist University

Other Messenger Insight Articles from Exploring the Book of Revelation

• The Power of FulFilled Prophecy
• Amillenialism & Revelation
• Revelation: Mysterious, fascinating
• Revelation presents powerful, vibrant, essential message for future

Scary Is Gone

by Alexandra Bandy

People like to advertise movies, but have you ever thought of how children think of those commercials? Kids can become frightened from those scary movie commercials.

Scary commercials can be bad for a child’s thoughts. Changing scary movie commercial times will be better because younger children will not see it. Constantly telling a child that those images aren’t real won’t help, because they are still going through the age of mixing fantasy and reality.

Some people might want to know about those scary movies at an earlier time. Other  people think the ads can be highly violent for kids. It can be hard to choose the right side. Some people have said they try to change the channel before the commercial comes on. If they don’t know where the remote is, they will just have to close their eyes, but still have to listen to the commercial.

There can be many bad effects from children watching scary commercials. Seeing the commercials over and over will make you act violent at the age of 18. Children will also want to see those movies from watching those commericals.

If we all come together we can help children. We can also help make bad behavior less. One way to help is to advertise scary movies at a later time.

No amount of mental preparation, however, can prepare you for the reality of life in the jungle. We were expecting a camping-like environment and we brought food and supplies for our time there. What hit me particularly  hard was not the challenges that we faced, but the discovery of what life is like for these precious people. Everyday consists of hard work in difficult conditions. I spent one day carrying Balsa logs (each about 20 feet long) from deep in the jungle to the village. It was hot and humid. Once out of  the jungle we experienced the full intensity of the sun blazing in its midday strength. The terrain was muddy, uneven, and hilly.   There was no machinery, but only machetes and human strength. All of this was just to build a new hut.

• Our bread, that we brought with us from the city, was completely covered in mold in about two days. The girls were going to throw it away, but the pastor’s wife wanted it so she could feed it to her family.

• I went hunting with the pastor. We did not hunt for recreation or to kill a trophy, but so he could have meat to feed his family. Not to mention, we spent a day hiking deep into the jungle, hacking through tons of vegetation, just to get to the spot where animals come to drink at night.

• I helped the pastor burn a clearing so that they could plant more Yucca (a potato like root). I asked if he was farming to sell the crops and he looked at me like I was an idiot – “no it is for my family so we can eat.”

• We met every night for service under the subtle illumination of small kerosene lamps and flashlights. The church building was devoid of electricity (as was the entire village), carpeting, sound system or any of the modern accouterments that we think are indispensable for our churches.

The longer I was there the more I realized how different our two cultures were. We Americans thrive on convenience and disposability. We think nothing of throwing away our plastic cups, bottles, and bags. We drive to the local grocery store or Wal-Mart were we can purchase just about anything we could ever need or want. We often feel ashamed if we drive a vehicle that is more than 10 years old or wear the same clothes from a decade ago. Our churches have become sanctuaries that astounds the senses with the latest in interior design and technology. If we don’t like our church, we can drive a mile down the road to another one.

I am not attempting to exalt jungle life by any stretch of the imagination. Nor do I wish to do away with all of our daily conveniences. My point is this: I think that because we are a culture of convenience it skews our understanding of Christianity. We take so much for granted and we think we are suffering if our electricity is out or if we don’t have good cell phone reception.

For all of our technology, gadgets, and comforts, has it brought us any closer to Christ? Might I suggest that there is nothing convenient about following Christ?

• He bids us to take up our crosses.
• He says that the way to life is to die to self.
• He said that if we are to follow him we must deny ourselves.
• He warns that if we follow him we will be hated and persecuted.
• To gain eternal life, we must be willing to lose all that we have.
• He calls us to the poor and destitute.
• He calls us to weep with those who suffer.
• He even calls us to suffer.

I like all of my conveniences and comforts, but I find that they often distract me from the glory of knowing Christ, the fellowship of his suffering, and the conformity of his death.

Could it be that all of our conveniences have lulled us into a state of Spiritual slumber like the church in Sardis:

“To the angel of the church in Sardis write: These are the words of him who holds the seven spirits of God and the seven stars. I know your deeds; you have a reputation of being alive, but you are dead.   Wake up! Strengthen what remains and is about to die, for I have not found your deeds complete in the sight of my God.” (Revelation 3:1-2)

]]> http://baptistmessenger.com/a-culture-of-convenience/feed/ 2 http://baptistmessenger.com/imitating-paul-the-missionary-acts-2024/ http://baptistmessenger.com/imitating-paul-the-missionary-acts-2024/#comments Tue, 19 Jan 2010 20:58:28 +0000 Alan S. Bandy http://baptistmessenger.com/?p=3865

Read more →]]> About ten years ago I adopted Acts 20:24 as my life motto. Paul, in his farewell message to the Ephesian elders, remarks:  “However, I consider my life worth nothing to me, if only I may finish the race and complete the task the Lord Jesus has given me– the task of testifying to the gospel of God’s grace (NIV).” These words echo many similar statements made by the apostle throughout his letters. Paul was a man with a clearly defined sense of call and commission that he attributed to as a direct revelation from the Lord Jesus.

Galatians 1:15-16a But when God, who set me apart from birth and called me by his grace, was pleased  16 to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles . . .

Galatians 2:7-9  On the contrary, they saw that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the Gentiles, just as Peter had been to the Jews.  8 For God, who was at work in the ministry of Peter as an apostle to the Jews, was also at work in my ministry as an apostle to the Gentiles.  9 James, Peter and John, those reputed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the Jews.

Acts 22:15-21  You will be his witness to all men of what you have seen and heard.  16 And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name.’  17 “When I returned to Jerusalem and was praying at the temple, I fell into a trance  18 and saw the Lord speaking. ‘Quick!’ he said to me. ‘Leave Jerusalem immediately, because they will not accept your testimony about me.’  19 “‘Lord,’ I replied, ‘these men know that I went from one synagogue to another to imprison and beat those who believe in you.  20 And when the blood of your martyr Stephen was shed, I stood there giving my approval and guarding the clothes of those who were killing him.’  21 “Then the Lord said to me, ‘Go; I will send you far away to the Gentiles.’”

Paul’s conversion intimately converged with his call so that it impacted his mission (see Richard N. Longenecker ed., The Road from Damascus). In other words, I do not think one can separate Paul’s conversion with his mission to the Gentiles. Paul was driven by his desire to complete the task of his missionary commission to make disciples of the nations. I would argue that a correct reading of Paul’s letters must give adequate place to Paul as a missionary (see Eckhard Schnabel’s Paul the Missionary).

I guess that I had unwittingly imprisoned Paul in the dusty office of a professor where he spent his days pouring over ancient texts and scholarly tomes. Professor Paul would eloquently expound on the finer points of theology and praxis as he writes to distant congregations. Missionary Paul, however, studies while traveling or during his visits to various cities. (perhaps he would frequent the library in Ephesus). Missionary Paul does theology in the context of communities of diverse ethnicity and background.  Missionary Paul seeks to stay connected to congregations of believers with a fierce devotion and parental concern. The letters of Missionary Paul, then, reveal numerous insights into the Gospel that he preached, his concern to demonstrate the inclusion of the Gentiles into the people of God, the challenges he faced from opposing teachers, and various issues affecting congregations.

This aspect of Paul’s life and letters recently came to the forefront as I worked with a group of indigenous people in the Peruvian Amazon. This trip to the jungle occurred in conjunction with some course prep that I am doing on the Life and Literature of Paul. In addition to digesting several seminal volumes of scholarship on Paul, I have committed to reading all of his epistles in Greek in rapid fire succession (in chronological order).   What I discovered is that reading Paul in the context of doing missions causes his epistles to pop and crackle with meaning.

I faced challenges of experiencing life in a radically different culture as I adjusted to the reality of the jungle with all of its dangers. Minus the jungle, Paul often gives indication of some cross-cultural challenges.

I struggled with communicating the Gospel to a people with almost no prior knowledge of the bible (not to mention the issue of the literacy rate). This is where, I wish Paul would have written down a copy of what he would teach while establishing a church. We know, in some cases, he would simply remind them of what he taught while with them. At other times, Paul would clarify or expand upon his earlier teachings. It is obvious, however, that he definitely taught them a significant amount of biblical and doctrinal content.

I sought to work closely with the pastor in the village in order to help train him for his role as a church leader.

To this day, my mind returns to various concerns that I have for the small congregation of believers in that village.

I was extremely grateful for the other members of our team who all contributed to the mission in different ways according to their skills and gifts.

We all experienced the need to build trust with the people and win their respect. This hit me when reading Paul’s letters to the Thessalonians. Concerning his missionary model and strategy, he wrote:

2 Thessalonians 3:7-9 For you yourselves know how you ought to follow our example. We were not idle when we were with you,  8 nor did we eat anyone’s food without paying for it. On the contrary, we worked night and day, laboring and toiling so that we would not be a burden to any of you.  9 We did this, not because we do not have the right to such help, but in order to make ourselves a model for you to follow.

I adopted this as my pattern for ministry in the village. While my time there was limited, I can tell you that this model made a significant difference in the way the community perceived us. I believe that we went from merely being a group of gringos, to being able to share the life and love of Christ in a manner that was well received.

I have come to realize that Acts 20:24 is really just an entry point for imitating Paul the Missionary. May I continue to learn what it means to give absolute primacy to the task of testifying to the Gospel of God’s grace in Christ among the nations.

The issue of translation of the Bible stems as a natural corollary once the question of the textual transmission is settled. To assess the fidelity and accuracy of the Bible today compared to the original texts we must investigate the issues of translation theory and the history of the English Bible. The task of translating the Bible from its source languages (Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek) into a receptor language (English) involves many issues related to the nature of language and communication.

Is word meaning found in some fixed form of inherent meaning, or is meaning determined by contextual usage? Is meaning located in the formal features of the original grammar, or in the function of words within the grammar? These are just a few of the questions pertaining to translation theory. Some translators maintain that accurate translation requires a word-for-word approach of formal equivalence (KJV, NKJV, NASB, ESV).  Others contend that a straightforward one-to-one correlation between two languages actually distorts meaning. These translators employ a phrase-for-phrase approach of dynamic or functional equivalence (NRSV, NIV, CEV, NLT, TNIV).  In light of linguistic, exegetical, and stylistic considerations translations produced in accord with dynamic or functional equivalency more effectively reflect the meaning of the original languages.  The goal of all translators, no matter what translation theory they may employ, unanimously continues to be the production of an English version that is an accurate rendering of the text written in such a way that the Bible retains its literary beauty, its theological grandeur, and most importantly its message.

The history of the English Bible satisfactorily demonstrates that the Bible of today does indeed faithfully represent the Scriptures in their original languages. For centuries the only Bible available to Western people was the Latin Vulgate composed by Jerome who was commissioned by Pope Damasus toward the end of the fourth century.  The Latin Vulgate served as the official version of the Bible throughout Medieval Europe and was restricted to the clergy, monastic orders, and scholars.

A British priest and Oxford scholar, John Wycliffe (1330–1384), was the first person to make the entire Bible accessible to the common English speaking people.  His translation, however, was based on the Vulgate and not on the Hebrew and Greek.  William Tyndale published the first English New Testament based on the Greek text in 1526. Two close associates of Tyndale (Miles Coverdale and John Rogers) finished his work by publishing their own respective translations of the entire bible: the Coverdale Bible (1535) and the Matthew’s Bible (1537).

The Geneva Bible of 1560 provided a translation of the Bible entirely from the original languages.  This paved the way for King James I to issue a translation that would correct the partisan nature of the Geneva Bible.  Thus in 1611, the much celebrated Authorized Version (KJV) largely based on Tyndale’s work, quickly became the unrivaled English translation for 270 years.  The twentieth century has given rise to a number of new translations.  The reasons for the updating and producing of new translations are necessitated by the manuscript discoveries, the changes within the English language, and the advancement of linguistics since 1611. Not, as some might assume, because of any faults in the Biblical texts. Today, when someone opens any English Bible (KJV, NASB, NIV, ESV, TNIV, HCSB) they may know that generations of faithful scholarship has managed to preserve and protect that Bible as it was originally given.

Alan S. Bandy, Ph.D. serves as the Rowena R. Strickland Assistant Professor of New Testament & Greek at Oklahoma Baptist University.

Editor’s Note
This is the introduction to a series of articles that will trace the origin, collection, transmission and translation of the Bible. Each respective article will examine one of the four questions pertaining to the inspiration, canonization, textual transmission and translation of the Bible.

The Bible is like no other book. No other book has been so influential in society and in the lives of individuals. From the earliest days of Christianity, it has been regarded as the word of God given through inspiration and written down by holy men. Countless generations of men and women have been transformed as a result of reading the Bible. Others have willingly dedicated and risked their lives to ensure the publication and distribution of the Bible. It has captured the imagination of artists, poets, politicians and scholars. The Bible has often been at the center of controversy as people have sought to grapple with this book and its message. Not surprisingly, it has often been the object of critical scrutiny.

The most recent trend in popular culture has been to question the origins and reliability of the manuscripts of Bible. This trend was largely fueled by the publication of bestselling books like The DaVinici Code by Dan Brown and Misquoting Jesus by Bart Ehrman. On one hand, The DaVinci Code, a popular fictional novel, suggested that the Christian Bible we have today was the product of a 3rd Century political power maneuver to prevent other gospels that told an alternate story of Jesus. On the other hand, Bart Ehrman, a New Testament professor at the University of North Carolina, argues that the text of the New Testament was corrupted by orthodox additions and revisions. In other words, both these books maintain that the New Testament we have today is not trustworthy or does not accurately represent the original documents penned by the authors.

The question before us is “does the Bible that we have today represent what was originally written?” To answer this question, however, we must consider four additional questions: (1) How did God speak through the writers of the Bible? This is an issue of inspiration. (2) Does the Bible contain all the books that should be included? This is an issue of canonization. (3) Are the available manuscripts of the Bible accurate representations of the original manuscripts of the respective books of the Bible (the autographs of Scripture)? This is an issue of textual transmission (4) Are the available English translations faithful renderings of the Bible in the original languages? This is an issue of translation.

Textual Transmission: Are the available manuscripts of the Bible accurate representations of the original manuscripts of the respective books of the Bible?

No original autographs exist of any biblical text; instead we only have access to manuscript copies. The word manuscript is used to denote anything written by hand, rather than copies produced from the printing press. Textual evidence constitutes anything written on clay tablets, stone, bone, wood, various metals, potsherds (ostraca), but most notably papyrus and parchment (vellum). Originally ancient books were complied and then rolled into a scroll. Since a papyrus roll rarely exceeded 35 feet in length, ancient authors divided a long literary work into several “books” (e.g., the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles consisted of a two-volume (scroll) set composed by Luke).

Later, sometime during the 1st or 2nd Century A.D., the “codex” came into use. The codex was bound sheets of papyrus and represents the prototype for the modern book format. Thus early Christians began to collect and collate individual books into what is now the canonical New Testament. The term “Bible” derives from the Greek word biblia (books), and the earliest use of ta biblia (the books) in the sense of “Bible” is found in 2 Clement 2:14 (c. A.D. 150). Although the originals are lost forever, enough manuscript evidence remains to assert a high degree of confidence in the text of the Bible.

Both the Old and New Testaments enjoy a large amount of manuscript evidence in a variety of forms, and that spans centuries. The primary witnesses to the Old Testament come from the Masoretic texts including the Cairo Geniza (A.D. 895), Leningrad Codex (A.D. 916), Codex Babylonicus Petropalitanus (A.D. 1008), Aleppo Codex (c. A.D. 900+), British Museum Codex (A.D. 950), and the Reuchlin Codex (A.D. 1105). The Leningrad Codex remains the oldest complete manuscript of the Hebrew Bible and serves as the main source the Hebrew text.

However, all of these manuscripts are from the 8th and 9th Century, which constitutes a substantial time lapse between the original autographs and these manuscripts. Other witnesses include the Talmud (Aramaic translations and commentaries), the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the OT), the Samaritan Pentateuch, and recently the Dead Sea Scrolls. Discovered during the 1940s and 50s, the Dead Sea Scrolls provide scholars with witnesses to the Old Testament text that may be dated between 250–100 B.C. Cave four (4Q) has yielded about 40,000 fragments of 400 different manuscripts, 100 of which are biblical and represent every book of the Old Testament except Esther. Interestingly, a comparison of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Masoretic Text reveal that only a few very minor discrepancies of spelling and grammar may be detected. Therefore, the manuscript evidence for the Old Testament firmly demonstrates that the original Old Testament texts were carefully preserved and are accurately represented in our modern Bible.
The New Testament remains the most textually attested document in the ancient world. The witnesses of the New Testament text fall into three classes; the Greek manuscripts, ancient translations (versions) into other languages and quotations from the NT found in early ecclesiastical writers (Church Fathers). The Greek manuscripts, more than 6,000 in number, include papyrus fragments, uncials (written in all capitals without spaces and punctuation), and minuscules (small cursive-like script). The papyri manuscripts form the most significant group due to fact their early date implies they are chronologically the closest to the original autographs.

For example, both P52 (containing a few verses of John 18) and P46 (containing all of Paul’s epistles, except the Pastorals) are arguably dated within 30 years of the original writings. The uncials follow the papyri in chronological importance. Codex Sinaticus, an uncial written about A.D. 350, is the earliest extant copy of the entire New Testament. Other uncials, like Codex Vaticanus, Alexandrinus, Ephraemi, and Bezae, also serve as significant witnesses. The minuscules compose the largest group of Greek manuscripts, but they are dated very late. The versions and Church Fathers provide helpful early attestation in reconstructing the most plausible original readings. If you add up the 6,000+ Greek manuscripts, the 10,000+ Latin Vulgate, and the 9,300+ early versions it results in more than 25,000 witnesses to the text of the New Testament.
This sheer multiplicity of manuscripts does not, however, result in absolute uniformity of the texts. To be sure, virtually thousands of variant readings exist between the manuscripts. On one hand, scribal copyists exhibited great concern with the details to reproduce an exact copy.

On the other hand, scribes were not immune from human error. Scribal errors fall into categories of unintentional and intentional. Unintentional errors represent the causes underlying the majority of the variants. In short, these typically include errors of the eyes (e.g., skipping words, or losing one’s place), hands (slip of the pen, or writing notes in the margins), and ears (similar sounding words, or misunderstanding the word). Intentional errors resulted when scribes attempted to correct a perceived error in the text, or altered the text in the interest of doctrine and harmonization. These errors often became standardized through the subsequent copies made from the defective copy.

Interestingly, all Greek manuscripts exhibit traits that enable scholars to classifying them into families of text-types (Alexandrian, Western, Byzantine) based on geographic origin, style of Greek and date. As such, through comparative analysis called textual criticism, scholars shift through all the manuscripts to reproduce the most plausible reading of the original autographs. Textual critics adjudicate between readings through exacting criteria such as dating, text-type, attested readings (i.e., how many manuscripts have a certain reading) and possible reasons for variants (e.g., smoothing out a theologically difficult reading).
In addition to examining the Greek manuscripts, textual critics also consider all other relevant witnesses (i.e., versions and the Church Fathers). Although textual criticism is a very complex and often controverted science, it has provided us with at least two assured results. First, out of all the variant readings (including omissions) none of them change the message or theological content of the scriptures. Second, one may confidently assert that the text of the Bible today is an accurate and faithful representation of the original autographs.

Alan S. Bandy, Ph.D., serves as the Rowena R. Strickland ssistant professor of New Testament & Greek at Oklahoma Baptist University