Advent: Between D-Day and V-Day

The Book of Revelation is in large part a book about the return (or "parousia") of Christ. It speaks of the condition of the fallen world of men prior to the final, triumphant coming of the Messiah. It speaks of seals opened, trumpets blown, battles fought, and the everlasting worship of God amidst all of the world's chaos. Sometimes all these images scare us, confuse us, make us ignore this book's contents.

But nestled right in the middle of the Book of Revelation is something we might not expect: The Christmas Story.

Have you missed it? Well, look again at the first few verses of chapter 12:
"¹A great and wondrous sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head. ²She was pregnant and cried out in pain as she was about to give birth. ³Then another sign appeared in heaven: an enormous red dragon with seven heads and ten horns and seven crowns on his heads. ⁴His tail swept a third of the stars out of the sky and flung them to the earth. The dragon stood in front of the woman who was about to give birth, so that he might devour her child the moment it was born. ⁵She gave birth to a son, a male child, who will rule all the nations with an iron scepter. And her child was snatched up to God and to his throne."

Surely, good Jewish readers of John's day recognized the messianic prophecy concerning the One who would "rule all the nations with an iron scepter" (Ps. 2:9), and just in case we missed it John himself tells us that this is none other than Jesus Christ in Rev. 19:15. So this "son, a male child" is the infant Christ. We know his mother, Mary, from other stories in the New Testament. And we know of Satan's attempt to "devour her child the moment it was born" when we recall Herod's "Slaughter of the Innocence" in Bethlehem. But the story goes on....

In a nutshell, the dragon fails to devour the child, and the child, Christ, conquers the dragon at the cross and at his bodily resurrection from the dead (Revelation 12:7-9 poetically speaks of the cross and resurrection of Christ in terms of the warrior archangel, Michael, casting the dragon out of heaven). The dragon is hurled down to earth, and "he knows his time is short" (v.12). While he still holds the last vestiges of power and influence, the dragon begins a last-ditch campaign against the "offspring" of the woman (v.17), who are described as "those who obey God's commandments and hold to the testimony of Jesus." This is us, the followers of Christ; we are the dragon's target now.

And here is where we live....We live in between D-Day and V-Day.

We live in a world where the decisive victory against evil, "the dragon," has been won. Christ has triumphed. Evil is decaying, even as it lashes out one last time. The cross, the resurrection, the ascension--these are past events. We look back at them to reassure us that our hope for the future is not in vain.

But we are not out of the woods yet. The Christ has come, but he is also still yet to come. The first advent is in the past; the second is in the future. And so we enter this "advent season" once again, remembering, as John the Revelator did, that Christ's first coming guarantees his second coming. Because he has already won the decisive victory over evil, we can be assured that he will finally step in and end the war against evil that still rages today. The Christmas story and the story of Christ's Return at the end of the age are two sides of the same coin. We live between the advents, between D-Day and V-Day, and we live in the power of the Spirit who enables us to be faithful to "the testimony of Jesus."

Continuity

I just had a conversation with a friend today, who, at one point in our discussion, made a statement something to the effect of this: "If you think Christianity 500 years from now is going to look anything like it does today, then you're crazy!"

Now, in defense of my friend, what I think he was trying to say was something like: "Every generation has to rearticulate the Christian faith in such a way that it connects with the prevailing culture of the time"--a sentiment that I would heartily agree with. However, my friend's mistake was in suggesting that almost any issue concerning the faith is up for grabs. (For instance, this same friend has suggested that, in the future, Christian notions of Jesus' nature might look something like what some so-called 'Messianic Jews' teach today: namely, that Jesus is God's Messiah, but this does not mean that Jesus was fully human and fully divine. He could be God's Messiah and still be only human.) Also, in my friend's defense, he is an astute biblical scholar, who has wrestled with the texts of Scripture more thoroughly than almost anyone else I know personally.

As a result of his scholarship, my friend has come to understand how frequently the texts of the Scriptures have been re-worked and re-interpreted in order to come more in-line with the people of God's understanding of what God was doing in the world. (Thus, after the conquest of Canaan, the texts were re-interpreted. After the Babylonian Exile, they were interpreted again. After the building of the Second Temple in the 5th c. BC, they were re-interpreted and re-worked once again. And especially after the Christ event, the texts were re-interpreted. And so on, and so on....) All of this is very true, by the way, and I do not disagree with his assessment of the biblical texts.

But the question here is really a question of historical continuity. If it is true that the Christian faith could look drastically different 500 years from now than it does today, then how are people 500 years from now supposed to know if what is being articulated is truly the Christian faith or not? If the Christians of 500 years from now, after 500 more years of biblical, scientific, archaeological, and other studies, come to the conclusion that, in fact, Christ was only a human Messiah, not a divine-human Messiah, then can what they believe still be called the Christian faith?

In a nutshell, if the words 'the Christian faith' mean anything at all, then how much can the beliefs of Christians, or their interpretation of the texts of Scripture, really change? I want to respond this way: If the words 'the Christian faith' have any meaning at all, then the articulation, or re-articulation, of that faith must have SOME sort of continuity throughout all ages, cultures, languages, world-areas, etc.

And how are we to arrive at this continuity? Once again, as I have attempted to say time and time again, we arrive at this continuity through a historical study of the faith, and a historical study of the way Christians throughout all places, times, etc. have understood the Scriptures and their own experiences of salvation. While there are sure to be many places of divergence, disagreement, and even (unfortunately) hostilities, we can--LET ME SAY THIS LOUD AND CLEAR-we can identify some measure of continuity throughout it all.

Much of this continuity is summed up in the creeds of the ecumenical Church--the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds; however, we can also go deeper as we study the history of biblical interpretation, theological reflection, etc. and find even deeper continuity. In faith, we believe that the reason for this is because of the Holy Spirit's continuous work in and through the members of this faith--his Church.

I would imagine that, at this point, not very many of my readers would disagree with my sentiments. However, the converse of all of this is that there are most certainly things that fall outside the historical Christian faith and interpretation of the Scriptures. Such things are called "heresies," and include:

(1) Arianism: the belief that Christ is not divine, but the first of God's creatures.
(2) Docetism: the belief that Christ was only divine, and did not truly die on the cross.
(3) Modalism: the belief that God presents himself in three modes of being, and is not, in and of himself, Triune, or Three 'Persons.'

But there are also some beliefs which have no continuity throughout the Christian faith which we are hesitant to call outright "heresy." (However, we can easily call them bad beliefs.) Such include:

(1) Pre-millenial dispensationalism: the ideas concerning the "End Times" presented in Hal Lindsey's Late Great Planet Earth, and more recently in the Left Behind series of novels. These ideas originated with the Englishman Nelson Darby in the 19th century, grew in popularity after the establishment of the nation-state Israel in 1948, but have no roots in the historical Christian faith.
(2) The idea that some (American) Christians share with Jehovah's Witnesses and Seventh Day Adventists that America is the center of God's plan for redemption--or, as it used to be said, that America is the "New Israel."

We need to recognize that neither do these beliefs have any continuity with the historical Christian faith--even if we are not using the term "heresy" much anymore to describe them.

I say all of this to simply say, in response to my good friend, that even 500 years from now I believe the Holy Spirit will still be speaking a message to the hearts and minds of believers that is in continuity with the faith that Christians everywhere hold to today, and which Christians everywhere have held in the past. I believe this in faith; I cannot prove it to anyone. It is, however, the very basis of my ultimate hope. We need to more thoroughly recognize what truly stands in continuity with the historical Christian faith (things like the human-divine Nature of Christ) and things which do not (like the Left Behind version of Christian eschatology).

When we find ourselves in continuity with the historical faith and historical biblical interpretation, I believe we will find ourselves in continuity with the Spirit Himself.