Tim Mackie on Revelation - Understanding Armageddon through a different lens
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 4 มิ.ย. 2024
- This is from The Bridgetown Church in Portland Oregon podcast. It’s an interview between John Mark Comer and Tim Mackie.
This TH-cam site is focused on providing clips from N.T. Wight and his teaching. This clip from Mackie fits exactly into Wright’s theology on Revelation, so we thought we’d include it here. Please enjoy.
![32. Signs of the Times [Matthew] - Tim Mackie (The Bible Project)](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/JJIxPL9A34M/mqdefault.jpg)
![32. Signs of the Times [Matthew] - Tim Mackie (The Bible Project)](/img/tr.png)
I wish this was 5 hrs. I could listen to tim for hrs
This is excellent.Thank you.
I always wondered if Tim Mackie and N T Wright are connected. I love both...
What I always end up being annoyed by in these conversations is the lack of nuance on violence.
The Bible has ALWAYS been nuanced on violence, and on a practical level, not excessively idealistic to the detriment of innocents.
Martyrs who alone die for their own beliefs or to protect others, this is lauded, but dying to alow others to be destroyed, ie: pacifism, blanket "anti-violence", isn't described.
Turning the other cheek is absorbing offense and not giving into provocation. Not suing a brother is about the importance of reconciliation. Dying for your faith is about being true to Jesus, not ashamed. Christianity is shown to NOT be "of this world... else my followers would take the kingdom by force".
So it's non coercive. But calls to cooperative voluntary membership.
It's non malicious. But loving and means the best for enemies.
It's non vindictive. But forgives and allows vengeance to be God's.
But this doesn't mean violence is disallowed.
To protect yourself in practical, non-faith-based ways... why not? It's non-malicious non-vindictive, non-coersive.
And the goal isn't to hurt anyone but stop evil actively being done to you or others in your care.
I can understand why a Christian might not want to serve in the military because of this. I certainly understand why they'd vote for a non-imperialistic use of military force. I can understand giving up ones right to use the justice system for vindication in a fleshly way. But I don't understand not protecting one's wife or kids in the micro.
The macro is different.
If an overwhelming force is killing Christians, then clearly what we do, graciously, in the face of death, not as fleshly revolutionaries, but knowing we are called to live our faith unto death and knowing the witness of our death is powerful, then I get that.
Well said ✌️🍻
This was SO amazing and opened up many revelations to me❤amen
Thank you! This was all so clear and helpful!
There is a vast difference between gleefully killing people, and sadly executing justice. Sometimes in our quest to defend God of the former, we don't allow Him to be the latter. Though we should be very hesitant to assume that we are the executors of God's justice.
I agree, but I also see the need for us to supply our own nuance. I’ve listened to Tim and guys like him for a few years, and what I appreciate is they don’t tell me what I should think or do. They present scripture and let us decide. Here, I think they’re presenting Gods ideal of non-violence, leaving the nuance to us, because there’s no way they could prescribe a doctrine that would cover every conceivable situation. In this way, they trust each of us to lean on and be led by Gods Spirit for the right answers to life’s situations. Just my thoughts.
Great video
If you watch kids' movies, Revelation is not scarier! It is right in there!
Thanks 😊
After listening to this painful dialogue , I respectfully have to respond “ in love “. All the twists and turns leave me feeling like I’m in a room of mess and clutter. God’s Word to me is so much more than literature, poems, brilliant writing! It’s His message of the beginnings to the end of everything. I’m not a new believer but I want to learn as much as I possibly can until the end of my life,confidently entering His presence! I don’t see this as meat vs milk. Just being honest! Still brothers in Christ!! Thanks
Biblical studies is full of mess and clutter lol you get used to it
It may not be for you, either right now, or ever. With grace, it's ok to choose not to listen.
You can delight in the music of Mozart without knowing anything about musical theory. But for those who like such things, they can go deeper. The same with the Bible, you can appreciate it and immerse yourself in it without going too far. But for those who want to go to the next level, channels like this provide an opportunity to hear more complexity.
Also can we overlook the Old Testament Interaction between rebellious, fallen divine beings taking women of earth and their offspring, the nephilim? There are many instances that make violence necessary in this context. The book written by Michael Heiser, The Unseen Realm is very helpful. He is a thorough Bible Scholar who specializes in the ancient world and their languages. The scripture references are there, well explained context, and many supporting sources are documented throughout. He is not pulling ideas out of his biased imagination.
Heiser and Mackie say the same things, same quotes on psalm 89, 82, 1 Enoch...You must read God's heart and the real battle is between God and the sons of god, the divine council. We have usurped God's def of good and made those in power the ability to define good and evil. God's way is unconditional love. Paul's understanding of the OT led him to kill Christians, to hurt people. After Damascus road, he spent three years reinterpreting the OT through the cross and came non violent...Not easy ways to understand all of it, but we must interpret thru Gods def of good, and he protected Cain and allowed him to build a city of refuge that gets more defined in the Torah
I was thinking this exact thing. The Amalekite & Caananite, etc extermination orders were the results of this intermixture, they were Giants & extremely warlike, with the potential to spread the kind of extreme depravity & violence that occured before the Flood & they were worshipping these Fallen ones as well as using & teaching at least some of the things the Fallen had taught Mankind before the Flood. I think these acts of National destruction were God's way of crippling the spread of this extreme level of depravity & violence & yet even still some survived & each generation from that to the present has grown steadily more influenced by Spiritual Evil & has fallen farther & farther into depravity & violence as those teachings have spread under the guise of things like "the Enlightenment", the rise of Spiritism & technology, etc. If you look at what those Fallen Watchers taught in 1st Enoch you can see their growth & expression so clearly in our World today....
Tbh, I can't take him seriously. He made constant use of logical fallacies. He had so many blindspots. I'm always baffled when I listen to him talk about how the serpent wasn't a member of the animal kingdom but was a supernatural being. It either never occurred to him, or he wasn't willing to entertain the possibility, that the serpent was an actual animal under the influence of a supernatural being. I don't think I've ever heard anyone claim the serpent was merely a member of the animal kingdom, yet Heiser sets up this straw man and easily debunks the straw man and people act like he's restored an ancient truth that's been lost for millennia. Seriously, does anybody read that story from Genesis and conclude that a mere animal decided to trick Eve? And if they ever read a few commentaries they would be exposed to the notion that a serpent was being used by Satan to tempt Eve.
That Also was the position Dr. Chuck Missler held (he passed 2018). Grace and mercy (redemption ) somehow , someway is and must always be held In tension with all other of God’s attributes ( justice, holiness, etc)…for our acceptance, regardless of our understanding ~
@@truthbebold4009You may need to have an open mind. This is what was believed by the ancient Jews. Mackie has since changed his mind because it makes no sense without the fallen angels. Expanding your mind like Mackie has, begins to bring understanding. Where did you get your doctorial degree? The God Mackie describes in this interview is not my God..and neither is it the God of the bible. It smacks of gnosticism.
So insightful! Skilful exposition, hermeneutics and teaching. Thank you Tim.
🔥🔥🔥
I'm stunned that you've ensured that the hosts' voices are clear and your guest is left with an echo.
I wonder if the primary host recognizes to what considerable extent he was, through his questions/statements, making his own points and, then, asking Tim to affirm them.
Check out “A trumpet sounds” by HollyDayle
It never dawned on me that it wasn't His own Blood. But i have not discussed it much or read much besides the Bible. The Sword was obvious, too, if you read the rest of the Bible. But, i have not spoken with radicals except one who absolutely had not read the Bible, but he said the Bible said to conquer, but could not show me where that is found in Scripture. They have their very own interpretation and "revelators." Unique.
If you read the unseen realm with Dr. Michael Heiser, you’ll understand why He wiped out Canaanite and all those tribes.
Dr. Mackie what about the scriptures about the wrath of the lamb?
I couldnt help but think of the book of Job with these last questions.
Do you have the link for the podcast episode?
It seems super important, before attempting to subvert the pictures of war, and bloodshed being carried out by Christ, to ask whether there is a difference between evil “violence” versus the “force” of justice. If these actions of Christ are just reactions to eliminate those of hardened unrepentantance, then surely it is not right to say that Christ is being “violent” in an evil way. This would be the confusion of evil for justice. If a man is beating his wife and someone shoved him to the side, is it not moral confusion to call the defender of peace a person of violence?
But is this not the exact portrait of Jesus, the defender of the martyrs? Suppose Revelation is about God removing his protection from Israel and Jerusalem (the tribes of the land) and provoking the Roman civil war and fall of Nero in the first century because they killed the Apostles and opposed the message of Jesus’ rule? Should we call this action unjust when it freed the non-violent Church from a heavy persecution? Now, admittedly it would be a mistake to say this justifies aggression against unbelievers on account of their unbelief.
But how is God’s sovereign punishment of wrongdoers (in this life or in the next, they do not always correlate in result) in moral conflict with Christ offering himself up on the cross in a proclamation of enemy love?
Is there a real conflict here? The Jesus who carried his cross told a women not to weep for him but for herself and her children, that is for God’s coming justice against Jerusalem. Punishment is never God’s first desire, but it is not an unjust one. Nor should we reject it as unjust if it were to fall on us as a people.
I would explore more in this direction before I would say that all the pictures of God’s striking down evil in Revelation can be stood on their head to mean the rejection of striking down evil. The moral issue is not “is force being used”, but “is it just force?” As C.S. Lewis notes, regarding the tempting of the green lady, God will not allow this evil to go on forever, but has appointed a day of judgment for it, to bring it to an end. This is no advice to the church as a private party, here the word is: beloved never avenge yourselves but leave it to the wrath of God (Rom 12), but nevertheless, this example might manifest itself in advice to a just civil ruler, because “he is God’s servant for your good,” and “does not bear the sword in vain” ( Romans 13). The question of justice and a right to vengeance against unrepentant evil is a matter of jurisdiction and timing, not an absolute collapse of violence into one simplistic category of evil. God is patient that we might be saved, that is his first desire. And that should be our model. I really appreciate the spirit of what is being said here, but those are my thoughts in reply. As a lawyer, I think these pretty serious issues that go to the core of the moral fabric of the universe. If we go wrong here we go very wrong indeed.
My thoughts likewise. I have nothing for respect for Tim Mackie and I am a fan. My question is what is the theological implications? God is never going to judge the wicked? Yet the Old and New Testament is filled with promises that he will.
What do we do with Jesus telling the disciples to purchase a sword for protection ?
How about Agag king of the Amalekits that God commanded Saul to kill and God's word to Israel that the Lord will have war against the Amalekits from Gen. to generation.
Holy cow means an indian god or what? It does not make sense to me being from abroad….
About 7 minutes in. And I think that there is a lot of wrath and violence in the book of revelation because human beings have the revelation of God at that time everyone knows his laws and decrees but still decides to rebel. My point is that people have had their chance to repent so I don't really see a problem with all the wrath in the book of revelation.
"spoilers"😆
It sounds like Tim is talking to Tim lol
"God never wanted David?"
I think the intent for God's set apart people was not to have a system like those around them, so not have a human king or anything like that, but the people demanded to have a king like those around, so God compromised. David was selected by God, but the role he was selected for wasn't part of the optimal form of His people, at least that's how I'm understanding it.
Bridgetown Non-violence interviews
th-cam.com/play/PLbIJtm8HgY0y3e4uSBGFvtxfbzilM0UIY.html
Dear Interviewer---please stop interrupting your guest. Thank you.
X
The only people that are coming back in the 1st resurrection are the people (144,000) who are martyred. Giving up one's life is the way the martyrs conquer. Jesus, the king scapegoat, invites everyone else to become one too. Wrt the Old Testament scripture, you need to go back and lean on Rene Girard, in that the OT is a text "in travail" and is trying to come to a non-violent conclusion but can't because it doesn't have the revelation of Jesus to help its interpretation. For example:
1 Samuel 15:33
"But Samuel said,
'As your sword has made women childless,
so will your mother be childless among women.'
And Samuel put Agag to death before the Lord at Gilgal."
After the Revelation of Jesus Christ, God's response to the prophet Samuel would have been - "WTF Samuel, I didn't tell you to do that, now repent!"
The 144,000 is a representation. 144,000 is a military number, so it’s probably metaphor and means a lot more people.
@@lost-claim0 yes agree
Sorry lol didn’t know this was in the video
O boy. This is another exposition of the Bible by men that don't understand that there is NO violence administered by God. Violence is an action that violates . God is not violating any one. He is justified in his correction and punishment of men. I'm embarrassed by your use of words and you lack of wisdom.
Original Podcast: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/bridgetown-audio-podcast/id84246334?i=1000391603369