We have briefly covered how the Reformers considered that many of the biblical prophecies were fulfilled in history by the church in the Middle Ages which had become apostate. A counter eschatology arose within the Catholic Church which presumed that the Middle Ages had in fact been the 1,000 year reign of Christ, and the Reformation was Satan being let loose for a short time to deceive the nations again, which of course is a very interesting perspective. However, to this day we tend to have new perspectives on eschatology quickly followed by counter-perspectives. This should not surprise us, but challenge us to go deeper in our study and search for the truth.
In the last couple of centuries, an eschatology has arisen that acknowledges the Reformation eschatology as the fulfillment of these prophecies in history, and yet holds to the belief that these were all but types of a more complete and final fulfillment that is to come at the end. The main challenge to this view is that there does not seem to be a precedent for the prophecies of Scripture being fulfilled more than once.
Even though the repeating prophecy theory may be a challenge, without question, the proverb has been proven that, "Those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it." The church, including the Protestant, Evangelical, Pentecostal, Charismatic, and subsequent waves have succumbed to the same mistakes that the church in the Middle Ages fell to, even if this was to a lesser degree because they lacked the broad political power of the Catholic Church.
The strong persecution of dissenters, even to death such as in the case of the Reformation persecution of the Anabaptists, caused many to turn away from religion in any form, giving birth to the anti-faith philosophies. When the sciences began to challenge some church dogma (but not necessarily biblical truth), they were also driven into the anti-faith camps. Soon both philosophy and the sciences not only rejected religion, but began to promote an agenda to destroy religious faith which continues to this day.
The fracturing of Christianity through all of these forces shook Christianity to its foundations, which was not a bad thing at the time. Those who had true faith became stronger through the challenges. Through the clouds of confusion, some of the greatest prophets, teachers, and movements arose. These new movements of a heart religion tended to steer far away from politics, but some did resolutely challenge social injustices such as the institution of slavery.
In many ways, these were the best of times and the worst of times for Christianity. It seemed inevitable that when a new movement began to lose its spiritual authority, it would turn to temporal and political power for preserving itself and quickly become harsh and reactionary. This is not to infer that the church should not have political influence, but when the church, whose kingdom is "not of this world," tries to accomplish its purposes by using the power of this world, it has inevitably turned into tyranny. Likewise, when the civil authorities have tried to assume spiritual authority, it has inevitably turned into tyranny. This is a major study in itself, but for now we need to face some of the more obvious mistakes that are repeated by each new generation so that this cycle may be broken.
There is a righteous judgment and an unrighteous judgment. It is unrighteous to accuse others of the very things that we ourselves are doing, even if in another form. We may decry the Catholics for having a pope, but we have many popes, leaders, who we allow to exceed their intended authority and even take the place of Christ as the head of the church. We decry the Catholics for praying to saints, but we do not even wait for men to die before making them our mediators. We decry the Catholics for worshiping Mary, but we continue to worship the temple of the Lord more than the Lord of the temple. We decry the Catholics for such errors as issuing indulgences through which the grace of God is sold, but it is hard to turn on our television sets without being subjected to ministries promising blessings and favor with God for giving to their ministry.
My point is that it is crucial for us to learn from previous mistakes, but not for the purpose of condemning others; rather we should examine ourselves to see if we do the same things. If it is wrong for any man to presume the position of Christ as the Head of the church, then let us resolve to devote ourselves, not just to the truth that Christ alone is the Head of the church, but in practical application of how to follow Him and obey Him as the Head of the church.
One of the great biblical contrasts between man's king and God's king is the story of King Saul and David. The basic difference between these two was their relationship to God. Like King Saul, many lose this most essential element of life, and the only source of true spiritual authority, when they assume positions of authority. Saul began his slide when he started fearing the people departing from him more than he feared the Lord.
When a study came out a few years ago, which revealed that pastors spend an average of less than five minutes a day in prayer, not many of the pastors I know were surprised by this. The one statement that is written concerning David more than any other is "he inquired of the Lord" (see I Samuel 22:10). David was a worshiper, a man of prayer who had intimate communion with the Lord. Saul rarely inquired of the Lord, and even on the night before his death, he went to a medium to inquire of a dead prophet, instead of going to the Lord.
I know many outstanding teachers and leaders who believe that the Lord never intended to give Israel a king for this purpose, but He Himself wanted to be their king. I can understand this perspective, but I think it overlooks the prophecy given through Jacob in Genesis about the scepter being given to Judah (see Genesis 49:10). Personally, I believe that the Lord, who it says knew us and called us before the world began, all along intended to anoint David as His king. And as is typical before a great provision of the Lord comes, the need for that provision began to be felt in the people, who demanded immediate fulfillment rather than waiting for the maturity of God's provision. Because David, who fulfilled biblical prophecy and seems all along to have been God's choice for His king, was too young, the people's demand for a king led to Saul's commission. That is the key point of departure for those who would truly serve under the Headship of the Lord rather than just assume this themselves—waiting on God.
Impatience is not a fruit of the Spirit and will never lead to God or His provision. Learning to wait on the Lord is primary to following His Headship. Because of our unwillingness to wait on the Lord, often because we think that if we do the people will start scattering, we continually fall to that which seems to be "head and shoulders above the rest," but in the end will usually become a great disappointment, just like Saul.
We may argue that the Lord anointed Saul, and this is true, and another revelation of the great grace of God. How could one who is anointed go so wrong? In relation to Saul, we might rather wonder how much worse he would have been if God had not anointed him! I think it is also right to honor Saul for all of the good that he did. He did fight some of the battles of the Lord, and win them. Even David, who was so persecuted by Saul, honored Saul and his family for as long as he lived, and never said anything disrespectful of him. We see this same pattern being followed by most moves of God, falling the same way that Saul did, being more concerned about the people's desires and opinions than God's.
In contrast, even when David's own men were wanting to stone him after their families had been kidnapped by the Amalekites (see I Samuel 30), David did not just race off to do what might have appeased his men, but "inquired of the Lord" about what to do. When prayer departs from a movement, it inevitably departs from the Lord and falls to a greater devotion to self-preservation, rather than serving the Lord.
We also see with David the most remarkable respect for authority, even when that authority was persecuting him. When he had permission from God to do whatever was in his heart to Saul, David's heart smote him for just cutting off the edge of his robe. It was this profound and unprecedented respect for authority and the anointing that was the reason why David was used to establish a throne, or seat of authority, that even Jesus Himself would sit upon.
David refused to take the kingdom by his own hand, even though he had been prophesied to be the next king. He resolved that if the Lord had indeed called him to be king, then the Lord was going to have to make him king. David's respect for authority was too great to attack one who had it, or to take it for himself. Because of this, David established a throne of authority that would last. This is an ultimate test which must be passed by any who would accomplish something that will truly last.
This is also the reason why when the people came to make Jesus King, He fled to the mountains. If the people make you king, who is really going to rule? Jesus was born King! He would only receive His authority from above. Such is the resolve of those who have that which is true and that which will last. If we are going to serve by the authority of the Lord, we must wait for Him to give it to us. Then we must resolve that He is the One we will obey and serve, not the people or the circumstances. Only then will He truly be the Head.
