Revelation 9-12, Four Recent Sermons

It has been my privilege to be preaching through the book of Revelation, and here are my four most recent sermons at Kenwood Baptist Church:

10-11-2009 – Revelation 12:1-17 The Seed of the Woman Versus the Seed of the Serpent

09-20-2009 – Revelation 11:1-19 Bearing Witness til Kingdom Come

09-13-2009 – Revelation 10:1-11 Eat This Scroll (and prophesy the history of the future)

09-06-2009 – Revelation 9:1-21 Trumpeting the End of the World

May the Lord bless his word!

Review of Capes, et al., Israel’s God and Rebecca’s Children

Note: If you are involved in publishing and uninterested in the contents of this review, please nevertheless read the final paragraph on endnotes.

David B. Capes, April D. DeConick, Helen K. Bond, and Troy A. Miller, eds., Israel’s God and Rebecca’s Children: Christology and Community in Early Judaism and Christianity: Essays in Honor of Larry W. Hurtado and Alan F. Segal, Waco: Baylor University Press, 2007. xviii + 480pp. $79.95, Hardback. Published in Bulletin for Biblical Research 19 (2009), 463-65.

The “Early High Christology Club” (EHCC) has been having a conversation at annual gatherings of AAR/SBL, and this volume honors the club’s cofounders, Larry W. Hurtado and Alan F. Segal. The book also lets the rest of us experience the nature of the interaction enjoyed by the EHCC. This volume reflects a joy and warmth of discussion that can be seen in the affection the authors communicate for both Hurtado and Segal. Another instance of this friendly camaraderie can be seen in the way the editors invited Hurtado to write an essay for Segal, and Segal to write for Hurtado, hiding from both that the essays would appear in the same volume honoring each of them simultaneously.

It is challenging to know how best to serve readers in a review of a collection of specialized essays. In what follows I seek to capture the thesis of each essay, sometimes accompanied by evaluative comments. There is a sense in which this book is like life. As ideas are exchanged in an open market place, wisdom cries aloud in the street. Different estimations of truth reflect different priorities and commitments. Let the reader understand.

April D. DeConick provokes serious questions about her ability to read ancient texts sympathetically when she alleges that the Gospel of Mark presents “adoptionist” Christology. It is obvious that the first audiences of this gospel did not see it her way. In fact, they long ago rejected her view. Perhaps it is not surprising that she thinks history unfair to regard Arius as a heretic.

Paula Fredriksen wants to see four terms retired: conversion (but see Acts 15:3), nationalism, religio licita (“legal religion”), and monotheism. I do not think hers will be a successful campaign.

Richard Bauckham examines the frequency and significance of the heavy use of the title “the Most High” in early Jewish literature. His very helpful tabulation of the use of this title includes only one canonical text, Daniel, “because it so clearly belongs chronologically with the” early Jewish literature (378 n. 11). He explores the use of this title to shed light on “how the uniqueness of the one God is understood” (40).

Adela Yarbro Collins seeks to answer’s Hurtado’s question, “How on earth did Jesus become a God?” She thinks beliefs about and devotion to Jesus grew from the conviction that he was the Messiah, and that reformulations and elaborations of his divinity owed much to non-Jewish Greek and Roman ideas and practices.

Pheme Perkins investigates “how resurrection and Christology are configured in Paul with reference to the work of Professors Segal and Hurtado” (69).

Eldon Jay Epp helpfully discusses the manuscript evidence on the Greek New Testament and provides several nicely produced charts. This essay is a service to all who think about these issues. Having brought significant clarity through his discussion, he reaffirms the idea that NT manuscripts are genuinely abundant.

Maurice Casey discusses prophetic identity and conflict in Jesus’ ministry. He does not think Early High Christology is needed to explain Jesus’ understanding that he would die.

David B. Capes has an insightful essay arguing for the preexistence and incarnation of Jesus from careful exegesis of Romans 9:30–10:13. This essay repays careful study and includes stimulating interaction with wisdom Christology.

Carey C. Newman appropriates “literary theories developed by Jacques Lacan, Peter Brooks, and Marianna Torgovnick to investigate how the Christophany functions as a pure signifier within the Pauline corpus” (156).

James D. G. Dunn comes to a conclusion that he says “is unavoidably speculative” (180) as he seeks to discern when the understanding of Jesus’ death as an atoning sacrifice emerged. He argues that the Hellenists (Acts 6–7) bridged the gap “between Jesus’ own talk of his death and the first Christian confession of that death as an atoning sacrifice” (181).

In a thoughtful essay, Helen K. Bond argues that the seamless robe of Jesus, woven all through, represents high priestly garb and contributes to John’s high priestly Christology.

I have learned much from what Larry Hurtado has written, but his essay in honor of Segal on remembering and revelation in John is not compelling. He writes, “the author was, I propose, perfectly aware that much of what he put into the mouth of Jesus was never spoken by Jesus in his earthly life, and, indeed, the author gives readers rather clear indications of this also” (213). This misunderstands John’s claims to understand after the resurrection what he remembered Jesus to have said before the resurrection.

Marianne Meye Thompson discusses a wide range of texts that discuss seeing God “face to face,” setting them next to others that assert the impossibility of this very thing. This discussion sets her up to highlight Jesus’ uniqueness as an eyewitness of God, which makes his testimony trustworthy.

Charles A. Gieschen examines the lamb Christology and angelomorphic Christology in Revelation, concluding that these present Jesus as both the visible form of Yahweh and as a flesh and blood man who conquered Satan by his atoning death.

John R. Levison seeks to shed light on Pauline scholarship by studying the theme of the Spirit of Life in the book of Ezekiel.

Jonathan Klawans summarizes everything that can be known about the Sadducees, concludes that their name does not go back to Zadok the priest who served David and Solomon but perhaps to some other by that name, and elucidates their beliefs by comparison to texts in the Wisdom of Ben Sira.

Rachel Elior surveys sacred space in 2 Chronicles, in the Prophets and Psalms, at Qumran, and then the way the concept is transformed in early Judaism and Christianity.

Paul Foster begins with a fascinating look at Vespasian’s rise to power and the politics of Roman taxation, and then speculates on the way Matthew 17:24–27 would have helped the Matthean community.

Alan Segal’s essay in honor of Larry Hurtado provides a review of Jewish scholarship on Paul’s religious experience, summarizing the views of Klausner, Flusser, Rubenstein, Schoeps, Sandmel, Segal, Boyarin, and Nanos.

Troy A. Miller argues from Hellenistic Synagogal Prayer 5, which is contained within the Apostolic Constitutions, for the Jewish character of Christianity in Syria through the fourth century (against Koester’s contention that Gnosticism was Syrian Christianity’s formative influence).

John T. Fitzgerald’s essay on anger, reconciliation, and friendship in Matthew 5:21–26 concludes the volume.

This attractively bound volume is a fitting tribute to Hurtado and Segal, and we can hope that such spirited, yet polite and even warm conversations can proliferate among scholars. Those interested in the contents of these essays will value these substantive contributions.

A festschrift such as this by definition contains scholarly and technical essays. People who write technical, scholarly essays like to write footnotes. People who read technical, scholarly essays like to read footnotes. I do not understand the editorial decision that a festschrift should have endnotes rather than footnotes. Endnotes are bothersome to readers, who are constantly slowed down by the process of turning to the back of the book. Endnotes might even be offensive to authors, because they imply that readers should not trouble themselves with this information that the author took the trouble to include. They are frustrating. Endnotes should be ended. They are a blemish on all academic publishing, and it is unfortunate that a book meant to honor two scholars should use endnotes. Those who do not wish to read footnotes can skip them, but why make life difficult for the rest of us by foisting endnotes upon us?

Did You See What He’s Doing in Revelation 13:14?

Sorry to keep piling on here, but I’m studying to preach Revelation 12 this Sunday and keep seeing things worth noting.

The claim has been made that the sense in which Satan is bound during the millennium is that he cannot deceive the nations. If that’s the case, I submit that Revelation 12 and 13 cannot be describing the same period of time that Revelation 20 describes, because in Revelation 12 and 13 Satan is deceiving the nations. I’ve noted some indications of this in the previous post, and here’s another:

Revelation 13:14, “and by the signs that it was allowed to work in the presence of the beast it deceives those who dwell on earth, telling them to make an image for the beast that was wounded by the sword and yet lived” (italics mine for emphasis; that word is in the text).

So Revelation 13:14 says that the dragon, beast, and false prophet (cf. 13:1-4; 16:13) are being allowed to do exactly what Satan is not allowed to do during the millennium according to Revelation 20:3.

I maintain that the amillennial position flattens out the imagery by claiming that different symbols all symbolize the same thing.

He Doesn’t Do This in the Millenium

Revelation 12:9, “And the great dragon was thrown out, the ancient serpent, the one called the Devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world, he was thrown to the ground, and his angels were thrown out with him” (emphasis mine).

Revelation 12:11 explains that Satan’s being cast out of heaven relates to the conquest that came by the blood of the Lamb, Christ’s death on the cross. Revelation 12:10 explains that “the one who accuses the brothers” is the one who has been cast out. It seems, then, that the result of Satan being “cast out” in Revelation 12:9 is that his accusations against believers are rejected because of the blood of the Lamb.

Having been cast out, Satan’s time is short (Rev 12:12), and he uses that time to make war on the rest of the woman’s seed (i.e., believers) and to deceive the nations (13:3-8). Satan gives his authority to the beast (13:3), the beast exercises authority for forty-two months (13:5), “and authority was given it over every tribe and people and language and nation” (13:7). Satan’s deceptive power in the beast is so strong that it persuades everyone except the elect (13:8).

Revelation 20:1-3 says that there will be a thousand year period in which he no longer deceives the nations.

A Brief Response to Sam’s “Thrones” Argument

Sam’s arguments seem to go like this: since this text (or this word) means x, this other text (or word) can’t mean y. I’m not finding x and y to be mutually exclusive.

Justin has presented another of Sam’s arguments, which Sam concludes as follows:

In summary, when we look at all other relevant occurrences of thronos, whether inside or outside the book of Revelation, they are without exception heavenly. There is nothing to suggest that they pertain to a millennial earth, either in location or character.

Again I have a brief and simple response. The end of Revelation 20:6 reads, “they will be priests of God and of Christ and they will reign with him for a thousand years.” Compare this with Revelation 5:10, “and you made them a kingdom and priests to our God, and they will reign upon the earth.” Could “they will reign upon the earth” in Revelation 5:10 “pertain to a millennial earth . . . in location and character” (Sam’s words) when we read in Revelation 20:6 that these resurrected people “will be priests” and “they will reign for a thousand years“?

In Revelation 20:4-5 people who have been beheaded–physically killed–experience “resurrection,” which, in the words of N. T. Wright, refers to physical life after life after death. If it doesn’t mean that, Wright says the usage of the word is strained to the breaking point. Then these resurrected people are made priests and reign with Christ for a thousand years (Rev 20:6) which looks like the realization of what was predicted in Revelation 5:10, where those Christ redeemed from all nations (5:9) are a kingdom and priests and reign on earth (5:10).

I quickly glanced through the uses of “throne/s” in Revelation, and here’s what I would say: you have the throne of God in heaven, the thrones of the 24 elders, and the throne of Satan and the beast. So the throne of God and the thrones of the elders are in heaven. Fine, but the church in Pergamum lives “where Satan’s throne is” (Rev 2:13), and in Revelation 13:2 the dragon gives his throne to the beast. Let’s grant, too, that the throne of Satan that he gives to the dragon is a symbol of his authority. Even as a symbol, it refers to authority Satan exercises where that church in Pergamum dwells, which is on earth (2:13). The same holds when Satan gives his authority to the beast (13:2). Note, too, that Satan uses the beast to deceive the nations with his faked crucifixion and resurrection (the healing of the mortal wound to one of his heads) in Revelation 13:1-8, and compare that with the way that Revelation 20:3 says Satan will not deceive the nations during the thousand years (see esp. Rev 13:7 and 20:3).

Is it that hard to imagine Satan’s authority being taken away from him (Rev 20:1-3) and that authority, symbolized by thrones, being exercised by Christ and the resurrected saints on earth for a thousand years?

I don’t see how the use of the word “thrones” argues against the premillennial position.

Response to JT on What Premillennialists Must Believe

Justin Taylor writes:

when Christ returns, the NT is clear that a number of things will end at that time (sin, corruption, death) and a number of things will begin at that time (our physical resurrection, final judgment, new heavens and new earth). In other words, when Christ returns, it’s “curtains” on sin and death. But in Premillennialism, there are still a thousand years of sin and death and corruption. I don’t want to be insensitive to my Premillennial friends, but it struck me a few years ago that the Premillennial position seems relatively depressing: Christ returns–but death and sin and rebellion continue. Now I know that our feelings can’t determine our exegesis (i.e., Premillennialism seems depressing, therefore it can’t be true)–and yet at the same time I think I feel that way precisely because the consistent testimony of the NT leads one to confidently expect that judgment, resurrection, and the death of sin and physical death will all happen at the blessed and glorious return of Christ. I know others will disagree, but this strikes me as a fatal weakness of Premillennialism.

My response to this is simple: at many points in the Old Testament, it looks as though when the Messiah comes everything is going to be consummated. As Justin nicely puts it, “‘curtains’ on sin and death.” Surprisingly, the Messiah came, and not everything in Isaiah 11 or 61 was realized all at once. What looked like one coming in the Old Testament was split into two comings, with a lot of time in between. From the eagerness of the disciples to reject the idea that Jesus was going to suffer in Jerusalem, and from their desire to see the kingdom restored to Israel in Acts 1, they seem to agree with Justin that the continuation of sin and death is depressing.

Now that Jesus has come, of course, we can look back on the OT and see statements that fit with a first and second coming.

So you can see where I’m going: as I said in the panel discussion, our task is to understand how everything the Bible says fits together. Obviously he wouldn’t argue that the OT indications that the coming of the Messiah will be accompanied by the reverse of the curse are a “fatal weakness” for what the NT says about Jesus having come once and promising that he will come again. Nor would he argue that the Gospels saying that Judas hung himself is a “fatal weakness” for the testimony in Acts that Judas fell headlong and his insides burst out. Nor, in my judgment, do the things Paul says about the second coming in 1 Corinthians 15 preclude what John says about the Millennium in Revelation 20.

Audio and Video from “An Evening of Eschatology”

It was my privilege and honor to participate in “An Evening of Eschatology” at Bethlehem Baptist Church, hosted by the Bethlehem College and Seminary, with John Piper, Sam Storms, and Doug Wilson.

The Audio and Video of the event are available, with an introduction from John Piper, here.

May the Lord be glorified and his word understood.

Christian Audio Free Download of Dante’s Divine Comedy

In my opinion Dante’s Infermo is one of those works of literature that should be relished by every human being. Now you can listen to it for free from Christian Audio . com. I recommend you also buy a print edition with really good study notes. It will repay your attention!

One of the greatest works in literature, Dante’s story-poem is an allegory that represents mankind as it exposes itself, by its merits or demerits, to the rewards or the punishments of justice. A single listening will reveal Dante’s visual imagination and uncanny power to make the spiritual visible.

Add the download format of The Divine Comedy to your cart and enter the coupon code AUG2009 when prompted during checkout.