Blog has changed address

This blog has now changed address and is being hosted by wordpress over at http://didaskalian.wordpress.com/. This blog will no longer be used!

An Evening on Revelation 20

Following my previous post on Revelation, a friend of mine told me of a debate chaired by John Piper on the millenium in Revelation 20 (which I completely omitted in my treatment, for reasons which will become apparent as you watch the video). For those of you who are interested in this, there is a link below. It is illustrative of how difficult to interpret this particular chapter is. Luckily it is probably the most difficult chapter to figure out in the New Testament.


Video Here

Revelation... in 5 minutes!

Revelation is the most controversial and debated book in the whole Bible. It is as full of odd numbers and weird symbols as there are weird and wacky interpretations of it. Reading it usually leads to two kind of responses: despair and speculation. Those who go for the former get so confused by the book that they give up on it all together. Those who opt for the latter read Revelation to the point of obsession - and not a good obsession. Guess what? Neither position is right. Revelation can be understood, and when it is it is profoundly uplifting and encouraging! However, I am the first to acknowledge that it is difficult to understand, hence the sheer mass of odd interpretations! What is the way forward?

The gist of this post is in the title. The idea is to summarize the message of the book of revelation in a post that can be read in five minutes or less (for an average reader). Once you have read this post, try re-reading the whole of revelation in one go (that should take you less than an hour) with this framework in mind and see if it makes any more sense. I should note before I start that I am so heavily indebted to John Hosier's teaching and writing that this post is practically plagiarism!

Revelation in five minutes

Revelation is like an X-ray rather than a Crystal ball. It is not primarily about predicting the future, but about providing insight into what is currently going on in heaven. Behind the difficulties of life, the persecution, John's (author) readers could perceive another reality in these visions - the reality of what God was doing behind the events that were unfolding before their eyes.

John, at the beginning of Revelation sees a vision of the Ascended Christ. After the shock of this encounter, Jesus tells him to write seven letters to seven churches in which Jesus himself warns them about various things (I'm trying to keep this short) and tells quite a few of them off. We're usually fine with the letters - they are easier to understand. The rest of the book (Chapters 4 onwards) is another matter altogether.

Chapters 4-5 provide the backbone to the book. In Chapter 4, John has a vision of heaven opened in which he sees the throne of God. In the midst of the church's suffering, John's eyes are opened to see that throughout this, God is on the throne. In chapter 5 this is extended. John sees a vision of the conquering lamb of God, who because he died for the sins of the world, has authority to unfold the events of history. The suffering church which read this would understand this: "God is on the throne and the lamb of God has conquered. Therefore we have a hope that this world will finally be put to rights!".

The bulk of the book is taken up with 3 cycles of seven. Seven seals (6-8.5), seven trumpets (8.6-11.19), seven bowls of wrath (chapter 16). Don't get bogged down with the odd imagery. Each of these cycles is a different perspective on the folding out of history which climaxes with the end and return of Christ on the seventh of each. In other words, the seven seals, the seven trumpets and the seven bowls of wrath tell the history of the Church in very broad strokes. The first two series are interspersed with an interlude on (1) the assurance of the saints (chap 7) and (2) the mission of the Church (chap 10-11).

The more discerning of you will have notice that I have jumped over chaps. 12-14. These three chapters describe the battle between the Church and Satan from a heavenly perspective. The beasts in chapter 13 may well refer to particular Roman institutions and Emperors, but that doesn't change the interpretation of the book as a whole. The idea is that behind the oppression of the Church are the spiritual forces of darkness. In the midst of this all, however, the Church can be sure that they are ultimately safe and that the forces of evil will be destroyed (chap. 14).

After the final bowl of wrath (chap 16), there are two chapters which describe the fall of the great prostitute Babylon, which represents Rome (and by implication all world super-powers). In chapters 17-18, it is exposed for what it really is: a sham! Moreover, she is ultimately destined to fall, just like every other earthly empire. This is celebrated in 19.1-10. 


In 19.11-21, Jesus returns to establish justice again on earth and destroy all of his enemies! After a difficult chapter to interpret (chap. 20), there is a vision of judgement (20.11-15) and ew creation (Chaps. 21-22). The dead are raised to life and judged. The righteous go into eternal life and the unrighteous to eternal wrath. What follows is a vision of the new earth and new heaven and the new Jerusalem (the Church). All things are made new, all wrongs are righted and all tears are wiped away.

The book concludes with the encouragement that Jesus is returning soon, which acts as a warning to complacent Christians and an encouragement to suffering Christians. Behind the intense persecution which the Church in John's day was enduring, God was sovereign, the lamb had conquered and would return quickly to make all things new. In other words, revelation speaks to generations of Christians who find themselves in persecution and complacency with the message: "God is still on the throne, the lamb has conquered and he is returning soon to right all wrongs!"

Warning: The legalists are here! Or is it the hypocrites?

Most people are familiar with the Pharisees. Or at least they think they are - A bunch of skulking, petty, crooked nosed legalists who have nothing better to do with their time than impose rules on common people in order for them to gain some kind of merit which will enable them to go to heaven. In other words, the Pharisees appear in the Gospels and in pantomime fashion a plethora of boos and hisses resounds in the average reader's mind along with the thought: "warning the legalists are here!"

That was the common consensus on the Pharisees for quite a while. In 1977, however, a historian called E. P. Sanders published a book called Paul and Palestinian Judaism in which he argues that Jews at the time of Jesus were not legalistic. They didn't think that obeying the Law would enable them to be justified. Rather they believed that they were part of God's people already and that keeping the law was simply a way of "staying in" the covenant. In other words, works of the Law were not a way of "getting in", but of "staying in". The Pharisees, to New Testament scholars, turned from being the legalistic bad guys into being the grace-filled party which tried to make the law accessible to all common Jews.

The influence of E. P. Sander's book was simply enormous. It kick-started the New Perspective on Paul, which is a new way of reading Paul - in this perspective Paul is not opposing legalism, he is opposing ethno-centric Jews. The reformers' talk of legalism was simply anachronistic - an importation of 16th century ideas (notably the legalism of the Catholic Church) onto first-century texts. Other scholars such as James Dunn and Tom Wright have taken on Sander's ideas and completely reread Paul and the Pharisees.

Needless to say, Sander's thesis has been met with fierce criticism from the Evangelical camp. Particularly noteworthy is Simon Gathercole's response in Where is Boasting: Early Jewish Soteriology and Paul's response in Romans 1-5. Gathercole reexamines the evidence from early Judaism and argues that Sanders has overlooked evidence which points to the fact that many Jews of the first century saw the Law as a way of obtaining salvation. I think Gathercole makes a strong case and has helpfully shown many of the flaws in Sander's logic.

Having read Luke 11 this morning and Jesus' response to the Pharisees, I was reminded of Ligon Duncan's comments on the Pharisees and legalism. Ligon Duncan is an evangelical who could not be more fiercely opposed to E. P. Sanders' thesis. However, he acknowledges that one benefit of Sanders work is that it re-orientates us towards the Pharisees, although he says that simply reading the Gospels properly should help us do this. He points out the fact that Jesus never actually accuses the Pharisees of taking the Law too seriously. He accuses them of being hypocrites. In other words, people who instruct others to follow the law, but fail to do it themselves. They tithe from their spice-rack, but neglect justice; they lay heavy burdens on people, but do not help them to carry it. Check out the brief video here.

Returning to the pantomime analogy, it seems that when you read the Gospels at face value, our response to the Pharisees should not be "warning: the legalists are here!" but rather "warning: the hypocrites are here!". Interestingly, Jesus encourages people to do what the Pharisees teach (Matthew 23:1-3), but not what they do. They have excellent theology, but awful practice. The "Pharisee in each of us" then is no longer so much about our attempts to add to our salvation, but our propensity to have a good belief system and good theology, but a bad practice. We don't want to be Pharisees, but for a very different reason than is usually put suggested.

"Warning: the hypocrites are here!"

Losing your salvation - the implications

Over on his blog, New Testament scholar Scott McKnight has been posting a series on the warning passages in Hebrews and Calvinism. In his final post on the matter, McKnight summarizes the implications of his view that the warning passages in Hebrews actually envisage the possibility of a genuine Christian falling away and forfeiting salvation. Whether you agree with his conclusions on Hebrews or not, the implications of his conclusions are sobering and thought-provoking. Here are three of them (in his own words):

First, I sensed a renewal of the fear of God that is so prominent in Hebrews. Once I came to the conviction that a person, yea that I, could believe and fall away, sin became more important and the prospect of falling away more realistic. Now don’t get me wrong, I don’t live in some morbid fear. Assurance accompanies faithfulness for both the Calvinist and the Arminian. Both, at least in my case, knowing that redemption is rooted in the saving powers of Christ and that faith — in the sense of faithfulness and trust — is required. 

Second, it influenced how I presented the gospel. However one wants to present the gospel, through some tract or through personal story or through some piece of rational logic, the summons to believe for me is a summons to become a believer — not just to believe once and for all in a singular moment. It is a summons to live under the rule of King Jesus. The summons to perseverance is part and parcel of the summon to believe. 

Third, I am persuaded that holding to this view does not mean that I (or anyone who shares it with me) believes that I contribute to my own salvation. Instead, what this doctrine encourages me to do is to believe, to watch, and to persevere. It makes me more conscious of the need of grace and the power of the Holy Spirit.

McKnight lists a fourth implication for the unity of scripture, which he suggests needs some more thought. Check out the full post here and have a read of the whole series.

Video on Romans 1-4

I've just found this recent video of Tom Wright's summary of Paul's letter to the Romans. It's a good overview of Wright's understanding of the letter and his particular take on it. For those of you who are interested, here is it:

Love your enemies!

Knowing what context someone is speaking or writing in helps understand the full power of their message. For example, take Martin Luther King's "I have a dream" speech out of the context of racial oppression and it loses its punch. The same is true with events from the Bible.

I was reading Luke 6.27-30 this morning. The words are probably familiar to anyone who has any acquaintance with Christianity:

“But I say to you who hear, Love your enemies, tdo good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you. To one who strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also, and from one who takes away your cloak do not withhold your tunic either. Give to everyone who begs from you, and from one who takes away your goods do not demand them back.

The sting of this passage was really brought home to me when I read it with some passages from the ancient Jewish historian Josephus in mind. Writing at the end of the first century AD, Josephus reports events in Israel roughly contemporary with the time of Jesus. Israel was under Roman rule at the time so it was not too difficult for the Jews to realize exactly which enemies Jesus might have had at the front of his mind. Read the following excerpts about how the Romans dealt with the Jews and then read Luke 6.27-30 again. Sorry about the language in the following passages, I only have an old-school translation of Josephus.

But Varus [a Roman general] sent a part of his army into the country, against those that had been the authors of this commotion, and as they caught great numbers of them, those that appeared to have been the least concerned in these tumults he put into custody, but such as were the most guilty he crucified; these were in number about two thousand. (Josephus War 2.75)

After this he raised another disturbance, by expending that sacred treasure which is called Corban upon aqueducts, whereby he brought water from the distance of four hundred furlongs. At this the multitude had indignation; and when Pilate was come to Jerusalem, they came about his tribunal, and made a clamor at it. Now when he was apprized aforehand of this disturbance, he mixed his own soldiers in their armor with the multitude, and ordered them to conceal themselves under the habits of private men, and not indeed to use their swords, but with their staves to beat those that made the clamor. He then gave the signal from his tribunal [to do as he had bidden them]. Now the Jews were so sadly beaten, that many of them perished by the stripes they received, and many of them perished as trodden to death by themselves; (Josephus War 2.175-177)

The main reason why [Titus] did not forbid that cruelty was this, that he hoped the Jews might perhaps yield at that sight, out of fear lest they might themselves afterwards be liable to the same cruel treatment. So the soldiers, out of the wrath and hatred they bore the Jews, nailed those they caught, one after one way, and another after another, to the crosses, by way of jest, when their multitude was so great, that room was wanting for the crosses, and crosses wanting for the bodies. (Josephus War 5.450-1)

"But I say to you who hear, Love your enemies"!