Archive for category Revelation

Thoughts on T. Scott’s Seven Deadly Spirits, The Message of Revelation’s Letters for Today’s Church

Click to Order

While reading this short book, I had trouble with wanting to see it as an exegesis on the historical situation of the Seven Churches in Asia and what the original author was trying to communicate. Further, I wanted a historical critical take on the book, and instead, I walked away with a practical theological assessment of the book, which while akin to William Barclay, presented a modern application of those letters. While I completely disagree with him on several minor details, I had to step back and remember that the book’s purpose was not to engage the original audience of the text, but the audience of the modern church. What really stood out was the author’s personal connection in life experiences to these letters, which I think is the real key to understanding the long controversial book. It was not about secret code words, only to be deciphered fifteen minutes after the end of the world, but the original intent of the book was to speak to the audience and to any audience in perpetuity, about their current condition, whether it is apathy, love or persecution. What Daniels has done is to scrape off some of the patina of countless and needless interpretative attempts to make, at the very least, these letters applicable to the modern Church.

Of the seven letters, two portions stood out to me, namely Ephesians and his postscript. In the letter to Ephesians Daniels calls for a more generous orthodoxy. For this letter, his focus is on this passage found in Revelation 2.2-4, on what they did right and what they did wrong. The Ephesians had orthodoxy (although, admittedly, while Revelation was written sometime around 96 according to many scholars, there was most likely not a general orthodoxy subscribed to by the communities interpreting the message of Christ) but they had lost the love of one another. Daniels quotes, Barclay,

It may be that a hard, censorious, critical, fault-finding, stern self-righteousness had banished the spirit of love… Strict orthodoxy can cost too much, if it has to be bought at the price of love. (p39)

Daniels further notes:

Few if any of us who are believers accepted Christ into our lives because we were doctrinally argued into the Church. It was the love of God demonstrated in the life of the Spirit-filled body of Christ that wooed us into relationship with the Father….(p40)

…. However, there is something in letter from the Revelator that desires the Church in Ephesus to place orthopraxy (rightly living out the faith) or orthopathy (having the right heart or spirit) above orthodoxy (mentally assenting to correct doctrine as cognitive propositions). (p42)

I believe that he is partially correct here – that doctrine is not what draws us to Christ so much as what explains to us that call and the life led thereafter. I have a problem with his apparent lack of focus; instead of maintaining orthodoxy, he is in favor of practice and love as a measure of unity. I mean, what’s that all about?

Daniels then goes on to speak about Scripture in a communal setting on page 135 and 136, noting that we read ‘Scripture in community to learn to interpret ourselves and the world as Christians.’ This passage stood out as one which is needful at this present time. We have a large and ever growing community as the world gets smaller. Perhaps one of the best things to happen to (Western) Christianity in this century is the rise of the New Atheists (Dawkins, Hitchens) and their militant campaign against religion in general and more specifically, Christianity. The voices of the New Atheists focuses us on scholarship, theology, and looking at our presentation of the Gospel Message. Further, I think that we have to hear the voices of those who believe that Leviticus is a New Testament book or that women are nothing more than property with a voice heard only at the request of her husband. With that said, Daniels’ reading of these letters is part of this embodiment of the Scriptures in community (136), and while I disagree with him, mainly in his interpretation of Thyatira, I find that there is much here to listen to and to learn from.

I feel that Daniel’s section on Thyatira is lacking in grounding, with his dualist notions of what the problem in that city is unsupported by history or text. While his other letters are generally found to have some historical reality, this section seems almost to be pulled out of the very thin air of speculation, and mediocre air at that. I think that there are other ‘real life’ examples and applications that could be drawn from the situation in Thyatira, notably the fact that a woman, unquestioning, was allowed to preach.

The minister, whether pastor, subordinate or simply lay, should be able to gain a great deal from the book. Notably, the fact that Revelation is applicable today, and not as fictional tales told to scare people into serving God, but real theological discussions meant to encourage conversations about what may be holding congregations back from growth. I think that the author does a fair job of naming the problems which plague many churches. Whether a too-strict orthodoxy which strangles the orthopathy, the consumerism which leads to the commodification of the Christian faith (47), accommodation, individualism in a faith community, or apathy (93) the spirits of the congregations envelope these groups and are self-feeding. In turn, these possessed congregations will select, either actively or through passive support of, leaders who feed into their spiritual need to neglect the Gospel. Further, Daniels helps to counter such rants as we see today against corporate salvation and stands firm against the American introduction to an individualistic faith. The author calls every congregation and ever leader in a congregation to name the spirits that plagues them and to use Scripture in a communal application against them.

 

, ,

2 Comments

Christ to the Ephesians – A More Generous Orthodoxy? Or Maybe Orthopathy?

Click to Order

This is a book we are examining in Church Renewal Class…

Written by T. Scott Daniels, the senior pastor of First Church of the Nazarene in Pasadena, California, it takes the seven mini-epistles from Christ to the churches in Asia and applies them as a method of peering into the causes of congregational dysfunction.

For this letter, his focus is on this passage – the what they did right and what they did wrong:

“I know all the things you do. I have seen your hard work and your patient endurance. I know you don’t tolerate evil people. You have examined the claims of those who say they are apostles but are not. You have discovered they are liars.You have patiently suffered for me without quitting.

“But I have this complaint against you. You don’t love me or each other as you did at first! (Rev 2:2-4 NLT)

The Ephesians had orthodoxy (although, admittedly, while Revelation was written sometime around 96 according to most, there was really a flexible orthodoxy, more so than today) but they had lost the love of one another. Daniels quotes, Barclay,

It may be that a hard, censorious, critical, fault-finding, stern self-righteousness had banished the spirit of love… Strict orthodoxy can cost too much, if it has to be bought at the price of love. (p39)

Daniels further notes…

Few if any of us who are believers accepted Christ into our lives because we were doctrinally argued into the Church. It was the love of God demonstrated in the life of the Spirit-filled body of Christ that wooed us into relationship with the Father….(p40)

…. However, there is something in letter from the Revelator that desires the Church in Ephesus to place orthopraxy (rightly living out the faith) or orthopathy (having the right heart or spirit) above orthodoxy (mentally assenting to correct doctrine as cognitive propositions). (p42)

I believe that he is partially correct here – that doctrine is not what draws us to Christ so much as was explains us that call and the life led thereafter. I have a problem with his apparent lack of focus; instead of maintaining orthodoxy, he is in favor of practice and love as a measure of unity. I mean, what’s that all about?

 

,

No Comments

2 Peter 3:3-10, Amillennialism and Preterism – Thoughts?

From a valued reader and friend, I would like to submit to you the question submitted to me –

‘Tis evident that when Christ speaks of his coming; his being revealed; his coming in his Kingdom; or his Kingdom’s coming; He has respect to his appearing in those great works of his Power Justice and Grace, which should be in the Destruction of Jerusalem and other extraordinary Providences which should attend it.” (Jonathan Edwards; Miscellany #1199)

Now that I know that you are a Partial Preterist – I would like to ask you – what (if anything) is harmful or wrong with believers re-evaluating Peter’s words in 2 Peter 3:3-10? Why wouldn’t the ‘ LAST DAYS ‘ (2 Peter 3:3) and the ‘ US ‘ in (3:9) refer to specifically to Israel and the 40 years that was given them to repent before Jesus’ coming in judgment against them in A.D.70 ( Matthew 24:27). I do not see how Jesus comparing his coming to the flash of lightning can be for the good of those he’s visiting.

If we are to read scripture with a degree of logic – then why not question if what Peter wrote before A.D.70 and under inspiration – applies to readers of this age? The Lord has not return YET for the sake of souls that may come to repentance and faith TODAY? I mean really – From his ascension in A.D. 30 to the present (2010) countless souls have been BORN and have DIED without him the world over. IF Peter was not referring to the coming judgment against apostate or unbelieving Israel in A.D.70 then his statement in 3:9 makes no sense at all…

Furthermore Peter uses the same apocalyptic/prophetic language in 3:10 as Amos does in 9:5. Moreover,Jesus coming with (non literal) clouds (Rev 1:7) and his famous ” I come quickly ” cannot be for the good – anymore than God coming into Egypt riding on a (non literal) swift cloud – in his judgment against them (Isaiah 19:1)

What I’m asking you is this – do you believe that Jesus in his own words ever promised a physical/bodily return? I do believe that Rev 20:7-10 is yet future and not a ‘ recounting ‘ of the battle of Rev 19:11-21. Satan is still bound (from deceiving nations) so Perhaps Rev 20:9 (Lightning coming down from Heaven) may be a picture of Jesus’ coming – only this time it cannot be for the good of those who attack the camp of the saints (The beloved city) Not Jerusalem – but his church…

You said that you are Amil – so you believe that we are living in the thousand (not 1000) year reign of Christ too then?

Furthermore Peter like John uses the same apocalyptic/prophetic language in 3:10 as Amos does in 4:13; 8:8; and 9:5 as does Micah in 1:3-4

This was my initial response,

Seroled, I believe that all doctrine and Scripture must constantly be re-evaluated. As to these questions, umm…

I believe that Peter very well may have been writing to his fellow Jews who were simply refusing to follow Christ, relying on skepticism. We know that after 70ce, the Church shifted dramatically in cultural make-up, if you will, so I think that you may be on to something…

I don’t really like using Revelation any longer as an eschatological road map, finding enough eschatology in Peter and Paul to suffice. However, if we use Revelation as a prophetic revealing of what was going on around them, it may be that when Satan was bound from deceiving the nations, the Gentile mission really took off.

Feel free to contribute, warmly.

 

, ,

2 Comments

Should Revelation be used for Doctrine?

I am torn on this, actually, finding that while the book of Revelation presents us with ‘new things’ and is very much a Gospel itself, I am unsure as to whether to use it as a source of Doctrine, especially the more so since there is generally not a consensus on the method of interpretation…

Kevin wants to, especially in light that his chosen text flies in the face of Calvinism which T.C. takes as an affront.

Personally, I think that the text quoted is directed to Christians we are in danger of becoming lukewarm, a timeless application, but limited to Christians only.

But, I guess the bigger question is whether or not John’s Apocalypse should be used for doctrinal purposes. I am of the opinion that any approach to Revelation which attempts to extract doctrine should be minimal at best.

What is yours?

 

20 Comments

Revelation as Prophecy: What is Prophecy?

For some background on my argument here, see this post.

The Book of Revelation is often called, rightly, a prophecy, but far too often does that mean in the minds of most readers, something in the future. Many believe that ‘prophecy’ is always in the future, but I believe that this is a fallacy based on misunderstanding of what prophecy is. Simply, prophecy is not the fore-telling of far distant events, but the inspired message for the audience there and then. It is not a secret code to be worked out by later readers, nor should the genre be ignored, but everything to be understood correctly but be put in its place.

The author clearly denotes that the work is a prophecy in Revelation 1.3 (and several other places), meaning of course, that he is a prophet.

Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of the prophecy, and heed the things which are written in it; for the time is near. NASB

God blesses the one who reads the words of this prophecy to the church, and he blesses all who listen to its message and obey what it says, for the time is near. NLT

Μακάριος ὁ ἀναγινώσκων καὶ οἱ ἀκούοντες τοὺς λόγους τῆς προφητείας καὶ τηροῦντες τὰ ἐν αὐτῇ γεγραμμένα, ὁ γὰρ καιρὸς ἐγγύς.

It’s that key word, προφητείας, which plagues us and which we must attempt to discover what it actually meant, still means, and not what we subjectively wish it to mean today.

First, I note that in the Septuagint, we see the word used by Tobit (2.6) in reference to the prophet Amos who spoke in his own time about the destruction coming to Israel because of the injustices done to the poor.

Then I remembered the prophecy of Amos, how he said against Bethel, “Your festivals shall be turned into mourning, and all your songs into lamentation.” And I wept. (NRSV)

καὶ ἐμνήσθην τῆς προφητείας Αμως καθὼς εἶπεν στραφήσονται αἱ ἑορταὶ ὑμῶν εἰς πένθος καὶ πᾶσαι αἱ εὐφροσύναι ὑμῶν εἰς θρῆνον καὶ ἔκλαυσα

Amos wasn’t speaking about Tobit, and Tobit knew that. Instead Tobit fulfilled what Amos had said, then went and did what Amos said. Amos was dead, but Tobit took what Amos said and applied to his own life.

Paul would later use say that gifts were bestowed through prophecy,

Do not neglect the gift that is in you, which was given to you through prophecy with the laying on of hands by the council of elders. 1 Timothy 4:14 NRSV

μὴ ἀμέλει τοῦ ἐν σοὶ χαρίσματος, ὃ ἐδόθη σοι διὰ προφητείας μετὰ ἐπιθέσεως τῶν χειρῶν τοῦ πρεσβυτερίου.

In a pseudepigraphical book, prophecy is connected to nothing more that delivering God’s Law or ruling Israel,

And Eupolemus says in a certain ‘Concerning the Prophecy of Elijah,’ that Moses prophesied for forty years, then Joshua the son of Nun [prophesied] for thirty years. [Joshua] lived for one hundred ten years, and set up the holy Tabernacle at Shiloh. Eupolemus Concerning Moses 2:1

Εὐπόλεμος δέ φησιν ἔν τινι Περὶ τῆς Ἠλίου προφητείας Μωσῆν προφητεῦσαι ἔτη μ· εἶτα Ἰησοῦν, τὸν τοῦ Ναυῆ υἱόν, ἔτη λ· βιῶσαι δ᾽ αὐτὸν ἔτη ρι πῆξαί τε τὴν ἱερὰν σκηνὴν ἐν Σιλοῖ.

Philo, in line with the mention above, cites Moses and defines prophecy,

But since there is an infinite variety of both human and divine circumstances which are unknown both to king, and lawgiver, and chief priest, for a man is no less a created and mortal being from having all these offices, or because he is clothed with such a vast and boundless inheritance of honor and happiness, he was also of necessity invested with the gift of prophecy, in order that he might through the providence of God learn all those things which he was unable to comprehend by his own reason; for what the mind is unable to attain to, that prophecy masters. De vita Mosis 2:6

ἀλλ᾽ ἐπειδὴ μυρία καὶ βασιλεῖ καὶ νομοθέτῃ καὶ ἀρχιερεῖ τῶν ἀνθρωπείων καὶ θείων ἄδηλα γενητὸς γὰρ οὐδὲν ἧττον καὶ θνητός ἐστιν, εἰ καὶ τοσοῦτον καὶ οὕτως ἄφθονον περιβέβληται κλῆρον εὐπραγιῶν, ἀναγκαίως καὶ προφητείας ἔτυχεν, ἵν᾽ ὅσα μὴ λογισμῷ δύναται καταλαμβάνειν, ταῦτα προνοίᾳ θεοῦ εὕροι· ὧν γὰρ ὁ νοῦς ἀπολείπεται, πρὸς ταῦθ᾽ ἡ προφητεία φθάνει.

Prophecy, so far, has been defined as ruling, law giving, comprehension and bringing representing God’s legal case against Israel. We could boil it down to this, that prophecy and thus prophets are those who claim direct inspiration from God. Rather, a prophet who claims direct inspiration from God issues words (these are prophecies) which he claims are from God, under the inspiration of the Spirit. The notion of inspiration by the breath of God (Spirit) can be derived easily enough from Philo –

And if, indeed, any one assuming the name and appearance of a prophet [Deuteronomy 13:1], appearing to be inspired and possessed by the Holy Spirit, were to seek to lead the people to the worship of those who are accounted gods in the different cities, it would not be fitting for the people to attend to him being deceived by the name of a prophet. For such an one is an impostor and not a prophet, since he has been inventing speeches and oracles full of falsehood, De specialibus legibus 1:315

κἂν μέντοι τις ὄνομα καὶ σχῆμα προφητείας ὑποδύς, ἐνθουσιᾶν καὶ κατέχεσθαι δοκῶν, ἄγῃ πρὸς τὴν τῶν νενομισμένων κατὰ πόλεις θρησκείαν θεῶν, οὐκ ἄξιον προσέχειν ἀπατωμένους ὀνόματι προφήτου· γόης γὰρ ἀλλ᾽ οὐ προφήτης ἐστὶν ὁ τοιοῦτος, ἐπειδὴ ψευδόμενος λόγια καὶ χρησμοὺς ἐπλάσατο.

In Josephus, he notes that the Temple was chosen by Prophecy (Ant. 4.200). In 7.72, David is seen asking the Prophets about the will of God while in 8.418, it is said that by prophecy, people know the will of God and what they should avoid. Still, the sense of the future events is immediate which is echoed in 10.93 when describing Jeremiah’s predictions about what would soon happen. For Josephus, prophecies were meant to be fulfilled quickly (I note Revelation 22.20 here) which in accordance with Deuteronomy 13 would allow for testing of the prophet.

What about the actual meaning of the word?

Friberg –

προφητεία, ας, ἡ prophecy; (1) as the gift (χάρισμα) of inspired speaking granted to believers by the Spirit prophecy, ability to prophesy (RO 12.6); (2) as the utterance of a prophet prophetic words, inspired saying, prophecy (1C 14.6); (3) as a foretelling of future events prediction, prophecy (MT 13.14); (4) as the work of a prophet prophetic activity, prophesying (RV 11.6)

Louw-Nida –

33.460 προφητεία, ας f: an utterance inspired by God – ‘inspired utterance, prophecy.’ καὶ ἀναπληροῦται αὐτοῖς ἡ προφητεία Ἠσαΐου ‘so that the prophecy of Isaiah comes true in their case’ Mt 13.14; εἴτε δὲ προφητεῖαι, καταργηθήσονται ‘and if there are inspired utterances, they will cease’ 1 Cor 13.8. It is possible that προφητεία in 1 Cor 13.8 refers to the action of producing such inspired utterances rather than to the resulting verbal form of the utterances themselves.

Liddell-Scott –

προφητεία, ἡ, the gift of interpreting the will of the gods, Orac. ap. Luc.
II. in N.T., the gift of expounding scripture, of speaking and preaching.

Thayer –

προφητεία, προφητείας, ἡ (προφητεύω, which see), Hebrew נְבוּאָה, prophecy, i. e. discourse emanating from divine inspiration and declaring the purposes of God, whether by reproving and admonishing the wicked, or comforting the afflicted, or revealing things hidden; especially by foretelling future events. Used in the N. T. — of the utterances of the O. T. prophets: Matt. 13:14; 2 Pet. 1:20,21 (on this passage see γίνομαι, 5 e. α.); — of the prediction of events relating to Christ’s kingdom and its speedy triumph, together with the consolations and admonitions pertaining thereto: Rev. 11:6; 22:19; τό πνεῦμα τῆς προφητείας, the spirit of prophecy, the divine mind, to which the prophetic faculty is due, Rev. 19:10 ; οἱ λόγοι τῆς προφητείας, Rev. 1:3; 22:7,10,18; — of the endowment and speech of the Christian teachers called προφῆται (see προφήτης, II. 1 f.): Rom. 12:6; 1 Cor. 12:10; 13:2; 14:6,22; plural the gifts and utterances of these prophets, 1 Cor. 13:8; 1 Thess. 5:20; — specifically, of the prognostication of those achievements which one set apart to teach the gospel will accomplish for the kingdom of Christ, 1 Tim. 4:14; plural 1:18 (see προάγω, 2 a. and compare the commentaries). ((The Septuagint, Josephus); among native Greek writers used only by Lucian, Alex. 40, 60; (to which add inscriptions (see Liddell and Scott, under the word, I.)).)*

So, the generally agree – it is an inspired speech from a person sent of God to tell about His will. The ‘future’ is generally immediate or better yet, it is generally about the prophet applying the ‘how come’ to the ‘what’s happening now.’ Prophets do not make ‘predictions’ because what they say are to be the words of God, nor do they tell of events thousands of years hence. A prophecy is the words of a prophet which is a person sent by God to tell about the will of God.

Eschatology is a part of Christianity, but I have seriously doubts if Revelation is apart of Eschatology, or at least not in the way we’ve been told to think about Eschatology.

 

30 Comments

Eusebian Canon – Revelation Almost Didn’t Make it…

I’m on a kick about the book of Revelation – It almost didn’t make it, which explains why (first) so few early commentaries exist and (second) why the true meanings may be hidden under the dust of Tradition. For a ‘new’ way of reading Revelation, check out T.C.’s blog.

This is from Eusebius’ book 3. He, and he wasn’t alone, simply didn’t know what to do with Revelation:

1. Since we are dealing with this subject it is proper to sum up the writings of the New Testament which have been already mentioned. First then must be put the holy quaternion of the Gospels; following them the

2. After this must be reckoned the next in order the extant former epistle of John, and likewise the must be maintained. After them is to be placed, if it really seem proper, the concerning which we shall give the different opinions at the proper time. These then belong among the

3. Among the disputed writings, which are nevertheless recognized by many, are extant the so-called and that of also the second epistle of Peter, and those that are called the second and third of John, whether they belong to the evangelist or to another person of the same name.

4. Among the must be reckoned also the Acts of Paul, and the so-called Shepherd, and the Apocalypse of Peter, and in addition to these the extant epistle of Barnabas, and the so-called Teachings of the Apostles; and besides, as I said, the but which others class with the

5. And among these some have placed also the Gospel according to the Hebrews, with which those of the

6. But we have nevertheless felt compelled to give a catalogue of these also, distinguishing those works which according to ecclesiastical tradition are true and from those others which, although not are yet at the same time known to most ecclesiastical writers— we have felt compelled to give this catalogue in order that we might be able to know both these works and those that are cited by the heretics under the name of the apostles, including, for instance, such books as the Gospels of Peter, of Thomas, of Matthias, or of any others besides them, and the Acts of Andrew and John and the other apostles, which no one belonging to the succession of ecclesiastical writers has deemed worthy of mention in his writings.

7. And further, the character of the style is at variance with Wherefore they are not to be placed even among the but are all of them to be cast aside as absurd and impious.

 

,

6 Comments

Continuing the Discussion on John’s Revelation as Enthronement

It started here with T.C. announcing his changing of views on Revelation. I would agree that amillennialism to the best way to go, but I also mentioned that I don’t fully support the idea that Revelation is all about eschatology. You can find my post here.

T.C. writes,

Here’s the grind: in rethinking and reworking my reading of Revelation, I see great value in Mr. Joel Watts’ proposal, that is, reading the book of Revelations as an early Jewish-Christian Midrash of Psalm 2 in light of the socio-political experience of the New Community [because of Messiah].

I note that while many consider Israel as a vital part of Eschatology – I think they miss Pentecost – Israel is simply not mentioned in the book of Revelation (unless you count the derogatory description of Jerusalem). Further, I note that Michael Barber has a post up which helps to supplement my own personal theory of the 6th seal (this post was written a year ago). He notes,

A growing number of scholars have noted that in the Gospels, especially Matthew and Mark, the cross is described as a kind of apocalyptic event.[1] We see this in the way the events of the passion narrative appear to parallel motifs in the apocalyptic discourse (Matt 24//Mark 13).

If we begin to place some of these latest speculations together, along with the fact that notable conservatives such as Fee who see only the last two chapters as applying to eschatology, I believe that I am becoming more rooted in my assertion that John’s book is intended for something more – something more than pop theology developed 2000 years later.

 

, , ,

2 Comments