Thunder In John's Writings As An Indicator Of Authorship

Mark 3:17 tells us that Jesus referred to the sons of Zebedee as Sons of Thunder. To my knowledge, thunder is referred to several times in the New Testament, and the only references outside Mark 3:17 are found in the writings attributed to John the son of Zebedee (John 12:29, Revelation 4:5, 6:1, 8:5, 10:3-4, 11:19, 14:2, 16:18, 19:6). And many of those references could easily have been avoided. John is describing multiple details about something, and the thunder aspect could easily have been left out. He's describing what something sounded like, and he could easily have compared it to something other than thunder. Or he could have just not included the passage to begin with. Even where a reference to thunder seems too difficult to avoid once a particular passage is being included, we still have to ask how easily the passage could have not been included. There's the issue, for example, of why God chose to reveal himself in the context of thunder so much in the book of Revelation. That seems more coherent if the recipient of the revelation was the son of Zebedee. For reasons like these, I don't think the prominence of thunder in John's writings can be dismissed merely by an appeal to necessity, as if anybody writing in such a context would have needed to refer to thunder. If these documents were authored by the son of Zebedee rather than some other John or were intended to be perceived as authored by the son of Zebedee without his having written them, then that helps explain the prominence of thunder in the documents. It's a further line of evidence against views like Richard Bauckham's, in which some other John was the author or purported author.

Trent Horn's Video On Mary's Assumption

Trent Horn recently produced a video on the Assumption of Mary in response to Gavin Ortlund. I've written a response to it in the comments section of a recent thread.

May The Lamb That Was Slain Receive The Reward Of His Suffering

"The Moravians were not the only missionaries inspired by Revelation 5, but probably the Moravians gave expression to the beauty of the missionary implications of this text better than anybody. And in the middle of the eighteenth century, they would get on their ships in North Germany to disappear forever out of their families' lives to peoples they had no idea whether they'd eat them or not, and as the ships pulled out from shore, they would lift their hands and say, 'May the Lamb that was slain receive the reward of his suffering.' That comes straight out of Revelation 5:9. 'May the Lamb that was slain, in my ministry, receive the reward of his suffering. He was slain for them, and I'm going to go be the means by which he gets his reward for his suffering.' I cannot imagine a vision of life more precious than that. I mean, if you could wake up every morning and preach to yourself, 'I am the instrument in the hands of the grace of God by which the Lamb slain will receive the reward of his suffering.'" (John Piper, at 27:20 in the video here)

Jiang interviews Poythress

"Vern Poythress on the Old Testament, the Pentateuch, and Revelation with Chinese Subtitles"

The four horsemen

In light of COVID, Paul had the good idea to repost this piece from Steve:

"The four horsemen of the Apocalypse" (Steve Hays)

Poythress on Revelation

I'm sure many readers are already aware Vern Poythress has two introductory books on Revelation, both of which Poythress offers for free to read online or download as a pdf:

• The Returning King: A Guide to the Book of Revelation (2000)
• Study Guide to the Book of Revelation (2017)

At the same time, Poythress offers his course materials on Revelation for free (WTS NT311):

General

• The Book of Revelation: A Guide for Understanding v2.1 (i.e. the course syllabus)

Visual Presentations

• All visual presentation files zipped (pdf)
• Introduction (pdf)
• Counterfeiting (pdf)
• The Beast and the Prostitute (pdf)
• The Structure of Revelation (pdf)
• Schools of Interpretation (pdf)
• Situation of Revelation (pdf)
• Theophany (pdf)
• Millennium (pdf)
• The Consummation (pdf)
• Worship (pdf)
• Special presentation on amillennialism (pdf)

Text Files

• All text files zipped (rtf)
• Bibliography (rtf)
• Outline (rtf)
• Introduction (rtf)
• Requirements (rtf)
• Structure (rtf)
• Millennium (rtf)

By the way, Poythress offers his other WTS course materials for free too.

Schreiner on Revelation

Fred Zaspel at Books at a Glance has a good interview with Thomas Schreiner on Revelation.

Also, some might enjoy the Tom Schreiner and Greg Beale series "Unraveling Revelation".

Rain water versus a heavenly sea in Genesis 1:6-8

"Rain water versus a heavenly sea in Genesis 1:6-8" by Vern Poythress.

Why is the number of the beast 666?

Greg Beale responds.

Why Amillennialism Disrupts the Unity of the Narrative by Starting at "Revelation 20:1"

http://www.alankurschner.com/2014/08/27/when-does-the-binding-of-satan-for-a-thousand-years-begin-revelation-1911-203-supports-premillennialism-not-amillennialism-ep-3/

The angels of the churches

12 Then I turned to see the voice that was speaking to me, and on turning I saw seven golden lampstands, 13 and in the midst of the lampstands one like a son of man, clothed with a long robe and with a golden sash around his chest…20 As for the mystery of the seven stars that you saw in my right hand, and the seven golden lampstands, the seven stars are the angels of the seven churches, and the seven lampstands are the seven churches.“To the angel of the church in Ephesus write: ‘The words of him who holds the seven stars in his right hand, who walks among the seven golden lampstands (Rev 1:12-13,20; 2:1).

These verses raise several related issues: what do the lampstands represent? What do the stars represent? What do the "angels" represent? 

i) What's the basis for the imagery of the "golden lampstands"? And why are there seven of them?

At one level, seven doesn't require any special explanation, since that's a stock feature of John's numerology. It's a generic figure he uses throughout Revelation. 

In another respect that only pushes the question back a step. Why does he use septunarian numerology in the first place? Because it's something he derives from the OT. 

ii) The golden lampstand has its background in the menorah, which occupied the sanctuary of the tabernacle. It was made of pure gold. It was a seven-branched candelabra. 

At the very least, there's an opportune coincidence between septunarian configuration of the menorah and John's numerology in 1:12. It's very convenient for John that this was available to him. 

But it's a bit more than that. For OT "sevens" like this are what inspired his septunarian numerology in general. His use of sevens throughout Revelation is an extension of the OT exemplars. 

iii) Seeing Jesus amidst the menorah suggests that John saw Jesus in heaven. In the vision, Jesus occupies a heavenly tabernacle. The model of the earthly replica. That would be consistent with the tabernacle in Exodus, which was inspired by the vision of a heavenly archetype. 

iv) What about the stars? Both stars and the menorah are luminaries. 

Moreover, the menorah was likely designed to evoke the stellar luminaries in Gen 1:14-18. The menorah was to the tabernacle what the sun, moon, and stars are to the cosmos. "Interior lighting" to illuminate the tabernacle, which is a microcosm of the world at large. 

v) What about the "angels"? On one interpretation, this refers to actual angels. And that would be consistent with John's general usage. That's what "angels" typically are in Revelation.

There is, however, a prima facie problem with that identification. In what sense is John writing letters to angels? How does that convey his message to the churches? Doesn't seem very practical. How does that get in the hands of the churches? Does the angel appear to Christians in church and recite the contents of the letter?

On the face of it, this interpretation makes little sense. Often, commentators don't feel the need to offer workable interpretations. But if we take the Bible seriously, it ought to make sense.

Commentators float the notion of patron angels or guardian angels in charge of churches. But what does that mean? How do angels interact with churches under their charge? How's the message which Jesus dictates to angels transmitted to churches? Why is Jesus addressing his message to angels when Christians in the seven churches are the target audience? Moreover, it is clearly John, not angels, who is writing this down. 

I'll revisit the angelic interpretation momentarily.  

vi) Another interpretation is that this refers to a delegation from the seven churches. They visit John on Patmos. 

That's more practical. They could function as scribes or letter couriers. Take the message back to their respective churches. 

Yet there are problems with that identification. For one thing, the text doesn't actually say that or imply that. It's a more specific interpretation than the text enunciates. At best, that's consistent with the text. But it's underdetermined by the text.  

There's another problem: assuming that John was a political prisoner, why would his Roman captors give him that kind of access to his followers? Why would they allow him to direct operations from Patmos? Wouldn't that defeat the purpose of his banishment? If they thought he was a politically subversive figure, why would they permit him to communicate with his followers? If he was up to no good (in their view), that would enable him to coordinate seditious activities.

vii) Let's reconsider the angelic interpretation. One problem with the usual angelic identification is the failure of commentators to distinguish between what happens inside the vision and what happens outside the vision. If the "angels" in Rev 1-3 refer to external agents, to angels in the real world, then it's harder to see why John would write angels. Harder to see how they'd interact with the churches of Asia Minor. 

If, however, the "angels" in Rev 1-3 are already characters within the visionary narrative, then it needn't be realistic. Their function, as messengers of Christ, would be analogous to the angelic herald in 14:6. We need to distinguish between the real world and the imaginative world of the story. Dictating letters to angels is a literary device. In reality, John is the scribe.

And, in fact, 1:11 specifically says John is to write down what he sees in a book and he is to send the book to the seven churches. The churches read the letters in the book. They get the message from the book, not from angels.  

viii) I suppose the reason commentators overlook this explanation is because they view the seven churches as real 1C churches, whereas the narrative proper only takes off at chap 4. On this view, chaps 1-3 are historical whereas chaps 4-22 are fictional. 

Yet it's arguable that the vision begins at 1:9, and continues thereafter. 2-3 don't interrupt the vision. Rather, they, too, are part of the vision. 

It is, of course, true that the seven churches refer to actual churches. However, the visions in Revelation generally have real-world analogues. They may not be a specific as 2-3, but they represent the kinds of things that happen in real life. 

Conversely, although the churches in 2-3 occupy a particular geography and timeframe, they also serve an exemplary or emblematic function. For better or worse, local churches throughout history exemplify some of these characteristics. When a modern Christian reads 2-3, he should compare and contrast the state of the church in his own time and place with these ancient churches. 

The Beast from the sea

13 And I saw a beast rising out of the sea, with ten horns and seven heads, with ten diadems on its horns and blasphemous names on its heads.  

11 Then I saw another beast rising out of the earth. It had two horns like a lamb and it spoke like a dragon (Rev 13:1,11).

Commentators disagree on what the sea beast symbolizes. Some draw connections with ancient mythological chaos monsters. But it's unclear to me how the chaos monster motif would be terribly relevant to John's audience–or a later audience.

The passage has some background in Daniel, although John is adapting his sources. 

One possibility which commentators generally overlook is that it represents naval power. For peoples living in (i.e. islands) and around (i.e. coastal towns and countries) the Mediterranean, shipping was important to trade and commerce, fishing (obviously), but also military dominance. Rome was a naval power. Egypt was a naval power. Phoenicia was a naval power. 

Ships transported armies to invade both coastal and landlocked countries. Navigable rivers open to the sea could be invasion routes for navies. 

So the sea beast might represent battleships. Imaging living on the coast and seeing a navy "rise out of the sea," as it suddenly became visible above the horizon–due to the curvature of the earth. 

In fact, Revelation mentions shipping (8:9; 18:17,19). This would also have some resonance for the coastal churches of Asia Minor (i.e. Ephesus, Smyrna). 

If that identification is correct, then its counterpart (the beast from the earth) would represent the infantry. Imagine armies coming over the hills. 

Between them they represent army and navy. Combined military might, which is used to conquer and coercive. 

Although this identification suits the 1C Roman Empire, it doesn't single out a 1C setting. In principle, it could symbolize tanks and submarines. 

I'm not suggesting this identification exhausts the symbolism. I think the imagery in Revelation is often polyvalent. It doesn't stand for just one thing at one time or place. 

Military might is a means to an end. It can be used to enforce ideology. Persecute the faithful. 

A preterist approach to Revelation

I'm going to comment on this article:

http://www.ligonier.org/blog/preterist-approach-revelation-unfolding-biblical-eschatology/ 

I believe that the book itself demands a basically preterist approach. This does not mean that all of the prophecies in the book have already been fulfilled. Some of the prophecies in Revelation (e.g., 20:7–22:21) have yet to be fulfilled, but many, if not most, of the prophecies in the book have been fulfilled. My approach then may be considered as essentially preterist.x

It isn't clear to me why Mathison draws the line at Rev 20-22. 

i) Maybe he thinks it would be heretical to say Rev 20-22 has already been fulfilled. But from a preterist perspective, isn't that question-begging? Traditionally, that would be heretical because traditionally Christians didn't interpret statements about the return of Christ preteristically. By the standards of the Apostles' creed and the Nicene creed, hyperpreterism is heretical.

But since Mathison thinks a midcourse correction is overdue in how we interpret NT prophecy, isn't it more logical for him to maintain that the traditional classification of hyperpreterism as heretical is mistaken, due to flawed hermeneutics? 

ii) Or maybe he thinks Rev 20-22 still lies in the future for the common sense reason that these events obviously haven't taken place as of yet. If so, it's hard to see how he'd distinguish that from past events in Rev 4-19. For instance, Revelation describes global catastrophes. On the face of it, that didn't happen in the 1C. 

Perhaps he'd say he doesn't interpret the language of global catastrophes literally. If so, how is the type of language in Rev 20-22 essentially different from the type of language in Rev 4-19?

iii) Also, on the face of it, Rev 19 describes the return of Christ. Yet he places Rev 19 in the past. Does that mean he thinks the Second Coming of Christ took place in the 1C? 

Before explaining why I believe this approach to be correct, I must explain why I do not believe the other approaches to be fully adequate. Proponents of the futurist view say that their approach is necessary because there is no correspondence between the events prophesied in the book and anything that has happened in history. This conclusion is reached because of an overly literalistic approach to the symbolism of the book and a lack of appreciation for how such language was used in the Old Testament prophetic books. This, however, is not the most serious problem with the futurist approach.

Up to a point I'm sympathetic to that criticism, especially when dealing with futurists like Robert Thomas. However, this objection generates tensions with Mathison's own position, as we shall see shortly.

The most fundamental problem with the futurist approach is that it requires a very artificial reading of the many texts within the book itself that point to the imminent fulfillment of its prophecies. The book opens and closes with declarations indicating that the things revealed in the book “must soon take place” (1:1; 22:6). It opens and closes with declarations indicating that “the time is near” (1:3; 22:10). The book of Revelation does not begin in the way the pseudepigraphal Book of Enoch begins, with a statement to the effect that the content is not for the present generation, but for a remote generation that is still to come. The book of Revelation has direct relevance to the real historical first century churches to whom it was addressed, and the text of the book itself points to the imminent fulfillment of most of its prophecies.

i) We need to distinguish between Rev 2-3 and Rev 4-22. Rev 2-3 was directly addressed to 1C Christians. It's about their situation. 

And, of course, the seven churches of Asia Minor may well have been the initial recipients of Revelation. But that doesn't ipso facto mean Rev 4-22 is about them. Even if Rev 2-3 is firmly grounded in the 1C, it doesn't follow that 4-22 refer to 1C events. That requires a separate argument.

To take a comparison, Abraham was the initial recipient of God's promise. Yet the fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant is incremental.  

ii) Appealing to the temporal markers ("soon," "near") is deceptively simple. This seems to be Mathison's argument:

Revelation was written to 1C readers. Revelation says these events will happen soon. Therefore, they had to happen in the 1C. 

Problem with that inference is that it turns on the correct identification of who is in view. Suppose you're a futurist. You think the final generation is the subject of the prophecies. In that case, the stopwatch begins whenever they come on the scene. 

The fact that 1C Christians were the original recipients of Revelation is irrelevant to whether these are short-term or long-term prophecies. Mathison believes that many OT prophecies were long-term prophecies. The original audience didn't live to see them fulfilled, because the prophecies didn't refer to their situation, but a future generation. 

You first have to identify the intended subject, then apply the time-markers to the intended subject. The time-marker ("soon," "near") doesn't select for the referent. Rather, the referent selects for the time-marker. Once you determine who it's about, then it will be soon for them.    

The idealist approach is held by many in the present day, but it is fundamentally flawed as a method of interpreting the book of Revelation. It’s most serious problem is that it brushes over the specificity found within the text. Bauckham explains,

Thus it would be a serious mistake to understand the images of Revelation as timeless symbols. Their character conforms to the contextuality of Revelation as a letter to the seven churches of Asia. Their resonances in the specific social, political, cultural and religious world of their first readers need to be understood if their meaning is to be appropriated today.xiv

Not only does the idealist approach tend to ignore the historic specificity demanded by its character as a letter, it also tends to ignore the hermeneutical implications of its character as a prophecy. The Old Testament prophets used highly figurative and symbolic language, but they used this language to speak of real historical nations and specific impending historical judgments. Writing his own prophetic book, John does the same.xv

i) I think pure idealism is wrong. By "pure idealism" I mean a purely cyclical view of history. A closed-system in which the same kinds of things happen over and over again, without any progression towards a final denouement. No exit. 

But idealism has an element of truth. History is repetitious. Each generation faces similar challenges. Idealism is a half-truth. 

ii) There's a tension between Mathison's appeal to the use of stock imagery and his appeal to historical particularity. In the nature of the case, stock imagery isn't specific to any particular time. The very fact that Revelation carries over so much OT imagery shows you that the imagery is applicable to different times and places. Flexible descriptors. 

iii) In addition, the fact that the situation of 1C Christians occasioned Revelation doesn't mean Revelation is confined to their situation. 

iv) One commentator outright denies Mathison's presupposition. He takes the opposite view:

Despite obvious differences between John's time and our own, his visions were probably as strange to many of his first readers as they are to us. These visions are by no means a picture of the social world that John actually lived in, but rather a prolonged piercing glance through that world to the cosmic struggle between good and evil taking place just behind or beyond it…In short the book of Revelation gives us little information about the actual social world in which it was written. J. R. Michaels, Revelation (IVP 1997), 21. 

For Michaels, Revelation isn't a mural of the 1C social world, but a window into the spiritual battle behind-the-scenes. One may or may not agree with his perspective, but Mathison's guiding assumption is no longer a given. 

Proponents of the futurist, historicist, and idealist approaches offer several criticisms of the preterist approach to the book. Probably the most serious criticism is that this approach robs the book of any contemporary significance. John Walvoord, for example, writes, “The preterist view, in general, tends to destroy any future significance of the book, which becomes a literary curiosity with little prophetic meaning.”xvi Leon Morris echoes this sentiment, claiming that the preterist approach “has the demerit of making it [the book of Revelation] meaningless for all subsequent readers (except for the information it gives about that early generation).”xviiIt is actually rather surprising that this criticism is repeated so often by conservative evangelical scholars. It implies that any biblical prophecies that have already been fulfilled are meaningless for readers in later generations. But are the Old Testament prophecies that were fulfilled in the birth, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus meaningless for later generations? Are the multitudes of Old Testament prophecies concerning the destruction of Israel and Judah and the subsequent exile meaningless for later generations? Obviously not, and neither would the prophecies in Revelation be any less meaningful or significant if it were shown that many or most of them have already been fulfilled. All Scripture is profitable (2 Tim. 3:16), even those parts of Scripture containing already fulfilled prophecies.

The problem with that comparison is that if all OT prophecies were fulfilled in the past, including golden age oracles about the world to come, yet we are still here, in a world with death, disease, suffering, and moral evil, then we'd have to reinterpret those passages in a way that drains them of hope for anything better. If Christ returned in the 1C, but it made so little difference, then that's a very despairing outlook.

Now, because Mathison is a partial preterist, he can blunt the full force of that implication, but that raises the question of whether you can hop onto the streetcar of preterist hermeneutics, then hop off before it arrives at that grim destination. If preterist hermeneutics are valid for Rev 4-19, they are valid for Rev 20-22. 

Secondly, when the genre of the book is taken into consideration, it provides strong evidence for a basically preterist approach to the book. The book is a prophecy (1:3; 19:10; 22:7, 10, 18, 19). It is an apocalyptic prophecy set within the form of an epistle, but it is a prophecy nonetheless. Why is this important? It is important because it means that our approach to the other prophetic books of the Bible should provide us with some guidance in how we approach this last prophetic book of the Bible. We should approach it and read it in the same basic way. We do not read any of the Old Testament prophetic books as a whole in an idealist manner, and there is precious little in any of them that could be approached in a historicist manner. We recognize that these prophecies were given to specific people in specific historical contexts. Many of the Old Testament prophecies deal with impending judgments upon either Israel or Judah or the nations that oppressed Israel. They also contain glimpses of ultimate future restoration. In short, we take a basically preterist approach to the Old Testament prophetic books, recognizing that they speak largely of impending events, yet also deal at times with the distant future.xix Given that this is the way in which the Old Testament prophetic books are approached, it seems that our presumption should be in favor of the same basic approach to the prophetic book of Revelation.

i) The scope of prophecy is qualified by the object of prophecy. The church is not a specific people at a specific time and place. The church exists at different times and places. It exists more or less continuously in some places. It ceases to exist in some places where it used to exist. It movies into new places where it didn't exist. Christians live and die at different times and places. They often face impending threats. Yet a threat impending for Christians in one period is not the same impending threat for Christians in another period. 

ii) OT prophets frequently use fairly interchangeable language for different historical judgments.

iii) Jeremiah's prophecy of the 70-year exile had a definite point of fulfillment. Yet Daniel (9:2,24-27) and the Chronicler (2 Chron 36:18-21) both view that prophecy as a specific exemplification a repeatable principle. Daniel extends it to ten jubilees. 

Waiting for the coin to drop

9 This calls for a mind with wisdom: the seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman is seated; 10 they are also seven kings, five of whom have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come, and when he does come he must remain only a little while. 11 As for the beast that was and is not, it is an eighth but it belongs to the seven, and it goes to destruction (Rev 17:9-11). 

This is a controversial passage. It's a key prooftext for preterism. 

i) Scholars usually think the "seven hills" is a thinly-veiled allusion to the city of Rome. I think that's probably correct as far as it goes, although I also think this is case in which reality dovetails with symbolism. It's a coincidence that Rome was associated with seven hills. John exploits that topographical coincidence. But his numerology is symbolic. It just so happens that Roman topography plays into Johannine numerology at this particular juncture. Most of the time, John's numerology lacks that precise, real-world correspondence. 

ii) Most commentators think there's an allusion to Nero. Preterists think that's an allusion to the historical Nero. Other commentators think that's an allusion to Domitian as a Nero redivivus figure. 

a) One problem with the Neronian identification is that if, a la postmill preterists (e.g. Ken Gentry), you think Revelation allegorizes the fall of Jerusalem, then it's hard to see the relevance of a Roman locus in Rev 17:9-11. Nero's relation to the fall of Jerusalem is pretty secondary, to say the least.

b) Likewise, it's hard to see the pressing relevance of the Neronian persecution to Christians living in Asia Minor. 

c) A problem with the Nero redivivus identification is that Nero returns from the dead, not to wreak vengeance on the people of God, but on current imperial regime. But wouldn't that be a good thing for Christians? Not persecuting the faithful, but persecuting their persecutors (i.e. the Roman ruling class). 

iii) As many commentators have pointed out, no matter how you juggle Roman emperors, trying to correlate Rev 17:10 with a specific historical succession of Roman emperors is ad hoc.

iv) I think John is making the general point that until the Day of Judgment, the church will always have enemies. Just when you think you've put one mortal threat behind you, there's another lying in wait. You can beat back evil, but it always returns. 

That might seem discouraging, but that forewarning is an antidote to disillusionment. 

Moreover, although this is a perennial battle for the church, when Christians die and go to heaven, they do put that behind them once and for all. They hand their sword to the next generation. And even though this is a vicious cycle throughout the church age, it will terminate with the Day of Judgment. 

The mark of the Beast

16 Also it causes all, both small and great, both rich and poor, both free and slave, to be marked on the right hand or the forehead, 17 so that no one can buy or sell unless he has the mark, that is, the name of the beast or the number of its name (Rev 13:16-17).

Is affirming homosexuality the mark of the Beast? 

First they lost their television show. Now the Benham brothers say they are losing their business. 

SunTrust Banks is cutting ties with would-be reality stars David and Jason Benham after liberal activists attacked them for their conservative views on abortion and gay marriage, The Daily Caller has learned. (UPDATE: SunTrust Reverses Decision on Benham Brothers) 

In a statement provided first to TheDC on Friday, the Benham brothers confirmed that SunTrust Banks has pulled all of its listed properties with the Benham brothers’ bank-owned property business, which includes several franchisees across four states. 

http://dailycaller.com/2014/05/16/exclusive-suntrust-cuts-business-ties-with-benham-brothers-after-conservative-views-attacked/?print=1

Like a contagion, it's striking how fast the witchhunt is spreading. We've gone from businesses supposedly discriminating against homosexuals to businesses legally forbidden to discriminate against homosexuals to businesses discriminating against customers who disapprove of homosexuality. 

SunTrust backed down, but it shows how potentially vulnerable Christians are to economic coercion. It can happen literally overnight. Inasmuch as most private businesses are dependent on the banking system, this kind of boycott would be devastating to the livelihood of Christian entrepreneurs. 

“Creation as an epistemic source of God’s character”

First astronaut Yuri Gagarin:
“The Earth is blue [...] How wonderful. It is amazing.”

“Humans are meant for creation; creation is our home.”

Stephen Wolfe asks, “If creation is so glorious, how ‘full of glory’ God must be?” Citing Robert Daly, he says, “If the created world was a source of beauty and delight for the Puritan poet, it was also an a fortiori argument for the beauty and generosity of its Creator and the delights He had prepared for His people….Only when compared to God and heaven do the joys of the sensible world sink to nothingness.”

Creation as an epistemic source of God’s character was an important component of early Calvinist thought. The Belgic Confession states, the “universe is before our eyes like a beautiful book in which all creatures, great and small, are as letters to make us ponder the invisible things of God: God’s eternal power and divinity.” Calvin argued that “the world was founded for this purpose, that it should be the sphere of the divine glory” and that “the very beautiful fabric of the world [is the place] in which he wishes to be seen by us.” The knowledge imparted through creation was sufficient for pre-lapsarian man to have a complete creaturely knowledge of God. But this knowledge is knowledge of God not via negativa, but through analogy. Our knowledge of God’s beauty is not univocally God’s beauty; it is his beauty as analogized ‘into’ creation. And this beauty-as-symbol communicates sufficient knowledge of God. The sufficiency of creational knowledge is an important notion to understand. We often want something more than the sufficient: we want to know God’s essence, not just mere analogy. We want to climb some chain of being and experience the divine. In our fallenness, we want to become like God (italics is the author’s; the bold face is mine).

Beale interviewed at SCRBPC 2013

A few video clips from an interview with G.K. Beale. Beale was recently the keynote speaker at the SoCal Reformed Baptist Pastors' conference.

Presuppositions in exegesis

This nicely illustrates the decisive role of presuppositions in Biblical exegesis, as well as the value and the limitations of background data:

Swete acknowledges the relevance of R. H. Charles's research with Jewish apocalyptic texts when interpreting Revelation. Yet, Swete does not want to say that the key to understanding Revelation can be found among those earlier apocalyptic texts. Instead,  at most, Swete concedes that these additional texts help the exegete understand the stock images and symbols that were common among the persecuted followers of God at the end of the first century. Even then, however, Swete argues that these apocalyptic "phrases and imagery" belong "to the scenery of the book rather than the essence of the revelation." 

Most importantly, Swete, against the majority of NT scholars in his day, charted a new direction when he attempted to read the book of Revelation as a literary unity rather than a composite text that was pieced together from various sources In part because he believed the author received the entire message from God by direct revelation, Swete perceived a unified structure of visions in Revelation that fit neatly together…Swete did not want to say that John depended on these texts as sources or that John modeled the book of Revelation after these generically similar texts. A. Arterbury, "Swete, Henry Barclay," D. McKim, ed. Dictionary of Major Biblical Interpreters (IVP 2007), 958-59. 

Joel Richardson, Tim Warner, and "The Time of the End"

Tim Warner of the Pristine Faith Restoration Society is the most recent date-setter. Warner has written the recent book The Time of the End, which is a Christian version of the Mayan prophecy. He concludes,

[My] new book The Time of the End provides a complete standard biblical chronology of the entire Bible based on these two calendars, showing that we are only about 2 decades away from the time of Great Tribulation.

Joel Richardson has enthusiastically endorsed Warner's date-setting book. I have responded to both here and here and here. Richardson did not like my criticism to another date-setting book with him deflecting away from the issue saying that I am unloving (as if Jesus and Paul did not have the freedom to be pointed with those who misled God's people). And Warner has responded to me—as predictably as any date-setter has in the past–with, "Read my book!" So according to Warner and Richardson we cannot discourage people away from date-setters until we have read their books. Wow. This is absurd. The fact that date-setting is discouraged by the biblical writers is good enough reason to reject it. Oh sure, Mr. Warner may claim, “I am not really a date-setter because (fill in the excuse).” But that is a shame that individuals feel justified to skirt around this biblical prohibition.

“Written before the foundation of the world in the Lamb’s book of life”

A question has come up in Andrew Clover’s Lutheran and Reformed Discussion group, “Does scripture teach the doctrine of reprobation?” I wanted to talk about this for a bit, because not only is this one of the more notable areas of disagreement between Lutherans and the Reformed, but it has some other applications as well.

Some of the discussion in the group centers on Romans 9 and 11, but here is another passage (group of passages) that I think very clearly show God’s intention.

While this is not a slam-dunk on the doctrine of reprobation, it does speak to the doctrine that God deliberately chooses, not that God merely “foresees”. This is also one of the greatest sources of comfort for the Christian believer who may be undergoing earthly trials.

And the beast was given a mouth uttering haughty and blasphemous words, and it was allowed to exercise authority for forty-two months. It opened its mouth to utter blasphemies against God, blaspheming his name and his dwelling, that is, those who dwell in heaven. Also it was allowed to make war on the saints and to conquer them. And authority was given it over every tribe and people and language and nation, and all who dwell on earth will worship it, everyone whose name has not been written before the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who was slain. If anyone has an ear, let him hear:

If anyone is to be taken captive, to captivity he goes;
if anyone is to be slain with the sword, with the sword must he be slain.

Here is a call for the endurance and faith of the saints.

Rev 13:5–10, ESV

If this is “a call for endurance”, it is also a source of information about where that endurance comes from. This passage clearly shows God’s deliberate intention.

The beast is “given a mouth”. “It was allowed to make war”. “Authority was given it”. We are not looking at a description of a God who allows things to chance.

We are also looking at “everyone whose name has not been written before the foundation of the world…” There are those whose names were deliberately written (Rev 21:27), and there are those whose names were not written.

I became aware of the construction found in verse 8 in a Christology course taught by Richard Gaffin of WTS. It was not just “the Lamb who was slain from the foundation of the world”, but that names were “written before the foundation of the world in the book of life”.

Gregory Beale, in his NIGTC commentary The Book of Revelation (pgs 701 ff) provides some analysis of this passage:

The phrase “book of life” appears five other times in the Apocalypse (Rev 3:5, 17:8, 20:12, 20:15, 21:27). In each case, as here, it is a metaphor for saints whose salvation has been determined: their names have been entered into the census book of the eternal new Jerusalem before history began, which is explicitly affirmed in 21:27, though the pretemporal phrase is omitted there, unlike 13:8 and 17:8, which express the notion of predetermination with “from the foundation of the world.” That saints were written in the book before history began is implied by the fact that the beast worshipers are said not to have been so written.

The genitive “of life” (τῆς ζωῆς) denotes the nature or purpose of the book. The book is a picture of security in God’s eternal city, and the genitive clarifies what kind of security is provided. The saints are given the protection of eternal life. This book stands in contrast to the “books” that record the sins of the ungodly (Rev 20:12–13). The dual notion of a “book of life” for the righteous and “books” of judgment for the wicked is based on Daniel 12:1–2 and 7:10).

The point here is that the multitudes throughout the earth who worship the beast do so because their names “have not been written in the book of life.” They are deceived into worshiping him because they do not have the eternal life-giving protection granted those whose names are in the book. Their destiny is identified with that of the false prophets, whose names also have not been written in the book of life (Ezekiel 13:9: false prophets will not be “written down in the register of the house of Israel, nor will they enter the land of Israel”).

The last phrase, “from the foundation of the world,” might explain that the death of Christ was decreed before time began (“of the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world”; so 1 Peter 1:19ff.: cf. Assumption of Moses 1:14, where Moses’s mediatorship was “prepared before the foundation of the world”). The former translation is viable because the statement about the Lamb’s death is immediately followed by the precreation temporal expression. And it is unlikely that the concluding temporal clause goes with “written,” since twelve words separate them. If the phrase describes the decree of the Lamb’s death, it is complementary to Rev 17:8, which strongly implies that the elect were written “in the book of life before the foundation of the world.”

But Rev 13:8 may refer to the same decree as 17:8, where the precreation phrase immediately follows “whose names have not been written in the book of life” (ὧν οὐ γέγραπται τὸ ὄνομα ἐπὶ τὸ βιβλίον τῆς ζωῆς ἀπὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου). But if that is the case here in 13:8, why is the temporal phrase separated from the clause it modifies? It is so that a further description may be given to “the book of life.” “Of the Lamb who was slain” is a genitive of possession, or it could also identify the Lamb as the source of the “life” associated with the “book” (the genitive functions likewise in 21:27). The phrase is in contrast to the similar description in vv 3 and 11. People reject Christ, the true “lamb who was slain” because they follow the beast “who was slain” and the beastlike lamb. Those who give such allegiance to the beast demonstrate that they “have not been written in the book of life.” Therefore, the Lamb does not grant them spiritual protection from the beasts’ deceptions. Genuine believers have assurance that their souls can weather any Satanic storm because of the safety accorded by the Lamb’s book. This safety is the precreation identification of God’s people with the Lamb’s death, which means that they also identify with his resurrection life, which protects them from the spiritual death and ultimate deception (cr. Rev 5:5–13). No one can take this life from them.

This conclusion stands regardless of how the syntactical problem is solved. Because the book of life is unreservedly ascribed to Christ, the salvation of all, implicitly including OT saints, is represented as depending on the one redemptive act of Christ.

The language here couldn’t be more clear. Those individuals “whose names have been written in the Lamb’s book of life from before the foundation of the world” have a life that cannot be taken away from them, that will not be dependent on some kind of “second plank of salvation”.

[The question will undoubtedly come up, “how do you know you are one of these”, but that is beside the point: those who were “written before the foundation of the world” never have a need for any kind of “second plank”, and those not written never have the opportunity for any kind of “second plank”. This is a clear contradiction from Scripture of an essential Roman Catholic doctrine.]

I don’t want to make light of this, suggesting it is a “once saved, always saved” kind of thing. But the language is clear: “once written in the Lamb’s book of life (from before the foundation of the world), always written in the Lamb’s book of life”.