Is God Disingenuous? (1)

Previous installment

More On Plain-Speaking

We are looking into the matter of plain-speaking.  In theological discourse one strives for precision and tries to avoid ambiguity.  However, the language of “expansion” found often on the lips of supercessionists – those who will insist that the OT prophets mean something OTHER than what their actual words convey – is, I believe, calculated to be ambiguous.  The theology of replacement (i.e. one designated subject is replaced by another), ethnic Israel is now the church; the land is now the whole new earth, or heaven; Jerusalem is heaven; the throne of David is God’s throne; the future temple is Jesus, etc.  This is not accurately defined by expansion terminology, and is more accurately described by “transformation” terminology.

1. I fully realize that in saying this I am charging some of these brothers with having less than pure motives.  But I am not saying that these “iffy” motives are directed Godward.  I am convinced that this is usually not the case.  However, I am asserting that that the trouble comes from them not liking what the text of Scripture actually states in the clearest of terms in its context because it contradicts a cherished doctrinal proposition. Like it or not, it makes the God who swears oaths disingenuous.

Disingenuous would be the correct term.  Let me explain why.  It is because when you point out to these people that “change” “alteration” “replacement” etc. are far more appropriate terms for what they claim is happening to OT prophecies and covenant oaths (and also far less ambiguous), they insist that that is what they are not doing!

2. It used to be that supercessionists would at least come clean about their views.  They would tell everybody that they were spiritualizing the text (Oswald T. Allis), and that the Church had replaced the nation of Israel (John Gerstner).  Today, many of them put things in such a way that one has to ask them more searching questions in order to find out what they actually mean.  Fred Klett, for example, who we met in a previous post, wrote:

All of what God was doing in the Tenach (Old Testament) and all of the promises of God to bring redemption throughout the ages are centered in Jesus. “No matter how many promises God has made, they are “yes” in Messiah” (2 Cor. 1:20). God has something better in mind for the Jewish people, the $1,000,000 rather than the $10. Messiah offers the Jewish people (and Gentiles who believe) a greater redemption which makes the old look small in comparison.

These sorts of statements have been appearing ever since Robert Strimple’s essay, which we cited last time, became known.   Please notice what is allowed to stand and what must be altered.

Firstly, the promise of redemption must stay.  We cannot change “redemption” into something else.  We can’t make it a shadow of something else.

Second, this redemption is “centered in Jesus.”  I totally agree.  But I can do so because I take the Messianic predictions about the New Covenant at face value.

Third, 2 Corinthians 1:20, which in its context refers to the Apostolic ministry (“through us”), is being used to wipe away every OT prophecy causing trouble for the supercessionist.  But it is not to be used as a permit which allows the interpreter to commute a covenant oath to Israel into a shadow-promise to the Church.

Fourth, contrasting the “greater redemption” with the “old” surely adds up to the replacing of the old with the new?  Why, then, does Klett & co. not just say that?

Fifthly, one wonders how these folks got the inside scoop on what this “greater redemption” will look like.  How does Klett or Strimple know “that God has something better in mind for the Jewish people”?  What does God have in mind for them?  Is it to be discovered by plain-sense hermeneutics?  I think it is described in pretty solid terms as to the Millennium: hardly at all in reference to the New Heavens and Earth.  But if this “greater redemption” is not described in plain language, how do these men know what it will be like?  To pick up on something in the last article, how does Strimple know the kid gets the Ferrari?  A Ferrari is a literal thing!

3. The whole idea stands or falls upon the premise that the interpretation of what the NT is SAYING forces one to go back to the OT and reject what it is SAYING.  This means, among other things, that the OT cannot be understood rightly apart from the New.

From my point of view it seems ironic that a position which rejects the plain sense of passages like Jer. 33:14ff. or Ezek. 36-37; 40-48 would employ the word “expansion” in such a misleading way.  Does the refusal to read the OT prophecies literally affect a person to such a degree that they refuse to speak plainly about their position?  I do not say it does, but it appears that way sometimes.

Since this view must read these and many other promises first with an attitude of denial: no future Davidic throne on earth in Jerusalem; no future Levitical priesthood, no future temple, no allotment of land to ethnic Israel, no distinction between Israel and the Church – and then proceed with a reinterpretation which alters the original terms of the promises, I find the employment of anything other than “transformation-language” (“change” “replace” etc.) deserving of the name disingenuous.

While, some sort of  “expansion” may be in view, it is clear that a lot of replacement and change are envisaged. This word “expansion” and its fellows (like “extension” and “fulfilled”) seems to have been adopted only recently by supercessionists to appear a bit more PC.  But, just as the God proposed by this theology spoke misleadingly when He made covenant oaths (e.g. in Gen. 15; Num. 25; Jer. 33), so to use “expansion” without coming clean on other agendas (E.g. the Church = the new Israel) looks to many of us to be less than candid.

But the problem runs deeper than this. 

The Equivocating “God” of “Expansionists”

An equivocation is basically a double-meaning.  A word or phrase employed by Person A is taken to mean something different by Person B.  It is often profitably utilized by con men.  The thesaurus links it with words like duplicity, deceit, dissimulation, hedging, and casuistry.  This is because in such meanings of the word lies an intent of the speaker to equivocate.

For me at any rate, the main issue is this: Does God mean what He says where and when He says it? If there are places in the prophetic Scriptures where His words point to one thing (e.g. a literal temple complex in Ezek. 40ff. or future restoration of Israel in the strict terms of Jer. 33:14-26, etc., etc.), but take on a different meaning at “fulfillment” then God was equivocating when He spoke the original words.  If so, then this affects the doctrine of God itself. If it is in God’s nature to equivocate the question comes up, “How can God be trusted when He promises to save those who trust in His Son?”

More to come…

Disingenuousness and the Problem of the Obvious

I’m going to repost a group of articles I wrote years ago about the God of Supersessionism. I have been having fun lately on ‘X’ with people who want to correct me on my view of the covenants with the usual fodder of ‘the NT reinterprets the OT.’ One of these individuals informed me the “the Covenant” in Genesis 1-3 was plainly in view. When I asked him (repeatedly) to show me this “covenant” he implied I needed to receive the Spirit! Another gentleman who claimed the NT is required to understand the OT was challenged with the five covenants God mentions in Jer. 33. His response was to close the conversation down. Finally, a lady who thought to straighten me out asserted that “the only everlasting covenant is the new covenant.” To which I cited Psalm 105:8-11. Quite undaunted by what the Bible says, this woman rode roughshod right over the passage as if it wasn’t there.

What experiences like these tell me is that supersessionist hermeneutics basically destroys the verbal testimony of the OT. None of the above antagonists, and there are many like them, had any trouble with completely ignoring OT passages which contradicted them in favor of their chosen NT “interpretations” (you know, the usual ones). The bottom line is, this approach to the OT leaves these people with less than half a Bible, and they are perfectly happy with it. The OT is just a repository of illustrations for their interpretations of the NT. And God, well, He becomes One whose words cannot be trusted as they are written. He becomes disingenuous. Read on…

1. One of the things I tell my students at TELOS Institute is that “God means what He says, and so should we!”  I mean that we should never give in to the temptation to paper over problems in our theology, still less to pretend certain “problem texts” aren’t there and then talk as if they weren’t there!  We must go to work on the texts, not shut them out by spinning theological yarns.  We don’t want to be disingenuous with the Bible or parts of the Bible.

All the Bible is equally the Word of God.  No passage or Book or Testament has automatic veto over another.  Scripture is not an obfuscation but a revelation.  It is not written in an esoteric code that only the privileged few can decipher.  It possesses the quality of clarity, even when sometimes a lot more than a cursory reading is needed to procure the message.

2. It is an odd phenomenon that in our world someone can claim all sorts of things which sound quite plausible, but which, as a matter of fact, only preserve their appearance of plausibility by passing over very blunt facts which would soon have them plugging the leeks in their outlook, were it not for the fact that they can imagine these rude truths away.

Thus, a person who says there is no such thing as truth ignores the plain “truth” that they have just contradicted their own truth claim.  In similar fashion, a person who rejects the correspondence view of truth for the coherence theory conveniently ignores the fact that the correspondence view can be held very coherently – and so should be accepted as the grounds for any coherence theory.  This curious circumstance can be caught in the phrase, “If I don’t like it, it isn’t true!”  The imagination then is soon in full swing to provide the preferred interpretation of the world.

Like I say, we encounter this attitude everywhere.  An evolutionist says that life has meaning without God, even though it’s all a huge cosmic accident; a devotee of Krishna begs for money from others he claims aren’t really “there”; the philosophy student looks with disdain upon those peons who believe in moral absolutes, and then protests against the evils of female exploitation; the Muslim who asserts against all the evidence that the Jews and Christians changed the Bible; the liberal spokesman who claims Islam is a religion of peace; the neo-Gnostic who tries vainly to date the Gospel of Thomas to the mid First Century.

The one prerequisite?  One must first have a dislike for the “Obvious.”  This animus can then be set to work to re-paint the landscape in more acceptable colors with more palatable features.

It is quite fascinating, the human capacity for ignoring the obvious.  It is the old “elephant in the room” syndrome.  And the smarter you are the more easy it is to ignore what you wish wasn’t there.

3. Unsurprisingly, this same phenomenon is conspicuous in the realm of Christian theology.  The Bible teaches that the Church is the Body of Christ and consists of those “in Christ” (e.g. 1 Cor. 12:27; Eph. 1:22-23; cf. Rom. 5:12f.), yet there are Christians who say that the unregenerate can also be in the Body of Christ, the Church.  Or, some believe the days of Genesis 1 are millions of years long even though a normal reading of the text, plus Exod. 20:11, plus a look at the standard Hebrew lexicon (Koehler-Baumgartner); plus the fact that this old-earth view still doesn’t match the claims of secular scientists, all militate against it.

One of the clearest examples of this phenomenon of overlooking the obvious is the way supercessionists (those who hold that in some real sense the Church inherits Israel’s promises) fail to tackle those OT texts which stand like so many enormous sauropods threatening to flatten every furnishing in their interpretative house.

How often does one hear it nowadays: “the promises of God to Israel in the OT have not been done away with, rather they have been expanded into something far better.”  When, therefore, they are presented with one of these promises – say Jeremiah 33:14ff. – and asked to re-interpret what God is really saying, the resultant explanation too often is a retreat into imagination.  “Imagine such and such…” we are told.  “Yes, but what about what the actual passage SAYS,” we protest.  But try as we might, we can never get them to expound these OT passages.  Why not you ask?  Because these passages have been conveniently allowed to slip into the hermeneutical netherworld, where they can be dictated to and never permitted to speak on their own account, for fear they will stampede someone’s cherished beliefs.

4. But let’s have a real-time sampling of the kind of “interpretation through imagination.”  This is from an article called “Not Replacement…Expansion,” by a Reformed writer called Fred Klett:

Did God fail to deliver what He promised to the Jewish people? Consider this example: What if you expected me to give you a hamburger and then I gave you filet mignon? What if you were told you would inherit an apple tree, but instead you inherited a whole glorious orchard? What if you thought I promised you $10, but then I delivered a million? What if I promised a child a typewriter when he turned 18 and when the time came I gave him the latest computer. Would I be a liar? No! When someone gives IMMEASURABLY MORE than that expected, the gift giver is no liar. God has given an even greater gift through Jesus, superior to what many think was promised!

Sadly, even many believers today do not fully understand how much greater the New Covenant redemption is that Jesus brought to Israel and the world. Why dine on hamburger when you can have filet mignon? Why settle for a single tree, when you can have the whole orchard? Why stress the $10 when there is $1,000,000 available? Why use an old Underwood manual typewriter when you can have the latest personal computer and laser printer? The Messiah and His Eternal Kingdom are the great blessings promised to Israel.

I see.  And the covenanted oaths to the ethnic nation of Israel in Jeremiah 33?  The great prophecy of Zechariah 12-14?  Ezekiel’s vision in Ezek. 36-37 and 40-48?  Malachi’s prediction in Mal. 3:1-6?  Not to mention Isaiah and the other prophecies.  “Well, just imagine…”  Tell you what, let’s leave the imagination out of it for a while.  Let’s read these texts and expound them!  Let’s allow them to speak as the Word of God!

Next installment

Real Christocentricity

          When I say Christ is the central Figure of Scripture what I mean is that He is the central Protagonist of God’s Creation Project.  Here is an example of the Christ’s eminence in the Bible:   

God created all things through Jesus Christ (Eph. 3:9, Jn. 1:3), and all things created through Him were also created for Him (Col. 1:16).  At this present hour the whole creation is upheld through Him (Col. 1:17; Heb. 1:3).  He is the Lord of all (Acts 10:36) and is therefore the only one who has the wisdom and the power to overcome Satan (Matt. 4:1-11), which one day He will to the uttermost (Gen. 3:15).   

          That first inkling of His coming (“He shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise His heel” – Gen. 3:15b) reveals Him as the one who will dislodge the Interloper and knock him off his pedestal, reclaiming the creation for God – for Himself.  He would come from Israel, from the tribe of Judah, and would reign over the Kingdom (Gen. 49:8-10).  He would be born in Bethlehem (Mic. 5:2) even though He was “from everlasting.”  This “encroachment” of the Creator into the Devil’s realm came about because God is not about to give up on something He has made and gifted to His Son and let the Deceiver get away with it.  Sin and Death and Satan are no match for God.  All three will be triumphed over through Christ (Jn. 1:29; Rom. 5:21; Heb. 9:26; Jn. 8:52; Rom. 6:9; 1 Cor. 15:21-26; Heb. 2:9; Rom. 16:20; Heb. 2:14; 1 Jn. 3:8). 

          Jesus is the Messiah or Christ (Psa. 45:6-7; Heb. 1:8-9; Matt. 26:63-64; Lk. 3:22; 1 Jn. 5:6), the King of Israel (Zech 9:9; Matt. 2:1-6; Lk. 1:29-33), who will also rule over the entire world (Psa. 2:8; Isa. 11:1-10; Rev. 11:15; Zech 14:9).  

Perhaps the greatest of all ironies is that “He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him.” (Jn. 1:10), since “He made Himself of no reputation” (Phil. 2:7).  He is the stone that the builders rejected (Psa. 118:22; Matt. 21:42) who is the stone that will smash all of the kingdoms of man and set up God’s Kingdom upon earth (Dan. 2:45).

The OT or Tanakh is a book about Israel (Exodus – 2 Chronicles) and its main figure is the coming Messiah (e.g., Deut. 18:15-19; Psa. 2:8-10; 22:1-31; 110:1-4; Isa. 9:6-7; 11:1-10; 42:1-7; 49:3-13; 52:11-53:12; Jer. 23:5-6; 33:14-16; Dan. 7:13-14; 9:26; Mic. 5:2; Zech. 9:9-10; 12:10; 13:7; Mal. 3:1; 4:1-2).  A reading of these prophecies at face value should persuade anyone that Israel’s hope is intertwined with the completed fulfillment of them in the first and second comings of Jesus Christ. 

The NT is a book about Israel (e.g., The Synoptics, Hebrews, Revelation) and about the Church (e.g., John, Acts, Epistles of Paul, Hebrews), though often their fortunes are connected (e.g., Romans, Hebrews, James, Epistles of Peter, Revelation).  This is not to say, for example, that the Synoptics are not for the Church, only that they mostly record Jesus’s mission to Israel prior to the inception of the Church in Acts 2.  Thus, the “gospel” preached in the Synoptics did not include Christ’s death and resurrection like it would after His ascension (1 Cor. 15:1-4).  In the Church the love of God is found in Jesus Christ (Rom. 8:29), and through Him access to by the Spirit to the Father (Eph. 2:18).  The Church is not a geo-political entity like Israel, therefore it cannot be the recipient of geo-political promises made to Israel.  Differences must be observed even more than similarities.  

God is Only as Good as His Word

Centuries passed before the time of the birth of Jesus Christ in the small hamlet of Bethlehem Judah around the Year 5-7 B.C.[1]  Bethlehem was the place where David was born (1 Sam. 17:12), and also was the place where the Messiah would be born (Mic. 5:2).  Yahweh had pinpointed Bethlehem so no other birthplace would be right for Jesus Christ.  Not Jerusalem, not Rome, but tiny Bethlehem.  God means what He says.  And He would be born precisely at the time Yahweh had chosen (Gal. 4:4). 

          But what about the angel’s proclamation?  Didn’t he say,

He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Highest; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David.  And He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of His kingdom there will be no end.” (Lk. 1:32-33)?

          What happened?  After Jesus was born, He lived in obscurity until bursting onto the scene around the year A.D. 26,[2] heralded by the imposing figure of John the Baptist (Jn. 1:19-34).  He uttered words of wisdom which no one had heard the like of before (Jn. 7:46), and performed incredible miracles beyond what even Elijah and Elisha managed (e.g., Matt. 12:15; 14:13-21; Mk. 1:21-29, 40-42; 2:10-12; 3:1-5, 11; Jn. 5:2-9; 9:1-7; 11:38-44). 

          But He was rejected (Mk. 8:31; Acts 4:11; 1 Pet. 2:4) and they crucified this “King” who would supposedly reign forever (Mk. 15:25).  He rose from the dead (Rom. 14:9) and ascended back into heaven (Lk. 24:50-51; Acts 1:11), where He has been at the right hand of the throne of God ever since (Eph. 1:20; Col. 3:1), where He is interceding for the saints, not reigning over them (Rom. 8:34; Heb. 8:1).  Although it is true that the spiritual powers have been made subject to Him (1 Pet. 3:22), there is yet no sign of the prophesied reign of shalom that was expected on the back of so many OT promises (e.g., Psa. 2:6-8; 110:2; Mic. 4:7; 5:2; Isa. 1:27; 2:4; 9:6-7; 11:1-10; 32:16; 42:1, 4; Jer. 23:5; 33:14-16; Dan. 2:44-45; 7:13-14; Zech. 2:10-12; 14:9). 

          The difference between what the covenant promises of the OT emphasized (and what was repeated by the angel Gabriel at Jesus’ birth – Lk. 1:26-33), and what has happened since has caused many Christians to look for different interpretations to the prophecies so as to confirm their fulfillment in “unexpected” ways.

          Well, if God is the kind of communicator who swears oaths to do specific things and then does them in unexpected ways then He is the kind of communicator it is very hard to put faith in.  Such a God did not do what He said He would do.  We don’t put faith in someone who has repeatedly shown that they don’t mean what they say.  We want them to be as good as their word.  I realize that here those who believe the “unexpected fulfillment” hypothesis makes God “better” than His word, but that is special pleading masquerading as piety.[3]   Holding to this view logically entails us remaining noncommittal in the face of God’s sworn testimony.  We dare not believe what God says because we believe God’s words might not mean what they appear to mean.  Hence, faith dies amid this uncertainty.

          To fill in the void left by not believing that God’s covenant words can be taken literally, many claim that Christ is to be seen in every text of Scripture.  The way they see Him, however, is via typology – an interpretive practice that too often acts as a ruse.  Not that some typological correspondences aren’t real, but many times they are read into the text rather than being suggested by it. 

---

[1] This dating is approximate but is very plausible.  See e.g., Ethelbert Stauffer, Jesus and His Story, NY, Alfred A. Knopf, 1967, 6-8.

[2] See, e.g., Harold W. Hoehner, Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ, Grand Rapids, Zondervan, 1977, 30-31.

[3] In my opinion the same thing is true of supersessionism.  See e.g., Miguel G. Echevarria and Benjamin P. Laird, 40 Questions About the Apostle Paul, Grand Rapids, Kregel, 2023,302-305.

The Church is a New Testament Institution

I’m doing the boring chore of name and Scripture indices at the moment. Here’s an excerpt from the forthcoming book.

First of all, we must dismiss this view, held by many pious men throughout history, that the Church is in the OT.  The New covenant was not made in the OT,  and I have shown the Church to be a New covenant institution.  The NT records the making of the New covenant in Jesus’ blood (Lk. 22:20; 1 Cor. 11:25).  This is why Jesus spoke of the Church as future in Matt. 16:18 (Jn.7:39).  The Christian Church is the Body of Christ and is inescapably joined to the resurrection of Christ (Eph. 2:4-6; Col. 2:12; cf. 1 Cor. 12:13; Rom. 14:9).  Thus, it was quite literally impossible for the Church to exist prior to the death and resurrection of Jesus.  The Apostle Paul writes,

Therefore, my brethren, you also were made to die to the Law through the body of Christ, so that you might be joined to another, to Him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God. – Romans 7:4

The Great Commission could not be given until “all power” was given to the Risen Christ (Matt. 28:18f.).  The preaching in the book of Acts relies on the resurrection (Acts 2:14, 24; 4:2; 10:40; 13:22-23; 15:6-11; 17:18, etc.).  Paul’s admonitions to holiness in Romans 6 are predicated on our vital connection to the resurrection.  Moreover, the Church is built upon Christ (1 Cor. 3:11. Cf. Rom. 10:9), and “the apostles and [NT] prophets” (Eph. 2:20).  If the Church is a New covenant community (as it is in 2 Cor. 3), it stands to reason that it could not be in existence before the New covenant was made.

All this means that those saved before the inauguration of the Church, both among the Nations and in ancient Israel, are separate from the Church.  Israel was (cf. Hos. 2:2; Jer. 3:8) and shall be (Hos. 2:19) married to Yahweh – whom we equate in most instances with God the Father.  The Church shall be married to Christ (2 Cor. 11:2; Eph. 5:25, 32; Rev. 19:6-9).  We cannot entertain a theology that has these OT saints in some suspended animation until Jesus has died and risen, and then joined surreptitiously to the NT Body of Christ.  Though we insist that their salvation was firmly grounded in the foreseen merits of the Cross, that is not the same thing as declaring them all within the sphere of the Church.  There is no necessity forced upon us by Scripture to include the saints of all the ages within the Church.

By Intention the Church is Mainly Gentile

Another thing which is often overlooked but which ought to be thought about, is the frank truth that the Church, although it has its seeds in Jewish soil (Acts 1-7), is intentionally predominantly Gentile in constitution.  The Apostolic teaching is that the Church’s design is to bring the Gentiles into relationship with God.  This can be viewed along at least two related lines:

• The Jews rejected Christ and are judicially blinded to this very day (Rom. 11:8-10, 25, 28).
• We are awaiting “the fullness of the Gentiles” (Rom. 11:25).  Once this period has concluded God will once again turn to Israel – the natural branches (one of the worst exegetical foul-ups is to equate the Olive Tree with its branches!).

Although any Jew who today repents and receives Jesus as Savior is incorporated into the Church (Eph. 2:12-16)[1], Paul teaches that God will yet deal again with the nation of Israel, “the natural branches.”

What the Church Is

The Church is, at its core, a called together population of redeemed peoples, Jew and Gentile, but mostly Gentile, permanently indwelt by the Spirit, and betrothed to the Risen Christ.  Because this conception is unknown within the pages of the Old Testament, the Church as “the Body of Christ” is called “the mystery which has been hidden from ages and from generations, but now has been revealed to His saints.” (Col 1:26).  It is not, contrary to some, that the concept of the Church was known by OT saints but not realized until the New Testament era.  That blatantly contradicts Paul’s statement in Colossians 1.  Rather, the idea of the Church was  “hidden in God” (Eph. 3:9); it was a secret (musterion) that no one but God knew about until God disclosed it.[2]

Everyone understands that the OT is filled with promises of salvation for the Gentile nations.  It is the presence of these promises which smooth out the transition between the Testaments and explain the “lack of surprise” at the Church’s existence in the Apostolic writings.  But this turning to the Gentiles because of the neglect of Messiah by Israel was no more foreseeable from an OT perspective than a huge time gap between the first and second advents was foreseeable.

The NT Church is a covenant entity.  As we have seen, in Galatians 3 Paul explicitly relates the Church to the Abrahamic covenant.  In Galatians 3:16 the apostle writes:

Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. He
does not say, “And to seeds,” as of many, but as of one, “And to
your Seed,” who is Christ.

It is essential to carefully note the particular part of the Abrahamic covenant which the Apostle assigns to the Church.  Both in Galatians 3:8 and in Romans 4:16-17 Paul assiduously picks out the promise of Genesis 12:3 and 22:18.  He is not like those unconcerned exegetes who carelessly ascribe all the covenant promises contained within the Abrahamic covenant to the Church.

What might be called my main thesis is that Christ will perform all this restorative and promissory work by the New covenant, which in Him (Isa. 49:8) provides the requisite cleansing unto righteousness that obligates God to fulfill His covenants.  This Christ-centered approach is what I call “Biblical Covenantalism.”

---

[1] Contra N. T. Wright (Paul and the Faithfulness of God, 1443-1449), these verses in Ephesians 2 are not to be understood as asserting that in Christ Jews are no longer Jews and Gentiles no longer Gentiles, only that Jew and Gentile are one in the Church.  Hence, Jewish Christians are not bound to divest themselves of their OT covenantal traditions as long as those “markers” are not pushed on Gentile believers (which would be Galatianism). 

[2] See Jeremy M. Thomas, “The ‘Mystery’ of Progressive Dispensationalism,” CTJ 09:28 (Dec 2005), 297ff.

Is the Fruit of the Spirit a Gift?

This post interacts with a recent article published by The Friends of Israel ministry entitled “Stop Praying for Patience: Changing Our Perspective on the Fruit of the Spirit.”

I don’t normally do this sort of thing, but I happened to click on the above essay by Sarah Fern, and as I have been teaching intensively on The Fruit of the Spirit at the Church I pastor I thought I would see what Mrs Fern had to say. It has to be said that this is a confused piece, and it needed to pass under the nose of an editor. Mrs Fern does say okay things like “Let’s stop asking for more patience and start asking for less of us and more of Him.” Although even here she presents an either/or when a both/and is better.

But it is one thing in particular that I want to take issue with. The author reports that she heard her pastor once say,

“This fruit is a gift given at salvation. It is not something you are able to work to obtain.”

Towards the end of her piece she echoes this sentiment with this:

“We receive the gift of the fruit of the Spirit at salvation, but we cannot pick and choose which fruit we will work to improve upon.”

There are several problems with this view. We might divide them into exegetical, theological, and existential.

Exegetical Problems

In the first place, Galatians 5 nowhere states that the Fruit of the Spirit is a gift. In the context the Apostle tells us that what really avails is “faith working through love.” (Gal. 5:6). This repeats the idea behind Galatians 2:20 when he said that “the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me.”

Notice how faith “works.” In Galatians 2:20 the reality of being “crucified with Christ” stands behind Paul’s life of faith in Christ. This faith isn’t automatic – not in our daily sanctification – it has to be exercised. Likewise in Galatians 5:6, faith has to be active.

A little further on, Paul tells the Galatian Christians, “I say then: Walk in the Spirit, and you shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh.” (Gal. 5:16). This is an imperative. If we do not walk in the Spirit we assuredly will start fulfilling “the lust of the flesh.” If we yield to the Spirit (cf. Rom. 6:13) He will produce good fruit in our lives, and we will not “do the things that [we] wish” (Gal. 5:17c).

The “works of the flesh” in Galatians 5:19-21 are thoughts or behaviors that we as Christians still have more than a passing familiarity with, as did Christians in Paul’s day (see Gal. 5:15, 26 cf. Gal. 4:16; 1 Cor. 5:1-2; Phil. 1:15-16; 1 Thess. 4:1-8). There is no switch we can flick to turn on the Spirit’s power and access the Fruit of righteousness. No, the Christian life is a life of death to self (1 Cor. 15:31; 2 Cor. 4:7-12; Rom. 12:1-2), so that we can live in the power of the resurrection (Rom. 6:2-5, 11-14; Gal. 2:20a).

So when we get to the Fruit of the Spirit section (Gal. 5:22-23) we are not to think of these characteristics as automatically given to the Christian when he believes. Rather, they are what is produced in us by the Spirit when we “walk in the Spirit” (Gal. 5:25), having been “filled with the Spirit” (Eph. 5:18). The fact of the matter is Paul does not tell us the Fruit of the the Spirit is a gift.

Theological Problems

Theologically speaking, if we make the claim that the Fruit of the Spirit is a gift we are comparing it to other gifts of the Spirit such as those listed in 1 Corinthians 12:4-10 or Romans 12:6-8. These gifts were mostly for the early Church before the completion and widespread availability of the NT Canon. The gifts could be “used” seemingly anytime, sometimes in a way that was contrary to the Spirit’s intention (1 Cor. 14:6-9, 16, 19, 23, 40). Now if the Fruit of the Spirit is a gift like these are then surely we can exercise this gift whenever we choose to? In other words, we can choose to live in the exercise of this gift from morning to night and no longer need we worry about sanctification!

This is, of course, ridiculous. Sanctification is an ongoing, and often back-and-forth process, and is hard work for us because we still have sin-cursed bodies and five senses very much attuned to “the things that are in the world” (1 Jn. 2:15). We also have the old nature wanting to get the upper hand over our renewed nature. Paul is clear about this in the latter part of Romans 7. He sums it up like this:

I find then a law, that evil is present with me, the one who wills to do good. For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man. But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? I thank God—through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin. – Romans 7:21-25 (My emphasis).

Serving God’s law with the mind requires “bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ” (2 Cor. 10:5b). That is something that doesn’t just happen when we become children of God.

This brings me to 2 Corinthians 4:7-11 and the essence of living by the Spirit. The Apostle declares,

For we who live are always delivered to death for Jesus’ sake, that the life of Jesus also may be manifested in our mortal flesh. – 2 Corinthians 4:11.

Here we have one of the principle texts on sanctification. Notice that it does not involve switching on a gift. No, it demands that we die to ourselves; that we “present [our] bodies a living sacrifice” as Paul puts it in Romans 12:1. To quote Richard B. Gaffin,

“The dying of Jesus” is the existence-form that shapes the manifestation of his life in Paul. In the sense that suffering “the dying of Jesus” manifests the resurrection of life in Jesus… – “The Usefulness of the Cross,” WTJ 41:2 (Spring 1979), 234.

As Charles Ryrie puts it somewhat uncompromisingly,

If the Spirit controls one’s life, then the fruit of the Spirit will be displayed, and this is Christlikeness. – Charles C. Ryrie, Balancing the Christian Life, 116.

And John W. Sanderson adds,

In principle, Christians “have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts” (Gal. 5:24), but there is a day-by-day process by means of which we should overcome these evil tendencies… – The Fruit of the Spirit, 49.

Fern writes some good remarks about why Paul opens Galatians in the no-nonsense way he does, but she also includes the following statement:

“The doctrine of sanctification—the work of the Holy Spirit, where we are moment by moment becoming holy until we are with the Lord in heaven—was being attacked, and Paul was not having it.” (My emphasis).

The trouble is that sanctification cannot be described as us “moment by moment becoming holy.” This is not taught in the NT and is contradicted by it: “You ran well. Who hindered you from obeying the truth?” (Gal. 5:7).

This brings us to the last issue:

Existential Problems

In one of his books Lutheran author Chad Bird writes that he has no acquaintance with the notion of the victorious Christian life. Rather, our Christian walk is a series of ups and downs, obedience and disobedience, wisdom and stupidity, with more of the negatives than the positives. I have counseled believers for 30 years and one thing I know is that the Fruit of the Spirit seldom puts in an appearance, and only then once we get out of the way. Here I have to take issue with Ryrie and his notion of a completely yielded life to God which then and only then produces the Fruit of the Spirit, and all of it at once! If that is so then I can confidently declare I have never seen anyone evidence the Fruit.

But again, if it is a gift why is it not plainly on view all the time in our churches? In our marriages? In our hospitality?

No, the Fruit of the Spirit is not a gift. Rather it is the product of the Holy Spirit’s work in our lives as we strive to walk in the Spirit and not fulfill the lusts of the Flesh. If it is to be produced in our lives we must be prepared to do the the often hard and dirty work of warring against the world, the flesh, and the devil every day. We must put ourselves on the alter, as it were, and offer our worthless lives to the One who is worthy (Rom. 12:1-2). We must “be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord” (1 Cor. 15:58). We must not faint (Gal. 6:9). And we must be at it daily!

The Jewish Flavor of the Apocalypse

From the upcoming book ‘The Words of the Covenant: Volume Two, New Testament Continuation’

I think that one of the very first things we need to note about the book of Revelation is its decidedly Jewish tone.  The book speaks of David, the throne, Jerusalem, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the twelve tribes of Israel, the two witnesses, the ark of the testimony, the commandments of Moses, and among things.  References to Israel and hints at its promises abound.  If Revelation is a book for the Church about the Church, why this Jewish flavor?[1]  Even the language of the book, though Greek, is salted with Hebraisms.  Bullinger notes that “though the language is Greek, the idiom is Hebrew.”^[2]  Fanning observes that “John wrote a Semitized form of Greek”^[3]  And everyone knows that Revelation alludes to more of the OT than any other NT book. 

Some cogent explanation of this phenomenon has to be forthcoming.  It is not enough to say that this way of writing just helped John make his connections to the Hebrew Bible.  Without bringing up the covenantal links that exist  throughout Revelation (see below), just a look at the contents of the book will underscore its decidedly Jewish appearance:

1. The “synagogue of Satan” is mentioned Revelation 2:9 and 3:9.  Many commentators believe that this ungodly group were composed of Jews (hence “synagogue”) and that their claim to be true Jews was false because they rejected/subverted Christ’s truth.  In my opinion these people call themselves Jews but are not descended from the twelve tribes.

2. The Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David (Rev. 5:5).  This recalls Genesis 49:8-10 and Jacob’s great messianic prophecy.

3. The 144,000 Jewish male virgins (Rev. 7:3-8; 14:1-5).  Try as they might to turn these men (whom Bauckham and others believe to be an army in Rev. 7) into men and women of spiritual purity, the facts stand against it.  These are men and they are from the twelve tribes of Israel. 

4. The temple of God in “the holy city” upon earth (Rev. 11:1-2).  Outside of the temple we are told is given to the Gentiles.  Hence, a clear ethnic distinction is made.

5. The two witnesses who perform miracles associated with Moses and Elijah (Rev. 11:3—12).  The OT tenor of these witnesses cannot be missed.

6. Earthly Jerusalem (Rev. 11:8), which is where Christ was crucified.

7. The woman clothed with the sun (Rev. 12:1-6).  Despite valiant attempts to get around the obvious, the allusion to Israel is patent.  Genesis 37:9-10 and Joseph’s second dream concerning his family is recorded: Joseph being the twelfth star.

8. Believers are said to “sing the song of Moses, the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb” (Rev. 15:3).  The song of Moses (Exod. 15:1-19) rejoices in the deliverance of Israel through the miracle of the Red Sea.

9. Gentiles are only mentioned once in the book, in Revelation 11:2.

10. The male child in Revelation. 12:5 is obviously Jesus (Psa. 2; Rev. 19:15).  Who gives birth to Christ?  Israel.

11. It is telling that the Jewishness of Revelation starts to become clear only     after the seven churches (which represent the whole Church) are dealt with and the attention turns to what is going to happen.  The Church and Israel are not spoken of in the same breath until Revelation 21.  Hence, even though the seven churches of Asia Minor are prominent in the first three chapters, once the large central section launches the mood is far more Jewish.

12. Finally, as Bullinger observes, “All the imagery – the Temple, the Tabernacle, the Ark of the Covenant, the Altar, the Incense, the heads of the twenty-four courses of Priests (the pattern of which David’s was a copy, 1 Chron. xxviii. 19…), all this belongs peculiarly to Israel.”[4]  Even New Jerusalem is shaped like the Holy of Holies.

---

[1] Written at the close of the first century it comes too late to be explained by the predominance of Jewish converts to Christianity.

[2] E. W. Bullinger, The Apocalypse, or “The Day of the Lord,” London, Samuel Bagster, 1972, 4-6.

[3] Buist M. Fanning, Revelation, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, ZECNT, 2020,53.

[4] E. W. Bullinger, The Apocalypse, 5-6.

Covenantal Allusions in the Apocalypse

From the forthcoming book The Words of the Covenant, Volume Two, New Testament Continuation

As he begins his prophecy, John says that he is a fellow brother in the “tribulation and kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ” (Rev. 1:9).  I think it is important to notice the word “kingdom” and ask whether it speaks of a kingdom that was present already in the first century A.D. or whether it refers to the future messianic Kingdom.  It will not come as a surprise to learn that the answer depends upon the eschatological position adopted.  As Christ is “He who has the key of David” (Rev. 3:7), “the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David” (Rev. 5:5), and “the Root and the Offspring of David, the Bright and Morning Star” (Rev. 22:16) I believe we are directed to an eschatological-covenantal fulfillment.  

If, as I suspect, “the Lord’s Day” is the Day of the Lord^[1], then that term has eschatological covenant connections.  The Day of the Lord in its eschatological manifestation is the prelude to the New Covenant Kingdom.  It is the necessary preparation for the Kingdom to come. 

But even if “the Lord’s Day” refers, as many scholars insist, to Sunday, then the covenant connection would concern the New covenant still, since the day of Christ’s resurrection and the descent of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost were on a Sunday, and those events are inextricably connected to the New covenant.  So, either way we have covenantal concerns as early as Revelation 1:10.      

One writer has said it well: “A bedrock of the Apocalypse is that Jesus is the Davidic Messiah.”^[2]  Jesus has a golden sash across His chest (Rev. 1:13), a symbol of royalty, and hence of His Davidic ancestry and privilege.  His standing in the midst of the lampstands alludes to His (New covenant) priestly role.^[3]  This combination of Davidic and Melchizedekian elements is best understood as signifying Christ’s present qualifications to be the great Priest-King of the next aeon.  Jesus is the priest now as He mediates the New covenant to the Church (Heb. 12:24 cf. 1 Tim. 2:5).  He will mediate the New covenant to Israel as a nation later (Jer. 31:31-34; Zech. 12:10).  In either case, Christ must mediate between God and the sinner before they will accept His reign over them as their King.  Therefore, we ought never to assume Christ is reigning in His kingdom because He is functioning as High Priest.  The covenants will come to fruition exactly as stipulated.[4]   

But not only is Jesus dressed in royal regalia, He is said to hold “the key of David” (Rev. 3:7), and to be “the Root and the Offspring of David” (Rev. 22:16).  Revelation 3:21 informs us that Jesus has a throne that is/will be His, and it is distinguished from the throne of His Father (cf. Matt. 19:28; 25:31).  Even the most basic knowledge of the covenants will inform the reader that Christ’s throne is the Davidic throne upon earth (Lk. 1:32-33). 

Again, when John despairs because there is no one in heaven or earth who is found worthy to break the seals in Revelation 5, he is answered,

But one of the elders said to me, “Do not weep. Behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has prevailed to open the scroll and to loose its seven seals.” – Revelation 5:5.

          The Lamb, who is the crucified and risen Jesus, is the only one in God’s whole realm who qualifies to open the seals.^[5]  This is doubtless because He represented heaven on the earth and wrought salvation for God’s image-bearer, man (Jn. 17:1-26; Heb. 1:2-3), while securing the eventual “glorious liberty” (Rom. 8:21) of the earth itself.  Furthermore, Christ’s selfless humiliation in His own world on behalf of His enemies is not approached by any other deed in heaven and earth.  And since the judgments sealed inside the scroll are earth-judgments, the sole person who has wrought reconciliation between God and creation is the Lamb of God who took away the sin of the world (Jn. 1:29; Heb. 9:26).   

I have made an argument in this book that as the Lamb of God Jesus institutes the New covenant.^[6]  I therefore believe, on the basis of its proliferation in Revelation, that the covenant language in Revelation 21:3 (“God Himself will be with them and be their God”) and 21:7 (“I will be his God and he shall be My son”) relates to the New covenant.    

          As for the throne of David, if Satan has a throne upon the earth (Rev. 2:13) surely Jesus will have one?  Indeed, He will:

Then the seventh angel sounded: And there were loud voices in heaven, saying, “The kingdoms of this world have become the kingdoms of our Lord and of His Christ, and He shall reign forever and ever!” – Revelation 11:15.

          The text is declaring that God the Father will rule this world and the one to come through His Son Jesus Christ.^[7]  The Son’s throne will be in Jerusalem according to the Old Testament (Jer. 3:17; Mic. 4:7-8; Ezek. 43:7).

          Backtracking a bit, the presence of a sealed remnant of Israel in Revelation 7 connects us to the Abrahamic covenant, as does the “woman” in Revelation 12:1f.  Then in Revelation 11:19 the ark of the covenant is seen, and it is impossible to miss an allusion to the old covenant.  This is significant, because in Revelation 12:17 we read about those “who keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.”   It is of course the ark of the Mosaic covenant that was made on earth, and which pertains to the earth.^[8]

          God is only as good as His covenants.  The book of Revelation describes the coming tribulation and the defeat of Antichrist.  Then Christ the coming Ruler sets up His Kingdom rule “with a rod of iron” but in mercy and peace in exact correspondence to the Abrahamic, Priestly, and Davidic covenants.  Yes, we must not forget the promise to Phinehas (Num. 25:10-13; Psa. 106:28-31).  Ezekiel’s temple will be built in Israel in the coming Millennium (Ezek. 40 – 48; cf. Isa. 2:2-3; Ezek. 37:26-28; Zech. 6:12-13).  To quote from a psalm written in an era in which the promises seemed to be failing.  God is clear:

          My covenant I will not break,

Nor alter the word that has gone out of My lips. – Psalm 89:34. 

---

[1] Although I will not press the point, seeing as the term “the Lord’s Day” (Rev. 1:10) may not refer to the Day of the Lord.   

[2] Joshua W. Jipp, The Messianic Theology of the New Testament, 286.

[3] G. K. Beale, The Book of Revelation, 208.

[4] It has always surprised me how this basic truth is missed by scholars.  As one example, in the fine work by James M. Hamilton, Jr., God’s Glory in Salvation Through Judgment, 550, he declares “When God makes covenants with his people, he promises that he will be true to his just and merciful character.”  But Hamilton’s book fails to heed the oaths of those covenants or use them to guide the direction of his interpretations.

[5] If the seven-sealed scroll cannot be opened, then the seven trumpets cannot be blown, nor the seven bowls be poured out. 

[6] Israel is not under the New covenant until the second coming.  It is conjecture on my part, but God wants His people to acknowledge the original covenant and the Messiah to whom it points (Deut. 18).

[7] Christ’s followers will have a hand in the rule of the coming Kingdom.  Rev. 2:27 cites (with a little alteration) Psalm 2:9.  See also Rev. 12:5; 19:15. 

[8] See also Rev. 12:17; 14:12; 15:3. 

Literal and Symbolic – A Quick Journey through Revelation (2)

Part One

The dragon of Revelation 12 is also seen in chapter 13 where gives his power to the beast (Rev. 13:2), who is himself “a man” (Rev. 13:18).  Likewise, the second beast of Revelation 13, who assists the first beast is identified later in the book as “the false prophet” (Rev. 16:13; 19:20; 20:10). 

Not all of our questions are answered, and sometimes those that are leave us with more questions for which definitive answers elude us, but Scripture is not written to satisfy our curiosity, only to inform us.  In my opinion, the elusive aspect of the book will become far less so as the events themselves come to pass.  I think a good example of this is the correlation between the angel of the bottomless pit (Rev. 9:11) whose name is Abaddon or Apollyon and the beast who “will ascend out of the bottomless pit and go to perdition” (Rev. 17:8).    

Fortunately, this is not so in many other cases.  The lampstands are clearly identified by Jesus as churches (hence we ought not to think that these lampstands are Jewish menorahs).  The seven stars in Christ’s hand, stand for seven angels, and the seven lampstands for seven churches.  The stars and the lampstands are symbols, but the enumeration of them (“7”) is seven.  The Two Witnesses of Revelation 11 are best identified by the miracles they perform, which (in a book so pervaded with OT allusions) leads us to Moses and Elijah.^[1]

What about those odd chapters which speak of Babylon (Rev. 17 – 18)?  Is Babylon the ancient city of which the OT Prophets speak? The “Babel” of Genesis 10:10; 11:9?  Revelation 17:18 calls Babylon a “great” city, an adjective that is fastened to the name Babylon each time it appears in Revelation (Rev. 14:8; 16:19; 17:5; 18:2, 10, 21).  Fanning believes the weight of the available evidence makes Rome the “Babylon” John has in mind.  Strong arguments in favor of the actual city on the Euphrates by Charles Dyer^[2] and Andy Woods have put forth.  Again, the “woman” who rides the beast is “that great city which reigns over the kings of the earth.” (Rev. 17:18).  The beast, as we have seen, is a man.  This indicates that the city (the woman) will have power over the beast for a period of time.  The “kings” in the context would probably be those spoken of in the immediate context (Rev. 17:10).

Whatever interpretation is fixed to the name “Babylon” the fact remains it is depicted as an actual city, and no humdrum city either, but the major world city of the time (Rev. 17:18; 18:10, 16, 18, 19).  In Revelation 17:5 we read of “Mystery, Babylon the great.”  Some believe that the word “mystery” qualifies the name “Babylon” in such a way that it points to something other than a literal city – perhaps a system?  Although how a system can be “utterly burned with fire” (Rev. 18:8) is hard to envisage.  From our present vantage point, it is impossible to be dogmatic about every detail.  The descriptive “the great” appended to the name “Babylon,” and the identification of it as “the great city which reigns over the kings of the earth” (Rev. 17:18), together with it being described as a “dwelling place of demons” (Rev. 18:2)  indicates that “the great city Babylon” is indeed meant.  I see no good reason to strictly divide the city itself from its influence over the world.^[3]

In Revelation 19:11f. the white horse rider is Christ Jesus, “the Lord of Lords and King of Kings” (Rev. 19:16).  He is not to be confused with the white horse rider of Revelation 6:1, even though the earlier rider is like the Lord. 

Then we come to Revelation 20 and the dispute hots up.  Amillennialists insist that the words “Then I saw” (καὶ εἶδον) prove that chapter 20 does not follow on chronologically from chapter 19.^[4]  What is at stake in the decision is the whole interpretation of a chapter (Rev. 20) which gives every appearance of recording the imprisonment of Satan for a thousand years (Rev. 20:1-3), the reign of Christ upon this earth for a thousand years (Rev. 20:4-6), and the loosing of Satan, His ignominious defeat (cf. Gen. 3:15c), and the Final Judgment (Rev. 20:7-15).  If we follow the apparent meaning of the words employed by the apostle, we certainly get a very good segway into the last two chapters.  As Revelation 20 ends we are told that this present cursed earth is gone (Rev. 20:11) and is replaced by “new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away.” (Rev. 21:1).  This, to me, is decisive.  Attempts to disengage Revelation 20 from 21 look like ingenious efforts to get around the obvious.

Once we arrive at Revelation 21 and 22 and the disclosure of New Jerusalem coming down out of heaven to the new earth, we still have to contend with interpreters who wish to persuade us that the New Jerusalem is not literal – it is also just a symbol.  Many of these same scholars want to tell us that the opening chapters of Genesis are figurative and cannot be taken literally.  Forgive me, but it seems that among the thousands of inspired words in the Bible only it is mainly the ones which have to do with their salvation that can be taken literally.  How utterly different this is than the hermeneutics of Abraham in Genesis 22!^[5]       

---

[1] Although even dispensational authors have posited Moses and Enoch such identification ignores the clues given in the text by the inspired author.  Moses and Elijah appear at the Mount of Transfiguration (Matt. 17) which itself is a preview to Christ’s second coming (2 Pet. 1:16-18).  Moses and Elijah are also (coincidently) the last two men mentioned in our OT.  Enoch, on the other hand, is not given such attention.  Even amillennialist Greg Beale, who turns the two witnesses into the Church, holds that Moses and Elijah are being alluded to in Revelation 11.  See G.K. Beale, Revelation, 582-583.  Cf. Tremper Longman III, Revelation Through Old Testament Eyes, Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2022, 169-170.  Longman straddles the fence between two actual prophets or the two witnesses representing the Church, but he does recognize the connections to Moses and Elijah.   

[2] Charles H. Dyer, The Rise of Babylon: Sign of the Times, Chicago: Moody, 2003.

[3] If “Babylon the great” is actual Babylon, then it would appear that a good deal of rebuilding of the city as well as dredging the Euphrates River would still need to be done before it could be described in such terms as the book of Revelation describes it. 

[4] See G. K. Beale, The Book of Revelation, 974-983.  “Does it [i.e., the “and” of 20:1] indicate continued historical sequence following on the heels of 19:21, or does it merely serve as a more general transition between visions?” – Ibid, 975.   

[5] See “The Birth of Isaac and the Hermeneutical Test of Faith” in The Words of the Covenant, Volume One, 138-140.

Literal and Symbolic – A Quick Journey through Revelation (1)

This is part of the new book that I did not use (or most of it). I thought I might as well use it here as discard it altogether.

Trying to get one’s head around the mixture of symbols in the book of Revelation is not an easy matter.  The symbols create a visual picture in the mind of the reader.  The question is, when are the symbols literal and when are they not?  Let us inquire further into this question.

When John beholds the glorified Jesus in chapter 1, he sees a real person; a Man who puts His hand on John (Rev. 1:17).  Yet Christ’s right hand is said to hold seven stars in it, and Christ has a sword coming out of His mouth (Rev. 1:16).  This sword is later depicted as the instrument with which He smites the nations (Rev. 19:15).  What does this mean?  Here we see a symbolic artifact (the sword) combined with a literal sight of a man.  The sash of gold that He wears shows Him to be noble (Rev. 1:13).  His white hair and flaming eyes (Rev. 1:14), not to mention His glowing bronze feet (Rev. 1:15) may tempt us to infer that He is ancient, wise, and penetrating in knowledge.  On the other hand, it may be that the glorified Jesus really looks like that since no explanation of His appearance is given!  It is instructive that straight after He tells John to write down “ the things which you have seen, and the things which are, and the things which will take place after this” He deciphers the meaning of the stars and the lampstands (Rev. 1:19-20).  That appears to indicate the way the revealing will proceed: a vision of something strange followed by some explanatory remarks.

Of course, this is only partially true.  When one reads the letters to the seven churches a number of things that we would love to know more details about are simply mentioned in passing.  These include the “Nicolaitans” in the letters to Ephesus (Rev. 2:6), and Pergamos (Rev. 2:15); “the synagogue of Satan” that is spoken of in the address to Smyrna (Rev. 2:9) and Philadelphia (Rev. 3:9); and the identity of “Jezebel” in Thyatira (Rev. 2:20).  I would like more information on the Book of Life in Revelation 3:5^[1], and I would like to know for sure if “the hour of trial which shall come upon the whole world” (Rev. 3:10) refers to the Tribulation, or a part of it, or to none of it.   

Moving on from the letters to the seven churches we cannot with certainty identify the twenty-four elders before God’s throne (Rev. 4:4), although we can note how David organized twenty-four orders of priests in 1 Chronicles 24:4 and 25:9-3.^[2]  Are they the same as the “watchers” spoken of by Daniel (Dan. 4:17)?  Possibly.  Who knows for sure?  As they feature quite prominently in the narrative (Rev. 4:4, 10; 5:8, 14; 11:16; 19:4) there is every reason to think that the number twenty-four is literal.

The four horsemen of Revelation 6 were seen by John, but I doubt they will be seen by anyone else.  The effect of their missions is the devastation of the earth, bringing disease, famine, natural calamities, and societal disarray.  It is the effects of their work that will be seen by earth’s unfortunate inhabitants.  In Revelation 6:13 we are told that all the stars fell.  In Revelation 8:12 there are still stars there, which means Revelation 6:13 comes after Revelation 8:12.

I have commented on the 144,000 of Revelation 7 elsewhere, but amillennial interpreters believe that the number and the description of them provided by the inspired author are non-literal.  On the other hand, they believe that the multitude that no one could number of all peoples is literal.  The 144,000 Israelites in Revelation 7 stem from twelve tribes upon the earth which are clearly named (Rev. 7:1-8), and they are male virgins according to Revelation 14:4.  Dispensationalist premillennialists rightly assert therefore that both groups ought to be understood literally, which means that they are not the same.^[3]   

The infernal horsemen of the sixth trumpet (Rev. 9:16-19) are numbered.  Why point out their number if they are unreal?  Didn’t Elisha and his servant see supernatural horses of fire and chariots of fire on the hills around them (cf. 2 Ki. 6:17)?  They were there!  These actual sightings should not be swept aside by the magical term “apocalyptic.”^[4]    

In chapter 12 we are told forthrightly that the seven-headed dragon is “the Devil and Satan” (Rev. 12:9).  The dragon pursues a “woman clothed with the sun with a crown of twelve stars on her head and the moon under her feet (Rev. 12:1).  Who is this woman?  Well, one more detail may help.  She was pregnant (Rev. 12:4), and her child “was to rule all nations with a rod of iron.” (Rev. 12:5. Cf. Psa. 2:8-9; Rev. 19:15).  The child can be none other than Christ, who is “the root of David” (Rev. 5:5; cf. 22:6) – an Israelite.  The identity of the child is further corroborated when John tells us “And her Child was caught up to God and His throne.” (Rev. 12:5b).  

This cannot be the Church, for the Church is not yet married to Christ (see Rev. 19:6, 9).  Ergo, the Church cannot be pictured as a pregnant woman!  Neither did the Church bring forth Christ.  Christ brought forth the Church through His resurrection.  As Revelation is chock-full of OT allusions has John inserted one here related to the woman?  The answer is yes:

Then he dreamed still another dream and told it to his brothers, and said, “Look, I have dreamed another dream. And this time, the sun, the moon, and the eleven stars bowed down to me.”  So he told it to his father and his brothers; and his father rebuked him and said to him, “What is this dream that you have dreamed? Shall your mother and I and your brothers indeed come to bow down to the earth before you?” – Genesis 37:9-10 (my emphasis).

          Jacob’s rebuke of Joseph shows that he understood the dream as a reference to him, to Rachel (Joseph’s mother – Gen. 35:24), and Joseph’s eleven brothers.  It doesn’t take a genius to add Joseph to the eleven stars to make the twelves tribes of Israel, with Jacob being portrayed as the sun and Rachel as the moon.  The reason for the female imagery is because of the birth of the Man-Child (Rev. 12:4-5).  Beale believes that the woman represents the entirety of the saints from before and after the first advent.^[5]  This is extraordinary for someone who has made his name searching out and identifying OT allusions in the NT.  Beale’s Covenant Theology prevents him from separating Israel from the Church.  Revelation 12 is silent about the spirituality of the woman; that is simply not important.  To my mind at least, any interpretation of Revelation 12:1 which ends up making her other than Israel is a circumlocution.  

---

[1] Being in this “Book of Life” gains one access to the New Jerusalem (Rev. 21:27), whereas not having your name in the Book of Life exposes one to wrath (Rev. 20:15).  Yet there is a threat that some of the names written in the Book will be removed (Rev. 3:5; 22:19).  When Paul refers to it in Phil. 4:13 he does not mention this threat, probably because it is not a threat to those in the Church (Rom. 8:28-39).  This may be because Revelation speaks of those in the Tribulation after the removal of the Church, and that Tribulation saints must “endure” (e.g., by not receiving the mark of the beast).  If they don’t endure their names are blotted out of the Lamb’s Book.  (See here my remarks on “Hebrews as a Tribulation Letter” above).  This way of presenting things might not be comfortable to think about, but I think it at least has the benefit of being textually honest.  I am just trying to comprehend what the text says and make sense of it without resorting to twisting John’s words.    

[2] “Most of the apocalyptic symbolism used by John in Revelation finds its root in the Old Testament, which often provides the interpretive key necessary to understand the imagery.” – H. Hall Harris, “A Theology of John’s Writings,” 173 n. 11.  I would word this sentence slightly differently, but the main point is well made.

[3] Buist M. Fanning, Revelation, 265-267.

[4] In my opinion, Christians in the West especially do not take the supernatural realm seriously enough.

[5] G. K. Beale, Revelation 625-627.