Understanding the Millennium - Part 4

I was going to finish this series with the previous post, but I needed some more practice writing millennium (two l's, two n's). So, to start with, the structure. Again, as with the last section of chapter 19, 20:1-10 is concentric, meaning the elements repeat each other with the first reoccurring last, the second reoccurring second last, usually placing the emphasis on the middle element.

A 20:1-3a Satan is bound in the Abyss for 1000 years

B 20:3b Satan is released for a short time

C 20:4-6 The martyrs are resurrected and given thrones for 1000 years

B` 20:7-9a Satan is released and leads an end-time army

A` 20:9b-10 Satan's army is destroyed and he is thrown into the lake of sulphur forever

Working from the outside in, how does this structure help us make sense of this, and, in particular, the 1000 years?

• A, A` (1-3a, 9b-10) Important to note here is that the situation is not too different from the beginning to the end. Satan is out of the way. In the first part, he is bound for a very long time, and in the second, he is thrown into the fiery lake forever. If there weren't a release, one could almost be forgiven for thinking 1000 years is almost as good as eternity. 1000 years is longer than any human can contemplate - what will things be like in 3020 AD?  But it is temporary, even in such a time-frame, but it will be made permanent, as the dragon, the source of the other two parts of the satanic trinity, is likewise thrown into the fiery lake to join them.
• B, B` (3b, 7-9a) Here we see an inexplicable release. It really doesn't make sense, because he is bad, he is the pangolin or the bat or whatever started Covid19, and he has no business being released. And yet, he is. For a short time. Not 1000 years, perhaps not even 3½ years. Enough time to rouse up an end-time army to erect a siege around the holy city. It is again important to note that the release in 20:3 is the same release as 20:7, so that this paragraph reads as a whole structure rather than linearly. Again, as Jason suggested to me, rather than the "Israel smashes her enemies" battle, this is more a "Israel is under siege" battle, reminiscent of Assyria's siege of Jerusalem under King Hezekiah (2 Kings 18-19). Perhaps it is a concidence, but a fascinating one, that before that siege begins, Hezekiah is established as the one who smashed the bronze snake statue which people had begun to worship (18:4). And now here, in a "type" of that scene, the "ancient serpent" leads the end-time armies of Gog and Magog to besiege God's people yet again. 
• C (4-6) Despite the goings-on, the central focus is not the rampaging of the dragon, but the people of God, the martyrs, who are given thrones and authority to rule. They are the ones who did not receive the mark of the beast (Rev 13:16-17; cf 19:20), but stayed true and trusted God. This time period appears to be concurrent with Satan's imprisonment, and is the rule which has been promised to the saints in Thyatira back in 2:24-29 who resisted Satan. This millennial rule and the binding and destruction of Satan is also the answer to the cries of the martyrs in 6:9-11; their time has now come. 

I think the exegetical payoff of seeing the passage in this way, noting the parallel structures, is that it shows equivalencies - the two releases of Satan are clearly one and the same, but the 1000 year imprisonment and eternal destruction are also not so different. Sure, one includes a release for bad behaviour, but on the one hand, it is very short lived, and on the other, it confirms God in his judgement that the dragon, and all who followed him, are incurably evil and are rightly condemned to the fiery lake. 

This structure also shows the focus - it is not about the 1000 years, but about the reign of the saints in the midst of the destruction of evil. Again, Satan is described in a fourfold manner: 

1. the dragon
2. that ancient serpent
3. the devil
4. the Satan

The dragon is the most vicious character of the book - he devours the children of God - the very people who will judge him; the serpent is the pangolin of sin from Genesis 3; the devil is God's adversary, and the Satan is the accuser. But his destruction is assured, in the same way as the martyr's vindication is assured. 

I think my point in all this is that trying to work out timetables and pre- and post- and even a-millennialism is a route which not only misreads the genre of Revelation, it also emphasises something which isn't a thing. The purpose of the 1000 year binding/reign is to show that the saints have been vindicated. But instead it is weaponised into this highly technical and irrelevant doctrine to divide and confuse. 

Why, however, is Satan released? It is not explained in the text. One suggestion is that it is to prove Satan's guilt - after 1000 years, surely Satan would be reformed? Sorry, no, still a scorpion. The other is, and this links really well with the Gog and Magog story from Ezekiel 38-39 which is referenced here, is that Satan's attack is used against her. Koester notes that "Gog, who devised battle plans against Israel (Ezek 38:11–12) only to find that God used Gog’s own schemes to defeat him (Ezek 38:4, 17; 39:2)." (Koester, Anchor, 771) What worse place to mount an attack against God's people than at God's holy city. But when Satan is released, he assembles the armies, and heads straight to the place which will mean his ultimate downfall. 

The question which must be answered by anyone who holds a view that this is not a story of a deeper reality and a deeper truth, but a timeline of the last days, is, how does a timeline of 1900 years plus in the future (and counting) help the original recipients in the 90s AD in western Asia Minor? 

My humble suggestion is that for people in fear of their lives, whose children were being stolen as slaves, whose cities were garrisons for their oppressors, that the distant future approaches to reading Revelation would be an insult to them. "You mean we have to wait that long for God to do anything?" Instead, the reading that is as true for them as it is for us is this:

Evil seems powerful and it seems like the Jesus who died and rose and ascended into heaven does not care and is not coming back. But this is God's world. Nothing happens he does not know about, and nothing can change the truth about good and evil. It is right to persevere and to resist and to stay true to your saviour who stayed true to you. And because this is God's world, and because it is stained and contorted by sin, God will bring an end to the very thing that started sin in the first place. 

So that's how I read Revelation, and if you have thoughts or suggestions, you're welcome to comment here or on fb or twitter or pigeon post. Actually, scratch that last option. I don't like pigeons. Chickens are cool though. 

Understanding the Millennium - Part 3

As we get ever closer to the key passage, it is worth noting, as my friend Jason reminded me, that there are two battles depicted which describe the destruction of the satanic trinity. The first, in chapter 19, details the destruction of the beasts we first met in chapter 13.

A 17 And I saw an angel standing in the sun, who cried in a loud voice to all the birds flying in midair,  “Come, gather together for the great supper of God, 18 so that you may eat the flesh of kings, generals, and the mighty, of horses and their riders, and the flesh of all people, free and slave, great and small.”

B 19 [And] Then I saw the beast and the kings of the earth and their armies gathered together to wage war against the rider on the horse and his army.

C 20a But the beast was captured, and with it the false prophet who had performed the signs on its behalf.  

D 20b With these signs he had deluded those who had received the mark of the beast and worshipped its image. 

C` 20c The two of them were thrown alive into the fiery lake of burning sulphur.

B` 21a The rest were killed with the sword coming out of the mouth of the rider on the horse, 

A` 21b and all the birds gorged themselves on their flesh.

• A, A` (17-18, 21b) The expectation after 19:1-10 is that the wedding feast of the Lamb will follow. But instead we arrive at the "great supper of God." It is not a feast for the people of God, but a slaughter. The only people who will feast are the birds--the birds of carrion--who are gathered to feast before the battle has begun, and shortly thereafter have a banquet on which to gorge themselves. 
• B, B` (19, 21a) The followers of the beast gather with him, but with no description of the battle required, the battle is won the moment it is begun.
• C, C` (20a, 20c) The description of the capture and dispatch of the beast and the prophet is similarly brief, but brutally final. No one looks forward to going down to the underworld, but even worse, it seems (at least from Num 16:33; Ps 55:15) is to be thrown down alive. This preempts the identical punishment of the dragon in the following scene (20:10).
• D (20b) At the centre of this scene is an epexegetical comment which explains that the central issue is the idolatry encouraged by the false prophet, of the beast. This central concern of the book of Revelation, that Christ alone should be given glory. From the inaugural vision of Christ in chapter 1, through the warnings to persevere in chapters 2-3, and the lion/lamb at the centre of the throne room in chapters 4-5 - not to mention the depiction of the beast as a pseudo-Christ in chapter 13 - the question of who you worship is what it is all about. 

There are three key things to take away from this first battle:

1. the battle is swift - too short to describe and easily won by Christ
2. the indictment is how they have misdirected worship away from Christ
3. this battle is reminiscent of many battles easily won by the people of God in the Old Testament. Battles were either won with hardly a casualty, or they were lost disastrously and embarrassingly. This is the first type, and it is over before it is begun.

What then of the the second battle, where the Satan - noticeably absent from this battle - is destroyed?

At the outset, it is worth noting that the capture and imprisonment of the dragon is similarly swift and one-sided (20:1-3a). It is an angel - not even Jesus - who is able to lock Satan away in the Abyss. It could be a part of the first battle, or a consequence of it, although the introductory formula (και ειδον, and I saw) seems to suggest it might be a new scene or sequence. Nevertheless, he is imprisoned and, after a few things happening, is similarly dispatched to the fiery lake of sulphur to complete the destruction of the satanic trinity (20:10).

That is, whatever the details, and however troubling the intervening events might be, the outcome is certain, and the saints can be reassured that staying faithful to Jesus is worth it, they will be vindicated, and the very instigator of evil - the ancient serpent - will be destroyed forever.

Secondly, what is going on with the 1000 years, with the release, with the new wave of attacks, with the 1000 reign of martyrs? I'll get to that next time.

Understanding the Millennium - Part 2

The central passage, from which all other passages are reinterpreted, is Revelation 20:1–10. It concludes a cycle which began in chapter 12 and introduced three characters, often referred to as the anti-trinity or the satanic-trinity: the dragon (12:3), the beast (13:1) and the false-prophet (13:11). The second and third characters (both described as beasts) get their power from the dragon, and the focus seems to be on cultivating worship for the first beast. In this way they are like the trinity, where the dragon is like the Father, the first beast is like the Son, and the second beast is like the Holy Spirit. The actual trinity can be described in similar ways, whereby Father is the source who eternally begets the Son, and the Spirit is not trying to draw attention to himself but to the Son. The satanic-trinity imitates the actual trinity in similar ways. 

But of course, Revelation is written to real people at a real time and real place, and so the powers which are front and centre in their lives are the Roman Empire, who is depicted by the dragon; the Roman Emperor, depicted by the first beast; and the local leaders and priests, prominent in chapters 2–3, who encourage idolatrous worship of the emperor in order to gain economic benefit. But the Roman reality is not the ultimate reality; John is saying (or the angel is telling John) that when you unmask Rome, you get the devil. When you worship the emperor, you are blaspheming Christ. 

What we see with each of these characters is that they are introduced in order, and then dismissed in the reverse order. Koester in his 2015 Anchor commentary outlines the concentric structure which sees their introduction and dismissal, as follows: 

A 12 Dragon/Satan thrown from heaven to earth to destroy

B 13 Beast and False Prophet destroy on the earth

C 17a Whore rides the beast

C` 17b Whore destroyed by the beast

B` 19b Beast and False Prophet captured and destroyed in sulphur

A 20 Dragon/Satan captured (then released!) then destroyed in sulphur

I'm not 100% sure how to describe the whore of Babylon (note that Babylon was what Rome was called only after they destroyed the temple in 70 AD like the real Babylon did 600 years earlier), except that to say she would seem to be city of Rome herself, or the people of Rome, or the idea of the city of Rome - something along those lines. 

But the important thing to note is there is a certainty; as certainly as there are forces against God, who look indestructible, and wreak havoc, so too is their destruction guaranteed. What goes up must come down, and the harder they come the harder they fall. So as bad as things look today, the hope embodied in Revelation is that we are about to reach peak bad, and things will start to get better, as the city, the promoters, the emperor, and ultimately the whole empire will be destroyed. 

Of course, the reality is that it is not enough for simply the manifestation of evil to be destroyed, but the spiritual reality behind it must be dealt with also. So when the final enemy, the source of all, the dragon is to be destroyed, it is described in a fourfold manner:

[The angel] seized the dragon, the ancient serpent, who is the devil and the Satan, and bound him for 1000 years. (Rev 20:2)

In particular, it is his description as "the ancient serpent" which makes us recall Genesis 3, with the entry of sin which cursed the world, and now, with his destruction, its exit and time of healing. 

The power which was behind the Roman (Revelation) is the same power which was behind the Seleucid Empire (Daniel) is the same empire behind the Babylonian Empire and Tyre (Isaiah, Ezekiel). Whichever kingdom we might point at and say "that's the kingdom of the devil!", it is the devil which is the ultimate target, because there will always be another Babylon, another power which is interested in enticing people to blaspheme Christ in idolatrous worship. That is, until the devil himself is dealt with. 

Now if you are especially astute you will have noticed that I still haven't got to the millennium. Next post. Probably.

Understanding the Millennium - Part 1

One good thing about being an Australian is discussions about the various millennialisms don't really come up that much, and when they do they tend to be more out of curiosity than having any real importance or emotion tied up with it. Of course not all Australians have had that experience, and I'm sure other places around the world are similarly unperturbed by these discussions.

However, there are people who worry about this stuff—really worry about it. I've looked for images of diagrams of the millennium on google and they are super crazy. Crazy in a way in which crazy people would ask them, "Are you okay?" And there are two things about this:

1. It's really new. It's not a thing which has been around for all that long, at least in the form we know it from things like the Left Behind series.
2. It's a whole thing built on only a few verses; essentially just Revelation 20:1–10. 

The Schofield Reference Bible (first published in 1909), Wikipedia tells me, was the first Bible since the Geneva Bible to have a commentary running alongside the text. Thanks to Cyrus Schofield, a century of Bible readers are not just really into Schofield's version of millennialism (pre-, in his case), but they are also really into Schofield's version of creationism, which dates creation back to 4004 BC. Imagine if an apathetic Aussie had've got their study Bible out instead - creationism and premillennialism might not even be a thing! (Well, they probably would, but perhaps not in the divisive way they are today. Well, maybe not that either. But it was still important.)

As a gross oversimplification, there are four views on the millennium (check out Mark's simple diagram at visualunit):

1. there are the post-millennialists, who think things are going to generally get better (for 1000 years) and then Jesus will return.
2. there are the pre-millennialists, who think things are going to generally get worse and then Jesus will return and reign (for 1000 years).
3. there are the a-millennialists, who say the 1000 years is all symbolic for the current reality of reigning with Jesus.
4. there are the pan-millennialists, who trust that everything will pan out in the end.

The fourth group are obviously not a real doctrine, but they do exist, because a lot of people really don't care for shaping an entire doctrine around 10 very confusing verses in a very confusing book. I think, as someone who has only ever heard three sermons from anywhere in the book in my life, that it hasn't been an issue for me. But that's not great either - it shouldn't be neglected, but perhaps is because we don't know what to do with it. However, after preaching through the entire book (I have four out of 20 sermons left), I realise I should probably convert my pan-millennialism to something a little more concrete. So in the next post, I'll try and explain what I think is going on in Revelation 20 and how it fits into the book as a whole.

The houses of Zechariah 5

I've been thinking a little about what's going on in Zechariah 5, the vision with a giant flying scroll (5:1–4) and the woman in a basket (5:5–11).

The Scroll

The giant flying scroll is reminiscent of the scrolls elsewhere, such as the one eaten by Ezekiel and the scroll(s?) John encounters on his tour of heaven. But apart from being both giant and flying, it is double-sided, with one side being devoted to the destruction of thieves, and the other devoted to the destruction of those who swear falsely.

Although McComiskey (1998) says they refer to the eighth and third commandments (do not steal, do not blaspheme), and thus stand for all the Decalogue, the linguistic parallels seem to point rather to the eighth and ninth commandments (do not steal, do not lie). The sticking point is "by my name", which pushes one to the third, but the word "falsely" (שֶׁקֶר)  only occurs in the eighth commandment (and even then, only in Exodus). Incidentally, swear (שׁבע) does not occur at all in the Decalogue.

It makes more sense to me then that these are judgements not broadly against breaking all of the commandments, but against the ones which are mentioned. The question then is why these two?

If we think briefly about the punishment meted out, it is not the thieves or perjurers who are destroyed, but their houses. It will enter their houses, finish them off (in a bad way), both wood and stones.

My thought here is that there is a contrast to the house of Yhwh. The house of Yhwh remains unbuilt. Its rebuilding is not as big a theme as it is in the neighbouring book of Haggai (although see Zech 1:16), but tied up with the hope of the returning king is that he will rebuild the house of Yhwh (Zech 6:12vv). But those who steal and renege on oaths are getting rich at the expense of others, when they should rather be generously contributing to the house of Yhwh, so that the people of Yhwh may again worship him in his house—and stop focussing on building up their own (cf Hag 1:4).

It's also worth noting the verb in v4 in כלה, which most naturally means to bring to completion, but is used in the sense of destroying, "finish him" as the announcer said in Mortal Kombat. Because they have chosen to not aid the completion of the house of Yhwh through their own greed and also through depriving others, their houses will be completed in the other sense - of destruction

The Woman in a Basket

This reading of the judgement in the first half of Zechariah 5 helps make a bit more sense of the strange treatment of the woman in a basket, who, potentially as an idol (thus a goddess rather than an actual woman), instead of being destroyed, is returned to her rightful place in Shinar and, not just stood on her base (her stand?), but is built a house to dwell in.

But why is she not destroyed? This goes to the concept of filling up of judgement. It could be that I've been reading too much Revelation lately, but the concept of God giving people over to their sin, that their sins may reach a certain point before being judged (cf the promised land, the nations, the harlot) is in the background here. Rather than endorsing henotheism or the idea of a god for each locality, this is giving Babylon back her goddess, so that, rather than polluting the land of Israel, it may once again pollute the land of Babylon. In due course, as the sin comes up to Yhwh, Babylon will have their sin poured back upon them in wrath.

The Three Houses

We are left then with a contrast between three houses:

1. The house of the goddess, which is in Shinar, so that the sins of the Babylonians may continue and bring on their judgement,
2. The house(s) of the thief and the perjurer, which are to be fully destroyed, because of their greed and the sin which flows from that,
3. The house of Yhwh, which was fully destroyed, but is to be fully rebuilt, and will be a product of the pure (no idols) and holy (no sinners) people of Yhwh.

The Seven Acts of Revelation 12-15

I think I'm starting to get my head around Revelation 12-15. Especially if we think of it like the seven seals and trumpets beforehand, and seven bowls to follow.

These four sections break into two groups, 6-11; 12-16, where each overlap with each other, as follows:

6-11
seven seals begin at 6:1 until 8:5, but the
seven trumpets interject at 8:2, and then continue from 8:6 until 11:19.

12-16
seven acts begin at 12:1 until 15:5, but the
seven bowls interject at 15:1, and then continue from 15:5 until 16:20

Once you've got your head around the interjection, often called interlocking, then this section starts to make a bit more sense structurally. Add to that the very similar progression, from destruction, through judgement, to praise, and the four groups tell much the same story, just from different angles and with different emphases.


The mother, child, and other offspring in chapter 12 remains a little confusing. In the picture above I just wrote "the church", but I read a fascinating article by William Riley in the Proceedings of the Irish Biblical Association (18/1995) where he proposes the woman is Daughter Zion - or, as she's giving birth, Mother Zion. The twelve stars are thus the twelve tribes, and the child is Jesus - he is the king of the Jews after all. The other offspring (12:17) are all those who are the children of Israel and are attacked by the Roman state. This doesn't really change anything substantive, but it's a bit more nuanced than just "the church". Well worth checking out the article.

Cross dressing to get out of war - Deuteronomy 22:5

I've been marking this week, and the set passage includes a verse which people often laugh about because it's so weird. It's the (in)famous prohibition against cross-dressing, which is normally translated as follows:

A woman must not wear men’s clothing, nor a man wear women’s clothing, for the LORD your God detests anyone who does this. (NIV11)

It's a pretty straightforward verse, two parallel clauses followed by an explanation:

A     A woman must not wear men's clothing
A`    and a man must not wear women's clothing
B            for the LORD your God detests anyone who does this.

But when we dig into the Hebrew there are a couple of extra features which are obscured by the translation:

1. The word order in the first two clauses is (1) prohibition, (2) man, (3) woman. The only real difference is the placement of the word for clothing (which are different, see below), which in A comes between (1) and (2), and in A` comes between (2) and (3). 
2. The word for clothing is different. In A the word is כלי, which is elsewhere translated vessel/cup or weapon or article. In A` the word is an unremarkable word for clothing/garment.
3. The word for man, in contrast with the usual word for woman or wife, אשׁה ('ishsha), is not, as we might expect, אישׁ ('ish) or even the broader אדם ('adam), but גבר (gever), a word which often has militaristic connotations - "warrior" works well in lots of contexts.
4. The word for getting dressed is only there in A`, it's just the verb "to be" in A. 

All this suggests to me that perhaps it's not (just) a command against cross-dressing, although that wouldn't be massively out of place in the Pentateuch, especially when you consider other commands against gender confusion (note that in a few verses the command will be against unnaturally mixing seed, animals and fabric). But additionally, I think that there's a very real possibility that preparations for war are on the horizon, as they are about to cross over to take the promised land by force. Rather than a man's clothing, it could be the armour or weaponry of a (male) warrior. As such, the verse could reasonably translated to prohibit women from fighting in the place of men, and to warn men against escaping by cross-dressing:

A     The equipment of a man shall not be upon a woman,
A'     and a man shall not dress [in] garments of a woman
B            For an abomination [against] Yhwh your God [are] all these deeds.

Mulan, then, would be in trouble, and while Mrs Doubtfire might not be the explicit target, trying to get out of wartime duties by cross-dressing is an abomination to Yhwh.

Duane Christensen (WBC) notes that these chapters are focussed around "four central issues: warfare, marriage, social ethics, and humanitarian commands." (2002; p466) This verse then could be not so much about marriage as it is about warfare, shaping Israel to be a nation who are prepared to fight for the land to which Yhwh has brought them.

The Seven Sayings and the Stations of the Cross

I've been doing a bit of research (mainly using Wiki and the Bible!) on two things associated with Good Friday: the Stations of the Cross, and the Seven Words of Jesus. I'm fairly familiar with the Seven Words, or sayings of Jesus from the cross. They are (mostly) biblical, and come from the four Gospels: 3 Luke, 3 John, 1 Matthew//Mark. I say mainly because the first, "Father forgive them, for they don't understand what they're doing," (Lk 23:34) is not thought to be original to the Gospel, but a later addition.

The Seven Words are the seven statements or questions Jesus speaks from the cross, and between them they express different aspects of what being crucified meant for Jesus, and by extension, suggest for us how we are to respond to or understand the crucifixion. Here are the Seven Words, from the NIV:

Luke 23.34 “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.”
Luke 23.43 “Truly I tell you, today you will be  with me in paradise.”
John 19.26-27 “Woman, here is  your son,” “Here is your mother.”
Matt 27.46//Mark 15.34 “Eli, Eli [Mark has Eloi Eloi], lema sabachthani?”
John 19.28  “I am thirsty.”
John 19.30  “It is  finished.”
Luke 23.46  “Father, into your  hands I commit my spirit.”

The order is supposed to be chronological and tell a bit of a story as they look outwards, then upwards in despair, but then resolving to trust. They address or are about different figures: the guards, the rebel, John and Mary, and then, with the last four, God. With the first of the final four we have a bit of the Aramaic translation of Psalm 22. Instead of Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani, the Hebrew would have 'azavthani. The next two are just one word each: dipso and tetelestai.

The Stations of the Cross on the other hand do not have anywhere near the same pedigree. The story I heard was Constantine's mother Helena was dispatched to Jerusalem to find some material evidence supporting Christianity. She managed to find the cross - the other two of the rebels either side of Jesus were ruled out by not being able to heal a sick man, but when laid on the True Cross^TM, he was healed. I'm sure there's enough pieces of the True Cross^TM to build Noah's Ark. She also snaffled the Titulus (the sign above Jesus' head), which, according to a definitely true documentary I saw, is in a church somewhere in Italy. But the other thing she did was go for a walk on the via Delarosa and give a running commentary on what she imagined Jesus' journey to the cross to have been like. "I reckon Jesus fell over there," "That looks like the place Simon of Cyrene would have subbed in," and so on. It's totally made up, so it may be true, but that would be chance rather than due to research. 

The list was originally seven, was then expanded to double that size, and was then renewed by Pope John Paul II, and okayed by Pope Benedict XVI. Three of the original seven are biblical, leaving four fanciful ones. Of the additional seven only one is made up, and even then probably to take the tally to the magical 14. When the list was updated in the 20th Century, seven of the original were kept, and the whole list is biblical. 

Here is the old list of fourteen, with the bold ones the ancient seven, and the biblical ones in italics. Three of the non-biblical ones are Jesus tripping. so maybe Helena saw some trip hazards, or maybe she tripped over and before people could have a go at her she said "well if Jesus tripped over, you shouldn't laugh at me." I don't know. I also don't know who Veronica is. 

1. Jesus is condemned to death
2. Jesus carries His cross
3. Jesus falls for the first time
4. Jesus meets His mother, Mary
5. Simon of Cyrene helps Jesus carry the cross
6. Veronica wipes the face of Jesus
7. Jesus falls for the second time
8. Jesus meets the women of Jerusalem
9. Jesus falls for the third time
10. Jesus is stripped of His clothes
11. Jesus is nailed to the cross
12. Jesus dies on the cross
13. Jesus is taken down from the cross
14. Jesus is placed in the tomb

Thankfully JP II thought the list could do with a sprucing up, leaving us the following list. I've put the seven which he kept from the earlier fourteen in bold. As I said above, all fourteen are biblical.

1. Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane;
2. Jesus is betrayed by Judas and arrested;
3. Jesus is condemned by the Sanhedrin;4. Jesus is denied by Peter;
5. Jesus is judged by Pilate;
6. Jesus is scourged and crowned with thorns;
7. Jesus takes up his cross;
8. Jesus is helped by Simon of Cyrene to carry his cross;
9. Jesus meets the women of Jerusalem;
10. Jesus is crucified;  
11. Jesus promises his kingdom to the repentant thief;
12. Jesus entrusts Mary and John to each other;   
13. Jesus dies on the cross; and
14. Jesus is laid in the tomb.

Finally, it is interesting to note where the Seven Sayings and the Stations of the Cross coincide. At station 10 Jesus speaks his first word; at 11 the second, and the third at 12. The remaining four are all said while dying on the cross - station 13. 

What do we do with all this? It is worth reflecting that these two ritualised things - the sayings and the stations - are a mixture of all four Gospels, of history, theology and myth. They are all meaningful for billions around the world, as they help us understand and memorialise this most central event in Christian history, theology and ritual. I obviously think the stations of the cross (at least the ancient versions) are pretty funny in how they came about, but that is not to deny the significance of remembering Jesus' death in that way. Indeed, it is in our nature and speaks to our physicality, to remember things in this way, as Christians have done for the last 1990 years or so, and will continue to do until Jesus returns.

Translating Psalm 6

The structure of this psalm in terms of the relationship of the cola to each other is quite difficult to establish. Here's my attempt. The bold is just to help see the parallel elements, whether bold or not. 8b is the most confusing element, but after reflection, it could be reusing "my eye" from 8a, and linking its condition to the adversaries in 8b-9a.

Anyway, it's not pretty (I've tried to maintain the word order where possible), but it's powerful nonetheless. The solitary colon in 4b is extra stark when the parallelism between 3d and 4a is seen. 

One thing we didn't discuss was v11, which is an ABBA structure, around the inclusio of בושׁ (to be ashamed) in 11a,d. The verse reuses בהל (to be terrified) from 4a, as well as שׁוב (to return/turn back) from v5 (interesting that שׁוב and בושׁ are mirror images of each other!). v11 also provides the third synonym for adversaries, with "those hostile to me" (8b), "doers of iniquity" (9a), and "my enemies" (11). 

1 For the director, with strings, on the eight.

A David psalm.

2 Yhwh, do not, in your anger, rebuke me.

and do not, in your wrath, discipline me.

3 Be gracious to me, Yhwh,

for feeble am I.

Heal me, Yhwh,

for dismayed are my bones.

4 And my soul is terrified greatly,

and you—Yhwh—how long?

5 Return, Yhwh,

rescue my soul,

save me

because of your steadfast love.

6 For none among the dead remembers you,

in Sheol who praises you?

7 I am weary with my groans;

I flood all the night my bed,

with my tears my couch I soak.

8 Wasting away from grief is my eye,

[my eye] has shriveled, because of all those hostile to me.

9 Away from me—all doers of iniquity,

for Yhwh hears my weeping,

10 Yhwh hears my supplication,

Yhwh my prayer accepts.

11 They will be ashamed,

and they’ll be terrified greatly, all my enemies,

they will turn back

and be put to shame immediately.

How the churches in Revelation look backwards and forwards

The imagery in Revelation can often be confusing. There are probably three ways to help you not be so confused:

1. Read the Old Testament
2. Read contemporaneous apocryphal literature
3. Read Revelation

You may have noticed none of these are "read crazy people on the internet." That's on purpose. But the last one (read Revelation) is important because a lot of the language is self-referential. That is, by reading Revelation, Revelation makes more sense. Images that are in one place are often elsewhere also, and nowhere is that more true in understanding the language used in ch's 2-3, the letters to the seven churches.

You might notice the similarities to my earlier table; this is updated and looking at one question in particular: where is the imagery in the letters from? Specifically, I'm asking where the description of Jesus comes from in chapter 1, and where the promise to the victor comes from in the closing chapters of the book. 

I should clarify that there are other references also, to the Old Testament, probably also to elsewhere in the New Testament, and to other places in Revelation. But the key thing I'm interested in is how is the description of Jesus at the beginning of the book redeployed for each church in their letter, and how are the eschatological promises at the end of the book foreshadowed in the promises to the conquerors of the individual churches.

On a personal note, I'm enjoying our series so far. Week 6/20 and still enthusiastic! And due to COVID-19 issues, we're going to be facebook live streaming tomorrow for my talk on the letter to Sardis, so that's a thing too. 

Psalm 122 - an ode for Jerusalem

Psalm 122 - An ode to Jerusalem

Psalm 122 is the third in the songs of ascent, and the first which is also a psalm of David (v1). It tells the story of someone who, no sooner do they say "let's go to the house of Yhwh" (v1), than they are there (v2)! As it unfolds it seems like the psalm is essentially a song of praise to Jerusalem. This is the first of the songs of ascent which make it clear just where the ascent is toward. 120 described the current location, 121 had the singer lifting their eyes towards the mountains, but now in 122 we find out the place to which they are wanting to go, and the particular mountains of desire, are the mountains of Jerusalem. 

It is similarly interesting to note the use of Jerusalem and Zion through these psalms. Jerusalem occurs, for the first time in the collection, thrice in this psalm, and then again in 125 and 128; while Zion, a more common word in the collection (7 rather than 5), appears quite regularly from 125, once per psalm, until the end, missing only 127, 130 and 131. At this point then the focus is the city and the temple - the house of Yhwh (בית יהוה occurs in the first and last verses).

Structure

The psalm is in three parts, with 1-2 describing the journey, from "let's go!" to "here we are". 3-5 describes Jerusalem herself, the type of city she is, how she is the destination of all tribes of Israel, and the house of David which is fundamental to her identity. 6-9 returns to the characters of 1-2, with the prayers they make for her. 

1-2 the journey to Jerusalem
3-5 the beauty of the destination
6-9 the prayers for Jerusalem

There are a few things in favour of this structure. "Jerusalem" appears at the end of 1-2, and at the beginning of 3-5 and 6-9, giving each of the three stanzas something to say about her. Second, with any three-part structure, it gives rise to the possibility of chiastic ruminations. As an ABA structure, both A sections talk about the house of Yhwh (rather than a temple or tabernacle), while the B section talks about the house of David (rather than the sons of David).  

One issue with this three part structure is that the subject in v6 is 3p - "they", while in 7 there is no explicit subject - "may there be", and in v8-9 it is 1s - "I will say," "I will seek." Who then is the "they" of v6 who are asking for the peace of Jerusalem? One possibility is the "thrones" of v5, that is, the ones who sit on those thrones. They would then be not just thrones of judgement/justice, but also thrones of prayer, such that the justice they seek will result in the peace of Jerusalem. While I think this would merit further thought, at the moment I think it's probably best to say that the third section divides in two, with v6-7 more general, and v8-9 the psalmist's specific prayers (this is underlined by the identical syntax in v8 and v9).

Whatever the case, it is also true that the divisions are never impermeable. 1-2 introduces Jerusalem, which 3-5 describes. 3-5 talk about the people who are in Jerusalem, and 6-9 describes their prayers. 

The Journey (122:1-2)

This song for going up begins with a communal scene. there are those אמרים לי (who said to me) בית יהוה נלך (to the house of Yhwh let's go!). Perhaps we still have the people of Meshek and Qedar from 120 in our minds, who are encouraging each other with the joy ahead of the journey; hence, שמחתי (I rejoiced). The freedom granted the psalmist allows them to say "let's go" and then to immediately be there. In line with the idea of each psalm progressing us ever so slightly closer to the temple, with this psalm we are only at the gates: "Standing were our feet / in the gates of Jerusalem." There is a distance to go until we will see Aaron (Ps 133) and the Holy Place (Ps 134). 

The gates will have to do for now, but that is most fitting for our theme, because the gates are where decisions of justice are made. In Psalm 127:5 the NIV translates שׁער (gate) "court", to depict the place where the elders sit and make decisions for the community. Jerusalem is then not just the place where God makes his presence known, but it is also where his justice dwells and the source, from which it will cover the nations.

3-5 The Destination (122:3-5)

Jerusalem is described in fawning ways: she is built like a city / which is joined to herself together. This describes her as more than buildings and walls and people, but as a unit, a unity, of people and building and commerce and cult, built by and around and for Yhwh. 

We might imagine Jerusalem as a place where burnt offerings (עלה) go up (עלה), but this psalm rather emphasises the people who go up (עלה). It is not just individuals like the psalmist with his brother and friend (v8), but tribes. And again, not just any tribes, but שׁבטי־יה - tribes of Yah. They exist because of him, and that they might praise him. 

The phrase "statutes of Israel / to praise the name of Yhwh" is a little confusing, and has some interesting textual evidences. It could be an aside, with עדות לישראל in brackets, telling us that there was a commandment which meant all the tribes of Israel occasionally had to go up to Jerusalem. This could be talking about one of the festivals, even though that doesn't seem to be in the picture in the rest of the psalm. CSB does put it in brackets, while NIV rearranges the verse to have it as a conclusion, but they and most EVV reach essentially the same conclusion. One alternative is to follow the LXX and read עדת ישראל (congregation of Israel) instead, which is an interesting solution. We would then have a triple description of those going up: "the tribes / the tribes of Yah / the congregation of Israel / to praise the name of Yhwh." I really don't know how to decide upon a preferred text, except to say that it seems the EVV have gone with the lectio difficilior and left the clunky (but by no means impossible to understand) "statutes for Israel". 

Twice in v5 the thrones are mentioned. 5a is the verbal clause: "For there sat the thrones of justice;" 5b is in apposition: "the thrones of the house of David." The use of ישׁב (to sit/dwell) evokes not just the seats but also those who sit or sat in them. The purpose of these thrones is judgement/justice, or judgement which enables justice. The house of David have and will have this role eschatologically, which is also reflected in 132:12, the most davidic of all these psalms - the throne belongs to David, which is given to David's sons as a reward for their covenant faithfulness. As God's son (Ps 2:12), the Davidide is the one to whom Yhwh has entrusted his righteous judgement. 

6-9 The Prayers (122:6-9)

There have been a lot of שׁ (sh, š) sounds in this psalm so far (about 21 of that sound in 78 words), and the first four words of (five) in this verse have שׁ (sh, š): šaʾᵃlû šᵉlôm yᵉrûšālāim yı̂šlāyû ʾōhᵃḇāyı̂ḵ (for a similar pattern, see also the first half of v4: šeššom ʿālû šᵉḇāṭim šiḇṭē-yah). 6-7 describe the prayers, with 6a what they ask for, the peace of Jerusalem. And, as Zenger reminds us, Jerusalem (ירושׁלם) can be (mis-)understood as the city of peace (עיר־שׁלם), such that they ask for peace for the city of peace. 6c-7 fill out the content of that peace:

• 6b security for the ones who love you
• 7a peace within your ramparts
• 7b prosperity within your citadels

There is an increasing greatness in the objects: the ones who wish Jerusalem well, the walls of Jerusalem, the strong buildings within the city.  And there is more rhyming of š within those three wishes: שׁלה (security, 6b), שׁלום (peace, 7a), שׁלוה (prosperity, 7b). 

6-7 thus work together as a sub-unit, 8-9 are similarly linked with their identical syntax. 

For the sake of

my brothers and friends/the house of Yhwh our God

I will say/I will seek

peace [be] in you/goodness for you

As such, the final two verses also return us to the beginning of the psalm, as the identity of "the ones who said to me" (v1) is revealed as the family and friends of the psalmist. Together they journeyed and together they stood in the city's gates (v2). Similarly we have the second mention of the house of Yhwh (v1 and v9). Wishing for peace within her (8b) and seeking her good (9b) should be seen not just in the present but more importantly in perpetuity. If Jerusalem is to continue to host the house of Yhwh, the thrones of justice, the house of David, and is to continue to be the destination for pilgrims and tribes, for brothers and friends, then these are the appropriate wishes from the psalmist and all who have sung this song.

Praying and Singing

This psalm is both an ode to Jerusalem, but also an encouragement to raise our voices to sing and speak and pray. 

• v1a I rejoice
• v4b to praise
• v6a they ask/pray
• v7a may there be peace
• v8b I will say "peace in you". 

We don't know the history of how these psalms (120-134) became the songs, but in their present form they certainly constitute a collection which are to be for the praise of Yhwh, for his city, for his king. And as they cause the eyes of the singers to be lifted, they transform the experience, the past, the present and the future, for those who sing these songs. They are a reminder that there is a bigger picture beyond one's own struggles and history, which is Yhwh's victory and future.