Joshua 7, Achan and Eve

A few things stand out in Joshua 7, which tells of the failed fight against Ai and the sin of Achan.

1. One is the use of עבר, the verb for crossing over, passing over. It has that base meaning everywhere else in Joshua (50 odd times), but there are three cases, two of which are in Joshua 7, where it is used for sin; crossing over the covenant of Yhwh. Achan, in his sin, crosses over the covenant with Yhwh, rejecting God's way and choosing his own.

2. The second thing which stands out are three intertextual links. 

2a. One is Achan's actions are described in 7:15 as stupid - נבלה (nebalah)- which makes us remember the actions of the eponymous fool, Nabal - נבל - of 1 Samuel 25 infamy. There are of course other stupid (נבלה) acts in the Bible, prime among them being the instance with the Levite and his concubine in Judges 19-20. The stupidity in these cases (cf also Gen 34:7) is not just the action itself, but also the consequence. One also wonders whether the homophone of נבלה (albeit with different vowels) - carcass (eg Lev 5:2 et passim) - also plays into this. The stupid act (נבלה) means that this stupid man (נבל) will become a carcass (נבלה).

2b. The second link is the "babylonian garment", which I wonder whether is a retrojection from the babylonian exile, or prefigures it in some way. It could also be looking back to the Tower of Babel story in Genesis 11, which is described as being built in the plain of Shinar - the same word used here translated "babylonian". The confusion that ensued there is seen in the one who has become confused about the great promises which would and could and should be his - if only he didn't choose folly and the beauty of Shinar and thus exclude himself from the promise.

2c.The third link is back to Genesis 3:6, where the woman saw that the fruit was good (טוב) and desirable (חמד), she took it (לקח) and sinned. So too for Achan (7:21): he saw the robe was good (טוב), he desired it (חמד), took it (לקח) and sinned. This brings us back to Ricoeur's statement that each of us both continue but also begin, Achan beginning it all over again with the borrowed vocabulary from Genesis 3.

3. The final thing is the way that Achan's death is on behalf of the whole community. Just as his sin poisons his whole family, meaning they and all their belongings are stoned and/or burned, so too does his death work for the cleansing of all Israel. We might compare Achan to the true Israelite, who did not covet, did not grasp, who was the embodiment of wisdom - though he was called foolish. And where Achan died for his sin - wrapping his family up in the horrid consequences - his death meant that all Israel was spared. Jesus of course did not die for his sin, but for the sin of all who trust in him, but in dying he died in our place, delivering us into the promise through his body. 

Book Review: Matthias Henze, Mind the Gap

Matthias Henze, Mind the Gap: How the Jewish Writings Between the Old and New Testament Help Us Understand Jesus, Fortress Press, Minneapolis, 2017. 235pp. $60.

---

Matthias Henze (Rice University) has written this very accessible introduction to Second Temple literature in order to help readers of the New Testament be mindful of the gap between the Old and New Testaments. It is very much an introduction, as there is not a single footnote (or endnote), although there is appendix listing suggestions for further reading. As such, then, this book cannot be the only thing one reads on the topic, but the approach is a useful primer.

As is appropriate for the readership, it is not a long book, and is divided unequally into two halves. The first is a brief but broad introduction to the Old Testament and the literature which was familiar to ancient readers, in particular the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Septuagint, 1 Enoch and 2 Baruch/4 Ezra (this last one was the subject of scholarly work he co-authored). The reason for introducing us to these is clear: Jesus "is concerned about messianic expectations, he expels demons, he expounds the Torah in conversation with the Pharisees, he preaches about the end of time, he looks forward to the resurrection of the dead, and he discusses life after death with the Sadducees." (p34) These topics are familiar to us from the Gospels, but there is scant to no cognisance of these in the Old Testament. To understand where these topics—familiar to the Jews of Jesus' time—have come from, the Old Testament will be of limited value. 

Rather than the "four hundred years of silence", as it is often declared in churches, the three or so centuries before the writing of the New Testament was a fertile time, where scriptural interpretation took place and new literary genres were created, such as "the Tales of the Diaspora (Daniel 1-6; Esther) and the apocalypse (Daniel 7-12; 1 Enoch; 2 Baruch; 4 Ezra)." (p50) This viewpoint is an important one, well known in academia, but almost never discussed in churches. Rather, in part due to the Greek and Protestant ordering of Bibles, the Old Testament is shown as finishing with the last words of Malachi, followed by centuries of silence, and then Jesus arriving right on cue. Henze attributes this false view not just to the ordering of Bibles, but also to the prejudiced term Spätjudentum (late Judaism). In his estimation, this term implies that Judaism was on its last legs, and, had Jesus not arrived, would have died out. In contrast, Henze's purpose is to show the "vibrancy and show its unique significance in the history of Judaism." (50) 

The far larger second half of the book (at three times the length) hones in on four topics which are central in the Gospels but seem to come out of nowhere from a reading only of the Old Testament. They are messianism, demons, the law and eschatology. In each chapter the topic as encountered in the Gospels is sketched, what Old Testament background there is is described, but also its insufficiency for understanding the Gospels; thirdly the appropriate second temple literature is detailed, and finally he describes the fuller picture arrived at after this survey.

The first chapter of the second half is entitled "Jesus, the Messiah of Israel," where Henze works through Psalm 2, Isaiah 11 and Daniel 7. His argument is that there is no actual expectation of a future messiah in these passages; it is only the Second Temple literature which repurposed these passages to express the hope in a future messiah. His argument is a subtle one, and perhaps not the best chapter to begin this second half of the book with. His point is that while these passages could be speaking of a future messiah, they weren't explicitly thought of doing so until this later period. To this he adds Psalm 146 and Isaiah 61 to show that, in the first instance, the blessings are not associated with a messiah at all, and in the second, that the servant is no longer understood generally or in a preterist way, but in a future messianic way. This then explains how Jesus quoting Isaiah in the synagogue in Luke 4 completed the expectations of the crowd, rather than introducing a completely new understanding of Isaiah's servant. For me, this is an exegetical hypothesis about what it might for the crowds to be "amazed" (Lk 4:22) rather than an open-and-shut case. Yes, there was a heightened expectation of a future messiah in this period, but the amazement of the crowd could just as easily be due to the interpretation as to his self-identifying, but this is a case Henze needs to argue, not just state. 

He then moves on to discuss the phrase "Son of God" and the "Son of the Most High," and this was a much more productive discussion. The expectations we are aware of from Qumran and the expectations from Luke 1:26-35, both use the same vocabulary and explain where the language comes from, which we would otherwise be ignorant of from just the Old Testament. He explains that "there is nothing arbitrary about Luke's choice of words and that his characterisation of Jesus is carefully chosen to answer the Jewish messianic expectations of his time." (81)

The second chapter, "In a World of Demons and Unclean Spirits," has a difficult task: explaining the origin of demons, and their corollary, exorcism. His first point is that the unclean spirits we meet in the New Testament have no background in the Old Testament. There are evil spirits and lying spirits, but they seem to be doing something very different and rather than being against God, are sent by God. Henze then proceeds to lead us through Genesis 6:1-4 (MT), then Genesis 6:1-4 (LXX), then the Book of the Watchers (1 Enoch) and the book of Jubilees, in order to explain the state of affairs we encounter in the New Testament. With another Qumran text (4Q510 I, 1-9) he shows us their hope that God will scatter them, and also gives us language used in Ephesians 5:8 and 1 Thessalonians 5:5 to describe oneself as "the sons of light" in contradistinction to the evil spirits who cause havoc in the world. I found this chapter much more convincing and genuinely useful for understanding the origin of the world-view that caused people to come to Jesus for cleansing. It is easy to dismiss the link between Judaism and the world of evil spirits, but this chapter explains that there is indeed a link, albeit via several texts, which, together, make clear how it all fits together.

The third chapter of the second half moves on the vexed topic of the place of the law, with the question, "Did Jesus Abolish the Law of Moses?" His target here is antinomianism and the mischaracterisation of the Pharisees, so he understandably wants to establish what understanding of the law was actually held during the New Testament era. In essence Henze wants to demonstrate the development of "Torah as law" to "Torah as wisdom." I was expecting a little more from this chapter, but he had more or less proved his argument from Psalm 1 and 119, which made the other material more or less redundant. There was one Qumran scroll, 4QBeatitudes, which, when coupled with Sirach, showed how the concept of Torah as wisdom was fairly well understood at that time. In summary, the logic is that for Josiah Torah was a legal code, for Ezra Torah was divine teaching, for Ben Sira Torah was wisdom, and for Paul that wisdom was Jesus. So far, so good. 

But at this point Henze seemed to get a little distracted. Although we know the golden rule from Leviticus (19:18), for some reason Henze seemed to think we needed proof that the golden rule was not a new thing, and therefore quotes Rabbi Hillel's non-malfeasance (do no harm) to show that Jesus fitted squarely within Judaism. This was unnecessary - even a misstep - but the reason became clearer when moving on to Paul and Romans 9-11. Again, this chapter is supposed to be about showing how the New Testament treatment of the Law fits within its context as elucidated from this gap-filling literature of which he is an expert. But instead, His argument descends into a comical exposition of universalism - not because there is no argument to be made - people are welcome to do so - but because this is a non-academic book, which does not interact with scholarship, and is supposed to be about something else. In the end, this chapter ends up being an apology for a two-paths model of salvation, Torah as wisdom for the Jew, and Torah as Jesus for the Gentile. This is all the more surprising as he even quotes the sectarian Damascus Document and refers to 4QMMT, both of which he explains as pushing the argument that they alone understand the law correctly and represent God's chosen people. To then argue for a two-paths salvation model seems incredibly anachronistic. He returns to this point in the epilogue, again quoting Romans 11, advocating people get involved in interfaith movements. It was an odd note to end the book on, and on reading one cannot help the feeling that this says more about him as a German living in America who is trying to come to grips with the Holocaust (which he mentions on the first and the third-last pages) and anti-Semitism, than it does about the documents he is purportedly trying to educate his reader about.

The final thematic chapter examines perhaps the most important missing link between the Old and New Testaments, "The Resurrection of the Dead and Life in the Company of Angels." Henze traces the thread which is seen in Isaiah and Ezekiel, speaking of national "resurrection", and places Daniel in a Second Temple context which is willing to speak more confidently of the resurrection of individuals. The views reflected in the words of Herod (John, whom I beheaded, has been raised, Mark 6:16) and Martha (I know that he will rise again in the resurrection on the last day, John 11:24) are placed in a context which includes Daniel from within the Bible, 2 Maccabees from the Apocrypha. The Psalms of Solomon show a hope for some form of life and judgement after death, while 1 Enoch 51 and 4 Ezra (late 1st century AD texts) link the resurrection for the righteous with the coming of "my Chosen One," who will appear after the resurrection to rule and judge. While those texts would make good conversation partners for Revelation and 1 Thessalonians, the next text, 2 Baruch, is selected to engage with 1 Corinthians 15, as the continuity between bodies now and resurrected bodies is discussed in these texts composed perhaps within 20 years of each other. Snippets of Qumran texts are mentioned to show a diversity of opinions which existed and discussions which were occurring about the realities of resurrection and who might expect to be resurrected and what the resurrected life would look like. 

This chapter probably offered the deepest dive into texts many are unfamiliar with. Although there are numerous hints in the Old Testament that resurrection is within God's power, these texts show how the belief moved from possibility to expectation. I did however feel there were a few missteps in this chapter. 1 Enoch 104 (p159) did not seem to be saying what Henze said it said, which was resurrection hope, although it seemed to be more a welcome into heaven. And when discussing Herod and Lazarus, he said, "Neither of these two passages ... is about Jesus," (p150), which is a remarkable statement. Perhaps one could argue that for the Herod/John the Baptist incident, although Mark's intent was more than just updating political goings-on. But the application of this comment to John 11 is simply wrong - it is all about Jesus, who deliberately delays coming (Henze thinks it took four days to hear and travel, p149) in order to reveal the glory of God (John 11:4). Henze's approach seems a little reductionistic, as if John 11 is there to illustrate first century AD Jewish views about resurrection. All that being said, this chapter was a gateway into this topic, and would be a great starting point for finding those Second Temple texts which illuminate the development of the understanding of resurrection. 

In the epilogue Henze answers three controversial statements he commonly has to defend, namely, that Jesus was not a Christian (he was a Jew), that these texts were important and familiar to the writers of the New Testament (who mostly quoted the Old Testament), and that the Bible is part of a literary world which helps us understand the New Testament. The discussion around these questions is the most rhetorically powerful part of this book, although presumably also the most practised. He makes a point that the unearthing of the ancient Near East was a powerful time for Old Testament studies, and has reshaped the way we understand and evaluate much of the Old Testament. It is thus important that we let these texts do the same for the study of the New Testament; that we bring the Dead Sea Scrolls and Apocrypha and other texts into conversation with the texts which comprise the New Testament.

For the price-point of this book ($60AUD at time of this review, for 200 pages plus a suggested reading list, glossary and two indices), one would expect a more serious work. Yet there are no footnotes, no interaction with differing opinions, and discussions of a topic are limited to two or three texts. This book reads as a series of introductory lectures but is priced at a point which implies a more rigorous book, which will disappoint readers (such as myself) who hoped for a little more value for money. If it were not the middle of a pandemic at time of writing, I would recommend students borrow it from the library, but for those interested in something more rigorous they will have to look elsewhere. Nonetheless it was mostly enjoyable to read, so it functions well as an introduction to the topic, but beyond that it will leave people wanting something a little more meaty. Perhaps George Athas's forthcoming Bridging the Testaments will be more helpful in this regard.

Two small notes: 

1. Typographical errors: the word "of" is missing on p143, the word "had" is duplicated on p175, and there is an "s" missing from the "Index of Ancient Text [sic]" (p229).
2. The lack of footnotes, endnotes, or bibliography, is paralleled with the absence of appropriate citations. Although translations of the Dead Sea Scrolls are cited in text (with a name only, but no date or publication), nowhere is the biblical translation appropriately cited (normally this would be noted in the front matter with appropriate copyright information). At one point, at one of the quotations of Sirach, the NRSV translation is mentioned, which appears to be the translation used throughout, but that was the exception rather than the rule.

The acrostic pair: Psalms 111-112

I'm on the home stretch now with my daily psalm blast,* but was fascinated by this diptych, two short alphabetic acrostic poems which play off each other in fascinating ways. There are a few other acrostic psalms, 9-10 (when read as one psalm); 25; 34; 37; 119; 145, and outside the psalter there are also the poem of the noble wife in Proverbs 31 and the first four chapters of Lamentations.

There are three reasons you might write an acrostic psalm:

1. you ran out of ideas (which kid hasn't written an acrostic and passed it off as an actual poem)
2. you want people to remember it (I almost memorised Prov 31 and found the acrostics helpful)
3. you want to get across the totality of something - the whole picture. In Lamentations it's the completeness of the destruction - an a-z of suffering.

Moving past the first two options, what is the whole story being told in these two psalms? Put simply, Psalm 111 tells the whole story of God's goodness and faithfulness, while Psalm 112 tells the whole story of the person who has learned from and lives out God's goodness and faithfulness.

Hallelujah!

There are multiple allusions and more specific links between the two, beginning with the heading, Hallelujah! or, Praise Yah! Of course, this is not unique to these two, and seems to be part of a Hallelujah collection, which goes from 111 perhaps until 118, because they all have Hallelujah at the beginning, or sometimes the end, depending on the psalm and which manuscript you're looking at. The Septuagint seems to read it in different spots, and if you look at the Leningrad Codex, you can see that it has its own line, so it's up to the copyist/translator/interpreter to assign it to the one above or below. 

I should also add that 113-118 are called the Hallel Psalms, or the Egyptian Hallel psalms, and are associated with the Passover meal. Why they begin at 113 and not 111 is a question I don't know the answer to and am not really that interested in, except to say that it does seem a little odd to not include these two, especially considering the exodus allusions in Ps 111.

Yhwh and the Man

After the heading we are introduced to the characters which will be the focus of each psalm. Unsurprisingly Ps 111 has Yhwh as the focus: "I will extol Yhwh with all my heart." Ps 112 however begins in a way which immediately brings us back to the opening words of Ps 2: "Blessed is the one who fears Yhwh." The first two words, as with Ps 2, are literally "blessed person," to which English translations necessarily add the verb and the article, "Blessed is the person," (אשׁרי־איש, ashrei 'ish). This person is then further defined as one who fears Yhwh, which gives definition to and explains the course of their whole life. "Yhwh" occurs 4x in Ps 111 (111:1,2,4,10); but only 2x in 112 (112:1,7); nonetheless the location of this psalm alongside, and the parallels with the description of Yhwh in the preceding psalm, make it clear that this person has learned how to live from their Lord.

Parallelomania
What then are these parallels? We can describe these in a few categories:
1. Exact parallels

• 1a (א) has Yhwh as the object; in 111 of praise, in 112 of fear.
• 3b (ה) we find the exact same clause, וְצִדְקָתוֹ עֹמֶדֶת לָעַד, "and his righteousness endures forever."
• 4b (ח) begins with the same phrase, חַנּוּן וְרַחוּם, "gracious and compassionate," in 111 describing Yhwh, in 112 adding "and righteous", although I almost misread it as "are the righteous." Interestingly many versions add "is Yhwh," which seems to be either copying across from 111 and/or trying to avoid associating such terms with a mere mortal. 

2. Related but not exact

• The word חפץ (to delight) occurs in 112:1b (the verb) and 111:2b (an adjective as a substantive), in both cases describing the people who delight in Yhwh. 
• Another word, ישׁר (to be upright) also occurs in two forms; in 112:4a acting as a subjunctive (the upright ones) and in 111:8a to describe the character of Yhwh (enacted in uprightness).
• Everlasting/eternity occurs a few times in the middle of the psalms (111:5a; 112:6a, 6b), but the closest parallel actually occurs in both 9b's, albeit with different lexemes (עולם elsewhere in these two psalms except for עד in 111:10c; 112:9b). The similarities between the psalms at 9b is telling: the God who ordains his covenant forever (111) is lived out in the person whose righteousness endures forever (112).
• A similar parallel is found in the words covenant words: covenant, justice/judgement, precepts, which, apart from in 111:9b and 111:10b, also occurs in both 5b's: the God who remembers his covenant forever (111) is reflected in the person who conducts their affairs with justice (112). 
• זכר (to remember) occurs thrice (111:4a, 5b; 112:6b), with the parallel being that just as Yhwh - his wonders and his covenant - will be remembered forever (in 111), so too will be the memory of the righteous (112).
• Perhaps a final comment on rough parallels is the verb ירא (to fear), which comes in 111:5, 9; 112:1, 7, 8. The final two (112:7a, 8a) are both negated, showing that the one fears Yhwh (111:5, 9; 112:1) has nothing to fear from this world (112:7, 8).

3. The endings

The final verse of the psalms (the verse 10s), each containing the final three letters of the alphabets, act as a conclusion. Ps 111 reuses the familiar proverb, that the fear of Yhwh is the beginning of wisdom, and concludes with "to him belongs eternal praise." 

In one sense then, Ps 112 could slot in between the second-last and last verses of Ps 111. Ps 112 describes the person who fears Yhwh, who follows his precepts, and whose life is a reflection of the character of Yhwh, living out what they've learned. Their life is then an example of returning to Yhwh eternal praise (111:10c). 

The conclusion of Ps 112 is different, in that it describes the opposite group to the upright. Nothing is said about them, what they believe, where they are from, nor what they have done to others. The other point to mention is that those who fear Yhwh in the book of Proverbs are so often contrasted with the wicked, those who reject the teaching of Yhwh, and whose way is frustrated by the righteous. In this way the final verse of each psalm describes people in the traditional proverbial black and white way: one either trusts in Yhwh and follows in his paths, reflecting his glory, OR one rejects him, and what they long for will come to naught.

* My hope was 150 days of a psalm a day would take us to the end of Covid, but it looks like I may have to move on to some other books before that hope is realised!

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.