The Structure of Revelation: Four Visions

May 24, 2013

Interpreters have offered varied “outlines” of Revelation as they attempt to understand how the drama of the Apocalypse unfolds. There are some significant areas of consensus (such as recognizing the cohesive nature of the  septets, particularly the seals, trumpets and bowls). Given the diversity of “outlines,” no single outline can claim certainty and certainly not my own.

Nevertheless, readers organize what they read as a way of making sense of the movement within the drama, seeking its coherence, and understanding its prophetic call. This is unavoidable. Sometimes the recognition of formal structures helps us to hear the message more clearly. There is value, then, in recognizing a structure and paying attention to how others have understood the structure.

In previous posts, we have noted how the book has begun with (1) an entitled superscription (1:1-3) and (2) an extended salutation (1:4-8). While these both set the tone for hearing the book and root us theologically, the body of the book begins with the first vision.

My own sense of the structure is based upon four-fold use of “in the Spirit” as it appears in the Apocalypse.  The “revelation” is something John “saw” while he was “in the Spirit.” This language identifies four distinct (but overlapping) visions similar to how Ezekiel’s vision of dry bones is introduced with the same language (Ezekiel 37:1).

“In the Spirit” appears in the following places in Revelation:

  • Revelation 1:10 — John sees the risen Christ on the isle of Patmos.
  • Revelation 4:2 — John watches events unfold from the heavenly throne room
  • Revelation 17:3 — John watches events unfold from an earthly wilderness
  • Revelation 21:10 — John inspects the New Jerusalem from a high mountain on the New Earth.

This visionary notation structures the Apocalypse into four visions (a fuller schematic outline is available here):

  1. Vision One - The Kingdom Begun: Jesus Has Overcome (Revelation 1:9-3:22)
  2. Vision Two — The Kingdom Comes: The Heavenly Perspective (Revelation 4-16)
  3. Vision Three – The Kingdom Comes: The Earthly Perspective (Revelation 17-21:8)
  4. Vision Four — The Kingdom Fully Realized in the New Jerusalem (Revelation 21:9-22:7)

In the first vision John, exiled on the isle of Patmos, encounters the risen Christ who gives him a message for the seven churches. John records the messages and sends them to the seven churches. The vision calls the church to repentance, commitment and faithful endurance.

In the second vision John is transported into the heavenly throne room of God. There he sees the one who sits on the throne and the Lamb who enters the throne room to open the sealed book in the right hand of God. The drama of the book unfolds through the opening of the seven seals, the sounding of the seven trumpets, and the pouring out of the seven bowls of wrath. The seventh bowl is the climax of the vision. John watches the whole series of events from the throne room of God; he has a front row seat in the heavenlies.

In the third vision John is placed in an earthly wilderness. No longer in the divine throne room, John is now on the earth. He sees (and identifies) the whore of Babylon, the complicity of the kings and merchants in her rape of the earth, rejoices over the destruction of earthly powers and the binding of Satan in anticipation of the final judgment. The climax of the immediate drama is the millennium preceded by the defeat of the enemies of God and followed by the Great Judgment.

In the fourth vision John is placed on a high mountain in the new heaven and new earth. From this lofty vantage point, John sees and is thus able to describe the New Jerusalem where God dwells with humanity.

We might think of these four visions as four acts in a play or four movements in a piece of music. They each contribute to the full effect of the work but they also have a certain independence, that is, they are to be read in a self-contained way. They each tell their own story that contributes to the whole.

However, we should not read them as autonomous. Rather, they are intimately integrated with each other.  For example, the first and fourth visions have many overlapping themes, shared language, and similar points. In the same way, the second and third visions are actually two perspectives on the same reality, that is, they overlap  or the second tells the same story from a different perspective.  The second vision views the drama “from above” while the third vision views it “from below.”

So, we might think of it this way:

  • Vision 1: Addresses the specific concerns of the seven churches and calls for their commitment to the kingdom of God in the hope of the New Heavens and New Earth.
  • Vision 2: God acts in justice against the kingdoms of the earth as the seven seals, trumpets and bowls of wrath are released.
  • Vision 3: The kingdoms of the earth are described in terms of their sins and destruction as the kingdom of God rejoices and reigns.
  • Vision 4: The new heaven and new earth are opened for those among the seven churches who have overcome and defeated the powers in their own lives and communities.

Visions 2 & 3 are not disconnected from 1 & 4. On the contrary, John’s address to the churches is assumed in 2 & 3 as the call for faithful witness and endurance are repeated. It is the seven churches of Asia that will endure the drama that is about to unfold. They hear the call in the first vision and embrace the hope of the fourth vision, but they must live through the drama of the second and third visions.

This does not mean that these visions have no significance or meaning for the contemporary church. Quite the contrary, the position that the seven churches of Asia occupy in relation to their culture is the same position the present church occupies in relation to her culture. The dangers, temptations, and powers are the same. The conflict between the kingdom of God and the kingdoms of the earth is ongoing and incessant until the fullness of the reign of God is realized upon the earth. The drama continues as it repeats itself in culture after culture, in epoch after epoch.

Whoever has ears to hear, let them hear what the Spirit says to the churches.

Leave a Comment » | Biblical Texts | Tagged: , , , | Permalink
Posted by John Mark Hicks

Revelation 1:4-8: Jesus is Coming

May 20, 2013

Titled as an “Apocalypse” and described as a “prophecy” in the superscription, the text begins like a letter. It has all the typical elements of standard letter openings from that era but it is also thoroughly Christian, even with a Triune salutation.

Author:   John
Audience:   Seven Churches of Asia
Salutation:   Grace and Peace from

    1.  the One
    2.  the Seven Spirits
    3.  Jesus the Messiah

Doxology:   Eternal Glory and Power to Jesus
Theme:   Jesus is coming
Declaration:   Thus says the Lord God, the All-Powerful

The audience knows the author. He simply introduces himself as “John” which means that he was well known in the Roman province of Asia. Early Christian tradition in the second century identifies him as the Apostle John, the beloved disciple (e.g., Irenaeus, Justin Martyr [according to Eusebius],  Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian).  That is impressive late second and early third century evidence and geographically diverse.  But other early Christians (e.g., Dionysius in the mid-third century and Eusebius in the 4th century) thought the language wasso different from the Gospel of John that it could not be the same person. Whatever the conclusion, it does not substantially affect how we read the Apocalypse. John–known in Asia Minor–is a fellow-sufferer, a leader of the Christian movement who has seen a vision, and has been given the Apocalypse of Jesus the Messiah.

The audience situates the context of the Apocalypse in the Roman province of Asia Minor. The seven churches are identified in chapters two and three, but these are not the only churches in the province (e.g., Colossae). Why these seven? Some suggest it because they were all connected by a circular road or perhaps they were particularly under fire in ways others were not. But it seems more consistent with the nature of an Apocalypse that seven churches were chosen because the number is symbolic (one of many septets in the book)–these seven churches represent the whole church in Asia Minor, perhaps the universal church itself. The Apocalypse, in effect, is addressed to the whole church though specifically contextualized by the life and experience of the churches in Asia Minor.

The salutation, unlike any other in the New Testament, is triune: Father,  Son and Spirit (cf. Bauckham, Theology of Revelation). Each is characterized in a plurality of ways.

  • “The one who is, who was and who is coming” (ESV). The Greek is not standard grammar (apo should be followed by a genitive rather than a nominative), but John does this in order to reproduce the Greek translation of the divine name in Exodus 3:14. In other words, John identifies the Father with Yahweh, the God of Israel. The threefold characterization underscores that Yahweh knows the beginning from the end (the Alpha and the Omega in 1:8), eternally God and eternally present.
  • The identity of the “seven spirits before His throne” is more disputed though I think the Triune context clarifies it. While some identify the spirits with the seven angels of the churches or the seven principal angels around the throne (as in some early Jewish literature) the context here–as part of the inner divine circle (cf. Revelation 4:5) and sandwhiched between Father and Son–points us to the Holy Spirit (cf. the language of Isaiah 11:2-3; Zechariah 4:2, 6. 10). “Seven” reminds us of the fullness of the divine presence in the person of the Spirit.
  • Jesus the Messiah is characterized in three ways. The total effect is to underscore the significance of his death (martyrdom), resurrection (firstborn from the death), and ascension (present reign). This is the firm ground upon which the drama is built–the identity of Jesus means that the kingdoms of the earth have no power over him, and ultimately over his followers. While Ceasar may claim power, it is the Messiah who truly exercises divine power.
    • “the faithful witness” — while “witness” (martus) certainly includes his death, it also points to the living witness of his faithful obedience to the Father. He was faithful even unto death (cf. 2:10).
    • “firstborn from the dead” — this does not necessarily mean he was the first one to be raised from the dead (though that is true in terms of new creation), but may also mean that among those raised from the dead he is the preeminent one. He is the “firstborn” in terms of inheritance, authority, and power as well as the first to emerge from the grave as a new creation.
    • “ruler of the kings of the earth” — probably an allusion to Psalm 89:27, Yahweh’s “firstborn” king rules over all other kings. This description is particularly apt as the conflict within the Apocalypse is between the reign of God and earthly powers (kings). Jesus is the true king, not Caesar.

The doxology is offered to Jesus which reflects an early worship of Jesus as a participant in the divine fellowship. Jesus is praised because he is the one who has acted redemptively on behalf of the people of God. He is the one who loved, freed (by his blood), and appointed us a kingdom of priests. The eternal (“forever and ever”) glory and dominion (power) belong to him. The focus of the doxology is Christocentric though the goal (telos) is the Father.  Jesus acts so that he might offer (or, we might become) a kingdom of priests to “His God and Father.” The ultimate goal is the Father but this is accomplished through Jesus the Messiah. The doxology draws attention to Jesus as a central figure in the drama of redemption.

The language of love, freedom (release from sin), and constituting a priestly kingdom stand in contrast to the kingdoms of the earth. While Caesar may claim a benevolent disposition toward his subjects, praise belongs to the one who has actually loved, freed, and created us. This is something Jesus did by “his blood” (that is, by his faithful witness). The church is a priestly kingdom just as was Israel (Exodus 19:6). The language assumes a continuity between Israel and the Church as the reign of God within the world.

Revelation 1:8 (the thus “says the Lord God” or declaration) functions as an inclusio as it repeats the identity of Yahweh (“who is, who was, and who is coming”). But it also serves to ground the reality and certainty of the “motto” or “theme” present in Revelation 1:7. Yahweh, the eternal God, is the beginning (Alpha) and the end (Omega). Yahweh is sovereign and will accomplish whatever is promised. God is Almighty (pantokrator); the Lord is all-powerful who rules all other powers. Revelation 1:7 is the promise guarenteed by God’s omnipotence.

The dramatic (and thus thematic) nature of the oracle is announced by the interjection–”Behold!” In other words, pay attention to this! Watch this! The presence of the interjection in the salutation underscores the significance of what follows for not only for this section but for the whole book. This is a thematic announcement soleminized by the word of the Lord God Almighty.

John constructs a poetic announcement built on Daniel 7:13 and Zechariah 12:10. Jesus is coming with glory (clouds) and the tribes of the earth will mourn. The motto is as simple as this: Jesus is coming. But that is also complicated. What does the text mean by “coming” and how is this played out in the rest of the Apocalypse?

When Jesus addresses the seven churches, twice he promises to come in judgment upon their sins–not in a distant eschatological future, but in the immediate present (Revelation 2:5, 16). The present coming of Jesus anticipates the future coming, but it appears that the “coming of Jesus” is, as Beale (Revelation, 197) argues, “a process occurring throughout history” that culminates in the final eschatological coming of Jesus. Each coming (or visitation) within history, however, is a proleptic experience of the final one (what Christians normally call the “second coming”). Each coming, then, as Fair notes in his commentary, is described in eschatological language as a prolepsis of what is to come.

The theme (motto) is focused on the coming of Jesus in judgment against the “tribes of the earth.” They will lament his appearance, and the “tribes” lament the judgment of God throughout the Apocalypse (cf. Revelation 11:9; 13:7; 14:6) though there are also “tribes” that rejoice in the victory of the Lamb (cf. Revelation 5:9; 7:9). This fits with the context of Zechariah 12 since it envisions a day when God will judge the nations and pour out grace on the righteous.

The motto, then, anticipates the final eschatological coming of Jesus, but also prepares us to hear the Apocalypse in its setting. When God comes in judgment–whether against the church or the “tribes of the earth” within history–it is a proleptic experience of the final coming of Jesus. The seven churches, then, will experience within their own history the mercy and judgment of God in the present as a manifestation of God’s ultimate goal–to cleanse the earth and redeem it. The nations of the earth, particularly imperial Rome within the situation of the seven churches, will also experience the mercy and judgment of God. Each of these, however, bear witness to the final victory of God in the promised eschatological return of Jesus.

Yahweh–who was, is, and is coming–is coming in the person of Jesus who is the resurrected, ascended, and enthroned Lord that rules the kings of the earth. God is continually coming, visiting, acting, judging, and redeeming. As Jesus executes his reign, he comes again and again. No one will escape his notice (eveyone will experience this continual presence of God) and he will judge all the tribes of the earth.

The one who loved us, freed us and made us a priestly kingdom is also the one who judges the earth. His people will praise him and the nations will lament “on account of him.”

Living in a hostile culture, threatened on every side, and tempted to accomodate the pressure through compromise and syncretism, the church may have felt abanonded. God’s response is the “Apocalypse of Jesus,” and the primary theme is:  Jesus is coming. This is no mere distant future promise to a struggling chruch in the late first century. Rather, it is the assurance that Jesus is and will continue to act on behalf of his people as he exercises the reign of God in the world and will ultimately set things right in the creation despoiled by evil.

“Jesus is coming” is a theodic statement–God is present within history and God will set things right. The church can trust this promise both now and for the future.

5 Comments | Biblical Texts, Theology | Tagged: , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by John Mark Hicks

Revelation 1:1-3 — The Apocalypse of Jesus the Messiah

May 17, 2013

The title, “Revelation of Jesus the Messiah,” is ambiguous, perhaps intentionally so. It may mean the revelation about Jesus, that is, the unveiling of the story at which Jesus stands at the center. Or, it may mean the revelation that belongs to Jesus, that is, the Father has given this story to Jesus for the purpose of disclosure. Perhaps, however, we overanalyze the grammar when it is likely that the point encompasses both: the story the Father gave Jesus to disclose to the churches is about the central role Jesus plays in the cosmic drama of redemption.

Something once hidden is now–in this drama–revealed. The book unveils what lies behind the scenes. We get to peek (more than peek!) behind the curtain. The drama discloses that the Messiah, by the will of the Father, is actively redeeming, claiming, and moving within the world even when the world appears Godforsaken.

The Messiah’s servants (slaves) are oppressed and marginalized. Some of them lament, others compromise. Some are martyred, others accommodate the culture for economic profit. While the martyrs bear witness, others drink the wine of Babylon’s adulteries.

John, however, is a faithful witness. He is the slave to whom the Messiah sent an angel to reveal what is to come. John has testified, as in a courtroom, to the “word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ.” He has endured a trial and faithfully testified to the truth. Exiled for his faith, he has participated in the witness (marturian; martyrdom) of Jesus Christ. He has suffered with the Messiah and he has joined the witness of Jesus to persevering obedience.

John has seen the Apocalypse, the drama; it was shown to him. And now, through writing it down, he shows it the servants or the churches of God and his Christ.

Revelation 1:1-3 functions as a superscription to the whole document. It was, it seems, tacked on to the front of the finished product to identify its  nature.  It is an Apocalypse; it unveils the drama of the Messiah’s reign to the oppressed and marginalized servants of God. It is like a movie played on a cosmic stage. Originally, John had a private viewing, but now–written–the movie is available to the whole church, starting with the seven churches of Asia Minor.

The story is not for private consumption. On contrary, the superscription assumes it will be read orally to a community of hearers. We might imagine a public reading of the drama in the assembly of Christians at Ephesus, or Smyrna, or any of the seven churches of Asia and beyond. The Apocalypse is intended to be heard, even performed by a virtuoso of oral interpretation (a lector).

The first of seven beatitudes in the book blesses the oral reader/interpreter as well as the hearers. Blessing, of course, is not a state of self-actualized happiness but the reception of divine grace that empowers us to bless others. The hearers are blessed as keepers–they do what they hear.

The Apocalypse intends transformation. The reading does not bless the status quo, but the obedient. The Revelator calls the hearers to action, to faithful obedience. This is no mere message of comfort and hope but a demanding call to discipleship, that is, to follow the Lamb.

The blessing, however, has a sense of urgency rather than complacency. This is no time to stand around, watch and wait. “The time is at hand.” The drama will happen “soon” (or, when it happens, it will happen “quickly”).

Exegetes and interpreters have haggled over the meaning of this “nearness” for centuries. Some think it means that everything in the Apocalypse will  happen within, say, a generation. Others, think it is simply about imminence as we are always standing on the precipe of the cliff ready to fall off (even though we have been “on edge” for almost 2000 years). Neither seems to entirely fit.

Clearly, as preterists are quick to point out, the drama of Apocalypse impinges on the  lives of the seven churches of the Roman province of Asia. Whatever is unveiled applies to them and this is why John (unlike Daniel, cf. Daniel 12:9) is forbidden to seal the Apocalypse as if its events are distant (Revelation 22:10). Something about this Apocalypse is about to happen right then in the experience of these seven churches. In other words, the drama is about to begin or has already begun. [Fair (Conquering with Christ) calls this proleptic eschatological language.]

That appears to be the major force of the double emphasis (“soon” and “near,” which also occurs in Revelation 22:8, 10, 12). The drama is no distant fairy-tale or meaningless hope in the present. The drama has begun; the curtain has opened. This functions not only to mark time in some sense but, more importantly, calls the church to action. They must hear and obey precisely because the drama has already begun. The church cannot sit on the bench but must enter the game and play out the story as it unfolds. The church is called to urgent action.

The Apocalypse is a “prophecy” not only in the sense of describing events future to the original hearers but in confronting those hearers with the demands of discipleship.While the prophets of Israel peeked behind the scenes and saw the future in some cases, their main function was to prosecute, rebuke, and confront the people of God. They called Israel to renewal and recommitment; they called them out of their injustices and idolatries (cf. Amos). And so does the Apocalypse.

The superscription reminds the oppressed and marginalized church that they don’t know everything (thus they need a “revelation”) while also offering them the hope that God will yet reveal something to them in the hearing of the “revelation of Jesus the Messiah.” But this hearing will demand something from them. Hearing the drama holds the promise of blessing but only for those who follow the Messiah in faithful obedience. The church must decide, and there is no time to wait. The drama has already begun!

3 Comments | Biblical Texts | Tagged: , , , | Permalink
Posted by John Mark Hicks

On Reading Revelation

May 16, 2013

Last Sunday I began an extended study of the Apocalypse of Jesus the Messiah with a studious, gracious, and interested group of Bible students at the Woodmont Hills Church of Christ in Nashville, Tennessee. It will be a long journey but, I’m convinced, a fruitful one. I will post along the way as I have other texts we have studied (e.g., Mark, Amos, Zechariah; these and others are available through the “Serial Index” menu).

In this initial post I will address three major questions that shape how one reads the last book of the Christian canon.

First, when reading Revelation, we are reading an “Apocalypse.” It is the first word in the Greek text and it identifies the genre of the document. We should read not this as a historical narrative (like Luke-Acts). It is neither history, poetry, or even letter, though it may contain aspects of it.  It is an Apocalypse which is an identifiable and popular genre of Jewish literature from 200 BCE to 200 CE. There are many examples of this genre outside of Scripture and even in some parts of Scripture (e.g., Daniel).

When we recognize that Revelation is apocalyptic literature then we are able to read it within its own literary conventions. Every genre of literature has such. Historical fiction, for example, creates certain expectations–it is not academic history but the story is set in an authentic historical situation. In the same way, readers of apocalyptic literature have certain expectations.

At the literary level, it uses symbols and drama to convey its message. These symbols are drawn from cultural (Jewish and Greco-Roman) and canonical images. If we do not understand the literary function of these images then we will make connections that are as distant from the intent of the text as reading a newspaper is from fiction. The symbols, contrary to some interpreters, are not intended to hide the message but actually convey the message. But one must understand the symbols to get the intended meaning.

At the level of its message, it assumes an apocalyptic worldview that shapes the drama of the text. The apocalyptic worldview assumes the transcendent sovereignty of God over the events of history, a dualist conflict between the kingdom of God and the kingdom of Satan in which the people of God experience oppression, and the ultimate triumph of the kingdom of God in the world. This triumph, however, is eschatological in character, that is, it is a vision of the triumph of the reign of God when the will of God is done on earth as it is heaven.

Recognizing the literary and mythic (meaning “worldview”) character of apocalyptic literature, the symbols and images portray the ultimate victory of the kingdom of God over the kingdom of Satan.

Second, when reading Revelation, we read from a particular vantage point.  We read it 1900 years after its publication, but the original recipients in Asia Minor (the seven churches of Asia) read it from within the own social location. I’m convinced that we cannot legitimately read the Apocalypse without first reading it with the original hearers and then through that reading see its significance for us in the present. We must read it, as my friend W. B. West used to say, with “first century glasses.”

But even when we do so contemporary readers have used various interpretative strategies to understand the contemporary message of the document. There are, in the most simple (even simplistic) terms, four major reading strategies or hermeneutical vantage points, and each of them has their own different flavors.

  1. Preterist Readings.  Radical preterists believe that everything in the Apocalypse has happened or was supposed to happen within the generation of the original hearers. Even the “new heavens and new earth” was either the new covenant of the Christian dispensation or a new political order rather than an eternal state yet to arrive. Moderate preterists believe that the major substance of the book pertains to the events, culture, and life circumstances of the original hearers though the ending of the book pertains to the eternal state described as a hope that all believers embrace.
  2. Continuous-Histoprical Readings. Once more common than it is now, this reading sees the whole history of the church dramatically played out in the Apocalypse from its beginning in the ascension of Jesus to the final act of history. These interpreters seek to correlate 1900 years of history with particular scenes in Revelation and often believe that their generation is the last or near the last (whether they lived in the Medieval, Reformation, or Modern eras).
  3. Futurist. This reading, taking its cue from 4:1-3, understands the major drama of the book as describing the “last days” of the present era with the result that much–if not all–of the book is still future to present readers, or perhaps that certain events within the drama are currently taking place and the end is near. Interpreters, then, seek to correlate present events with the drama of the book from 4:1-19:1 as they look for the second coming of Jesus which they believe is described in Revelation 19 (followed by the millennium in Revelation 20). Interpreters have done this no matter what era in which they lived with the varied results that the beast of Revelation has been the Ottoman Empire, the Pope, Henry VIII, Napoleon, the Kaiser, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Sadam Hussein, etc.
  4. Idealist. This reading locates the described drama within the context of its original recipients but recognizes a larger story playing in the background. While this Apocalypse reflects the cultural, religious and social dynamics of the struggles of early Christians within a Greco-Roman setting, this is but one slice of a larger dramatic pie. The described conflict has happened before (between Israel and Canaanite culture, for example) and will happen again (evil will always find cultural, political and social expression as it assaults the Kingdom of God). Generally, idealists do not see any specific predictions or futurist dramas in the text. Rather, the drama present in the text is symbolic of repeated assaults on the kingdom of God throughout human history in different social, political and cultural contexts.

Choosing between these various reading strategies is complicated but ultimately unavoidable. While the correct approach may not lie in only one but in some combination, one will tend to emerge as dominant. Readers will have to choose which perspective best suits the text and there will be occasion to consider the options as we walk through it.  Presently, I lean toward the Idealist strategy with a strong tint of moderate preterism.

Third, what is the major problem that gave rise to the Apocalypse itself? Why did the seven churches of Asia need a “revelation”?

The most popular and historic answer to that question is that the seven churches needed encouragement, comfort, and hope in the face of persecution. Clearly this is part of the story as the presence of martyrs in the text indicates, and this should not be underestimated. The church lived in a hostile culture if not always hostile empire (in terms of imperial persecutions). The church was commonly subject to economic boycotts as well as mob and official regional violence. The strains and stresses upon the believing community were tremendous. The Apocalypse certainly offers a hope that encourages them to persevere in faith.

But some contemporary interpreters have questioned whether this was the main problem. For example, in the seven letters to the churches martyrdom is not a prominent topic. Instead, the most consistent point is the failure of most of the churches to maintain a viable, faithful witness in the midst of a cultural pressure to compromise their faith. All the churches, save two, are rebuked.

It appears the more significant problem is how Christians were compromising their faith. They were struggling to live faithfully in a hostile culture. One can imagine–and in some parts of the world today it is a reality–how economic boycotts and threats of mob violence might move believers to accommodate their faith to their surroundings in order to remove or mitigate the hostility.

So perhaps the message of Revelation is not so much about comfort and hope in the face of persecution (though that message is there) but the call to radical discipleship that refuses to make peace with the surrounding culture for the sake of respectability and economic benefit. And the siren call of the latter is much more seductive than the stark reality of the former. Perhaps that is the more demanding message for Western Christians while the former is one faced daily by other Christians in various parts of the world.

Stone-Campbell Note:  in recent years we have been blessed with literature on Revelation from several authors, including Archer & Ridgell, Oster, Stevenson, and Fair (all of which I have read with profit).

5 Comments | Biblical Texts | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by John Mark Hicks

“Never Again Uprooted From the Land” (Amos 9:15)

May 15, 2013

The last verse of Amos promises Israel that once they are planted in the land they will never again be uprooted. The “never again” language is striking and parallels other promises such as the “new heaven and new earth” text in Isaiah 65 where “never again” (same Hebrew terms) will anyone weep or infants die. “Never again” is eschatological language which fulfills the Abrahamic promise that Israel would inherit the land as an “everlasting possession” (Genesis 17:8).

The problem is identifying when this will happen or has happened.  Here are a few options.

  • Some believe the Abrahamic land promise was fulfilled when Joshua conquered the land and Israel took possession. [But this cannot apply to Amos 9:15 since this is a further promise if not a continuation of the Abrahamic promise.]
  • Some believe the Abrahamic land promise as given Amos 9:15 was fulfilled when Judah returned from Babylonian exile. [But the prosperity envisioned in Amos 9:13-15 does not fit well with the postexilic situation. Further, Israel was not part of the restoration when Judah returned, and clearly the postexilic community was uprooted.]
  • Some believe that Amos 9:15 is a conditional prophecy, but since Israel never returned to God, so God never returned to them. [Conditional prophecy is part of the Hebrew prophetic tradition but there is no indication that this is assumed here. Rather, Amos 9:15 appears as an effect of the rebuilding of the "tent of David" and the inclusion of the Gentiles, and these are assumed fulfilled or in process by James in Acts 15:13-18.]
  • Some believe the Abrahamic land promise (such as Amos 9:15) was fulfilled when the Gentiles were included among the people of God. Consequently, the land promise is spiritualized as equivalent to the church or, at least, spiritualized as referring to the heavenly (celestial) land called “heaven.” [But in Acts 15 James did not quote this section of Amos and was only talking about the inclusion of the Gentiles. The land promise was not up for discussion. To spiritualize the text as referring to either church or heaven is to stand to far outside the Hebrew text and actually subvert the promise itself.]
  • Some believe the Abrahamic promise began to be fulfilled when the modern nation state of Israel was established in 1948. It can only be a beginning because the type of prosperity described in Amos 9:13-15 are yet future it would seem. [But it is unclear whether the modern state has any relation to biblical Israel other than a majority Jewish ethnicity. The modern state is certainly not the land of justice, peace and prosperity that is envisioned for a renewed Israel.]
  • Some believe that the Abrahamic promise will be fulfilled eschatologically, that is, Israel will inherit the land in the new heavens and new earth. [This is my own view.]

It seems to me that the Abrahamic promise is not limited to ethnic Israel but rather also includes the nations.  The inclusion of the nations among the people of God prepares the earth for its renewal. Whether ethnic Israel will inhabit Palestine as it appears in the new heavens and new earth (whatever that might look like) is possible (perhaps probable) but it is unnecessary to theorize about that in order to affirm the larger theological point.

In the article below, reproduced from a previous post, I offer my own perspective on the land promise and its eschatological fulfillment.

The Land as Our Inheritance

When God called Abraham, he promised blessings through which all the nations would be blessed (Genesis 12:2-3). Included in those blessings is the land promise (Genesis 12:6-7). The promised land is part of the Abrahamic promise.

This land promise is both overplayed as some identify the contemporary state of Israel with this land promise and undervalued as others see no fulfillment of this promise in Israel’s Messiah who is Abraham’s seed. The former think that the state of Israel is the fulfillment (or at least the beginning of the fulfillment) of God’s promise to Israel while the later believe the land promise no longer obtains after Israel was returned from Babylonian exile. I would like to propose an alternative as I don’t think either of the above options are viable.

Israel is described as the “people of [God’s} inheritance” (Deuteronomy 4:20; cf. 1 Kings 8:53) The land was part of Israel’s inheritance as the firstborn son of God among the nations (Exodus 32:13; Leviticus 20:24; Deuteronomy 4:21). One need only to skim the Torah, especially Deuteronomy, to recognize the central role the land plays as the inheritance Israel receives from Yahweh as God’s children.

Psalm 37 is a good example how the hope of inheriting the land, living in the land, and experiencing the goodness of God in the land is intergral to Israel’s joy in the Lord. Disturbed by the prosperity of the wicked, the Psalmist assures Israel that those who hope in and wait on the Lord will inherit the land. Six times the Psalmist promises–and Israel liturgically rehearses promise–that Israel will ultimately receive its promised inheritance. They will “inherit the land.” Jesus himself practically quotes Psalm 37:11 when he announces: “Blessed are the meek for they shall inherit the earth” (Matthew 5:5).

As part of the Abrahamic promise, the land is not conditioned by the Mosaic covenant. This means that the intent of God to fulfill his promise to Abraham is not conditioned by Torah-obedience. Whether the nation of Israel at any particular time or individuals within Israel at any particular time possess the land is conditioned on Torah-obedience, but the ultimate fulfillment that Israel would inherit the land is unqualified. It is as unconditonal as the promise of the Messiah is.

On the analogy of Paul’s argument in Galatians 3, the promise was before the law and is therefore not ultimately conditioned by the law. Israel will inherit the land as God promised Abraham. It is a divine promise and God keeps his promises. More explicitly, Paul notes that “it was not through the law that Abraham and his offspring received the promise” (Romans 4:13).

This is a significant point–a critical juncture. The Abrahamic promise belongs to the children of Israel. The land is part of the Abrahamic promise. The children of Israel will possess the land; it is their inheritance.

But who is Israel? Who are the children of Abraham? Paul is, I think, clear. Since the “promise comes by faith,” it is “guarenteed to all Abraham’s offspring–not only to those who are of the law” (e.g., Torah-obeying ethnic Israel) “but also to those who have the faith of Abraham” (e.g., including the nations). In this sense Abraham is the “father of many nations;” he is the “father of us all” (Romans 4:16-17). The Gentiles (nations) have been grafted into Israel through faith (Romans 11:17). Those who belong to Messiah–those in Christ–are the children of Abraham and thus heirs of the promise (Galatians 3:29).

But does this include the land? Yes, indeed. As Paul phrases it, Abraham was the “heir of the world” (kosmos)….not just the land of Palestine (Romans 4:13). The inheritance of the children of Abraham is the world–the whole cosmos.

This is not a land we possess by violence or by purchase. Rather, we receive it by faith in the Messiah and on the ground of the faithfulness of the Messiah. The “faith(fulness) of Jesus” secures the inheritance for Israel and we participate in it through faith (Galatians 3:22). The Messiah is the heir of the all things and we are co-heirs with the Messiah through faith (Romans 8:17).

The creation is the inheritance of the people of God. We yet await, according to Romans 8:18-25, the full adoption into the family of God when we our bodies are redeemed (resurrection) and the creation is liberated (new heaven and new earth of Revelation 21:1-4). That is our inheritance. John reminds of the whole Abrahamic trajectory (Genesis 17:8) with this language himself in Revelation: “Those who are victorious will inherit all this, and I will be their God and they will be my children” (22:7).

The Abrahamic promise was first given to ethnic Israel but, by faith and because of the Messiah, it includes the nations as well. Perhaps on the new heaven and new earth the redeemed of ethnic Israel will dwell in Palestine–in the land between the rivers of Egypt and Babylon–but the whole earth will belong to the people of God as they again reign on the earth with God. The kingdom of God will fill the earth!

I think this accounts for Paul’s language about inheritance. He writes about inheriting “the kingdom of God” (1 Corinthians 6:9-10; Galatians 5:21; Ephesians 5:5; cf. James 2:5). He praises God for the gifting us with the Spirit as a downpayment of our inheritance which will arrive when God has fully redeemed his possession (people; Ephesians 1:14–that phraseology is loaded with Hebraic expression and thought). Through faith, Paul writes, we are “qualified to share in the inheritance of the saints in the kingdom of light” (Colossians 1:12).

The fullness of the kingdom of God, which is yet future, is our inheritance. It is the ultimate fulfillment of the Abrahamic promise through which God will make Israel a great nation, a great name and bless all the nations. That promise includes the land–the whole cosmos, and it belongs to all those who place their hope in Yahweh’s Messiah.

Consequently, the new heaven and new earth as the renewed (new) creation is integral to the plot line of the story of God from Abraham to the eschaton. The earth is the inheritance of God’s people and one day the reign of God will fill it from the east to the west, from the north to the south. The whole earth, unlike its present condition, will be “Holy to the Lord.”

May your kingdom come, may your will be done, on earth as it is heaven!

2 Comments | Biblical Texts, Theology | Tagged: , , , , | Permalink
Posted by John Mark Hicks

« Previous Entries
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 942 other followers

%d bloggers like this: