John Mark Hicks

[My book Meeting God at the Shack, from which some of the following is derived, is now available on Kindle.]

May 21-22 are significant anniversaries for me; I’ve learned to forgive God.  They are the death of my son Joshua and the anniversary of my first marriage to Sheila.

“To forgive God” is a difficult expression and it must be carefully nuanced.  When Rabbi Kushner adopted J.B.’s position from Archibald MacLeish’s modern retelling of the Job drama, he suggested that humans need to forgive God in order to move on with their lives.  Humans need “to forgive God for not making a better world.” After all, in Kushner’s worldview, God is ontologically limited–he can’t do anything about evil in the world or heal diseases. To forgive God, then, is to recognize his limitations and not expect more from him than he can deliver.

This is not, however, what I mean by “forgiving God.” It is not to forgive God’s limitations or his unrighteous acts. The transcendent God does not have limitations and he is holy without any darkness.  Forgiveness, in the sense of showing mercy toward an imperfection, is not applicable to God. So, what does it mean to “forgive God”?

Fundamentally, it means letting go of the need to judge God. It means letting go of “getting back” at God, of brooding over the seeming unfairness of it all. That kind of resentment and bitterness not only stalls spiritual growth, it can kill it. Instead of holding a grudge against God, we let it go.

This is has been my experience; my anger with God has led to self-pity and resentment. I have, at times, felt “picked on” by God. I have railed against God with the angry but despairing cry, “This is just too much.” I understand that anger and I cannot simply pretend like it is not there (though I have tried that as well, stuffing it down into my soul). But anger is not the problem–anger should be vented, expressed, prayed. At the same time, it is the deep mistrust that sometimes accompanies anger which turns it into resentment.

When we blame God, we tend to resent God, and are sometimes willing to simply give up on God. This often arises out of a basic distrust of God’s goodness and purposes. When trust re-enters, we can let go of the blame-game, let go of the resentment. This is a form of “forgiving” God.  Trust conquers fear; faith triumphs over resentment; and love does not blame.

Perhaps we might pray:

“God, I don’t understand why this great sadness is part of my life.  I don’t know why you allowed it.  It seems so meaningless and hurtful to me. Every fiber of my being wants to protest and even rebel.  But I know you are good.  I know you love me.  I trust you.  I forgive you and let go of my resentment. Open your heart to me that I might enjoy the circle of your love and feel your fondness for me. Increase my trust and root out my resentment. Though I do not understand or know the way, I will walk by faith and trust that you will lead me in your way.”

“Who is a God like you, who pardons sin and forgives transgression…” Micah 7:18

“forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you…” Ephesians 4:32b

I have two good friends who have invested time, money and effort in making some valuable texts and tools available to researchers and those who are interested in reading original texts of significant Stone-Campbell works.

Barry Jones has made available the following texts for PDF searching. You can find them here.

• Bible Banner
• Christian Baptist
• Millennial Harbinger
• Gospel Guardian
• Lard’s Quarterly
• Millennial Harbinger

I have used his PDF files in recent weeks.  I have found them extremely helpful and could quickly find material that otherwise would have taken me weeks to discover through reading hard copies or microfilm.  The state of the scanning is quite good and searchable though with the usual problems of searching these kinds of files.  Nevertheless I have found the PDF files  invaluable.

Bob Lewis is another longtime friend who has been publishing Stone-Campbell original texts through the Web or on Kindle for several years now.  His Stone-Campbell e-Print Library provides Kindle access for several significant works (such as Ketcherside, Leroy Garrett, Richardson’s Memoirs of Alexander Campbell and W. T. Moore’s Comprehensive History of the Disciples of Christ).

Bod has links to significant journals and works on his Stone-Campbell.org website (including Stone’s Christian Messenger).

I recommend supporting and patronizing both of Dr. Jones and Dr. Lewis. They are providing a wonderful service for researchers and those who love reading in Stone-Campbell history and theology.

Blessings on both their efforts!

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!

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 not read 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 their 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-Historical 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).

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!

The above title is the first line in the refrain of Andrew Peterson’s “Come Back Soon.” On Sunday my old and dear friend Dean Barham, in his morning sermon at Woodmont Hills, alerted me to Peterson’s music and particularly this line. It has stuck with me for a few days now.

Yesterday I read Keith Brenton’s funeral eulogy for his wife. He has decided with faith and courage to grieve with hope. I grieved with my friend, prayed for his family, and protested her death.

April 30 to May 22 has become a season of lament for me. April 30th is the anniversary of my first wife’s death (Sheila), May 10 is my deceased father’s birthday, May 21 is the anniversary of the death of my son (Joshua), and May 22 is the anniversary of my first marriage. In the last five years my emotions during this time have been particularly evident to me as I have attempted to face my grief.

But I recognize that my lament is only a small part of the larger dimensions of sorrow within the world. The Psalms evidence this range of lament–lament for evil and injustice and lament over our own sins as well as lament over disease and death. It is not only the lament of an individual but the lament of communities, ethnicities, nations, and, indeed, the whole world.

We all “awake in the night.” At some point we all lose our innocence, and we realize the world is often a dark, lonely, and broken place. “Every death,” Peterson sings, “is a question mark.”

“We awake in the night,” and the refrain continues,

We beat our fists on the door
We cannot breathe in this sea that swirls
So we groan in this great darkness
For deliverance
Deliverance, O Lord.

Peterson’s language evokes Biblical images of chaos (sea and darkness) against which humanity protests (fists). “We awake in the night” when we lose our innocence and experience creation’s chaos.

Existentially, I had my awakening on April 30, 1980. I’ve had several since then as well–some due to tragedy, some due to my own sin and brokenness. But the groan remains the same….”we groan in the darkness” and we cry “for deliverance.” “So,” Peterson sings, “we kick in the womb and we beg to be born.”

We beg to be born. It is “in the womb of the world” where we awake, where we beg, where we groan. We cry for this broken creation to give birth to a new one.

The last song, “Don’t You Want to Thank Someone For This,” on the CD (“Light for the Lost Boy”) brings this yearning to a climax.

There is lament. “Can’t you feel it in your bones, something isn’t right here.”

But there is also joy. The sun comes up every morning, Spring follows Winter, and “beauty abounds.”

There is awakening. Though it is in the night, it is in the womb. Though we cry “How long?” we also pray “Come back soon.” And “when the world is new again,” then the children of the King will sing on, and their mourning will be turned to dancing.

“Hallelujah, Hallelujah.
Come back soon!”

In 1889, James A. Harding conducted an eight week meeting in Nashville, Tennessee.  A total of 123 would be immersed over the eight weeks. Here is the Daily American‘s account of the meeting (August 9, 1889).

Successful Revival

Rev. James A. Harding Pleading for Christ.

The Tent Meeting in Edgefield and Its Progress

Eighty-Seven Conversions and the Interest Continually Increasing–A Gold Harvest

The tent meeting of the North Edgefield Christian Church is now closing its seventh week. Interest in the revival has been constantly growing. All the neighborhood is thoroughly aroused, and large crowds come from other parts of the city,especially from the South Nashville and Woodland street churches.

The tent contains 500 chairs, but the audiences far exceed its capacity. There were 800 last Sunday night. Other denominations are taking part with enthusiasm. There have been 87 accessions to the church, eight professing the faith on Wednesday night.

It is a Grand Harvest

for the Christian Church. At all times wisely conservative, they have nevertheless braved public comment to carry the true gospel into this hitherto uncultivated field. As a result a substantial and handsome brick building has been erected on the same lot with the tent. A mission has been established there for several years, but this is its first meeting of any importance. Rev. J. C. McQuiddy is in charge.

The audience last night was composed of ladies for the most part. Rev. R. Lin Cave and Elders Corbin and Hall were in the pulpit. The minister’s text was Paul’s definition of faith. He treated it in a dispassionate, analytical manner, striving evidently to clearly expound the Apostle’s meaning. He was listened to with the most interested attention. There was one conversion.

Rev. James A. Harding

of Winchester, Ky., has been laboring in this city for some time. The morning meetings, with which the revival was begun, have been discontinued so that he could supervise the publication of his recent controversy with Rev. Mr. Moody in South Nashville. His health is declining under the severe strain, but he intends to continue so long as there is the lest interest manifested. He has covered very nearly the whole ground of Christian faith and duty.

His Preaching

is eminently thorough, plan and practical. His winning points are his earnestness and his perseverance. He is superior to most revivalists in the fact that he is never discouraged. The titles of some of his best sermons are as follows: The True Vine and the Branches, Will Christ Come Again? If So, When and How?, Heaven, The Eunuch’s  Conversion, The Conversion of Saul, and the Christian’s Armor. The common verdict is that his success is most wonderful.

JMH Comment Begins

The sermons on the Second Coming and Heaven are interesting in that his views on both of those points are rather unusual for contemporary Churches of Christ.  His view of the second coming was premillennial and his view of heaven was a renewed earth.  I only wish we had the transcripts of some of those sermons.

The North Edgefield congregation began meeting in 1887 under the preaching of Elder T. J. Stevenson, M.D. as a mission of the Woodland Street church.  J. C. McQuiddy began preaching at the church in 1889–a graduate of Mars Hill  Academy in Florence and office editor of the Gospel Advocate.  The building was dedicated in December 1889 and housed a congregation of about 200 (115 of whom were baptized in this meeting). — This data comes from an article in the Daily American (January 26, 1890).

The debate with J.B. Moody, held in the Central Baptist Church where up to 2000 attended, began on May 27, 1889 and extended for sixteen days.

The previous post explored the meaning of the only fundamentally positive text in Amos–its ending, Amos 9:11-15. The text of Amos envisions a future time when Yahweh would rebuild the “tent of David” with the result that Israel would “possess the remnant of Edom and all the nations who are called” by Yahweh’s “name.” This would involve permanently replanting Israel in the land God gave them and blessing them with prosperity.

At least four significant questions emerge from Amos 9:11-15. First, what is the “tent of David”? Second, what is the meaning of “possess” (militaristic or inheritance) in relation to the nations? Third, what is the meaning of the land promise? Fourth, when did or will this happen?

One might imagine that this was fulfilled when Judah returned from exile. But Amos seems to include Israel in this promise (rather than just Judah), and the post-exilic community never experienced the prosperity or the security that Amos envisioned. This is one reason Second Temple Judaism sometimes thought of themselves as still in exile.

In Acts 15:13-18 elder James applies Amos 9:11-12 to the situation of the early Christian community. Is his application a fulfillment? Does Amos 9:11-15 find its terminus in the reality of the Christian movement in Jerusalem? This is where I want to focus this post.

If one compares Acts 15:16-18 with Amos 9:11-12 several significant differences are apparent (highlighted in italics).

While there are several differences between the Hebrew text of Amos and James’s citation (which is primarily from the Septuagint), the most significant is found in Acts 15:17.  Whereas Amos announces that “they may possess the remnant of Edom,” the LXX reads “the remnant of humanity may seek the Lord.” Whereas one understanding of Amos is that Israel will possess the land of Edom, James announces that the remnant of humanity will seek the Lord. While Amos may intend the possession of the land of Palestine (including Edom and other nations contiguous with it), James connects the text with the inclusion of the Gentiles in the Christian community.

What happened? How does one move from the Hebrew text of Amos 9 to this Christian text in Acts 15? This is an instructive question as it illuminates the hermeneutical method of the early church as well as early Judaism (see W. Edward Glenny, BBR [2012] 1-26).

At one level, it is possible that James is not simply thinking about Amos though this is the substance of his quotation. James endorses Peter’s testimony about Cornelius as God’s gracious “visitation” upon the Gentiles so as to include them among the people of God. The “words of the prophets,” James says, “agree” with this (Acts 15:15). The quotation is not an exact reproduction of the LXX as we know it (neither is it an exact translation of the Hebrew in Amos 9:11-12). Rather, James–as Luke records it–may conflate several prophets in order to focus his point.

Glenny suggests that Acts 15:16-18 evidences the influence of other prophet texts, including:

• “After this” is from Hosea 3:5 with a reference to Israel’s return to Yahweh and the Davidic king
• “I will return” is from Zechariah 8:3 or Jeremiah 12:15 in which context the nations will learn the ways of God.
• “will seek” may reflect Zechariah 8:22-23 where nations seek Yahweh in Jerusalem
• Zechariah 2:14-17 lies in the background with the emphasis on the “nations” who become the people of God.
• “makes these things” may come from Isaiah 45:21 which also alludes to the inclusion of the nations.

These connections reveal that Luke’s summary of James’s speech reflects a wide-ranging interpretation of the prophets regarding the nations–using word connections that was part of Jewish hermeneutics of the time (called gezerah shavah).  The point (and the quotation) is not solely dependent upon Amos 9. James argues that the Scriptures–the prophets–agree with the witness of Paul, Barnabas, and Peter.

Theologically, experience itself or alone is insufficient for the early Christian community. Rather, James argues that the prophets agree with said experience and thus confirms the truth of the experience. Scripture must “agree” with the experience of the church if she is to pursue God’s mission instead of our own imagination.

At another level, the LXX version of Amos 9  reflected in the text of Acts 15  is rather different from standard English translations of Amos. How does the LXX get “remnant of humanity” from “remnant of Edom” as well as changing “possess” to “seek”? In both cases it may be a simple revocalization of the Hebrew text, that is, supplying different vowels to the Hebrew consonants. Edom is close to Adam, for example. Further, Edom may function as a metaphor for hostile nations that are now included among the people of God. “Possess” has the similar consonants as “seek.” The Greek translators, for whatever reason (perhaps a different Hebrew reading or a deliberate hermeneutical strategy like what is evidenced at Qumran; cf. Richard Bauckham, “Jews and Gentiles [Acts 15:13-21]” in History, Literature and Society in the Book of Acts), substitute “seek” for “possess.” Whatever the case the LXX makes clear that some Jewish readers of Amos understood the text to mean the inclusion of the Gentiles rather than a “possession” (militaristic) of the nations. Even the original reading of “possess” may have included a sense of inclusion as evidenced that the nations would be called by the name of Yahweh. Either way, James’s point stands: the inclusion of the Gentiles is something with which “the prophets agree”.

How, then, does James (within the context of Luke-Acts) understand the “tent of David”? He appears to understand it as already restored and rebuilt in the context of the inclusion of the Gentiles. So, what is the “tent of David”?

Many interpreters link it to the Davidic kingdom or dynasty, specifically in the exalted reign of the resurrected Lord Jesus. Whatever the “tent of David” is, it is effected before the inclusion of the Gentiles. God rebuilds the “tent” with the result or for the purpose of including the nations. In other words, God renews the Davidic dynasty in the reign of Jesus the Messiah who inaugurates the Gentile mission in order to include them among the people of God (Israel). The prominence of “David” in the sermons in Acts is an important clue (cf. Acts 2:24-36; 13:22-23, 34-35) to this meaning. In those “sermons” Peter and then Paul directly connect the promise of David with the resurrection and exaltation of Jesus as the promised Davidic king.

But does this do justice to the “tent of David”? Elsewhere in Acts, the term “tent” refers to worship sanctuaries such as the temple or tabernacle (cf. Acts 7:43, 44, 46). The term is consistently used of the tabernacle in the LXX.  Does James use this language in order to recall the temple or sanctuary? Perhaps we might best understand this, with G. K. Beale  (The Temple and the Church’s Mission), as the resurrected Messiah has erected a new temple (sanctuary). In some ways this may be identified with the church, but in other ways it may anticipate the eschatological temple of God which is the heavenly temple that descends as the new Jerusalem upon the new heaven and new earth.

In one sense, James identifies Amos 9 with the inclusion of the Gentiles and thus the reality of the rebuilt “tent of David.” A new temple has been built and/or the Davidic dynasty has been restored. So, is this the fulfillment of Amos 9:11-15? Or, does Amos 9:11-12 simply “agree ” (in harmony with) with the development or progress of redemption? Does Amos 9:11-15 find its terminus in  the establishment of the church (Jew & Gentile) through the reign of exalted Lord? And what of the land promise?

I think we will need yet another post to address those last questions.

Up to this point the text of Amos has announced judgment. The “day of the Lord,” which Israel thought would bring redemption (Amos 5:18), is a divine visitation that will bring disaster (evil) to Israel (Amos 3:14; 5:20; 8:9). Amos 9:11-15, however, announces a startling reversal.

The contrast is pronounced. Whereas “in that day” of judgment Israel’s youth will “faint for thirst” as the nation experiences mourning (Amos 8:13; cf. 8:10), “in that day” of the rebuilding of the “tent of David” the ruins will be repaired (Amos 9:11). “Behold, the days are coming” declares God, but the days entail very different scenarios. Whereas some “days are coming” in which Israel will hear no word from the Lord (Amos 8:11), the “days are coming” in which the fortunes of Israel will be fully restored (Amos 9:13-14). The text parallels the language (“that day” as well as “days are coming”) but contrasts the results.

Despair, at the end of Amos, has turned to hope. Bad news (disastrous curses) has become good news (blessings). What happened? Why this movement here at the end of the book of Amos?

Some suggest that this is an exilic or post-exilic addition to the message of Amos. The reference to David suggests that Judah’s exile and the destruction of Jerusalem lies in the background. Others suggest that Amos has previously given us some indications of hope. For example, there is remnant language in Amos 9:9 as well as the promise that God would not totally destroy “the house of Jacob” (Amos 9:8). Whatever the case may be, the canonical text of Amos ends with hope (and that text dates at least prior to the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible several hundred years before Christ).

Hope changes everything. It means that God is not finished with Israel and that God will remember his covenant promises to Abraham despite their sins. And hope is inclusive. The text of Amos is quoted by the James in Acts 15 in defense of the inclusion of the Gentiles with the new faith community called the “church.” Both texts, Amos 9:11-15 and Acts 15:15-18, demand attention. I will address Amos 9:11-15 in this post and address Acts 15:15-18 in the next.

In broad strokes, the hoped announced is clear. At some point in the unspecified future Yahweh will rebuild the “tent of David” so that they might “possess” the land given them and prosper in it. it is a promise of restoration where the “tent of David” is rebuilt, the land replanted, and prosperity abounds.

Amos 9:13-15 is a clear portrayal of the restored fortunes of Israel. They will settle in their land again and plant their crops. They will “rebuild the ruined cities and inhabit them.” This is the land that Yahweh gave to them and they will never be “uprooted” from it again. Their prosperity is overwhelming. As soon as they begin to reap their crops, the sower (plowman) will begin his work again. Though the harvest and sowing are separated by months, it will appear that they will overlap–both in terms of grain and grapes. The image that the mountains will “drip sweet wine” and the hills will “all flow with it” provides a luxurious metaphor. The prosperity of this restored Israel will far exceed the luxury and prosperity that Israel knew under Jeroboam II.

The more difficult text is Amos 9:11-12. Several questions arise, including how the text is applied in Acts 15 (which I shall leave for my next post). Two primary questions emerge from the text itself: (1) the meaning of the “tent of David” and (2) what it means to “possess the remnant of Edom and all the nations” called by the name of Yahweh.

The relation between the two questions is clear. The “tent of David” is restored so that or with the result that Israel will “possess the remnant of Edom…” One leads to the other or we might say that one is done for the purpose of the other. Whether purpose or result it is at least an intended result as it is Yahweh who will do it (much like the determination of God in Isaiah 9:6).

But what is the “tent of David”? The introduction of “David” brings Judah into view rather than the northern kingdom alone. The text of Amos has not totally ignored Judah. Indeed, Judah’s own destruction is envisioned in Amos 2:4-5. Yet, the introduction of David (for the first time!) is unanticipated. The “tent of David” raises the interpretative horizon beyond the immediacy of the northern kingdom and points us toward a future for the whole of the nation (as under the past Davidic kingdom).

Most identify the “tent of David” with the Davidic dynasty or the “house” of David. In other words, it refers to the Davidic kingdom, reign, or throne, perhaps even the Davidic empire that subjugated the “nations” mentioned in Amos 1-2. This has merit, but the term “tent,” or “booth,” or “hut” does not really suit this interpretation. Nowhere else is the Davidic dynasty referred to as a “tent,” though it is often called a “house” (1 Samuel 7:11, 13, 15, 27). Further, “tent” has broader ramifications here. It involves walls breached, ruins, and something to “rebuild.” It seems to refer to a city or at least something surrounded by walls.

Another alternative, which seems more likely to me, is that the “tent of David” refers to the temple, its walls, and the city in which it resided, that is, Jerusalem (cf. Dunne, WThJ [2011] 363-367]. The Hebrew term often refers to the “booths” that worshippers would build during the Feast of Tabernacles (Booths). Sometimes the term refers to Yahweh’s heavenly dwelling (cf. “canopy” in Psalms 18:11; 31:20) as well as the “canopy” that will cover Mt. Zion (Isaiah 4:5-6) . Jerusalem itself is identified as “booth” in Isaiah 1:8. Here David’s “booth” (worship dwelling) functions “as a synecdoche for all of Jerusalem” (Dunne, 367) which is the dwelling place of God. This, of course, would not exclude dynastic overtones or even a broader inclusion of the Davidic kingdom. But the focus is on the rebuilding the temple and the city of Jerusalem as a center of worship among the rebuilt cities of the land.

God’s rebuilding project will result in Israel’s possession of the “remnant of Edom” and “all the nations” called by Yahweh’s name. But what does that mean? Up to this point in Amos, both Edom and all the nations are hostile to Israel (cf. Amos 1). Assyria is on the verge of enslaving Israel. Edom, as Israel’s ancient archenemy, symbolizes the nations themselves. The future, however, will reverse this picture. Israel will “possess” the nations.

The critical question is the meaning of “possession.” Some think it Amos envisions a military conquest. Israel’s restoration will include the reconquest of the land promised them through Abraham. This land will include the territories of the nations noted in Amos 1-2 and thereby restore the Davidic and Solomonic proportions of Israel’s empire. To “possess” the land, therefore, is to seize control over it.

But there is another option.The possessed nations are those who are called by Yahweh’s name. “Possession” is closely link to the Hebrew term for “inheritance” or “heir.” The language may point to the reality that nations will also share in the inheritance of the land and thus fulfill the promise to Abraham since he is the “heir of the cosmos” (Romans 4:13).

To be called by the name of Yahweh is equivalent to covenant relationship (cf. Deuteronomy 28:10; Jeremiah 15:16; 25:29; 2 Chronicles 6:33; 1 Chronicles 13:16), and there is only one example of its militaristic use (2 Samuel 12:28 where it is Joab’s name rather than Yahweh’s at issue). Rather than conquering the nations of Amos 1-2 the promise envisions their inclusion in the Abrahamic land promise as well as worshipping Yahweh at the temple in Jerusalem. This is what we see in other prophetic literature (Isaiah 25:6; 56:6-8; 66:23; Zechariah 14:16-19 among many others).

Amos 9:11-15 offers hope not only to Israel but to the nations. The restoration of the “tent of David” will result in the inclusion of the nations. They too will be called by the name of Yahweh. When those days arrive the whole earth will be filled with the glory of the Lord and the meek will inherit the earth (land). The Abrahamic land promise will be fulfilled when the whole earth becomes the Lord’s both in fact as well as by right. Both Israel and the nations will enjoy the land, the blessings of the covenant, and the presence of Yahweh as the “tent of David” is restored.

But what is this “tent of David”? Does it refer to a literal temple rebuilt in the land of Palestine as some expect? Or does it refer to an eschatological temple in the new creation, the new Jerusalem?  I’ll save that one for the next post.

The fifth and last vision the Lord gives to Amos (Amos 9:1-4) is, like the previous two visions, followed by an extended comment on its significance (Amos 9:5-10). This last one envisions the total annihilation of an idolatrous sanctuary in the northern kingdom of Israel, perhaps at Bethel (3:14; 4:4; 5:5-6; 7:10, 13). Amos prophesied in the region of Bethel, was opposed by the priest of Bethel, and Bethel was Amos’s primary idolatrous target.

The basic message of the vision is that “not one of them shall escape” (9:1).  This was probably occasioned by how Israel responded to the preaching of Amos. Some were saying, “Disaster will not overtake us” (9:10). The prosperous proud nation did not believe that judgment was coming or that their nation and sanctuaries would tumble. This accounts for the emphasis in this section of Amos (chapters 7:1-9:10). The dire warnings were aimed at an unbelieving and stubborn nation puffed up in the pride of their prosperity.

Amos sees the Lord standing by the Bethel altar and announcing its destruction. With the sanctuary demolished as the capitals of the columns fall upon the worshippers’ heads and everyone who is left is killed by the sword, there is no escape. Without the sanctuary there is no god to whom the people could appeal. Without protection they are slaughtered. Indeed, the image reminds us of Samson who destroy the temple of the Philistines by pushing over its load-bearing columns. What  Samson did to the Philistines, God will do to Israel.

Israel may think it can escape and the vision imagines potential escape routes.

• to Sheol (grave)
• to heaven (sky)
• to the top of Carmel (mountain)
• at the bottom of the sea (depths of sea)
• and…in captivity… (Assyria)

In every place God finds them and executes punishment. Twice Amos uses the term “take” (9:2, 3). Previously Amos had used this term to describe Israel’s leaders “taking” taxes and “taking bribes” (Amos 5:11) as well as their boast that they “took” Karnaim (Amos 6:13). Now, God will take them. If they dig to Sheol (deep into the grave), God will grab them or if they hide on the top of Carmel (the beautiful peak within Israel proper), God will grab them. Even if they ascend to the sky or descend into the sea, God will find them. The imagery of the sea–a place of fear and chaos where the serpent frolics–is terrifying. To escape into Sheol or hide in the sea signals their desperation. In the sea, the serpent (sea monster) will devour them even as earlier in Amos this metaphor reminded Israel that even when they feel safe danger looms (Amos 5:19).

Captivity, however, is where many will go. But this is no escape from God’s judgment either. It is, indeed, part of divine judgment, but it is no place of safety. Rather, death awaits Israel there as well. For Israel exile–a new Egyptian (Assyrian) bondage–will result in death.

But the ominous line in this vision is the last. It is, in fact, a kind of summary of God’s present disposition towards Israel:  “I will fix my eyes upon them for evil and not for good.” It seems a rather astounding statement that God intends “evil” (ra’ah) instead of good for Israel.

The term “evil” has a wide range of meaning. It may refer to what some call “moral evil,” but it may refer only to disaster (cf. Amos 3:6) or calamity, even “natural evil.”  It is what happened to Job (Job 2:11; 42:11). The “evil” intended here is the disaster that will shortly overwhelm Israel is Assyrian captivity. It is the “disaster” (evil; same word in Amos 9:10) they hope to avoid, but they will not.  God has determined to bring disaster or calamity (evil) upon the nation; to curse them rather than bless them (as per the Deuteronomic promises of blessing [good] and curses [evil] in Deuteronomy 27-28).

Amos follows this stunning statement with an affirmation of divine sovereignty. Is it appropriate for God to intend “evil” rather than “good” for the covenant people?  Can God justify himself? Amos’s response is fundamentally that Yahweh rules the cosmos (Amos 9:5-7). Yahweh is God.

Amos draws a picture of God as one who controls the chaotic features of the cosmos. Earth dwellers may mourn in response to the chaos that surrounds them, but it is God who “touches the earth,” “builds…and founds,” and “calls..and pours.” God is an active agent within the chaos.

The chaotic results of these divine acts are evident from the language.  The Lord earth melts (and the people mourn). The earth rises and falls like the Nile of Egypt which is probably a metaphor for earthquakes. Yahweh calls the waters present in the upper chambers in the heavens and the waters in the vaults of the earth; God commands them. “Waters” are chaotic in Hebrew theology, but Yahweh controls them. The Lord will pour them out upon the earth. Chaos will devour Israel at the Lord’s command.

This is flood imagery that echoes the great Noahic flood itself. Just as God flooded the earth from the windows of heaven and from the vaults of the deep in order to cleanse its evil in Genesis 6, so God will pour out the waters upon Israel in order bring “evil” (disaster) upon them.

But are we not your people? One can almost hear the response of the people as they listen to Amos. In one  sense Yahweh is the Lord of all nations.  Just as God brought Israel out of Egypt, so God also brought the Philistines from Caphtor (Crete) and the Syrians from Kir (Mesopotamia). The Ethiopians (Cushites) are important to God. Yahweh also cared for all nations, not just Israel. Yet at this moment Yahweh is focused on Israel because of their sin…but he will not totally destroy them. Israel will yet have a remnant. Amos leaves room for hope.

The hope, however, does not avert judgment and the execution of justice. God will shake Israel like a sieve–the grain (the remnant) will fall through but nary a pebble. Sinners will not escape judgment but there will be a remnant. This is the hope of Israel, but even the remnant will experience the “evil” (disaster) that will overwhelm the nation. The innocent will suffer alongside the sinful.

As Deuteronomy 4:26-31 outlines, God promised that he would not hesitate to remove Israel from the land if their sins multiplied like the Canaanites before them. At the same time, the covenant promise  remains–God will faithfully act to receive them again.  “For the Lord your God is a merciful God; he will not abandon or destroy you or forget the covenant with your forefathers, which he confirmed to them by oath” (Deuteronomy 4:31).

What does God do with a “sinful kingdom”? God is active among the nations. Just as Israel came from Egypt, so the Philistines came from Crete. God’s hand was present in the movement of the nations. The covenant relationship Israel had with God heightens their responsibility, but all nations are accountable to Yahweh. God even yet judges sinful kingdoms (evident from the Apocalypse).

Israel was judged for its economic injustice and idolatry. The nations should pay heed. God’s relationship with Israel was a witness to God’s intent for the creation. The nations, including the United States, should listen, learn, and heed the message of Amos. Just as Israel was not alone among the nations in God’s movement of Peoples, so Israel is not alone when it comes to God’s judgment either.