Revelations from Revelation 5: chapter 1, verse 1b

So far, we've learned that God gave a revelation to Jesus to give to Jesus' servants concerning theology and historical events that would impact their lives. The identity of the servants will be revealed in v. 4, so I will save my comments about The Revelation's audience.

In the second half of v. 1 ESV, we read, "He (Jesus) made it (the revelation) known by sending his angel to his servant John." There are two issues I want to address, and then ask two somewhat reflective questions.

First, the revelation belongs to Jesus who is using an angelic mediator. The Bible doesn't ever give us a concise description of the purpose, nature, or roles of angels. However, we can draw a few ideas based on Biblical accounts of angelic activity.

In the Old Testament, angels are inseparably linked to the will of God. In fact, while reading through angelic oracles, astute readers may notice the beings switching between third person (God says...) and first person (I say...) interchangeably. Thus, the reader is unsure whether the angel is speaking on behalf of God, or if the heavenly creature is an actual appearance of Yahweh Himself (theophany, a God sighting). In Exodus 3, for example, we're told that an angel of the Lord appeared to Moses through a burning bush, yet the "angel" speaks as if he IS God. And, New Testament angelic appearances follow this trend.

Questions are often raised about the role of angels after Pentecost, when the Church received God's Holy Spirit. Two points are clear. First, angelic activity persists even throughout Acts* (Peter is rescued from prison by the angel of the Lord in Acts 12), so one would certainly be mistaken to say that angelic activity has ceased in the Church age. Second, angels appear to work hand-in-hand with the Spirit in ways difficult to comprehend. We know, for instance, that heavenly beings play some role in salvation, similar to that of the Spirit (Heb 1:12). And Revelation 1:1 clarifies that angels work as mediators for Jesus in the same way they mediated for Yahweh in the Old Testament.

The second issue within v. 1b is the name John. This name appears several times throughout the Revelation, although the only information given to the reader comes for 1:9. There, John describes himself as "your brother and partner," who is currently, "on the island called Patmos on account of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus." Several other inferences are often drawn about John's identity based upon the remainder of the book. He is likely a Jewish Christian considering his familiarity with the Old Testament. Scholars also speculate that he personally had good standing with the churches of Asia Minor who are addressed in chapters 2-3. Another inference is that the author is not classically trained in Koine Greek, considering that he butchers syntax often in The Revelation.

Obviously, a majority of conservative scholars consider the beloved apostle John as the author of not only a Gospel and three epistles, but also this final New Testament book. John was Jewish, an important Church father familiar with several churches, and an "unschooled, ordinary" man (Acts 4:13), who would have struggled writing a document in Greek while imprisoned on the island Patmos. Consequently, some scholars date the book in the 60's, probably during Nero's reign which was a time of heightened persecution.

On the other hand, a large number of scholars date the book to 95 A. D. during Emperor Domitian's reign, which slightly affects various interpretations. Also, the apostle John would then be a highly unlikely potential author. Yet, this possibility should not prevent readers from approaching The Revelation as an inspired work of scripture.

Finally, I want to ask two questions to allow personal reflection. First, does God still speak to his servants in such dynamic, dare I say charismatic, ways? I would challenge you to put away your 21st century, enlightened, American world-view and at least allow the possibility of Christian visionary experiences. Maybe you and I will never experience a revelation of our own, but is it possible that God speaks dynamically to even a handful of his millions of followers every year? If He does, is it possible that the visions are given to non-American Christians who don't know that educated people don't believe God uses visions toda? If God is speaking via visionary experience to people I know, is it possible that they simply don't mention it, so they don't have to hear me tell them they're crazy?

Second, what would I do with such a vision? Would I be willing to alter my life based on such a thing? Or would I dismiss it as a day dream? How mentally unstable would I be willing to look to communicate the truths of God? I'm not sure I like the answers to these questions, but I consider John's obedience in writing The Revelation as a challenge to be a faithful communicator of all that gives God glory.

I will attempt to work through vv. 2-3 next post.

*See Acts 5:19; 8:26, 29, 39; 10:3, 7, 22; 11:13; 12:6-11, 23; 27:23

What Men Think

Here is a great example of why context is so important when studying the Bible. Unfortunately, there are "scholars" who will take Biblical texts and piece them together in a manner similar to my video. I often hear people quote a single verse and think to myself, "that is not what the verse is talking about." It's like Robby's comment at the end of my video about the scales being tipped in his advantage. He did say that exact phrase, just like the Bible might say, "I can do all things through Christ who gives me strength." (Phil 4:13) But in context, Robby was not saying he is more attractive than his wife. In fact, he was describing how blessed he is because his wife is more attractive than him. Similarly, there is a context to Paul's comment at the end of Philippians. Paul is describing his ability to live in spite of negative circumstances, an ability enabled by the strength of God. He did not write to motivate athletes, nor to simply encourage Christians to persevere while doing any random task. No, Paul wrote a testimony of praise to God for sustaining him during times of trial. Of course, theologically speaking, someone may well say that EVERYTHING humans do is by the strength of God, because he causes hearts to beat. But, the point is, it is not fair to the author of any words, written or spoken, to take those words out of context.

Happy Valentine's Day

For those of you with a good memory, this is the song I wrote for Emily and played for the first time on our wedding day. Yes, I intended it to sound like an 80's power ballad, because, really, what could be more romantic?

Revelations from Revelation 4: chapter 1, verse 1a

Not until I began my second year of studying Biblical Greek did I fall in love with grammar and syntax. Before those classes, I did not understand the differences between word-for-word and thought-for-thought Bible translations. But I can easily illustrate the differences between the two using the first three words (in the original Greek) of The Revelation.

"Apokalypsis Iesou christou," begins the author of The Revelation. The literal, word-for-word translation is "The revelation of Jesus Christ," as you will find in the New American Standard Bible or the English Standard Version. These versions tell you what the text SAYS, but not necessarily what it MEANS. In this case, the meaning given to the word "of" is quite ambiguous. Does the author mean the revelation comes from Jesus, is for Jesus, is about Jesus, or belongs to Jesus? Each option is perfectly reasonable in the original Greek. So, what a thought-for-thought translation does is interpret "of" for you. The Good News translation, a thought-for-thought version, translates, "This book is the record of the events that Jesus Christ revealed." That entire twelve word sentence comes from three Greek words.

People sometimes ask me if a particular translation is best. I always try to encourage the use of a diverse variety of translations, including word-for-word and thought-for-thought versions. I personally prefer the New American Standard Bible simply because I enjoy looking at interpretive options and deciding for myself. But, above all, Bible readers who don't know Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew must remember that what they are reading is an interpretation. And, in the case of thought-for-thought versions, there is often A LOT of interpretation taking place, as is evident in the example above (in my opinion, The Message should not be considered a translation of the Bible as much as a concise commentary, which is also an invaluable tool).

With those issues in mind, I believe that "of" is either possessive, as in "The revelation belonging to Jesus" (Jesus possesses/owns the revelation), or indicative of source, "The revelation that comes from Jesus." Based on context, either option is legitimate. Jesus possess the revelation because in 1:1 ESV, we are told, "God gave [the revelation] to him," and he is the source of the revelation because "God gave [the revelation] to him to show to his servants." Jesus is both the owner and the communicator of the revelation you are reading.

The remainder of v. 1a gives us our first hint as to the purpose of this lengthy book, "to show to his servants the things that must soon take place." Those who approach The Revelation with the presupposition that its contents are entirely future oriented (post 2010 future, that is), largely ignore the author's wording in the first verse. Those who listened to the reading of this scripture in the 1st and 2nd century would not likely have imagined that "soon" referred to the 21st century. Nor would that have been John's initial thought.

Did John really believe Jesus would return within a generation? If so, Jesus did not return, so was John (and most, if not all, of the other New Testament authors) wrong? Is it a misrepresentation to say that John believed Jesus would intervene in the early church's situation soon, but not necessarily return physically? I honestly do not feel educated enough to respond with any confidence. If you wish to study the early Church's expectation of the Parousia (2nd Coming of Jesus) in greater detail, there are entire works on the subject that I would happily refer you to.

The point to be made is this: The Revelation of Jesus Christ is intended to make sense of the 1st and early 2nd century audience's lives (and, consequently, yours as well). There are certainly ways that future events can bring hope to the church's current historical situation, namely that present persecution is minimal in light of the future defeat of evil. Circumstances will change in the future, and that truth should affect how Christians live in any era. And my hope for you is that the events pictured in Revelation, both past and present, will affect you in a genuine, life-changing way.

I'm confident we'll travel more quickly through the text as we move forward. However, these first few chapters will require a lot of background and set-up. Please bare with me!

-Matt

He's a little runaway pt 3 & 4

I have not been able to keep up with Jake's adventures lately. As of today, he's run away four times in less than four weeks, three times since Wednesday. After each time Jake tries to escape the torture of a loving family, I trudge through the mud and snow attempting to block all escape routes. And, I can honestly say that I'm shocked every time I get a call from a stranger who says, "I have your dog." I suppose that my pride won't let me believe I don't have it all figured out.

My brilliant brother jumped on the analogy train with me in the comments section for He's a little runaway pt. 2. I assumed it was only a matter of time before someone attempted to stretch the boundaries of my comparison between myself and our Holy God within the context of Jake's habitual stupidity. With my creative gears in working order, I could likely continue comparing my actions toward Jake to God's dealings with sinful mankind. However, the analogy should probably die with my reaction to Jake's initial flight.

Thus, I confess that for the time being, Jake is tied-up. Now, before some reader (all four of you) accuses me of neglect, you must know that even Jake's temporary incarceration provides ample freedom. He has a ten foot leash that is connected to a sixty food chord suspended six feet above the ground. I connected him for the first time and observed to make sure there were no complications, and I'm not sure he even realized a change occurred. So, I'm determined to not feel guilty.

If you've followed this riveting story, either your life is as uninteresting as mine, or you care about our little family. Whichever is true, thanks for reading.

By the way, we booked our cruise to Mexico last night! Of course it cost $80 more because I waited. But, I probably won't learn from my mistake.

Also, in two weeks, Emily will begin working her full time job in the pain management department at St. Johns. We're very excited that our work schedules will line up almost perfectly, including Fridays off for us both. So, thank God for those blessings!

-Matt

He's a little runaway... pt 2

Yes, Jake ran away again. This time, he dug just enough mud out from under our chain link fence to scoot underneath it sometime yesterday morning while I was at work. Thankfully, Jake ended up in the yard of a compassionate neighbor who called me. For the record, this time I was much angrier than the last.

Imitating the Early Church

One of the common cries of my generation is that we need to get back to the "real" church, by which they refer to the first century church. The idea is that those who may have actually known the incarnate Jesus must also have designed church in a manner closest to what Jesus wanted. However, one of the most surprising elements of the four Gospels is the relative lack of ecclesiological material (subject matter concerning the ekklesia, or "church" in English). One would expect Jesus to have lined out a leadership structure or to have described the ideal worship service. But He didn't.

To be fair, we know that the Gospel writers were selective in the material they chose to include. Matthew, for example, chose to show that Jesus was the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy by including more explanation of Hebrew scripture. Luke apparently cared deeply about the plight of the poor, so He included more of Jesus' teaching about giving generously. In spite of the Gospel writers' selectivity, I imagine most scholars would agree that between the four Gospels, we have a relatively complete picture of Jesus' activities and teachings. So, my conclusion must be that Jesus simply did not discuss with his disciples what the Church would become, possibly because they didn't have even an elementary understanding of what Jesus was doing until after the Resurrection.

Thus, in a way, the early church was on their own to figure out the logistics of being The Church. They certainly had the Spirit's direction. The Church also knew that Jesus' principles of community and servanthood were vital. But they had practically no specifics for Church life. Consequently, we have the New Testament epistles, where the apostles addressed problems and abuses within churches. In Acts, we see the office of deacon develop to solve a specific issue within Church life. In 1 Corinthians, Paul spends several chapters correcting improper worship procedures. So, the early church obviously didn't have everything perfectly figured out.

I often hear people work from the assumption that the early Christians had the ideal model for Church life, and their model was slowly corrupted over the centuries. People who think that way would say that today's church is distant from the "real" church. Their conclusion, then, is that "house churches" are the only Biblical model for community, and the "institutional church" is a corrupt, godless entity. They might also argue that anything uniquely modern within the church, such as multimedia, interactive events for children, or modern worship services miss the mark of the early church and are, therefore, inferior. However, the assumption that the early church is THE model to follow is simply misguided.

I don't wish to downplay the early church's importance. But, we must recognize that the early Christians were simply doing the best they could. They did not have the option to either own church buildings or meet homes. The churches did not choose between the two, and pick a "house church" format as the ideal. No, they met in homes because they didn't have the finances to own a building, nor the governmental approval to do so. The early church was not simplistic because they thought programs and ministries cluttered The Church's purpose. No, they simply did not have media of any kind or large enough congregations to form ministries based upon demographic. Furthermore, there were elements of the early worship service, such as the holy kiss (where church members would spend time showing affection to one another by kissing members of the same sex), that have not been emulated by any current churches who supposedly follow the early church's model for worship.

I conclude by suggesting that instead of trying to strip away all modern practices in today's church, we should seek to best implement Jesus' teachings on community and servanthood in our current society. Doing so requires thought, hard work, a thorough understanding of scripture, and a massive dose of creativity. We must not demonize The Church for growing and adjusting with changing times and worldviews. In fact, The Church would have likely vanished like the morning dew if it had remained stagnant, stubbornly clinging to the year 40 or 50 A.D. We, The Church, MUST change and grow while always holding true to faith in our Savior and the truths that He taught within our Holy Scriptures.

Well, I honestly intended to write two paragraphs... oops.

-Matt