REVELATION 16:12-14

 

Revelation 16:12-14

The individual units within this chapter are fairly easy to delineate due to the series of seven angels with their bowls of wrath. And there is a verbal similarity between the first and last of these bowls in that both contain the words “a loud voice from the temple,” “earth,” and “his (God's) wrath.” In addition, the two longest sections, those devoted to the third and sixth angels, appear to have similar internal organizations, as shown below:

    Third angel (vv. 4-5a)

        1. Words of the angel (vv. 5b-6)

            2. Response to the angel (v. 7)

    Sixth angel (vv. 12-14)

        1. Words of Christ (v. 15)

            2. Response of the kings (v. 16)

Note the other similarities between these two units. They are the only ones of the seven in the chapter to contain the word “river(s).” The first of these two sections ends as does the beginning of the second, with the only occurrences of “God the Almighty” in the chapter.

Also, the third angel's section is unified by the repeated words “blood” (vv. 4,6a,b) as well as “You are just, O Holy One / O Lord (v. 3)...your judgments are true and just (v. 7).”

With that in mind, look next at the repeated language in the section concerning the sixth angel: “assemble” (vv. 14,16) and “kings from the east” (12) / “kings of the whole world” (v. 14).

Since the repeated words in vv. 4-7 are all used with the same referents, one may rightly suppose that the “assembling” in verses 14 and 16 refers to the same event. But is the same true of the the kings mentioned in verses 12 and 14? That is the question I was curious to explore. However, trying to find any sort of consensus among commentators on this subject proved to be futile. As Walvoord explains, “There has been endless speculation about 'the kings from the East.' with many expositors trying to relate them to some contemporary leaders of their generation. A survey of 100 commentators of the Book of Revelation reveals at least 50 interpretations of the identity of the kings of the East.”

And this whole issue is somewhat bound up with endless geographical, historical, and Old Testament prophetic issues which together impact on our understanding. So the best I can hope to do is to simply present a range of opinions, presented roughly in order, beginning with the strictly literal and ending with the highly symbolic.

Phillips says that “the revived Roman Empire commanded by the beast...is now in turmoil, and his power in the east has dried up, making it possible for China, India, Japan and other eastern powers to unite...The way of the kings of the east is prepared, and at long last the awakened millions of Asia see their way clear to avenge themselves on the hated powers of the west.” Similarly, he feels that demons will rile up the other nations, all against God.

Walvoord: “The simplest and best explanation, however, is that this refers to kings or rulers from the Orient or East who will participate in the final world war...In the light of the context of this passage indicating the near approach of the second coming of Christ and the contemporary [written in 1983] world situation in which the Orient today contains a large portion of the world's population with tremendous military potential, any interpretation other than a literal one does not make sense.”

Beale critiques this literal understanding: “In the OT God is always the one who dries up the water, whether for redemption or judgment. Therefore, the final defeat of the wicked forces (16:14,16) stands no less under divine direction (not permission) than do their prior attempts to destroy God's people. John understands this pattern typologically and universalizes it. Babylon now represents the world system (as in Jewish writings generally)...And just as Babylon has become universalized and become symbolic..., so the Euphrates cannot be a literal geographical reference to the Euphrates in modern Iraq, Syria, and Turkey but must be figurative and universal...the acknowledgment by some futurist commentators that Babylon symbolizes latter-day Rome is inconsistent with their typical literalist approach to the beast and to this very passage, where they understand the Euphrrates and the kings from the east to be literal...In fact, 'the kings of the east' may be synonymous with 'the kings of the whole inhabited earth.' The universal effect is also apparent from 13:13 and 19:19-20, where both 'kings of the earth' and idolatrous 'inhabitants of the earth' are deceived.”

Beale and McDonough: “The OT prophesies that this judgment [against Babylon] would include the drying up of the Euphrates River (Isa.11:15; 44:27; Jer. 50:38; 51:36; cf. Zech.10:11). The prophecy was fulfilled by Cyrus who diverted the waters of the Euphrates (cf. Isa. 44:27-28)...Against this back- ground, it can be seen that the Battle in Revelation will end in the absolute destruction of all the opponents of God...The nations are deceived to think that they are gathered together to exterminate the saints, but they are gathered together ultimately by God in order to meet their own judgment at the hands of Jesus (19:11-12).”

I heard a recent sermon in which the pastor expressed the belief that the kings of the East must represent the forces of God's people since in the OT God's drying up of the waters always occurred in order to aid them in some way. However, as Beale says above, that sort of miraculous action on His part can stand for judgment as well as redemption. The same was true in the crossing of the Red Sea by the fleeing Israelites, an action which not only redeemed them from captivity but also brought judgment down on Pharaoh and his army.

Bruce: After the blowing of the sixth trumpet four demon-angels bound at the Euphrates frontier were released to invade the Roman Empire. Now, across the dry bed of the river, the kings from the East (a reference to the Parthians and their allies) may invade the Roman provinces unimpeded.”

That same idea is echoed by other commentators. Thus, the footnote in the Jerusalem Bible says, “Kings of the East were the Parthian kings, dreaded by the Roman world.” And Ruiz states that these kings are “probably a reference to the Parthians who would be led by Nero, restored to life.”

But for a different understanding, Beagley says,”When the sixth angel pours his bowl on the river Euphrates, its waters dry up (Rev 16:12), thus eliminating the barrier that afforded protection to Israel from invasion by the enemies to the north.”

And Hendricksen has an even different slant on the identity and target of these Eastern forces: “John sees that the sixth bowl is emptied upon the Euphrates River. This river represents Assyria, Babylonia, the wicked world.When the river is said to dry up, the road is prepared so that all the antichristian powers can make the attack against the church.”

But Beagley feels that Armageddon is “probably a reference to Jerusalem; (Rev 16:12-16).”

Beasley-Murray notes that the kings of the east “are further described in 17:12,13; they put themselves at antichrist's behest (17:17), ravaging the harlot city and war with the Lamb (17:14).”

Payne sees parallel accounts in Rev 9:13-21 and 16:12-14,16 with the large army of horsemen in 9:16 corresponding to the frogs in 16:13-14.These “suggest demonic legions” whose purpose is to gather the kings of the world together for war (v. 14). He then states that it was to this same end that the 6^th angel had dried up the Euphrates in v. 12. But he never equates the two armies of kings or tries to show the correspondence between the two, if there is one.

“Just as the OT is at variance with oriental views of divine kingship, so the NT is opposed to Hellenistic and Roman ideas of this kind: the earthly king is not an incarnation of the deity, since no one but God or the Messiah can occupy such a position...The OT attitude to the great kings is found again in the NT with regard to the 'kings of the east' (Rev. 16:12): the supremacy of God is asserted by making them a rod in his hand, only to destroy them at the last day if they do not submit to him in obedience (Rev 17:2ff.; 18:3ff.' 19:18ff.; 21:24).” (Klappert)

But the question still remains – Are they a willing, unwilling, or unwitting rod? The final reference to kings in the Bible is found in Revelation 21:24 where the kings of the earth will willingly bring their splendor into the heavenly Jerusalem. However in the New Testament, “human kings are usually seen as setting themselves against Yahweh and his anointed one...Such kings are known as...'kings of the whole world' (Rev 16:14).” (Dictionary of Biblical Imagery)

Then Morris points out an interesting phenomenon: “By appealing to contemporary fears [concerning the Parthians] he [John] is making the point that at the end of time the divided forces of evil will engage in a terrible conflict. Curiously, having told us that the way will be cleared for mighty potentates to march westward John does not follow up the thought. He does not speak of the kings [of the East] as using the way prepared tor them. In fact he does not mention them again.”

Ford first reviews what others have to say about the sixth bowl: “Allo and others think the effect of this sixth bowl represents the various forces that cause the social and political machinery of the [Roman] Empire to crumble and thus render it defenseless before the barbarian invasion. Cambier adopts an eschatological interpretation; he sees the demons gathering 'the kings of the universe' for the battle with the Lord (vs. 14) as symbolic of the end of the world.”

Next Ford expresses her personal view. And since she feels much of Revelation was written by John the Baptist, it is understandable that her opinion is that the judgments of the bowls are against unbelieving Israel. Thus, “the irony of the sixth bowl lies in the fact that on at least two occasions waters 'stood still' so that the Israelites could pass over safely...All these incidents profit Israel and bring disaster to their enemies, but the author of Revelation predicts the exact opposite. The Euphrates is dried up so that the way will be clear for an invasion from the east.”

Mounce has the most to say on this subject among the commentaries I consulted. Here are just a few of his comments:

First, he states, “The Euphrates marked the eastern boundary of the land given by covenant to Abraham and his seed (Gen 15:18; Deut 1:7-8; Josh 1:3-4). It also separated the Roman Empire on the east from the much feared Parthians. Then he echoes some of the above scholars in feeling that there is irony in this passage in that this drying up of the river will actually aid the enemy, concluding: Whatever the ultimate reference the historical context of John's imagery favors the interpretation of the kings as Parthian rulers.” And if so, then that would fit in with the legend that a revived Nero would command their troops in attacking Rome. However, “some confusion results from the fact that this tradition is partially intertwined in Revelation with an older tradition that portrays a final assault on the people of God by the united kings of earth (Joel 3:2; Zeph 3:8). The kings of the East (vs. 12) who will lay siege to Rome (17:15-18 and chap. 18) are distinct from the kings of the whole world (vs. 14) who will wage the final war against Christ and the armies of heaven (19:11-21...)...The closest literary parallel is Isaiah 11:15-16, where the River (Euphrates) is smitten into seven channels so men may cross dryshod and a highway leads from Assyria to Israel for the returning remnant (cf. Jer 51:36; Zech 10:11; II Esdr 13:47).”

Conclusion

As you can see, there are so many possibilities given here based on numerous parallels in the Bible as well as historical sources that anyone who claims to have the authoritative last word on the subject should be listened to with great suspicion. And that comment applies, to a somewhat lesser extent, to the rest of the book of Revelation as well. The safest course is probably to glean from the book possible life application lessons for ourselves (and there are such to be found) and leave the exact details of future events firmly in God's hands.

PARABLE OF THE LOST SHEEP, CONTINUED (MATTHEW 18:12-14; LUKE 15:4-7)

 I once attended a church where the pastor delivered a sermon on the Good Samaritan at least once a year. But there is really nothing excessive about that practice since Jesus' stories are so open-ended that they continually challenge readers to draw out new insights and applications in them. So I am using that as an excuse to put together this third posting on the story of the lost sheep recorded twice in the gospels (For your information, the first two posts are titled “Parable of the Lost Sheep: Luke 5:4-7” and

“Is Anyone So Righteous That They Don't Need to Repent?”) The following are rather random, but still pertinent, comments gleaned from the scholarly literature that were not included in those earlier essays.

Donahue explains: In their transmission the parable received different applications and interpretations...parables originally addressed to opponents are directed to the church (Matt. 18:1, 12-14; Luke 15:15:2-7).”

Cochran: “Many scriptural texts run counter to utilitarian reasoning. The dominant witness of the NT is that all humans are equal and all life is worth preserving...Jesus interacts with social outcasts (Matt. 9:10-13; Mark 2:13-17; Luke 5:27-32; 19:1-10; John 4:7-39), treats children with special care (Matt. 19:13-15; Mark 10:13-16; Luke 18:15-17), and praises the actions of a shepherd who leaves ninety-nine sheep in order to find the one that is lost (Matt. 19:10-14; Luke 15:3-7). The idea that the good of some persons can be sacrificed for the sake of a greater number of people is at odds with these texts' emphasis upon care for all persons.”

“In the parable of the Lost Sheep (15:4-7) the description of the shepherd who goes after the one lost sheep (15:4) echoes Ezek. 34:11-12, 16...As Jesus' audience consists of the Pharisees and scribes who complain about Jesus welcoming and eating with sinners (15:2), he challenges them to understand themselves as shepherds. The Pharisees' and scribes' lack of concern and mercy for sinners echoes Ezek. 34...The emphasis on joy in heaven over the repentance of one sinner in 15:7 may echo Ezek.18:23: 'Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked, says the LORD God, and not rather that they should turn from their ways and live?'” (Pao and Schnabel)

“When people receive the word (Mt 13:20) and discover the kingdom (Mt 13:44), they respond with joy, just as the shepherd rejoices when he finds a lost sheep – a transparent metaphor for the Father who does not want any of 'these little ones' to be lost (Mt 18:12-14).” (Green)

“God deals mercifully with the lost; everything depends upon that. There is joy in heaven over one sinner who repents (Lk. 15:7, 10, 23). Indeed the whole of Lk. 15 with its parable of the lost sheep, the lost coin and the lost son presents Jesus calling upon men to rejoice with him over the lost returning to the Father (15:6,9,32).” (Beyreuther and Finkenrath)

Goetzmann says that “the predominantly intellectual understanding of metanoia as a change of mind plays very little part in the NT. Rather the decision by the whole man to turn round is stressed. It is clear that we are concerned neither with a purely outward turning nor with a merely intellectual change of ideas...However absolute the call to repentance, it was a message of joy, because the possibility of repentance exists. Because God has turned to man.., men should, may and can turn to God. Hence conversion and repentance are accompanied by joy, for they mean the opening up of life for the one who has turned. The parables in Lk. 15 bear testimony to the joy of God over the sinner who repents and call on men to share it.”

Murray disagrees somewhat with Goetzmann, at least in his definition of what a 'change of mind' means. “In the New Testament the terms 'repent' (metanoeo) and 'repentance' (metanoia) refer basically to a change of mind. It is all-important to note this significance. For repentance consists in a radical transformation of thought, attitude, outlook, and direction. In accordance with the pervasive Old Testament emphasis and with what appears also in the New Testament, repentance is a turning from sin unto God and His service.”

Lunde says, “Jesus' demand for repentance stresses God's covenantal grace, for he is its fulfillment and embodiment...Appropriately then, joy and celebration are often associated with repentance in Jesus' proclamation, evincing the grace which is its context (Matt. 13:44; 22:1-10; Luke 5:27-29; 19:6,8...)”

Dictionary of Biblical Imagery: “In the NT the figure of one hundred vividly conveys the sense of a complete number. In Jesus' parable of the lost sheep (Mt 18:12-14; Lk 5:4-7), when one sheep out of a hundred wanders off, the number of those remaining seems lacking and incomplete by comparison...To grasp the power of a hundred as a image of completeness, one need only consider hypothetical variations on the parable. If Jesus had told a story of a man with ninety-nine sheep who loses one and is left with ninety-eight, the sense of completeness in the numbers would be substantially less, as would the rhetorical power of the parable.”

Conversely, another article in the same source states: “The quality of being 'one'...expresses the uniqueness of human beings. The worth of a single person in the eyes of God is expressed by the parable of the lost sheep and the lost coin (Lk 15:1-10). Here God's preference for the unimportant, the sick, the sinner is stressed even more than in the OT.”

REVELATION 15 VIEWED THROUGH DIFFERENT LENSES

 

Revelation 15 viewed through different lenses

There are some superficial readers of Revelation who immediately come to the conclusion that it consists of the ravings of a mentally unbalanced person or someone high on drugs. But the problem isn't that this book is totally disorganized. In fact, it is just the opposite. It is so highly organized and packed with ideas, allusions and images that it only appears to be confusing. So I thought it might be instructive to show how a variety of perspectives can begin to bring out some of the richness of the book. As a relatively easy example I picked the shortest chapter in Revelation, ch. 15, to demonstrate my thesis above.

Textual

You can't even begin to study this chapter or any other one in the Bible without first having confidence that you are reading a translation based on a reliable Greek text. And the problem is that there are literally thousands of early manuscripts (i.e. handwritten documents) to compare with one another using generally accepted criteria to determine which reading is the more authentic when the words disagree with on another on occasion. This is the job of textual critics who attempt to carry out this task in an objective manner.

It turns out that the Greek wording in at least four verses of Revelation 15 is somewhat in doubt.

Verse 3: The phrase “king of the ages” is found in some early manuscripts and “king of nations” in others. Comfort opts for the former, feeling that “nations” was added by some scribes due to that word being in the very next verse. By contrast, Metzger prefers “nations” over “ages” for two reasons: (a) “ages” probably came from recollection of I Timothy 1:17 (“To the king of ages...be honor and glory for ever and ever. Amen.”) and (b) “nations” makes more sense in the context. There is additional support for Metzger's view found in the “Literary” section below.

Verse 4: According to Metzger, there are actually six variant readings in the first line of this verse (“Lord, who does not fear”), most adding “you” somewhere in the verse, “feeling the need of an object for the verb.” Such additions are not really needed to clarify the thought in the line.

Verse 6: The textual note in NRSV mentions that some early manuscripts have the angels robed in “stone” (lithon) in place of “linen” (linon). Metzger rejects “stone” as making no sense at all (but see below for another view).

Doctrinal and Symbolic

vs. 1: They are called the last plagues in this verse “because they bring to completion the wrath of God.” (Beagley)

vs. 2: “The use of nikao (Rev 12:11; 15:2; Rom 8:35-37) confirms that 'overcoming' is best understood individually, ironically, and as an inaugurated event, not merely as a future reality on a corporate level. The ironic, or paradoxical, meaning of nikao is modeled after that of Christ's eschatological conquest (Rev 3:21).” (Beale)

vs. 3: “The name of Moses is conjoined with that of Christ because a similar, though greater, deliverance has been wrought from a similar, though greater, foe.” (Beasley-Murray)

“Wrath against apostate Israelites because of idolatry is the focus in Deut. 32 as here judgment on apostate Christians together with the nations is in view.” (Beale and McDonough)

“Every believer is a priest in his or her own right, but collectively they are a kingdom. Christ is the king (Rev 9:11; 15:3; 17:4; 19:16), and the people over whom he rules are a kingdom of priests (Rev 1:6,9; 5:10; 11:15; 12:10).” (Giles)

Arnold comments on verse 3: “The one God is unequalled in power and sovereignty. He is therefore acclaimed pantokrator, 'all powerful.' The epithet appears nine times in the Apocalypse (e.g., Rev 4:8; 11:17; 15:3...).”

“John likes to use the phrase 'the Lord God'...This phrase comes up particularly in contexts in which prayer or praise is being offered up to God, and it is sometimes combined with the term pantokrator ('almighty'; Rev 15:3; 19:6; 21:22) to indicate the magnitude of God's sovereignty.” (Witherington)

“All ten uses of truth language in Revelation are with the adjective alethinos. Often the adjective describes the activities or characteristics of Jesus or God as true. In Revelation 3:7,14 Jesus is spoken of as the 'true one' and 'true witness' respectively. In Revelation 6:10 the Lord is praised as 'holy and true'; in Revelation 15:3 'just and true are the ways of the Lord God'; in Revelation 16:7 and Revelation 19:2 God's judgments are 'true and just.'” (Reed)

vv. 3-4: Wu and Pearson comment: “Hymn singing is an important element in Christian worship, being a spiritualized form of sacrifice replacing animal sacrifices of temple service...The content of these hymns is mainly descriptive praise directed toward God or Christ and blended with motifs derived from the OT...”

vv. 3-5: Seifrid states, “The churches stand in the relation to the risen Lord that he stood to the Father in his earthly ministry...They are martyred for their witness (Rev 6:9-11; 12:10), just as he was for his (Rev 1:5). And they likewise share in his triumph (Rev 7:17; 15:3-5; 19:1-20:15).”

vs. 4: “God, as holy, stands apart from and opposed to sin and evil...he alone is able to administer justice and judge rightly.” (Hawthorne)

Similarly, Newman says, “Three times in Revelation (Rev 16:5,7; 19:2; cf. Rev 15:3) it is said of God that his judgments are 'just' (phikaios).”

vs. 5: Beasley-Murray notes that the opening up of the temple in heaven “emphasizes that the judgments about to be executed are the expression of God's righteousness.”

vv. 5-8: The “heaven beyond the material heaven is portrayed as a temple (cf. Rev 11:19; 15:5-8), of which the earthly one is but a shadow and copy (Heb 8:2,5; 9:24).” (daSilva)

vs. 7: Newman says, “The seven bowls are full of God's anger (Rev 15:7; 16:1), and only when the bowls are emptied shall God's anger cease (Rev 15:1). God's anger and wrath, however, should never be construed as indiscriminate vengeance. Revelation asserts that God's judgments are always 'just and true' (Rev 16:5; 19:2).”

vs. 8: “Long deferred though God's judgment may be, when once it is begun it proceeds with terrible swiftness. The seven receptacles of His wrath are not narrow-necked 'vials', from which the contents trickle slowly, but wide, shallow bowls, whose entire contents splash out immediately when they are upturned. But while the strange and swift work is going on, the sanctuary is inaccessible; the meaning may be that the time for intercession is past.” (Bruce)

Newman says, “Revelation combines theophanic, royal and prophetic imagery in the description of the eschatological, heavenly temple that will be filled with the smoke 'from the glory of God and from his power...'”

Davies states that “whereas Hebrews' use of temple imagery is primarily concerned with the redemptive historical accomplishment of Jesus' entrance into the holy of holies, Revelation has a focus upon the heavenly temple as the place of God's abode (Rev 15:8), the place from which the earth is governed and judgment emanates (Rev. 14:15,17; 16:1,17). Yet it is also the place of safety for the saints (Rev 3:12; 7:15).”

Historical

Few scholars zero in on this important aspect of the visions in Revelation. However, Webb looks at the book from the perspective of historical events surrounding the author at the time of writing.: “The intensity and scope of the suffering in Revelation clearly transcends that of 1 Peter...From the perspective of the Apocalypse, much of the persecution was due to a political movement to enforce the cult of the emperor worship..Christians appear to have been forced into economic hardship, ...imprisoned...or slain for their faith...as a result of their refusal to participate in the emperor cults (cf. Rev 13:14; 14:9,11; 15:2; 16:2; 19:20; 20:4).”

Prophetic

Walvoord, writing from a dispensational premillenial viewpoint says of verses 1-2, “This description of praise to God and prediction of universal worship is in keeping with many other Scriptures and relates, of course to the second coming of Christ and worship of God by the entire world in the millennial kingdom...The awful hour of wickedness and blasphemy against God, which will characterize the period leading up to the Second Coming will be followed by a full vindication of God's judgment and holiness in the next period.”

“The first exodus, out of Egypt and out from under Pharaoh's tyrannical power, will be recaptitulated by divine design in a final, end-time exodus of God's people out from under the tyrannical oppression and rule of the 'beast' over the world.” (Beale and McDonough)

Beasley-Murray comments on the parallel passages 6:1-8:15; 8:6-11:19; and chapters 15-16: “These three series of judgments in Revelation have been interpreted as following in chronological sequence...There is, however, one major feature of the three series of judgments that makes this interpretation difficult to accept: each of the three series concludes with a description of the day of the Lord.”

“Given...frequent references to the judgment as something in the past [i.e. in Revelation 6:16-17; 14:7; 14:15; 15:4; 16:17; 18:10], it is understandable how it might be argued (as by Hanson) that the judgment which comes to Babylon (Rome!)...refers to the processes of history and not only to the final eschatological act. As Hanson puts the key point: 'This is not to say that the wrath has no reference to the end of hisory; but it never refers purely to that end. It is always a process; sometimes a process viewed as culminating in the end.'” (Kreitzer)

“There have been numerous interpretations of how the seals, trumpets and bowls relate to each other, some interpreters seeing them consecutively and others with various degrees of overlap, some more and some less literally, but in any event in the end Babylon is destroyed (Rev 17:1-18:24), making way for the return of Christ.” (Porter)

Intertextual

The great correspondence between the whole of Revelation and the Old Testament is in evidence also in Rev. 15. Since Ford feels that John the Baptist wrote the book, she is a good resource for pointing out some of the parallels between Revelation found both in the Greek version of the OT and the writings between the two Testaments. Just some of these are given below:

Revelation 15:                          Other Writings

vs. 1a “plagues”                       Exodus 11:1-9

vs. 1b “wrath” (thumos)           Leviticus 26:28

vs. 2b heavenly “fire”              Ezekiel 1:4,13,27

vs. 2a “crystal sea”                  I Kings 7:23-26

vs. 5 “tent of witness”              Exodus 33:7; Josephus Antiquities 4.100, 1-2-3

vs. 6 “stone”                            Ezekiel 28:12-13, if “stone” is the reading rather than “linen”

vs. 7 “golden bowls”               Exodus 27:3; Numbers 7: I Kings 8:3; Antiquities 3.150

vs. 8 “filled with smoke”        I Kings 8:10-14; II Chronicles 7:2-3; Ezekiel 10:3-4

Bruce points to some additional correspondences within the poetic center of the chapter:

vs. 3a “song of Moses”                                          Exodus 15; Deuteronomy 32

vs. 3c “Lord God Almighty”                                 Isaiah 6:3

vs. 3b “Great and amazing are your deeds”          Psalms 104:24; 11:2; 139:14

vs. 3c “king of the ages”                                       Jeremiah 10:10

vs. 3b “just and true are your ways”                     Psalm 145:17

vs. 4 “you alone are holy”                                    Psalms 86:10; 99:3,5,9

Some additional parallels have been pointed out between Revelation 15 and Exodus 15 by commentators:

vv. 1,7 “wrath/fury of God”                                  Exodus 15:4

vv. 2 “sea”                                                             Exodus 15:4

vv. 4,8 “glorious(ly)”                                            Exodus 15:1,6

v. 7 “forever and ever”                                          Exodus 15:18

Ethical

Most commentators are so busy trying to make sense out of Revelation from a prophetic viewpoint that they totally ignore the practical and ethical implications underpinning the whole book. The most important of these is perhaps the call for Christians to remain faithful to their call even in the face of opposition. This sort of loyal and steadfast behavior will also have a profound effect on those who observe your actions under trial. Kim states that “the church is empowered by the Spirit of prophecy (Rev 11:3-6; 19:10), and its faithful witness to the kingship of the true God and the Lamb unto death among all the nations brings about the conversion of the nations from idolatry to the worship of the true God (Rev 11:13; 15:2-4). Thus God's kingship is made effective over the nations at present through the church's witness.”

Literary

This short chapter breaks down into an ABA' type structure when the verses are separated by genre:

A. Prose: Revelation 15:1-2

        B. Poetry: Revelation 15:3-4

A'. Prose: Revelation 15:5-8

I have chosen to include the prose introduction of verse 3a in the middle section, although one could just as easily have it conclude the first section. Reinforcing these tripartite divisions are the following verbal parallels between A and A:;

“and...I saw...in heaven” – verses 1 and 5 This pair occurs at the respective beginnings of sections A and A'.

“seven angels with seven plagues” – verses 1,6, and 8

“the wrath of God is ended (v. 1) // “the seven plagues...were ended” (v. 8) These two phrases serve to conclude sections A and A'.

In addition, it is characteristic of chapter 15 to utilize the same Greek words exactly twice. Most of these duplications have the effect of strengthening the topical unity that exists within each of the three major units. Thus we see “sea of glass” appearing twice in Section A (both in v. 2), “song” two times in B (both in v. 3), and “nations” also in B (vv. 3 and 4). And acting as a bridge connecting all three units together is the following word chain: “name” in verses 2 (A) and 4 (B) as well as “glory/glorify” in v. 4 (B) and v. 8 (A').

Toward the start of this post, I mentioned that Comfort rejected the word “nations” in v. 3, feeling that it was added by some scribes due to that word being in v. 4 as well. But we can see from the above examples that such doubling of words was fully in keeping with the author's practice elsewhere in the chapter.

LEAVING IT ALL FOR GOD

There have been several times in the Bible where a person or group was forced to leave their home and all or some of their possessions in order to travel to a strange place. In this context we might think of Adam and Eve being kicked out of the Garden of Eden due to their disobedience, Jacob fleeing from Esau, the Israelites during the Babylonian Exile, or the Holy Family fleeing to Egypt to escape Herod's wrath. But even more instructive are those biblical examples and teachings regarding similar renunciations which were undergone on a more or less voluntary basis.

Abraham (Genesis 12)

In the New Testament, Abraham is held up as the paragon of faith who left all he knew and followed God's command. While that may be true to a great extent, we must also keep in mind that the Bible does not hesitate to point out his quite human failings as well in his somewhat later life.

As we read his story, it should raise some red flags immediately. The first question is why was his father Terah heading toward Canaan in the first place, and if that was his destination why did he stop at Haran? This is, by the way, where Abraham will later send his servant to find a wife for Isaac. This indicates that Abraham took some but not of all his relatives with him. Laban for example still lived in Haran. And there is a third question that arises if you look at a map of the region. Haran is not on the road from Ur to Canaan. The traditional site of Ur in Southern Mesopotamia is quite a bit in question and scholars now think it was in northern Mesopotamia instead, partially because that would place it on the trade route to Canaan.

The NIV translation of Genesis 12:1 reads, “God had spoken...” This would bring it in line with Genesis 15:7 and Nehemiah 9:7, which say that God brought Abraham out from Ur of the Chaldeans. We have to go to the NT to get some clarification. In Stephen's speech in Acts 7:2-4, he says: “The God of glory appeared to our ancestor Abraham when he was in Mesopotamia before he lived in Haran. After his father died, God had him move from there to this country in which you are now living.”

So the new scenario that I hadn't appreciated before now is that God appeared to Abraham while he was still in Ur living with his father. And apparently he told his father about the vision, which is why Terah headed off to Canaan. But he stopped at Haran instead, and Abraham stayed with him until his father died. So what do we think about Abraham's actions? Was he disobeying God's word or just honoring his father by his actions? Have any of you experienced similar spiritual quandaries between honoring your parents and going where you feel God wants you to go? Donald Barnhouse said, “The world has many a halfway house on the road to God's will.”

Lot and His Family (Genesis 19)

One could argue that they really had no choice except to leave Sodom as it was about to be destroyed. That may be true, but it is obvious that Lot's wife was leaving her heart there, and thus she shared in the destruction. And concerning their daughters, it has been said that their subsequent actions in relation to their father demonstrated that they may not have been any longer in Sodom, but Sodom was still in them.

Israelite Slaves (Exodus-Deuteronomy)

There is also a salutary message here for all of us in this often-told story. The Israelites are subjected to increasingly harsh conditions by Pharaoh, being forced to engage in backbreaking labor and whipped if they do not obey. It is no wonder that they rejoice in joining Moses in a flight from Egypt to escape such servitude.

But it isn't long at all before they begin to grumble against Moses, and implicitly against God Himself, for the wilderness conditions they find themselves in. They are constantly on the move and must rely on the quite limited diet that God provides for them every day. It is not the amount of food they are complaining about, but the fact that they can no longer enjoy the sort of variety they had while in Egypt. In Numbers 11:5 they say, “We remember the fish we ate in Egypt that cost nothing, the cucumbers, the melons, the leeks, the onions, and the garlic.” Of course, they fail to mention that this food did not at all come without a price, but was earned by the sweat of their brow. They also conveniently forget two key facts in their complaints: (1) they were more than happy to leave Egypt in the first place due to the harsh working conditions and (2) their exodus was not just away from one place but also, and more importantly, would lead them to a land designated by God for their own possession.
Unfortunately, most of us are similarly short-sighted and want to know what God has done for us lately.

Ruth and Naomi

I see the book of Ruth as a contrast between these two women. Naomi and her family leave Bethlehem as soon as things get a little difficult during a time of drought and head for a pagan land where they feel they will have greater material blessings. Instead, she loses her husband and both sons and reluctantly decides to head back to Bethlehem to see if things have picked up there since she left.

At this point she dissuades her two daughters-in-law from following her, thinking only of the better chance they may have getting new husbands from among their own people. But she totally leaves out of the equation the spiritual blessings they might have if they follow her.

One of the women does remain where she is out, but Ruth decides to be loyal to Naomi. To make a long story short, Ruth ends up marrying a wealthy landowner in Bethlehem and, much more importantly, founds a family that will ultimately result in the birth of Jesus Himself.

So whereas Naomi and her husband decided to trade in a somewhat difficult life among God's chosen people for the hope of something better, Ruth left her own prospects among her own people to follow a totally unknown future in a strange land with an elderly mother-in-law to care for. But she was blessed in every way for doing so, especially in the fact that she became the ancestress of Jesus Himself.

Elisha (I Kings 19:19-21)

Elisha is plowing in the field when Elijah calls him to follow him. But first, Elisha asks to be able to say goodby to his parents, a request to which Elijah agrees. In addition, Elisha takes the time to slaughter his yoke of oxen, boil them, and feed the people. He is thus burning his bridges behind him, but that action will eventually lead him to take Elijah's place as God's spokesman.

There is one confusing comment by Elijah in these verses that needs clarification. At the end of v. 20, Elijah says to Elisha, “Go back again; for what have I done to you?” Stinespring explains that this phrase should be understood to mean: “Go, and return to me, for I have done something very important to you [i.e. in putting my mantle over you].”

Christ (Philippians 2:5-8)

Here we have a poetic description of the ultimate example of someone who literally had everything in the universe to lose including equality with God the Father. However, He voluntarily gave it all up our behalf when he agreed to be born as a mere human being into a poor family in a backwater village of a small country. Not only that, but he realized when he lowered himself that his fate on earth was to be abandoned by almost all his friends and tortured on a cross until dead.

The Apostles' Call

Matthew gives us a concise description in 4:18-22 of the call of the fishermen Simon Peter, Andrew, James and John. They all “immediately” left their nets behind to follow Jesus, and in addition the last pair of brothers left their father as well.

Levi/Matthew the tax-collector left his booth, his source of livelihood, immediately upon Jesus' call. (Matthew 9:9)

Christ's Teachings to Others and Their Responses

Matthew 8:18-22 // Luke 9:57-62

These parallel passages begin using practically the same language with a would-be follower asking Jesus if he can wait until he buries his father before leaving with Jesus. Jesus rather harshly replies: “Let the dead bury the dead.” Commentators have speculated that either (a) the seeker was saying that he needed to wait until his father died or (b) this referred to the custom of collecting the bones of a dead person after one year and reburying them in an ossuary. If it is the first case, then the person was begging for perhaps years more before he would be ready to make such a drastic move. If it is the second case, then there was absolutely no urgency involved at all and the man was simply making a flimsy excuse.

Luke appends the story of another man who wants to first say goodbye to his parents, and adds Jesus' words – “No man, having put his hand to the plow and looking back is fit for the kingdom of heaven.”

Pao and Schnabel: “In these verses many commentators have...detected the presence of Elijah traditions...Verse 59 echoes the story of I Kings 19:19-21, where Elijah allowed Elisha, who was plowing at the time, to bid farewell to this family before following him.The significance of this passage is further supported by the wording in 9:61-62, where the phrase akoloutheso soi ('I will follow you')...appears with arotron' ('plow' [9:62; cf. erotria, 'he was plowing,' in 1 Kings 19:19]). The contrast between Jesus and Elijah not only highlights the unique authority of Jesus but also points to the eschatological urgency in Jesus' ministry.”

Matthew 19:16-22 relates the familiar story of the rich young man who came to Jesus seeking eternal life. Although the man was obviously well acquainted with the Law and obeyed it scrupulously, Jesus asks him to sell all his possessions and give the money to the poor and follow him. At that, the man “went away sorrowful; for he had great possessions.”

Luke 14:15-24

Jesus tells a parable of a rich man who decides to give a feast and invites all his friends to attend. However, they each give lame excuses as to why they will be too busy to come. So he has his servants go out on the streets and bring in the poor and handicapped instead. As you can see, this is not really a case of people being unwilling to give up everything to enjoy the heavenly feast. Instead, they were not even willing to give up anything at all. In its context, this parable probably does not really address individuals' unwillingness as much as it applies to the nation of Israel as a whole. And correspondingly, those who were next invited to the feast represent the Gentiles. A more specific lesson to individuals follows.

Luke 14:25-33

This is a similarly difficult teaching addressed to the general crowd. Jesus begins by stating that those wishing to be his disciples must “hate” their immediate family members and then concludes by telling them that they must renounce everything they have. Most commentators will point out that this is a Hebraic idiomatic way of saying they must love Him more than they do their family.

Paul (Philippians 3:4-8)

Paul begins by giving the Philippians his work resume, which includes his previously prestigious position in Israel as a Judaean Pharisee blameless under the law and well known as a persecutor of the heretical sect of Christians. He follows it by saying, “But whatever gain I had, I count as loss for the sake of Christ...For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them as refuse, in order that I may gain Christ...” This RSV version is a rather polite rendering of the original Greek since the word translated as “refuse” can have an even harsher meaning. Vine explains that “skubalon denotes refuse, whether (a) excrement, that which is cast out of the body, or (b) the leavings of a feast, that which is thrown away from the table.”

Prophecies
There are several places in the Gospels where Jesus warns His followers of what will happen in the future:

Matthew 10:34-39

Here Jesus warns that his followers will probably not enjoy peace on this earth but will experience rejection from their own family. Nevertheless, “He who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for my sake will find it.”

Tilden says, “Jesus sees that the acceptance of his message with its promise also brings seeming destruction (v. 34). Only those who in faith accept the threat of destruction will find life (v. 39; 5:11-12; 16:24; Mk. 8:34-35; 10:29-31; Lk. 9:24-25; 14:27; 17:33; Jn. 12:25).

Matthew 24:15-18; Luke 17:32-33

Here we have another teaching, this time given to Jesus' disciples, about leaving it all to follow Him. However, this time the Day of the Lord is the time frame being referred to. When that occurs, they are to (a) not go down to gather their belongings if they happen to be on their rooftop and (b) if they are not in the field (plowing?) they should not turn back. As a final warning, he says, “Remember Lot's wife.”

Conclusion

At one point the apostles begin to wonder if it was such a good idea after all to throw in their lot with Jesus. His reply to them serves as a good reminder to all of us:

“”Everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or fields for my sake, will receive a hundred times more and will be given eternal life.” (Matthew 19:29 // Mark 10:29)

ADOPTION IN THE BOOK OF ROMANS

 Since there are three literal adoptions within my immediate family, it is a subject of natural interest to me. In addition, there is one close Christian couple whom my wife and I always called “aunt and uncle” when talking to our kids, until they became old enough to start openly wondering whether the relationship was on my side of the family or my wife's, necessitating an explanation from us. Thus, I set out to write a blog post on the subject of adoption in the Bible, but I soon realized that was too grandiose a scope to cover in anything shorter than a whole book. So I narrowed my field of inquiry to the New Testament writings only. Then when I found that there were almost fifty references to the subject there, I finally settled on reviewing only what Paul has to say about adoption in his Epistle to the Romans.

But first a few words concerning the term “adoption” itself. J.M. Scott states, “In the Pauline letters the Greek word huiothesia is used either of the Israelites (Rom 9:4) or of believers (Gal 4:5; Rom 8:15,23; Eph 1:5) as sons of God. There is, however, some disagreement as to how to translate the term, whether as 'adoption' or, more generally, as 'sonship'...In Paul, as in contemporary extra-biblical sources, huiothesia always denotes either the process or state of being adopted as son(s). This is substantiated not only by the univocal and widespread usage of the term in literary and non-literary sources, but also by ancient Greek lexicographers dating to the time of the NT...Hence any attempt to translate the term more generally as 'sonship' sets the study of the background off on the wrong foot from the start.”

Here are those passages as they appear in the letter to the Romans, with some appropriate comments gleaned from the scholarly literature.

Romans 1:3-4 These verses explain that Jesus is God's “Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh and designated the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead.”

In this epistle of Paul we are exposed to the closest thing to a systematic theology that he has left us. As such, it is appropriate that he begins by attempting to briefly explain the family relationship between the members of the Trinity.

“In Acts 13:33 and in Hebrews 1:3-5 and 5:5 the resurrection / exaltation of Jesus is understood to be His enthronement as God's king and son, in agreement with a messianic interpretation of 2 Samuel 7:14 and of Psalm 2:7. That Paul has a similar understanding of these events is indicated by his allusion to the former passage when he says that Jesus, who 'was descended from David according to the flesh' was designated 'Son of God' (Rom. 1:3-4). The second affirmation appears to be a circumlocution for the adoption formula of 2 Samuel 7:14.)” (Ciampa)

Witmer adds that “resurrection declared Him to be the 'son of God because it validated His claims to deity and His predictions that He would rise from the dead (John 2:18-22; Matt. 16:21).”

Romans 8

Douglas provides a good overview of the references to adoption in this chapter: “The cry 'Abba, Father' (Rom, viii.15 and Gal. iv. 6 in the context of adoption) may perhaps be the traditional cry of the adopted slave. Once adopted, the son of God possesses all family rights, including access to the Father (Rom. viii.15) and sharing with Christ in the divine inheritance (Rom. viii. 17). The presence of the Spirit of God is both the instrument (Rom. viii.14) and the consequence (Gal. iv .6) of this possession and sonship. However complete in status this adoption may be, it has yet to be finally reached and promulgated in fact in the deliverance of the creation itself from bondage (Rom. viii. 21ff).”

Romans 8:11-17 Next we are given some insight into where we, as believers, fit into this heavenly family. In this passage, Paul concludes by saying that “all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God...you have received the spirit of sonship. When we cry, 'Abba! Father!' it is the Spirit himself bearing witness with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, then heirs, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ...” Thus, we can now see what position we ourselves hold in this spiritual family.

“The word translated 'sonship' (huiothesias) means 'placing as a son' and is frequently translated 'adoption.' Believers are adopted sons (Gal. 4:5; Eph. 1:5), not slaves (Gal. 4:7); so they need not be enslaved to sin or in fear. In New Testament times adopted sons enjoyed the same privileges as natural-born sons...Christians can approach God in an intimate way calling Him Abba, Father. 'Abba' is a Greek and English transliteration of the Aramaic word for father (used elsewhere in the NT only in Mark 14:36; Gal. 4:6).” (Witmer)

And before we get unduly hung up on the word “son,” Tamez points out, “Women and men guided by the Spirit are converted into sisters and brothers through divine adoption (8:14-17). Paul here is proclaiming a new kind of interpersonal relations permeated with solidarity. In this new humanity there is no gender which can be considered inferior.”

Paul is introducing us to another of the great metaphors in which he describes the new relationship of the Christian to God. Here Paul speaks of the Christian being adopted into the family of God. It is only when we understand how serious and complicated a step Roman adoption was that we really understand the depth of meaning in this passage...every step of Roman adoption [which he outlines] was meaningful in the mind of Paul when he transferred the picture to our adoption into the family of God.”

Romans 8:23 But somewhat paradoxically at this point, Paul goes on to state that we, along with all creation, “groan inwardly as we wait for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies.” So though we are already designated as children of God, it appears that our full adoption by Him will only occur when we receive our heavenly bodies.

Allen explains, “When the new age fully comes it will reveal the Church in their true light as sons of God, in all respects like the exalted Son (cf. Col. 3:4; 1 Jn. 3:2). It will also transform the world of nature, fulfilling the OT messianic promises of a renewed earth (e.g. Isa. 35).”

Braumann says, “Paul...understands sonship not just as a present condition (like his predecessors) but also as the goal of hope still to be fulfilled (Rom. 8:23; cf. also Jas. 1:18; 1 Pet. 1:23). Thus the concept takes on a peculiar double aspect” as explained by Bultmann who wrote, “On the one hand, it is a thing of the future, a longed-for goal (Rom. 8:23...); on the other hand, it is a present thing, as is attested by the fact that in the Spirit – that eschatological gift – we cry 'Abba'.”

Before leaving this verse, it is necessary to point out the problem area of the original wording. Fitzmyer explains that the “transmission of the Greek text is problematic” since several manuscripts “omit huithesian, 'adoptive sonship.' Although it is difficult to explain how it got into the text of most of the other Greek MSS, it is preferably omitted. Christians are already adopted children of God (8:15), made so by the Spirit already received...If retained, it would then mean, 'as we wait for adoptive sonship, the redemption of our bodies,' and Paul would then be referring to a phase of adoptive sonship still to be revealed: though we are already children of God, our full status of sonship has not yet been made manifest.”

The reader is free to choose either one of the above options given by Fitzmyer, especially in view of the fact that two noted textual critics reach opposite conclusions concerning the text:

Metzger feels that “adoption” was only omitted in some manuscripts because “copyists doubtless found [it] to be clumsy in the context and dispensable, as well as seemingly to contradict ver. 15.” Comfort, on the other hand, sides with the earliest two manuscripts, and they both omitted the word “adoption.”

Romans 8:29-30 Paul continues his extended argument with this verse heavy in theological ideas including such doctrines as God's foreknowledge, predestination, calling, and justification. But I will just zero in on the phrase ending v. 29: “in order that he [Jesus Christ] might be the first-born among many brethren.”

“Now we find out that it is not simply the physical children of Abraham with whom God has come into a relationship, but all of those who love God...it is not only that God chose them [either as individuals or large groups such as Gentiles], but that he also has a plan for them, which is to be like his Son.” (Brauch)

Romans 9:3-4 Now Paul switches gears a little and reverts to a mention of his own spiritual relationship with the Israelites, whom he calls “my brethren, my kinsmen by race.” Thus, although he considers himself fully part of God's spiritual family, he also acknowledges that according to race he is still an Israelite and he wishes all his earthly brethren to join God's family as he has (see Romans 10:1ff).

Vine says, “In Rom. 9:4 adoption is spoken of as belonging to Israel, in accordance with the statement in Ex. 4:12, 'Israel is my Son.' Cp. Hos. 11:1. Israel was brought into a special relation with God, a collective relationship, not enjoyed by other nations, Deut. 14:1; Jer. 31:9, etc.”

Unfortunately, as Allen says, “What an anticlimax to so glorious a heritage is the Jews' present hostile reaction to God's purpose!”

“Adoption is listed among the greatest blessings of God upon Israel (Rom. 9:4), 'to them belongs the adoption,' and in the triumphal doxology of Ephesians 1:5, 'adoption as his children' is named as a chief blessing of the gospel.” (Dictionary of Biblical Imagery)

Romans 9:25-26 The extended discussion on this particular subject concludes with a long quotation from Hosea 2:23; 1:10 in which the prophet states that God will take those who have previously not been his people and call them “sons of the living God.” In other words, they will become His adopted sons and daughters.

Romans 16 The whole epistle closes with an example of what the above new relationships means to the family of God here on earth. Thus, in his final greetings, Paul mentions some of those, mainly Gentiles judging by their names, with whom he now shares a new familial status. However, Achtemeier feels that it “is probable that the Christian community there was composed of converted Jews as well as gentiles, despite an earlier order by the Emperor Claudius that all Jews be expelled from Rome.”

Paul calls Phoebe his “sister” in verses 1-2;

Andronicus and Junias are called his “kinsmen” in v. 7;

in v. 10 he sends greetings to 'those who belong to the family of Aristobulus,' who is probably the leader of a house church;

in the following verse we are introduced to another “kinsman” and a church leader named Narcissus who has “a family”;

Paul speaks of Rufus' mother whom he also considers to be his own mother (v. 13);

verse 14 lists a group of fellow believers as well as all “the brethren who are with them;”

they are all to “greet one another with a holy kiss” (v. 16), which has family implications, as discussed below;

Paul speaks directly to all in the Roman church as “brethren” in the following verse;

and three more “kinsmen” and one “brother” send their greetings to the Romans as well in vv. 21-23.

Below are some specific comments on the passages summarized above:

Phoebe in vv. 1-2 “is described as our sister, i.e. in the spiritual family of the Lord, suggesting equality of privilege with the brotherhood...” (Davidson and Martin)

And commenting on v. 10, they state: “The family of Aristobulus is the second group of Christians listed. This noble was a grandson of Herod the Great, who lived privately at Rome. Those belonging to him, aptly rendered 'his family', including officials and slaves, had a Christian fellowship among them.”

Allen feels that Narcissus [in v. 11] may well be “the famous freedman who was a counsellor of the Emperor Claudius...who had committed suicide shortly before this letter was written, and his household of slaves would pass to the emperor.” They may have been among 'the saints of Caesar's household' mentioned in Philippians 4:20.

“His mother [v. 13] at some time or another evidently 'mothered' Paul (possibly when Paul was brought to Antioch, Acts 11:25ff.) and so is included in the greeting.” (Davidson and Martin)

John Knox explains that “the holy kiss of v. 16, a symbol of brotherly love among Christians, became a regular part of the liturgical rites in the church (1 Cor. 16:20; 2 Cor. 13.12; 1 Th. 5.26; 1 Pet. 5.14).”

Conclusion

Barclay's comments are worth repeating here: “God, the great Father in His amazing love and mercy, has taken the lost, helpless, poverty-stricken, debt-ridden sinner and adopted him into His own family, so that the debts are cancelled and the unearned love and glory inherited.”

REVELATION 14: ONE OR TWO HARVESTS?

Of all the difficult passages in Revelation, this chapter is perhaps the hardest to understand. As just a few examples, there is controversy concerning how these judgments fit within the overall eschatological scheme of the book; the identification of “the one like the Son of Man” in v. 14; the meaning of the probably symbolic numbers in this passage; the significance of “first fruit;” the nature of the “new song” and the “eternal gospel;” whether the marks on people's foreheads (vv. 1, 9) are literal or symbolic; the identity of the one with the loud voice in vv. 2 and 13, etc. etc. But in this post I would just like to zero in on two related issues – whether the two images of judgment in verses 15-20 represent one or two separate judgments, and whether each individual image refers to (a) the righteous, (b) the damned, (c) or the whole earth. Thus, there are actually nine possible combinations to consider. Thankfully, many of these have never been proposed before, as far as I am aware. But that still leaves several others to consider. It is best to take each of these two judgment images one at a time.

Beale introduces the two most popular understanding here by stating that “some hold that the first harvest (vv 15-16) [some would add v. 14 here] includes believers and unbelievers...and the second (vv 17-20) focuses only on unbelievers. Others see the first harvest as representing the gathering in of the elect at the end, while the second harvest or vintage portrays the judgment of the wicked.” I will start with comments representing those two views first. followed by minority opinions.

Gathering in the saved in verses 15-16 and judgment of the wicked in 17-20

“The eschatological harvest, the final judgment of God (Joel 3:13), involves the ingathering of the saints by one like the Son of Man (vv. 14-16) and the assembly of the wicked for destruction (vv. 17-20; Is 63:1-6).” (Ruiz) Metzger uses practically the same words to express his view.

“The wicked will be condemned (Rev 14:17-20; 17:12-14; 19:15) but the saints will be harvested into Christ's kingdom (Rev 14:15-16).” (Kim)

Ford relates verses 15-16 to the grain harvest image in Matthew 3:12 and Luke 3:17. “This harvest, therefore, is one of protection rather than destruction and therefore follows naturally after the exhortation to the saints (vss. 12-13).”

This view also appears to be the general consensus of the anonymous contributors to The Dictionary of Biblical Imagery:

    “In Revelation 14:14-20 two harvests, grain and grapes, are depicted. In both cases God's covenant people are forever separated from their enemies.”

    “A final image is that of treading grapes in a winepress as part of a grape harvest. It appears in apocalyptic visions of the coming age as an image of divine blessing...but also as an image of divine judging (Is 63:3; Lam 1:15; Joel 3:3). The ultimate example of the latter motif is the scene of Revelation 14:18, where the angel swings his sharp sickle, harvests the grapes from the earth's vine and throws them into the winepress of God's wrath.” (DBI)

    “The plagues of the Apocalypse display God's anger against his enemies (Rev. 14:10,19, etc.). Wrath describes the day of judgment when the wicked are destroyed and the saints rewarded (Rev 11:8).”

    “The most important of these [farming images] are the use of harvest to picture God's final judgment against evil (Joel 3:13; Mt 13:30; Rev 14:17-20) and the ingathering of persons in salvation (...Rev 14:14-16).”

    “The battle motif is resolved by the imagery of punishment for evil – the winepress of the wrath of God (Rev 14:19-20)...”

    “Revelation 14:18-20 shows that even at the end of the canon the vineyard image can be used to picture the judgment coming on those who resist God.”

    “All...foregoing references to the winepress pale when put alongside the terrifying winepress of God's wrath – his final destruction of evil and punishment of evildoers. We read about this in the apocalyptic visions of the Bible, first in Isaiah 63:3, where God is pictured as treading the winepress alone in anger, trampling the wicked in wrath and staining His robes in the process. The climatic pictures are in the book of Revelation (Rev. 14:19-20; 19:15), where the winepress is strongly identified with God's anger against sin and where in a surrealistic vision the wine vat flows with blood instead of wine (Rev 14:20).”

Payne comments on vv. 15-16, “Since the reaping of those who are subject to condemnation follows separately in vv. 17-20, the fulfillment of the present prophecy would appear to concern the ingathering of the righteous from the earth, namely the rapture of the living...The picture parallels that of the parables of Mt. 13 on the discriminatory gathering by angels (cf. Rev 14:17) of the wheat as distinct from the tares, v. 30, and of the good fish separately from the bad, v. 48.” And on vv. 17-20, he feels, “Since the symbolism is here drawn from Joel 3:13, on the nations that gather in the valley of Jehoshaphat at Lord's return, the city that is intended is probably Jerusalem, and the fulfillment, Christ's victory in this first engagement out of the total campaign of Armageddon, as in Joel 3:2.”

“The world of humanity, which is ripening for the final judgment, is often compared to a harvest, Matt. 9:37; 13:30; Lk 10:2; John 4:35. We have this symbolism in our very chapter, Rev. 14:14ff. Here, too, the first fruits are for the Lord, verses 14-16; the rest is for satan, verses 17-20.” (Hendricksen)

Mounce: “There is a difference of opinion about what group of people is intended for harvest. Some understand this scene (vss. 14-16) as the gathering of the righteous as the judgment of the wicked. Supporting this position is the fact that in the NT the figure of the harvest is normally used of the gathering of men into the kingdom of God (Mt 9:37-38; Mk 4:29; Lk 10:2; Jn 4:35-38).” But his personal view falls clearly into the next category.

General gathering in verses 15(or 14)-16 and judgment on the wicked in 17-20

Mounce continues: “The idea of an eschatological harvest, however, is not limited to the gathering of the elect. In the parable of the Wheat and Tares, it involves the gathering of the wicked for burning as well (Mt 13:30, 40-42). In the OT the harvest was a regular symbol of divine judgment (Jer 51:33; Hos 6:11; cf. II Esdr 4:33). Beckwith correctly says, 'The figure is comprehensive, including in a word the whole process of the winding up of the ages, and the recompense of both the good and the bad.' The harvest of verses 14-16 is a general picture of the coming judgment...Judgment of nations in v. 20 as outside the city is paralleled by location of judgment of the nations in Joel 3:12-14 and Zechariah 14:1-4. Judgment 'outside the city' must certainly be an allusion to the one who suffered for the sins of man 'outside the gate' (Heb 13:12; cf. Jn 19:20). Those who refuse the first judgment must take part in the second.”

Morris says, “Reaping is certain as soon as the harvest of the earth is ripe. Some take this to refer to the gathering in of the righteous with the symbolism of wheat harvest (cf. Mt. xiii. 30,38, Mk. iv. 29)...there is nothing in the context to show that the righteous are in view. Wheat is not even mentioned, for example. It is best to see the harvest as general [i.e. of all humanity].”

As to the vintage of verses 17-20, Morris states that the harvesting and pressing of grapes “is more suitable imagery for the judgment of the wicked...”

All of vv. 14-20 relates to judgment on the wicked

This opinion is seen in the note on this passage in The Jerusalem Bible, which treats it as: “The destruction of the pagan nations.”

Beale: “The visions...express parabolically an expectation of his coming, especially to judge the ungodly (14:14-20, etc.)...Nevertheless Christ...will then establish his kingdom in its final, complete and eternal form (Rev 11:15-17, etc.).”

All of vv. 14-20 refers to the saved in Christ

I recently came across this decidedly minority view in a sermon I heard, which apparently stemmed from the lone opinions of Caird. Mounce explains that “Caird holds the harvest and vintage to be variations on a single theme, but interprets both as portraying the impending martyrdom of the elect.”

Such a opinion appears to be rather perverse in that it states that the gleefully bloody and almost sadistic tramping of the grapes by God Himself in his wrath somehow describes the unfortunate death of loyal believers at the hands of pagans. To reach such a conclusion he must resort to much special pleading and grasping at straws. Some of these straws include:

    The tramping of the vintage takes place outside the city. But this is where Jesus was crucified. And since Jesus' followers are to go wherever their Savior goes (Rev.14:4), then this must refer to their deaths as martyrs. Ford counters with the fact that “outside the city” meant the outlying neighborhood of the city of Jerusalem itself, “thought of as a judgment place for 'Gentiles; c.g. Joel 4:2,12; Zech 14:2-12; I Enoch 53:1.'” Taking a different approach, Beasley-Murray states, “The city outside which the treading of the winepress takes place is presumably the world-city, 'Babylon the great.' (see 11:8; 18:2).” And lastly, Ford also suggests that 'outside the city' may reflect conditions in A.D. 66 when Vespasian captured the strongholds of the Zealots and the whole area suffered bloodshed except Jerusalem.

    The two harvests in vv. 14-20 represent the bread and wine of communion in which believers are to partake.

    “Gospel” in 14:7 refers to martyrdom rather than “good news.”

    The gory vintage of v. 19 refers probably to the death of the martyrs since “there is no note of victory in this harvest.”

    Ford presents Caird's view of the number 1,600 in v. 20 thusly, “Caird observes that because this is a square number (40 x 40) it may provide some slight confirmation that the vintage is to be interpreted as the great martyrdom.” But she also notes, “The number could also connote that the destruction is as complete as the preservation.” Other explanations for that symbolic number are given below.”

Additional evidence

As for deciding between the two most likely views, note that both are in agreement in treating Revelation 14:15-20 as judgment on those to be damned. The only difference of opinion concerns whether the earlier wheat field image concerns those to be saved or all of humanity. One factor which I have yet to encounter in the literature is the overall literary structure of the chapter, which might be pictured as in Figure 1:

                                                   Figure 1: Structure of Revelation 14

I. Throne Scene (1-5)

    A. “I looked and lo there was the Lamb standing” (1a)

B. “I heard a voice from heaven...the first fruit for God” (1b-5)

II. three angels (6-11)

    A. all earth (2x) should fear God (6-7)

        B. judgment on the unrighteous (8-11)

II. call for endurance for the faithful (12)

I'. Throne Scene (13-14)

         B. “I heard a voice from heaven...those who from now on die in the Lord (13)

    A. “I looked and lo there was...seated...one like the Son of Man” (14)

                        II'. three angels (15-20)

                            A. the earth (3x) was reaped (15-16)

                                B. judgment on the unrighteous (17-20)

This arrangement appears to answer the question as to the identity of the “one like the Son of Man” in v. 14. Also it confirms Beasley-Murray's contention that in verse 4, aparche in addition to meaning first fruits “could be translated by its usual LXX [Septuagint] meaning 'sacrifice', for such a thought is peculiarly apt in this prophecy of the testimony, suffering and martyrdom of Christ's chosen ones.” That latter idea is expressed in the parallel mention in v. 13 of those who die in the Lord from now on (compare IB and I'B).

In addition, and even more pertinent to the question at hand, it may help decide between the two most likely options concerning the identity of those in verses 15-16 and 17-20. Subsections A and B of II' are seen by the above to be parallel to their earlier counterparts in Section II. This not only helps to confirm that the vintage imagery in verses 17-20 refer to judgment on the unrighteous, but also appears to be another point in favor of determining that verses 15-16 are limited to describing the gathering in of the saved rather than being a general description of the judgment on all mankind.

One additional insight can perhaps be gleaned (no pun intended) from comparing the symbolic numbers appearing at the start and conclusion of the overall passage. The beginning throne scene in verses 1 and 3 describes the number of the saved as 144,000. This number, as I have explained elsewhere, can be broken down into 12 x 12 x 1,000. This is usually taken to be symbolic of a large number of those saved from both the Old Testament dispensation and the New Testament dispensation (as represented respectively by the twelve tribes of Israel and the twelve disciples). The number 12 itself is the product of 4 (humanity or creation) and 3 (God or the Trinity), the whole therefore representing God's people throughout the ages.

But this “perfect” or “complete” number is contrasted in the last verse of the chapter by the blood of the vintage flowing for 16,000 stadia. Some scholars convert this into miles or kilometers and state that the flow covers the whole of Israel at its peak while others instead feel that it is meant to represent the pagan nations surrounding Israel instead. Both of these approaches are ill-founded, as others have pointed out. The real meaning is symbolic and lies within the number 16,000 itself.

Morris: “Of the explanations suggested perhaps best is that which sees it [i.e. 16,000] as the product of sixteen (the square of four, the number of the earth which is the abode of the wicked) and one hundred (the square of ten, the number of completeness). Blood stretching for 1,600 stadia thus stands for the complete judgment of the whole earth and the destruction of all the wicked.” I am not quite sure how he reaches this final conclusion since the number four stands for all creation, not just the wicked. But I believe that other approaches are far more likely and they teach the same general point.

Thus, in comparing 144,000 = (4+3)(4+3)(1,000) with 16,000 = (4)(4)(100) we see that what is missing in the latter number is the presence of God. This confirms that the judgment of vv. 15-16 is limited to those who are destined to be damned.

Or we could also arrive at 16,000 by showing that it is the product of (10+6)(100). This is important since in John's writings, the number 17, as the sum of two perfect numbers 10 and 7, is itself a perfect number. If this is true, then 16 falls short of perfection and thus symbolizes imperfection (as does the number of the beast 666). Again we are led to the conclusion that the second of two harvests (vv. 17-20) applies to the damned only.

WHO WROTE COLOSSIANS?

Most Christians will have no problem accepting the Epistle to the Colossians as a composition of Paul. However, that does not imply that this authorship has been universally accepted. Dunn asks, “Who wrote Colossians? This is probably the most contentious of the introductory issues facing the student of Colossians.” I actually doubt that there is a single book in the Bible whose authorship has not been questioned at one time on another by some scholar. Here is a quick overview of the reasonings pro and con regarding that issue. These are generally broken down into discussions of the separate factors highlighted below. But first, a brief summary by Brevard Childs of how the book has been viewed over time is in order:

“The authorship was first seriously questioned by Mayerhoff in 1838 whose theory was then developed by F. S. Baur and his school in the mid-nineteenth century. In the late nineteenth century various attempts were made to support some form of indirect Pauline authorship, either by a hypothesis of subsequent interpolations (Holzmann), or by an appeal to Paul's use of an amanuensis [i.e. secretary]. Although in the period before World War II, Bultmann and his school continued to characterize Colossians with Ephesians as part of the non-genuine 'deutero-Pauline' corpus, there was an impressive group of critical scholars who defended the book's authenticity...However, within the most recent period it would seem that those who support the non-Pauline authorship form a new majority...Naturally there remains a impressive minority voice (Kummel, Moule, etc.).”

 And getting back to Dunn's question above, he answers it himself in the following manner: “I have to confirm the strong likelihood that the letter comes from a hand other than Paul's.” He bases this on “the subjective appreciation of manner and mode of expression” but admits that it may be due to any of a number of factors, including a change in Paul's style over the years or his reliance on a secretary such as Timothy to do the actual writing (either during Paul's life and with his approval of the final product or very soon after Paul's death) based on Paul's rough guidelines. In any case, Colossians should still be considered a Pauline Epistle.

You might ask whether this whole subject warrants such undue scrutiny and whether it really matters one way or another, but Barth and Blanke point out: The question of Pauline authorship is not a matter of antiquarian curiosity, scholarly pedantry, or idle luxury. Ever since, on literary and historical grounds, the secondary and spurious origin of Colossians was 'discovered' or 'demonstrated,' cumulative experience has shown that the verdict 'inauthentic' leads to a depreciation and devaluation of some elements, at times even of the essential substance and character of this letter.” So it remains an important issue for all believers.

Historical Considerations

Pro- O'Brien states, “The character of Paul, as we known it from the other letters, shines throughout the letter. There was no dispute over the authority of Colossians in the early period of the church, and the letter was included in Marcion's canonical list [AD 130-140] as well as in the Muratorian canon [AD 180-200].”

Similarly, R. Martin says, “The later Church Fathers [such as Irenaeus, Clement, and Tertullian] accepted it and there was no dispute over its authorship in the early decades...”

Con- The only real criticism against Colossians on historical grounds is explained by several commentators as due to its antagonism against Gnosticism, a movement which only came to prominence years after Paul's death. But this is by no means a foolproof argument, as explained below.

Pro- Martin responds: “The heresy combated in the letter is not the fully developed gnosticism of the second century systems but a proto-gnostic synchretism which may well have arisen in the apostolic age (seen most obviously at Corinth as von Dobschutz as early as 1904 was quick to recognize and recently demonstrated with thoroughness by W. Schmithals) and for which there are parallels in heterodox Judaism in the Phygian diaspora.”

Linguistic Issues

“There are 28 words not found elsewhere in Paul, and 34 other words not represented elsewhere. These rare words, moreover, are largely technical or quasi-technical terms, which Paul may well have borrowed from his opponents, especially if he is quoting their actual language or using phrases suitable in debate. In addition he does incorporate the hymnic period (1:15-20) where a proportion of the special vocabulary is found.” (Martin)

Even Raymond Brown, with his somewhat liberal stance on the subject, states that “Phil[ippians], genuinely written by Paul and of comparable length, uses 79 words that do not appear in the other undisputed Pauline letters (including 36 that appear nowhere else in the NT). Thus the percentages of unusual words prove nothing; and even if they were much higher in Col, that would not be decisive because the writer might be drawing on the false teaching present at Col for some of his distinctive terminology. Another verbal objection to Pauline writing is the absence in Col of favorite Pauline phrases...Again this statistic becomes less impressive when we realize that 'to justify' is not found in I Thess, Phil, and II Cor; nor is 'law' found in I Thess and II Cor; nor 'save/salvation' in Gal. Moreover, once more the vocabulary of Col may have been shaped by the problem at hand.”

Similarly, although Brevard Childs' main emphasis of analysis is not on the exact authorship itself, he states the following: “Consistent with Paul's practice and fully obvious for this letter is the recognition that the apostle did not write a timeless theological tractate. Rather, the letter to the Colossians was evoked by a false teaching which had made inroads into the church and posed a serious threat...It seems increasingly clear that much of the basic theological language by which the false teaching as contested by the writer has its roots within the heresy itself.”

For those who accept Ephesians as an authentic letter of Paul, it is difficult for them to assert that the language in the two letters differs considerably. I will not bother comparing such language exhaustively. However, as a small demonstration, consider just the center sections of each epistle, which I have earlier determined by literary characteristics to consist of Ephesians 3:1-21 and Colossians 2:8-23:

    Eph. 3:5 – humankind                                                     Col. 2:8 – human condition

    Eph. 3:7,16,18,20 – power                                             Col. 12 – power

    Eph. 3:10 – rulers and authorities in heavenly places     Col. 2:10 – every ruler and authority

    Eph. 3:10 – wisdom of God                                            Col. 2:23 – appearance of wisdom

    Eph. 19 – fullness of God Col. 2:9 – fullness of deity

And for those who do not accept Ephesians as an authentic writing of Paul, there is still the short book of Philemon to consider since it is universally accepted as being by Paul:

    Col. 1:1 – Timothy our brother                                      Phe. 1 – Timothy our brother

    Col. 1:2 – for his body's sake                                         Phe. 9 – for love's sake

    Col. 1:3 – I give thanks to God                                      Phe. 4 – we give thanks to God

    Col. 1:4 – We heard of...the love you have to all the saints

                                            Phe. 5 – hearing of the the love and faith which you have toward...the saints

Col. 1:5,23 – gospel                                                          Phe. 13 – gospel

Col. 2:4 – I say                                                                 Phe. 21 – I say (different Greek words)

Col. 2:6; 4:10,17 – receive                                               Phe. 12,17 – receive (different Greek words)

Col. 2:13 – forgiven (charisamenos)                               Phe. 22 – granted (charisthasomai)

Col. 3:13 – forgiven (charizomenoi                                 Phe. 22 – granted (charisthasomai)

Col. 3:20,22 – obey                                                         Phe. 21 – obedience

Col. 3:22; 4:1,12 – servant                                               Phe. 16 – servant

Col. 3:24; 4:1 – knowing that...you                                 Phe. 21 – knowing that you

Col. 3:25 – to wrong (2x)                                                Phe. 18 – to wrong

Col. 4:2,12 – prayer(s)                                                     Phe. 4,22 – prayer(s)

Col. 4:3 – withal (nema)                                                  Phe. 22 withal (nema)

Col. 4:7,9,14 – beloved                                                    Phe. 2,16 – beloved

Col. 4:8 – whom I have sent (pempo) to you                  Phe. 12 – whom I have sent (anapempo) to you

Col. 4:9 – Onesimus                                                        Phe. 10 – Onesimus

Col. 4:10,12,15 – greet                                                    Phe. 23 – greet

Col. 4:12 – laboring fervently for you in prayers

                                                                            Phe. 4 – making mention of you always in my prayers

Col. 4:15 – church in his house                                       Phe. 2 – church in your house

Col. 4:17 – Archippus                                                     Phe. 2 – Archippus

Col. 4:18 – bonds                                                            Phe. 10,13 – bonds

Col. 4:18 – hand                                                              Phe. 19 – hand

Colossians – “flesh” in a positive sense (5x)                  Phe. 16 – “flesh” in a positive sense

This sort of verbal agreement is truly amazing and goes a long way toward confirming Paul's authorship of Colossians.

Stylistic Considerations

Con – “Characteristic features of style, as distinct from vocabulary, include liturgical material with long clauses introduced by relative pronouns, inserted causal and participial phrases, combined and synonymous expressions ('strengthened with all power,' Col 1:11; 'praying and asking,' Col 1:9), a series of dependent genitives ('the word of truth, of the gospel,' Col 1:5) and loosely joined infinitival construction ('who walk worthily of the Lord,' Col 1:10).” (O'Brien)

Pro – O'Brien accounts for these deviations from Paul's usual manner of writing which have given rise to the theory of another author in the following way: “But such a judgment appears to be unduly negative and presupposes an almost infallible understanding of what Paul could or could not have written. Further, it does not explain the close similarities between Colossians and the generally accepted Pauline letters. Rather, the stylistic peculiarities would seem to have their basis in the letter's content which is clearly connected with the particular situation which necessitated the letter.”

Next, a few comments concerning the overall form of the letter to the Colossians are in order. O'Brien says, “Many of the formal features of Colossians show similarities with the other Pauline letters, including its structure (the introduction, Col 1:1-2; conclusion, Col 4:18; and thanksgiving prayer, Col 1:3-8), connecting words and phrases (Col 2:1,6,16; 3:1,5) as well as the list of messages and greetings (cf. Col 4:8,10,12,15).” Additionally, in regard to the overall shape of the letter, my own researches have demonstrated that Colossians takes the form of a chiasm (detained symmetrical structure) in common with all of Paul's later letters.

O'Brien next enumerates a number of common phrases found elsewhere in Paul's authentic writings including his “superfluous use of 'and' and 'therefore' (Col 1:9; cf. 1 Thess 2:13; 3:5).”

Martin explains, “We cannot say whether Paul gave liberty to a secretary (Timothy? 1:1) to write up the final letter from his rough draft, taken down by dictation. ..On that assumption...the unusual literary style of the epistle could be explained, along with the presence of some terms not found elsewhere in Paul. This is P. Benoit's hypothesis.”

“Finally, the absence of some of the characteristic Pauline stylistic features, especially in the use of particles may be set down to the nature of the letter as a document embodying distinctive material in a litrugio-hymnic style and containing traditional material of a didactic nature relating to a specific occasion...This special occasion required the conscious use of a specialized vocabulary...and gave Paul's scribe a simpler task to compose in a more leisurely, systematic and reflective style.” (Martin)

Con- “There are extraordinarily long sentences in Col hooked together by participles and relative pronouns..., e.g., 1:3-8, 2:8-15. True, there are long sentences in the undisputed Pauline letters (e.g., Rom 1:1-7), but the Col style is marked by pleonastic synonyms piling up words that convey the same idea.” (Brown)

Pro- In rebuttal to this issue, Brown asks himself, “Are such differences reconcilable with Paul's having written Col? Granted that Paul did not personally evangelize Colossae, did he take care to send a message in a style influenced by hymns and liturgical confessions known there, so that his correction of the teaching would not seem alien? Did he employ a scribe who knew Colossae (Epaphras or one influenced by him?) and depend on his cooperation in apposite phrasing? That could explain in part why so many of the minor particles, adverbs, and connective words common to genuine Pauline style are missing.”

Theological Issues

Con- Childs notes “the peculiar theological profile of the letter...appears to reflect strong elements of both continuity and discontinuity with the undisputed letters of Paul.”

Concerning the “discontinuities,” Raymond Brown reviews in more detail the problem areas in Colossians' teachings in the areas of Christology, Ecclesiology, and Eschatology.

Pro- But after the above review, Brown concludes, “Many scholars work almost with a dialectic of thesis and antithesis. They are confident of the clarity of Paul's thought, which stemmed from the revelation he received, and they can judge with certainty what would be contradictory to it (We saw an extreme form of that view in the opinion that would reject Rom 9-11 as unauthentic because Paul could not have thought thus about Israel.)..The contention that Paul could not possibly have held the...views advanced in Col is overstated.” Although these theological considerations alone do not convince Brown that Paul did write Colossians, he does feel that they lean in that direction.

Pro- Wright sees definite affinities between Colossians and the universally accepted early writings of Paul in the following areas: Christology (Philippians 2:6-11; I Corinthians 8:6; II Corinthians 4:4; 8:9), critiques against Judaism and viewing Christians as the true people of God (Romans 2:17-29; Philippians 3:2-11; II Corinthians 3; and all of Galatians), and the church as Christ's body (I Corinthians 12 and Romans 12). “Finally, the pregnant and difficult verse about suffering (1:24) can be understood only if we line it up with 2 Corinthians 1:3-11; 4:7-18 and Romans 8:17-25.”...Colossians does not, it is true, mention the doctrine of justification (It is, however, frequently implicit, for instance in 3:10-13)...The real center of Paul's thought, as of his life, is not justification, but that which underlies it and gives it its polemical cutting edge, namely, the crucified and risen Jesus, seen as the revelation in action of the one creator God...”

Con- Barth and Blanke summarize the damning case against Pauline authorship set forth by Bultmann, who accuses the author of espousing “a Christian Gnosis, a tradition-bound authoritarianism and clericalism, a speculative conception of the relation between Christ and the cosmos, a poor form of moralism, and a return to the equivalent of Jewish good works. In other words, the epistle exhibits a “somewhat faded Paulism.” And, according to Bultmann, all of the above indicates that the author had failed miserably to counter the attacks of the Gnostics of his time.

Pro-

The response of Barth and Blanke to such charges is as follows: “Not only is such reasoning questionable, but two of its presuppositions are less than sufficiently confirmed: (1) the assumption that Paul never might have failed and even more (2) the conviction that Colossians is the product of a man victimized by the Colossian Religion.

Additional specific areas of theology under question in Colossians are best treated one at a time, giving both sides of the issue in each case, as discussed by Ralph Martin.

Teachings on Baptism

There are at least three different charges leveled against Colossians by scholars such as Kasemann in regard to its teachings on baptism being different that Paul's comments in the “authentic” Pauline letters. The issue involves a detailed analysis of Colossians 1:15-20 in contrast to Philippians 2:5-11 and other epistles of Paul and is much too complicated to rehearse here, but suffice it to say that Martin sees no overwhelming difficulty with any of the supposed problems, as he explains in his conclusion to the subject.

It is likely “that the epistle's editor has utilized an early hymn and suitably redacted it for his purpose to emphasize (a) the eschatological/salvific teaching of an original cosmological tribute, and (b) the application of the cosmic victory of Christ to his readers' lives. If these two considerations are borne in mind it must be granted that that this type of citation and application, set in a baptismal frame, is exactly Paul's manner of joining soteriology and ethics, as in Philippians 2:5-11.”

Martin adds that Kasemann's “understanding of the hymn presupposes two ideas. First, he takes it as axiomatic that the primary purpose of the passage which had an existence independent of and prior to its inclusion in the letter is not to combat the Colossian heresy.”

“Secondly, the surrounding context of 1:12-14 gives substantial support to the view that the hymn was part of a baptismal liturgy.” Martin has no problem with this part of Kasemann's argument, but “it is less persuasive when he proceeds to conclude that the author of the epistle has taken over the introit (1:12-14) and the hymn without modification...and that these modifications do not represent the author's response to the Colossian heresy. Martin then proceeds in the rest of his commentary to thoroughly discredit this second assumption.

The Body of Christ

He says that “It is argued that the term 'body of Christ' is used differently in I Corinthians-Romans, where its usage is figurative of the Church, from Colossians in which the author speaks of the body as a cosmic reality as well as a description of the Church (1:18,24; 2:19; 3:15) of which Christ is the head. But the ecclesiological sense predominates and there are clear adumbrations of Paul's Colossian teachings in his second Adam typology; and the emphatic cosmic dimension of Christ's headship may well have been evoked by Paul's partial agreement with and partial correction of the false teaching on this theme.”

Hope

Bornkamm zeroes in on Colossians 1:5 with its mention of hope 'as prepared for you in the heavenly sphere' and attempts to draw a contrast between that teaching and the subjective sense of hope in the common triad 'faith, hope and love' found in Paul's authentic writings.

Martin responds: “It is true that 'hope' does carry this special meaning in Colossians, occasioned (we may believe) by the need to show that the Church's trust in the gospel is secure 'in the heavenly world' where Christ's lordship was in dispute. It is not to be lost by compromise with the heretics. However, Bornkamm's denial of a temporal aspect to hope in this epistle overlooks the eschatological dimension and the hope of the Lord's parousia which appears in one important section (3:1-4). The present hour (4:5) is one of opportunity as Christians live 'between the times' of the two advents; and the prospect of future reward and judgment is held out (3:24-4:1).”

Final Considerations

Finally, there are those like N.T. Wright who note: “Some of those who doubt Colossians' authenticity build their case on theology, saying that the style of the letter does not provide clear enough indication. Others, happy to say that the theology of the letter is substantially Pauline, think that the style alone forces us to say that someone other than Paul wrote it. This suggests, actually, that neither the style nor the theology is as decisive in mounting an argument against authenticity as some have suggested. More recent work has shown that an excellent case for Pauline authorship can still be made out.”

It is recognized that there are close correspondences between Colossians and Ephesians. Thus, one could be forgiven for simply asking why scholars haven't just used one as a standard of a genuine composition of Paul and compared the other writing to it to determine its authenticity. Barth and Blanke address this possibility but only add to the confusion regarding the whole issue by pointing out that there are scholars who feel that (a) both books are authentic, (b) neither book is authentic, (c) Colossians is authentic but Ephesians isn't, or (d) Ephesians is authentic but Colossians isn't.

And in case you are wondering at this point why Bible scholars sometimes go to such great lengths trying to overturn traditional conclusions regarding issues such as authorship, Melick has some good things to say on the subject:

“While the questions of authorship are quite complex, some general observations about method may be helpful. Many of the recent theories of critical scholarship arise from a procedure of methodological doubt. That is, skepticism becomes the tool of learning. [This has been called a 'hermeneutic of suspicion.'] The result is that, rather than approaching the text with sympathy for its statements and the history of its study some approach the text to see why it cannot be what others decide it is. Doubt has a place in the reasoning process, but it should not overrule good arguments to the contrary. Often good explanations are rejected simply because they are traditional. Along with this is a second methodological principle, that of determining proper standards for comparison. Since the objective data are limited, scholars can easily drift into subjective standards of comparison that are psychological and sociological, as well as theological.”

But the above begs the question as to why mainly liberal scholars should start out with such a negative approach to begin with. It could possibly be done in an attempt to discredit the teachings of the Bible because of the way they might impact their individual lifestyles. However, I believe an even more pervasive motive is found in the common motto in the halls of academia – “Publish or Perish.”It is simply harder to get attention, tenure, promotion, and book sales in a university setting if all one does is agree with the accepted wisdom of the past.