AGNOSIA (IGNORANCE) IN I CORINTHIANS 15:34 AND I PETER 2:15

 First, a quick word study is in order since there are actually two Greek words in the New Testament commonly translated as “ignorance.” These are agnosia (only found in the two passages above) and the much more common word agnoia. And there is a little disagreement among scholars regarding the distinction between the two.

Stibbs and Walls state, “The word for ignorance, agnosia is a stronger word than agnoia, and indicates more than 'lack of knowledge'. It suggests possible obstinate unwillingness to learn or to accept the truth.”

But in discussing agnosia, Goppelt says that “agnoia has the same sense in I Pet. 1:14; Acts 3:17; 17:30; Eph. 4:18, as does the verb agnoein in Acts 13:27; 17:23 (Rom. 10:3); I Tim. 1:13; Heb. 5:2; II Pet. 2:12.”

“In Hellenistic gnosticism drunkenness is often linked with agnosia in opposition to true gnosis.” (Budd)

Vine characterizes agnosia as “ignorance as directly opposed to gnosis, which signifies knowledge as a result of observation and experience.” He states that in both I Corinthians 15:34 and I Peter 2:15, “reprehensible ignorance is suggested.”

Grosheide defines agnosia as 'non-knowledge.'

Both Strong and Young, in their respective analytical concordances, define the two words in exactly the same way: ignorance.

“In the Hellenistic terminology of gnostic dualism agnosia was 'lack of the knowledge essential to the salvation of the soul, i.e., the knowledge about God, of the fate of the soul and of true direction for life.' If a man was living without knowledge, it was either because he had not received the revelation or had refused it.” (Schutz)

Horsley: “Paul derides 'those who are full of wisdom and knowledge' as having no knowledge of God.”

Since there appears to be a lack of a true consensus here, it is best to next consider the comments of scholars regarding the specific use of agnosia in each of its two appearances in the Bible.

I Corinthians 15:34

“Make no mistake: 'Bad company is the ruin of a good character.' Come back to a sober and upright life and leave your sinful ways. There are some who know nothing of God; to your shame I say it.” (NEB)

Hillyer paraphrases it as: “Some of you claim to be agnostics. But ignorance of God while natural to pagans is shameful to Christians.”

And the Anchor Bible renders this passage: “Sober up as is fitting, and stop sinning; for some are maintaining ignorance of God. I say to you, 'For shame!'”

“False teachers [i.e. the bad company] should be avoided...because though they claimed great knowledge they were in fact ignorant of God.” (Lowery)

Orr and Walther: “Ignorance of God deliberately maintained leads to sinning...It seems necessary to affirm that Paul is attacking the notion that nothing of a personal life survives death...Paul seems to presuppose that his opponents destroy the point of serious Christian living, and this would issue from the belief that death ends for each person.”

Grosheide notes, “From the preceding we can gather that the sins of the Corinthians consisted at least to a certain extent in erroneous doctrine and certainly in wrong conduct. There was also a wrong knowledge of God. In 8:2 Paul referred already to this incorrect knowledge of the Corinthians. Here he lays a connection between the error concerning the resurrection of the body and the incorrect knowledge of God...This must necessarily lead to sin for then the situation is like that in which the gentiles find themselves. Knowledge must not be taken in a purely intellectual sense; it is knowledge that moves the heart.”

Fee states, “The concluding two imperatives suggest that the 'evil company' is in fact their denial of the resurrection, which undoubtedly had a role in the corrosion of their Christian behavior.” He explains that the reference of this ignorance that “some have” could point to those outside the church, but more likely serves to lump those in the church who have this lack of faith together with the pagans as 'the ultimate put-down.'”

I Peter 2:15

“For God wants you to silence the ignorant talk of foolish people by the good things you do.” (TEV)

“Such discrimination arises from the ignorance of foolish people. One who is aphron, 'foolish,' is according to a typical statement in Jewish wisdom, one who does not see God or, therefore, truth and justice. Such a person is found in agnosia, 'ignorance,' and does not know what he or she is doing.Therefore, such a person's steps are not without guilt, but are certainly forgiveable before God and humans.” (Goppelt)

Davids says, “While agnosia itself means simply 'ignorance,' it is clear in this verse that the ignorance is being expressed and must be silenced. Thus we translate it 'ignorant charges'...It is clear that the first and most insidious form of persecution was slander. Peter charitably bases this slander in ignorance..., but as in the use of the related term in 1 Peter 1:14, the ignorance is that of fools, people estranged from God. In their rebellion against God they are ignorant of his ways and perceive the behavior of Christians in a warped manner.”

“Peter, writing probably in the age of Nero, still sees the state as the God-appointed society for the maintenance of moral values, in which the Christian's uprightness should raise him or her above the slanders or suspicions of the ignorant.” (Wheaton)

Keener expresses the opinion that “Peter offers a strategy rather than a promise; he is aware that believers may suffer, but he urges that it is better to suffer as a good-doer than as a wrongdoer...critics are ignorant of the truth (2:15), but this is no surprise: so were believers before their faith (1:14).”

As to the nature of the persecution being discussed here, Webb says: “1 Peter does not describe a traumatic or climactic moment of acute suffering but the kind of suffering that wears people down because of its daily pressure.”

In a similar vein, Michaels states, “The persecution in view is the kind carried out not with fire or sword but with words – words of ridicule, slander, and sometimes formal accusations of crimes against society (see 1 Pet 2:12; 3:13-17; 4:14-16).”

And for a comment on the literary characteristics of this verse, Raymer points out, “Each of the three Greek words rendered 'ignorant talk of foolish men' begins with the letter alpha, as do the three Greek words in 1:4 rendered 'never perish, spoil, or fade.' Apparently Peter enjoyed alliteration.”

Conclusion

I find it interesting that in the first of these only two occurrences of agnosia in the NT, it is the church members who are accused of ignorance while in the second passage, it is the pagans.

I would like to end these comments with an appropriate warning from Towner: “The tyranny of 'knowledge' as the basis of Christian ethics has a long and unfortunate history in the church...Once one's theology is properly in hand, it is especially tempting to use it as a club on others...This does not mean that knowledge is either irrelevant or unimportant, but it does mean that it cannot serve as the primary basis of Christian behavior. In Christian ethics 'knowledge' must always lead to love...In the Christian faith 'knowledge' or 'insight' is never an end in itself; it is only a means to a greater end, the building up of others.”

I once witnessed an unfortunate example of this temptation when our young assistant pastor, who had actually had earlier training to be a Jesuit priest and was quite firm in his current theological beliefs, almost bit off the head of a loyal member of the congregation who had the temerity to ask an innocent question regarding a sermon the pastor had earlier given. He dismissed that man and his comments with a few biting and sarcastic words, turned his back on the man, and walked away. So much for building up the body in love!

SHOULD THE BIBLE BE X-RATED?

When I was a young teenager, my mother had a habit of monitoring the books I checked out of the library while I was at school. She became so upset when she read a John Steinbeck novel I was reading, that she “turned me in” to our pastor and asked him to have a man-to-man talk with me. So at a lull in one of our youth group get-togethers, he took me aside and conveyed my mother's concern. Fortunately, the pastor at the time was only in his late 20's or early 30's, and so he was rather bemused, and not at all worried, about the situation.

If I had only been better acquainted with the biblical narratives at the time, I am afraid that I would have been sorely tempted to point out to my mother certain passages in the Bible and to tell her that I was concerned about her choice in reading material.

The point is that it is not really the specific events themselves which are being narrated in a story that make it prurient literature; it is more dependent on (1) the context in which they are presented and (2) what is in the eye and mind of the beholder.

Concerning that latter point, I am reminded of two quite different movie scenes. The first appears in “The Music Man” where Hermione Gingold sings about all the “dirty books” in the town library by Rabelais, Chaucer and Balzac. She takes special relish over the last word, pronouncing it as if it in itself were a dirty word.

The second example comes from “A Clockwork Orange,” a movie denounced equally by conservative Christian groups and the atheistic Russian press. In one scene, the teenage anti-hero who has no socially redeeming qualities is in jail and given only the Bible to read. He immediately gravitates to the Old Testament where he practically salivates over the gory battle scenes he finds there. It has absolutely no redeeming effect on him. This movie was widely denounced in pulpits across the United States who became fixated on the scenes of sex and violence in it. At the same time, the atheistic press in the USSR equally lambasted it as an example of blatant Christian propaganda. I am afraid that I must give credit to the Russians for having the intelligence and perception to see beyond the surface and realize what the theme, rather than just the content, of Stanley Kubrick's movie (based on the book by Anthony Burgess) was all about. And that overarching theme was that salvation from our sinful condition cannot be found in punitive laws or psychological conditioning; It can only come from a voluntary turning of ourselves over to God.

There are some valuable insights in Leland Ryken's book Culture in Christian Perspective which address this general subject. He begins by stating, “When we talk about immorality at the level of subject matter we usually mean realism. Realism is the explicit portrayal of human depravity in all its sordid forms...Thinking Christianly about realism begins with an awareness that the Bible affirms the necessity and legitimacy of realism as an artistic technique.The Bible depicts the full range of human depravity and as such adopts the basic strategy of realism.”

As biblical examples, he offers, just in the field of sexuality, the following:

    Attempted homosexual rape (Genesis 19)

    The rape of Dinah (Genesis 34)

    Description of Onan's birth control method (Genesis 38)

    Samson's sexual relations with the harlot of Gaza (Judges 16)

    A priest's concubine thrown to a mob who rape and abuse her, causing her death (Judges 19)

    David and Bathsheba's adultery (II Samuel 11)

    The incestuous rape of Tamar by her half-brother (II Samuel 13)

To these we might add a drunken Lot having sex with both his daughters (Genesis 19); Tamar disguising herself as a prostitute so that she could have sex with her father-in-law (Genesis 38); Absalom publicly having sex with all his father's concubines (II Samuel 16); the graphic story of the prophet Hosea's wife many sexual dalliances; and the x-rated fantasies in Song of Solomon.

Without trying to capture all that Ryken has to say in his book regarding this issue, here are some especially useful points to keep in mind:

“The presence of realism in the Bible refutes a common misconception that works of art automatically encourage approval of everything they portray. This is a totally untenable position. Art has two main themes – life as it should be and life as it fails to match that ideal.”

“In appropriating what is legitimate in modern realism, Christians may have to put up with some objectionable subject matter in order to gain whatever positive benefits a work has to offer in terms of insight and the enlargement of our sense of compassion.”

“We should make a distinction between subject matter and theme in art...The subject matter is the outward or obvious content of the work – the setting, objects, characters, and actions. The theme is the perspective that the work offers toward that content. My claim is that a Christian may find it useful, some of the time, to overlook offensive subject matter – profanity, explicit portrayal of sex, violence – in order to benefit from significant perspective or insight.”

“The question that a Christian must therefore answer is, Does the moral or intellectual significance of a work exceed in value the possible offensiveness of any of its parts? The answer will vary for individual Christians with individual works, and it will even vary for the same person from one occasion to another.”

As an example of that last statement, I once took the time to read entirely through two long novels by the Marquis deSade. I would certainly not recommend that author to just anyone, but for me it served as a powerful reminder of how low a person can sink into sin and justify it to himself once he has rejected all notions of God. By that I am not saying that all atheists live such evil lives as the Marquis did. In fact, some of the most upright and “moral” people I have known were avowed atheists or didn't really think about theology at all.

As a final example of the power of good writing to influence others (even inadvertently), there is the story of the atheist director John Huston choosing the novel Wise Blood to film because he thought it was intended as a parody of Christianity. It was only after he had finished the movie and viewed it himself that he realized, in his own words, “I had been had.

In fact, the author, Flannery O'Connor, was a committed Christian, and the underlying theme of her book strongly reflected that faith position even though the actual characters in the novel and their actions were rather bizarre and extreme.

” 

ARE WOMEN SAVED THROUGH CHILD-BEARING? (I TIMOTHY 2:15)

 In addressing women in the congregation, Paul states that she, the woman, “will be saved through childbearing, provided they continue in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.” This is located within a chapter devoted to Paul's views concerning the behavior suitable for a woman. Mitchell notes that this appears to express “a soteriology (theology of salvation) at odds with Paul's justification by faith (Gal 2.16; Rom 1. 16-17).” Of course that poses less of a problem to those liberal scholars who feel that someone other than Paul wrote the Pastoral Letters. In any case, it brings up the interesting question as to how an unmarried or barren women is to be saved.

Brauch declares, “The passage has been more intensely debated and analyzed than almost any other single text in the Bible.”

I generally turn to the overall literary structure of a book to see if there is a parallel section which might shed light on a given passage. The center section of I Timothy, at least according to my own analysis, takes the following symmetrical form in which the closest parallel to I Timothy 2:9-15 is seen to be found in 5:3-16, addressing a particular group of women – widows:

I. Household Codes (2:1-3:13)

A. Men—All (2:1-8)

B. Women (2:9-15)

A'. Men–Bishops and Deacons (3:1-13)

II. Instructions to Timothy (3:14-4:16)

A. Instructions (3:14-15)

B. Hymn (3:16)

A'. Instructions (4:1-16)

I'. Household Codes (5:1-22)

A. Older Men (5:1-2)

B. Widows (5:3-16)

A'. Older Men (5:17-22)

In that latter passage, Paul instructs that widows can receive material support from the church as long as they were known for their “good works,” which include the bringing up of their children (see 3:9-10). Again we seem to run into the same emphasis for women on works and on rearing children. I was curious over what scholars had to say about this difficult passage, and here are some of the opinions I found:

Hanson presents us with a host of possible ways of explaining Paul's words here:

    A. The RSV offers the alternative translation “by the birth of the child,” referring to the birth of Christ. Hanson rejects this view as being inconsistent with the original Greek wording.

    B. Another proposed meaning is that if the woman meekly accepts childbearing, she will be brought through the process safely.

    C. Jebb combines the thoughts of verses 12 and 15 in an unlikely manner to come up with the idea that she will be saved from the temptation to lord it over her husband by devoting her time and energy to the raising of her children.

From Guthrie we get some additional possibilities:

    D. Chrysostom felt that the verse meant that the nurturing of children in general by women, something which was open to all women, was in mind. But as Guthrie points out, that still leaves us with a salvation by works.

    E. According to Scott, the phrase meant that the women would be linked with men in salvation although the former would still have to bear the pain of childbirth as a consequence of Eve's original sin.

But that does not end the possible interpretations, as shown below:

    F. Ward takes the unusual tack of explaining it in the following way – “Paul means...something like this: 'You want to teach in church and be equal to men? It is against the order of creation. You do not want a marriage and a family? “The pressure of the 'curse' is off. Salvation will be enjoyed in the life of motherhood.”

And from Lea and Griffin come the following:

    G. “Paul was teaching that women prove the reality of their salvation when they become model wives and mothers whose good deeds include marriage and raising children.”

Finally, we have Towner's valuable survey of prior proposals, among which is the following:

    H. “Winter sees in the instruction a more precise reference to the option of aborting a pregnancy – possibly an attractive alternative for a progressive Roman woman who found herself pregnant: 'the Christian wife would be preserved by continuing in her pregnant condition (and thereby in bearing a child) instead of termination her pregnancy.' Presumably, his 'preserved by' is a reference to continuing in salvation or escaping from a temptation (from Satan?) to take some action that would put her faith in jeopardy (e.g., terminating her pregnancy).”

I. Finally, since I began with a comment by Brauch, I will conclude with another one by him. He views the background of these words in I Timothy against the context of teachers who “despise[d] physical, bodily reality” and thus “viewed marriage, and its specific expression in the bearing of children, as negative, or as unworthy of those who were truly spiritual members of a new community of 'saved' persons. Over against that heretical teaching, Paul may be affirming that the bearing of children, which is a woman's natural procreative, life-giving function, does in fact not keep her from full participation in the community of the saved.”

MICAH 7

It is human nature for us to look at things in view of our prior expectations. Just listen to a conversation between an ardent Democrat and an equally committed Republican as they give their respective views regarding recent political events. A visitor from another planet would probably think they were talking about completely separate happenings. And the same phenomenon applies to Bible scholars, as a brief investigation into this obscure chapter of an equally obscure book shows.

As I have demonstrated elsewhere on this site (see “Micah: Introduction to the Literary Structure”), the best way to divide up this prophetic book is into discrete chapters. But the question remains as to whether there is any rhyme or reason governing the arrangement within each chapter.

Liberal Scholars

The above question poses no problem for the more critical analysts of biblical texts since they approach these with the prior expectation that there probably is no order. That is because they have the underlying supposition that each book of the Bible was a product of several authors over a protracted period of time, and that each of these writers added, subtracted, and rearranged the material he had inherited. With such a hypothetical, and largely unproven, assumption, critics see no need to even look for order in any book of the Bible. In fact, they are often too preoccupied in searching only for evidence that there is no order in order to confirm their prior conviction.

As just one example of such an approach, consider one of the more pessimistic scholars regarding any rhyme or reason behind the arrangement of this chapter – Herbert Marks. Looking primarily for problems rather than solutions, he poses the following questions for the reader without attempting to answer them himself, since he feels it would be a futile exercise:

    Were verses 8-20 once a separate liturgy?

    Were the liturgical responses the product of the same hand that published them as being Micah's?

    How are they related to the hymn which opens the book?

    Is even the bitter outburst of verses 1-7 a unity?

    What is the relationship between the first-person speaker in the early verses to the feminine 'I' in verses 8-10?

To these uncertainties, Nogalski adds others, but for the sake of brevity I will only mention those in the opening verses:

    What is the relationship of 7:1-7 to chapter 6?

    Why don't verses 1-7 contain some of the common elements found elsewhere in laments?

    Who is the speaker in these early verses?

Nogalski reveals the effect such uncertainties have had on different views regarding the unity or lack of it in this chapter: “Several others argue that a core composition was expanded so that 7:8-20 comes from more than one hand. Wolff, e.g., argues that only 7:11-13 comes from a later hand. By contrast, Wohrie sees 7:8-20 as a result of five redactional layers.” Nogalski's own response to those various competing proposals is a wise one: “These suggestions problematically assume too quickly that the variations in expression require separate compositional hands.”

Conservative Scholars

This group and those influenced by them begin their interpretive journey with quite a different mindset. It is one of faith rather than doubt, and that faith rests on the belief that each of the books in the Bible was composed basically by a single person. And even if more than one person were involved, or the authors relied on several prior traditions to craft their compositions, the whole of the process was overseen by the Holy Spirit so that the product we have is exactly what God intended for our edification.

But even within that general frame of reference, we can discern at least two different variations to which such a belief commitment has lead.

Logical Progression

The most usual way conservative believers, whether of the general public or trained scholars in the field, approach the books of the Bible is to expect that there will be some obvious order to the writing, since God is a God of order. If, for example, it is one of the historical books, they expect a strictly chronological presentation of the facts (First A happened, then B, followed by C, which led to D, etc.) If, on the other hand, it is of a prophetic nature, a list of commands from God, or one of the New Testament letters, then these readers automatically expect there to be a logical progression of ideas so that “A is true, therefore B, which results in C, naturally leading to D, etc.” It is usually only within the poetic books of the Bible that such readers will admit that there might be some other forms of organization at play.

As one example of this sort of analysis, look at what Leslie Allen says concerning Micah 7:1-7: “The lament begins as a meditation, describing with sorrow the moral degeneration of contemporary society (vv. 1-4a). Then it expresses to God the prophet's confidence that this state of affairs cannot go unpunished (v. 4b). Next, turning to his audience, the prophet describes further the degeneration around him (vv. 5,6). The piece concludes with a personal affirmation of faith in God (v. 7).”

But despite this orderly progression of ideas, Allen goes on to allude to the “oscillation of address to God and to the people.” In other words, he recognizes that an alternating literary pattern may also be at work here. That brings us to the final way of viewing the Bible.

Literary Approach

The specific type of literary analysis I am talking about here is that which sees one form or another of symmetrical arrangement present in the text. As just two general examples, there might be a parallel organization by which a passage A-B-C is followed directly by units A'-B'-C', with each occurrence of the same letter representing similar ideas or language. Thus, A and A' would be more properly read together as well as B and B', etc. Alternatively, a mirror-image arrangement such as A-B-C-C'-B'-A' may better represent the case.

Again, take Micah 7 as an example. Of the many ways proposed for viewing its organization, one of the few to possess even a modicum of symmetry is that of Andersen and Freedman. They divide ch. 7 into four sections which alternate in mood from negative to positive:

A. Lament (7:1-6)

B. Song of confidence (7:7-12)

A'. Humiliation (and later triumph) of Zion (7:13-17)

B'. Reaffirmation of the ancient covenant (7:18-20)

But even those scholars elsewhere hint at a possible mirror-image arrangement for Micah 7:1-7. In addition, that symmetrical structure is not the only one which has been proposed. For example, Dorsey locates Micah 7 within the larger chiastic structure of the whole book, as shown below:

    A. Coming Defeat and Destruction (1:1-16)

        B. Corruption of the People (2:1-13)

            C. Corruption of the leaders (3:1-12)

                D. Future Restoration (chs. 4-5)

            C'. Corruption of the leaders (6:1-16)

        B'. Corruption of the People (7:1-7)

A'. Future Reversal of Defeat and Destruction (7:8-20)

As confirmation of this analysis, Dorsey notes the common language between the parallel literary units so that both A and A' contain “sin,” “exile” and “walls,” just as “woe” and “social evils” are found in both B and B'. Note that this analysis provides a good alternative explanation as to why (a) verses 8-20 have a different tone than 1-7 and (b) there does not seem to be a straightforward linear progression of ideas within chapter 7.

However, working against Dorsey's proposal are other verbal indications that all of Micah 7 hangs together as a unity. The first sign of this is the fact that the key word “day” appears exactly seven times in the chapter (vv. 4, 11[2x], 12, 14, 15, and 20). Seven is the symbol for a unity or completeness, and it wouldn't be complete without its first appearance in v. 4, relegated to an entirely separate section by Dorsey.

Next to note are the designations for the Deity in this chapter. In order, they read:

LORD (v. 7a) – God (v. 7) [2x] – LORD (vv. 8-9) [2x] – LORD God (vv. 10,17)[2x] – God (v. 18). Splitting chapter 7 into two unrelated parts (1-7 and 8-20) would disrupt this pattern.

And finally, pitting Dorsey's meager listing above of only five words in common with earlier chapters to confirm his decision to consider Micah 7 as two separate sections, here is a listing of other related words and parallel ideas which both parts of that same chapter share with one another:

        fruit (vv. 1,13)

        no one left (2) / alone (14)

        faithful (2) / faithfulness (20)

        land/earth (2,13,15,17)

        justice (3) / judgment (9)

        father(s) (6,20)

        enemy(ies) (6,8)

        eat (7) / feed (14)

        mouth (5,16)

        hear (7) / deaf (16)

In conclusion, any one human analysis of the Bible that you may read, including mine, you should approach it with caution, especially if it purports to demonstrate that the Bible is a hodgepodge of miscellaneous writings thrown together from multiple sources and edited over the years by other hands who reworked it to convey their own particular slants on the text.

 

IS GOD'S PLAN ALL ABOUT US?

The adult Sunday school class I oversaw for years at one church was probably like most others in that we always made sure we had a healthy dose of practical application in each lesson. This used to drive one member of the class crazy since he came from a strong Calvinist background and would interrupt most classes by telling us that we were off-base in neglecting the sovereignty of God. At the time it was rather irritating to both teachers and most of the people in the class, but that man did have a good point that we had all too often overlooked.

Thus, I was interested in reading an essay in Christianity Today magazine by Andrew Torrance which addressed this subject. He points out that we all tend to have a rather self-centered view of God's creation which needs correcting. He then presents examples of how that view plays out regarding three specific issues.

The Creation

When we view the creation of the universe as being solely centered on making a home for humanity, it becomes an ideal place for us to live in harmony with God provided we make the proper choices, which our original parents failed to do. Thus, God had to come up with a totally different plan to eventually bring that about.

But when we see God's creation of mankind as a means of reflecting God's glory and love to the world, “this calling anticipates the coming of the Son, 'the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation' (Col. 1:15). In this way God blesses humanity and declares it good.” Viewed in this light, the coming of Christ to the world was not God's plan B but his plan A all along.

God's Choice of Israel

If viewed from a human point of view, this becomes a deal that God made with a particular group of people – a contract in which He agreed to do one thing if they would do another. This, in effect, rewrites Genesis 17:7, Exodus 6:7, Leviticus 26:12 and other OT passages to read: “'If you will be my people, then I will be your God; 'If you keep the law, then I will be faithful to you.' This frames God's relationship with Israel as legally and morally conditioned on the people's faithfulness. And when Israel fails to uphold its side of the bargain, the relationship deteriorates, resulting in exile and separation from God.”

But if for a moment we look at the situation from God's viewpoint, His relationship with Israel remains despite their shortcomings, as Paul expresses it in Romans 11:28-29. Torrance says, “Even in times of defiance, Israel's identity remains intact. Their rebellion can only ever reflect a resistance to their true nature, a pretense of being other than who they truly are.”

There is one additional passage which Torrance does not quote, but which seems pertinent to this subject. God confirms his covenant with Israel through Ezekiel in 36:22-31. But to this He appends the words: “It is not for your sake that I will act, says the Lord GOD; let that be known to you. Be ashamed and confounded for your ways, O house of Israel (RSV).” Then for whose sake is it, we might ask? That is addressed in the third example given by Torrance.

The Incarnation of Jesus

If we look at the sending of Christ to the earth the way I have always been taught to view it, it is God's fallback plan he came up with after mankind failed to live up to His standards again and again. “In this narrative, Jesus is not the ultimate purpose of creation but a means to humanity's ultimate end: eternal life in a perfected state. Achieving this, however, requires we accept redemption through faith. Creation's story, therefore, depends not solely on God's actions but also on human choices.”

But conversely, if it is centered on God, “creation is not an end in itself but part of God's eternal purpose, culminating in Jesus Christ.” Torrance goes to on to state, “The story of Easter is thus not about balancing or neutralizing sin but about the collapse of sin's false narrative under the weight of God's grace and truth. In Christ, creation is brought to the eternal conclusion God had always ordained for it.” So that again brings us back to the question as to God's ultimate purpose in the creation.

At this point, Torrance explains: “The reason for creation is rooted in the eternal love between the Father and the Son in the Holy Spirit. Creation naturally flows out of this love...Creation only exists because God determined that God's love should overflow into something new – something other than God. The world is not meant to merge back into God but to exist as a gift – which the Father gives to the Son and the Son returns to the Father, all in the Spirit. This divine exchange revolves around the Incarnation. The Father sends the Son to identify with creation so that, in and through him, creation can return to the Father. In this way, God is for us in Christ by enabling us to be for God in Christ.”

I must admit, in conclusion, that much of Torrance's ideas are a bit above my not-so-theological understanding. I am much more geared toward biblical theology than systematic theology. The first of these two takes a bottom-up approach by beginning with the exegesis of individual passages in Scripture understood in their own contexts, and from those attempting to come up with a universal theological truth. In contrast, the systematic approach tends to start with a general theological thesis and then illustrating it with selected biblical passages. Each of these methodologies has its own strengths and weaknesses, which I will not attempt to enumerate, but for my own part I will continue to concentrate on the first approach as being the safest to pursue.

THE CROWN OF THORNS (MATTHEW 27:29; MARK 15:17; JOHN 19:2,5)

All but Luke of the Gospel writers mention the mock crowning of Jesus before his crucifixion. The symbolic significance of this detail is sometimes overlooked in favor of the symbology of the cross itself, but it is also rife with theological meaning. But before considering how those with a biblical understanding might have interpreted this action, it is necessary to get into the mindset of the Romans soldiers as they carried out this form of mocking.

Pagan Viewpoint

“The crown of thorns suggests the laurel wreath crowning the emperor's head, the hailing suggests the acclamation of the emperor, and kneeling in homage suggests the prostration to the emperor.” (Horsley)

R.E. Brown explains: “In mocking Jesus as a king the soldiers seem to follow an established ritual, and some customary actions are involved. We find similar details in Philo's report of the mob's mocking of [the lunatic] Karabas in Alexandria...Philo points out that this was in imitation of familiar pantomimes. Similarly, in mocking Jesus the soldiers were probably copying practices frequently seen on stage and in the Roman circuses.”

Short attributes the soldiers' actions to a common pastime of playing 'the game of the king' in which someone was dressed up as a king, mocked, and finally killed.

Hemer: “stephanos is used of the 'crown of thorns...To the soldiers it meant mock royalty...The view that stephanos could never be used thus of kingship is overstated.”

Albright and Mann: “It is possible that the circlet of thorns was meant as a cheap (and painful) imitation of the radiant circlet depicted on the coins of Tiberius Caesar.”

Nixon says, “The crown of thorns was probably a 'radiate' crown, a symbol of divinity.”

France: “The term stephanos does not in itself necessarily mean a royal crown. It is a wreath such as was worn by successful athletes, or as a mark of honor. But the context requires that we think here of a parody of a royal crown.”

The preceding comment is a good introduction to another symbolic meaning attached to such a “crown.” Morris states that “stephanos strictly denotes a wreath of victory rather than a royal crown (diadema). It was awarded, for example to the winners of the Games...Hart argues that it was a caricature of the 'radiate' crown, a crown in which spikes radiate outwards. He suggests that such a crown might well be made from the palm tree. It was a form of crown which pointed to the ruler as divine...This is, of course, not proven, and the traditional idea that the crown was an instrument of torture may be correct. But we do not know for sure, and Mr. Hart's suggestion is an interesting one. Tasker is inclined to accept it.”

Morris' comments provide a good summary for the Roman soldiers' motives in crowning Jesus. As well as alluding to the victor's wreath, they help to resolve the question as to whether this “coronation” is meant to parody Jesus's pretentions as a king or a divine being since, in fact, the emperors at the time did not hesitate to claim both titles. Also, Morris mentions in passing the obvious fact, overlooked or taken for granted by other commentators, that physical and mental torture of their victim was the main motivation behind their actions.

Biblical Viewpoint

More important than what the Romans thought they were accomplishing at the time is what subsequent light it might shed on the theological meaning behind their actions. And commentators differ on this point, in part dependent on what they do with the soldiers' thoughts at the time and which, if any, Old Testament scriptures they feel might be behind this detail during the Passion.

The first thing to note has been expressed well as follows: “From Genesis to Jesus, from the prophets to Paul, Bible writers sprinkle thorn imagery throughout Scripture to emphasize their messages of punishment, worthlessness and nonproductivity.” (DBI)

In fact, there are over twenty different Hebrew words and approximately six Greek words found in the Bible which describe various types of thorn bushes, thistles, nettles and brambles. Such a concentration on these plant forms is not at all surprising considering the mainly agrarian societies being addressed.

Christ as Victor and King

Hendricksen asks, “Did the molesters realize that they were doing this to him who is 'King of kings, and Lord of Lords?'”

Nixon: “...Christians have seen the life of Jesus as a royal road from the manger of Bethlehem to the cross of Calvary, and the very incidents in which He least seemed to be a king have won their allegiance more than anything else. For John especially the moment of Christ's humiliation is the moment of His glory (xii. 31-33; cf. Heb. 11.9).”

Hemer states that “stephanos to the evangelists...constituted testimony to the true kingship of Christ over a spiritual kingdom, while perhaps also implying his forthcoming victory over death. stephenoo in the New Testament is often the prize of athletic victory as a metaphor for the eternal reward of the faithful.” See passages such as I Corinthians 9:25; II Timothy 2:5, 4:8; James 1:12; I Peter 5:4; Revelation 3:11; 4:4,10, etc. “stephanoo is used in Heb. 2:7,9 in a messianic application of Ps. 8:5. Some have seen here reference to the Transfiguration or to the crown of thorns as preceding Christ's death and prefiguring his heavenly glory. Probably the words are not to be pressed in this way, and the reference is to Christ's future glory, as in Phil. 2:9 and elsewhere in Heb.”

“Christ, the sinless one, became sin for us; he laid aside his crown of honor and put on a crown of thorns (...cf. Phil 2:6-8; Lam 5:16). As the exalted Christ, however, he is adorned with a new crown fitting his authority and universal dominion (Rev 6:2; 14:14).” (DBI)

Christ as the Suffering Servant

“The mocking actions of the soldiers ”were all part of Jesus' deep humiliation as He was identified with human sin as the Servant of the Lord (cf. Isa. 50:6; 52:14-53:6).” (Blum)

“Unbeknown to them [the soldiers], their actions fulfilled Isaiah's prophecy concerning the Savior's marring (Isa. 52:14).” (Barbieri)

“The shameful tearing of his flesh is the outward display of inner suffering. Whether physical or metaphorical, briers and misery go hand in hand.” (DBI)

Christ as Sin-Bearer

This is a rather popular way in which to view the crown of thorns, and for very good reason. Grassmick, for example, states, “With this 'crown' the soldiers unwittingly pictured God's curse on sinful humanity being thrust on Jesus (cf. Gen. 3:17-18).

Hendricksen adds: “Here in Matt. 27:29a and its parallels Jesus is pictured as bearing the curse that lies upon nature, in order to deliver nature and us from it.”

“Christians have seen the thorns as symbolic of the effects of sin (Gn. Iii.18; Nu. xxxiii.55; Pr. xxi.5; Mt. vii.16, xiii.7; Heb. vi.8).” (Nixon)

In my own mind, the most powerful confirmation of this concept is found by consideration of the whole context of Adam and Eve's original sin in comparison with a harmony of the events surrounding Christ's Passion. Below are the many parallels, all listed in chronological appearance.

A. creation is finished (Genesis 2:1)

       B. they sin (3:6)

               C. they clothe themselves (3:7)

                       D.  God questions them (3:9-13)

                               E. thorns and thistles are their lot (3:18)

                                       F. condemned to death (3:19)

                                               G. they are driven out of the garden (3:23-24a)

                        D'. Jesus is questioned by Roman authorities

                             E'. crown of thorns put on Jesus

                                       F'. condemned to death

                                               G'. taken outside the city

               C'. his clothes are taken away

        B'. Jesus takes on sin

A'. “It is finished”

And even in the events immediately following Jesus' death, there are some parallels to Genesis 2-3, although they do not appear in any significant order such as those above. These include:

access to the Holy of Holies made – a reversal of the first couple's expulsion from the Garden, resurrection of dead bodies illustrating the revoking of the curse of death brought about by Adam and Eve's sin,

a Roman soldier with a spear in an analogy to the angelic guard blocking access to Eden with a sword, and

blood and water flowing from Jesus' pierced side, just as water flowed out of Eden to water the world.

Rejection of Jesus as a Prophecy of Coming Destruction

To the above well-attested opinions I will now append my own rather off-the-wall possibility. In considering the number of OT passages which contain references to thorns, I came across the story in Judges 9 in which the only remaining heir to the throne, Jotham, is rejected in favor of a worthless candidate named Abimelech. Before escaping with his life, Jotham addresses the people of Shechem from a safe distance with words of judgment which may be taken in a prophetic manner.

D.R. Davis summarizes that “Jotham's theme is the foolishness and peril of accepting clearly unqualified leadership...”

Webb adds, “The rulers of Shechem are...'city fathers' or 'chief citizens' – those who had control of the town's affairs.” He notes one feature of Shechem, “ a notable tree; the oak ('elon) [no obvious relationship to Elon Musk] which had been set up.”

With the above in mind, the story can be briefly summarized as follows: The worthless Abimelech is portrayed by Jotham as a pretentious bramble bush who has been chosen by the leaders of Shechem over a more qualified candidate. The fable continues with the bramble bush telling the trees who wish him to rule over them, “If you are truly about to anoint me king over you, come and take shelter in my shadow [clearly ironic in the case of this puny bush]; but if not, fire will go out from me and devour the cedars of Lebanon (v.15).” The curse proves true some time later, as narrated in vv. 50-57.

I can see some definite parallels with the rejection of Jesus as their king by the Jewish leaders and their Roman partners in favor of the Emperor, both countries of whom will eventually be destroyed. Remember that it was the Jewish leaders who influenced the people to demand that the robber-insurrectionist Barabbas (a perfect parallel for Abimelech) be chosen to save from death rather than Jesus. And the Roman soldiers, of course, would not even consider Jesus' claim to be the king of the Jews as anything but obvious rebellion against the Emperor. The Romans would soon destroy Israel just as the hordes from the north would later conquer Rome.

There are additional details which go towards relating these two stories:

The betrayal and killing of the legitimate heirs to the throne of Shechem were bought at the cost of 70 pieces of silver coming from the temple of Baal just as Jesus was betrayed by a payment of 30 silver coins no doubt originating from the treasury of the Jerusalem temple.

Some of the main action in Judges 9 took place in the vicinity of a tree which was set up just as the incidents in Jerusalem played out near the area where the crosses of wood were set up.

An evil spirit was sent by God to bring emnity between the populace of Shechem and Abimelech (Judges 9:23) just as it was Satan entering into Judas which brought about the crucifixion and thereby inadvertently furthered God's original plan for mankind's salvation and the defeat of Satan.

I will certainly not vouch for the fact that such parallels were intended, but they are at least worth consideration.

 

MARKS IN THE BIBLE

This reference to “Marks” above does not refer to John Mark, the author of the second Gospel, and the otherwise unknown disciple of Peter mentioned in I Peter 5:13. Instead I am referring to physical marks on the body and how they figure in biblical narratives and teachings.

Of course, such disfigurations can take various forms. So correspondingly, there are several Hebrew and Greek words which have been translated as 'marks.' In the Old Testament we encounter oth, qaaqa, and tau, while stigma, charagma and kausteriazo are represented in the New Testament writings. The definitions of these words overlap to some extent, but linguistic scholars see the following distinctions between them:

oth – Strong and others call this “a sign.” Kruger says that “it serves as a mean of transmitting information. The content of this information is determined by the context in which it is used.” Thus, it may serve as a memorial, evidence, something leading to faith in God, confirmation, motivation, etc.

qaaqa – This was specifically a cross mark. (Strong) It only appears in Leviticus 19:28 (see below),

tau – Kruger defines the noun as a mark or signature (as in Job 31:35) and relates it to the last letter in the Hebrew alphabet which took the form of a cross.

stigma – It was a point or puncture according to Strong and is defined by Vine as “a tattooed mark or mark burnt in, a brand.”

charagma – This word represented an impressed or engraved mark (Strong) and it is used exactly seven times in the book of Revelation. Vine states that a “stamp” is another translation. And Martin relates it to verbs indicating to burn or brand with a hot iron.

kausteriazo – Here we have a rare Greek word specifically meaning “to mark by branding.” It is the origin of our English word 'cauterize'.

The main occurrences of these words in the Bible are discussed below with comments from scholars regarding their significance in specific passages.

Genesis 4:15

In this verse we are introduced to the famous “mark of Cain,” which in popular parlance usually means a visible sign that a person is evil. Thus, during my lifetime it was applied by Christian teachers and preachers to the prominent birthmark on Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev's forehead. But, in fact, that is not the meaning in the context of Genesis at all.

It was granted at Cain's request after he had killed his brother and was exiled by God. This whole passage brings up a host of questions that are not answered in the Bible: Why did Cain feel that people would harm him? Who were these people? What did the mark look like? How would these presumably hostile people understand the nature of the mark?

One thing the text makes clear is that it was intended as a mark of God's protection on Cain. And thus we can see that it is actually the second time in the Bible that God showered his grace on sinful mankind. The first such event was when Adam and Eve similarly disobeyed God's directions and were exiled. But before that happened, God fashioned garments for the pair of them to protect them from the elements.

Leviticus 19:28

Ross explains that the Old Testament prohibition against putting marks on your body referred to pagan customs. But for followers of the true God, “There should be no disfiguration (see also 1 Cor. 6:18-20 which reminds believers that their bodies belong to God).”
Wenham adds: “This is usually taken to be simply a prohibition of pagan mourning rites, but there is more to it than this. Mourning was not discouraged, only those customs which involved physical disfigurement. This law conforms to other holiness rules which seek to uphold the natural order of creation and preserve it from corruption...Man is not to disfigure the divine likeness implanted in him by scarring his body. The external appearance of the people should reflect their internal status as the chosen and holy people of God (Deut. 14:1-2).”

Isaiah 44:5

This is a difficult passage to decipher since the literal Hebrew reads, “will write his hand to Yahweh.” As Whybray says, “There is no agreement about the meaning of this phrase. The two main possibilities are that such a person will inscribe the words “property of Yahweh” on his hand (perhaps by tattooing) or that he will write the words on a document with his hand...The reference may be to the practice of marking slaves with the names of their masters (cf. also Ezek. 9:4), but it is not to be taken literally.” Because of the interpretive difficulties involved here, no further comments would be helpful at this time.

Ezekiel 9:4-6

Martin points out that “the remnant of Israelite faithful are marked with the Heb. letter Tau as a pledge of their safety against the day of judgment (Ezek. 9:4); the letter Tau in ancient script was a cross, a feature giving rise to later Christian speculation); and especially where Yahweh's people are bidden to inscribe his name on their hands as a promise of fidelity (Isa. 44:5).”

“This sign functioned as a symbol or mark of identification. In Ezek 9:4,6 an angelic being is told to 'put a mark (taw) on the foreheads of those who grieve and lament.' This mark was meant to distinguish them from those unconcerned over the apostasy of the city and to protect them in the day of judgment.” (Kruger)

Galatians 6:17

In this verse, Paul says, “Henceforth let no man trouble me; for I bear on my body the marks of Jesus.”

“It is probable that the Apostle refers to the physical sufferings he had endured since he began to proclaim Jesus as Messiah and Lord...It is probable, too, that this reference to his scars was intended to set off the insistence of the Judaizers upon a body-mark which cost them nothing. Over against the circumcision they demanded as a proof of obedience to the law he set the indelible tokens, sustained in his own body, of his loyalty to the Lord Jesus. As to the origin of the figure, it was indeed customary for a master to brand his slaves, but this language does not suggest that the Apostle had been branded by His Master...It is true such markings [made by devotees of pagan gods] were forbidden by the law, Lev. 19:28, but then Paul had not inflicted these on himself. The marks of Jesus cannot be taken to be the marks which the Lord bears in His body as a consequence of the Crucifixion; they were different in character.” (Hogg and Vine)

And Mikolaski treats Paul's words as “an appeal born of deep feeling that he be spared the further distress of persecution in view of the sufferings he has already experienced (cf. Acts 14:8,19; 2 Cor. 11:23-28), which are sufficient evidence of his devotion to Christ.”

There is another Old Testament reference which I feel may be at the back of this passage, namely Genesis 4:15. In that earlier narrative, Cain is condemned by God to be an eternal wanderer, and Cain replies by bemoaning the fact that wherever he goes people will try to kill him. God's mark on him will, however, save him from that fate. To me, this is at least superficially similar, in a quite different way, to Paul claiming the marks on his body as immunity from others “bothering” him.

I Timothy 4:2

This sole occurence of a derivative of kausterion is found here. Knight mentions several alternative interpretations of this verse but discards them in favor of understanding the mark as being 'cauterized,' “i.e., made insensible to the distinction between right and wrong (see Eph. 4:19).” This understanding “seems more in accord with Paul's evaluation in Rom. 1:18, 28-32, of conduct contrary to God's moral standards, where a sense of self-consciouslness is also present, as here.” Thus, we are obviously not thinking of a physical mark but a figurative one instead.

Book of Revelation

There are two classes of marks mentioned in this book. Martin explains in regard to Revelation 13:11-18 that “all trading is possible only as men have the 'mark' (charagma) of the first beast on their right hand or forehead. That 'mark' is identified with the beast's name or number (v. 18). Contrast Rev. 7:3ff. where a similar 'mark' denotes divine protection.”

Again, in my mind I am powerfully reminded of the parallel to Genesis 4:15, where the mark on Cain similarly indicated that he was under God's protection. That background is certainly more sure than the flights of fancy of Hal Lindsay and other “experts” who explain that in the future, only those who are loyal to the satanic world leadership will be given a tattoo that scanners can read as they attempt to check out at a grocery store.

A Probably Irrelevant and Irreverent Conclusion

I was attending our usual Sunday school class one morning when it was not my turn to teach. The teacher for the day ended up his lesson early and so he opened up the class to any questions whatsoever that anyone might have relating to the Bible. (That is certainly something that I would never have had the nerve to do.) Sure enough, out of the clear blue, one of our class members said she needed some advice on how to handle a problem in her extended family. It concerned a young man, a Christian, who had had an ichthys tattooed on his arm. The man's parents were very upset since that appeared to disobey God's command in Leviticus (see above).

After our teacher hemmed and hawed trying to think of something to say, I came to his rescue (sort of) by quoting Paul's words in Galatians 6. I don't think it answered the lady's question in the least, but it did get a big laugh from the rest of the class and took up enough time that the teacher could quickly close the class with a prayer.

REVELATION 19: ONE OR TWO UNITS?

 The main question I would like to answer here is whether this chapter constitutes a single discrete message or whether it should be better divided into two separate parts having little to do with one another. But before doing that, I should remind the reader that our present chapter divisions should not be considered as sacrosanct as the text itself since they were only formulated over 1,000 years after the writing of the New Testament. Now for the most part these divisions do a fairly good job of grouping together the separate sections of the text, but we should not by any means consider them cast in stone.

In fact, there is good reason in the present case to wonder whether Revelation 19 shouldn't be divided right down the middle into verses 1-10 and 11-21. The main reason for that possibility is that the first of those two units consists of what John “heard,” namely a series of songs or hymns. In stark contrast, the second half of the chapter concerns what the author “saw.” And confirming this sort of division, both the NIV and NRSV indicate a major break at this point. Thirdly, the two units appear to employ words and phrases which differ from one another.

Actually, noted commentators such as Beale and Ruiz have proposed that verses 1-6 or 1-8 should instead be considered as part of Revelation 18 instead. But the data below makes this possibility highly unlikely.

                                            Figure 1: Key Wording in Revelation 19:1-10

I heard what seemed to be the loud voice of a great multitude (1a)

        hallelujah (1b)

                glory (1c)

                        our God (1d)

                                true (2a)

                                        great whore (2c)

                                                his servants (2e)

        hallelujah (3)

                                                        fell down and worshiped (4a)

        hallelujah (4b)

                        our God (5a)

                                                his servants (5b)

I heard what seemed to be the voice of a great multitude (6a)

        hallelujah (6b)

                        our God (6c)

                glory (7a)

                                                                marriage of the Lamb (7b)

                                        bride (7c)  

                                                                marriage supper of the Lamb (9a)

                                true (9b)

                                                        fell down and worshiped (10a)

                                                 servant (10b)

Note that besides the parallels above, there is a deliberate contrast between the fornications of the great whore of Babylon of v. 2 and the marriage of the church, the spotless bride, with Christ in v. 7. In addition, the two units within this section (vv. 1-5 and 6-10) both begin and end with the same words.

                                           Figure 2: Key Wording in Revelation 19:11-21

white horse (11a)

        rider (11b)

                makes war (11c)

                        fire (12a)

                                crowns (12b)

                                        name written (12b)

                                                out of his mouth came a sharp sword (15)

                                        name written (16a)

                                king of kings (16b)

                                kings (18a)

horses (18b)

        riders (18c)

                                kings (19a)

                make war (19b)

        rider (19c)

horse (19d)

                        fire (20)

                                                sword (21a)

        rider (21b)

horse (21c)

                                                sword that came from his mouth (21d)

However, this is not the whole story by any means since there are also a number of verbal correspondences between the two halves which act to unify the whole chapter:

                                              Figure 3: Key Wording in Revelation 19

After this I heard (1a)

        loud voice (1)

                true (2a)

                        judged (2b)

                                blood (2c)

                                        small and great (5)

                                                marriage supper of the Lamb (7)

                                                        clothed (8a)

                                                                fine linen bright and pure (8b)

                                                                        words of God (9)

                                                                                prophecy (10)

Then I saw (11a)

                true (11a)

                        judges (11b)

                                                        clothed (13a)

                                                                        word of God (13b)

                                blood (13c)

                                                                fine linen bright and pure (14)

        loud voice (17a)

                                                supper of God (17b)

                                        small and great (18)

                                                                                prophet (20)

As in Figure 1, we see similar opening and closing words in both halves of the chapter.

This confirms what our pastor said recently in a sermon. Often in the book of Revelation, auditory revelations from God (“I heard”) are coupled together with visual ones (“I saw”). And actually, those two phrases appear roughly thirty times each in this book.

Since the above example is taken from the end of Revelation, just compare it with the first few chapters in which John first “sees” Christ walking in the midst of the candle stands representing the seven churches (Rev. 1). But then in Revelation 2-3, we “hear” the specific messages Christ reveals through John to each of these congregations. All three chapters belong together as one unit even though the basic genres differ.

We see the same thing toward the end of the book in Chapter 19 except that here the order is reversed in that the auditory revelation is given first and the visual one second. This AB...BA pattern is very typical of what is called an inclusio – a pair of bookends for the whole of Revelation.

But if the two halves of Rev.19 are closely related in thought, what are some examples? For one thing, as Morris points out, the supper of v. 17 “is in sharp contrast with the marriage supper of verse 9.” Beale echoes this thought: “The link may be that the meal in v 9 is a metaphor partly for vindication and the meal in v 17 is a metaphor for the judgment that vindicates.”

Phillips states, “Two great events are now to be described, one in heaven and one on earth. One is a wedding; the other is a war. The church and the world both come to the consummation of their ways. Joy, long delayed, is the happy portion of the one; judgment, delayed even longer, is the portion of the other. The Lord Jesus fills both scenes.”

And Beale states that verse 10 “has a transitional or interlocking function with the preceding and following sections, binding them together into one larger segment [although his personal definition of the limits of that hypothetical segment goes beyond chapter 19].”

He goes on to compare the white garments which appear in both verses 8 and 14: “Throughout the Apocalypse 'white' has represented a reward for purity or purity itself, resulting from persevering faith tested by persecution [with]..'white' garments not only representing righteousness but also as a reward of vindication for those who have persevered through persecution.”

Similarly, “the bright, pure linen” of 19:8 is associated with priestly connotations. Christ's followers [in v. 14] reflect their representative's priestly character as they accompany him when he executes judgment.” (Beale)

In addition, Beale says, “The metaphor of 'his eyes as a flame of fire' [v. 12]...evokes Christ's role as divine judge, as is clear from vv. 14-21...” But that same idea is expressed even more directly in v. 2.

A final indication of the unity of Revelation 19 is seen in the way God's enemies are totally disposed of. First it is (the harlot of) Babylon who is sent to the pit where her smoke will rise forever (v. 3). And then in the second half of the chapter it is the beast, the false prophet, and their followers who will meet a similar fate, being thrown into the lake of fire which also burns forever and ever (v. 20).

I will leave it to the reader to uncover other parallels between Revelation 19:1-10 and 11-21.