JOPPA IN THE BIBLE

I am indebted to my friend Dave Moore for starting me on my investigation of this interesting city through a recent “Moore Engaging” podcast.

Sometimes the geography involved in a Bible passage tells us a lot about what is happening. Take the seaport town of Joppa for example. “Called Japho (Jos. xix.46), the Heb. word is yapo..., the Arab. yafa (whence our 'Jaffa”). It was not in Israelite hands in the early centuries of the history of Israel, but it certainly served as the seaport for Jerusalem 35 miles away.” (D. Payne)

Pfeiffer adds, “Joppa was an old city with a history dating to the Egyptian conqueror Thutmos III (fifteenth century B.C.)...There are few harbors along the Palestinian coast of the Mediterranean, with the result that Israel made little use of the sea. Joppa (modern Jaffa) served as a port during Old Testament times, and Caesarea became the main Palestinian port under Roman rule.”

The name Joppa appears thirteen times in the Scriptures, ten in the New Testament. And as we shall see below, they all witness to the way Joppa functioned as a sort of borderland between Jews and Gentiles where there were interactions, political and spiritual, in both directions. Thus, Phillip Cary states that “we must imagine a city claimed by Israel but inhabited by Gentiles, important for what little contact Israel has with the sea, busy with commerce and occupied by many peoples, languages, and gods.”

Joshua 19:46

This verse is part of a long listing of towns which were designated as the territory of the twelve tribes after they entered the Promised Land. Joppa was assigned to the tribe of Dan, but they could not drive out the people there and ended up settling north of that area instead.

Ezra 3:7 // II Chronicles 2:16

We learn from these parallel passages the involvement of Hiram with both David and Solomon. Wiseman says, “Hiram [was] the king of Tyre, contemporary with David and Solomon; reigned 979/8-945/4 BC...Hiram was a great admirer of David (1 Ki. v.1) and sent materials [by way of the seaport of Joppa] and craftsmen to aid the building of his palace at Jerusalem (2 Sa. v.11; 1 Ch. xiv.1). On Solomon's accession Hiram sent ambassadors to make fresh contracts which led to a trade-treaty whereby he supplied wood from Lebanon and skilled craftsmen for the construction of the new Temple at Jerusalem...”

So we have the unusual picture of two kings of Israel relying on the help of a friendly pagan ruler in order to build the very center of Jewish worship, the temple in Jerusalem. But we will see that the people of God eventually reciprocated that favor by bringing God's message to pagan lands in turn.

Jonah 1:3

Things begin to get really interesting when we get to the book of that reluctant prophet, Jonah. As most of you probably know, he was told to go to Nineveh, that great city, and preach the message of imminent destruction on them unless they repented. But Jonah decides to travel in the opposite direction instead, taking a boat from Joppa.

Allen explains: “The Hebrews were landsmen with little experience of the sea. That Jonah was prepared to entrust himself to an ocean-going boat rather than face up to God's call must have struck the hearers as proof positive of his mad determination.”

And Stuart perceptively adds, “Jonah chose a port where the people he might meet, and the ships he could hire, were not likely to be Israelite. Once in Joppa he was already partly 'away from Yahweh' as he apparently conceived it.”

At this point, it is probably necessary to bring up the question of the literary structure of verse 3 since there is a lot of controversy concerning that point.

To begin with, there is the negative comment of Stuart, who gives his opinion that the order of the words here, “contrary to several recent attempts to see significance in the (accidentally) chiastic structure of the verse, is not really important. The repetition of the motive of Jonah is. He does not want to preach against Nineveh to give them any chance of repentance, and he thinks he has a chance to avoid a restatement of the divine call by fleeing.”

As to what Stuart means by a “chiastic structure,” Figure 1 below illustrates that proposed by Allen:

                                     Figure 1: Allen's Structure for Jonah 1:3

  Jonah rose to run away to Tarshish from Yahweh's presence

     and he went down to Joppa

          and he found a ship

            going to Tarshish

        and he paid its fare

    and he went down into it

  to go with them to Tarshish from Yahweh's presence

As an aside, from a Jewish viewpoint, any movement away from Jerusalem was indicated as “going down.” Thus, Jonah goes down in two parallel movements, as seen above.

While Figure 1 looks very persuasive, another scholar casts this verse in two different parallel scenes instead.

                                       Figure 2: Sasson's Structure for Jonah 1:3

                Intent: he sought to escape

                                Activity: he went down to Joppa

                                        Goal: he found a ship

                Intent: he paid its fare

                                Activity: he boarded the ship

                                        Goal: to accompany them

My personal opinion is that (1) Allen is much closer to the intended reading of this verse than Sasson and (2) Stuart is incorrect in calling the verse order accidental. My reason for the former is that Sasson's breakdown is highly flawed since (a) it ignores the obvious repetition in the last clause of the first clause in the verse, (b) fails to take into account the repetition of the key word “down,” and utilizes a totally arbitrary division of the verse into intent, activity, and goal. After all, almost all of the elements in this verse could be described as an activity. As to Stuart's denial of a chiastic structure in this verse, it should be pointed out that (a) chiastic structures appear throughout this short book and (b) that opinion ignores the obvious verbal repetitions in 1:3.

Scholars point out that Jonah's very presence in Joppa, a pagan city, already symbolizes his desire to escape from God's domain. Stuart states, “As far as can be ascertained from historical records, Jaffa always remained outside Hebrew control...The narrator of Jonah, therefore, must have chosen it knowing well its status, very likely intending to have the prophet seek escape from God's control even before boarding the Tarshish-bound ship.” One need not ascribe to Stuart's rather liberal bias against the historical nature of the book of Jonah in order to agree with his conclusion.

Acts 9:36-43 and Acts 10:11

We need to go to the New Testament for the final mentions of the city of Joppa. And since these episodes are somewhat related, it is helpful first to consider another chiastic literary structure:

                                                      Figure 3: Structure of Acts

        A. Peter and miracles (9:32-43)

                        B. Angel's appearance to Cornelius (10:1-8)

                                        C. Peter's vision (10:9-16)

                                                        D. Peter is brought to Cornelius (10:17-26)

                                        C'. Peter describes his vision (10:27-29)

                        B'. Cornelius describes the angel's visit (10:30-33)

        A'. Peter and miracles (10:34-48)

The bringing of Dorcas back to life by Peter in 9:36-43 (Unit A) is paralleled by rebirth of Cornelius and other Gentiles through Peter's initiative (Unit A'). And both events involved Joppa.

Conclusion

But the truly interesting comparison is between Jonah's and Peter's activities centered around this city.

In many ways, as Dave Moore points out, Jonah is the exact opposite of Peter. But in some other matters, there is a parallel relationship between the two. Just consider the following pairings, listed in no particular order:

As Wiseman says, “Just as Peter was psychologically prepared for expanding the scope of the Gospel by staying with a tanner (9:43), Jonah began his flight from God by traveling with some pagan sailors.” To explain that statement, it is necessary to know that tanners were considered ritually unclean by Jews due to their close association with dead animals.

Peter argues with God three times on the roof of the tanner's house before he finally gets the point whereas Jonah's actions speak loudly for him as he purposely disobeys God after the first call and only obeys the second command after having been swallowed by a large fish and living in its stomach for three days.

Eventually both of them speak to the Gentiles, Jonah reluctantly and Peter willingly, and receive a favorable response to their words.

Seaport towns, Joppa and Caesarea, are the scenes of these stories

Just as the Acts story ends with the believers being immersed in water, Jonah also symbolically died when he descended into the water, but all were raised up again.

The Holy Spirit tells Peter in Acts 10:20, “Now get up, go down, and go with them without hesitation. God tells Jonah in 1:1, “Go at once to Nineveh” but he goes down to Joppa instead and goes with the sailors.

Both stories feature animals associated with Gentiles (Acts 10:12; Jonah 3:8). While the Acts narrative begins with the animals, the book of Jonah ends with them.

Preaching to the Gentiles in both stories is effective in bringing them into a right relationship with God.

Jonah says he worships Yahweh but doesn't show it by his actions. Cornelius tries in vain and appropriately to worship Peter instead of God.

The believers who accompanied were pleasantly surprised that the Holy Spirit had been given to the Gentiles (10:45), but Jonah becomes angry when the Ninevites turn to God (4:1).

Lastly, Cary's words on the subject are worth quoting in conclusion: “We could think of it [i.e. Joppa] as the place on the borders of the Holy Land where the mercy of the Lord Jesus begins to overflow beyond Israel, pouring out to the whole world. In doing so it follows in Jonah's footsteps...Of course Jonah has no intention of preaching good news to the Gentiles when he goes to Joppa, heading for Tarshish. But neither did Peter when he went to Joppa...The prophet is precursor to the apostle precisely in the intensely ironic relation between his intentions and God's sending.”

REVELATION 3:15-16

 

                                Laodicea (2011, acrylic and collage)

A fairly literal translation of this address to the church at Laodicea reads as follows: “I know your works; you are neither cold nor hot. I wish that you were either cold or hot. So, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold not hot, I am about to spit you out of my mouth.” (NRSV)

Or, if you prefer a loose paraphrase: “I know you inside and out, and find little to my liking. You're not cold, you're not hot – far better to be either cold or hot! You're stale. You're stagnant. You make me want to vomit.” (The Message)

The first factor in trying to understand a passage such as this is to pin down the genre in which it is written. All but a small minority of scholars are in agreement that the bulk of Revelation, chapters 4-22, is written largely in highly figurative and symbolic language. But an anonymous article in The Dictionary of Biblical Imagery points out: “Symbolic imagery is present already in the letters to the seven churches. Here we read about [for example]...Christians who have been lukewarm. We do not interpret these images literally. They are physical symbols of spiritual realities.”

However, that confronts us immediately with a two-fold challenge: pinning down both the physical referent and the spiritual meaning derived from it.

Traditional Approach

Beale explains, “The image of the Laodiceans being 'neither hot not cold' but 'lukewarm' has traditionally been understood to be metaphorical of their lack of spiritual fervor and halfhearted commitment to Christ. “One problem with this is that Christ's desire that they be either 'cold or hot' implies that both extremes are positive. The traditional view, however, has seen 'cold' negatively, the idea apparently being that Jesus either wants the readers to be either zealous ('hot') for him or completely uncommitted ('cold'), but not middle-of-the-road. But it is unlikely that Christ would commend that extreme of complete disloyalty (though cf. 2 Pet. 2:21).”

We will get back to the 2 Peter passage in a bit, but one thing should stand out concerning this interpretation: it skips immediately to the meaning of the metaphor without first pinning down the physical image present. It simply assumes that everyone has the same underlying meaning attached to the concepts of hot and cold. That sort of fallacy was first brought to my attention decades ago when I lived next door to a fellow chemist at work who was raised in Palestine. There was one of our managers, named Dr. Ward, whom he did not care for. My neighbor thought it was the most hilarious thing in the world to insult him by calling him Mr. Warm. I tried vainly to explain to him that in our culture a warm person exhibits positive traits, but apparently he couldn't grasp the concept due to the negative connotation “warm” had in the Middle East.

Here are the comments of some scholars who hold to this “traditional” view, which was indeed the interpretation I was always taught in our church while growing up.

Morris: “To prefer a rejection of the faith [i.e. coldness] to the way the Laodiceans professed it is startling to say the least (cf. 2 Pet. ii. 21). But to profess Christianity while remaining untouched by its fire is a disaster. There is more hope for the openly antagonistic than for the coolly indifferent...There coolness was a denial of all that Christ stands for...It is worth reflecting that the Ephesians were condemned for too great a zeal, coupled as it was with the absence of love, the Laodiceans for too little.”

Hendricksen: “You cannot do anything with such people. With the heathen, that is, with those who have never come into contact with the Gospel and who are therefore 'cold' with respect to it, you can do something. With sincere, humble Christians you can work with joy. But with these 'we're-all-such-very-good-folks-here-in-Laodicea' people you can do nothing. Even Christ himself cannot stand them.”

“There would have been some hope for Laodicea if it had been stone cold, but to be lukewarm, to be neither one thing nor the other, to be completely compromised, was a condition without hope.” (Phillips)

Note that (1) Morris and Hendricksen totally disagree as to the identity of the “cold” person; (2) none of the three attempts to explain the meaning of “hot”; and (3) II Peter 2:21 does not really provide a close parallel to this passage at all since it describes the complete apostasy of a one-time believer, not a lukewarm attitude at all.

In relation to (1) above, it is interesting that there continued to be a controversy in the early church considering the identity of the lukewarm person. Ford explains that 'lukewarm' “is used by Arethas to describe a man who has received the Holy Spirit in baptism but has quenched the grace. Gregory applies it to a man grown cold after conversion. Origen applies it to unregenerate persons.”

Here is what Hemer has to say in reference to this passage and especially regarding the “traditional” interpretation above: “Some aspects of the association of the three words chiaros [lukewarm], psychros [cold] and zestos [hot] in Rev. 3:15-16 are unique in surviving Greek literature. Here all three are used metaphorically and absolutely of personal character. The passage has usually been understood to refer to levels of spiritual fervor [see Matthew 24:12 for love growing cold and Acts 8:25; Romans 12:11 for a fervent spirit]...and this assumption accords with the exhortation in Rev. 3:19 (zeleoe, be zealous): it would be natural to urge earnest endeavor upon the half-hearted. The common interpretation is however open to question...It is not a matter of saying 'it is better to be hot or even cold, better even stony indifference than half-hearted support.'”

But if the traditional interpretation is not the correct one, then what is? It all begins with a proper identification of the physical image behind the language. Walvoord makes a stab at it with the following comment: “In their feasts as well as in their religious sacrifices people in the ancient world customarily drank what was either hot or cold – never lukewarm. That statement may well be true, as far as it goes, although I would have personally extended that reference to many situations outside of feasts and sacrifices (see Matthew 10:42 regarding one who gives a cup of cold water to one in need).

Bruce goes one tentative, but critical, step further: “The choice of the figure of lukewarmness to characterize the Laodiceans' ineffectiveness or lack of zeal may have been suggested by their city's water supply...” And that is indeed the judgment of most current commentators.

Similarly, Ruiz says, “Their lukewarm Christianity is nauseating like the tepid water for which the city was known.” And I can identify with that quite well since the water supply in our town growing up was not only lukewarm but also loaded with calcium and magnesium compounds to the point where solids would start precipitating out if it was cooled down, as well has having a vaguely petroleum taste to it.

Mounce does a good job of explaining the condition at Laodicea: “In an important article, Rudwick and Green argue that the adjectives 'hot,' 'cold,' and 'lukewarm' are not to be taken as describing the spiritual fervor (or lack of it) of people. The contrast is between the hot medicinal waters of Hieropolis and the cold, pure waters of Colossae. Thus the church in Laodicea 'was providing neither refreshment for the spiritually weary, nor healing for the spiritually sick. It was totally ineffective, and thus distasteful to the Lord.' On this interpretation the church is not being called to task for its spiritual temperature but for the barrenness of its works. Among the several advantages of this interpretation is the fact that is no longer necessary to wonder why Christ would prefer the church to be 'cold' rather than 'lukewarm.'”

So that brings us next to the meaning of lukewarmness in regard to the Laodicean church. Here scholars may differ somewhat in emphasis, but all are in general agreement.

“Lukewarmness should probably be taken as denoting 'ineffectiveness', the inadequacy of human effort as a substitute for diverse manifestations of God's giving. The central thought of the letter is that effective service hinges upon response to Christ, not upon human endeavor.” (Hemer)

“The community at Laodicea is not accused of any specific disorder, but its condition appears to be worse than that of the other communities because the evil is more insidious. The community members seem to be self-satisfied and indifferent; there seems to be no outstanding evil or persecution to make them aware of the condition of their religion.” (Ford)

“I believe this is very simple: the lukewarm is the one who desires nothing, who does not feel any lack, any absence, who does not understand that there is anything missing, who does not aspire to anything and because of this does not hope for anything. The cold is the one to whom much is lacking and who knows it but who does not ask for anything, who is shut up in the consciousness of his failure. The hot is the one who moves and who acts. But these latter two aspects are ultimately aspects of hope. The lukewarm, who is satisfied with that which he is, is led to do nothing to change, since the actual situation appears satisfactory to him. He then does not see his real situation before God.” (Ellul)

Lastly is the question of how serious Christ's rejection of the Laodiceans was. “Vomiting is here a gesture of disgust, as when the fish expelled Jonah on the land (Jon 2:11)...spitting and vomiting are gestures of revulsion and rejection. The action of the stomach in vomiting, or of the mouth in spitting, becomes a vivid image of rejection. God will spit out the Laodiceans (Rev 3:16), and the land will spit out Israel if the people do not obey (Lev 18:28; 20:22).” (DBI)

And Beasley-Murray states, “There is written a condemnation unequaled in the NT as an expression of the abhorrence of Christ. The reference is to the last judgment (cf. Lk. 13:25-28).”

However, all is not lost for the Laodiceans. As Mounce points out, “It should be noted that although the Lord was about to spew them out of his mouth, there was yet opportunity to repent (vss. 18-20).”

JEREMIAH 7:22 DID GOD NOT COMMAND ANIMAL SACRIFICES AT ALL?

I found this provocative statement on the website of the American Humanist Society: “...the Old Testament is contradictory as to whether the Lord commanded the Israelites to sacrifice animals to him. At Jeremiah 7:22, God denies he ever gave the Israelites commandments about animal sacrifices. In contrast, Exodus 29:38-42 and many other verses depict God as requiring the Israelites to offer animal sacrifices.” 

 We should admit that there are liberal Christian commentators who would agree with the fact that there is a contradiction here. As just one example, Biddle says, “This is inconsistent with other biblical traditions.”

There is no argument with their contention regarding the many passages in which animal sacrifices to God are prescribed for a number of different occasions. So the crux of their argument lies with the passage in Jeremiah in which supposedly “God denies he ever gave the Israelites commandments about animal sacrifices.” Let's consider how various translations render that key verse:

“For in the day that I brought our ancestors out of the land of Egypt, I did not speak to them or command them concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices.” (NRSV)

“But when I brought your forefathers out of Egypt, I gave them no commands about whole-offering and sacrifice; I said not a word about them.” (NEB)

“For when I brought your ancestors out of Egypt and spoke to them, I did not just give them commands about burnt offerings and sacrifices, but I gave them this command: Obey me...” (NIV)

And a close parallel to this verse is found in Amos 5:25 in which God asks, “Did you bring to me sacrifices and offerings the forty years in the wilderness, O house of Israel?” The form of the question obviously implies a negative answer.

There are actually several ways to address this “problem.” Let us first begin by quoting John Bright: “The force of this passage, and others like it (e.g. Amos v 21-25; Hos vi 6; Mic vi 1-8; Isa I 10-17), has been much disputed. It is unlikely, however, that it is to be taken either as a categorical rejection of the sacrificial system as such, or as a statement that there was no sacrifice in the wilderness.” If that is true, then one has the choice of at least the following trains of interpretation for an explanation:

    1. Looking at the NRSV above, it opens the door for understanding the Jeremiah passage from a chronological or historical perspective. Thus, if we wish to be literal, it could be strictly talking about the Day of Passover stipulations only. As D.R. Jones says, “Perhaps we should note that what is being referred to is the great act of redemption which was the model of all subsequent redemptive acts, not precisely the legislative work of Moses.”

    2. Or it may have been referring to a later exodus event, the giving of the law on Mt. Sinai: “The Decalog is spelled out in Exod. 20:1-17, but at no point is the narrative concerned with cultic details. It was only after the covenant had been ratified (24:1-8) that the cultic details of the tabernacle, the priesthood, and the sacrifices were declared...The repetition of dabar [“command,” vv. 22 and 23] may have been deliberate in which case the phrase in v. 22...may be translated concerning the details of burnt offerings and sacrifices. That was to come later.” (Thompson)

Somewhat similarly, Bright says, “The point lies in the balance between vss. 22 and 23. The words 'Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and you shall be my people' are the formula of covenant (cf. Deut xxvi 16-19): God's essential demands...did not concern ritual matters, but the keeping of the covenant stipulation.”

    3. Marshall gives as an alternative interpretation the possibility that “it could mean that the sacrifices were offered not to God, but to other gods. In Stephen's speech the context supports the view that the people offered sacrifices not to Yahweh, but to idols like the calf.” See Acts 7:44 where he quotes from Jeremiah 7:22.

    4. An interesting predictive interpretation is offered by Jones when he says regarding Jeremiah, “He is not repudiating what he must have known to be a divine provision of worship. He is envisaging or witnessing a historical situation in which the Lord deliberately strips Judah of the great gifts of the promises. History is God speaking. No Temple, no land, but exile (cf. 8:3). She must pack up her sacrificial worship. Now her sights must be set on one hope only – a new redemption.”

    5. But the most popular approach to Jeremiah 7:22 is implied in the NIV translation given above and summarized by Wiseman: “Some would interpret v. 22 as showing ignorance of the fundamental Mosaic laws, but the prophet's present concern is with priorities. Proper sacrifice...is subordinate to, as well as a consequence of, true obedience.” Kaiser puts it this way, “So deceptive was the nation's trust in this hollow worship that Jeremiah later announced that God had wanted more than sacrifices when he brought Israel out of Egypt (Jer 7:22). He had wanted the people to trust him.” This is an attractive interpretation, but the question is whether it can be justified by the text. And in that regard there are at least two pieces of supportive evidence:

        a. “It is possible to resort to the hypothesis of prophetic exaggeration. On this view Jeremiah is really commanding judicious reform. When he says no to this and yes to that, he means that that is more important than this.” (Jones) Huber is a bit more wordy, but expresses the identical idea in saying, “Probably, Jeremiah employs an 'idiom of exaggerated contrast' whereby 'the first of two statements is negated only for the purpose of setting of the second' (Lundbom). In a similar fashion, Amos builds on the implied negation in Amos 5:26 to underscore Amos 5:26-27...The illocutionary force of these statements is not about cultic history or sacrifice per se but rather the relative subordination of cultic duty to covenant obedience (cf. Jer 6:19-20; 7:5-7; 9:23-26).”

        b. Motyer, followed by Cawley and Millard, takes an entirely different route to come to the same conclusion when he says that “closer examination of the Hebrew suggests that the difficulty belongs more to the English translation than to the original. The preposition which the English gives as 'concerning' – the vital word in the whole verse – is the Hebrew 'al-dibre, which can only mean 'concerning' by a radical weakening of its real significance 'because of' or 'for the sake of'...According to this, the verse says that Yahweh did not address Israel either 'because of' sacrifices: that is to say, the performance of sacrifice is not a means whereby pressure may be applied to God; not did He address them 'for the sake of' sacrifices, for the living God stands in no need of anything man can supply...the cult is not a thing which exists on its own but rather for the sake of the spiritual needs of a people committed to obedience to the moral law of God.”

 

ARE THERE MYTHICAL CREATURES IN THE BIBLE?

 

                                            Peaceable Kingdom (2013, collage)

An article on the American Humanist Association website mentions why this should be a problem with those who trust the Bible: “The Bible has verses mentioning dragons (Jeremiah 51:34), unicorns (Isaiah 34:7), and cockatrices (Isaiah 11:8). These passages led many naturalists in the Middle Ages to think such mythical creatures actually existed.” But is there any proof to this accusation?

The first thing to point out is that all three of these verses appear in poetic contexts and therefore it may may not be appropriate to interpret them literally. This is especially true with the Jeremiah passage.

Also, it is common knowledge among Bible scholars that the hardest Hebrew words to adequately translate are technical terms for plants, minerals, and animals. Often the best we can do is to guess at the intended meaning, especially if there are no similar words in other Near Eastern cultures of the time as a guide. And, as you will see below, the translators of the King James and earlier versions (the only translations quoted in the AHA article) may not have done the best job of guessing.

Version                         Jeremiah 51:34                 Isaiah 34:7                                Isaiah 11:8

KJV                              dragons                              unicorns                                    cockatrices

NIV                              serpent                               wild oxen                                  viper

TEV                              monster                             wild oxen                                  poisonous snake

RSV                              monster                             wild oxen                                   adder

NRSV                           monster                             wild oxen                                   adder

NEB                             dragon                                wild oxen                                   viper

JB                                 dragon                               wild oxen                                    viper

AB                                monster                             wild oxen                                    viper

The Message                 ---                                     wild animals                                serpent

Living Bible                 great monster                     ---                                                adder

So right off the bat, I think that we are safe to say that, at least in the Isaiah passages, if anyone involved with the Bible is at all to blame for misleading the naturalists of the Middle Ages, it is not Isaiah, but his poor translators up to that time. And it may not even be their fault, as I will show a bit later.

Jeremiah 51:34

“Nebuchadrezzar the king of Babylon has devoured me, he has crushed me; he has made me an empty vessel, he has swallowed me like a monster; he has filled his belly with my delicacies, he has rinsed me out.” (RSV)

This case is a little different from the other two in that even today's scholars, who certainly do not believe in monsters or dragons, continue (with the exception of NIV) to translate the word as some sort of mythical beast. Here is how scholars approach this figurative verse:

Wiseman: “The picture is of a serpent (Heb. tannin, used of a large river or sea creature like the crocodile) which swallowed God's people (cf. Rev. 12:4) but is now itself destroyed and forced to disgorge its prey, as the fish did Jonah.”

“This generic term [tannin] refers to great sea creatures in Gen 1:21 and Ps 148:7. In Exod 7 and Ps 91:13 it refers to a kind of serpent that must be much smaller and may be similar to an adder (cf. also Deut 32:33). These texts contain no mythological connotation...This noun is also used symbolically for the power of the enemy/evil (Isa 51:9 and Jer 51:34)...” (M.J. Paul)

Stallman similarly adds: “The word tannin for Is. 34:7 designates a range of creatures, from those in the sea (Gen 1:21; Ps 148:7), to land snakes (Exod 7:9,10,12; Deut 32:33; Ps 91:13), to a mythological sea monster (Job 7:12) that signifies the kings of enemy nations (Jer 51:34; Ezek 29:3; 32:2) and appears in parallel with Leviathan (Ps 74:13; Isa 27:1) and Rahab (Isa 51:9).”

Rogers states that “Nebuchadnezzar is compared to a huge sea serpent (tannin) that had swallowed God's people, filled its stomach.., and then spewed them out.”

“The biblical prophets employ a range of naturalistic metaphors to denote the cosmic nature of the struggle between Yahweh, Israel and their mutual enemies. Imagery of watery chaos is part of that repertoire...The prophets Jeremiah and Habakkuk utilize motifs of chaos to describe the threat of the Babylonians. In Jeremiah 51:34 Nebuchadnezzar is cast as the 'dragon' (Heb. tannin) that swallows up Judah.” (Heiser)

“This lament uses the image of an empty jar (cf. 14.3). The absence of water of course spells death. And, perhaps to us incongruously, this is set alongside the image of the dragon who has swallowed Israel up and spewed her out...As so often with passages that are rich in imagery, difficulties with the Hebrew increase...a monster, i.e. dragon, in Isa. 27.1; Job 3:7, 7.12; named Leviathan (cf. Pss. 74.13; 104.26). This is no doubt an allusion to the near eastern creation myth which involved a combat in which the dragon was killed and the earth created. He represented the power of darkness and constituted a perpetual threat of reversion to chaos (cf. the engulfing sea in v. 43).” (D.R. Jones)

Bright says, “Nebuchadrezzar is compared with a gluttonous man devouring Jerusalem and setting her aside as one does an empty vessel whose contents have been quaffed. In a more vigorous figure still, Nebuchadrezzar is compared to a monster gulping down bread, filling its belly with food that delights it and then vomiting it up.”

Note some of the terms describing the type of comparison found in v. 34: “imagery,” “image,” “picture,” “symbolically,” “metaphor,” “figurative,” “motifs,” and “myth.” In this sort of poetic, non-literal language one should certainly not expect that there will be a naturalistic truth behind it. After all, does the humanistic author of this “problem” actually think that the author of Jeremiah believed there was a monstrous person or creature so large so as to be able to literally swallow a whole nation of people? Obviously this is the equivalent of some of us scientifically-minded, superior human beings today saying, “I am so hungry I could eat a horse” or “I have a monstrous appetite.” Of course we don't mean it literally or expect others to receive it in that manner.

Isaiah 34:7

“Wild oxen shall come down and buffaloes with them, bull and bison together, and the land shall drink deep of blood and the soil be sated with fat.” (NEB)

The solution to the so-called problem in the case of the two Isaiah passages mentioned above is somewhat different from that in Jeremiah since both can be easily resolved by realizing that the KJV and some earlier translations were in error when they rendered the Hebrew into English.

Blenkinsopp admits that the meaning of the key Hebrew word here (re'emin) “is not completely certain. Job 39:9 indicates that it is a wild animal, while Deut. 33:17 and Ps. 22:21 and 92:10 indicate it is horned.”

Encyclopaedia Britannica weighs in this subject: “The earliest description in Greek literature of a single-horned animal was by the historian Ctasias (c. 400 BCE)...Certain passages of the Bible refer to a strong and splendid horned animal called re'em. This word was translated 'unicorn' or 'rhinoceros' in many versions of the Bible, but many modern translations prefer 'wild ox' (aurochs), which is the correct meaning of the Hebrew re'em.”

As to the import of this verse, Wolf says, “The 'wild oxen' or 'great bulls' (v. 7) could symbolize the leaders of the land.” And Wakely states that “Kissane, who shares with others the view that the animals mentioned in vv. 6-7 stand for rulers and their nations, thinks it probable that the lambs, goats, and rams in v. represent the common people of Edom while the wild oxen, young steers, and mighty bulls in v. 7 represent the nation's leaders.”

Isaiah 11:8

“The infant shall play over the hole of the cobra, and the young child dance over the viper's nest.” (NEB)

The second snake mentioned here poses another translation problem. Some scholars (such as Tuell, Carew and Price) simply feel that since it is obviously placed in a parallel position to the cobra, the Hebrew word is just an alternative way of saying the same thing. And Easton's Bible Dictionary says, “It is generally supposed to denote the cerestes or 'horned viper,' a very poisonous serpent about a foot long.”

But one thing is clear from the context – the animal is dangerous, and probably a reptile of some sort. That doesn't exactly pin down the actual species, however, since Stallman explains, “Palestine today is home to over thirty species of snakes; only six are poisonous. These species are presumed in nearly all biblical references to snakes...”

With all of those real snakes to chose from, where did the early English translators come up with the mythical cockatrice as a rendering? By the way, the Encyclopaedia Brittanica defines it as follows: “Cockatrice, in the legends of Hellenistic and Roman times, a small serpent, possibly the Egyptian cobra, known as a basilikos and credited with powers of destroying all animal and vegetable life by its mere look or breath.” And Wikipedia (that nearly infallible reference source) states, “The first use of the word in English was in John Wyclif's 1382 translation of the Bible [from whence the KJV picked it up]...The twelfth century legend was based on a reference in Pliny's Natural History.”

As far as the meaning attached to this verse, here are the opinions of several commentators:

Domeris says that 'the picture of God's new age, found in Isa 11, is of an infant playing near the hole of a cobra (v. 8)...”

Hamilton states that “the Shoot from Jesse...will be able, without receiving a fatal bite, to 'put his hand into (or reach his hand over) the viper's nest.”

Oswalt: “The security of the child playing over the asp's hole is a different kind of security altogether than this world can offer (11:8).”

“Frequently associated with the messianic age, savage or dangerous undomesticated animals are pictured together with helpless domesticated animals that, in a post-fall world often represented the prey of wild animals...The hole of the cobra and viper will no longer be dangerous to a playing child (Is. 11:8).” (Klingbeil) See the above illustration.

Conclusion

By this time you may have picked up on the fact that when it comes to mythological creatures such as the cockatrice and the unicorn, it was not all the Bible which held back the progress of science for years. In fact, the opposite is true. It was reliance on testimony by the ancient pagan naturalists which caused the early translators of the Bible to be misled in their rendering of these words.

And these are not the only examples of this happening. Stallman cites similar case: “When sarap appears as a nom., it indicates either seraphs (Isa 6:2,6), the snakes in the wilderness (Num 21:8), or some other kind of snake characterized as meopep (lit. flying; Isa 14:29; 30:6). The understanding of this last type as 'flying serpents' rests on a report by Herodotus, but the biblical description could also indicate a jab or prick, thus NIV 'darting.'”

REVELATION 3:15-16

 

A fairly literal translation of this address to the church at Laodicea reads as follows: “I know your works; you are neither cold nor hot. I wish that you were either cold or hot. So, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold not hot, I am about to spit you out of my mouth.” (NRSV)

Or, if you prefer a loose paraphrase: “I know you inside and out, and find little to my liking. You're not cold, you're not hot – far better to be either cold or hot! You're stale. You're stagnant. You make me want to vomit.” (The Message)

The first factor in trying to understand a passage such as this is to pin down the genre in which it is written. All but a small minority of scholars are in agreement that the bulk of Revelation, chapters 4-22, is written largely in highly figurative and symbolic language. But an anonymous article in The Dictionary of Biblical Imagery points out: “Symbolic imagery is present already in the letters to the seven churches. Here we read about [for example]...Christians who have been lukewarm. We do not interpret these images literally. They are physical symbols of spiritual realities.”

However, that confronts us immediately with a two-fold challenge: pinning down both the physical referent and the spiritual meaning derived from it.

Traditional Approach

Beale explains, “The image of the Laodiceans being 'neither hot not cold' but 'lukewarm' has traditionally been understood to be metaphorical of their lack of spiritual fervor and halfhearted commitment to Christ. “One problem with this is that Christ's desire that they be either 'cold or hot' implies that both extremes are positive. The traditional view, however, has seen 'cold' negatively, the idea apparently being that Jesus either wants the readers to be either zealous ('hot') for him or completely uncommitted ('cold'), but not middle-of-the-road. But it is unlikely that Christ would commend that extreme of complete disloyalty (though cf. 2 Pet. 2:21).”

We will get back to the 2 Peter passage in a bit, but one thing should stand out concerning this interpretation: it skips immediately to the meaning of the metaphor without first pinning down the physical image present. It simply assumes that everyone has the same underlying meaning attached to the concepts of hot and cold. That sort of fallacy was first brought to my attention decades ago when I lived next door to a fellow chemist at work who was raised in Palestine. There was one of our managers, named Dr. Ward, whom he did not care for. My neighbor thought it was the most hilarious thing in the world to insult him by calling him Mr. Warm. I tried vainly to explain to him that in our culture a warm person exhibits positive traits, but apparently he couldn't grasp the concept due to the negative connotation “warm” had in the Middle East.

Here are the comments of some scholars who hold to this “traditional” view, which was indeed the interpretation I was always taught in our church while growing up.

    Morris: “To prefer a rejection of the faith [i.e. coldness] to the way the Laodiceans professed it is startling to say the least (cf. 2 Pet. ii. 21). But to profess Christianity while remaining untouched by its fire is a disaster. There is more hope for the openly antagonistic than for the coolly indifferent...There coolness was a denial of all that Christ stands for...It is worth reflecting that the Ephesians were condemned for too great a zeal, coupled as it was with the absence of love, the Laodiceans for too little.”

    Hendricksen: “You cannot do anything with such people. With the heathen, that is, with those who have never come into contact with the Gospel and who are therefore 'cold' with respect to it, you can do something. With sincere, humble Christians you can work with joy. But with these 'we're-all-such-very-good-folks-here-in-Laodicea' people you can do nothing. Even Christ himself cannot stand them.”

    “There would have been some hope for Laodicea if it had been stone cold, but to be lukewarm, to be neither one thing nor the other, to be completely compromised, was a condition without hope.” (Phillips)

Note that (1) Morris and Hendricksen totally disagree as to the identity of the “cold” person; (2) none of the three attempts to explain the meaning of “hot”; and (3) II Peter 2:21 does not really provide a close parallel to this passage at all since it describes the complete apostasy of a one-time believer, not a lukewarm attitude at all.

In relation to (1) above, it is interesting that there continued to be a controversy in the early church considering the identity of the lukewarm person. Ford explains that 'lukewarm' “is used by Arethas to describe a man who has received the Holy Spirit in baptism but has quenched the grace. Gregory applies it to a man grown cold after conversion. Origen applies it to unregenerate persons.”

Here is what Hemer has to say in reference to this passage and especially regarding the “traditional” interpretation above: “Some aspects of the association of the three words chiaros [lukewarm], psychros [cold] and zestos [hot] in Rev. 3:15-16 are unique in surviving Greek literature. Here all three are used metaphorically and absolutely of personal character. The passage has usually been understood to refer to levels of spiritual fervor [see Matthew 24:12 for love growing cold and Acts 8:25; Romans 12:11 for a fervent spirit]...and this assumption accords with the exhortation in Rev. 3:19 (zeleoe, be zealous): it would be natural to urge earnest endeavor upon the half-hearted. The common interpretation is however open to question...It is not a matter of saying 'it is better to be hot or even cold, better even stony indifference than half-hearted support.'”

But if the traditional interpretation is not the correct one, then what is? It all begins with a proper identification of the physical image behind the language. Walvoord makes a stab at it with the following comment: “In their feasts as well as in their religious sacrifices people in the ancient world customarily drank what was either hot or cold – never lukewarm. That statement is true, as far as it goes, although I would have personally extended that reference to many situations outside of feasts and sacrifices (see Matthew 10:42 regarding one who gives a cup of cold water to one in need).

Bruce goes one tentative, but critical, step further: “The choice of the figure of lukewarmness to characterize the Laodiceans' ineffectiveness or lack of zeal may have been suggested by their city's water supply...” And that is indeed the judgment of most current commentators.

Similarly, Ruiz says, “Their lukewarm Christianity is nauseating like the tepid water for which the city was known.” And I can identify with that quite well since the water supply in our town growing up was not only lukewarm but also loaded with calcium and magnesium compounds to the point where solids would start precipitating out if it was cooled down, as well has having a vaguely petroleum taste to it.

Mounce does a good job of explaining the condition at Laodicea: “In an important article, Rudwick and Green argue that the adjectives 'hot,' 'cold,' and 'lukewarm' are not to be taken as describing the spiritual fervor (or lack of it) of people. The contrast is between the hot medicinal waters of Hieropolis and the cold, pure waters of Colossae. Thus the church in Laodicea 'was providing neither refreshment for the spiritually weary, nor healing for the spiritually sick. It was totally ineffective, and thus distasteful to the Lord.' On this interpretation the church is not being called to task for its spiritual temperature but for the barrenness of its works. Among the several advantages of this interpretation is the fact that is no longer necessary to wonder why Christ would prefer the church to be 'cold' rather than 'lukewarm.'”

So that brings us next to the meaning of lukewarmness in regard to the Laodicean church. Here scholars may differ somewhat in emphasis, but all are in general agreement.

    “Lukewarmness should probably be taken as denoting 'ineffectiveness', the inadequacy of human effort as a substitute for diverse manifestations of God's giving. The central thought of the letter is that effective service hinges upon response to Christ, not upon human endeavor.” (Hemer)

    “The community at Laodicea is not accused of any specific disorder, but its condition appears to be worse than that of the other communities because the evil is more insidious. The community members seem to be self-satisfied and indifferent; there seems to be no outstanding evil or persecution to make them aware of the condition of their religion.” (Ford)

    “I believe this is very simple: the lukewarm is the one who desires nothing, who does not feel any lack, any absence, who does not understand that there is anything missing, who does not aspire to anything and because of this does not hope for anything. The cold is the one to whom much is lacking and who knows it but who does not ask for anything, who is shut up in the consciousness of his failure. The hot is the one who moves and who acts. But these latter two aspects are ultimately aspects of hope. The lukewarm, who is satisfied with that which he is, is led to do nothing to change, since the actual situation appears satisfactory to him. He then does not see his real situation before God.” (Ellul)

    Lastly is the question of how serious Christ's rejection of the Laodiceans was. “Vomiting is here a gesture of disgust, as when the fish expelled Jonah on the land (Jon 2:11)...spitting and vomiting are gestures of revulsion and rejection. The action of the stomach in vomiting, or of the mouth in spitting, becomes a vivid image of rejection. God will spit out the Laodiceans (Rev 3:16), and the land will spit out Israel if the people do not obey (Lev 18:28; 20:22).” (DBI)

    And Beasley-Murray states, “There is written a condemnation unequaled in the NT as an expression of the abhorrence of Christ. The reference is to the last judgment (cf. Lk. 13:25-28).”

However, all is not lost for the Laodiceans. As Mounce points out, “It should be noted that although the Lord was about to spew them out of his mouth, there was yet opportunity to repent (vss. 18-20).”

LUKE 19:41-44

 

There are several causes for weeping recorded in the New Testament. Matthew's Gospel records six times in Jesus' teaching in which he warned about the people who, when finding themselves separated from God eternally, would wail and gnash their teeth in anger or despair (Matt. 8:12-13; 13:42,50; 22:13; 24:51; 25:30).

Then there is the case of Peter, when realizing that he had denied his Lord as Jesus predicted, cried with bitter regret for what he had done. Or on the other end of the spectrum were the more or less professional mourners at the respective death beds of Jairus' daughter (Luke 8:52-53) and Lazarus (Mark 5:39-40) who somehow managed to instantly turn their crocodile tears to derisive sneers at Jesus when he told them that there was nothing to mourn about. Altogether there are approximately 35 verses in the Gospels in which people cry.

But then we come to the specific case of Jesus himself weeping. I have already discussed one of the two instances in which we are told that this happened (see the post titled “Jesus Wept.” [John 11:35]). On that occasion it was the death of his friend Lazarus which triggered that emotional response. But in Luke 19:41, it was the city of Jerusalem which Jesus was weeping over as he anticipated the fate she would soon experience.

Tilden cites Luke 13:33-34 in conjunction with this verse. In this parallel passage Jesus bewails the fact that He had wished to gather its inhabitants under His wing but instead they rejected Him. This same reason is given for his sadness in chapter 19, which goes on to say that they would be experiencing grief “because you did not know the time of your visitation” (v. 44).

This may be an allusion to an earlier episode in Luke's Gospel, as Porter states: “Zechariah the priest (1:67-68) had praised God who had visited His people; You, says Jesus to the people of Jerusalem, you did not recognize the time of God's coming to you.”

Vine defines the particular Greek verb for “cry” in these verses: “klaio is used of any loud expression of grief, especially in mourning for the dead.” Of course, that definition also fits in Luke 13, even if the ones mourned for are not yet dead, but doomed to die not only physically but also spiritually and eternally.

The anonymous footnote in the Jerusalem Bible points out: “This whole prophecy is made up of O.T. references (especially noticeable in the Greek text for v. 43, cf. Is 29:3; 37:33; Jr 52:4-5; Ezk 4:1-3; 21:27; for v. 44, cf. Ho 10:14; 14:1; Na 3:10; Ps 137:9)...” That commentator feels that it applies to the destruction of Jerusalem back in 587 B.C. even more than the Roman destruction of 70 A.D.

Others scholars are suspicious of Jesus' words as an actual prophecy, as Fitzmyer explains. He first notes that “the unusual syntax reveals that Luke is making use of an inherited piece of tradition, which he has only slightly redacted...This passage has been classed by R. Bultmann as a biographical apophthegm, i.e. a pronouncement-story, not an 'imaginary scene,' even though the pronouncement itself is regarded by him as a vaticinium ex eventu [i.e. prophecy after the event], fitted out with an introductory setting in v. 41...Others have ascribed the predictions to early Christian prophets and claimed that they were eventually attributed to Jesus in the pre-Lucan tradition...the interest in the episode lies not in Jesus' weeping, but in the pronouncement that he utters...Is the utterance to be simply dismissed as vaticinium ex eventu? The question is complicated because it is involved in the dating of the Lucan Gospel and because vv. 43-44 are echoes of OT minatory [expressing a threat] predictions. Yet a number of commentators are reluctant to deny that the utterance goes back to Jesus himself in some form...There is, indeed, reason to think that Jesus did actually say something similar to this prophetic pronouncement about the fate of Jerusalem or at least of its Temple.” In addition, Fitzmyer asks the good question: “Would not a vaticinium ex eventu have been more specific in its terminology?”

He also notes, “Another opinion is held by C. H. Dodd who maintains that this oracle of the Lucan Jesus is 'composed entirely from the language of the Old Testament...So far as any historical event has colored the picture, it is not Titus's capture of Jerusalem A.D. 70, but Nebuchadrezzar's capture in 586 B.C.'...Fitzmyer concludes that “the best solution to this problems is the recognition that the Lucan oracle may well go back to Jesus in some form, but that the reformulation of it in the pre-Lucan tradition was affected both by the destruction of the city itself in A.D. 70 and by allusions to that under Nebuchadnezzar in the OT.” As you will see in the following description of the events by more conservative scholars, they are not nearly as skeptical regarding the true prophetic nature of Jesus' pronouncement but take it for granted that Luke's words reflect an accurate historical recollection of the facts.

Ellis says, “It is sometimes argued that the prophecy could not have originated in the pre-resurrection mission because Jesus anticipated the destruction of Jerusalem only as an eschatological, i.e., end of the world, event.” But he concludes, 'there are no good grounds to disallow the oracle to the pre-resurrection mission...”

“There is a sudden change of tone as Jesus turns to look at the city spread before Him and utters a sorrowful prophecy about its fate. He longed that even at this late stage it might repent and seek what would be for its welfare: how little did the conduct of Jerusalem, the city of peace (Heb. 7:2), resemble its name.” (Marshall)

“Jesus' death is both consequence of of the city's rejection of him and foretaste of what the city itself will face.” (Walton)

“In another tradition unique to Luke Jesus pauses to weep over Jerusalem as he anticipates its siege and destruction (Lk 19:42-44).” (Olmstead)

“Luke makes explicit both that certain of Jesus' prophecies refer to the imminent siege and destruction of Jerusalem (Lk 19:41-44; 21:20-24) and that there must be an interim period of 'the times of the Gentiles' before the ultimate end (Lk 21:24).” (Pitre)

Luke omits Mark's materials linking prayer and discipleship where Jesus exhorts the disciples about prayer and exorcism...and curses the fig tree..., replacing this symbol of judgment with Jesus' prophetic lament over Jerusalem (Lk 19:41-44).” (Crump)

Oakes notes that “astonishingly, in the midst of all this celebration Jesus starts weeping. He weeps that Jerusalem will not share in the peace that is coming because the people have not understood the way to peace (Lk 19:41-42). Instead, the city's enemies will encircle it, lay siege to it and tear it down (19:43-45). E. Franklin argues that this 'suggests knowledge of the Roman destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE. Rejection of Jesus and his way of peace leads them into confrontation with Rome with its inevitable disastrous results...The specific language here [i.e. Luke 21:20] and in Luke 19:41-44 has a strong OT background in a range of prophetic versions of God's judgment on various cities (e.g. cf. Lk 19:44 with Is 3:26; Nah 3:10). J. Noland argues that 'All of God's acts of judgment and threats of judgment, as recorded in Scripture, come to their culmination in the prospect of judgment held forth here.'”

Schellenberg states that “the good news of peace that Luke attributes to Jesus cannot be relegated to the spiritual realm. Indeed, for Luke, Jerusalem's failure to recognize 'the things that make for peace' results in concrete violence: a brutal and destructive siege (Lk 19:41-44). So, although the proclamation of God's kingdom includes no summons to revolution, the enactment of the kingdom has profound social and political implications that do indeed challenge the existing political order.”

At Christ's triumphal entry into Jerusalem, 'the objection of 'some of the Pharisees' (not all) as the representative voice of all those who reject Jesus' kingship (Lk 19:39-40) leads directly into its outcome: Jesus' sorrowful lament over Jerusalem's failure to recognize the visitation of the one (i.e. God [cf. Jer 6:15]) who could bring it peace (cf. Zech 9:10), and hence its coming coming destruction (Lk 19:41-44; cf. Lk 13:34-35).” (Watts)

Lastly, below are three opinions from three anonymous scholars writing in The Dictionary of Biblical Imagery:

We should not “overlook that Jesus is arrested, tried and sentenced to execution in a city that he had characterized as 'killing the prophets and stoning those who are sent to you.' Yet even in uttering that accusation, Jesus is pictured as weeping over this wicked city...”

“Christ's tears of compassion for this people are foreshadowed in the OT by those of Jeremiah, both in his prophecy (Jer 9:1; 13:17; 14:17) and in the Book of Lamentations ascribed to him (Lam 2:11; 3:48-49). Paul is a follower of Christ in this respect, moved to tears by the strength of his caring for his converts, whether in person (Acts 20:31) or in writing (2 Cor 2:4).”

“Weeping is an expression of sorrow, a reaction to being wronged or to having committed a wrong, or to the experience of loss...Weeping is regularly associated with the plight of Israel or Jerusalem (judgment and exile). Thus Jesus' weeping in Luke 19:41 (cf. Lk 23:28, also probably referring to the coming judgment on Jerusalem) is all the more poignant as the christological culmination of this motif. The city did not recognize the time of God's visitation (in Jesus) and now faces certain and irrevocable judgment.”

AROUND THE THRONE (REVELATION 4-5)

 

          Around the Throne (2010, collage on canvas)

One point is abundantly clear in these two chapters – they center in every way around God's throne in heaven. This is reinforced by the observation that the word “throne” appears exactly 17 times in these chapters (omitting the two references to other “thrones”). That may not seem to be important to you except for the fact that John is the only author in the Bible who seems to attach a symbolic meaning to that particular number – the sum of two other numbers, ten and seven, which each convey the figurative meaning of perfection or completion. Reinforcing this contention is the appearance of “throne” another 17 times in Revelation outside of these two chapters.

The next thing to look at is the contexts in which these references in Rev. 4-5 appear. Thus, after the introduction of God's throne in 4:2, we have the following distribution:

“the one seated on (epi) the throne” – Revelation 4:2b, 9, 10a; 5:1, 7, 13

The Jerusalem Bible notes that “John is careful not to describe God anthropomorphically; he prefers to given an impression of light. The whole scene draws heavily on Ezk 1 and 10; cf. also Is 6.”

If these six mentions of God's throne are supplemented by the one reference to the elders seated on their thrones, then that equals seven times overall, perhaps symbolically indicating that the throne scene is incomplete without the presence of the 24 elders. These are generally understood as denoting the representatives of the twelve tribes of Israel plus the twelve apostles, in other words, all the saved of the Old and New Testament, respectively.

The fact that representatives of the saved of humanity are actually allowed to sit in God's presence is indeed amazing. This may be the fulfillment of Christ's words to the Twelve recorded in the Gospels (Matthew 19:28; Luke 22:30), telling them that they “will sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.” And even more amazing is Paul's pronouncement to the Corinthian church (I Cor. 6:2): “Do you not know that we [i.e. followers of Christ] are to judge angels?”

I should mention for the sake of completeness that not all commentators feel the 24 elders are human beings. Stonehouse, for example, treats them as a higher class of angels.

“around (kuklos) the throne” – Revelation 4:3, 4a, 6c; 5:11

Those things so positioned include a rainbow, the thrones of the elders, the four living creatures, and the angels. Since elsewhere in the Bible the number four represents God's creation, that may also be the meaning of these four passages with accompanying groups here. If so, then the rainbow might equal the physical universe, the elders (as explained above) those specially chosen of God, the four living creatures would stand for the epitome of animate creatures on earth, and the angels would naturally comprise all the heavenly creation.

“around (en meso) the throne” – Revelation 4:6b; 5:6

Designated by this slightly different Greek preposition are the position of the four living creatures and the Lamb. It is interesting that Christ is pictured as being close to the throne of God but not on it since at the conclusion of Revelation (v. 22:3) we are told of “the throne of God and of the Lamb” as if they jointly share it, or perhaps indicating that Father and Son will completely merge into one indistinguishable Unity at this time.

“from (ek) the throne” – Revelation 4:5a

Issuing from, or out of, the heavenly throne are flashes of lightning, peals of thunder, and a voice. Ford says, “This recalls the Sinai motif. The voice may refer to the voice of God which was said to be heard in several different languages...However, these phenomena are traditional accompaniments to theophany [i.e. an appearance of God to man].”

“in front of (enopion) the throne” – Revelation 4:5b, 6a; 10b

Finally, this prepositional phrase is used to indicate where the seven spirits of God and the sea of glass are located as well as where the elders cast their crowns. For an explanation of these, I will first rely on the comments of Beale: “The second half of v. 5 is clearly patterned after Zech. 4:2-3, 10, a vision of seven lamps followed by their interpretation (so also Rev. 1:12, 20), which associates the lamps with the Spirit of Yahweh (Zech. 4:6). Part of the wording from Ezek. 1:13 in v. 5a has given rise to the thought of Zechariah 4, since both have visionary imagery of 'lamps'. The meaning of the seven lamps' is developed in 5:6.”

As for the meaning of the sea of glass, Beale offers a number of possible interpretations with accompanying rationales for each, and he notes, “These are not incompatible options.” They include:

1. The laver in Solomon's temple (II Chronicles 4:2)

2. God's holy separateness and splendor in heaven (Metzger thus says, “A sea of glass suggests the distance between God and his creatures, even in heaven.”)

3. The heavenly analogue of the Red Sea (see Revelation 15:2-4)

4. God's taming of the chaotic forces and cosmic evil represented by the sea (see Revelation 15:2)

Finally, we have the somewhat unusual vision of the elders being given golden crowns but then turning around and casting these crowns at God's throne. Mounce says, “In casting down their crowns before the throne the elders acknowledge that their authority is a delegated authority. The honor given them is freely returned to the One who alone is worthy of universal honor.”

And Beasley-Murray helpfully clarifies one point by stating, “The thanksgiving of the living creatures, inspiring the renunciation by the twenty-four elders of their crowns is not the continual worship of v. 8 but adoration given in special crises.”

MATTHEW 27:52-53 A ZOMBIE APOCALYPSE?

One critic on the internet used the above label to refer to the strange account given to us by Matthew, and Matthew alone, concerning many of the dead leaving their tombs and walking into the holy city. The questions that arise from this unusual incident are many, as I will demonstrate below. However, let us begin with what we can say, at least from a conservative viewpoint. And for that I will rely on the comments from Hendricksen, given in his words:

1. “This was a real resurrection, not an appearance of corpses.” So much for the zombie idea!

2. “It occurred at the very moment of Christ's death and, together with the other signs, pointed to the significance of that death.”

3. “It is true that the original can be constructed in one of two ways.” (More of that below.)

4. “Everything points to the fact that these saints did not again die. It must be that after they appeared to many for some small period of time, God took them – now body and soul – to himself in heaven, where their souls had been previously.”

5. This sign, too, like those described in verse 51, 52a, is prophetic. It shows that Christ's death guarantees our glorious resurrection at Christ's return.”

Given that broad overview, we can now look at some controversial and dissenting opinions centered around the many uncertainties concerning Matthew's words.

Did this event actually occur?

“Questions concerning the historicity of this event are perennial in modern research. Some reject it out of hand as unhistorical...Wright leaves open the question of historicity suggesting that Matthew might have known a tradition about such strange occurrences.” (K.L. Anderson)

Davids admits, “It sounds like a fantastic detail, a legend which has slipped into the text.”

“The resurrection of dead people has no parallel in the other gospel accounts, and leaves plenty of unanswered questions for the historically minded interpreter...Most interpreters simply dismiss it as fiction...Wright concludes: 'Some stories are so odd that they may have just happened. This may be one of them, but in historical terms there is no way of finding out.' Hagner helpfully discusses the historical status of the report, concluding that it is 'a piece of realized and historicized apocalyptic.' Much more radical is the bold proposal of K.L. Waters that Matthew does not even intend the scene to be read as past history but, despite the 'historical' form of the narration, saw this as 'an event of the apocalyptic future,' set in the 'new Jerusalem' at the end of time.” (France)

Blomberg also says: “All kinds of historical questions remain unanswered about [these] events, but their significance clearly lies in the theology Matthew wishes to convey [see the final section below].”

Albright and Mann wisely state: “It is certainly no service to scholarship to find in these verses an imaginative piece of fiction on the part of the evangelist. Or simply an attempt to garnish the account of the passion with improbable details.”

Are any Old Testament passages relevant here?

“The resurrection of the saints draws on OT and Jewish eschatological expectation (cf. Dan 12:2; Ezek 37:12-13), especially Ezekiel 37:12-13. Ezekiel's prophecy, linked with the eschatological reign of the Davidic Messiah (Ezek 37:24-25), promises to Israel, dead in 'exile,' that one day 'you will come out of your graves' (Ezk 37:12) and experience final restoration from the judgment of exile (Ezek 37:14,21-22; Is 26:14; Dan 12:23).” (Dennis)

“Walvoord suggests that this event was 'a fulfillment of the Feast of the Firstfruits of harvest mentioned in Leviticus 23:10-14. On that occasion, as a token of the coming harvest, the people would bring a handful of grain to the priest. The resurrection of these saints occurring after Jesus Himself was raised is a token of the coming harvest when the saints will be raised.” (Barbieri)

“The whole complex of these verses is reminiscent of the triumph of the saints described in Dan vii 18,21,22,25, and 27.” (Albright and Mann)

France states, “Matthew's wording here especially calls to mind Ezek 37:13, 'when I open your graves and bring you up out of your graves, my people' (note also the earthquake-like imagery in Ezek 37:7), though there resurrection is a metaphor for national restoration rather than a promise of personal life after death.”

“Matt's insistence in the next verse (27:53) that they entered the holy city (of Jerusalem) may have been influenced by Zechariah's locale for the judgment [see Zech. 14:4]...Earlier and contemporary with the writings of Matt there is testimony to the importance that Ezek 37 had for the just who died for their convictions about God. At Masada, where Jewish zealots made their last stand against the Roman armies in AD 73, in the floor of the synagogue were found fragments of a scroll on which was written Ezekiel's account of his vision of the raising of the dead bones.” (Brown)

Allison is another scholar who feels that “Matthew 27:51-53 may also draw on Zechariah 14:4-5 (interpreted, as in the Targum and Did. 16:6-7, as a prophecy of the resurrection). In both texts there is a resurrection of the dead immediately outside Jerusalem, an earthquake occurs, the same verb is used (schizo ['to split'] in the passive), and the resurrected ones are called hoi hagioi ('the holy ones'). Even today, the western rise to the Mount of Olives is covered with Jewish graves because of the belief, inspired by Zechariah 14:4-5, that on the last day the Messiah will return to that place, where the resurrection will commence.”

Who are the 'holy ones”?

“Elsewhere in the NT the 'holy ones' or 'saints' are believers in Jesus (I Cor 14:23; Rom 1:7; Acts 9:13; Heb 13:24), even as sometimes in the OT they are the people of Israel (Isa 4:3; Dan 7:21; 8:25). In this passage they must be Jews who died after a saintly life...Although some commentators have proposed that Matt is describing the deliverance of the great known figures of OT history..., relatively few of them were supposed to be buried in the Jerusalem area.” (R.E. Brown)

“The 'holy people who had died' are presumably to be understood as pious Jews, but we do not know whether Matthew is thinking of recent contemporaries or of well-known people from the OT period buried around Jerusalem.” (France)

“'Holy people' (often translated saints) apparently refer to selected Old Testament believers.” (Blomberg)

What is the 'holy city'?

Brown mentions that a number of commentators treat the holy city as the heavenly Jerusalem. That would explain away the lack of historical references to resurrected bodies waling about the earth. However, he points to the one 'fatal flaw' in this interpretation. It does not fit in with the statement that they were seen by many people.

Exactly when did these holy ones rise from the dead?

Many readers of these verses may not realize it, but this is actually the most controversial point regarding the whole episode. Brown says, “'After his raising' is the most difficult phrase in Matt 27:51-53.” He notes that here is the only place in the New Testament where egersis ('raising') appears. It opens the possibility that what is being referred to is the raising of the bodies of the dead holy ones, not to Jesus' own raising (generally expressed by egeirein). And a related problem is the apparent contradiction of Matthew with Paul's understanding in I Corinthians 15:20 that it was Christ who was the firstborn from the dead, not the holy ones.

In an attempt to resolve this difficulty, France points out: “The Greek word order allows 'after Jesus' resurrection' to be read either with 'coming out of their tombs',...or with 'they came into the holy city'. Gundry regards the latter as more in keeping with Matthean idiom.”

Nixon: “It is most natural to take the Greek as meaning that they were raised at this time [i.e. at Christ's death] but did not come out of the tombs until after his resurrection. Christ is 'the first-born from the dead' (Col. 1:18; 1 Cor. 15:20), and there is some difficulty about an anticipation of His resurrection unless it is intended to be something like the raising of Lazarus.”

“As the NIV stands, Matthew's account contradicts Paul, inasmuch as the saints actually precede Christ out of the tomb. But the text should probably be punctuated with a period after the 'tombs broke open.'” (Blomberg)

Hill says that the resurrection of the holy ones “takes place after the Resurrection. This view of eschatology...did not fit into what became the commonly accepted teaching that Christ was 'the first fruits of those who had fallen asleep' (I C. 15.20), and that all others await the general resurrection; therefore it did not survive in the main stream of tradition.”

“His [Jesus'] resurrection is the first, theirs the consequence (cf. 1 Cor 15:20-23; 1 Thess 4:14)...That he [Matthew]...records it here, despite the difficulty of postponing the resurrection and or appearance for two days after the earthquake, suggests that he sees Jesus' death, not just his resurrection, as the key to the new life which is now made available to God's people.” (France)

The problem alluded to by France above is explained by Hendricksen, who asks, “But is it reasonable to believe that these saints, with glorious resurrection bodies, remained in the darkness and corruption of the tombs from Friday afternoon until Sunday morning? The meaning is, in all probability, that these saints were raised and left their tombs at the moment of Christ's death.” That scenario, however, brings us right back to the contradiction with Paul's insistence that Christ was the first fruit from the dead. This issue will probably never be successfully resolved this side of the grave.

What subsequently happened to this resurrected “holy ones”?

“The answer is 'We do not know.' Since this appears to be the firstfruits of the eventual general resurrection of the righteous, it is unlikely that Matthew thought for a minute that they later returned to their tombs. It is possible that he believed they were waiting around on earth for the return of Jesus, but it is far more likely that he believed that they went to heaven with Jesus.” (Davids)

At this point we should heed Ellison's words: “This section of Mt. stands unique in the NT and we have no other Scripture to help us understand it...Mt's own reticence suggests that he himself had no clear understanding of what happened.”

“If these saints were genuinely resurrected rather than simply revivified or reanimated like Jairus's daughter or Lazarus, then presumably, like Jesus himself, they appeared to others only for a short time and were eventually taken to heaven. But the text refuses to satisfy our curiosity about these points.” (Blomberg)

What is the theological significance of this event?

Here, at least, there is some general agreement among scholars. Anderson says, “The resurrection of saints has a twofold significance. First, the apocalyptic nature of the event signals Jesus' resurrection as the inauguration of the age to come and precursor to the final resurrection (cf. Acts 3:15; 26:23; 1 Cor 15:20,23; Col 1:18). Second, the saint's resurrection amplifies Jesus' vindication. The self-curse of the people for shedding Jesus' innocent blood (Mt 27:4,19, 24-25) has already gone into effect. According to Jesus' prediction, the 'righteous blood' of all the prophets is testifying against the people, as the saints come out of the very tombs that their murderers built for them (cf. Mt 23:29-31)...All of the resurrection miracles in the Gospels assume this eschatological declaration. They are signposts pointing to Jesus' resurrection, which is the beginning of the age to come and the final resurrection.”

Pitre notes that “in the Gospel of Matthew the death of Jesus is so efficaciously eschatological that it actually triggers the bodily resurrection of 'the holy ones,' who come forth from their 'tombs' after his individual resurrection.”

David Hill says, “The point being made in this verse is clear: with Christ the general resurrection has begun; the power of death is now vanquished.”

Blomberg: “The resurrections illustrate the teaching of 1 Cor 15:20-22. Christ is the firstfruits of the new age, guaranteeing the bodily resurrection of all his people.”

“Matthew's report of the saints' opened graves (Mt 27:52-53) interprets Jesus' resurrection as an eschatological event associated with the widely expected general resurrection.” (Schellenberg)

Brown states that “this raising of 'many bodies' as Jesus dies is not the universal final resurrection but an inbreaking of God's power signifying that the last times have begun and the judgment has been inaugurated...their appearance both attested that Jesus had conquered death and promised that eventually all the holy ones would be raised.”