ADOPTION IN THE BOOK OF ROMANS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Romans 8

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Below are some specific comments on the passages summarized above:

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

REVELATION 14: ONE OR TWO HARVESTS?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Additional evidence

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

                                                   Figure 1: Structure of Revelation 14

I. Throne Scene (1-5)

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

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

II. three angels (6-11)

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

        B. judgment on the unrighteous (8-11)

II. call for endurance for the faithful (12)

I'. Throne Scene (13-14)

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

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

                        II'. three angels (15-20)

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

                                B. judgment on the unrighteous (17-20)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WHO WROTE COLOSSIANS?

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

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

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

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

Historical Considerations

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

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

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

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

Linguistic Issues

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stylistic Considerations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Theological Issues

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

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

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

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

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

Pro-

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

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

Teachings on Baptism

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

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

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

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

The Body of Christ

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

Hope

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

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

Final Considerations

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

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

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

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

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

"EVERY TRIBE, TONGUE, PEOPLE AND NATION" (REVELATION 5:9, ETC)

“Every tribe, tongue, people and nation” (Revelation 5:9, etc)

My own feeling is that even a cursory reading of Revelation gives the gist of what John is attempting to convey, but that does not mean that such a superficial overview has exhausted all that is in the book. Actually, it appears that there are almost endless insights one can get from the book of Revelation even from the most mundane phrases. As an example, variations on the above series of words appear throughout the book, but at least two commentaries I consulted skipped right over all of them without a mention. Below is a summary of these appearances including the context in which they each occur:

                                                 Figure 1: Key Repeated Phrase

    Rev. 5:9 tribe tongue people nation those ransomed

    Rev. 7:9 nation tribe people tongue those in heaven

    Rev. 10:11 people nation tongue king prophesied about

    Rev.11:9 people tribe tongue nation gaze on the righteous dead

    Rev. 13:7 tribe people tongue nation beast has power over

    Rev. 14:6 nation tribe tongue people warning to

    Rev. 17:15 people multitude nations tongue whore rules over

Literary Considerations

Morris says, “An interesting point of style is that his word order is not the same in any two examples.” I could not find any commentator who had an explanation for this phenomenon. My own read on the situation is that John purposely scrambled up the order so that no one would begin to think that, for example, one's political, cultural or linguistic affiliation had any more importance that any other factor. The total phrase is meant to be universal in scope.

To be more precise, Hendricksen states regarding Rev. 5:9, “Both the particular and universal aspects of the atonement are beautifully combined. The Lamb did not purchase the salvation of every single individual. No, he paid the price for this elect, that is, for men 'out of' every tribe and tongue, etc. Yet , on the other hand, there is nothing narrow or national about this redemption. It is world-wide in its scope and embraces every group...Together all redeemed constitute a kingdom and priests.”

And Mounce chimes in: “It is fruitless to attempt a distinction between these terms as ethnic, linguistic, political, etc. The Seer is stressing the universal nature of the church and for this purpose piles up phrases for their rhetorical value. In contrast with the exclusivism of Judaism which prided itself in having been chosen and from among the nations, the church was genuinely ecumenical, recognizing no national, political, cultural, or racial boundaries.”

Walvoord: “This indicates that there will be one ecumenical world religious system, embracing all nations and languages.”

Another commentator says, “John certainly does not confine his vision to Jewish Christians...we are reminded that the Israel of God knows no national frontiers.”

And it is just as obvious that those later occurrences in Revelation which apply to the damned are similarly ecumenical.

Symbolic Numbers

It is well accepted that the frequent mention of specific numbers mentioned in Revelation as well as the specific number of times certain words or phrases appear in the book all possess symbolic meaning in biblical thought. (see my post titled “How Numbers Are Used in the Bible” for more on this subject). With that in mind, note in Figure 1 that there are seven similar enumerations of people groups. It is universally accepted by Bible scholars that the number “seven” is symbolic of completion or perfection. This number and its multiples appears numerous times in Revelation, which is highly appropriate since that book is the final revealing of God's plan for creation.

The next thing to note is that there are exactly four designations in each of the seven listings. Gunner cites passages such as Genesis 2:10 (four rivers watering the garden of Eden), Revelation 7:1 (four corners of the earth), four winds (Jeremiah 49:36), and Ezekiel 1 (four living creatures). All of them apply to the totality of God's creation on earth.

Progression

There are many different competing views concerning whether Revelation presents its ideas in a repetitive or chronological order or not. My own opinion is that those scholars espousing a Progressive Recapitulation viewpoint are closest to the mark (see my post titled “Different Lenses for the Book of Revelation”), although other readings are certainly possible. This particular way of viewing time in Revelation is to recognize that there is a slow movement forward chronologically as the book proceeds with frequent backtracking to cover earlier material using different imagery.

Thus, if you look at the context of each occurrence of the phrases in Figure 1, it becomes obvious that the people groups in 5:9 and 7:9 concern those destined to be saved while those in Revelation 13:7, 14:6 and 17:15 apply to those who will be condemned at the Last Judgment. That only leaves the people in 10:1 and 11:9 in the middle to be dealt with. And here we see some differences of opinion between scholars, with many not willing to make any judgment calls at all.

For example, the groups of people on the earth who “gaze on” the two dead witnesses in 11:9 could be considered as those who prefer to be mere bystanders rather than active participants either for or against any evil action that has been committed. And those referred to in 10:1 appear to be just as neutral concerning their commitment to God since, as RSV translates it, John is merely told to “prophesy about” them.

But Beale states, “Most translations render epi as 'about' or 'concerning'...This suggests that John's prophetic focus is general and concerns equally those who will suffer judgment because of sin and others who will suffer for their faith and be redeemed. But the accent is on judgment of the unrepentant ['prophesy against'].” He gives some reasons for making this assertion:

    1. Ezekiel uses the phrase most and only three of his eighteen usages applies to a positive prophecy of blessing.

    2. “In Dan. 3:4 LXX the formula precedes and follows 'the sound of a trumpet,' and here in Rev. 10:11 is preceded by the sound of the seventh angel when he is about to sound the trumpet' (10:7). John has used the phrase of all who are redeemed (5:9, 7:9), but now and hereafter he uses it of unbelievers”

Symmetrical Arrangement

Another way in which Revelation is ordered has been defended in my post titled “Book of Revelation: Introduction to the Literary Structure” and shown below:

Figure 2: Literary Structure of Revelation

    I. Introduction (1:1-4:11)

            II. Destruction on the Earth and its Inhabitants (5:1-11:19)

                    III. Judgment on God’s Enemies (12:1-20:15)

                            A. Demonic Forces on the Earth (12:1-16:1)

                                    B. The Seven Plagues (16:2-21)

                            A'. The Fall of the Demonic Forces (17:1-20:15)

            II'. The New Heaven and Earth and their Inhabitants (21:1-22:5)

    I'. Conclusion (22:6-21)

With Figure 2 in mind, consider how the seven listings of four people groups are disposed within these sections. The first four occurrences are found in Section II while the others are located in IIIA and in IIIA'. But to be totally symmetrical, as we might expect, there is seemingly nothing to balance the four appearances in Section II'. However, it is intriguing to note that within the boundaries of II' (Rev. 21:1-22:5) we encounter the following four words again appearing, but separately this time, not together as before: peoples (21:3), tribes (21:12), nations (21:24a), and kings (21:24b). In that way the author has managed to preserve the symbolic nature of the number seven in his seven similar listings and at the same time create a wholly symmetrical word pattern running throughout the book – with four separate mentions in II' to balance the four lists in II.

Relation to Daniel 7

As with much of Revelation, it constantly alludes back to Old Testament Scripture. Beale and McDonough demonstrate the almost point-by-point correspondence between Daniel 7 and Revelation 4-5. Just looking at the parallels within chapter 5, we get the following:

    Heavenly servants around the throne (Dan. 7:10b; Rev. 5:8,11,14)

    Book(s) before the throne (Dan. 7:10c; Rev. 5:1-7)

    Opening the book(s) (Dan. 7:10d; Rev. 5:2-5,9)

    Divine figure receives authority to reign (Dan. 7:13-14a; Rev. 5:5b-7,9a,12-13)

    Kingdom includes 'all peoples, etc.' (Dan 7:14a; Rev. 5:9b)

    The seer's distress (Dan. 7:15; Rev. 5:4)

    A heavenly throne servant counsels him (Dan. 7:16; Rev. 5:5a)

    Saints also given authority to rule (Dan. 7:18,22,27a; Rev. 5:10)

    God's eternal reign (Daniel 7:27b; Rev. 5:13-14)

On the other hand, Morris chooses to emphasize the differences between the two passages: “The expression reminds us of passages in Daniel (iii. 4,7,29, etc.). Some think John is quoting Daniel. But though our four terms are all found in either the LXX or Theodotion [Greek] translations, neither version has them all. Again, for the most part the Daniel references have three members, John's four.”

Relation to the Gospels

“Revelation's portrayal of the proclamation of 'the eternal gospel'...(Rev 14:6) does parallel the Matthean wording [in Mt. 24:9]. Further, the reference to 'all the nations'...as the target audience in Matthew 24:14, as well as in the Matthean and Lukan versions of the Great Commission (Mt 28:19; Lk 24:47), and the closing mention of 'the end of the age'...in Matthew 28:20 seem to establish that the conversion of the nations (see esp. Rev 7:9 'all nations'...), in the midst of great suffering and martyrdom, echoes the Synoptics as much as prior Jewish thought and expectation.” (Luter)

Revelation 10:11

This is one of two places in the book where another word, “kings”in this case, is substituted for “tribes” in the four-fold lists. Morris offers one possible explanation for its presence: “Here 'tribes' is replaced by 'kings' perhaps to suggest that God's word through the prophets takes precedence over the highest rank of human authority. It may be that the seven kings of 17:10 and the ten kings of 17:12 are in the Seer's purview.”

Notice that “the kings of the earth” appear a last time in Revelation 21:24, where they will bring their glory into the Lord's temple. Concerning them, Beale says, “Though 'kings of the earth' refers to wicked rulers in 17:2,18, the phrase may include 'good kings' in 1:5. Here converted kings are the subject since the phrase 'kings of the earth' is an expansion of 'kings' from Isa. 60:3,11. In the Isaiah text kings come to end-time Jerusalem to worship Yahweh, together with the nations...”

Revelation 17:15

In this case, “multitudes” is the group substituted for “tribes” in the four-fold listing of people. As Morris says, “The angel explains the waters on which the harlot sits (verse 1). They stand for a multitude of people over which the harlot is set...she has a great empire.”

“Isaiah 17:12-13 also uses the metaphor of 'many waters' for 'many nations'...The 'many waters' have already been seen to be an allusion to Jer. 51:13, where they refer to the waters of the Euphrates and the channels and canals that surround the city. These waters helped Babylon to flourish economically, and provided security against outside attack. The multitudes of humanity that the waters now represent are the basis for Babylon's economic trade and security.” (Beale and McDonough)

“Every tribe, tongue, people and nation” (Revelation 5:9, etc)

My own feeling is that even a cursory reading of Revelation gives the gist of what John is attempting to convey, but that does not mean that such a superficial overview has exhausted all that is in the book. Actually, it appears that there are almost endless insights one can get from the book of Revelation even from the most mundane phrases. As an example, variations on the above series of words appear throughout the book, but at least two commentaries I consulted skipped right over all of them without a mention. Below is a summary of these appearances including the context in which they each occur:

Figure 1: Key Repeated Phrase

Rev. 5:9 tribe tongue people nation those ransomed

Rev. 7:9 nation tribe people tongue those in heaven

Rev. 10:11 people nation tongue king prophesied about

Rev.11:9 people tribe tongue nation gaze on the righteous dead

Rev. 13:7 tribe people tongue nation beast has power over

Rev. 14:6 nation tribe tongue people warning to

Rev. 17:15 people multitude nations tongue whore rules over

Literary Considerations

Morris says, “An interesting point of style is that his word order is not the same in any two examples.” I could not find any commentator who had an explanation for this phenomenon. My own read on the situation is that John purposely scrambled up the order so that no one would begin to think that, for example, one's political, cultural or linguistic affiliation had any more importance that any other factor. The total phrase is meant to be universal in scope.

To be more precise, Hendricksen states regarding Rev. 5:9, “Both the particular and universal aspects of the atonement are beautifully combined. The Lamb did not purchase the salvation of every single individual. No, he paid the price for this elect, that is, for men 'out of' every tribe and tongue, etc. Yet , on the other hand, there is nothing narrow or national about this redemption. It is world-wide in its scope and embraces every group...Together all redeemed constitute a kingdom and priests.”

And Mounce chimes in: “It is fruitless to attempt a distinction between these terms as ethnic, linguistic, political, etc. The Seer is stressing the universal nature of the church and for this purpose piles up phrases for their rhetorical value. In contrast with the exclusivism of Judaism which prided itself in having been chosen and from among the nations, the church was genuinely ecumenical, recognizing no national, political, cultural, or racial boundaries.”

Walvoord: “This indicates that there will be one ecumenical world religious system, embracing all nations and languages.”

Another c ommentator says, “John certainly does not confine his vision to Jewish Christians...we are reminded that the Israel of God knows no national frontiers.”

And it is just as obvious that those later occurrences in Revelation which apply to the damned are similarly ecumenical.

Symbolic Numbers

It is well accepted that the frequent mention of specific numbers mentioned in Revelation as well as the specific number of times certain words or phrases appear in the book all possess symbolic meaning in biblical thought. (see my post titled “How Numbers Are Used in the Bible” for more on this subject). With that in mind, note in Figure 1 that there are seven similar ennumerations of people groups. It is universally accepted by Bible scholars that the number “seven” is symbolic of completion or perfection. This number and its multiples appears numerous times in Revelation, which is highly appropriate since that book is the final revealing of God's plan for creation.

The next thing to note is that there are exactly four designations in each of the seven listings. Gunner cites passages such as Genesis 2:10 (four rivers watering the garden of Eden), Revelation 7:1 (four corners of the earth), four winds (Jeremiah 49:36), and Ezekiel 1 (four living creatures). All of them apply to the totality of God's creation on earth.

Progression

There are many different competing views concerning whether Revelation presents its ideas in a repetitive or chronological order or not. My own opinion is that those scholars espousing a Progressive Recapitulation viewpoint are closest to the mark (see my post titled “Different Lenses for the Book of Revelation”), although other readings are certainly possible. This particular way of viewing time in Revelation is to recognize that there is a slow movement forward chronologically as the book proceeds with frequent backtracking to cover earlier material using different imagery.

Thus, if you look at the context of each occurrence of the phrases in Figure 1, it becomes obvious that the people groups in 5:9 and 7:9 concern those destined to be saved while those in Revelation 13:7, 14:6 and 17:15 apply to those who will be condemned at the Last Judgment. That only leaves the people in 10:1 and 11:9 in the middle to be dealt with. And here we see some differences of opinion between scholars, with many not willing to make any judgment calls at all.

For example, the groups of people on the earth who “gaze on” the two dead witnesses in 11:9 could be considered as those who prefer to be mere bystanders rather than active participants either for or against any evil action that has been committed. And those referred to in 10:1 appear to be just as neutral concerning their commitment to God since, as RSV translates it, John is merely told to “prophesy about” them.

But Beale states, “Most translations render epi as 'about' or 'concerning'...This suggests that John's prophetic focus is general and concerns equally those who will suffer judgment because of sin and others who will suffer for their faith and be redeemed. But the accent is on judgment of the unrepentant ['prophesy against'].” He gives some reasons for making this assertion:

1. Ezekiel uses the phrase most and only three of his eighteen usages applies to a positive prophecy of blessing.

2. “In Dan. 3:4 LXX the formula precedes and follows 'the sound of a trumpet,' and here in Rev. 10:11 is preceded by the sound of the seventh angel when he is about to sound the trumpet' (10:7). John has used the phrase of all who are redeemed (5:9, 7:9), but now and hereafter he uses it of unbelievers”

Symmetrical Arrangement

Another way in which Revelation is ordered has been defended in my post titled “Book of Revelation: Introduction to the Literary Structure” and shown below:

Figure 2: Literary Structure of Revelation

I. Introduction (1:1-4:11)

II. Destruction on the Earth and its Inhabitants (5:1-11:19)

III. Judgment on God’s Enemies (12:1-20:15)

A. Demonic Forces on the Earth (12:1-16:1)

B. The Seven Plagues (16:2-21)

A'. The Fall of the Demonic Forces (17:1-20:15)

II'. The New Heaven and Earth and their Inhabitants (21:1-22:5)

I'. Conclusion (22:6-21)

With Figure 2 in mind, consider how the seven listings of four people groups are disposed within these sections. The first four occurrences are found in Section II while the others are located in IIIA and in IIIA'. But to be totally symmetrical, as we might expect, there is seemingly nothing to balance the four appearances in Section II'. However, it is intriguing to note that within the boundaries of II' (Rev. 21:1-22:5) we encounter the following four words again appearing, but separately this time, not together as before: peoples (21:3), tribes (21:12), nations (21:24a), and kings (21:24b). In that way the author has managed to preserve the symbolic nature of the number seven in his seven similar listings and at the same time create a wholly symmetrical word pattern running throughout the book – with four separate mentions in II' to balance the four lists in II.

Relation to Daniel 7

As with much of Revelation, it constantly alludes back to Old Testament Scripture. Beale and McDonough demonstrate the almost point-by-point correspondence between Daniel 7 and Revelation 4-5. Just looking at the parallels within chapter 5, we get the following:

Heavenly servants around the throne (Dan. 7:10b; Rev. 5:8,11,14)

Book(s) before the throne (Dan. 7:10c; Rev. 5:1-7)

Opening the book(s) (Dan. 7:10d; Rev. 5:2-5,9)

Divine figure receives authority to reign (Dan. 7:13-14a; Rev. 5:5b-7,9a,12-13)

Kingdom includes 'all peoples, etc.' (Dan 7:14a; Rev. 5:9b)

The seer's distress (Dan. 7:15; Rev. 5:4)

A heavenly throne servant counsels him (Dan. 7:16; Rev. 5:5a)

Saints also given authority to rule (Dan. 7:18,22,27a; Rev. 5:10)

God's eternal reign (Daniel 7:27b; Rev. 5:13-14)

On the other hand, Morris chooses to emphasize the differences between the two passages: “The expression reminds us of passages in Daniel (iii. 4,7,29, etc.). Some think John is quoting Daniel. But though our four terms are all found in either the LXX or Theodotion [Greek] translations, neither version has them all. Again, for the most part the Daniel references have three members, John's four.”

Relation to the Gospels

“Revelation's portrayal of the proclamation of 'the eternal gospel'...(Rev 14:6) does parallel the Matthean wording [in Mt. 24:9]. Further, the reference to 'all the nations'...as the target audience in Matthew 24:14, as well as in the Matthean and Lukan versions of the Great Commission (Mt 28:19; Lk 24:47), and the closing mention of 'the end of the age'...in Matthew 28:20 seem to establish that the conversion of the nations (see esp. Rev 7:9 'all nations'...), in the midst of great suffering and martyrdom, echoes the Synoptics as much as prior Jewish thought and expectation.” (Luter)

Revelation 10:11

This is one of two places in the book where another word, “kings”in this case, is substituted for “tribes” in the four-fold lists. Morris offers one possible explanation for its presence: “Here 'tribes' is replaced by 'kings' perhaps to suggest that God's word through the prophets takes precedence over the highest rank of human authority. It may be that the seven kings of 17:10 and the ten kings of 17:12 are in the Seer's purview.”

Notice that “the kings of the earth” appear a last time in Revelation 21:24, where they will bring their glory into the Lord's temple. Concerning them, Beale says, “Though 'kings of the earth' refers to wicked rulers in 17:2,18, the phrase may include 'good kings' in 1:5. Here converted kings are the subject since the phrase 'kings of the earth' is an expansion of 'kings' from Isa. 60:3,11. In the Isaiah text kings come to end-time Jerusalem to worship Yahweh, together with the nations...”

Revelation 17:15

In this case, “multitudes” is the group substituted for “tribes” in the four-fold listing of people. As Morris says, “The angel explains the waters on which the harlot sits (verse 1). They stand for a multitude of people over which the harlot is set...she has a great empire.”

“Isaiah 17:12-13 also uses the metaphor of 'many waters' for 'many nations'...The 'many waters' have already been seen to be an allusion to Jer. 51:13, where they refer to the waters of the Euphrates and the channels and canals that surround the city. These waters helped Babylon to flourish economically, and provided security against outside attack. The multitudes of humanity that the waters now represent are the basis for Babylon's economic trade and security.” (Beale and McDonough)

For my own part, I tend to see a sharp and purposeful contrast between the mere “multitudes” which serve Babylon in this last listing of the four people groups and the “myriads and myriads and thousands of thousands” of those in heaven who serve God in Revelation 5:11 in the context of the first four-fold listing (Rev. 5:9).

And I am sure that the above is only scratching the surface concerning whatever more might be discerned from these listings of four people groups.