REVELATION 22:6-21 -- PART 1 (PROPER DIVISIONS)

 

Revelation 22:6-21—Part I (Proper Divisions)

There are a number of good strategies to use when approaching any portion of Scripture. I thought I would use the last chapter of the Bible as a test case to demonstrate my own personal method. This is generally my first step; the others will be discussed in subsequent posts. Feel free to take anything out of this methodology that seems to be useful to you and ignore the rest.

The Bible is quite unlike any other book you will ever read in that it stands together as a unity while at the same time being composed of numerous separate books written in different languages by a number of human writers over an extended time period. And for the novice, it is hard to make sense out of the way it is organized.

The most obvious division one first encounters is that between the Old and New Testament. While the OT contains the history and religious writings of the Jews written in Hebrew and Aramaic, the NT covers a much later period of history with movement of the people of God outside the Holy Land into the wider Roman Empire, and it was written in the Greek language. To confuse the picture even more, Catholic and ecumenical Bibles also include books called the Apocrypha which were generally written in the time between the OT and NT when Judea was under the control of the Greeks. And these books may be found located either at the end of the Bible or sandwiched between the OT and NT.

The second sort of division one sees in the Bible is into separate groupings according to literary genre, beginning with the historical books in the OT, moving on to the poetic books and the OT prophecies. The NT is similarly divided into the Gospel accounts, church history in Acts, and the letters of church leaders such as Peter, Paul and John. The problem in understanding all this comes in when a reader expects to see a strictly chronological account and fails to realize that some of the poetry and prophetic books were actually written somewhere in the middle of the history related in the history books.

To add to the confusion even more, some of the historical books themselves can't be taken in a strictly chronological order. Thus, I-II Chronicles, which follows Samuel-Kings in the Bible, actually covers most of the same territory as that other account; the four Gospels all parallel one another chronologically; and most of the NT epistles were written during the same period of time covered in Acts.

For one who wishes to get a better feel as to how all of these specific parallels fit together, there are two basic ways to do it conveniently. One is to replace or supplement your Bible with a Chronological Bible. There are a few such different books which are available on the market. In these, one gets a sort of Reader's Digest summary of the Bible neatly arranged so that you can read the whole story in chronological order. And when there is more than one account of the same event in the Bible, the editor will take bits and pieces of each individual account and mash them together to present a unified story with any potential conflicts and contradictions removed. I would recommend this approach only for those who wish to say that they have read the whole Bible, even if they haven't really done so.

A much more sound approach is to purchase what are called “harmonies” that list parallel passages of Scripture side-by-side in parallel columns so that you can easily compare them with one another. Thus, there is a Harmony of the Gospels, of Acts and Letters of Paul, and of Samuel-Kings / I-II Chronicles.

The third layer of divisions in the Bible consists of the separate books themselves. However, one must keep in mind that I and II Kings / I and II Samuel really was written as one coherent book, divided into smaller segments for convenience sake. And the same really applies to Ezra-Nehemiah and possibly I-II Thessalonians.

With that long introduction in mind, we can now begin to approach John's Revelation, which is, of course, divided into separate chapters. Some people naively treat these chapter divisions as being as sacred as the text itself whereas they only came into being during the Middle Ages, well over 1,000 years after the completion of the Bible. Also, they were basically the product of a single scholar, not produced by any sort of official church committee.

For the most part, these chapter divisions do an excellent job of indicating where the natural breaks in the text should be located, but that is not always the case. Two examples happen to be found in the first and last chapter divisions in the whole Bible. Thus, all Bible commentators are in agreement that Genesis 2:1-3 more properly belongs as the conclusion to the creation story of Genesis 1. It is interesting that the same error in division has been committed in starting Revelation 22 where it now is. This is because again the opening verses, 1-5 more properly belong to the preceding chapter instead. That is why I have limited this series of posts to verses 6-21 instead of including the whole chapter as a discrete unit. There are several reasons for making that judgment call:

1. Revelation 22:5 concludes with the words “they will reign for ever and ever,” which certainly sounds like the conclusion to a major literary unit.

2. These first five verses continue the theme of Revelation 21 regarding a description of the holy city and its inhabitants.

3. Revelation 21:1-22:5 consists of things that John “saw” or “was shown” by an angel whereas Revelation 22:6-21 consists of things that he “heard.”

4. With the exclusion of those first five verses, there is formed a perfect verbal bracketing device between verses 6-7 and the ending of the chapter, as shown below.

Figure 1: Inclusio for Revelation 22:6-21

    true (6a)

        Lord God (6b)

            I am coming quickly (7a)

                blessed is the one keeping (7b)

                    the words of the prophecy of this scroll (7c)

-------

                    the words of the prophecy of this scroll (18a)

                cursed is the one changing it (18b-19)

            I am coming quickly (20a)

    Amen (20b)

        Lord Jesus (20b)

Perfectly matched bookends like these are so common throughout the OT and NT that scholars have even given a technical name to this sort of literary device – an inclusio. Notice the way this technique subtly equates Lord Jesus with Lord God, while at the same time highlighting for the final time in the Bible contrasting curses and blessings.

The only set of parallels in Figure 1 which is not transparently obvious is that between “true” and “amen.” The Greek word used here for “true” is alethinoi. But the word “amen” reads the same in Hebrew, Greek, and English. In other words, it is not a translation of the Hebrew original, but simply a transliteration into both Greek and English. Most people know this word as an appropriate response to a prayer and feel that it means something like “Let it be so” or “Great prayer!” But actually, it is attesting to the truth of what has been prayed. Jesus even used it to attest in advance to words that he was about to utter. Thus, the familiar, “Verily, verily, I say to you” translates “Amen, amen, I say to you.”

The close association between “truth” and “amen” can be seen both in older translations (verity with verily) or modern ones (truth with truly).

I hope you can see from the above what kind of additional insights into Scripture can come out of the simple exercise of determining the proper boundaries of a given portion of the Bible. The next post in this series will continue with methods of subdividing a given section of Scripture.

I TIMOTHY 3:8 (DOUBLE-TONGUED)

The Nobel Prize-winning British novelist William Golding was certainly not unacquainted with the Bible, as the title of his first, and most famous, book The Lord of the Flies attests. It is the literal translation of “Beelzebub,” found seven times on the lips of Jesus as a derogatory term for Satan. And to complete the circle, his final novel was titled The Double Tongue, a probable allusion to the only place that term appears in the Bible, I Timothy 3:8 – as part of the qualifications of candidates for the church office of a deacon. That verse begins, “Deacons likewise must be serious, not double-tongued...” The question arises as to exactly what that latter phrase means.

1. From the immediate context, it appears that it could be meant to be the opposite of “serious.” But absolutely no commentator I have consulted seems to take those two first attributes as having anything to do with one another.

2. I will admit that my first naive thought on the subject associated “double-tongued” with the line often found in old cowboy-and-Indian movies where the native American says to another party, “White man speakum with forked tongue.” The meaning there seemed to be that he found the other person to be untrustworthy in what he was saying. And behind that saying was probably the image of a snake with a forked tongue. If so, that should conjure up the story of Satan, in the form of a snake, tempting Adam and Eve through innuendoes, half-truths, and outright lies. And we know that Satan is elsewhere characterized as “the father of lies.” But it is highly unlikely that a person would ever be even considered as a candidate for church deacon if he was known as a liar, so that explanation does not seem to hold water.

3. Getting back to Golding's book, the story involves a new woman training to be the pythia of the famous oracle of Delphi. Parenthetically, the Greek word is derived from the same source as “python,” again reminding us of the snake with the forked tongue. This novitiate soon learns that if no mystic oracle should come, then it is best to tell the inquiring clients what you think they want to hear. At this point in the story, the priest initiating the woman into the secrets of the oracle says, “Forgive me speaking so strongly. But I had a sudden feeling that you thought the oracle was rigged. No, no, my dear. I speak with the tongues of men. You should speak with the tongues of the Holy Messengers. But -” and here he smiled his wonderful, sad smile, – “If we cannot have the one, let us at least have the other.”

This pronouncement is a clear allusion by the author to those who “speak with the tongues of men and angels but have not love.” So perhaps Paul is warning against choosing deacons who have the habit of speaking in tongues and pretending to know how to interpret the tongues. However, that would be highly unlikely in light of Paul's teachings in II Corinthians 12-14, a detailed discussion of the place of the spiritual gifts within the church. And although Paul goes to great lengths to discourage the Corinthians from placing too high a stress on speaking and interpreting tongues, he concludes that passage by stating in 14:39 that speaking in tongues should not be forbidden in the churches.

Another negative factor regarding this view is brought out by Towner. Basically if that were what Paul had in mind, he probably would have used the more widely occurring term dilossos rather than dilogos since the former means someone who can speak in more than one language.

4. Or we could go back to the original meaning of the word for a clue. Vine is representative of several scholars in explaining the etymology of double-tongued as follows: “The rare term originally refers to repetition in speech.” With that in mind and assuming that the original meaning still held during Paul's writing, we could see a clear parallel with Christ's warning recorded in Matthew 6:5-7 against those hypocrites who pray in places where they can be seen and those who “heap up empty phrases as the Gentles do; for they think that they will be heard because of their many words.”

Although that sort of tendency for self-glorification and demand for attention from others would certainly be held against any candidates for a deacon position, I have yet to find any scholars who feel that the etymology of the word reflects its later meaning during Paul's time. It is generally agreed that by the time of the writing of I Timothy, dilogos had taken on the meaning of being insincere, saying one thing to one person and another thing to another person. But even this definition itself has been interpreted differently by different scholars.

5. Guthrie states, “The word doubletongued (dilogos) could sustain the meaning 'tale-bearer' suggesting the idea of gossipers, a tendency which would be all too easy yet damaging for the holder of the deacon's office.”

Similarly, Lea and Griffen explain: “The deacon would be a frequent visitor in homes, and he needed to be consistent in what he reported to others. The NIV's metaphorical translation 'sincere' obscures the fact that the Pauline phrase (dilogos)...refers primarily to controlling speech (i.e., 'not indulging in double talk' NEB). The deacon is not to spread rumors to different groups of listeners.”

Knight agrees with that assessment and adds that the word is “not found with the Pauline sense in Greek writers before the Christian era.” He cross-references II Corinthians 1:17-18 with this passage.

6. Litfin says, “They must be sincere...in the sense of being honestly unhypocritical.”

On the other hand, Hendricksen explains dilogos as follows: “He does not say one thing to one person and something different to another. He does not 'talk out of both sides of his mouth.' He does not say one thing and know another...” Chrystostom is reported as similarly defining it as saying one thing and thinking another.

Towner agrees “that the thought is of saying one thing to one person and another thing to another, that is, to be 'duplicitous', which is condemned in Proverbs, Sirach and Philo as a danger to the community and relationships. A leader afflicted by this weakness would be a threat to the trust and stability of the community...” Theodoret also ascribed to that meaning.

Vine echoes these thoughts when he defines dilogos as “saying a thing to one person and giving a different view of it to another...”

“The double tongued say one thing to one person and another thing to another...Paul had in mind inconsistency, the adaption of different attitudes about the same subject, and therefore insincerity. (Cf. Matt. 5:37; 2 Cor. 1:17f). The qualification is important to men who do much pastoral visitation.” (Ward)

7. At this point, a quick review of some modern English translations is in order to get an idea of some of the other nuances to the definition of double-tongued:

        JB: men whose word can be trusted

        NAB: not indulging in double talk

        Living Bible: good steady men

        The Message: not deceitful

        TEV, NIV: sincere

        Phillips: men of serious conviction

8. And since, to some extent, the qualifications for deacon parallel those given for elders/bishops in I Timothy 3:1-7, it is instructive to put those two lists side-by-side for comparison:

Elders                                                     Deacons

above reproach

once married

temperate

sensible                                                 serious

not double-tongued

respectable

hospitable

apt teacher

not a drunkard                                    no indulger in wine

not violent

not quarrelsome

not a lover of money                          not greedy for money

From the above, you can see that the three bolded characteristics in each list appear in exactly the same order. From that comparison, one would expect that if there is a parallel to “not double-tongued” in the elders list, then it would be one of the three sandwiched between “sensible” and “not a drunkard.” Since hospitality and ability to teach do not at all fit that bill, the only remaining possibility is “respectability.” So we might possibly add that attribute to our list of definitions as an antonym for “double-tongued.”

There is one more detailed list of characteristics necessary for candidates for church office, and that is found in Titus 1:5-9. I won't give all of these here, but just those attributes for an elder which might fit in with the deacons' qualifications in I Timothy:

Titus                                                             I Timothy

husband of one wife

not profligate                                             serious

not double-tongued

not insubordinate

blameless

not arrogant

not quick-tempered

not a drunkard                                        no indulger in wine

not violent

not greedy for gain                                 not greedy for money

In this case, there appears to be only one of the attributes in the left-hand column which might be seen as an antonym for double-tongued, and that is blameless. If that is the case, then it is practically the same as “respectable” and again falls into the category of Definition #8.

I realize that the above is probably overkill in trying to pin down the definition of a single Greek word, but that is what one tends to run into when one only has a single instance of a particular word in the Bible.

 

FAITH, HOPE AND LOVE: PART 2

 This post continues a brief summary of all those other places in the New Testament where these three are closely associated together, although one could argue that the conjunction of this triad is much closer in some passages than others.

Romans 5:1-5

“We are justified by faith and have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ (v. 1)...we boast in our hope of sharing the glory of God (v. 2)...character produces hope (v. 4) and hope does not disappoint us, because God's love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit that was given us (v. 5).” Notice how the three members of the Trinity are woven into the concepts of faith, hope and love.

Romans 12:3-11

This appeal by Paul to believers begins with telling them “to think with sober judgment, each according to the measure of faith that God has assigned them.” In v. 6 he reiterates that this is is a gift they have received from Him “in proportion to their faith.” We also have a two-fold mention of love in verses 9 and 10, first directed to what is good and secondly directed toward one another. The third member of the triad appears in v. 12 where they are told to rejoice in hope, be patient in suffering, and persevere in in prayer. Those last two verbs are closely related to hope and can be said to arise out of it.

Romans 14-15

For the sake of completeness, I will include these two related chapters even though there is apparently no rhyme or reason attached to the order in which the triad appears: faith (14:4), love (14:15), faith (14:22), faith (2x in 14:23), hope (15:14), believing (15:13a), and hope (15:13b).

Galatians 5:5-6

“For through the Spirit, by faith, we eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness. For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision not uncircumcision counts for anything; the only thing that counts is [faith working] through love.” Here Paul utilizes the most commonly recognized order of these three: faith-hope-love.

Galatians 5:22-23

By contrast, this passage reads, “The fruit of the Spirit is love...joy, peace, patience...faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.” If one takes peace and patience as the natural consequences of our eternal hope, then this is basically the reverse order of the triad as found in verses 5-6, a common literary device used in the Scripture to encapsulate an extended passage.

Ephesians 3

Our familiar triad is found scattered throughout this chapter, beginning in v. 12 with its statement of our assurance to approach God in confidence through our faith in him. Skipping to v. 17, Paul prays that Christ might dwell in their hearts through faith, as they are grounded in love. Love again appears in v. 19 with his prayer that they know the love of Christ – another appearance of this ambiguous genitive form.

If we stretch a point a little and consider “the promise in Christ” mentioned in verse 6 to be very closely aligned to the hope of salvation we have in Him, then that would lead to the following order in this chapter: hope (2x) – faith (2x) – love (2x).

Ephesians 4:1-6

These verses express a familiar formulation of key Christian doctrines. The Ephesians are first exhorted to bear with one another in love. This is followed by a litany of onenesses such as one body, one Spirit, one hope, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, and one God and Father of all. Here the order is love, hope, and faith – the reverse of that in I Corinthians 13:13.

Colossians 1:1-8

This compact and organized passage begins with God and Christ (v. 1), repeats these two persons of the Trinity in the same order in vv. 6-7, and finishes with addition of the Spirit. At the same time, the other familiar triad appears as part of the following phrases: “your faith in Christ Jesus” (4a), “love that you have for all the saints (4b), “the hope laid up for you in heaven. You heard of this hope before” (5), “Epaphras, our beloved fellow servant” (7a), “He is a faithful minister of Christ” (7b), and “your love in the Spirit” (8).

The first six of these underlined words form a symmetrical pattern:

            faith

                        love

                                hope

                                hope

                        beloved

            faithful

Colossians 1:23; 2:2

Another such listing is found in the following section of the letter where faith and hope appear in 1:23, with the third member, love, in 2:2.

II Thessalonians 2:13-3:5

This passage is one extended prayer to God. Paul calls the Thessalonians “beloved by the Lord (2:13a) chosen through...belief in the truth (2:13b). He mentions that Christ and the Father “who loved us...gave us eternal comfort and good hope” (2:16). They are armed against those who do not have faith (3:2); the Lord is faithful and will guard them against the evil one (3:3) and will direct their hearts to the love of God...(3:5).

As in those cases where the ambiguous genitive form 'of God' appears in the context of 'love,' “steadfastness [i.e. faithfulness] of Christ could mean endurance in following Christ or, as is more likely, Christ's own steadfastness.” (A. Smith) However, Malherbe takes the genitives to mean, respectively, the love shown toward us by God and the steadfastness demonstrated by Christ. And splitting the difference between these two opinions, Morris suggests along with Lightfoot that the primary meaning is God's love for us with the secondary implication of our love toward him.

In any case, a study of this prayer seems to indicate a close correspondence between the faith, hope, and love coming from God/Christ and those same properties being reflected in believers' response to His initiatives.

I Timothy 6:11

Paul tells Timothy to pursue righteousness, godliness, faith, love, endurance and gentleness. After faith and love we might expect to read 'hope,' but get endurance (hupomeno) instead. Vine notes that this word in Matthew 10:22; 24:13; Mark 13:13 is followed by the phrase 'unto the end.' Thus we can say that it alludes to the hope of heaven for those who persevere.

Titus 2:2

“Tell the older men to be temperate, serious, prudent, and sound in faith, in love, and in endurance.” That the last item in the list is equivalent to or arises from the hope of salvation is indicated by a consideration of 2:13, where Paul says, “...we wait for the blessed hope and manifestation of the glory of our great God and Savor, Jesus Christ.”

Titus 3

As a concrete example that Paul saw no conflict between faith and works, this chapter begins by him telling Titus to “be prepared for every good work” (v. 3); then he reminds us of God's loving kindness (4); stresses that it is not our works which save us (5); assures us of our hope of eternal life (7); and ends by telling Titus to insist that those who believe in God must devote themselves to good works (8).” So the familiar triad is, in fact, closely related to “works.”

Hebrews 10:22-24

Even the anonymous author of this epistle utilizes these three properties, listed in their most familiar order:

“Let us approach with...full assurance of faith.”

“Let us hold fast to the confession of our hope.”

“Let us consider how to provoke one another to love.”

Kittredge says, “For Hebrews, faith undergirds hope (see 2.6; 6.11,18; 7:19).” To this we could add: “and results in love.”

Hebrews 11:1-12:6

Hebrews 11 is the great dissertation on faith and in the first verse it is coupled with hope: “Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.” And this main theme continues into the following chapter, ending problematically at 12:6 which mentions the Lord's love for us. This is the same order we also noted in Hebrews 10:22-24 above.

I Peter 1

In this chapter, faith appears in verses 7, 9, and 21a and belief in 8; the theme of hope of eternal life runs throughout the chapter; and in v. 22 we finally are reminded of love.

FAITH, HOPE AND LOVE: PART 1 (I CORINTHIANS 13:13; I THESSALONIANS)

Some word definitions are in order here before we even begin discussing this subject:

English words in the Bible such as faith(ful)(ness), believe, and belief are all translated from the Greek root pistis. Its meaning, according to Vine is “primarily, firm persuasion, a conviction based upon hearing (akin to peitho, to persuade), used in the N.T. always of faith in God or Christ, or things spiritual.”

Hope (elpis) or trust (elpizo) means in the NT, “favorable and confident expectation...It has to do with the unseen and the future, Rom. 8:24, 25. Hope describes (a) the happy anticipation of good (the most frequent significance)..; (b) the ground upon which hope is based..; (c) the object upon which the hope is fixed.” (Vine)

Love (agape, agapoo) “are used in the N.T. (a) to describe the attitude of God toward His “Son..'the human race, generally..; and to such as believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, particularly..; (b) to convey His will to His children concerning their attitude one toward another...and toward all men..; (c) to express the essential nature of God.” (Hogg and Vine)

I Corinthians 13:13

The most familiar appearance of this triad appears in I Corinthians 13:13 as part of Paul's discussion of the gifts of the Spirit. After enumerating some of these gifts, he begins to set them in perspective for the Corinthians by explaining that some of the gifts they hold most dearly will pass away. But what will remain are faith, hope, and love. “And the greatest of these is love.” This passage has continued to cause major divisions between Christian denominations over the years, especially between those who agree with the Pentecostals that the “sign gifts” such as prophecy and speaking in tongues are still alive and well today and most other denominations who feel that these gifts died out early in Christian history. And there even some fundamentalists who would label practices such as tongues-speaking as coming from Satan.

Paul makes it quite clear that these spiritual gifts will pass away “when the Perfect comes.” But that begs the question as to what the “Perfect” in fact is. Some of the churches I have attended have defined it as the completion of the New Testament, an explanation which does fit in well historically with the rough time frame during which most occurrences of prophecy, miracles and speaking in tongues begin to fade from the Church.

But an alternative explanation would treat the coming of the Perfect as the Second Coming of Christ, which is still off in the future. One seeming problem with this view is that presumably with the Second Coming, the New Heaven and New Earth will be ushered in and at that point (a) faith will be replaced by sight and (b) our hope will have come true.

Without further clarification in the Bible, it is probably best not to come down too strongly on one side or the other. And it is especially foolhardy to label a phenomenon which may have been sent by God as being a work of the Devil.

Another issue which is a bit confusing is the fact that neither love nor hope appears in the various listings of spiritual gifts. It is true that faith is found in the enumerations in I Corinthians 12:8-10 and 13:1-3. But it is a specific type of mountain-moving faith apparently being referred to there, probably equivalent to “the working of miracles” in I Corinthians 12:27-31.

By contrast, the listing of the fruit of the Spirit found in Galatians 5:22-23 can be seen to contain all three of these properties. Love is listed quite prominently as the first in that list, which also cites patience (a natural result of hope) and faithfulness. The spotlight on love here echoes the statement in I Corinthians 13:13 that love is the greatest.

I Thessalonians 1:3; 5:8

These are the only other places in the New Testament in which the same triad of faith, hope, and love appears within a single verse. The first passage reads (starting with v. 2): “We always give thanks to God for all of you and mention you in our prayers constantly remembering before our God and Father your work of faith and labor of love and steadfastness of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ.”

At this point, one phrase should stand out like a sore thumb – “your work of faith.” Since most evangelical churches tend to make a sharp distinction between these two almost diametrically opposed concepts, I decided that I needed to get some enlightenment from the scholarly tomes in my personal library. Here is the best summary I could find:

Wanamaker: “The well-known triad of faith, love, and hope recurs often in Pauline and other early Christian literature...Paul uses it here to express the essence of his readers' experience as Christians. He does this by using each member of the triad as a subjective genitive to the verbal idea contained in the governing noun. Thus Paul remembers 'their work that proceeds from their faith'...The radical distinction that Martin Luther claimed to have found in Paul's writings between faith and human striving (work)...needs careful qualification. In Galatians, where Paul attacks 'works' most vigorously and contrasts them with 'faith,' he has a particular type of 'works' in mind. He condemns those proceeding from the Jewish Torah...Our text clearly indicates that Paul did not conceive of Christian faith as radically opposed to works. For him Christian activity proceeds from faith...Paul does not specify what the 'works of faith' consisted in here, but his readers probably would have understood it in terms of the totality of their new Christian life-style that distinguished them from the pagans around them and from their own past. The expression 'labor of love'...like the preceding phrase 'work of faith,' cannot easily be given a specific content.”

That brings us up to I Thessalonians 5:8 which appears at the end of the book stating, “But since we belong to the day, let us be sober, and put on the breastplate of faith and love, and for a helmet the hope of salvation.” These two similar verses serve to bracket the whole book of I Thessalonians. Also, coincidentally, this is a shorter version of another famous listing in the NT, that of the armor of God found in more detail in Ephesians 6:10-17. The imagery in these two verses can be compared below:

I Thessalonians                                     Ephesians

breastplate of faith and love                  breastplate of righteousness

                                                               shield of faith

helmet of hope of salvation                   helmet of salvation

This points to the fact that there is nothing particularly sacrosanct about which piece of armor is associated with which spiritual property. It is the overall picture that matters.

One would have expected that “love” would be somehow highlighted in these passages just as it was in I Corinthians, but that is not the case. So what can we make of the order faith-love-hope in these two passages in I Thessalonians? Perhaps we are to see here a chronological listing in which faith in God began the spiritual journey (past), followed by love of God and one's fellow man (present), and culminating in the hope of salvation (future).

Other Passages in I Thessalonians

This important triad actually appears in two other places in this epistle. And these add further definition, or confusion, to our understanding of their significance. I realize that it may be a stretch to call these instances of an actual groupings of this triad (here and in subsequent places in the New Testament which will be discussed elsewhere), but my justification for doing so in the case of I Thessalonians is based on the fact that they are associated together quite strongly in the two passages discussed above.

I Thessalonians 2:19-3:5

In this passage, Paul begins by asking this congregation: “For what is our hope or crown of boasting before our Lord Jesus at his coming. Is it not you?” This is followed by an extended section in which Paul tells them that he had sent Timothy to check up on them to gauge the strength of their faith (the word appears five times) and encourage them in it. And as he closes, he says in his blessing to them, “And may the Lord make you increase and abound in love for one another and for all just as we abound in love for you.”

Note how Paul approaches this from his personal point of view first by alluding to a future judgment in which he hopes to present them before God as evidence of his stewardship over the great responsibility God had entrusted him with. And in a similar manner, he has Timothy look for evidences of their faith, which will culminate in growing mutual love between Paul and the Thessalonians. Thus, the order “hope, faith and love” is entirely appropriate here.

I Thessalonians 4:9-14

By contrast, this section is devoted to encouraging the brothers and sisters in two ways, urging them to not only keep increasing in their brotherly love for others but also not to grieve over those who have died and lose hope since “we believe (pisteuomen) that God will bring with Jesus those who sleep in him.” In this context, you can see that the order love-hope-faith makes perfect logical sense.

The above examples show how Paul can take the same basic concept and utilize it in a variety of different ways. We will see more occasions where this happens in Part 2 of this brief study

 

EPHESIANS 6:16 (FIERY DARTS)

In this passage, Paul exhorts his audience to put on the armor of God, which includes for defensive purposes “the shield of faith with which you will be able to quench all the flaming arrows of the evil one.”

Many commentators have discussed this piece of armor employed by Roman soldiers at the time of writing which lay behind Paul's powerful metaphoric reference. J.A. Thompson explains that the scutum “was a large quadrangular shield designed to catch and extinguish ignited arrows.”

Simpson adds: “Here the reference is to the single shield, personally wielded as a protection against a rain of arrows or stones. Its fire-proof metal lining sufficed to intercept or extinguish the ignited missiles of ancient belligerents....Persecution flings its fiery bolts in vain against so invulnerable a defense.”

Marcus Barth goes into even more detail when he says, “Originally the small shield consisted of wickerwork covered with hide, and the large shield was made of wood and leather (Thucydides II 72). Therefore fire could burn a shield...Unless special measures were taken, such a shield was useless against burning arrows and javelins...The Roman legionary's scutum, to which Paul alludes, had an iron frame and sometimes a metal boss at the center of the front. This shield served well even against incendiary missiles when its several layers of leather were soaked in water before the battle. See, e.g. Josephus...for a corresponding use of rawhides (from recently flayed oxen) on palisades. The attribution of a fire-extinguishing quality to the shield has puzzled many interpreters of Eph 6:16, among them Calvin, Dibelius, and Oepke. But it is not paradoxical: (wet) leather would serve the purpose...However, if a shield was not properly prepared against fiery missiles it would have to be thrown away.”

And as for the 'fiery missiles' mentioned in this verse, Barth says that those “most frequently used were arrows or spears tipped with tow and dipped in pitch...The fiery attacks endured now are unlike the fire of the last judgment of God to which all men and all the creation will be exposed (II Thess 1:8; II Peter 3:12, etc.). The character and effect of the Devil's missiles are distinctly penultimate. But just as in many apocalyptic and NT texts, the saints are warned: fire can belong to hell and can be a manifestation of the realm of the Devil.”

Hoehner agrees with most of what the above commentators have said. In addition, he adds, “The term belos is a broad term used for any pointed missile-like weapon, especially an arrow or dart, but it can also refer to other weapons, such as a sword, a spear, or anything that is swift-darting. It could refer to spears or javelins...However, more likely this word [in Ephesians] refers to arrows...that could be shot either from a bow or an engine.” As is his habit, Hoehner provides a number of citations from ancient writers to back up these comments. He concludes by stating that “the metaphorical language depicts this shield of resolute faith that protects believers from spiritual harm aimed at them by the evil one. It not only stops the weapons of attack but actually extinguishes them, thus rendering them useless. Believers must be wary of laying aside their shields of faith and attempting to fight the battle in their own strength.”

One thing disappointed me concerning the above scholars' opinions, and that was the total lack of any references to the Old Testament as a possible additional background for Paul what he had to say regarding the “fiery darts of the evil one.” Thus, the passages cited below are my own speculative additions to those allusions to contemporary warfare given above. All of these are included in the following introductory comment by Naude and Harrison regarding the Hebrew word resep, which can be defined as flame, glow, arrow, or plague.

“The nom. has as referents bolts of lightning (Ps 78:48), sparks of fire (Job 5:7), flames or glow of a fire (S of Songs 8:6), or arrows (= flashes of a bow) (Ps 76:3). This name for a Ugaritic deity carried in Israel the meaning of 'flame,.' It was also used metaphorically for a devastating disease, identified with pestilence or plague as a punishment of apostasy (Deut 32:24; Hab 3:5).”

Greenfield cites the same six texts and adds that Rashpu (Reshef in Hebrew) “was one of the minor gods found in the ancient Ugaritic texts...equated with the Akkadian Nergal. In the Hebrew Bible the word reshef is used for a demon.”

Deuteronomy 32:24

Mayes: “burning heat: the Hebrew is resep, which appears in Ugaritic texts as the name of the god of plague or pestilence.” Thompson agrees and says that it does not mean “fire-bolt.” Here, “the poisonous Qeteb is paralleled to Resheph, the well-known Canaanite demon of plague...Resep appears in Deuteronomy 32:23-24, where Yahweh threatens his apostate people...Rasheph is a deity of destruction at Ugarit. He is portrayed as an archer there, and so the phrase 'spending my arrows' is interesting.”

Job 5:7

These are the words of Job's friend Eliphaz, who says, “But human beings are born to trouble just as sparks fly upward.” (NRSV)

Pope: “This Northwest Semitic god has long been known from inscriptions of North Syria and Cyprus. Bilingual texts from Cyprus associate him with Apollo...it is problematic whether 'Resheph''s sons' in the present passage is a poetic image for flames or sparks, or a more direct allusion to the god of pestilence...It is interesting to note that Resheph is a god of fertility and well-being as well as of pestilence...The ambivalent nature of the god is understandable from the principle of polarity which associates opposites. Moreover, it would be expedient to pray to the god of pestilence for protection from the same.”

Hartley: “The meaning of bene resep (lit. 'sons of “Resheph') is notoriously difficult to determine. It has been taken to mean 'members of a flame'. But LXX, Syr., and Vulg. [early translations] take it as the name of a bird (cf. Sir. 43:17), which makes sense with the compound verb...'fly high'...Since resep is identified with lightning in a few passages and the eagle was associated with thunder and lightning, Dhorme identifies bene resep as the eagle...Another possibility is to identify the term with the god Resheph, a god of health and well-being as attested in the Karatepe inscription. But an Ugaritic text equates him with the Assyrian Nerpel, a god of pestilences and the underworld. If this view is accepted, the 'sons of Resheph' would be 'the plagues' that ascend from the lower world to curse human beings (cf. Deut. 32:24; Hab. 3:5).”

Psalm 76:3

Tanner translates this verse as, “There he [I.e. God] brake the flaming arrows of the bow, shield and sword of war.” He comments, “Many translations change this to 'flashing arrows' (NIV, NRSV). The meaning of the first word is uncertain, but probably means a flaming arrow...Verse 3 seems out of place to a modern reader, but in its ancient context it declares that God's home is now a place of peace where the instruments of war have been destroyed.”

“The flashing arrows are literally 'thunderbolts (cf. 78:48) of the bow'. The great deliverance will be enlarged upon in the next section.” (Thompson) However, Anderson feels the literal meaning is 'the flames of the bow.' He says, “The origin of the metaphor may be found in mythology, where the lightnings of the storm-god were regarded as his arrows. In the present context the reference may be either to the swiftness of the arrows' flight, or to the incendiary arrows [used by those besieging a city to set it on fire].”

Psalm 78:48

This verse is part of the Psalmist's recapitulation of the ten plagues of Egypt.

Tanner states, “Because this list of plagues does not match the ones in the Exodus account, there has been a great deal of scholarly attention given to it...What mattered most was the impact of the account. The impact here is to stress again what God had done to save the Israelites from their captors and to demonstrate that God's weapon is the creation. This tells all listening that God is in truth the Creator, for creation obeys God's command.”

Actually, the two lists are quite similar in their items included. Thus, Thompson can say with some certainty: “In the Ugaritic texts Reseph is the god of pestilence. Thus in our verse the allusion may be to the fifth plague (Exod. 9:1-7).”

Song of Songs 8:6

Gledhill: “For many, this unit represents a high point in the Song. If 5:1 represents a climax in the lovers' physical relationship, then these verses [i.e. 8:6-7] represent a climax in praise of the unconquerability of love in the face of all its foes. The Hebrew literally reads 'Her darts are darts of fire, a flame of Yah.'...A lightning bolt (reshep) is the same word as the prior noun Reshep, the Canaanite god of war and pestilence.”

Longman: “Literally, the first colon of this concluding parallel line is 'Its flame is flames of fire'; the term flame translates the word resep [which Longman says should not be translated as 'arrow', as Keel does], which is related to the Ugaritic god of plague, Resep, thus rendering even more likely that the earlier references to Death and Sheol are personifications.”

Snaith: “resep, here translated 'flashes (of fire)', is related to the Canaanite god Resheph, who was depicted in iconography as holding weapons...The phrase 'a most vehement flame,' represents an unusual form of the word salhebet, 'flame': it is intensified with the ending -yah, seemingly an abbreviated form of 'Yahweh,' the divine name...So the literal meaning here is something like 'a God-almighty flame'.”

Habakkuk 3:5

“God's coming is compared to a thunderstorm...God is pictured as a king with 'pestilence' going before him and 'plagues' behind him...He is coming to defeat his enemy...and the enemy of his people. Yahweh the warrior bares his bow (v. 9).” (R.L. Smith)

Heiser says that “Habakkuk 3:5 contains two terms that may well be Canaanite deities (deber, resep). Nevertheless, other scholars are skeptical.”

Baker: “Yahweh has his two personified attendants who are subject to his control (cf. Ps. 91:6), exemplifying his power. Both are also Canaanite deities, leading here to a hidden polemic against pagan worship.”

Robertson states, “References to plague in the OT cluster especially around the events of the Exodus and the prophecy of Jeremiah. In the latter case, the prophet announces the destruction of Judah because of their persistence in sin...So in Habakkuk, in choosing to express himself in terms of the ancient curses of the covenant, gives evidence that he has reconciled himself to the rightness of God's devastating his people...The advancing theophany leaves a trail of destruction behind it. If the plague precedes him, the burning pestilence marks the path he has followed. The term for burning pestilence (resep) has the basic meaning of 'burning' and may suggest the imagery of sparks springing up as the Lord's feet strike the earth.”

Conclusion

The above presents a lot to digest, but the overall gist of these OT passages is to associate the concepts of demonic forces, flashing missiles, and fire in the context of God's ultimate control over all these opposing forces used to preserve His people. This is the same basic theme we see in Ephesus 6:16.

REVELATION 20:11-15 ONE BOOK OR BOOKS?

This concise description of a heavenly judgment on mankind has caused just as much a divide in opinion among Christian scholars as any other detail in the Book of Revelation, maybe even more so. It appears to be simple enough, and can be summarized in a few words: John is shown God's throne before which the dead appear. Books are opened along with a book called the book of life, and everyone is judged according to these. Afterward, Death, Hades and those not in the book of life are thrown into the lake of fire.

There is even a regular alternation between these two types of book:

        books (12a)

                book, the book of life (12b)

        books (12c)

                book of life (15)

Two main problems arise in trying to interpret these verses: the identity of those judged and the basis upon which they are to be judged. To answer those questions, let us first begin with scholars who follow the branch of eschatology (study of future events) called premillennial dispensationalism. This is probably still the most popular school of thought within evangelical and fundamentalist churches despite the repeated failures of its main proponents to accurately predict the order or rough timing of world events in advance. I will not even attempt to rehearse for you their detailed scenario for the future because I couldn't possibly do it justice. And my personal experience with those who have graduated from dispensational institutions such as Dallas Theological Seminary reveals that even some of them can't keep all the details clear in their mind. That is why elaborate prophecy charts were developed to hang on the walls of many churches in order to guide them through the maze of future happenings. With that rather negative introduction, here are some comments on 20:11-15 from three representative dispensationalists:

Walvoord: “...it may be assumed that verses 11-15 refer to the judgment of the wicked dead,who according to verse 5 would not be resurrected until after the thousand years and will have no part in what is called 'the first resurrection.' At that judgment John saw books...opened, including a book called the book of life. The text does not state clearly what these books are, but the first opened book may refer to human works and 'the book of life' is the record of those who are saved (cf. 3:5; 13:8; 17:8; 20:5; 21:27). The fact that these dead have not been raised before is evidence in itself that they do not have eternal life and that their judgment is a judgment of their works.”

In Ryrie's Basic Theology he clearly sets out the doctrine of multiple judgments wihich is part and parcel of dispensational thinking. According to this scheme, Revelation 20 describes the final one of the series in which unbelievers alone are placed on trial and all condemned. The previous judgments, scattered over a period of future years, are identified as those of Old Testament saints, saints of the tribulation period, Jewish survivors of the tribulation, Gentile survivors of the tribulation, Satan and the fallen angels. I may have missed one judgment in my counting since other dispensationalists clearly see a total of seven separate judgments or even more.

Phillips does not go into much concrete detail, but he assumes along with others that this is strictly a judgment on unbelievers. “The dead, small and great, stand before God. Dead souls are united to dead bodies in a fellowship of horror and despair. Little men and paltry women whose lives were filled with pettiness, selfishness, and nasty little sins will be there...The great will be there, men who sinned with a high hand, with dash, and courage and flair. Men like Alexander and Napoleon, Hitler and Stalin will be present, men who went in for wickedness on a grand scale with the world for their stage and who died unrepentant at last. Now one and all are arraigned and on their way to be damned; a horrible fellowship congregated together for the first and last time.”

Against this picture, we have the following comments from those of a historic premillennial or amillennial viewpoint who see see nothing but problems with the dispensational view:

“That John sees 'the dead, great and small, standing before the throne' assumes that the last, great resurrection of the unrighteous and unrighteous has finally taken place (in light of 20:5; Dan. 12:2; John 5:28-29; and Acts 24:15).” (Beale)

Hendricksen: “Here is the one, general resurrection of all the dead.The entire Bible teaches but one, general resurrection!” He cites Matthew 22:31; John 3:28,29; 6:39, 40, 44, 54; Acts 24:15, 24:21; and Hebrews 6:2. for support. “Nowhere in the entire Bible do we read of a resurrection of the bodies of believers, followed, after a thousand years, by a resurrection of the bodies of the unbelievers. All arise at the same time.”

“If all men are to appear before the judgment seat, this must include all believers. The New Testament teaches this quite explicitly [citing passages such as Romans 14:10; II Corinthians 5:10; Hebrews 10:30; James 3:1; and I Peter 4:17]. Though believers must all appear before the judgment seat, they need have no fear of the Day of Judgment [Romans 8:1; I John 4:17]...the sins and shortcomings of believers will be revealed in the judgment as forgiven sins, whose guilt has been totally covered by the blood of Jesus Christ...The reason why the Bible teaches that the final judgment will be according to works, even though salvation comes by faith in Christ and is never earned by works, is the intimate connection between faith and works.” (Hoekema)

“It is not said that men are condemned because of their works...In this passage there is an intermingling of two themes: on the one hand, that of the resurrection with the end of death; on the other, the theme of the Book of Life. Only those who are not written in the Book of Life (and not those who have produced bad works) are thrown into the second death. There is no correlation between the judgment of works and the gift of eternal life or rejection unto death. The sole criterion is one who was not found written in the Book of Life.” (Ellul)

“These are 'the rest of the dead' of verse 5; now they too have been raised. 'books were opened': As in Dan.7:10, these are the records of men's lives...: 'They will come with dread when their sins are reckoned up, and their lawless deeds will convict them to their face'. The last assize is conducted with scrupulous justice; if salvation is always by grace, divine judgment is always according to men's works (cf. 2:23, 22:12; om. 2:6, etc.)...It is curious exegesis that would infer from this [i.e. 20:15] that all who appear at the last assize are consigned to perdition. True, those who have committed apostasy and worshipped 'the image of the beast' have no place in the book of life (13:8); but the dead who stand before the throne include all mankind from earliest days.” (Bruce)

Elsewhere Bruce explains that 'book of life' in the Old Testament refers to natural life (see Exodus 32:32f; Psalm 69:28, 139:16; and Daniel 12:1). However, in later Judaism and the New Testament it is used of the life of the age to come (see Philippians 4:3; Revelation 3:5, 22:19, etc). Thus, “this is the book of life of the slaughtered Lamb (Rev. xiii.8, xxi.27), in which the names of the elect have been inscribed 'from the foundation of the world' (xvii.8). The same idea is expressed in Lk. x.20, 'your names are written'; Acts xiii.48, 'as many as were ordained (i.e. inscribed) to eternal life believed.'”

“If the first resurrection is limited to actual martyrs, then the judgment of verses 11-15 involves both believer and impenitent. If the second resurrection is of the wicked only, then the judgment is of those who will in fact be consigned to the lake of fire. Reference to the book of life as part of the final testimony suggests a general judgment of all mankind (excluding martyrs who had already entered into their reward). There is no significance in the change from 'small and great' (11:18; 13:16; 19:5,18) to 'great and small' in verse 12. The point is that no one is so important as to be immune from judgment and no one is so unimportant as to make judgment inappropriate...The issue is not salvation by works but works as the irrefutable evidence of a man's actual relationship with God. Man is saved by faith, but faith is inevitably revealed by the works it produces.” (Mounce)

Beasley-Murray states: “The trial of men 'by what they had done as written in the books' stresses the complete justice of the procedure. The picture is taken from Dn. 7:10, which may reflect both current court procedures and the habit of Persian kings to record every detail of their provinces through an elaborate spy system. It is to be noted that 'the book of life' (cf. v. 15) has a testimony to give separate from the other books. Alford writes, 'These books and the book of life bore independent witness to the fact of men being or not being among the saved: the one by inference from the works recorded: the other in inscription or non-inscription of the name in the list. So the books could be as vouchers for the book of life.'”

“All men are judged according to their works, which are recorded in books which have been opened (v. 12). When it comes, however, to the book of life (vv. 12,15), the pattern of recompense is no longer carried out consistently. The believers are withdrawn from the judgment. Through election they have a righteousness which leads to life.” (Bottger)

And finally, there is the comment found in The Dictionary of Biblical Imagery: Besides the literal books mentioned in the Old Testament, “the two most important and evocative 'books' in the Bible are metaphoric books. One is the heavenly record of the deeds of every living person. Another is the list of names of those who will dwell in the eternal city. In Revelation this book is called the book of life (Rev 20:15). In the background is the practice in biblical times of keeping an official register of the names of citizens of a given town or kingdom. The books of God's record of a person's deeds and his register of heavenly citizenship are intertwined, since a person's actions are the basis of judgment. This combination can be traced all the way back to Exodus 32:32...On the day of final judgment the books of deeds will be opened,and each person will be judged according to what he or she has done. But another book, the book of life, written from the foundation of the world, will also be opened at that time (Rev 17:8; 20:12). Jesus will acknowledge before the Father and the angels those whose names are written there (Rev 3:5). Everyone will be judged from the book of deeds, but those whose names appear in the book of life will enter the eternal city (Rev 21:27). Those whose names are not written in the Lamb's book of life will be cast into the lake of fire (Rev 20:15).”

My own personal view rejects the dispensational view as a vain and totally needless attempt to (1) exempt believers from any sort of unpleasant examination whatsoever at Judgment Day and (2) preserve at all costs the doctrine of salvation by grace, not works. The first of these motives is undoubtedly also behind the idea that believers will not have to suffer on earth either during the “tribulation.” These views, of course, are both quite attractive to believers and have contributed greatly toward the popularization of dispensationism in American.

BEHEMOTH AND LEVIATHAN (JOB 41)

In a previous post (“Job 41: Translating Hebrew Poetry”) I talked about the many difficulties encountered by scholars when they try to render this chapter into other languages. There is an equal amount of uncertainty regarding the overall meaning of the chapter, which centers on descriptions of two mysterious and powerful creatures. It is placed at the end of God's speeches to Job which began in chapter 38 and right before Job's response and the epilogue of the story. Thus, it occupies an important place in the overall flow of the book. The two interrelated key issues surrounding this passage are (1) the identity of Behemoth and Leviathan and (2) the way in which they function to further the story of Job.

Who or what are these two creatures?

Greenberg summarizes the way these two are described in the text: “Behemoth, a land animal, is briefly described: his muscles are powerful, his bones like metal bars. Leviathan, a denizen of the waters is a living fortress, whose parts evoke shields and military formations; flames and smoke issue from him; no weapon avails against him; his tracks are supernally luminous; he lords it over the arrogant.”

As Hartley introduces the problems to which these descriptions lead, he says, “The identification of the Behemoth and Leviathan is disputed...Their portraits are a mixture of earthly and mythical traits, especially the portrait of Leviathan. This mixture means that these animals symbolize forces of evil. Possibly Behemoth represents natural forces that at times cause widespread destruction, and Leviathan represents evil cosmic forces that come mightily to disrupt life on earth from time to time. While these monsters are stronger than humans and have some independence, they cannot master or limit God in his purpose in any way.”

“Many commentators have equated the Leviathan of Job 41 with the crocodile, and some elements of the description seem to fit this identification. But others, like his breathing fire (vv. 19-21), do not...in light of the other biblical references as well as the Canaanite antecedents it is better to understand Leviathan as a mythological creature.” (Coogan)

Paul: “The Leviathan (liwyatan) is an animal that is mentioned 5x in the OT. Many exegetes regard the Leviathan as a mythological monster of pagan origin, whereas other exegetes attempt to identify it as an existing animal...The most explicit description is found in Job 41:1-34. Usually, commentators take it as referring to a crocodile or even a whale, yet in each case certain features of the description do not apply.”

“[Behemoth is] a mammoth creature that is probably more mythological than zoological. Behemoth seems to have been a symbol of primordial chaos, a great, ominous primordial power that God overcame when he established order in the universe.” (Wakely)

“Through the Behemoth (40:15-24) and the Leviathan (41:1-34), God portrays two creatures who live in a world beyond human comprehension. They seem to exist on the border between the natural and the supernatural world and hence have a mythic quality about them. The Behemoth and Leviathan evidently represent the inexplicable, dangerous, or sinister side of the created order.” (Gladson)

Terrien: “The primeval monster [Behemoth] is not a mere hippopotamus, but a mythical symbol...Leviathan, not an ordinary crocodile, but the sea-monster (3:8; 26:13; Ps. 74:14), which was associated with chaos. Like the psalmist (Ps. 104.26), the poet shows that it is only a plaything in the eyes of God.”

“In Hebr., apparently, [Behemoth meant] the typical 'beast' or 'brute'; but the name may come from the Egyptian (pehemu, the ox of the waters). A description of the hippopotamus, typifying untameable brute force; only its creator can master it....The name [Leviathan], in its strict sense, indicates a monster of primeval Chaos, believed still to be living in the ocean. Here it is used of the crocodile, though the description still bears traces of the primeval monster which Yahweh subdued, and which symbolized all powers hostile to God. The crocodile is itself a symbol of Egypt in Ezk 29:1f; 32:2f.” (The Jerusalem Bible notes)

Kaiser says, “All who regard these two creatures as being literal animals, such as the Egyptian hippopotamus and crocodile, must admit that the description of them given in Job verges far on the side of hyperbole and is an exaggeration of their appearances and power. The name behemoth is a feminine plural Hebrew noun commonly used for animals or cattle. Even though it is a feminine plural word, all the verbs describing it here are masculine singular, thereby forcing us to read behemoth with intensive force, meaning 'the beast par excellence'...it is quite conceivable that the text uses mythological terminology to present graphically the powers of evil...some scholars have guessed that Behemoth was the largest of all land animals, a mighty dinosaur, while Leviathan was the largest and fiercest of all the aquatic dinosaurs. Such animals may well have lain behind the spiritual applications.”

That last “guess” is attributed to the pseudo-scientist Henry Morris and is part of his defense of the young-earth theory which includes the belief that mankind and dinosaurs co-existed on earth for a while, and thus the memory of them would have been handed down over the generations. No reputable scientist subscribes to that far-fetched scenario. For those wishing to find a detailed expose of the young earth position, and its variations such as flood geology and the gap theory, The Christian View of Science and Scripture by Bernard Ramm is an invaluable and reliable source of information.

Coogan describes Leviathan as a “mythological sea monster who is one of the primeval adversaries of the storm god. In the Ugaritic texts, Baal defeats Lothan (ltn, a linguistic variant of Leviathan), described as a seven-headed serpent, apparently identified with Baal's adversary Prince Sea. In the Bible Leviathan is also identified with the Sea (Job 3.8), and has many heads (Ps. 74.14), and his defeat by God is a prelude to creation (Ps. 74.15-17).

What is the purpose of introducing them here in the narrative?

As Kenneth Gros Louis puts it, “Behemoth and Leviathan ...are much greater than man; yet they were, as God points out, created by God. Man cannot harness them; he cannot feed them; he can not tame them; he cannot use them. If there is such a gap between the Leviathan and the Behemoth and man, God is saying, consider then what a gap there is between man and God...The Leviathan is so great that man might be tempted to worship him, but he is under God's control and, as God reminds Job, only God can make a covenant with man. God created the Leviathan to remind man of the dangers of pride.”

Greenberg: “To drive home Job's powerlessness, two monstrous animals are described that mock the Genesis notion of man's rule of terrestrial and sea creatures...The effect of this parade of wonders is to excite amazement at the grandeur and exotic character of divine creativity. By disregarding man, the author rejects the anthropocentrism of all the rest of Scripture. God's governance cannot be judged by its manifestations in human society alone. ...no man can comprehend God, whose works defy teleological and rational categories; hence to condemn his supervision of human events because it does not conform to human conceptions of reason and justice is improper.”

“In the end of the book of Job, Yahweh challenges Job to show his mastery over the great creatures, Behemoth and Leviathan, which are symbolic of cosmic forces that at times are hostile to God's rule. If Job cannot subdue them, he is in no position to discredit God, his Creator and Master, for treating him unjustly.” (G.V. Smith)

Bullock: “Man had been instructed to subdue the animal kingdom when God assigned him to the lordship of the world (Gen. 1:28). Or, to take something even more familiar, the world of human beings, the Lord challenged Job to set it right (40:10-14)...Still further, if man was too much for Job, the Lord had other challenges for him among his irrational creatures. He might tackle the hippopotamus (40:15-24) or the crocodile (41:11-34).”

These creatures appear after the mention of many natural creatures in God's created universe. But, as Gladson says above, these two seem to exist on the border of the natural and supernatural creation. However, “this, too, lies under Yahweh's sovereignty.”

“This portrait of Behemoth (like that of Leviathan, 41:1-34) may have received literary amplification, but it plays an integral part of the poet's purpose: the creating God is in control of all forces of evil, despite appearances to the contrary.” (Terrien)

Kaiser describes the purpose of this chapter as follows: “When the Lord tells Job of his domination over Behemoth and Leviathan, he merely illustrates what he has already said in Job 40:8-14. He is the one who has triumphed over the forces of evil...The forces of moral disorder, though veiled under mythopoetic language about ferocious and untameable creatures, are used here as a symbol of those who can only be handled by God behind the scenes on behalf of all who must suffer in ignorance of what is ultimately going on.”

The Dictionary of Biblical Imagery

The various anonymous contributors to this valuable resource have had a field day with this passage in Job, with sometimes conflicting comments addressing one or both of the above questions:

“The two creatures must be actual animals, described in somewhat hyperbolic terms, which may actually allude to the conquest of the waters, as elsewhere in Job, as a means of demonstrating both the dangers within creation and the absolute divine control over them.”

Several words seem to apply to more than one creature – first to a 'real' animal and second to a mythical one. Leviathan seems to be clearly a crocodile in Job 41, perhaps referring to Pharaoh, who 'ruled' the Nile crocodiles. But elsewhere Leviathan clearly refers to a sea monster of mythical proportions.”

“In the OT three terms are found for monsters that symbolize the threat to the divine order of the world: Leviathan, Rahab and the dragon or sea monster. Rahab (boisterous one) is not found in any text outside the Bible; the biblical parallels suggest it is another name for Leviathan...This imagery is significant for understanding biblical language about creation, God's wars against the nations, and the ultimate conflict that will lead to a new created order.”

“The tour de force in the Bible's giantesque passages is the portraits in Job 40-41 of Behemoth and Leviathan. The real-life phenomena on which the portraits are based are apparently a hippopotamus and a crocodile respectively, but by the time the imagination has worked its amplifying magic on them, they are clearly bigger-than-life specimens!”

“The poet deliberately chooses the hippopotamus (Behemoth) and the crocodile (Leviathan) because they are exotic and unfamiliar to his audience. They summoned awe and reverence the way stories of man-eating plants do for children. They help us imagine a fiercely unpredictable Creator.”

“the cosmic sea...symbolizes the continued threat the forces of chaos pose against God and creation...The Bible adopts its neighbors' creation myths of a primeval battle between a creator God and a sea monster of chaos called Leviathan, Rahab, or the dragon or serpent (Job 41). Unlike the myths of neighboring nations, God creates the chaos monster and places it in the sea (Gen 1:20-21; Ps 104:24-26). The monster stirs the cosmic sea but is wounded and subdued by God (Job 26:12; Ps 74:12-14; 89:9-10; Is 51:9) and will ultimately be vanquished in the end times (Is 27:1).”

“...it is the mythological Sea (the Deep, the Abyss) and its ally the Sea Monster (the Dragon, Leviathan) that are God's enemies. The storm that comes from the sea is the product of their rebellious thrashing and raging against God and his order (Job 41:1)...the flood story serves as a reminder that God alone keeps the Sea from reclaiming the dry land."

In this regard, note that in the end, the sea (symbolic of rebellious forces) will be no more (Revelation 21:1).

 

THE LIST IN II PETER 1:5-7

Rather than getting wrapped up in the exact definitions of the various virtues found in these verses, I would like to just concentrate on the list as a whole with the help of the following comments taken from the scholarly literature. As you read these different opinions, be sure to pay attention to both the frequent areas of overlap and disagreement regarding such issues as Peter's purpose in writing, prior influences on his words, the relationship between God's grace and our works, and which items in his list were meant to receive the most emphasis.

I will begin by citing an excellent overview from Bo Reicke. He states that “according to vss. 5b-7 they [the believers] are to let one gift 'further' the other so that the basic gift of faith promotes virtue (cf. vs. 3), virtue promotes knowledge, etc. A detailed list of such ethical relationships is presented. Some of these constituted well-known Hellenistic ideals and were especially prominent in the propaganda of the Stoic philosophers; the author seems to have borrowed them from his contemporaries. However, they have been transplanted into the structure of Christian faith. The author did not wish to Hellenize the church, but only employed such expressions because they would be familiar to his readers. His enumeration of virtues may be arranged in the following manner, showing that the biblical ideals of faith, knowledge, and fear of God are fundamental, vss. 5b-7:

    1) faith: virtue

    2) knowledge: self-control, perseverance

    3) godly fear: brotherly kindness, love.

The first virtues mentioned under 1, 2, and 3 respectively, concern the Christian's relationship to God; the others relate him to society. Each virtue is presented as dependent on the immediately preceding one, and the whole series culminates in the two final virtues, brotherly kindness and love, which are especially vital to harmony in the church.”

Harvey: “In verse 5 Peter, who has just told us that we have been given 'everything we need' for the godly life, begins to tell us that we must add certain qualities to that life. Why are we to add to that which has been said to be sufficient?..In each case we are being called on to express in action the nature God has created in us...Peter introduces his list of virtues with the words, For this very reason, thus like Paul grounding his exhortation in that gift which is the God-created inward capacity that makes our response possible...Peter uses a literary device for dramatic emphasis that would be familiar to many readers in the early Christian period. Each statement picks up the last key word of the preceding one and proceeds forcefully to a climactic conclusion...This method was adapted from Hellenistic moral philosophy, where it was employed to summarize the writer's ideal of the good life and the ultimate good to which it would lead.”

Bauckmann makes another valuable observation concerning the nature of this listing when he notes that only two of the terms in it are specifically 'Christian in nature' – the first and the last. It begins with our faith as the underlying basis of the other virtues and concludes with love as the culminating result of the whole process.

“2 Peter 1:5-7 provides the most extensive and significant listing of virtues in the later NT. This list, or chain of virtues, is presented by means of a literary device called sorites, a series, or chain, of statements that builds step by step in logical progression to a climactic conclusion...Thus 2 Peter envisions eight virtues progressing from faith to love, each virtue producing, or furnishing, (epichorego), the next...By framing the list with faith and love, the fundamental importance of two of the three Christian virtues of faith, hope and love is accented...The other six virtues are all found in pagan lists of virtues, and it appears that by incorporating these virtues within the framework of the Christian paraenesis and its corresponding moral vision, 2 Peter lays claim to contemporary Hellenistic ethical ideals for those Christians who are experiencing moral failure in the midst of a pagan scociety.” (Reid)

However, Neyrey differs somewhat in his understanding of the items in this listing by noting that it is not only the first and last items which are particularly associated with Christian virtues; the central virtue of steadfastness (otherwise translated as 'perseverance') can be equated with the Christian virtue of hope. This leads to an overall emphasis within the grouping on the familiar triad: faith, hope and love. These three are found together in Romans 5:1-5, 12:6-12; I Corinthians 13:6-7,13; Ephesians 1:15-18, 4:2-5; Colossians 1:4-5; I Thessalonians 1:3;5:8; and II Thessalonians 1:3-4.

Michael Green echoes many of the above ideas. In addition, he comments on the opening words in v. 5 ('For this very reason') by saying that “because of our new birth and the precious promises and the divine power offered us in Christ we cannot sit back and rest content with 'faith' (cf. Jas. 2:20). The grace of God demands, as it enables, effort in man. We are to bring into this relationship alongside what God has done...every ounce of determination we can muster...The great difference between the Stoic and Christian ethics is that the latter are not the unaided product of human effort but the fruit of our being partakers of the divine nature. Nevertheless, human effort is indispensable, even though it is inadequate.”

In addition to the above comments, Neyrey takes Danker's lead in interpreting the whole of II Peter 1:3-11 in terms of the common Roman relationship between a wealthy patron (here represented by God) and his clients (believers in this case). Thus, he says, “Cities frequently issued a decree which first acknowledged the gifts and virtues of a patron and then resolved on specific ways to recognize the patron...2 Peter exhorts the clients of God to honor their patron by living lives that will redound to God's praise and glory. Often people in the Bible are told 'Be ye holy as God is holy' (1 Peter 1:17; see Lev 11:44-45) or 'Live a life worthy of God who calls you into his own kingdom and glory' (1 Thess 2:12). Here the clients of God are exhorted to have excellence (arete) in imitation of God's excellence (arete, 1:3, 5). Moreover, they are to acquire other virtues, thus becoming holy and more honorable, which is a way of honoring their patron in return. And so the world will honor God by observing the honorable lives which flow from loyalty to such a patron (see 1 Cor 14:25; 1 Thess 4:12).”

“...Peter employed graphic vocabulary borrowed from the false leaders he warned against. His language must have arrested his readers' attention as he invested words from the pagan and philosophic worlds with new Christian meaning...In this beautiful paragraph Peter orchestrates a symphony of grace. To the melody line of faith he leads believers to add harmony in a blend of seven Christian virtues which he lists without explanation or description.” (Gangel)

Payne also emphasizes the relationship between God's leading and our response: “In a passage very reminiscent of the teaching of James about faith (cf. Jas 2:14-26), Peter now indicates the Christian's responsibility. God has acted, and man must cooperate...It is probable that the Christian virtues Peter proceeds to list are not intended as a systematic progression, though certainly love is the crown of them all.”

“Since the Christian has the resources at his disposal [from God], he is exhorted to utilize them in spiritual growth which will give practical expression to the relationship described as 'knowing' Jesus Christ. Faith must be seen at work in a life of moral excellence, and this must be backed by a steadily increasing knowledge of God. This in turn gives the ability to control oneself, and that is necessary if one is going to be able to cope with trying circumstances or people...Beyond this, and as it were the coping-stone of the whole edifice of character, is Christian love, which reaches beyond the family of God to all men.” (Wheaton)