February 28: Revelation 22:20-21

Revelation 22:20-21

The concluding words, of the exalted Jesus as a witness (ma/rtu$) to the prophetic message, come now in verse 20a:

“The (one) bearing witness [marturw=n] to these (thing)s says: ‘Yes, I come quickly [taxu/]’.”

To which the author of the book echoes:

“Amen, may you come, Lord Yeshua!” (v. 20b)

This refrain surely expresses the heartfelt desire of believers throughout the years, down to the present day. However, in the context of first-century Christianity, it carries a special significance, due to the nature of the imminent eschatology of early Christians and the profound effect it had on nearly every aspect of their thought. I have discussed the subject at length in these notes, and throughout the wider study series (“Prophecy & Eschatology in the New Testament”). It bears repeating as our examination of the book of Revelation comes to a close. Believers at the time (c. 90 A.D.?) fully expected that they would live to see the events prophesied in the book–the great period of distress, the return of Jesus, and the onset of the Judgment. Indeed, this expectation is made clear all through the book itself, including the final words of 22:20.

Jesus states clearly, and unequivocally, that he is coming “quickly” (taxu/). The adverb taxu/, along with the related expression e)n ta/xei (“in [all] speed”), was used to express the widespread belief that Jesus’ return would occur soon (also with the sense of “suddenly”). This language has been used repeatedly, particularly at the beginning and end of the book (1:1; 2:16; 3:11; 22:6-7, 12); cf. also Luke 18:8; Rom 16:20, and the discussion in my earlier study on imminent eschatology in the New Testament.

The Greek e&rxou ku/rie (“may you come, Lord”) reflects an underlying Semitic (Aramaic) expression at* an`r^m* (m¹ranâ tâ), which is preserved transliterated in Greek (mara/na qa/) by Paul at the close of 1 Corinthians (16:22). Indeed, the closing of the book of Revelation (v. 21) resembles that of Paul in a number of his letters (1 Thess 5:28; 1 Cor 16:23; Rom 16:20; also 2 Thess 3:18; Gal 6:18; 2 Cor 13:13; Phil 4:23; Philemon 25), cf. below. Interestingly, Paul also uses the expression “may you come, Lord” (mara/na qa/) in 1 Cor 16:22 directly after a curse-formula, just as here in Revelation (cf. the previous note). The verb form e&rxou is an imperative (“you must come, come!”), but when used to address God (or the exalted Jesus) it is perhaps more fitting to translate it as an exhortation (“may you come”), much as imperatives are typically rendered in a prayer-setting (e.g., in the Lord’s Prayer). In the early Christian writing known as the “Teaching (of the Twelve)”, the Didache, the curse + marana/ qa/ format is used in a eucharistic context (10:6), cp. the reference to Jesus’ return in 1 Cor 11:26.

The final words of the book of Revelation are a benediction, or blessing, quite similar to that used by Paul in his letters, as noted above; the closest examples are in 2 Corinthians and 2 Thessalonians:

“(May) the favor of the Lord Yeshua (be) with (you) all” (Rev 22:21)
“(May) the favor of our Lord Yeshua (be) with you all” (2 Thess 3:18)
“(May) the favor of the Lord Yeshua…(be) with you all” (2 Cor 13:13)

This may simply indicate a standard form, commonly used by believers at the time. There are a considerable number of textual variations in v. 21, no doubt reflecting variations in usage of the basic form over time, and preserved by copyists. The absence of the pronoun (u(mw=n, “[with] you”) could be due to the fact that, strictly speaking, the book of Revelation was not written to a specific congregation, but to believers generally, over a wide region. In a very real sense, it was written “to all”, i.e. to all believers.

* * * * * * *

This concludes the series of daily notes on the book of Revelation; however, as a way of summarizing the results of this study, I feel it is important now to deal with certain topics which were left largely unaddressed in the notes. These involve issues regarding the authorship and date of the book, different approaches to interpreting the visions, and application of the eschatology for modern-day Christians. I purposely avoided these issues so as not to detract (and distract) from a careful examination of the text itself. Thus, a short set of supplemental notes will be presented during the upcoming week.

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is 2019EschatologyNT_header1a.png

February 27: Revelation 22:18b-19

Revelation 22:18b-19

The declaration of the truthfulness of the book’s message, as testified formally by the exalted Jesus himself (v. 18a, cf. the previous note), is followed by a curse in vv. 18b-19. Such a “curse” is part of the ancient concept of the binding agreement, which utilized various religious and magical formulae as a way of guaranteeing adherence to the agreement. Quite frequently, deities were called upon as witnesses to the binding agreement, who would, it was thought, punish those who violated the terms of the agreement. Punishment (or “curse”) forms were built into the structure of the agreement, and the description of what would happen if the terms were violated was equally binding.

The exalted Jesus, functioning as God’s witness (1:1, etc), has the power and authority to effect the divine punishment for violating the agreement—which here must be understood in terms of verses 7ff, the expectation that all true and faithful believers will guard the message of the book. Anyone who violates this implicit agreement will face the punishment declared by Jesus in vv. 18b-19:

“If any(one) would set (anything else) upon these (thing)s, God shall set upon him the (thing)s (that will) strike, (those) having been written in this paper-roll [i.e. scroll]; and if any(one) would take (anything) away from the accounts of the paper-roll [i.e. scroll] of this foretelling [i.e. prophecy], God shall take away his portion from the tree of life and out of the holy city, (all) the (thing)s having been written in this paper-roll [i.e. scroll].”

This curse-formula follows the ancient lex talionis principle, whereby the punishment matches the nature of the transgression. The violation is two-fold, each part mirroring the other:

    • Violation: Put (anything else) upon [i.e. add to] what is in the book
      Punishment: God will put upon him (same verb, e)piti/qhmi) what is described in the book (i.e. the Judgment on the wicked)
    • Violation: Take (anything) away from what is in the book
      Punishment: God will take away from him (same verb, a)faire/w) what is in the book (i.e. the reward of eternal life for the righteous)

Some commentators would question whether this strictly refers to altering the book itself—its content and text—or if, instead, the primary reference is to faithful observance, etc, of the prophetic message. Certainly, there are examples, both in Greco-Roman and Jewish literature, of warnings given against tampering with a written work, especially one considered to be a sacred text—cf. Epistle of Aristeas 311; Josephus Against Apion 1.42; 1 Enoch 104:10-13; Artemidorus Onirocritica 2.70; Koester, p. 845). However, in this instance, a closer parallel is perhaps to be found in the traditional understanding of adherence to the Torah (the terms of the Covenant between YHWH and Israel), such as expressed in Deuteronomy 4:2; 12:32, etc:

“You shall not add (anything) upon the word that I (have) charged you (to keep), and you shall not shave off (anything) from it (either), (but you are) to guard (the thing)s charged (to you) of [i.e. by] YHWH your God, which (indeed) I have charged (you).” (Deut 4:2)

In the Greek LXX, the verb corresponding to “add upon” (Heb. [s^y` + preposition lu^]) is prosti/qhmi (“set/place toward [i.e. next to]”), which is close to the e)piti/qhmi (“set/place upon”) here in v. 18. The Hebrew “shave off from” (ur^G` + preposition /m!) is translated by the verb a)faire/w (“take [away] from”), just as here in v. 19.

Thus, once again, the book of Revelation draws upon Old Testament tradition, regarding Israel as the people of God (according to the old Covenant), applying it to believers in Christ (in the new Covenant). Just as one who willfully disobeyed or disregarded the Torah could not belong to the true people of God, based on the terms of the old Covenant, so one who similarly disobeyed the inspired message of Revelation’s prophecies could not be part of God’s people (believers) in the new Covenant. Since the message of the visions centered on the need to remain faithful to Jesus during the end-time period of distress, with a clear distinction between those who belong to the Lamb and those who belong to the forces of evil (Dragon and Sea-creature), a true believer would not (and could not) violate this message.

It is also likely that the curse was meant to warn people from tampering with the book itself; if so, I would tend to agree with Koester (p. 858) that this emphasis is secondary. The message, not the text, is primary; and yet, so vital is this message, in the context of the imminent/impending time of distress, that it is to be preserved and transmitted with the utmost care.

References marked “Koester” above, and throughout this series, are to Craig R. Koester, Revelation, Anchor Bible [AB] Vol. 38A (Yale: 2014).

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is 2019EschatologyNT_header1a.png

February 22: Revelation 22:17-18a

Revelation 22:17

In the previous note, I treated verse 17 as the conclusion to the section spanning vv. 6-17; however, it is also possible to view it as transitional to the concluding section (vv. 18-21). I have chosen here to discuss verse 17 along with v. 18a:

“And the Spirit and the Bride say: ‘Come!’ And the (one) hearing must (also) say: ‘Come!’ And (the) one thirsting must come—the (one) willing (to do so), let him take/receive the water of life as a gift [i.e. freely]. I (myself) bear witness to every (one) hearing the accounts of the foretelling [i.e. prophecy] of this scroll…” (vv. 17-18a)

In verse 17 there are three distinct imperatives, exhorting/commanding people to come (vb. e&rxomai). Together these serve as a beautiful communal image of believers in the end-time; their response, as believers, is centered around the book of Revelation itself. Let us briefly consider each statement:

“And the Spirit and the Bride say: ‘Come! [e&rxou]'”

This reflects two aspects of the prophetic visions and messages in the book:

    • Source of the visions—their inspiration by the Spirit (pneu=ma) of God (and Christ), which communicates with the prophetic spirit of the seer
    • Content of the visions—their depiction of the community of true believers as the Bride (of Christ), i.e. the people of God in its exalted, heavenly aspect

It may also be that the community of believers adds its own (inspired) voice to that of the Spirit; certainly this would express the actual dynamic of how the prophetic gift was understood and realized in early Christianity.

“And the (one) hearing must (also) say: ‘Come! [e&rxou]'”

Once the prophetic message had been written down and made available for others, it would have been read aloud in the congregations—in the early Christian setting, such texts would have been heard, rather than read, by the majority of people (cf. the previous note on v. 16). Having received (i.e. heard) this message, true believers in the local congregation would add their voice to the inspired Community—i.e., the people of God in their earthly aspect.

“And (the) one thirsting must come [e)rxe/sqw]…”

Here the verb is a third person imperative, and it elucidates what is meant by the second person command, and how people (believers) respond to the command. The wording alludes to Isaiah 55:1 (as in 21:6b, cf. below), and reflects the true believer’s longing (i.e. “thirst”) for God and desire for eternal life. This is very much a Johannine motif—the verb and idiom occurs in the Gospel Discourses of Jesus (4:13-15; 6:35; 7:37, cf. also Matt 5:6); the exhortation in Jn 7:37 provides a close formal parallel:

“If any (one) should thirst, he must come [e)rxe/sqw, i.e. let him come] toward me and drink.”

Here, however, we are not dealing with a person’s response to the Gospel, but to their faithfulness in following Jesus, even in the face of suffering and testing, during the end-time period of distress. This is the significance of the believer’s response to the message of the book—he/she will take special care to remain faithful, aware of the severe tests and challenges to trust in Jesus that are coming, but also reminded of the promise of God’s ultimate victory over evil.

“the (one) willing (to do so), let him take/receive the water of life as a gift [dwrea/n, i.e. freely]”

The same statement, and allusion to Isa 55:1, occurred earlier in the “new Jerusalem” vision (21:6b, cf. the earlier note). Here the imperative is best rendered as an exhortative (“let him take/receive”, labe/tw), corresponding to the imperative pine/tw (“let him drink”) in Jn 7:37. The verb lamba/nw is often translated “receive”, but here it is perhaps better to render it in its fundamental sense as “take”. The context is that of the Paradise-motifs—river, tree of life—which symbolize eternal life, and which were inaccessible to humankind during the old order of Creation (i.e. the current Age). Now, however, in the New Age (and a new order of Creation), believers are able to come and take (i.e. eat and drink) from the tree and water of Life.

Revelation 22:18-21

Revelation 22:18a

“I (myself) bear witness [marturw=] to every (one) hearing the accounts of the foretelling [i.e. prophecy] of this paper-roll [i.e. scroll]”

Here the exalted Jesus repeats his personal declaration from v. 16—again with the emphatic personal pronoun e)gw/ (“I”)—only this time he makes explicit the significance of his declaration as a witness (ma/rtu$), i.e. one who gives truthful and reliable testimony (cf. the previous note). It is once again the congregational setting, where the written accounts (lo/goi) of the visions in the book of Revelation are heard read aloud. Jesus himself bears witness that they are true; since he himself is the original witness who received the revelation from God (1:1), this confirms the truth of the message in a special way. In the Greek-speaking world of the time, official documents (esp. living wills and other binding agreements) would often begin with the person’s name, followed by marturw= (“I bear witness…”), e.g. P.Oxy. 105.13-14; 489.24-26; 490.15-16; cf. Koester, p. 844.

The remainder of the concluding section, beginning with vv. 18b-19, will be discussed the next few daily notes.

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is 2019EschatologyNT_header1a.png

February 21: Revelation 22:8-9, 16-17

Revelation 22:8-9, 16f

This is the last of the four components in vv. 6-17—a personal declaration by the seer Yohanan (John) and the exalted Jesus, respectively. Each begins with the emphatic personal pronoun e)gw/ (“I, Yohanan/Yeshua…”). The parallelism relates to how each person is a witness of the divine message being delivered, the prophecy recorded in the book (vv. 6, 10). On the relation between the two, and the place each holds within the overall inspired witness, see esp. the opening verses of the book (1:1-2); thus, again, the conclusion of the book of Revelation corresponds to its introduction. On the identity of this “Yohanan”, cf. my earlier note on 1:9; I will discuss the question of authorship a bit further at the conclusion of this series.

There is also a clear contrast between the two figures; this is indicated both by the content of the declaration (vv. 8, 16a), but also by the response that follows (vv. 9, 16b): in one, it is emphasized that John is a mere servant, while Jesus is exalted as the Messiah and a divine being deserving of worship.

Verses 8-9

“And I [ka)gw/], Yohanan, (am) the (one) hearing and looking at [i.e. seeing] these (thing)s. And when I heard and looked, I fell (down) in front of the feet of the Messenger, the (one) having shown these (thing)s to me, (in order) to kiss toward [i.e. worship] (him). And he says to me, ‘See (that) you do not (do this)! (For) I am a slave together with you, and (with) your brothers the foretellers [i.e. prophets], and (with) the (one)s keeping watch (over) the accounts of this paper-roll [i.e. scroll]—(it is) God you must kiss toward [i.e. worship]!'” (vv. 8-9)

In prophetic and apocalyptic texts, it is often the case that the seer, the one witnessing the divine message and visionary experience, announces his name. The most immediate parallel comes from the conclusion of the book of Daniel (12:5, “I, Daniel…”). This an essential aspect of the person serving as a witness (ma/rtu$, 1:2, etc), as the prophet formally testifies to the truth of what he saw and heard.

Also traditional is the prophet’s response to the heavenly Messenger (Angel)—i.e. falling down in fear and reverence, as would be fitting toward a divine/heavenly being. However, the parameters of Israelite/Jewish and Christian monotheism, strictly speaking, do not permit worship of any being other than God (YHWH); this means that worship or veneration of Angels is quite inappropriate, as the Messenger himself declares, stating that he is only another slave (i.e. servant) of God, just like all faithful human believers. The same thing happened in an earlier encounter (19:10, cf. the prior note). By contrast, the seer fell down to venerate the exalted Jesus in 1:17, who was deserving of such worship. This is important, in light of the parallel here with Jesus in v. 16.

Verses 16-17

“I [e)gw/], Yeshua, sent my Messenger to give witness (of) these (thing)s to you [plur.] upon the (gathering)s of (those) called out [e)kklhsi/ai]. I am (both) the root and the (thing) coming to be (out) of David, the radiant first star (of the morning).” (v. 16)

A conjunction of the two I-statements, by John and Jesus, perfectly replicates the initial statement in 1:1, illustrating the role of each in the prophetic witness (vb marture/w):

“(The) uncovering of Yeshua (the) Anointed, which God gave to him, to show to his slaves…sending (it) forth through his Messenger to his slave Yohanan…”

The chain of relationship is explicit:

    • God gives the revelation to the exalted Jesus =>
      • who gives it to his Messenger (Angel) =>
        • who gives it to the prophet Yohanan =>
          • who gives it to the other believers

The use of the plural u(mi=n (“to you [pl.]”) and the phrase e)pi\ tai=$ e)kklhsi/ai$ (lit. “upon the [gathering]s of [those] called out”) fills out the last two stages of the chain of transmission:

    • the Messenger gives it to the prophet Yohanan =>
      • who makes it available (in written form) to other ministers =>
        • who have it read (out loud) in the congregations [e)kklhsi/ai]

The first phrase of verse 16b is a Messianic inflection of the earlier identification of Jesus as the “Alpha and Omega” —Messianic in its association with David (i.e. the Davidic Ruler figure-type). It is also a key Christological statement within the book of Revelation: Jesus is both the descendant of David (humanity) and the source of his own life and existence (deity). Note the parallelism:

    • Alpha [first/beginning]—the Root (r(i/za) of David, from which he comes to be
    • Omega [last/completion]—the ge/no$ of David, i.e. one who comes to be (born) from him

The language derives from Isaiah 11:1, 10 (an important Messianic passage), along with other references to the Davidic line (2 Sam 7, etc); for more on this, cf. Parts 68 of the series “Yeshua the Anointed”, and also the earlier note on Rev 5:5. The second phrase of v. 16b alludes to a different Messianic tradition, that of Num 24:17 etc, using the image of a star that will rise (i.e. the morning star) to bring the light of salvation and deliverance to God’s people. I discuss this line of tradition in prior articles.

“And the Spirit and the Bride say: ‘Come!’ And the (one) hearing must (also) say: ‘Come!’ And (the) one thirsting must come—the (one) willing (to do so), let him take/receive the water of life as a gift [i.e. freely].” (v. 17)

This communal declaration summarizes the entire section, reflecting the dynamic of the prophetic witness and how it relates to the people of God as a whole. It will be discussed further in the next daily note.

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is 2019EschatologyNT_header1a.png

Saturday Series: 1 John 5:5-12

1 John 5:5-12

These recent studies on 1 John have alternated, along with the letter, between the themes of love (agápe) and trust (pístis), which represent the two components of the great command for believers (3:23-24). The section in 3:11-24 dealt with love, followed by an extensive dual-exposition in 4:7-5:4 (discussed in the previous two studies). In 4:1-6, the subject was trust in Jesus, and a similar dual-exposition follows in 5:5-12. In the earlier study on 4:1-6, we saw how, in the author’s mind, the duty (or command) to trust in Jesus was being violated by those who had separated from the Community–they held a view of Jesus that differed from the Christology of the Community, as expressed in the Johannine Gospel. This was first introduced in 2:18-27, where it was clear that, for the author, the great evil of these ‘false’ believers involved their Christology. Even so, it was never specified as to what, precisely, the ‘antichrist’ pseudo-believers held regarding Jesus that made them so dangerous for the Community. In 2:22, it was to be inferred that they refused to accept Jesus as the “Anointed One” (Messiah), essentially denying Jesus as the Son (of God) as well. However, it is extremely unlikely that the ‘false’ believers denied that Jesus was either the Messiah or Son of God. Something about their belief regarding Jesus was, for the author, tantamount to denying the very person of Christ.

In 4:1-6, the nature of this Christological view was clarified: it involved a denial, or refusal to accept, that Jesus the Anointed One had come in the flesh (en sarkí el¢lythóta, v. 2). I noted how this appears to be similar to the Docetic Christology held by certain so-called Gnostics—i.e., a belief that Jesus the Son of God only seemed to be a real flesh and blood human being during his time on earth. Such Docetism tends to derive from a strong dualistic worldview, such as certainly would characterize much gnostic (and Gnostic) thought. The fundamental incompatibility between the realm of the Divine and the material world made it hard for many Gnostics to accept that the Son of God could actually become part of the fallen material world (i.e. as a real human being). Ignatius of Antioch, writing to believers in Ephesus, Smyrna, and Tralles, attacked a “Docetic” view of Christ similar to that of the later Gnostics (Ephesians 7:2; Smyrneans 1:1-2; 3:1-2; 4:1-2; 5:2; Trallians 9:1-2; 10:1). The location of the Johannine congregations, and provenance of the writings, is often thought to be in the same region of Asia Minor (confirming the tradition that connected the apostle of John with Ephesus). Moreover, Ignatius was probably writing (c. 110 A.D.) not all that long after 1 John itself was written (90’s A.D.?), and it is possible that he is addressing some of the same issues (compare Smyrneans 5:2 with 1 John 4:2; cf. also the Epistle of Polycarp 7:1).

However, in my view, the Christology of the ‘false’ believers attacked by the author of 1 John was not Docetic per se, and this is confirmed in 5:5-12, where the true nature of the ‘antichrist’ understanding of Jesus is finally made clear. By piecing the evidence from 2:18-27, 4:16, and 5:5-12 together, with a little detective work, we can reconstruct (partially) the Christology of the ‘false’ believers—at least, the aspect of it which was deemed so objectionable to the author of 1 John. This falls under the heading of historical criticism.

Verse 5

“[And] who is the (one) being victorious over the world, if not [i.e. except] the (one) trusting that Yeshua is the Son of God?”

This rhetorical question is transitional, picking up from the concluding statement of the previous section (v. 4), identifying the trust (pístis) of the true believer, i.e. trust in Jesus, as the thing which brings victory (vb nikáœ) over the evil and darkness of the world. That declaration leads here into the section on trust in Jesus, once again identifying the true believer with this component of the great command by the use of the articular participle (“the [one] trusting”)—i.e. trust characterizes the believer. Of course, for the author, “trust” entails a correct understanding of just who Jesus is and what he did, that it is to say, the content of this trust is Christological.

Verse 6

“This is the (one hav)ing come through water and blood, Yeshua (the) Anointed—not in water only, but in water and blood; and the Spirit is the (one) giving witness, (in) that [i.e. because] the Spirit is the truth.”

This is the key verse for a proper understanding of the ‘antichrist’ view of Jesus. Unfortunately, a precise interpretation remains difficult. The author actually states the matter rather clearly, in terms that doubtless would have been immediately evident to many of his readers. In referring to Jesus as “having come through water and blood”, the author was making a definitive Christological statement. The interpretive difficulty for us is in expounding the phrase “in water and blood” which serves as a shorthand for a more complex theological frame of reference. That Christians in the first centuries had the same sort of difficulties in explaining it would seem to be evident by the notable textual variants; instead of “(having come) through water and blood”, there are four main variants, all of which include “(the) Spirit”:

    • “through water and blood and spirit” (di’ hydatos kai haimatos kai pneumatos)
    • “through water and spirit and blood” (di’ hydatos kai pneumatos kai haimatos)
    • “through water and (the) Spirit” (di’ hydatos kai pneumatos)
    • “through water and blood and the Holy Spirit

The first variant above is the one with the best manuscript and versional support. The inclusion of the “Spirit”, forming a triad, is doubtless influenced by what follows in vv. 7-8; however, in my view, copyists who introduced such changes did not understand at all the point the author was making. Special emphasis is given to the blood, meaning that, apparently, the ‘false’ believers did accept that Jesus came in (or through) water. But what does it mean to say that Jesus came “in water” or “through water”. There does not seem to be any real difference here between the preposition en (“in”) or dia (“through”)—they both express the manner in which Jesus, the Son of God, came to earth, i.e. as a human being. Commentators have debated the significance of water here, but I believe that it refers primarily, and fundamentally, to Jesus’ birth. The closest parallel to this use of water-imagery is in the famous Nicodemus episode in the Gospel (Jn 3:1-14ff). Water is contrasted with the Spirit, in the context of the idea of a person’s birth. The key statement by Jesus is in verse 5:

“…if (one) does not come to be (born) out of water and (the) Spirit, he is not able to come into the kingdom of God.”

In verse 6, the contrast shifts from water/Spirit to flesh/Spirit, indicating that being “born out of water” is essentially the same thing as a person’s fleshly (i.e. physical human) birth. The point is that a person needs to be born of the Spirit (from above) in addition to one’s normal physical birth. If the ‘false’ believers of 1 John accepted Jesus’ physical birth as a human being, then their Christology was not Docetic as such. Where, then, was the problem or error in their belief? It is centered on a failure to accept that Jesus also came “in blood” / “through blood”. If “water” refers to Jesus’ birth, then “blood” most almost certainly refers to his death. There are three other Johannine passages where blood (haíma) is mentioned, and they all relate specifically to the sacrificial death of Jesus (Jn 6:53-58; 19:34; 1 Jn 1:7). Moreover, the joining of “water and blood” is of great importance in the Passion narrative, a physical (and historical) detail to which the author imports considerable theological significance (Jn 19:34-35ff).

Thus, it would be fair to infer that, while the ‘false’ believers of 1 John accepted the human birth of Jesus, they somehow refused to accept that he endured a normal human death, and that this constituted their fundamental error. If so, the basis for their view may be found in the Gospel narrative itself. In contrast to the Synoptic Gospels, the Johannine Passion narrative contains little or no “passion”, no obvious signs of human suffering. There is no scene of anguish in the garden; instead, Jesus is depicted as fully in control at every moment, even speaking with such authority that those coming to arrest him cower and fall back (18:4-9). The Johannine narrative does include mention of Jesus’ being whipped and mocked by the soldiers (19:1-5), but that brief episode is flanked by extensive dialogues between Jesus and Pilate in which Jesus essentially declares his divine identity; by comparison, in the Synoptics, he says almost nothing before Pilate. Finally, on the cross, there is no sign of suffering, no mention of taunting by the crowds, no cry of anguish or feeling of being abandoned by God. Instead, Jesus appears calm and fully in control; at the end, instead of letting out a death-cry, he states “it has been completed”, and releases his spirit (19:30). Given this Gospel portrait, it would be understandable for a Johannine Christian to minimize or relativize the suffering and death of Jesus. It may also explain why the Gospel writer places such importance on the detail of the water and blood that come out of Jesus’ side (19:34-35), since it serves to confirm the concrete physical reality of his death.

It may also be that the ‘false’ Johannine believers downplayed the significance of Jesus’ death in relation to our salvation and the coming of the Spirit. Again the detail of Jn 19:34 may indicate the importance of “water and blood” in this regard. Jesus’ sacrificial death completed his saving work on earth. His death effectively gives life to those who partake in it (i.e. “drink his blood”, 6:53ff), and releases the Spirit (19:30, cp. 20:22) for those who believe. The Spirit itself gives witness to the truth of the “water and blood” —the reality of who Jesus is and what his work on earth accomplished. The introduction of the Spirit here in v. 6b is a subtle way of stating that, if a person denies the true significance of Jesus’ death, he/she denies the Spirit, and, as a result, cannot be a true believer who is united to God and Christ through the Spirit.

Verses 7-8

“(For it is) that the (one)s giving witness are three—the Spirit and the water and the blood, and the three are into the one.”

The “Textus Receptus” edition of the Greek New Testament mistakenly introduced an expanded form of these two verses, based on the reading of a handful of late manuscripts and Latin witnesses; the expanded form reads:

“(For it is) that the (one)s giving witness are three in heaven—the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. And the (one)s giving witness on earth are three—the Spirit and the water and the blood, and the three are into the one.”

The trinitarian insertion is secondary, and quite foreign to 1 John, as nearly all commentators today would admit. It is another example of how later readers and copyists so poorly understood the nuances of the author’s line of argument, so as to be led astray by facile similarities (the ‘three in one’ phrasing) and to introduce a trinitarian formula where it does not belong. The main point, as noted above, is that, for true believers, the Spirit confirms what one already believes and experiences regarding the “water and blood” of Jesus’ incarnate life and death. Indeed, it is by the Spirit’s witness that we are able to believe this about Jesus; to deny the significance of Jesus’ sacrificial death is to deny the witness of the Spirit.

What then of the curious phrase “and the three are into the one”? If it has nothing to do with the Trinity (as indeed it does not), what exactly is the author trying to say? I would interpret it as follows:

The expression “water and blood” represents two aspects of a single witness—involving the life and (life-giving) death of Jesus. To this, the Spirit becomes a third component. The presence and work of the Spirit allows people to accept the truth of who Jesus was and what he did, and further confirms this truth in and among believers. Thus, numerically, there are “three” components, but a single witness, a single truth—three leading and directing into one, for one purpose. While this does not refer to the Trinity, it does relate to a certain kind of theological triad; I have previously offered a simple diagram which illustrates this Johannine triad:

Clearly the Spirit is at the center of this triadic relationship.

Verses 9-12

“If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater; (and it is) that this is the witness of God that He has given witness to about His Son. The (one) trusting in the Son of God holds the witness in himself; the (one) not trusting God has made Him (to be) false, (in) that he has not trusted in the witness that God has given witness to about His Son. And this is the witness: that God gave to us (the) Life of the Ages [i.e. eternal life], and this Life is in His Son. The (one) holding the Son holds the Life, and the (one) not holding the Son of God does not hold the Life.”

This is a wonderful example of the repetitive Johannine style which belies a clear and careful structure. There are many such examples in the Gospel Discourses of Jesus, but also here in 1 John. Note how the related noun and verb martyría (“witness”) and martyréœ (“give witness”) are used repeatedly (8 times). Also consider how the conjunctive particle hóti (“that”) is variously used, which makes precise translation and interpretation a bit of a challenge. There is actually a clear parallelism in this passage which, while not so obvious in typical English translations, is immediately apparent in the Greek (which I render quite literally above). Note the structure:

    • Statement about the witness (martyría) of God: that it is about His Son (v. 9)
      • Identification of the believer as one trusting in the witness (v. 10)
    • Statement about the witness of God: that it is in His Son (v. 11)
      • Identification of the believer as one holding the witness [the Son] (v. 12)

Here is how this structure is played out in the Greek:

    • haút¢ estín h¢ martyría tou theoú…perí tou huioú autoú (v. 9)
      “this is the witness of God…about His Son”
      • ho pisteúœn eis ton huión tou theoú échei t¢n martyrían (v. 10)
        “the one trusting in the Son of God holds this witness…”
    • haút¢ estín h¢ martyría …h¢ zœ¢¡ en tœ huiœ¡ autoú estin (v. 11)
      “this is the witness …the Life is in His Son”
      • ho échœn ton huión échei t¢n zœ¢¡n (v. 12)
        “the one holding the Son holds the Life…”

The overall thrust of this line of argument is that trust in Jesus is fundamentally tied to one’s identity as a true believer, one who “holds” the Life of God through the presence of the Spirit. Those who refuse to accept the truth of who Jesus was effectively deny both the Gospel message (about the Son) and the witness of the Spirit (the abiding presence of the Son). This, in turn, is tantamount to a denial of God, since He is the one who ultimately gives this witness. If we consider the passage again from the standpoint of its historical background, then the argument is that the Johannine Christians who denied the reality of Jesus’ death, and/or its significance, were effectively denying the Gospel message, the witness of the Spirit, and even God Himself. Almost certainly these ‘false’ believers, whoever they were, would not at all characterize themselves this way; but, from the standpoint of the author of 1 John, the matter was clear: they could not be true believers, but, instead, were a manifestation of “antichrist” (being against Christ). We will discuss the ramifications of this further when we come to study 2 and 3 John.

Next week, the focus will turn again to how the author of the letter understood hamartía (“sin”), and what he meant by the use of the term. We have already discussed this in earlier studies (on 2:28-3:10), but it will take on importance again as the author brings his work to a close in 5:13-20. This section is notorious among commentators, due in particular to the statements regarding sin in verses 16-17. However, there are several other critical points and questions which need to be addressed as well. I hope you will join me.

October 8: Revelation 11:3-14

Revelation 11:3-14

As discussed in the previous daily note, the scene involving the measuring of the Temple is transitional between chapter 10 and this vision of the ‘two witnesses’ in 11:3-14. It establishes the contrast between the “holy city” (with the Temple at the center) and the “great city”, an allegorical distinction between the people of God (true believers) and the surrounding world (the “nations”, spec. the Roman Empire). In this vision, the image has shifted from the shrine (nao/$) of God to a pair of persons—two witnesses:

“And I will give to my two witnesses and they will foretell [i.e. prophesy] for a thousand two-hundred (and) sixty days, having been cast about [i.e. clothed] in a coarse garment [sa/kko$].”

Much ink has been spilled regarding the identification of these two persons—how are they best understood? The visionary character of this section, in context, would suggest that they are figurative, and yet many commentators believe that it refers to a pair of actual (historical) persons expected to appear, or to be active, at the end-time. It is important to begin with the language used to describe them, and the Old Testament traditions which are involved. Three lines of interpretation may be mentioned:

    • Angels—i.e. heavenly beings sent by God as a witness to humankind prior to the Judgment; the reference to the “great city” as “Sodom” would certainly bring to mind the Abraham narrative in Genesis 19, and the two (heavenly) Messengers that come to the city.
    • Messiah-Prophets—the Messianic figure-type of Anointed Prophet, expected to appear at the end-time (prior to the Judgment), according to several traditional patterns, most notably Moses and Elijah (cf. below).
    • People of God (Believers)—that is to say, as witnesses, these two persons represent the people of God, the faithful believers as a whole.

All three of these are more or less clearly present in the text; the vision draws upon the distinct lines of tradition, in various ways, and a proper interpretation must take each of them into account. Let us begin with the primary identification of the two persons/figures as witnesses (ma/rtu$, sg.). The word occurs five times in the book of Revelation, being used in two distinct, but related, ways in the other four references:

    • Of the exalted Jesus, who is given the title “the trust(worthy) [pisto/$] witness” (1:5; 3:14)—this is best understood in two respects:
      • Jesus gives witness of God the Father (YHWH), proclaiming His word and will, and acting as His representative (cf. the context of 1:1ff)
      • This witness entails, in a fundamental way, the sacrificial death of Jesus (the Lamb)
    • Of believers, who follow the example of Jesus, bearing witness of Christ and the Gospel, especially insofar as they follow him to the death (i.e. beginnings of the technical use of the term [“martyr” in English]):
      • In 2:13, Antipas, who was put to death, is given the same title used of Jesus in 1:5—”the trustworthy witness”
      • In 17:16, the believers whose blood was shed are specifically called “witnesses of Yeshua

Is it possible that this two-fold aspect is implied by the fact that there are two witnesses mentioned? The next bit of evidence comes from the parallel identification in verse 4:

“These are the two olive (tree)s and the two lamp(stand)s, the (one)s having stood in the sight of the Lord of the earth.”

This imagery is drawn from the fourth chapter of Zechariah, and, again, there is a clear two-fold aspect involved:

    • Messianic—Olive oil was used for anointing, and, in the context of Zech 3-4, the two olive trees (vv. 3, 11) refer to Zerubbabel and the priest Joshua (“sons of oil”, v. 14) according to early Messianic/Anointed figure-types—Davidic ruler and Anointed Priest, respectively.
    • Heavenly/Angelic—The (seven) lampstands in Zech 4:2-3 are identified as the “eyes of the Lord” (vv. 10-11)—personalized as (heavenly/spirit) beings who represent YHWH in the world, i.e. Messengers (“Angels”), and, one might say, also witnesses. This is reproduced in the book of Revelation (1:4, 12-13, 20; 2:1ff; 5:6). At the same time, we should note:
      • The lampstands are also identified with believers collectively (i.e. congregations/churches), 1:20; 2:1, 5
      • The exalted Jesus is at the center of the lampstands, holding/controlling them (1:12-13; 2:1, cf. also 3:1; 5:6)

Verses 5-6 bring out a number of Messianic details, especially those connected with the Prophet figure-types of Moses and Elijah (for more on this, cf. Parts 2-3 of the series “Yeshua the Anointed”):

    • “fire travels out of their mouths” to “eat up” the enemies of God (v. 5)—the idea of the word of God, communicated by the Prophet, as fire is found in Jer 5:14, and is specifically associated with Elijah in Sirach 48:1. Indeed, in Old Testament tradition, Elijah called down fire from heaven (1 Kings 19:36-38). The more direct Messianic association comes from Isa 11:4, in which the mouth of the Messiah (vv. 1-3) slays the wicked. Paul draws upon this in a clear eschatological context in 2 Thess 2:8; as does the deutero-canonical book of 2/4 Esdras (13:10, 37-38, roughly contemporary with the book of Revelation), where the slaying power of the mouth is presented as fire. There is an interesting parallel here with the fire-breathing plague-army of the sixth Trumpet-vision (Rev 9:13-20).
    • “authority to close the heaven” so that rain does not fall (v. 6)—a clear allusion to the Elijah traditions (1 Kings 17:1; 18:1; Lk 4:25; James 5:17)
    • authority to turn the waters into blood and to strike the earth with plagues (v. 6)—Moses and the Plagues of Egypt (Exod 7:19, etc)

If verses 3-6 tend to emphasis the heavenly and Messianic character of the two witnesses, verses 7ff more clearly reflect the dual aspect of Jesus-Believers as true and faithful witnesses who are put to death. Their role as Heavenly/Messianic Prophets covers the period of 1,260 days (= 3½ years) during which they prophesy, wearing coarse garments (‘sackcloth’, sa/kko$), marking the coming of the Judgment and urging people to repent. In a sense, this period of preaching/prophesying is similar to that of John the Baptist, as well as Jesus (in his Galilean ministry), both of whom were identified in different ways as the Messianic Prophet (Elijah) who would appear at the end-time. Jesus was also associated with the end-time “Prophet like Moses”, though the Gospel tradition identifies him more closely with the Anointed herald of Isaiah 61:1ff. In any case, it is after this time of prophetic proclamation/ministry, that Jesus comes to Jerusalem and is put to death. This Gospel narrative-matrix is very much at work here in Rev 11:3-14.

At the same time, verses 7ff open up an entirely separate line of imagery as well—that of the beast (i.e. wild animal, qhri/on) who attacks the people of God. It is this visionary conflict which dominates much of the second half of the book (beginning with chapter 12). It is introduced here, without any real explanation or elaboration:

“And when they should complete their witness, the wild (animal) stepping up out of the (pit) without depth [i.e. bottomless pit] will make war with them, and will be victorious (over) them and will kill them off.” (v. 7)

As the “beast” (wild animal) is clearly symbolic in the context of the visions which follow (to be discussed), it stands to reason that the two witness are figurative as well; this would seem to be confirmed by the description in verse 8, where several different images are blended together:

    • The body (singular) of the two witnesses is left laying in the streets of “the great city”, which is further given a hybrid identification:
      • Sodom—traditionally associated with wickedness/immorality (and the judgment which came upon it)
      • Egypt—the land of slavery for the people of God (Israel)
      • Jerusalem—here, literally, “where our Lord was put to the stake [i.e. crucified]”

Some commentators, relying on the last detail, would identify the “great city” flatly as Jerusalem (i.e. the actual city). However, I believe that this is overly simplistic, and, indeed, incorrect. In my view the designation “the great city” is meant as a specific contrast to “the holy city” (i.e. where the Temple is located) in v. 2. By comparison, “the great city” is marked by its “wide (street)s” and wickedness (“Sodom”). It is best to see it as a figure for the wider world—i.e. the “nations”, or, the Roman Empire, according to the (historical) setting of the book. By contrast, believers (the people of God, collectively) are represented by the “holy city” and the Temple-complex (cf. on vv. 1-2 in the previous note). The 3½ years (1,260 days) is also a figurative period, drawn from Old Testament tradition, and represents the coming time of distress (and persecution). During this period, believers are to serve as witness of Jesus to the world (the “great city”); many, like Jesus himself, will be put to death as a result. This is the main association in verse 8, identifying the “great city” as the place “where our Lord was put to the stake”.

The death of the witnesses—that is, the time they remain dead—parallels the period of ministry (3½ days | 3½ years). The people of the “great city” rejoice and celebrate (evoking the Roman Saturnalia festival), even as the body of the witness(es) lies dead and unburied in the street (vv. 9-10). The cruelty and wickedness of humankind could not be more simply and vividly expressed. It is possible that the public spectacle-executions of Christians under Nero is in mind here, serving as a pattern for many other early Christian Martyrdom narratives. The period of 3½ days also serves to bring out more strongly the parallel with the death of Jesus (i.e. the traditional motif of three days); like Jesus, after three days, the two witnesses are raised from the dead (v. 11). The parallel is extended, as the witnesses ascend to heaven (v. 12) in a cloud, just like Jesus (Acts 1:9-11). Their enemies look on as they go up in the cloud, even as the nations will watch as Jesus (the Son of Man) returns in a cloud at the end-time (Rev 1:7)

The vision concludes with judgment striking the people of the “great city”, by way of a “great shaking [i.e. earthquake]”. An earthquake is also tied to Jesus’ death (and resurrection) in Matthew’s version of the Passion narrative (27:51; 28:2). Here, however, the more immediate connection is with the six Trumpet-visions in chapter 9, especially the first four, in which various natural disasters and phenomena destroy/afflict a portion (one-third) of the world. In this vision, the earthquake destroys a tenth of the city, killing seven thousand people (v. 13). It is interesting to note the smaller percentage involved, compared with that in the Trumpet-visions. Almost certainly, this reflects the ministry/witness of the two figures, culminating in their death and resurrection/exaltation. That this is meant to blend together features marking both Jesus and his faithful/true followers (believers), was noted above, and must be maintained as a fundamental aspect of any proper interpretation. This work of witness ultimately has a profoundly positive effect for humankind—limiting the extent of the Judgment, and leading people to repentance and the worship of God. This shift from judgment to worship also characterizes the seventh Trumpet vision, which follows in vv. 15-19 (to be discussed in the next daily note). The closing words of v. 14 effectively enclose the visions of chapters 10-11 back within the structure of seven-vision cycle, repeating the refrain from 9:12 (following the fifth vision):

“The second woe (has) come along—see! the third woe comes quickly!” (v. 14)

This third woe refers to the seventh (final) Trumpet vision, and yet, interestingly, no “woe”, as such, is described in vv. 15-19. It functions, rather, as a literary device, here primarily indicating the end, or completion, of the Judgment visions. With chapter 12, an entirely new mode of visionary expression is introduced, one which restates the Judgment narrative along more traditional-historical lines. Before embarking on that interesting study, it is necessary to examine the final Trumpet vision, which we will do in the next daily note.

“…Spirit and Life”: 1 John 5:11-13

1 John 5:11-13

Verses 9-12 represents the final section in the body of the letter, with vv. 11-12 as the concluding statement. This section builds upon what was stated in vv. 6-8 (cf. the previous notes), particularly the idea that the Spirit gives witness (“the one giving witness”, vb. marture/w) regarding Jesus Christ and the true/correct understanding of him. This witness (marturi/a) by the Spirit is closely related to the humanity of Jesus, both his birth/life as a real human being, and the reality (and importance) of his physical death. As we have discussed, this point of Christology appears to have been emphasized especially by the author, against a “docetic” view of Jesus, such as was apparently held by the “antichrists” who separated from the Johannine congregations.

In verse 9, this witness by the Spirit is identified as God’s own witness—

“(and it is) that this is the witness [marturi/a] that God has given (as a) witness about His Son” (v. 9b)

a witness which is greater than any human witness we might receive (9a). This contrast may be intended to distinguish the mainstream Johannine congregations (who accept the witness of God’s Spirit and hold a correct view of Jesus) from the separatists who give testimony (about Jesus) which is not from God. Verse 10 sets the witness of God (his Spirit) specifically in the context of trust in Jesus—this is the point of separation, the dualistic contrast between those who trust/believe (correctly) and those who do not:

“The (one) trusting in the Son of God holds [e&xei] th(is) witness in himself, (but) the (one) not trusting God has made Him (to be) a false (speak)er, (in) that [i.e. because] he has not trusted in the witness which God has given (as a) witness about His Son.”

The witness which a (true) believer has, or holds, in him/herself is best understood as the Spirit, according to the prior statements in vv. 6-8. As I discussed in the previous note, the three-fold witness reflects two aspects of Jesus’ human life (“water” and “blood”), given sacrificially on our behalf, communicated to us (believers) through the presence of the Spirit. Believers possess (“hold”) this life through the Spirit. This identification is made more clear by the statement which follows in verse 11:

“And this is the witness: that God gave to us (the) Life of the Age, and (that) th(is) Life is in His Son.”

As I have discussed at length in earlier notes, the expression “Life of the Age” (zwh/ ai)w/nio$) originally had an eschatological connotation (i.e. the divine/heavenly life which the righteous would enter/inherit in the Age to Come), but was applied by Christians—especially in the Johannine writings—to the divine/eternal/spiritual Life which believers hold even now (in the present) in Christ. This re-interpretation is indicated even here in this verse, by the way that the expression “Life of the Age” is so easily treated as equivalent to “Life” (in Christ, “in His Son”). The dualistic contrast in verse 10 is repeated in the concluding v. 12:

“The (one) holding the Son holds Life, (but) the (one) not holding the Son does not hold Life.”

The highly expressive (and symbolic) thought expressed in the Johannine writings is indicated in these verses, by the different objects which believers are said to “hold” (vb. e&xw):

    • the witness of God (v. 10) = the witness of the Spirit (vv. 6-8)
    • the Son (of God) (v. 12a)
    • (divine/eternal) Life (v. 12b)

These are all more or less interchangeable in Johannine thought, and are best represented by the Spirit, which is the presence of God (the Father) and Jesus (the Son) in the believer. This life-giving power and presence is realized spiritually, through the Spirit.

Verse 13

In terms of the structure of the letter, it is best to treat vv. 13-21 as the conclusion. That this sections begins with verse 13 is confirmed by the close parallel with John 20:31, the conclusion of the Gospel proper. It is worth comparing the two statements (note the portions in italics):

And these (thing)s I have written (so) that you would trust that Yeshua is the Anointed (One), the Son of God, and that, trusting, you would hold Life in his name.” (Jn 20:31)

These (thing)s I wrote to you, to the (one)s trusting in the name of the Son of God, (so) that you would have seen [i.e. known] that you hold (the) Life of the Age.” (1 Jn 5:13)

The wording and thought is so similar that the two statements were either the work of the same person, or one was written after the pattern of the other (or after a common pattern). It effectively repeats the theme and points made in the previous verses, and makes it clear that they relate to the main purpose of the letter. This purpose is indicated by the perfect subjunctive form of the verb ei&dw (“see, perceive, know”)—ei)dh=te, “you would/might have seen”. Here the perfect tense, or aspect, is best understood as an intensive, reflecting either a particular result, or a current state/condition (i.e., of those the author is addressing)—i.e., “would/might surely come to see/know”. The same verb form is used by Jesus in the Synoptic tradition (Mark 2:10 par):

“(so) that you might (surely) come to see [i.e. know] that the Son of Man holds [e&xei] authority to release [i.e. forgive] sins upon earth…”

Interestingly, there is a formal similarity in the object of knowledge in both passages:

    • “that you hold Life…”
    • “that the Son of man holds authority to release sin…”

As we shall see (in the next note), the motifs of sin, forgiveness, and life, all appear in the subsequent verses 14-17. How do the remaining verses of the conclusion relate to this statement in verse 13? I would divide the section as follows:

    • Opening statement—assurance to believers of the Life they have in Christ (v. 13)
    • Instruction: Prayer for the forgiveness of sin (vv. 14-17)
      —On the effectiveness of prayer/request to God (vv. 14-15)
      —The purpose/result of prayer: Life and Death in relation to sin (vv. 16-17)
    • Exhortation: Protection from sin for the true believer (vv. 18-19)
    • Closing statement—assurance to believers of the Life they have in Christ (v. 20)
    • Concluding warning [coded statement?] (v. 21)

Most of the New Testament letters contain a teaching/exhortation section toward the end of the letter; sometimes this is built into the epistolary conclusion, as is the case in 1 John. This will be discussed briefly in the next note.

“…Spirit and Life”: 1 John 5:6-8 & the Trinitarian addition

1 John 5:6-8 (continued)

In the previous note, I argued that the expression “in/through water and blood” in 1 Jn 5:6 refers to two aspects of Jesus’ humanity (that is, his real humanity, against a “docetic” view of Christ): (1) his human birth and life, and (2) his sacrificial death (involving the shedding of blood). Both of these appear together at the time of his death (“blood and water”, Jn 19:34), and may be prefigured (i.e. water and wine [= blood]) in the episode at Cana at the beginning of his earthly ministry (2:1-11). It is Jesus’ very life (water and blood) which is poured out on behalf of humankind. If this interpretation is correct, then we must ask exactly how the Spirit relates to these two aspects, since, in vv. 6b-8, the Spirit is joined to “water” and “blood” to form a triad.

Let us first consider how this is introduced by the author:

“This is the (one) coming through water and blood—Yeshua (the) Anointed—not in water only, but in water and in blood; and the Spirit is the (one) giving witness (of this), (in) that [i.e. because] the Spirit is the Truth.” (v. 6)

There are two phrases involved. The first is:

“the Spirit is the (one) giving witness”
to\ pneu=ma/ e)stin to\ marturou=n

The basic meaning of this is clear enough: the Spirit gives witness (to believers) of Jesus’ coming “in/through water and blood”—i.e. of his real human life and sacrificial death. It may seem a bit strange for us today that there would be Christians who might deny or object to Jesus Christ as a real flesh-and-blood human being. In modern times, the opposite is more often the case—many people accept Jesus’ humanity and death on the cross, but object to the idea that he was divine or the “Son of God” in any real sense. The context of 1 John suggests a Christian setting which espoused a “high” Christology—i.e., Jesus as the pre-existent Son of God—but which was a distance removed from any memory of Jesus’ actual earthly life and ministry. Thus Johannine Christians could easily confess Jesus as the “Son of God” but have genuine doubts or questions about whether, or to what extent, he was actually a human being like us. The author of the letter goes out of his way, at several points, to emphasize this point. We see it already in the opening verses (1:1ff), where he speaks of Jesus as the “word of Life” which “we” (i.e. the apostles or an earlier generation of believers) have heard, seen with eyes, felt with hands, etc—Jesus was a real human being who walked and lived among us. Most scholars regard the Johannine Letters as addressed to a later (second or third) generation of Christians, dated c. 90-100 A.D., and this is likely to be close to the mark.

An important point in the Last Discourse is that the Spirit/Paraclete will teach and instruct believers, giving witness of things both to them and through them (14:26; 15:26-27; 16:13-15); in particular, 15:26f states:

“…that one [i.e. the Spirit/Paraclete] will give witness about me, and you also will give witness…”

Thus the first statement about the Spirit in 1 Jn 5:6 is fully in accord with the view of the Spirit presented in the Gospel, and is confirmed again in 2:26-27, with the idea that the Spirit (“the anointing”) instructs believers in all things. In the view of the author, true believers will hold a correct view of Jesus because they hold the Spirit who gives true witness about Jesus. This leads to the second statement:

“(in) that [i.e. because] the Spirit is the Truth”
o%ti to\ pneu=ma/ e)stin h( a)lh/qeia

In the Gospel, this is expressed by the title “Spirit of Truth” (14:17; 15:26; 16:13) and also in 1 Jn 4:6. The Spirit is also associated closely with Truth in Jn 4:23-24, and also with the indwelling word/presence of God in 1 Jn 1:8; 2:4, etc. That Jesus and God the Father also also identified as Truth (Jn 1:14, 17; 14:6; 18:37, etc) simply confirms the basic Johannine idea that the Spirit is both the Spirit of God the Father and of Jesus (the Son). Interestingly, this statement in 1 Jn 5:6b seems to provide a belated answer to the question by Pilate in Jn 18:38:

    • Question: “What is (the) truth?”
    • Answer: “The Spirit is (the) Truth”

In the immediate context of the letter, however, the emphasis is on the truthfulness of the Spirit’s witness. Since the Spirit is Truth itself, it/he can only speak the truth, as indicated by Jesus in Jn 16:33: “…he will lead the way for you in all truth”.

While it might seem that the Spirit is sufficient to give witness for believers, in verses 7-8 the author of the letter turns to the ancient legal principle that testimony in a court of law must be confirmed by at least two witnesses (i.e. two or three witnesses). This is expressed a number of times in the Old Testament Law (cf. Deut 19:15, etc), and appears in the Johannine discourses of Jesus (5:30-46; 8:16-19). In Jn 5:30ff, Jesus cites four different sources of testimony that give witness about his identity (as the Son sent by the Father). Here the author of the letter cites three:

“(so) that the (one)s giving witness are three—the Spirit and the water and the blood—and the three are (together) into one.” (vv. 7-8)

This thematic formula of three-in-one certainly helps explain the trinitarian addition, found in some Latin (Vulgate) manuscripts, which, inappropriately, made its way into the 16th/17th century “Textus Receptus” editions of the New Testament (see spec. the KJV of vv. 7-8). It is, however, clearly a secondary addition (interpolation), as virtually all today commentators agree. We must avoid reading later theological concepts (from Nicene orthodoxy, etc) into the passage, and focus instead on the thought-world of the author and the (Johannine) congregations whom he is addressing. The main question is: how exactly does the Spirit relate to the “water” and “blood” which, as I have argued, symbolize the human life (and sacrificial death) of Jesus. There are are several avenues to explore:

    • The relationship of the Spirit to Jesus in the Johannine Gospel and Letters
    • The connection between the Spirit and water, especially as a symbol of birth and life for those who trust in Jesus
    • The connection between the Spirit and the death (i.e. blood) of Jesus

This will be done in the next note which will conclude our extended discussion on 1 John 5:6-8.

September 6: Revelation 1:1-2

This is the first in a series of daily notes on the Book of Revelation, which is to run concurrent with the Study Series “Prophecy and Eschatology in the New Testament”. Each note will focus on a short section or pericope, examining individual words, phrases and images carefully. The focus is critical and exegetical, but will, as necessary, also address wider theological issues and questions of interpretation. As a point of method, I should state up front that I do not assume any particular (traditional) approach to the book, nor any specific system of eschatology. My goal is to elucidate the text itself and the historical background of the language and imagery that the author/visionary uses. Such an approach should, at the very least, eliminate the more implausible and far-fetched interpretations which have been proposed over the years. At the same time, it should also have the positive effect of giving greater clarity as to what the images and symbols likely would have meant to the author and his original audience at the time.

Questions of authorship and dating for the book will be addressed at various points in the series. For a survey, you may consult any reputable critical commentary; one of the more thorough modern works is the volume (38A) by Craig R. Koester in the Anchor Bible commentary set (Yale: 2014). I have found this volume most helpful, especially for locating passages from Greco-Roman literature which are relevant for explaining the background of the text. References marked “Koester” in the notes are to this work.

Revelation 1:1-3

The book of Revelation is usually regarded as having characteristics of a mixed genre. While it certainly shares many features of “Apocalyptic” literature (which will be discussed), it also follows an epistolary format. Indeed, the overall framework of the book may fairly be described as that of a letter, or epistle. Indeed, the first six verses serve as the epistolary prescript. Verses 1-3 are the superscription, establishing the author’s place and identity, while verses 4-6 are the author’s greeting to his audience. It is important to keep this framework in mind while studying the book.

Verses 1-2

“(An) uncovering of [i.e. by] Yeshua (the) Anointed which God gave to him, to show to his slaves the (thing)s which are necessary to come to be in (all) speed [i.e. swiftly], and he signified (this) sending it forth through his Messenger to his slave Yohanan, who gave witness of the word of God and the witness of Yeshua (the) Anointed—as many (thing)s as he saw.”

a)poka/luyi$ (“uncovering”)—The verb a)pokalu/ptw literally means “take the cover (away) from”, i.e. “uncover”, often in the figurative sense of “reveal”—making known something which has previously been hidden. The verb occurs 26 times in the New Testament, primarily in the Pauline writings (Rom 1:17-18; 8:18; 1 Cor 2:10; 3:13; 14:30; Gal 1:16, et al). The noun occurs 18 times, again mainly in Paul (Rom 2:5; 8:19; 16:25; 1 Cor 1:7; 14:6, 26; 2 Cor 12:1, 7; Gal 1:12; 2:2; 2 Thess 1:7; also Eph 1:17; 3:3; and, elsewhere, in Luke 2:32 [vb. 2:35]; 1 Pet 1:7, 13; 4:13). The noun is largely absent from the Greek Old Testament (LXX), but the verb is used more than 100 times; its occurrence in Daniel ([Theodotion] 2:19, 22, 28, 30, 47; 10:1) is surely significant for the book of Revelation.

 )Ihsou= Xristou= (“of Yeshua [the] Anointed”)—This should be understood as a subjective genitive, i.e. Jesus Christ is the one doing the uncovering (cf. further below). The centrality of Jesus (here the title “Anointed” functions as a second name) in the visions which follow is made clear in the very first words of the book. On the title “Anointed (One)”, consult my series “Yeshua the Anointed”.

h^n e&dwken au)tw=| o( qeo/$ (“which God gave to him”)—That is, God the Father gives the revelation to Jesus (the Son), who, in turn, gives it to the visionary (John). This chain of relation is fundamental to most early Christian thought, and certainly features prominently in the Johannine writings. In the Gospel, especially, Jesus repeatedly emphasizes that what he gives to believers was given to him by the Father (3:34-35; 5:26, etc); moreover, as a faithful and dutiful Son, he says and does only what he hears/sees the Father saying and doing.

dei=cai toi=$ dou/loi$ au)tou= (“to show to his slaves”)—The word dou=lo$ properly means a “slave”, though this can be somewhat misleading in terms of modern ideas and perceptions of slavery, which often imply oppression and lack of human dignity. The word, as applied figuratively among Christians, emphasizes the idea of belonging to a master. Christians are referred to as “slaves” of God/Christ numerous times in the New Testament (Acts 4:29; 16:17; 1 Cor 7:22; 1 Pet 2:16, etc); Paul and other ministers specifically refer to themselves this way (Rom 1:1; 2 Cor 4:5; Gal 1:10; Phil 1:1; Col 4:12; 2 Tim 2:24; Tit 1:1; James 1:1; 2 Pet 1:1; Jude 1). Both positive and negative aspects (cf. Rom 6:16-20) of the word are utilized in the book of Revelation.

a^ dei= gene/sqai (“the [thing]s which are necessary to come to be”)—The plural pronoun (“the [thing]s which”) functions as a collective subject in the phrase “it [sg.] is necessary” (dei=); frequently in the New Testament, this verb refers to the will and/or command of God, as expressed in the Scriptures, or by way of prophetic revelation, etc. In the Gospel tradition, Jesus applies it to his death and resurrection (Mark 8:31 par; Luke 17:25; 22:37; 24:7, 26, 44). Here it specifically relates to the foretelling of future events. The verb of being/becoming, gi/nomai, emphasizes that the things made known in these visions will truly come to pass.

e)n ta/xei (“in [all] speed”)—The word ta/xo$, along with the related noun taxu/[$], is used a number of times in the book (2:16; 3:11; 11:14; 22:6-7, 12, 20), stressing two aspects or characteristics of the visions: (1) the events will happen soon, and (2) their appearance/fulfillment will be sudden and abrupt. In the New Testament, ta/xo$ (“speed, swift[ness]”) only appears in the expression e)n ta/xei, which means “in [i.e. with] (all) speed”, i.e., quickly, right away (cf. Luke 18:8; Acts 12:7; 22:18; Rom 16:20, etc). This expresses the early Christian belief that the end of the current Age, accompanied by Jesus’ return and God’s Judgment upon the world, was imminent. For more on this, see the next daily note (on verse 3).

kai\ e)sh/manen (“and he signified”)—This verbal expression is parallel to the earlier “God gave…”, and reinforced the chain of relationship mentioned above. As God gives the revelation to Jesus, so Jesus, in turn, communicates it to the prophet. The verb (shmai/nw) is related to the word sh=ma, “mark, sign”, and indicates that the message is communicated by way of signs—both language and images (on other occurrences of the verb in this sense, cf. Dan 2:45 LXX; John 12:33; 18:32; Acts 11:28). This stresses the symbolic character of the book, which has proven so difficult for interpreters over the centuries, but which also is the source of its enduring beauty and power.

a)postei/la$ dia\ tou= a)gge/lou au)tou= (“sending [it] forth through his Messenger”)—Jesus communicates the revelation through a heavenly Messenger (‘Angel’); cf. the wording in Malachi 1:1. Frequently in Apocalyptic writings, the message or vision comes by way of an Angel (Ezek 40:3-4; Zech 1:7-6:5; Dan 7:16; 8:15; 1 Enoch 21:5; 22:3; 2 Baruch 55:3, etc; Koester, p. 212). Though the initial vision (vv. 10-18) comes directly from the risen Christ, the remainder of the visions in the book are conveyed by heavenly Messengers; the transition from Jesus to the Messengers occurs in vv. 19-20 and continues throughout the “letters” of chapters 2-3. The verb a)poste/llw conveys the concrete sense of something (or someone, i.e. a messenger) being sent (“set [forth]”) from (a)po/) another—i.e. the revelation comes from Jesus, and is conveyed by his representative.

tw=| dou/lw| au)tou=  )Iwa/nnh| (“to his slave Yohanan”)—On the figurative use of dou=lo$ (“slave”), and its use as a self-designation by early Christian ministers, cf. above. For the name Yohanan (‘John’), cf. the note in my earlier Advent/Christmas series “And you shall call his name…”. The identity of this “John” will be discussed in the notes on verses 4 and 9.

o^$ e)martu/rhsen (“who gave witness [of]”)—The verb marture/w, along with the related nouns marturi/a and martu/$, is used frequently in the New Testament, and conveys the important concept of giving witness. The apostles and early missionaries acted as witnesses of Jesus and his resurrection, and this idea was carried out more generally to the Gospel message and Christian life as whole. Jesus himself was a witness of God the Father, making the Father known to believers; this is a key theme in the Gospel and Letters of John (Jn 3:11; 5:31ff; 8:14ff; 10:25; 18:37, etc), and continues as a (Johannine) theme in the book of Revelation.

to\n lo/gon tou= qeou= (“the word/account of God”)—The object of John’s witness is expressed here by two parallel expressions. The first is “the lo/go$ of God”. The Greek noun lo/go$, as I have noted before, is extremely difficult to translate, consistently, in English. Properly, it is best rendered as “account”, and this is appropriate when it refers to the Gospel message, etc, as it frequently does in the New Testament (Acts 4:31; 6:2; 8:14; 1 Thess 2:13, etc). However, when it refers specifically to communication by God (to a prophet, etc), then it is generally better to use the conventional translation “word”. Both here, and in the next expression, the genitive (“of God”, “of Yeshua”) should be understood as subjective (i.e. the word comes from God) rather than objective (a message about God). It is a standard expression in Prophetic and visionary writings (Isa 1:10; Hos 1:1; Joel 1:1; Jer 1:2; Ezek 1:3, etc).

kai\ th\n marturi/an  )Ihsou= Xristou= (“and the witness of Yeshua [the] Anointed”)—An objective genitive here would mean that it is a witness about Jesus, i.e. the believer is acting as a witness of Christ. This idea certainly features prominently in the book; however, the overall context of these verses argues strongly in favor of a subjective genitive. Again, the chain of relationship, so familiar in the Johannine writings, is emphasized:

    • God speaks, giving the message to Jesus
      • Jesus bears witness to this message, communicating it to believers
        • The believer (here, a chosen prophet), in turn, bears witness of the message to others

o%sa ei@den (“as many [thing]s as he saw”)—This expression qualifies John’s witness, defining and explaining it in terms of the visions recorded in the book. The message is primarily conveyed visually, through images, which the seer (and/or author of the book) translate into written language. This relates back to the verb shmai/nw, “signify”, i.e. make known by signs.

Because of the distinctive (beatitude) form of verse 3, it will be given separate treatment, in the next daily note.

“…Spirit and Life”: John 16:7-15

John 16:7-15

The fourth (and final) reference to the Spirit/Paraclete in the Last Discourse is the most extensive, and comes from the third part or division of the Discourse (cf. my earlier outline of the Discourse):

    • 16:4b-28Discourse/division 3—Jesus’ departure (farewell)
      • The Promise of the Spirit (vv. 4b-15)
        • Initial statement by Jesus on his departure (vv. 4b-7a)
        • The Coming of the Spirit (vv. 7b-11)
        • Concluding statement by Jesus on his departure (vv. 11-15)
      • Jesus’ Departure and Return (vv. 16-24)
        • Initial statement by Jesus on his departure (v. 16)
        • Question by the disciples (vv. 17-18)
        • Jesus’ response: The Promise of his Return (vv. 19-24)
      • Concluding statement by Jesus on his departure (vv. 25-28)

Each of the three main divisions deals with the central theme of Jesus’ departure. Though the Last Discourse is set in the narrative prior to Jesus’ death, much of it has a post-resurrection orientation—that is, it refers primarily to Jesus’ ultimate return back to the Father. This is important for a proper understanding of the Spirit/Paraclete passages. As I indicated in the previous notes, the main role and significance of the para/klhto$ is that he represents the presence of both Jesus (the Son) and God the Father in and with the believer. Primarily, it is the presence of Jesus himself which is emphasized. Once Jesus has returned to the Father, his presence will continue through the Spirit, and this presence will continue “into the Age”—i.e., until the coming of the final Judgment and the new/future Age.

The first section of this division—16:4b-15—deals specifically with the Spirit/Paraclete, prefaced by a restatement of Jesus’ impending departure (vv. 4b-6). This establishes the context for verse 7:

“But I relate the truth to you: it bears together (well) for you that I should go away from (you); for, if I should not go away from (you), the one called alongside [para/klhto$] will not come toward you, but if I travel (away) (then) I will send him toward you.”

This coming of the Spirit represents the deeper meaning of Jesus’ promise that the disciples (and all believers) will see him again. On the surface, this promise more obviously relates to a post-resurrection or future appearance; however, in the context of Johannine theology, and the language of the discourses, where seeing Jesus is the same as knowing/recognizing him, the experience of the Spirit is a true fulfillment of the promise.

The Role of the Spirit/Paraclete in 16:7-15

The role of Spirit/Paraclete is described by Jesus in vv. 8-15, and it follows upon the theme of bearing/giving witness (15:26-27). There the emphasis was specifically on giving witness of Jesus—who he is and what he has said/done—expressed in terms of the Spirit’s role in the disciples’ (and other believers’) witness. Here, the scope of the Spirit’s witness has broadened, in the (eschatological) context of Judgment:

“And, at his coming, he will bring the world to shame/disgrace about sin and about justice and about judgment” (v. 8)

I have translated the verb e)le/gxw here rather literally; however, it is important to note that, in the New Testament, there is usually a legal and ethical connotation to its use—i.e., to expose (sin) and convict a person (of wrong), often with the religious aspect of bringing one to repentance. The “realized” eschatology found throughout the Johannine discourses means that the Spirit fulfills this role in God’s Judgment now, in the present time. Presumably this is done through the inspired witness and teaching of believers (following the train of thought in 15:26-27), though this is not specified here (but note vv. 12ff). In verses 9-11, each of the three subjects (governed by peri/, “about”) are clarified:

    • about sin [a(marti/a$]—in that they do not trust in me” (v. 9)
    • about justice/righteousness [dikaiosu/nh]—in that I lead (myself) back toward the Father and you do not see/observe me any longer” (v. 10)
    • about judgment [kri/si$]—in that the chief/ruler of this world has been judged” (v. 11)

I have always found the logic of this three-fold exposition a bit difficult to follow; it appears to be somewhat inconsistent in its point of reference. However, some confusion is removed, I think, if we realize that it does not so much reflect three parallel elements, as it does a two-part division. I would summarize this as follows:

The evidence brought in judgment against the people in the world follows the basic dualism of the Gospel—believer/non-believer, righteousness vs. sin, etc. Those who belong to the world (non-believers) are governed by sin and darkness, while those who belong to God and Christ by righteousness and light. The situation regarding non-believers is stated simply: “they do not trust in me”. For believers, it is more complex—how is justice/righteousness revealed or made manifest? This is expressed differently, in terms of the very dynamic Jesus is describing in the Discourse: “I lead (myself) under [i.e. go back] toward the Father, and you do not see me any longer”. In other words, the Spirit takes Jesus’ place, as we have already discussed—this is the primary aspect of the Spirit’s witness for believers. It is also the theme of the closing verses (12-15) of this section:

“I hold yet many (thing)s to say/relate to you, but you are not able to bear (them) now; and (yet) when that (one) should come—the Spirit of Truth—he will lead the way for you in(to) all truth…” (vv. 12-13a)

This follows the declarations in 14:25-26 and 15:26-27, but with a more general emphasis on the Spirit’s guidance—he will lead the way into all truth. The basis for this guidance, and the truth which the Spirit possesses, is his distinctive relationship to Jesus (the Son) and God the Father, as expressed throughout the discourses, and again here:

“…for he will not speak from himself, but (rather) whatever (thing)s he shall hear, (those) he will speak and will give a message to you up(on) the (thing)s coming” (v. 13b)

This is precisely parallel to Jesus’ relationship to the Father—he (the Son) speaks only what the Father gives him to say. The Spirit has the same relation to Jesus (the Son)—

“That (one) will give honor to me, (in) that he will receive out of the (thing)s (that are) mine and will give a message up(on them) to you” (v. 14)

which is set clearly in context in the closing declaration:

“All (thing)s whatever that the Father holds are mine—through this [i.e. because of this] I said that he receives out of the (thing)s (that are) mine and will give a message up(on them) to you.” (v. 15)

The Father gives to the Son, the Son then gives to the Spirit, who, in turn, gives to believers. The three-fold chain—Father-Son-Believer—is expanded to four:

Father–Son–Spirit–Believer