Verse 4 of chapter 1 brings about the original opening of the letter as John introduces himself as the writer and the 7 churches as the recipients. He then moves into a formula that also can be seen in many of Paul's letters as he offers grace and peace to those who are reading/hearing the letter.
This though is not just an opening gambit, it also sets up the theme of the whole letter. John in these opening words uses well worn Roman phrases and ideas for YHWH to show his authority over that of the Empire. The grace and peace that John offers in God's name is set against the Pax Romana (peace of Rome) that the churches this letter is written to would have been well aware of.
The next phrase which is seen in a number of forms throughout the letter is also a play on a formula used of Roman deity's. Who is, and who was, and who is to come, sets out the eternal nature of God and is similar to phrases used of Zeus and other Roman god's.
The seven spirits or sevenfold spirit before his throne speaks of the fullness and completeness of the Holy spirit at work in the world. Finally we have the mention of Jesus along with a number of titles which again give him authority over all others. He is the faithful witness to who God is, the first born of the dead opening the way to eternal life for all people having defeated sin and death and finally he is the ruler of the kings of the earth including the Roman emperor.
We can see in this introduction two things, one is that of John setting up the God of these 7 churches over and against the power of Rome. John wants these churches to know from the beginning that although it may look like Rome is in power actually God the Father, Spirit and Son are.
The second point is something that didn't become Christian doctrine till hundreds of years after Jesus died and that is that of the trinity. Although I don't want to go into great detail here about the ins and outs of this belief I want to flag up that here John is very clear in his recognition of the Father, Spirit and Son.
Monday 11 October 2010
Monday 27 September 2010
updates
This is just a quick post to tell you about some of the other updates I have been putting on the site over the last few weeks. If you look to the left-hand side of your screen you should see a number of pages that are situated on this site which contain lots of useful bits of information.
These pages include one that looks at the use of numbers within revelation and the importance of understanding there meaning and why John is using them. Another page looks at the beatitudes of revelation and finally there is a page that gives background information to the locations of Patmos where John had his vision and to that of the 7 churches that he writes to.
These pages are all works in progress and I will update them as I get time or when I find something new I feel is worthy of mention. So, while I compose the next full post on revelation why not browse these pages and see what things you can find out about.
These pages include one that looks at the use of numbers within revelation and the importance of understanding there meaning and why John is using them. Another page looks at the beatitudes of revelation and finally there is a page that gives background information to the locations of Patmos where John had his vision and to that of the 7 churches that he writes to.
These pages are all works in progress and I will update them as I get time or when I find something new I feel is worthy of mention. So, while I compose the next full post on revelation why not browse these pages and see what things you can find out about.
Monday 20 September 2010
John
Verse 4 of chapter 1 leads us to the discussion on the authorship of the book of revelation. The author in 1:1 and 1:4 names himself as John. This to many would be the obvious choice then for the name of the books author. Well yes, but it is important to note that in apocalyptic literature the common practice was to write in the name of an important prophetic figure of the past to give the writing authority. This practice was deemed necessary by the writers of the other apocalyptic books because the time when the Holy Spirit inspired the prophets was only a memory and not a present reality.
We can probably dismiss this practice having taken place in revelation due to two reasons. One, is that for John and his churches the Holy Spirit was not a memory but an active force within the life of Christians (Rev 1:10, 2:7, 22:17) and so prophets and prophesy was alive again. Second, John is obviously a well respected member of the 7 churches and writing under a pseudonym would lessen the authority rather than heighten it.
So we can say with some certainty that the author of revelation was a man called John, but is this the same John that we read of elsewhere. In the NT there is mention of a number of Johns and the early church fathers mentioned sever others;
John the Baptist - Matthew 3:1
John son of Zeebedee and apostle- Matthew 4:21
John Mark - Acts 12:12
John the Elder - author of the epistles 1,2 and 3 John
John the beloved disciple and author of the fourth gospel - if different from John son of Zeebedee
Each of these four have been put forward as revelation's writer but the one most ordinary people will claim as the author is John son of Zeebedee, the apostle of Jesus. As this is the most popular we will deal with this one in full and mention the others where needed.
The prologue of revelation is the real title for this book but on the earliest manuscripts we have the added title of the Apocalypse of John. Later manuscripts have the title Apocalypse of John the Evangelist and later still John the Theologian. This process of the addition of titles to the book has a fairly reasonable answer to it. As the NT books were brought together into the cannon we have today one of the major factors that allowed a book in was that it had apostolic credentials, so if it was written by an apostle it had a greater chance of getting in. This then explains why revelation finds itself with an apostolic title as time goes on.
Some of the early church farther's also pointed towards this John being the author of revelation (Justin Martyr) but for those who stumped for John the apostle others went for someone else (Eusebius quoting Papias). A closer look at revelation itself actually points away from John son of Zeebedee and apostle from being the writer. When ever the author of revelation mentions his name he never adds mention of his apostleship or of him ever having met Jesus in the flesh, both of which would add wait to his credentials and authority of the vision.
So if John son of Zeebedee isn't the writer which other John is. Well it probably isn't John the baptist as he lost his head fairly early on in the gospels so that rules him out. The elusive John Mark never travels with Paul and Barnabas to Asia and there is no mention of him within the church farther's (and he was known as Mark not John). That leaves us with the writer/s of the gospel and the epistle, this leads us back to Eusebius who again quoting an early church farther seems to give us the answer to our question (Eusebius quoting Dionysius).
Dionysius the bishop of Alexandria carried out an analysis of the texts of the gospel, the epistles and revelation and came to the conclusion that the latter's author was not the same as the formers. More recent research has found the same thing. Where as the gospel and epistles are written in fairly fluent Greek, revelation is much more forced and clumsy as if a non-fluent Greek speaker was writing it. Words used by the gospel writer are not used by the writer of revelation and the differences go on and on.
So where does this leave us. Well back at the beginning of this blog, the author of revelation is John a prophet in exile from the churches in Asia minor. Probably a Palestinian Jew who had converted to Christianity (hence the poor Greek but exceptional OT imagery) other than that we know nothing.
We can probably dismiss this practice having taken place in revelation due to two reasons. One, is that for John and his churches the Holy Spirit was not a memory but an active force within the life of Christians (Rev 1:10, 2:7, 22:17) and so prophets and prophesy was alive again. Second, John is obviously a well respected member of the 7 churches and writing under a pseudonym would lessen the authority rather than heighten it.
So we can say with some certainty that the author of revelation was a man called John, but is this the same John that we read of elsewhere. In the NT there is mention of a number of Johns and the early church fathers mentioned sever others;
John the Baptist - Matthew 3:1
John son of Zeebedee and apostle- Matthew 4:21
John Mark - Acts 12:12
John the Elder - author of the epistles 1,2 and 3 John
John the beloved disciple and author of the fourth gospel - if different from John son of Zeebedee
Each of these four have been put forward as revelation's writer but the one most ordinary people will claim as the author is John son of Zeebedee, the apostle of Jesus. As this is the most popular we will deal with this one in full and mention the others where needed.
The prologue of revelation is the real title for this book but on the earliest manuscripts we have the added title of the Apocalypse of John. Later manuscripts have the title Apocalypse of John the Evangelist and later still John the Theologian. This process of the addition of titles to the book has a fairly reasonable answer to it. As the NT books were brought together into the cannon we have today one of the major factors that allowed a book in was that it had apostolic credentials, so if it was written by an apostle it had a greater chance of getting in. This then explains why revelation finds itself with an apostolic title as time goes on.
Some of the early church farther's also pointed towards this John being the author of revelation (Justin Martyr) but for those who stumped for John the apostle others went for someone else (Eusebius quoting Papias). A closer look at revelation itself actually points away from John son of Zeebedee and apostle from being the writer. When ever the author of revelation mentions his name he never adds mention of his apostleship or of him ever having met Jesus in the flesh, both of which would add wait to his credentials and authority of the vision.
So if John son of Zeebedee isn't the writer which other John is. Well it probably isn't John the baptist as he lost his head fairly early on in the gospels so that rules him out. The elusive John Mark never travels with Paul and Barnabas to Asia and there is no mention of him within the church farther's (and he was known as Mark not John). That leaves us with the writer/s of the gospel and the epistle, this leads us back to Eusebius who again quoting an early church farther seems to give us the answer to our question (Eusebius quoting Dionysius).
Dionysius the bishop of Alexandria carried out an analysis of the texts of the gospel, the epistles and revelation and came to the conclusion that the latter's author was not the same as the formers. More recent research has found the same thing. Where as the gospel and epistles are written in fairly fluent Greek, revelation is much more forced and clumsy as if a non-fluent Greek speaker was writing it. Words used by the gospel writer are not used by the writer of revelation and the differences go on and on.
So where does this leave us. Well back at the beginning of this blog, the author of revelation is John a prophet in exile from the churches in Asia minor. Probably a Palestinian Jew who had converted to Christianity (hence the poor Greek but exceptional OT imagery) other than that we know nothing.
Wednesday 15 September 2010
the time is near
This should be a short post and may also shed a little light on the last one. At the end of the first 3 verses of revelation we are told that we should take to heart what is written because the time is near. Without rehashing all that I have already said about how soon is soon I just want to take a quick look at how near this time may be.
As we have already seen, English is a poor language. The problem with English is that we do not have enough words, so time and again we have to lump numerous meanings into one. The word time is one of these words, we read it hear in revelation and again the image that it brings tends to be of a short period of time passing until the events mentioned will take place.
To try to find if this is what is being said we need to look at the two Greek words that are translated as time in our bibles, these are Chronos and Kairos. Chronos which is were we get words like chronicle from and is used by watchmakers world wide to name their brands (Chronoswiss) is a word that depicts a measured piece of time. In the NT it is used to describe a particular moment for something to happen (Acts 1:6, Lk 1:57). A long time (Matt 25:19) or a short time (Jn 12:35).
Chronos is about time which has passed or time that has not yet happened. We can only guess how long something will take us in the future and the reality may be very different, and once it's done we cannot change how long it took. Chronos then is out of our control and it passes by of its own accord, as the sun rises and sets and as the clock ticks away each second.
Kairos though is different, kairos is much more about quality then quantity, it is about what happens in the moment much more than the length of that moment. Kairos is sometimes translated as age, era or season highlighting the emphasis not on the quantity of the time (days, months, years) but on what takes place within that period. Paul tells us that Jesus died for us at the right time (Rom 5:6) and in 2 Corinthians 6:2 we are told of the moment of God's favour.
So to revelation. The writer uses both of these words in the book so we have to take it that he purposefully used a particular word in a particular place for a reason. In the case of revelation 1:3 the Greek word is kairos so the emphasis is much more about what happens in that moment than the length of time that has to pass.
Smalley probably sums up the emphasis of this verse best when he writes;
"So far as the Christian concept of time is concerned, the decisive 'moment' (kairos) dawned with the coming of Jesus... Because of this advent, an hour of fulfilment has arrived, the rule of God has broken in, and we are summoned to a reaction of repentance and faith. In the present verse, John reminds his readers that all time is now therefore critical, and that the present as well as the future, and those that live in them, stand under the 'judgement' of God. The 'moment' is 'approaching'; but it is always pressing in." Smalley, p31
Revelation is a book that reminds its reader that the moment is always approaching, we are always in a place where we need to respond to the good news of Jesus because the Kingdom of God is upon us. If we new the time and date the danger is we would get lazy, we would play the game knowing when the deadline would arrive and doing that which was necessary just in time. Revelation keeps us on our toes, telling us the moment is approaching and we should take to hear its words.
As we have already seen, English is a poor language. The problem with English is that we do not have enough words, so time and again we have to lump numerous meanings into one. The word time is one of these words, we read it hear in revelation and again the image that it brings tends to be of a short period of time passing until the events mentioned will take place.
To try to find if this is what is being said we need to look at the two Greek words that are translated as time in our bibles, these are Chronos and Kairos. Chronos which is were we get words like chronicle from and is used by watchmakers world wide to name their brands (Chronoswiss) is a word that depicts a measured piece of time. In the NT it is used to describe a particular moment for something to happen (Acts 1:6, Lk 1:57). A long time (Matt 25:19) or a short time (Jn 12:35).
Chronos is about time which has passed or time that has not yet happened. We can only guess how long something will take us in the future and the reality may be very different, and once it's done we cannot change how long it took. Chronos then is out of our control and it passes by of its own accord, as the sun rises and sets and as the clock ticks away each second.
Kairos though is different, kairos is much more about quality then quantity, it is about what happens in the moment much more than the length of that moment. Kairos is sometimes translated as age, era or season highlighting the emphasis not on the quantity of the time (days, months, years) but on what takes place within that period. Paul tells us that Jesus died for us at the right time (Rom 5:6) and in 2 Corinthians 6:2 we are told of the moment of God's favour.
So to revelation. The writer uses both of these words in the book so we have to take it that he purposefully used a particular word in a particular place for a reason. In the case of revelation 1:3 the Greek word is kairos so the emphasis is much more about what happens in that moment than the length of time that has to pass.
Smalley probably sums up the emphasis of this verse best when he writes;
"So far as the Christian concept of time is concerned, the decisive 'moment' (kairos) dawned with the coming of Jesus... Because of this advent, an hour of fulfilment has arrived, the rule of God has broken in, and we are summoned to a reaction of repentance and faith. In the present verse, John reminds his readers that all time is now therefore critical, and that the present as well as the future, and those that live in them, stand under the 'judgement' of God. The 'moment' is 'approaching'; but it is always pressing in." Smalley, p31
Revelation is a book that reminds its reader that the moment is always approaching, we are always in a place where we need to respond to the good news of Jesus because the Kingdom of God is upon us. If we new the time and date the danger is we would get lazy, we would play the game knowing when the deadline would arrive and doing that which was necessary just in time. Revelation keeps us on our toes, telling us the moment is approaching and we should take to hear its words.
Wednesday 1 September 2010
how soon is soon?
Continuing with the first verse of revelation (at this rate it will take me forever to get through it) we come to the other phrase that lends itself to certain interpretations of the book that see this as a foretelling of what is to come in the future.
The phrase in English are usually translated as either must soon take place (NIV, ESV and others) or something similar along the lines of must happen quickly. As we read the sentence in plain English we automatically put upon the text our understanding of what the phrase means. If I were to use it in another context most of you would assume that what I am about to do will take place in the next few months if not weeks or hours.
So in the context of revelation do we take it that all that is to follow will take place in the same manner that I am about to play football soon. You may see where I am going with this, revelation was written nearly 2000 years ago so if these things must soon take place, why have we not seen them occur.
To be honest I don't have the exact answer, I can offer some thoughts on what may be meant here but we may never know exactly.
One thing to note first is that the Greek word used here is en tachei, this is one of only two uses of the word in revelation and it is interesting to note that as well as here in the first chapter its only other use is in the final chapter. In other places the writer of revelation chooses to use tachu which is a more common word in Greek to mean quickly or soon.
I could only offer mere speculation to why the different words are being used here but there could be a good reason for it or it could just be the writer deciding to change his mind.
As I have looked around I have seen some who have used this word to reject revelation as heretical (what is said to happen soon has not happened so its a lie and should be thrown out). I have seen some who have reinterpreted the word in light of scriptures such as 2 Peter 3:8 to show that what we think of as soon is very different in God's eyes. There is probably numerous other interpretations out there as well that try to make sense of how soon soon is.
All I can say now is that maybe we need to explore the rest of the book to see what is being shared with the reader. Maybe we need to here what has happened, is happening and will happen to understand when soon is.
To be honest I don't have the exact answer, I can offer some thoughts on what may be meant here but we may never know exactly.
One thing to note first is that the Greek word used here is en tachei, this is one of only two uses of the word in revelation and it is interesting to note that as well as here in the first chapter its only other use is in the final chapter. In other places the writer of revelation chooses to use tachu which is a more common word in Greek to mean quickly or soon.
I could only offer mere speculation to why the different words are being used here but there could be a good reason for it or it could just be the writer deciding to change his mind.
As I have looked around I have seen some who have used this word to reject revelation as heretical (what is said to happen soon has not happened so its a lie and should be thrown out). I have seen some who have reinterpreted the word in light of scriptures such as 2 Peter 3:8 to show that what we think of as soon is very different in God's eyes. There is probably numerous other interpretations out there as well that try to make sense of how soon soon is.
All I can say now is that maybe we need to explore the rest of the book to see what is being shared with the reader. Maybe we need to here what has happened, is happening and will happen to understand when soon is.
Thursday 29 July 2010
apokalupsis iēsou christou
These three words start the book of revelation, translated literally it reads 'revelation Jesus Christ' but is usually translated into English as either 'The revelation of Jesus Christ' (NIV, ESV, NASB, ISV, KJB) or 'A revelation of Jesus Christ' (YLT). The rest of the first verse tells us that this revelation of Jesus was given to him by God to pass on to his servants and that what is said will take place soon.
To begin with I want to mention something I recently stumbled upon whilst listening to something on the book of revelation and reading the verses again. It seems to be the way these things happen, you read a verse hundreds of times and never see something, then suddenly it hits you and you can't believe you missed it before. The revelation of Jesus Christ, say it a few times out loud, sounds to me like John is telling us what this vision is about. A revelation of Jesus Christ, who he is, what he has done, what he is doing and what he will do. Maybe John, having seen this vision and committing it to text decided to put in its introduction the meaning of what had been revealed to him. Not a revelation of the end times or a vision of the Armageddon but an unveiling of Jesus Christ.
On a more critical note a closer look at the first word of the book begins to show us some important things. Apokalupsis is only used this once in the entire book of revelation and is one of 18 uses of the word in the NT. It comes from the word apokalupto which means to reveal, lay bare or uncover. Keller points out that this word has links to the stripping off of clothes and a look through the LXX shows that the word is used either for the revealing or uncovering of God's truth (1 Sam 2:27, Am 3:7) or the removing of clothes to reveal the naked body or as a euphemism for sexual intercourse (Lv 18:6, Ez 16:36).
The image that comes to my mind is that of the crucifixion accounts where Jesus is stripped of his clothes and hangs dying on the cross. This though is not defeat but victory, what is happening in this moment is not the end but something much greater. As the physical signs of the temple curtain splitting, the earth shaking and the sky darkening took place something unseen was taking place. Something no one saw but was as real as the gruesome death taking place on that hill. Maybe that which was unseen, hidden from those who had joined this developing faith needed to hear what had happened. Maybe that is what revelation is about, the unveiling of what Jesus Christ has accomplished, the revealing of all that has happened so those that believe can stand firm in their faith.
To begin with I want to mention something I recently stumbled upon whilst listening to something on the book of revelation and reading the verses again. It seems to be the way these things happen, you read a verse hundreds of times and never see something, then suddenly it hits you and you can't believe you missed it before. The revelation of Jesus Christ, say it a few times out loud, sounds to me like John is telling us what this vision is about. A revelation of Jesus Christ, who he is, what he has done, what he is doing and what he will do. Maybe John, having seen this vision and committing it to text decided to put in its introduction the meaning of what had been revealed to him. Not a revelation of the end times or a vision of the Armageddon but an unveiling of Jesus Christ.
On a more critical note a closer look at the first word of the book begins to show us some important things. Apokalupsis is only used this once in the entire book of revelation and is one of 18 uses of the word in the NT. It comes from the word apokalupto which means to reveal, lay bare or uncover. Keller points out that this word has links to the stripping off of clothes and a look through the LXX shows that the word is used either for the revealing or uncovering of God's truth (1 Sam 2:27, Am 3:7) or the removing of clothes to reveal the naked body or as a euphemism for sexual intercourse (Lv 18:6, Ez 16:36).
The image that comes to my mind is that of the crucifixion accounts where Jesus is stripped of his clothes and hangs dying on the cross. This though is not defeat but victory, what is happening in this moment is not the end but something much greater. As the physical signs of the temple curtain splitting, the earth shaking and the sky darkening took place something unseen was taking place. Something no one saw but was as real as the gruesome death taking place on that hill. Maybe that which was unseen, hidden from those who had joined this developing faith needed to hear what had happened. Maybe that is what revelation is about, the unveiling of what Jesus Christ has accomplished, the revealing of all that has happened so those that believe can stand firm in their faith.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)