Exegesis and Theology

The Blog of Brian Collins

Scripture Meditations for Election Day

by

These were the Scripture passages that were on my Bible reading schedule for today.

“It is an honor for a man to keep aloof from strife, but every fool will be quarreling” (Prov. 20:3).

Psalm 15

A Psalm of David.
O Lord, who shall sojourn in your tent?
Who shall dwell on your holy hill?
He who walks blamelessly and does what is right
and speaks truth in his heart;
who does not slander with his tongue
and does no evil to his neighbor,
nor takes up a reproach against his friend;
in whose eyes a vile person is despised,
but who honors those who fear the Lord;
who swears to his own hurt and does not change;
who does not put out his money at interest
and does not take a bribe against the innocent.
He who does these things shall never be moved.

Ezekiel 20 was also part of my Bible reading schedule this morning. That chapter recounts God’s blessing on Israel, Israel’s rebellion, and God’s judgment upon Israel. While the United States ought not be equated with Israel, we do know from other Scriptures that God also blesses and judges Gentile nations.

Two Excellent Articles about Voting as a Christian

by

The two best articles that I’ve read this election season about voting are:

Jonathan Leeman, “What Makes a Vote Moral or Immoral? The Ethics of Voting.”

and

John Piper, “Policies, Persons, and Paths to Ruin.”

Instead of addressing the particulars of this election, both articles provide Christian readers with Scriptural considerations by which to reach those conclusions. Because they deal with issues on a broadly Scriptural and principial level, I think both these articles will stand the test of time and remain useful for Christians seeking to fear God and honor him as they vote in future elections as well.

Leeman offers nine principles to guide Christians as they vote:

  • “1. Your vote bears moral weight by virtue of a chain of causation.”
  • “2. With regard to what a vote does, your motives don’t matter (but see point 8).
  • “3. There’s a distinction between morally permissible laws and immoral laws which is crucial to our moral evaluations.”
  • “4. The character of a candidate matters by the same chain of moral causation described in point 1.”
  • “5. Saying ‘But Democracy!’ doesn’t sanctify your vote. … The Bible never guarantees one of the two major candidates in an American election is a righteous choice.”
  • “6. There are a number of rocks on the scale, but some rocks are heavier than others.”

Can one issue disqualify a candidate? Hopefully every Christian would say that a pro-stealing, or pro-pedophilia, or pro-slavery candidate is disqualified, no matter how good he or she is on other issues. I wish everyone would arrive at this conclusion on abortion.

Also, can bad character disqualify a candidate, potentially outweighing the other rocks on the scale? If what we said above is true—that bad [character] authorizes and creates moral space for immoral activity—it’s hard to see how bad character cannot disqualify someone.

Imagine how radically the political landscape would change if every Christian in the United States embraced the last two paragraphs. Some will call this idealism, which might be a fair critique if “idealism” means acting on principles, not outcomes. That, too, is something you must weigh: pure principles vs. realistic outcomes. My recommendation is to weigh these things preparing yourself for the Lord’s final judgment.

  • “7. Is it morally permissible to note vote or to vote for a candidate that is certain to lose? It depends.”
  • “8. With regard to church membership, your motives matter.”
  • “9. In the final analysis, ethically evaluating our votes involves both moral principles and strategic calculations.”

Each of these principles requires unpacking, which Leeman does in his article. Tolle lege.

While Leeman’s article is broad, trying to capture a holistic ethic for voting, Piper’s article is narrowly focused on the issue of a candidate’s character. This article is compelling because it is Scripture saturated. Here’s one excerpt:

There is a character connection between rulers and subjects. When the Bible describes a king by saying, “He sinned and made Israel to sin” (1 Kings 14:16), it does not mean he twisted their arm. It means his influence shaped the people. That’s the calling of a leader. Take the lead in giving shape to the character of your people. So it happens. For good or for ill.

Some evangelicals have dissented to Piper’s article, but those which I’ve encountered have not engaged the Scriptures that Piper raised. There is one main objection to the article: If their favored candidate, whom they concede has poor character, loses the election, policies that are contrary to Scripture will be enacted. This argument rests on a consequentialist ethic, which is not a biblical ethic. To be sure, Christians need to be sure that the consequences of their actions are pleasing to God. But they must also be sure that their motives are pleasing to God and that their actions themselves do not violate God’s revealed will. In other words, it is never right to do wrong in order to get a chance to do right. (As to how to assess right in wrong when voting, see Leeman’s excellent article.)

In the end, these are the factors that weigh most with me:

  • I will give an account to God for my vote. To be able to give a good account with a clear conscience is the most important thing in this election.
  • In my work in the field of Christian worldview shaping, I’ve seen that a significant danger for Christians who wish to change the world (or their nation) is the temptation to compromise truth or righteousness to gain access to the power needed to effect the change. In the end, the gains are illusory and the costs are great. Though I desire to see our nation transformed for Christ, and though I want Christians to use their influence within culture to press toward righteousness in every aspect of our society, faithfulness to the God of truth and righteousness must always be more important that gaining political or cultural power.
  • I live in South Carolina, and South Carolina is not a swing state. If the president loses South Carolina, he’s already lost; if the Vice President wins, he’s already won. Therefore, I should feel no pressure to compromise biblical principles in my vote.

Logos 9 Review

by

Logos 9 released today. I’ve been using a review copy for the past several weeks, and the following are my favorite new features (along with some ideas for future improvement).

Dark Mode

Faithlife, the makers of Logos Bible Software, said that dark mode was their top requested feature. It was certainly at the top of my wish list. I often split the screen on my Surface, with Logos on one side and OneNote on the other. Using OneNote in dark mode and Logos without was less than ideal.

Logos did a good job with dark mode. Though the addition of this mode may seem like a small change, I’m sure that’s not how the programmers felt! They had to take into account, for instance, all the highlights that users have applied to their Bible’s and other books. I’ve found that these transitioned well.

I was also pleased to see that Logos lets users set the mode to match their operating system mode. (In future, I’d like the Logos mobile app to include this feature).

Switching modes does require a program restart. Feature idea for Logos 10: When the program is in dark mode, allow users to toggle the background of the panels between light and dark, as OneNote does.

Microsoft OneNote’s Switch Background Button

Factbook

The Factbook is the major new feature for Logos 9. The larger your Logos library is, the more benefit you get from various Logos features. On the other hand, the larger a Logos library gets, the more difficult it becomes to find certain information. Searches can generate a mountain of results, and it can take hours to sort the wheat from the chaff.  

For years, Logos has included dynamic guides that help address this challenge: the Bible Word Study Guide, Exegetical Guide, the Passage Guide, the Theology Guide, etc. The new Factbook doesn’t replace these guides, but it is designed to be the new starting place for searches about any topic. I’ve found that if I type a term in the Go Box and hit enter, my search will open in the new Factbook. And given the way the new Factbook works, that’s precisely what I want it to do.

The Factbook will handle searches for a wide variety of searches: Greek or Hebrew words, biblical passages, theological topics, names of Biblical people or significant Christian leaders, and much more. The results returned will vary based on the content searched for, but the entries follow a similar pattern: brief definition, key article, key passages (if relevant), related historical events (if relevant), key books on the topic or by the person, dictionary articles, journal articles, links to launch related guides or searches.

Factbook: Theological Topic
Factbook: Person

Commentary View

A listing of commentaries will often appear within various guides and, now, within Factbook entries. These now helpfully list the authors alongside the titles (very helpful, since many commentaries share the same titles). Logos 9 also now provides different ways to sort the commentaries: by user priority, series, author, type, or era. This is a small change that translates into a large advance in useability.

Commentary View: Sorted by Priority
Commentary View: Sorted by Type

Visuals

Logos 9 has refined or introduced a number of helpful new visuals. Charts are more easily generated and viewed from searches. They now open in a separate charts tab.

The Bible Books Explorer offers a variety of visuals. For instance, it will display date ranges for when the books of the Bible were written. No longer will I need to flip through a NT Introduction or an OT Introduction to remind myself when a book was thought to be written. Of course, different scholars differ about the dates for some of the biblical books. Helpfully, the user can choose the source that generates the chart.

The Intertext tab in the Bible Books Explorer shows how different books of the Bible relate to one another via quotation, citations, allusion, or echo. This is visually helpful in a general way, but I was also left wishing I had access to the underlying data (and that I had the ability to edit it according to my own studies).

Other Features

Logos 9 has a slew of other new features that I’ll list here but won’t cover in any detail below since they are not features that I personally use.

  • A new sermon builder
  • A sermon manager that allows pastors to browse their sermons by date, passage, topic, etc.
  • The sermon manager also allows a pastor to plan sermons series for the year in a visually striking radial calendar.
  • A new counseling guide
  • Images can be added to notes

While these are not features I use, the sermon manager looks like a very helpful addition for pastors.

Touch

I use Logos on a Surface Pro 6, and, in general, Logos 9 works well with touch. I’m glad to be able to use the full-featured program on a tablet form factor.

However, while the main resources respond to touch, the interactives do not. Worse, the new Logos 9 Factbook does not respond to touch. (Oddly, visually similar Guides do respond to touch.) This is frankly unacceptable. Windows devices have had touch for the past decade, and a Windows program in which touch works only selectively is broken. Logos would not release an iPad app in which some features could only be accessed via keyboard and mouse, and the same should be true of their Windows app.

Verdict

Logos 8 was a substantial update from Logos 7. Logos 9 builds on the changes that Logos 8 introduced. The keynote features of Logos 9 bring significant refinements to the program that increase its value and usefulness.

If you are interested in upgrading, doing so via this link will give you a 15% discount on base packages and five free additional books from a pre-selected list.

Who is the “Israel of God” in Galatians 6:16?

by

Question: Whether the “Israel of God” in Galatians 6:16 refers to all believing Jews and Gentiles, to Jewish Christians only, or to elect Israelites who will be saved?

NA28: καὶ ὅσοι τῷ κανόνι τούτῳ στοιχήσουσιν, εἰρήνη ἐπʼ αὐτοὺς καὶ ἔλεος καὶ ἐπὶ τὸν Ἰσραὴλ τοῦ θεοῦ.

NRSV: “As for those who will follow this rule—peace be upon them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.”

Positions

1. “Israel of God” refers to all believing Jews and Gentiles, that is to the new creation/new covenant people of God, the church.

NIV84: “Peace and mercy to all who follow this rule, even to the Israel of God.”

NIV2011: “Peace and mercy to all who follow this rule—to the Israel of God.”

  • a. Several exegetes argue that the “decisive” consideration is Paul’s argument within Galatians (Cowan 2010: 80; Schreiner 2010: 383; Moo 2013: 403; cf. Longenecker 1990: 298; Köstenberger 2001: 17-18). If Paul distinguishes between Jews and Gentiles within the church, he has undercut the message of the book (and the “rule” [6:16a] laid down in 6:15). Paul’s main point has been the lack of distinction between circumcision and uncircumcision (6:15), between Jew and Gentile, who are one in Christ (3:28). Paul has maintained that Gentiles, with Jews, are the seed of Abraham (3:6-9, 14, 16, 26-29; 4:21-31); together they comprise the new Israel, the Israel of God (Woudstra 1988: 235; Longenecker 1990: 298; Beale 1999: 205; Robertson 2000: 41; Köstenberger 2001: 4, 15-16; Cowan 2010: 80; Schreiner 2010: 382-83).
  • b. An appositional use of καί, as required by view 1, is possible, see Acts 5:21 (Beale 1999: 204; Köstenberger 2001:13; Moo 2013: 401; cf. Schreiner 2010: 382; BDAG, s.v. καί, 1c;). Cowan argues this is the most likely option because whichever option has the greatest semantic redundancy is linguistically preferred (Cowan 2010: 81; but see Moo 2013: 401-2).
  • c. Schreiner and Moo seek to cast doubt on the idea that Paul always used Israel to refer to ethnic Israel, noting that Romans 9:6 and 11:26 are debated (though both argue in their Romans commentaries that those verses refer to ethnic Israel). In the end, they hold that point a. overrides usage considerations (Schreiner 2010: 382, Moo 2013:402-3; cf. Schreiner 2018: 483, 598-99).
  • d. Paul’s reference to an “Israel according to the flesh” (1 Cor. 10:18), implies an “Israel according to the Spirit,” which would be the church (Perkins 2015: 560; Lightfoot 1874: 224-25; Schreiner 2010: 382; Moo 2013: 402-3). Further Cowan argues that the “concept” of the church as Israel “is ubiquitous” in the NT (Rom. 2:28-29; 8:14; 28; 33; 1 Cor. 1:24; Gal. 3:7, 26; Eph. 1:4; 2:21-22; Phil. 3:2-3; Col 3:12; 1 Thess. 1:4) (Cowan 2010: 80).
  • e. Galatians 6:16 alludes to Isaiah 54:10, and this background requires understanding “Israel of God” as inclusive of Gentiles. “[T]his was a prophecy for Israel, with the implication, therefore, that it was not a prophecy for the redeemed nations except as they identify with Israel, convert to Israel’s faith, and take refuge under the umbrella of Israel and Israel’s God” (Beale 1999: 217, n. 36).

2. “Israel of God” refers to Jewish Christians, a subset of “all who walk by this rule.”                 

NKJV: “And as many as walk according to this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God.”

ESV: “And as for all who walk by this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God.”

  • a. The copulative use of καί allows for understanding Israel as a distinct group within all those who will walk by this rule (Eadie 470; Johnson 1986: 192). The “kai may single out for special attention someone or something from a larger body or element”; see Mark 16:7 (Johnson 1986: 184, n. 22). This view is preferred since the appositional use of καί is rare and never occurs in this construction (Eadie 1979: 470; Burns 1999: 275; Vlach 2010: 143).
  • b. The Bible in general, and Paul in particular, does not use Israel to refer to anything other than ethnic Israel (or a subgroup within ethnic Israel) (Eadie 1979: 470-71; Johnson 1986: 192; Vlach 2010: 143). The genitive “of God” indicates that believing Jews are in view here (Burns 1999: 275).
  • c. It is contextually more likely that the reference was to believing Jews within the church than to elect Jews who will be saved in the future (view 3) (Burns 1999: 276).
  • d. Paul’s purpose in highlighting believing Israel is to indicate that his condemnations of the Judaizers were not directed to believing Jews (Vlach; Ngewa 2010: 194, n. 340). Indeed, Paul is here commending the Jews who have joined with the Gentiles in the church (Ngewa 2010: 169).

3. “Israel of God” refers to elect Israelites who will be saved.

CSB: “May peace come to all those who follow this standard, and mercy even to the Israel of God!”

Johnson (reflecting Burton): “And as many as shall walk by this rule, peace be upon them, and mercy also upon the Israel of God.”

  • a. The Bible in general, and Paul in particular, does not use Israel to refer to anything other than ethnic Israel (or a subgroup within ethnic Israel) (Burton 1920: 357-58; Johnson 1986: 192; Allison 2012: 85).
  • b. The order “peace” followed by “mercy” is unusual. Logically, the bestowal of mercy precedes the bestowal of peace (Burton 1920: 357; Allison 85-86; cf. Moo 2013: 402). In addition, there is a “symmetry” in the verse between
    εἰρήνη ἐπ’ αὐτοὺς
    καὶ
    ἔλεος καὶ ἐπὶ τὸν Ἰσραὴλ τοῦ θεοῦ
    that suggests two distinct groups with two distinct blessings are in view (Moo 2013: 402).
  • c. If the first group, “those who follow this standard,” refer to redeemed Jews and Gentiles who receive God’s peace, the second group still stands in need of God’s mercy. Thus, the reference is to yet unredeemed Israel. The genitive “of God” indicates that the elect remnant of Israel is in view. Paul is expressing his prayer for mercy to be shown to this remnant that they might be saved (Burton 1920: 358). Paul has hope that those Jews who already followed the standard laid out in v. 15 were “a pledge that this remnant would increase until, with the ingathering of the full tale (πλήρωμα) of Gentiles, ‘all Israel will be saved’ [Rom. 11:26]” (Bruce 1982: 275; cf. George 1994: 440).
  • d. The rationale for this reading is clear. Paul began Galatians by pronouncing damnation on those who preached another gospel, a Judaizing gospel. Now Paul closes the letter by expressing his hope that God will show mercy to Israel (Burton 1920: 358; Allison 85).
  • e. On this understanding, the third καί in the verse is “slightly ascensive” (Burton 1920: 358) or “adjunctive” (Johnson 1983: 186, n. 31).
  • f. G. K. Beale persuasively argues that Isaiah 54:10 provides the OT background to Galatians 6:16. This background favors position 3. Isaiah 54:10 is about the salvific restoration of the nation of Israel in connection with the day of the Lord. The peace referred to in this verse refers to the covenant of peace, or new covenant. This covenant, as may be inferred from the inclusion of the Gentiles in Isaiah 54, and as may be understood from the NT, includes Gentile believers. The mercy, however, refers specifically to the restoration of the nation Israel (in distinction from Gentiles, who are mentioned within the context).

Rejected Positions

1. “Israel of God” refers to all believing Jews and Gentiles, that is to the new creation/new covenant people of God, the church.

  • a. This position contradicts the main thrust of Paul’s argument in Galatians, and thus cannot be correct. Notably, the Judaizers held that there should be no distinctions between Jewish and Gentile Christians―Gentiles, they argued, must become Jews by obeying the Mosaic law. Beale’s claim that Isaiah 54 teaches that the Gentiles must “identity with Israel” is ironically close to message of Paul’s opponents―except that Beale has spiritualized Israel. By contrast, Paul’s argument in Galatians is that Gentile Christians do not need to become Jews. Thus, it would be out of character with the book for Paul to close by identifying Gentile Christians as Israel. “His point has been to deflate the importance of Jewish identity, so why would he suddenly refer to the church” as Israel (Allison 2012: 86; cf. Saucy 1988: 247).
  • b. It is not valid to argue that since both the church and Israel are identified as the seed of Abraham, the church is Israel. This “is a textbook example of the fallacy of the undistributed middle” (Johnson 1986: 190-91). The labels “sons of Abraham” and “seed of Abraham” do not identify the church with Israel because Abraham is the father of many nations. “Israel according to the flesh” (1 Cor. 10:18) in context refers not to ethnic Israel but to sinful Israel (Garland 2003: 478-79; Thiselton 2000: 771-72; Taylor 2014: 2014: 242). Identifying Christians as the true circumcision (Phil. 3:3) is not a claim that the church is Israel but is a claim that the church is part of the new covenant, which provides for the circumcision of the heart (Saucy 1993: 202-3; Bockmuehl 1997: 191). The fact that OT language that applied to Israel is used of the church need not mean that the church is the new Israel since each are the people of God in their respective testaments. Romans 2:28-29 is the most likely passage in which a Gentile Christian may be identified as a Jew. Verse 27 refers to a Gentile who is circumcised in the heart condemning the circumcised Jew who breaks the law. However, in the broader context of 2:12-3:4 may well indicate that the law-keeping Gentile in 2:27 is a hypothetical comparison; chapter 3 certainly continues to use Jew in its ethnic sense. It may be best, then, to understand Romans 2:28-29 along the same lines as Romans 9:6 (Vlach 2010: 146-47; Saucy 1993: 197-98; Blaising and Bock 1993: 269; cf. Cranfield 1975: 175-76). Far from being a ubiquitous concept in the NT, under close examination no passage clearly teaches this concept. The word Israel, as all acknowledge, is not used with the meaning of new covenant people of God or church anywhere else in the Bible (Johnson 1986: 190; Saucy 1988: 246).
  • c. Paul does not eliminate all distinctions within the people of God. For instance, Paul can say that men and women are equal in Christ even while differentiating their roles within the church (Gal. 3:28; 1 Tim. 2:8-15). Similarly, Paul in Galatians is not arguing against “distinctions that separate Jewish and Gentile Christians” (to cite Köstenberger 2001: 15-16). That was the argument of the Judaizers, who maintained that Jew and Gentile alike should obey the Mosaic law. Rather, Paul was arguing for freedom from the Mosaic law. He continues to distinguish between Jew and Gentile within the church (Gal. 2:3, 12, 14; Rom. 4:11-12; 11:13) even while maintaining their unity in Christ (Gal. 3:28).
  • d. It would be strange for Paul to introduce a major new theological topic, that the church is a new Israel, here at the end of the letter. It would be even stranger for Paul to introduce this idea off-handedly at the end of Galatians and not return to it in the extended discussion of Romans 9-11 (George 1994: 349-40).
  • e. Cowan’s proposal for an appositional use of καί being the most preferable usage does not seem to be granted even by those holding his position (cf. Moo 2013: 401-2). Though this use of καί is possible, if Paul wished to communicate an appositional sense, he would have communicated this more clearly by leaving off the final καί altogether (Johnson 1986: 188; Campbell 1993: 441; notably, this is how the NIV 2011 translates the verse; compare with the more literal NRSV).

2. “Israel of God” refers to Jewish Christians, a subset of “all who walk by this rule.”

  • a. This position does not account for the order of “peace” followed by “mercy” as well as view 3.
  • b. This position’s rationale for why Paul singles out Jews within the church for a special blessing is weaker than that given view 3. The rationale given seems a bit ad hoc.
  • c. Though the argument that Paul would not distinguish between Jews and Gentiles in the church is overstated, it does seem a bit odd that Paul would single out the Jewish members of the church for a special blessing at the end of this letter.

Accepted Position:

3. “Israel of God” refers to elect Israelites who will be saved.

  • a. This position handles all of the data the best: It best coheres with the overall message of the book, it understands καί and Israel in line with their typical usage, it pays close attention to word order and logical flow, it coheres well with Paul’s thought in other epistles, and it best accounts for the allusion to Isaiah 54:10.
  • b. Robertson claims that the views of Eadie and Burton violate the rule Paul articulated in 6:15 (Robertson 2000: 42, nn. 5 and 6). This is certainly not the case with Burton. View 3 understands Paul as praying for the salvation of elect-but-not-yet-converted Jews. This view thus avoids the criticism that Paul was singling out Jewish believers for a special blessing (Allison 2012: 85).
  • c. Johnson concedes, “There may exist some question regarding the exegetical aptness of the eschatological perspective. That certainly has not been one of the major emphases of the Galatian epistle as a whole.” However, he also observes, “but in the immediate context it is very appropriate psychologically, providing a note of hope and expectation after a stern and severe admonition” (Johnson 1986: 194).

Bibliography: Galatians Commentaries: Bruce NIGTC (1982); Burton, ICC (1920); Calvin, (2010); Eadie (1979); George, NAC (1994); Lightfoot (1974);Longenecker, WBC, (1990); Luther, Lectures on Galatians, 1535, Luther’s Works, vol. 27 (1999); Moo BECNT (2013); Ngewa, ABCS (2010);  Perkins, The Works of William Perkins, vol. 2 (2015); Schreiner, ZECNT (2010) Articles: G. K. Beale, “Peace and Mercy Upon the Israel of God: The Old Testament Background of Galatians 6,16b,” Biblica 80 (1999): 204-23; J. L. Burns, “Israel and the Church of a Progressive Dispensationalist,” in Three Central Issues in Contemporary Dispensationalism (1999); W. S. Campbell, “Israel,” in Dictionary of Paul and His Letters (1993); C. W. Cowan, “Context is Everything: ‘The Israel of God’ in Galatians 6:16; SBJT 14, no. 3 (2010): 78-82; S. L. Johnson, Jr., “Paul and the ‘Israel of God’: An Exegetical Case Study,” in Essays in Honor of J. Dwight Pentecost (1986); A.  Köstenberger, “The Identity of the ᾿Ισραηλ Του Θεου (Israel of God) in Galatians 6:16,” Faith and Mission 19, no. 1 (2001): 3-18; O. P. Robertson, “The Israel of God: It’s People,” in The Israel of God: Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow (2000); R. L. Saucy, “Israel and the Church: A Case for Discontinuity,” in Continuity and Discontinuity: Essays in Honor of S. Lewis Johnson, Jr. (1988); Woudstra, “Israel and the Church: A Case for Continuity,” in Continuity and Discontinuity: Essays in Honor of S. Lewis Johnson, Jr. (1988); Other: G. R. Allison, Sojourners and Strangers: The Doctrine of the Church (2012); C. A. Blaising and D. L. Bock, Progressive Dispensationalism (1993); M. Bockmuehl, The Epistle to the Philippians, BNTC (1997); C. E. B. Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans, ICC (1975); D. E. Garland, 1 Corinthians, BECNT (2003); R. L. Saucy, The Case for Progressive Dispensationalism (1993); T. R. Schreiner, Romans, BECNT, 2nd ed. (2018); M. A. Taylor, 1 Corinthians, NAC (2014); A. C. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, NIGTC (2000); M. J. Vlach, Has the Church Replaced Israel? (2010).

What does it mean that the things prophesied in Revelation “must soon take place” (Rev. 1:1)?

by

G. K. Beale, who holds an idealist position claims that the term “soon” “appears to denote fulfillment in the near future, which perhaps has already begun in the present” (Beale 1999: 153). Peter Leithart, who holds a preterist position, insists that “soon” should be read in a straightforward manner and not trimmed or reinterpreted (Leithart 2018: 70-71).

However, there are good reasons for understanding the things which “must soon take place” to be the events of the Second Coming.

a. Revelation 1:1, 3 are paralleled in 22:6-7, 10, 12, 20. The ambiguous expressions “soon take place” and “the time is near” are clarified by the words of Jesus in 22:7, 12, 20: “I am coming soon.”

b. Other Scriptures speak of the Second Coming or its accompanying events as coming “soon,” “near,” “at hand,” etc. (Charles 1920: 6; Ladd 1972: 22; Osborne 2002: 55; Schreiner 2018: 549-50; Fanning 2020: 75).

Deuteronomy 32:35: “for the day of their calamity is at hand, And their doom comes swiftly.’” If this “doom” refers to an eschatological judgment (Jonathan Edwards 2006: 390-10; Jamison, Faussett, and Brown, 1:706; cf. Block 2012: 764.), the swiftness would have to be reckoned from God’s point of view.

Obadiah 15: “For the day of Yhwh is near upon all the nations.” Though Obadiah is focused on the judgment of Edom, this verse, encompassing as it does all the nations, is eschatological in scope (Raabe 1996: 191; Busenitz 2003: 270; Block 2013: 81; Rogland 2018: 383). There are two possible scriptural explanations for the use of this terminology. First, “what human beings consider ‘near’ need not be the same for God, for whom a ‘thousand years’ are ‘as a watch in the night’ (Ps. 90:4; cf. 2 Pet. 3:8–9)” (Rogland 2018: 383). Second, the Hebrew term translated “near” often “often expresses physical rather than temporal proximity” (Rogland 2018: 383). Thus the image would be of a threat that is always close by (See Raabe 1996: 192; Block 2013: 84).

Joel 3:14: “For the day of the Lord is near in the valley of decision.” Joel 1:15 and 2:1 also refer to the day of the Lord as “near,” but those verses likely refer to a historical day of the Lord (Finley 1990: 35, 40-42; Seitz 2016: 149-50; cf. Garret 1997: 328). This verse refers to the eschatological day of the Lord, but the statement of nearness should be considered as interior to the prophecy, not as measured from Joel’s time. Thus, this verse is not relevant to the question at hand.

Isaiah 13:6: “Wail, for the day of the Lord is near.” The day of the Lord in this chapter likely refers both to a historical judgment against Babylon and to the ultimate eschatological day of the Lord (Young, 1:419; Grogan, EBC, 101; Webb 1996: 81; Raabe 2002: 652-74; Adams 2007: 43-44; cf. Wolf 1985: 110; Oswalt 1986: 299.). It may be that the statement about nearness is “not from the standpoint of Isaiah’s own day,” but from the standpoint of those who experience the fulfillment of the prophecy (Young, 1:419). Or it may speak to “the total preparedness of that day to dawn whenever the Lord declares that the time has come” (Motyer, 138).

Zephaniah 1:7, 14: “Be silent before the Lord GOD! For the day of the LORD is near…. The great day of the LORD is near, near and hastening fast.” While verse 7 could refer to a historical day of the Lord, verse 14 clearly refers to the eschatological day (Motyer 1998: 922). Motyer notes, “”Imminence is part of the prophetic definition of the day of the Lord (Ezek. 7:2, 10; 30:2-3; Joel 1:15; Hag. 2:6), as it is in the New Testament, which expects the imminent return of the Lord Jesus Christ” (Motyer 1998: 917). It is challenging, however, to see how the eschatological day of the Lord could be imminent prior to the first advent. Patterson suggests a linkage between the historical and eschatological days: “However much the events detailed here may have full reference only to the final phase of the Day of the Lord, they were an integral part of the prophecy and could occur anywhere along the series” (Patterson 1991: 320). Robertson notes that this idea of the nearness of the day of the Lord is picked up by the New Testament (Robertson 1990: 281).

Luke 18:7-8: “And will not God give justice to his elect, who cry to him day and night? Will he delay long over them? I tell you, he will give justice to them speedily [ἐν τάχει]. Nevertheless, when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on earth?” Bock notes that though Luke recognizes that there is “a concern about the return’s delay,” he can still affirm the speedy return to give justice (Bock 1996: 1453; Bock does note that this may be partially explained by the inaugurated last days). Marshall observes, “To the elect it may seem to be a long time until he answers, but afterwards they will realise that it was in fact short” (Marshall 1978: 676; cf. Plummer 1922: 414; Stein 1992: 446.).

Romans 13:11-12: “For salvation is nearer to us now than when we first believed. The night is far gone; the day is at hand.” The use of night and day imagery references the day of the Lord concept, with the night representing “the present evil age” and the day the day of the Lord (Moo 1996: 820-21; cf. Murray 1965: 167, 169; Schreiner 2017: 677-78). The “salvation” that has drawn near is culmination of God’s saving work at the return of Christ (Murray 1965: 165-66; Moo 1996: 822; Schreiner 2018: 677). Cranfield explains, “the primitive Church was convinced that the ministry of Jesus had ushered in the last days, the End-time…. As the interval provided by God’s patience in order to give men time to hear the gospel and to make the decision of faith, it could hardly be properly characterized otherwise than as ‘short time’” (Cranfield 1979: 683; cf. esp. Moo 1996: 822; Schreiner 2018: 678).

Romans 16:20: “The God of peace will soon [ἐν τάχει] crush Satan under your feet.” Cranfield observes, “That the promise refers to the eschatological consummation, and not to some special divine deliverance in the course of their lives, seems to us virtually certain” (Cranfield 1979: 803). Cranfield holds that verse 20 speaks of eschatological victory without reference to the opponents of 16:17-19 (Cranfield 1979: 803). Schreiner grants that a connection to the false teachers mentioned in 16:17-19 exists, but he believes the victory over those opponents is eschatological (Schreiner 2018: 799). Murray and Moo teach that the ultimate victory is eschatological, though they think there may be realizations of the victory throughout the history of the church (Murray 1965: 237; Moo 1996: 933). All three views are possible. Moo notes, “Paul’s prediction that the victory over Satan will come ‘quickly (ἐν τάχει) is no problem for the eschatological view once we appreciate rightly the NT concept of imminence” (Moo 1996: 933, n. 41; cf. Schreiner 2018: 799).

1 Corinthians 7:29, 31: “This is what I mean, brothers: the appointed time has grown very short…. For the present form of this world is passing away.” The form of this world is expressed by Paul in 7:30: “marriage, sadness, joy, possessing, and making use of the things of the world” (Taylor 2014: 191; cf. Ciampa and Rosner 2010: 348-49; Schreiner 2018: 157). At the day of the Lord, these will be replaced by life in the new creation (Lockwood 2000: 257). Fee and Garland claim that the present tense of παράγω (“is passing away”) indicates that that the process has already begun (Fee 1987: 342; Garland 2003: 331). Thus, the present time “has grown very short.” Christians live in the last days expecting the coming of Christ (See esp. Lockwood 200: 255-56 and Schreiner 2018: 156; cf. Ciampa and Rosner 2010: 344).

Philippians 4:5: “The Lord is at hand.” While some understand the nearness of the Lord to be spatial (Bockmuehl 1997: 245-46 is ambivalent), it is best to understand this in reference to the temporal nearness of the coming of the Lord (O’Brien 1991: 489; Fee 1995: 408; Silva 2005: 198; Hansen 2009: 289). On this understanding, “the eschatological dimension of this text may reflect Old Testament texts that speak of the coming ‘day of the Lord’ as ‘near’ (engus): these include Isa. 13:6; Ezek. 30:3; Joel 1:15; 3:14” (Bockmuehl 1997: 246).

Hebrews 10:25: “… all the more as you see the Day drawing near.” Philip Edgcumbe Hughes observes,  “When spoken of in this absolute manner, ‘the Day’ can mean only the last day, that ultimate eschatological day, which is the day of reckoning and judgment, known as the Day of the Lord (cf. 1 Cor. 3:13; Acts 2:20; 1 Thess. 5:2; 2 Thess. 2:2; 2 Pet. 3:10, 12; Mt. 7:22; 10:15; 11:22, 24; 24:36; Mk. 13:32; Lk. 10:12; 17:26, 30, 31; 21:34; Jn. 6:39; Phil. 1:6, 10; 2:16; 1 Cor. 1:8; 5:5; 2 Cor. 1:14; Jude 6; Rev. 6:17)” (Hughes 1977: 416; cf. Attridge 1989: 291; Lane 1991: 290; Guthrie 1998: 346; Koester 2008: 446; O’Brien 2010: 371; Cockerill 2012: 481; Johnson 2018: 147, 150). Though some have suggested that the reference was to AD 70 (Owen 1991: 526), there is nothing contextually that connects to AD 70 and the unqualified usage best links this verse with the eschatological day of the Lord passages (Hughes 1977: 416; Cockerill 2012: 481, n. 70).

James 5:8, 9: “For the coming of the Lord is at hand… the Judge is standing at the door.”  Scot McKnight argues that the term “at hand” cannot simply refer to the imminence of the Second Coming. He claims it must be “understood as referring to something about to happen,” namely the judgment of Jerusalem in AD 70 (McKnight 2011: 411-12). However this requires McKnight to conclude that the Olivet Discourse should be read in a preterist manner and that Paul, in allusions to the Olivet Discourse, understood Parousia differently from Jesus (and James) (McKnight 2011: 406-7). Not only are these positions unlikely, it is also unlikely that James is warning Christian Jews in the dispersion (see McKnight 2011: 67-68) about their being judged by the Lord in the AD 70 judgment on Jerusalem. More likely is the view that Christians are in the last days and that the return of Christ is imminent; the Judge could pass through the doors at any moment (Hiebert 1992: 272-74; Moo 2000: 223-24; Blomberg and Kamell 2008: 227-28; McCartney 2009: 241-42). As McCartney notes, “Three other NT authors use this verb (ἐγγίζω, engizo) to speak of the day of judgment or the arrival of the Lord (Rom. 10 13:12; Heb. 10:25; 1 Pet. 4:7)” (McCartney 2009: 241).

First Peter 4:7: “The end of all things is at hand.” When Peter exhorts his readers to live righteously because “the end of all things is at hand,” je is reminding them that they live in the last days. The next major event of redemptive history is the Second Coming (Lille 1868: 274-75; Grudem 1988: 180; Hiebert 1992: 269; Schreiner 2003: 210; Storms 2018: 347; cf. Achtemeier 1996: 293-94). Though some have argued that this is a reference to the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, Sam Storms observes, “it seems strange to speak of it as ‘the end of all things.’” In addition, he questions the relevance of that event as a motivating factor for Christians living in Asia Minor (Storms 2018: 347).

c. A common explanation for this language with reference to events yet future is that “soon” should be understood from God’s perspective: “[T]o the eyes of the eternal and endless God all ages are regarded as nothing, for, as the prophet says, ‘A thousand years in your sight, O Lord, are as yesterday when it is past, or as a watch in the night’” (Oecumenius 2011: 3; cf. Perkins 2017: 313? 314?; Thomas 1992: 55-56; Hamilton 2012: 32; Schreiner 2018: 549-50; Fanning 2020: 75). See 1 Cor. 10:11; 1 Pet. 4:7; 1 John 2:18; James 5:8; Rev. 22:10 (Andrew of Caesarea 2011: 114; Gerhard, 11).

d. Another explanation: “These events could happen at any moment” (Hamilton 2012: 32; cf. Mounce 1998:41). Schreiner notes, “the last days have arrived with the death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ (Acts 2:16–17; Heb. 1:2). The last hour has now come (1 John 2:18), and thus the end is imminent, and has been for two thousand years. Every generation has rightly said Jesus is coming soon, because all the great redemptive events needed for him to return have been accomplished” (Schreiner 2018: 549-50; cf. Fanning 2020: 75; cf. Osborne 2002: 55).

Revelation 1:1 – “the things that must soon take place”

by

The words “the things that must soon take place” (ἃ δεῖ γενέσθαι ἐν τάχει) (Rev. 1:1) are probably an allusion to Daniel 2:28-29, 45 in Greek translation: the Lord “made known to King Nebuchadnezzar things that must take place at the end of days [ἃ δεῖ γενέσθαι ἐπʼ ἐσχάτων τῶν ἡμερῶν], and he who reveals mysteries showed to you things that are necessary to take place [ἃ δεῖ γενέσθαι.] (Dan. 2:28-29, LES) (Ladd 1972: 21; Thomas 1992: 53; Beale 1999: 137, 153; Osborne 2002: 54; Smalley 2005: 27; Boxall 2006: 24; Leithart 2018: 71; Fanning 2020: 74-75).

G. K. Beale and Peter Leithart argue that the allusion to Daniel 2:28-29, 45 indicates that John’s visions refer to events that began in John’s own time (Beale 1999: 137, 153; Leithart 2018: 71).

However, there are good reasons for understanding the allusion to support yet future referents (generally speaking) to John’s visions.

a. The earliest commentator on Daniel distinguished between the legs of iron, symbolizing ancient Rome, and the ten toes of iron mixed with clay, which he related to future entities (Hippolytus 2017: 78; cf. Hippolytus 1886: 186). The basic correctness of his interpretation is confirmed by the parallel with the ten horns on the fourth beast in Daniel 7:24-27. These horns relate to the fourth beast but represent a distinct eschatological stage of his activity (see below).

b. The stone, representing Christ’s kingdom, smashed the image, not upon the iron legs of the fourth kingdom (Rome), but upon the iron and clay mixture that represented the divisions that followed the Rome of Jesus’s day (Miller 1994: 100).

c. The stone destroyed not only the feet but all the previous parts of the image as well. The utter destruction of the image symbolized the complete replacement of human kingdoms with the Messianic kingdom (Miller 1994: 101; Greidanus 2012: 76, n. 51). The destruction of “every rule and every authority and power” comes at “the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father” (1 Cor. 15:24). Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Hippolytus, and Theodore of Cyrus all connected the crushing of the statue with the second advent. Irenaeus taught that the ten toes referred to kings existing in “the last times,” that is in the time of Antichrist. He concluded, “they shall be destroyed by the coming of our Lord” (Irenaeus, AH 5.26.1-2). Theodoret wrote, “Clearly, this teaches about that which will occur at the end, that is, the coming of the kingdom of heaven that is without end.” And, “The stone that was cut without hands and grew into a great mountain and fills the whole earth is the second advent” (Stevenson and Gluerup 2008: 171). Hippolytus taught that the stone crushes “the kingdoms of this world” when Christ “comes from the heavens” that he “might set up the heavenly kingdom of the saints which shall never be destroyed” (Hippolytus 2017: 78 [2.12.7, 2.13.2]; Hippolytus 1886: 209-10 [§27]).

d. Psalm 110 provides a paradigm for understanding the two stages of the coming of Christ’s kingdom. At present the kingdom is coming in salvation, and Christ reigns in the midst of his enemies. In the future, the kingdom will come in judgment, and Christ will scatter kings in the day of his wrath. This vision clearly displays the latter.

e. This eschatological reading finds confirmation in Daniel 7. Interpreters of diverse perspectives recognize that the vision in Daniel 7 elaborates on the vision of chapter 2 (Steinmann 2008: 328; Tanner 2020: 396-97). The same four kingdoms found in Daniel 2 reappear in Daniel 7, symbolized as beasts (cf. Dan. 7:17, 23). Notably, even commentators who denied an eschatological referent to the feet of the statue in Daniel 2 see an eschatological culmination in Daniel 7. Young, along with interpreters from the church fathers onward, identifies the little horn with the Antichrist (7:8, 20, 24) (Young 1949: 150; cf. Hippolytus 136-37 (4.5.3; 4.7.1); Jermone 1958: 77; Wood 1973: 188; Miller 1994: 202-3; Steinmann 2008: 348-49; Tanner 2020: 413; note, however, that these interpreters have different views on Antichrist and his appearing). Young concludes, “Thus, in one remarkable picture, the entire course of history is given from the appearance of the historical Roman Empire until the end of human government” (Young 1949: 150). Steinmann similarly says, “It seems that the vision given Daniel in 7:9–14, which is interpreted in 7:15–28, pictures in one scene the entire sweep of salvation history that includes Christ’s first advent, the church age, and Christ’s second advent” (Steinmann 2008: 329-30).

f. The opposition of the little horn to the saints will only end when the Ancient of Days comes to put an end to it (Dan. 7:22) and when the Son of Man comes to the Ancient of Days (Dan. 7:13-14).

h. Since Daniel 2 is a prophecy about the establishment of the kingdom of God coming in eschatological judgment, the things that must soon take place which John will see in his visions are about the future coming of the kingdom in judgment.

Tom Parr’s Backdrop for a Glorious Gospel

by

Tom Parr’s Backdrop for a Glorious Gospel: The Covenant of Works According to William Strong marries in its title two things that God has joined together that man should never rend asunder: deep theology and doxalogical application. Backdrop for a Glorious Gospel summarizes and explains a section of Puritan William Strong’s A Discourse of the Two Covenants.

Though I had not heard of Strong until Parr introduced him to me, his work of recovery is valuable. Strong’s covenant theology is exegetically deeper than any recent writing on the covenant of works that I’ve read. In addition to exegetical depth, Parr also brings out the rich applicational and devotional aspects of Strong’s work.

The extensive footnotes are a bonus feature. They compare and contrast Strong’s teaching with that of other Puritans. Thus, the reader is educated on the continuities and discontinuities of Puritan thought on the various topics under discussion. In this way the book is a broader entry into Puritan thought on the covenant of works.

Those holding dispensational or progressive covenantal positions may wonder if it is worth their while to read this treatise on the covenant of works. The answer is a clear, “yes.” First, though some dispensationalists reject the idea of a covenant of works, not all do. There is no systemic need for them to do so, and there are important theological reasons for them to affirm a covenant of works. Progressive covenantalists already hold to a creation covenant, and there are good theological reasons for them to view the creation covenant as a covenant of works. People from both systems will benefit from reading Strong’s case that the covenant of works is truly a necessary backdrop for the glorious gospel.

This is not to say that dispensationalists, progressive covenantalists, and even certain Baptist covenant theologians won’t find areas of disagreement, especially in the discussion of how the Mosaic law relates to the covenants of works and grace. However, Strong, as summarized by Parr, gives the best and most nuanced argument for the view that the Mosaic law is an administration of the covenant of grace that I’ve read. Though this is not my position, I think Strong’s argument is one that readers of every persuasion ought to reckon with.

John Owen on How to Respond to a General Contagion

by

when there is a general contagious disease (the plague, or the like), every man will look to his health and safety with reference to other occasions, but will be most careful in regard to the general contagion. Now, if forsaking this spring of life be the plague of the age, and the plague of the place where we live, and the plague of Christians, we ought to be very careful lest this general contagion should reach us, more or less, one way or other. It is evident to me,—who have some advantage to consider things, as much as ordinary men,—that the apostasy, the cursed apostasy, that spreads itself over this nation, and whose fruits are in all ungodliness and uncleanness, consists in an apostasy from and forsaking the person of Christ. Some write of how little use the person of Christ is in religion;—none, but to declare the doctrine of the gospel to us. Consider the preaching and talk of men. You have much preaching and discourse about virtue and vice; so it was among the philosophers of old: but Jesus Christ is laid aside, quite as a thing forgotten; as if he was of no use, no consideration, in religion; as if men knew not at all how to make any use of him, as to living to God.
This being the general plague, as is evident, of the apostasy of the day wherein we live, if we are wise, we shall consider very carefully whether we ourselves are not influenced more or less with it; as where there is a general temptation, it doth more or less try all men, the best of believers, and prevail more or less upon their spirits. I am afraid we have not, some of us, that love for Christ, that delight in him, nor do make that constant abode with him, as we have done

John Owen, The Works of John Owen, ed. William H. Goold, vol. 9 (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, n.d.), 369.

Three Post-Reformation Revelation Commentaries

by

Perkins, William. “A Godly and Learned Exposition or Commentary upon the Three First Chapters of the Revelation.” In The Works of William Perkins. Volume 4. Edited by J. Stephen Yuille. Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage, 2017.

This is an excellent exposition of the first three chapters of Revelation in the Puritan style. That is, it is doctrinal and devotional in its emphases. I highly commend Perkins’s work on Revelation.

Goodwin, Thomas. “An Exposition of Revelation.” In The Works of Thomas Goodwin. Volume 3. Edinburgh: James Nichol, 1861.

Perkins ended his exposition of Revelation with chapter 3. Goodwin begins his with chapter 4 (though he mentions that chapters 1-3 relate to the church in John’s day). In distinction from chapters 2-3, which refer to seven historical churches, Goodwin held that chapters 4-5 relate to the universal church of all time. Goodwin thought that the prophetical portion of the book began in chapter 6 and that it came in two parts. Part one begins with the seals in chapter 6 and continues with the seven trumpets, which are the seventh seal. Part two relates the unsealed book, beginning at chapter 12 and running to chapter 16. Both parts cover the events from Christ’s ascension to his return, though with different emphases. The first focuses on the outward state of the empire and the second focuses on the church. Between these two parts come chapter 11, which Goodwin spends a great deal of time on. He holds that this chapter is delivered by Christ’s direct speech and serves as a hinge between these two parts. Following chapters 6-16 are several chapters that expand on certain aspects of this prophecy. Chapter 17 is an expansion of chapter 13’s description of the beast. Chapters 18 and 19 (up to v. 11) expand on the destruction of the great city. Goodwin was a premillennialist, but this exposition does not cover chapters 20-22.

Gerhard, Johann. Annotations on the Revelation of St. John the Theologian. Translated by Paul A. Rydecki. Malone, TX: Repristination Press, 2016.

This 1643 commentary by the renowned Lutheran theologian Johann Gerhard is historicist in its approach. Interestingly, however, his historicist approach was general enough at points that it at times reminded me of an idealist approach. Gerhard was familiar with Patristic and Medieval commentators who preceded him, and he at times would evaluate their interpretations or provide a survey of interpretations.

His view of the Millennium is also interesting. He held that it began with the conversion of Constantine, which he places around A.D. 308 and ended in A.D. 1308 with the rise of the Ottoman Turks. He saw the Millennial period as a time in which the church was spared persecution.