Exegesis and Theology

The Blog of Brian Collins

Thoughts on the Translation of Leviticus 26:40–42

by Leave a Comment

The ESV provides a typical translation of Leviticus 26:40–42:

But if they confess their iniquity and the iniquity of their fathers in their treachery that they committed against me, and also in walking contrary to me, so that I walked contrary to them and brought them into the land of their enemies—if then their uncircumcised heart is humbled and they make amends for their iniquity, then I will remember my covenant with Jacob, and I will remember my covenant with Isaac and my covenant with Abraham, and I will remember the land.

Since the KJV, English translations have tended to translate these verses as conditionals (“but if they”), and since the RSV, English translations have tended to translate a key phrase in verse 41, “and they make amends for their iniquity,” or some variant of the same.

A better translation is as follows. Here I use the CSB as main translation, but the bold text is brought over from the NKJV:

40 “But when they confess their iniquity and the iniquity of their ancestors—their unfaithfulness that they practiced against me, and how they acted with hostility toward me, 41 and I acted with hostility toward them and brought them into the land of their enemies—and when their uncircumcised hearts are humbled and they accept their guilt, 42 then I will remember my covenant with Jacob. I will also remember my covenant with Isaac and my covenant with Abraham, and I will remember the land.

The CSB, along with the Geneva Bible and the NET Bible, rightly recognize that there is no conditional particle in the Hebrew (as there is earlier in the chapter when the blessings and curses of the Mosaic covenant are outlined). Thus, it is best to translate, as the CSB does, “But when they confess their iniquity” and “when their uncircumcised hearts are humbled.”

Regarding the contested phrase in verse 42, the key verb in the sentence (רצה), translated “make amends” by the ESV and “accept” by the NKJV,” is commonly understood be from one of two identically spelled roots. The first means “to be pleased with, to enjoy, to accept.” The second means “to pay for, to restore.” However, I wonder if the second root with its meaning is necessary to posit. The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew cites texts in support of this sense the verse under consideration (Lev 26:41) as well as earlier verses in Leviticus 26 which state (in common translation) that the land will “enjoy its Sabbaths.” In fact, the few other verses cited in support of the second root could be translated in line with the first root and its senses.

In addition, the Hebrew word translated by the ESV as “iniquity” can also be understood to indicate “guilt” (as in the NKJV) or “punishment.” Thus, the translation of the NKJV, “and they accept their guilt.”

The UBS Handbook on Leviticus advocates the same translation I’m advocating in this post:

 Make amends for their iniquity: this phrase presents difficulties with regard to the understanding of both the verb, make amends, and the noun, rendered iniquity in RSV, and consequently for the interpretation of the whole. A number of versions have adopted essentially the same interpretation as RSV (NIV, NJV, and NAB). But the noun used here may mean either “guilt” or “punishment for guilt.” The idea of punishment seems more probable in this context, as in 5:1, 7; 10:17; and 16:22; as well as Gen 4:13. The verb translated make amends in RSV is sometimes used in the sense of “accept.” An example of this in Leviticus is God’s accepting a sacrifice in 1:4. MFT translates the whole phrase “submit to be punished for their sins,” while NEB has “accept their punishment in full,” leaving the idea of guilt implicit. It is especially significant that, while JB (1966) rendered the whole phrase “atone for their sins,” the more recent NJB (1985) has “accept the punishment for their guilt.” The latter interpretation is therefore recommended to translators.

René Péter-Contesse and John Ellington, A Handbook on Leviticus, UBS Handbook Series (New York: United Bible Societies, 1992), 420.

What is the theological significance of these translation differences? Leviticus 26 (much like Deuteronomy 28) outlines the covenant blessings and curses of the Mosaic covenant. If Israel kept the covenant, it would enjoy the blessings of the covenant (26:1–13). If Israel spurned and loathed the covenant, and if Israel thus broke the Mosaic covenant and its laws, then all the covenant curses would come upon Israel (26:14–39). But Leviticus 26:40–45 (like Deuteronomy 30) looks ahead to the new covenant. These verses predict Israel’s repentance. Someday Israelites will confess its guilt and the guilt of their fathers, and they will accept their guilt. At that point God will bring to pass the promises of the Abrahamic covenant.

Three Views on the Rapture, 2nd edition on Sale

by

Amazon has the second edition of Three Views on the Rapture on sale today. Criag Blaising defends the pretribulational position, Alan Hultberg the prewrath position, and Doug Moo the postribulational position.

In the first edition, I thought that Doug Moo had the strongest argued essay even though I was not ultimately persuaded of his position. Moo’s essay is updated and reprised in this edition. The essays by Blaising and Hultberg are new to this edition. I think Blaising’s essay is the strongest defense of pretribulationalism that I’ve read. Also, though Blaising was a pioneer of Progressive Dispensationalism, he constructed his argument in a way that it does not rely on any specifically dispensational commitments.

Related:

Review of Three Views on the Rapture by Craig Blaising, Alan Hultberg, and Douglas J. Moo
Resources on the Pretribulation Rapture

Resources on the Pretribulation Rapture

by

The most helpful resource on the pretribulation rapture is Craig Blaising’s chapter in the revised Three Views on the Rapture (see below). For a much abbreviated argument, see his excellent talk, “The Rapture and the Day of the Lord.”

Ryan Meyer of Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary has recently published a series of posts interacting with John Hart’s argument that Matthew 24:36-44 refers to a pretribulation rapture. In general, I agree with Meyer’s assessment (including his disagreement with Hart’s sixth argument). My one minor difference with Meyer is that I see 2 Peter 3:10-12 as referring to the events of the tribulation period rather than to events following the Millennium.

Does Matthew 24 Describe the Rapture of the Church? (Part 1)

Does Matthew 24 Describe the Rapture of the Church? (Part 2)

Does Matthew 24 Describe the Rapture of the Church? (Part 3)

Does Matthew 24 Describe the Rapture of the Church? (Part 4)

Does Matthew 24 Describe the Rapture of the Church? (Part 5)

Other rapture resources:

Review of Three Views on the Rapture by Craig Blaising, Alan Hultberg, and Douglas J. Moo

Jonathan Pratt, “The Case for the Pretribulational Rapture” in Dispensationalism Revisited

1 Thessalonians 4:13-17 and the Timing of the Rapture

Απαντησις in 1 Thessalonians 4:17 and Dispensationalism in Scholarship

Interpreting 2 Thessalonians 2:3

Jonathan Pratt, “The Case for the Pretribulational Rapture” in Dispensationalism Revisited

by

Pratt provided the final chapter to this Festschrift for Charles Hauser, Jr. published by Central Baptist Theological Seminary. I found the arguments presented later in the chapter more persuasive than the arguments presented in the beginning of the chapter. His argument that texts like 1 Thessalonians 5 and Revelation 3:10 promise that God will spare his people from going through the period of time in which the final day of the Lord judgment is poured out on the earth is convincing. Likewise, Pratt makes a convincing case from the immanency of Christ’s return.

Pratt begins his chapter by arguing that John 14:1-3; 2 Thessalonians 2:6-7; Revelation 12:5 support a pretribulational rapture. These arguments are shakier. John 14:1-3 fits well within a pretribulation rapture scheme, but it is difficult to prove the pretribulation rapture from this text because doing so requires the having already established particular interpretations of related texts.

The argument from 2 Thessalonians 2 is even less compelling. Even granting that the restrainer is the Spirit, how does the rapture of the church remove him from earth? The Spirit is omnipresent. A further step in the argument is needed such that the Spirit working in and through the church is the restrainer. But it is not clear that such an argument could be mounted from the text. Nor do I find Darby’s interpretation of Revelation 12 plausible. I don’t find any of the proposed double referents convincing. The dragon refers to Satan, not the nations. The woman refers to Israel, not to Mary. And the male child refers to Christ, not to the church.

Pratt does mount a convincing argument for the pretribulational position in this chapter, but it is burdened, in my view, by some accompanying less-than-convincing arguments.

Review of Three Views on the Rapture by Craig Blaising, Alan Hultberg, and Douglas J. Moo

by

Blaising, Craig, Alan Hultberg, and Douglas Moo, Three Views on the Rapture: Pretribulation, Prewrath, or Posttribulation. 2nd ed. Counterpoints. Edited by Stanley N. Gundry. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010.

This second edition of Three Views on the Rapture is a fine work in the Counterpoints series. The quality of argumentation in this book is high. Moo, who contributed to both the first and second editions, comments several times that he found his opponents’ argumentation superior in this volume in comparison to the first edition.

Summary

Blaising’s case for the pretribulation rapture can be summarized as follows: 1 Thessalonians 4-5 teaches that Christians will be spared from the wrath of God poured out on the earth during the day of the Lord. The rapture is the stated means by which believers are spared. Furthermore, by harmonizing the teaching of Daniel about the end and the teaching of Jesus in the Olivet Discourse, it becomes clear that the ultimate day of the Lord equals Daniel’s seventieth week, which equals the period described in the Olivet Discourse as the parousia of Christ. The book of Revelation supports this view by correlating the tribulations it describes with the OT day of the Lord. Revelation 3:10 supports the pretribulation rapture by promising the Philadelphian Christians (as representative of the church) that they will be spared from the hour of trial which shall come on the whole earth. By adopting this view, one is able to explain why some texts present the parousia as unexpected and preceded by no signs while other passages say the parousia is preceded by signs. The pretribulationalist understands the parousia to be a complex event that spans many years. The rapture will begin the parousia and will not be preceded by signs, but the return of Christ to earth to begin his reign (which can also be called the parousia) will be preceded by signs.

Hultberg says that “the prewrath position rests on two major theses: that the church will enter the last half of Daniel’s seventieth week and that between the rapture of the church and the return of Christ to earth will be a significant period of extraordinary divine wrath” (109). The following points support the first thesis: (1) the Olivet discourse is addressed to the disciples as representative Christians, who will see the abomination of desolation, (2) parallel language connects 1 Thessalonians 4:15-16 and Matthew 24:31 together as rapture passages; (3) 2 Thessalonians 2:3 indicates the rapture is preceded by the abomination of desolation; (4) Revelation presents the church entering the tribulation since the letters to the seven churches are letters to first century churches and eschatological predictions (letters to Smyrna and Thyatira indicate the church will enter the tribulation); and (5) the rapture occurs at Rev. 7:9 and Revelation 14. In support of the claim that the rapture will occur before the wrath of God is poured out Hultberg argues: (1) Paul is clear that Christians will not experience God’s wrath (Rom. 5:9; 1 Thess. 1:10; 5:9), and in some texts this wrath is clearly connected to the parousia; (2) The parousia must be a complex event rather than an instantaneous event to make sense of all Scripture says about it; (3) Revelation displays rapture, wrath, return sequences.

Moo begins his essay by emphasizing that the church will face tribulation throughout history. Though he does not deny there is a final tribulation, he consistently minimizes it. His main point is that the end time is not something distinctively future. It is a time the church has been living in since its inception. Similarly, Moo understands Daniel’s seventieth week to run through the entire church age. Moo also disassociates the final tribulation from the day of the Lord (a point to which he returns repeatedly throughout his essay). This allows him to minimize the wrath of God during the tribulation and emphasize the persecution of God’s people. Moo does not, however, deny that God pours out his wrath at the very end in a way that affects the whole earth. But he argues that this sword cuts two ways since there are some of God’s people on earth during the tribulation under anyone’s scheme. He resolves this problem by noting that believers in the OT were often affected by judgments directed toward others. Much of the rest of Moo’s article argues that there is no clear evidence for a rapture distinct from Christ’s return to earth. He notes the words used to describe the second coming do not distinguish comings. Nor do the main rapture passages (John 14:3; 1 Cor. 15:51-52; 1 Thess. 4:13-18) indicate the second coming happens in two stages. In fact, a number of passages disassociate the day of the Lord from the tribulation and tie it to the descent of Christ. Thus when 2 Thessalonians 2 places events of the tribulation before the day of the Lord, it is placing the tribulation before the rapture. Moo finds confirmation for his view in the Olivet Discourse (which he thinks refers largely to the church age) and it’s one return of Christ in Matt 24:31, 40-41. Likewise, Revelation (which Moo interprets to largely refers to the entire church age) never refers to a rapture, though it does place the first resurrection in close connection to the return of Christ to set up the millennium. Since there is a resurrection in connection with the rapture, and since this is the first resurrection, the rapture cannot precede this point in time.

Evaluation

Evaluation of this topic is exceedingly complex. Rapture positions are determined by correlating facts from a wide variety of passages. This in itself makes the topic complex, but the complexity is compounded by interpretational difficulties encountered in the key texts. This means that the debate is not merely over how key facts are systematized; the debate extends to the level of what facts can be deduced from a series of debated texts.

Strengths of Moo’s position

1.        Moo has the simplest position. All parousia and rapture texts refer to the same event.

2.        The absence of any clear mention of the Rapture in Revelation favors Moo’s position.

3.        Moo’s is correct that all positions have believers on earth when God pours out his wrath and that the Bible often indicates that believers can be indirectly affected by judgments directed toward others.

Weaknesses of Moo’s position

1.        Moo repeatedly appeals to inaugurated eschatology in support of his position. But inaugurated eschatology would indicate that there are initial fulfillments to be followed by fuller final fulfillments. Moo doesn’t seem to fully reckon with these fuller, final fulfillments. He grants there will be a final tribulation, but he routinely minimizes it to emphasize that the church has always gone through tribulation. This seems to evade the issue under discussion.

2.        In connection with the appeals to inaugurated eschatology, Moo applies Daniel’s seventieth seven, much of the Olivet discourse, and much of Revelation to the church age. However, since the previous 69 sevens in Daniel 9 refer to periods of seven years that lead up to the time of the incarnation, it would seem that the final seven should be understood as a period of seven years rather than as an undefined period of time between the two advents of Christ. With regard to the Olivet Discourse, even if one grants that the abomination of desolation referred to the destruction of the temple (a debated interpretation), it would seem, given the context of the prophecy in Daniel, that the destruction of the temple was typological of a final fulfillment in connection with Antichrist. Overall approaches to Revelation are debated, but I find a generally futurist approach more compelling than generally idealist approach that Moo adopts. See my “The Futurist Interpretation of Revelation: Intertextual Evidence from the Prologue” and “The Futurist Interpretation of Revelation: Evidence from the Seal Judgments’ Reliance on the Olivet Discourse.”

3.        Moo consistently downplays the tribulation as a time of God’s wrath, and he relegates the day of the Lord to Christ’s return to earth. This disregards compelling data to the contrary presented by both Blaising and Hultberg. Moo even grants in his rejoinder that the Old Testament evidence may stand against his position. Replying that the New Testament alone should determine the matter is hardly a sufficient reply.

4.        Moo also has trouble with some particular texts. His attempt to understand Revelation 3:10 in light of John 17:11-12, 15 fails on the grounds that Revelation speaks of being kept from a time period rather than from the evil one. Moo’s understanding of Revelation 20:4 also runs into problems. Moo understands first resurrection in an absolute sense as the first resurrection since the resurrection of Christ. This not only fails to reckon with the resurrection recounted in Matthew 27:52-53, but it also requires displacing 20:4 chronologically (since the resurrection mentioned there is post-parousia). This is unlikely since 19:11-20:10 is best understood as a single vision with the subject of ἐκάθισαν being the armies that returned with Christ to earth (see Svigel, TrnJ, 22.1, pp. 51-52). Or to put it another way, 1 Thessalonians 4 has the saints rise before Christ descends to earth while Revelation 20 has them rise after Christ has descended to earth.

I find evidence for an extended day of the Lord / parousia persuasive. I also remain convinced that promises that the church (in general) will be spared the wrath of God during this time period. In addition, I find Moo downplaying events that he concedes will happen (e.g., a final tribulation). Thus, I find his view less than persuasive.

Strengths of Hultberg’s position

1.        The discussions of and warnings about tribulation events in the Olivet discourse, Thessalonians, and Revelation could indicate that Christians will experience some tribulation events (though it does not necessitate this).

2.        His arguments for the parousia as a complex event connected with the outpouring of God’s wrath is convincing. On this point the pretribulation and prewrath positions are aligned.

Weaknesses of Hultberg’s position

1.        It is difficult to find the Rapture in Revelation 7:9, and Revelation 14:16 seems too ambiguous to bear the weight of the position.

2.        I find it unlikely that the first five seals are not the outpouring of God’s wrath. Hultberg argues that simply because God opens the seals does not mean that the seals are outpourings of God’s wrath because God is in control of all things. But this minimizes the symbolism of the sealed scroll. This was a scroll that only the Lamb who had been slain was worthy to take and open.

3.        Though the exegesis of 1 Thessalonians 2:3 is tricky, I’m convinced that the text is saying that the day of the Lord is not present unless two other things are also present. The first of these is the apostasy and the second is the revelation of the man of lawlessness. I’m not convinced that the verse is saying these two things must precede the day of the Lord. (See Interpreting 2 Thessalonians 2:3.)

Hultberg’s arguments for the rapture of the church before the outpouring of God’s wrath mirror Blaising’s own argumentation. His arguments that this wrath occurs during only part of the seventieth week are more inferential and rest on more debatable texts.

Strengths of Blaising’s position

1.        Blaising makes an impressive case for correlating Daniel’s seventieth seven, the tribulation, and the day of the Lord.

2.        Blaising makes a solid case that the church will be spared from God’s wrath in the final day of the Lord. Though some texts are debatable, his argumentation is sound.

Weaknesses of Blaising’s position

–     Blaising does have to deal with the problem of tribulation saints (whom he regards as part of the church) being on earth during the outpouring of God’s wrath during the day of the Lord.

Blaising has constructed the most convincing pretribulation argument that I have encountered. He has abandoned many of the less convincing arguments that are often proposed in support of pretribulationalism. I also found Blaising’s argumentation more convincing than Hultberg’s or Moo’s. He seemed to best understand the significance of the Day of the Lord prophecies and their connection to the parousia as a complex event. He also rightly recognized that God promised the church deliverance from this time period of special judgment. The most damaging objection is the presence of saints in the tribulation period. However, the tribulation saints are an anomaly because they were saved after the rapture of the church (on the pretribulation view), and the presence of an anomaly does not entirely overthrow Blaising’s position.

This may now be the best introductory resource to the topic of the rapture, and Blaising’s article may be the best current defense of the pretribulation position.

Structure and Summary of Joel

by

After the superscription, Joel can be divided into six major sections: 1:2-20; 2:1-11; 2:12-17; 2:18-27; 2:28-32; 3:1-21.[1]

Verse 1 identifies the author of the book as Joel, the Son of Pethuel. Nothing further is known about the author except that he received the word of Yhwh recorded in this book.

Joel 1:2-20 recounts a plague of locusts that have descended upon the Israelites in Judah. Joel begins by calling out to the elderly to confirm that this locust plague was like nothing they or their fathers had ever experienced.  This would be a plague that would be recounted generation after generation due to its severity. The drunkards are told to weep because there is no wine to drink. But more seriously, this judgment prevents them from worshipping God through the grain and drink offerings. Their sin has brought a judgment that deprived them of proper worship. In verse 15 Joel identifies this plague as the day of Yhwh. He says the day of Yhwh is near, which doesn’t mean that the day of Yhwh is something other than the locust plague. Rather, the Day of Yhwh is so near that it is upon them.

The second major section 2:1-11 has occasioned debate. Does it refer to (1) a locust invasion in Joel’s day that prefigures the eschatological day of Yhwh,[2] (2) a now past military invasion described under the figure of locusts,[3] (3) an eschatological locust plague,[4] (4) an eschatological military invasion.[5] It is best to understand this passage to be about locusts; they are described as “like war horses,” “like warriors,” and “like soldiers”—which indicates that they are not themselves horses, warriors, or soldiers.[6] It is unlikely that chapter 2 is a continued description of the locust plague recounted in chapter 1 since the verbs in chapter 1 indicate that Joel was referring to a past event, whereas in chapter 2 the verbs indicate that he is speaking of a future event.[7] In addition, the locusts described in chapter 2 will be unprecedented: “their like has never been before, nor will be again after them through the years of all generations” (2:3). In fact, there are several elements in the passage that indicate these are not normal locusts: they are opposed with weapons, and they are described not as destroying crops but as invading cities.[8]

The third major section (2:12-17) is a call to repentance. No one can endure the judgment of the day of Yhwh (2:11) and therefore repentance is called for. This repentance is not to be merely external (the rending of garments) but internal (the rending of hearts). Repentance from the heart is what the first great commandment demands, and a new heart is what the new covenant promised. The hope that God would receive their repentance is based on God’s declaration to Moses of his character. And yet God’s grace and mercy are not presumed upon: “Who knows” (2:14). Note also that Joel highlights as the foremost blessing of forgiveness the restoration of true worship (the ability to offer grain and drink offerings). Thus, all the people, from the oldest to the youngest (and including those normally exempt from such gatherings, the bride and bridegroom [cf. Dt 24:5]) are to gather to beg for mercy. Their main concern, Joel indicates, is to be God’s glory (2:17).

Evidently the Israelites responded with repentance because the fourth section of the book describes God’s response to their repentance (2:18-27). While some of the promised restoration seems to be directed at restoring the land after the locust plague (e.g., “I will restore to you the years that the swarming locusts has eaten,” 2:25), other promises were not fulfilled in Joel’s day: “And my people shall never again be put to shame.” Israel would still face conquest by Babylon and Rome; Israel would again be put to shame. There is in this section a telescoping of the now past and the still future.[9]

The fifth section of the book (2:28-32) looks forward to the eschatological gift of the Spirit, the ultimate day of Yhwh judgment on the whole earth, and the hope of salvation for those who call upon the name of Yhwh. That a remnant will be saved has already been prophesied by Obadiah.[10] Joel turns to the judgment of the nations in the sixth section (3:1-21) of the book. This section recounts the sins the nations surrounding Judah have committed against God’s people Israel. As a result, God will judge the nations. Some of the judgments described seem to have already happened (3:4-8), while other judgments seem to be eschatological (3:1-3, 9-17, 19, 21). As a counterpoint to this judgment, God promises eschatological blessing to Judah and Jerusalem that is described in terms of a reversal of the locust judgment described in chapters 1 and 2.[11]

[1] The first section is recognized by Garret, Dillard, Stuart, Crenshaw, Tully, and Nass. The second section is recognized by Garrett, Stuart, Crenshaw, Hubbard, Tully, Barker, and Nass (as a subjection of 2:1-17). The third section is recognized by Stuart, Crenshaw, Hubbard, Tully Barker, and Nass (as a subjection of 2:1-17). The fourth section is recognized by Stuart, Crenshaw, Hubbard, Tully, Barker, and Nass. The fifth section is recognized by Garrett, Stuart, Finley, Crenshaw, Hubbard, Tully, Barker, and Nass (as a subsection of 2:28-3:21). The sixth section is recognized by Garrett, Stuart, Finley, Hubbard, Tully, Barker, and Nass (as two subsections of 2:28-3:21).

[2] Bell, The Theological Messages of the Old Testament Books, 384-85; Barker, ZECOT, 75-77; Harman, ESVEC, 268.

[3] Patterson, REBC,.

[4] Grisanti, “The Book of Joel,” in The World and the Word, 425-26; cf. Busenitz, MC, 116.

[5] Tully, Reading the Prophets as Christian Scripture, 269; Busenitz, MC, 113-15.

[6] Grisanti, “The Book of Joel, 425.

[7] Garrett, NAC, 333; Nass, CC, 203. If the locust plague in chapter 2 is considered to be the same as that of chapter 1, it would need to be a second wave of locusts.

[8] Nass, CC, 216. These are two elements from a series of three lists that Nass presents: “Features of the Army that Do Not Fit Perfectly with Locusts,” “Features of the Army that Do Not Fit Perfectly with Human Soldiers,” and “Features of the Army that Do Not fit Perfectly with Locusts or Human Soldiers.” Under the last heading Nass lists, “Fire burns before them”; “The earth and heavens shake before them”; “The sun, moon, and stars go dark before them.” Nass concludes from this data that Joel 2:1-11 refers to a composite of the day of Yhwh throughout history, culminating in the eschatological day of Yhwh. But it is more likely that Joel 2 is describing the same events that Revelation describes as the first, fourth, and fifth trumpet judgments.

[9] Michael P. V. Barrett, “Pentecost and Other Blessings: Joel 2:21–28,” Puritan Reformed Journal 12, no. 2 (2020): 8–9. Since the two preceding sections of judgment refer to a near and an eschatological judgment, it makes sense for the description of restoration to include both near and eschatological restoration.

[10] There is some debate about what it would mean for the sun to be turned to darkness and the moon to blood “before the great and awesome day of Yhwh comes.” These seem to describe the kind of events that would characterize the day of Yhwh. There are two possible solutions. (1) Some note that the preposition translated before can simply mean “in the presence of.” Thus, a temporal meaning is not necessary here and should not be advocated. Busenitz, MC, 190-91; cf. Stuart, WBC, 257. Against this, when לִפְנֵי בּוֹא are used together, a temporal meaning of before is always indicated (1 Sam 9:15; 2 Sam 3:35; Eze 33:22; Mal 4:5). Nass, CC, 448. (2) Others note that the Day of Yhwh is a multifaceted event and that the phrase may be used of a specific part of the overall day, thus allowing for the darkened sun and blood-red moon to be both part of the overall day of Yhwh and yet precede the specific aspect designated Day of Yhwh in these verses. Finley, WEC, 75; Blaising, “A Pretribulation Response,” in Three Views on the Rapture, 246–47; Fanning, Revelation, ZECNT, 270, n. 1. Some would even argue that the fuller phrase “the great and awesome day of Yhwh” is “a technical expression that refers to the last half of the seventieth week [prophesied in Daniel 9].” Alan D. Cole, “A Critique of the Prewrath Interpretation of the Day of the Lord in Joel 2–3,” Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal Volume 9 (2004): 49.

[11] See Tully, Reading the Prophets as Christian Scripture, 272.

Structure and Summary of Obadiah

by

After the superscription, Obadiah can be divided into four major sections, each marked with a “speech formula,” thus dividing the book into four major sections: 1b-4, 5-7, 8-18, 19-21.[1] The third, and longest section, can be divided into four additional sub-sections. Verses 8-9 refer to Edom in the third person and pronounce a day of Yhwh judgment upon it. Verses 10-11 directly address Edom for what it did to Judah and Jerusalem. Verses 12-14 warn Edom against future actions against Judah. Verses 15-18 turn to the ultimate day of the Yhwh judgment.

Verse 1a identifies the prophet who wrote this book as Obadiah, a name the means “servant of Yhwh.”[2] Nothing further is known about the prophet. If our dating of the book is correct, Obadiah is not the same man who was over Ahab’s household in the time of Elijah (cf., 1 Kgs 18:3-7, 16). The name occurs several other times in the Old Testament (1 Chr 3:21; 9:44; 12:9; 2 Chr 17:7; 34:12), but this prophet cannot be identified with any of these men.[3] The prophecy is called a vision, which “serves as a technical term for a revelation of a ‘prophet.’”[4]

In the first speech, of the Lord Yhwh addresses Edom (1b-4). Though most translations, going back to the KJV, render this “concerning Edom,” the usage here as part of a messenger formula indicates makes it more likely that the Lord Yhwh is addressing Edom in this prophecy not merely rhetorically but historically.[5] Obadiah reveals that he has heard from Yhwh that a messenger has been sent among the nations to cause them to rise up and fight Edom. This is probably best understood as an angelic messenger from Yhwh to stir up the nations.[6] Yhwh then declares that has made Edom small and despised. Edom is proud in its mountain fastness. The Edomites think that no one can bring them down. But the Lord says that even if Edom was high in the sky like an eagle who made its nest (not high in the trees) but among the stars—even from there Yhwh would bring Edom down. This is certain. It is the declaration of Yhwh.

In the second speech (5-7), Yhwh turns to the extent of the judgment that Esau will face. He presents Esau with two scenarios. In the first thieves and plunders come at night. In the second gatherers go out in a vineyard to gather grapes. Yhwh says that even thieves still what is sufficient for them, and grape-gatherers leave gleanings for the poor. But Esau will be utterly pillaged. Further, it will be Edom’s allies who will turn against it. Edom was known as a nation renowned for its wisdom, but Yhwh declares, “You have no understanding.”

In the third speech (8-18) Yhwh reiterates the day of Yhwh judgment that will befall Edom (8-9), reveals what Edom did to provoke this judgment (10-11), warn Edom against future actions against Judah (12-14), and closes by linking the judgment against Edom to the eschatological day of Yhwh (15-18).

In Edom’s day of Yhwh judgment, Yhwh will destroy the wise and understanding men from Mount Esau. In fact, Edom will be entirely destroyed. Furthermore, Edom’s warriors will be slaughtered (8-9).

Verses 10-11 reveal why Edom will receive these judgments. Edom had acted violently against Judah when other nations attacked Jerusalem, and Edom did not intervene to aid Judah.

In verses 12-14 Yhwh warns Edom against acting toward Judah in a similar manner in the future. Incidentally, this passage presumes there is a day of misfortune, ruin, distress, and calamity in Judah’s future. When that day comes, Edom is not to align itself against Judah.

Verses 15-18 provide a reason for avoiding further opposition to Judah: the day of Yhwh is near. Here the message broadens out to include all nations. The standard of judgment is what the nations have done to others. They will have the same done to them. Just as Edom drank on God’s holy mountain in celebration of Jerusalem’s fall, so all the nations (Edom included) will drink the cup of God’s wrath.[7] The result of this judgment is the annihilation of the nations.[8] During this ultimate day of Yhwh, Mount Zion is a holy place once again, and it becomes a refuge for those who escape. There is also an eschatological realization of the conquest of the land as the house of Jacob possesses its own possessions again. Verse 18 implies a reunited Israel (“house of Jacob” and “house of Joseph”). The reunited Israel will consume the house of Esau like stubble, leaving no survivor.[9]

The final speech (19-21) continues the theme of Israel’s repossession of the land. In this listing, Israel obtains possession of its surrounding enemies, with territories at all points of the compass listed, indicating a possession of all the land promised to Israel. In addition, this passage predicts the return of the exiles and the reunification of the two kingdoms. Deliverers, a term used in Judges to describe those God sent to deliver a sinful Israel from oppression will now rule over Mount Esau from Mount Zion. This allusion to deliverers ruling over Edom could indicate that these are deliverers that deliver Edom and rule over redeemed Edomites in the Messianic kingdom.[10] In the end, “and the kingdom shall be Yhwh’s.” As Niehaus observes, “Obadiah’s message concludes with an expectation of the day when we may say, ‘The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord / and of his Messiah / and he will reign forever and ever’ (Rev. 11:15).”[11] All nations will come under the lordship of Yhwh.

[1] Raabe, AB, 18.

[2] Niehaus, 511; Block, ZECOT, 49.

[3] Niehaus, 511;

[4] Raabe, AB, 94; cf. Niehaus, 511.

[5] See Raabe, AB, 107 for argumentation.

[6] Niehaus, 513; Raabe, AB, 113-14; Block, ZECOT, 53.

[7] Stuart, WBC, 420; Finley, WEC, 371-72; Niehaus, 2:535-36; Rogland, ESVEC, 383-84. The other option is that the “you” who drank on Yhwh’s holy mountain is Judah. In this interpretation, just as Judah drank God’s wrath so the nations will drink God’s wrath. Against this view, the “you” addressed throughout the book has been Edom. Proponents of view note that this is a plural you, rather than the singular you used to refer to Edom throughout the rest of the book. Raabe, AB, 203. Critics of this view argue against the abrupt introduction of Judah by a pronoun. Critics of the view represented in the main text above argue that it must understand the significance of drinking differently between the first and second parts of the verse. Finley, WEC, 371-72.

[8] Since the nations, including Edom, are represented elsewhere in Scripture as being present in Millennium and new creation, this annihilation of the nations does not include the remnant of the saved within the nations. It thus is an annihilation of the present world order with evil nations and not a removal of the nations as such. See Timmer, TOTC.

[9] On no survivors from Edom, see previous note. The context for this judgment on Edom is eschatological (see Finley and Busenitz). But Edom seems to have already ceased existence. Is it possible that Israel being a fire that burns up the stubble of Esau refers not to eschatological military action by Israel against Edom but instead reflects God’s eschatological judgment proleptically visited by God on Edom through other nations. The judgment was due to mistreatment of Israel (hence Israel as a flame) rather than Israel as the agent of judgment. Or perhaps Israel acting as a flame refers to Edom’s assimilation into Israel so that it is no longer a nation? I don’t see this view in the literature anywhere, and it will need to be tested against other passages which may speak of an eschatological judgment of Edom.

[10] Robertson, Christ of the Prophets, 248-49 / 168-70. In support of this Robertson observes that Amos, the book preceding Obadiah, concludes by speaking of the Davidic king possessing the remnant of Edom. Robertson does not note this, but it may be significant that the next prophet, Jonah, is about the gospel going to Gentiles.

[11] Niehaus 1993: 541.

Thoughts on an Interview with Tom Schreiner on the Millennium

by

In this interview with Tom Schreiner on his forthcoming Revelation commentary in the Baker Exegetical series, he discusses his current view of the Millennium.

Schreiner has famously shifted between premillennial and amillennial views of Revelation 20. In his forthcoming commentary he argues that Revelation 20 is the first stage of the new creation. He agrees with premillennialists that Satan is entirely bound during this time and that the bodily resurrection of believers is the “first resurrection” mentioned in Revelation 20. He notes that if the “first resurrection” is not the bodily resurrection, Revelation would have no mention of the ultimate vindication of the saints.  However, because he sees this period as part of the new creation, he does not see any non-glorified saints in Revelation 20. All the wicked are judged and all the saints are glorified. He also understands all of the “famous so-called millennial passages” in the OT are fulfilled in the new creation; he observes that they are copiously quoted in Revelation 21-22.

He notes that the big problem with his new creation view is the final battle in 20:7-10 . Who joins Satan in this final battle against the saints? His solution: these are those who were raised from the dead before the final judgment.

In many ways Schreiner’s view is similar to my own (and to that of Robert Duncan Culver in Daniel and the Latter Days). I too see the Revelation 20 as the first stage of the new creation. I too think that this helps make sense of OT millennial passages being referenced in Revelation 21-22. However, I would differ with Schreiner on a few points. (1) I don’t interpret the OT millennial passages symbolically the way that Schreiner does. I think those passages actually blend the millennial stage of the new creation with the consummate stage. That is why they can be alluded to in Revelation 21-22 while also containing material that cannot be true of the consummate new creation. (2) Because I hold to a pre-Day of the Lord rapture, my view doesn’t have a problem with non-glorified saints entering the Millennial period. Thus, I don’t have the difficulty with who joins with Satan in the final battle against the saints. (3) In the interview Schreiner does not elaborate on the purpose for a millennial first stage for the new creation. In my view this period is when Jesus Christ, the second Man, leads all mankind to fulfill the blessed mandate of subduing the earth.

In the interview Schreiner notes that his overall interpretation of Revelation is symbolic. If his ESV Expository Commentary is a guide, to the forthcoming BECNT volume, it will be consistent with Beale’s modified idealism. In the intreview Schriener notes his concern is with newspaper eschatology: Hal Lindsay, Tim LaHaye, or those who were finding Iraq in Revelation during the early 2000s. I too am concerned with such eisegesis. I don’t think those views can rightly be called futurist. They are a kind of presentism, a historicist approach focused on the present, just as preterism is a historicist approach focused on the first century. A true futurist approach would see Revelation 6 and following taking place during the final Day of the Lord, the timing of which is completely unknown to us.

Schreiner also made some helpful comments about dispensationalism at the end of the interview. He notes that the trend today is away from dispensationalism. However, he warns against having a “superior, supercilious spirit” toward dispensationalists. I think this is precisely right. I find that dispensational positions, or even positions thought to be dispensational (even if they have been held by a wide variety of interpreters throughout church history), are often dismissed, without actual engagement with the arguments or perhaps with a passing reference to a proof text here (as though the interpretation of that text is beyond debate). Schreiner does not have that spirit and rightly warns against it.

Typology, Escalation, and Revelation: A Problem with the Idealist Approach to Revelation

by

I’ve recently been reading various commentaries on the trumpet judgments in Revelation 8-9. Everybody acknowledges that these judgments are modeled on the Egyptian plagues. Further, John’s description of the trumpet judgments are intensifications of the plagues.

The idealist interpreter must argue that the referent of these judgments are the normal kinds of events that characterize the entire inter-advent period. Further, it is not clear how the famines, diseases, etc. of the inter-advent period differ from those that preceded Christ.

The Egyptian plagues are the type, John’s description of antitype properly escalates the type, but the idealist interpreter must then deescalate the type to something less than the original type.

New Journal Article: The Futurist Interpretation of Revelation: Intertextual Evidence from the Prologue

by

In the most recent issue of BJU Seminary’s Journal of Biblical Theology and Worldview, I have an article that argues that the allusions to the Old Testament in the prologue to Revelation (1:1-18), when taken together, point readers to interpreting Revelation according to a futurist approach, which understands Revelation as being primarily about the ultimate Day of the Lord. My conclusion:

The Apostle John begins the book of Revelation with a cluster of OT allusions which together focus on the coming of the Messiah in a Day of the Lord to judge the nations and to establish his kingdom on earth to be ruled by redeemed mankind. This focus within the prologue serves as a signpost to readers for how they should approach the remainder of the book. Though not every allusion, on its own, decisively points to a futurist reading, when they are considered together, the futurist orientation of the prologue is clear

I also contributed a book review of Ben C. Blackwell, John K. Goodrich, and Jason Maston, eds., Reading Revelation in Context: John’s Apocalypse and Second Temple Judaism. My conclusion:

Reading Revelation in Context provides an interesting introduction to a segment of Second Temple literature. However, it fails to demonstrate the importance of this literature for understanding Revelation. Presuming that the authors chose the best companion texts, the lack of a strong connection between many of the texts and Revelation was notable. The most convincing parallels were due to the texts drawing on the same Old Testament material as Revelation. This reinforces what is plain from the numerous allusions to the Old Testament in Revelation: the most important source for rightly reading Revelation is antecedent Scripture.