Johannine reprobation

Jesus said, "For judgment I came into this world, that those who do not see may see, and those who see may become blind" (Jn 9:39).

 

If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have been guilty of sin, but now they have no excuse for their sin (Jn 15:22).

Notice the dual purpose of redemption. Jesus comes to save, but he also comes to condemn. He comes with the intention of inculpating unbelievers. That’s a premeditated effect of his ministry.

Notice, too, the divine counterfactual: “If I had not come…” Their aggravated guilt was avoidable. God could have spared them that fate. God’s action wasn’t contingent on their response. Rather, their response was contingent on God’s action–with the dire, foreseeable result. 

Casting lots

I’m posting some comments I left over at Justin Taylor’s blog:

steve hays December 13, 2011 at 3:26 pm

Arminian

“Thank God that he did not unconditionally decree what one commenter mentions later in this thread, Hitler’s heinous slaughtering of millions.”

Instead, the Arminian God just stood by, wringing his hands, while it all happened.

steve hays December 13, 2011 at 9:09 pm

Robert

“Arminian is correct, some seem to be attempting to use the Tebow hysteria to argue for calvinism/theological fatalism/the claim that God predestines every event that comprises history.”

I assume Robert is alluding to “fatalists” like Solomon and St. Paul:

“The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the Lord” (Prov 16:33).

“In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will” (Eph 1:11).

Back to Robert:

“What I find amusing and telling at the same time is that when Denver was losing games, no theological fatalists were talking about how God had predestined all of those losses and the events that resulted in those losses.”

Such as the Westminster Divines:

“God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass” (WCF 3.1).

“God the great Creator of all things doth uphold, direct, dispose, and govern all creatures, actions, and things, from the greatest even to the least, by His most wise and holy providence, according to His infallible foreknowledge, and the free and immutable counsel of His own will, to the praise of the glory of His wisdom, power, justice, goodness, and mercy” (WCF 5.1).

Back to Robert:

“A consistent theological fatalist would make no exceptions and see **all events as equally predestined** by God.”

Consistent…like the Westminster Divines.

“So if you ‘lose’ its God controlling you to do so and if you ‘win’ its God controlling you to do so. But most theological fatalists, like others in the general population tend to CHOOSE to talk about God being involved and controlling things only when things they view as ‘good” happen.’”

Perhaps Robert would like to document his claim by citing or quoting some noted Reformed theologians who do what he alleges “most” of them do.

In fact, since he assures us that “most” of them do that, perhaps he’d like to give is a list of names, complete with titles and pagination.

“This is an sad but true logical consequence of theological fatalism.”

Thus far I’ve let Robert’s prejudicial terminology slide, but he’s deliberately equivocating over the term “fatalism.” For instance, as philosophy prof. William Young explains:

“Fatalism, in its most usual sense, should not be confused with predestination. Fatalism asserts an abstract necessity without regard to causal antecedents and thus is diametrically opposed to predestination, in which causes and effects, ends and means, are determined in relation to one another. The use of means is rendered futile by fatalism, but not by predestination,” P. Hughes, ed. The Encyclopedia of Christianity, 4:180a.

Back to Robert:

“…namely that God would then be controlling every person so that whatever errors, or false beliefs, or false religions, or false philosophies, people hold and espouse, they had to do so because God controlled them to do so. In fact it was impossible for them to do or believe otherwise than what God controls them and predestines them to do and believe. This does not fit what God reveals himself to be in scripture.”

Seems to fit pretty well with what God reveals himself to be in Scripture:

“And if the prophet is deceived and speaks a word, I, the Lord, have deceived that prophet” (Ezk 14:9).

“Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false” (2 Thes 2:11).

“19And Micaiah said, “Therefore hear the word of the Lord: I saw the Lord sitting on his throne, and all the host of heaven standing beside him on his right hand and on his left; 20and the Lord said, ‘Who will entice Ahab, that he may go up and fall at Ramoth-gilead?’ And one said one thing, and another said another. 21Then a spirit came forward and stood before the Lord, saying, ‘I will entice him.’ 22And the Lord said to him, ‘By what means?’ And he said, ‘I will go out, and will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.’ And he said, ‘You are to entice him, and you shall succeed; go out and do so.’ 23Now therefore behold, the Lord has put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these your prophets; the Lord has declared disaster for you” (1 Kgs 22:19-23).”

Back to Robert:

“But if he predestines everything then most Christians (e.g. those believers who are Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, etc.) are predestined to embrace error, false beliefs and even attack the truth and reject the truth.”

Reminds me something St. Paul once said:

“For there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized” (1 Cor 11:19).

Back to Robert:

“But Arminian if TUAD and other theological fatalists are right, that God predestines everything. Then he did predestine every action by Hitler and the Nazis, every sin and evil that occurs in the world. He also predestines every swear word uttered on the football field or in the stands.”

It means the Holocaust was a part of God’s plan, just like Noah’s flood, the Babylonian Exile, the Crucifixion of Christ, etc. It means God has a good reason for whatever he plans.

And if Robert is right, then God knowingly aids and abets evildoers.

steve hays December 14, 2011 at 8:11 am

It’s striking to contrast the Arminian viewpoint with the viewpoint of Scripture. Take Rev 4:11.

“Worthy are you, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power, for you created all things, and by your will they existed and were created.”

According to Scripture, God made all things and willed all things. As one commentator puts it, “Everything existed first in the eternal mind and will of God, and then at the appointed time, through his will, came into being” Smalley, The Revelation of John, 125.

Furthermore, Scripture regards that fact as praiseworthy.

By contrast, if God made all things and willed all things, the Arminian regards that as blameworthy. That makes God a “moral monster,” the “author of sin,” “worse than the Devil,” and so on.

Where Scripture sees light, the Arminian sees darkness.

steve hays December 14, 2011 at 1:48 pm

Arminian

“Yes. But allowing is radically different than unconditionally decreeing and ensuring that it happen.”

Needless to say, allowing something to happen is fully consonant with ensuring that something will happen. Take a comparison:

i) A mother strangles her newborn baby, thereby ensuring its death (by asphyxiation).

ii) A mother refuses to feed her newborn baby, thereby ensuring its death (by starvation).

In the case of (i) she directly caused the outcome. In the case of (ii), she merely “let” it happen through inaction. But in both cases she ensured the fatal outcome.

“In Calvinism, God logically first had the idea for each evil act that ever takes place, including the Holocaust, conceived it in his own heart, and logically then decreed for it to take place without any influence from anything outside of himself.”

In other words, “Arminian” rejects divine impassibility, which is a fixture of classical Christian theism. Yet, historically, Arminian theology was committed to classical Christian theism.

“That indeed makes God the author of the Holocaust and all sin and evil logically, even though Calvinists incoherently deny that idea.”

Notice the lazy, formulaic quality of Arminian apologetics. They simply repeat the same slogans, same catchphrases. No argument. No serious definition of terms.

“I know that some internet Calvinists think there is no real difference between allowing something and unconditionally decreeing it or irresistibly causing it, but I think most people do, and that it is quite obvious and undeniable.”

i) Notice how he’s using adjectives to do the work of arguments. He tendentiously asserts that his position is “quite obvious and undeniable.”

ii) How “obvious” and “undeniable” is it? Let’s take a comparison:

a) A father strangles his newborn baby

b) A father leaves his newborn baby in the woods, to die from predation or exposure.

In the case of (a), the father directly “causes” the baby’s death. In the case of (b), he places the baby in a situation where other factors (e.g. scavengers, predators, hypothermia) will dispatch the newborn.

But in both cases the father would be guilty of infanticide.

iii) In addition, the Arminian God “ensures” the outcome by making a world with that foreseeable outcome.

“Calvinism does not have a viable greater good argument, whereas Arminianism does.”

Once again, don’t lift a finger to actually prove your allegation. Just name it and claim it.

steve hays December 14, 2011 at 2:17 pm

Arminian

“Of course, Steve’s suggested analogies are completely dis-analogous. I think most people would agree (though not necessarily on a committed Calvinist site such as this one). Unconditionally decreeing/irresistibly causing vs. allowing are radically different in a situation such as I outlined. We may have to agree to disagree about that, but I am confident most people see that pretty clearly.”

i) Observe, as usual, that “Arminian” isn’t presenting an argument for his claims. His modus operandi is to simply declare that his position is obviously true while his opponent’s position is obviously false.

He hasn’t begun to show that my analogies are “completely disanalogous.”

ii) Moreover, as I’ve pointed out before, disanalogies don’t necessarily weaken the argument. Disanalogies may actually strengthen the argument. For the Arminian God has far more control over the variables than a murderous parent.

steve hays December 14, 2011 at 3:30 pm

Arminian

“The Creator giving people free will and then holding them accountable for how they use it is radically different than a father leaving his newborn baby in the woods. Sometimes, things are so obvious that they don’t need to be explained.”

i) Now you’re moving the goalpost. You originally said: “Allowing is radically different than unconditionally decreeing and ensuring that it happen.”

I gave some counterexamples to illustrate that your contrast was a false dichotomy. There are many situations where “allowing” something to happen can “ensure” the outcome just as well as directly causing it to happen. For instance, “allowing” a baby to die by refusing to feed it.

So are you now admitting that your original argument failed?

ii) Moreover, how is it “radically different”? Doesn’t the Arminian God decide when or where you are born? If so, then he’s putting you in a situation where circumstances do the rest–like the father who “lets” his newborn die by leaving him in the woods.

iii) Also, the Arminian God isn’t just “allowing” that to happen. Divine concurrence is necessary for that outcome to eventuate.

steve hays December 14, 2011 at 5:23 pm

Arminian

“Yes. But allowing is radically different than unconditionally decreeing and ensuring that it happen.”

i) Let’s consider this alleged difference from another angle. As I already pointed out, there are many situations in which “allowing” something to happen can “ensure” that it will happen.

ii) But suppose “allowing” something to happen doesn’t “ensure” that it will happen. Is that morally germane?

Let’s go back to the example of a father who leaves his newborn in the woods to die of exposure or predation.

Suppose that action falls short of ensuring the infant’s death. Suppose it’s just more likely than not that the baby will die. Or suppose there’s a 50/50 chance that the baby will survive. After all, it’s possible that a hiker or hunter or camper will stumble across the baby just in the nick of time.

Suppose the baby dies. The father is arrested and indicted for murder. Can he legitimately plead innocent on the grounds that he didn’t “ensure” the infant’s death? Is it morally sufficient to say he gave the baby a “chance” of survival?

iii) Finally, there’s a disanalogy in this comparison. Unlike the human father, God knows exactly what will happen.

steve hays December 15, 2011 at 7:04 am

Arminian

“Which doesn’t fly since the analogy itself is invalid.”

“Arminian” doesn’t understand how arguments from analogy work. I’m using a fortiori arguments. In an argument from analogy, if both a and b share the property of c, then what’s true for a is true for b with respect to c.

An a fortiori argument is a type of argument from analogy where the disanalogy strengthens the argument. If both a and b share the property of c, but b has more of c than a, then what is true for a with respect to c is even truer for b with respect to c. What’s true for the lesser is true (even truer) for the greater.

If the Arminian God has more potential control over the situation than a man, then the Arminian God is more responsible for the situation than a man.

Is Tebow a Sabbath-breaker?

I got into an impromptu debate over this issue at Justin Taylor’s blog. I may update this post if that exchange continues, but this lays down some markers:

steve hays December 14, 2011 at 3:47 pm

Kyle

“Friends, breaking the Sabbath is included in the same set of moral and unchangeable laws as not committing adultery. *If* God is helping Tebow (and more than in the general “he upholds all things by the power of his Word) it’s not for Tebow’s benefit.”

I’ve seen Tebow criticized on those grounds before. And that raises a valid issue. However:

i) Based on Rom 14:5, Gal 4:10, & Col 2:16, there are eminent Bible scholars who don’t think keeping the sabbath is a new covenant ordinance.

ii) And even if (arguendo) we regard the sabbath as part of God’s unchangeable law, it doesn’t follow that God’s law requires Christians to make Sunday on the Gregorian calendar their sabbath. That’s just a modern calendrical convention, not a Biblical mandate.

iii) Furthermore, there are also scholars who distinguish a day of worship from a day of rest.

steve hays December 14, 2011 at 5:09 pm

Kyle

“Thanks for your comments. For every scholar that writes against the perpetuity of the Sabbath I can up the ante…and if I were a betting man I’d sooner put my money on those who have gone before us then most contemporaries. You say Schreiner I’ll say Calvin; you say Carson, I’ll say Owen, etc, etc. And I can go beyond that, I’ll add any of the Reformers, Puritans, and any who have stood within the pales of Confessional Reformed or Baptist orthodoxy. So those ‘scholars’ (often influenced by Dispensational or New Covenant theologies) can say what they will, but any attempt to rid the Sabbath command from the binding moral law is nothing but wresting the Scriptures and robbing Christ of his Lordship as he is the Lord of the Sabbath.”

i) It’s not a question of how many scholars you and I can line up on either side of the issue, but the quality of their respective arguments.

ii) Tradition has no independent authority, over and above Scripture.

iii) In addition, you dodged points #2-3 of my comment.

“I feel the same way about this as you probably would if someone tried to biblically justify adultery. Chances are you wouldn’t give them much of a hearing because Scripture is painstakingly clear on the sinfulness of such an action.”

You're asserting an analogy minus a supporting argument. So it begs the question.

steve hays December 14, 2011 at 7:00 pm

Kyle

“As to the original (ii), the Sabbath commandment is grounded in the seven day week. The Sabbath command requires one day in seven to be kept as Sabbath. As this is a creation ordinance and obviously preceded the Mosaic economy (c.f. Genesis 2:3; Exodus 16) it’s not a matter of old vs. new covenant. By positive command that was the last day of the week under the OT. Since the resurrection of Christ that form was changed (not the substance of one in seven) to the first day of the week in accord with the pattern set by our Lord and the Apostles. Having the first day of the week as the Christian Sabbath is not, in fact, a ‘modern calendrical convention.’”

These are not equally strong arguments:

i) You can make a fairly strong argument that the Sabbath is a creation ordinance. (Mind you, that has to be counterbalanced against other Biblical evidence.)

ii) Even that wouldn’t make it a moral absolute (“moral and unchangeable law”). As Christ points out, the Sabbath is a means to an end, not an end in itself. As such, its value is relative, not absolute.

iii) The argument for a shift from Saturday to Sunday is much weaker. There is no dominical or apostolic command to worship and/or rest on Sunday. At most we have some suggestive indications regarding apostolic practice. But apostolic practice isn’t ipso facto equivalent to apostolic precept. Paul’s vow (Acts 18:18) isn’t mandatory for Christians.

iv) The Gospels don’t show Jesus celebrating the Sabbath on the first Easter.

v) And even if he did, dominical practice isn’t ipso facto normative. Jesus did many things that aren’t normative for Christians.

vi) You’re also equivocating. Let’s assume the first day of the week c. 30 AD was the Christian Sabbath. That hardly means the NT is preauthorizing the Gregorian calendar. If, instead of the Gregorian calendar, a Renaissance pope made the Mayan calendar the official calendar of Western Europe, would Tebow be breaking God’s “unchanging moral law” by failing to set aside the Mayan Sunday as his Christian Sabbath?

vii) You’re equivocating in another respect as well. 1st and 7th involve a sequence. It’s not the day in isolation, but the sequence, that’s the fundamental unit. You can have the same sequence on a different day.

steve hays December 14, 2011 at 7:00 pm

Kyle

“As to the original (ii), the Sabbath commandment is grounded in the seven day week. The Sabbath command requires one day in seven to be kept as Sabbath. As this is a creation ordinance and obviously preceded the Mosaic economy (c.f. Genesis 2:3; Exodus 16) it’s not a matter of old vs. new covenant. By positive command that was the last day of the week under the OT. Since the resurrection of Christ that form was changed (not the substance of one in seven) to the first day of the week in accord with the pattern set by our Lord and the Apostles. Having the first day of the week as the Christian Sabbath is not, in fact, a ‘modern calendrical convention.’”

That’s fatally equivocal. Let’s grant (arguendo) that reserving the first day of the week as the Christian Sabbath is a creation ordinance. That would be the enduring principle.

However, the Gregorian calendar is a modern calendrical convention. How we reckon the first day of the week is not a creation ordinance. What counts as “Sunday” is an artifact of whatever calendar we happen to be using. That’s the frame of reference. The underlying principle is Scriptural, but the specific application is cultural.

Scripture doesn’t assign “Sunday” as the Christian Sabbath. The first day of the week is relative to a sequence of days, and that’s relative to the operative calendar. Our calendar is a social convention.

The shepherd that missed out

Bury the hatchet

I don’t know much about Mark Driscoll’s ministry. I moved out of state before he became famous and Mars Hill church became such a looming presence.

On the one hand, I respect the fact that he successfully founded a conservative megachurch in the lair of the beast. King County is a very hostile environment for the Gospel. I also respect the fact that he reaches a demographic niche that others don’t. 

On the other hand, I recently skimmed through some juicey quotes by a couple of bloggers which sound like he’s gone off the deep end (e.g. “Pornographic Divination”). It would certainly be unfortunate if he self-destructed.

From what I can tell, many of his critics lack firsthand knowledge of Driscoll and his ministry. Mind you, since he has a lot of stuff in the public domain, that’s fair game.

In addition, he’s bound to attract haters who can’t stand his theology. So it’s hard to achieve a balanced assessment.

But here’s a potentially useful evaluation:

http://wenatcheethehatchet.blogspot.com/search?q=driscoll 

An Evangelical View Of Near-Death Experiences And Related Phenomena

I've been studying near-death experiences (NDEs) off and on for a long time, but I decided to study the subject in more depth earlier this year. What I want to do in this post is put together some links to my recent material on the subject, so that it can easily be found in one place. I plan to update this post in the future as I write more about near-death issues, so those who are interested in the topic can check back here in the future for updates.

Here's the foundational thread from April of this year, where I explained why I decided to study the subject in more depth and outlined my view of NDEs. A lot of issues are covered there, and my later posts should be read in the context of the framework I laid out in April. But that April thread wasn't intended to be about NDEs. You'll have to go several posts into the comments section of the thread to find my first post on the subject. I still haven't expanded much, if at all, on some of the points I made in that April thread. It covers a broader range of topics than my later posts, and it will give you an idea of some of the subjects I want to address in the future.

The next week, I asked the readers of this blog for feedback, including resources they'd recommend. Some other topics came up along the way.

The next month, I wrote a post on negative, or hellish, NDEs.

Here's one on the dream-like nature of NDEs.

I wrote briefly about an example of media bias on NDEs and related issues.

I linked to an interview of a doctor who recently discussed some of his experiences with near-death cases.

A lot is said about the religious plurality of NDEs. Here's a post I wrote about their moral pluralism.

And here's another post about the dream-like nature of NDEs, this time focusing on the tendency for dream-like characteristics to be suppressed.

Here's a post about a study of the death experiences of felons and the implications it has for the moral nature of NDEs and related phenomena.

In chapter 13 of an e-book found here, Steve Hays and I responded to an atheist, Victor Stenger, regarding NDEs and evidence of an afterlife. In appendix 11 of the same e-book, I provided an overview of shared death experiences (SDEs).

Here's a post in which I linked an article that summarizes a lot of research findings on NDEs, particularly NDEs that are negative.

Here's a post in which I wrote more about NDEs and morality. Issues like universalism and the demonic view of NDEs are addressed in the comments that followed the first post.

I responded to a thread on NDEs at Tim Challies' blog.

Alex Tsakiris interviewed Nanacy Evans Bush regarding negative NDEs. I discuss the interview here. It's not just about negative NDEs. Other topics came up along the way, like other paranormal phenomena that are of a negative nature, inconsistencies among NDEs, and how to compare competing supernatural worldviews.

Here's a post about inconsistencies among paranormal phenomena, including NDEs.

Here's a post I wrote about the need for Christians to do more to address paranormal phenomena, including NDEs.

Here I linked to two articles related to NDEs. One is a post about a recent study of the brain activity of rats, which some people are associating with human brain activity and NDEs. The other story is about Eben Alexander's alleged dishonesty concerning his NDE.

I got involved in a discussion about NDEs and exclusivism at Alex Tsakiris' web site. Here's a Triablogue post in which I discuss the thread and link to it.

Here's a post about an interview with Patricia Churchland, in which she was evasive on the issue of NDEs.

I wrote a response to some comments John Piper made about NDEs. I addressed how NDEs relate to passages like Isaiah 8, in which attempts to contact the dead are condemned.

A commenter in the John Piper thread mentioned above asked me several questions about NDEs: whether the religious figures encountered in NDEs identify themselves or are being identified by the experiencers instead, whether I can provide examples of NDEs contradicting each other, how I explain the paranormal knowledge some experiencers seem to gain through their experience, how well the demonic view of NDEs explains the NDEs of children, and more. You can read my responses in the comments section of that thread. One of the issues I address is the range of options Christians have for explaining NDEs.

I quoted a couple of lines from a John Donne poem relevant to the sort of religious pluralism that's often associated with NDEs.

I reviewed Patricia Pearson's book, Opening Heaven's Door (New York, New York: Atria Books, 2014). In the review, I discuss many subjects related to NDEs (inconsistencies among NDEs, their subjective nature, how they relate to organized religion, etc.). And here's a post discussing an interview with Pearson.

Here's something I wrote about the need for Christians to learn more about and address apparitions of the dead, NDEs, and related phenomena.

I addressed whether spirits of the dead appear to people on earth. I think they do, and I explained why.

Here's a post in which I link to a podcast on the paranormal hosted by Christians.

I also discussed an interview Alex Tsakiris had with Leslie Kean, a journalist who's written some books on paranormal phenomena. In the post, I discuss the importance of philosophy and the evidence for organized religion in evaluating paranormal phenomena.

And here's a series I did on the Enfield Poltergeist.

I wrote a post providing an overview of how Christians should view the afterlife and paranormal phenomena.

I later wrote about an interview Alex Tsakiris did with Penny Sartori, an NDE researcher. The post addresses negative NDEs, the reluctance of experiencers and researchers to talk about them, aspects of NDEs that make more sense under a more subjective view of NDEs, and some other topics.

And here's a post I wrote that's partly about the relationship between the paranormal and forms of theism that aren't affiliated with any organized religion.

I wrote about inconsistencies in some anti-Christian views of the paranormal, such as how NDEs and deathbed experiences are viewed. There's often a contrast between the lack of concern about the character of God and the concern that's shown for the character of other people.

Here's a response I wrote to an important book by Gregory Shushan about NDEs in indigenous religions. Many issues are discussed related to the subjective nature of NDEs, a dream model of explaining them, and so on.

In another post, I addressed false prophecies in NDEs.

I responded to some comments Jeffrey Long made in an interview about NDEs. The post addresses reincarnation, universalism, religious pluralism, the value and shortcomings of Long's NDE database, and other issues.

Another post discussed some of the problems with a demonic explanation of NDEs.

I quoted some of Gregory Shushan's comments outlining a dream model of NDEs.

Naturalist meltdown

John Byl voids Richard Carrier's naturalism.

The reduction of masculinity

http://www.whatswrongwiththeworld.net/2011/12/the_reduction_of_masculinity.html

Rees on Hawking

From Sir Martin Rees:

Stephen Hawking is a remarkable person whom I've know [sic] for 40 years and for that reason any oracular statement he makes gets exaggerated publicity. I know Stephen Hawking well enough to know that he has read very little philosophy and even less theology, so I don't think we should attach any weight to his views on this topic [of God].

Misotheism

Although "atheism" is the usual term, it would be more theologically and psychologically accurate if we started classifying "atheists" as "misotheists." This is a rare word that we need to popularize. When militant "atheists" write about God, they are seething with fear and loathing of God and Christians. So the vanilla gray term "atheism" fails to capture their outlook. "Misotheism" is far more accurate.

Roger Olson's Freudian slip

As an outspoken Arminian I find any book about predestination irresistible.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2011/12/a-good-relatively-new-book-about-predestination/

The world of Revelation

i) Scholars and commentators don’t offer a consistent analysis of how Revelation is structured. Different scholars propose different internal divisions, different structuring or unifying principles. One possible explanation for their lack of consensus is that Revelation itself lacks a consistent, overarching structure.

That wouldn’t be surprising. Although Revelation has an imaginative element, Revelation isn’t fiction. John lacks the unfettered freedom of a creative writer. He isn’t starting from scratch. Rather, he’s the recipient of divine visions and auditions. Although he may rearrange the material, the material imposes certain constraints on his editorial freedom.

ii) But another possibility is that most scholars and commentators only consider the question from one perspective. They treat the document is a self-contained text. Any structure would be internal to the text. How one part relates to another part. Or the literary allusions.

But it’s possible that the text of Revelation reflects external factors as well. For instance, one scholar says:

The churches are not numbered in sequence, only named. It is important that they are seven (1:11,20), but the order in which they occur is determined by geography (the route John’s messenger would follow, starting from Ephesus).

R. Bauckham, The Climax of Prophecy, 9.

Assuming that’s the case, then this is an instance where the literary sequence is determined, not by chronological or thematic considerations, but by logistics. By something extrinsic to the text. This is the order in which the courier would deliver the letters to the seven churches.

iii) On a related note, one possible structuring or unifying device is Johannine cosmography. The observable world of someone living on Patmos. The observable world of someone living in Asia Minor.

Of course, Revelation contains a lot of stock imagery that isn’t derived from or distinctive to its immediate milieu. Much of the imagery is recycled from the OT. Yet even that only pushes the question back a step. For the figurative imagery of the OT is, itself, derived from the physical world of Mesopotamia and the Levant. Metaphors originate in real time and real space.

To inhabit the text, we need to inhabit the world that produced the text. It’s not enough to study the building from the outside–we need to go inside and look around. See the world the author saw as the author saw it.

iv) Patmos is a volcanic island in the Aegean sea. Anatolia, where the seven churches were situated, is a region prone to volcanic, tectonic, and seismic activity.

Cosmography

5:13And I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and in the sea, and all that is in them, saying, "To him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb be blessing and honor and glory and might forever and ever!"

10: 1Then I saw another mighty angel coming down from heaven, wrapped in a cloud, with a rainbow over his head, and his face was like the sun, and his legs like pillars of fire. 2 He had a little scroll open in his hand. And he set his right foot on the sea, and his left foot on the land…5And the angel whom I saw standing on the sea and on the land raised his right hand to heaven 6and swore by him who lives forever and ever, who created heaven and what is in it, the earth and what is in it, and the sea and what is in it, that there would be no more delay.

This is a stylized depiction of how the world would look to someone living on an island.

Lightening and thunder

4:5From the throne came flashes of lightning, and rumblings and peals of thunder, and before the throne were burning seven torches of fire, which are the seven spirits of God,

8:5Then the angel took the censer and filled it with fire from the altar and threw it on the earth, and there were peals of thunder, rumblings, flashes of lightning, and an earthquake…19Then God’s temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant was seen within his temple. There were flashes of lightning, rumblings, peals of thunder, an earthquake, and heavy hail.

16:18And there were flashes of lightning, rumblings, peals of thunder, and a great earthquake such as there had never been since man was on the earth, so great was that earthquake.

Lighting and thunder have two potential sources. Thunderstorms are one source. From what I’ve read, the Aegean sea is subject to thunderstorms. So that’s something John may have been acquainted with.

But there’s also volcanic lightning as well as volcanic explosions. That would be familiar to residents of Asia Minor.

Sea of glass

4:6and before the throne there was as it were a sea of glass, like crystal.

15:2And I saw what appeared to be a sea of glass mingled with fire—and also those who had conquered the beast and its image and the number of its name, standing beside the sea of glass with harps of God in their hands.

A smooth, open body of water mirrors the sky. So the sky resembles reflected water. Likewise, an ocean sunset tints the water the color of the sun.

John would be in a position to observe both, as would coastal towns like Smyrna and Roman Ephesus.

Celestial luminaries

1:16 In his right hand he held seven stars.

5:13and the stars of the sky fell to the earth as the fig tree sheds its winter fruit when shaken by a gale.

8:10The third angel blew his trumpet, and a great star fell from heaven, blazing like a torch, and it fell on a third of the rivers and on the springs of water. 11The name of the star is Wormwood...12The fourth angel blew his trumpet, and a third of the sun was struck, and a third of the moon, and a third of the stars, so that a third of their light might be darkened, and a third of the day might be kept from shining, and likewise a third of the night.

9:1And the fifth angel blew his trumpet, and I saw a star fallen from heaven to earth.

12:1And a great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars. 2She was pregnant and was crying out in birth pains and the agony of giving birth. 3And another sign appeared in heaven: behold, a great red dragon, with seven heads and ten horns, and on his heads seven diadems. 4His tail swept down a third of the stars of heaven and cast them to the earth.

21:23And the city has no need of sun or moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and its lamp is the Lamb.

22:5And night will be no more. They will need no light of lamp or sun, for the Lord God will be their light, and they will reign forever and ever…16 "I, Jesus, have sent my angel to testify to you about these things for the churches. I am the root and the descendant of David, the bright morning star."

Imprisoned on the island of Patmos, under the night sky, John had occasion to see meteor showers and other celestial phenomena.

Sulfur and fire

19:20And the beast was captured, and with it the false prophet who in its presence had done the signs by which he deceived those who had received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped its image. These two were thrown alive into the lake of fire that burns with sulfur.

20:10and the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever…14Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire.

21:8 But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death."

In a volcanic region, a “lake of fire” suggests a lava flow.

Mountains and islands

1:9I, John, your brother and partner in the tribulation and the kingdom and the patient endurance that are in Jesus, was on the island called Patmos on account of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus.

6:14 The sky vanished like a scroll that is being rolled up, and every mountain and island was removed from its place. 15Then the kings of the earth and the great ones and the generals and the rich and the powerful, and everyone, slave and free, hid themselves in the caves and among the rocks of the mountains.

17:20And every island fled away, and no mountains were to be found.

21:10And he carried me away in the Spirit to a great, high mountain, and showed me the holy city Jerusalem coming down out of heaven from God.

Patmos is a hilly island, with Mt. Elias (883 ft) as the highpoint. From what I’ve read, some mountains of Asia Minor as well as other islands of the Dodecanese are visible from Patmos. So this imagery would resonant with the locals.

Hail

8:7The first angel blew his trumpet, and there followed hail and fire.

11:19Then God’s temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant was seen within his temple. There were flashes of lightning, rumblings, peals of thunder, an earthquake, and heavy hail.

17:21And great hailstones, about one hundred pounds each, fell from heaven on people; and they cursed God for the plague of the hail, because the plague was so severe.

From what I’ve read, the Aegean sea is subject to hailstorms.

Earthquake, fire, and smoke

5:12When he opened the sixth seal, I looked, and behold, there was a great earthquake, and the sun became black as sackcloth, the full moon became like blood.

8:7The first angel blew his trumpet, and there followed hail and fire, mixed with blood, and these were thrown upon the earth. And a third of the earth was burned up, and a third of the trees were burned up, and all green grass was burned up. 8The second angel blew his trumpet, and something like a great mountain, burning with fire, was thrown into the sea, and a third of the sea became blood. 9A third of the living creatures in the sea died, and a third of the ships were destroyed.

9:1And the fifth angel blew his trumpet, and I saw a star fallen from heaven to earth, and he was given the key to the shaft of the bottomless pit. 2He opened the shaft of the bottomless pit, and from the shaft rose smoke like the smoke of a great furnace, and the sun and the air were darkened with the smoke from the shaft. 3Then from the smoke came locusts on the earth, and they were given power like the power of scorpions of the earth…17And this is how I saw the horses in my vision and those who rode them: they wore breastplates the color of fire and of sapphire and of sulfur, and the heads of the horses were like lions’ heads, and fire and smoke and sulfur came out of their mouth.

13:11Then I saw another beast rising out of the earth.

16:3The second angel poured out his bowl into the sea, and it became like the blood of a corpse, and every living thing died that was in the sea.

20:1Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, holding in his hand the key to the bottomless pit and a great chain. 2And he seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years. 3and threw him into the pit, and shut it and sealed it over him, so that he might not deceive the nations any longer, until the thousand years were ended. After that he must be released for a little while.

It’s striking how much of this imagery can be generated by volcanic activity. That’s a potential unifying device.

Consider the effect of submarine volcanoes on the surrounding water. Or volcanic earthquakes. Volcanic ash, obscuring the sun. The effect of pyroclastic flows or pyroclastic surges on the flora. Lava flows pouring into the coastal waters.

The “bottomless pit” might be a hyperbolic description of a volcanic crater. Smoke rising from the “shaft” might depict a fissure vent. Subterranean magma would well up to the surface. A picturesque, volcanic metaphor for the netherworld.

The imagery needn’t rely on current volcanic activity. Collective memory would suffice.

The sea

12:12Therefore, rejoice, O heavens and you who dwell in them! But woe to you, O earth and sea, for the devil has come down to you in great wrath, because he knows that his time is short!"

13:1And I saw a beast rising out of the sea.

16:3The second angel poured out his bowl into the sea, and it became like the blood of a corpse, and every living thing died that was in the sea.

18:17 And all shipmasters and seafaring men, sailors and all whose trade is on the sea, stood far off 18and cried out as they saw the smoke of her burning,

    "What city was like the great city?"

 19And they threw dust on their heads as they wept and mourned, crying out,

   "Alas, alas, for the great city

    where all who had ships at sea

   grew rich by her wealth!

For in a single hour she has been laid waste.

 21Then a mighty angel took up a stone like a great millstone and threw it into the sea.

20:7And when the thousand years are ended, Satan will be released from his prison 8and will come out to deceive the nations that are at the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them for battle; their number is like the sand of the sea…13And the sea gave up the dead who were in it.

21:1Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more.

Patmos was a prison without walls or bars. The sea itself formed a natural, impenetrable barrier to escape.

Likewise, this imagery would resonate with people whose economy was dependent of shipping and fishing, viz. Aegean port towns.

Thirst

7:16 They shall hunger no more, neither thirst anymore;

the sun shall not strike them, nor any scorching heat.

11:6They have the power to shut the sky, that no rain may fall during the days of their prophesying, and they have power over the waters to turn them into blood and to strike the earth with every kind of plague.

To my knowledge, Patmos has no major source of fresh water. Just a little spring. I assume wine would be the major beverage in John’s time.

Snakes

12:9And the great dragon was thrown down, that ancient serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world— he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him.

Both John and his immediate audience were familiar with venomous snakes. At least in modern times, Patmos has rock vipers, while Anatolia has sand vipers as well as the desert cobra.