The mark of the Beast

I. The Fall of Babylon

Debates between amils and dispensationalists generally center on Rev 20. However, a neglected passage is Rev 18 (and related verses). The fall of Babylon poses a prima facie problem for dispensationalism. Let’s begin with a brief statement of the problem, then delve into the details.

In the literary sequence of Revelation, the fall of Babylon abuts the return of Christ. And dispensationalists believe the literary sequence of Rev 5-22 generally tracks a chronological sequence. That distinguishes dispensationalism from the recapitulatory scheme favored by amil interpreters like Beale.

So on that view, the fall of Babylon ushers in the premillennial return of Christ. That’s the next event in the queue.

But what does “Babylon” stand for? Most scholars regard “Babylon” as a cipher for Rome. Assuming that identification is correct (see below), when would the predicted downfall of “Babylon” (aka Rome) take place? Wouldn’t that select for the fall of Rome in 5C AD or thereabouts? But if the return of Christ is the next event in the queue, how do we account for the tremendous ellipsis between the past fall of Rome and the future return of Christ? 

II. Classical Dispensationalism

Lets first consider how a classical dispensationalist deals with this issue.

Robert Thomas says use of “Babylon” as code language for Rome comes from 2C AD sources. Cf. Revelation 8-22, 289; Four Views on the Book of Revelation, 201.

That’s true as far as it goes, but it seriously understates the evidence for the Roman identification:

i) To begin with, if John were referring to Rome, we wouldn’t expect him to name Rome in this pejorative context, for that would be seditious. If Christians in Asia Minor were already liable to persecution from the Roman authorities, naming Rome as the culprit would either provoke the authorities or exacerbate the situation. So if John were referring to Rome, we’d expect him to disguise the reference. I’m reminded of Dryden’s political allegories (Absalom and Achitophel; The Hind and the Panther).

ii) In addition, the argument for the Roman identification is hardly confined to the use of the word “Babylon” as a cipher for Rome. Rather, there’s a general argument for the Roman setting of Revelation, with special reference to the imperial cult. Cf. D. Aune, “The Influence of Roman Imperial Court Ceremonial on the Apocalypse of John,” Apocalypticism, Prophecy, and Magic in Early Christianity (Baker 2008), chap. 6; Revelation 6-16  (Thomas Nelson 1998); Revelation 17-22 (Thomas Nelson 1998); R. Bauckham, “Nero and the Beast,” The Climax of Prophecy (T&T Clark 2000), chap. 11; C. Hemer, The Letters to the Seven Churches (Eerdmans 2000), Introduction; C. Keener, The NIV Application Commentary: Revelation (Zondervan 2000); “Revelation,” The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament (IVP 1994); L. Thompson, “Historical Setting and Genre,” “Christians in the Province of Asia,” The Book of Revelation: Apocalypse and Empire (Oxford 1990), chapters 2 & 7.

These aren’t just run-of-the-mill Bible commentators, but scholars who conduct independent research into the primary sources. Of course, scholarly opinion is not the final word. We have to assess the evidence they adduce. But that’s what Thomas fails to do.

Thomas says the location of Babylon on the banks of the Euphrates favors a literal identification. E.g. Four Views, 202. But that’s problematic on several grounds:

i) The Euphrates is part of the Babylonian imagery. If John were using “Babylon” metaphorically, we’d expect him to include that familiar landmark. That’s not independent corroboration for the literal identification; rather, that’s part of the picturesque package.

ii) Rome is also located on the banks of a river–the Tiber.

iii) When John refers to a city on “seven hills” (17:9), Thomas says that “probably does have a nonliteral meaning,” Revelation 8-22, 289. So he’s arbitrary in his handling of topographical references. He takes the Babylonian landmark literally, but the Roman landmark figuratively.

Commenting on Rev 17:18, he says, “the historical dissolution of the Roman Empire does not match the description of the city’s destruction just given in vv16-17” (306).

But this disregards the fact that John is using staple poetic imagery.

Commenting on 18:11, Thomas says “John drew the list from items know in his day, not from the future time depicted in the prophecy” (330).

But that departs from the literal fulfillment of prophecy. That vacates the “plain sense” or “face value” meaning of the passage. If a dispensationalist (indeed, a classical dispensationalist) can take that approach to John’s language, why can’t an amillennialist do the same thing?

Commenting on 18:11, Thomas says, “It is a matter of disagreement as to whether the list better suits the city of Rome or Asia Minor where John wrote the Apocalypse” (30-31).

That’s a false dichotomy inasmuch as John is dealing with the Roman Empire, and not any particular municipality or province thereof. 

Commenting on 18:11, Thomas says: “This recalls the situation with ancient Tyre (Ezk 27:25-31)…Yet this list also has a timeless quality as evidenced by the large number of the items in this list that also appear in OT descriptions, particularly of Tyre” (331).

Several problems:

i) Thomas suddenly abandons the “literal” interpretation for the idealist school of hermeneutics. As he himself said earlier: “The timeless-symbolic or idealist position has the Apocalypse representing the eternal conflict of good and evil in every age…The book does not refer to specific events, but expresses the basic principles according to which God acts throughout history,” Revelation 1-7, 31.

ii) The reason that John alludes to Tyre and Babylon is because he’s drawing type/token parallels. Both Babylon and Rome were pagan superpowers. Both Babylon and Rome subjugated Israel. Both Babylon and Rome razed the temple. Both Babylon and Rome exiled the Jews. Both Babylon and Rome fell, as divine punishment. The players change, but the play remains the same. You can substitute different adversaries, for they share a common target: the people of God.

That’s consistent with the modified idealism of amil interpreters like Poythress and Beale.

iii) Although John evokes the oracle of doom against Tyre, he updates the catalogue to correlate items with the Roman economic system. Cf. Aune, Revelation 17-22, 961-1012; Bauckham, The Climax of Prophecy, chap 10.

III. Progressive Dispensationalism

So how do progressives address the issue?

Should we simply substitute things like helicopters and modern weapons for the imagery of locusts, scorpions, and other such images in Revelation 9:3?…Should we assume the prophet saw something like a motion picture of the future in his vision and then attempted to explain it in terms of images he understood? Or did he see a picture precisely in the images he gives…? Which description of those options is “more literal”? Is it the one that focuses on how it might look to us, so we explain what he meant in words and images very different from the prophet’s terms and images? Or should one focus on how it looked to the prophet and how it appears in the ancient text?

Another example of this literal/symbolic difficult is the debate over the identity of Babylon in Revelation 17….Should one appeal to Jeremiah 51 and take it literally as Babylon rebuilt, so that the center of the world system in the end will be where Iraq is now? Or is it a cipher for a rebuilt Rome, as the reference to seven hills of Revelation 179 suggests. Which context helps us identify what is taking place, the Old or the New?…Even dispensationalists have not agreed here. Perhaps ultimately a choice between the two contexts is not necessary.

We would suggest that this image refers to the sweep of history. The beast depicts each worldwide dynasty of biblical times: Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Medo-Persia, and Greece are the five fallen kings. The sixth, Rome, is “the one that is,” thus honoring the allusion to the hills in Revelation 17:9.

Those who associate the image with Babylon are right in that it is the greatest OT picture of such a power. That is why the beast is called Babylon. Those who associate it with Rome are right because Rome was the current manifestation of that beast in the time of John the writer…Yet the beast is more than either national identification…given the shifting nature of the location of the eras represented by the beast. The text is both specific and indefinite at the same time.

D. Bock & C. Blaising, Progressive Dispensationalism (Baker 2000), 91, 93-95.

The essence of typology is that it creates a “representative” description of reality that may reappear in a fresh form at a later date. Such representation then gives the possibility that what is portrayed in one time period as taking place may “reappear” in the same general form in another time period, so that two events can share identification.

Could it be that the image of the beast is first-century Rome at one level or at least includes it in some way, since it was the evil world empire opposing the saints at the time of John’s writing, and yet it is also genealogically and typologically related to the world power of the end, which Jesus will ultimately judge one day in the future? Could not images like Babylon and the beast represent similar kinds of connections, so that the struggle of history current in John’s time is a type of cipher and precursor for the ultimate future struggle?

D. Bock, “Summary Essay,” Four Views, 294-95.

This approach avoids the erratic inconsistencies that beset Robert Thomas. But its flexibility comes at a cost for dispensationalism. For it’s hard to draw a clear line between the progressive dispensational interpretation of Revelation and the modified idealism of amillennial futurists like Poythress and Beale.

Although the approach taken by Bock and Blaising is consistent with a dispensational plotline, it falls short of selecting for or singling out that particular plotline. For on this view, both progressive dispensationalists and amillennial futurists believe the conflict depicted in Revelation is periodically exemplified throughout church history. Likewise, both groups believe there will be a climatic conflict and resolution at the end of the church age. That this will come to a head, and be conclusively resolved, with the return of Christ. 

Understanding Scripture – an Overview

Several weeks ago, I reviewed a new work published by Zondervan, How to Read the Bible Through the Jesus Lens. It was touted as “A Guide to Christ-Focused Reading of Scripture”. Because it was Zondervan, it garnered some very fine blurbs by some big names. For example, “This is the sort of book I’d love to have in the hands of every member of my church!” (Justin Taylor) and “Michael Williams has written a book that is badly needed: a survey of all the books of the Bible that shows how they work together to point toward Jesus Christ ... accessible to almost any reader.” (Douglas Moo). That was all marketing fluff. I didn’t like the format of that book.

Understanding Scripture: An Overview of the Bible’s Origin, Reliability, and Meaning

But this is the book those things really need to be said about: “This is the sort of book I’d love to have in the hands of every member of my church!” and “This is a book that is badly needed: a survey of the history and reliability of all of Scripture …  ‘an Overview of the Bible’s Origin, Reliability and Meaning’ … accessible to almost any reader.”

For an overview of the work, I’ll refer you to some of the glowing (and thorough!) reviews it has received at Amazon.com. Meanwhile, a look at the Table of Contents will give you an idea of what the book is all about.

Part 1: Interpreting the Bible

                1. Interpreting the Bible: An Introduction, Daniel Doriani

                2. Interpreting the Bible: A Historical Overview, John Hannah

Part 2: Reading the Bible

                3. Reading the Bible Theologically, J. I. Packer

                4. Reading the Bible as Literature, Leland Ryken

                5. Reading the Bible in Prayer and Communion with God, John Piper

                6. Reading the Bible for Personal Application, David Powlison

                7. Reading the Bible for Preaching and Public Worship, R. Kent Hughes

Part 3: The Canon of Scripture

                8. The Canon of the Old Testament, Roger T. Beckwith

                9.The Canon of the New Testament, Charles E. Hill

                10. The Apocrypha, Roger T. Beckwith

Part 4: The Reliability of Bible Manuscripts

                11. The Reliability of the Old Testament Manuscripts, Paul D. Wegner

                12. The Reliability of the New Testament Manuscripts, Daniel B. Wallace

Part 5: Archaeology and the Bible

                13. Archaeology and the Reliability of the Old Testament, John Currid

                14. Archaeology and the Reliability of the New Testament, David W. Chapman

Part 6: The Original Languages of the Bible

                15. Hebrew and Aramaic, and How They Work, Peter J. Williams

                16. Greek, and How It Works, David Alan Black

                17. The Septuagint, Peter J. Gentry

Part 7: Old Testament and New

                18. A Survey of the History of Salvation, Vern S. Poythress

                19. How the New Testament Quotes and Interprets the Old Testament, C. John Collins

As a former Roman Catholic, I’ve worked hard to understand what Scriptures are all about. This is a work that I’d highly recommend as a very thorough introduction to the issues that are facing Biblical scholars today.  

Will this prompt Dr Oakley to change his name to “Dr Google”?

Talk about “the vision thing”. Now there are “Google Glasses”.

Google has unveiled its designs for "augmented reality glasses", which layer emails, video chat, Google searches and GPS directions over the wearer's eyes. The glasses, which are voice-controlled, are a product of the Google X blue-sky ideas lab.

Google put out a video of how the prototype works. In it the wearer gets directions, takes pictures and conducts video chats all through his glasses.

Google said: "We think technology should work for you - to be there when you need it and get out of your way when you don’t.

"We're sharing this information now because we want to start a conversation and learn from your valuable input. So we took a few design photos to show what this technology could look like and created a video to demonstrate what it might enable you to do."

Olson's forked tongue

At the end of the chapter Smith says of God’s promises of blessing “All this belongs to those who are in Jesus Christ. It can be yours.” (p. 113) Wait. How can he say that? How can a Calvinist or any monergist who is not a universalist say “It [salvation] can be yours” without qualification? IF Smith were writing only to believers he would says “It is yours.” Clearly by saying “It can be yours” (italics added) he is not just talking (in this instance) to believers. However, how can a non-universalist monergist say to an unknown audience that salvation can be theirs without qualification?

 

Therein lies a deep inconsistency and a conundrum in Calvinism (except hyper-Calvinism). It is simply dishonest to say indiscriminately to a group of people that salvation can be theirs. There is no way to know that. If Christ died only for some, then there is no way to know that salvation can be theirs—when “theirs” refers to a mixed group such as readers of this book. (Again, in this particular instance, anyway, Smith cannot be thinking only of believing readers or else he would say salvation is theirs, not can be theirs. So at least in this sentence he is talking to a wider audience including people he does not think are all saved already.)

 

Many evangelical Calvinists do evangelize indiscriminately. I agree with the hyper-Calvinists who reject that. The gospel cannot be a “well-meant offer” to an unknown group of people, an audience that may include the non-elect. To say to such a group “Salvation can be yours” is misleading. It wouldn’t be wrong to say “Salvation may be yours.” But this is a case where “can” and “may” do not mean the same thing. (In proper English, of course, they usually aren’t the same thing.)

 

I would challenge members of The Gospel Coalition and all monergists to be honest and refrain from indiscriminate evangelism which is logically inconsistent with non-universalist monergism and even dishonest.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2012/04/part-6-of-response-to-the-gospel-as-center-chapter-6-the-plan/

Talk about dishonesty: Olson pounces on a single phrase ("It can be yours") by a pastor, then acts as if that choice of words discredits Reformed evangelism in toto. He completely disregards nuanced formulations of the well-meant offer by Reformed philosophers and theologians like William Young, Paul Helm, and Roger Nicole.   

Fidel Obama

According to our exalted leader:

Ultimately, I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress. And I'd just remind conservative commentators that for years what we’ve heard is, the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint -- that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law.  Well, this is a good example. And I’m pretty confident that this Court will recognize that and not take that step.

Several issues:

i) If SCOTUS strikes down the law, I’ll be pleased with the result, but not with the process.

ii) It squeaked through the House by 5-vote margin. That’s hardly a “strong majority.”

iii) In one sense, I agree with Obama–although he only half believes what he’s saying. I’m not convinced that SCOTUS has the Constitutional authority to strike down acts of Congress.

iv) However, judicial review is essential to liberal strategy and tactics. Because so many liberal policies lack popular support, liberals game the court system to impose what they can’t achieve through the democratic process. Obama certainly has no objection to judicial review whenever that advances the liberal agenda.

v) But is this a tu quoque argument? Is he accusing conservatives of hypocrisy? I myself think it should be up to Congress to repeal bad acts of Congress.

vi) That said, many conservatives support judicial review in principle. They don’t object to the Federal judicial striking down acts of Congress that are truly unconstitutional. Rather, when they decry judicial activism, they are referring to Federal judges (or Supreme Court justices) who disregard the text as well as the original intent of the Constitutional framers.

vii) Moreover, as long as judicial review is the de facto (if not the de jure) system, then conservatives aren’t going to unilaterally disarm. The consistent conservative position isn’t that Federal courts have the right to strike down conservative laws while lacking the right to strike down liberal laws.

viii) But in another sense, Obama is sincere. For he’s quite the autocrat. He governs by executive fiat. He flouts laws that don’t meet with his approval. So, no doubt he takes personal affront at the specter of SCOTUS clipping his wings.

ix) There’s also the question of whether his statement will backfire. What if a swing voter on the bench was inclined to uphold Obamacare, but now that he’s recast the issue in terms of judicial authority, the swing voter is now inclined to strike down Obamacare just to show him that SCOTUS can’t be intimidated.   

Despairing grief

But we do not want you to be uninformed, brothers, about those who are asleep, that you may not grieve as others do who have no hope (1 Thes 4:13).

**********************************************

My father was the philosopher and political polemicist David Stove. During his undergraduate years, he fell under the spell of the militantly atheistic guru John Anderson of the University of Sydney's philosophy department.

Shortly before Christmas 1993, my mother—who for decades had drunk heavily, smoked compulsively, and eaten hardly at all—suffered a massive stroke. At first she was not expected to live. Gradually, the truth emerged: the stroke, while not powerful enough to have killed her, had robbed her of all speech and nearly all movement.

To watch an adult abruptly transformed before one's eyes into a paralyzed, whimpering vegetable, all too conscious (at least in a general fashion) of what had befallen her, yet as powerless to rectify anything as if she had been six months old, is in a way worse than losing a loved one to Alzheimer's. There, at least, the decay is gradual. This was as abrupt an assault on life as if it had been a homicide. But a homicide can instill in you justified wrath; how can you feel wrath against as impersonal a cutting-down as befell my mother?

From the day of her stroke to the day of her death, almost eight years afterwards, she was in twenty-four-hour-a-day nursing care. By that time my father had long since left the scene. Diagnosed with esophageal cancer, and convinced beyond all reason that his announcement of this diagnosis to Mum had brought about her stroke, Dad simply unraveled. So, to a lesser extent, did those watching him.

All Dad's elaborate atheist religion, with its sacred texts, its martyrs, its church militant; all his ostentatious tough- mindedness; all his intellectual machinery; all these things turned to dust. Convinced for decades of his stoicism, he now unwittingly demonstrated the truth of Clive James's cruel remark: "we would like to think we are stoic...but would prefer a version that didn't hurt."

Already an alcoholic, he now made a regular practice of threatening violence to himself and others. In hospital he wept like a child (I had never before seen him weep). He denounced the nurses for their insufficient knowledge of Socrates and Descartes. From time to time he wandered around the ward naked, in the pit of confused despair. The last time I visited him I found him, to my complete amazement, reading a small bedside Gideon Bible. I voiced surprise at this. He fixed on me the largest, most protuberant, most frightened, and most frightening pair of eyes I have ever seen: "I'll try anything now."

(Years later, I discovered—and was absolutely pole-axed by —the following passage in Bernard Shaw's Too True To Be Good, in which an old pagan, very obviously speaking for Shaw himself, sums up what I am convinced was Dad's attitude near the end. The passage runs: "The science to which I pinned my faith is bankrupt. Its counsels, which should have established the millennium, led, instead, directly to the suicide of Europe. I believed them once. In their name I helped to destroy the faith of millions of worshipers in the temples of a thousand creeds. And now look at me and witness the great tragedy of an atheist who has lost his faith.")

Eventually, through that gift for eloquence which seldom entirely deserted him, Dad convinced a psychiatrist that he should be released from the enforced hospital confinement which he had needed to endure ever since his threats had caused him to be scheduled. The psychiatrist defied the relevant magistrate's orders, and released my father.

Within twenty-four hours Dad had hanged himself in his own garden.

http://whyimcatholic.com/index.php/conversion-stories/atheist-converts/item/96-atheist-convert-rj-stove

Plantinga on Plantinga

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/04/seeking_an_offi058161.html

Some quick responses to some thoughtless questions

There is still some discussion going on at Dan Wallace’s blog. Eric Todd, who visited the comments here, has provided some staccato-form questions for Dr. Wallace, and I’m providing some staccato-form answers to match his questions. I’ve provided some links to support my short statements. But this, I thought, was instructive in showing the form that these types of discussions follow.

Eric Todd said: You said “Sola scriptura means that we measure all truth claims against the scriptures”. This is not how most Protestants define it, or how the Westminster Confession defines it.

This is a blog, and Dr Wallace has provided a good working definition. Only Scripture is “God-breathed”. No other “truth claims” bear this unchanging mark of truthfulness. Augustine says, “God alone swears securely, because He alone is infallible”. In this case, God is promising a covenant. Only God can promise a covenant, because only what He says will always come to pass. But indeed, only God can reveal Himself. He does this in the Old Testament and most perfectly in the person of Jesus Christ (Hebrews 1:1-3).

No appeal to “apostolic succession” assures that the revelation of God that we have in Christ occurs anywhere else but in Scripture. As I noted in my previous response:

In other words, the fixing of the canon [of the New Testament] necessarily excludes from the “apostolic witness” what “the unbroken chain of bishops” proposes to bring to it. “The establishment of the Christian written canon indicates that the Church itself at a definite time drew a clear line of demarcation between the time of the apostles and the time of the church, between the time of the foundation and the time of the superstructure, between the apostolic church and the church of the bishops, between the short apostolic [tradition] and the ecclesiastical tradition. This occurrence would be meaningless if its significance were not the formation of the canon (citing Cullmann on Tradition).

No one of us, or no group of us, can claim to represent the “true revelation” of God in Christ that will never fail. Only the Scriptures never fail. Further, if you suggest that there is some source that we may trust with the same trust with which we trust the Scriptures, then it is incumbent upon you to say where and how this is so. You, or a pope, or your Metropolitian, or “the whole church together”, not only do fail, but they can be relied upon to fail more often than not. Only the Word, the promise of God, can be relied on never to fail, never to be untrue.

And so if you or I or a council makes a promise or definition, it may be true insofar as it is consistent with God’s word. However, we are always to “measure those truth claims against the Scriptures”.


Eric Todd said: All Protestants who embrace the authority of Scripture also rely however unwittingly on the authority of the Church.

Rather, we rely on God’s promise to guide the church.


(Citing Wallace): “And when there is a consensus among the fathers, we must have very, very good reasons to argue against that consensus, with plenty of scriptural support.”

Eric Todd: I really value your perspective here. If all Protestants adopted this epistemology, doctrinal differences amongst Protestants would all but disappear.

If all are “united to the vine”, and vines are seen to have many branches, what is so important about a “doctrinal difference”? Look at Luther and Zwingli and the Lord’s Supper? If the Lord enables Lutherans and the Reformed to have differences in “doctrines” over these things, then the differences cannot be critical differences. That is, the Scriptures say, “do this”, but they don’t precisely say *how* to “do this”, then whatever *how* is adopted by the church, absolutely does not “rise to the level” of one of those “truth claims” that we started talking about.


I say “all”, because you still leave open the door for the scenario when I, armed only with my Bible and sitting here in the 21st century, argue to overturn a doctrine or praxis that the Church has embraced for up to 2000 years.

We also need to leave open the door for a scenario in which the early church adopted doctrines and practices from, say, Pagan cultures, which have been embedded in, say, “orthodox” doctrines and practices for nearly 2000 years. We should feel free to jettison such things.


If the Church is the “pillar of truth” and the Body of Christ, why assume she became heretical?

You need to understand in what sense the church is “the pillar of truth”. What’s in view in 1 Tim 3:15 is “how you ought to behave”. It is the behavior of the church which supports its own claims to be “supporting the truth”. No church which is behaving badly cannot be said to be speaking the truth. Or, conversely, a church which is behaving badly cannot be seen to be “the pillar of truth”.

That statement is based on exegesis. However, if you want an early church father, consider what Irenaeus said, which is very rarely repeated by Roman Catholics or Orthodox who want to talk about succession, For [the Apostles] wanted those whom they left as successors, and to whom they transmitted their own position of teaching, to be perfect and blameless (1 Tim 3:2) in every respect. If these men acted rightly it would be a great benefit, while if they failed it would be the greatest calamity (Robert Grant translation).

There is no promise of “infallible transmission of doctrine” there. Rather, Irenaeus supports the notion that the church is “the pillar of truth” by “being perfect and blameless”, by living according to the truth. If they do not do this, it is “the greatest calamity”. However, we can see, in every era of church history, how those claiming the highest leadership positions in the church have not done so.

Prayer & praise

I’m going to comment on Craig Blaising’s interpretation of Rev 20. To my knowledge, classical dispensationalism has a major commentary on Revelation (by Robert Thomas), but progressive dispensationalism does not. Buist Fanning is slated to write a commentary on Revelation, which may rectify that omission–although I don’t know if his editors will allow him the page count accorded Thomas. So, for now, Blaising will have to do:

Consistently through John’s visions, martyrs are those who lose their physical lives for Christ’s sake. They have a promise from the One who died and yet came to life in resurrection (ezesan in 2:8) that they will receive a crown of life (2:10) and that they will reign on the earth (5:10). These promises are fulfilled when at the end of the book they come to life (ezesan) and reign with Christ (20:4).

Nor can one establish the interpretation that the martyrs were simply alive spiritually in spite of being dead physically–an interpretation that eliminates the ingressive sense of ezesan (i.e., came to life, began to life [as would be the case in a resurrection])….The ingressive sense is the proper sense in the other uses of the word (2:8; 13:14), and they mean bodily resurrection. Even outside Revelation, ezesan or ezesan is never used to describe the life of a disembodied soul. On the contrary, it is used with an ingressive sense to denote resurrection ((cf. LXX of Ezk 37:10). John’s meaning is established by his use of the word “resurrection” (anastasis) to clarify “came to life” (ezesan). The word anastasis is never used in the Bible for the continuing existence of the physically dead…It always refers to the elimination of the condition of physical death through bodily resurrection.

The martyrs have been promised bodily resurrection (2:10) and a future reign with Christ (2:26-27; 3:21) on the earth. Their deaths by martyrdom, the spilling of their blood on the earth, has been a repeated theme up to this point. In their state of death they are never described as reigning or as seated on thrones, but as resting, waiting, and positioned under the altar until justice is done for them (6:9-10; 14:13). But in 20:4 their condition is changed. At the time that judgment comes on their enemies, they come to life and reign. This is the beginning of the fulfillment of the promise and reward for which they have been waiting throughout the book.

D. Bock, ed. Three Views on the Millennium and Beyond (Zondervan 1999), 223-24.

i) I think Blaising is committing the totality transfer fallacy in his handling of ezesan. He treats the verb as if it were a technical term for bodily resurrection. But that imports a resurrection context into the meaning of a simple verb.

2:8 doubtless refers to the bodily resurrection of Christ. But that presupposes some background knowledge from the Gospels. If all we had to go by was Revelation, 2:8 wouldn’t be that specific.

ii) Apropos (i), his appeal to 13:14 undercuts his thesis. Since the Beast didn’t die, it wasn’t physically resurrected. The Beast was mortally wounded, but it didn’t succumb to its injuries due to miraculous healing.

iii) His appeal to Ezk 37:10 is treacherous, for that’s a highly imaginative depiction.

iv) Blaising is on slightly firmer ground with anastasis, which is a stock term for “resurrection.” Even so, it’s not clear to me that anastasis is a technical term for physical resurrection. In NT usage, it’s often qualified by an explanatory phrase, viz. “resurrection of/from the dead.” This suggests the word itself isn’t that specialized. Likewise, the Gospels of Luke and John to out of their way to emphasize the physicality of Christ’s resurrection. They don’t rely on the bare term “resurrection.”

v) In any case, we need to distinguish between resurrection imagery and a literal resurrection. This is not a historical narrative, like the Gospels or Acts. The Apocalypse is chockfull of picturesque metaphors. This is not descriptive, realistic language. And even dispensational scholars generally make allowance for figurative depictions in Revelation.

vi) Whether 5:10 is present or future is disputed due to variant readings.

vii) Amils get the “life of a disembodied soul,” not from the sense of isolated words like ezesan, but from the word-picture John draws of disembodied souls (6:9).

viii) 20:4 probably takes place in heaven rather than on earth. There the altar is the heavenly counterpart (6:9, 8:3,5; 9:13; 14:18; 16:7) to the earthly altar of burnt offerings, where the blood of the sacrificial animal drenched the foot of the altar (e.g. Exod 29:12; Lev 4:7; 17:11). By analogy, the blood of the martyrs is like a libation that’s poured out at the base of the heavenly altar. That’s the sense in which the martyrs are “under” the altar. 

ix) How do the saints reign on earth (5:10)? How to they rule the nations (2:26-27; cf. 3:21).

I’d suggest they do so through the power of prayer:

8 And when he had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints. 9 And they sang a new song, saying,

“Worthy are you to take the scroll

    and to open its seals,

for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God

    from every tribe and language and people and nation,

10 and you have made them a kingdom and priests to our God,

    and they shall reign on the earth.

(5:8-10)

9 When he opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain for the word of God and for the witness they had borne. 10 They cried out with a loud voice, “O Sovereign Lord, holy and true, how long before you will judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell on the earth?” 11 Then they were each given a white robe and told to rest a little longer, until the number of their fellow servants and their brothers should be complete, who were to be killed as they themselves had been (6:9-11)

2 Then I saw the seven angels who stand before God, and seven trumpets were given to them. 3 And another angel came and stood at the altar with a golden censer, and he was given much incense to offer with the prayers of all the saints on the golden altar before the throne, 4 and the smoke of the incense, with the prayers of the saints, rose before God from the hand of the angel. 5 Then 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 (8:3-4).

17 The Spirit and the Bride say, “Come.” And let the one who hears say, “Come.” And let the one who is thirsty come; let the one who desires take the water of life without price.

20 He who testifies to these things says, “Surely I am coming soon.” Amen. Come, Lord Jesus! (22:17,20).

For exposition, see: R. Bauckham, “Prayer in the Book of Revelation, R. Longenecker, ed. Into God’s Presence (Eerdmans 2001), chap. 12.

Christians begin to reign with Christ in the here and now, although that will be consummated at the Second Coming:

4 Grace to you and peace from him who is and who was and who is to come, and from the seven spirits who are before his throne,5 and from Jesus Christ the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of kings on earth. To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood 6 and made us a kingdom, priests to his God and Father, to him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen (1:4-6).

Answered prayer is a major way Christians rule nations and exercise dominion on earth–beginning with first-generation Christians, to whom Revelation was initially directed. That’s especially apt in a persecution setting, as beleaguered Christians pray for divine intervention and preservation in a hostile world.

Kruger reviews Keener

http://thegospelcoalition.org/themelios/review/miracles_the_credibility_of_the_new_testament_accounts

Is the future open?

Freewill theists believe the future is “open.” In debates between Calvinists and freewill theists, it’s useful to be clear on what it means for the future to be open, how these facets are interrelated, what they entail, and what positions they eliminate.

Here’s a summary:

Alan Rhoda's "The Fivefold Openness of the Future" lays out five senses in which the future is open. The future is causally open in that there are several possible futures. It is ontically open in that the future does not yet exist. It is alethically open in that propositions about the future are neither true nor false. The future is epistemically open in that no one can know which future states of affairs will obtain. Finally, the future is providentially open in that the future states of affairs are not exhaustively ordained. Rhoda attempts to argue that if one accepts certain assumptions, these five senses of the open future stand or fall together. If he is successful, he has narrowed the options for theists to take: one either holds to open theism or theological determinism. Molinism and other forms of free will theism are out if the argument goes through.

http://thegospelcoalition.org/themelios/review/god_in_an_open_universe_science_metaphysics_and_open_theism

And here’s a technical exposition of the summary:

http://www.alanrhoda.net/papers/Fivefold%20Openness%20of%20the%20Future.pdf

The liar paradox

Steve “scotju” Dalton Apr 2, 2012 06:51 AM

Derek, eighteen years ago, I was in the same position that Wallace is in now. The chances of Wallace becoming a Catholic are very good. Once you start getting deep into church history, lke I did, your chances of staying an honest Protestant vanish like a puff of smoke. The only way you can remain a Protestant after that happens is to lie to yourself and others, like the boys at Beggars All and Triablogue do. That goes double for an apostate Catholic like John Bugay.

http://catholicnick.blogspot.com/2012/03/daniel-wallace-there-is-no-protestant.html?showComment=1333374676525#c3837258480388908208

I’m afraid that accusation poses a serious dilemma. Suppose I agree with Dalton’s allegation that I’m a liar? But if a liar says he’s a liar, is his admission a lie? I’m afraid Dalton has put me in a position that makes it difficult for me to express my assent. 

Michael Kruger: 10 Misconceptions about the NT Canon: #1: The Term “Canon” Can Only Refer to a Fixed, Closed List of Books

One of the things that really stood out for me about Dan Wallace’s blog post on Protestant Ecclesiology was the sentence “it has been long noted that the weakest link in an evangelical bibliology is canonicity”. The reason this is a weak link is not because it’s really a weakness. Someone in Dr. Wallace’s position (a) should know better than this, and (b) should not be propagating this type of trash.

Regarding (a), “knowing better”, he should at least be familiar with the polemics of it. Oscar Cullmann was perhaps one of the leading New Testament scholars in the mid 20^th century. Cullmann, a conservative Lutheran, stood his ground in the face of the tide of liberal “higher critical” scholarship, and he almost single-handedly laid the foundation for the current generation of New Testament scholars whose work IS respected in the “academic” world of New Testament scholarship.

More on that another time. But it was Cullmann who most forcefully demonstrated for me the pure bankruptcy of the Roman Catholic apologetic in the world. Cullmann had written and published the (till then) most extensive documentation of the life, death, and legend of the Apostle Peter. It is Cullmann’s work on Peter that stands the test of the back-and-forth of “Petrine scholarship”. Whether or not his is the best understanding is another story, but his is the “consensus” view, that (a) Peter (exegetically) is the “rock” of Matthew 16:18, but (b) there is no hint of “succession” in the New Testament.

When Cullmann’s work was published, do you think that Roman Catholic scholars actually addressed it? No, they did the Roman Apologetic “two-step”. Here it is in Cullmann’s own words:

In … most of the Catholic reviews of my book on St. Peter, one argument especially is brought forward: scripture, a collection of books, is not sufficient to actualize for us the divine revelation granted to the apostles (cited in “The Early Church”, London: SCM Press Ltd, © 1956, in the Foreword to the article “The Tradition”, pg 57).

 Roman Catholic apologetic never changes. This trashing of Scripture is the first step in the “two-step”. The second step is to say, “Only on the authority of the Roman Catholic Church was the “canon” “fixed”. Therefore, the Roman Catholic Church is what it says it is”.

And as for Dr. Wallace and (b), the real disappointment of this article is that he, a New Testament scholar of the highest order, should not be allowing himself to be used as a pawn in this kind of Bible-trashing trash.

As for an appropriate (and really, a stellar) response to Roman Catholic trashing of the New Testament canon, kudos to Michael Kruger, another New Testament scholar of the highest order, has drawn upon some of the best thinking that Protestantism has to offer, in order to help man-in-the-street Protestants (and pastors!) to understand how this complex process came about.

Dr Kruger has produced the first of his 10 Misconceptions about the New Testament Canon:

Indeed, one’s definition of canon drives one’s historical conclusions about canon–particularly regarding its date.  And precisely for this reason, there has always been a vigorous debate amongst scholars over what we mean by the term “canon.”  However, in recent years, that debate has taken an interesting turn.  One particular definition of canon has begun to emerge as the dominant one.  In fact, scholars have suggested that we must all use this definition lest the entire field of canonical studies be thrown into confusion and anachronism. And that definition is the one that says canon only exists when one has a closed, final, fixed list. You can have “Scripture” prior to this time, but not a “canon.”  This can be called the exclusive definition.

The impact of this new “consensus” has been profound on canonical studies:  If you cannot have a canon until books are in a closed, final list, then there could not be a canon until the fourth or even fifth century at the earliest.  Thus, this definition has been used to push the date of canon further and further back into the later centuries of the church. Remarkably, then, the date for canon has become later and later while the historical evidence hasn’t changed at all.

But, is the exclusive definition the best definition for canon?  And are we obligated to use it to the exclusion of all others?  Although this definition rightly captures the fact that the boundaries of the canon had fluid edges prior to the fourth century, I think it creates more problems than it solves.

The problems with this type of approach:

1. “it seems some degree of limitation and exclusion is already implied in the term ‘Scripture.’” 

2. “significant ambiguity remains on what, exactly, constitutes this closing.  If it is absolute uniformity of practice, across all of Christendom, then, on those terms, there was still not a canon even in the fourth century.  Indeed, on those terms we still do not have a canon even today!” Especially not if we consider Dr Wallace’s model, Orthodox ecclesiology.

3. “…arguably the most foundational problem for this definition… The abrupt change in terminology gives the impression that these books bore some lesser status prior to this point; it communicates that Christians only had Scripture and not a canon.  Or, as one scholar put it, prior to the fourth century Christian only had a “boundless, living mass of heterogenous” texts [again, citing Dr Wallace’s “authority” on the canon, David Dungan and Eusebius].  But this is misleading at best.”

Dr Kruger provides much better Protestant approaches to the Canon issue: “Brevard Childs has highlighted what we might call the functional definition which suggests we have a canon as soon as a book is used as Scripture by early Christians.  On this definition, we would have a canon at least by the early second century.  And I have argued for a third definition in my forthcoming article for Tyndale Bulletin that would define canon as the books God gave his corporate church (what I call the ontological definition).  One might say this views canon from a divine perspective.  On this definition, we would have a “canon” as soon as these books were written.”

That is, when Paul wrote the letter to the Romans, it never didn’t have “apostolic authority”. It never didn’t carry the weight of Scripture. That is how the canon came about.

Wolfgang Pauli on evolution

As a physicist, I should like to critically object that this model has not been supported by an affirmative estimate of probabilities so far. Such an estimate of the theoretical time scale of evolution as implied by the model should be compared with the empirical time scale. One would need to show that, according to the assumed model, the probability of de facto existing purposeful features to evolve was sufficiently high on the empirically known time scale. Such an estimate has nowhere been attempted though.

 

In discussions with biologists I met large difficulties when they apply the concept of ‘natural selection’ in a rather wide field, without being able to estimate the probability of the occurrence in an empirically given time of just those events, which have been important for the biological evolution.

 

Treating the empirical time scale of the evolution theoretically as infinity they have then an easy game, apparently to avoid the concept of purposiveness. While they pretend to stay in this way completely ‘scientific’ and ‘rational’, they become actually very irrational, particularly because they use the word ‘chance’, not any longer combined with estimations of a mathematically defined probability, in its application to very rare single events more or less synonymous with the old word ‘miracle’(27-28).

http://www.igpp.de/english/tda/pdf/paulijcs8.pdf

Roman Catholic History and the Emerald City Protocol

http://www.reformation21.org/articles/pay-no-attention-to-that-man-behind-the-curtain-roman-catholic-history-and-the-e.php

http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2012/04/metaphysics-the-middle-ages-an.php

April Fool's

http://networkedblogs.com/vSLOJ

The great American novel

http://calvindude.com/dude/buy-my-book/

The cause of death in the crucifixion of Christ

Since Easter is coming up, I thought some people might be interested in a few articles on the medical aspects of the crucifixion of Christ:

• "On the physical death of Jesus Christ" (Edwards, Gabel, & Hosmer, 1986).
• "Medical theories on the cause of death in crucifixion" (Maslen & Mitchell, 2006).
• "The crucifixion of Jesus: Review of hypothesized mechanisms of death and implications of shock and trauma-induced coagulopathy" (Bergeron, 2010).
• "The Medical Evidence: Was Jesus' Death a Sham and Resurrection a Hoax?".

Of course, there are more medical articles on the topic or related topics cited in the references.

In addition:

Mormon Incarnation

Paul Owen says:

March 29, 2012 at 7:49 pm

Let me clarify that I am an Anglican. I wanted to point out one misrepresentation to start with. That is, Mormons do NOT deny that Jesus is the God-man who died for our sins and rose again. They affirm all those points explicitly. And I see no reason to deny that many devoted followers of Christ can be found within the ranks of the LDS church.

http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2012/03/are-roman-catholics-christian/comment-page-3/#comment-64354

Paul Owen is currently an Associate Professor of Greek and Religious Studies at Montreat College. Supposedly, he's an ex-Mormon, although comments like these always make you wonder if he ever really left that behind.

The notion of how Mormon theology (re-)defines the Incarnation is certainly intriguing. Doesn't Mormonism traditionally subscribe to apotheosis? So how would a Mormon "God" become Incarnate? Would he have to deevolve–like Counselor Troi becoming a salamander?

Likewise, since there is no qualitative distinction between God and man in Mormon theology, in what sense does a Mormon version of the Incarnation involves a hypostatic union of two natures. Isn't it variations on one nature from start to finish?

Eat vegans

Veganism is a popular radical chic fad among animal rights activists. I propose a compromise between meat-eaters and animal rights activists: instead of consuming nonhuman animals, let’s eat vegans. There are many medical, political, and environmental benefits to a vegan diet.

i) It enables meat-eaters to co-opt the vegan message. This way, both meat-eaters and animals rights activists can support a vegan diet: we just mean slightly different things by a vegan diet. By a “vegan diet,” animal rights activists mean a vegetarian menu, whereas meat-eaters mean putting vegans on the menu.

ii) Eating vegans is a form of population control–which reduces our carbon footprint. Every time you buy vegan meat at the supermarket, you’re credited with a carbon offset.

iii) Eating vegans spares the innocent lives of countless sentient nonhuman animals. Instead of having a standard meat & seafood department, supermarkets can have a vegan department or deli, with display cases containing delicious body parts, like pickled eyeballs or deep-fried fingers–lending new meaning to “finger food.”

iv) Vegans are generally lean young college-age students like Steven Nemes. Because vegans are so young, they don’t require artificial tenderizers in food preparation. Vegan veal, as if were. And their low body fat ratio is a boost to good cholesterol.

v) Eating vegans cuts down on the proliferation of obnoxious moralizers and food Nazis in our society.

 

vi) Apropos (v), vegans are generally Nanny statists. By eating vegans, we promote civil liberty and limited gov’t.

vii) Because many nonhuman animals are cannibalistic, the consumption of vegans promotes a transspecies ethic, transcending the androcentric bias of conventional ethics. Expanding filial cannibalism is the next frontier in social justice.

vii) Eating vegans capitalizes on the zombie craze and the vampire fad in the pop culture. Think of Zombie McDonald instead of Ronald McDonald. We can add Vegan McBites and Vegan McNuggets to the Happy Menu.

viii) Consuming vegans is a test of vegan sincerity. As it says in the Gospel According to St. Singer, “Greater love hath no animal activist than to lay down their life for nonhuman animals.”