Review of Chapter 2 of Redating Matthew, Mark and Luke

In chapters 2-4, Wenham attempts to establish the following steps of his argument:

1. Luke knew Mark’s gospel.
2. 52 passages shared by Luke and Mark have a common oral origin or some direct literary dependence. 14 other passages cover the same ground but do not show evidence of a common origin.
3. Luke keeps to the sense of Mark in the aforementioned 52 passages.
4. Luke probably keeps the sense of his other sources. This makes it improbable that Q exists and that Luke borrowed heavily from Matthew, since the Lukan and Matthean forms of the Q material differ in sense.
5. Matthew’s relation to Mark can be explained on the lines of the patristic evidence.

Per Wenham, the great majority of scholars believe Luke used Mark. Adherents of the Greisbach hypothesis hold that Mark used both Matthew and Luke to compose his gospel. Wenham finds the Greisbach hypothesis unpersuasive. First, about 9.5% of the words in Mark are distinctively Lukan words, making it unlikely that Mark knew Luke. Second, Mark omitted much material shared by Matthew and Luke, making it unlikely that he was combining these two sources. Finally, proponents of the Greisbach hypothesis assert that Matthew and Luke never depart from the order of Mark at the same place. They believe this is unlikely if Mark was the first gospel written. But it appears that Matthew and Luke do depart from Mark’s order at the same place once (Mark 3:13-19). In fact, Matthew only changes order 6 times and Luke 4 times. Wenham uses the statistical analysis of C. M. Tuckett to show that this phenomenon is not statistically significant. If the Greisbach hypothesis is wrong and there is some literary dependence between Mark and Luke, then Luke must have known Mark.

Wenham moves on to steps 2 and 3 of his argument. What he calls Category 1 passages are those 52 passages where Luke and Mark almost certainly share a common origin. What he calls Category 2 passages are those 14 passages where Luke and Mark cover the same ground but need not share a common origin. What passage goes in what category is determined by laying the passages side-by-side and looking at the closeness of the wording.

According to Wenham, there are about 5,000 differences in wording in the Category 1 passages. This mainly involves omitting, adding, and polishing Mark’s wording while keeping the basic meaning. But Wenham is not convinced that Luke would have made hundreds of decisions to modify Mark in what often seem to be pointless ways. Why not just copy Mark word-for-word? This is where Wenham opines that Luke may have used Mark to order his gospel but that he regularly drew from his memory of apostolic preaching to fill in the details. In other words, Luke may be using his own wording and not be modifying Mark.

11 of the 14 Category 2 passages occur in Luke’s passion and resurrection narratives. The Category 2 passages suggest Luke is providing his own version of the story in these places.

 

Review of Chapter 1 of Redating Matthew, Mark and Luke

The likenesses and unlikenesses of the Synoptic Gospels refuse to fit into a tidy scheme of relationships. Yet, the agreements clearly indicate that some relationship exists.

Today, the majority of scholars hold that Mark was written before Matthew and Luke, that both Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source, and that both Matthew and Luke used a no longer extant document (called Q) as another source. According to Wenham, scholars who critically study the synoptic problem are not particularly impressed by the Two-Source Hypothesis, as it is called, but they find no other hypothesis convincing. A number of scholars have proposed new hypotheses but no new consensus has emerged.

In the 19th century, scholars gave more consideration to a common oral tradition underlying the Synoptic Gospels. Wenham states that 20th century scholars drew the conclusion that if two Gospels share a dozen or more words then there must be a literary relationship between the two writings. But he goes on to note that even modern, Western Christians often memorize passages word-for-word. If people from a culture where information is usually transmitted in writing can memorize passages, then certainly people from a culture where information is usually transmitted orally can do the same. This means the similar wording of individual stories could be explained almost entirely by oral tradition.

But Wenham does not believe the Synoptic Gospels are completely independent of each other. The largely shared order of the material, especially concerning the Galilean ministry where sayings and events are loosely connected both thematically and chronologically, are best explained by recognizing a literary connection. The first Christians were very mobile and it is unlikely that the author of one gospel would not know of the existence of another gospel. The traditions of the early church suggest the Synoptic Gospels were written at different times and that their authors knew of each other’s works.

Wenham finds hypotheses that rely solely on literary relationships or solely on oral relationships to be inadequate. His hypothesis suggests that there is an amount of independence and an amount of interdependence.

 

Review of Redating Matthew, Mark and Luke

Biblical scholar John Wenham considers himself an amateur concerning the synoptic problem. Nonetheless, he believed it worthwhile to write down his thoughts on the synoptic problem in Redating Matthew, Mark and Luke: A Fresh Assault on the Synoptic Problem.

He considers both internal and external evidence. The dating of the Synoptic Gospels plays a significant part in this evidence. He argues that all three Synoptic Gospels were written before AD 55.

As if this were not controversial enough, he takes a new approach to the synoptic problem. He denies literary dependence as the primary explanation of the similarities between the Synoptic Gospels, but does not argue for complete literary independence either.

Wenham is convinced by the work of other conservative scholars that the New Testament books were written by the traditional authors and that the early Christians did their best to tell the truth. Hence, he will not lightly dismiss the early Christian writings or subject them to hyper-criticism.

Following posts will include my summary and review of the book. Here is the table of contents:

1. The Intractable Problem
2. Building a Synoptic Theory: (1) The Relation of Luke to Mark
3. Building a Synoptic Theory: (2) The Relation of Luke to Matthew
4. Building a Synoptic Theory: (3) The Relation of Matthew to Mark
5. Ancient Testimony to Matthew’s Gospel
6. Ancient Testimony to Mark’s Gospel
7. The Date of Peter’s Going to Rome
8. Mark’s Gospel: Further Considerations
9. Ancient Testimony to Luke’s Gospel
10. How were the Gospels Written?
11. Jesus-Tradition Oral and Written
12. When were the Gospels Written?

 

A Defense of Classical Theism

Martin over at the Rocket Philosophy blog has a most interesting series defending classical theism: “This is the view that there is an all-knowing, all-powerful God who is the creator and sustainer of everything that exists, and that human beings have immortal souls. No particular religion is argued for, although Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all try to claim it as their own.”

• A Defense of Classical Theism #1: Foundational Questions – The foundational question is: what would have to be true of any world that is scientifically discoverable? or what are the necessary preconditions that make science possible in the first place? He answers: causal regularity, change, and structure.
• A Defense of Classical Theism #2: Causal Regularity – “In order to have a science of, say, photons, photons must have some specific effects they produce by their very nature. If they had a different effect every time, then experiments could never reliably be extrapolated to every photon in the universe. When we do the double slit experiment on photons, we need to be able to say ‘this is what ALL photons would do under similar conditions.’ As a result, we can then have knowledge of the nature of photons.”
• A Defense of Classical Theism #3: Change – “Change must occur. An experiment consists of something changing from state X to state Y, and afterwards reasoning from premises to conclusion. So the mere act of observing, testing, and concluding about one’s environment presupposes that change occurs.” The take-home points are: (1) “Anything that is changeable or possibly existent/non-existent is a mixture of actual and possible” and (2) “Anything that is a mixture of actual and possible cannot make itself actual, and thus must be made actual by something that is already actual.”
• A Defense of Classical Theism #4: Structure – “There must be structure that is in common to all of a single group of objects. For example, in order to have a science of volcanoes, there must be some features that are common and essential to all volcanoes, apart from knowledge of any particular volcano. If every volcano had a completely different feature set, then once you had knowledge of one particular volcano located somewhere, you would not have knowledge of any others. So there must be structure that is common to all objects (or animals) of a set, so that knowledge of a type, and not just an individual, is possible.”
• A Defense of Classical Theism #5: Summing up the foundation
• A Defense of Classical Theism #6: What is moving the stone? – In this post he looks briefly at the nature of causality.
• A Defense of Classical Theism #7: God: An Overview – In this post he argues that a non-composite entity must exist.
• A Defense of Classical Theism #8: God’s Attributes – In this post he notes that a deity who is just actual would be: non-physical, spaceless, timeless, one, omnipotent, omniscient, perfect, and simple.
• A Defense of Classical Theism #9: A Closer Look at the Argument from Change – Another look at how change implies an unmoved mover.
• A Defense of Classical Theism #10: Causal Regularity as a Sign of Intelligence – An intelligence must direct things to their final causes.
• A Defense of Classical Theism #10: God: Summing Up – x

Atheists often talk about how successful science is and try to play science off against religion. But if we can show that the metaphysics underlying science lead logically to the conclusion that God exists, then we can deflect the attack from the atheist and make a counter-argument that, as admirers of science, they should seriously consider believing God exists. Martin’s argument is built upon Aristotelian and Thomistic metaphysics. Those are the philosophers (Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas) you want to study if this line of argument intrigues you. Martin’s posts are not exhaustive by any means.

 

Commentary on Revelation 17

Notes (NET Translation)

1 Then one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls came and spoke to me. “Come,” he said, “I will show you the condemnation and punishment of the great prostitute who sits on many waters, 2 with whom the kings of the earth committed sexual immorality and the earth’s inhabitants got drunk with the wine of her immorality.”

In 21:9 one of the seven bowl angels shows John the bride, the wife of the Lamb. The contrast between the great prostitute and the bride is made evident in these passages. The connection to the bowl judgments implies 17:1-19:4 expands on the sixth and seventh bowls. The image of the prostitute and sexual immorality denote idolatry and apostasy committed by the earth’s inhabitants (cf. Isa. 1:21; 23:15-17; Jer. 2:20-31; 13:27; Ezek. 6:9; 16:15; 23:1-4; Hos. 2:5; 3:3; 4:10, 12, 18; 5:3-4; 6:10; 9:1; Nah. 3:4). Verse 8 makes it clear that the inhabitants of the earth are all those whose names have not been written in the book of life. According to v. 15 the waters are peoples, multitudes, nations, and languages. The phrase “many waters” may be drawn from similar words about Babylon in Jer. 51:13. The waters could symbolize the influence of Rome as it flows throughout the world. Rome’s power came, in part, because it controlled the Mediterranean Sea.

3 So he carried me away in the Spirit to a wilderness, and there I saw a woman sitting on a scarlet beast that was full of blasphemous names and had seven heads and ten horns.

Being “in the Spirit” is the state of ecstasy in which John saw his entire vision (1:10; 4:2; 21:10). It is not clear whether the wilderness is the location of the woman or the vantage point from which John views the woman. The great prostitute is now seen sitting on a scarlet beast. This is the beast that rose from the sea in ch. 13. The blasphemous names are probably the names used to deify Roman emperors. The seven heads and ten horns are interpreted later in the vision (17:9-14).

Though closely associated with the beast, the woman is not to be equated with the beast. That she rides the beast connotes her alliance with the state. The woman must represent that part of the ungodly world that works together with the state, such as the social, cultural, economic, and religious aspects of the world. In this context the work that they agree to do together is that of persecuting Christians, implied by the “red” color of both (so 17:3b–4) and explicitly stated in ch. 13 and in 17:6; 18:24; and 19:2. They are also mutually involved in deception of ungodly multitudes throughout the earth (e.g., 14:8; 17:2, 8). (Beale 853)

4 Now the woman was dressed in purple and scarlet clothing, and adorned with gold, precious stones, and pearls. She held in her hand a golden cup filled with detestable things and unclean things from her sexual immorality.

The woman’s attire is that of wealth, luxury, splendor, and royalty. She has an attractive appearance. The “detestable things” and “unclean things from her sexual immorality” symbolize idolatry or moral corruption.

The metaphor symbolizes Babylon’s promise of a prosperous earthly welfare for its willing subjects, which intoxicates them. The intoxicating influence blinds them to Babylon’s evil nature and her ultimate insecurity and deceives them about God as her future judge and as the only true foundation for true prosperity (see on 14:8; 17:2). (Beale 855)

5 On her forehead was written a name, a mystery: “Babylon the Great, the Mother of prostitutes and of the detestable things of the earth.”

The name on the forehead states her true identity (cf. 7:3; 13:16; 14:1, 9; 20:4; 22:4). There is some debate whether “mystery” is part of her name or not. The majority position seems to be that it is not part of her name. Verse 7 seems to confirm the mystery is the vision itself. As mentioned earlier, Babylon the Great is the world system in opposition to God. To John and the first readers this was Rome.

However, to say that Babylon equals Rome is to fail to do justice to the richness of John’s vision. More satisfying is the third interpretation, which acknowledges the echoes of imperial Rome, but does not regard such echoes as exhausting the meaning of this woman-city. Babylon is not Rome; rather Rome represents the latest incarnation of the oppressive and idolatrous city, ‘the great city’, which originally bore the features of Mesopotamian Babylon. The image of ‘Babylon’ has a long history in the biblical tradition: the author of Daniel saw her resurgence in the kingdoms of the Greeks, not least in the idolatrous activity of the Seleucid Antiochus IV; John the visionary is given insight from his island exile to recognise her once again, clothed this time in the garb of Roma. But take away the Roman attire, and Babylon remains. Ultimately, Revelation is confronting its hearers with two visionary cities which promise very different destinies to humanity: ‘the great city’ enthroned over the waters of chaos, and ‘the holy city’ or City of God, in which flows the river of the water of life (22:1). (Boxall 244)

She is the mother of prostitutes because she influences others to commit idolatry and immorality. She is contrasted with the mother from ch. 12.

6 I saw that the woman was drunk with the blood of the saints and the blood of those who testified to Jesus. I was greatly astounded when I saw her.

The “saints” and “those who testified to Jesus” are one and the same group. They testified to Jesus through their death (12:11). John is probably astounded in the sense that he is filled with wonder and perplexity.

7 But the angel said to me, “Why are you astounded? I will interpret for you the mystery of the woman and of the beast with the seven heads and ten horns that carries her.

The angel’s response implies that John was, at the very least, perplexed as to the meaning of the vision.

8 The beast you saw was, and is not, but is about to come up from the abyss and then go to destruction. The inhabitants of the earth – all those whose names have not been written in the book of life since the foundation of the world – will be astounded when they see that the beast was, and is not, but is to come.

This beast is the same as the beast from 11:7 and 13:1. He “is not” because he has been defeated by Christ’s death and resurrection (13:3). However, he shall make one last appearance and wage war on the righteous (20:1-10). This war will end in his destruction. From 13:3ff. we know the inhabitants of the earth will be so astounded that they worship the beast. They will be astounded because he seems to have recovered from defeat.

The defeat from which the beast appears to recover is Christ’s defeat of Satan and his earthly forces at the cross and resurrection (see on 13:3). But the Satanic state (“the beast”) and culture in the first century appeared to be unaffected by Christ’s victory, since their prosperity continued and their persecution of God’s people continued unabated. This situation will continue until the final parousia, at which time the beast’s success over God’s people will seem even greater than before; directly preceding Christ’s parousia it will seem as if the beast is finally and decisively triumphant over the church. But this apparent success is short lived, as 17:10 reveals: the success will last only “a little time.” Christ will return at this point and show decisively that the devil and his forces were defeated at the cross. He will demonstrate the reality of his spiritual victory at the cross by achieving physical victory over Satan’s forces at the end of time. (Beale 866)

9 (This requires a mind that has wisdom.) The seven heads are seven mountains the woman sits on. They are also seven kings: 10 five have fallen; one is, and the other has not yet come, but whenever he does come, he must remain for only a brief time.

The fact that understanding the vision requires wisdom should warn us about being too dogmatic in our interpretation of ch. 17. More important than a perfect interpretation of ch. 17 is the wisdom to avoid deception by the beast. The seven heads of the beast symbolize two different things. First, the seven heads are the seven mountains the woman sits on. Rome was the city on seven hills so it at least alludes to Rome (Virgil, Aen. 6.782-3; Martial, Epigrams 6.64; Cicero, Att. 6.5; Pliny, Nat. Hist. 3.66-7; Sib. Or. 2.18; 11.113–16; 13.45; 14.108). But, as noted on 8:8, a mountain can also symbolize a kingdom. This ties into the fact that the seven heads are also seven kings. Some commentators attempt to link these kings with Roman emperors known to John and his audience but no widespread agreement has been found on this approach (e.g., Do you start counting from Julius Caesar or Augustus? Are all emperors counted? Do you count the three rival emperors between Nero and Vespasian who reigned for only 18 months total?). I follow other commentators who see the number seven as not being literal. It symbolizes the fullness of the oppressive power of the beast. Since five kings have fallen, one is, and one is yet to come we can see that the beast acts through different kings/kingdoms throughout history. John’s focus is on the king who has not yet come. Whoever this is will remain for only a brief time.

11 The beast that was, and is not, is himself an eighth king and yet is one of the seven, and is going to destruction.

This verse adds to the difficulty in interpreting v. 10. G. K. Beale notes the identification of the beast with the kings. ”The point is that the manifestation of the dragon and beast through one of their authoritative heads or earthly kings at any particular historical epoch is tantamount to the full presence of the dragon or beast” (Beale 875). G. D. Fee thinks this might be an allusion to the Nero redivivus legend. Some later figure will embody the monstrous character of Nero and persecute the church. R. H. Mounce notes that the Greek says he is “of the seven” and not “one of the seven”. He takes this to mean that he plays the same sort of role as the seven kings. But Mounce goes so far as to say this Antichrist will take the form of a man but be from another sphere of reality. He does not state explicitly what this means but it almost sounds like he thinks the Antichrist will be Satan incarnate. I would not go that far.

12 The ten horns that you saw are ten kings who have not yet received a kingdom, but will receive ruling authority as kings with the beast for one hour.

The number ten represents fullness or completeness. The ten kings represent the nations of the earth who are subservient to the beast. The “one hour” corresponds to the time it takes for Babylon to be destroyed (18:10, 17, 19).

13 These kings have a single intent, and they will give their power and authority to the beast.

This means the ten kings will give allegiance to the beast.

14 They will make war with the Lamb, but the Lamb will conquer them, because he is Lord of lords and King of kings, and those accompanying the Lamb are the called, chosen, and faithful.”

The ten kings will take part in the final battle against the Lamb (cf. 16:12, 14, 16; 19:11-21; 20:7-10). In answer to the question from 13:4 (who is able to make war against the beast?), the Lamb conquers the ten kings because only he, not Caesar or anyone else, is Lord of lords and King of kings. The title may allude to Christ’s death and resurrection where he was crowned as King (Rev. 12:5, 10) and called Lord (Acts 2:36; Phil. 2:9). The saints accompany the Lamb into battle but don’t seem to participate (19:14). The terms “called” and “chosen” indicate the saints are owned by God. The term “faithful” describes the response of the saints to God.

15 Then the angel said to me, “The waters you saw (where the prostitute is seated) are peoples, multitudes, nations, and languages.

The “waters” were mentioned in v. 1. Again we see the vastness of the beast’s domain.

16 The ten horns that you saw, and the beast – these will hate the prostitute and make her desolate and naked. They will consume her flesh and burn her up with fire.

Eventually the kings and the beast will turn on the prostitute and destroy her (cf. Ezek. 23:11-35). Presumably this occurs before they attack the Lamb and are conquered. The image portrays the self-destroying power of evil.

Why do the kings and multitudes who turn against Babylon in ch. 17 then mourn over her destruction in 18:9ff.? Perhaps the “kings” of 18:9–10 are other rulers not included in the ten kings of ch. 17, and perhaps the “merchants” of 18:11ff. are not included in the multitudes of 17:15. Both groups may have remained loyal to Babylon and then mourned over her demise. On the other hand, those mourning in ch. 18 may be the same ones who turned against the whore in ch. 17. They mourn because they now realize that through their destruction of Babylon they have destroyed their own economic base. (Beale 883–884)

17 For God has put into their minds to carry out his purpose by making a decision to give their royal power to the beast until the words of God are fulfilled.

The angel explains that it was God who brought about the slaughter of the prostitute by putting it into the hearts of the ten kings to do his will. They were of one mind in relinquishing their sovereignty to the beast and joining in his assault upon the prostitute (v. 17) and in his final campaign against the Lamb (vv. 13-14). This verse denies the existence of any ultimate dualism in the world. In the final analysis the powers of evil serve the purposes of God. The coalition between the beast and his allies will continue until the words of God — the prophecies leading up to the overthrow of Antichrist — are fulfilled. (Mounce loc. 5918-5923)

18 As for the woman you saw, she is the great city that has sovereignty over the kings of the earth.”

The woman is an eschatological city, like Babylon or Rome before it, which will provide the base for the Antichrist’s kingdom.

There is an inclusio here: the first thing John saw in the vision is the last thing interpreted by the angel. It is probably placed last to provide a natural transition to the judgment of the “great city” in chapter 18, expanding the destruction of 17:16 and answering the promise of 17:1, “I will show you the judgment of the great prostitute.” (Osborne 628)

Bibliography

Beale, G. K. The Book of Revelation. New International Greek Testament Commentary. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1998.

Boxall, Ian. Revelation of Saint John, The. Black’s New Testament Commentary. Baker Academic, 2009.

Fee, Gordon D. Revelation. Kindle ed. New Covenant Commentary Series. Cascade Books, 2010.

Mounce, Robert H. The Book of Revelation. Revised. The New International Commentary on the New Testament. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2010.

Osborne, G. R. Revelation. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2002.

 

Commentary on Revelation 16

Notes (NET Translation)

1 Then I heard a loud voice from the temple declaring to the seven angels: “Go and pour out on the earth the seven bowls containing God’s wrath.”

The loud voice is that of God since no one else could enter the temple until the seven angels complete their mission (15:8). The pouring out of the bowls is a metaphorical representation of the execution of divine judgment (cf. Ps. 69:24; Jer. 7:20; 10:25; Zeph. 3:8). “That this is imagery, pure and simple, is highlighted here by the fact that there is no content as such in the bowls—they were introduced only as expressions of God’s wrath” (Fee 217).

2 So the first angel went and poured out his bowl on the earth. Then ugly and painful sores appeared on the people who had the mark of the beast and who worshiped his image.

The sores recall the Egyptian plague of boils (Ex. 9:8-12; Deut. 28:27, 35). Those who received the mark of the beast now receive a mark of punishment. The punishment fits the crime.

3 Next, the second angel poured out his bowl on the sea and it turned into blood, like that of a corpse, and every living creature that was in the sea died.

This plague recalls both Moses turning the Nile to blood (Ex. 7:14-24) and the second trumpet (Rev. 8:8-9). The blood like that of a corpse refers to the cold, coagulated blood of the dead. The similarities to 8:8-9 and 18:17-19 suggest an economic disaster may be in view.

As stated in Rev. 8:8, it is important to realize that the sea was the lifeblood of the Roman Empire. Not just food supplies but most commerce and trade depended on the sea lanes because Rome was in the southern boot of Italy, and land trade was limited. Thus, this was tantamount to the destruction of all civilization. In fact, each of the plagues would end civilization as we (or the Romans) know it. Such hyperbole/overkill is characteristic of apocalyptic. Beale (1999: 815) brings out these implications, linking it with both the economic connotations of the “mark of the beast” that deprived believers from “buying and selling” in 13:16–17 and the economic dissolution of Babylon the Great in 18:15–17, 19. It is possible that ψυχὴ ζωῆς can mean not only the life in the sea but also those people who make their living from the sea, though that is difficult because there is no hint that “every” sailor and ship captain died. Hence, it is likely that this refers only to all sea life. But that is devastating enough, for such a disaster would bring down our economic system today as well. (Osborne 580)

4 Then the third angel poured out his bowl on the rivers and the springs of water, and they turned into blood.

The third bowl mirrors the third trumpet (8:10-11). As with the last bowl, this one may also refer to economic disaster.

5 Now I heard the angel of the waters saying: “You are just – the one who is and who was, the Holy One – because you have passed these judgments, 6 because they poured out the blood of your saints and prophets, so you have given them blood to drink. They got what they deserved!”

The angel of the waters is presumably the angel from v. 4. ”As in 11:17, God is addressed as the one who is and who was. In 1:4, 8 and 4:8 the title was expanded to include a future reference (‘who is to come’), but in the present context this is unnecessary because the final sequence of events has already begun” (Mounce loc. 5474-5476). The description of God in v. 5 is similar to that in 6:10. This indicates that this judgment is a response to the prayer of the saints in ch. 6. God is the Holy One because his punishment fits the crime.

7 Then I heard the altar reply, “Yes, Lord God, the All-Powerful, your judgments are true and just!”

In light of the connection with 6:9-10 the altar may represent the corporate reply of the saints. Another option is that it is the reply of the angel who presented the prayers of the saints to God (8:3-5).

8 Then the fourth angel poured out his bowl on the sun, and it was permitted to scorch people with fire.

In contrast, the saints were promised to never be scorched by the heat of the sun (7:16). The picture here is of tongues of fire burning people.

9 Thus people were scorched by the terrible heat, yet they blasphemed the name of God, who has ruling authority over these plagues, and they would not repent and give him glory.

The name of God represents his attributes and character. To blaspheme is to slander or defame God. The wicked now join the beast in blaspheming God (13:1, 5, 6; 17:3).

10 Then the fifth angel poured out his bowl on the throne of the beast so that darkness covered his kingdom, and people began to bite their tongues because of their pain.

The throne of the beast represents the beast’s sovereignty over his realm (13:2). The darkness over the kingdom of the beast indicates his ability to rule has been affected. The darkness recalls the Egyptian plague of darkness (Ex. 10:21-29). The fifth bowl may represent political or religious power being taken away from the beast’s earthly representatives.

11 They blasphemed the God of heaven because of their sufferings and because of their sores, but nevertheless they still refused to repent of their deeds.

What is perhaps most striking about their response is that “people” both gnawed their tongues in agony and then used their tongues, not in this case to “curse the name of God,” but to curse the God of heaven because of their pains and sores. Thus in typical fashion the unbelieving world refuses to acknowledge God when things go well for them, but when things go badly, God is to blame. And the result tends regularly to be the same—they refused to repent of what they had done. Indeed, one need only consider that in our modern English-speaking world, natural disasters are regularly referred to as “acts of God”! And as with ancient Rome, such acts seldom lead to repentance, but to blaming God for all that goes wrong in the world. Thus the opportunity to repent is squelched by cursing. (Fee 221-222)

12 Then the sixth angel poured out his bowl on the great river Euphrates and dried up its water to prepare the way for the kings from the east.

Verse 12 evokes OT language of a military force coming from beyond the Euphrates and being used by God to judge Israel. But in this verse the kings from the east symbolize the world system in opposition to God. Note that in v. 14 they are called the kings of the earth, not just the east.

13 Then I saw three unclean spirits that looked like frogs coming out of the mouth of the dragon, out of the mouth of the beast, and out of the mouth of the false prophet.

Recall that the dragon is Satan (12:9), the beast is the Satanic political system (13:1-10), and the false prophet is the Satanic religious system (13:11-17). The mouth symbolizes royal proclamations so the unclean spirits are something like the messengers of the dragon, beast, and false prophet. That the spirits are unclean indicates that they are deceivers (cf. 17:4; 18:2-3; 21:27). The frog-like appearance of the spirits alludes to the plague of frogs (Ex. 8:1-15). The frogs in Egypt may have appeared harmless but they destroyed (Ps. 78:45), corrupted (Ps. 77[78]:45 LXX), and devoured (Josephus, Ant. 2.296) the Egyptians. Likewise, one should not view these unclean spirits as harmless.

14 For they are the spirits of the demons performing signs who go out to the kings of the earth to bring them together for the battle that will take place on the great day of God, the All-Powerful.

The phrase translated “spirits of demons” could also be translated as “demonic spirits” or “spirits who are demons”. That the demons are “performing signs” further indicates that they are deceptive (13:13-15; 19:20). This verse looks ahead to a final battle between the Satanic forces and God (chs. 19-20). While the kings of the earth may think they are going to destroy the saints they are, in fact, going to face final judgment.

15 (Look! I will come like a thief! Blessed is the one who stays alert and does not lose his clothes so that he will not have to walk around naked and his shameful condition be seen.)

This verse is a warning from Christ to remain alert (Matt. 24:42-44; Luke 12:39; 1 Thess. 5:2–4; 2 Pet. 3:10; Rev. 3:3). The image in v. 15b contrasts a man who stays awake, clothed, and alert with a man who goes to sleep naked. Garments symbolize righteousness and therefore nakedness symbolizes a lack of righteousness (cf. 3:3-5).

The danger of failing to keep their spiritual garments on is of “walking around naked and shamefully exposed.” This idea is similar to 3:18, where “shameful nakedness” pictures the sinful church “exposed” by God, continuing an OT image in which nakedness is a symbol of judgment (Isa. 20:1–4; Ezek. 16:36; 23:10, 29), and “shame” means to be disgraced and liable to judgment. For the Jews nakedness was shameful (as in Isa. 20:4; Ezek. 16:36; 23:29). This is the picture here as well. (Osborne 593–594)

16 Now the spirits gathered the kings and their armies to the place that is called Armageddon in Hebrew.

The verse literally begins with: “Now he gathered.” While the NET takes this to be a reference to the spirits it could just as well be to God or Christ. Armageddon (har-mĕgiddôn) literally means “mount of Megiddo”. Rev. 20:9 links the final battle to the “beloved city”, Jerusalem, thereby implying the location is figurative. Moreover, there is no reference in Jewish literature to a literal “Mount of Megiddo”. The site of the ancient city of Megiddo is now a tell which is too small (70 feet) to be called a mountain. In the OT Megiddo was a place where righteous Israelites were attacked by wicked nations (Judg. 5:19-21; 2 Kgs. 23:29-30; 2 Chron. 35:20–25). It is used in this passage because here the people of God are attacked by the kings of the earth.

Recently, J. Day has argued on the following cumulative grounds that Zech. 12:11 is the precise background for “Armageddon” in Rev. 16:16: (1) Zech. 12:11 is the only text prior to Rev. 16:16 where “Megiddo” appears in an apocalyptic context concerning God’s end-time destruction of ungodly nations. (2) It is also the only OT text where the Hebrew spells “Megiddo” as mĕgiddôn rather than mĕgiddô. Though there are a few instances in the LXX where the precise Greek form found in Rev. 16:16 occurs (see above), Day points out that Rev. 16:16 specifies that the name is dependent on a Hebrew source: “the place … is called in Hebrew Armageddon.” (3) Zech. 12:11 is cited in Rev. 1:7, and John alludes clearly to Zechariah elsewhere in the book (Zechariah 6 in Rev. 6:2–8; Zechariah 4 in Rev. 11:4; Zech. 14:7–8, 11 in Rev. 21:25 and 22:3), and there are other possible allusions to the same Zechariah context in Revelation 16 itself (Zech. 13:2 in 16:13; Zech. 14:4–5 in 16:18–19; Zech. 14:1–2 in 16:14; on the probability of the first and third of these allusions see above on 16:14). (4) The term “mountain” in the place name of Rev. 16:16 was influenced by Ezek. 38:8; 39:2, 4, 17, which are also alluded to in John’s narration of the last battle (Rev. 19:17–21; 20:7–10) and which prophesy that the final conflict of history is to occur on “the mountains of Israel.” Such a conflation of Zechariah 12 and Ezekiel 38–39 would be in keeping with John’s tendency to conflate OT passages elsewhere in the book (e.g., the seraphim of Isaiah 6 and the four creatures of Ezekiel 1 in Revelation 4; Ezekiel 47 and Zechariah 14 in Rev. 22:1–3).

Day’s argument is probable, but it does not rule out the inclusion of the other “Megiddo” passages cited above from Judges, 1 Kings, 2 Kings, and 2 Chronicles. Perhaps Zech. 12:11 is the focus, and the other texts are supplemental or secondarily in mind. (Beale 840–841)

The outcome of the war is described in 17:13-14; 19:14-21; and 20:7-10.

17 Finally the seventh angel poured out his bowl into the air and a loud voice came out of the temple from the throne, saying: “It is done!”

The air is sometimes associated with demons (Eph. 2:2; Rev. 9:2) so the judgment here is on the Satanic realm. Again, the voice is probably that of God. It states that God’s wrath has been completed (15:1). It echoes Jesus’ words on the cross: “It is completed” (John 19:30).

The Greek perfect tense used here has the sense of a past event which has ongoing implications in the present. Though it could be a proleptic perfect, indications earlier in the Apocalypse suggest that it is a declaration of what has been achieved in the death and resurrection of the Lamb (e.g. 12:10–11). The long-awaited saving judgement of God (cf. 10:6–7) has already arrived and is being worked out systematically on earth as in heaven. (Boxall 235)

18 Then there were flashes of lightning, roaring, and crashes of thunder, and there was a tremendous earthquake – an earthquake unequaled since humanity has been on the earth, so tremendous was that earthquake.

This is imagery of the last judgment we have seen before (Ex. 9:16-18, 24; 19:16-18; Dan. 12:1; Rev. 4:5; 8:5; 11:19).

19 The great city was split into three parts and the cities of the nations collapsed. So Babylon the great was remembered before God, and was given the cup filled with the wine made of God’s furious wrath.

The great city, Babylon the Great, is associated with the cities of the nations. The splitting of the city into three parts indicates the completeness of its destruction. The point is that anyone associated with the evil world system will face God’s wrath.

20 Every island fled away and no mountains could be found.

This language indicates the absolute, universal destruction of earth on judgment day (cf. 6:14; 20:11).

21 And gigantic hailstones, weighing about a hundred pounds each, fell from heaven on people, but they blasphemed God because of the plague of hail, since it was so horrendous.

John says the hailstones weighed a talent, which varied in ancient times between about 45 and 130 pounds. The seventh Egyptian plague was a plague of hail (Ex. 9:13-35; cf. Josh. 10:11).

Bibliography

Beale, G. K. The Book of Revelation. New International Greek Testament Commentary. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1998.

Boxall, Ian. Revelation of Saint John, The. Black’s New Testament Commentary. Baker Academic, 2009.

Fee, Gordon D. Revelation. Kindle ed. New Covenant Commentary Series. Cascade Books, 2010.

Mounce, Robert H. The Book of Revelation. Revised. The New International Commentary on the New Testament. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2010.

Osborne, G. R. Revelation. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2002.

 

Commentary on Revelation 15

Notes (NET Translation)

1 Then I saw another great and astounding sign in heaven: seven angels who have seven final plagues (they are final because in them God’s anger is completed).

The word “plagues” is the first of multiple connections between this passage and the exodus from Egypt. The phrase “God’s anger is completed” means that this will be the last outpouring of God’s wrath.

2 Then I saw something like a sea of glass mixed with fire, and those who had conquered the beast and his image and the number of his name. They were standing by the sea of glass, holding harps given to them by God.

This verse joins the heavenly scene of chapters 4-5 with the victors of chapter 13. The sea of glass is now mixed with fire, perhaps to indicate God’s presence or the impending judgment. The saints standing by the sea of glass recall the Israelites standing by the Red Sea (Ex. 14). It symbolizes that the saints are conquerors over the beast, his image, and his number. The harps place the saints among the heavenly chorus (cf. 4:8; 14:2).

3 They sang the song of Moses the servant of God and the song of the Lamb: “Great and astounding are your deeds, Lord God, the All-Powerful! Just and true are your ways, King over the nations! 4 Who will not fear you, O Lord, and glorify your name, because you alone are holy? All nations will come and worship before you for your righteous acts have been revealed.”

Like Moses after the exodus from Egypt, the saints sing a song of victory. The song(s) of Moses can be found in Ex. 15:1-21 and/or Deut. 31:30-32:43. But the song of Moses in these verses is a collage of many OT passages (Ps. 86:9-10; 98:2; 111:2-4; Isa. 2:2-4; Jer. 10:7; 16:19; Amos 3:13; 4:13). The song celebrates redemption history from Moses to the Lamb.

The hymn begins by extolling God’s “deeds” and his “ways.” The first are cause for wonder and praise. The second emphasizes God’s justice and faithfulness. We need not limit this ascription of praise to any particular event. All God’s redemptive works are great and marvelous. They are met with awe, not simply because of their magnitude, but also because of their intrinsic righteousness. In keeping with the OT, God’s righteousness is most often seen in his saving acts on behalf of his people. (Mounce loc. 5329-5332)

5 After these things I looked, and the temple (the tent of the testimony) was opened in heaven, 6 and the seven angels who had the seven plagues came out of the temple, dressed in clean bright linen, wearing wide golden belts around their chests.

The “tent of the testimony” recalls the tabernacle from the wilderness period (Num. 17:7; 18:2). The tent represents the presence of God, indicating the plagues have been divinely commissioned. The white linen and golden belts symbolize their royal and priestly duties.

7 Then one of the four living creatures gave the seven angels seven golden bowls filled with the wrath of God who lives forever and ever, 8 and the temple was filled with smoke from God’s glory and from his power. Thus no one could enter the temple until the seven plagues from the seven angels were completed.

The only other mention of bowls in Revelation is found in 5:8 where they were filled with the prayers of the saints. Here the seven bowls are filled with the wrath of God. John may be making a connection between the prayers and God’s retribution. The language of the temple being filled with smoke and God’s glory alludes to Isa. 6:1-4 (cf. Ex. 13:21; 14:19, 24; 19:18; 24:15-16; 40:34-35; 1 Kings 8:10-12; Ezek. 10:2-4). No one could enter the temple during the outpouring of the seven plagues.

There are several different interpretations of this: (1) Some believe that the temple is closed because there is no longer a place for intercession, either for divine mercy for the nations (R. Charles, Bruce, Mounce, Krodel) or for vindication and vengeance for the saints (Beale 1999: 807). (2) Others (Swete, Lohse, Lohmeyer, Chilton, Roloff, Thomas, Giesen) say no one can approach him until his wrath is complete. (3) Several (Beckwith, Caird, Beasley-Murray, Johnson) state that the temple is closed due to his awesome holiness, majesty, and power. The second and third are the more likely. On the basis of the OT parallels, the divine glory has made it impossible for anyone to enter the temple, and at the same time none is allowed until the seven plagues τελεσθῶσιν (telesthōsin, were completed). With this verb beginning (15:1) and ending (15:8) the section, the theme of God “completing” his judgment is strongly stressed. (Osborne 572)

Bibliography

Beale, G. K. The Book of Revelation. New International Greek Testament Commentary. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1998.

Boxall, Ian. Revelation of Saint John, The. Black’s New Testament Commentary. Baker Academic, 2009.

Fee, Gordon D. Revelation. Kindle ed. New Covenant Commentary Series. Cascade Books, 2010.

Mounce, Robert H. The Book of Revelation. Revised. The New International Commentary on the New Testament. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2010.

Osborne, G. R. Revelation. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2002.