I call upon You, Lord, God of Abraham and God of Isaac and God of Jacob and Israel, You who are the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the God who, through the abundance of your mercy, was well-pleased towards us so that we may know You, who made heaven and earth, who rules over all, You who are the one and the true God, above whom there is no other God; You who, by our Lord Jesus Christ gave us the gift of the Holy Spirit, give to every one who reads this writing to know You, that You alone are God, to be strengthened in You, and to avoid every heretical and godless and impious teaching.

St Irenaeus of Lyons, Against the Heresies 3:6:4


Thursday, October 18, 2012

Are the Dispensationalists Right on Revelation 1:19?


Within the dispensational tradition of Revelation’s interpretation, 1:19 has been held as a sort of flagship verse; this verse is understood to present a summary (and chronological) outline of the entire book.  For instance, John Walvoord presents this verse’s threefold breakdown clearly, following Chafer and Criswell.[1]  My interest is particularly focused on the first two clauses of v. 19.[2] 

Regarding the first clause, “the things which thou hast seen,” Walvoord remarks, “the things referred to as having already been seen are those contained in chapter 1, where John had his preliminary vision.”[3]  However, “seen” in v. 19a is eidō, which is in the second aorist, active indicative in the second person.  In 1:2c this same verb is used, but only in the third person, thus St. John referring to himself, said, “of all things that he saw.”  Here, in v. 2, Walvoord recognizes that what the verb means is a “complete recital” of all the visions contained in the book.[4]  There does not seem to be, therefore, any exegetical ground for assuming that in 1:19 St. John means something as restrictive as the content of chapter one alone; rather, it is best to take the first clause of v. 19 as meaning the full content of all the visions of the book, as in v. 2.  Examining the second clause of v. 19 also points to this conclusion.

In strict conformity with the dispensational-chronological approach to v. 19, Walvoord suggests that v. 19b, “the second division, ‘the things which are,’ most naturally includes chapters 2 and 3 with the seven messages Christ delivered to the churches.”[5]  Ironically, what triggered my more careful analysis of this verse’s interpretive import was a remark made in The Companion Bible by Bullinger, who is well known for both his great scholarship and his classical dispensational treatment of Revelation.  Concerning the second clause of v. 19, Bullinger’s notes read: “the [things which] are = what they are, i.e. what they signify.”[6]  Accordingly, the first two clauses mean that John was to write down all the apocalyptic visions of the Revelation and also what they mean, or signify, or point toward.  A look at the language of the second clause certainly fleshes Bullinger’s hint out.

The verb used in v. 19b, “the things which are,” is eisi, the third person, plural present indicative of eimi.  When one traces its usage throughout the Revelation, it becomes clear that St. John intended this verb to serve as a flag for an interpretation of a particular visionary datum.  For instance, in its next use, 4:5, we learn that what St. John sees as the “seven lamps of fire burning before the throne…are the seven Spirits of God.”  Likewise, the seemingly strange anatomical features of the Lamb in 5:6, the “seven horns and seven eyes,” actually signify or “are” the “seven Spirits of God.”  The “golden vials full of odours…are the prayers of the saints” (v. 8).  Again, in 7:13, St. John asked the angel “what are these which are arrayed in white robes.”  The angel answered, “these are they which came out of great tribulation” (v. 14).  Moreover, the two witnesses “are the two olive trees…candlesticks” (11:3—4).  The frogs of 16:13 “are the spirits of devils” (v. 14); and the “seven heads…are seven kings” (17:9), just as the “waters…are peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues” (v. 15).  Granted, apart from this interpretive usage paradigm of eisi, the verb is also used in simple predication (e.g., 4:11, etc.).  Nevertheless, the predicative use notwithstanding, the significance of the verb throughout the Revelation is that it flags a vision interpretation: picturesque datum à (eisi) à interpretation. 

Therefore, according to 1:19 in the context of Revelation and St. John’s vocabulary and usage, it seems that the standard dispensational-chronological outline understanding of v. 19, as expressed by Walvoord et al., is a bit forced at best.  Instead, Jesus is here commanding St. John to write the visions and also report what they signify or mean.  Thoughts anyone? 


[1] John F. Walvoord, The Revelation of Jesus Christ (Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1989), 48.

[2] Interestingly, the NIV seems to follow this tradition relatively hard with its highly interpretive take on 1:19: “Write, therefore, what you have seen, what is now and what will take place later” (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984), ad loc.  Granted, the NIV is admittedly in the dynamic equivalent translation tradition.  However, that the translators decided to put “now” for the Greek verb eisi (i.e., ‘are,’ ‘be,’ ‘were’) is telling of their commitment to the dispensational interpretive tradition.  It reduces this verse of the text to an inaccurate paraphrase.   

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid., 36.

[5] Ibid., 48.

[6] The Companion Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1990), ad loc.

Politics and the Gospel, per Calvin


The gospel is not brought in to change the common politics of the world and to make laws that belong to the temporal state.  It is true that kings, princes, and magistrates ought always to ask the counsel at God’s mouth and to conform themselves to his Word, but yet for all that, our Lord has given them liberty to make such laws as they shall perceive to be fitting and suitable for the rule committed to them.  They must call upon God to give them the spirit of wisdom and discretion, and because they are insufficient for this in and of themselves, they must take counsel from God’s Word.

Ephesians 6:5—9, Sermons on the Epistle to the Ephesians.

Tuesday, October 16, 2012

What Does John 6:44 Really Mean?


The verse begins, “No man…” (Gk. οὐδείς).  This is what is called a universal negative, which means that every member of the class is excluded.  What, then, is negated with reference to all humanity?  Well, it is “can” (δύναμαι).  This term denotes ability.  Consider the BDAG definition, the standard of Greek lexicons: “to possess the capability (whether because of personal or external factors) for experiencing or doing something.”  So, what do we have thus far?  You could say it many ways.  But simply put it means that no person has the ability or capability to experience or do something, namely what follows in the verse—“come.”

Therefore, as it is, John 6:44—so far—means that no person (universally) has the capability to come to Jesus.  This seems to lead to a dire circumstance.  Thankfully, there is an exception.

That exception is “except” or “unless” (ἐὰν μή).  This conjunctive particle prepares the way for a condition.  Hence, no person has the capability of coming to Christ, unless...something.  That something is, if and only if the “Father who sent me draws him.”  So, the Father’s drawing is the only condition that excepts humanity’s universal inability to come to Christ. 

The term “draw” (ἕλκω) cannot be reduced, as is often done by Arminians, to mean “woo” or charm or some such thing.  It connotes an external force of power with the passivity of the object.  For example, “Simon Peter went up, and drew (ἕλκω) the net to land full of great fishes” (Jn. 21:11). “Do not rich men oppress you, and draw (ἕλκω) you before the judgment seats?” (Jas. 2:6).  “They caught Paul and Silas, and drew (ἕλκω) them into the marketplace unto the rulers” (Acts 16:19).  “And all the city was moved…and they took Paul, and drew (ἕλκω) him out of the temple” (21:30).  You see, then, it is not by the power of the object of ἕλκω that is intended but its subject, according to biblical usage. 

Therefore, John 6:44 means that no person has the capability of coming to Christ, except or unless the condition of the Father’s drawing occurs.  Who, though, does the Father draw?  According to Jesus in John 6:37, “All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.”  “All” indicates another universal.  In this case, it is a universal affirmative rather than negative, as in v. 44.  All of those given by the Father to the Son will come.  Therefore, to state it negatively, none of those who do not come were given of or drawn by the Father to the Son.  Therefore, all and only those given to the Son by the Father (i.e., the elect) will come to Christ, which God makes possible by doing that which is humanly impossible, giving them the ability to come, thus drawing them.  That is what John 6:44 means, which is exactly what many claim, “No, it does not.” 

Some respond by invoking John 6:45, “It is written in the prophets, 'And they shall be all taught of God.' Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.”  In so doing, they want the word “all” to ring in the ear.  This is a citation of Isaiah 53:14, however, which was originally and exclusively spoken to Israel, the elect, which confounds their case.  Moreover, it is begging the question.  What is the antecedent for “they” in v. 45?  It is the “given” ones of v. 37, the “drawn” ones of v. 44.  Therefore, it is fallacious in the highest degree to appeal to v. 45 to tell us who those are in v. 44, since v. 44, according to the most basic principles of grammar and hermeneutics, tells us who those in v. 45 are—the elect.  

Friday, October 12, 2012

Richard Liantonio's Word on the Word Religion



Richard Liantonio has a very good and needed bit at On the Road to Emmaus titled “Religion is Not a Bad Word.”  I highly recommend it.

“Christianity is not a religion, it’s a relationship,” is a mantra I occasionally hear. The more I hear it, the more I am taken aback, wondering what exactly people mean. Whatever they specifically intend, the implication is that “religion” is something negative which we would not want to be in any way associated with. However…read more.