In the last blog, we looked at how John describes Jesus in his first chapter, noting that his descriptions were solidly within the early Christian tradition. In particular, I noted that John describes Jesus as 'the faithful witness/martyr'; 'the firstborn of the dead'; and 'the ruler of the kings of the earth.' And, I admitted some discomfort with the ramifications of the last description, which merely means that I need to try to understand it better. What does John mean by describing Jesus as "the ruler of the kings of the earth"?
To get a sense of what John intends with this phrase, let's loot at John's description of Jesus intertextually. In particular, let's look at how the 89th Psalm plays in the background of this description. In fact, as I read the 89th Psalm more and more, it almost seems to have a similar plot as the book of Revelation- but without the dramatic resolution in the end. Here's what I mean:
Psalm 89 has two main parts. The first part (vv. 1-37) is an ode of praise to God, whose steadfast love and faithfulness are expressed in establishing the throne of David. The second main part (vv. 38-51) is more of a lament about how God has rejected the king and caused his sword to fail in battle. Here we find that memorable lament, "How long, O Lord? Will you hide yourself forever?" Then, the Psalm and the lament end- as laments typically end- with a word of praise, "Blessed be the Lord forever. Amen and Amen." (v.52).
So, of all of the wealth of the Hebrew Bible, why am I focusing on Psalm 89 as the background to John's description of Jesus? It is because I think a lot of John's way of describing Jesus is an "echo" of the words and descriptors found in Psalm 89 (as well as other Hebrew Bible texts that we'll look at in the future). I should make clear that I do not say that the psalmist was speaking 'prophetically'- by which I mean that he was either intentionally or accidentally saying things about Jesus. I think when the psalmist wrote "David" he meant David. It's not that the psalmist was speaking forward a thousand years; it's that John was listening backwards a thousand years. So, whatever I say about the "echo" of Psalm 89 reverberating in the book of Revelation is more a commentary on John's intention and not the psalmist's.
Psalm 89 begins with the primacy of God's glory (vv. 1-18) and then shows how God anointed his servant David and crowned him (vv.19-37). In vv.26-29, we hear the following as a declaration by God:
He shall cry to me, “You are my Father, my God, and the Rock of my salvation!” I will make him the firstborn, the highest of the kings of the earth. Forever I will keep my steadfast love for him, and my covenant with him will stand firm. I will establish his line for ever, and his throne as long as the heavens endure.
For one who hears this psalm and believes that God's steadfast love and faithfulness endure forever, there is the ongoing conviction that- not matter how bad the world gets for God's people- God will re-establish the throne of David to be "the highest of the kings of the earth." What John is saying is that, in Christ, God has been faithful to this covenant. That was a thorough conviction of the early church. For example, the most often quoted verse from the Hebrew Bible in the New Testament is Psalm 110: "The Lord says to my lord, ‘Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool.’"
So, John is reflecting the Christian understanding of Jesus as the one who fulfills God's promise of faithfulness to the throne of David. However, the 89th Psalm is not just a song of praise. It is also a lament. It acknowledges that a roundabout look at the world would lead one to say that God has not been faithful and- in the fashion of Laments that good Christian people find so alarming at times- one way of believing in God's faithfulness is to challenge God in times of turmoil. "How long, O Lord?" As one of Chaim Potok's characters might say, "Master of the Universe, why are you doing this to us?" The lament is a natural- perhaps even necessary- voice of one who believes in God's sovereignty and who sees God's people suffering horribly. And the lament is taken up in the book of Revelation, when those who had been slaughtered for the Word of God lift their voices and say "Sovereign Lord, holy and true, how long will it be before you judge and avenge our blood on the inhbitants of the earth?" (Rev. 6:10) which is very similar to the lament in Psalm 89, "How long, O Lord? Will you hide yourself forever?"
If we read John's description of Jesus intertextually, especially with Psalm 89 as the original sound that echoes John's description, it encourages us to think of the book of Revelation as a composite of songs of praise, laments that realistically describe the feeling of God's abandonment, and a resolution that demonstrates how God is faithful in fulfilling the promise of establishing David's throne above all thrones.
More later...
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Monday, February 2, 2009
A Lamb's Guide to Revelation 1: Jesus
The paradoxical revelation that the "lion of Judah" is actually a "lamb" does not occur until the 5th chapter of Revelation. Until that dramatic moment- which I consider to be a key verse in this book, if not the key verse- Jesus is introduced in this way:
The first reference says that the revelation we are about to hear/see/read is the revelation "of" Jesus Christ (1:1) An interpretive question is, "What does the word 'of' signify here?" The word 'of' (in the 'genitive' case) can mean possession (this sweater of mine), or participation (the author of the book), or it could be partative (one of the bunch), and so forth.
[Greek Grammarian Geek Alert: I know that I'm oversimplifying here, so leave me alone! Do NOT pull out your dog-eared copy of Machen's Introduction to the Greek Language. It's a blog, for crying out loud! Go exegete something.]
Phew, glad to get that off my chest. Now, what I was saying is that the opening line to the book of Revelation leaves it a bit unclear what kind of genitive this is. Is it "The revelation of Jesus Christ..." meaning that Jesus is the subject of everything that follows? That would be a nice, 'Christo-centric' way of reading this book. But, it appears that the words "The revelation of Jesus Christ..." is possessive here- the revelation we are about to read belongs to Jesus. In fact, John follows these words with the words, "... which God gave to him... (v.2)"- this revelation belongs to Jesus Christ, because God gave it to him. Then, Jesus (assuming that the 'he' that follows refers to Jesus) made the revelation known by sending his angel to John.
So, here's how Jesus is introduced in Revelation. He is the Christ (none of that 'messianic secret' motif that we see in the gospel of Mark!) and he is the recipient of this revelation and he is the grantor of this revelation via his angel to John.
My point: So far John's Christology (doctrine of Christ) is solidly within the early Christian tradition. Jesus is the Christ- that is the earliest Christian confession. And, Jesus is still mediating the Word of God to humanity- just in a different manner than when he was in the temple or on the mountain or on the cross.
The next reference to Jesus in 1:5, where the greeting is from God "and from Jesus Christ, the faithful martyr/witness, the firstborn of the dead and the ruler of the kings of the earth."
Again, I would argue that John’s Christology is consistent with the way the other books of the New Testament, and the ‘teachings of the Apostles’ (as far as we can tell), and creedal statements about Jesus in the early church describe Jesus. Consistent, but not identical. Let’s break it down:
Jesus = the faithful witness/martyr.
The Greek word that is normally translated ‘witness’ is also the root of our word for ‘martyr.’ In fact, if you say it aloud it sounds like ‘martyr.’ However, I don’t want to overstate the case, there are plenty of examples where one is a ‘witness’ without having to lose one’s life for the cause, so it would be a little misleading to assume that ‘witnessing’ is the same thing as being martyred. Nonetheless, John’s description of Jesus as the faithful witness/martyr is consistent with the way the early church describes Jesus. As a ‘witness,’ Jesus is the one in whom the Word of God is “made flesh” (Gospel of John) or made known by preaching, teaching, healing, exorcising demons, etc. As a ‘martyr,’ Jesus died because of his faithful witness to God. And while various writers took different angles on what, exactly, the death of Jesus means, it is agreed by all of the writers that Jesus was a faithful witness and martyr.
Jesus = the firstborn of the dead.
Okay, this phrase is a little different. I would say that, quite obviously, it is a way of affirming the resurrection, which is consistent with all of the other writers of the early church. But, it is an interesting way of putting it. First to be born of the dead: We usually think of birthing and dying as the opposite ends of the spectrum. But, the Apostle Paul says (in a text that ought to be heard at every funeral), “Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? Therefore we have been buried with him by baptism into death, so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we will certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his.” (Romans 6:3-5). Paul, too, is aligning death with the ‘newness of life’ or something like rebirth- which it signified in our baptism.
And finally, Jesus = the ruler of the kings of the earth.
I think this is a key phrase for John in everything that follows. Jesus is, as others put it, “King of Kings” or “Lord of Lords.” In some respects, this title posits Jesus over and against the Emperor, who also was considered the master of many subservient kings. King Agrippa, for example, or King Herod, were “kings” and masters of their ‘kingdoms,’ but their kingship was subject to the Emperor of Rome- they curried his favor, they ruled at his pleasure, and their fate was generally bound up with his fate. (When wanna be emperors like Octavian and Mark Antony would square off in battle, you can bet that the underling kings were nervous in how they expressed their allegiance!)
Jesus as Ruler of the Kings of the Earth: I will admit that I am not comfortable with the brutal implications of that title, but it is not inconsistent with most of the early church witnesses. The question would be whether the Lion/Lamb Jesus transforms this image of the Ruler of Kings, or whether the model of tyrants like the Caesars and other Emperors will win out in this book. Stay tuned…
The first reference says that the revelation we are about to hear/see/read is the revelation "of" Jesus Christ (1:1) An interpretive question is, "What does the word 'of' signify here?" The word 'of' (in the 'genitive' case) can mean possession (this sweater of mine), or participation (the author of the book), or it could be partative (one of the bunch), and so forth.
[Greek Grammarian Geek Alert: I know that I'm oversimplifying here, so leave me alone! Do NOT pull out your dog-eared copy of Machen's Introduction to the Greek Language. It's a blog, for crying out loud! Go exegete something.]
Phew, glad to get that off my chest. Now, what I was saying is that the opening line to the book of Revelation leaves it a bit unclear what kind of genitive this is. Is it "The revelation of Jesus Christ..." meaning that Jesus is the subject of everything that follows? That would be a nice, 'Christo-centric' way of reading this book. But, it appears that the words "The revelation of Jesus Christ..." is possessive here- the revelation we are about to read belongs to Jesus. In fact, John follows these words with the words, "... which God gave to him... (v.2)"- this revelation belongs to Jesus Christ, because God gave it to him. Then, Jesus (assuming that the 'he' that follows refers to Jesus) made the revelation known by sending his angel to John.
So, here's how Jesus is introduced in Revelation. He is the Christ (none of that 'messianic secret' motif that we see in the gospel of Mark!) and he is the recipient of this revelation and he is the grantor of this revelation via his angel to John.
My point: So far John's Christology (doctrine of Christ) is solidly within the early Christian tradition. Jesus is the Christ- that is the earliest Christian confession. And, Jesus is still mediating the Word of God to humanity- just in a different manner than when he was in the temple or on the mountain or on the cross.
The next reference to Jesus in 1:5, where the greeting is from God "and from Jesus Christ, the faithful martyr/witness, the firstborn of the dead and the ruler of the kings of the earth."
Again, I would argue that John’s Christology is consistent with the way the other books of the New Testament, and the ‘teachings of the Apostles’ (as far as we can tell), and creedal statements about Jesus in the early church describe Jesus. Consistent, but not identical. Let’s break it down:
Jesus = the faithful witness/martyr.
The Greek word that is normally translated ‘witness’ is also the root of our word for ‘martyr.’ In fact, if you say it aloud it sounds like ‘martyr.’ However, I don’t want to overstate the case, there are plenty of examples where one is a ‘witness’ without having to lose one’s life for the cause, so it would be a little misleading to assume that ‘witnessing’ is the same thing as being martyred. Nonetheless, John’s description of Jesus as the faithful witness/martyr is consistent with the way the early church describes Jesus. As a ‘witness,’ Jesus is the one in whom the Word of God is “made flesh” (Gospel of John) or made known by preaching, teaching, healing, exorcising demons, etc. As a ‘martyr,’ Jesus died because of his faithful witness to God. And while various writers took different angles on what, exactly, the death of Jesus means, it is agreed by all of the writers that Jesus was a faithful witness and martyr.
Jesus = the firstborn of the dead.
Okay, this phrase is a little different. I would say that, quite obviously, it is a way of affirming the resurrection, which is consistent with all of the other writers of the early church. But, it is an interesting way of putting it. First to be born of the dead: We usually think of birthing and dying as the opposite ends of the spectrum. But, the Apostle Paul says (in a text that ought to be heard at every funeral), “Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? Therefore we have been buried with him by baptism into death, so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we will certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his.” (Romans 6:3-5). Paul, too, is aligning death with the ‘newness of life’ or something like rebirth- which it signified in our baptism.
And finally, Jesus = the ruler of the kings of the earth.
I think this is a key phrase for John in everything that follows. Jesus is, as others put it, “King of Kings” or “Lord of Lords.” In some respects, this title posits Jesus over and against the Emperor, who also was considered the master of many subservient kings. King Agrippa, for example, or King Herod, were “kings” and masters of their ‘kingdoms,’ but their kingship was subject to the Emperor of Rome- they curried his favor, they ruled at his pleasure, and their fate was generally bound up with his fate. (When wanna be emperors like Octavian and Mark Antony would square off in battle, you can bet that the underling kings were nervous in how they expressed their allegiance!)
Jesus as Ruler of the Kings of the Earth: I will admit that I am not comfortable with the brutal implications of that title, but it is not inconsistent with most of the early church witnesses. The question would be whether the Lion/Lamb Jesus transforms this image of the Ruler of Kings, or whether the model of tyrants like the Caesars and other Emperors will win out in this book. Stay tuned…
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
