http://www.tmin.org/pdfs/The%20Restrainer.pdf
Saturday, June 18, 2022
Mistranslation of 2Thessalonians 2.7
For an up-to-date exposition of 2 Thessalonians 2.7, please see my article on "The Restrainer":
Thursday, September 15, 2016
The Bride of the Lamb
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Trouble On The Temple Mount
Photo by Roderick Graciano, October 2008.http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33467356/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa
Sunday, March 05, 2006
The Emerald Rainbow
REV 04.03b: The rainbow (Gk = iris) is not just an arc, but a halo or radiance completely encircling the throne. Our English versions modify the noun rainbow with the phrase, “resembling an emerald,” and the majority of English commentators accept the emerald comparison as applying to the rainbow.
However, the masculine adjective in the Gk text, omoios (like) does not agree with the feminine gender of the word iris. While the word order seems to connect the comparison to emerald with the iris, the more important grammatical agreement seems to connect the emerald appearance with the One sitting on the throne. (The emerald likeness does not describe the throne, for though the adjective omoios agrees with thronou in masculine gender, it does not agree in case.) Though awkward, the verse could translate something like this: And He who sat there had the appearance of jasper stone and sardius — a radiance completely encircled the throne! — [He had] the appearance of an emerald. However, Oecumenius (6th century), who wrote the first extant Greek commentary on the Revelation, understood the emerald comparison as applying to the iris:
Any biblical mention of a rainbow points us back to the first mention of the phenomenon after the flood of Noah (Gen 9.12-17). The rainbow symbolically speaks of God’s covenant-keeping and promise-keeping character (see Rev 10.1,6). In the Revelation the rainbow hints of mercy in the face of wrath (cf. Hab 3.2), and of a coming new earth, cleansed of evil, and even more glorious than the one repopulated by Noah’s family.
However, the masculine adjective in the Gk text, omoios (like) does not agree with the feminine gender of the word iris. While the word order seems to connect the comparison to emerald with the iris, the more important grammatical agreement seems to connect the emerald appearance with the One sitting on the throne. (The emerald likeness does not describe the throne, for though the adjective omoios agrees with thronou in masculine gender, it does not agree in case.) Though awkward, the verse could translate something like this: And He who sat there had the appearance of jasper stone and sardius — a radiance completely encircled the throne! — [He had] the appearance of an emerald. However, Oecumenius (6th century), who wrote the first extant Greek commentary on the Revelation, understood the emerald comparison as applying to the iris:
The natural rainbow, which the holy Scriptures call the “bow” of God, occurs from the reflection of the sun’s light, which when taken into the thickness of clouds is intercepted and produces multiple and various colors. But this spiritual rainbow that encircles the divine throne is of one color, for it was like an emerald, and this reveals the multitude of holy ministering angels, which surrounds God. And for this reason it is called a “rainbow,” even though it is of one color, in order that from the multitude of colors of the rainbow we might recognize the distinct orders of the holy angels. And yet, all are bound together into one color since all alike imitate their Lord according to his good works, and therefore the emerald color testifies to their sustaining work, even as jasper did for God. (Bold emphasis added. Source: Commentary on the Apocalypse 4.1-3, quoted in Ancient Christian Commentary: New Testament XII: Revelation, Intervarsity, 2005).Apparently Oecumenius was working from Greek manuscripts (of which there are many) that had omoia (feminine) rather than omoios (masculine). Interestingly, the Modern Greek Bible of 1850 employs omoia thereby making the emerald comparison explicitly apply to the iris, the rainbow. I’m inclined to agree and see omoia as the less problematic reading; until I find stronger contrary evidence, I will accept that the rainbow was in appearance like an emerald, i.e., a shimmering green.
Any biblical mention of a rainbow points us back to the first mention of the phenomenon after the flood of Noah (Gen 9.12-17). The rainbow symbolically speaks of God’s covenant-keeping and promise-keeping character (see Rev 10.1,6). In the Revelation the rainbow hints of mercy in the face of wrath (cf. Hab 3.2), and of a coming new earth, cleansed of evil, and even more glorious than the one repopulated by Noah’s family.
Friday, June 03, 2005
God's Priority
The more I study the book of Revelation, the more convinced I am that God’s ultimate priority is relationship. All His commandments and all His actions seem to have one ultimate intent: fruitful relationship between Himself and His Bride. This relationship that God seeks to have with us requires that we reciprocate by loving His people. John wrote in 1 John 3.16: “This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers.” I have struggled though, with understanding just what it should look like in my life to “lay down my life for my brother.” Sure, if I see someone whose life is in danger, I must take whatever risk necessary to save the other person — after all, should I die in the attempt to rescue another I still have eternity with Jesus. The tougher question is how do I lay my life down for my brother in the normal circumstances of life? If my brother needs a car, should I give him mine? Then I’ll need a car and someone else will be burdened with giving me theirs. So should I just ignore the fact that my brother needs a car? Questions like these have prompted me to develop the following chart:
What it boils down to is prioritizing the real needs of others over my own luxuries and conveniences. I think it’s in the day-to-day dying to my self-absorption and self-indulgence where the real laying down of my life for a brother occurs. I hope this helps you. I hope it helps us become the Bride and ministers that God intends.
What it boils down to is prioritizing the real needs of others over my own luxuries and conveniences. I think it’s in the day-to-day dying to my self-absorption and self-indulgence where the real laying down of my life for a brother occurs. I hope this helps you. I hope it helps us become the Bride and ministers that God intends.
Thursday, April 21, 2005
THE STARS CAST DOWN BY THE DRAGON
WHO ARE THE STARS cast down by the dragon in Rev 12.04?
It’s tempting to interpret the stars dragged from “the sky” (NIV) by the dragon as representing angels who joined Satan in his primeval rebellion. Indeed, this verse is the proof text for the idea that a third of God’s angels followed Satan in that rebellion (cf. Barackman’s Practical Christian Theology (Kregel, Grand Rapids, 1981), p. 235). This interpretation seems plausible at first glance for the stars that are “cast down to the earth” in 12.4 are paralleled by the satanic angels who are “cast down to the earth” in verse 9. Furthermore, stars in the Revelation are interpreted as angels in 01.20 and a star seems to represent an angel in 09.01.
However, the angels of Rev 01.20 are probably human messengers from the churches, and the entity in 09.01 is not explicitly identified. As for the parallel between the “casting down to earth” in 12.04 and 12.09, it does help us by way of revealing the negative connotation of the verb (Gk ballo = fling, hurl, cast or throw) in our context. This casting down is a defeat in both 12.04 and 12.09. The dragon in 12.04 does not win a third of the stars as his followers, but rather throws down these stars in a destructive defeat.
Who then are these stars flung down, that is, defeated by the dragon? A fellow student asked, “who else would be in heaven but angels?” A good question, but we must consider several things. First, the vision of Rev 12 is not constrained by normal spatial boundaries. The “great sign” appears in heaven (en to ourano) but it concerns events that occur physically on earth, namely Israel giving birth to Messiah. Secondly, Rev 12.04 does not strictly say, as the NIV translates, “stars out of the sky,” but rather uses the genitive case to speak of “the stars of heaven.” While at first glance this would seem to mean stars [up] in heaven, the emphasis is actually on the fact that these stars belong to heaven, or are under heaven’s jurisdiction. Their heavenly domain seems to be contrasted with the earth to which they are cast, but even if they are stars already on earth (as the star-angels of Rev 01.20) they can still be flung to the ground or earth in defeat. Finally, we must remember that the heavenly domain is not spatially limited to some place up beyond the sky, for even now we are seated with Christ in the heavenly realms (Eph 2.06). With these things in mind, we must consider the possibility that the stars cast down by the dragon are actually human entities. But if they are people, which people are they?
Our first clue is in Rev 12.01. The woman framed by the sun, moon and stars represents Israel, for the symbolic picture is taken from Joseph’s dream in Genesis 37.09, where the stars represent the 12 sons (tribes) of Israel. In fact, stars in the Bible often represent Abraham’s descendants, for as a symbol they allude to God’s thrice repeated promise to Abraham to make his descendants as numerous as the stars of the heavens (Gen. 15.05; 22.17; 26.04; see also Exo 32.13; Deu 01.10; 10.22; 1Ch 27.23; Jer 33.22).
Is it descendants of Abraham then that the Dragon casts down? Yes, as confirmed in Daniel 08.10-12. In Daniel’s prophecy it is the dragon’s agent, the “little horn,” i.e., the Antichrist, who casts the stars down to the earth. The involvement of the Antichrist alerts us to the fact that the defeated stars in view are earthly, not just heavenly luminaries. Furthermore, the agency of the “little horn,” that is, of the Antichrist, tells us that this “casting down” is yet future and, therefore, is not the primeval rebellion of Satan’s angels.
Gabriel interprets Daniel’s vision for him, explaining in Dan 08.24 that a future “stern-faced” king will “destroy the mighty men and the holy people.” In other words, the Antichrist will bring down Israelite “mighty men” —whether spiritual or military leaders is not clear— and saints. This is exactly what is in view in Rev. 12. The dragon persecutes the woman (Israel), her son (Christ) and the rest of her offspring (Christians). As Daniel’s vision explains, the stars swept from heaven by the dragon’s tail are Israelite luminaries, either spiritual or military leaders who are defeated —at least physically— by the Antichrist.
The star imagery, when used to symbolize people, emphasizes the heavenly aspect of those people. The people in view either have a heavenly calling (Heb 03.01), are already experiencing heavenly blessing (Eph 1.03), or are at least under heavenly protection (2Ti 4.18). The star symbolism emphasizes the top window (= spiritual realm) aspect of these people, and may even allude to their guardian angels (cf. Mat 18.10).
It’s tempting to interpret the stars dragged from “the sky” (NIV) by the dragon as representing angels who joined Satan in his primeval rebellion. Indeed, this verse is the proof text for the idea that a third of God’s angels followed Satan in that rebellion (cf. Barackman’s Practical Christian Theology (Kregel, Grand Rapids, 1981), p. 235). This interpretation seems plausible at first glance for the stars that are “cast down to the earth” in 12.4 are paralleled by the satanic angels who are “cast down to the earth” in verse 9. Furthermore, stars in the Revelation are interpreted as angels in 01.20 and a star seems to represent an angel in 09.01.
However, the angels of Rev 01.20 are probably human messengers from the churches, and the entity in 09.01 is not explicitly identified. As for the parallel between the “casting down to earth” in 12.04 and 12.09, it does help us by way of revealing the negative connotation of the verb (Gk ballo = fling, hurl, cast or throw) in our context. This casting down is a defeat in both 12.04 and 12.09. The dragon in 12.04 does not win a third of the stars as his followers, but rather throws down these stars in a destructive defeat.
Who then are these stars flung down, that is, defeated by the dragon? A fellow student asked, “who else would be in heaven but angels?” A good question, but we must consider several things. First, the vision of Rev 12 is not constrained by normal spatial boundaries. The “great sign” appears in heaven (en to ourano) but it concerns events that occur physically on earth, namely Israel giving birth to Messiah. Secondly, Rev 12.04 does not strictly say, as the NIV translates, “stars out of the sky,” but rather uses the genitive case to speak of “the stars of heaven.” While at first glance this would seem to mean stars [up] in heaven, the emphasis is actually on the fact that these stars belong to heaven, or are under heaven’s jurisdiction. Their heavenly domain seems to be contrasted with the earth to which they are cast, but even if they are stars already on earth (as the star-angels of Rev 01.20) they can still be flung to the ground or earth in defeat. Finally, we must remember that the heavenly domain is not spatially limited to some place up beyond the sky, for even now we are seated with Christ in the heavenly realms (Eph 2.06). With these things in mind, we must consider the possibility that the stars cast down by the dragon are actually human entities. But if they are people, which people are they?
Our first clue is in Rev 12.01. The woman framed by the sun, moon and stars represents Israel, for the symbolic picture is taken from Joseph’s dream in Genesis 37.09, where the stars represent the 12 sons (tribes) of Israel. In fact, stars in the Bible often represent Abraham’s descendants, for as a symbol they allude to God’s thrice repeated promise to Abraham to make his descendants as numerous as the stars of the heavens (Gen. 15.05; 22.17; 26.04; see also Exo 32.13; Deu 01.10; 10.22; 1Ch 27.23; Jer 33.22).
Is it descendants of Abraham then that the Dragon casts down? Yes, as confirmed in Daniel 08.10-12. In Daniel’s prophecy it is the dragon’s agent, the “little horn,” i.e., the Antichrist, who casts the stars down to the earth. The involvement of the Antichrist alerts us to the fact that the defeated stars in view are earthly, not just heavenly luminaries. Furthermore, the agency of the “little horn,” that is, of the Antichrist, tells us that this “casting down” is yet future and, therefore, is not the primeval rebellion of Satan’s angels.
Gabriel interprets Daniel’s vision for him, explaining in Dan 08.24 that a future “stern-faced” king will “destroy the mighty men and the holy people.” In other words, the Antichrist will bring down Israelite “mighty men” —whether spiritual or military leaders is not clear— and saints. This is exactly what is in view in Rev. 12. The dragon persecutes the woman (Israel), her son (Christ) and the rest of her offspring (Christians). As Daniel’s vision explains, the stars swept from heaven by the dragon’s tail are Israelite luminaries, either spiritual or military leaders who are defeated —at least physically— by the Antichrist.
The star imagery, when used to symbolize people, emphasizes the heavenly aspect of those people. The people in view either have a heavenly calling (Heb 03.01), are already experiencing heavenly blessing (Eph 1.03), or are at least under heavenly protection (2Ti 4.18). The star symbolism emphasizes the top window (= spiritual realm) aspect of these people, and may even allude to their guardian angels (cf. Mat 18.10).
Wednesday, March 23, 2005
The Foundation
Aramaic = Ha Shetiyah
The Ark of the Covenant was hidden or disappeared before the time of Jesus, but apparently its "standing spot" didn't. The Mishnah, the authoritative collection of rabbinical rulings and observations, says the following in Yoma 5.2:
In the 1990's, Dutch archaeological architect, Leen Ritmeyer, did an extensive study of the exposed part of the rock, housed by the Dome of the Rock. This exposed outcropping is called es-Sakhra in Arabic. On the massive top of es-Sakhra, Ritmeyer found two flat rectangular areas that he recognized as foundation trenches, cut to create a level surface on which foundation stones for a building could be placed. This means that a building once had part of its wall standing on top of the currently visible surface of es-Sakhra. When Ritmeyer measured these foundation trenches he found that they were made for a wall that would have been a little over 10 feet thick. Guess what ancient building had walls of that thickness — Yes, the Holy of Holies! The Mishnah again, in Middoth 4.7, says that "The thickness of the wall of the ... Sanctuary [was] six [cubits]." Six cubits is 10 feet, four inches.
Once Ritmeyer found this probable placement of the south wall of the Holy of Holies, he found that the west and north sides of es-Sakhra have escarpments, i.e., natural or man-made cuts, where walls could have been placed to form a room exactly 20 cubits square, the dimensions of the Holy of Holies as given in 1 Kings 6.20.
Now, here's the interesting part. Once Ritmeyer had overlaid a photo of es-Sakhra with an outline of the walls of the Holy of Holies, he noticed a perfectly rectangular depression carved in the rock in the exact center of the 20 cubit by 20 cubit space. When he measured that rectangular niche, he found it to be 4 feet 4 inches by 2 feet 7 inches, or exactly 1.5 by 2.5 cubits, the dimensions of the Ark (Exodus 25.10). It appears that the "standing spot" that Solomon prepared for the Ark, was a flat depression at the very peak of the Temple Mount where the Ark would rest in complete stability. It is in this flat depression where the Ark with its blood-sprinkled Mercy Seat once stood, and where later the High Priest placed the fire pan of smoking incense. And this spot is still visible! See the diagram.
What does all this mean? Well, for those of us who believe that the Jewish Temple must be rebuilt before Christ's coming (based on predictions in Matthew 24), it means that somehow the Muslim Dome of the Rock is going to be [re]moved. The Jews will not stand for their Temple being built anywhere but where the special presence of God once resided in it.
The rediscovery of Ha Shetiyah, the Foundation, reminds us once again that God provided a way for us to be justified in His sight. The Ark sat on Ha Shetiyah, and in the Ark sat the tablets of the Law. When God looked down from Heaven upon this spot, He saw the Ark and He saw His Law, but over it all He saw the blood sprinkled upon the Ark by the High Priest. That blood testified to the atonement sacrifices made for the people who had broken the law by their sins. That blood also testified to the ultimate sacrifice made very nearby, the sacrifice of Jesus for a law-breaking world. It's because of that blood that you and I can plant our feet by faith on the Living Foundation Stone that will never be moved! Praise the Lord.
The Ark of the Covenant was hidden or disappeared before the time of Jesus, but apparently its "standing spot" didn't. The Mishnah, the authoritative collection of rabbinical rulings and observations, says the following in Yoma 5.2:
After the Ark was taken away a stone remained there from the time of the early Prophets [i.e., the time of David and Solomon], and it was called Shetiyah (foundation). It was higher than the ground [i.e., than the floor of the Holy of Holies] by three fingerbreadths. On this [the High Priest] used to put [the fire pan of burning incense].This reference to a stone sticking up from the floor of the Holy of Holies answers a question I've had in my mind since I visited the Dome of the Rock on the Temple Mount of Jerusalem in February of 1978. When I entered the Dome of the Rock, the first thing that arrested my attention was the fact that the great chunk of bedrock, over which the gorgeous mosque is built, protrudes to about 6 feet above the floor. If it were not for the mosque building, the massive rock itself would present a dramatic interruption to the flat plane of the Temple Mount platform. However, this Temple Mount platform of today is where the Temple and its courtyards used to be, so the thing that puzzled me was that I had never heard or read of any big rock jutting up from the floor of the Temple courtyards in biblical times. I reasoned that this outcropping of bedrock had to have been covered by the Temple building, and probably by the highest part of the Temple, the Holy of Holies. The above passage in the Mishnah confirmed my thinking. The rock outcropping in the Dome of the Rock is the top of the Temple Mountain over which Solomon built his Temple, Ha Shetiyah, the Foundation!
In the 1990's, Dutch archaeological architect, Leen Ritmeyer, did an extensive study of the exposed part of the rock, housed by the Dome of the Rock. This exposed outcropping is called es-Sakhra in Arabic. On the massive top of es-Sakhra, Ritmeyer found two flat rectangular areas that he recognized as foundation trenches, cut to create a level surface on which foundation stones for a building could be placed. This means that a building once had part of its wall standing on top of the currently visible surface of es-Sakhra. When Ritmeyer measured these foundation trenches he found that they were made for a wall that would have been a little over 10 feet thick. Guess what ancient building had walls of that thickness — Yes, the Holy of Holies! The Mishnah again, in Middoth 4.7, says that "The thickness of the wall of the ... Sanctuary [was] six [cubits]." Six cubits is 10 feet, four inches.
Once Ritmeyer found this probable placement of the south wall of the Holy of Holies, he found that the west and north sides of es-Sakhra have escarpments, i.e., natural or man-made cuts, where walls could have been placed to form a room exactly 20 cubits square, the dimensions of the Holy of Holies as given in 1 Kings 6.20.
Now, here's the interesting part. Once Ritmeyer had overlaid a photo of es-Sakhra with an outline of the walls of the Holy of Holies, he noticed a perfectly rectangular depression carved in the rock in the exact center of the 20 cubit by 20 cubit space. When he measured that rectangular niche, he found it to be 4 feet 4 inches by 2 feet 7 inches, or exactly 1.5 by 2.5 cubits, the dimensions of the Ark (Exodus 25.10). It appears that the "standing spot" that Solomon prepared for the Ark, was a flat depression at the very peak of the Temple Mount where the Ark would rest in complete stability. It is in this flat depression where the Ark with its blood-sprinkled Mercy Seat once stood, and where later the High Priest placed the fire pan of smoking incense. And this spot is still visible! See the diagram.
What does all this mean? Well, for those of us who believe that the Jewish Temple must be rebuilt before Christ's coming (based on predictions in Matthew 24), it means that somehow the Muslim Dome of the Rock is going to be [re]moved. The Jews will not stand for their Temple being built anywhere but where the special presence of God once resided in it.
The rediscovery of Ha Shetiyah, the Foundation, reminds us once again that God provided a way for us to be justified in His sight. The Ark sat on Ha Shetiyah, and in the Ark sat the tablets of the Law. When God looked down from Heaven upon this spot, He saw the Ark and He saw His Law, but over it all He saw the blood sprinkled upon the Ark by the High Priest. That blood testified to the atonement sacrifices made for the people who had broken the law by their sins. That blood also testified to the ultimate sacrifice made very nearby, the sacrifice of Jesus for a law-breaking world. It's because of that blood that you and I can plant our feet by faith on the Living Foundation Stone that will never be moved! Praise the Lord.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
