Revelation 18 to the end of Revelation

It’s hard not to read the lament for Babylon and be reminded of America at her worst. May it never be.

19:8 gives us a rare bit of interpretation in all of the metaphorical jungle.

The white rider on the white horse is Jesus. Earlier I was wondering about all of the names of Jesus. When he appears here, apparently he has yet another name written on himself that no one knows. That’s intriguing.

Who or what is Gog and Magog. Even the context doesn’t really give a clue as to who they are or what they do, other than the fact that they appear in the middle of a sentence about Satan deceiving the whole earth.

Satan, the beast, and the prophet. Which one is the anti-Christ? And this is the unholy Trinity.

In chapter twenty-two, beside the river of life, there appears on each side “the tree of life.” Is this the same tree, literally or figuratively, as the one of the same name that is in the Garden of Eden? Talk about full circle.

What a perfect ending! There is some danger, for an anthology like the Bible, of coming to too abrupt an ending. It could have just simply ended with one of the letters of John perhaps. That may not have felt as satisfying. But this feels like a truly epic ending to a truly epic book. It draws everything to a conclusion and feels like a very satisfying ending, giving the book as a whole a certain unity and a complete narrative arc.

And the final chapters are another passage that makes me want to stand in my chair. “Yes, I am coming soon.” Amen. Come, Lord Jesus. 

Jude

When did the archangel, Michael, argue with the devil over the body of Moses? I don’t remember that part. How many named angels are there in the entire Bible?

Revelation

The book of Revelation looms large in the psyche of the Western world, even – or perhaps especially – among non-believers and people who do not study the scripture. It has such a reputation for containing bizarre and abstract representations of evil and war and bloodletting, and the antichrist, and the day of judgment, and the beast with ten horns and ten faces, etc., etc. I think some people, particularly the ungodly who are unduly attracted to evil, are unnaturally drawn to the idea of it, despite what it’s reality may be. Revelation is alluded to in our pop culture. Tombstone’s Johnny Ringo quotes Revelation’s “and Hell followed with him.” Hunter Thompson frequently relied on the more gnarly quotes from Revelation. So-called Devil Worshippers revel in the ideas of the mark of the beast, etc. I haven’t read the first word yet (this time), and already, all of these associations come to mind.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6160167

Jesus addresses seven churches, or the churches in seven cities. But it strikes me that we don’t know these seven churches. Why these particular ones and not others? What does he address the angels of those churches and not the people of those churches?

3:14 “The Amen.” I am pretty sure this is another name for Jesus.

I am totally jazzed by the description of worship in heaven that appears in chapter five. This is one of those sections that I want to read standing on a chair in with the clenched fist of victory.

The four horsemen are given authority over one fourth of the earth, and the people will be killed by one of four methods: the sword (they will be killed outright), famine (starve to death), plague (death from disease), and death by the wild beasts of the earth (wild animals will attack and kill them). Fascinating.

Purely from a dramatic standpoint, chapter eight contains a masterstroke of drama and suspense. When it can’t get any climactic, any faster, higher, or louder, the only thing to do is go the other way and make everything stop. The seventh seal is opened, and there is silence in heaven for half an hour. Nothing happens, but the tension is held, and everyone holds their breath. That’s incredible.

As I am reading, it occurs to me that there is nothing in all of scripture (and being here at the end I can fully compare) that is anything like this portion of scripture. None of the prophets have used this kind of description with these kids of images.  

In chapter ten, John writes that the seven thunders spoke. “I was about to write down what they said, but a voice from heaven said, ‘Seal up what the seven thunders have written and do not write them down.’” That makes me all the more curious, what did the seven thunders say? If we are not to know, why then was it mentioned in the first place?

In chapter eleven, John looks up and sees that the heavens are opened, and God’s temple in heaven is opened, and there in the temple is the Ark of the Covenant. I have wondered about the ark and about how it is absent in the accounts of the looting a destruction of the temples. Could it be that the ark of the covenant was lost to history because it was so special to God that before the temple could be destroyed, God brought the ark up to his heavenly temple in an example of the blurring of the lines between the spiritual and the material?

What I am seeing here is simply a flash of images, not one cohesive story, but a succession of images. When a new one appears it is viewed for a moment until another one takes it’s place, and the first one fades almost immediately.

In 16:15, the words of Jesus appear in red. But in 16:17, the words from the throne, “It is done,” are not in red. Aren’t these the words of Jesus, similar to the words he spoke on the cross? Or were these words of God the Father?

First Peter

Peter provides a pretty good definition of what faith means to the believer in Jesus: “Though you have not see [Jesus Christ], you love him; and even though you do not see him now, you believe in him and are filled with an inexpressible and glorious joy, for you are receiving the goal of your faith, the salvation of your souls.” Yes, this is pretty succinctly defines our faith in Christ.

Jesus is called the Stone. Surely someone has compiled all of the names for Jesus. It would be an interesting list.

Peter writes, “If anyone serves, he should do it with the strength God provides so that in all things God may be praised through Jesus Christ.” I hope that as I serve, in any of the various roles in which I serve, I am doing it in the strength provided by Christ, rather than my own strength, so that God is praised through my service.

Second Peter

Peter addresses an accusation of his contemporaries, and one that has occurred to me from time to time. It makes sense that it would have occurred to the hearers in Peter’s day. Could it be that these followers of Jesus are simply making up stories? After all, the story of the resurrection is a pretty fantastic tale. I find it reassuring that Peter addresses this, and actually says, “We do not follow cleverly invented stories…. We were eyewitnesses.” But there will be false teachers, Peter warns, who will mislead with “stories they have made up.”

I love it when characters come back around! Here, Peter refers to Balaam, son of Beor, our friend from on the donkey from back in Numbers. That seems like a long time ago now, and it’s almost like seeing an old friend again.

Peter says, “A man is a slave to whatever has mastered him.” That is an arresting thought. To what am I a slave? What has mastered me? What have I yet to master?

Peter discusses the return of Jesus. He says that some people scoff because Jesus has not returned in the forty years or so since his death. But Peter reminds us to be patient because “The Lord is not slow… as some understand slowness.” That is right. And it is as I have been thinking. God’s ways are far about my ways, and who can understand God. So if it seems to me like God’s ways are not entirely right or fair as I recon rightness or fairness, it is almost certainly because my limited vision, my limited intelligence, my human limitations of all kinds, prevent me from understanding God’s ways. I trust in a God who is all-powerful and all good, and sometimes I just have to leave it at that.

First John

Is this the same John that wrote the gospel of John? The introduction, “God is light; in him there is no darkness at all,” is brief, punchy, and poetic. It is reminiscent to me of the opening of the gospel of John.

“Anyone who claims to be in the light but hates his brother is still in the darkness.” There are those who claim to be transformed, and who claim to be healed. Sometimes they claim to be over something, but they are betrayed by their actions. They are still in darkness, despite their claims.

I like how John contrasts the Father with The World. He could have used a comparison between The Father and The Devil, as if they were opposing equals, but they are not equal at all. What is the devil in contrast to The Father? There is no comparison. But here, John says it is The World and the love of the things of the World that lead people astray. I think that is very accurate.

John talks about the antichrist (singular) and the antichrists (plural). He defines an antichrist as anyone who does not believe in Christ. In 4:3, John refers to the spirit of the antichrist, “which is already in the world.” Perhaps he means it is the spirit, which is already in the world, and not the antichrist himself.  

There is such a focus on loving each other herein John. He hammers this point home again and again, but he is not the only one. From the gospels on, Jesus has reframed our understanding of the meaning of our lives: to love God and to love each other.

In 5:8, John writes, “For there are three that testify: the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and the three are in agreement.” Is speaking of the Trinity? It is not an exact reference, but it resonates with what we understand of the Trinity.

Oops! As an English teacher, I can’t help but correct flaws when I see them. John introduces a completely new idea in the last line. The conclusion is the place to review and sum up what you’ve written. A writer should not introduce a new idea or new information in the conclusion.

Second John

John writes a very brief letter to an unnamed woman. Do we know who this woman is?

Third John

Another really brief book, a letter to Gaius. John writes, “for the sake of The Name.” We can add that to “The Stone” for names for God and Jesus. 

Hebrews

Ideas evolve, and our understanding evolves. I’m trying real hard to follow the discussion of “entering in to the rest of God” in chapter four. I think this is talking about getting in to heaven, but I wonder if the writer of Hebrews was thinking of it in just that way. What does the writer of Hebrews understand about eternity in heaven, and how has that changed as compared with our understanding today? What is the consensus opinion of heaven today?

The writer of Hebrews says that once a person participates in belief in Christ and then falls away, that person can no longer be eligible for salvation through Christ. The writer says this is impossible, but this kind of talk always makes me nervous. I find it hard (maybe I simply don’t want) to think that anything could cut us off totally and forever from the redeeming power of Christ. I recall Jesus’ words regarding a rich man entering heaven: he said “For many this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”

Our Christian faith, and the Jewish faith from which it springs, is rich with signs and symbols. We use these symbols as substitutes in our religious practice because we can’t have and hold the real things our symbols represent. In many (most) cases, these symbols are given to us by God. But the symbols are not the realities themselves, but only signifiers of the realities that cannot be had in their own right.

When Christ came, he made many of these realities complete, and so rendered the symbols moot. Previously, we had only a shadow of the thing; in Christ we have the thing itself. In Christ we have both the sign and the signified. This is why the disciples did not fast when everyone around them did; because the bridge groom was with them then.

Animal sacrifice was not for the forgiveness of sins but the reminder of sin. In the perfect sacrifice of Jesus, we have in reality what was being symbolized in the ritual of animal sacrifice. We have a sacrifice that atones for sin once and for all so that it doesn’t have to be repeated.

But for some, and this is what the writer of Hebrews explains, the practice of the symbols has become so important that it has evolved from a picture of the thing into the thing itself. Then when the thing itself appears, in this case the Christ, people want to forego the reality in favor of the symbol.

James

Have a correct and balanced view of your worth, regardless of your social or economic station. This is wisdom.

The doctrine of grace, and faith, and deeds is a difficult one. Here, James says that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone. In other places, it is clear that we bring nothing to the table when it comes to our salvation. Strict Calvinists would say we cannot even boast in our choice to accept the salvation of Jesus. But here James says, “You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.” A contradiction?  

First and Second Thessalonians, First and Second Timothy, Titus, Philemon

First Thessalonians

In all of Paul’s lengthy letters, in addition to teaching, Paul gives clues about a context that the modern reader does not fully know. It would be fascinating to fill in the gaps and know the full story of Paul’s journeys and interactions with the various churches of the work of his day. Surely there is a book on this subject.

Paul uses the expression, “…with God as our witness….” Is this where that expression comes from?

Reading these letters makes me wonder: Did Paul write other letters to other people or places? Does any of those other letters survive? If they do, what are they not included in the canon? Why is Philemon included?

Second Thessalonians

Paul writes about a “man of lawlessness,” who must come before the story of Christ’s full return and our resurrection with him can take place. This sounds very much like our understanding of the anti-Christ. Where does the idea of the “anti-Christ” first appear? Is it here? Is it in Revelation? Which letter was written first? Is the Anti-Christ predicted in Daniel? I do not now recall.

First Timothy

Paul warns Timothy against bad behavior, and references “certain men.” I am guessing that both Paul and Timothy know exactly who is being talked about here.

Paul explains that he was once a great sinner, but that “I was shown mercy because I acted in ignorance and unbelief.” If Paul gets a pass for his persecution of Christ and the church because he was acting in ignorance and unbelief, should all people get the same mercy? After all, are all unbelievers living in ignorance and unbelief? Who then can they (we) be blamed?

Paul goes from talking generally about “certain men,” to talking specifically by naming names! Hymenaeus and Alexander are named specifically as ones whom Paul has written off entirely and “handed over to Satan.”

Here Paul reiterates his ideas about women, that they are utterly subservient to men. How do Godly, educated women with God given gifts of teaching and administration respond to that text?

Paul advises Timothy “Those who sin are to be rebuked publicly so that others may take warning.” It’s pretty hard to imagine that actually happening, and if it did, it’s even harder to imagine the subject of such a public rebuke ever returning to the church again. No, I’d say this is pretty bad advice.

I didn’t set out to fault Paul, for who am I to question so great a mind as his and the Spirit within him. But some things just sound wrong. He tells Timothy not to put younger widows on the list of widows being supported by the church because, “When their sensual desires overcome their dedication to Christ, they want to marry.” Really? Is that the main reason women want to marry? Because of their sensual desires? He goes on to explain that young single women gossip and sit idle too much and are busybodies. For this reason younger widows should get married and take care of their husbands and families. That’s kind of harsh and particularly one-sided.

Second Timothy

Paul says not to quarrel over words and not to hang out with those who do. To what words is he referring? Perhaps he is encouraging us not to be out of balance regarding the debates about things we cannot know for certain. I know I have been far too eager, at times, to debate matters of theology, the unknown, and personal opinion. Moderation in everything.

As in First Timothy, Paul names names. He cites five different individuals (not including the two from First Tim) who have abandoned him or wronged him: Alexander, Phygelus, Hermogenes, Hymonaeus, and Philetus. That’s quite an enemies list, enemies who, we presume, were at one point closely associated wit Paul.

Titus

Paul uses the phrase, “the circumcision group,” to identify a group of troublemakers in the faith. Is this how he refers to all Jews who do not have faith in Christ?

Regarding the Levitical laws, Paul says here (and has said in other places) that everything is pure in Christ. And that sounds familiar. But here, Paul says that, apart from Christ, nothing is pure, even under the Levitical law. That’s a new twist; it’s fascinating, and it totally makes sense.

It strikes me that the gospel is an equal opportunity worldview. It is not for the poor, or the educated, or for a specific ethnic group. It is for men or women, Jews or gentiles, slaves or master, the rich or the poor. And it doesn’t (at least in Paul’s view) attempt to collapse any of those disparate groups. We are to be who God wants us to be, right where we are.

Philemon

Sometimes I get the feeling that there is a subtext… and undercurrent… of Paul asking for money. Do I understand that correctly? I wondered earlier if there were other letters written by Paul that were either lost or intentionally not included. Philemon doesn’t really seem as meaty as are perhaps other books by Paul.

There is tension between Paul and the people to whom he writes. It appears again here in Galatians. It seems as if this tension comes about during Paul’s absence, and he has to smooth things over a little bit. Paul could be experiencing the same abuse that the prophets received when they proclaimed God’s truth.

Heh, heh, heh. Paul gets a little bawdy in his frustration with those who still say a person has to obey the part of the law that demands men be circumcised. I understand what he is saying: we now have freedom from the law in Christ, because who can keep the law anyway? But still, some try. Paul says, “I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!” That’s worth a chuckle.

Ephesians

Paul is pretty consistent in his view that we were predestined for a life in Christ. We were called while we were still dead in our transgressions. How can a dead person respond to a call from anyone? And that it is only through God’s grace that we are saved.

Ephesians spends a good amount of ink discussing how people should live and treat each other in this life. Neighbors, wives and husbands, children and parents, slaves and masters, etc.

Philippians

Paul is very quotable. There are many what we would call today sound bites that ring with familiarity. Paul would have been (and perhaps was) a good speechwriter!

Colossians

As I read this, the Passover holiday is rapidly approaching. I was listening to the radio earlier today to a story about the kosher laws regarding not eating any grain during Passover. Some devout Jews have extended this to not eating any meat that may have eaten grain. The children at the zoo are not allowed to feed animal pellets to the zoo animals, because the feed contains grains. In response, some kosher meat producers, and the zookeepers at the Jerusalem zoo, have put all the animals on a grain-free diet during the Passover.

I am reminded of this just now as I read Paul’s words, “Since you died with Christ to the basic principals of this world, why, as though you still belonged to it, do you submit to its rules: ‘Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!’? These are all destined to perish with use, because they are based on human commands and teachings.’” How much freedom there is in a life in Christ!

Paul says that Epaphras “is always wrestling in prayer for you.” That’s a great image and a great descriptor. What must it be like to wrestle in prayer? 

In First Corinthians chapter fifteen, Paul reviews and reconfirms the essential tenets of the gospel: that Christ died and was resurrected. He writes that, “By this gospel you are saved.” I am reminded of the story of the Rich Young Ruler who ran up to Jesus and asked, “Teacher, what good thing must I do to be saved?” And I think I know what he is asking. But to step back for a moment and read it like a newbie, I have to ask, “From what?” What are they being saved from? It could be saved form an eternity in hell. Could it also be something else? Saved from the negative consequences of sin, perhaps? Or something else?

What does it mean to be “baptized for the dead?”

The note included at the end of the letter to the Corinthians indicates clearly that Paul himself did not actually write out the whole letter, but that it was transcribes, perhaps as he dictated it. I wonder why that is.

Second Corinthians

Paul’s letter begins with an explanation of when he is coming (to Corinth) and going and why. Though I don’t fully get it, it seems as if there was some tension between him and those in Corinth. Were there some hurt feelings on his first trip?

And then I see in chapter seven, Paul says that he heard that his letter “hurt you” and “caused you sorrow.” What part or aspect of Paul’s letter caused that reaction?

In chapter eight and nine, Paul is spending a fair about of time talking about the generosity of the Corinthians in supporting Paul and other churches. This is probably a good discussion among new believers, particularly gentile believers, regarding how to support the ministry of the gospel. There is also some context that we don’t have, I think. In 9:5, what is “the generous gift you had promised?” It doesn’t sound exactly like a monetary gift, but perhaps it is.

Paul is kind of cracking me up. He talks about boasting but not boasting too much. He defends the work he has done as if his reputation is somehow threatened. He reports people accusing his letters of being ‘weighty and forceful,’ but his physical presence ‘unimpressive.’ He self-deprecates by calling himself “foolish,” and the stands up for himself even though he is not one of the “super-apostles.” I have not idea what a super-apostle is, but I am imagining a preacher from one of the sprawling, suburban mega-churches.

What is the third heaven that Paul’s friend went to?

At the end of chapter twelve, Paul seems to be anticipating some conflict due to unmet expectations during his visit. That’s weird. Is this what there was before?

One things that really strikes me about Paul’s letters is that he is not merely concerned with sharing the gospel of Jesus and converting people, but he even more concerned about equipping those already converted for life as a follower of Christ. His prayer is “for your perfection.”

Galatians

Paul begins Galatians by re-asserting his credentials and authority. It sounds as if some had bee questioning this. He also then re-iterates the union we have in Christ. After some pretty harsh words about women in his first letter to the Corinthians, he now says “there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” What does that mean for women? Are they allowed to speak in church? Did his opinion change over the years? 

Paul can go on some. That’s no complaint, but merely an observation. I am reminded, as I read his words now, about the story in Acts where Paul was preaching, and he just kept going and going until past midnight. Then someone sitting in the window fell asleep, fell out the third floor window, and died. Paul went down, brought him back from the dead, and then went on preaching until dawn. That’s something.

And again, as I read Paul’s words directly, first in Roman and now in 1 Corinthians, I can totally see that as a possibility.

Paul can be pretty pointed with his audience. He tells them he is coming to see them and encourages them to clean up their act before he gets there by asking them, “Shall I come to you with a whip, or in love and with a gently spirit?” Ouch. Is he really going to beat them?

In chapter 11, Paul talks about what is appropriate in worship. Among other things, he teaches pretty plainly that women should have their heads covered, and that they should be under the authority of men. I wonder, how do most Godly women feel about this passage? Why do we not observe the requirement that the heads of women be covered during prayer and worship? Does this passage give us some insight as to why Paul never got married?

Chapter fourteen includes an interesting discussion on the topic of speaking in tongues. The whole subject is still an open question for me. It was apparently done during the early church; it is obviously still done today.

Again, Paul has some hard words for women speaking during the church service. Are these ideas true revelation? Or is this just Paul’s opinion? If the later, what else here is merely Paul’s opinion? Some things resonate are really, really true; other things do not. Who can judge between them? 

Romans 1 – Romans 14

Paul rhetorically asks what for me is a crucial question so that he can provide the answer. Unfortunately, the answer is only minimally helpful. After explaining that we are chosen by God, that some are chosen and not others, Paul writes, “One of you will say to me: ‘Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?’” This is a good question, and one I have asked continuously for years. It is a question that everyone who has considered the free will v. predestination debate has asked. If God chooses some for salvation, and not others (which is the same as actively choosing some for destruction) how can they be blamed for not choosing God? Jesus said at one point that he did not come to condemn people, because people were condemned already; he came only to save. There is a hint of an answer in there. Paul answers his own question by simply asking, “Who are you, o man, to talk back to God?” I think that by this, Paul is saying that in our limited humanity, we cannot possibly understand the ways of God because God is so far above and beyond our capacity to understand. It is not that God fails to be “fair” as we understand fairness, but it is more that we cannot understand the fairness and justice of God.

“How unsearchable his judgments, and his paths beyond tracing out!”

I shouldn’t be surprised to find basic wisdom for healthy living in the words of the bible. But here it is. Romans 12 contains advice that I want my kids to hear throughout their childhood. This is how a healthy person lives. This is more memorization material.

Whenever she sees a police officer, Jamiee always jokes about running and hiding. She calls them “cops” and “po-po’s.”  This bugs me because I feel like police officers are people who deserve respect, they are a kind of servant, and if you’re not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to fear from them. I was reminded of that today as I read Romans 13. Here is a paraphrase:

“For [the police] hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of [the police]? Then do what is right, and he will commend you. For he is God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not [carry a gun and have the power to arrest] for nothing. He is God’s servant, [someone who will bust down the door to do a felony arrest on a bad guy], to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.”

Take a lesson.

Paul is a powerful and insightful teacher. This living apart of the law and under the authority of Christ is totally uncharted waters. But Paul, by the Holy Spirit gives us a map. It’s brilliant, really, and precludes petty arguments regarding religious practice. 

The book of Acts is, for me, like a transition from the ancient, way back, what I think of as “biblical times,” to the more modern time that we are a part of today. I think this is because of the place names and proper nouns that are familiar to me. Paul sails on a ship with anchors that accommodate hundreds of people. There is a place called the Three Taverns. There are place names like Italy, Rome, Crete, Ethiopia, and others that are still in existence today, and that helps me put the stories in a concrete context.

The stories of the exploits of Paul and the way the story of salvation through faith in Jesus of Nazareth who is the Christ spread throughout his travels throughout the world of the early church are fascinating.