Soteriology as Motivation in the Apocalypse of John 9781463204198, 2014039968, 1463204191

Citation preview

Soteriology as Motivation in the Apocalypse of John

Gorgias Biblical Studies

61

In this series Gorgias publishes monographs on the history, theology, redaction and literary criticism of the biblical texts. Gorgias particularly welcomes proposals from younger scholars whose dissertations have made an important contribution to the field of Biblical Studies. Studies of language and linguistics, the archaeology and cultures of the Ancient Near East, Judaism and religion in general each have their own series and will not be included in this series.

Soteriology as Motivation in the Apocalypse of John

Alexander E. Stewart

9

34 2015

Gorgias Press LLC, 954 River Road, Piscataway, NJ, 08854, USA www.gorgiaspress.com Copyright © 2015 by Gorgias Press LLC

All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright Conventions. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning or otherwise without the prior written permission of Gorgias Press LLC. 2015

‫ܐ‬

9

ISBN 978-1-4632-0419-8

ISSN 1935-6870

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Stewart, Alexander, 1979Soteriology as motivation in the Apocalypse of John / by Alexander Stewart. pages cm. -- (Gorgias biblical studies, ISSN 1935-6870) Includes bibliographical references. ISBN 978-1-4632-0419-8 1. Bible. Revelation--Criticism, interpretation, etc. 2. Salvation--Christianity. I. Title. BS2825.52.S755 2015 228.06--dc23 2014039968 Printed in the United States of America

TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents ..................................................................................... v Acknowledgments ................................................................................... ix Abbreviations ........................................................................................... xi Chapter 1: Introduction ........................................................................... 1 How Does John Motivate? ............................................................ 1 Whose Motivational Strategies? .................................................... 8 Chapter 2: Argumentation in the Apocalypse.................................... 11 Rhetorical Analysis of the Apocalypse of John ........................ 11 Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza ................................................. 14 David A. deSilva ...................................................................... 15 Other Contributors ................................................................. 17 Alternative Approaches: Hebrew Rhetoric and Modern Theories ............................................................ 25 Modern Theories of Argumentation Analysis .......................... 34 Chaim Perelman ...................................................................... 36 Stephen Toulmin ..................................................................... 38 Recent Developments............................................................. 48 Defining Terms: The Relationships between Arguing, Motivating, Convincing, and Persuading ....................................................................... 51 The Rhetorical Situation ............................................................... 55 Possible Rhetorical Exigences ............................................... 60 John’s Rhetorical Goals .......................................................... 67 Summary ......................................................................................... 79 Chapter 3: John’s Foundational Narrative: From Creation to New Creation ................................................................................. 81 Fields of Argumentation, Religious Rhetoric, Worldviews, and Foundational Narratives .............................................. 83 Fields of Argumentation and Religious Rhetoric ............... 83 Worldviews and Foundational Narratives ........................... 87 The Foundational Narrative ........................................................ 93 v

vi

SOTERIOLOGY AS MOTIVATION

John’s Foundational Narrative: The Past ............................ 94 John’s Foundational Narrative: The Present....................... 98 John’s Foundational Narrative: The Future ......................106 John’s Foundational Narrative: A Summary Description .....107 The Function of the Foundational Narrative in the Argumentation of the Apocalypse ...................................112 Summary and Conclusions.........................................................118 Chapter 4: Motivation in Sentences And Clauses ...........................121 Explicit Motivating Expressions in the Apocalypse ..............125 Seven Proclamations (Rev 2:1–3:22) ..................................125 Vision Narratives (Rev 4:1–22:7) ........................................143 Implicit Motivating Expressions in the Apocalypse ..............148 Declarations of Blessedness.................................................148 Declarations of Imminence .................................................151 Jesus’ Opinion and Wishes ..................................................153 The Standard of Judgment ...................................................156 John’s Interpretive Comments ............................................157 Various Reason-Result and Grounds-Conclusion Logical Relations...........................................................160 Condition-Consequence Logical Relations .......................168 Summary of Results ....................................................................175 Conclusion ....................................................................................176 Chapter 5: Soteriology Within the Argumentation of the Apocalypse....................................................................................177 Inaugurated Soteriology: Now and Not Yet ...........................181 The Now .................................................................................182 The Not Yet ...........................................................................189 The Role of Soteriology in John’s Argumentation ................194 Can Christians Lose Their Salvation?.................................197 Is Faith Necessary? ................................................................200 Summary and Conclusions: Soteriology as Motivation in the Apocalypse ....................................................................203 Chapter 6: Summary and Conclusions ..............................................205 Summary .......................................................................................205 Constraints on Persuasiveness: The Necessity of a Shared Meta-Narrative ....................................................................208 Evaluating the Contribution of Toulmin’s Model for Argumentation Analysis to Biblical Studies ...................212 Conclusion: Soteriology as Motivation ....................................212

TABLE OF CONTENTS

vii

Appendix: Identifying Motivational Argumentation ......................215 Logical Relations..........................................................................220 Grounds-Conclusion Relations ...........................................220 Means-Purpose Relations .....................................................223 Conclusion ....................................................................................223 Bibliography ..........................................................................................225 Index .......................................................................................................251 Index of Biblical References ......................................................251 Index of Modern Authors ..........................................................266 Index of Subjects .........................................................................270

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Looking back over my life and the road that led to the completion of this monograph, I feel overwhelmed with gratitude to those who have contributed and sacrificed not only to help me complete the project, but to shape me into the man that I am today. To my beautiful wife Jenny: there is no doubt about it, I married up. You have shouldered the weight of sacrifice for this project far more than me; and that with unflagging love and without a single complaint. My respect, admiration, and love for you has done nothing but increase since the day we said ‘I do.’ Thank you! To my boys Elijah, Benjamin, Paul, and Micah: thanks for your patience—daddy’s big book is finally done! To my parents Michael and Debby Stewart: thank you for your consistent support, love, and encouragement from diapers to diploma—I am who I am today because of you. To my other mom, Karen McAlister: thank you for entrusting your daughter to my care and for embracing me as a son. To the professors at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary and Columbia International University that have personally guided and mentored me along the way: Dr. David Alan Black, Dr. Andreas J. Köstenberger, Dr. Chip McDaniel, Dr. William J. Larkin, Dr. John D. Harvey, Dr. Bryan E. Beyer, Dr. Don N. Howell, and Dr. Joel Williams—thank you for approaching your work as a vocation and ministry and not simply as a job. I have benefited as much, if not more, from observing the sincerity of your lives and faith than from your teaching and research, which was, of course, also exemplary. To Melonie Schmierer-Lee and the wonderful staff at Gorgias Press: Thank you for making the publication of this monograph a joyful and easy process.

ix

x

SOTERIOLOGY AS MOTIVATION

Finally and preeminently, thank you God for rescuing me from a life devoted to building castles in the sand and for drawing me into the work of a lasting kingdom.

ABBREVIATIONS Arg AB ACNT AUSS BBR BDAG

BECNT

BETL

Bib BN BR BT BTB BTNT BZNW CBR CBQ CNT ConBNT CTJ CurTM EvQ GTJ HBT HDR HNT HSM

Argumentation Anchor Bible Augsburg Commentaries on the New Testament Andrews University Seminary Studies Bulletin for Biblical Research Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium Biblica Biblische Notizen Biblical Research The Bible Translator Biblical Theology Bulletin Biblical Theology of the New Testament Series Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für Religions- und Geistesgeschichte Currents in Biblical Research Catholic Biblical Quarterly Commentaire du Nouveau Testament Coniectanea biblica: New Testament Series Calvin Theological Journal Currents in Theology and Mission Evangelical Quarterly Grace Theological Journal Horizons in Biblical Theology Harvard Dissertation in Religion Handbuch zum Neuen Testament Harvard Semitic Monographs xi

xii HTR HUT ICC Int IVPNTC JBL JETS JR JNSL JSNT JSNTSup NCB NCBC Neot NICNT

NIGTC NovT NovTSup NTD NTL NTS ÖTK PDA PRSt QJS RR RNT RTP RTR SBLDS SBLSP SBLSymS SBT SNTSMS

SOTBT TJ TT

SOTERIOLOGY AS MOTIVATION Harvard Theological Review Hermeneutische Untersuchungen zur Theologie International Critical Commentary Interpretation IVP New Testament Commentary Series Journal of Biblical Literature Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society Journal of Religion Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages Journal for the Study of the New Testament Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series New Century Bible New Cambridge Bible Commentary Neotestamentica New International Commentary on the New Testament New International Greek Testament Commentary Novum Testamentum Novum Testamentum Supplements Das Neue Testament Deutsch New Testament Library New Testament Studies Ökumenischer Taschenbuch-Kommentar Pragmatics and Discourse Analysis Perspectives in Religions Studies Quarterly Journal of Speech Review of Religion Regensburger Neues Testament Revue de théologie et de philosophie Reformed Theological Review Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers Society of Biblical Literature Symposium Series Studies in Biblical Theology Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series Studies in Old Testament Biblical Theology Trinity Journal Theology Today

ABBREVIATIONS TheoZeit TUGAL TynBu WBC WTJ WUNT WW ZNW

Theologische Zeitschrift Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur Tyndale Bulletin Word Biblical Commentary Westminster Theological Journal Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testemant Word and World Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche

xiii

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION HOW DOES JOHN MOTIVATE? What is the purpose of the Apocalypse of John? Why did John write to seven churches at the end of the first century? What were his goals and how did he achieve them? Several scholarly monographs and studies over the past three decades have sought the answer to these questions through rhetorical analyses of the Apocalypse. 1 The basis for these rhetorical studies is the conviction that John primarily wrote in order to motivate his hearers to change their thinking and behavior, not to give a cryptic timeline of distant future events with little to no bearing on their present existence. 2 David A. deSilva, Seeing Things John’s Way: The Rhetoric of the Book of Revelation; David A. deSilva, ‘What Has Athens to Do with Patmos? Rhetorical Criticism of the Revelation of John (1980–2005),’ 256–89; Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, The Book of Revelation: Justice and Judgment, 187. 2 Brian K. Blount, Revelation: A Commentary, 18–22. This emphasis on obedience and behavioral change accurately embodies the focus of much of the prophetic activity of the Hebrew prophets: calling the people of God back to covenant faithfulness in order to be saved and not be judged in the imminent Day of the Lord. John stands in deep continuity with the Hebrew prophets on this point. Cf. David E. Aune, Prophecy in Early Christianity and the Ancient Mediterranean World; Yehoshua Gitay, ‘The Realm of Prophetic Rhetoric,’ 218–229. Concerning New Testament prophets, Ben Witherington III notes, ‘They too could be prosecutors of the covenant lawsuit, only in this case it is the new covenant lawsuit’ (Revelation, 41–42). G. K. Beale, The Book of Revelation, 555, notes that, ‘the book’s “prophecy” includes divine precepts for living in the present, 1

1

2

SOTERIOLOGY AS MOTIVATION [T]he Apocalypse has a focus on ethical instruction, not just on eschatological prediction. Thus, in the letters we note criticisms, cautions, counsels, and commands that have ethical significance. Even in the visions we note an underlying ethical understanding as to what the Church ought to be and do. Throughout the Apocalypse, we observe the connection between the contents of the revelatory visions and their functions in terms of provoking an ethical response. 3

Several scholars have even argued that ethical exhortation should be included in our understanding of the apocalyptic genre. 4 David about which the readers must make a decision. This understanding of “prophecy” is consistent with the OT idea, which emphasizes revealed interpretation of the present together with the future, demanding ethical response for the present audience … The focus in the OT and here is on the situation of the present hearers and their response to God’s interpretation of that situation.’ 3 Olutola K. Peters, The Mandate of the Church in the Apocalypse of John, 141. Beale, The Book of Revelation, 39, in discussing the genre, notes that the purpose of the book is ‘to motivate the audience to change their behavior in the light of the transcendent reality of the book’s message.’ 4 David E. Aune notes that one of three literary functions of apocalypses in general is to encourage ‘cognitive and behavioral modifications based on the message communicated from the transcendent world … paraenesis, though existing in its own distinctive literary forms, exhibits an affinity for apocalypses which are particularly concerned with behavioral aspects of human experience’ (‘The Apocalypse of John and the Problem of Genre,’ 64). Hans D. Betz argues that Greco-Roman apocalypses explicitly functioned to produce behavioral change through producing the shock-like experience of fear (‘The Problem of Apocalyptic Genre in Greek and Hellenistic Literature: The Case of the Oracle of Trophonius’). Cf. J. C. H. Lebram, ‘The Piety of the Jewish Apocalypses’; Lars Hartman, ‘Survey of the Problem of Apocalyptic Genre’; David Hellholm, Das Visionenbuch des Hermas als Apokalypse: Formgeschichtliche und texttheoretische Studien zu einer literarischen Gattung; Adela Y. Collins, ‘Reading the Book of Revelation in the Twentieth Century’; Wayne A. Meeks, ‘Apocalyptic Discourse and Strategies of Goodness’. Many scholars have also noted the connections between wisdom and apocalyptic in terms of

INTRODUCTION

3

Hellholm argues that Collin’s famous definition of an apocalypse should be expanded to include the element of function by noting that it was ‘intended for a group in crisis with the purpose of exhortation and/or consolation by means of divine authority.’ 5 This investigation into how the Apocalypse motivated its original hearers to respond appropriately to its message fits within the broader school of interpretation that may be labeled the ‘contemporary-historical’ approach to interpreting the Apocalypse of John. 6 David A. deSilva, quoting Joannes Jacobus Wettstein, succinctly describes the contemporary-historical approach. The foundational premise guiding this approach is the modest affirmation that ‘the Apocalypse was written specially for the benefit of certain people who were living at that time and for the purpose of being understood by them.’ Reading from this perspective produces several principal questions: ‘How would a Christian in Ephesus (or Pergamum or Thyatira, etc.) have understood John’s Revelation?’ ‘What referents would they

ethical concerns and admonition. See in particular Elizabeth Ann Gaines, ‘The Eschatological Jerusalem: The function of the image in the literature of the Biblical period,’ 422–24. 5 David Hellholm, ‘The Problem of Apocalyptic Genre and the Apocalypse of John,’ 168. The definition of an apocalypse proposed by John J. Collins reads, ‘“Apocalypse” is a genre of revelatory literature with a narrative framework, in which a revelation is mediated by an otherworldly being to a human recipient, disclosing a transcendent reality which is both temporal, insofar as it envisages eschatological salvation, and spatial insofar as it involves another, supernatural world’ (‘Introduction: Towards the Morphology of a Genre,’ 9). 6 Cf. Arthur W. Wainwright, Mysterious Apocalypse: Interpreting the Book of Revelation, 125–136; Colin J. Hemer, The Letters to the Seven Churches of Asia in Their Local Setting. Traditional discussions of interpretive approaches to the Apocalypse of John focus on four: the preterist, historicist, futurist, and idealist views. See Beale, The Book of Revelation, 44– 49, who personally adopts an eclectic approach combining the idealist view with a minimal futurism.

4

SOTERIOLOGY AS MOTIVATION have associated with John’s symbolic language, and how would those associations have motivated them to respond?’ 7

The Apocalypse of John was not written to modern readers, but to seven Christian churches at the end of the first century. This does not mean that it cannot be usefully read and applied by communities of faith in the twenty-first century, but rather that accurate interpretation requires the foundational awareness that even if the text, by extension, was written for us, it was not written to us. 8 Even if the observation that John wrote to influence the thoughts and behavior of his original hearers accurately reflects the ‘Why?’ of the Apocalypse, it does not answer the ‘How?’ 9 How DeSilva, Seeing Things John’s way, 6 (emphasis original). DeSilva proceeds to note that there is a great deal of diversity among interpreters sharing this approach (historical critical, liberationist, feminist), and that ‘Contemporary-historical interpreters approach Revelation essentially as they approach Amos, Galatians, or any other such situation-specific call for faithfulness to the God of the covenant’ (p. 7). 8 John Walton, The Lost World of Genesis One, 9, forcefully makes this point in reference to the text of Genesis 1. ‘The Old Testament does communicate to us and it was written for us, and for all humankind. But it was not written to us. It was written to Israel. It is God’s revelation of himself to Israel and secondarily through Israel to everyone else’ (emphasis original). The same can be said of the books in the New Testament. 9 This study will refer to ‘hearers’ of the Apocalypse instead of ‘readers’ because most early Christians would have encountered the Apocalypse through hearing (Rev 1:3). Cf. Adela Y. Collins, Crisis and Catharsis: The Power of the Apocalypse, 144; D. Barr, ‘The Apocalypse of John as Oral Enactment,’ 243–56; Richard Bauckham, The Climax of Prophecy: Studies on the Book of Revelation, 1–2; Stephen Pattemore, The People of God in the Apocalypse, 53. Peter S. Perry, The Rhetoric of Digressions, 4, prefers to describe the reception of the book as ‘experiencing’ the Apocalypse because this includes the emotions evoked in the hearers by the visions and includes the hearers’ perception of the speaker’s gestures, posture, and tone. David E. Aune, Revelation, 1:20–21, discusses the fact that terms 7

INTRODUCTION

5

does John motivate his hearers to respond to his propheticapocalyptic exhortation? 10 This monograph seeks to answer this question with an analysis of the book’s argumentation and motivation through a modified use of Toulmin’s model of argumentation analysis. Toulmin’s model for argumentation analysis, first proposed in 1958, revolutionized the study of argumentation in the latter half of the twentieth century and has found broad acceptance and application in a variety of fields. 11 This book will augment Toulmin’s model for application to the Apocalypse in two ways. First, a semantic analysis of verbal argumentation indicators will be employed in the appendix in order to identify explicit and implicit motivating expressions in the Apocalypse for analysis. Second, Toulmin’s model will be expanded to take into account the function of the apocalyptic narrative that characterizes the apocalypse of John. This monograph argues that soteriology is the primary motivating factor in the argumentation of the Apocalypse. Throughout the Apocalypse, John presents salvation as a future event that would not decisively culminate until Christ’s return in order to motivate his hearers to overcome in the present through for reading and hearing are often used synonymously because silent reading was rare in the ancient world. 10 Beale, The Book of Revelation, 174, answers the ‘how’ question when he writes that ‘the main idea of the Apocalypse could be roughly formulated as follows: the sovereignty of God and Christ in redeeming and judging brings them glory, which is intended to motivate saints to worship God and reflect his glorious attributes through obedience to his word’ (emphasis original). God’s sovereignty and glory do play a supporting role in the motivational argumentation of the Apocalypse of John as they contribute to God’s authority, but John does not primarily seek to motivate his hearers in the way that Beale describes. 11 Stephen Toulmin, The Uses of Argument. See David Hitchcock and Bart Verheij, eds., Arguing on the Toulmin Model: New Essays in Argument Analysis and Evaluation, and Frans H. van Eemeren, Rob Grootendorst, and Francisca Snoeck Henkemans, Fundamentals of Argumentation Theory: A Handbook of Historical Backgrounds and Contemporary Developments, 129–162, for discussion of the importance and influence of Toulmin’s model.

6

SOTERIOLOGY AS MOTIVATION

complete faithfulness to Jesus unto death. Those who responded positively to his call to repentance, worship, witness, perseverance, and obedience would be saved with God’s people in the final day of salvation and judgment, while those who did not respond appropriately would be judged with God’s enemies. 12 With regard to the structure of this study, chapter two begins by discussing recent contributions made to rhetorical analysis of the Apocalypse in the past three decades. Next it will discuss various developments in modern argumentation theory, particularly the contributions of Steven Toulmin and Chaim Perelman, and argue that Toulin’s model provides an appropriate methodology for analyzing motivation in the argumentation of the Apocalypse. Chapter two will conclude with a discussion of the rhetorical situation, exigence, and goal of the Apocalypse. Why is John writing and what does he want? Throughout the Apocalypse, John seeks to motivate his hearers to overcome. This ‘overcoming’ serves to describe a range of responses John is trying to elicit which include repentance, worship, witness, perseverance, and obedience. 13 The third chapter explores the field of argumentation to which the Apocalypse belongs by providing a descriptive analysis of the meta-narrative undergirding John’s theological thinking and worldview. 14 It will be seen that this meta-narrative is primarily Jonathan M. Knight, ‘Apocalyptic and Prophetic Literature,’ 477– 78, observes that ‘[t]he Letters’ function is paranetic and hortatory. They warn of the dangers that attended social compromise and undergird this message by frequent references to biblical sinners. They demonstrate that punishment would follow compromise but that those who persisted would share the Messiah’s kingdom.’ This description accurately describes the entire Apocalypse and not simply chapters 2–3. 13 Peters, The Mandate of the Church; Stephen L. Homcy, ‘“To Him Who Overcomes”: A Fresh Look at What “Victory” Means for the Believer According to the Book of Revelation,’ 193–201. 14 For a discussion of the benefits and pitfalls of discussing and interpreting an underlying narrative see Bruce W. Longenecker, ed., Narrative Dynamics in Paul: A Critical Assessment; Richard B. Hays, The Faith of Jesus Christ: An Investigation of the Narrative Substructure of Galatians 3:1– 12

INTRODUCTION

7

derived from the Hebrew Scriptures but also incorporated early Christian beliefs and Jesus traditions. 15 This Scriptural metanarrative makes sense of and provides the persuasive power to John’s arguments by providing the raw materials for the grounds, warrants, and backing in the micro-argumentation that will be analyzed in chapter four. The fourth chapter employs Toulmin’s model of argumentation analysis to analyze the explicit and implicit motivating expressions in the Apocalypse. This chapter will conclude by organizing and synthesizing the results so that the logic of John’s primary motivating strategy can be clearly seen. Chapter five examines the results of chapters three and four in order to determine more precisely how soteriology functions in John’s motivation. It investigates the different ways the present possession of salvation and future, unattained dimensions of salvation function in the motivation, and concludes with theological reflection on the function of soteriology in the motivation of John’s Apocalypse. Chapter six concludes this study by summarizing the various chapters and providing a brief evaluation of John’s motivational argumentation. The appendix presents and applies a syntactical methodology for identifying motivational expressions in the Apocalypse. Once potentially motivating expressions are identified on the basis of syntax, a semantic analysis will help determine which expressions signal motivational argumentation. This appendix will result in a list of motivational expressions in the Apocalypse that will serve as the basis for the analysis of chapter four.

4:11; N. T. Wright, The New Testament and the People of God. Rita C. Manning, ‘Beyond Argumentation: The Role of Narrative in Moral Reasoning,’ 170–77; John D. O’Banion, ‘Narration and Argumentation: Quintilian on Narratio as the Heart of Rhetorical Thinking,’ 325–51. 15 Paul T. Penley, Common Tradition behind Synoptic Sayings of Judgment and John’s Apocalypse: An Oral Interpretive Tradition of Old Testament Prophetic Material.

8

SOTERIOLOGY AS MOTIVATION

WHOSE MOTIVATIONAL STRATEGIES? By way of introduction, one more topic needs to be addressed before this study begins. As noted above, this monograph seeks to answer the primary question ‘How does John motivate?’ This question, however, immediately introduces some tension with the text itself that explicitly presents Jesus as the one who is speaking to the seven churches while John is simply writing what he sees and hears (Rev 1:11; 2:1, 8, 12, 18; 3:1, 7, 14). In keeping with the text’s self-representation should we not rather speak of Jesus’ motivational strategies and seek to understand how Jesus sought to motivate Christians in the seven churches? This question is closely related to the debate over whether the Apocalypse of John is a purely literary creation composed by John in the apocalyptic genre to lend authority to his message or is a result of the recording of actual visionary experiences. 16 There is no legitimate reason to deny that John experienced real visions. 17 Even if he sought to record the visions as accurately as possible, however, he would have interpreted, recorded, and communicated them from within his own worldview and thought forms that had been shaped and molded by his Jewish heritage, Christian experience, and understanding of the Old Testament. 18 If there was an experiential basis, which is highly probable … descriptions of a number of such visions were probably In favor of a pure literary creation: Greg Carey, Elusive Apocalypse: Reading Authority in the Revelation to John, 78, 117; Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, Revelation: Vision of a Just World, 29, 51; Robert Royalty, ‘The Rhetoric of Revelation,’ 611; Robert Royalty, The Streets of Heaven: The Ideology of Wealth in the Apocalypse of John, 159; Carl Clemen, ‘Die Bildlichkeit der Offenbarung Johannis,’ 25–43. In favor of genuine visionary experiences see Amos Wilder, ‘The Rhetoric of Ancient and Modern Apocalyptic,’ 441; Otto Böcher, ‘Die Johannes-Apokalypse in der neueren Forschung,’ 2.25.5:3850–93; Hemer, The Letters to the Seven Churches, 13–14. 17 Mathias Rissi, Time and History: A Study on the Revelation, 18–21; G. K. Beale and Sean M. McDonough, ‘Revelation,’ 1084–85. 18 Jan Fekkes, Isaiah and the Prophetic Traditions in the Book of Revelation: Visionary Antecedents and Their Developments, 289–90. 16

INTRODUCTION

9

colored both unconsciously and consciously by the traditions which had exerted a formative influence on the author’s thinking. Accordingly, actual visions would have been experienced in the author’s own learned thought forms, so that it might be difficult to distinguish description of a visionary experience from that of a retelling of the experience through unconscious or conscious appeal to various traditions (OT, Jewish, etc.). 19

The Apocalypse of John consists of an intricate and inseparable blending of visionary and interpretive material and therefore a blending of the voices of John and Jesus. John self-consciously views himself as prophetically inspired by the Spirit so that his words, as those of the Hebrew prophets, carried divine authority and communicated God’s words. 20 Ben Witherington helpfully describes this interweaving of literary artistry and visionary experiences. The Book of Revelation is certainly not simply a transcript of a prophetic experience, as its epistolary framework makes clear. Rather the seer has incorporated into a complex literary whole a report of his vision or visions reflected upon in light of the Hebrew Scriptures and a variety of other sources. John had visions and then fashioned an apocalyptic prophetic work to express not merely what he had seen but what bearing that vision had on his audiences … Whatever the content of these pneumatic experiences … the book as it now exists is a literary attempt to use such materials to persuade and exhort several Beale and McDonough, ‘Revelation,’ 1084. David E. Aune, ‘The Apocalypse of John and the Problem of Genre,’ 91, writes, ‘The Apocalypse of John is a literary replication of the original and unique revelatory experience of John the Seer which, when performed in a public, probably even a cultic setting, communicates the author’s paraenetic message with divine authority.’ 20 DeSilva, Seeing Things John’s Way, 123–124 stresses that this debate is not between confessional and non-confessional scholarship. ‘To say that God sent John this vision is a faith claim; but to say that John, in all likelihood, “saw things” is not’ (p. 124). 19

10

SOTERIOLOGY AS MOTIVATION groups of Christians who were apparently badly in need of some reassurance, encouragement, and instruction. 21

John’s visionary experiences and his literary retelling and application of these visions are inseparably intertwined.

21

Witherington, Revelation, 35–36.

CHAPTER 2: ARGUMENTATION IN THE APOCALYPSE This chapter will lay the foundation for the remainder of this study by introducing and discussing three topics related to the following three sets of questions. First, who have been the major contributors to the rhetorical analysis of the Apocalypse of John over the past three decades? Second, since ancient Greco-Roman categories and vocabulary for rhetorical analysis are not the only, or even the best, way to study a text’s argumentation, what are the recent developments in the study of argumentation analysis, and what methodology best suites the goals of this present study? Third, what was the rhetorical situation and rhetorical exigence that gave rise to the Apocalypse and what were John’s goals for the Apocalypse? What was the text aimed to achieve?

RHETORICAL ANALYSIS OF THE APOCALYPSE OF JOHN This study of motivation and argumentation in the Apocalypse falls under the broader rubric of rhetorical analysis. Rhetoric is commonly understood as the art of persuasion. 1 Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza and David A. deSilva have made the most notable individual contributions to the rhetorical study of the Apocalypse of John in the past several decades, but many other Ben Witherington III, New Testament Rhetoric: An Introductory Guide to the Art of Persuasion in and of the New Testament, ix; David A. deSilva, Seeing Things John’s Way: The Rhetoric of the Book of Revelation, 14. George A. Kennedy, New Testament Interpretation through Rhetorical Criticism, 3, defines rhetoric as ‘that quality in discourse by which a speaker or writer seeks to accomplish his purposes.’ 1

11

12

SOTERIOLOGY AS MOTIVATION

scholars have contributed to the discussion. 2 The concerns of rhetorical criticism overlap with this monograph because argumentation analysis is a subset of rhetorical analysis, but most rhetorical studies of the Apocalypse of John primarily employ the methodology, categories, and vocabulary of classical Greco-Roman rhetoric and generally do not engage with modern theories of argumentation analysis. The various scholars discussed in this section share a relatively common relationship with classical Greco-Roman rhetorical criticism. 3 The main sources of this classical rhetorical approach are Aristotle’s Art of Rhetoric; Anaximenes’ Rhetorica ad Alexandrum (once attributed to Aristotle); the Rhetorica ad Herennium (once attributed to Cicero); Cicero’s On Invention, On the Orator, Partitions of Oratory, Brutus, The Orator, and Topics; and Quintilian’s Institutio oratoria, and the progymnasmata of Aelius Theon of Alexandria and Hermogenes of Tarsus. 4 These scholars, employing the categories of classical rhetorical criticism, deal to varying degrees with such things as the three genres of oratory (deliberative, forensic, and epideictic), the five stages of speechmaking (invention, arrangement, style, memory, and delivery), the three kinds of proof Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, The Book of Revelation: Justice and Judgment; Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, Revelation: Vision of a Just World; deSilva, Seeing Things John’s Way; David A. deSilva, ‘What Has Athens to Do with Patmos? Rhetorical Criticism of the Revelation of John (1980– 2005),’ 256–89; Anders Eriksson, Thomas H. Olbricht, and Walter Übelacker, eds., Rhetorical Argumentation in Biblical Texts: Essays from the Lund 2000 Conference; Greg Carey and L. G. Bloomquist, eds., Vision and Persuasion: Rhetorical Dimensions of Apocalyptic Discourse. 3 DeSilva, ‘What has Athens to Do with Patmos?,’ 257, limits his survey of scholarship to ‘developments in the critical analysis of John’s rhetoric, particularly in the work of scholars who clearly identify themselves as working from a location in classical rhetorical criticism (whether or not this is supplemented with other critical theories such as sociology of knowledge or literary theory).’ 4 Kennedy, New Testament Interpretation, 12–13; deSilva, Seeing Things John’s Way, 17–19. 2

ARGUMENTATION IN THE APOCALYPSE

13

(logos, pathos, and ethos), and the four or five part outline of a speech (exordium, narratio, propositio, probatio, and peroratio). 5 Strong impetus for such a historical-rhetorical approach comes from the work of George A. Kennedy and Margaret M. Mitchell. In 1984, George A. Kennedy published his monograph entitled New Testament Interpretation through Rhetorical Criticism, in which he provided a methodology and application of classical rhetoric to the interpretation of the New Testament. 6 This work has proved to be a source of inspiration and guidance for many scholars who have subsequently interpreted the New Testament through the lenses of classical Greco-Roman rhetoric. Margaret M. Mitchell argues for a much more stringent historical approach to rhetorical criticism with pointed critiques of those who attempt to apply modern theories of rhetorical and argumentation analysis, particularly Perelman’s ‘New Rhetoric.’ 7 Mitchell has charted the course for those seeking a historical-rhetorical investigation that is based not only on the Greco-Roman rhetorical handbooks but actual speeches and letters from antiquity, and which remains

Cf. DeSilva, Seeing Things John’s Way, 18–25; Burton L. Mack, Rhetoric and the New Testament; Kennedy, New Testament Interpretation through Rhetorical Criticism; Duane F. Watson, Invention, Arrangement, and Style: Rhetorical Criticism of Jude and 2 Peter. 6 Kennedy, New Testament Interpretation through Rhetorical Criticism. Cf. George A. Kennedy, Classical Rhetoric and Its Christian and Secular Tradition from Ancient to Modern Times. 7 Margaret M. Mitchell, Paul and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation, 5–19; Margaret M. Mitchell, ‘Rhetorical and New Literary Criticism,’ 615–33. Other scholars beyond those discussed below that have attempted significant analysis of New Testament texts based primarily on ancient rhetorical categories and techniques include Hans D. Betz, Galatians: A Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Churches in Galatia; Hans D. Betz, 2 Corinthians 8 and 9: A Commentary on Two Administrative Letters of the Apostle Paul; Weldon E. Viertel, ‘The Hermeneutics of Paul as Reflected in Romans and Galatians’; Lewis R. Donelson, Pseudepigraphy and Ethical Argument in the Pastoral Epistles. 5

14

SOTERIOLOGY AS MOTIVATION

untainted by modern rhetorical and argumentation theories. 8 The following scholars have made significant contributions to the rhetorical analysis of the Apocalypse of John following the lead of Kennedy although rarely reaching Mitchell’s ideal. Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza In 1985, Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza effectively inaugurated the rhetorical study of the Apocalypse of John with her groundbreaking book entitled The Book of Revelation: Justice and Judgment which was significantly revised and republished in 1991 as Revelation: Vision of a Just World. 9 Schüssler Fiorenza effectively develops a rhetorical strategy of reading that integrates ‘historical, literary, and theological analysis’ in order to arrive at a ‘theo-ethical’ reading of the book. 10 She identifies ‘tribulation’ as the rhetorical exigence, argues that John employs all three modes of rhetoric (deliberative, forensic, and ceremonial) with an overall deliberative effect, and that John structured his book chiastically. 11 Schüssler Fiorenza argues that ‘[r]hetorical analysis seeks not only to disclose the means with which authors or interpreters Mitchell, Paul and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation, 6, lays out five mandates for rhetorical criticism of the New Testament: ‘1. Rhetorical criticism as employed here is an historical undertaking. 2. Actual speeches and letters from antiquity must be consulted along with the rhetorical handbooks throughout the investigation. 3. The designation of the rhetorical species of a text (as epideictic, deliberative, or forensic) cannot be begged in the analysis. 4. The appropriateness of rhetorical form or genre to content must be demonstrated. 5. The rhetorical unit to be examined should be a compositional unit, which can be further substantiated by successful rhetorical analysis.’ 9 Schüssler Fiorenza, The Book of Revelation: Justice and Judgment; Schüssler Fiorenza, Revelation: Vision of a Just World; Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, ‘The Followers of the Lamb: Visionary Rhetoric and SocialPolitical Situation,’ 123–46; Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, ‘Redemption as Liberation: Apoc 1:5f. and 5:9f,’ 220–232. 10 Schüssler Fiorenza, Revelation: Vision of a Just World, 20, 117–139. 11 Ibid., 124–29 (rhetorical exigence), 21, 26, 129–30 (modes of rhetoric), 35–36 (chiastic structure). 8

ARGUMENTATION IN THE APOCALYPSE

15

attempt to persuade or motivate their audience but also to trace the power-relations inscribed in the text and their functions in a particular rhetorical situation and sociohistorical location.’ 12 She argues that Revelation ‘must be understood as a poetic-rhetorical construction of an alternative symbolic universe that ‘fits’ its historical-rhetorical situation.’ 13 Fiorenza’s work has functioned as a catalyst for other scholars interested in rhetorical analysis of the Apocalypse of John. David A. deSilva Next to Schüssler Fiorenza, David A. deSilva has made the most significant cumulative contribution to rhetorical analysis of the Apocalypse of John in the form of several articles and a monograph. 14 His recent monograph, Seeing Things John’s Way, Ibid., 21. Schüssler Fiorenza, ‘The Followers of the Lamb,’ 125. 14 DeSilva, Seeing Things John’s Way; David A. deSilva, ‘The Image of the Beast and the Christians in Asia Minor,’ 185–206; David A. deSilva, ‘The Social Setting of the Apocalypse of John: Conflicts Within, Fears Without,’ 273–302; David A. deSilva, ‘The Revelation to John: A Case Study in Apocalyptic Propaganda and the Maintenance of Sectarian Identity,’ 375–95; David A. deSilva, ‘The Construction and Social Function of a Counter-Cosmos in the Revelation of John,’ 47–61; David A. deSilva, ‘Honor Discourse and the Rhetorical Strategy of the Apocalypse of John,’ 79–110; David A. deSilva, ‘The Persuasive Strategy of the Apocalypse: A Socio-Rhetorical Investigation of Revelation 14:6– 13,’ 785–806; David A. deSilva, ‘A Sociorhetorical Investigation of Revelation 14:6–13: A Call to Act Justly toward the Just and Judging God,’ 65–117; David A. deSilva, ‘Final Topics: The Rhetorical Functions of Intertexture in Revelation 14:14–16:21,’ 215–41; David A. deSilva, ‘Toward a Socio-Rhetorical Taxonomy of Divine Intervention: Miracle Discourse in the Revelation to John,’ 303–16; David A. deSilva, ‘X Marks the Spot? A Critique of the Use of Chiasm in Macro-Structural Analyses of Revelation,’ 343–71; David A. deSilva, ‘The Strategic Arousal of Emotions in the Apocalypse of John: A Rhetorical-Critical Investigation of the Oracles to the Seven Churches,’ 90–114; David A. deSilva, ‘What 12 13

16

SOTERIOLOGY AS MOTIVATION

synthesizes and summarizes many of his previous studies, and provides a fairly comprehensive introduction to the entire field of rhetorical analysis of the Apocalypse. While some scholars focus on just one aspect of John’s rhetorical strategy (species of rhetoric, stylistic devices, ethos, pathos, or logos), deSilva attempts an integrative analysis that covers every relevant topic, although with less attention to style. DeSilva astutely argues that Revelation represents both deliberative and epideictic rhetoric depending upon the audience. The multifaceted rhetorical situations of the seven different audiences suggest that whether Revelation will be heard primarily to effect epideictic goals (continued adherence to cherished values) or deliberative goals (a call to desist from some course of action and/or embrace another course of action) may vary from locale to locale, even from hearer to hearer. 15

This audience-centered solution to the debate focuses on the function of the discourse in its various rhetorical situations and avoids a dogmatic insistence that John intended the Apocalypse to be one particular species of rhetoric. DeSilva’s greatest contributions, however, lie in his detailed analysis of how John develops ethos, and utilizes pathos, and logos to accomplish his rhetorical purposes. 16 He has also produced a detailed application to the Apocalypse of Vernon K. Robbins’ sociorhetorical methodology. 17 This present study will regularly interact with deSilva’s scholarship.

Has Athens to Do with Patmos? Rhetorical Criticism of the Revelation of John (1980–2005),’ 256–89. 15 DeSilva, Seeing Things John’s Way, 91. 16 DeSilva, Seeing Things John’s Way, 117–312. 17 DeSilva, ‘A Sociorhetorical Investigation of Revelation 14:6–13’; deSilva, ‘Final Topics: The Rhetorical Functions of Intertexture in Revelation 14:14–16:21’; deSilva, ‘Toward a Socio-Rhetorical Taxonomy.’

ARGUMENTATION IN THE APOCALYPSE

17

Other Contributors Other scholars who have made significant contributions to the rhetorical analysis of the Apocalypse include Peter S. Perry, Greg Carey, Paul Duff, Robert Royalty, Ben Witherington III, Loren L. Johns, John Kirby, David E. Aune, Barbara Rossing, Konstantin Nikolakopoulos, Manfred Diefenbach, and Bruce Longenecker. Peter S. Perry has cogently argued that Rev 7:1–17 and 10:1– 11:13 would have been identified by the first audience of the Apocalypse as digressions. 18 He supports his thesis by a thorough analysis of digressions in contemporary speeches and literature and the writings of Greco-Roman rhetoricians (Hermagoras, Cicero, and Quintilian), and he argues that these digressions function to build the ethos of the author and excite pathos to persuade the audience to witness even when it may result in death. 19 Greg Carey has made several significant contributions to the function of ethos in the Apocalypse of John and apocalyptic literature more broadly. 20 He defines ethos as a ‘speaker or author’s self-representation in the attempt to earn an audience’s trust and goodwill.’ 21 He carefully details how various aspects of the text of Revelation function rhetorically to build and to support John’s ethos while maligning and silencing those to whom he is opposed: the Roman Empire, the Jews, and Christians who do not agree with him. ‘From John’s perspective there are no other perspectives. All voices who might utter a contrary word must be silenced, a crucial dimension of his rhetorical task.’ 22 John thus subverts the oppressive totalitarian discourse of the Empire but succeeds only in replacing it with his own new totalitarian discourse of domination that suffers no competition, disagreement, or dissent. 23 Carey critiques the many scholarly readers who hold that John is in Peter S. Perry, The Rhetoric of Digressions. Ibid., 1. 20 Greg Carey, Elusive Apocalypse: Reading Authority in the Revelation to John; Greg Carey, ‘Apocalyptic Ethos,’ 2:731–61; Greg Carey, ‘Introduction: Apocalyptic Discourse, Apocalyptic Rhetoric,’ 1–17. 21 Carey, ‘Apocalyptic Ethos,’ 732. 22 Carey, Elusive Apocalypse, 136. 23 Ibid., 175. 18 19

18

SOTERIOLOGY AS MOTIVATION

some way reporting real ‘experiences’ and rather argues that John uses apocalyptic resources as literary devices to promote his rhetorical agenda. 24 On the basis of his rhetorical analysis of the Apocalypse Paul Duff concludes that the ‘crisis’ confronting the churches ‘originated within the churches. The letters do not support a scenario of persecution or even serious harassment of Christians by Rome, by the larger polytheistic society, or by the neighboring synagogues.’ 25 According to Duff, John is opposed to Jezebel, a fellow Christian prophet, but does not intend the book to convert her or her core followers but to persuade the ‘invisible majority’ in the church who tolerate both John and Jezebel to side with him against her. 26 John’s overall goal was to unite the churches behind him … His strategy consisted of two specific rhetorical moves. The first involved developing (or exacerbating) a sense of crisis between his churches and the outside world … John’s second rhetorical move consisted of connecting his rival ‘Jezebel’ to the outside enemy ‘Babylon.’ 27

Duff describes this second rhetorical move as the rhetoric of innuendo or indirect accusation, consistent with Quintilian’s advice on how to malign opponents, which John accomplishes by using Ibid., 78. ‘As John tells the story, these letters are verbatim messages from the risen Christ. But from a literary-rhetorical perspective, these letters actually use Christ’s authority to convey a message that is ultimately John’s own’ (p. 117). Contra Carey, a literary-rhetorical perspective does not demand the absence of genuine visionary experience. Carey implicitly supports dichotomies between confessional and nonconfessional scholarship and absolute truth verse relative truth (see his critique of Bauckham on p. 179) that are not demanded by a literaryrhetorical interpretive approach to the text. 25 Paul B. Duff, Who Rides the Beast? Prophetic Rivalry and the Rhetoric of Crisis in the Churches of the Apocalypse, 126, italics original. 26 Ibid., 58–59. 27 Ibid., 72. 24

ARGUMENTATION IN THE APOCALYPSE

19

homology and irony to connect Jezebel with Babylon and the second beast (the false prophet). 28 Robert Royalty investigates the rhetoric of wealth in the Apocalypse and how John employs such rhetorical techniques as ekphrasis (vivid description) and synkrisis (comparison) to argue that the social setting and crisis of the Apocalypse was John’s interChristian conflict with other Christian teachers, apostles, and prophets and that the Apocalypse functioned primarily to heighten the authority of the author within the Christian communities. 29 John’s ‘heresiological’ agenda ‘tars all of John’s opposition [Roman, Jewish, and Christian] with the same set of brushes: commercial wealth, Satan, sorcery, and sex.’ 30 Royalty furthermore suggests that John’s use of the Old Testament functions to intentionally deconstruct the authority of the Hebrew prophets ‘through a series of strong misreadings.’ 31 For Royalty, the New Jerusalem does not Ibid., 72–75. Robert Royalty, The Streets of Heaven: The Ideology of Wealth in the Apocalypse of John; Robert Royalty, ‘The Rhetoric of Revelation,’ 596–617; Robert Royalty, ‘Don’t Touch This Book! Revelation 22:18–19 and the Rhetoric of Reading (in) the Apocalypse of John,’ 282–99; Robert Royalty, ‘Etched or Sketched? Inscriptions and Erasures in the Messages to Sardis and Philadelphia,’ 447–63; Robert Royalty, ‘The Dangers of the Apocalypse,’ 283–93. 30 Royalty, The Streets of Heaven, 243. 31 Ibid., 243; cf. 80. He elsewhere sensationally argues, ‘The Apocalypse does not exist apart from the Hebrew scriptures, constructed as it is from their iconography and vocabulary. But John covers this up. The author of the Apocalypse pulls finished stone from the temples of the scriptures like a furtive resident in a deserted imperial city. He does not build a monument to what has past but destroys what he uses by asserting control over scripture, the scroll that he has swallowed. And having built his proud tower from these destroyed buildings, he wants to protect it from other scavengers who would chip at the stone or rearrange the walls’ (‘Don’t Touch This Book!,’ 290). Contra G. K. Beale, John’s Use of the Old Testament in Revelation; Jan Fekkes, Isaiah and the Prophetic Traditions in the Book of Revelation: Visionary Antecedents and Their Developments; Richard Bauckham, The Climax of Prophecy, 38–91. Royalty’s attempts to 28 29

20

SOTERIOLOGY AS MOTIVATION

offer a vision of a future of redeemed and transformed humanity and culture, but rather an identical, yet Christianized, picture of the same structures of wealth, status, and power current in the Roman Empire: a theocratic empire that excludes all those who oppose John and his ideology. 32 In a related article, Royalty argues extensively that Revelation represents epideictic rhetoric and ‘tries to convince its audience to hold a favorable point of view towards John and his allied prophets and their version of Christianity and to take a negative point of view towards the Roman authorities, the Jews, and Christian teachers or prophets who hold different views from John.’ 33 Ben Witherington III has produced a socio-rhetorical commentary on the Apocalypse of John and a general introduction deconstruct the Apocalypse have ancient parallels. Dionysius of Alexandria in the early third century A. D. describes how some approached the book. ‘Now some before our time have set aside this book, and repudiated it entirely, criticising it chapter by chapter, and endeavouring to show it to be without either sense or reason … they hold that it can be no sort of revelation, because it is covered with so gross and dense a veil of ignorance’ (The Works of Dionysius: Extant Fragments, in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, 82). 32 Royalty, The Streets of Heaven, 246. Harry O. Maier, Apocalypse Recalled: The Book of Revelation after Christendom, 35–47, 182–84, cogently critiques Royalty for failing to assess adequately how the Apocalypse transforms the symbols of wealth in the narrative through irony and parody. ‘For Robert M. Royalty, for example, John’s Jesus is just one more emperor; his new creation, Jerusalem, is another Rome. That is, if John is not being ironical … The whole of the Apocalypse may be read as a parody in which one discourse, that of imperial might and power, is subverted by being applied to another, that of the slain lamb’ (p. 182; italics original). ‘John does not replace one empire with another; he turns empire inside out’ (p. 184). 33 Royalty, ‘The Rhetoric of Revelation,’ 601. Elsewhere he argues, ‘Alignment with or against the authority of John and his prophetic circle is the distinguishing mark of the seven messages and the ideological point on which each church’s praise or blame turns’ (‘Etched or Sketched?,’ 456).

ARGUMENTATION IN THE APOCALYPSE

21

to New Testament rhetoric. 34 In his commentary he argues that ‘the dominant form of rhetoric in this document is forensic rhetoric.’ 35 Witherington identifies the visions of Revelation 4–22 as the logoi or arguments of the seer meant ‘to persuade the audiences to heed the exhortations in the letters.’ 36 He notes that ethos, logos, and pathos ‘are all found in rhetorically appropriate places in Revelation.’ 37 Witherington limits his understanding of rhetorical criticism to the historical form of Greco-Roman rhetoric: ‘Rhetorical criticism, as I would define it, involves the study of the various sorts of uses of ancient Greco-Roman rhetoric in the NT by its various authors for various purposes.’ 38 Loren L. Johns has explored the rhetorical function of John’s Lamb Christology and has made several contributions to the dialogue concerning rhetorical analysis of the Apocalypse. He argues that Revelation represents epideictic rhetoric which uses praise and blame to move his readers to embrace his values. 39 John seeks to convince the Asian believers that they were facing a lifeand-death struggle of real conflict that would likely lead to martyrdom and must be engaged in through witness. The lamb symbolism functions rhetorically to model the way such witness and the resultant persecution and martyrdom would lead to victory. He argues extensively that the lamb symbolism primarily communicates vulnerability and not the power of violence (based on a purported militaristic lamb-redeemer figure in Early Judaism) or expiatory sacrifice. The audience is therefore motivated to 34

Ben Witherington III, Revelation; Witherington, New Testament

Witherington, Revelation, 15. Ibid. ‘Basically John is offering an eschatological and otherworldly sanction for those exhortations, showing what the rewards are for faithfulness and for “conquering” and what the punishments are for failing to do so.’ 37 Ibid., 17. 38 Witherington, New Testament Rhetoric, ix. 39 Loren L. Johns, The Lamb Christology of the Apocalypse of John: An Investigation into Its Origins and Rhetorical Force; Loren L. Johns, ‘The Lamb in the Rhetorical Program of the Apocalypse of John,’ 2:762–84. Rhetoric. 35 36

22

SOTERIOLOGY AS MOTIVATION

pursue victory by engaging in the nonviolent resistance of witness. Johns’ arguments against seeing the lamb as a symbol for the power of violence are convincing but he is less convincing in arguing against any sacrificial background for the lamb symbolism. He dismisses the clear reference to expiation for sin in Rev 1:5 because it is purportedly drawn from traditional material and was not composed by the author himself (‘To him who loves us and freed us from our sins by his blood …’; Rev 1:5). 40 Even if Johns is right in his source-critical conclusions, the inclusion of the hymn in the Apocalypse indicates the author’s approval of the contents of the hymn. John Kirby provides a brief, judicious, and readable rhetorical analysis of the first three chapters of the Apocalypse using Aristotle’s Rhetorica. 41 He argues that the Apocalypse represents deliberative rhetoric and he divides each of the messages to the seven churches into four parts: proem, narration, proposition, and epilogue. 42 He discusses stylistic features such as paradox and metaphor and helpfully comments on matters of ethos, pathos, and logos. 43 David E. Aune, provides an analysis of the structure of the seven proclamations to the churches and argues that they represent a mixtum compositum: ‘The literary genre or kind to which the seven proclamations belong is that of the royal or imperial edict, while the mode is that of the prophetic form of speech called the parenetic

Johns, ‘The Lamb in the Rhetorical Program,’ 780. John T. Kirby, ‘The Rhetorical Situations of Revelation 1–3,’ 197– 207. See, however, the critique of his discussion of the structure of the letters by David E. Aune, ‘The Form and Function of the Proclamations to the Seven Churches (Revelation 2–3),’ 183. 42 Kirby, ‘The Rhetorical Situations of Revelation 1–3,’ 200, argues ‘The overall rhetorical species of the Revelation is, as far as can be discerned, deliberative, since it is concerned with events in the future (Rev 1. 1, 3) and with a course of action expedient to the audience (22. 11–12)’ (emphasis original). 43 Ibid., 202–203. 40 41

ARGUMENTATION IN THE APOCALYPSE

23

salvation-judgment oracle.’ 44 Imperial edicts and the seven proclamations in the Apocalypse share structurally similar praescriptiones (the introduction which gives the title[s] and name[s] and establishes authority), narrationes (an account of the matter), dispositiones (the decision), and sanctiones (‘end clauses whose purpose is to bring about the observance of the enactment’). 45 Barbara Rossing analyzes the rhetorical effect of John’s contrast between two cities (Babylon and the New Jerusalem), characterized as women (a whore and a bride), utilizing the classical rhetorical handbooks on personification, synkrisis, ekphrasis, and the two-women topos (well-known from Prov 1–9 and the story of the choice of Heracles). 46 Rossing argues that the basic either-or ethical contrast produced by the contrast of the two women functions as a ‘persuasive appeal to the audience to renounce Babylon/Rome and participate in God’s New Jerusalem.’ 47 Her historical discussion of the two-women topos functions as a cogent refutation of those who read the whore-bride contrast as a reflection of John’s misogyny and sexist preoccupation with sexual desire and violence. 48 She seems to draw a false dichotomy in her conclusion when she argues that Revelation departs from other apocalypses and does not issue an individualistic, moralistic call (‘to influence the behavior of individuals’) but rather presents a political choice. 49 ‘Whereas most ancient authors employed the two women in a moralistic way, to influence the behavior of individuals, Revelation employs the topos politically, for encouragement of an alternative vision and community structure.’ 50 This dichotomy does not seem appropriate Aune, ‘The Form and Function of the Proclamations to the Seven Churches,’ 183. 45 Ibid., 201–204. 46 Barbara Rossing, The Choice between Two Cities: Whore, Bride, and Empire in the Apocalypse. 47 Ibid., 15. 48 Tina Pippin, Death and Desire: The Rhetoric of Gender in the Apocalypse of John; Gail Corrington Streete, The Strange Woman: Power and Sex in the Bible. 49 Rossing, The Choice between Two Cities, 165; cf. 157–58. 50 Rossing, The Choice between Two Cities, 165. 44

24

SOTERIOLOGY AS MOTIVATION

because the alternative political reality to which Revelation calls its readers can only be entered on the basis of individual choice. The calls to repentance and faithfulness are aimed at both the community and the individual and individual behavior determines and demonstrates political allegiance. Konstantin Nikolakopoulos investigates John’s style from a rhetorical-critical perspective and demonstrates John’s mastery of figures of speech and thought such as hyperbole (Rev 1:16; 5:11, 13; 9:6, 16; 20:8), oxymoron (Rev 1:18; 2:9; 3:1; 10:9), paradox (2:8; 7:14; 2:7, 11, 17, 29; 3:6, 13, 22; 13:9), rhetorical questions (5:2, 3; 6:17; 7:13; 13:4; 15:4; 18:18), irony (Rev 16:6; 22:11), antistrophe (Rev 2:26), chiasmus (Rev 3:7), and paronomasia (Wortspiel; Rev 11:18; 14:2; 22:18). 51 He argues that ‘Die Untersuchung der Rhetorik hat jedoch gezeigt, dass die Anwendung rhetorischer Gedankenfiguren nicht zufällig, sondern bewusst mit (bedeutendem) inhaltlichem Sinn und Zweck erfolgt.’ 52 He concludes that ‘Generell müsste die geringschätzige Betrachtung der Sprache der Offenbarung überdacht werden.’ 53 His conclusions are sound, but they do not demonstrate John’s dependence on formal Greco-Roman rhetorical techniques or training. Each of his examples represent rhetorical techniques that are equally at home in the utterances of the Hebrew prophets. Manfred Diefenbach makes his thesis quite clear in the title of his article: ‘Die “Offenbarung des Johannes” offenbart, daβ der Seher Johannes die antike Rhetoriklehre kennt.’ 54 Diefenbach argues for his thesis by engaging in a rhetorical analysis of chapters 2–3 of the Apocalypse, giving particular attention to the beginning

Konstantin Nikolakopoulos, ‘Rhetorische Auslegungsaspekte der Theologie in der Johannesoffenbarung,’ 166–80. 52 Ibid., 179. He similarly argues, ‘Die Anwendungen und die Wahl rhetorischer Figuren geschieht nicht zufällig, sondern richtet sich stets nach den notwendigen inhaltlichen Stimmungen des Textes’ (p. 178). 53 Ibid., 179. 54 Manfred Diefenbach, ‘Die “Offenbarung des Johannes” offenbart, daβ der Seher Johannes die antike Rhetoriklehre kennt,’ 50–57. 51

ARGUMENTATION IN THE APOCALYPSE

25

and ending of each of the messages to the churches. 55 Most scholars are hesitant to make the claim, following Diefenbach, that John knew and intentionally drew from classical rhetorical theory. 56 Bruce Longenecker has not published extensively on the Apocalypse, but his brief study of Rev 22:6–9 is significant for demonstrating how John regularly used the ‘chain-link’ transition technique mentioned by the ancient rhetoricians Lucian of Samosata and Quintilian (Rev 3:21; 9:2–5; 15:1–4; 22:6–9). 57 This falls short of proving that John had rhetorical training (a claim which Longenecker does not make), but does point to the pervasive presence of some rhetorical knowledge in the broader culture. Alternative Approaches: Hebrew Rhetoric and Modern Theories The pervasive use of classical rhetorical criticism and categories by interpreters of the Apocalypse raises the question: Is classical rhetoric the only, or even the best way to analyze how John sought to motivate his readers to respond to his prophetic-apocalyptic exhortation? Dennis L. Stamps argues that ‘there is little if any discernable correspondence between Graeco-Roman rhetorical

Ibid., 56, argues, ‘Die hier angestellten Beobachtungen hinsichtlich des stereotypen Aufbaus der “sieben Sendschreiben”—die Komposition von Offb 2,1-3,22 ist formkritisch nicht umstritten—mittels Anaphern und Epiphern liefern einen weiteren Beleg für die These, daß neben dem Apostel Paulus und dem Evangelist Lukas auch der Seher Johannes für die Strukturierung der einzelnen “sieben Sendschreiben” (Offb 2,1-3,22) aus der antiken Rhetoriklehre schöpft.’ 56 Ibid., summarizes his thesis as follows. ‘Der GrundThese, der Seher Johannes habe sich für die “sieben Sendschreiben” (Offb 2,1-3,22) in maßgeblicher und bestimmender Weise der rhetorischen Erkenntnisse und Hilfsmittel seines hellenistischen Umfeldes bedient, kann aufgrund der unternommenen Untersuchung untermauert werden.’ 57 Bruce W. Longenecker, ‘“Linked Like a Chain”: Rev 22.6–9 in Light of an Ancient Transition Technique,’ 105–17. 55

26

SOTERIOLOGY AS MOTIVATION

practice and the discourse of Revelation.’ 58 He notes that ‘[o]ne may label stylistic devices and figures according to Graeco-Roman rhetorical convention, but it is doubtful that there is any deliberate imitation at the level of actual practice.’ 59 Lauri Thurén, in an analysis of rhetoric in the general epistles, echoes Stamps observation that the identification of classical rhetorical phenomena does not necessarily or even probably indicate authorial intention. However, the fact that the letters can be analyzed with ancient terminology proves only its general applicability, not that the author would have been thinking in those rhetorical categories. Some of the features were typical for contemporary culture, but modern studies of rhetoric and argumentation also offer adequate tools for the analysis. Therefore handbooks or ancient rhetorical texts will not suffice for more comprehensive research in the future. 60

Thurén elsewhere argues more extensively for the use of modern theories of argumentation analysis to study New Testament texts. 61 Dennis L. Stamps, ‘The Johannine Writings,’ 631. Cf. Eva Maria Räpple, The Metaphor of the City in the Apocalypse of John, 181. For a similar skeptical position in regard to the applicability of classical rhetorical categories to Paul see Stanley E. Porter, ‘Ancient Rhetorical Analysis and Discourse Analysis of the Pauline Epistles,’ 251–52; Stanley E. Porter, ‘The Theoretical Justification for Application of Rhetorical Categories to Pauline Epistolary Literature,’ 100–22. 59 Stamps, ‘The Johannine Writings,’ 631. 60 Lauri Thurén, ‘The General New Testament Writings,’ 587–607. Carey, ‘Apocalyptic Ethos,’ 732, acknowledges that ‘Helpful as it is, classical ethical theory has its limitations for a study of ancient apocalyptic discourse. A large body of apocalyptic literature would have little if any connection with the classical tradition, and even the Greek apocalypses are not speeches but narratives.’ 61 Lauri Thurén, Argument and Theology in 1 Peter: The Origins of Christian Paraenesis, 34–38. In Lauri Thurén, ‘Is There Biblical Argumentation?,’ 81–82, he writes, ‘Just as in rhetoric, only if it can be demonstrated that certain modes of reasoning were something specific in 58

ARGUMENTATION IN THE APOCALYPSE

27

Before exploring modern theories of argumentation analysis it must be noted that in contrast to those who draw their main inspiration and methodology from the Greco-Roman rhetorical tradition, A. K. W. Siew argues that Hebrew rhetorical devices provide the appropriate background for interpreting the Apocalypse. He maintains that ‘Graeco-Roman rhetorical categories are not entirely suitable for the study of a visionary and prophetic-apocalyptic text such as the book of Revelation.’ 62 ‘[T]he language and style of Revelation … are best analyzed under the rubric of the Old Testament prophets’ literary conventions, rhetorical devices and compositional techniques … John’s artistry in employing parallelism, chiastic arrangement, parataxis and parallel structures shows his use of Hebraic literary techniques as his preferred style.’ 63 This suggestion can be strengthened by noting the pervasive use of the Old Testament echoes and allusions in the Apocalypse, and the apparent similarities between the Apocalypse and the Hebrew prophets in terms of invention, arrangement, and topoi. 64 Does the influence of the Old Testament those days, or that the biblical authors had studied a certain type of argumentation, can references to such a system be made. One may wonder whether such specific features or such a dependence can ever be proven. But even then, we would be dealing with historical research. The goal would not be to clarify and understand the argumentation as such, but to demonstrate the historical connections with a certain type of thinking. If however, Paul or Matthew did not study Aristotle, and if a common way of reasoning of their time is not best described by Aristotle, there is little reason for using his system in modern scholarship.’ 62 Antoninus K. W. Siew, The War Between the Two Beasts and the Two Witnesses: A Chiastic Reading of Revelation 11.1–14.5, 279. 63 Ibid., 22. Margaret D. Zulick, ‘The Active Force of Hearing: The Ancient Hebrew Language of Persuasion,’ 367–80, highlights how effective persuasion is hearer-centered throughout the Hebrew Scriptures in contrast to the Greek focus on the skill and ability of the rhetor. 64 It is beyond the scope of this study to discuss the use of the Old Testament in the Apocalypse in any detail. See Beale, John’s Use of the Old Testament in Revelation; Fekkes, Isaiah and the Prophetic Traditions in the Book of

28

SOTERIOLOGY AS MOTIVATION

in the Apocalypse extend to its use of Hebrew rhetorical conventions? The evidence seems to demand a mediating position. 65 The Apocalypse of John is saturated with allusions to the Hebrew Bible. On this basis, it is safe to assume that John would have identified himself in continuity with the Hebrew prophets and deliberately sought to mold and model his message after their example. 66 On Revelation. Fekkes notes that John ‘wants the readers to appreciate the prophetic foundation of his statements’ (p. 69). 65 Edith M. Humphrey, ‘In Search of a Voice: Rhetoric through Sight and Sound in Revelation 11:15–12:17,’ 141–60, helpfully wrestles with these options. ‘Do we hear or use the voice of a classical (i.e., GrecoRoman) rhetor? Do we hear or adopt the accents of a Hebrew prophet? … Is the argument in the story, or does argument interpret the story?’ (italics original, p. 142). She employs an ‘experimental approach’ that incorporates reflection on both Jewish and Greco-Roman rhetoric but without an explicit methodology for analysis (p. 146). 66 As C. G. Ozanne rightly argues, John’s unusual Greek does not suggest language incompetence, but rather intentional identification with the Hebrew prophetic tradition (‘The Language of the Apocalypse,’ 3–9). ‘The explanation which the present writer believes to be correct is that the author deliberately modelled his grammar on the pattern of the classical Hebrew of the Old Testament. This solution was advanced many years ago by C. F. Burney who attributed the Hebraisms of the Apocalypse to “first-hand imitation of Biblical Hebrew style”. Similarly F. J. A. Hort remarks on the “fitness” of this style of writing, which “helps us to understand that we are listening to the last of the Hebrew prophets”. The author, it seems, wished to identify himself with the writers of the Old Testament Scriptures, and to impress on his readers the character of his vision as the last of the prophetic books’ (p. 4). For further discussion of John’s unusual Greek see Allen Dwight Callahan, ‘The Language of Apocalypse,’ 453–70; R. H. Charles, The Revelation of St. John, 1.cxvii–clix; Kirby, ‘The Rhetorical Situations of Revelation 1–3,’ 203; Steven Thompson, The Apocalypse and Semitic Syntax; Gerhard Mussies, The Morphology of Koine Greek as used in the Apocalypse of St John: A Study in Bilingualism; Gerhard Mussies, ‘The Greek of the Book of Revelation,’ 167–77; Jan A. Du Rand, ‘A Socio-Psychological View of the Effect of the Language (Parole) of the Apocalypse of John,’ 351–65; James A.

ARGUMENTATION IN THE APOCALYPSE

29

the other hand, deSilva is surely right to draw attention to the cultural influence classical rhetoric would have indirectly and informally exerted on the authors of the New Testament. 67 DeSilva concludes by emphasizing the utilization of classical rhetoric as a heuristic device. Significant facets of classical rhetorical theory are simply inapplicable to Revelation, notably the discussions of arrangement of material … Nevertheless classical rhetorical theory alerts us to inquire into the rhetorical effects of the arrangement John has constructed, even though it does not correspond with the actual patterns discussed in the handbooks. Significant facets of Revelation are also not contemplated within classical rhetorical theory. The aim of this study is not to force correlations in order to demonstrate Revelation’s alignment with classical rhetoric, but to use the latter as a near-contemporary heuristic device insofar as it is helpful. 68

If classical rhetoric is primarily useful as a near-contemporary heuristic device there is no necessary reason to limit one’s methodology to classical rhetoric and analyze the Apocalypse on Montgomery, ‘The Education of the Seer of the Apocalypse,’ 70–80; Austin Marsden Farrer, The Rebirth of Images: The Making of St. John’s Apocalypse, 22, 24; Heinrich Kraft, Die Offenbarung des Johannes, 16; Angelo Lancellotti, Sintasi ebraica nel greco dell’ Apocalypsealisse. I. Uso dell forme verbali, 122. Contra Royalty, The Streets of Heaven, 80, 243, who argues that John engages in intentional misreadings to elevate his authority over that of his sources. 67 DeSilva, Seeing Things John’s Way, 17, f.n. 49, writes, ‘My working premise is that early Christian authors, to the extent that they learned the “art of persuasion,” learned it inductively through observing and hearing public speakers, itinerant philosophers, and even synagogue preachers in the cities in which they dwelled (whether in the cities of Judea and Galilee or the cities of Syria and Asia Minor).’ See the similar qualifications in Royalty, ‘The Rhetoric of Revelation,’ 600–601, 602. 68 DeSilva, Seeing Things John’s Way, 18.

30

SOTERIOLOGY AS MOTIVATION

those terms. 69 This is particularly true if there is no compelling reason to suspect that John consciously crafted his apocalypse with awareness of the three genres of oratory, the five stages of speechmaking, the three kinds of proof, or a four or five part outline of a speech. 70 Both backgrounds, the Hebrew prophets and classical rhetoric, as noted in the survey above, have provided valuable insights; however, there is additional value to be gained by exploring a third option: modern theories of argumentation analysis. 71 With few exceptions, which will be discussed below, Ian Smith, ‘A Rational Choice Model of the Book of Revelation,’ 97–116, 101, notes in discussing Kirby, Royalty, and Johns that, ‘these particular rhetorical studies do not claim that the Apocalypse of John is a piece of classical rhetoric nor that the author or the audience were necessarily well acquainted with Greek rhetorical conventions, but simply that rhetorical criticism using (and expanding the domain of) the categories of classical rhetoric provides insights into the persuasive strategies employed by the book. However, it is arguably at least as appropriate to apply the tools of modern rhetorical theory to study the way Revelation persuades. This has the advantage of permitting the analyst to investigate the variety of devices through which a text may accomplish its purpose, rather than unnecessarily restricting oneself to using a single and probably inappropriate species of classical rhetoric.’ 70 Contra Diefenbach, ‘Die “Offenbarung des Johannes” offenbart, daβ der Seher Johannes die antike Rhetoriklehre kennt.’ 71 As should be expected, many modern theories of argumentation analysis share deep continuity with the Greco-Roman Classical tradition. See Jean Dietz Moss, ed., Rhetoric and Praxis: The Contribution of Classical Rhetoric to Pracitcal Reasoning. Christian Kock, ‘Multiple Warrants in Practical Reasoning,’ 247–259, draws an interesting connection between the qualities of effective persuasion noted in Anaximenes’ Rhetorica ad Alexandrum and the function of Toulmin’s warrants (discussed below). On this reading, persuasive warrants indicate that the claim is just, lawful, expedient, honourable, pleasant, easy of accomplishment, and if that is not possible, that it is at least practicable or necessary. Toulmin recognized the close connection between rhetoric and argumentation: ‘Practical moral reasoning today still fits the patterns of topical (or “rhetorical”) argumentation better than it does those of formal (or 69

ARGUMENTATION IN THE APOCALYPSE

31

biblical scholars studying the Apocalypse of John have bypassed the insights and methodologies of modern theories of argumentation and motivational analysis. This monograph seeks to help remedy this deficiency. To be sure, modern theories of argumentation analysis do not provide a monolithic methodology. There is a great variety of theories and approaches. Any particular method should be chosen on the basis of the task at hand and the interpretive questions that need to be answered. 72 Three scholars have made notable contributions to the study of the Apocalypse with modern theories of communication, motivation, and rhetoric: Stephen Pattemore, Stephen D. O’Leary, and Ian Smith. 73 Stephen Pattemore has done extensive work to apply the insights of Relevance Theory, a modern theory of communication, to the Apocalypse. 74 While this theory provides the conceptual framework for determining which elements of a cognitive “geometrical”) demonstration’ (Albert R. Jonsen and Stephen E. Toulmin, The Abuse of Casuistry: A History of Moral Reasoning, 326). For discussion of one aspect of the relation between Toulmin and Cicero see Manfred Kraus, ‘Arguing by Question: A Toulminian Reading of Cicero’s Account of the Enthymeme,’ 313–26. 72 Thurén, Argument and Theology in 1 Peter, 47, notes ‘The choice of the tool depends on the task and the purpose … There is no reason to analyse something just for the sake of the analysis, as sometimes seems to be the case. Instead, since different methods focus on different aspects in argumentation, it is natural that they best serve different analytical goals.’ 73 Other scholars employ modern social scientific theories such as millenarian sect theory, and theories concerning cognitive dissonance, status inconsistency, cultural dislocation, and introversion but these theories fail to comprehensively analyze the book’s argumentation. Cf. P. Esler, ‘Political Oppression in Jewish Apocalyptic Literature: A Social Scientific Approach,’ 181–99; Witherington, Revelation, 26; John J. Pilch, ‘Lying and Deceit in the Letters to the Seven Churches: Perspectives from Cultural Anthropology,’ 126–35. 74 Stephen Pattemore, The People of God in the Apocalypse; Stephen Pattemore, Souls under the Altar: Relevance Theory and the Discourse Structure of Revelation. Cf. D. Sperber and D. Wilson, Relevance: Communication and Cognition.

32

SOTERIOLOGY AS MOTIVATION

environment are most relevant, it is not explicitly geared toward analyzing argumentation or motivation. In addition, Greg Carey critiques Pattemore’s application of Relevance Theory to the Apocalypse because it emphasizes cognition and collaboration over affect and conflict, and because it does not contribute insights that could not have been arrived at with traditional methodologies. 75 Despite Carey’s criticisms, Pattemore’s application of Relevance Theory to the Apocalypse is commendable, but it is primarily useful as a theory of communication and less applicable as a methodology for argumentation analysis. Stephen D. O’Leary employs a diverse arsenal of methodological approaches, both ancient and modern, to analyze apocalyptic rhetoric. 76 O’Leary argues that ‘apocalyptic functions as a symbolic theodicy, a mythical and rhetorical solution to the problem of evil, and that its approach to this problem is accomplished through discursive construction of temporality.’ 77 An enduring insight from his study is that ‘time, evil, and authority are

Greg Carey, review of Stephen Pattemore, The People of God in the Apocalypse, 722–3. Cf. the critiques of Relevance Theory by E. Wendland, ‘On the Relevance of “Relevance Theory” for Bible translation,’ 126–37; E. Wendland, ‘A Review of “Relevance Theory” in Relation to Bible Translation in South-Central Africa: Part 1,’ 91–106; E. Wendland, ‘A Review of “Relevance Theory” in Relation to Bible Translation in SouthCentral Africa: Part 2,’ 83–108. 76 Stephen D. O’Leary, Arguing the Apocalypse: A Theory of Millennial Rhetoric. These methodological approaches and frameworks include Kenneth Burke’s psychology of form and dramatistic theory, Aristotle’s theory of topical argument, Paul Ricoeur’s conception of myth, John Angus Campbell’s concept of epochal rhetoric, Max Weber’s typology of legitimation, and the aesthetic philosophy of Susanne Langer. 77 Ibid., 14. O’Leary argues that eschatology functions as theodicy in the way that ‘the mythic End of history represents the perfection of the cosmos through the purgation of the principle of evil in a final eschatological Judgment through which the divine sufferance of evil will be justified’ (p. 51). 75

ARGUMENTATION IN THE APOCALYPSE

33

the principle topoi of apocalyptic argument.’ 78 He substantiates this claim with a brief analysis of the Apocalypse of John and an extensive analysis of apocalyptic argumentation in the early nineteenth-century American Millerite movement and the popular late twentieth century publications of Hal Lindsey (The Late Great Planet Earth; The 1980’s: Countdown to Armageddon). 79 Although the breadth of methodologies employed by O’Leary is impressive, he does not provide any in-depth analysis of the actual argumentation in the Apocalypse. Ian Smith analyzes motivation in the Apocalypse of John through rational choice theory, a theory developed and primarily used in the fields of economics and political science. 80 Smith draws attention to how John attempts to motivate by revaluing the benefits and risks of present consequences and future consequences, and brilliantly illustrates the value of a modern methodological approach to analyzing motivation in an ancient document. When applied to a decision of whether or not to participate in an activity, rational choice theory posits that the selection of a course of action is based on an elementary comparison of the expected consequences of the alternative options. Choice is determined by a weighing of the full costs and benefits of participation and non-participation, both present and future. The contribution of this article is to argue that the argument of Revelation functions to persuade the believers that engaging in pagan idolatry does not pay off. The anticipated short-term gains from compromising the Christian faith, as the author of Ibid., 16. ‘This is to say that time and evil are the perceived exigencies that give rise to eschatological narratives and appear as themes within such narratives’ (p. 90). Paul L. Redditt, ‘The Rhetoric of Jewish Apocalyptic Eschatology,’ 361–71, provides support for O’Leary’s conclusions by analyzing a broader sampling of Jewish apocalypses. 79 Hal Lindsey, The Late Great Planet Earth; Hal Lindsey, The 1980’s: Countdown to Armageddon. 80 Smith, ‘A Rational Choice Model.’ 78

34

SOTERIOLOGY AS MOTIVATION Revelation defines compromise, are outweighed by the expected eschatological losses. 81

Smith discusses four incentive mechanisms employed by John to change ‘the believers’ preferences, expected costs, risk perceptions, and discount rates.’ 82 Smith acknowledges that his study does not produce new conclusions, but rather a better understanding of the incentive mechanisms employed by John. 83 Unfortunately, as with the studies by Pattemore and O’Leary, Smith’s application of rational choice theory does not provide a comprehensive analysis of the argumentation and motivation in the Apocalypse, not least because he does not engage in any actual exegesis of motivating expressions or exhortations. 84 A comprehensive exegetical analysis of motivational argumentation in the Apocalypse is still needed. Is there a modern tool for argumentation analysis that is particularly suited for this task?

MODERN THEORIES OF ARGUMENTATION ANALYSIS For the purposes of this study, argumentation can be defined as an activity aimed at an audience to gain their support (or disapproval) of an opinion or standpoint, or their compliance (or nonIbid., 99. Ibid. Smith’s discussion of discount rates is particularly illuminating. ‘A central argument of the article is that discounting is affected by Revelation’s extensive use of graphic images. By cultivating the eschatological imagination of the believers, vivid imagery serves to increase the mental salience of eschatological outcomes and so reduces the rate at which they are discounted. In other words, the pervasive use of visionary symbolism functions to persuade believers rationally to choose faithfulness over idolatry by inducing them to place greater weight on the expected eternal costs of engaging in pagan religion’ (p. 100). 83 Ibid., 99, 104. Cf. the similar conclusions in deSilva, ‘Honor Discourse’; Michelle V. Lee, ‘A Call to Martyrdom: Function as Method and Message in Revelation,’ 190; John P. M. Sweet, Revelation, 2. 84 For a critique of rational choice theory as applied to the study of religion see Steve Bruce, Choice and Religion: A Critique of Rational Choice Theory. 81 82

ARGUMENTATION IN THE APOCALYPSE

35

compliance) with a proposed course of action. 85 The modern study of argumentation has rapidly increased over the past several decades beginning with the publication of two influential works in 1958: The Uses of Argument by Stephen E. Toulmin, and La nouvelle rhétorique by Chaim Perelman and L. Olbrechts-Tyteca. 86 Though the contributions of these scholars varied, they shared a common conviction that ordinary argumentation (practical reasoning) could not be adequately analyzed with traditional methods based on logical demonstration. 87 Modern theories of argumentation vary Argumentation has been defined in many different ways. Frans H. van Eemeren, Rob Grootendorst, and Francisca Snoeck Henkemans, Fundamentals of Argumentation Theory: A Handbook of Historical Backgrounds and Contemporary Developments, 5, define argumentation as follows: ‘Argumentation is a verbal and social activity of reason aimed at increasing (or decreasing) the acceptability of a controversial standpoint for the listener or reader, by putting forward a constellation of propositions intended to justify (or refute) the standpoint before a rational judge.’ Thurén, Argument and Theology in 1 Peter, 33, defines it more succinctly as an ‘activity aimed at an audience in order to gain their support for or disapproval of an opinion.’ These definitions are unsatisfactory for the present investigation because they focus entirely on argumentation as cognitive while remaining silent on the role of argumentation in influencing action. For further discussion of definition see Chaim Perelman and L. Olbrechts-Tyteca, The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation, 13–14; Folker Siegert, Argumentation bei Paulus gezeigt an Röm 9–11, 16–22. 86 Stephen Toulmin, The Uses of Argument. All quotations from La nouvelle rhétorique will be from the 1969 English translation, Chaim Perelman, and L. Olbrechts-Tyteca, The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation. Cf. Frans H. van Eemeren, et al., eds., Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Argumentation. 87 Toulmin, The Uses of Argument, 1–10; Perelman, The New Rhetoric, 1–14. On the relationship between argumentation and formal logic see Douglas N. Walton, Informal Logic: A Handbook for Critical Argumentation; Henry W. Johnstone, ‘Argumentation and Formal Logic in Philosophy,’ 5–16; Gilbert Harman, Change in View: Principles of Reasoning; Christopher Cherniak, Minimal Rationality. 85

36

SOTERIOLOGY AS MOTIVATION

widely but all are dependent to some degree on the work of these scholars. 88 Chaim Perelman Perelman defines his new ‘theory of argumentation’ as ‘the study of the discursive techniques allowing us to induce or to increase the mind’s adherence to the theses presented for its assent.’ 89 Within the new rhetoric the soundness of an argument depends upon its effect upon its intended audience—in stark contrast to the criterion for soundness and validity in formal logic. 90 Perelman distinguishes between two kinds of audiences: the particular audience made up of a particular group or person and the universal audience made up of all reasonable human beings. 91 The audience is the most important factor in argumentation in the new rhetoric; a fact that opens it up to the charge of relativism. 92 Since the audience changes with each argumentative exchange an effective and sound argument in one situation would be utter nonsense in another. Many critics maintain that there must be norms of rationality that are not dependent upon the reception of an argument by a particular audience. 93 In response it can be noted that Perelman later more explicitly joined his evaluation of Van Eemeren, Grootendorst, and Henkemans, Fundamentals of Argumentation Theory, 160, note in regard to Toulmin, that ‘[i]t is largely thanks to his work that the interest in argumentation theory has so considerably increased since the 1950s.’ 89 Perelman, The New Rhetoric, 4, emphasis original. Cf. Chaim Perelman, The New Rhetoric and the Humanities: Essays on Rhetoric and Its Application. 90 Perelman, The New Rhetoric, 19 defines and audience as ‘the ensemble of those whom the speaker wishes to influence by his argumentation’ (italics original). 91 Ibid., 17–35. 92 Chaim Perelman, The Realm of Rhetoric, 140, argues, ‘Since the efficacy of an argument is relative to audience, it is impossible to evaluate it above and beyond reference to the audience to which it is presented.’ 93 For a discussion of the critique of relativism see van Eemeren, Grootendorst, and Henkemans, Fundamentals of Argumentation Theory, 119, 121; 88

ARGUMENTATION IN THE APOCALYPSE

37

argumentation to the quality of the audience: ‘[T]he techniques suited for persuading a crowd in a public place would not be convincing to a better educated and more critical audience, and … the worth of an argumentation is not measured solely by its efficacy but also by the quality of the audience at which it is aimed.’ 94 Thus, arguments are only as good as the audience that would adhere to them. 95 The centrality of the audience in argument evaluation in the new rhetoric is based on a prior philosophical commitment to pluralism. 96 Perelman has left a permanent mark on the fields of argumentative and rhetorical studies and has served as the catalyst for numerous further studies. 97 Although this monograph will draw

Chaim Perelman, ‘The New Rhetoric: A Theory of Practical Reasoning,’ 14. 95 Walter R. Fisher, ‘Judging the Quality of Audiences and Narrative Rationality,’ in Practical Reasoning in Human Affairs: Studies in Honor of Chaim Perelman, 85–103, 85–86. 96 Perelman, The New Rhetoric, 510, states, ‘We combat uncompromising and irreducible philosophical oppositions presented by all kinds of absolutism: dualisms of reason and imagination, of knowledge and opinion, of irrefutable self-evidence and deceptive will, of a universally accepted objectivity and an incommunicable subjectivity, of a reality binding on everybody and values that are purely individual. We do not believe in definitive, unalterable revelations, whatever their nature or their origin.’ Cf. Fisher, ‘Judging the Quality of Audiences,’ 87–89. 97 Cf. James L. Golden and Joseph Pilotta, eds., Practical Reasoning in Human Affairs: Studies in Honor of Chaim Perelman; Ray D. Dearin, ed., The New Rhetoric of Chaim Perelman: Statement and Response; Ray D. Dearin., ‘Perelman’s Concept of “Quasi-Logical” Argument: A Critical Elaboration,’ 78–94; van Eemeren, Grootendorst, and Henkemans, Fundamentals of Argumentation Theory, 124–28; Manfred Kienpointner, ‘The Empirical Relevance of Perelman’s New Rhetoric,’ 419–37; D. R. Seibold et al., ‘Argument, Group Influence, and Decision Outcomes,’ 663–92; James S. Measell, ‘Perelman on Analogy,’ 65–71; David Goodwin, ‘Distinction, Argumentation, and the Rhetorical Construction of the Real,’ 141–58; Barbara Warnick and Susan L. Kline, ‘The New Rhetoric’s Argument Schemes: A Rhetorical View of Practical Reasoning,’ 1–15; M. Maneli, Perelman’s New Rhetoric as Philosophy and Methodology for the Next 94

38

SOTERIOLOGY AS MOTIVATION

from some of Perelman’s insights throughout, he left little in the way of concrete methodology for argumentation analysis—a critique that cannot be attributed to the work of Stephen Toulmin. Stephen Toulmin Stephen Toulmin’s ground-breaking work on argumentation made both philosophical and methodological contributions to the field of argumentation analysis. 98 Philosophically, he shared with Perelman a rejection of the applicability of formal logic to practical argumentation. 99 His influential philosophical ideas include his thesis concerning the field-dependence of argumentation: i.e. the evaluation of arguments depends upon the epistemology of the fields or disciplines concerned. 100 It has been noted that philosophically, Perelman has been more influential that Toulmin, but methodologically, Toulmin has been more influential than Century; Verna C. Corgan, ‘Perelman’s Universal Audience as a Critical Tool,’ 147–57; Luc J. Wintgens, ‘Rhetoric, Reasonableness and Ethics: An Essay on Perelman,’ 451–60. 98 Ronald P. Loui, ‘A Citation-Based Reflection on Toulmin and Argument,’ 31–38, conducts citation-based research to conclude that Toulmin is among the top ten philosophers of science and philosophical logicians of the 20th century, behind such scholars as Thomas Kuhn and John Austin. Furthermore, the citation count for Toulmin’s 1958 book The Uses of Argument is growing each year, testifying to his expanding influence in new research, not simply for historical interest. 99 Toulmin, The Uses of Argument, 147, notes, ‘So far as formal logicians claim to say anything of relevance to arguments of other than analytic sorts, judgment must be pronounced against them: for the study of other types of argument fresh categories are needed, and current distinction—especially the crude muddle commonly marked by the terms “deductive” and “inductive” must be set on one side’ (p. 147). Cf. Ralph H. Johnson, Manifest Rationality: A Pragmatic Theory of Argumentation, 354– 56; van Eemeren, Grootendorst, and Henkemans, Fundamentals of Argumentation Theory, 130. 100 Van Eemeren, Grootendorst, and Henkemans, Fundamentals of Argumentation Theory, 154; Cf. John McPeck, Critical Thinking and Education; John McPeck, Teaching Critical Thinking: Dialogue and Dialectic.

ARGUMENTATION IN THE APOCALYPSE

39

Perelman. 101 There is not a unified Toulminian tradition or a Toulmin school, but Toulmin succeeded in inspiring the scholarly application of his ideas in a number of different fields of inquiry. 102 The diverse application of his ideas is due to the universality he claimed and demonstrated for his method. 103 Toulmin has identified six major building blocks for arguments: claim, data (grounds), warrant, backing, qualifier, and rebuttal. 104 The claim (abbreviated C) is both the beginning and Thurén, Argument and Theology in 1 Peter, 41, notes, ‘Toulmin’s theory of argumentation … is less sophisticated than that of Perelman. Consequently, the theory has not influenced modern argumentation analysis to the same degree as his practical model, which has proven useful in many contexts and has become more popular than Perelman’s.’ 102 Cf. David Hitchcock and Bart Verheij, eds., Arguing on the Toulmin Model: New Essays in Argument Analysis and Evaluation; van Eemeren, Grootendorst, and Henkemans, Fundamentals of Argumentation Theory, 149– 54; Douglas Ehninger and Wayne Brockriede, Decision by Debate; William L. Benoit and James J. Lindsey, ‘Argument Fields and Forms of Argument in Natural Language,’ 215–24; Walter R. Fisher, ‘Technical Logic, Rhetorical Logic, and Narrative Rationality,’ 15; Joseph W. Wenzel, ‘The Rhetorical View on Argumentation: Exploring a Paradigm,’ 73–89; Harold Wohlrapp, ‘Toulmin’s Theory and the Dynamics of Argumentation,’ 327– 35; Barbara Warnick, ‘Judgment, Probability, and Aristotle’s Rhetoric,’ 299–311; Mark Weinstein, ‘Towards a Research Agenda for Informal Logic and Critical Thinking,’ 121–43; Lenore Langsdorf, ‘On the Uses of Language in Working and Idealized Logic,’ 259–68; James B. Freeman, ‘Relevance, Warrants, Backing, Inductive Support,’ 219–35. 103 Toulmin claims that his method for analyzing arguments is ‘suitable for application to arguments of all types and in all fields’ (Stephen Toulmin, Richard Rieke, and Allan Janik, An Introduction to Reasoning, v). Joseph L. Cowan, ‘The Uses of Argument—An Apology for Logic,’ 29 notes that ‘[t]his pattern has, according to Toulmin, the necessary scope to encompass all arguments.’ 104 Toulmin, The Uses of Argument, 101–107, labels the second element of an argument ‘data,’ while he later labels it ‘grounds’ (Toulmin, Rieke, Janik, An Introduction to Reasoning, 37). ‘Grounds’ will be employed throughout this book because of its more general connotations—i.e. it 101

40

SOTERIOLOGY AS MOTIVATION

destination of an argument, the assertion or standpoint that requires defense or support. The claim answers the following questions: ‘What exactly are we discussing? Where precisely are we to stand on this issue? And what position must we consider agreeing to as the outcome of the argument?’ 105 The whole purpose of argumentation consists of demonstrating the truthfulness, validity, or applicability of the claim. A claim is generally a simple assertion or, in the case of the claims made in the Apocalypse, a command. John is going to graduate soon (C). Do not eat meat sacrificed to idols (C).

Grounds (G) provide the foundation that determines whether or not the claim is solid and reliable and answer the following questions: ‘What information are you going on? What grounds is your claim based on? Where must we ourselves begin if we are to see whether we can take the step you propose and so end by agreeing to your claim?’ 106 Grounds generally consist of the facts that demonstrate why the claim should be accepted. John is going to graduate soon (C) because he just submitted his dissertation (G). Do not eat meat sacrificed to idols (C) because those who do will be judged by God (G).

Warrants (W) are often implicit in practical argumentation and demonstrate how the grounds are connected to or are relevant to establishing the claim. 107 Warrants often consist of rules of thumb, better indicates the function of the element in argumentation, a function that will often, nevertheless, consist of specific data or evidence. 105 Toulmin, Rieke, Janik, An Introduction to Reasoning, 25. 106 Ibid., 26. 107 James F. Voss, ‘Toulmin’s Model and the Solving of IllStructured Problems,’ in Arguing on the Toulmin Model: New Essays in Argument Analysis and Evaluation, 303–311, employ Toulmin’s model to analyze ill-structured problems drawn from transcripts of actual argumentation and note that ‘participants virtually never stated an

ARGUMENTATION IN THE APOCALYPSE

41

principles, laws of nature, or accepted values, customs, or procedures and answer the following questions: ‘Given that starting point, how do you justify the move from these grounds to that claim? What road do you take to get from this starting point to that destination?’ 108 Warrants, along with each of the other elements of argumentation, are field-dependent and will vary depending upon whether one is arguing about science, engineering, law, ethics, medicine, psychology, history, or any particular field of inquiry. 109 John is going to graduate soon (C) because he just submitted his dissertation (G), and that is the final requirement before graduation (W). argument’s warrant’ (p. 307). Voss and his fellow researchers made six extensions to Toulmin’s model to enable it to adequately analyze illstructured problems. First, they allowed ‘the claim of one argument to be the datum of a second argument, thus permitting argument continuity’ (p. 307). Second, they assumed that ‘a warrant is implied in each argument, although, more correctly, the warrant is implicit’ (p. 307). Third, they allowed the backing to be an argument. Fourth, they allowed the rebuttal to have backing. Fifth, they permitted the rebuttal to be an argument. Sixth, they permitted the qualifier to be an argument. 108 Toulmin, Rieke, Janik, An Introduction to Reasoning, 26, 47. 109 James B. Freeman, ‘Systematizing Toulmin’s Warrants: An Epistemic Approach,’ 87–101, critiques the field dependence of Toulmin’s warrants and backing and proposes an epistemic classification of warrants into a priori, empirical, institutional, and evaluative, with each type differing on the mode connections are intuitively discovered and the grounds used to justify them. This allows for more precision and clarity (a helpful correction to the fuzzy and unclear boundaries between fields), but sacrifices the intuitiveness of Toulmin’s fields which have made them readily understandable and accessible to a broad readership. The obvious intuitive differences between the fields of science, engineering, law, ethics, medicine, psychology, and history, make Touldmin’s field theory popularly applicable, although its lack of clarity and definition make it hard to apply in complex cases that involve warrants from different fields, an issue discussed in chapter four below and tentatively resolved by means of legitimation inferences.

42

SOTERIOLOGY AS MOTIVATION Do not eat meat sacrificed to idols (C) because those who do will be judged by God (G). Eating meat sacrificed to idols constitutes participation in idolatry (W).

Backing (B) provides the law, formula, or principle that supports or validates the warrants and answers the following questions: ‘Is this really a safe move to make? Does this route take us to the required destination securely and reliably? And what other general information do you have to back up your trust in this particular warrant?’ 110 John is going to graduate soon (C) because he just submitted his dissertation (G), and that is the last requirement before graduation (W) according to the Ph.D. handbook (B). Do not eat meat sacrificed to idols (C) because those who do will be judged by God (G). Eating meat sacrificed to idols constitutes participation in idolatry (W) and according to the Hebrew prophets God always punishes idolaters (B).

Qualifiers (Q) indicate ‘what kind and degree of reliance is to be placed on the conclusions, given the arguments available to support them.’ 111 Qualifications to an argument are generally indicated by the following adverbs or adverbial phrases: necessarily, certainly, presumably, in all probability, so far as the evidence goes, for all that we can tell, very likely, very possibly, maybe, apparently, plausibly, or so it seems. 112 Each of these qualifiers is employed to indicate the strength or certainty of the claim. John is probably (Q) going to graduate soon (C) because he just submitted his dissertation (G), and that is the last requirement before graduation (W) according to the Ph.D. handbook (B). Never, no matter the situation (Q), eat meat sacrificed to idols (C) because those who do will be judged by God (G). Eating meat sacrificed to idols constitutes participation in idolatry (W) Toulmin, Rieke, Janik, An Introduction to Reasoning, 26. Ibid., 85. 112 Ibid., 86. 110 111

ARGUMENTATION IN THE APOCALYPSE

43

and according to the Hebrew prophets God always punishes idolaters (B).

Rebuttals (R) are ‘the extraordinary or exceptional circumstances that might undermine the force of the supporting arguments,’ and are employed to indicate when claims are less than certain or not certain in all cases. 113 John is probably (Q) going to graduate soon (C) because he just submitted his dissertation (G), and that is the last requirement before graduation (W) according to the Ph.D. handbook (B), unless, of course, he fails his dissertation defense (R).

Because of its use of divine authority, discussed below, the rhetoric of the Apocalypse leaves no room for rebuttals of any kind from within its field of argumentation (religious rhetoric communicated through an early Jewish-Christian worldview). This phenomenon essentially projects the force of a deductively valid argument where the premises necessarily require the conclusion, while being everywhere deductively invalid. Rebuttles and critiques could only come from a different field of argumenation, the existence of which are denied by the Apocalypse. Its view of reality is the only possible view. Toulmin diagrams an argument with these six elements as follows. 114 So, Qualifier, Claim

Grounds Since Warrant

Unless Rebuttal

On account of Backing Ibid., 95. Toulmin, The Uses of Argument, 101–107. ‘Grounds’ has been submitted for ‘data.’ 113 114

44

SOTERIOLOGY AS MOTIVATION

A basic argument consists of a claim based on grounds connected by a warrant (rules, principles, inference-licenses). 115 The warrant ensures that the grounds actually support the claim. A qualifier and rebuttal can be added to qualify the claim or deal with potential or real arguments against the claim. Finally, backing can be provided to justify the relevance or applicability of warrants. Several criticisms have been leveled against Toulmin’s proposals and there are several limitations to his methodology. Toulmin has particularly been criticized for the ambiguity of his use of key terms such as field of argument, and validity, and the difficulty of determining the difference between grounds and warrants in some circumstances. 116 Grounds and warrants are generally distinguished on the basis of explicit (grounds) and implicit (warrants) information or on the basis of factual and specific information (grounds) and general or rule-like statements (warrants). 117 Most usefully, Toulmin emphasizes the functional difference between grounds and warrants but this does not completley remove the possibility of confusion. 118 Toulmin’s model is limited in that it is not as useful for analyzing long texts, it provides no methodology for identifying argumentation, and it only aids in analyzing and understanding argumentation and offers very little in terms of argumentation Toulmin, Rieke, Janik, An Introduction to Reasoning, devote chapters two through five to these elements. 116 Van Eemeren, Grootendorst, and Henkemans, Fundamentals of Argumentation Theory, 155–59. 117 Ibid., 159. 118 Toulmin, Rieke, Janik, An Introduction to Reasoning, 47–48. James F. Klumpp, ‘Warranting Arguments: The Virtue of Verb,’ 103–113, discusses seven different, though not inconsistent, strategies Toulmin employs to define ‘warrant’ and argues that the functional interpretation is the most effective. This functional understanding of a warrant uses it as a verb (that which warrants the move from grounds to claim) and removes the need to express the warrant propositionally. While Klumpp accurately focuses on the function of the warrant, there is no reason to reject the propositional means of expressing this function when heuristically helpful. 115

ARGUMENTATION IN THE APOCALYPSE

45

evaluation: i.e. determining good argumentation from bad argumentation. 119 Toulmin’s omission is that he has only discussed the structure of arguments (in terms of the roles of the different kinds of elements of arguments), but has not paid attention to the evaluation of arguments. In other words, he does not provide an analogue of logical validity as an evaluation criterion for arguments – perhaps because he does not believe there to be one. 120

The application of Toulmin’s model can also be arbitrary (as with any methodology) if the interpreter only focuses on certain aspects of a discourse or text. 121 Because Toulmin argued that the standards for evaluating arguments and the validity of warrants are field-dependent while the model itself was field invariant, his model has been accused, as was Perelman’s, of unacceptable relativism. 122 Many attempts have David Hitchcock’s work is worthy of note in regard to argument evaluation. David L. Hitchcock, ‘Enthymematic Arguments,’ 83–79; David L. Hitchcock, ‘Reasoning by Analogy: A General Theory,’ 109–24, David L. Hitchcock, ‘Validity in Conductive Arguments,’ 58–66. Although his focus has been on developing a general theory of inference appraisal, he explicitly connects his understanding of ‘the covering generalization of the argument’ with Toulmin’s warrants (David L. Hitchcock, ‘Does the Traditional Treatment of Enthymemes Rest on a Mistake?’ 15–37, 27; David L. Hitchcock, ‘Toulmin’s Warrants,’ 69–82). On the relationship between Hitchcock and Toulmin see David Hitchcock, ‘Good Reasoning on the Toulmin Model,’ 203–218; Robert C. Pinto, ‘Evaluating Inferences: The Nature and Role of Warrants,’ 115–43. 120 Bart Verheij, ‘Evaluating Arguments Based on Toulmin’s Scheme,’ 181–202. 121 Thurén, Argument and Theology in 1 Peter, 45. 122 Harvey Siegel, Relativism Refuted: A Critique of Contemporary Epistemological Relativism; Charles A. Willard, ‘Argument Fields and Theories of Logical Types,’ 129–45; Christopher Schroeder, ‘Knowledge and Power, Logic and Rhetoric, and Other Reflections in the Toulmin 119

46

SOTERIOLOGY AS MOTIVATION

been made, with more or less success, to defend Toulmin’s model from this charge. 123 The debate is less relevant to this particular study which focuses more on analysis than evaluation, but Toulmin’s notion of the field-dependency of evaluation is valid and fits every-day experience. 124 This concession in regard to argument evaluation does not automatically or necessarily lead to complete epistemological relativism, a position which Toulmin explicitly rejected. 125 Toulmin’s model is particularly suited to the purposes of this monograph because of its flexibility, especially in its capacity to identify and incorporate implicit warrants. 126 These are warrants Mirror: A Critical Consideration of Stephen Toulmin’s Contributions to Composition,’ 95–107, 98. 123 Lilian Bermejo-Luque, ‘Toulmin’s Model of Argument and the Question of Relativism,’ 71–85, argues that the appraisal of arguments should focus on determining the truth-values of the reasons and warrants (p. 81). She differentiates between moderate and extreme epistemological relativism. Mark Weinstein, ‘A Metamathematical Extension of the Toulmin Agenda,’ 49–69, defends Toulmin’s model of scientific inquiry by the addition of a ‘model of emerging truth.’ Freeman, ‘Systematizing Toulmin’s Warrants,’ counters the charge of relativism by rejecting the field-dependency of Toulmin’s warrants and arguing instead for an epistemic classification. 124 John Woods, ‘Eight Theses Reflecting on Stephen Toulmin,’ 379–97, 395, comments on Toulmin’s fields of argumentation by noting that ‘domain-specific logics are as welcome as they are unavoidable.’ 125 Stephen E. Toulmin, Human Understanding, 66–85. 126 Thurén, ‘Is There Biblical Argumentation?’ 90, notes that, ‘[w]hat makes such a study critical is its potential to explicate and characterize the implicit, unvoiced elements—premises, warrants, backings—which are essential for the reasoning.’ Van Eemeren, Grootendorst, and Henkemans, Fundamentals of Argumentation Theory, 14, note that ‘[t]he pivotal points of an argument are often constituted by unexpressed elements, which are only implicitly present in the discourse. This holds in particular for unexpressed premises and unexpressed standpoints. In the arguments composing ordinary argumentation usually one of the premises is left unexpressed’ (italics original). Cf. Douglas Walton, Fundamentals of Critical Argumentation, 157–62.

ARGUMENTATION IN THE APOCALYPSE

47

that may not be explicitly stated in the course of an argument, but yet are crucial for a proper connection between the grounds and the claim. 127 Toulmin’s model is also well-suited for detailed analysis of micro-argumentation because it separates elements based upon function. Toulmin’s model remains unsurpassed in this narrow purpose and this detailed attention to the structure of arguments is the most beneficial aspect of the model for biblical studies. Despite the fact that some studies exist in both English and German language scholarship that have demonstrated the usefulness of Toulmin’s model for studying biblical argumentation relatively few biblical scholars have made use of the tool. 128 Lauri Thurén compares Toulmin’s model with the traditional three-phase syllogism and notes three advantages to Toulmin’s model for the analysis of argumentation. First, it does not consist of only three components. Second, each component has a specific function … Third, it enables us to see the open-endedness of argumentation: between each component there is always an additional warrant, and behind every claim or backing can be glimpsed an extra train of thought. 129

Toulmin’s model will need to be modified to account for the particular focus on motivation in this study. Because the Apocalypse is a hortatory text, this study will not analyze how John Thurén, Argument and Theology in 1 Peter, 44, notes that ‘[i]n a normal text even central elements may be implicit.’ Cf. Toulmin, The Uses of Argument, 14–15. Sometimes implicit elements are not explicated because they constitute shared knowledge. Relevance theory discusses this in terms of a ‘mutual cognitive environment’ (Pattemore, The People of God in the Apocalypse, 15), while other interpreters discuss presupposition pools (Peter Cotterell and Max Turner, Linguistics & Biblical Interpretation, 90–97) which consist of implicit shared knowledge. 128 Thurén, Argument and Theology in 1 Peter; Klaus-Michael Bull, ‘“Wir werden alle vor den Richterstuhl Gottes gestellt warden” (Röm 14,10): Zur Funktion des Motivs vom Endgericht in den Argumentationen des Römerbriefes,’ 125–43. 129 Thurén, ‘Is There Biblical Argumentation?,’ 83–84. 127

48

SOTERIOLOGY AS MOTIVATION

defends every claim he makes, but rather how he motivates his readers to respond appropriately to the specific hortatory commands he makes upon their lives and actions: the command is thus the claim. Toulmin’s model will also need to be augmented to incorporate the function within the argumentation of John’s narrative world as expressed in his apocalyptic narrative. 130 John’s narrative-shaped worldview functions as an argumentation field and supplies grounds, warrants, and backing to the explicit argumentation. In short, John’s claim is his primary rhetorical and motivational goal: you must overcome through faithfulness unto death (see below). The grounds are soteriological: in order to gain final salvation. An analysis of the explicit and implicit warrants and backing employed by John to connect the grounds (salvation) to the claim (you must overcome) will enable us to see how soteriology functions as motivation within the Apocalypse of John. Recent Developments Lauri Thurén rightly notes that ‘[t]he development of modern logic, rhetorics, structuralism, text-linguistics … and other analytic methods has provided the scholars with new tools and aspects for the analysis, although no theory has been generally accepted.’ 131 The rapid growth and breadth of the field of argumentation defies any attempt at a comprehensive introduction, but several promising approaches will briefly be noted. 132 It is important to explore these approaches in order to confirm whether or not Toulmin’s model is the best tool for the job at hand. Are there other recent developments in the field of argumentation analysis that could be used to better analyze argumentation in the Apocalypse? Austin’s and Searle’s speech-act theory has been successfully applied to argumentation analysis, even though it was not originally Schroeder, ‘Knowledge and Power, Logic and Rhetoric, and Other Reflections in the Toulmin Mirror.’ 131 Thurén, Argument and Theology in 1 Peter, 46. 132 For more in-depth analysis see van Eemeren, Grootendorst, and Henkemans, Fundamentals of Argumentation Theory; Johnson, Manifest Rationality; 130

ARGUMENTATION IN THE APOCALYPSE

49

intended for such a purpose. 133 Frans van Eemeren and Rob Grootendorst have produced a comprehensive and influential argumentation theory called pragma-dialectics that draws together several streams of modern argumentation theory. 134 In developing this theory they drew from Austin and Searle’s speech act theory, Grice’s logic of ordinary discourse, Lorenzen’s dialogue logic, and Barth and Krabbe’s formal dialectics, and they aimed to produce a code of conduct for argumentative discourse that combined ‘linguistic insights from the study of language use and logical insights from the study of critical dialogue.’ 135 In pragma-dialectics, argumentation is approached with four methodological premises: externalization (Argumentation presupposes a standpoint subjected to external critique or opposition.), socialization (Argumentation requires the social situation of two or more individuals engaged in joint problem solving.), functionalization (The function of argumentation is more important than the structure of argumentation.), and dialectification (Argumentation should ideally

Frans H. van Eemeren and Rob Grootendorst, Speech Acts in Argumentative Discussions: A Theoretical Model for the Analysis of Discussions Directed towards Solving Conflicts of Opinions. Cf. John L. Austin, How to Do Things with Words; John R. Searle, Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language; John R. Searle, Expression and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts. 134 Van Eemeren and Grootendorst, Speech Acts in Argumentative Discussions; Frans van Eemeren and Rob Grootendorst, Argumentation, Communication, and Fallacies: A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective; Frans H. van Eemeren, Rob Grootendorst, Sally Jackson, and Scott Jacobs, Reconstructing Argumentative Discourse. 135 Van Eemeren, Grootendorst, and Henkemans, Fundamentals of Argumentation Theory, 274. For the constituent elements see Herbert P. Grice, Studies in the Way of Words; Paul Lorenzen, Normative Logic and Ethics; Paul Lorenzen and Kuno Lorenz, Dialogische Logik; Else M. Barth and Erik C. W. Krabbe, From Axiom to Dialogue: A Philosophical Study of Logics and Argumentation. 133

50

SOTERIOLOGY AS MOTIVATION

consist of an exchange of speech acts designed to resolve a difference of opinion.). 136 As with pragma-dialectics, a great deal of the current discussion of argumentation theories deals with how to evaluate arguments (are they good or bad arguments and according to what standards), the nature and identification of fallacies, and the dialectical, interactive, or social dimensions of argumentation. 137 While these developments are necessary for better understanding and evaluation of practical argumentation in everyday affairs, they are less helpful for understanding and analyzing the arguments of an ancient literary text. The narrow focus of this monograph is on analyzing and understanding the argumentation in the Apocalypse of John, not on evaluating its soundness or critiquing it for the supposed commitment of argumentative fallacies. 138 Moreover, the Apocalypse functions as a monologue and thus dialectical or interactive approaches to analyzing and evaluating the argumentation are not applicable. 139 These restrictions make Van Eemeren, Grootendorst, and Henkemans, Fundamentals of Argumentation Theory, 276–78; Frans H. van Eemeren, ‘Argumentation Studies’ Five Estates,’ 9–24. 137 Van Eemeren, Grootendorst, and Henkemans, Fundamentals of Argumentation Theory, 163–355; Walton, Fundamentals of Critical Argumentation. 138 Johnson, Manifest Rationality, 40–46, discuss two main divisions in a(ny) theory of argumentation: a theory of analysis which includes issues of definition, typology, structure, and interpretation and a theory of appraisal which includes evaluation and criticism. 139 Thus James Freeman’s addition of a dialectical dimension to Toulmin’s model is not adopted in this book. James Freeman, Dialectics and the Macrostructure of Arguments: A Theory of Argument Structure. Wouter H. Slob critiques Freeman’s approach and argues for an alternative extension of Toulmin’s model to give full voice to the other (‘The Voice of the Other: A Dialogico-Rhetorical Understanding of Opponent and of Toulmin’s Rebuttal,’ 165–80). Slob acknowledges that simply ‘[a]cknowledging the rebuttal as a separate element of argumentation is therefore not designed to lend the voice of the other an ear, but serves dialectically the purpose of supporting the conclusion in an indirect way’ 136

ARGUMENTATION IN THE APOCALYPSE

51

Toulmin’s model, which is primarily designed for the analysis, not evaluation, of non-interactive argumentation the most-suitable tool available to meet the goals of this present study. 140 Defining Terms: The Relationships between Arguing, Motivating, Convincing, and Persuading A simplistic explanation for the relationship between argumentation and persuasion connects argumentation with the attempt to convince someone cognitively of a position or standpoint with logical reasons, and persuasion as the attempt to motivate or influence someone volitionally to engage in a particular action with emotional appeals. 141 With this understanding, argumentation uses logos to convince by appealing to a person’s mind while persuasion uses ethos and pathos to motivate by appealing to a person’s emotions. While this approach to understanding these terms results in neat and tidy categories, the divisions do not fit reality. In day-to-day experiences, do emotions play no role in convincing people to believe certain things (p. 175). His extensions to Toulmin’s model allow for rebuttals to represent the voice of the other in such a way to negate or seriously qualify, not just support, the conclusion. 140 Johnson, Manifest Rationality, 173–74, is right to argue that the element of ‘rebuttal’ in Toulmin’s model does not envision what more recent argumentative theorists mean by the social, dialectical, or interactive element of argumentation. 141 Lauri Thurén, ‘On Studying Ethical Argumentation and Persuasion in the New Testament,’ 464–78, argues for a nuanced form of this basic understanding of the terms. ‘The substantive “argumentation” and the verb “convince” mean activity aimed at gaining the audience’s assent to the author’s theses and opinions. The word “persuasion” is used for the process of gaining the audience’s volitional, often also intellectual, assent to the speaker’s will … The speaker may (but need not) use argumentation in order to persuade the listener to obey him so that the latter becomes motivated to do something’ (p. 469). Thurén, Argument and Theology in 1 Peter, 51, similarly argues that ‘argumentation aims at changing or modifying the audience’s thoughts, while the goal of persuasion is action.’

52

SOTERIOLOGY AS MOTIVATION

cognitively and do logical, cognitive thought processes not affect the volitional choices people make? Decision making, both on the cognitive and volition level, involves a complex interaction of factors within a human being, and requires a holistic as opposed to a dichotomized approach. 142 Chaim Perelman distinguished the actions of persuading and convincing based upon the target audience. He argued that arguments directed toward a particular audience sought to persuade while arguments directed toward a universal audience sought to convince. Persuasion seeks to influence actions while convincing seeks to influence beliefs. 143 Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca distinguish between a particular audience, consisting of a particular group or person, and a universal audience, consisting of all human beings that are considered reasonable. Persuasive argumentation lays claim to approval from a particular audience; convincing argumentation lays claim to approval from the universal audience. As only ‘concrete’ people can be prompted into action, the connection with a particular audience is obvious: Only this audience’s approval can manifest itself in practical terms. 144

Perelman’s distinction between a particular and universal audience for argumentation does not easily fit religious literary texts such as the Apocalypse of John that were addressed to a particular audience at a particular point of time but, by claiming to communicate God’s claims upon every human being, also aim at a universal audience. Mary Yost, ‘Argument from the Point of View of Sociology,’ 109–27, was an early proponent of a holistic approach to understanding the interdependent cognitive processes of logic and emotions. 143 Perelman, The New Rhetoric, 26–31. Perelman rejects Kant’s use of ‘objective’ and ‘subjective’ as the criterion for distinguishing conviction from persuasion because of the difficulty of measuring the objectivity of a presentation (cf. Perelman, The Realm of Rhetoric, 34–35). 144 Van Eemeren, Grootendorst, and Henkemans, Fundamentals of Argumentation Theory, 99. 142

ARGUMENTATION IN THE APOCALYPSE

53

In contrast to Perelman, Ralph Johnson, an informal logician, makes no attempt to differentiate between conviction and persuasion, but does emphasize the rational nature of argumentation, presumably excluding the non-rational elements typically associated with ethos and pathos. 145 Argumentation theorists generally demonstrate a strong distrust of authority and emotions, often discussing the topics in terms of potential and actual fallacies. 146 Douglas Walton rightfully nuances the discussion: ‘appeals to emotion have a legitimate, even important, place as arguments in persuasion dialogue, but … they need to be treated with caution because they can also be used fallaciously.’ 147 In conclusion, because of common usage it seems best to maintain the traditional association of ‘convincing’ with rational, cognitive thought processes and ‘motivating’ with volitional choices and actions, but a firm distinction between argumentation and persuasion should not be maintained and the words will be used synonymously in this present study. Both argumentation and persuasion can be used to describe activity aimed at changing

Johnson, Manifest Rationality, 150, argues, ‘[f]rom a pragmatic point of view, then, an argument is discourse directed toward rational persuasion. By rational persuasion, I mean that the arguer wishes to persuade the Other to accept the conclusion on the basis of the reasons and considerations cited, and those alone. In entering the realm of argumentation, the arguer agrees to foreswear all other methods that might be used to achieve this: force, flattery, trickery, and so forth.’ 146 Most standard textbooks on augmentation will provide a discussion of argumentative fallacies. See in particular, Charles L. Hamblin, Fallacies; John Woods and Douglas N. Walton, Argument: The Logic of the Fallacies; John Woods and Douglas N. Walton, Fallacies: Selected Papers, 1972–1982; Van Eemeren, Grootendorst, and Henkemans, Fundamentals of Argumentation Theory, 51–92, 213–45; Toulmin, Rieke, Janik, An Introduction to Reasoning, 129–97. Siegert, Argumentation bei Paulus, 230– 32, argues that pathos is a ‘Steigerung des Ethos.’ 147 Douglas Walton, The Place of Emotions in Argument, 1. 145

54

SOTERIOLOGY AS MOTIVATION

someone’s opinions (convincing) and/or influencing their actions (motivating). 148 Thus even where a persuader’s eventual aim is to influence what people do (to influence, say, how people vote, or what products they buy) … that aim is ordinarily seen to be accomplished by changing what people think (for instance, what people think of the political candidate, or of the product). That is, persuasion is ordinarily conceived of as involving influencing others by influencing their mental states (rather than by somehow influencing their conduct directly). 149

Any specific argumentative or persuasive act may focus more on convincing than motivating or vice-versa, but rarely will any argumentation focus on one of these activities to the complete exclusion of the other. 150 Successful argumentation must both Johnson, Manifest Rationality, 12, rightly notes that ‘[a]rgumentation clearly serves to help us achieve many different goals, among them persuasion, justification, inquiry, belief maintenance, decision making, and so forth.’ Smith, ‘A Rational Choice Model,’ 101, states, ‘The emotive and the cognitive dimensions of decision-making cannot be too readily divorced.’ 149 Daniel J. O’Keefe, Persuasion: Theory and Research, 16, italics original. He also notes that ‘[i]n persuasion theory and research, the relevant mental state has most commonly been characterized as an attitude’ (16, italics original). Thomas D. Beisecker and Donn W. Parson, ‘Introduction,’ 1–6, note that ‘persuasion inherently has attitude change as its goal’ (p. 5) and ‘attitude change is a principle determinant of behavioral change’ (p. 5). 150 Thurén, Argument and Theology in 1 Peter, 50, supports his distinction between argumentation and persuasion by noting that the ‘relationship becomes complicated when we notice that some forms of persuasion have little to do with even implicit argumentation … and not all argumentation tries to persuade.’ The truth of these observations obscures the fact that there is a great deal of overlap in most cases of practical argumentation and persuasion. O’Keefe, Persuasion, 14–17, rightly cautions that strict definitions can be problematic because they draw sharp lines that rarely match reality exactly and are always vulnerable to 148

ARGUMENTATION IN THE APOCALYPSE

55

convince and motivate because of the holistic nature of human nature where thinking, feeling, rationalizing, and doing cannot be clearly and easily separated. 151

THE RHETORICAL SITUATION It is essential to know what John wants before engaging in an analysis of his motivational strategies. 152 In terms of Toulmin’s model, it is essential to know the claim for which John is arguing. What does he want his hearers to do? What is John’s goal? What does he intend his discourse to achieve? An answer to these questions requires an understanding of the rhetorical situation confronted by John—a rhetorical situation to which the Apocalypse is a fitting response. 153 Our understanding of the objections. He prefers to work with a looser definition of persuasion that has fuzzier lines but is built on ‘paradigm cases’ that focus on what is ‘ordinarily’ involved in persuasion (p. 15). 151 Outside of the realms of mathematics and formal logic it is impossible to be convinced of anything solely on the basis of logical reasons. Thurén, ‘Is There Biblical Argumentation?,’ 82, rightly notes that ‘in mathematical demonstration all argumentation, persuasion, and rhetoric is superfluous.’ 152 Kennedy, New Testament Interpretation, 12, rightly observes that the ‘ultimate goal of rhetorical analysis, briefly put, is the discovery of the author’s intent and of how that is transmitted through a text to an audience.’ 153 Lloyd Blitzer, ‘The Rhetorical Situation,’ 1–14, argues that the ‘rhetorical situation’ is comprised of an exigence, a specific audience, and constraints on the speaker and audience. Cf. Schüssler Fiorenza, ‘The Followers of the Lamb,’ 135, notes ‘it is the rhetorical situation that calls forth a particular rhetorical response and not vice versa.’ A clear grasp of the rhetorical situation equips an interpreter to better analyze and evaluate the soundness of the argument. According to Robert H. Ennis, arguments that extend beyond ‘propositions, truth conditions, and context-less arguments’ (p. 148; i.e. deductive logical as opposed to real, every-day arguments) require four criteria for analysis and appraisal: sensitivity, experience, background knowledge, and understanding of the situation (SEBKUS; Robert H. Ennis, ‘Probably,’ 145–64). Cf. Robert H. Ennis,

56

SOTERIOLOGY AS MOTIVATION

rhetorical situation is informed by the socio-historical situation of the original author and audience. 154 A rhetorical situation is characterized by a specific exigence, urgency, or gravity that engenders a particular speech act, discourse, or text. The given difficulty or crisis of the rhetorical situation determines the mode of discourse to be chosen and the type of change to be effected. Any discourse obtains its persuasive character from the difficulty or crisis of the rhetorical situation that generates it. 155 An accurate understanding of the rhetorical situation of a text requires knowledge of the authorship and date of the text— elements crucial to reconstructing the socio-historical situation. Because of the abundance of previous studies there is no need to discuss these matters in detail here. The author is clearly John (Rev 1:1, 4, 9; 22:8), and based on the external evidence it is possible, if not probable, that he was the same John who wrote the Gospel and letters. 156 Despite the attempts to date the Apocalypse during ‘Applying Soundness Standards to Qualified Reasoning,’ 35–37). Knowledge of the rhetorical situation fulfills the latter two criteria while the former two have more to do with the disposition and qualification of the interpreter. 154 For detailed analysis of the seven churches in their historical settings see W. M. Ramsey, The Letters to the Seven Churches in Asia; C. J. Hemer, The Letters to the Seven Churches of Asia in Their Local Setting. 155 Schüssler Fiorenza, Revelation: Vision of a Just World, 118. 156 Robert H. Mounce, The Book of Revelation, 31; S. S. Smalley, ‘John’s Revelation and John’s Community,’ 549–71; Ozanne, ‘Language of the Apocalypse’; Craig S. Keener, Revelation, 54–55. Cf. Justin Dial. 81.4; Irenaeus Haer. 4.14.1; 5.26.1; Clement of Alexandria Quis Dives 42; Strom. 6.106; Pead. 2.108, 119; Hippolytus De antichristo 36–42; Eusebius Hist. eccl. 3.18.1. Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 3.28.1–2, draws attention to the questioning of this early tradition by Dionysius of Alexandria in the mid-third century and Gaius of Rome in the late second-century. The earlier testimony represented by Justin Martyr and Irenaeus is stronger because of their closer temporal proximity and the connection of Irenaeus to John via Polycarp. External evidence is rarely given the weight it deserves in historical critical discussions of the authorship of John’s Apocalypse. Internal evidence is inconclusive and can be presented in such a way as to

ARGUMENTATION IN THE APOCALYPSE

57

Nero’s reign, the evidence still seems to support a date around 95 AD during the reign of Domitian. 157 Although John addressed seven historic churches with seven different rhetorical situations (some were poor and ostracized while others were rich and affluent; some experienced conflict with the Jewish synagogue while others did not), several factors indicate that John was responding to an overarching unified rhetorical support either option. For detailed discussions of authorship see David Aune, Revelation 1–5, xlvii–lvi; Adela Yarbro Collins, Crisis and Catharsis: The Power of the Apocalypse, 25–53; G. K. Beale, The Book of Revelation, 34–36; Witherington, Revelation, 1–3; deSilva, Seeing Things John’s Way, 31–34. Most scholars are agnostic as to the precise identity of John, but he is universally recognized as an early Christian prophet. If John the Apostle penned the Gospel, the epistles, and Revelation, the Johannine community hypothesis must be modified or rejected. See Andreas J. Köstenberger, A Theology of John’s Gospel and Letters: The Word, the Christ, the Son of God, 55–59, for a discussion of the historical weaknesses of the Johannine community hypothesis and the erosion of scholarly consensus over the past decade. 157 For detailed discussions of the date see Aune, Revelation 1–5, lvi– lxx; Beale, The Book of Revelation, 4–27. Proponents of an early date include Albert A. Bell, ‘The Date of John’s Apocalypse: The Evidence of Some Roman Historians Reconsidered,’ 93–102; Christopher Rowland, The Open Heaven: A Study of Apocalyptic in Judaism and Early Christianity, 403–13; J. Christian Wilson, ‘The Problem of the Domitianic Date of Revelation,’ 587–605. Proponents of a late date in the reign of Domitian include Collins, Crisis and Catharsis, 54–83; Jürgen Roloff, The Revelation of John, 16– 19; Colin J. Hemer, The Letters to the Seven Churches of Asia in Their Local Setting, 2–5; deSilva, Seeing Things John’s Way, 34–37; Witherington, Revelation, 3–5; Keener, Revelation, 35–37. Other dates have been proposed. George H. van Kooten, ‘The Year of the Four Emperors and the Revelation of John: The “Pro-Neronian” Emperors Otho and Vitellius, and the Images and Colossus of Nero in Rome,’ 205–48, supports a date in the reign of Otho/Vitellius. For a date in Hadrian’s reign see Thomas Witulski, Die Johannesoffenbarung und Kaiser Hadrian: Studien zur Datierung der neutestamentlichen Apokalypse.

58

SOTERIOLOGY AS MOTIVATION

exigence. 158 Aune argues that ‘Despite their ostensible destinations, they were clearly intended to complement one another and to be read and heeded by the other congregations.’ 159 The symbolic significance of the number ‘seven’ in the Apocalypse of John indicates that the seven churches may very well indicate, in John’s mind, the complete, universal church. 160 The same problems, threats, and promises surface in more than one church and are reflected in the broader visionary narratives of Rev 4:1–22:7 and the epilogue. 161 Jesus’ pronouncement of judgment against Jezebel Steven Friesen, ‘Satan’s Throne, Imperial Cults and the Social Settings of Revelation,’ 351–73, lays out the case for at least five different social situations reflected in the seven letters. Jonathan M. Knight, ‘Apocalyptic and Prophetic Literature,’ 476–77, on the other hand, notes that the seven churches had ‘representative rather than exclusive significance.’ 159 Aune, ‘The Form and Function of the Proclamations to the Seven Churches,’ 184. 160 Desilva, Seeing Things John’s Way, 9, notes that the number of churches ‘suggests that the seven churches are, in some way, representative of the achievements and challenges facing churches across the Mediterranean in the first century and across the globe now, such that the words addressed to them speak to churches beyond this circle.’ Both Richard Bauckham, The Climax of Prophecy: Studies in the Book of Revelation, 29–37, and Beale, The Book of Revelation, 58–64, helpfully discuss the significance of numbers throughout the Apocalypse of John. A. Y. Collins, ‘Numerical Symbolism in Jewish and Early Christian Apocalyptic Literature,’ 1221–87, argues that in apocalyptic literature, seven does not indicate completeness, but rather cosmic order. This line of argumentation provides a good supplement, but should not be used to reject the idea of completeness conveyed by the number. Beale, The Book of Revelation, 63, rightly argues that the ‘notion of cosmic order and the idea of completeness are not incompatible.’ 161 Several scholars draw attention to John’s similar criticism of the Nicolaitans, the disciples of Balaam, and Jezebel and her followers. Each of these designations likely points to groups holding similar doctrines that advocated unacceptable compromise and accommodation with the surrounding culture. Cf. Knight, ‘Apocalyptic and Prophetic Literature,’ 158

ARGUMENTATION IN THE APOCALYPSE

59

and her children functions to let all the churches know (καὶ γνώσονται πᾶσαι αἱ ἐκκλησίαι) the consequences of accommodation and compromise (Rev 2:23). 162 The repeated formula ‘he who has an ear, let him hear what the spirit says to the churches’ indicates that all the messages were for all the churches to cumulatively strengthen the exhortations. 163 Likewise, the vision narratives carry motivating force that is not limited to any single church, and the motivational force of the vision narratives is directed towards all. Part of the genius of Revelation is its ability to speak to the peculiar exigencies of each of these different situations, moving believers in each setting toward what John hopes will become the unified Christian interpretation of, witness within, and response to the more overarching challenges identified in the rhetorical situation. 164

Within the plurality of socio-historical situations represented by the seven churches John is urging a unified response to his prophetic exhortation. 165 477; Panayotis Coutsoumpos, ‘The Social Implication of Idolatry in Revelation 2:14: Christ or Caesar?’ 23–27. 162 Aune, ‘The Form and Function of the Proclamations to the Seven Churches,’ 184. 163 Ibid. 164 DeSilva, Seeing Things John’s Way, 63. 165 The concept of behavioral influence unifies the various rhetorical situations. John advocates a particular ethical-behavioral standard (overcoming) to which all believers are to practice. For some, compliance with this standard requires drastic changes in lifestyle (repentance) while for others it requires the strengthening and continuation of present actions (perseverance). Gerald R. Miller, Michael Burgoon, and Judee K. Burgoon, ‘The Functions of Human Communication in Changing Attitudes and Gaining Compliance,’ 417, note that ‘[f]irst, the notion of behavioral influence does not necessarily imply modification or reversal of some nonverbal behavior, nor does it always indicate a change in the valence or relative attractiveness of an attitude object. An induced change in the intensity with which an attitude is held certainly qualifies as

60

SOTERIOLOGY AS MOTIVATION

Possible Rhetorical Exigences There are three main proposals concerning the rhetorical exigence of the Apocalypse of John (the crisis or problem that elicited the rhetorical act): (1) a power struggle between prophets in the Christian communities of Asia Minor, particularly concerning how to relate to the broader culture, (2) a perceived sense of external tribulation even though their was little actual tribulation, or (3) the existence of real external tribulation that pressured compromise and denial of Christ as Lord. Power Struggle As noted above, Greg Carey, Robert M. Royalty, and Paul Duff argue that John wrote the Apocalypse in response to inter-Christian conflict in order to strengthen his authority and influence in the Christian communities by showing that his ideology was divinely sanctioned and inspired. 166 From this perspective, the rhetorical exigence was the social situation of conflict and disagreement between Christian prophets, primarily concerning how to live in the world and how to interact with the dominant social, political, and religious authorities. 167 John responds to this conflict by claiming divine authority for his own position and identifying the positions held by his opponents with Balaam, Jezebel, the beast, the whore, and Satan. 168 While these three scholars have produced successful influence. Furthermore, if a persuasive message causes people to be more resistant to subsequent persuasive communication, then the source of the first message has been successful. Many persuasive messages seek to reinforce currently held beliefs rather than aim at changes in attitudes and behaviors.’ 166 Carey, Elusive Apocalypse; Duff, Who Rides the Beast?; Royalty, The Streets of Heaven. 167 Duff, Who Rides the Beast?, 14, argues that, ‘the “crisis” facing the communities of the Apocalypse can be more accurately defined as a social conflict within the churches. This conflict was as much tied up with social position and economic mobility as with theological difference.’ 168 Carey, Elusive Apocalypse, develops this theme by exploring John’s use of narrative voice and the technique of ‘identification’ whereby he identifies his opponents with ‘persons, places, or values his audience is

ARGUMENTATION IN THE APOCALYPSE

61

in depth studies of how John builds and maintains his ethos throughout the Apocalypse, each tends to overstate the evidence to exaggerate John’s authoritative stance in relation to other Christian prophets. 169 John never claims exclusivity, but rather acknowledges the presence and legitimacy of other Christian prophets (Rev 22:9). Carey, Duff, and Royalty neglect or down-play the historical evidence for the wide-spread testing of prophecy in the early church. 170 John’s prophecy was not above the testing of the church. Thus, a power-struggle within the Christian communities of Asia Minor is not likely the primary rhetorical exigence that gave rise to the Apocalypse. The evidence does indicate that John was opposed to certain Christian leaders and prophets who are described as Balaam and Jezebel with her children (Rev 2:14; 20– 22), but this critique is not pervasive or explicit enough to be the primary rhetorical exigence. 171 The content of the explicit exhortations throughout the book demonstrate that John is more concerned with the spiritual health of the Asian churches than he is with his own authoritarian power. While John clearly believes that not all prophets adequately represent Christ’s intentions for the churches (and this might be the crux of the problem for some modern interpreters), he likely to hate’ (p. 141), while Duff, Who Rides the Beast? focuses on John’s rhetoric of innuendo or indirect accusation (chapters six through nine). 169 See the critique in deSilva, Seeing Things John’s Way, 142–45. 170 Cf. 1 Cor 14; 1 Thess 5:19–22; 1 John 4:1–4; Rev 2:2; Didache 11– 13. DeSilva, Seeing Things John’s Way, 145, notes, ‘This culture creates the reasonable expectation for John that he will be held accountable to standards external to his own speech, thus mitigating what modern critics regard as his authoritarian strains and keeping him honest in regard to a larger stream of received tradition.’ 171 Friesen, ‘Satan’s Throne, Imperial Cults and the Social Settings of Revelation,’ 353, notes that ‘We can affirm instead that the seven messages reflect at least five different situations. In most of these situations problems with outsiders are more important than issues with insiders and none of the seven messages indicates signs of an internal crisis in an assembly.’

62

SOTERIOLOGY AS MOTIVATION does acknowledge other prophets who stand alongside him under the authority and guiding norms of the Hebrew Scriptures and the Jesus tradition, who are deeply concerned that the commandments of God, the warnings of the prophets, and the witness of the Psalms … be preserved and lived out in the churches of Asia Minor (and elsewhere). 172

The establishment of authority is a pervasive topos in the apocalyptic and prophetic genres and John’s development of this topos is not in any way unusual for the genre and should not be construed to support a totalitarian picture of the prophet who was only concerned with silencing every voice but his own—John himself was under the authority of a much broader stream of interpretive tradition and his early Jewish-Christian worldview. 173 Perceived Tribulation Because the evidence for widespread Roman persecution of Christians during the reign of Domitian is sparse (no extant edict against Christianity) some scholars argue that the Apocalypse of John is concerned with perceived tribulation and crisis instead of actual external persecution. 174 ‘Relative, not absolute or objective, DeSilva, Seeing Things John’s Way, 144. Contra Duff, Who Rides the Beast?, 49; Carey, Elusive Apocalypse, 175. Carey argues, ‘No less totalitarian than imperial discourses, his argument demands that he silence every competing voice … Revelation subverts imperial authority even as it contributes to the foundations of a new discourse of domination.’ For the use of authority in the Hebrew prophetic genre see Yehoshua Gitay, ‘The Realm of Prophetic Rhetoric,’ 218–229, who notes that the Hebrew prophets began their messages by affirming their authority as messengers for God but that they were rejected by their societies because they ‘represented a specific religious social standpoint that criticized that of their audience,’ and ‘challenged the religious foundations of their society’ (p. 219). John’s rhetoric demonstrates continuity with that of the Hebrew prophets in both its means and ends and is not unusual for the genre. 174 Collins, Crisis and Catharsis, 84. Cf. Leonard Thompson, ‘A Sociological Analysis of the Tribulation in the Apocalypse of John’; Sweet, 172 173

ARGUMENTATION IN THE APOCALYPSE

63

deprivation is a common precondition of millenarian movements. In other words, the crucial element is not so much whether one is actually oppressed as whether one feels oppressed.’ 175 Leonard Thompson argues similarly that ‘the conflict and crisis in the Book of Revelation between Christian commitment and the social order derive from John’s perspective on Roman society rather than from significant hostilities in the social environment.’ 176 Adela Yarboro Collins acknowledges the existence of elements of crisis including conflict with Jews, mutual antipathy toward neighboring Gentiles, conflict over wealth, precarious relations with Rome, and experiences of trauma but insists on labeling these conditions ‘perceived crisis’ because they fall short of a ‘second major Roman persecution of Christians.’ 177 Related to this position, some scholars argue that John wrote to produce a crisis or exigence in the lack of a real crisis or Revelation; A. N. Sherwin-White, The Letters of Pliny: A Historical and Social Commentary. 175 Collins, Crisis and Catharsis, 85. Cf. David F. Aberle, ‘A Note on Relative Deprivation Theory as Applied to Millenarian and Other Cult Movements’; John G. Gager, Kingdom and Community: The Social World of Early Christianity, 27. See the rhetorical qualifications applied to relative deprivation theory in O’Leary, Arguing the Apocalypse, 10. 176 Leonard Thompson, The Book of Revelation: Apocalypse and Empire, 175. ‘We can rule out any portrait of Asian Christians as a beleaguered, oppressed minority living as separatists in an isolated ghetto. Christians, for the most part, lived alongside their non-Christian neighbors, sharing peacefully in urban Asian life’ (p. 191). 177 Collins, Crisis and Catharsis, 104. ‘Revelation does not seem to have been written in response to an obvious, massive social crisis recognized as such by all Christians, not even a regional one. But the social status of Christians in Asia Minor was threatened in several ways. Christians were being ostracized and sometimes accused before the authorities by their Jewish neighbors. Local Gentiles despised and were suspicious of them and were also inclined to accuse them before the magistrates … [Roman magistrates] increasingly looked with disfavor upon Christians and condemned their endurance as stubborn disobedience’ (pp. 98–99).

64

SOTERIOLOGY AS MOTIVATION

exigence. 178 The lack of a real external crisis was the theological crisis that had lulled the churches into complacency and compromise with the social, political, economic, and religious ideologies of Rome and Roman culture. ‘[T]he text does not reflect a situation of crisis or oppression so much as it tries to create a crisis in the social world of its original audience.’ 179 This suggestion deserves consideration because it is evident that some Christians experienced little or no persecution, notably those in Laodicea and some Christians within Pergamum, Thyatira, and Sardis. 180 These Christians were affluent and at ease because they compromised and blended in with the surrounding culture (described as eating food sacrificed to idols and sexual immorality—likely figurative for idolatry; cf. Rev 2:14, 20) and were not bearing a distinctive witness to Christ. For these Christians the Apocalypse was intended to awaken them to the real danger they were in and call them to repentance and witness. ‘For you say “I am rich and have become wealthy and do not have need of anything,” and you do not realize that you are miserable, pitiable, poor, blind, and naked’ (Rev 3:17). If they responded appropriately to John’s message it would lead to conflict and crisis which they were not presently experiencing. Actual Tribulation Contrary to those are argue that there was little real external persecution, the textual evidence of the Apocalypse of John indicates some level of real persecution in at least some of the churches. 181 The scholars mentioned in the previous section have adequately demonstrated that there was likely not an official persecution of Christians as Christians by the Roman Empire Royalty, ‘The Rhetoric of Revelation,’ 599; Robert H. Smith, ‘Why John Wrote the Apocalypse (Rev 1:9),’ 356–61. 179 Royalty, ‘The Rhetoric of Revelation,’ 599. 180 A distinction is made in the messages to Pergamum, Thyatira, and Sardis between some of the Christians who were faithfully persevering and some who were compromising (Rev 2:14–15, 24; 3:4). 181 Hemer, The Letters to the Seven Churches of Asia; Schüssler Fiorenza, The Book of Revelation: Justice and Judgment; Du Rand, ‘A Socio-Psychological View,’ 355. 178

ARGUMENTATION IN THE APOCALYPSE

65

during the reign of Domitian, but there was enough local pressure and oppression that the label ‘perceived crisis’ is misleading. The churches had seen one recent martyr (Antipas in Pergamum), possessed memories of past martyrs (the souls under the altar), and John clearly anticipated further and increased persecution and martyrdom (Revelation 13). 182 To a lesser extent than martyrdom, this tribulation likely affected most Christians socially and economically. True and faithful witness to Jesus would lead to tribulation and persecution while compromise and faithlessness would shield individuals from persecution but would open them up to God’s wrath. 183 ‘The exigency of the Apocalypse lies in the reality that the Christians are economically and socially threatened, deprivated and destitute because they refuse to take the mark of the beast (cf Rv 13).’ 184 Thomas Slater proposes ‘a socio-religious setting for the Revelation of John in which Asian Christians experienced local harassment, ridicule, discrimination and oppression in the early 90s for their religious beliefs and customs.’ 185 Collins, Crisis and Catharsis, 106, acknowledges these occurrences of oppression but labels them ‘perceived crisis’ based upon the severity of the oppression compared to others. ‘One could say that the author himself and at least some readers were oppressed. Antipas was killed, John banished, some at Smyrna were threatened with arrest, and some in both Smyrna and Philadelphia were experiencing difficulties because of the ill will of some of their Jewish neighbors. But were these oppressed relative to some other groups in the empire? Were they as badly off as the slaves who worked the mines?’ The comparison with slaves in the mines misses the point that Christians would experience increased difficulty and oppression if they faithfully bore witness to the lordship of Christ. They could quietly compromise and blend in with their neighbors and avoid any difficulties or social ostracization or bear witness to Christ and invite persecution. 183 Schüssler Fiorenza, ‘The Followers of the Lamb,’ notes that ‘[t]his decision jeopardizes either their life and fortunes here and now or their future life and share in the New Jerusalem, Mount Sion’ (p. 134). 184 Du Rand, ‘A Socio-Psychological View,’ 354. 185 Thomas B. Slater, ‘On the Social Setting of the Revelation,’ 238. 182

66

SOTERIOLOGY AS MOTIVATION

Ben Witherington argues for the presence of real local persecution because ‘a careful examination of the use of the term martus in Revelation shows that in each occurrence (five—1.5; 3.14 [of Jesus]; 2.13; 11.3; 17.6) there is reference to the violent death of someone who was a faithful witness.’ 186 Schüssler Fiorenza argues that ‘The exigence of the inscribed rhetorical situation is determined by the tension between their common experience of tribulation and their common empirestatus, a tension which calls for consistent resistance or endurance.’ 187 She proceeds to write, ‘The empire-status of Christians generates Revelation’s rhetorical problem as a question of power and justice. Revelation’s central theological query is: To whom does the earth belong? Who is the ruler of this world?’ 188 In the first century world of Asia Minor, Christians who claimed that Jesus, a crucified Jew, was the rightful king of the world and was coming again soon to destroy the Roman Empire and establish a Witherington, Revelation, 8. Schüssler Fiorenza, Revelation: Vision of a Just World, 119. She elsewhere describes the exigence by quoting at length Pliny’s letter to Trajan concerning the prosecution of Christians (Ep.X.96–97, ca. AD 112; The Book of Revelation: Justice and Judgment, 193; ‘The Followers of the Lamb,’ 135). The most important lines from that letter are as follows: ‘Others, whose names were given to me by an informer, first admitted the charge and then denied it; they said that they had ceased to be Christians two or more years previously, and some of them even twenty years ago’ (X.96.6 [Radice, LCL]). George B. Caird (A Commentary on the Revelation of Saint John the Divine, 20), Schüssler Fiorenza (The Book of Revelation: Justice and Judgment, 193), Eugene M. Boring (Revelation, 18), J. Nelson Kraybill (Imperial Cult and Commerce in John’s Apocalypse, 52), and Craig R. Koester (Revelation and the End of All Things, 65), see this apostasy as a result of persecution while Royalty (Streets of Heaven, 35) suggests the events leading to the apostasy are not sufficiently clear in Pliny’s letter. 188 Schüssler Fiorenza, Revelation: Vision of a Just World, 120. She further argues, ‘Revelation’s symbolic universe and persuasive world of vision seek to motivate the audience to pay obeisance solely to God and not to Roman state, religion, and cult—even if such a decision should threaten their livelihood and well-being’ (p. 124). 186 187

ARGUMENTATION IN THE APOCALYPSE

67

kingdom of and for Christians, invited social ostracization and outright persecution. Such claims were politically seditious and dangerous, not just mildly politically incorrect. Christians who faithfully and consistently proclaimed this message experienced real, not just perceived, persecution—even the possibility of martyrdom. John’s Rhetorical Goals How is the Apocalypse a fitting response to the rhetorical exigence of tribulation for faithful witness to the lordship of Christ among the Christians in Asia Minor? Any book as complicated and multifaceted as the Apocalypse of John is capable of responding to the rhetorical situation in a number of different ways. It is thus no surprise that scholars have drawn attention to several different goals or objectives that fit the rhetorical situation. What does John do in and with the Apocalypse to provide an answer to the crisis of tribulation? Produce a Theodicy As noted above, O’Leary has cogently argued that apocalyptic literature in general functions as theodicy: it arises from the exigencies of time and evil and vindicates God by demonstrating how God will defeat and completely remove evil at some point in the near future. 189 Sigve Tonstad has recently added support to reading the Apocalypse as a theodicy by carefully examining the visionary narratives. 190 O’Leary’s and Tonstad’s conclusions are supported in the Apocalypse by its clear interpretation of God’s judgments as a vindication of his justice (Rev 15:3; 16:5, 7; 19:2, 11). The problem of the delay in God’s answer to the cries of the saints (Rev 6:10) is overshadowed by the powerful visions of God’s final answer (Rev 6:1–22:7) and repeated assurances that the time O’Leary, Arguing the Apocalypse. Cf. J. Kallas, ‘The Apocalypse— An Apocalyptic Book?’ 68–80. 190 Sigve K. Tonstad, Saving God’s Reputation: The Theological Function of Pistis Iesou in the Cosmic Narratives of Revelation. Cf. Grant Osborne, ‘Theodicy in the Apocalypse,’ 63–77. 189

68

SOTERIOLOGY AS MOTIVATION

was near (Rev 1:1, 3; 2:16; 3:11; 22:6, 7, 10, 12, 20). The Apocalypse can be read as providing an apocalyptic defense of God’s justice and his dealings with the world but this does not represent the rhetorical goal of the book. John did not primarily write in order to produce a theodicy but to move his readers to particular actions in their day-to-day lives. Facilitate Catharsis Schüssler Fiorenza argues that the Apocalypse fulfills its rhetorical function by taking its audience on a dramatic-cathartic journey from alienation through purification to redemption. 191 More extensively, Adela Y. Collins has build a case that the various cosmic symbolic narratives of the Apocalypse first evoke and intensify fear and resentment of Rome and then vent the emotions through expressing them and depicting the destruction of the hearer’s enemies. 192 The effect of the symbols and plot of the Apocalypse was to reduce cognitive dissonance in two related ways. First, disquieting, disruptive feelings were released in a literary, experiential process of catharsis. Second, the conviction was instilled in the hearers that what ought to be is. 193

Furthermore, the Apocalypse helps its hearers deal with feelings of aggression toward Rome by transferring that aggression on to Christ who will make war against and destroy their enemies and by internalizing and reversing the aggression by being more demanding of themselves and intensifying behavioral norms and standards. 194 In contrast, John’s explicit exhortations (see below) indicate that he is more concerned with concrete action than with psychological processes. 195 Elizabeth Gaines astutely argues that Schüssler Fiorenza, ‘The Followers of the Lamb,’ 141. Collins, Crisis and Catharsis, 153–54. 193 Ibid., 154, italics original. 194 Ibid., 156–57. 195 Russell S. Morton, One upon the Throne and the Lamb: A Tradition Historical/Theological Analysis of Revelation 4–5, 198, observes, ‘Revelation 191 192

ARGUMENTATION IN THE APOCALYPSE

69

the ‘author’s purpose in communicating his vision of the endtimes is not primarily to vent feelings of frustration or to redirect the desire for vengeance. Such psychological motives lie outside the purview of the seer.’ 196 John was not a psychologist. Critique and Denounce Rome Several scholars read the Apocalypse as a critique of the political economy and excess of imperialistic Rome. 197 Steven Friesen argues that John’s broad critique of Roman imperial society is the

then, is to be read less as an example of a first century Christian working through his “cognitive dissonance,” than as a call to ultimate obedience, expressed in the willingness of the followers of the Lamb to emulate his example of victory through martyrdom.’ 196 Elizabeth Ann Gaines, ‘The Eschatological Jerusalem: The function of the image in the literature of the Biblical period,’ 394. She proceeds to argue against Collins that ‘[s]uch an approach places the interpreter in the precarious position of attempting to psychoanalyze an unknown group of individuals over the distance of nineteen centuries … her attempt to diagnose the psychological impact of the Apocalypse on its first-century audience is methodologically questionable. Since such effect is beyond the capacity of any contemporary interpreter to measure, it seems more profitable to pursue the question of the author’s purpose as it is expressed in his handling of traditional themes and images’ (p. 394). 197 Allen D. Callahan, ‘Apocalypse as Critique of Political Economy: Some Notes on Revelation 18,’ 46–65; Richard Bauckham, ‘The Economic Critique of Rome in Revelation 18,’ 47–90; Adela Yarboro Collins, ‘Revelation 18: Taunt-Song or Dirge?’ 185–204; Adela Yarboro Collins, ‘The Political Perspective of the Revelation to John,’ 241–56; Kraybill, Imperial Cult and Commerce; Peter S. Perry, ‘Critiquing the Excess of Empire: A Synkrisis of John of Patmos and Dio of Prussa,’ 473–96. Philip A. Harland, ‘Honouring the Emperor or Assailing the Beast: Participation in Civic Life among Associations (Jewish, Christian and Other) in Asia Minor and the Apocalypse of John,’ 99–121, labels the Apocalypse ‘anti-imperial “propaganda.”’

70

SOTERIOLOGY AS MOTIVATION

overarching theme that ties together his response to the various social situations represented in the seven churches. 198 I argue that Revelation had several social settings, not one; that these settings were characterized by distinct problems having mostly to do with relations to outsiders; that the assemblies agreed with John about abstention from imperial cults; and that John used their agreement about imperial cults as a rhetorical tool in order to link their settings together within the framework of the rejection of mainstream Roman imperial society. 199

Bauckham notes that ‘[i]t is a serious mistake to suppose that John opposes Rome only because of the imperial cult and the persecution of Christians. Rather, this issue serves to bring to the surface the evils that were deeply rooted in the whole system of Roman power.’ 200 This purpose is supported by the clear parallels (synkrisis) that can be detected throughout the Apocalypse between Roman emperors, propaganda, and ideology and the true worship of God and Christ. Rome is explicitly depicted as a shallow counterfeit to the universal and eternal reign and sovereignty of God and the lamb. John’s denunciation of Roman imperial power and policy is clear, pervasive, and forceful but it does not represent John’s primary rhetorical goal. The Apocalypse is not concerned with maligning Rome as an end in itself, but as a means to motivate believers to a particular course of action in their day-by-day lives in relationship to the empire and broader imperial culture.

Friesen, ‘Satan’s Throne, Imperial Cults and the Social Settings of Revelation.’ 199 Ibid., 352. 200 Bauckham, ‘Economic Critique,’ 56. Kraybill, Imperial Cult and Commerce, argues for a close connection between involvement with the imperial cult and participation in commerce. They would have been closely tied together by the end of the first century. 198

ARGUMENTATION IN THE APOCALYPSE

71

Provide Encouragement and Comfort Some scholars argue that Revelation is primarily interested in bringing encouragement and hope to Christians in the midst of difficulty and persecution. 201 Although it seems evident that the Apocalypse would have provided comfort to believers in the midst of persecution, the exhortations do not suggest that this was the primary goal of the author. ‘The author is not just trying to comfort his audience with the truth that God is in heaven and that all will one day be right with the world. He is calling them to repent, believe, and behave in light of the coming redemptive judgment.’ 202 If this assessment is true, what particular action(s) are being advocated? Increase Witness Some scholars answer this question by pointing to the theme of witness and how the Apocalypse is particularly concerned with the promoting and motivating the church’s witness to the world. 203 Olutola K. Peters has strongly argued that the overarching theme of witness subsumes and unites the various exhortations throughout the book. [I]t can be seen that ‘faithful witness’ for the Church is a comprehensive mandate which implies maintaining authenticity and truthfulness (shunning all forms of falsehood and deception), hearing the voice of the Spirit, mediating the words of prophecy (especially as contained in the Apocalypse), showing patient endurance (especially in the midst of persecution), giving obedience to the commandments of God (especially those commanded by Christ—the sender of the letters and the revealer of the contents of the Apocalypse), being an overcomer, and expressing purity of devotion to Oliver O. Nwachukwu, Beyond Vengeance and Protest: A Reflection on the Macarisms in Revelation, 10. 202 Witherington, Revelation, 15. 203 Olutola K. Peters, The Mandate of the Church in the Apocalypse of John; Vern S. Poythress, The Returning King, 71; Rob Dalrymple, ‘These Are the Ones … (Rev 7),’ 396–406; Brian K. Blount, Revelation: A Commentary. 201

72

SOTERIOLOGY AS MOTIVATION Christ through worship, lifestyle, teachings and beliefs (especially in the midst of deception and perversion). 204

He bases these conclusions on his analysis of the phrases ὁ μάρτυς ὁ πιστός (Rev 1:5; 2:13; 3:14) and ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (Rev 1:2, 9; 12:17; 19:10; 20:4; cf. 6:9; 11:7; 12:11), the lampstand metaphor (Rev 1:12, 13, 20; 11:4), and the ‘witness passages’: John’s witness (Rev 1:2, 9), the slain witnesses (Rev 6:9–11), the two witnesses (Rev 11:1–14), the victorious witnesses (Rev 12:10– 12), and the reigning witnesses (Rev 20:4–6). 205 The evidence marshaled by Peters demonstrates the importance of witness within the Apocalypse, but because it is not reflected in any explicit exhortation it is unlikely that it represents the primary goal which would be able to subsume all others. Promote Worship Similar to witness, other scholars emphasize the theme of worship as the concrete behavior that the Apocalypse is advocating. 206 The reader is explicitly commanded to worship God in Rev 14:7; 19:5 and implicitly encouraged to worship by examples of worship throughout the book (Rev 4:1–11; 5:6–14; 7:9–17; 8:1–5; 11:15–19; Peters, The Mandate of the Church, 117–18. He concludes, ‘the Apocalypse of John reflects a broad understanding of the functions and tasks of the Church, and that these can be seen as converging under the mandate of the Church to maintain faithful witness to Jesus Christ’ (p. 141). 205 Ibid., 77–118. 206 Cf. Leonard L. Thompson, The Book of Revelation; Pierre Prigent, Apocalypse et liturgie; David G. Peterson, ‘Worship in the Revelation to John,’ 67–77; Lucetta Mowry, ‘Revelation 4–5 and Early Christian Liturgical Usage,’ 75–84; Massey Shepherd, The Paschal Liturgy and the Apocalypse; John O’Rourke, ‘The Hymns of the Apocalypse,’ 399–409; Vernon H. Kooy, ‘The Apocalypse and Worship—some Preliminary Observations,’ 198–209; David Barr, ‘The Apocalypse of John as Oral Enactment,’ 243–56. Peters, The Mandate of the Church, 45, notes, ‘The Apocalypse of John abounds with liturgical materials—hymns, prayers and anthems.’ 204

ARGUMENTATION IN THE APOCALYPSE

73

12:10–12; 14:1–5; 15:1–4; 16:1–7, 19:1–8). The angel specifically commands John to worship God both times John attempts to worship an angel (Rev 19:10; 22:8–9). These examples invite audience emulation and participation. Through the scenes of heavenly liturgy the churches are to learn how to worship in their gathered meetings and are to be given a zeal for worship of the true God. The intended consequence is that believers experience an increasing attitude of worshipful reverence for God, not only in church assemblies, but in bowing to divine sovereignty in every aspect of their lives and in every facet of its outworking. 207

Conversely, the followers of the beast are consistently indicted for offering worship to the beast instead of God (Rev 13:16, 17; 14:9, 11; 16:2; 19:20; 20:4). Leonard Thompson cogently argues that ‘the language of worship plays an important role in unifying the book, that is, in making it a coherent apocalypse in both form and content.’ 208 While worship holds a central place in the Apocalypse, it does not seem to be the unifying rhetorical goal—one which would subsume the other possible explicit exhortations, nor does it provide a clear answer to the rhetorical exigence of persecution and crisis. 209 To be sure, worship draws the worshipper’s attention toward the power and glory of God and changes one’s perspective on the current difficult situation, but this changed perspective is not an end in itself but must lead to changed actions.

Beale, The Book of Revelation, 176. Thompson, The Book of Revelation, 53. 209 This is evident from the fact that exhortations to worship are largely implicit and do not figure prominently in the explicit exhortation. Revelation 14:7 and 19:5 are notable exceptions but the explicit commandments to worship in Rev 19:10 and 22:8–9 are directed to the seer in response to his attempted worship of an angel and are only implicitly extended to the hearer. 207 208

74

SOTERIOLOGY AS MOTIVATION

Motivate Believers to be Overcomers This monograph argues that John’s primary rhetorical goal, in the language of the Apocalypse, is to motivate his hearers to overcome. Every part of the book is designed to transform his hearers into overcomers. For some of his hearers this exhortation to overcome reinforces and strengthens their present convictions and conduct while for other hearers the exhortation to overcome calls for a dramatic change in their beliefs and actions. For every hearer, John presents overcoming as necessary in order to participate in God’s new creation. 210 This ‘overcoming’ serves to describe and unify a range of responses John is trying to elicit which include obedience, repentance, faithfulness, perseverance, witness, worship, and good works. 211 G. K. Beale argues that ‘[t]he main rhetorical goal of the literary argument of John’s Apocalypse is to exhort God’s people to remain faithful to the call to follow the Lamb’s paradoxical example and not to compromise, all with the goal of inheriting final salvation’ (The Book of Revelation, 171). Unfortunately, Beale distinguishes the rhetorical goal from the main theological theme of the book, the glory of God, and argues that John uses the main theological theme of the glory of God to motivate obedience in his readers (pp. 171–74). As we will see below, the glory of God does not play a significant part in John’s motivational strategy. 211 Cf. Eun-Chul Shin, ‘More Than Conquerors: The Conqueror (NIKΆΩ) Motif in the Book of Revelation’; Peters, The Mandate of the Church; Stephen L. Homcy, ‘“To Him Who Overcomes”: A Fresh Look at What “Victory” Means for the Believer According to the Book of Revelation,’ 193–201; Matthijs den Dulk, ‘The Promises to the Conquerors in the Book of Revelation,’ 516–22; David E, Aune, ‘Following the Lamb: Discipleship in the Apocalypse,’ 269–84; Paul Decock, ‘The Works of God, of Christ, and of the Faithful in the Apocalypse of John,’ 37–66; Wolfgang Schrage, The Ethics of the New Testament, 329–48. Wayne A. Meeks, The Moral World of the First Christians, 146, notes that the ‘whole Apocalypse is implicitly hortatory and it contains many explicit exhortations. Yet it names surprisingly few specific sins to be avoided or virtues to be cultivated, and even these are usually expressed so metaphorically or so generally that almost any known moral rule could be included.’ The exhortations throughout Revelation are 210

ARGUMENTATION IN THE APOCALYPSE

75

The verb νικάω occurs fifteen times in the Apocalypse with reference to believers overcoming (Rev 2:7, 11, 17, 26; 3:5, 12, 21; 12:11; 15:2; 21:7), the beast’s overcoming of believers (Rev 11:7; 13:7; cf. 6:2), and Christ’s overcoming (Rev 3:21; 5:5; 17:14). Revelation 12:11 links the overcoming of believers with the blood of the lamb and their willingness to die for their witness—recalling the connection of Christ’s overcoming with the image of the slain lamb of Rev 5:5–6 (cf. the victorious slain witnesses under the altar in Rev 6:9). This connection between Christ and his followers relates to the manner of overcoming: faithfulness unto death (they follow the lamb wherever he goes; Rev 14:4). This parallelism is reinforced by the promise to the overcomers: ‘The one who overcomes, I will give to him to sit with me on my throne, just as I also overcame and sat with my father on his throne’ (Rev 3:21). Paradoxically, just as Jesus’ death was his victory through resurrection, believers overcome by being overcome and killed by general, but this does not mean that they are ambiguous. The reader comes away with a clear sense of what they need to do if they are to respond appropriately to the exhortations. Additional specificity is gained by looking at the vice lists, or lists of those excluded from life in the New Jerusalem (Rev 21:8; 22:15): the cowardly, faithless, detestable, murders, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and liars. Peters, The Mandate of the Church, 141, describes what the church ought to be and do according to the Apocalypse. ‘A comprehensive list of functions and tasks of the Church identified and discussed in this book includes the following: reading, hearing and obeying the contents of the Apocalypse, especially as attention is given to what the Spirit says in the Apocalypse; functioning as a community loved and delivered from sin, and thus expected to maintain purity of life and teaching; shunning all forms of perversion and deception; awaiting with preparedness the imminent return of Jesus Christ; mediating the prophecies of the Apocalypse; bearing faithful witness to Jesus with patient endurance even in the midst of perversion and persecution; being an overcomer; offering true worship (as opposed to idolatry) to God and the Lamb; singing hymns and offering prayers of intercession to God; serving God as a kingdom and priests; and responding positively to the call for repentance, especially when there is failure in any of the primary tasks of the Church.’

76

SOTERIOLOGY AS MOTIVATION

the beast (Rev 11:7, 13:7). The beast’s overcoming victory over the saints is really their victory over it. Revelation 21:7 provides further evidence for the centrality of overcoming as the Apocalypse’s primary rhetorical goal. Everything described in Rev 21:1–6 is reserved for the one who overcomes. ‘The one who overcomes will inherit these things and I will be his God and he will be my son’ (Rev 21:7). Only the overcomers inherit God’s new creation while all others are excluded. Because ‘overcoming’ is a rather general concept, its specific content needs to be filled in by the explicit and implicit motivation throughout the Apocalypse. The claims of the explicit exhortations (identified in the appendix) throughout the Apocalypse admonish the hearers to remember (μνημονεύω) from where they had fallen (Rev 2:5), repent (μετανοέω; Rev 2:5, 16; 3:3, 19), do the first works (ἔργον; Rev 2:5), not fear coming suffering (Rev 2:10), be faithful (πιστός) unto death (Rev 2:10), wake up and strengthen what is about to die (Rev 3:2), remember and keep (τηρέω) what they had received and heard (Rev 3:3), hold on (κρατέω) to what they had (Rev 3:11), buy from Christ gold, white garments, and eye salve (Rev 3:18), fear God, give him glory, and worship (προσκυνέω) him (Rev 14:7), come out from Babylon (Rev 18:4), rejoice over Babylon’s judgments (Rev 18:20), praise (αἰνέω) God (Rev 19:5), rejoice, exult, and give God glory (Rev 19:7), and continue in righteousness and holiness (Rev 22:11). These explicit exhortations emphasize three recurring themes: repentance (remembering, doing the first works, waking up, strengthening, buying from Christ, coming out of Babylon), perseverance (being faithful, keeping what they had received, holding on, continuing in righteousness and holiness), and worship (fearing God, praising him, and giving him glory). Other related themes that are not emphasized as much in the explicit exhortations but yet must be included because of their frequency in the Apocalypse include witness and obedience (good works). 212 Grant R. Osborne, Revelation, 42–46, employs ‘perseverance of the saints’ as the overarching theme and includes under this rubric the concepts of ‘endurance, faithfulness, witness, conquering, and obedience’ 212

ARGUMENTATION IN THE APOCALYPSE

77

The call to repentance (μετανοέω) goes out to the churches at Ephesus, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, and Laodicea (Rev 2:5, 16, 21, 22, 3:3, 19), and indirectly to unbelievers by means of the references to people failing to repent in the face of God’s judgments (Rev 9:20, 21; 16:9, 11) and the proclamation of the eternal Gospel (Rev 14:6–7). 213 The churches and the unbelieving world are both included in the Apocalypse’s call to repentance. This call to repentance comes with the threat of God’s judgment for those who fail to repent (Rev 2:5, 16, 22; 3:3). The call to perseverance is reinforced several ways throughout the Apocalypse. John describes himself as a brother and partner with the churches in the tribulation, the kingdom, and the perseverance (ὑπομονή) that is in Jesus (Rev 1:9). Several churches are commended for their perseverance (Rev 2:2, 3, 19; 3:10), and John’s two interpretive comments at Rev 13:10 and 14:12 both emphasize that the purpose of the visions were to call God’s people to perseverance. Several recent scholars have argued that by ὑπομονή John means ‘non-violent resistance.’ 214 To be sure, the Apocalypse assumes non-violence towards persecutors, but John never explicitly argues for it, defends it, or exhorts believers to it. There is no historical or textual indication that violent resistance to Rome, government officials, or hostile neighbors was a temptation or option for believers in the seven churches John addressed in Asia Minor. This particular interpretation of ὑπομονή would be more plausible if the Apocalypse were addressed to Palestinian (p. 42), and argues that these concepts ‘occur throughout the book and unify it around the horizontal axis of responsibility’ (p. 42). 213 Peters, The Mandate of the Church, 119–139, notes, ‘It is in the context of the call to repentance that both warnings and promises are issued to the “overcomers” (2:5–7, 16–17, 21–19; 3:2–6, 19–22). There is an indication that the “overcomers” in some of the churches are those who respond positively to the call to repentance. One cannot miss, then, the connection between the mandate to overcome and the call to repentance’ (pp. 138–39). 214 Blount, Revelation, 42, 254–55; J. Nelson Kraybill, Apocalypse and Allegiance: Worship, Politics, and Devotion in the Book of Revelation, 135; Johns, The Lamb Christology of the Apocalypse, 187.

78

SOTERIOLOGY AS MOTIVATION

Jews and Christians at the end of the first century instead of residents of Asia Minor. Revelation 14:12 connects the book’s call to perseverance with obedience to God’s commandments and faithfulness to Jesus, effectively connecting ὑπομονή with τηροῦντες τὰς ἐντολὰς and πίστις/πιστός. Both Jesus and Antipas are described as faithful witnesses (Rev 1:5; 2:13; 3:14). The Christians in Smyrna are exhorted to be faithful unto death (Rev 2:10) and those with the lamb in his victory are his faithful followers (Rev 17:14). Keeping the commandments of Jesus can be linked with obedience and good works (ἔργον is always plural in Revelation except for Rev 22:12). 215 Christians in Ephesus are commended for their works (Rev 2:2) but must repent and do the works they did at first (Rev 2:5). Those in Thyatira are commended for their works; further described as love and faith, service, and perseverance (Rev 2:19). In Rev 2:26 overcoming is explicitly linked with keeping God’s works until the end (Rev 2:26). Those in Philadelphia are commended by God because he knows their works (Rev 3:8). The dead who die in the lord are blessed because their works will follow them (Rev 14:13), and God’s just judgment of all is in accordance with works (Rev 2:23; 20:12, 13; 22:12). This judgment according to works is illustrated throughout the Apocalypse: the works of the Nicolatians (Rev 2:6) and Jezebel (Rev 2:22), and the Christians at Sardis (Rev 3:2) and Laodicea (Rev 3:15) are condemned, unbelievers do not repent of their works in the face of God’s judgment (Rev 9:20; 16:11), and Babylon will be paid back double for her works (Rev 18:6). The need for persevering obedience is also emphasized by the commands to hold fast (κρατέω) and keep (τηρέω). The church in Pergamum is commended for holding fast Christ’s name (Rev 2:13) in explicit contrast to those who held to the teachings of Balaam (Rev 2:14) and the Nicolaitans (Rev 2:15). Both Thyatira and Philadelphia are commanded to hold fast what they had (Rev 2:25; On ‘works’ in the Apocalypse see Paul Decock, ‘The Works of God, of Christ, and of the Faithful in the Apocalypse of John,’ 37–66; Traugott Holtz, ‘Die “Werke” in der Johannesapokalypse,’ 426–41. 215

ARGUMENTATION IN THE APOCALYPSE

79

3:11). Blessedness is reserved for those who keep the words of the Apocalypse (Rev 1:3; 22:7; cf. Rev 16:15). Keeping Jesus’ works is synonymous with overcoming (Rev 2:26). Sardis is commanded to repent and keep what they had received (Rev 3:3) while Philadelphia is commended for having kept Jesus’ word (Rev 3:8). The offspring of the woman are those who keep the commandments of God (Rev 12:17; 14:12). Finally, the themes of witness and worship have already been discussed above. The argument of this monograph places these themes alongside repentance, obedience, and perseverance as the main themes that fill out what it means to overcome. The argumentation of the Apocalypse is aimed at motivating believers to be overcomers: to repent and faithfully persevere in obedience, witness, and worship unto death.

SUMMARY This chapter has reviewed past attempts to analyze John’s persuasive rhetoric from the Greco-Roman classical tradition and from the background of the Hebrew prophets, and has argued instead for an analysis based on modern theories of argumentation analysis, particularly Toulmin’s model. Furthermore, this chapter introduced and discussed the rhetorical situation of the Apocalypse and has argued that the Apocalypse fittingly responds to the exigence of tribulation by exhorting and motivating believers to overcome through repentance, worship, witness, perseverance, and obedience unto death. The following chapter will explore the field of argumentation to which the Apocalypse belongs: religious discourse, and more specifically, religious discourse produced and constrained by the early Jewish-Christian narrative-shaped worldview held by John and his readers. This field of argumentation provides the grounds, warrants, and backing for the micro-argumentation that will be discussed in chapter four.

CHAPTER 3: JOHN’S FOUNDATIONAL NARRATIVE: FROM CREATION TO NEW CREATION This chapter advances and develops two claims. First, the Apocalypse belongs to the field of argumentation broadly understood as religious discourse and more specifically defined by the early Christian worldview shared by John and his hearers. Second, this worldview can best be investigated by analyzing the foundational (meta, macro) narrative alluded to and presupposed in the text of the Apocalypse. This chapter will provide a brief introduction to ‘narratological’ interpretation, proceed to sketch and summarize the foundational narrative of John’s apocalyptic worldview based on the textual evidence of the Apocalypse, and conclude with some reflections on how John’s meta-narrative functioned to motivate the hearers of the Apocalypse to respond appropriately to the message of the book. This preliminary investigation is necessary because the field of argumentation to which any particular micro-argument belongs determines the effectiveness and persuasiveness of the argumentation, the basis for evaluating the argumentation, and the pool from which to look for implicit warrants and backing. John’s efforts to motivate and persuade his readers to respond to his prophetic-apocalyptic exhortation only make sense when they are interpreted within the framework or context of the early Christian meta-narrative and worldview: i.e., the field of argumentation to which the Apocalypse belongs. 1 This early Yehoshua Gitay, ‘The Realm of Prophetic Rhetoric,’ 218–229, 225, makes this point in regard to the Hebrew prophets: ‘In the end, the 1

81

82

SOTERIOLOGY AS MOTIVATION

Christian meta-narrative was drawn from the Old Testament and stretched from creation to new creation. 2 It included such early Jewish and Christian beliefs as a creating and covenanting God, a saving Messiah, and final salvation and judgment whereby God would vindicate his oppressed people and would demonstrate his faithfulness to his promises to his people. Outside of such a narrative, the individual arguments contained within John’s Apocalypse would not persuade any reader, and their cumulative weight could be dismissed as mere rhetoric or as fallacious emotional appeals. 3 prophetic thesis, such as the concept of cause and effect, God’s punishment or reward as a response to the people’s deeds, can not be presented to an audience, who do not share this concept as a mathematical proof. Indeed, this is the rhetorical challenge for a speaker who deals with matters of opinion or religious ideas that are provable only to the community of believers, but are unprovable as an irrefutable scientific fact for those who are still unconvinced.’ David A. deSilva, Seeing Things John’s Way: The Rhetoric of the Book of Revelation, 234, argues, ‘In regard to Revelation, the premises needing to be supplied and the knowledge that is presupposed often belong to the special knowledge transmitted within Jewish and Christian culture. These faith communities would accept many things as valid foundational premises for argumentation that would be hotly disputed (or even ridiculed) outside these groups. It remains “insider” logic, not likely to persuade outsiders who would not, for example, share in the foundational conviction that Christ will return with authority to judge, punish, and reward.’ 2 David L. Barr, New Testament Story: An Introduction, 24, argues in regard to the dependence of early Christian proclamation on the Hebrew Scriptures that by the ‘… appeal to Scripture the “story of Jesus” was extended backward to the time of beginnings.’ He further argues that early Christian preachers broadened the story of Jesus to encompass all human history by extending it forward to the time of the end (p. 24). Both these observations equally apply to the Apocalypse of John. 3 Robert Royalty, ‘The Rhetoric of Revelation,’ 596–617, 600, argues that John seeks to persuade his readers by removing ‘common sense’ as a guide for perceiving the social order and thereby turning the social order upside down.’ Wayne A. Meeks, The Moral World of the First Christians, 145, likewise argues that the ‘moral strategy of the Apocalypse, therefore, is to

JOHN’S FOUNDATIONAL NARRATIVE

83

FIELDS OF ARGUMENTATION, RELIGIOUS RHETORIC, WORLDVIEWS, AND FOUNDATIONAL NARRATIVES Fields of Argumentation and Religious Rhetoric This investigation into the narrative foundation of John’s worldview relates to Toulmin’s discussion of fields of argument. Toulmin, Rieke, and Janik discuss the various fields of law, science, destroy common sense as a guide for life.’ This understanding of John’s persuasion misses the subjectivity of ‘common sense.’ Instead, John is drawing attention to the ‘common sense’ response to reality based on the meta-narrative he shared with at least the majority of his readers. Within that meta-narrative, John’s argumentation makes complete sense. George A. Kennedy, New Testament Interpretation through Rhetorical Criticism, 17–18, draws an illuminating comparison between Greek oratory and the New Testament, stating, ‘It is very commonly the case [in Greek oratory] that logical arguments are introduced into a speech only to support details or to give an appearance of reason or to justify a decision which is in fact made largely on the basis of ethos or pathos. The same is almost always the case in religious discourse, because the premises of argument are usually based on a scriptural authority or personal intuition, enunciated in sacred language. Matthew and Paul make extensive use of the forms of logical argument, but the validity of their arguments is entirely dependent on their assumptions, which cannot be logically and objectively proved. To a nonbeliever they may seem totally invalid, but much the same might be said of the arguments of a democratic political speaker in the eyes of a person who does not believe in democracy. The validity of both democracy and Christianity is personal and experiential.’ Kennedy overstates the point in his attempt to emphasize the personal and experiential validity of Christianity. M. Eugene Boring, ‘Narrative Christology in the Apocalypse,’ 702–23, provides a helpful corrective by noting, ‘The story functions as truth for those who live in it, yet its truth derives from the reality of the acts of God to which the story points, the “mighty acts of God” from creation to eschaton of which the Christ event is the defining center’ (p. 722). This chapter will examine the ‘assumptions’ made about reality that in turn make John’s argumentation valid and persuasive and outside of which leave his argumentation nonsensical.

84

SOTERIOLOGY AS MOTIVATION

art, management, and ethics, and they note that valid argumentation differs between fields on the basis of degrees of formality, degrees of precision, modes of resolution, and goals for argumentation. 4 They focus exclusively on ‘intrafield’ judgments and argue that ‘interfield comparisons are beside the point. Some historical arguments are sounder than others, some arguments in physics more rigorous than others. But to compare the merits of all historical arguments with all arguments in physics has no practical purpose.’ 5 J. Wenzel argues, ‘A field of argument is an integrated Stephen Toulmin, Richard Rieke, and Allan Janik, An Introduction to Reasoning, 269–421. Jürgen Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action: Volume 1: Reason and the Rationalization of Society, critiques Toulmin’s concept of fields of argumentation because Toulmin ‘doesn’t draw the proper lines between accidental instituational differentiations of argumentation, on the one hand, and the forms of argumentation determined by internal structure on the other’ (p. 35), and introduces his own theory that differentiates between theoretical, practical, aesthetic, therapeutic, and explicative argumentation (p. 23). G. Thomas Goodnight, ‘Complex Cases and Legitimation Inference: Extending the Toulmin Model to Deliberative Argument in Controversy,’ 39–48, defends Toulmin’s model against Habermas’ critique by introduction a legitimation warrant to justify the decision to ground a particular argument in a particular field. Cf. Thomas Goodnight, ‘Legitimation Inferences: An Additional Component for the Toulmin Model,’ 41–52. Divine authority functions in the Apocalypse as a legitimation warrant to justify the placement of John’s arguments in the field of argumentation broadly conceived as religious rhetoric. 5 Toulmin, Rieke, and Janik, An Introduction to Reasoning, 277–78 (italics original). They further explain, ‘We shall not present arguments in any one field of practical reasoning as being better or more rational than others. The only judgements that we shall pass will, as a result, be “intrafield” judgments, having to do with the features that make some scientific arguments weightier than other scientific arguments, some legal considerations more forceful than other legal considerations, and so on. We shall not be concerned with “interfiled” comparisons. It is not our aim to argue, for example, that all scientific arguments are—simply because they are “scientific”—weightier than any legal or ethical argument’ (p. 277, italics original). 4

JOHN’S FOUNDATIONAL NARRATIVE

85

complex of concepts, propositions and arguments, persisting over time, directed to shared explanatory goals, embodying shared judgmental standards, held consensually by initiates of a discipline.’ 6 Lilian Bermejo-Luque argues that Toulmin’s concept of fields plays a rhetorical role in argumentation theory by determining the persuasive power of arguments. 7 From a different perspective, George A. Kennedy draws attention to a distinctive ‘rhetoric of religion’ or ‘sacred language,’ that, although he does not draw the comparison, approximates a field of argumentation—i.e., religious discourse. 8 Rhetoric of religion ‘can be found in many cultures, East and West, and at the heart of it lies authoritative proclamation, not rational persuasion.’ 9

Joseph W. Wenzel, ‘On Fields of Argument as Propositional Systems,’ 211. Lilian Bermejo-Luque, ‘Toulmin’s Model of Argument and the Question of Relativism,’ 71–85, notes that we ‘can assume that arguments belong to fields insofar as fields are subject matter, intellectual disciplines, or, in general, systems of propositions.’ 7 Lilian Bermejo-Luque, ‘Toulmin’s Model of Argument and the Question of Relativism,’ 82, further explains that ‘to assign a given argument to a certain field would make possible its appraisal according to the truth-values that the audience normally addressed in that field attributes to its reason and warrant. For example, if we are interested in the effectiveness or suitability of a given argument for a particular audience, namely, the normal audience of a given field, it might be useful to appraise this argument according to the beliefs commonly held by that audience. These beliefs will likely be accessible by reference to the things the field, as a system of propositions with an ascription of truth-values, has established.’ Chaim Perelman held a similar position, stating, ‘Methodology informs us of the means of proof acceptable in the context of each discipline’ (Chaim Perelman, The Realm of Rhetoric, 140). 8 Kennedy, New Testament Interpretation through Rhetorical Criticism, 6. 9 Ibid.; Cf. Ernesto Grassi, Rhetoric as Philosophy: The Humanist Tradition, 103–104. Grassi develops a strict contrast between ‘sacred speech’ and ‘rational speech.’ He writes, ‘Rational speech, in explicit contradistinction to sacred speech, claims (a) to be demonstrative and to offer proof because it gives the reasons for its assertions. (b) Rational speech arises from a process of inference through which every form of immediateness and every metaphoric element is excluded. (c) Its 6

86

SOTERIOLOGY AS MOTIVATION

Kennedy proceeds to note that biblical rhetoric, however, blends authoritative discourse with rational persuasion. But neither the Old nor the New Testament is pure sacred language in the way that the utterances of an Indian guru or a Greek oracle are. Very often, even in old parts of the Bible, something is added which seems to give a reason why the proclamation should be received and thus appeals, at least in part, to human rationality. 10

This admission concerning biblical rhetoric significantly qualifies his previous argument that sacred language relies on authoritative proclamation instead of rational persuasion. Revelation represents an intricate blending of authoritative discourse and rational argumentation. By drawing together the insights of Kennedy and Toulmin, it is possible to delineate the Apocalypse’s field of argumentation, in which its micro-arguments make sense and prove persuasive. This field of argumentation, however, is more specific than Kennedy’s conception of sacred language or rhetoric of religion, and it can be described in terms of the worldview that John shared with his hearers—a worldview based upon and shaped by the foundational narratives of the Hebrew Scriptures, the events surrounding Jesus’ death and resurrection, the growth of the early Christian church, Christ’s return, the resurrection of all people, final judgment, and new creation. This chapter will provide a sketch of this underlying foundational narrative in order to more accurately analyze the micro-arguments of the Apocalypse in the following chapter, particularly in cases where elements of argumentation remain implicit. statements have a purely formal character, and their validity depends exclusively on the premises to which they refer’ (p. 104). His stark contrast rests on naturalistic presuppositions (p. 104, 111) and fails to account for the common blending of what he labels ‘sacred speech’ and ‘rational speech.’ They are not mutually exclusive. 10 Kennedy, New Testament Interpretation through Rhetorical Criticism, 6– 7.

JOHN’S FOUNDATIONAL NARRATIVE

87

Worldviews and Foundational Narratives What is the relationship between worldviews and foundational narratives? 11 ‘Worldview’ refers to ‘an intertwined, interrelated, interconnected system of beliefs’ and can simply be understood as ‘the way an individual views the world.’ 12 Wright notes, First … worldviews provide the stories through which human beings view reality. Narrative is the most characteristic expression of worldview, going deeper than the isolated observation or fragmented remark. Second, from these stories one can in principle discover how to answer the basic questions that determine human existence: who are we, where are we, what is wrong, and what is the solution … Third, the stories that express the worldview, and the answers which it provides to the questions of identity, environment, evil and eschatology, are expressed … in cultural symbols … Fourth, worldviews include a praxis, a way-of-being-in-the-world. 13

Narratives generate and shape the theological, metaphysical, epistemological, ethical, and anthropological dimensions of worldviews. 14 Propositions outside the fields of mathematics and formal logic are grounded and produced by stories. 15 See the brief yet similar discussion of this question and application to interpretive problems in 4 Ezra in Alexander E. Stewart, ‘Narrative World, Rhetorical Logic, and the Voice of the Author in 4 Ezra,’ 373–91. 12 Richard Dewitt, Worldviews: An Introduction to the History and Philosophy of Science, 3, italics original. Cf. David K. Naugle, Worldview: The History of a Concept; Ninian Smart, Worldviews: Crosscultural Explorations of Human Beliefs. N. T. Wright, The New Testament and the People of God, 122, argues that worldview refers to ‘the presuppositional, pre-cognitive stage of a culture or society.’ 13 Wright, The New Testament and the People of God, 123–24, italics in original. 14 Cf. Stanley Hauerwas and L. Gregory Jones, eds., Why Narrative?; Wesley A. Kort, Story, Text, and Scripture: Literary Interests in Biblical Narrative, 2–3. Don Cupitt claims, ‘The movement of the story is the medium in which selfhood swims—or rather, it is the medium within which the self presently constitutes itself’ (What Is a Story?, 54). Walter 11

88

SOTERIOLOGY AS MOTIVATION

Norman Petersen uses the phrase ‘symbolic universe’ instead of ‘worldview’ to argue that Paul’s symbolic universe takes the form of a narrative while the expression of his theology in particular letters simply reflects on the underlying, narrative shaped, symbolic universe. 16 Daniel Patte likewise argues for a two-tiered Fisher, Human Communication as Narration: Toward a Philosophy of Reason, Value, and Action, 347, describes his understanding of the presuppositions of a narrative interpretive approach, explaining, ‘(1) Humans are essentially storytellers. (2) The paradigmatic mode of human decisionmaking and communication is “good reasons” which vary in form among situations, genres, and media of communication. (3) The production and practice of good reasons are ruled by matters of history, biography, culture, and character … (4) Rationality is determined by the nature of persons as narrative beings—their inherent awareness of narrative probability, what constitutes a coherent story, and their constant habit of testing narrative fidelity, whether or not the stories they experience ring true with the stories they know to be true in their lives … (5) The world as we know it is a set of stories that must be chosen among in order for us to live life in a process of continual re-creation’ (italics original). 15 Fisher, Human Communication as Narration, and David Carr, Time, Narrative, and History, defend the foundational role of narratives and temporality in human experience and interpretation of the world. Walter Fisher, ‘The Narrative Paradigm: An Elaboration,’ 347–67, argues that discourse ‘… is always more than the individuated forms that may compose it. The central point here is that there is no genre, including technical communication, that is not an episode in the story of life (a part of the “conversation”) and is not itself constituted by logos and mythos. Put another way: Technical discourse is imbued with myth and metaphor, and aesthetic discourse has cognitive capacity and import. The narrative paradigm is designed, in part, to draw attention to these facts and provide a way of thinking that fully takes them into account’ (p. 347). 16 Norman R. Petersen, Rediscovering Paul: Philemon and the Sociology of Paul's Narrative World, 30. Afzal, The Mystery of the Book of Revelation, 66–67, critiques the common misuse of the concept of a symbolic universe: ‘The symbolic literary world of a text is not identical to what Berger and Luckmann called a “symbolic universe”. The latter is created through social interaction together with the use of language in and by a society. It defines “reality” for that society and makes a stabilized perception of

JOHN’S FOUNDATIONAL NARRATIVE

89

system where a system of convictions (what is viewed as selfevident and took for granted as absolutely true or real) undergird and inform the actual ideas and arguments found in a text. 17 Patte advocates a reading strategy that will enable the interpreter of a text to ‘discern the convictions which undergird it.’ 18 Drawing upon the insights of narrative theorists, Patte’s ‘system of convictions’ should be seen as narratively shaped: i.e., narratives function within worldviews to generate particular beliefs that can thereby be framed in propositional language (theology) and discussed in nonnarrative discourse. M. Eugene Boring provides a helpful methodological discussion for exploring the underlying foundational narrative of a text that is not dependent on Greimas’ problematic actantial

“reality” possible. No one piece of literature, or work of art, can completely embody a culture’s symbolic universe. Its symbols can only refer to the universe, or matrix of symbols, from which they gain their meaning… Mistaking the literary world of the text for a symbolic universe in the sense delineated above means that the literary world of the text is seen as a complete world unto itself, an alternative reality. There can be no interaction between its view of reality and that represented by other Christian texts. As such it is then read in isolation from the rest of the New Testament, even though it is patently obvious that we need to know things preserved in other early Christian writings in order to make sense of the Apocalypse’ (italics original). 17 Daniel Patte, Paul’s Faith and the Power of the Gospel: A Structural Introduction to the Pauline Letters, 17. 18 Ibid., 14, 20. Such an interpretive approach, beginning with Richard B. Hays monograph, has received a mixed, though generally positive, reception in biblical studies. Cf. Richard B. Hays, The Faith of Jesus Christ: An Investigation of the Narrative Substructure of Galatians 3:1–4:11; Richard B. Hays, ‘Crucified with Christ: A Synthesis of the Theology of 1 and 2 Thessalonians, Philemon, Philippians, and Galatians,’ 227–246; Bruce W. Longenecker, ed., Narrative Dynamics in Paul: A Critical Assessment; Ben Witherington, Paul’s Narrative Thought World: The Tapestry of Tragedy and Triumph; Kenneth Schenck, Cosmology and Eschatology in Hebrews: The Settings of the Sacrifice, 58–59; Joel B. Green, ‘Narrating the Gospel in 1 and 2 Peter,’ 262–277; M. Eugene Boring, ‘Narrative Dynamics in First Peter: The Function of Narrative World,’ 8–40.

90

SOTERIOLOGY AS MOTIVATION

model. 19 Boring’s methodology can basically be described in two steps: 1) catalogue every ‘event mentioned or implied by the letter,’ and 2) arrange the events first in their poetic and then in their referential (chronological) order. 20 This chapter will employ this methodology as a reading strategy that is attentive to temporal allusions to an underlying foundational narrative within the text of the Apocalypse. 21 Both Hays, The Faith of Jesus Christ, and Wright, The New Testament and the People of God, methodologically utilize Greimas’ actantial model. R. Barry Matlock rightly asks if the actantial model should be used in biblical studies in light of its clear antihumanism and antihistoricism (‘The Arrow and the Web,’ 48–51). James D. G. Dunn raises a similar concern over the actantial model on the basis that, instead of clarifying, it may distort the text itself (‘The Narrative Approach to Paul: Whose Story?’ 221). A determination to fill the various slots for sender, object, receiver, subject, helper, and opponent, can lead to misidentification or misinterpretation of the various ‘actants’ within the text in order to fit the model. It is also significant that structuralists, those who originally developed the actantial model, have abandoned it in light of further research. See Patte, Paul’s Faith and the Power of the Gospel, 362. 20 Boring, ‘Narrative Dynamics in First Peter,’ 17, 23. Hays, The Faith of Jesus Christ, 28, similarly notes, ‘This inquiry may have two phases: we may first identify within the discourse allusions to the story and seek to discern its general outlines; then, in a second phase of inquiry we may ask how this story shapes the logic of argumentation in the discourse.’ Hays further notes, ‘There can be an organic relationship between stories and reflective discourse because stories have an inherent configurational dimension (dianoia) which not only permits but also demands restatement and interpretation in non-narrative language… The reflective restatement does not simply repeat the plot (mythos) of the story; nonetheless, the story shapes and constrains the reflective process because the dianoia can never be entirely abstracted from the story in which it is manifested and apprehended… Hence, when we encounter this type of reflective discourse, it is legitimate and possible to inquire about the story in which it is rooted’ (p. 28). 21 Identification of an underlying chronological sequence to John’s visions is fraught with difficulty and interpretive debate, yet there is some 19

JOHN’S FOUNDATIONAL NARRATIVE

91

This hermeneutical approach contains similarities to discussions of salvation history and intertextuality. 22 Salvation history is similar to the narratological work of scholars who draw attention to the grand, foundational, or meta-narrative underlying an author’s thought. 23 The main difference between the two is that narratological interpretation is generally seen as a literary approach that does not focus on the historicity of the actual events (Hans Frei’s ostensive referent), while traditional salvation history is fundamentally linked with historical questions. 24 Despite that difference, some scholars embrace a revised form of Heilsgeschichte that would be fairly synonymous with an investigation of the narrative world of the letters in relation to an author’s thought world. 25 Intertextuality generally denotes a particular approach to

consensus on certain points that will be discussed below that will help orient and direct the discussion. 22 See Robert W. Yarbrough, The Salvation Historical Fallacy?: Reassessing the History of New Testament Theology, and Richard B. Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul, for solid introductions to salvation history and intertextuality. 23 B. N. Fisk, review of Ben Witherington, Paul’s Narrative Thought World, 552–54, considers Witherington’s work an example of Heilsgeschichtliche. 24 Hans W. Frei, The Eclipse of Biblical Narrative: A Study in Eighteenth and Nineteenth Century Hermeneutics. I. Howard Marshall, ‘Response to A. T. Lincoln: The Stories of Predecessors and Inheritors in Galatians and Romans,’ 212, labels this the ‘Peterson principle’ from Petersen, Rediscovering Paul, 6–10, where Peterson argues that the interpreter should reconstruct the narrative world of a letter from the events and relations referred to in the letter itself and not from historical events. See Boring, ‘Narrative Dynamics in First Peter,’ 22, however, for an argument that a ‘methodologically purist narrative approach’ should be modified to allow for events from external history ‘if these only seem to be implied by the letter itself.’ Hays, The Faith of Jesus Christ, 61, differentiates his project from Cullman’s advocacy of Heilsgeschichte on two points: 1) an investigation of the narrative with no claims that the narrative is based on ‘real facts,’ and 2) a close emphasis on the logic of actual texts. 25 Cf. Robin Scroggs, ‘Salvation History: The Theological Structure of Paul’s Thought (1 Thessalonians, Philippians, and Galatians),’ 212–226;

92

SOTERIOLOGY AS MOTIVATION

the use of the Old Testament in the New Testament and focuses on the rhetorical and semantic affects of poetic allusions. 26 While intertextuality should be explored in the development of a letter’s narrative world, as a literary theory, it does not depend upon a temporal ordering of events or a linear progression of time, both of which are essential to understanding the meta-narrative undergirding John’s worldview. Before proceeding to sketch the narrative shape of John’s worldview, it is important to situation this investigation amid other narratological studies of the Apocalypse. M. Eugene Boring helpfully delineates four levels of narrativity in the Apocalypse as follows: (1) Narrative level 1 is [sic] narrative framework of the letter/apocalypse represented by John’s account of his experiences and their bearing on the life of the churches (John’s/the Churches’ Story). (2) Narrative level 2 is represented by the visions of God, Christ, and the heavenly throne room (Christ’s/God’s Story). (3) Narrative level 3 is represented by the dramatic acts that unfold from the actions that occur within the heavenly visions, i.e., the breaking of the seven seals, the sounding of the seven trumpets, and the pouring out of the seven vials (The World’s Story). (4) Narrative level 4 is the macronarrative that is not plotted in Revelation, but is the comprehensive narrative presupposed by and alluded to by each of the first three narrative levels, i.e., their narrative world (God’s Story) … Analysis shows that each level of narrative presupposes and implies the same comprehensive narrative world. 27 David J. Lull, ‘Salvation History: Theology in 1 Thessalonians, Philemon, Philippians, and Galatians: A Response to N. T. Wright, R. B. Hays, and R. Scroggs,’ 247–266. 26 Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul, 19. 27 Boring, ‘Narrative Christology,’ 704, italics original. Robert Royalty, The Streets of Heaven: The Ideology of Wealth in the Apocalypse of John, 10, critiques Boring on the basis that the ‘levels upon levels of narrativity in the visions of Revelation, however, are too slippery for us to find any

JOHN’S FOUNDATIONAL NARRATIVE

93

This study focuses on the fourth level of narrativity identified by Boring, the macro-narrative that is presupposed and drawn from at every other narrative level. 28 This contrasts with most other narratological studies of the Apocalypse that focus primarily on setting, characters, point of view, plot, narrator, implied reader, structure, and so forth. 29 These elements of a narratological study focus more on narrative levels two and three, and are not as immediately relevant to an exploration of John’s worldview (narrative level four). The persuasive or motivating power of John’s argumentation depends on his particular early-Christian metanarrative and worldview.

THE FOUNDATIONAL NARRATIVE Following the reading strategy introduced above, allusions in the Apocalypse to the non-plotted foundational narrative of John’s worldview fall into three obvious temporal categories: the past,

sure footing there as we try to connect narrative and social worlds.’ Royalty’s concern to connect narrative and social worlds should focus primarily on narrative level one. His critique is valid concerning the slippery boundary between narrative levels two and three because they are both drawn from the visionary narratives, but narrative levels one and four are quite distinct. 28 Boring, ‘Narrative Christology,’ repeatedly emphasizes how narrative levels one, two, and three all contain allusions to the non-plotted macro-narrative and derive their meaning from the larger narrative (pp. 707, 709–13). ‘The Christological meaning of this narrative is derived from the larger, presupposed, nonplotted narrative world of which it is a part. There are many internal allusions to this macronarrative, without which this narrative is not Christological. The plotted segment derives its meaning from the larger nonplotted line’ (p. 707; italics original). 29 James L. Resseguie, Revelation Unsealed: A Narrative-Critical Approach to John’s Apocalypse; James L. Resseguie, The Revelation of John: A Narrative Commentary; David L. Barr, Tales of the End: A Narrative Commentary on the Book of Revelation; Sigve K. Tonstad, Saving God’s Reputation: The Theological Function of Pistis Iesou in the Cosmic Narratives of Revelation.

94

SOTERIOLOGY AS MOTIVATION

present, and future. 30 The past includes the distant past (precreation), the history of Israel, and the recent past (Jesus’ life, ministry, death, and resurrection, and the formation and growth of the church). The present includes how John understood the present experiences and persecution of the people of God, and the activity of God, Christ, and Satan in the present. The future includes how John thought God would act in Christ in the future to judge, rescue, and restore his creation. John’s Foundational Narrative: The Past John’s understanding of the past stretches back to God’s existence prior to creation, the creation of the world, God’s activity in Israel’s history, and the formation of the Jewish and Gentile Christian community following Christ’s death and resurrection. John sees direct continuity between God’s interaction with Israel in the Scriptures and his interaction with the recently formed Christian community centered on Jesus as Israel’s promised Messiah. Creation John’s meta-narrative stretches back to before the creation of the world and the beginning of history. God and Christ are both This division is based on the past, present, and future from the perspective of John and his hearers. See Poul F. Guttesen, Leaning Into the Future: The Kingdom of God in the Theology of Jürgen Moltmann and in the Book of Revelation, 120. Mathias Rissi, Time and History: A Study on the Revelation, 22– 54, cogently argues that time in the Apocalypse is structured around two decisive eschatological moments: Christ’s first and second comings. The division of time followed in this chapter does not contradict Rissi’s insights but rather incorporates them into the temporal perspective of believers at the end of the first century who believed they were living in the last days. Boring, ‘Narrative Christology,’ 716, notes, ‘The mythical narrative that stretches from creation to consummation, with the historical advent of Jesus as its midpoint but now in John’s past, is a line which embraces John’s own present. John’s story and the story of his church are taken up into the larger story; they are a segment within this comprehensive narrative line.’ 30

JOHN’S FOUNDATIONAL NARRATIVE

95

recorded as claiming to be the ‘Alpha and Omega’ (Rev 1:8; 21:6; 22:13). These self-descriptions are joined to other phrases such as ‘the one who is and who was and who is coming’ (Rev 1:4, 8; 4:8; 11:17), ‘the beginning and the end’ (Rev 21:6; 22:13), and ‘the first and the last’ (Rev 1:17; 2:8; 22:13), and confirm for the hearer that God was at the beginning and will be at the end of history; he was the cause of the world’s inception and will exist beyond its consummation. 31 Christ was with God in the beginning (Rev 3:14). God’s independent existence before the creation of the world stands at the beginning of John’s meta-narrative and the basis for everything else that is affirmed about God in his relationship to the world and his people. In addition to God’s existence before the beginning of creation, John affirms that names had been written in the Lamb’s book of life from the foundation of the world (ἀπὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου; Rev 13:8; 17:8). 32 God had initiated salvation even before the world was created and before things went terribly wrong. God’s activity in creation is highlighted throughout Revelation and is central to understanding John’s understanding of God, the legitimacy of his judgments, and his ability to remake creation. ‘You are worthy, our Lord and God, to receive glory honor and power, because you created all things and through your will they Richard Bauckham, Theology of the Book of Revelation, 55; Ben Witherington III, Revelation, 29, notes, ‘This interpretation comports with Rev. 3.14, where Christ is called “the origin [arche] of God’s creation,” which likely does not mean he is the first created being or the first-born from the dead (for which John uses other terminology) but rather is another way of saying about Christ what is said clearly in Rev. 22.13.’ 32 Cf. G. K. Beale, The Book of Revelation, 702. Although it is possible that Rev 13:8 refers to the lamb slain from the foundation of the earth and indicates that the death of Christ was decreed before time began (so George B. Caird, A Commentary on The Revelation of Saint John, 168; and Robert H. Mounce, The Book of Revelation, 256), the parallel statement in Rev 17:8 supports the conclusion that both occurrences of ἀπὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου point to the names that were written in the book of life. With this interpretation the phrase τοῦ ἀρνίου τοῦ ἐσφαγμένου in Rev 13:8 is a genitive of possession or source modifying τῷ βιβλίῳ. 31

96

SOTERIOLOGY AS MOTIVATION

existed and were created’ (Rev 4:11; cf. Rev 10:6; 14:7). This belief in God as the creator of the world serves as the foundation for John’s entire meta-narrative. Because God is the creator of the world, he is the world’s true sovereign. He reigns from his throne in heaven (cf. the divine passives throughout the Apocalypse), has the responsibility and power to judge evil, and the ability to decreate and re-create a new heaven and new earth. When John affirms belief in God as creator of the world at the beginning of history he expresses the conviction that God is able to intervene within history to recreate and remake the world. God’s Activity in Israel’s History Even though the book of Revelation is saturated with allusions to the Hebrew Bible, there are few explicit references to events in that history. John draws from the Old Testament figures of Balaam and Jezebel in his characterization of opponents in Pergamum and Thyatira (Rev 2:14; 20). The reference to Christ as the lion of the tribe of Judah and the root of David (Rev 5:5; 22:16) present Jesus as the consummation and fulfillment of the Davidic covenant (2 Samuel 7; 1 Chr 17:11–14; 2 Chr 6:16; cf. Gen 49:10). Jesus also possessed the key of David (Rev 3:7). God’s mystery, his making of a new creation for his people to inhabit, was announced beforehand to the Hebrew prophets (Rev 10:7), and the twelve gates of the New Jerusalem are inscribed with the names of the twelve tribes of the sons of Israel (Rev 21:12). The agony and birth pains of the woman in labor leading up to the birth of the Messiah (Rev 12:2) reflect back on the suffering of God’s people in the Old Testament and Second Temple period while they waited for the Messiah to come. These references to God’s activity in the Old Testament along with the allusions to the Old Testament throughout the Apocalypse clearly demonstrate that John saw continuity between the actions and activity of God in the past in relation to Israel, his present activity in Christ, and the promise of his future activity to judge and remake the world. It was the same creating, all powerful God, carrying out his purposes in his world by saving and protecting his people and judging and punishing his adversaries. Matthijs den Dulk argues that in the promises to the overcomers in the letters to the seven churches ‘… the author draws a salvation-historical line by basing the promises on

JOHN’S FOUNDATIONAL NARRATIVE

97

successive events in the biblical story.’ 33 In these promises, however, John does not seem to be looking back to the Hebrew Bible, but forward to life and participation in God’s new creation (Rev 21–22:5). More generally, Dulk’s observations do point to the narrative centrality of the Hebrew Bible in the construction of John’s meta-narrative. The Recent Past: The Formation of the Christian Community Jesus, God’s son (Rev 1:6), lived a human life (Rev 12:5) on earth as a faithful witness (Rev 1:5), died (Rev 1:18; 2:8; 5:6, 9, 12), conquered death through resurrection (Rev 1:5, 18; 2:8), and was exalted to the throne of God (Rev 3:21; 12:5). 34 Through his death he freed God’s people from their sins (Rev 1:5), ransomed people from all nations for God (Rev 5:9), and made them into a kingdom (Rev 1:6; 5:10) and priests to God (Rev 1:6; 5:10). 35 The origin of the church, the people of God, is thus directly connected to the liberating results of Christ’s death. Jesus’ ascension to heaven is also connected with Michael’s victory over Satan in heaven and the casting down of Satan to earth (Rev 12:7–9). This meant that Satan could no longer accuse the people of God before God (Rev 12:10), but now he was loose on earth to make war against them in his great wrath (Rev 12:12, 17). Satan quickly enlists the aid of two beasts in his war against God’s people (Rev 12:17–13:18), and some Christians had already experienced death for their faithful witness (Rev 2:13; 6:9). The past concludes and meets up with the present in the writing and sending of the Apocalypse from Patmos (Rev 1:9) to the seven churches (Rev 1:4, 11). John recounts his commissioning, Matthijs den Dulk, ‘The Promises to the Conquerors in the Book of Revelation,’ 516–22. 34 Revelation 21:14 points to Jesus’ earthly activity in the appointment of twelve apostles. 35 It is uncertain whether Rev 7:14 and 12:11 point to the benefits of Christ’s blood applied to Christians, making their robes white and enabling them to conquer the dragon, or to the results of Christians sharing in the blood of the lamb, i.e., following the path of the lamb to a bloody death as a result of faithful witness. 33

98

SOTERIOLOGY AS MOTIVATION

reception of the revelation, his experience of visions, and his writing of what he saw (Rev 1:1–2, 11, 19; 10:8–11). John’s Foundational Narrative: The Present The Present Experience of the People of God The people of God in the present gather together regularly for the public reading of Scripture (Rev 1:3). They are partners together in tribulation, persecution, martyrdom (Rev 1:9; 2:9, 10, 13), the kingdom (Rev 1:9), and endurance and perseverance (Rev 1:9; 2:2, 3, 13, 19; 3:10). The people of God test apostles (Rev 2:2), sometimes oppose other ‘Christians’ who advocate compromise (the Nicolaitans [Rev 2:6, 15], and the followers of Balaam [Rev 2:14] and Jezebel [Rev 2:20–23]), and are generally in need of repentance for idolatrous compromise (Rev 2:5, 16, 21, 22, 3:3, 19). God’s people are also actively involved in prayer (Rev 5:9; 8:3) and in prophetic witness (Rev 11:3–7), and are spiritually marked by God’s seal (Rev 7:3–9) that protects them from God’s wrath (Rev 9:4), although intensifying their experience of the wrath of Satan and the beast (Rev 11:7–10; 13:15–18; 16:6; 17:6; 20:4). 36 Christians The identification of the 144,000 (Rev 7:5–8) with the innumerable multitude (Rev 7:9) is based on several considerations (Beale, The Book of Revelation, 416–23). First, John identifies the two groups by employing the same hearing/seeing literary device that he used to identify the lion with the lamb (Rev 5:5–6). He hears one thing and then sees something different, yet the same. Second, in Rev 14:3–4 the 144,000 are described as οἱ ἠγορασμένοι ἀπὸ τῆς γῆς. This is parallel to the description of all the saved in Rev 5:9 (ἠγόρασας τῷ θεῷ). The phrase ἐκ πάσης φυλῆς καὶ γλώσσης καὶ λαοῦ καὶ ἔθνους from Rev 5:9 is used to describe the innumerable multitude in Rev 7:9 (ἐκ παντὸς ἔθνους καὶ φυλῶν καὶ λαῶν καὶ γλωσσῶν). Third, the 144,000 are described in Rev 7:3 as δούλους τοῦ θεοῦ and δοῦλος is used elsewhere in the Apocalypse to describe all of God’s people (Rev 2:20; 19:5; 22:3). Fourth, throughout the Apocalypse, God’s seal (Rev 7:3; 9:4; 14:1; 22:4) is parallel to Satan’s seal/mark (Rev 13:16, 17; 14:9, 11; 16:2; 19:20; 20:4). If Satan’s seal covers all his followers, this implies that God’s seal does likewise. Fifth, the book elsewhere presents God’s people in the present, made up of both Jew and 36

JOHN’S FOUNDATIONAL NARRATIVE

99

who overcome and die before Christ’s return are pictured as at rest in heaven with God and Christ (Rev 7:15–17; 14:13), interceding for God to act (Rev 6:9–11) and worshiping him (Rev 7:15; 15:2– 3). 37 In contrast to God’s people who bear his seal, all other Gentile, as true Israel, i.e., as the real Jews (Rev 2:9; 3:9; cf. Gal 6:16; Eph 2:19; Jas 1:1; 1 Pet 1:1; 2:9). This is confirmed by the application of the words of Exodus 19:6 (Israel as a kingdom of priests) to believers in Rev 1:6; 5:10. Cf. Richard Bauckham, The Climax of Prophecy: Studies on the Book of Revelation, 215–29; John Sweet, Revelation, 150; Craig R. Koester, Revelation and the End of All Things, 90; Witherington, Revelation, 137–38; Joseph L. Mangina, Revelation, 110–11; Craig S. Keener, Revelation, 230–33; Caird, The Revelation, 94–98; George E. Ladd, A Commentary on the Revelation of John, 110–17; M. Eugene Boring, Revelation, 128–31; Simon J. Kistemaker, Revelation, 245; contra Robert L. Thomas, Revelation 1–7: An Exegetical Commentary, 477–78. Rob Dalrymple cogently argues for the identification of the 144,000 with the innumerable multitude based on four foci that are shared with the account of the two witnesses in Rev 11: 3–13. ‘These foci include: first, the righteous are accorded divine protection during the time of their witnessing. Secondly, they function as faithful witnesses. Thirdly, the righteous suffer persecution, perhaps, even to the point of death … Finally, the righteous are vindicated by God’ (Rob Dalrymple, ‘These Are the Ones … [Rev 7],’ 397). Dalrymble’s arguments support the conclusion that the parentheses between the sixth and seventh seal (Rev 7:1–17) and the sixth and seventh trumpet (Rev 10:1–11:13) describe the activity of the church between Christ’s first and second coming and thereby function to teach John’s readers who they are and what they are to do. The churches are divinely protected and set apart in the present for the purpose of witnessing which will result in their persecution and eventual vindication. 37 The voice speaking in heaven in Rev 12:10–12 should also be identified as believers who have already died (‘our brothers’) because angels are never described as ‘brothers’ to saints in apocalyptic literature (cf. Beale, The Book of Revelation, 657). Revelation 13:6 also likely includes an oblique reference to believers in the intermediate state prior to resurrection. Charles H. Giblin, ‘The Millennium (Rev 20:4–6) as Heaven,’ 553–70, discusses each of these texts among others under the rubric of ‘vertical eschatology’ (p. 555). He argues that the millennial kingdom (Rev 20:4–6) should be included with the verses that point to the present

100

SOTERIOLOGY AS MOTIVATION

inhabitants of the earth worship the beast and receive its mark (Rev 13:3–4, 8, 12, 16–17; 14:9, 11; 16:2; 19:20; 20:4). The Apocalypse envisions the immediate future to be a direct continuation of the present until Christ’s return. 38 This future will existence of believers in heaven before physical resurrection and life in God’s new creation (cf. Kistemaker, Revelation, 537). This book will not engage the millennial debate in any detail. The following points support an amillenial interpretation. First, other early Christian texts present Satan as bound, restrained, or hindered because of the Christ event (Matt 12:29; Mark 3:27; Luke 10:17–19; John 12:31–33; Col 2:15; 2 Thess 2:6–12; Heb 2:14). These bindings do not restrict all of Satan’s activities (2 Pet 2:4; Jude 6), but demonstrate Jesus’ ultimate power over him. Second, apocalyptic literature invites and requires a symbolic approach to interpretation (Rev 1:1; σημαίνω). Third, apart from this single apocalyptic text (Rev 20:4–5) the rest of Christian Scripture points forward to a single future resurrection of believers and unbelievers prior to eschatological judgment and reward (Isa 26:19–21; Dan 12:2; John 5:28–29; Acts 24:15; 2 Thess 1:7–10). Fourth, a literal interpretation raises a host of unnecessary questions and problems. Why is Satan bound only to be released? Who are the deceived nations at the end of the millennium? Whom do the saints rule? How does it work for resurrected people to live in the midst of un-resurrected people in the old, untransformed creation? Why are the nations protected from Satan’s deception right after they had just been deceived, judged, and destroyed by Christ (The description of Rev 19:15–21 leaves little room for survivors.)? In support of amillenialism, see Beale, The Book of Revelation, 972–1021; (tentatively) Boring, Revelation, 205. The following points support a premillenial position: First, the description of Satan’s binding in Rev 20:2–3 is not presented as partial. Second, the language of resurrection (ζάω; ἀνάστασις) is explicitly contrasted with the later general resurrection (Rev 20:5) and most naturally points to a physical, bodily resurrection (Rev 20:4–5). In support of premillenialism, see Witherington, Revelation, 286–91; Ladd, A Commentary, 259–68; Keener, Revelation, 463–69. The millennial debate does not significantly affect the outcome of this present study. 38 Harry O. Maier, Apocalypse Recalled: The Book of Revelation after Christendom, 123–63, explores time in the Apocalypse to argue that the Apocalypse delays the timing of the end even as it seems to stress its

JOHN’S FOUNDATIONAL NARRATIVE

101

be marked by increased persecution, tribulation, and martyrdom (Rev 2:10), and will end when the full number of overcomers have been killed for their witness (Rev 6:11). Because the end had begun, Christians were already experiencing and would continue to experience the end-time persecutions and tribulations of God’s people (Rev 1:9; 2:9, 10; 7:14). 39 This can be demonstrated by the imminence in order to open up space for action in the present. ‘Chief among the strategies for transforming Apocalypse recalled into an immanent account is John’s use of editorial interjection (e.g., Rev. 9:11, 12, 19; 11:4; 13:18; 14:4, 11, 12; 15:1; 16:14; 17:9–11; 19:10d, 11; 20:5b–6) along with editorial comments embedded in his descriptions of visions (e.g., 5:6; 8:2; 13:6; 19:8; 21:22). These allow him to remind his audience that what he once saw and what they now hear is about the present’ (p. 138). 39 The idea of a great eschatological tribulation is drawn from Dan 12:1 where the eschatological opponent persecutes those Israelites who remained faithful to the covenant and seeks to make them abandon the covenant (Daniel 11–12). Some early Christians saw Daniel’s prophecies as being fulfilled in Christ’s first coming (Matt 21:44; Luke 20:18; John 5:24–29), and many viewed themselves as living in the final tribulational period before the end (note the present reality of θλῖψις for the early Christian community in Matt 13:21; 24:9; Mark 4:17; John 16:33; Acts 11:19; Acts 14:22; Acts 20:23; Rom 5:3; Rom 8:35; Rom 12:12; 2 Cor 1:4, 8; 2 Cor 4:17; 2 Cor 6:4; 2 Cor 8:2; Col 1:24; 1 Thess 1:6; 1 Thess 3:3; 2 Thess 1:4; Heb 10:33; Rev 1:9; Rev 2:9, 10; cf. 2 Tim 3:12; 1 Pet 4:17). Jesus’ reference to θλῖψις μεγάλη in Matt 24:21 likely refers to the time of the destruction of the Jerusalem temple in AD 70 (cf. Matt 24:1–2; Mark 13:1–2; Luke 21:5–6, 20–24). The early Christians held that the last days, end times, or latter days had already begun (Mark 1:15; Acts 2:16–17; Gal 4:4; 1 Cor 10:11; 2 Cor 6:2; 1 Tim 4:1; 2 Tim 3:1; 1 Pet 1:20; 2 Pet 3:3; Heb 1:2; 9:26; Jas 5:3; 1 John 2:18; Jude 18). In regard to the use of Dan 2:28 LXX in Rev 1:1, 19; 4:1; 22:6, Beale, The Book of Revelation, 153, notes that ‘John understands Daniel’s reference to a distant time as referring to his own era, and he updates the text accordingly. What Daniel expected to occur in the distant “latter days”—the defeat of cosmic evil and the ushering in of the divine kingdom—John expects to begin “quickly,” in his own generation, if it has not already begun to happen.’ Rissi, Time and History, 55, notes ‘The End time begins with the historical event of the

102

SOTERIOLOGY AS MOTIVATION

use of the time period of forty-two months (Rev 11:2; 13:5), 1,260 days (Rev 11:3; 12:6), or a times, time, and half a time (Rev 12:14). 40 This time period begins with Christ’s ascension (Rev 12:5–6) and is characterized by the measuring (protection) of the temple and trampling of the holy city (Rev 11:1–2; complementary images of God’s people being spiritually protected yet physically persecuted), the prophesying of the two witnesses (God’s people; Rev 11:3), the protection of the woman (God’s people) in the wilderness (Rev 12:6, 14), and the period of the authority of the beast when it is allowed to overcome and kill God’s people (Rev 13:5–7). 41 first Parousia of Jesus Christ, which gives that time its character.’ ‘Therein the specifically Christian view of the intermediary time expresses itself: the End event has already begun, but it is first consummated when this same Son of Man comes again in the future’ (p. 57–58). Cf. Keener, Revelation, 34–35, 318–20. 40 Cf. Sweet, Revelation, 182; Ladd, A Commentary, 153. 41 Cf. Rissi, Time and History, 39–41. A symbolic interpretation of the temple in Rev 11:2 fits the broader New Testament theme of the temple as God’s people (1 Cor 3:16–17; Eph 2:20–22; 1 Pet 2:4–10; Rev 3:12; 21:22). This conclusion is strengthened by the following considerations (cf. Beale, The Book of Revelation, 557–71; Bauckham, The Climax of Prophecy, 273–83; Caird, The Revelation, 132, 152; Eduard Lohse, Die Offenbarung des Johannes, 64; Alan J. Beagley, The ‘Sitz im Leben’ of the Apocalypse with Particular Reference to the Role of the Church’s Enemies, 61; Kistemaker, Revelation, 324–25; Koester, Revelation and the End, 104–108; Keener, Revelation, 288; Charles H. Talbert, The Apocalypse: A Reading of the Revelation of John, 44; Sweet, Revelation, 183–84; Boring, Revelation, 143; contra Ladd, A Commentary, 152–53; David E. Aune, Revelation 6–16, 598). First, the command to measure the temple and its worshippers ties the temple to people (cf. 1 Pet 2:5). Second, a literal temple would mean the revival of the Old Testament sacrificial system—a future development not anticipated by any New Testament documents (cf. Heb 10:1–12). Third, the Apocalypse never uses ναός to indicate a literal temple. The two witnesses (cf. Deut 19:15; Matt 18:16) represent the people of God throughout the entire church age based on the parallel descriptions of the beast overcoming and killing the saints in Rev 11:7 and Rev 13:7, the explicit identification of lampstands as churches in Rev 1:20, and the

JOHN’S FOUNDATIONAL NARRATIVE

103

The Present Activity of God, Christ, and Satan God is presently reigning on his throne (Rev 4:2–3, 9–10; 5:1, 7, 13; 7:15) with Christ (Rev 3:21; 7:17) and with the seven spirits before the throne (Rev 1:4; 4:5), being worshipped continuously by heavenly beings (Rev 4:8–11; 5:11–14). 42 Jesus is presently reigning as the ruler of the kings of the earth (Rev 1:5). In addition to sitting on God’s throne, Jesus, in his transformed and exalted body (Rev 1:13–16), walks among the churches (Rev 1:13; 2:1), speaks through the Apocalypse to them (Rev 1:19; 2:1, 8, 12, 18; 3:1, 7, 14), judges and punishes (Rev 2:5, 16, 21–23; 3:3, 16), and reproves, disciplines, and helps his people (Rev 3:8, 19, 20). 43 The messages to the churches are presented as the direct speech of the Spirit to them (Rev 2:7, 11, 17, 29; 3:6, 13, 22). Christ’s present activity of opening the seals puts in motion the judgments of God throughout history (warfare, civil strife and description of believers as witnesses throughout the Apocalypse (Rev 6:9; 12:11, 17; 19:10; 20:4). Cf. W. J. Harrington, Revelation, 123; Allo, L’Apocalypse, 160–61; Edouard Cothenet, ‘Le symbolisme du culte dans l’Apocalypse,’ 228; Keener, Revelation, 291–92; Koester, Revelation and the End, 108; Boring, Revelation, 143. Charles Brütsch, Die Offenbarung Jesu Christi: Johannes-Apokalypse, 2:20, notes that ‘Da in der Apok. die christliche Gemeinde nicht aufgeteilt, sondern als ein Ganzes auftritt … kann man hier die Kirche—eventuell mit den Judenchristen im Vordergrund—, die sich gegenüber Israel zum Zeugnis Christi verpflichtet weiß, erkennen’ (italics original). The woman is a multi-faceted symbol for God’s united people throughout history, the messianic community, and the bride of the lamb (Rev 19:6–9; 20:7–9; cf. Eph 5:22–32). Cf. Reddish, Revelation, 239; Witherington, Revelation, 167–68; Mangina, Revelation, 149–50; Sweet, Revelation, 194–95; Boring, Revelation, 152. The woman’s flight and protection in the wilderness signifies God’s divine protection of his people parallel to their sealing (Rev 7:3), the measuring of the temple (Rev 11:1), and the ministry of the two witnesses (Rev 11:5). 42 Rissi, Time and History, 86, rightly observes, ‘The End time is the time of Christ’s lordship over the whole world. But, for the world, this lordship is still hidden. It is known and freely recognized in only one place: the church.’ 43 Cf. Boring, ‘Narrative Christology,’ 717.

104

SOTERIOLOGY AS MOTIVATION

unrest, famine, sickness, and death) that will culminate in his return (Rev 5:2, 7; 6:1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 12; 8:1). 44 The trumpets and bowls likewise point to the beginning and intensifying of God’s judgments throughout history that culminate in the great eschatological earthquake at Christ’s return (Rev 8:2, 6–9:21; 11:15–19; 15:1; 16:1–21). 45 These judgments do not lead the The description of the activity of the horsemen parallels Jesus’ description of the birth pains that would lead up to his second coming (Matt 24:1–14), locating these events in the present. 45 The structure of the Apocalypse is, of course, a highly debated point. This book roughly follows a symbolic progressive recapitulation interpretation of the seven seals, trumpets and bowls (cf. Beale, The Book of Revelation, 121–44; Kistemaker, Revelation, 65–66; Mitchell G. Reddish, Revelation, 21; A. Yarboro Collins, The Combat Myth in the Book of Revelation, 32–44; Mangina, Revelation, 30–32; Mounce, Revelation, 39, 45; Charles H. Giblin, ‘Recapitulation and John’s Apocalypse,’ 81–95). Recapitulation seems likely for the following reasons. First, there are repeated scenes of final judgment and salvation throughout the book (Rev 6:12–17; 7:9–17; 8:1, 3–5; 10:6–7; 11:15–19; 16:17–21. Second, the conclusion of the seals (Rev 8:5), trumpets (Rev 11:19), and bowls (Rev 16:18–21) contain a repetition of the phrase from Exod 19:16–19 (sounds, lightning flashes, earthquake). Third, the silence of the seventh seal likely indicates complete judgment (cf. Isa 41:1; 47:5; Lam. 2:10; 3:28–29; Amos 8:3; Zeph 1:7, 11; Hab 2:20; Zech 2:13; Rom 3:19). Fourth, the repetition of three and a half years of persecution in Rev 11:2, 3; 12:6, 14; and 13:5 suggests that the visions in Revelation 11, 12, 13 do not follow one another chronologically but rather cover the same period of time. Fifth, the repetition of the phrase ‘gather them together for war’ in Rev 16:14; 19:19; 20:8 hints that Rev 15:1–16:21; 17:1–19:10; 19:11–21:8 refer to the same time and episode. Sixth, the refrain about the fall of Babylon in Rev 14:8; 16:19; 17:16; 18:2, 10, 17, 19–21; 19:2–3 likely does not point to separate events, but the same event. Seventh, Revelation is heavily influenced by Daniel, and Daniel’s five visions all evidence recapitulation—pointing to the same period of time and the same events from different perspectives and with different degrees of detail (Daniel 2, 7, 8, 9, 10–12). Isaiah and Ezekiel also contain significant instances of recapitulation in their prophecies. For arguments in support of a linear progression of events in the visions see Resseguie, Revelation Unsealed, 160– 44

JOHN’S FOUNDATIONAL NARRATIVE

105

inhabitants of the world to repentance but rather harden them for further judgment (Rev 9:20–21; 16:9, 11). 46 66; Marko Jauhiainen, ‘Recapitulation and Chronological Progression in John’s Apocalypse: Towards a New Perspective,’ 543–59. David E. Aune, Revelation 1–5, xciii, argues that the author ‘intends the visions themselves to constitute a single chronological narrative of the eschatological events that will soon begin to unfold’ (italics original). The symbolic nature of the recapitulated descriptions of these judgments is supported by the way the Hebrew prophets used similar language of cosmic upheaval to symbolically describe God’s judgments against nations that were carried out historically by human armies (the defeat of Babylon [Isa 13:10–13], Edom [Isa 34:4], Egypt [Ezek 32:6–8], and Israel’s enemies [Hab 3:6–11]). Beale, The Book of Revelation, 476, argues, ‘A literal reading is rendered unlikely here and throughout the visionary section by the simple observation that the catastrophes are inspired primarily by OT literary models that contain figures of speech. This does not mean that such models could not have been used to describe literal disasters, but the burden of proof is on those who hold to a literal understanding in addition to a figurative perspective.’ 46 The hardening function of the judgments parallels the effect of God’s judgments on Pharaoh who likewise was hardened and refused to repent (Exod 7:22–23; 8:15, 19, 32; 9:7, 12, 34–35; 10:20, 27; 11:10; 14:5). This parallel is strengthened by the obvious connection of the trumpet and bowl judgments with the plagues sent against Egypt leading up to the Exodus. Beale, The Book of Revelation, 465, helpfully charts the parallels. The first trumpet brings hail and fire (Rev 8:7) and corresponds to Exod 9:22–25. The second and third trumpets turn water to blood (Rev 8:8–11) and correspond to Exod 7:20–25. The fourth trumpet brings darkness (Rev 8:12) and corresponds to Exod 10:21–23. The fifth trumpet brings locusts (Rev 9:1–11) and corresponds to Exod 10:12–15. Beale further develops the parallels with Joshua’s conquest of Jericho (Joshua 6), stating, ‘The second idea highlighted by the Joshua 6 model is that the first six trumpets in Revelation 8–9 are punishments preliminary to a climactic judgment. Strictly speaking, the first six trumpets in Joshua 6 announce the judgment to come on the seventh day, which climaxed with an earthquake. But they are also part of the process leading up to and necessary for what will be done on the seventh day, which culminates in the decisive judgment of Jericho’ (p. 469).

106

SOTERIOLOGY AS MOTIVATION

As with God and Christ, Satan is actively involved in the present time opposing God by persecuting and killing his people. John depends upon the Old Testament in his presentation of the cosmic adversary of God’s people: the devil (Rev 2:10; 12:9, 12; 20:2, 10), Satan (Rev 2:9, 13, 24; 3:9;12:9; 20:2, 7), the dragon (Rev 12:1–13:18; 16:13; 20:2; cf. Job 7:12; 9:13; 26:12–13; Ps 74:13–14; 89:9–10; Isa 27:1; 30:7; 51:9–10), ancient serpent (Rev 12:9; 20:2; cf. Gen 3:1; Isa 27:1), deceiver (Rev 12:9, 14, 15; cf. 1 Chr 21:1), and accuser (Rev 12:10; cf. Job 1:6–12; 2:1; Zech 3:1). 47 Satan lost his ability to accuse God’s people and was decisively defeated and cast out of heaven because of the Christ event (Rev 12:5–12), but yet still wields power in the present on earth to make war against God’s people (Rev 12:17). Satan engages in this war by enlisting the aid of two beasts (Rev 13:1–2, 11) to overcome and kill Christians (Rev 13:7, 15; cf. Dan 7:21), and deceive the inhabitants of the earth (Rev 13:12–14). 48 John’s Foundational Narrative: The Future God and Christ are coming again soon to visit the earth (Rev 1:1, 3, 4, 7, 8; 2:16; 3:11; 6:16–17; 10:6; 16:15; 19:11–16; 22:6, 7, 10, 12, 20) and to establish their visible kingdom there (Rev 11:15, 17; 15:4; 19:6) on the great day (Rev 6:17; 16:14). This visit will result in the final eschatological battle (Rev 16:12–16; 17:14a; 19:19–21; 20:7–10), resurrection (Rev 20:4–6, 12–13), judgment (Rev 3:10; 6:12–17; 11:18; 14:8–11, 17–20; 16:19–21; 17:14; 18:1–24; 19:1–3, 15; 20:11–15; 21:8, 27; 22:12, 15) and the making of a new creation (Rev 21:1, 5). Those who overcome will experience never-ending life in this new creation without suffering, sickness, death, or pain (Rev 2:7, 10, 11, 17, 27–28; 3:4, 5, 12, 21; 5:10; 7:15–17; 14:1–5; 19:7, 9; 21:2–4, 6–7; 9–26; 22:1–5, 14, 17) while all others will Rissi, Time and History, 63. Rissi, Time and History, 69, argues ‘The functioning of the Antichrist [the first beast] follows simultaneously with or in direct connection to that of Christ on earth. The time of the Antichrist is the entire intermediary time (13:5) and thus begins simultaneously with the hidden messianic kingdom and ends with it (19:19–21).’ 47 48

JOHN’S FOUNDATIONAL NARRATIVE

107

suffer God’s wrath in eternal punishment (Rev 14:9–11; 20:14–15; 21:8; 22:15).

JOHN’S FOUNDATIONAL NARRATIVE: A SUMMARY DESCRIPTION God and Christ existed before time began and will exist through eternity. God created the world and developed a special relationship with a particular people, the Jews—making promises to them and expecting them to respond with obedience. The world, however, went terribly wrong, and most of the world’s inhabitants were deceived by God’s adversary Satan, refused to obey or worship God, and persecuted his people. The Apocalypse of John does not elaborate or explain how things went wrong or how evil entered and corrupted God’s good creation. 49 God’s promises to his people were fulfilled and the end times begun by the violent death of God’s messiah who, through his death, reconstituted the people of God on the basis of repentance and allegiance to himself. The people of God in this final period of history carry God’s seal and must overcome by bearing witness to Christ’s lordship and worshiping God alone—actions that will certainly result in increased persecution and death. This final period of history would soon end with the return of Christ, the resurrection of all people, final judgment, and God’s creation of a new heaven and earth in which his people will dwell. This narrative stands in continuity and full dependence on the Old Testament narratives and brings the Old Testament narratives to a final and Boring, ‘Narrative Christology,’ 720, astutely observes that, ‘In this story, a sinful, rebellious world is judged, forgiven, and reclaimed. It is the story of God’s reasserting his sovereignty over his own creation. Just how the creation was perverted or went awry is not dealt with or even hinted at in this story. The problem that is resolved in this story is a cosmic problem that finds a cosmic resolution.’ In a footnote Boring elaborates, ‘The references to the devil as the serpent seem to presuppose some version of the Fall, but this is not spelled out … “Fall” is not an explicit event of the presupposed story, but the creation is assumed to be spoiled, rebellious, and in need of redemption’ (p. 720). 49

108

SOTERIOLOGY AS MOTIVATION

fitting conclusion. 50 ‘John was writing what he understood to be a work of prophetic scripture, the climax of prophetic revelation, which gathered up the prophetic meaning of the Old Testament

The Old Testament is open-ended. It concludes with unmet expectations and unfulfilled promises which point towards a future fulfillment. The main differences (extensions) between John and the authors of the Old Testament center on (1) John’s identification of the Messiah as Jesus, (2) the redefinition of the people of God based on allegiance to the slain and resurrected Messiah instead of ethnicity, and (3) the belief that in Christ’s death and resurrection the last days had begun. Rissi, Time and History, 56 draws attention to the second of these differences when he writes, ‘Judaism thought of the messianic kingdom either as identical with the consummated time of salvation or again as a period prior to the general time of consummation, a period of national salvation. In the Revelation, a Christian view is developed which is parallel to a certain degree to the second, late form of the Jewish hope. This view understands the time between the first appearance of Christ on earth and the End event as an anticipatory, especially messianic, period of salvation history. But any nationalistic association is lacking’ (cf. p. 92). Rissi discusses the last of these differences by noting ‘Although John thinks very closely along the lines of the Old Testament and later Jewish testimony, yet precisely at this point he diverges totally from them. For he recognizes in the historical Christ event the beginning of the End time confirmed by God himself. While in the Jewish apocalyptic all history is directed toward the End and moves on according to plan, John recognizes in the historical Christ event an eschatological event already occurred, he sees in Jesus the revelation of the meaning and goal of all history, and in the risen Lord, the lord of final history’ (pp. 49–50). Even these differences are anticipated in the Old Testament itself. Escape from God’s judgment and experience of his blessing never depended upon ethnicity but upon faithfulness to the covenant (Deuteronomy 29–30) and many Old Testament texts could legitimately be interpreted as looking forward to the coming of God’s eschatological shepherd, deliverer, prophet, king, and Messiah (cf. Gen 3:15; Deut 18:15–20; Ps 2:2; 18:50; 84:9; 132:10, 17; Isa 9:2–7; 42:1–7; 49:1–7; 50:4–9; 52:13–53:12; Ezek 34:23–24). 50

JOHN’S FOUNDATIONAL NARRATIVE

109

scriptures and disclosed the way in which it was being and was to be fulfilled in the last days.’ 51 The foundational narrative of the Apocalypse maintains a modified temporal (this age and the age to come), cosmological (earth and heaven), and soteriological (saved and damned) dualism. 52 The soteriological dualism divides all of humanity between those who will be saved and those who will be damned, those who have the mark of the beast and those who have God’s mark, those who identify with Babylon and those who identify with the bride of the lamb. 53 Each of the visionary narratives serves to highlight some aspect of this dualism. Those aligned with God will be protected from his wrath both in the present and in the future while those aligned with the dragon against God will experience his wrath in the present and future, culminating in the second death in the lake of fire. 54 Bauckham, The Climax of Prophecy, xi. There is no ultimate metaphysical dualism. God is presented throughout the Apocalypse as more powerful than Satan. Cf. Rissi, Time and History, 85. Temporal dualism is a conception of two ages separated by the Day of the Lord (Amos 5:18–20; Joel 2:28–32; Zeph 1:14–16) and is a direct development of Old Testament prophetic expectations in the Second Temple period (1 Enoch 71:15; 4 Ezra 7:50, 112–114; 8:1; 2 Baruch 14:13; 15:7; 44:8–15; 83:4–9). The old age is characterized by sin, evil, oppression, pain, suffering, and death. The Day of the Lord comes and inaugurates the new age which is characterized by resurrection to eternal life, peace, joy, freedom, prosperity, and the direct reign of God over his people. 53 Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, Revelation: Vision of a Just World, 130, writes, ‘Revelation engages in a radical ethical dualism that places before the audience an either-or decision.’ Barry Brummett, ‘Using Apocalyptic Discourse to Exploit Audience Commitments through “Transfer”,’ 58– 73, describes this phenomenon as cosmic bipolarity, although he is primarily concerned with how modern rhetors exploit this dualism to depict ‘one’s own community as radically opposed to other groups which are utterly Satanic’ (p. 68; italics original). 54 Paul B. Duff, Who Rides the Beast? Prophetic Rivalry and the Rhetoric of Crisis in the Churches of the Apocalypse, 75–76, discusses John’s narrative 51 52

110

SOTERIOLOGY AS MOTIVATION

Each of these fundamental dualisms (temporal, cosmological, and soteriological) are modified in the Apocalypse. The temporal dualism of apocalyptic Judaism is adopted yet modified to account for the beginning of the end times in the eschatological Christ event (his life, ministry, death, and resurrection). The cosmological dualism between earth and heaven is maintained yet the boundary is porous. The Christ event and the prayers of the saints affect heaven (Rev 8:3; 12:7–12) while heavenly activity concretely affects the unfolding of events on earth throughout the visions of the Apocalypse. Finally, the strict soteriological dualism is also porous. Those who are ‘in’ must overcome or risk losing their lampstand (Rev 2:5; cf. Rev 3:5), while those who are ‘out’ are invited to repent and take part in God’s eschatological salvation (Rev 14:6–7; 22:17). 55 Does this sketch of John’s foundational narrative drawn from the characters and events alluded to in the text reflect the world solely in terms of its strict dualism that sharply divided the world into two distinct camps, the realm of God and the realm of Satan. While John’s worldview is thoroughly dualistic an exclusive focus on soteriological dualism is reductionistic and does not adequately account for the ‘narrative’ dimension of John’s narrative world—i.e., its temporal component. DeSilva, Seeing Things John’s Way, 288, helpfully draws attention to the basis of this dualism in the Exodus narratives when he notes, ‘This is not new information: it was a prominent and explicit “moral” of the Exodus story, as God sent plagues upon the Egyptians but kept the Israelites out of harm’s way. Before the fourth plague, God announces: “I will make a distinction between my people and your people” (Exod. 8:23 NRSV). Similarly, prior to the devastating plague against the firstborn, Moses announces that no harm will befall firstborn Israelites, “so that you [Pharaoh] may know that the LORD makes a distinction between Egypt and Israel” (11:7 NRSV). This principle is extended in Leviticus: God’s distinguishing the Israelites from other nations to be God’s own people places ethical and other behavioral burdens upon the Israelites after the exodus (20:25–26). The Israelites cannot simply behave like the Canaanites or the Egyptians; they must “live out” the distinction God has made.’ 55 Guttesen, Leaning Into the Future, 151.

JOHN’S FOUNDATIONAL NARRATIVE

111

foundational narrative of his hearers as well? This question, of course, goes beyond the textual evidence of the Apocalypse of John, but on the basis of the rest of the New Testament it is likely that the foundational story sketched above was shared with most other early Christians, at least in its broad outlines. In John’s Apocalypse the dramatic symbolism and bizarre visions associated with the apocalyptic genre communicate a well-known story of conflict and victory based on a widely-shared interpretation of the significance of Christ’s death and resurrection and the widelyshared early Christian hope for his second coming and God’s final intervention in history to set everything right. 56 If there were no points of contact between John’s worldview and that of his audience, the Apocalypse would have been completely unintelligible, but his hearers likely shared the major points in common. 57 On minor points of disagreement (Exactly how serious is compromise?), the Apocalypse is able to shape and form the worldview of its hearers based on the foundational points held in common by all. 58 Barr, Tales of the End, 2, notes, ‘At this constitutional level the Apocalypse is like a gospel—it is a story about Jesus. But it is a different kind of story, one that projects its action on a cosmic screen, as a fundamental battle between good and evil. The audience knew this story well, just as the audiences of Greek drama knew the stories there told’ (italics original). He continues, ‘To understand the Apocalypse we must always keep clearly in mind the struggle of Jesus with the evil powers of this world, their unremitting destruction of him, and his ultimate vindication—a vindication expressed by early believers as his resurrection from the dead and/or being raised to share the throne of God. The Apocalypse is in its most basic sense a retelling of this story of Jesus in a new way and with new images’ (p. 3). 57 Cameron Afzal, The Mystery of the Book of Revelation: Reenvisioning the End of Time, 54–55. 58 Using the categories of data-oriented belief revision theory (DBR), the Apocalypse is more concerned with motivating its hearers to act on stored beliefs through retrieval than it is on providing new data. For a helpful introduction to DBR see Fabio Paglieri and Cristiano 56

112

SOTERIOLOGY AS MOTIVATION

THE FUNCTION OF THE FOUNDATIONAL NARRATIVE IN THE ARGUMENTATION OF THE APOCALYPSE Before concluding this chapter, it is important to look more closely at the relationship of the foundational narrative and worldview presupposed and communicated by the Apocalypse and the specific argumentation contained within the Apocalypse. How does narrative impact argumentation? First, as was noted at the beginning of this chapter, John’s foundational narrative serves as the field of argumentation for his specific micro-argumentation. As the ideological context for his argumentation, the foundational narrative provided the resources from which grounds, warrants, and backing could be drawn in the composition of his arguments, and the place where modern interpreters can look for help in determining the presence and content of implicit warrants and backing. Special attention and care is needed to determine the appropriateness of an interpreter’s identification of implicit elements in any argumentation. James Freeman notes how the identification of implicit warrants is particularly difficult when analyzing arguments as products instead of process, stating, The problem is that when confronted with an argument as product, an argumentative text, we do not know what generating questions have been asked. This we must imaginatively reconstruct, to the best of our ability, from the evidence the argument itself provides. Will the argument as product give us unambiguous indications for reconstructing these questions? In an argument as product, will we always know, for sure, whether a given statement should be regarded as offered to answer the data generating question or the warrant generating question? 59

Castelfranchi, ‘The Toulmin Test: Framing Argumentation within Belief Revision Theories,’ 359–77. 59 James Freeman, Dialectics and the Macrostructure of Arguments: A Theory of Argument Structure, 50–51.

JOHN’S FOUNDATIONAL NARRATIVE

113

A clear understanding of John’s foundational narrative provides the control by which to evaluate proposed and implicit grounds, claims, warrants, and backing in the absence of explicit evidence. Ben Witherington draws attention to a second way that the foundational narrative of the Apocalypse impacts argumentation: the narrative provides its own ‘narrative logic.’ 60 This narrative logic makes a multi-faceted contribution to the book’s argumentation. (1) The narrative logic of the Apocalypse locates hearers within the story itself. 61 Hearers are not just passive observers but active participants in the unfolding drama and their eternal destinies hang in the balance of how they respond to the message of the book. (2) The narrative logic of the visionary narratives also gives ‘deeper reasons for the admonitions of the seven letters.’ 62 Within the Apocalypse’s narrative logic ‘[p]remises and supporting arguments are narrated rather than stated.’ 63 (3) The narrative logic of the Apocalypse provides certain knowledge of the future—a resource unavailable in normal deliberation. 64 Deliberative persuasion is generally limited to knowledge of Witherington, Revelation, 83, 203–205. Ibid., 83; Guttesen, Leaning Into the Future, 119. 62 Jörg Frey, ‘The Relevance of the Roman Imperial Cult for the Book of Revelation: Exegetical and Hermeneutical Reflections on the Relation between the Seven Letters and the Visionary Main Part of the Book,’ 231–55, 246. 63 DeSilva, Seeing Things John’s Way, 257; italics original. ‘The visions as a whole provide a vivid, narrative depiction of what proves to be advantageous or productive of honor in the future’ (p. 235). 64 Ibid., 286, describes this phenomenon when he writes, ‘As he seeks to shape his hearers’ responses to the challenges in their situations, John does what deliberative orators ordinarily could not do: “narrate” the future (Aristotle, Rhet. 3.16.11). A deliberative orator must often forecast consequences and lay them out so convincingly that the hearers will make a decision about actions in the present on the basis of the same, but those consequences are not available for “narration” in the same way as the facts of a criminal case (as in judicial rhetoric). The medium of Christian prophecy, in the vivid mode of apocalypse, opens up the possibility of narrating future events (see Rev. 1:1, 19; 4:1; 22:6).’ 60 61

114

SOTERIOLOGY AS MOTIVATION

probable future consequences for present courses of action. The foundational narrative of the Apocalypse, however, provides John sure and certain knowledge of the future: Christ, the rightful king of the cosmos, will return to bring judgment and punishment to his enemies and salvation to his faithful people. The narrative logic of John’s foundational narrative and the visionary narratives of the Apocalypse provide the grounds, warrant, and backing for the following claim. B The Hebrews Scriptures make it clear that the Day of the Lord will involve the judgment of God’s enemies and the salvation of his people

G Christ will return soon

W Christ’s return will be accompanied by judgment and salvation

so, C Act now to make sure you are on Christ’s side (overcome)

Christ’s soon return (the grounds) should motivate proper action (the claim: overcome now through repentance, worship, witness, perseverance, obedience, etc.). The warrant that connects the grounds to the claim is the common knowledge (illustrated by the visionary narratives; particularly the seals, trumpets, bowls, and New Jerusalem) that his coming would be accompanied by salvation and judgment. This warrant finds its backing in the way God acted in the past (intertexture with the Old Testament) and the way the visionary narratives portray him acting in the future. 65

Ibid., 297 introduces his discussion of intertexture by noting, ‘Intertexture—the pervasive interweaving of texts from the sacred tradition shared by John and his audiences—is a primary resource for John as he seeks to establish the credibility of this future … In particular, intertexture (1) contributes to defining the real crisis to which the hearers must give their attention and in light of which make decisions in the midst of their immediate settings, (2) reinforces major cultural premises that undergird John’s deductive processes, and (3) introduces indirect 65

JOHN’S FOUNDATIONAL NARRATIVE

115

This initial brief sketch of the book’s motivational argumentation drawn from the foundational narrative will be further clarified and modified by looking at the actual phenomena of explicit and implicit motivation in the text of the Apocalypse in the following chapter. John D. O’Banion explores a third way that narrative relates to argumentation in the context of his study of Quintilian. 66 ‘“Sound argument” has come to mean argument that is both logically consistent and true … In this paper, narrative is held to be another kind of argument, one that asserts implicitly through persons and events what logical argument asserts explicitly through propositions.’ 67 Both types attempt to demonstrate the same point; one implicitly and one explicitly. Narrative thus stands in a dialectical relationship with logical argumentation: the two types of argumentation are different yet interrelated and mutually supporting. 68 O’Banion explains further: ‘Proof’ was narrationi congruens, and ‘narration’ was continua propositio. Proof was the ‘congruent’ or logical version of the narratio, and narratio was the ‘continuous’ or narratival version of the proposition (to be defended in the proof). Narratio was one’s case proffered in the form of a story, a continuous form that emphasized the sequence of events constituting the case; confirmatio or probatio was one’s case proffered in the form of arguments from example and historical precedent to render the projected future more plausible.’ 66 John D. O’Banion, ‘Narration and Argumentation: Quintilian on Narratio as the Heart of Rhetorical Thinking,’ 325–51. O’Banion acknowledges the role of narrative as argumentative context when he argues, ‘Truth, or congruent argument, was effective only when presented within a lucidly told narration of the contexts within which any argument could be perceived as appropriate’ (p. 347). 67 Ibid., 326. 68 Ibid., 345, argues ‘The crux of Quintilian’s position was, again, that all appeals, even to logos, are dependent upon narratio.’ He concludes by noting ‘… logic decontextualizes what narration contextualizes and … treats as “congruent” what narration understands as “continuous”’ (p. 351).

116

SOTERIOLOGY AS MOTIVATION logically organized facts, a series of coherent ‘proofs’ that emphasized the logical implications more or less embedded in the narration … The ‘facts of a case’ were presented by two kinds of speech—continua and congruens, narratival sequence and logical coherence. 69

In a similar vein, although without reference to Quintilian, Rita C. Manning explores the ability of narrative to provide motivational force when she writes, Mere arguments to the conclusion that I ought to do something, to avert such tragedies, to alleviate such suffering, do not, and cannot provide this motivational force. Kant and others are simply wrong to say that the recognition that I have a duty provides a sufficient motivation for doing it. It simply fails to work this way for many, and perhaps most, people … What this suggests is that moral reasoning is more than principle applied to situation yielding conclusion. A persuasive moral case must be made personal. 70

Manning proceeds to argue that moral argumentation is made personal and effective through narratives, pictures, and films. Narrative thus functions alongside specific argumentation to provide the motivational force that often fails to come from the bare recognition of what one ought to do. This motivational force is dependent upon (although not identical with) an emotional response to the argumentation, an emotional response that is easier to elicit when the argumentation is situated within a vivid narrative. 71 Ibid., 328. Rita C. Manning, ‘Beyond Argumentation: The Role of Narrative in Moral Reasoning,’ 172. 71 Ibid., 176–77, argues, ‘A model of moral reasoning which does not include the motivational aspect I discussed earlier will be deficient. Hence, prose which includes pictures of suffering or injury is not automatically a fallacious appeal to emotion. We can capture moral reasoning by saying that it’s partly a matter of arguing and partly a matter of bringing the issue home by portraying the suffering or injury. The 69 70

JOHN’S FOUNDATIONAL NARRATIVE

117

Manning’s research supports Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza’s argument that the primary persuasive power of the Apocalypse derives from its construction of a ‘symbolic universe’ or ‘alternate world’ that ‘invites imaginative participation.’ 72 The strength of its persuasion for action lies not in the theological reasoning or historical argument of Rev. but in the ‘evocative’ power of its symbols as well as in its hortatory, imaginative, emotional language, and dramatic movement, which engage the hearer (reader) by eliciting reactions, emotions, convictions, and identifications. 73

According to Schüssler Fiorenza, John does not motivate and encourage his readers ‘… by writing a letter of exhortation but by creating a new “plausibility structure” and symbolic universe’ within the framework of a prophetic-pastoral letter.’ 74 It must be asked, however, to what degree the ‘symbolic universe’ of the Apocalypse is really new. As seen above, John adds very little ‘new’ material to the symbolic universe or worldview passed on to him by the Old Testament, particularly Daniel, Ezekiel, Isaiah, and the Psalms. 75 This chapter has argued that the symbolic universe of the Apocalypse of John discussed by Schüssler Fiorenza can be analyzed more precisely if it is understood in narrative terms: i.e., as portrayal of the suffering of injury may be required in order to generate the appropriate motivation to help to prevent or alleviate the suffering or injury.’ 72 Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, The Book of Revelation: Justice and Judgment, 187. The language of ‘symbolic universe’ is drawn from Peter L. Berger and Thomas Luckmann, The Social Construction of Reality. 73 Schüssler Fiorenza, The Book of Revelation, 187. 74 Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, ‘The Followers of the Lamb: Visionary Rhetoric and Social-Political Situation,’ 130. 75 Jan Fekkes, Isaiah and the Prophetic Traditions in the Book of Revelation: Visionary Antecedents and Their Developments, 289–90; G. K. Beale, John’s Use of the Old Testament in Revelation; Bauckham, The Climax of Prophecy, xi. For example, Psalm 2, alluded to in Rev 12:5; 19:15, provides many of the foundational ideas underlying John’s symbolic world.

118

SOTERIOLOGY AS MOTIVATION

a meta-narrative that stretches from creation to new creation and spatially incorporates activities in the spiritual or heavenly sphere. Narrative is the concrete way John’s first readers would have understood their involvement in God’s plan for the unfolding of history. God had acted in the past in the history recorded in the Old Testament, was continuing to act in history in the present, and would soon bring a culmination to history with the final salvation of his people and judgment of their enemies. John frames his prophetic exhortations within visions of God’s unfolding metanarrative in such a way that his readers saw themselves as important actors in the narrative itself and were motivated to respond accordingly. Contra Schüssler Fiorenza, the visionary narratives are not sufficient by themselves to motivate John’s desired response, even with their powerfully evocative symbols. Their motivational force must be supplied and interpreted by coupling them with rational argumentation and explicit motivation (see chapter four below), and situating them in the broader narrative of God’s activity in the world and among his people. John’s meta-narrative provides the framework in which his rational argumentation makes sense and functions. Within this Christian apocalyptic worldview and metanarrative, John’s argumentation can be seen as fully logical and rationally designed to appeal to the thinking, rational part of his readers and not simply to their emotions. Apocalyptic rationality does not equal non-rationality or the removal of common sense. 76

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS This chapter has sought to establish several points along with providing a sketch of the Apocalypse’s foundational narrative. First, the Apocalypse belongs to the field of argumentation broadly understood as religious discourse but more specifically defined by the early Christian worldview shared by John and his hearers. Second, this common worldview can best be investigated by analyzing the foundational (meta, macro) narrative alluded to and presupposed in the text of the Apocalypse. Third, the foundational 76

Contra Royalty, ‘The Rhetoric of Revelation,’ 600.

JOHN’S FOUNDATIONAL NARRATIVE

119

narrative can be reconstructed and analyzed by employing a reading strategy that focuses on the temporal relationship of events alluded to or presupposed by the text itself. Fourth, the foundational narrative functions as the control by which to evaluate implicit elements of argumentation, as its own ‘narrative logic,’ and as a separate, parallel kind or type of argumentation providing motivational force to the claims of John’s explicit argumentation. Finally, the brief sketch of the Apocalypse’s non-plotted foundational narrative will serve as the foundation (ideological context) for the analysis of John’s explicit motivation in the following chapter.

CHAPTER 4: MOTIVATION IN SENTENCES AND CLAUSES Past scholarly attempts to analyze the rhetoric of the Apocalypse have stressed the function of pathos and ethos in the argumentation while generally neglecting or ignoring John’s appeals to logos. Loren L. Johns succinctly defends this approach when he argues the following. Logos depends on appeals to logic. We see little of this in the Apocalypse … Pathetical persuasion persuades by exciting the emotions and imagination of the audience. The Apocalypse is primarily a book of pathetical persuasion, though its persuasive power is not in the logocentric sort of persuasion modern Westerners often associate with the word persuasion. 1

This negative assessment of the presence of rational argumentation in the Apocalypse and over-emphasis on emotional persuasion misses the inseparable connection between rationality and worldview discussed in the previous chapter. 2 John and his readers Loren L. Johns, The Lamb Christology of the Apocalypse of John: An Investigation into Its Origins and Rhetorical Force, 157. For similar opinions see Greg Carey, Elusive Apocalypse: Reading Authority in the Revelation to John, 163; Ben Witherington III, Revelation, 83. 2 Stephen D. O’Leary, Arguing the Apocalypse: A Theory of Millennial Rhetoric, 15, defends his emphasis on logic and rationality in apocalyptic literature against those ‘disposed to view apocalypticism as an outbreak of irrationality or mass hysteria.’ He argues ‘Most analyses have located the power and rhetorical effectiveness of this discourse primarily in its imagery of the grotesque and fantastic; few have focused on the logical structure of apocalypse and its contributions to social knowledge’ (pp. 20– 1

121

122

SOTERIOLOGY AS MOTIVATION

shared a meta-narrative that provided the basis for rational exhortation. To be sure, the arousal of emotions plays an essential role in John’s motivational strategy, but this does not take place in the Apocalypse apart from logical argumentation. The previous chapter sought to capture and present the big picture, the entire forest, while this current chapter will focus on the exegetical trees—the micro-argumentation contained in individual sentences and clauses. The syntactical and semantic analysis of the text of the Apocalypse contained in the appendix identifies twelve instances of explicit motivation and seven categories of implicit motivation in the Apocalypse. 3 This chapter will begin by analyzing the twelve instances of explicit motivation

21). Similarly, John T. Kirby, ‘The Rhetorical Situations of Revelation 1– 3,’ 197–207, argues, ‘The use of logos here [in the seven proclamations] is important because the pronouncements, though absolute, are seen not to be irrationally despotic: there is logos, a rationale, underlying them all’ (p. 203). David A. deSilva, Seeing Things John’s Way: The Rhetoric of the Book of Revelation, 229–312, has made the most detailed contribution to date to the study of logical argumentation in the Apocalypse. His arguments will be interacted with throughout this chapter. 3 For the purpose of this analysis, ‘explicit motivation’ indicates the occurrence of a clear command linked to a motivating reason or cause in a grounds-conclusion or means-purpose logical relation. ‘Implicit motivation’ is a much broader expression that indicates that a clause or sentence shares a conceptual relationship with explicit motivation (similar grounds and warrants), often with the presence of reason-result or meanspurpose logical relations, but which lacks an explicit imperative or exhortation (claim). The legitimacy of the inclusion of implicit motivation is confirmed by speech act theory. The meaning of an utterance depends on the intended function of the utterance and not solely on formal characteristics (i.e. the presence of an explicit imperative). Cf. John L. Austin, How to Do Things with Words; John R. Searle, Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language; John R. Searle, Expression and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts. Richard A. Young, ‘A Classification of Conditional Sentences Based on Speech Act Theory,’ 36, notes, ‘[T]here are two categories of performatives: explicit performatives (marked in surface structure by standard formula) and implicit performatives (not marked in surface structure by standard formula).’

MOTIVATION IN SENTENCES AND CLAUSES

123

using Toulmin’s model of argumentation analysis (Rev 2:5, 10, 16, 2:25–28; 3:2, 3, 11, 18, 19; 14:7; 18:4, 20). 4 Toulmin’s model will be Although there is clearly overlap between Toulmin’s model and the enthymeme of classical rhetoric, this chapter will not analyze John’s logic in terms of enthymemes. David E. Aune, ‘The Use and Abuse of the Enthymeme in New Testament Scholarship,’ 299–320, provides a cogent discussion and analysis of the history of the enthymeme from Aristotle onward and its (mis)use in New Testament Scholarship. He concludes that Aristotle’s theory of the enthymeme was largely unknown outside Rome in the first century C.E., and there were many different ways to understand the enthymeme in antiquity (Quintillian [5.10.1–3] lists five meanings: a thought, a maxim supported by a reason, an inference from consequents or contraries, a rhetorical syllogism, and an incomplete syllogism). He concludes by arguing that New Testament scholars who analyze New Testament texts in terms of enthymemes err by assuming that one of these meanings is more important than the rest (so William Kurz, ‘Hellenistic Rhetoric in the Christological Proof of Luke-Acts,’ 171–95; Lewis R. Donelson, Pseudepigraphy and Ethical Argument in the Pastoral Epistles; David Hellholm, ‘Enthymemic Argumentation in Paul: The Case of Romans 6,’ 119–79; John D. Moores, Wrestling with Rationality in Paul: Romans 1–8 in a New Perspective; Vernon K. Robbins, ‘From Enthymeme to Theology in Luke 11:1–13,’ 191–214; Paul A. Holloway, ‘The Enthymeme as an Element of Style in Paul,’ 329–42; Marc J. Debanné, ‘An Enthymematic Reading of Philippians: Towards a Typology of Pauline Arguments,’ 481–503). Since practical logic deals with persuasive probability and is evaluated as convincing or unconvincing it is not helpful to treat enthymemes as truncated syllogisms that must be deductively certain and which are evaluated as valid or invalid. Toulmin’s warrants are not missing premises needed to create logically deductive syllogisms, but they are rules of thumb, principles, laws of nature, or accepted values, customs, or procedures that justify or warrant (with degrees of probability) the move from grounds to claim. The widespread definitional and methodological problems with interpreting New Testament logic in terms of enthymemes does not mean that it is not a useful framework for analysis (see the helpful discussion in deSilva, Seeing Things John’s Way, 229–55, who works with a very broad understanding of an enthymeme [p. 234]), but that it should not be seen as the only way to analyze first-century argumentation—especially since John likely had little 4

124

SOTERIOLOGY AS MOTIVATION

modified as needed to allow for chained argumentation, and multiple grounds and warrants. 5 When a particular element of argumentation is not explicit in the text it will be italicized in the diagram. It is not always easy to determine the explicitness or implicitness of a given element in the argumentation—implicit and italicized elements are derived from the surrounding situational and textual context, from the foundational narrative of the Apocalypse, or from what could be considered common shared knowledge in Second Temple Judaism and early Christianity. This chapter will then proceed to analyze the seven categories of implicit motivation: declarations of blessedness (Rev 1:3; 14:13; 16:15; 19:9; 20:6; 22:7, 14), declarations of imminence (Rev 1:1, 3; 2:16; 3:11; 22:6, 7, 10, 12, 20), Jesus’ wishes or opinion (Rev 2:4, 14, 20; 3:15), the standard of judgment (Rev 2:23; 18:6; 20:12, 13; 22:12), John’s interpretive comments (Rev 13:10; 14:12), various reason-result or grounds-conclusion logical relations (Rev 3:4, 8, 10, 16; 7:15; 15:4), and various condition-consequence logical relations (Rev 3:20; 14:9–11; 20:15; 21:27; 22:18–19). This chapter will conclude by knowledge of classical rhetoric. The organic connection of Toulmin’s model to enthymemes becomes clear with Eugene Ryan’s definition of an enthymeme: ‘The enthymeme is a relatively brief argument, consisting of a statement enunciating some conviction with regard to human affairs (the conclusion), plus usually one reason why this conviction ought to be accepted (premise), with the reason being such that it is (1) a proposition that is generally accepted as true, and (2) related to the conviction in such a way that the conclusion will ordinarily be accepted, because it ought ordinarily to be accepted, by the hearer’ (Eugene E. Ryan, Aristotle’s Theory of Rhetorical Argumentation, 31, cited in Aune, ‘Use and Abuse of the Enthymeme,’ 305–306; cf. Lloyd F. Bitzer, ‘Aristotle’s Enthymeme Revisited,’ 149–51). Toulmin’s model has the potential to bring clarity, precision, and consistency to the study of micro-argumentation in the New Testament—particularly in light of the current state of disarray among New Testament scholars (competing definitions and methodologies) concerning the study of enthymemes. 5 The following abbreviations appear within the diagrams: G (grounds), C (claim), W (warrant), B (backing), R (rebuttal), CR (counterrebuttal).

MOTIVATION IN SENTENCES AND CLAUSES

125

synthesizing John’s motivational argumentation. I will argue on the basis of this synthesis that John primarily grounds his arguments soteriologically; i.e. the prospect of gaining salvation and the possibility of losing salvation provide the grounds for his exhortations to his hearers.

EXPLICIT MOTIVATING EXPRESSIONS IN THE APOCALYPSE 6 Seven Proclamations (Rev 2:1–3:22) Revelation 2:5 μνημόνευε οὖν πόθεν πέπτωκας καὶ μετανόησον καὶ τὰ πρῶτα ἔργα ποίησον· εἰ δὲ μή, ἔρχομαί σοι καὶ κινήσω τὴν λυχνίαν σου ἐκ τοῦ τόπου αὐτῆς, ἐὰν μὴ μετανοήσῃς.

The structure of Jesus’ warning/threat can be diagrammed as follows. 7 Revelation 18:6–8 is excluded from this analysis even though ὁ λαός μου (Rev 18:4) seems to be the natural subject of the commands to execute vengeance upon Babylon because the Apocalypse consistently presents God as the one ultimately executing judgment (Rev 18:8, 20; cf. Rev 6:9–11; 8:2–5; 11:3–6, 18; 12:7–10; 14:8–20; 15:7; 16:5–7; 17:1, 17). The claim, ‘pay her back,’ if directed to Christians, has nothing to do with claims contained in the broader motivation of the book (overcome through worship, witness, perseverance, obedience, and repentance), and would point exclusively to something the saints would take part in when Christ returned (Rev 2:26–27; 17:14; 19:14) and not something in which they needed to take in order to overcome. It thus does not qualify as a command directed at the hearer for immediate implementation. For further discussion see deSilva, Seeing Things John’s Way, 266–67; David E. Aune, Revelation 17–22, 994, notes, ‘The righteous do occasionally act as agents of divine retribution in Jewish apocalyptic literature, perhaps in part as a legacy of the holy-war tradition (1 Enoch 90:19; 91:12; 95:3, 7; 96:1; 98:12; Jub. 23:30; Apoc. Abr. 29.17–20).’ 7 Desilva, Seeing Things John’s Way, 236, identifies this as an ‘argument from the contrary, using the topic of the consequences.’ 6

126

SOTERIOLOGY AS MOTIVATION

G If not, I will come and remove your lampstand 8

so, C Remember, repent, and do the first works 9

The implicit warrant necessary to move from the grounds to the claim can be stated as follows: the failure to repent and do the first works in keeping with their first love deserved severe consequences. This evaluation of the severity of the Ephesian Christians’ actions and loss of love is determined by Jesus himself—the introduction of Jesus as the speaker in Rev 2:1 directly connects Jesus with the transcendent, awe-inspiring vision The debate concerning the timing of Jesus’ coming (whether this points to his final eschatological coming or an imminent historical visitation) is largely irrelevant to the motivational strategy. The imminence language throughout the book (discussed below) considerably blurs the lines between such a distinction since the motivating force derives more from what Christ will do when he comes than the exact timing of his coming. On the debate see G. K. Beale, The Book of Revelation, 232–33, 274–76; Richard Bauckham, ‘Synoptic Parousia Parables and the Apocalypse,’ 170–73; Robert H. Mounce, The Book of Revelation, 111–12; George B. Caird, A Commentary on the Revelation of Saint John the Divine, 48– 49. Beale, The Book of Revelation, 276, accurately observes, ‘[T]he ambiguity may, in fact, be intentional, in order to heighten the element of imminence so that the readers will sense the urgency to solve their problems.’ Similarly, Grant R. Osborne, Revelation, 118, correctly notes, ‘Scholars often find too great a dichotomy between present and future judgment in the book. There is an inaugurated force in passages such as this one. Christ’s coming in judgment in the present is a harbinger of his final coming. In this context Christ’s displeasure will be felt both in the present and at the final judgment.’ 9 The call to remembrance implicitly involves a call to act on their memory of the past (cf. Isa 44:21; 46:8–9; Mic 6:5; Sir 7:28; 23:14; 28:6–7; 1 Cor 15:1–2; 2 Pet 1:12–15; 3:1; Jude 5). Cf. Osborne, Revelation, 116– 117; David E. Aune, Revelation 1–5, 147. Aune additionally points out that the call to remember communicates that the hearer is not being called to obey new commands, but old ones: it ‘emphasizes that parenesis supposedly contains nothing new or original’ (p. 147). 8

MOTIVATION IN SENTENCES AND CLAUSES

127

of the son of man in Rev 1:13–16. His authority backs his assessment of the situation. 10 The severity and conditional nature of the grounds is emphasized by the synonymous use of εἰ and ἐὰν to book-end the statement of judgment (εἰ δὲ μή … ἐὰν μὴ μετανοήσῃς). ‘The placement of conditionals framing the judgment statement produces a powerful effect, as it emphasizes a way out of the dilemma—repent!’ 11 In addition, the proclamation to the church at Ephesus contains an implicit rebuttal and counter rebuttal. The Christians in Ephesus were doing many things right (Rev 2:2–3). Surely their positive accomplishments should count for something. This implicit rebuttal is immediately countered by Jesus’ weighty pronouncement that they had abandoned their first love (Rev 2:4)—an action which evidently undercut their positive accomplishments. 12 The diagram can thus be expanded. Jesus’ authority provides the implicit and explicit backing for all the explicit motivation identified in the seven proclamations. DeSilva, Seeing Things John’s Way, 235, describes how the beginning of each oracle supports this authority when he notes, ‘Each oracle begins with the speaker’s self-identification, chiefly using phrases drawn from the initial, awe-inspiring vision of the glorified Lord (1:12–20), strategically selected to undergird some feature of the oracle itself. The briefer echoes of that initial vision serve as economical reminders of the power and stature of the explicated speaker, establishing his ethos: his authority to speak and the importance of giving him an attentive hearing.’ From this basis all the argumentation in the Apocalypse could be considered ‘radical rhetoric’ (cf. George A. Kennedy, New Testament Interpretation through Rhetorical Criticism, 6–7), but this fails to capture the point that the early Christians possessed a shared understanding of the nature of the world and reality in the form of their foundational narrative that allowed rational and logical argumentation to take place. 11 Osborne, Revelation, 118. 12 DeSilva, Seeing Things John’s Way, 237, draws attention to the fact that the hearers would have had to supply some premise like ‘Love must be maintained’ or ‘A diminution of expressions of love among Christians is disgraceful or disadvantageous.’ The importance of love as a Christian virtue was a widely shared conviction among early Christians (Mark 10

128

SOTERIOLOGY AS MOTIVATION

B Jesus has declared it so

G If not, I will remove your lampstand

W Failure to remember, repent of lack of love, and do the first works warrants severe consequences

so, C Remember, repent, and do the first works

R Unless their positive accomplishments removes the need to repent CR Loss of love negates positive accomplishments

The motivating factor here is negative: the hearer is motivated to respond by the prospect of loss. 13 But what are they in danger of losing if they do not respond? What would it mean to have one’s lampstand removed from its place? In the symbolic world of John’s visions the lampstands represented the existence and identity of the churches in the presence of Jesus (Rev 1:20) highlighting their function of witness (cf. Rev 11:3–7, 10) and possibly the empowerment of the Spirit (cf. Zech 4:2–6). For Jesus to remove a lampstand from its place would be to cause the church to cease to exist as a genuine gathering of God’s people. 14 The threatened loss 12:28–31; John 13:34–35; 15:12–13, 17; Rom 13:8–10; 1 Cor 13:1–13; Gal 5:13–14, 22; Eph 5:2; Heb 13:1; Jas 2:8; 1 Pet 1:22; 2:17; 3:8; 1 John 3:11– 18). 13 The likelihood of the fulfillment of the severe threat is somewhat lessened by Jesus’ positive affirmation in Rev 2:6. It was likely, because they hated what Jesus hated, that they would respond appropriately to the call to repentance and would avert the threatened consequences of nonrepentance. According to Ignatius this is in fact what happened (Ign. Eph 1.1; 9.1). The persuasive intentions of the Apocalypse were apparently accomplished in Ephesus. 14 Beale, The Book of Revelation, 232, notes, ‘If they do not repent, Christ will come and judge them. They will cease to exist as a church

MOTIVATION IN SENTENCES AND CLAUSES

129

thus entailed the loss of identity as the people of God who would be sealed and protected from God’s wrath during his judgments of the world and who would experience the final salvation of resurrection life in God’s new creation. 15 This threatened loss of participation in God’s people, and by extension, final salvation, is presented as motivation to overcome in the present through repentance. Revelation 2:10 μηδὲν φοβοῦ ἃ μέλλεις πάσχειν. ἰδοὺ μέλλει βάλλειν ὁ διάβολος ἐξ ὑμῶν εἰς φυλακὴν ἵνα πειρασθῆτε καὶ ἕξετε θλῖψιν ἡμερῶν δέκα. γίνου πιστὸς ἄχρι θανάτου, καὶ δώσω σοι τὸν στέφανον τῆς ζωῆς.

G I will give to you the crown of life

so, C Do not fear and be faithful unto death

There is an obvious implicit rebuttal that could be raised against the command to overcome fear and be faithful: the reality of suffering and death. Suffering, imprisonment, tribulation, and death should normally produce fear and fear naturally motivates one to do whatever it takes to remove the cause of fear. In the case of John’s hearers, compromise, refusal to witness, and failure to be

when the very function that defines the essence of their existence is no longer performed.’ DeSilva, Seeing Things John’s Way, 237, argues, ‘The seriousness of these consequences functions as a topic of amplification, showing that the matter is indeed sufficiently grave to merit the hearers’ immediate attention and positive response.’ Aune, Revelation 1–6, 147, indicates, ‘This is nothing less than a threat to obliterate the Ephesian congregation as an empirical Christian community.’ Cf. Frederick J. Murphy, Fallen Is Babylon: The Revelation to John, 116; Alfred Loisy, L’Apocalypse de Jean, 90; Pierre Prigent, L’Apocalypse de Saint Jean, 42; Stephen S. Smalley, The Revelation to John: A Commentary on the Greek Text of the Apocalypse, 62; Craig S. Keener, Revelation, 106. 15 Cf. Osborne, Revelation, 118; Brian K. Blount, Revelation: A Commentary, 51; Contra Robert L. Thomas, Revelation 1–7: An Exegetical Commentary, 146–47, the threat involves soteriological consequences and not simply loss of witness.

130

SOTERIOLOGY AS MOTIVATION

faithful unto death would remove the cause of fear. The grounds, however, present a reason to be faithful even to the extreme point of death: attainment of the crown of life. The implicit warrant makes the logic between the grounds and claim clear. The argument calls the hearer to value eternal gain more than present loss, even the ultimate loss of physical life. This warrant finds its backing in the foundational narrative of John and his hearers: particularly the reality of God, Christ, and eternal life in God’s new creation. Thus, the motivational logic appears to be: B Shared knowledge that God will bring eternal life to his people in his new creation

G I will give to you the crown of life

W The attainment of eternal life is worth present temporal suffering and death

so, C Do not fear and be faithful unto death 16

R Unless suffering and tribulation results in death or there is no life after death CR Jesus promises life after death Cf. Plato, Gorgias 526D–527A; 4 Macc. 13:13–15; 15:2–3; 2 Cor 4:16–18. DeSilva, Seeing Things John’s Way, 240, notes that ‘This additional argument from the consequences employs the topic of relative expediency: it is better to endure a temporary hardship than one of longer duration and greater severity.’ He also argues, ‘The author had already invoked Jesus’ own example (“he who was dead and came to life,” 2:8) as a kind of historical precedent that provided evidence for the reasonableness of the course urged and the credibility of the incentive offered … The effectiveness of these arguments depends upon the hearers’ prior conviction that disciples are called to participate, by imitation, in Christ’s example of attaining the resurrection life through obedience to the point of death … (Mark 8:34–35; Rom. 6:1–11; Phil. 3:10–11; 2 Tim. 2:11–12; Heb. 12:2; 1 Pet. 1:11; 2:21)’ (p. 240). 16

MOTIVATION IN SENTENCES AND CLAUSES

131

The motivating factor here is positive: the hearer is motivated to respond by the prospect of gain. In order for the motivation to be effective the proposed gain must surpass the loss that would incur through obedience to the claim. The crown of life symbolizes eternal life in God’s new creation throughout the New Testament and Second Temple Jewish literature (Jas 1:12; 1 Pet 5:4; Rev 3:11; cf. 1 Cor 9:25; 2 Tim 4:8; Heb 2:9; 2 Baruch 15:8; 4 Macc. 17:12–18; Martyrdom of Polycarp 17:1; 19:2; Wis 5:16; 1QH 9:25; 1QS 4:7). 17 Attainment of final salvation is thus presented as the motivation to overcome in the present no matter what the cost. Revelation 2:16 μετανόησον οὖν· εἰ δὲ μή, ἔρχομαί σοι ταχὺ καὶ πολεμήσω μετʼ αὐτῶν ἐν τῇ ῥομφαίᾳ τοῦ στόματός μου.

G If not, I will come and war against them soon

W Repentance averts Jesus’ wrath 18

so, C Repent

The third person plural pronoun αὐτῶν indicates Jesus’ awareness of a division among the Christians in Pergamum: some advocated compromise and the eating of food sacrificed to idols (Balaam and the Nicolaitans) while others refused to compromise. 19 The call to repentance functions as a call to clearly choose sides. Those who Aune, Revelation 1–6, 167; Keener, Revelation, 117. This warrant represents common knowledge in both Judaism (concerning Yahweh) and Christianity (1 Kgs 8:47–48; 2 Chron 6:37–38; Ps 7:12; 78:34; Isa 1:27; Jer 5:3; 34:15; Ezek 14:6; 18:30; Zech 1:6; Matt 3:2, 8; 11:20–21; 12:41; Mark 1:4, 15; 6:12; Luke 13:3, 5; 15:7, 10; 24:47; Acts 2:38; 3:19; 5:31; 8:22; 11:18; 13:24; 17:30; 19:4; 20:21; 26:20; Rom 2:4; 2 Cor 7:9–10; 12:21; 2 Tim 2:25; Heb 6:1; 2 Pet 3:9). 19 The reference to Balaam invokes a historical precedent. DeSilva, Seeing Things John’s Way, 241, notes, ‘This precedent is advanced as an argument from a comparable situation … from which conclusions about the present situation can be reliably derived.’ 17 18

132

SOTERIOLOGY AS MOTIVATION

have been compromising must repent, and those who have not been compromising must maintain their stand. The temporal adverb ταχύς functions to intensify the call to repentance. The motivating factor here is negative: the hearer is motivated to respond by the prospect of loss. 20 A fuller visionary description of Jesus waging war with the sword of his mouth occurs in Rev 19:11–21 and ends with birds gorging themselves on the flesh of Christ’s adversaries (Rev 19:21). The sword ‘is an implicit metaphor for the tongue, and so for the word or law pronounced by the risen Christ.’ 21 The language of ‘waging war’ or ‘fighting’ (πολεμέω) draws upon the divine-warrior motif from the Old Testament where God fights against his enemies (Exod 15:1–3; Num 10:35; Ps 20:7; 24:7–10; Lam 2:4–5 [his own people in judgment]; Zech 14:3). 22 The possible failure to gain entrance into God’s new creation because of Christ’s warfare against them as enemies is presented here as motivation to overcome in the present through repentance. 23 DeSilva, Seeing Things John’s Way, 242, argues, ‘The argument from the contrary course (the option of not repenting, 2:16b) utilizes the topic of the consequences to dissuade the hearers from that option’ (italics original). 21 Aune, Revelation 1–6, 189. 22 Cf. Tremper Longman III and Daniel G. Reid, God is a Warrior; Patrick D. Miller, The Divine Warrior in Early Israel; Gerhard von Rad, Holy War in Ancient Israel. 23 Smalley, The Revelation, 70, argues that ‘The eschatology of the Apocalypse is balanced. The Christ, who comes in swift judgment (‘soon’) to the church at Pergamum, stands above time and dwells in eternity. But he comes to his own as Saviour and Judge in the present (cf. 2.5; 3.20), as well as at the end (19.11—20.3; see also 22.12–13).’ There is soteriological continuity between the present and the future in that Jesus’ coming in judgment against individuals in the present will presumably correlate with his pronouncement and actions against them in the final judgment. Sweet, Revelation, 90, captures this dynamic when he writes, ‘[T]hey will be on the wrong side at the final moment of truth, which is constantly being anticipated in present experience.’ 20

MOTIVATION IN SENTENCES AND CLAUSES

133

Revelation 2:25–28 πλὴν ὃ ἔχετε κρατήσατε ἄχρι[ς] οὗ ἂν ἥξω. καὶ ὁ νικῶν καὶ ὁ τηρῶν ἄχρι τέλους τὰ ἔργα μου, δώσω αὐτῷ ἐξουσίαν ἐπὶ τῶν ἐθνῶν καὶ ποιμανεῖ αὐτοὺς ἐν ῥάβδῳ σιδηρᾷ ὡς τὰ σκεύη τὰ κεραμικὰ συντρίβεται, ὡς κἀγὼ εἴληφα παρὰ τοῦ πατρός μου, καὶ δώσω αὐτῷ τὸν ἀστέρα τὸν πρωϊνόν.

Among many possible meanings, καί can indicate a causal relation. 24 Kαί signals explicit motivation in a grounds-conclusion logical relation in Rev 2:10, and three factors support the use of καί to also signal explicit motivation in Rev 2:26: the repetition of the preposition ἄχρι in the command (2:25; until Jesus comes) and in the motivation (2:26; until the end); the unique introduction here of a promise to the one who overcomes with a conjunction (καί; the rest of the promises begin immediately with the articular present participle ὁ νικῶν or τῷ νικῶντι); and the lack of any other explicit motivation for the command in 2:25. 25

Lauri Thurén, Argument and Theology in 1 Peter: The Origins of Christian Paraenesis, 79, f.n. 82, notes that ‘especially the consecutive and explicative meanings come close to the causal one.’ Louw and Nida do not acknowledge this usage of καί. 25 David E. Aune, ‘The Form and Function of the Proclamations to the Seven Churches (Revelation 2–3),’ 186, makes the observation that 245 out of 337 sentences (73.79%) in the Nestle-Aland26 text of Revelation begin with καί. While this observation alerts the interpreter to be cautious in drawing interpretive conclusions from the presence of καί at the beginning of a sentence in Revelation, the contextual evidence in this case does indicate exegetical significance. This conclusion is further supported by the way the hearing formula begins to occur after the promise to the overcomer. This change from the pattern of the first three letters (with the hearing formula coming before the promise) indicates that John intended the promises to the overcomer in Rev 2:26–28 to support the command in Rev 2:25. 24

134

SOTERIOLOGY AS MOTIVATION

G The one who overcomes will share Jesus’ rule of the nations and will receive the morning star

W One should act in such a way so as to gain eternal future reward

so, C Hold fast until the end

The connection of Rev 2:25 with Rev 2:26–28 indicates that holding fast until the end is synonymous with overcoming and keeping Jesus’ works until the end. The hearer is motivated to respond with overcoming endurance and obedience by the promise of future reward—sharing in Christ’s rule of the nations. 26 This particular instance of motivational logic is important because it makes the motivational function of all the promises to the overcomer explicit. These promises occur structurally at the conclusion of each of the seven proclamations to the churches (Rev 2:7, 11, 17, 26–28; 3:5, 12, 21) and in John’s vision of future life in God’s new creation (Rev 21:7). Each of the seven initial promises point forward to the visions of final salvation at the end of the Apocalypse (Revelation 20–22). 27 Altogether they illustrate one of John’s primary motivational strategies: hearers should strive to overcome in order to gain final salvation. Final salvation is dependent upon a human response of overcoming. 28 Beale forcefully notes that ‘those who fail to prove themselves Contra R. H. Charles, The Revelation of St. John, 1.54; Caird, The Revelation, 27–28, 33–34, 58, the promises to the overcomer are not limited to those who suffer martyrdom for their witness and faith. Revelation 21:7 makes it clear that all true believers are in view—this is confirmed by the reference in Rev 21:8 to all unbelievers. Cf. Beale, The Book of Revelation, 270–72; George R. Beasley-Murray, The Book of Revelation, 77– 78; Osborne, Revelation, 544; Eun-Chul Shin, ‘More Than Conquerors: The Conqueror (NIKΆΩ) Motif in the Book of Revelation,’ 2, 322. 27 Shin, ‘More Than Conquerors,’ 1. 28 Osborne, Revelation, 123, argues that ‘overcoming in Revelation is analogous to πιστεύω (pisteuō, believe) in Paul, referring to an active trust in God that leads to faithfulness in the difficult situations of life lived for Christ.’ 26

MOTIVATION IN SENTENCES AND CLAUSES

135

“overcomers” fail thereby to prove themselves Christians.’ 29 The function of these promises to the overcomers as motivation is confirmed by the accompanying formula ‘the one having an ear, let him hear what the spirit says to the churches’ (Rev 2:7, 11, 17, 29; 3:6, 13, 22; 13:9; cf. Isa 6:9–10; Ezek 3:27; 12:2; Jer 5:21; Matt 11:15; 13:9, 43; Mark 4:9, 23; Luke 8:8; 14:35), and by the way overcoming draws together and epitomizes the primary rhetorical claim of the entire Apocalypse. 30 Four of the promises employ δώσω (Rev 2:7, 17, 26–28; 3:21) to make it clear that Jesus is the giver of the promise to the overcomer. 31 Revelation 3:5 stands out for being the only promise that includes something Jesus would not do; namely, blot out the name of the overcomer from the book of life. This makes the same point as the other promises by assuring the overcomer of the reception of final salvation. 32 Overcomers will eat of the tree of life Beale, The Book of Revelation, 272. Cf Anne-Marit Enroth, ‘The Hearing Formula in the Book of Revelation,’ 598–608; Beale, The Book of Revelation, 236–39, 234 notes that, ‘In the Gospels this exhortation is a formulaic exhortation to heed the message of the symbolic parables.’ In the Old Testament and the Synoptics the formulaic exhortation accompanies symbolic or parabolic material as a call for the hearers to rightly interpret and respond to the message through obedience while indicating that the message would increase the divide between the elect who would rightly respond and the rest who would be further hardened by the message. ‘Throughout both testaments, “to hear” is “to obey”’ (Osborne, Revelation, 121). Enroth, ‘The Hearing Formula,’ cogently establishes that the function of the hearing formula in the Apocalypse is parenetic. Cf. Heikki Räisänen, Die Parabeltheorie im Markusevangelium, 85–86. 31 Similarly, first person future verbs are used to make the same point in Rev 3:5 (οὐ μὴ ἐξαλείψω, ὁμολογήσω; cf. the divine passive περιβαλεῖται), 12 (ποιήσω, γράψω). Revelation 2:11 (οὐ μὴ ἀδικηθῇ), and 21:7 (κληρονομήσει) make the same point regarding final salvation by means of third person instead of first person verbs. 32 Caird, The Revelation, 49–50, speaks of a ‘conditional predestination.’ He states, ‘A man cannot earn the right to have his name on the citizen roll, but he can forfeit it; Christ may strike his name from 29 30

136

SOTERIOLOGY AS MOTIVATION

in the paradise of God (Rev 2:7; cf. Rev 22:2; Gen 2:9; 3:22–24; Ezek 47:12; Test. Levi 18:10–11; Pss Sol. 14:2–3, 10; 4 Ezra 8:52; 1 En. 24:3–25:6; 2 En. 8:3–7), will not be harmed by the second death (Rev 2:11; cf. Rev 21:7–8), will receive hidden manna, a white stone, and a new name (Rev 2:17; cf. Rev 22:4), will participate in Christ’s rule of the nations and will receive the morning star (Rev 2:26–28; cf. Rev 22:5, 16; Ps 2:8–9), will be clothed in white garments and will not have their names blotted from the book of life (Rev 3:5; cf. Rev 13:8; 17:8; 20:12, 15; 21:27; see also Exod 32:32–33; Ps 9:5; 69[68]:28; 87:6; Isa 4:3; Ezek 13:9; Dan 7:10; 12:1–2; Jub. 30:22; 1QM 12.2–5; Jos. Asen. 15:4; Luke 10:20; Phil 4:3; Heb 12:23), will be made a pillar in God’s temple, will never leave it, and will be inscribed with God’s name, the name of God’s city, and Christ’s name (Rev 3:12; cf. Rev 21:2, 10; 22:4), will sit the book of life.’ Cf. Blount, Revelation, 71–72. Beale, The Book of Revelation, 279–82, is right in what he affirms but wrong in what he denies concerning the soteriological implications of this verse. He affirms that the promise, negatively expressed (‘I will not erase his name’), functions as a positive affirmation of final salvation. He denies, however, the logical motivational inference that names could indeed be erased from the book because ‘none of the other promises to the overcomer contains such an implicit threat of losing a salvation once gained, but they are coined in purely positive terms,’ and ‘in the writer’s thinking it would be impossible to conceive of them being erased from the “book of life,” since their names were never written there in the first place (as 13:8 and 17:8 clearly show).’ He is right that the promises to the overcomer represent positive motivation, but this fails to take into account the explicit and implicit motivation throughout the Apocalypse which depends for its motivational force precisely on the logical inference that he seeks to deny (cf. the discussion in this chapter of Rev 2:5, 16; 3:2–3, 11, 16; 14:7, 9–11; 18:4; 20:15; 21:27; 22:18–19; Jesus’ opinion and wishes [Rev 2:4, 14, 20; 3:2, 15], the standard of judgment [Rev 2:23]). Christians in the present must overcome in order to participate in final salvation and failure to overcome leads to the opposite consequences of exclusion from participation. So Keener, Revelation, 145–47; Osborne, Revelation, 183. See chapter five below for additional discussion of whether a Christian can lose salvation according to the Apocalypse.

MOTIVATION IN SENTENCES AND CLAUSES

137

with Christ on his throne (Rev 3:21; cf. Rev 22:1, 5), and will inherit all the things described in the vision of God’s new creation and the descent of the New Jerusalem (Rev 21:7). All the promises point to the reception and experience of final salvation: eternal resurrection life in God’s new creation as described in Rev 21:1–22:5. 33 Implicit in all these promises is the fact that those who failed to overcome would not receive the things promised. Overcoming is thus presented as the human response necessary for inclusion within the people of God—those who would be saved in God’s final day of salvation and judgment. 34 Beale contends, ‘That is, never denying Christ’s “name” now (3:8; cf. v 10) and persevering through tribulation (vv 10–11) are the basis for inheriting the reward of everlasting identification with Christ’s “new name” after death.’ 35 The motivational force of the promises to the overcomer throughout the Apocalypse can be diagrammed as follows. B Shared knowledge concerning the reality of future salvation and judgment W You want to receive final eternal salvation and avoid eternal damnation G Christ will give the overcomer final salvation (resurrection life in God’s new creation)

so, C Overcome

Cf. Paul S. Minear, I Saw a New Earth: An Introduction to the Visions of the Apocalypse, 59–61. 34 Beale, The Book of Revelation, 234, rightly argues, ‘… νικάω (‘conquor’) is repeated in the concluding promise in all the letters as the condition for inheriting salvation. The promised inheritance is the main point toward which each letter aims. It is on the basis of believers heeding the exhortations of the body of each letter that they will inherit the promise. Although the promises are phrased differently in each letter, they are all versions of the final promise of the book to the “conquerors,” which is generally stated in 21:7 …’ 35 Beale, The Book of Revelation, 293. 33

138

SOTERIOLOGY AS MOTIVATION

The motivating factor here is positive: the hearer is motivated to respond by the prospect of gain. 36 The content of the gain is described in the text by means of symbolic language and visions (Rev 21:7) that point forward to final salvation—eternal resurrection life in God’s new creation (Rev 21:1–6). Revelation 3:2–3 γίνου γρηγορῶν καὶ στήρισον τὰ λοιπὰ ἃ ἔμελλον ἀποθανεῖν, οὐ γὰρ εὕρηκά σου τὰ ἔργα πεπληρωμένα ἐνώπιον τοῦ θεοῦ μου. μνημόνευε οὖν πῶς εἴληφας καὶ ἤκουσας καὶ τήρει καὶ μετανόησον. ἐὰν οὖν μὴ γρηγορήσῃς, ἥξω ὡς κλέπτης, καὶ οὐ μὴ γνῷς ποίαν ὥραν ἥξω ἐπὶ σέ. B Jesus is the rightful king of the cosmos G I have not found your works complete

W Jesus’ assessment is probative 37

so, C Wake up and strengthen what is about to die

In Rev 3:2 the authority of Jesus’ assessment of the situation is the initial grounds for calling upon them to wake up and repent. The Synoptic traditions stressed the need to be awake and alert in preparation for Christ’s return (Matt 25:13; Mark 13:35–37), often associating this motif with the analogy of the coming of a thief (Matt 24:42–43; Luke 12:36–40; cf. 1 Thess 5:4–6; Rev 16:15). 38 The grounds and claim are further developed and elaborated upon

The positive motivation of the promises to the overcomer is easily converted to negative motivation as in the contrast between the overcomer and the cowardly in Rev 21:7–8. Failure to overcome necessarily entails failure to receive the promises and the resultant exclusion from God’s new creation (cf. erasure from the book of life in Rev 3:5). 37 See the fuller discussion below of Jesus’ wishes and opinions. 38 Richard Bauckham, The Climax of Prophecy: Studies in the Book of Revelation, 104–109. 36

MOTIVATION IN SENTENCES AND CLAUSES

139

in Rev 3:3 with a threat detailing what would happen if they failed to respond accordingly. 39 G If not I will come against you as a thief

W Repentance averts Jesus’ wrath

so, C Wake up, remember, keep, and repent

It is clear that John’s hearers were to wake up and strengthen what was about to die by remembering, keeping what they had received and heard, and repenting. The exact nature of the threatened consequences is not entirely clear but the context suggests that in their unrepentant state they were dead (Rev 3:1), and the unrepentant believers in Sardis are contrasted with a few in Sardis who had not soiled their garments and were worthy to walk with Jesus in white (Rev 3:4). This suggests that the consequences were severe. 40 To be dead and have Jesus come against one as a thief likely indicated lack of inclusion within the eschatological people of God who walked with Jesus in white and had nothing to fear from his wrath. 41 The motivating factor here is negative: the hearer is motivated to respond to the call to repentance by the prospect of eschatological loss. Revelation 3:11 ἔρχομαι ταχύ· κράτει ὃ ἔχεις, ἵνα μηδεὶς λάβῃ τὸν στέφανόν σου. As in the proclamation to Ephesus, the grounds employ an argument from the contrary course detailing the consequences that would follow failure to comply with the exhortation. Cf. deSilva, Seeing Things John’s Way, 245. 40 Blount, Revelation, 69, suggests that ‘given the thematic parallel with 2:5, one might imagine that the thief would do here what Christ threatened to do in Ephesus: take the lampstand, the church, and remove if from its place of relationship with God.’ 41 Having Jesus come against the hearers recalls the warnings related to divine warrior traditions in Rev 2:16. 39

140

SOTERIOLOGY AS MOTIVATION W One should hold on to what is valuable

G You do not want to lose your crown

so, C Hold fast what you have for just a little while longer

The grounds are presented in the text by means of a purpose clause (ἵνα). This teleological motivation must be re-expressed in order to be analyzed with Toulmin’s model which deals with causal relations. When there is a Means–Purpose relation between an exhortation and an expression, which is supposed to make the exhortation reasonable and create willingness in the persuadee to obey the exhortation, it is always assumed that the persuadee shares that purpose … Thus, a motivation with a MP relation, or a teleological motivation, can be traced back to normal argumentation, where the willingness to reach the Purpose serves as a Ground, i.e., something the listener is assumed to accept. 42

The motivating force of the ἵνα clause is based on the shared assumption that their crown could indeed be lost if they failed to hold fast. 43 In this case it is not Jesus threatening judgment; the threat of loss is attributed to the activity of an unnamed third party (μηδεὶς) who must be guarded against by holding fast. 44 Thurén, Argument and Theology in 1 Peter, 99, italics original. DeSilva, Seeing Things John’s Way, 250, argues, ‘An incentive is offered in the form of an argument from the consequences asserting that failure to persevere would prove inexpedient (another major deliberative topic), endangering existing goods (their claim on the “crown,” their entrance into the place that Christ holds open before them).’ Blount, Revelation, 77, observes, ‘The sure implication is that the believers in Philadelphia must prepare themselves for this impending moment lest it dawn upon them as one of judgment rather than celebration.’ 44 Osborne, Revelation, 195, lists the possibilities that Jews, Satan, or Jesus could be the unstated threat to their crown. He favors Jesus as the subject because he is the one who will give the crown of life to Smyrna in Rev 2:10. Keener, Revelation, 151, suggests the threat was ‘their persecutors.’ 42 43

MOTIVATION IN SENTENCES AND CLAUSES

141

The crown, as elsewhere in the Apocalypse, symbolizes the attainment or assurance of resurrection life in God’s new creation (Rev 2:10; cf. Jas 1:12; 1 Pet 5:4; 1 Cor 9:25; 2 Tim 4:8; 2 Baruch 15:8; 4 Macc. 17:12–18; Martyrdom of Polycarp 17:1; 19:2). The motivating factor here is negative: the hearer is motivated to respond to the call to hold fast by the prospect of the loss that would occur if they failed to hold fast. 45 Revelation 3:18–19 συμβουλεύω σοι ἀγοράσαι παρʼ ἐμοῦ χρυσίον πεπυρωμένον ἐκ πυρὸς ἵνα πλουτήσῃς, καὶ ἱμάτια λευκὰ ἵνα περιβάλῃ καὶ μὴ φανερωθῇ ἡ αἰσχύνη τῆς γυμνότητός σου, καὶ κολλ[ο]ύριον ἐγχρῖσαι τοὺς ὀφθαλμούς σου ἵνα βλέπῃς. ἐγὼ ὅσους ἐὰν φιλῶ ἐλέγχω καὶ παιδεύω· ζήλευε οὖν καὶ μετανόησον.

The claim in Rev 3:18, couched in the symbolic language of buying items from Jesus, is made concrete in the call to zealous repentance in Rev 3:19. Both claims point to the same desired response. The grounds in Rev 3:18 are the pitiful reality of the true situation of the Laodicean Christians. Revelation 3:17 provides both a rebuttal and counter rebuttal by drawing attention to what the Laodiceans thought about themselves and how Jesus viewed them.

Beale, The Book of Revelation, 293, ignores the imperative verb and the teleological motivation within this statement when he limits his comments to the following: ‘Such endurance will indicate that they have not been prevented from successfully completing their pilgrimage of salvation. The forces of evil have not succeeded in “taking their crown”.’ 45

142

SOTERIOLOGY AS MOTIVATION B Reproof and correction demonstrate love and goodwill W Jesus wants to remedy the problem W It is disadvantageous to be poor, naked, and blind

G You are poor, naked, and blind R We are really rich and prosperous

so, C Buy from Jesus gold, white garments, and eyesalve

CR Jesus knows your works—i.e. reality

Despite the sorry situation of the Laodiceans, Jesus presents himself as their advocate and counselor—as one who longs for them to make the right decision. Their current state is indeed serious. They are about to be spewed from Jesus’ mouth, a symbolic action representing their ejection from inclusion in God’s people (Rev 3:16; and by extension, exclusion from final salvation), and Jesus is symbolically pictured as being outside of the church, knocking to gain entrance (Rev 3:20). In Rev 3:18 Jesus’ love, as demonstrated through his counsel, functions as a warrant for the move from grounds to claim, while the same data functions as independent grounds for the claim found in Rev 3:19.

G Reproof and correction demonstrate Jesus’ love 46

W. Love should be reciprocated by appropriate actions

so, C Be zealous and repent

The motivating factor in these exhortations is mixed. On the one hand the present situation of the hearers is dire (Jesus was outside knocking for admittance) and the future will be worse (being spewed out of Jesus’ mouth) if they do not respond appropriately, but on the other hand Jesus affirms his love for them and they are 46

Cf. Prov 3:11–12; Heb 12:4–11.

MOTIVATION IN SENTENCES AND CLAUSES

143

positively motivated to respond appropriate to his loving initiative. Their future participation in salvation depended upon their response. Vision Narratives (Rev 4:1–22:7) Revelation 14:7 Φοβήθητε τὸν θεὸν καὶ δότε αὐτῷ δόξαν, ὅτι ἦλθεν ἡ ὥρα τῆς κρίσεως αὐτοῦ, καὶ προσκυνήσατε τῷ ποιήσαντι τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν καὶ θάλασσαν καὶ πηγὰς ὑδάτων.

G The hour of God’s judgment has come

W Allegiance to God averts his wrath—God will not punish those who worship him

so, C Fear and worship him

R Unless the beast is more powerful and deserves worship CR God is the creator (i.e. most powerful) R Unless the present pouring out of God’s judgments indicates it is too late to switch sides CR The proclamation of the Gospel indicates it is not too late to repent and worship God

This exhortation should not be limited to either Christians or nonChristians but should be seen as addressed to all humanity (cf. the invitational character of Rev 22:17). 47 The grounds make sense in regard to what deSilva describes as the deliberative topic of ‘safety’ or ‘security’ (cf. Rhet. Her. 3.2.3). 48 The topic motivates by moving So Osborne, Revelation, 533. In favor of seeing it as addressed to Christians see Heinz Giesen, Die Offenbarung des Johannes, 326. 48 DeSilva, Seeing Things John’s Way, 259. DeSilva also argues that the description of God as the creator utilizes the topic of the ‘just,’ a subtopic 47

144

SOTERIOLOGY AS MOTIVATION

the hearer to adopt a plan to avoid future danger. The declarations of imminence throughout the Apocalypse indicate that even though the end had begun, it was not yet consummated. The entire motivational structure of the Apocalypse depends upon the premise that there was still time for believers and, by extension, unbelievers to repent and overcome. 49 The call to fear and worship God is synonymous with the book’s broader call for hearers to overcome. 50 The description of the near universal worship of the beast in Rev 13:4, 8 provides a possible rebuttal to the claim. What if the dragon and the beasts proved to be more powerful in the end?— they certainly seemed to be more powerful in the present (Rev 13:5–8). Revelation 14:7 implicitly answers this objection by noting God’s activity in creation, an action that clearly demonstrated of ‘the right,’ whereby God’s status as creator indicates that exclusive worship and obedience to God is the right course of action for humans to adopt. 49 This point is relevant to the debate concerning whether or not the proclamation of the Gospel (or ‘message’; so Aune, Revelation 6–16, 825) contains a genuine offer of salvation (Smalley, The Revelation, 362–63; Osborne, Revelation, 534–36; William Altink, ‘I Chronicles 16:8–36 as a Literary Source for Revelation 14:6–7,’ 187–96, 187–89; J. Ramsey Michaels, Revelation, 173; Aune, Revelation 6–16, 825, 827) or serves rather only as a proclamation of judgment (Mounce, The Book of Revelation; Beale, The Book of Revelation, 748–50). In addition to the points made in the commentaries it must be kept in mind that the hortatory nature of the book assumes there is still time for the words of the book to have an effect upon the hearers whether they be Christians or not. The reading and hearing of the book indicated that history had not yet reached the point of no return in regard to individual decision making and the choosing of sides. 50 DeSilva, Seeing Things John’s Way, 259, notes, ‘The “fear” of God is consistently linked with, and explicated as, obedience to the commandments of this God throughout the Hebrew Scriptures (see Lev. 19:14, 32; 25:17, 36, 43; Deut. 6:2, 24; 10:12; 13:4; 17:19; 31:12–13; 2 Kgs. 17:35–38; Ps. 112:1; Prov. 16:6; Eccl. 12:13; Tob. 4:21; Sir. 10:19; 19:20; 23:27).’

MOTIVATION IN SENTENCES AND CLAUSES

145

absolute power. The pronouncement of the third angel further reinforces this point by describing the end result of worshipping the beast instead of God (Rev 14:9–11). The dragon will not win in the end because he had already been decisively defeated (Rev 12:7– 9). Hearers are motivated to fear (obey) and glorify God by the reality of his imminent judgment. God’s judgment of the world would bring eternal salvation to those who worshipped him and eternal punishment to those who refused to worship him and worshipped the beast instead. Revelation 18:4 Καὶ ἤκουσα ἄλλην φωνὴν ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ λέγουσαν, Ἐξέλθατε ὁ λαός μου ἐξ αὐτῆς ἵνα μὴ συγκοινωνήσητε ταῖς ἁμαρτίαις αὐτῆς, καὶ ἐκ τῶν πληγῶν αὐτῆς ἵνα μὴ λάβητε. B God’s authority and justice W Close association with sin leads to contamination and shared punishment G You do not want to take part in her sin and plagues

so, C Come out of Babylon

The call to John’s hearers to come out of Babylon restates the overriding claim of the entire book (Overcome!) within the visionary context of the destruction of the city (cf. Jer 50:8; 51:6, 45; Isa 48:20; 52:11; 2 Cor 6:17). 51 David Aune accurately notes the symbolic nature of the call. The summons to flee from the city is used symbolically, with the city referring to the demonic social and political power structure that constituted the Roman empire, while the summons to flight refers to the necessity of Christians The address ὁ λαός μου indicates that this command is addressed to believers and not unbelievers. 51

146

SOTERIOLOGY AS MOTIVATION disentangling themselves and distancing themselves morally, and perhaps even socially, from the corrupt and seductive influences of Roman rule in Asia. 52

From God’s perspective (the voice out of heaven) failure to respond would result in participation in both the sin of Babylon and her judgment (the two ἵνα clauses function as teleological arguments from the consequences). The warrant and backing are suggested by the ὅτι clause in Rev 18:5. Her sins had piled up and God’s justice required that he remember her crimes and bring judgment (on the justice of God’s judgments see Rev 15:3; 16:5, 7; 19:2). 53 The motivational force here is negative: if God’s people do not completely disassociate from the sins of Babylon they would experience God’s wrath alongside and with Babylon. Inclusion with Babylon could only mean exclusion from the people of God and life in the New Jerusalem (cf. those who are excluded from entrance in Rev 21:8, 27; 22:15). Revelation 18:20 Εὐφραίνου ἐπʼ αὐτῇ, οὐρανὲ καὶ οἱ ἅγιοι καὶ οἱ ἀπόστολοι καὶ οἱ προφῆται, ὅτι ἔκρινεν ὁ θεὸς τὸ κρίμα ὑμῶν ἐξ αὐτῆς. G God has given judgment for you against her

W Vindication results in rejoicing

so, C Rejoice over her

The command for heaven and all of God’s people to rejoice starkly contrasts with the wailing and lamenting that fills Revelation 18. The inhabitants of the earth celebrated and rejoiced over the killing of God’s witnesses (Rev 11:10; εὐφραίνω), and now God’s people are called to rejoice (εὐφραίνω) in their vindication and God’s just David E. Aune, Revelation 17–22, 991, cf. 1012. Aune also rightly recognizes the micro-chiasm present in the two ἵνα clauses (p. 991). 53 Osborne, Revelation, 639, describes the basis for this warrant: ‘Those who “participate in her sins” will by the laws of divine justice share her punishment.’ 52

MOTIVATION IN SENTENCES AND CLAUSES

147

judgment of their tormentors (cf. Rev 6:9–11). Divine justice has finally come. 54 How were the original readers supposed to respond to this exhortation? Even though God’s judgments had begun, Babylon had not yet been overthrown in the manner described in Revelation 18. The authoritative prophetic communication of this future command to rejoice in God’s vindication of his people and his glory functions to assure the hearers in the present of the certainty of that future day and that future rejoicing. It thus functions implicitly to motivate them to rejoice in the present in light of their assurance of future rejoicing and vindication. 55 It also adds weight to the command in Rev 18:4 to come out of Babylon in order to avoid her sin and punishment—only those who respond rightly to that command will participate in this future rejoicing. W Contemplation of certain future joy produces present joy G God will assuredly vindicate his people in the future and they will rejoice

so, C Rejoice now (and come out of Babylon)

Beale, The Book of Revelation, 916, correctly notes, ‘The focus is not on delight in Babylon’s suffering but on the successful outcome of God’s execution of justice, which demonstrates the integrity of Christians’ faith and of God’s just character.’ Cf. Mounce, The Book of Revelation, 336; Caird, The Revelation, 228–30. 55 This same temporal dynamic occurs in the hortatory subjunctives in Rev 19:7 (χαίρωμεν καὶ ἀγαλλιῶμεν καὶ δώσωμεν τὴν δόξαν αὐτῷ). The lamb’s wedding has come and the bride is ready (G) so rejoice and give God glory (C). The implicit warrant ‘salvation produces joy’ leads to the implicit motivation for the hearers in the present: assurance of future salvation should produce worship and joy in the present. 54

148

SOTERIOLOGY AS MOTIVATION

IMPLICIT MOTIVATING EXPRESSIONS IN THE APOCALYPSE Each instance of explicit motivation analyzed above has a clear command linked to a motivating reason or cause in a groundsconclusion or means-purpose logical relation. Implicit motivation, on the other hand, shares a conceptual relationship with explicit motivation (similar grounds or warrants), but lacks an explicit imperative or exhortation. While not being exhaustive, much of the implicit motivation on the level of sentences and clauses fits within the following seven categories: declarations of blessedness (Rev 1:3; 14:13; 16:15; 19:9; 20:6; 22:7, 14); declarations of imminence (Rev 1:1, 3; 2:16; 3:11; 22:6, 7, 10, 12, 20); Jesus’ wishes or opinion (Rev 2:4, 14, 20; 3:15); the standard of judgment (Rev 2:23; 18:6; 20:12, 13; 22:12); John’s interpretive comments (Rev 13:10; 14:12); various reason-result logical relations (Rev 3:4, 8, 10, 16; 7:15; 15:4; 19:7); and various condition-consequence logical relations (Rev 3:20; 14:9–11; 20:15; 21:27; 22:18–19). Declarations of Blessedness There are seven macarisms (declarations of blessedness) in the Apocalypse (Rev 1:3; 14:13; 16:15; 19:9; 20:6; 22:7, 14). 56 Although they do not contain explicit motivation, their motivational function is quite clear. 57 Revelation 1:3; 22:7 clearly yet implicitly links the

Macarisms are formulaic expressions of blessedness common in wisdom and apocalyptic literature (Ps 1; Dan 12:12–13; Matt 5:3–11; Luke 6:20–22). Cf. Oliver O. Nwachukwu, Beyond Vengeance and Protest: A Reflection on the Macarisms in Revelation; Virgil P. Cruz, ‘The Beatitudes of the Apocalypse: Eschatology and Ethics,’ 269–83; W. Beider, ‘Die sieben Seligpreisungen in der Offenbarung Johannes,’ 13–30. Macarisms are relatively common in the New Testament (Matt 5:3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11; 11:6; 13:16; 16:17; 24:46; Luke 1:45; 6:20, 21, 22; 7:23; 10:23; 11:27, 28; 12:37, 43; 14:15; 23:29; John 13:17; 20:29; Acts 20:35; 26:2; Rom 4:7, 8; 14:22; 1 Cor 7:40; 1 Tim 1:11; 6:15; Titus 2:13; Jas 1:12, 25; 1 Pet 3:14; 4:14; cf. Nwachukwu, Beyond Vengeance and Protest, 40–52). 57 Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, The Book of Revelation: Justice and Judgment, 189, argues that the macarisms ‘function as rhetorical markers that appeal to the active decision of the audience and make sure that the 56

MOTIVATION IN SENTENCES AND CLAUSES

149

declaration of blessedness with the volitional element of keeping the words of the Apocalypse. W One should do what will lead to blessedness G Those who keep the words are blessed because the time was near

so, C Keep the words

This immediately raises two questions. How does one keep the words of John’s prophecy and what does blessedness entail? As explored in chapter one above, one keeps the words of the Apocalypse by overcoming through repentance, worship, witness, perseverance, and obedience. An understanding of what blessedness entails requires an examination of the five remaining macarisms. Revelation 14:13 declares the Christian dead to be blessed. 58 G1 Their works follow them

so, C1/G2 they are at rest

so, C2 they are blessed

This train of logic connects blessedness with the result of overcoming. It is those who seal their victory in death who will experience the blessedness and reward of rest: i.e. final salvation. This understanding of blessedness as the end result of overcoming is reinforced in its connection with those called to the marriage supper of the lamb (Rev 19:9), the resurrection of the millennial overcomers (Rev 20:6), and those who had the authority to enter multivalent images and symbols are understood in a certain way.’ Cf. Barbara Rossing, The Choice between Two Cities: Whore, Bride, and Empire in the Apocalypse, 136; Osborne, Revelation, 57. 58 While martyrdom is seen as a likely outcome for faithful believers (Rev 6:9–11; 7:14; 12:11; 13:7, 15; 16:6; 17:6; 18:24; 20:4; 22:14), the promises throughout the book are available to all οἱ ἐν κυρίῳ ἀποθνῄσκοντες (Rev 14:13) indicating faithfulness to Christ until the end of one’s life—regardless of whether or not one actually experiences martyrdom. Cf. Osborne, Revelation, 544.

150

SOTERIOLOGY AS MOTIVATION

the New Jerusalem by its gates and eat of the tree of life (Rev 22:14). 59 In contrast with this connection of blessedness with final salvation, Rev 1:3; 22:7 declare that those keeping the words of the Apocalypse are considered blessed in the present, even before they received the final reward of their overcoming. Likewise, Rev 16:15 declares blessedness over those who were currently in the process of staying awake and keeping their garments because it meant they would not be naked and ashamed. This leads to the conclusion that blessedness finds its meaning primarily in the blessedness of life that characterizes resurrection life in God’s new creation, yet it can be experienced and declared in the present over those in the process of overcoming: i.e. those who are persevering and suffering on the trajectory that would lead to final, complete, and eternal blessedness. They can be declared blessed in the present because their commitment to overcoming would surely lead to the positive end result of eternal blessedness. 60 Although the macarisms are not employed in explicit motivation, their general cumulative motivational force can be expressed with Toulmin’s model. 61 The claim ‘overcome’ summarizes the behavior necessary to be considered blessed: keeping the words of the Apocalypse (Rev 1:3; 22:7), being faithful unto death (Rev 14:3; cf. Nwachukwu, Beyond Vengeance and Protest, 241–42, observes, ‘… each blessing in its own capacity recapitulates the one eternal happiness of being with the Lord which the seer now challenges his readers and hearers to pursue.’ 60 Blount, Revelation, argues that the macarisms function as motivation by proleptically declaring the experience of eschatological blessedness in the present on the basis of overcoming behavior. He notes, ‘There are also clear indications, however, that makarios formulations have an imperative sense. As the Dan 12:12–13 passage demonstrates, the person who performs a particular activity is considered blessed and is subsequently rewarded. By envisioning a proleptic reward, the macarism encourages what is considered to be positive, “salvific” behavior’ (p. 31). 61 Osborne, Revelation, 789, claims that the unifying theme of the seven beatitudes ‘is the necessity of remaining true to the Lord in order to participate in the resurrection to eternal life.’ 59

MOTIVATION IN SENTENCES AND CLAUSES

151

Rev 12:11), remaining alert and vigilant (Rev 16:15; cf. Rev 3:2–3; 3:18), and washing their robes (Rev 22:14). W One should do what will lead to final salvation G Those who are overcoming have assurance (are blessed) of final salvation (eschatological blessing)

so, C Overcome

Declarations of Imminence On the basis of the explicit motivation in Rev 2:16 and 3:11, declarations of imminence function in the argumentation to modify the claim—the hearers would only have to hold fast in the midst of suffering for a little while longer (χρόνον μικρόν in Rev 6:11). Do the other declarations of imminence throughout the Apocalypse function similarly? In Rev 1:3 and 22:7 declarations of imminence function as the ground for the declaration of blessedness—those who hear and keep the words of prophecy are blessed because the time was near. Similarly, a declaration of imminence intensifies Jesus discussion of the coming reward—he was coming with it soon (Rev 22:12). Ian Smith accurately describes the argumentative function of imminence language in the Apocalypse. A further incentive device that also functions to reduce the current payoff from idolatry is the repeated insistence that Jesus is coming soon. This mechanism operates by reducing the perceived duration and magnitude of suffering arising from faithful witness and so decreasing the price of faithfulness in terms of the forgone present benefits of life and livelihood. Indeed, Revelation emphasizes throughout that the duration of present afflictions is short, and this serves to diminish the relative magnitude of current sacrifices and the concomitant gains from compromise, as well as providing assurance to the congregations. 62 Ian Smith, ‘A Rational Choice Model of the Book of Revelation,’ 97–116, 110. 62

152

SOTERIOLOGY AS MOTIVATION

Several instances of imminence language do not directly contribute to motivational expressions in the Apocalypse but indirectly support the explicit motivation by setting a general tone of imminence for the book itself (Rev 1:1; 6:11; 22:6, 10, 20). Everything described in the book (God’s judgments, Christ’s return, resurrection, the final judgment, and God’s remaking of the world) was imminent. The clustering of these references at the end of the book functions particularly well to intensify, in closing, the message of the entire book. There was little time left to choose sides and overcome, yet even a little time is time enough if the hearer were to make a swift and decisive decision. In this regard, the imminence of Christ’s return functions as independent grounds in the narrative logic of the book (as was seen in the previous chapter). B The Hebrews Scriptures make it clear that the Day of the Lord will involve the judgment of God’s enemies and the salvation of his people (intertexture) W Christ’s return will be accompanied by judgment and salvation (Revelation 6–22) G Christ will return soon

so, C Act now to make sure you are on Christ’s side (overcome)

What are interpreters to make of this imminence language almost two thousand years after the fact? Was John wrong? 63 A full discussion of the delay of the parousia is beyond the scope of this section, but a few comments are in order. It is possible that the imminence language points to the beginning of end time events which John saw as already beginning to unfold, but Caird rightly rejects this solution for the following reason.

Blount, Revelation, 32, argues that John was mistaken: ‘Was John wrong? Given that the twenty-first century has dawned without the onset of God’s new heaven and new earth, one would have to say yes.’ 63

MOTIVATION IN SENTENCES AND CLAUSES

153

We cannot, however, do justice to his very plain opening statement (cf. i. 3; iv. 1; xxii. 10) by saying that he foresaw a long series of events covering centuries, which could be described as imminent because they were to begin shortly. Whatever earthly realities correspond to John’s symbols, he expected them to be accomplished quickly in their entirety. 64

Caird’s own solution—that the imminence language only refers to increased persecution of the church by the Romans—does not explain why imminence language in the Apocalypse seems to point to the return of Christ and God’s new creation. 65 Osborne rightly notes the implications of the apocalyptic nature of the words, yet it is not clear that this completely removes the tension. It is better to see this as apocalyptic language similar to that throughout the NT on the ‘soon’ return of Christ (cf. Luke 18:8; Rom. 16:20; 1 Peter 4:7). Such language never means that there are to be no events yet to occur, for both Christ (Matt. 13:24–30; 25:1–13) and the Apocalypse itself (6:11) realize that there will be a period of time before its fulfillment. 66

It is also quite possible that the imminence language was meant to create a sense of constant expectation (‘Stetserwartung’) alongside of or instead of simple imminent expectation. 67 Jesus’ Opinion and Wishes Although all of the explicit motivation present in the proclamations to the seven churches could be generally understood as expressing Jesus’ desires, wishes, and commands, there are several instances where Jesus presents his negative perspective on the situation in

Caird, The Revelation, 12, italics original. Ibid. 66 Osborne, Revelation, 55. 67 Cf. Schüssler Fiorenza, The Book of Revelation: Justice and Judgment, 64, cf. 48–50. 64 65

154

SOTERIOLOGY AS MOTIVATION

preparation for explicit motivation. 68 These instances are generally signaled with κατά cum genitive (Rev 2:4, 14, 20), although Jesus also expresses his opinion in other ways (οὐ γὰρ εὕρηκά in Rev 3:2 [discussed above]; ὄφελον in Rev 3:15). Osborne argues that the use of ὄφελον ‘deliberately understates (using language of advice for a command) the seriousness of the situation.’ 69 Κατά cum genitive occurs when Jesus lists things he has against (κατά) the churches. 70 This negative disposition is elicited from the church in Ephesus for forgetting their first love (Rev 2:4), from the church in Pergamum for tolerating those who held to the teaching of Balaam and the Nicolaitans (Rev 2:14–15), and from the church in Thyatira for tolerating the prophetess Jezebel and her teaching (Rev 2:20). In addition, Jesus expresses his wish that the church in Laodicea was either hot or cold although he knew they were presently lukewarm (Rev 3:15). The rebuttal noted below (Jesus is not in ultimate authority) represents the exact claims of the beasts and one of the main goals of their deception (Rev 13:4–8, 12–15). The first element of each of the seven proclamations contains a description of Jesus (Rev 2:1, 8, 12, 18; 3:1, 7, 14) that links back to John’s inaugural vision of the one like the son of man (Rev 1:13–19). These repeated references to the exalted status and existence of Jesus function as a counterrebuttal and make it clear that Jesus is indeed the one who must be feared and obeyed, and this preliminary assessment of Jesus’ power and authority is confirmed in the visionary sections of the Jesus’ assessment of the situation falls into the section of each proclamation identified by Aune, Revelation 1–5, 121–22, as the narratio, a section providing a ‘diagnosis of the positive and negative behavior of each congregation’ (p. 121). Aune’s form-critical approach to the seven proclamations is sound: he views them as a mixed genre created by the author combining the genre of imperial edict with that of a prophetic parenetic salvation-judgment oracle (p. 119; cf. Aune, ‘The Form and Function of the Proclamations’). 69 Osborne, Revelation, 208. 70 Osborne, Revelation, 115, notes that the expression ‘indicated divine displeasure, and the “against you” warns of future judgment if the situation does not change.’ 68

MOTIVATION IN SENTENCES AND CLAUSES

155

Apocalypse (Revelation 4–22). Expressions of Jesus’ displeasure or desire function as implicit motivation in the following manner. W It is wise to please the one in authority who exercises judgment 71

G Jesus disapproves of these activities or actions

so, C Stop doing things that displease Christ and do things that please him

R Unless Jesus is not in ultimate authority

CR Jesus holds complete authority (Rev 1:13–19)

Revelation 3:15 makes a similar point.

G Jesus wishes you were hot or cold

W It is wise to please the one in authority who exercises judgment

so, C Do whatever it takes to be either hot or cold

The motivational force of these expressions largely depends upon the hearer’s acceptance and acknowledgement of Jesus’ authority and upon the various emotions (fear, shame) that are elicited by failing to please the one in authority. Additionally, the seven proclamations present a reality in which Jesus determines future salvation and judgment so to engage in behavior he disapproved of risked exclusion from the people of God and eschatological loss (Rev 2:5, 16, 22–23; 3:3, 16) while approved behavior resulted in reception of the promises associated with overcoming. These expressions of Jesus’ opinions and wishes function alongside the explicit motivation noted above.

DeSilva, Seeing Things John’s Way, 236, expresses the warrant this way: ‘Whatever Christ does not like about you is disadvantageous or dangerous for you.’ 71

156

SOTERIOLOGY AS MOTIVATION

The Standard of Judgment Κατά functions four times in the Apocalypse idiomatically to signal the ‘the norm according to which a judgment is rendered, or rewards or punishments are given’ (BDAG s.v.; Rev 2:23; 18:6; 20:12, 13). 72 John makes it clear that his readers need to respond to his message with obedience and good works because the judgment of all will be based on their works. This is true of the churches (Rev 2:23; cf. Rev 14:13; 22:12), Babylon (Rev 18:6), and all of humanity (Rev 20:12, 13). Using a different grammatical construction (ὡς τὸ ἔργον ἐστὶν αὐτοῦ), Jesus elsewhere indicates that his reward will be in accordance with works (Rev 22:12). The repetition of this standard for judgment throughout the Apocalypse indicates its function in implicit motivation (cf. Rev 2:23 in particular). The hearer is left with no doubt that God judges all in accord with their works and are thus motivated to respond with appropriate works (keeping the words of the book, overcoming). B God’s righteous character

G Final judgment is in accordance with one’s works

W God will be an impartial judge at the final judgment

so, C Do the appropriate works (overcome)

Both the grounds and the warrant that connects the grounds to the claim were widely held and believed in Second Temple Judaism and early Christianity (cf. 2 Chron 6:23; Job 34:11; Pss 27[28]:4; 61[62]:13[12]; Prov 24:12; Jer 17:10; Ezek 18:30; 24:14; 33:20; Hos 12:2; Matt 16:27; Rom 2:6–11; 2 Cor 11:15; 2 Tim 4:14; 1 Pet 1:17; Sir 16:12, 14; 1 En. 41:1–2; 4 Ezra 8:33; Pss. Sol. 2:16; 17:8). ‘Oft. the norm is at the same time the reason, so that in accordance with and because of are merged … Instead of “in accordance w.” κ. can also mean simply because of, as a result of, on the basis of’ (BDAG s.v.; italics original).This observation should make an interpreter hesitant to draw fine theological distinctions based on the different semantics of ‘according to’ and ‘on the basis of’ in English. 72

MOTIVATION IN SENTENCES AND CLAUSES

157

Does the status of Christians who belong to God’s people, have been divinely sealed, and have been loosed from their sins by the blood of Christ (Rev 1:5–6; cf. Rev 5:9–10; 7:14; 12:11) mean that they will be judged by a different standard, a standard of grace and forgiveness as opposed to works? Revelation 2:23 (cf. Rev 22:12) applies the same standard to the churches as to Babylon (Rev 18:6) and all the resurrected dead (Rev 20:12, 13). 73 The soteriological implications of this standard will be discussed below in chapter five. It is necessary to note that there is no negativity associated with ‘works’ in the Apocalypse (except, of course, evil works: Rev 2:6, 22; 3:15; 9:20; 16:11; 18:6): good works are a necessary and important part of overcoming (Rev 2:2, 5; 2:19, 26; 3:2, 8; 14:13). John’s Interpretive Comments There are two instances within the vision narratives where John makes the motivational nature of the visions clear by means of editorial interpretive comments (Rev 13:9–10; 14:12). 74 These editorial insertions function to help the hearers understand how they were to respond to the visions. The phrase repeated in both Rev 13:10; 14:12, ‘here is the endurance of the saints’ (Ὧδέ ἐστιν ἡ ὑπομονὴ … τῶν ἁγίων; Rev 14:12 changes the word order), could variously be translated as ‘Hear is a call for …’ (ESV; cf. NIV), or simply ‘Here is the …’ (ASV; HCSB). The more interpretive translation ‘Hear is a call for …’ emphasizes the hortatory function of the statements. 75 Revelation 3:23 states, καὶ τὰ τέκνα αὐτῆς ἀποκτενῶ ἐν θανάτῳ. καὶ γνώσονται πᾶσαι αἱ ἐκκλησίαι ὅτι ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ἐραυνῶν νεφροὺς καὶ καρδίας, καὶ δώσω ὑμῖν ἑκάστῳ κατὰ τὰ ἔργα ὑμῶν. 74 The similar editorial comments in Rev 13:18 and 17:9 call the hearer to interpret rightly the symbolism of the number of the beast and the seven heads of the beast and do not seem to have a significant motivational function. 75 Osborne, Revelation, 506, argues that, ‘The best translation would probably be “this demands” in light of the critical nature of the ethical response.’ 73

158

SOTERIOLOGY AS MOTIVATION

Revelation 13:10 occurs between the discussion of the first beast who was given authority to overcome and kill Christians (Rev 13:7) and the second beast (Rev 13:11). 76 The introductory formula, ‘If any has an ear, let him hear’ (Rev 13:9), connects the following verse with the proclamations to the seven churches (Rev 2:7, 11, 17, 29; 3:6, 13, 22), thereby explicitly indicating the hortatory nature of Rev 13:10. 77 The divinely predicted certainty of suffering and persecution functions as a call to perseverance and faithfulness. G You will suffer and die for your allegiance to Jesus

so, C Faithfully persevere

The logical connection between the grounds and claim require the broader context of the book to make persuasive sense. Why should one’s awareness of coming suffering motivate endurance through the suffering? Why not avoidance? Three broader considerations add motivational logic. First, as was seen in regard to the promises to the overcomers and the macarisms, the benefits outweigh the loss (relative expediency). Eternal resurrection life in God’s new creation is worth the cost of temporary physical suffering and loss. 78 Second, their experience of suffering and martyrdom—the full onslaught of the dragon’s wrath—all takes place under God’s 76

Εἴ τις ἔχει οὖς ἀκουσάτω. εἴ τις εἰς αἰχμαλωσίαν, εἰς αἰχμαλωσίαν ὑπάγει· εἴ τις ἐν μαχαίρῃ ἀποκτανθῆναι αὐτὸν ἐν μαχαίρῃ ἀποκτανθῆναι. Ὧδέ ἐστιν ἡ ὑπομονὴ καὶ ἡ πίστις τῶν ἁγίων (Rev 13:9–10). 77 The repetition of the formulaic exhortation ‘If any has an ear, let him hear’ in Rev 13:7 further indicates that the symbolic visions of Revelation 4–22 function to collaborate and support the explicit exhortations in the seven proclamations to the churches. Beale, The Book of Revelation, 238, concurs: ‘This means that the symbolic visions of chs. 4– 21 are parabolic portrayals of the more abstract, propositionally expressed exhortations, warnings, and promises of the letters, so that the latter interpret the former.’ 78 This warrant appears to have been widely held in the ancient world. Cf. Plato, Gorgias 526D–527A; 4 Macc. 13:13–15; 15:2–3; 2 Cor 4:16–18.

MOTIVATION IN SENTENCES AND CLAUSES

159

sovereign hand and control. 79 This point is indicated by the first part of Rev 13:10. ‘If any into captivity, into captivity he will go; if any to be killed with the sword with the sword he must be slain.’ Even the dragon’s wrath was under God’s providential hand and God would be with his people in their endurance (cf. the divine passives throughout the book). Third, avoidance of suffering and persecution through compromise (diluted witness, participation in the emperor cult [worship of the beast]) is revealed in the Apocalypse to disqualify individuals from inclusion within the people of God and participation in God’s new creation.

G You will suffer and die for your allegiance to Jesus

W Temporary suffering is worthwhile if it leads to a greater good

G The suffering will take place under God’s providential guidance and care

so, C Faithfully persevere

Revelation 14:12 follows a vivid description of the final eternal punishment of those who compromise by worshipping the beast and receiving its mark (Rev 14:9–11). The description of punishment functions as a call to endurance and obedience (keeping the commandments of God). 80 The call to endurance is immediately followed by the macarism in Rev 14:13 that declares blessedness on those who die in the Lord (possibly as a direct result of their allegiance to him) because of the rest that they would experience because of their works (i.e. their endurance and obedience). Enroth, ‘The Hearing Formula,’ 606, notes, ‘For the hearers and readers it is an encouragement to trust in God’s decision and dispensation, for he or she whose fate is prison or martyrdom will meet his or her fate. This is the reason why the hearer is to be strong in his or her faith. One has to accept what God has granted.’ 80 Ὧδε ἡ ὑπομονὴ τῶν ἁγίων ἐστίν, οἱ τηροῦντες τὰς ἐντολὰς τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ τὴν πίστιν Ἰησοῦ (Rev 14:12). 79

160

SOTERIOLOGY AS MOTIVATION

G Those who worship the beast and receive its mark will experience eternal torment G Those who die for their refusal to compromise will experience rest

W Eternal consequences should guide present actions so, C Endure in faithfulness to Christ and obedience to God

Various Reason-Result and Grounds-Conclusion Logical Relations The semantic analysis presented in the appendix uncovered a number of examples of reason-result and grounds-conclusion logical relationships that were not linked with explicit motivation yet are important for this present study because they highlight and clarify the logical relationships that do occur in the explicit motivation. 81 Each example is fairly straightforward and will be discussed briefly. Revelation 3:4 ἀλλὰ ἔχεις ὀλίγα ὀνόματα ἐν Σάρδεσιν ἃ οὐκ ἐμόλυναν τὰ ἱμάτια αὐτῶν, καὶ περιπατήσουσιν μετʼ ἐμοῦ ἐν λευκοῖς, ὅτι ἄξιοί εἰσιν.

Jesus is here describing the character of the few in Sardis who had not embraced the false teaching of compromise and accommodation. This section does not analyze every occurrence of these logical relations in the Apocalypse, but those that clearly contribute to John’s motivational strategy. Examples of logical argumentation that are not clearly motivational can be found in Rev 4:11; 5:9; 7:16–17; 11:17; 18:2–3, 6–8, 23–24; 19:1–2, 6–7. Revelation 2:14 could contain a relevant reasonresult logical relation (so Kirby, ‘The Rhetorical Situations of Revelation 1–3,” 206) but the ὅτι is likely declarative (ἀλλʼ ἔχω κατὰ σοῦ ὀλίγα ὅτι ἔχεις ἐκεῖ κρατοῦντας τὴν διδαχὴν Βαλαάμ). 81

MOTIVATION IN SENTENCES AND CLAUSES G1 They have not defiled their garments

so, C1/G2 They are worthy

161

so, C2 They will walk with me in white

The promise of walking with Jesus in white indicates participation in final salvation which those who were worthy by not defiling their garments would receive (cf. Rev 6:9–11; 7:14; 19:8). 82 The motivational contribution of this logic is clear. G Those who are worthy will walk with Jesus in white (receive final salvation)

so, C Live worthily

Revelation 3:8 Οἶδά σου τὰ ἔργα, ἰδοὺ δέδωκα ἐνώπιόν σου θύραν ἠνεῳγμένην, ἣν οὐδεὶς δύναται κλεῖσαι αὐτήν, ὅτι μικρὰν ἔχεις δύναμιν καὶ ἐτήρησάς μου τὸν λόγον καὶ οὐκ ἠρνήσω τὸ ὄνομά μου. B I know your works G You have little strength

G You have kept my word G You have not denied my name

W Works warrant reward so, C I have set before you an open door

Beale, The Book of Revelation, 277, argues, ‘The worthiness not only precedes but culminates with completion of the process of overcoming … Therefore, behind the image of receiving “white robes” in 3:4b–5a, as well as elsewhere throughout the Apocalypse, stands the idea of a purity that has resulted from the fidelity of the faithful being tested by a refining fire.’ 82

162

SOTERIOLOGY AS MOTIVATION

The open door likely points to entrance into final salvation (resurrection life in God’s new creation). 83 The warrant ‘works warrant reward’ is implicit in the present context but made explicit in Rev 22:12. The implicit motivational force of this logic can be explicated. G Keeping Jesus’ words and not denying his name results in final salvation (an open door)

so, C Keep his words and do not deny his name

Alternatively, instead of indicating a reason-result logical relation, the ὅτι in Rev 3:8 may be declarative. In this case it would provide the content of what Jesus knew (‘I know your works, … , that’) while the intervening words would be a parenthetical insertion (‘Behold I have given before you an open door …’). 84 This interpretation is certainly possible, but the parallel implicit motivation in Rev 3:10 and the awkwardness of the parenthetical insertion suggest that ὅτι indicates a reason-result logical relation. 85 Aune, Revelation 1–6, 236, describes its meaning as ‘guaranteed access to eschatological salvation.’ Cf. Keener, Revelation, 150; Smalley, The Revelation, 89; Osborne, Revelation, 188; George E. Ladd, A Commentary on the Revelation of John, 59; Beale The Book of Revelation, 285; Eduard Lohse, Die Offenbarung des Johannes, 33; Murphy, Fallen Is Babylon, 152; Blount, Revelation, 75. Contra those interpreters who see the open door as a symbol of effective witness or missionary activity (Caird, The Revelation, 51). 84 See the similar use of a declarative ὅτι following Οἶδά σου τὰ ἔργα in Rev 3:2, 15. So Beale, The Book of Revelation, 286; Osborne, Revelation, 189. 85 DeSilva, Seeing Things John’s Way, 248, rightly notes, ‘Interrupting sentences with parenthetical ejaculations, however, has not been a feature of the prose up to this point, and so is a less natural construal of the flow of the text. Even Rev. 16:15, a clear interruption of the flow of the narration of the consequences of pouring out the sixth bowl, does not break an otherwise complete sentence in two.’ Cf. Smalley, The Revelation, 89. 83

MOTIVATION IN SENTENCES AND CLAUSES

163

Revelation 3:10 ὅτι ἐτήρησας τὸν λόγον τῆς ὑπομονῆς μου, κἀγώ σε τηρήσω ἐκ τῆς ὥρας τοῦ πειρασμοῦ τῆς μελλούσης ἔρχεσθαι ἐπὶ τῆς οἰκουμένης ὅλης πειράσαι τοὺς κατοικοῦντας ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς.

The logic of Jesus’ statement here basically repeats Rev 3:8. 86 G You have kept my word of endurance

so, C I will keep you from the coming hour of trial

The coming hour of trial points to the outpouring of God’s wrath depicted in the visionary narratives which God’s people are sealed and divinely protected from experiencing (Rev 7:1–8; 11:1–2; 12:6, 14–17). 87 This results in the following motivational logic. 88

Blount, Revelation, 75, comments in regard to Rev 3:8 that, ‘For this reason, this witness, Christ has opened the door of the eschatological future to them (cf. 4:1) … This reading sets up the parallel causal clause in v. 10, where once again historical witness yields eschatological reward.’ 87 Cf. Osborne, Revelation, 194; Prigent, L’Apocalypse de Saint Jean, 71; Murphy, Fallen Is Babylon, 155; Smalley, The Revelation, 92. This verse cannot thus be used as a proof-text for the pretribulation position. Contra Aune, Revelation 1–6, 240, this promise cannot be limited to the Philadelphian Christians but, as with the other promises and exhortations within the seven proclamations, it is directed to all the hearers. Cf. deSilva, Seeing Things John’s Way, 250; Smalley, The Revelation, 92. 88 DeSilva, Seeing Things John’s Way, 249–50, argues, ‘The logic is derived again from social knowledge of reciprocity within patron-client relationships, a reciprocity here highlighted by the repetition of forms of τηρέω to express both the past action of the clients and the forthcoming action of the patron: You have kept, so I will keep. The loyal stance embodied by these disciples will meet with continued loyal action—here, protection—on their behalf by Christ.’ 86

164

SOTERIOLOGY AS MOTIVATION

G Jesus keeps those who keep his words from God’s wrath

W One should do what will keep one from the greatest harm (relative expediency) so, C Keep Jesus’ word of endurance

This promise from Jesus thus motivates the hearers to persevere by promising them protection from divine wrath both in the judgments within history (the seals, trumpets, bowls), and the final judgment at the end of history. Revelation 3:16 οὕτως ὅτι χλιαρὸς εἶ καὶ οὔτε ζεστὸς οὔτε ψυχρός, μέλλω σε ἐμέσαι ἐκ τοῦ στόματός μου.

G You are lukewarm

W Lukewarm is unacceptable

so, C I am about to spit you from my mouth

The symbolic description of Jesus spitting the church from his mouth represents his rejection of them from inclusion within his people (by extension, failure to participate in final salvation). Their lukewarmness represents their satisfaction with worldly wealth, status, and position and the compromise necessary to attain it. This statement of Jesus’ intentions and the reason for it functions motivationally (cf. Rev 3:18–19). G Jesus will reject those who are lukewarm

so, C Become either hot or cold (overcome)

Revelation 7:14–15 καὶ εἴρηκα αὐτῷ, Κύριέ μου, σὺ οἶδας. καὶ εἶπέν μοι, Οὗτοί εἰσιν οἱ ἐρχόμενοι ἐκ τῆς θλίψεως τῆς μεγάλης καὶ ἔπλυναν τὰς στολὰς αὐτῶν καὶ ἐλεύκαναν αὐτὰς ἐν τῷ αἵματι τοῦ ἀρνίου. διὰ τοῦτό εἰσιν ἐνώπιον τοῦ θρόνου τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ λατρεύουσιν αὐτῷ ἡμέρας καὶ νυκτὸς ἐν τῷ ναῷ αὐτοῦ, καὶ ὁ καθήμενος ἐπὶ τοῦ θρόνου σκηνώσει ἐπʼ αὐτούς.

MOTIVATION IN SENTENCES AND CLAUSES

165

B The necessity of washing one’s clothes before the Sinai theophany (Exod 19:10, 14) 89 W Final salvation in God’s presence requires clean robes

G They have successfully come out of the great tribulation by washing their robes and making them white in the blood of the lamb

so, C They are experiencing final salvation

The description of the overcomers in Rev 7:14–17 parallels the description of resurrection life in God’s new creation in Revelation 21–22, pointing to the experience of final salvation. 90 What does it mean that they have made their robes white in the blood of the lamb? On the one hand it points to the description in Rev 1:5 of Christians as a group of people who have been freed from their sins by the blood of Christ (cf. 1 Cor 10:16; Eph 1:7; 2:13; 1 Pet 1:2, 19; Heb 9:14, 22; 10:19; 1 John 1:7). 91 On the other hand, the washing of their robes indicates their participation in the blood of the lamb by faithfulness to death in the midst of the great tribulation. 92 This understanding is indicated by the parallel in Rev 12:11 that describes how Christians overcome the dragon by the blood of the lamb and the word of their testimony—i.e. they did Cf. deSilva, Seeing Things John’s Way, 288, draws attention to this rule drawn from the historical precedent of Exod 19:10, 14. 90 The parallels include God’s presence (Rev 7:15; 21:3; 22:3–4), lack of hunger and thirst (Rev 7:16; 22:1–2), protection from the sun’s harm (Rev 7:16; 21:23; 22:4), access to living water (Rev 7:17; 21:6; 22:1, 17), and the wiping away of all tears (Rev 7:17; 21:4). 91 Smalley, The Revelation to John, 198; Beale, The Book of Revelation, 438. 92 Witherington, Revelation, 171; Bauckham, The Climax of Prophecy, 228–29; Eugene Boring, Revelation, 131. Aune, Revelation 6–16, 474, draws attention to the allusion to Dan 11:35 which describes ‘a testing and purifying process.’ 89

166

SOTERIOLOGY AS MOTIVATION

not love their lives unto death. The overcoming of the saints is accomplished by their participation in the lamb’s blood through the shedding of their own. 93 The imitation of Christ theme occurs elsewhere throughout the Apocalypse (Rev 3:21; the means of overcoming in Rev 5:5–6 and Rev 12:11). 94 This meaning is implied in Rev 7:14 by the description of the multitude as those who were coming out of the great tribulation and the active tense of the third person plural verbs ἔπλυναν and ἐλεύκαναν. 95 The best interpretation here is a both/and instead of an either/or. The overcomers are the ones who have been freed from their sins by the blood of the lamb and who seal their faithfulness by participation in the lamb’s death. 96 Both are necessary. Death and defeat on account of witness to the lamb’s lordship leads to eternal victory for those who have been freed from their sins by the lamb’s blood. The motivational force of this logic is clear. Bauckham, The Climax of Prophecy, 229, describes them as ‘followers of the Lamb who participate in his victory by following his path to death.’ 94 Witherington, Revelation, 205; Osborne, Revelation, 43; Caird, The Revelation, 297. 95 Osborne, Revelation, 325, connects this verse with Rev 22:14 and notes, ‘There the emphasis is not so much on spiritual salvation through the blood of Christ but faithfulness over the temptations of life. That is certainly a further emphasis [in addition to the salvific effects of Christ’s blood] here with the context of suffering persecution in the world (6:9– 11) and with the active voice of “washed … and made them white”.’ Blount, Revelation, 153, commenting on the present participle notes that, ‘Their movement through the tribulation was contemporary or “coincident” with the washing and making dazzling/white.’ 96 Bauckham, The Climax of Prophecy, 229, argues, ‘In 7:14 John has fused this thought of victory (the white robes of 7:9) with that of purification (they have washed their robes white; cf. also 19:8). Probably the latter idea is not that their deaths atone for their sins, but that the moral probity of their lives as faithful witnesses is sealed in their martyrdom and is their active participation in the redemption won for them by Christ (1:5b).’ 93

MOTIVATION IN SENTENCES AND CLAUSES G Those who come out of the great tribulation by washing their robes and making them white in the lamb’s blood will experience final salvation

167

so, C Victoriously come out of the great tribulation by washing your robes and making them white in the lamb’s blood

Revelation 15:4 τίς οὐ μὴ φοβηθῇ, κύριε, καὶ δοξάσει τὸ ὄνομά σου; ὅτι μόνος ὅσιος, ὅτι πάντα τὰ ἔθνη ἥξουσιν καὶ προσκυνήσουσιν ἐνώπιόν σου, ὅτι τὰ δικαιώματά σου ἐφανερώθησαν.

G You alone are holy

G All the nations will come and worship before you G Your righteous acts have been revealed

so, C Who will not fear and glorify you?

The structure of this rhetorical question in the song of Moses and the Lamb (Rev 15:3–4) implies that all will fear and glorify God. Unfortunately, as the Apocalypse makes clear, many are deceived by the beast and worship the beast instead of God—they will fear and glorify God only, if at all, through a forced acknowledgement of the justice of his judgments. 97 The rhetorical question thus motivates the hearers to do what they ought to do.

Space precludes a full discussion of universalism in the Apocalypse. The soteriological dualism of the Apocalypse makes it improbable that John envisioned universalism (cf. in particular Rev 9:20– 21; 16:9, 11; 20:13–14). For more detailed discussion see Allan J. McNicol, The Conversion of the Nations in Revelation; Dave Matthewson, ‘The Destiny of the Nations in Revelation 21:1–22:5: A Reconsideration,’ 121–42; Beale, The Book of Revelation, 798–800; Osborne, Revelation, 568; Mounce, The Book of Revelation, 287–88; Caird, The Revelation, 198–99; Bauckham, Climax of Prophecy, 296–307. 97

168

SOTERIOLOGY AS MOTIVATION

G All should fear and glorify God because because of his holiness and righteous acts

W Corporate obligation implies individual obligation so, C Fear and glorify God

The broader context of Revelation 15 contains both an image of victory in final salvation (Rev 15:2–4) and a description of the seven last plagues to be poured out upon God’s enemies (Rev 15:1, 5–8). This contrast likewise supports the motivation to choose sides: i.e. to fear and glorify God. G Those who fear and glorify God will celebrate with the overcomers G Those who do not fear and glorify God will experience the seven plagues

so, C Fear and glorify God

Condition-Consequence Logical Relations R. A. Young helpfully analyses the function of conditional sentences in the New Testament in terms of speech act theory and argues that the meaning depends upon the function of conditional sentences and not only their grammatical form. 98 When viewed through the speech act model, all conditionals are seen as implicit performatives which are used to do something in addition to stating a condition: i.e., to persuade the listener, to make a strong assertion, to manipulate the listener, to give an exhortation, to express a respectful rebuke, Young, ‘A Classification of Conditional Sentences,’ 29–49. He argues, ‘The assumption that the meaning of conditional sentences can be determined solely by surface structure features, such as tense, mood, and particles, severely restricts the exegetical task. The meaning of any utterance cannot be understood apart from the speaker’s intent, the situational and linguistic context, as well as the linguistic form’ (p. 29). See also Michael L. Geis and Zheng-Sheng Zhang, ‘Conditional Sentences in Speech Act Theory,’ 233–45. 98

MOTIVATION IN SENTENCES AND CLAUSES

169

to ask something in a polite way, to justify one’s self, to mock someone, or to convey a lament. 99

The situational context is particularly important in the interpretation of a communicative act. 100 The motivational thrust of the Apocalypse dominates its situational context: John is seeking, in response to his visionary encounter with one like the son of man, to move his hearers to overcome through repentance, worship, witness, perseverance, and obedience by any and every means at his literary disposal. Revelation 3:20 ἰδοὺ ἕστηκα ἐπὶ τὴν θύραν καὶ κρούω· ἐάν τις ἀκούσῃ τῆς φωνῆς μου καὶ ἀνοίξῃ τὴν θύραν, [καὶ] εἰσελεύσομαι πρὸς αὐτὸν καὶ δειπνήσω μετʼ αὐτοῦ καὶ αὐτὸς μετʼ ἐμοῦ.

The third class conditional grammatical construction functions rhetorically to motivate the hearers to open the door. 101 It is an invitation from Jesus—the acceptance of which depended upon the choice of the hearer. The image of Jesus knocking clearly communicates his desire for the Laodicean Christians to respond to his desire for entrance by opening the door. 102 This desire in itself, because Jesus is the king of kings and rightful ruler of the entire world, should motivate compliance. Young, ‘A Classification of Conditional Sentences,’ 39. Young, ‘A Classification of Conditional Sentences,’ 32, describes the situational context as ‘such things as the shared experience of the speaker and audience, the shared knowledge about the culture, the immediate situational setting, the prior statements of the same and related discussions, the relationship between speaker and audience, the formality of the situation, and the social register of the speaker and hearer.’ 101 Aune, Revelation 1–6, 261, argues that the conditional clause in the verse indicates that Jesus is the guest and not the host. Cf. Smalley, The Revelation, 101. Contra Sweet, Revelation, 109. 102 This observation fulfills the felicity condition necessary for this conditional to function as either an offer or a request. See Geis and Zhang, ‘Conditional Sentences,’ 237, 239. 99

100

170

SOTERIOLOGY AS MOTIVATION W One should seek to please royalty

G Jesus desires entrance and fellowship

so, C Open the door

In addition, the conditional nature of the invitation makes it clear that it was possible for the hearers to refuse entrance to Jesus. 103 B Jesus’ exclusion from the church would be a terrible loss W One should act in a way to avoid loss G If you do not open the door Jesus will not enter for fellowship (eating together) 104

so, C Open the door

Jesus’ exclusion from fellowship with his church represented their exclusion from him and his people. Such exclusion meant soteriological loss because it was only God’s true people who would be sealed and participate in final salvation (resurrection life in God’s new creation). 105 It was not yet too late to open the door, The pronoun τις likely indicates a individualistic emphasis (cf. Rev 5:2; 6:17; 11:5; 13:9, 10, 17; 14:9, 11; 15:4; 18:18; 20:15; 22:18, 19). So Osborne, Revelation, 217; Colin J. Hemer, The Letters to the Seven Churches of Asia in their Local Setting, 207; Beasly-Murray, Revelation, 107. In some ways the individual/corporate dichotomy is irrelevant because a corporate body is composed of individuals. The corporate church, consisting of its individual members, must act to open the door. 104 There is an allusion here to the final messianic banquet. Cf. Rev 19:6–9; Luke 13:29; 22:29–30. 105 This observation should nullify the debate concerning whether this verse points to present fellowship or eschatological fellowship. Present fellowship (inclusion within the people of God) is integrally related to and necessary for future fellowship (eating at the messianic banquet in God’s new creation). On the debate see Beale, The Book of Revelation, 308–309. Smalley, The Revelation, 83, argues that for John ‘the present points forward to the future, and the future includes the present. All “appearances” of Christ are therefore part of his ongoing parousia: in time, and at the end of time … In the same way, the promise of tablefellowship with the Laodiceans (Rev. 3:20) is proleptic of the messianic 103

MOTIVATION IN SENTENCES AND CLAUSES

171

but failure to open the door would result in exclusion from final salvation. Revelation 14:9–11 Καὶ ἄλλος ἄγγελος τρίτος ἠκολούθησεν αὐτοῖς λέγων ἐν φωνῇ μεγάλῃ, Εἴ τις προσκυνεῖ τὸ θηρίον καὶ τὴν εἰκόνα αὐτοῦ καὶ λαμβάνει χάραγμα ἐπὶ τοῦ μετώπου αὐτοῦ ἢ ἐπὶ τὴν χεῖρα αὐτοῦ, 10 καὶ αὐτὸς πίεται ἐκ τοῦ οἴνου τοῦ θυμοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ κεκερασμένου ἀκράτου ἐν τῷ ποτηρίῳ τῆς ὀργῆς αὐτοῦ καὶ βασανισθήσεται ἐν πυρὶ καὶ θείῳ ἐνώπιον ἀγγέλων ἁγίων καὶ ἐνώπιον τοῦ ἀρνίου. καὶ ὁ καπνὸς τοῦ βασανισμοῦ αὐτῶν εἰς αἰῶνας αἰώνων ἀναβαίνει, καὶ οὐκ ἔχουσιν ἀνάπαυσιν ἡμέρας καὶ νυκτὸς οἱ προσκυνοῦντες τὸ θηρίον καὶ τὴν εἰκόνα αὐτοῦ καὶ εἴ τις λαμβάνει τὸ χάραγμα τοῦ ὀνόματος αὐτοῦ. W Eternal punishment and shame should be avoided at all costs 106

G If any worship the beast and receive its mark they will experience eternal punishment and torment in the presence of angels and the lamb 107

so, C Do not worship the beast or receive its mark

feast (cf. Rev. 21.3–7; 22.1–5, 17; note Isa. 25.6–10a).’ Sweet, Revelation, 109, argues that the image ‘evokes the final crisis of redemption and condemnation, but subordinates it to the love of the Bridegroom seeking out his unsatisfactory Bride.’ 106 DeSilva, Seeing Things John’s Way, 271, helpfully discusses the significance of punishment ἐνώπιον ἀγγέλων ἁγίων καὶ ἐνώπιον τοῦ ἀρνίου within the context of an honor/shame culture when he notes, ‘The third angel invokes topics related to both honor and security. Participation in imperial cult, he asserts, would mean exposure to everlasting torment at God’s judgment, thus putting one’s safety in the greatest possible jeopardy. Moreover, it would lead to public degradation and loss of honor as the angels and Lamb bear witness to one’s punishment.’ 107 In regard to grammatical form the use of εἴ with the indicative mood points to the reality of the premise. Grammatical form alone, however, does not exhaust what can be said concerning the function of

172

SOTERIOLOGY AS MOTIVATION

The eternal nature of the punishment here envisioned is suggested by the rising of the smoke of their torment εἰς αἰῶνας αἰώνων, and by their lack of rest ἡμέρας καὶ νυκτὸς (cf. Rev 1:18; 4:10; 10:6; 11:15; 15:7; 20:10; 22:5). 108 This description of final punishment and judgment could be expanded with descriptions of God’s judgments throughout the book: both the judgments that were poured out within history (the seal, trumpet, and bowl judgments, and the final eschatological battle) and the final eternal punishment of those who sided with the dragon and beasts and opposed God (Rev 19:20; 20:10, 14–15). This argument from the consequences functions by vividly describing the end result of compromising and worshipping the beast instead of God. The hearer is thus motivated to reject this course of action and instead follow the instructions of the first angel to fear, glorify, and worship God (Rev 14:7). 109 Revelation 20:15 καὶ εἴ τις οὐχ εὑρέθη ἐν τῇ βίβλῳ τῆς ζωῆς γεγραμμένος, ἐβλήθη εἰς τὴν λίμνην τοῦ πυρός.

the conditional statements to warn those who are confronted with a decision of the consequences of choosing the road most traveled. The conditional statement satisfies the felicity conditions necessary to consider it to be a warning. Cf. Geis and Zhang, ‘Conditional Sentences,’ 238–39. 108 Keener, Revelation, 374; Charles H. Talbert, The Apocalypse: A Reading of the Revelation of John, 66; Mounce, The Book of Revelation, 274–75; Beale, The Book of Revelation, 761–63. For arguments that the phrase does not actually indicate eternal torment see Smalley, The Revelation, 367–68; Caird, The Revelation of Saint John, 186–87. 109 Sweet, Revelation, 228, observes, ‘John’s severity is diagnostic: these worshippers of the beast are a hypothetical category (v. 9), which may include Christians, and it is for Christians this “apocalypse” is written, removing the veil and revealing the nature and destiny of beast-worship, so that they many see and act now, before it is too late’ (italics original).

MOTIVATION IN SENTENCES AND CLAUSES

173

W You do not want to spend eternity in a lake of fire

G If any is not written in the book of life they will be cast in the lake of fire

so, C Make sure your name is written in the book

Geis and Zhang list four ‘felicity conditions’ for identifying when an assertive conditional sentence is functioning as a warning: (1) the speaker believes that some event will obtain; (2) the speaker believes that the event will adversely affect the hearer; (3) the speaker believes that the hearer does not know about the event; and (4) the speaker believes that the hearer can avoid the event by performing some action. 110 John is convinced that (1) the final judgment will occur; (2) that the event could potentially affect the hearers if they failed to overcome; (3) that the hearers may not be aware of the danger (cf. the proclamations to the seven churches); and (4) that his hearers could safely avoid eternal punishment by overcoming (having their names in the book of life). These considerations warrant considering Rev 20:15 to be a warning in advance of the final judgment and not just a propositional description of what will happen at that time. Revelation 21:27 καὶ οὐ μὴ εἰσέλθῃ εἰς αὐτὴν πᾶν κοινὸν καὶ [ὁ] ποιῶν βδέλυγμα καὶ ψεῦδος εἰ μὴ οἱ γεγραμμένοι ἐν τῷ βιβλίῳ τῆς ζωῆς τοῦ ἀρνίου.

G Entrance to the New Jerusalem is reserved for those whose names are written in the Lamb’s book

G Nobody unclean, detestable, or false will enter the New Jerusalem

110

so, C Make sure your name is written in the Lamb’s book of life—do not engage in detestable practices or falsehood

Geis and Zhang, ‘Conditional Sentences,’ 238–39.

174

SOTERIOLOGY AS MOTIVATION

The Greek εἰ μὴ can be translated ‘but only.’ 111 The negative description of those who will not enter the city and the positive description of those who will enter it describe the same reality from two different perspectives. Those whose names are written in the Lamb’s book of life will be precisely the kind of people who were not common and who did not engage in detestable practices or falsehood. Beale rightly reminds his readers, ‘The rhetorical situation must be kept in mind. John’s intent in v 27 is not merely to give information about future destinies but to warn people in the present by describing the final outcome of their choices and actions.’ 112 Revelation 21:27 is thus an implicit argument from the consequences. It warns even as it communicates information (cf. Rev 21:8). 113 Revelation 22:18–19 Μαρτυρῶ ἐγὼ παντὶ τῷ ἀκούοντι τοὺς λόγους τῆς προφητείας τοῦ βιβλίου τούτου· ἐάν τις ἐπιθῇ ἐπʼ αὐτά, ἐπιθήσει ὁ θεὸς ἐπʼ αὐτὸν τὰς πληγὰς τὰς γεγραμμένας ἐν τῷ βιβλίῳ τούτῳ, καὶ ἐάν τις ἀφέλῃ ἀπὸ τῶν λόγων τοῦ βιβλίου τῆς προφητείας ταύτης, ἀφελεῖ ὁ θεὸς τὸ μέρος αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ τοῦ ξύλου τῆς ζωῆς καὶ ἐκ τῆς πόλεως τῆς ἁγίας τῶν γεγραμμένων ἐν τῷ βιβλίῳ τούτῳ.

G If any add or detract from the words of the Apocalypse they will experience God’s wrath and lose their participation in final salvation

so, C Do not alter the words of the Apocalypse

The plagues written about ‘in this book’ point back to the trumpet and bowl judgments, and God’s judgment of Babylon (Rev 9:18, 20; 15:1, 6, 8; 16:9, 21; 18:4, 8). 114 Furthermore, to lose ones share of the tree of life and the holy city is to be excluded from participation in final salvation. The threat of this negative Beale, The Book of Revelation, 1101. Ibid., 1102. 113 Keener, Revelation, 499; Smalley, The Revelation, 561. 114 Cf. Beale, The Book of Revelation, 1150–54. 111 112

MOTIVATION IN SENTENCES AND CLAUSES

175

punishment motivates hearers to leave the text of the Apocalypse unaltered. 115

SUMMARY OF RESULTS The preceding analysis consistently indicates that there are two primary motivational strategies repeatedly employed throughout the Apocalypse: (1) positive motivation centered on the prospect of the reception of reward (final salvation) for overcoming (Rev 2:10, 25–28; 18:20; 3:4, 8, 10; 7:14–15; declarations of blessedness [Rev 1:3; 14:13; 16:15; 19:9; 20:6; 22:7, 14]; promises to the overcomer [Rev 2:7, 11, 17, 26–28; 3:5, 12, 21]) and (2) negative motivation centered on avoidance of the judgment that accompanies failure to overcome (Rev 2:5, 16; 3:2–3, 11, 16; 14:7, 9–11; 18:4; 20:15; 21:27; 22:18–19; Jesus’ opinion and wishes [Rev 2:4, 14, 20; 3:2, 15], the standard of judgment [Rev 2:23]). Both of these draw their motivational power from expected future participation in or exclusion from eschatological salvation. It is not easy to evaluate which kind of motivation (positive or negative) predominates because they are integrally joined around the gain or loss of future salvation (cf. Rev 3:20; 14:12; 15:4). 116 A general synthesis of the argumentation analyzed in this chapter can now be attempted.

On the use of conditional sentences as threats see Geis and Zhang, ‘Conditional Sentences,’ 240. 116 Wolfgang Schrage, The Ethics of the New Testament, 337 argues that the positive motivation predominates: ‘The positive aspects of future hope, however, are much more important in providing ethical motivation.’ 115

176

SOTERIOLOGY AS MOTIVATION

G Failure to overcome results in soteriological loss

G Success in overcoming results in soteriological gain (blessedness) G Jesus desires you to overcome

W Jesus is the king and his desires should be heeded W The attainment of eternal life and avoidance of eternal punishment is worth present temporal suffering and death

so, C Overcome through repentance, worship, witness, perseverance, and obedience

CONCLUSION John’s motivational strategy is thoroughly grounded in his foundational narrative. Christ will soon return to judge and punish sinners and bring salvation to his people. In light of that future day John exhorts his hearers to make choices that will result in their participation in final salvation, entrance into the New Jerusalem, and to avoid choices that would lead to their exclusion from final salvation. Soteriology surfaces as the primary explicit and implicit motivating factor in John’s argumentation. For John, believers were not secure in their final salvation until they had demonstrated faithfulness unto death—until that point there was still a need to overcome in light of the danger that they might fail to overcome. What then becomes of John’s conviction that believers had been loosed from their sins by the blood of Christ (Rev 1:5), had been made a kingdom and priests (Rev 1:6; 5:9–10), had been sealed by God (Rev 7:3–9), and have had their names written in the Lamb’s book of life from the foundation of the world (Rev 13:8; 17:8)? The next chapter will look more closely at the theological implications of the use of soteriology as motivation.

CHAPTER 5: SOTERIOLOGY WITHIN THE ARGUMENTATION OF THE APOCALYPSE The primary grounds for John’s motivation identified in chapter four relate positively and negatively to soteriology and indicate that soteriology functions as the primary motivating factor in the argumentation of the Apocalypse. Compared with other topics soteriology has not been extensively explored in the Apocalypse. 1 Eric Joseph Spano, ‘Erasure and Endurance: Aspects of Soteriology in Revelation,’ 2–5, writes, ‘Noted scholars such as Aune, Johnson, Metzger, Thompson, Collins, Beasley-Murray, Rowland, Mounce, and Morris have no specific discussion on Revelation’s soteriology. Michaels, Wainwright, Donelson, Boring, Ford, Harrington, Beckwith, and Charles do discuss the theology of Revelation but have little if anything to say about its soteriology. A third group of scholars (Bauckham, Schüssler-Fiorenza, Osborne, Beale, Caird, and Swete) actually discuss the soteriology of Revelation but not satisfactorily or comprehensively.’ See Richard Bauckham, The Theology of the Book of Revelation, 66–108; Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, The Book of Revelation: Justice and Judgment, 1–6, 46–50, 68–76, 114–26; Grant R. Osborne, Revelation, 42–46; G. K. Beale, The Book of Revelation, 171–74; George B. Caird, A Commentary on the Revelation of Saint John the Divine, 295–30. In addition to the works cited by Spano, several other scholars have analyzed soteriology in the Apocalypse: Jan A. du Rand, ‘The New Jerusalem as Pinnacle of Salvation: Text (Rev 21:1–22:5) and Intertext,’ 275–302; Jan A. du Rand, ‘Soteriology in the Apocalypse of John,’ 465–504; Joël Rochette, La rémission des péchés dans l’Apocalypse: ébauche d’une sotériologie originale; Christopher Rowland, ‘The Lamb and the Beast, the Sheep and the Goats: “The Mystery of Salvation” in Revelation,’ 181–92; Charles H. Talbert, ‘Divine Assistance and Enablement of Human Faithfulness in the 1

177

178

SOTERIOLOGY AS MOTIVATION

This is surprising considering the centrality of soteriology within the text. 2 Since σωτηρία only occurs in scenes of worship in Rev 7:10; 12:10; 19:1 a study of soteriology in the Apocalypse cannot depend upon a simple word study but must include a study of the various images, symbols, and narrative developments by which soteriological realities are described throughout the book. 3 Du Revelation of John Viewed within Its Apocalyptic Context,’ 265–82. Discussion of salvation in the Apocalypse often focuses on whether the salvation described in Rev 21:1–22:5 is particular or universal in regard to the nations. See Allan J. McNicol, The Conversion of the Nations in Revelation; Dave Matthewson, ‘The Destiny of the Nations in Revelation 21:1–22:5: A Reconsideration,’ 121–42. In favor of a form of universalism or near universalism (the vast majority of humanity) see Richard Bauckham, The Climax of Prophecy, 238–337; Caird, The Revelation, 279; John Sweet, Revelation, 308–309; Mathias Rissi, The Future of the World: An Exegetical Study of Rev 19:1-22:1, 68–78, 110. In favor of seeing the nations and kings of the earth as the redeemed from the nations see Beale, The Book of Revelation, 1097; Ulrich B. Müller, Die Offenbarung des Johannes, 362; Robert H. Gundry, ‘The New Jerusalem: People as Place not Place for People,’ 254–64, 263. Matthewson, ‘The Destiny of the Nations,’ 141–42, judiciously concludes, ‘… the tension created by the presence of statements of universal judgment (19:17–21; 20:7–10) and universal salvation (21:3, 24–26; 22:2) as it relates to the destiny of the nations functions in a rhetorical manner: to portray the opposing options confronting the nations and to depict the comprehensive and universal nature of judgment and salvation in the establishment of God’s kingdom. John envisions both wide scale judgment and wide scale salvation.’ Thus, the contrasting pictures of the destiny of the nations support John’s rhetorical agenda and call for the hearer to make a choice concerning which group with which to identify. 2 Du Rand, ‘Soteriology in the Apocalypse of John,’ 476. 3 Ibid., 468. Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, ‘Redemption as Liberation: Apoc 1:5f. and 5:9f,’ 220–232, argues, ‘Sotēria is found in the Apoc only in those hymnic formulas (7:10; 12:10; 19:1) that refer to the eschatological final salvation’ (p. 220). Du Rand, ‘Soteriology in the Apocalypse of John,’ 469–70, argues that σωτηρία in each of these texts belongs to God and finds its origin in him, carries undertones of victory (similar to the Old Testament idea of victory in Exod 14:13, 30; 15:2; Ps

SOTERIOLOGY WITHIN THE ARGUMENTATION

179

Rand notes, ‘The way one understands the human predicament necessarily determines one’s interpretation of soteriology.’ 4 On the basis of Rev 1:5; and 5:9, Joël Rochette cogently argues that John’s soteriology responds to three primary concerns: sin, bondage, and death. Le croyant à qui s’adresse le livre de l’Apocalypse découvre ainsi et « voit » ce que tout homme peut pressentir en luimême : il a besoin non seulement d’être délivré des différents malheurs qui l’accablent de l’extérieur … mais il a encore bien plus besoin de cette réalité essentielle qu’est le salut ; il comprend qu’il a besoin d’être sauvé du péché, de la servitude et de la mort … Péché, servitude et mort : ces trois mots ponctuent, en négatif, la trame narrative de la sotériologie de l’Apocalypse. 5

Sin and bondage are dealt with by Christ’s blood (Rev 1:5; 5:9), while death awaits its final defeat just prior to the consummation of salvation: resurrection life in God’s new creation (Rev 20:14; 21:4). The fact that believers are presently loosed from their sins and redeemed yet will not gain final victory over death in resurrection until God’s new creation points toward an inaugurated soteriology. 74:2; 106:10, 21), and includes God’s ‘… judgement as part of the soteriological process.’ Paul Ellingworth, ‘Salvation to our God,’ 444–45, argues that σωτηρία should be translated as ‘victory’ in each occurrence in the Apocalypse. Caird, The Revelation of Saint John, similarly translates σωτηρία in Rev 7:10 as ‘victory,’ but for the wrong reasons. He writes, ‘It is not their salvation that the martyrs are celebrating, but their triumphant passage through persecution. Their salvation was achieved long since, first by the act of Christ, who loved them and released them from their sins with his own life-blood, then by the faith which accepted his redeeming love and the baptism which had sealed the faith and made them members of the redeemed and priestly community (i. 6)’ (p. 100). Caird seems to reject ‘salvation’ as the translation because of an over-realized understanding of the term—a curious conclusion in light of his discussion of the three tenses of salvation on pages 296–301. 4 Du Rand, ‘Soteriology in the Apocalypse of John,’ 466. 5 Rochette, La rémission des péchés, 513–14.

180

SOTERIOLOGY AS MOTIVATION

In general, John’s eschatology, and thereby his soteriology, could be described as inaugurated; that is, it is both ‘now’ or ‘already’ and ‘not yet’ at the same time—it is inaugurated but not yet consummated, begun but not yet finished. 6 The presence of inaugurated soteriology in the Apocalypse is evident when one considers references to white robes and the crown of life. 7 The white robes are both the present possession of believers (Rev 3:4, 18; 16:15) and also what they receive in final salvation (Rev 3:5; 6:11; 7:13–14; 19:7–8; cf. Asc. Isa 7:22). Similarly, the crown of life is presented as future in Rev 2:10, but in Rev 3:11 it appears to be a present possession that had to be held fast in order to prevent loss. 8 Cameron Afzal, The Mystery of the Book of Revelation: Reenvisioning the End of Time, 3, 138; Beale, The Book of Revelation, 28–29, 93–94, 125, 137– 41, 156–62, 235, 243. Andrew J. Bandstra, ‘“A Kingship and Priests”: Inaugurated Eschatology in the Apocalypse,’ 10–25, emphasizes the inaugurated dimensions of salvation while Schüssler Fiorenza, ‘Redemption as Liberation,’ emphasizes the future, not yet attained dimensions. 7 In addition, Beale, The Book of Revelation, 235, argues that the promises to the overcomer may include an inaugurated aspect in Rev 2:7, 10–11, 26–27; 3:20–21. 8 Beale, The Book of Revelation, 279, writes, ‘The reward of the white garments begins to be received at least at death and the entrance into the heavenly presence of God, as in [sic] 4:4; 6:9–11; 7:9–14; and 19:13 bear out; it is given consummately when Christ returns a final time (19:8). The reward probably even begins in this life, since 3:4 pictures the faithful already wearing pure garments; since Christ exhorts the saints in 3:18 now to “buy … white garments,” which he himself already possessed, in order that “the shame of your nakedness should not be manifested” (see on 1:13–14 and 3:18); and since 16:15 refers to a blessing on the one who is “[presently] keeping his garments in order that he should not walk about naked and they should see his shame” (in allusion to 3:18). Therefore, “they will walk with [Christ] in white garments” (3:4) may refer, not only to the reward in the next life, but to the blessing of walking with Christ in the imminent future in this life.’ Cf. Gerhard A. Krodel, Revelation, 133. 6

SOTERIOLOGY WITHIN THE ARGUMENTATION

181

This chapter will seek to answer the following questions. How does the Apocalypse reflect and express an inaugurated soteriology? How do the present and future poles of John’s soeriology relate to each other, and how does each pole affect his motivational argumentation? This chapter will argue that the inaugurated dimensions of John’s soteriology (being loosed from sins, redeemed, made a kingdom and priests, and sealed) play only a minor role in John’s motivation while the not yet possessed dimensions of John’s soteriology repeatedly form the grounds for John’s motivation. In other words, the indicative (the ‘already’ of salvation) is not primarily used as the grounds for the imperative in the Apocalypse. Instead, John’s motivational argumentation assumes the indicative, but primarily grounds the imperatives on the fact that John’s hearers, the believers in the seven churches, were in danger of not receiving final salvation if they did not overcome. John does not seek to motivate his hearers by drawing attention to or referencing their possessed salvation, security, and present identity as God’s people, but by focusing on the nonpossessed aspect of future salvation which they still might fall short of attaining if they failed to overcome.

INAUGURATED SOTERIOLOGY: NOW AND NOT YET George Caird briefly comments on the difficulty associated with distinguishing the various tenses of salvation in the Apocalypse. He writes, ‘John’s doctrine of salvation, like that of the New Testament as a whole, is in three tenses. But it is characteristic of his visions that the tenses are constantly interfused … and the tenses leave us in doubt whether John is describing the present or the future (vii. 9 ff.).’ 9 This difficulty is not insurmountable and even if there is interpretive disagreement on certain points the general division between salvation as an accomplished fact and present and possessed reality and salvation as a future prospect can be distinguished. 10 Caird, The Revelation of Saint John, 300. The meta-narrative undergirding John’s worldview as discussed in chapter three guides the analysis in this chapter. 9

10

182

SOTERIOLOGY AS MOTIVATION

The Now The most striking way the Apocalypse presents the present possession of salvation by the believing community draws upon descriptions of the people of Israel who had just been delivered from Egypt through the blood of the Passover lamb. In God’s first words to the people at Sinai he promised that if they obeyed his voice and kept his covenant they would be his treasured possession, a kingdom of priests, and a holy nation (Exod 19:5–6). John draws upon this language to describe the current status of the community of believers in 1:5–6 and 5:9–10. Rev 1:5b–6a: Τῷ ἀγαπῶντι ἡμᾶς καὶ λύσαντι ἡμᾶς ἐκ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν ἐν τῷ αἵματι αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἐποίησεν ἡμᾶς βασιλείαν, ἱερεῖς τῷ θεῷ καὶ πατρὶ αὐτοῦ Rev 5:9–10 Ἄξιος εἶ λαβεῖν τὸ βιβλίον καὶ ἀνοῖξαι τὰς σφραγῖδας αὐτοῦ, ὅτι ἐσφάγης καὶ ἠγόρασας τῷ θεῷ ἐν τῷ αἵματί σου ἐκ πάσης φυλῆς καὶ γλώσσης καὶ λαοῦ καὶ ἔθνους καὶ ἐποίησας αὐτοὺς τῷ θεῷ ἡμῶν βασιλείαν καὶ ἱερεῖς, καὶ βασιλεύσουσιν ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς

These passages have three parallel parts which describe: (1) the love (Rev 1:5) and violent death of Christ (Rev 5:9); (2) the loosing of the hearers by Christ’s blood (Rev 1:5) and their redemption from all mankind by the blood of the lamb (Rev 5:9); (3) the present existence and constitution of John’s hearers as a kingdom and priests to God with Rev 5:10 emphasizing their future reign on the earth. 11 In both these passages, the blood of Christ, the sacrificial

Schüssler Fiorenza, ‘Redemption as Liberation,’ 221; cf. Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, Priester für Gott: Studien zum Herrschafts- und Priestermotiv in der Apokalypse. Schüssler Fiorenza ‘Redemption as Liberation,’ 222, cogently argues that the textual variant in Rev 5:9 (‘and they shall reign on earth’) must be read in a future sense: ‘The present tense basileuousin is attested by the best text witness A (Alexandrinus) and the Koine manuscripts. The future tense basileusousin is found in most of the 11

SOTERIOLOGY WITHIN THE ARGUMENTATION

183

lamb, functions as the indispensible means by which the soteriological transition occurs—those bound in sin are loosed, redeemed, and constituted a kingdom and priests to God. 12 manuscripts and accepted by the majority of the commentaries on the Apoc. However, A also has the present tense in Apoc 20:6, a text which refers quite clearly to the eschatological future. Therefore the reading basileuousin is either a Hebraism connoting the future, or a mistake, or more probably a correction by the writer of A.’ Cf. Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 667. Contra Bandstra, ‘“A Kingship and Priests”,’ 18–19, who argues for the present tense reading based upon the statements in Rev 1:6; 5:10a, that John’s hearers had already been made a kingship and priests. The textual evidence is evenly divided: Metzger, A Textual Commentary, 667, notes that βασιλεύσουσιν is supported by ‫ א‬P 1 94 1854 2053 2344 itgig vg syrph copsa, bo arm al, and βασιλεύουσιν is supported by A 046 1006 1611 it61 syrh al. Following Schüssler Fiorenza and Metzger, the future tense seems more probable but this present study would not be affected by either variant since this chapter is arguing for an inaugurated eschatology/soteriology with both present and future dimensions. On the other hand, the variant is highly significant for those who argue either for an exclusively realized eschatology or an exclusively future eschatology. 12 Paul Decock, ‘The Symbol of Blood in the Apocalypse of John,’ 157–82. ‘Lamb’ is the most prominent Christological title in the Apocalypse but its meaning is hotly debated. Is it a militaristic/messianic symbol of power (Josephine M. Ford, Revelation, 88–89; Charles H. Talbert, The Apocalypse: A Reading of the Revelation of John, 29; Bruce J. Malina, On the Genre and Message of Revelation: Star Visions and Sky Journeys, 101; cf. T. Jos. 19:8; T. Benj. 3:8; 1 En. 89–90), a symbol of vulnerability and non-violent resistance (Loren L. Johns, The Lamb Christology of the Apocalypse of John: An Investigation into Its Origins and Rhetorical Force; Loren L. Johns, ‘The Lamb in the Rhetorical Program of the Apocalypse of John,’ 2:762–84), or some form of sacrificial metaphor (Bauckham, The Climax of Prophecy, 184; George R. Beasley-Murray, The Book of Revelation, 125; Jürgen Roloff, The Revelation of John, 37; José Comblin, Le Christ dans l’Apocalypse, 26, 31; cf. Lev 17:11; John 1:29, 36; 1 Cor 5:7)? For a fuller overview of possible backgrounds for the lamb imagery see Aune, Revelation 1–5, 367– 73. Aune wisely notes, ‘The major issue is whether the image of the lamb centers on its sacrificial associations (in which case John has expanded

184

SOTERIOLOGY AS MOTIVATION

Revelation 7:14; 12:10–11 describe how overcomers gain the victory on the basis of the blood of the lamb and their participation through faithfulness to the point of joining their shed blood to his. 13 John contributes to this idea of a presently existing kingdom when he describes himself as ‘your brother and companion in the tribulation, kingdom, and endurance in Jesus’ (Rev 1:9). John’s hearers presently constituted God’s kingdom because they had been loosed from their sins and redeemed by the blood of Christ. 14 John’s appropriation of Exod 19:6 contributes to a covenantal and relational understanding of the present possession of salvation— those freed from sin and redeemed from mankind constituted members of God’s people and existed as the fulfillment of God’s original intentions in the calling and rescuing of a people to be his this to include other functions) or on its apocalyptic and messianic associations (in which case John has expanded this to include sacrificial imagery). However, it is not necessary to choose between these two possibilities, for it seems clear that the author of Revelation has fused both of these associations together in the single figure of the Lamb’ (p. 368; italics original; cf. Beale, The Book of Revelation, 351). 13 Du Rand, ‘Soteriology in the Apocalypse of John’; Johns, ‘The Lamb in the Rhetorical Program,’ 782; Bauckham, The Climax of Prophecy, 229; Osborne, Revelation, 325; Brian K. Blount, Revelation: A Commentary, 153. C. Marvin Pate and Douglas W. Kennard, Deliverance Now and Not Yet: The New Testament and the Great Tribulation, 508, describe this phenomenon as ‘mimetic atonement.’ 14 The use of ἀγοράζω in Rev 14:3, 4 parallels its use in Rev 5:9. Whereas Rev 5:9 clearly ties redemption to the lamb’s blood, Rev 14:3–4 describes the character of the redeemed: they had not defiled themselves with women, they follow the Lamb wherever he goes, they are lie free, and blameless. These characteristics are not presented as the cause of redemption but are a description of the redeemed. The symbolic description of the 144,000 as male virgins indicates purity, perhaps in light of holy war traditions (Bauckham, The Climax of Prophecy, 230–31), and should not be read as indicating male soteriological priority or literal celibacy. Cf. Schüssler Fiorenza, The Book of Revelation: Justice and Judgment, 190–91.

SOTERIOLOGY WITHIN THE ARGUMENTATION

185

own possession. This identity of John’s hearers as God’s people (λαός; a term with heavy Old Testament salvation historical connotations) is made explicit in Rev 18:4 (cf. the final establishment of overcomers as God’s people in Rev 21:3). 15 The designation of John’s hearers as ‘holy ones’ in the present is also striking (Rev 5:8; 8:3–4; 11:18; 13:7, 10; 14:12; 16:6; 17:6; 18:20, 24; 20:9). Based on Rev 22:11 this present holiness likely points to their moral condition and actions (cf. Rev 19:8) and holiness is attributed retrospectively on the basis of perseverance to the end (Rev 16:6; 17:6; 18:24; 20:6). 16 The security of God’s people in the present time of tribulation and conflict leading up to God’s final day of salvation and judgment is communicated through a number of symbols. God’s people are sealed (Rev 7:3–8; 9:4), measured (Rev 11:1–2), nourished in the wilderness (Rev 12:6, 14), supernaturally protected (Rev 11: 5; 12:16), and have their names written in the Lamb’s book of life (Rev 13:8; 17:8). 17 Realized Soteriology Some scholars emphasize the realized character of John’s eschatology and thereby his soteriology. On the far extreme, J. Kallas argues that the Apocalypse contains a platonic realized eschatology. He argues as follows: The belief in the immediate return of Jesus is abandoned. We must not be misled by the fact that Revelation uses the language of eschatology. The language is there, but not the Davie E. Aune, ‘St. John’s Portrait of the Church in the Apocalypse,’ 131–49, 138, notes, ‘The term itself is … intimately connected with the history of salvation in the Old Testament, and is connected with God’s initiative in selecting a people of His own.’ 16 Holiness quintessentially describes God (Rev 4:8; 6:10) and Christ (Rev 3:7) and derivatively describes individuals or objects in relationship to God such as Jerusalem (Rev 11:2; 21:2, 10; 22:19), and angels (Rev 14:10). See Aune, ‘St. John’s Portrait,’ 133–34. 17 Du Rand, ‘The New Jerusalem as Pinnacle of Salvation,’ 278–79; Talbert, ‘Divine Assistance and Enablement,’ 276–80. 15

186

SOTERIOLOGY AS MOTIVATION content … The failure of the parousia has forced Revelation into that same realized eschatology which dominates its companion book, the gospel of John. 18

Kallas, however, provides little evidence for separating the ‘language’ of eschatology from its ‘content’ and few, if any, recent scholars would follow his lead. A more persuasive presentation of a form of realized eschatology/soteriology, also based upon speculation on early Christian responses to the unforeseen delay of Christ’s return, comes from John Gager’s work Kingdom and Community. 19 He argues that the main goal of the author in composing the J. Kallas, ‘The Apocalypse—An Apocalyptic Book?’ 77–78. Cf. Ernst Lohmeyer, Die Offenbarung des Johannes, 193, 197. 19 David L. Barr, ‘The Apocalypse of John as Oral Enactment,’ Int 40 (1986): 243–56, seems to come to similar conclusions. He writes, ‘Yet since the contest is one of true worship, the oral enactment of the Apocalypse is a central element in the struggle, for it does more than describe the coming of God’s kingdom (the narrative of the end), and it does more than portray that kingdom through worship (the liturgical materials); it brings the kingdom (it is the liturgy). As a story the Apocalypse has the power to take us in, to transport us into a new world. As an enacted story the Apocalypse has the power to bring into existence that reality which it portrays, to transform the finite province of meaning into the paramount reality of those who worship … Because the Kingdom of God is his true worship, the very enactment of the Apocalypse establishes that kingdom in this world’ (p. 256; italics original). Barr’s conclusions could only be possible if the kingdom of God were indeed limited to ‘true worship,’ but such a limited ‘spiritual’ understanding of the kingdom surely fails to account for the cosmic, political, social, and economic dimensions of the kingdom in Revelation 21:1–22:5. Barr later expresses some reservations concerning his earlier interpretation when he notes, ‘This interpretation entails two ethical dangers: the danger of viewing John’s story as a spiritual story unconnected to the actual lives of oppressed people and the danger of viewing the world as already transformed and therefore trustworthy’ (David L. Barr, ‘Towards an Ethical Reading of the Apocalypse: Reflections on John’s Use of Power, Violence and Misogyny,’ 368). 18

SOTERIOLOGY WITHIN THE ARGUMENTATION

187

Apocalypse was ‘to make possible an experience of millennial bliss as living reality’ or ‘to experience the future as present.’ 20 This is accomplished in the text by the alternating accounts of good and evil so that the reader experiences the ‘not yet’ in the ‘now’ and the text becomes ‘a machine for transcending time.’ 21 Stephen O’Leary links Gager’s position closely with that of Adela Yarbro Collins (Crisis and Catharsis): ‘Gager’s reading of the Apocalypse is essentially identical to Collins’ dramatic interpretation; both rely on a medical metaphor (therapy on the one hand, catharsis or purgation on the other).’ 22 O’Leary supports Gager’s insights, yet provides an important qualification when he notes the following: John G. Gager, Kingdom and Community: The Social World of Early Christianity, 55. Contra Gager, Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, The Book of Revelation: Justice and Judgment, 167–68, argues, ‘Finally, it must be questioned whether the main goal of the author in composing the book was “to make possible an experience of millennial bliss as living reality” or “to experience the future as present”. The opposite appears to be the case. The author does not encourage the consistent resistance (hypomonē) of Christians by eliminating the difference in time between the present and the eschatological future. Instead, he stresses that Christians do not yet actively exercise their kingship. Eschatological salvation is near but not yet present … He speaks of future salvation for the sake of exhortation.’ 21 Gager, Kingdom and Community, 52. 22 Stephen D. O’Leary, Arguing the Apocalypse: A Theory of Millennial Rhetoric, 69. David L. Barr, Tales of the End: A Narrative Commentary on the Book of Revelation, likewise links Collins and Gager and critiques both for not going far enough. He writes, ‘It is the dynamics of this liminal state that interest us, for here a person passes through a temporary experience and is permanently changed as a result. This model allows us to avoid undervaluing the imaginative experience of hearing the Apocalypse. Writers who interpret this experiences as merely a denial of reality [Collins, Crisis and Catharsis, 155] or as a temporary, ephemeral event soon to be eclipsed by life in the real world [Gager, Kingdom and Community, 56], fail to appreciate the transformative function of the language. One passing through this rite, this liturgy, can be permanently altered’ (pp. 179–80). 20

188

SOTERIOLOGY AS MOTIVATION The reader’s fear while marveling at the vivid symbolism of the great beast, the emotions of hope and pride that follow from the hearer’s identification with the saints rejoicing in millennial bliss, endow these symbols with an emotional reality that is experienced as present for the audience. The dramatic relief that the audience feels at seeing the worm cast into the everlasting fire can only appear to believers as a foretaste of millennial bliss … To say that time is transcended through this aesthetic experience of the text is not to claim that the distinction between present and future is eliminated permanently; the millennial community’s annihilation of time is constantly arrested by contact with what is commonly called the ‘real world,’ where hunger, labor, and continued oppression (whether material or rhetorical) serve notice that the millennium has not yet arrived. 23

The communities’ temporary experience of heaven, ultimate victory, and divine presence in the midst of their worship would not have lead them to discard their future hope, but rather strengthen their longing for the day when God would finally and completely set everything right, reverse their misfortune and difficulty, and provide full salvation and vindication. 24 The seriousness of the exhortations examined in chapter four above argue against seeing the Apocalypse as only a tool to temporarily give the hearers an emotional high and help them to momentarily forget the fact that they were still waiting for God to bring final salvation and judgment. The text confronts the hearer with visions of the rejoicing of God’s people presently in heaven and completely in the future not to make the readers forget their temporal distance from final salvation but to remind them of it and motivate their perseverance in order that they would one day join O’Leary, Arguing the Apocalypse, 70; cf. 202. M. Eugene Boring, ‘Narrative Christology in the Apocalypse,’ 717, rightly argues, ‘John does not have a realized eschatology in the sense that the future expectation is collapsed into the present. He expects the future resurrection, judgment, the coming of Christ on the clouds, and the descent of the new Jerusalem. He expects Christ to come in the future.’ 23 24

SOTERIOLOGY WITHIN THE ARGUMENTATION

189

the worship and celebration over the final defeat of evil and resurrection life in God’s new creation. 25 Summary Christ’s sacrificial death is the means by which John’s hearers are loosed from their sins, redeemed from mankind, included within the people of God, and made to be a kingdom and priests to God—God’s people are divinely sealed, measured, nourished, and protected in the present time period of tribulation and distress. 26 In their worship God’s people on earth participate in the heavenly worship of God and anticipate their future day of deliverance and vindication in God’s new creation. The Not Yet Full, final, and complete salvation is reserved for the future day when the kingdoms of this world will become in concrete reality the kingdom of God and his Christ (Rev 11:15). This future time period of God’s ultimate victory and the saints’ ultimate vindication and salvation is preeminently described in the descent and description of New Jerusalem in Rev 22:1–22:5, the marriage of the Lamb and his bride (Rev 19:7–9; 21:2, 9). 27 God will make a Elizabeth Ann Gaines, ‘The Eschatological Jerusalem: The function of the image in the literature of the Biblical period,’ 395, arguing against Collin, notes, ‘The future aspect of the seer’s vision is stressed here over against the emphasis placed by A. Y. Collins on the immediate psychological impact of the Apocalypse. The cathartic effect she attributes to the work does not sufficiently take into account the fact that the world of the text does not alter the present reality of the audience. The cognitive dissonance that is the result of the clash between expectation and reality has not been removed. Rather, the audience is promised a future eschatological world in which their expectations will be finally realized. It is the nearness of the eschaton that offers the audience hope for the future and strength for the present.’ 26 Du Rand, ‘Soteriology in the Apocalypse of John,’ 471. 27 Du Rand, ‘The New Jerusalem as Pinnacle of Salvation,’ 277. He concludes: ‘The new Jerusalem (21:1–22:5) is the ultimate fulfillment of the whole salvation story’ (p. 298). 25

190

SOTERIOLOGY AS MOTIVATION

new heaven and earth for his resurrected people to inhabit (Rev 21:1, 5), and he will dwell with his people and intimately wipe away all tears and abolish death, mourning, crying, and pain (Rev 21:3–4; 22:3–4). God’s people will have access to springs of living water (Rev 21:6; 22:1), the tree of life (Rev 22:2, 14, 19), and the safety and security of life in and as the New Jerusalem (Rev 21:2, 9– 22:5). 28 This final salvation is described in the proclamations to the seven churches in the promises to the overcomer: the right to the tree of life (Rev 2:7); the crown of life (Rev 2:10); immunity from the second death (Rev 2:11); the hidden manna and white stone with a new name on it (Rev 2:17); authority over the nations (Rev 2:26); the morning star (Rev 2:28); white clothing (Rev 3:4); permanent solidarity with God’s temple as a pillar (Rev 3:12); sitting with Christ on his throne (Rev 3:21). 29 The final salvation of God’s people is further described in the visionary sections of the book: they will reign on the earth (Rev 5:9; 20:4–6; 22:5); God will dwell among them and the lamb will perfectly shepherd them (Rev 7:15–17); they will sing a new song on Mount Zion (Rev 14:1–5); those who die will experience rest (Rev 14:13; cf. Rev 6:11). Salvation finds its origin and belongs to God (Rev 7:10; 12:10; 19:1) who will send it to his creation and his people with the return of Christ on the clouds (Rev 1:7). Those who have overcome through death and are presently with God in heaven waiting for God’s final consummation are closely linked with God’s future salvation because they are beyond the danger of sinful compromise and no longer need motivation, Apocalyptic symbolism blurs the line between the New Jerusalem as people and place. It is symbolically both. Robert H. Gundry, ‘The New Jerusalem: People as Place not Place for People,’ 254–64, argues for New Jerusalem as people, but it is not at all clear that the symbolic description should be limited to people since the symbolism at this point seems intentionally elastic. 29 Du Rand, ‘Soteriology in the Apocalypse of John,’ 474; Paul S. Minear, I Saw a New Earth: An Introduction to the Visions of the Apocalypse, 59–61; Eun-Chul Shin, ‘More Than Conquerors: The Conqueror (NIKΆΩ) Motif in the Book of Revelation.’ 28

SOTERIOLOGY WITHIN THE ARGUMENTATION

191

encouragement, and warning. Du Rand notes, ‘The triumphant church in heaven as salvational result of God’s activity on earth (4:5; 6:9–11; 7:9–17; 14:1–5; 15:2–4 and 19:1–7) functions to link up the earthly church (2–3; 7:1–8; 8:3–5; 11:3–13 and 12) to the new Jerusalem (21–22).’ 30 Future salvation can only come through judgment. 31 The dragon must be finally defeated and cast, not just from heaven to earth (Rev 12:9), but from earth to the lake of fire (Rev 20:10), along with the beasts (Rev 19:20) who had deceived the whole world (Rev 12:9; 13:14; 19:20; 20:3, 8, 10). Oppressive and murderous Babylon must be destroyed (Revelation 18). 32 The dragon, the beasts, and Babylon will have no place in God’s future world in his new age of salvation. 33 Just as some scholars have argued for a realized eschatology (and thereby soteriology) in the Apocalypse, Schüssler Fiorenza seems to argue for a completely future eschatology and soteriology. 34 In response, the evidence cited above in regard to the Du Rand, ‘The New Jerusalem as Pinnacle of Salvation,’ 279. Charles H. Giblin, ‘The Millennium (Rev 20.4-6) as Heaven,’ 553–70, discusses these texts among others under the rubric of ‘vertical eschatology’ (p. 555), and argues that the millennial kingdom (Rev 20:4–6) points to the present existence of believers in heaven before physical resurrection and life in God’s new creation. 31 Du Rand, ‘Soteriology in the Apocalypse,’ 472–74. 32 Du Rand, ‘The New Jerusalem as Pinnacle of Salvation,’ 279, notes, ‘The destruction of Babylon is the negative climax of salvation.’ 33 Schüssler Fiorenza, ‘Redemption as Liberation,’ 220, argues, ‘Conceiving of redemption in political terms, the author asserts that final redemption and salvation is not now possible, but only when the state of dominion on earth is radically changed. Only when Satan and the concrete representation of his power, the Roman Empire, no longer rules on earth is final salvation possible. Only when God and the lamb reign on earth is salvation accomplished.’ 34 Schüssler Fiorenza, ‘Redemption as Liberation,’ 220, 232. She further argues (p. 227, 231) that the future tense in Rev 5:9 is an intentional modification by John of the similar baptismal formula in Rev 1:5 to combat the potential misunderstanding of an over-realized 30

192

SOTERIOLOGY AS MOTIVATION

present possession of salvation must be given careful consideration and leads to a truly inaugurated soteriology with both present and future dimensions. 35 Mathias Rissi helpfully describes God’s lordship over time in the relationship between the past, present, and future as follows: It is also now to be understood from God’s and Christ’s absolute power of disposal over time that he can give mankind in their appointed time a portion in his decisive, historically unique act of redemption in the past and in the time of consummation as well: they are already written in the book of life, already bought and purified through the blood of the lamb; already having white garments, they are already kings and priests (cf. 1:6; 3:4; 5:10), and yet they still live in their particular time before the consummation … God’s lordship over time is to be understood to mean that he who is distinguished by his redemptive act in the past becomes contemporary with the believer and permits the fruit of his redemptive transaction to become effectual in him, primarily as an anticipation of the consummation and only in partial realization, given by his Spirit. 36

soteriology and to expand the focus of salvation from primarily anthropological (1:5) to more socio-political (5:9). Contra Schüssler Fiorenza, there is no need to postulate that John modified the original formula because his soteriology is broad enough to include both anthropological and socio-political dimensions and both the present and future. The text requires that an interpreter embrace the latter (future socio-political salvation) without rejecting the former (present individual anthropological salvation). Pate and Kennard, Deliverance Now and Not Yet, 499–516, also seem to favor a consistent future eschatology for most believers, but they only arrive at this conclusion by arguing that the 144,000 are a separate group from the majority of believers and thus the inaugurated eschatology indicated by Rev 7:1–8; 14:1–5, only refers to a small group of Christians. 35 Bandstra, ‘“A Kingship and Priests”,’ 22–23. 36 Mathias Rissi, Time and History: A Study on the Revelation, 53–54.

SOTERIOLOGY WITHIN THE ARGUMENTATION

193

Believers in the present by the Spirit have a partial realization of God’s final consummation on the basis of Christ’s historical act of redemption. Instead of emphasizing one soteriological pole to the exclusion of the other (the present [completely realized] or future [not-yet possessed]), the reality of inaugurated eschatology/ soteriology demands that the interpreter explore how the two poles relate to each other and what each contributes to the theology and rhetorical agenda of the Apocalypse. 37 The following section will Charles Talbert’s recent exploration of how the realized dimensions of salvation function to enable the perseverance necessary for final salvation through divine assistance and enablement represents a step in the right direction (Talbert, ‘Divine Assistance and Enablement’). He argues that divine enablement, communicated through the images of sealing (Rev 7:1–8), measuring (Rev 11:1–2), one’s name being written in the Book of Life (Rev 13:8; 17:8b; 20:12; cf. Rev 3:5), being clothed (Rev 19:8), and the descent of the new Jerusalem (Rev 21:2), ‘produces the desired behavior to be found in Revelation’ (p. 276). Unfortunately, the text is not at all clear about how God’s actions in sealing, measuring, writing one’s name, and clothing enable or ‘produce the desired behavior.’ Additionally, whereas knowledge of future salvation and judgment form the grounds for John’s explicit motivation, the instances of divine enablement cited by Talbert play no role in the actual motivational argumentation of the Apocalypse (see below). Talbert curiously fails to include the inaugurated dimensions of salvation found in Rev 1:5; 5:9–10. Paul Decock, ‘The Works of God, of Christ, and of the Faithful in the Apocalypse of John,’ 37–66, 50–51 corrects this deficiency when he explores how Jesus enables his followers to participate in his works. Decock writes, ‘Jesus’ love (1:5; 3:19) for the faithful is effective and ongoing. At their baptism, through the blood of the Lamb, they have been freed from their sins (1:5), they have been bought (5:9; 14:3, 5), they made their garments white (7:14), and they have conquered (12:11). They have also been made priests for their God and Father (1:6; 5:10; 7:15). In other words, they have been rescued from idolatry and been enabled to worship God’ (p. 51; italics original). Elsewhere Decock argues that the blood of the Lamb in Rev 7:14; 12:11 empowers believers to come through the great trial and overcome the great Dragon (Decock, ‘The Symbol of Blood in the Apocalypse of John,’ 164–65). Wolfgang Schrage, 37

194

SOTERIOLOGY AS MOTIVATION

examine the function of the soteriological now and not yet in John’s motivational argumentation.

THE ROLE OF SOTERIOLOGY IN JOHN’S ARGUMENTATION How do the two aspects of John’s inaugurated soteriology, the now and not yet, function in the argumentation of the Apocalypse? The study of John’s explicit and implicit argumentation in chapter four determined that the two primary motivational strategies repeatedly employed throughout the Apocalypse are positive motivation centered on the prospect of the reception of reward (final salvation) for overcoming (Rev 2:10, 25–28; 18:20; 3:4, 8, 10; 7:14– 15; declarations of blessedness [Rev 1:3; 14:13; 16:15; 19:9; 20:6; 22:7, 14]; promises to the overcomer [Rev 2:7, 11, 17, 26–28; 3:5, 12, 21]) and negative motivation centered on avoidance of the judgment that accompanies failure to overcome (Rev 2:5, 16; 3:2–3, 11, 16; 14:7, 9–11; 18:4; 20:15; 21:27; 22:18–19; Jesus’ opinion and wishes [Rev 2:4, 14, 20; 3:2, 15], the standard of judgment [Rev 2:23]). 38 These two grounds draw their motivational power from The Ethics of the New Testament, 336, brings the two soteriological poles together when he writes, ‘The community has not only a future but a past, something already received and heard. It is not a triumphalistic host secure in its salvation, nor is it a forlorn hope blindly groping toward the future with empty hands and hearts … The gift and word that have been received must become real.’ 38 David Hellholm, ‘The Problem of Apocalyptic Genre and the Apocalypse of John,’ 13–64, conducts a detailed text-linguistic analysis of the Apocalypse and concludes that Rev 21:5–8 is the most embedded text in the book and the message of the Apocalypse is ‘… on the one hand the promise (illocution) of those who conquer that they shall live in unity with God in the new world of his (proposition), and on the other hand the threat (illocution) that the lot of the cowardly and unfaithful is ultimately separation from God described by the singular concept of a “second death” (proposition). This constitutes the summary of the Apocalypse of John from the lips of the Supreme Divinity on the throne’ (p. 46; italics original). This complements the conclusions reached by the use of Toulmin’s model in chapter four, although as Adela Y. Collins, ‘Reading

SOTERIOLOGY WITHIN THE ARGUMENTATION

195

expected future participation in or exclusion from eschatological salvation; hence they are soteriological. 39 G Failure to overcome results in soteriological loss

G Success in overcoming results in soteriological gain (blessedness)

B God is the creator; Jesus is the King of kings and Lord of lords; John is a trustworthy prophet; the Apocalypse is divinely inspired

W God through Jesus through John has declared it to be in the Apocalypse

so, C Overcome through repentance, witness, worship, obedience, and perseverance

It is striking that the inaugurated dimensions of John’s soteriology (being loosed from sins, redeemed, made a kingdom and priests, and sealed) play only a minor role in John’s motivation while the the Book of Revelation in the 20th Century,’ 229–42, observes, ‘The notion that an apocalypse has a single simple message is problematic’ (p. 239). 39 Talbert, ‘Divine Assistance and Human Faithfulness,’ 271, insightfully notes, ‘Knowing the certainty of reward and punishment at the end of life or at the end of history, will, it is believed, cause proper behavior in the here and now (T. Mos. 12; 6 Ezra 16:63–67). This seems to be the dominant view in apocalyptic eschatology of how God motivates the righteous in their achievement of the desired behavior.’ He further clarifies: ‘Like apocalyptic eschatology in general, that of the Revelation to John assumes that if humans know the certain outcome of history, they will act properly … If they know, they will do’ (pp. 275–76). This present study of John’s motivation confirms Talbert’s insight in regard to the Apocalypse. The visions of the Apocalypse largely provide knowledge of future salvation and judgment leading up to, including, and extending beyond the end of history. This knowledge is made more persuasive by the use of ekphrasis to stir the hearers’ emotions and imagination.

196

SOTERIOLOGY AS MOTIVATION

not yet possessed dimensions of John’s soteriology repeatedly form the grounds for John’s motivation. 40 The one exception can be found in Jesus’ exhortation to the Laodiceans in Rev 3:18–19. Building on the reality of the present active participal of ἀγαπάω in Rev 1:5 (Τῷ ἀγαπῶντι ἡμᾶς), Jesus reaffirms his love for perhaps the most compromised church as the grounds for his command for them to zealously repent: ἐγὼ ὅσους ἐὰν φιλῶ ἐλέγχω καὶ παιδεύω· ζήλευε οὖν καὶ μετανόησον (Rev 3:19). The implicit warrant seems to be something like ‘acts of love should be reciprocated by appropriate actions.’ Instead of being motivated by the fear of impending judgment or the desire to gain future reward, this exhortation grounds overcoming behavior in a response of love and gratitude to Jesus’ love. This example deviates from the general pattern of John’s motivational argumentation by basing the grounds upon a present reality (the existence of a mutual love relationship between Christ and his people, the hearers) instead of a future reality (the attainment or loss of final salvation). This deviation significantly broadens the potential scope of John’s motivational argumentation, but it does not define or represent the general motivational thrust of the book. In other words, the indicative (the ‘already’ of salvation) is not primarily used as the grounds for the imperative in the Apocalypse. The reality of the indicative is not denied—John’s hearers belonged to God’s people, were loved by Christ, were members of the seven churches, and had been freed from their sins, redeemed, and made a kingdom and priests. 41 This indicative reality does not, however, Schüssler Fiorenza, ‘Redemption as Liberation,’ 231–32, points in this direction when she writes: ‘By underlining the eschatological aspect of salvation, he emphasizes the imperative that has to follow the indicative of Christian existence. Only those who like Christ were faithful witnesses and have been victorious in the struggle with the Roman Empire will have a part in the eschatological kingdom and priesthood.’ 41 Beale, among others, distinguishes between genuine or true believers and mere professors (Beale, The Book of Revelation, passim; G. K. Beale, ‘The Purpose of Symbolism in the Book of Revelation,’ 53–66, 58; Charles R. Smith, ‘The Book of Life,’ 219–30, 228), but the Apocalypse does not suggest such a distinction. The seven proclamations address the 40

SOTERIOLOGY WITHIN THE ARGUMENTATION

197

play a major role in John’s motivational argumentation. Instead, John’s motivational argumentation assumes the indicative, but primarily grounds the imperatives on the fact that John’s hearers, the believers in the seven churches, were in danger of not receiving final salvation if they did not overcome. John does not seek to motivate his hearers by drawing attention to or referencing their possessed salvation, security, and present identity as God’s people—the sealing does not function as grounds in any exhortation, but by focusing on the non-possessed aspect of future salvation which they still might fall short of attaining if they failed to overcome. Can Christians Lose Their Salvation? John’s motivational strategy naturally raises the common question: Can Christians lose their salvation? 42 This question fails from the churches whose stars were held in Jesus’ hand (Rev 1:16). John does distinguish between those in the churches who were being faithful and those that were compromising and in danger of divine judgment (Rev 2:14–16, 20–24; 3:4), but this distinction is not framed in terms of true or genuine believers verses pretend believers but in terms of Christians who were overcoming verses Christians who were compromising and in danger of divine judgment. 42 Interpreters often address this question in regard to the possibility of erasure from the book of life in Rev 3:5. Those that think John envisions the possibility of erasure and loss of salvation include Spano, ‘Erasure and Endurance,’ passim; Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, Revelation: Vision of a Just World, 129–30; Osborne, Revelation, 180–81; Frederick J. Murphy, Fallen Is Babylon: The Revelation of John; Craig Keener, Revelation, 145; Ben Witherington III, Revelation, 106; Joseph A. Seiss, Letters to the Seven Churches, 201; Sweet, Revelation, 79; David Aune, Revelation 1–5, 227; Ford, Revelation, 409; Margaret Barker, The Revelation of Jesus Christ, 108; Roloff, The Revelation, 59; Mitchell G. Reddish, Revelation, 73; Caird, The Revelation, 49. Those that hold that believers cannot lose their salvation or be blotted from the book of life include Beale, The Book of Revelation, 279– 80; Louis A. Brighton, Revelation, 88; Talbert, The Apocalypse, 21; Eduard Lohse, Die Offenbarung des Johannes, 32; Robert L. Thomas, Revelation 1–7: An Exegetical Commentary, 261; J. William Fuller, ‘I Will Not Erase His

198

SOTERIOLOGY AS MOTIVATION

start on two points. First, it betrays a failure to think and talk about salvation in accord with how John thought and talked about it. In the Apocalypse, salvation belongs to God and Christ and will come fully and finally to God’s creation in his great day of salvation and judgment. It is cosmic in scope and is possessed by God who will bring it to his people in his new creation; this is the ‘not yet’ of salvation. Second and conversely, the question fails because it seems to superficially equate salvation with conversion-initiation; the ‘now’ of salvation. 43 A full-bodied New Testament soteriology includes past, present, and future dimensions—with many texts, particularly rhetorically motivational texts, emphasizing the future Name form the Book of Life (Revelation 3:5),’ 297–306; Smith, ‘The Book of Life,’ 230. In support of her position Schüssler Fiorenza, Revelation: Vision of a Just World, 129–30, argues, ‘Revelation’s persuasive aims are theo-ethical; therefore, no fixed impermeable boundaries are drawn between those who are saved and those who are not, between Christians and non-Christians. As signaled by the first seven-series of the messages at the beginning of the book, judgment begins with the Christian community. Just as the ekklēsia of Laodicea is condemned because it says that “I am rich and have grown wealthy, and have need of nothing” (3:17), so the audience is warned not to become too sure of its salvation. Christians still can lose their freedom and salvation by becoming slaves to the earth-destroying power of Babylon/Rome. Thus, Revelation gives great prominence to an ethic of commitment. Such a political ethic and commitment seeks to prevent readers from projecting evil only onto others while holding themselves exempt from it.’ Rowland, ‘“The Mystery of Salvation”,’ concurs when he writes, ‘As the letters to the seven churches indicate, who is “in” and who is “out” is not at all clear. Those who are most confident (the Laodiceans) turn out to be the least fit for inclusion’ (p. 189). Decock, ‘The Works of God,’ 47, argues, ‘Furthermore, from the perspective of the letters in Rev 2-3 the emphasis is not merely on the gift of salvation in the present, but especially on the responsibility to hold on to the gift … The theme of “reward according to the works” in 2:23 (and elsewhere in the book) must be seen in the light of the precarious condition of their state of salvation’ (italics original). 43 James D. G. Dunn, Baptism in the Holy Spirit: A Re-Examination of the New Testament Teaching, labels the complex of events surrounding the beginning of a Christian life as ‘conversion-initiation.’

SOTERIOLOGY WITHIN THE ARGUMENTATION

199

non-possessed aspects of salvation. 44 The need for Christians to overcome in order to be saved in the final day motivates an obedient response to John’s explicit and implicit exhortations. 45 Christians have been saved (Rom 8:24; Eph 2:5, 8; 2 Tim 1:9; Tit 3:5), are being saved (1 Cor 1:18; 15:2; 2 Cor 2:15; 1 Pet 1:9; 3:21), and finally, will be saved (Matt 10:22; 24:13; [cf. Luke 21:19]; Rom 5:9–10; 13:11; 1 Cor 3:15; 5:5; 1 Thess 5:8–9; 1 Tim 4:16; 2 Tim 4:18; Heb 1:14; 9:28; 1 Pet 1:5; 2:2). This past, present, and future diversity is found in other soteriological terms and concepts as well: the kingdom of God that has come (Matt 12:28; Luke 17:21) and will come (Matt 6:10; 25:34; Luke 19:11; 21:31; Acts 14:22; 2 Thess 1:5; 1 Cor 15:50); redemption is possessed (Rom 3:24; Eph 1:7; 1 Pet 1:18–19; Heb 9:12) and yet hoped for (Luke 21:28; Rom 8:23; Eph 1:13–14); eternal life is both eschatological (Mark 10:29–30) and a present possession (John 5:24; 6:47, 54; 1 John 5:11–13); adoption is completed (Rom 8:15; Gal 4:5; Eph 1:5) and yet waited for (Rom 8:23); justification is declared in the present (Luke 18:14; Rom 3:24; 4:5; 5:1, 9; 1 Cor 6:11; Titus 3:7) and still waited for in the future (Matt 12:37; Rom 2:13; Gal 2:17; 5:5). Often, warnings and exhortations emphasize the future, not-yet-attained aspects of salvation in order to motivate obedience. See Thomas R. Schreiner and Ardel B. Caneday, The Race Set Before Us: A Biblical Theology of Perseverance & Assurance; Wil L. Owens, ‘The Doctrine of Sanctification with Respect to Its Role in Eternal Salvation’; Alexander E. Stewart, ‘Cosmology, Eschatology, and Soteriology in Hebrews: A Synthetic Analysis,’ 545–560; Alexander E. Stewart, ‘When are Christians Saved and Why Does it Matter? An Investigation into the Rhetorical Force of First Peter’s Inaugurated Soteriology,’ 221–235. 45 The broader New Testament bears witness to the necessity of works, sanctification, or perseverance in the attainment of final salvation. See Matt 25:31–46; John 8:31; 15:5–6; Rom 2:6–10; 8:12–14; 1 Cor 6: 9– 11; 9:24–27; Gal 5:19–21; 6:7–8; Eph 5:5–10; Phil 2:12–13; Col 1:21–23; 1 Thess 4:1–7; 2 Thess 2:13–17; Heb 12:14; 2 Pet 1:10–11; 1 John 1:6; 2:3, 4, 9, 15, 29; 3:1–3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10; Jude 20–24; Rev 2:10–11. Cf. Schreiner and Caneday, The Race Set Before Us; Owens, ‘The Doctrine of Sanctification with Respect to Its Role in Eternal Salvation.’ Serious warnings against falling away and not gaining final salvation fill the pages of the NT (Matt 10:32–33; Luke 8:11–14; Rom 8:12–13; 1 Cor 9:23–27; 15:1–2; Gal 5:2–6; 6:7–10; Col 1:21–23; Heb 2:1–4; 3:1–4:13; 5:11–6:12; 44

200

SOTERIOLOGY AS MOTIVATION

In one sense it is not quite accurate to describe the danger confronting John’s hearers in terms of Christians losing their salvation because ‘salvation’ is not yet something that is fully possessed. On the other hand, the images used by John seem to convey the loss of something already attained: the lampstand could be removed (Rev 2:5); the crown could be taken (Rev 3:11); the name could be blotted out of the book of life (Rev 3:5); they, as God’s people, could be judged with his enemies (Rev 18:6; cf. Rev 2:16, 23); they could lose access to the tree of life (Rev 22:19). Using the language of the Apocalypse this would not be considered a loss of salvation since σωτηρία is only ever attributed to God in settings of worship in the Apocalypse. God cannot fail to possess and bring salvation to his people and his creation. The potential danger consists in being excluded from membership and participation in the people of God who will be saved in that final day. Soteriology is thus closely linked to ecclesiology in the Apocalypse; not an ecclesiology based on denominational affiliation, sacraments, or outward appearances, but based upon allegiance, worship, and witness to the true God and his Christ—in a word—overcoming. 46 The danger of exclusion from God’s people can only be overcome through faithfulness unto death, or as Jesus put it, ‘the one who endures to the end, this one will be saved’ (Matt. 10:22). Is Faith Necessary? Does John’s emphasis on motivating a human response of ‘overcoming’ indicate that salvation is not dependent upon faith alone? One will look in vain in the Apocalypse for exhortations to believe in God or Jesus in order to be saved. 47 Instead the 10:19–39; 12:12–29). These warnings are predicated, as in the Apocalypse, on an understanding of salvation as a process (a process of overcoming) that will not reach its fulfillment until God’s final day of salvation and judgment. 46 Poul F. Guttesen, Leaning Into the Future: The Kingdom of God in the Theology of Jürgen Moltmann and in the Book of Revelation, 197–98. 47 Πιστεύω occurs 241 times in the New Testament yet not once in the Apocalypse.

SOTERIOLOGY WITHIN THE ARGUMENTATION

201

Apocalypse contains exhortations to action: overcome through repentance, worship, witness, perseverance, and obedience. 48 Does this mean that faith or belief was not important for John in his understanding of a Christians’ experience and relationship to God? Does John promote a works-based salvation? 49 This impression might be strengthened by the repeated emphasis upon a final judgment in accordance with works (Rev 2:23; 18:6; 20:12, 13; 22:12; cf. Rev 14:13). Such a conclusion, however, would be premature and wide off the mark. Belief in God’s sovereignty and Christ’s ability and willingness to save function as the unstated assumption behind John’s conception of the human response and reception of God’s salvation. It is taken for granted that the actions associated with Yehoshua Gitay, ‘The Realm of Prophetic Rhetoric,’ 227, emphasizes the behavioral objectives of Old Testament prophecy when he notes, ‘In conclusion, the prophetic speech is a religious discourse that responds to political and social situations as a proclamation of God’s judgment or reward. The speaker seeks to affect the audience’s behaviour, hence the prophetic speech employs numerous means of appeal, which reveal prophetic oratory as a rich, elaborate and complex discourse. The rhetorical analysis of the prophetic speech shapes our understanding of the historical prophetic activity as a pragmatic endeavour. In order to reach its concrete goal the prophetic address portrays colourful situations of either doom or utopia, based on the concept of cause and effect, punishment and reward, designed to persuade the audience to make some difficult social-religious decisions.’ This observation is supported by Gaines, ‘The Eschatological Jerusalem.’ She analyses the function of the eschatological Jerusalem in Joel 3–4, Tob 13–14, T. 12 Patr., Sib. Or. 3, Sir 36:1–17, and Rev 21–22 and concludes that in each of these texts, ‘The expectation of a place in the eschatological city becomes, in turn, the motivation for the ethical exhortations that accompany the image in these texts. Whether the realization of that reward is imminent, as the seer John maintains, or at some point still in the future, the promise of eschatological reward is directly linked to the ethical conduct of the individual in this life’ (p. 419). 49 On works in the Apocalypse see Decock, ‘The Works of God’; Traugott Holtz, ‘Die “Werke” in der Johannesapokalypse,’ 426–41. 48

202

SOTERIOLOGY AS MOTIVATION

overcoming would be based on belief. What hearers would worship a God that they did not believe in, or bear witness to the cosmic lordship of Christ at the risk of their lives if they were not sure if Christ existed and had freed them from the power of sin and made them a kingdom and priests to God? Such saving faith is unstated but assumed to be the basis for one’s overcoming behavior. 50 This understanding of faith and works is very similar to what is explicitly expressed in James 2:14–26 and the Synoptics. 51 Works are not soteriologically optional but are an integral component of a holistic believing human response to God’s saving initiative. 52 Gift and obligation are brought seamlessly together in Rev 19:8. 53 ‘And it was given to her [divine gift] in order that she might clothe herself with fine linen, bright and pure; for the fine linen is the righteous deeds of the saints [obligation].’ Holtz, ‘Die “Werke” in der Johannesapokalypse,’ 439–40, argues, ‘Dabei sind sie aber ganz konsequent als der Ausdruck der empfangenen Gabe christlichen Wesens begriffen, ihre Bewährung und Bewahrung, nicht aber das Mittel, dieses Wesens zu gewinnen.’ Cf. Decock, ‘The Works of God,’ 38. 51 On James see Douglas J. Moo, The Letter of James: An Introduction and Commentary, 41–42; Alexander E. Stewart, ‘James, Soteriology, and Synergism,’ 293–310. On the Synoptics see Alan P. Stanley, Did Jesus Teach Salvation by Works?: The Role of Works in Salvation in the Synoptic Gospels; Edmund K. Neufeld, ‘The Gospel in the Gospels: Answering the Question “What Must I do to be Saved?” from the Synoptics,’ 267–96. 52 Decock, ‘The Works of God,’ 40, stresses how a person’s works reveal what kind of person one is and determine one’s being—this is why Jesus consistently notes that he knows the works of the churches (Rev 2:2, 19; 3:1, 8, 15). ‘… [T]he works reveal the true state of the members of the churches’ (p. 40). 53 Beale, The Book of Revelation, 934–43; Caird, The Revelation, 297. Talbert, ‘Divine Assistance and Human Faithfulness,’ 278–79, makes a similar observation in regard to the relationship between the book of life and the book of accounts. He writes, ‘In these two books is portrayed the paradox of works and grace … If however, one’s record in the Book of Accounts is acceptable, it is because one’s name had already been written in the Book of Life. Divine enablement is critical.’ 50

SOTERIOLOGY WITHIN THE ARGUMENTATION

203

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS: SOTERIOLOGY AS MOTIVATION IN THE APOCALYPSE The Apocalypse advocates what might be called inaugurated soteriology. The hearers were saved in the sense that they had been loosed from their sins, redeemed, and had been included within God’s people; they had been made a kingdom and priests. This identity as God’s people, however, only represents an inauguration of the salvation God has in store for his people—it is partial, incomplete, and liable to forfeiture based upon a failure to overcome. Those who overcome will inherit final and full salvation in God’s new creation—at that point they would be past the danger of sin, temptation, and compromise and would be fully and finally secure. In the Apocalypse, initial salvation is invisible, spiritual (loosing from sins), individual, and incomplete, while final salvation is concrete, visible, physical, political and corporate, cosmic, and complete. From the divine perspective of sovereign election (Rev 7:3–8; 13:8; 17:8, 14) God knows those who are his; they have been sealed, and cannot be lost. From the human perspective of John and his hearers, however, assurance that they are elect (written in the Lamb’s book of life) and sealed is based upon overcoming behavior, and until the final day there was the danger that they may prove to be non-elect and may indeed fall away and fail to receive salvation in God’s new creation. Throughout the Apocalypse’s argumentation, John presents full and final salvation as a future event that would not decisively culminate until Christ’s return in order to motivate his hearers to overcome in the present through complete faithfulness to Jesus unto death. Those who responded positively to his call to overcome would be saved with God’s people in the final day of salvation and judgment, while those who did not respond appropriately would be judged with God’s enemies.

CHAPTER 6: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS SUMMARY This study has sought to establish the thesis that John primarily employs soteriology as motivation in the Apocalypse; that is, John presents full and final salvation as a future event that would not decisively culminate until Christ’s return in order to motivate his hearers to overcome in the present through complete faithfulness to Jesus unto death. Those who responded positively to his call to overcome through repentance, witness, worship, perseverance, and obedience would be saved with God’s people in the final day of salvation and judgment, while those who did not respond appropriately would be judged with God’s enemies. This conclusion is not new, but it has not been previously formulated or defended in the comprehensive manner presented in this monograph. 1 In short, John’s apocalyptic imperatives are not based upon the indicative mood but the subjunctive mood. Hearers are not exhorted to overcome because they had been saved but in order that they might be saved. This way of stating the issue is not the result of a prior systematic-theological position but derives from the evidence of John’s actual argumentation. In addition to the main thesis, this study contributes to the study of the Apocalypse by demonstrating the following points. Other studies that have pointed in this direction include David Hellholm, ‘The Problem of Apocalyptic Genre and the Apocalypse of John,’ 13–64, 46; Ian Smith, ‘A Rational Choice Model of the Book of Revelation,’ 97–116; David A. deSilva, Seeing Things John’s Way: The Rhetoric of the Book of Revelation, 312; Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, The Book of Revelation: Justice and Judgment, 191–92; Barbara Rossing, The Choice between Two Cities: Whore, Bride, and Empire in the Apocalypse, 135–65. 1

205

206

SOTERIOLOGY AS MOTIVATION 1. The Apocalypse of John is a thoroughly rhetorical text; i.e. it was not written primarily to convey information about the future, but to motivate its hearers to concrete actions in the present. 2. Logos, or logical argumentation, is a central, not peripheral, element of John’s rhetorical strategy; albeit a logos dependent upon a shared meta-narrative and worldview. 3. Toulmin’s model for argumentation analysis, although a relatively simple model, can usefully be applied to apocalyptic texts to clarify, simplify, and synthesize the argumentation. 4. The Apocalypse bears witness to a genuinely inaugurated eschatology and soteriology with both presently possessed and future, non-possessed elements. 5. John constantly references the future, non-possessed elements of salvation in his motivation by drawing attention to the fact that his hearers had not yet arrived and were in danger of not arriving and instead being judged with God’s enemies if they did not overcome. The present possession of salvation enables the overcoming behavior necessary to participate in God’s final salvation but does not, on the basis of John’s explicit and implicit motivation, guarantee that any particular individual will be saved on that final day. Only those who overcome to the end—Christ’s return or their death—will be saved and experience resurrection life in God’s new creation. 6. One’s theology of motivation or salvation must be grounded in a comprehensive analysis of the actual motivational argumentation within a text. In regard to the text of the Apocalypse this monograph identified twelve instances of explicit motivational argumentation and seven categories of implicit motivation.

These points were made as the volume progressed. Chapter two discussed recent contributions made to the rhetorical analysis of the Apocalypse in the past three decades, and various developments in modern argumentation theory, particularly the contributions of Steven Toulmin and Chaim Perelman. It was determined that Toulin’s model provided an ideal methodology for analyzing motivation in the argumentation of the Apocalypse.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

207

Chapter two concluded with a discussion of the rhetorical situation, exigence, and goal of the Apocalypse. Why did John write and what did he want his text to accomplish? It was determined that throughout the Apocalypse John seeks to motivate his hearers to overcome, particularly in light of the temptation to compromise with idolatry with the imperial cult in order to avoid persecution or advance economically. This ‘overcoming’ serves to describe a range of responses John is trying to elicit that include repentance, witness, worship, perseverance, and obedience. The third chapter explored the field of argumentation to which the Apocalypse belongs by providing a descriptive analysis of the meta-narrative undergirding John’s theological thinking and worldview. John primarily inherited this meta-narrative from the Old Testament, but it also incorporated early Christian beliefs and Jesus traditions. This Scriptural and oral-traditional meta-narrative makes sense of and provides the persuasive power to John’s specific arguments and provides the context in which his prophetic legitimation on the basis of divine authority could be understood and believed. The fourth chapter employed Toulmin’s model of argumentation analysis to analyze explicit and implicit motivational argumentation in the Apocalypse. This chapter identified two primary grounds that consistently appear in John’s motivational argumentation: positive motivation centered on the prospect of the reception of reward (final salvation) for overcoming (Rev 2:10, 25– 28; 18:20; 3:4, 8, 10; 7:14–15; declarations of blessedness [Rev 1:3; 14:13; 16:15; 19:9; 20:6; 22:7, 14]; promises to the overcomer [Rev 2:7, 11, 17, 26–28; 3:5, 12, 21]) and negative motivation centered on avoidance of the judgment that accompanies failure to overcome (Rev 2:5, 16; 3:2–3, 11, 16; 14:7, 9–11; 18:4; 20:15; 21:27; 22:18–19; Jesus’ opinion and wishes [Rev 2:4, 14, 20; 3:2, 15], the standard of judgment [Rev 2:23]). Chapter five examined John’s inaugurated eschatology/ soteriology in order to determine more precisely how soteriology functions as motivation in the Apocalypse. The hearers were saved in the sense that they had been loosed from their sins, redeemed, and had been included within God’s people; they had been made a kingdom and priests. This identity as God’s people, however, only represents an inauguration of the salvation God has in store for his people—it is partial, incomplete, and liable to forfeiture based

208

SOTERIOLOGY AS MOTIVATION

upon a failure to overcome. Those who overcome will inherit final and full salvation in God’s new creation—at that point they will be past the danger of sin, temptation, and compromise and would be eternally secure. John’s motivation constantly draws attention to the future unattained dimensions of salvation in order to motivate his hearers to do what was necessary (overcome) in order to be saved in that final day. The appendix presented and applied a syntactical methodology for identifying motivational expressions in the Apocalypse. Once potentially motivating expressions were identified on the basis of syntax, a semantic analysis helped determine which expressions signaled motivational argumentation. The appendix produced a list of motivational expressions in the Apocalypse that served as the basis for the analysis of chapter four.

CONSTRAINTS ON PERSUASIVENESS: THE NECESSITY OF A SHARED META-NARRATIVE Can the motivational strategies employed by John persuade hearers who do not share his worldview? 2 The Apocalypse of John closes with an invitation to the hearer, and every potential or future hearer to embrace and enter into its meta-narrative. ‘And the Spirit and the bride say, “Come.” And let the one hearing say, “Come.” And let the one who thirsts come; let the one desiring receive the water of life without cost’ (Rev 22:17). In this way the meta-narrative presented in the Apocalypse of John invites the hearer into its story and offers to transform and change the worldview and existence of the hearer. John does not present his meta-narrative as one metanarrative among many other equally valid meta-narratives, but as the Some hearers, although not Christian, would share certain elements of John’s worldview (the existence of God and the final judgment for example)—personal worldviews deviate over a continuum. One example of this would be the widespread use of 4 Ezra, a near contemporary Jewish apocalypse, by Christians throughout history based on worldview similarities. Michael E. Stone, Fourth Ezra: A Commentary on the Book of Fourth Ezra, 1–8, 36–49. 2

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

209

meta-narrative, powerfully demanding a response from the hearer. 3 As a hearer is able to perceive and articulate the contours of this narrative, from creation to new creation, and the significance of the foundational events (the first coming and future return of Christ), the narrative is able to enter into the ongoing dialectic between theology, tradition, history, and culture and help in the transformation of the hearer’s worldview thereby enabling the hearer to approach the text with the text’s own presuppositions and thereby exercise a hermeneutic of consent. 4 The fact that the text of the Apocalypse invites the hearer to enter into and embrace its worldview does not mean the argumentation of the Apocalypse will prove persuasive to nonbelievers. The message of Christianity has encountered both

Don Cupitt, What Is a Story?, 87, writes, ‘The master-narrative is not just a mythical or archetypal pattern, to be reenacted any number of times: it is a drama whose one and only script is scripture and whose one and only performance is human history – of which your life now is a part. No doubt in other societies one can find national myths, communal and institutional narratives known to everyone which give people a shared world-view, shared values and patterns of behaviour, and a shared sense of their historical origins and destiny. No doubt, too, there have been many faiths and ideologies which have seemed to those under their sway to hold the key to the future of humanity. But the Holy Scriptures still provide the strongest of all forms of the idea of a master-narrative. Not a story we made up but the story that makes us up, conscripting us into its plot; writing God into every step of our lives and every step of our lives into the plan of God.’ Cuppitt proceeds to deconstruct the idea that metanarratives actually point beyond themselves to something real in the world by arguing that they are textually limited and textually defined, but he rightly describes the power of the scriptural master-narrative to transform an individual’s worldview. 4 The phrase ‘hermeneutic of consent’ is derived from Peter Stuhlmacher, Historical Criticism and Theological Interpretation of Scripture: Towards a Hermeneutics of Consent. James K. Mead, Biblical Theology: Issues, Methods, and Themes, 51, aptly describes the hermeneutic as one ‘which employs a critical reading of the Bible but also asks that the Bible be read in light of the claims it appears to be making upon humanity.’ This requires, among other things, openness to transcendence. 3

210

SOTERIOLOGY AS MOTIVATION

rejection and acceptance by outsiders from the beginning of Christianity until today. Some believe; some do not; some are adamantly opposed; others remain agnostic. The Christian worldview has always been deeply offensive to some and liberating to others (cf. the wide and narrow gates in Matt 7:13–14; the apparent selectivity of God’s election [Rev 7:1–8; 13:8; cf. Romans 8:29–30; 9:14–24; Eph 1:4]). This observation indicates that the text of the Apocalypse is capable of producing a paradigm or worldview shift among non-Christian hearers—it is possible to create within a hearer the worldview presupposed by the text— although for many non-believing hearers the text will not have this effect. John’s argumentation could convince unbelieving hearers in a number of ways: the attractiveness of the picture of resurrection life in God’s new creation or the fear produced by the prospect of eternal loss and punishment—Pascal’s wager is a rhetorically effective prudential argument. 5 On the other hand, those who do not share John’s worldview may also take deep offense at the descriptions of divine judgment upon all outsiders. Christianity has always offended people—whether the offense of the cross (1 Cor 1:18), the offense of Jesus’ association with tax collectors and sinners (Matt 9:11; 11:19; Mark 2:16; Luke 5:30; 7:34), the offense of the resurrection (Acts 17:32), or simply the offense of a God who will someday judge and punish all those who have not demonstrated allegiance to Jesus. Hearers who choose to reject John’s worldview will not find his argumentation compelling or persuasive and would likely view John as committing the fallacies of appeal to authority, emotions, and threat. To such hearers, John’s appeal to authority is an appeal to an imaginary authority; his attempt to elicit certain emotions would be fallacious (only children fear the imaginary monster under the bed), and the threats would be seen as an attempt to exercise power over others through On Pascal’s wager as a good prudential argument see Nicholas Rescher, Pascal’s Wager: A Study of Practical Reasoning in Philosophical Theology; John Woods, ‘Ad Baculum, Self-Interest, and Pascal’s Wager,’ 343–49, 347; Douglas N. Walton, Scare Tactics: Arguments that Appeal to Fear and Threats, 76–78. 5

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

211

deception—an exploitation of the faith commitments of the superstitious. Moving beyond the question of whether John’s argumentation could theoretically be persuasive to non-believers it could be asked if John intended to direct his text to believers or unbelievers. Four considerations indicate that it is primarily aimed at believers to motivate them to overcome through repentance, obedience, perseverance, worship, and witness. First, believers constitute the explicit addressees of the Apocalypse in Rev 1:4. Second, there is no extended discussion of how to become a Christian or how to become right with God and a member of his people outside the general proclamation of the Gospel: fear God and give him glory (Rev 14:6–7). Third, the hearers’ status as members of God’s people is assumed for the sake of argument (Rev 1:5, 9; 5:9; the existence of the seven churches as lampstands). John’s explicit and implicit motivation examined in chapter four is not concerned with calling unbelievers to repentance in order that they might be saved in the final day, but with calling believers to overcome in order that they might be saved in the final day. Fourth, the rather general exhortations indicate that the hearers were already familiar with the moral code expected of Jesus’ followers. 6 In conclusion, John’s motivational argumentation is primarily aimed at believers, but could possibly prove persuasive to non-believers who allowed John’s meta-narrative to shape their own. For optimal effectiveness, however, John’s motivational argumentation requires that the hearer share John’s meta-narrative. Wayne A. Meeks, The Moral World of the First Christians, 146, notes that the ‘… whole Apocalypse is implicitly hortatory and it contains many explicit exhortations. Yet it names surprisingly few specific sins to be avoided or virtues to be cultivated, and even these are usually expressed so metaphorically or so generally that almost any known moral rule could be included.’ Cameron Afzal, The Mystery of the Book of Revelation: Reenvisioning the End of Time, 59, rightly interprets this phenomenon to indicate, ‘… John’s book would make no sense to anyone not already initiated into many of the most fundamental Christian beliefs and practices.’ 6

212

SOTERIOLOGY AS MOTIVATION

EVALUATING THE CONTRIBUTION OF TOULMIN’S MODEL FOR ARGUMENTATION ANALYSIS TO BIBLICAL STUDIES Monographs are prone to present and employ novel methodologies and approaches as if they held the previously unknown key to objective and accurate interpretation of perennially difficult questions and problems. In order to avoid this impression a few comments can be made concerning the strengths and weaknesses involved in applying Toulmin’s model of argumentation analysis to a biblical text. Toulmin’s model does not guarantee comprehensiveness or objectivity since these are qualities that depend upon each individual interpreter. It does not help to answer many interpretive and historical questions but instead focuses narrowly on the structure of argumentation by forcing the interpreter to distinguish between the grounds, claim, warrants, and backing in a small section of text even when these elements are implicit. Paradoxically, the model could be accused of either being simplistic, or of complicating otherwise simple material. On the other hand, the benefits of modern theories of argumentation analysis are numerous. They build upon classical Greco-Roman rhetoric with current knowledge, experience, and methodologies drawn from a number of different fields and disciplines. Toulmin’s model in particular is useful because of its ability to reveal and communicate the structure of an argument and its simplicity and versatility. It can be easily understood and adapted to diverse examples of argumentation. It helps the interpreter seek out and identify implicit elements of the argumentation. Toulmin’s model is a useful tool in the interpreter’s toolbox but will never replace established historical-grammatical, linguistic, and textual methodologies because it depends upon the results of these other methodologies to provide the building blocks for analysis. In sum, Toulmin’s model is a useful specialized tool for focused analysis of argumentation but it cannot function as an interpretive panacea.

CONCLUSION: SOTERIOLOGY AS MOTIVATION What has the power to motivate a reasonable individual to willingly choose a course of action that would likely result in increased

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

213

poverty, social ridicule and ostracization, political censure and persecution, and possibly even death for oneself, one’s loved ones, and one’s descendants? The Apocalypse of John provides an answer, perhaps the answer, to this question. No natural motivation exists. The things that would normally motivate one to engage in risky endeavors such as the prospect of financial gain, power, social honor, increased security, and a better future for one’s children, grandchildren, or nation could not provide the motivation in question because the proposed course of action would jeopardize and forfeit all those potential goods. One would have to be crazy or mentally imbalanced to follow John’s proposed course of action unless one had a glimpse of something beyond the natural world, something supernatural. That glimpse of something beyond the natural is exactly what John provides in his Apocalypse. The veil separating earth from heaven and the present from the future is pulled away and John’s hearers are given a vision of reality—God’s realm—and a vision of the future—what will surely soon come to pass. The hearers are presented with an either-or choice with no third or neutral option. Either they will worship the beast and experience God’s temporal and eternal wrath and punishment or they will overcome the beast through repentance, worship, witness, perseverance, and obedience and experience God’s spiritual protection in the present and salvation, eternal resurrection life in God’s new creation, in the future. John’s entire Apocalypse, from beginning to end, is written, not only to confront hearers with that choice, but to motivate them through every rational and emotional means possible to make the right choice, the choice that will result in negative consequences now as they experience the wrath of the beast but positive consequences in the future as they avoid God’s wrath and experience the full outpouring of his covenantal favor and blessing. God promised this salvation to his people in the Old Testament Scriptures, made it possible through the sacrificial death of the Lamb, and will bring it to completion when the Lamb returns to completely overthrow evil once and for all.

APPENDIX: IDENTIFYING MOTIVATIONAL ARGUMENTATION The easiest way to identify argumentation in discourse is to look for explicit argumentation indicators. Van Eemeren et al. call these ‘verbal indicators’ and list ‘therefore,’ ‘hence,’ ‘so,’ ‘thus,’ ‘ergo,’ ‘since,’ ‘for,’ and ‘because’ as English examples. 1 Greek likewise possesses explicit verbal indicators to signal the presence of argumentation. Beekman and Callow list ‘kai, de, alla, gar, hoti, and hina’ as examples of words that signal logical relations, but note the dual difficulty that ‘a particular word or particle can signal several different relations’ and ‘[o]ften … there is no word or particle signaling the relations.’ 2 These difficulties can largely be overcome through subjecting the various verbal indicators that may signal argumentation in Greek to a semantic analysis to determine if they indeed signal argumentation. 3 This appendix will present and apply Frans H. van Eemeren, Rob Grootendorst, and Francisca Snoeck Henkemans, Fundamentals of Argumentation Theory: A Handbook of Historical Backgrounds and Contemporary Developments, 13. 2 John Beekman and John Callow, Translating the Word of God, 283. John T. Kirby, ‘The Rhetorical Situations of Revelation 1–3,’ 203, while discussing enthymemes notes that ‘Premisses are often expressed in Greek by ὅτι or γάρ, conclusions by οὖν.’ 3 This methodology is drawn primarily from Lauri Thurén, Argument and Theology in 1 Peter: The Origins of Christian Paraenesis. He presents and discusses many of the lexical markers discussed below (pp. 66–83). Cf. Beekman and Callow, Translating the Word of God, 300–307; Eugene A. Nida, Exploring Semantic Structures; Peter Cotterell and Max Turner, Linguistics and Biblical Interpretation, 210–213. 1

215

216

SOTERIOLOGY AS MOTIVATION

such a methodology to identify and list the explicit and implicit motivating expressions in the Apocalypse of John. Beekman and Callow, in their groundbreaking work Translating the Word of God, identify six different semantic relations that can exist between propositions in argumentation which treat ‘the causeeffect relation from a particular point of view, emphasizing some aspect or other involved in it.’ 4 They describe these six relations with the following, slightly modified, chart. 5

CAUSE

EFFECT

Means

Purpose

Concession

Contraexpectation

Grounds

Conclusion

Reason Means

Condition-

Result Result

Consequence

CAUSE Answers the question: ‘Why this result?’ ‘How did this result come about?’ ‘What action was undertaken to achieve the desired result?’ ‘What supposed or hypothetical condition could cause the consequence to become actual?’ ‘Why is the actual result unexpected?’

‘What fact(s) is this conclusion based on?’

EFFECT

stated as definite stated as definite implied as desired

stated as definite

stated as definite, but is not the expected result given the grounds, the speaker deduces a conclusion

Beekman and Callow, Translating the Word of God, 300. Ibid., 300. Cotterell and Turner, Linguistics and Biblical Interpretation, 212, argue for ‘Grounds-EXHORTATION’ as an additional logical relation ‘where one kernel gives the grounds or motivation for an exhortation in the other kernel.’ This category would include all of the explicit motivational expressions identified below, but would modify the methodology from a search for verbal indicators that semantically signal motivation to a syntactical search for imperatives. The more exhaustive semantic investigation of verbal indicators that may signal G-C or M-P logical relations seems better suited for the purpose of this book because verbal indicators help surface a range of implicit motivation, supported by logical relations, but which lack an explicit imperative. 4 5

APPENDIX

217

Thurén notes the significance of these logical relations for studying motivational argumentation. Only in two of these relations is the effect not ‘definite’: Means-Purpose (MP) and Grounds-Conclusion (GC). Therefore in these relations, the ‘effect’ can also be a command and the cause can be a motivating expression … The other relations, especially Reason-Result, can also serve the motivation by connecting two factors in the reasoning, which is then attached to the command with an MP or a GC relation. 6

Concerning M-P relations, Beekman and Callow note, ‘MEANSPURPOSE may be restated as REASON-RESULT. In the one, the volitional factor is implicit in the statement of the purpose; in the other the volitional factor is made explicit so that purpose becomes part of the reason.’ 7 They also note that G-C relations often signal explicit motivation. This type of relation seems to be used in two major contexts in the New Testament. The first is in arguments, when a conclusion is drawn from known facts, and stated as such. The second is when the conclusion drawn is not presented as a statement, but as a command: given this, or these, particular facts, then … you, or we, should undertake some appropriate action. This is a common patter in the New Testament, where many different facts are adduced as grounds for exhortations to Christian conduct. 8

Motivational expressions can be identified by examining how these particular logical relations, particularly those of means-purpose and grounds-conclusion, can be expressed in Greek. Louw and Nida, in their Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Thurén, Argument and Theology in 1 Peter, 63. Beekman and Callow, Translating the Word of God, 303. 8 Ibid., 307. 6 7

218

SOTERIOLOGY AS MOTIVATION

Domains, helpfully identify and classify the verbal indicators that can signal logical relations. 9 The following method will begin by using Louw and Nida to identify the verbal indicators that may signal a grounds-conclusion or means-purpose logical relation. 10 Each occurrence of these verbal indicators in the Apocalypse of John will then be analyzed to determine semantically if it does indeed signal motivational argumentation. 11 This method will result in a certain measure of Johannes P. Louw and Eugene Nida, eds., Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains, 89. 10 Several verbal indicators which may signal G-C or M-P logical relations in Koine Greek do not occur in the Apocalypse of John. These include διότι, διό, ὥστε, ἀντί, ὅθεν, χάριν, ἕνεκα, ἐπεί, ἐπειδή, ἐπειδήπερ, καθότι, ἄρα, καθώς, and καθό. 11 The verbal indicators which may signal G-C or M-P logical relations but never function to signal motivational argumentation in the Apocalypse of John will not be discussed below. These include the following words. ἐν (Louw and Nida 89.26; Rev 1:1, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 13, 15, 16; 2:1, 7, 8, 12, 13, 16, 18, 23, 24, 27; 3:1, 4, 5, 7, 12, 14, 21; 4:1, 2, 4, 6; 5:2, 3, 6, 9, 13; 6:5, 6, 8; 7:9, 14, 15; 8:1, 7, 9, 13; 9:6, 10, 11, 17, 19, 20; 10:2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10; 11:1, 6, 11, 12, 13, 15, 19; 12:1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12; 13:6, 8, 10, 12; 14:2, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, 17; 15:1, 5; 16: 3, 8; 17:3, 4, 16; 18:2, 6, 7, 8, 16, 19, 22, 23, 24; 19:1, 2, 11, 14, 15, 17, 20, 21; 20:6, 8, 12, 13, 15; 21:10, 22, 27; 22:2, 3, 6, 18, 19) ἀπό (Louw and Nida 89.25; Rev 1:4, 5; 3:12; 6:16; 7:2; 9:6, 18; 12:6, 14; 13:8; 14:3, 4, 13, 20; 16:12, 17, 18; 17:8; 18:10, 14, 15, 17; 19:5; 20:11; 21:2, 10, 13; 22:19) ἐκ (Louw and Nida 89.25; Rev 1:5, 16; 2:5, 7, 9, 10, 11, 21, 22; 3:5, 9, 10, 12, 16, 18; 4:5; 5:5, 7, 9; 6:1, 4, 10, 14; 7:4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 13, 14, 17; 8:4, 5, 10, 11, 13; 9:1, 2, 3, 13, 17, 18, 20, 21; 10:1, 4, 8, 10; 11:5, 7, 9, 11, 12, 15, 16; 13:1, 3, 11, 13; 14:2, 8, 10, 13, 15, 17, 18, 20; 15:2, 6, 7, 8; 16:1, 10, 11, 13, 17, 21; 17:1, 2, 6, 8, 11; 18:1, 3, 4, 12, 19, 20; 19:2, 15, 21; 20:1, 7, 9, 12; 21:2, 3, 4, 6, 9, 10, 21; 22:1, 19) παρά (Louw and Nida 89.25; Rev 2:13, 28; 3:18) ἐπί (Louw and Nida 89.27, 89.60; Rev 1:7, 17, 20; 2:17, 24, 26; 3:3, 10, 12, 20; 4:2, 4, 9, 10; 5:1, 3, 7, 10, 13; 6:2, 4, 5, 8, 10, 16; 7:1, 3, 10, 11, 15, 16, 17; 8:3, 10, 13; 9:4, 7, 11, 14, 17; 10:1, 2, 5, 8, 11; 11:6, 8, 10, 11, 16; 9

APPENDIX

219

objectivity in identifying explicit and implicit motivating argumentation for further analysis. For the purpose of this analysis, ‘explicit motivation’ indicates the occurrence of a clear command linked to a motivating reason or cause in a G-C or M-P logical relation. ‘Implicit motivation’ is a much broader expression that indicates that a clause or sentence shares a conceptual relationship with explicit motivation, often with the presence of R-R or M-P logical relations, but which lacks an explicit imperative or exhortation.

12:1, 3, 17, 18; 13:1, 7, 8, 14, 16; 14:1, 6, 9, 14, 15, 16, 18; 15:2; 16:2, 8, 9, 10, 12, 14, 17, 18, 21; 17:1, 3, 5, 8, 9, 18; 18:9, 11, 17, 19, 20, 24; 19:4, 11, 12, 14, 16, 18, 19, 21; 20:1, 4, 6, 9, 11; 21:5, 10, 12, 14, 16; 22:4, 5, 14, 16, 18) ὅπου (Louw and Nida 89.35; Rev 2:13; 11:8; 12:6, 14; 14:4; 17:9; 20:10) πόθεν (Louw and Nida 89.38; Rev 2:5; 7:13) ὡς (Louw and Nida 89.37, 89.61; Rev 1:10, 14, 15, 16, 17; 2:18, 24, 27, 28; 3:3, 21; 4:1, 6, 7; 5:6; 6:1, 6, 11, 12, 13, 14; 8:1, 8, 10; 9:2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 17; 10:1, 7, 9, 10; 12:15; 13:2, 3, 11; 14:2, 3; 15:2; 16:3, 13, 15, 21; 17:12; 18:6, 21; 19:1, 6, 12; 20:8; 21:2, 11, 21; 22:1, 12) πρός (Louw and Nida 89.44, 89.60; Rev 1:13, 17; 3:20; 10:9; 12:5, 12; 13:6) εἰς (Louw and Nida 89.48, 89.57; Rev 1:6, 11, 18; 2:10, 22; 4:9, 10; 5:6, 13; 6:13, 15; 7:12; 8:5, 7, 8, 11; 9:1, 3, 7, 9, 15; 10:5, 6; 11:6, 9, 12, 15; 12:4, 6, 9, 13, 14; 13:3, 6, 10, 13; 14:11, 19; 15:7, 8; 16:1, 2, 3, 4, 14, 16, 19; 17:3, 8, 11, 17; 18:21; 19:3, 9, 17, 20; 20:3, 8, 10, 14, 15; 21:24, 26, 27; 22:2, 5, 14) Similarly, syntactic relationships such as circumstantial participles, relative pronouns, and infinitives which may signal G-C or M-P logical relations but do not signal motivational argumentation in the Apocalypse of John will not be discussed.

220

SOTERIOLOGY AS MOTIVATION

LOGICAL RELATIONS Grounds-Conclusion Relations

Ὅτι

The use of ὅτι as a marker of causality in G-C relations (Louw and Nida 89.33; BDAG s.v.) must be distinguished from its use as a marker of direct or indirect discourse content (Louw and Nida 90.21; BDAG s.v.) and as a marker of clauses of explanation or identification (Louw and Nida 91.15; BDAG s.v.). 12 Ὅτι is used in a G-C logical relation to signal the explicit motivation for a command in Rev 14:7; 18:20. Ὅτι also signals several R-R logical relations that are not connected to an explicit command, yet signal implicit motivation through the intrinsic desirability or undesirability of the effect or result (Rev 3:4, 8, 10, 16–17; 15:4).

Γάρ The use of γάρ as a marker of cause or reason in a G-C relations must be distinguished from its use as a marker signaling a new sentence with the force of ‘and’ or ‘then’ (Louw and Nida 91.1), and as a marker of clarification (BDAG s.v.). 13 Γάρ functions in a G-C relation to signal explicit motivation in Rev 3:2; and signals implicit motivation in a R-R relation by providing the reason for the macarisms in Rev 1:3 (c.f. the similar function of γάρ as signaling motivation for the command to John not to seal up the book in Rev 22:10), and 14:13.

Οὖν The use of οὖν in a G-C relation to indicate the result or inference from the preceding material (Louw and Nida 89.50; BDAG s.v.) Ὅτι occurs in Rev 2:2, 4, 6, 14, 20, 23; 3:1, 4, 8, 9, 10, 15, 16, 17; 4:11; 5:4, 9; 6:17; 7:17; 8:11; 10:6; 11:2, 10, 17; 12:10, 12, 13; 13:4; 14:7, 15, 18; 15:1, 4; 16:5, 6, 21; 17:8, 14; 18:3, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 17, 19, 20, 23; 19:2, 6, 7, 21:4, 5; 22:5. 13 Γάρ occurs in Rev 1:3; 3:2; 9:19; 13:18; 14:4, 13; 16:14; 17:17; 19:8, 10; 21:1, 22, 23, 25; 22:10. 12

APPENDIX

221

must be distinguished from its use as a ‘marker of continuation of a narrative’ (BDAG s.v.), or to mark emphasis (Louw and Nida 91.7) or weak contrast (Louw and Nida 89.127). 14 Οὖν functions in a GC relation to signal explicit motivation in Rev 2:5, 16; 3:3, 19.

Διά (with accusative) Διά may indicate cause or reason (Louw and Nida 89.26; BDAG s.v.), along with many other possible uses including agency, instrumentality, means, benefaction, extension, and time (Louw and Nida 67.136, 140; 84.29, 32; 89.26, 76; 90. 4, 8, 38, 44). 15 In Rev 1:9; 6:9; 7:15; and 20:4 διά indicates a R-R relation that functions as implicit motivation.

Κατά (with acc.) ‘The combination κατά cum acc. has several meanings: it can signify local or temporal circumstances, ground or direction, and have connecting, even final meaning. When giving the ground it is translated “as a result of,” or “for … sake”.’ 16 Κατά never signals explicit motivation through a G-C relationship in the Apocalypse of John. It can, however, signal ‘the norm according to which a judgment is rendered, or rewards or punishments are given’ (BDAG s.v.) In the Apocalypse of John, κατά functions in such a way in Rev 2:23; 18:6; 20:12, 13 and serves as implicit motivation. 17 Κατά cum gen. also functions in the Apocalypse of John to signal implicit motivation when Jesus lists things he has against (κατά) the churches (Rev 2:4, 14, 20). BDAG s.v. draws attention to an element of hostility in this use of κατά cum gen. Because of Jesus’ authority (see chapter 4), any practice or behavior Jesus has Οὖν occurs in Rev 1:19; 2:5, 16; 3:3, 19. Διά occurs in Rev 1:1, 9; 2:3; 4:11; 6:9; 7:15; 12:11, 12; 13:14; 17:7; 18:8, 10, 15; 20:4; 21:24. 16 Thurén, Argument and Theology in 1 Peter, 73. Thurén proceeds to explain why Louw and Nida do not acknowledge this function of κατά. ‘[T]hey only explain it as referring to isomorphism (“in accordance with,” 1988: 89.8)’ (p. 73, f.n. 62). 17 Κατά occurs in Rev 2:4, 14, 20, 23; 4:8; 18:6; 20:12, 13; 22:2. 14 15

222

SOTERIOLOGY AS MOTIVATION

something against should be abandoned and the opposite course of action should be pursued.

Καί Among many possible meanings, καί can indicate a causal relation. 18 Καί signals explicit motivation in a G-C relation in Rev 2:10, 26.

Εἰ Louw and Nida note that εἰ can function as ‘a marker of cause or reason on the basis that an actual case is regarded formally as a supposition—“since, because”’ (89.30). 19 Syntactically, this function would be described as a first class conditional statement with εἰ plus the indicative in the protasis. 20 Εἰ, however, never functions syntactically in a first-class conditional sentence to signal a G-C motivational argument in the Apocalypse. Cotterell and Turner note, however, that ‘Condition-CONSEQUENCE related kernels can occur in any of the other six argumentation relations as well as in the Condition-CONSEQUENCE mode itself.’ 21 This semantic observation is confirmed by the use of both εἰ and ἐάν in C-C logical relations that simultaneously function as G-C logical relations. This occurs in Rev 2:5, 16 (εἰ); and Rev 2:5; 3:3 (ἐάν). Each occurs with the negative particle μή and motivates the exhortation by means of a threat from Jesus to the churches. If they do not repent, he will act negatively toward them. Thurén, Argument and Theology in 1 Peter, 79, f.n. 82, notes that ‘especially the consecutive and explicative meanings come close to the causal one.’ Louw and Nida do not acknowledge this usage of καί. 19 Εἰ occurs in Rev 2:5, 16, 17; 9:4; 11:5; 13:9, 10, 17; 14:3, 9, 11; 19:12; 20:15; 21:27. Ἐάν occurs in Rev 2:5, 22; 3:3; 19, 20; 11:6; 13:15; 22:18, 19. 20 Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament, 690. 21 Cotterell and Turner, Linguistics and Biblical Interpretation, 213 (emphasis original). 18

APPENDIX

223

Εἰ and ἐάν also function in C-C logical relations as implicit motivation several times throughout the Apocalypse (Rev 2:22; 3:20; 14:9–11; 20:15; 21:27; 22:18–19). Means-Purpose Relations

Ἵνα M-P logical relations are closely related to M-R. Beekman and Callow discuss the difference as follows. Both this relation and the previous one have MEANS as the label for the ‘cause’ side of the relation. This is because they both state the action that was taken to achieve the result. However, in the MEANS-RESULT relation, the result takes place; in MEANS-PURPOSE the result is desired, but it is not stated whether it took place or not. The emphasis is on intention rather than achievement. There is, therefore, an implicit volitional element in this relation, and if this volitional factor is made explicit, then the purpose becomes the motivating cause and the means becomes the result or effect. 22

Following the distinction between M-R and M-P logical relations noted by Beekman and Callow, ἵνα used as motivational argumentation can be differentiated from its use to indicate result (consecutive ἵνα) by looking for a volitional element in the logical relation. 23 Ἵνα signals explicit motivation in Rev 3:11, 18; 18:4 and implicitly suggests motivation through its use in the macarisms of Rev 14:13; 16:15; 22:14.

CONCLUSION The above analysis identifies twelve instances of explicit motivational argumentation (Rev 2:4–5, 10, 16, 25–26; 3:2, 3, 11, Beekman and Callow, Translating the Word of God, 302. Ἵνα occurs in Rev 2:10, 21; 3:9, 11, 18; 6:2, 4, 11; 7:1; 8:3, 6, 12; 9:4, 5, 15, 20; 11:6; 12:4, 6, 14, 15; 13:12, 13, 15, 16, 17; 14:13; 16:12, 15; 18:4; 19:8, 15, 18; 20:3; 21:15, 23; 22:14. 22 23

224

SOTERIOLOGY AS MOTIVATION

18, 19; 14:7; 18:4; 18:20). Furthermore, the following seven categories of implicit motivation have been identified: Jesus’ wishes or opinion (Rev 2:4, 14, 20; 3:15), promises to the overcomers (Rev 2:7, 11, 17, 26–28; 3:5, 12, 21; 15:2; 21:7), macarisms (Rev 1:3; 14:13; 16:15; 19:9; 20:6; 22:7, 14), declarations of imminence (Rev 1:1, 3; 2:16; 3:11; 6:11; 12:12; 22:6, 7, 10, 12, 20), the standard of judgment (Rev 2:23; 18:6; 20:12, 13; 22:12), John’s interpretive comments (Rev 13:10; 14:12), various reason-result and groundsconclusion logical relations (Rev 1:9, 3:4, 8, 10, 16; 6:9; 7:15; 15:4), and conditional statements (Rev 2:22; 3:20; 14:9–10, 11; 20:15; 21:27; 22:18–19). Each of these examples of explicit and implicit motivational argumentation is analyzed with Toulmin’s model for argumentation analysis in chapter three.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Aberle, David, F. ‘A Note on Relative Deprivation Theory as Applied to Millenarian and Other Cult Movements.’ Pages 209–14 in Millennial Dreams in Action: Studies in Revolutionary Religious Movements. Edited by Sylvia Thrupp. New York: Schocken Books, 1970. Afzal, Cameron. The Mystery of the Book of Revelation: Reenvisioning the End of Time. Lewiston, N.Y.: The Edward Mellen Press, 2008. Altink, William. ‘I Chronicles 16:8–36 as a Literary Source for Revelation 14:6–7.’ Andrews University Seminary Studies 22 (1984): 187–96. Aune, David Edward. Apocalypticism, Prophecy, and Magic in Early Christianity. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006. ———. ‘The Apocalypse of John and the Problem of Genre.’ Semeia 36 (1986): 65–96. ———. ‘Following the Lamb: Discipleship in the Apocalypse.’ Pages 269–84 in Patterns of Discipleship in the New Testament. Edited by Richard N. Longenecker. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1996. ———. ‘The Form and Function of the Proclamations to the Seven Churches (Revelation 2–3).’ New Testament Studies 36 (1990): 182–204. ———. Prophecy in Early Christianity and the Ancient Mediterranean World. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1983. ———. Revelation 1–5. Word Biblical Commentary 52A. Dallas, Tex.: Word, 1997. ———. Revelation 6–16. Word Biblical Commentary 52B. Nashville, Tenn.: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1998. ———. Revelation 17–22. Word Biblical Commentary 52C. Nashville, Tenn.: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1998. ———. ‘St. John’s Portrait of the Church in the Apocalypse.’ Evangelical Quarterly 38 (1966): 131–49. 225

226

SOTERIOLOGY AS MOTIVATION

———. ‘The Use and Abuse of the Enthymeme in New Testament Scholarship.’ New Testament Studies 49 (2003): 299– 320. Austin, John L. How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1962. Bandstra, Andrew J. ‘“A Kingship and Priests”: Inaugurated Eschatology in the Apocalypse.’ Calvin Theological Journal 27 (1992): 10–25. Barker, Margaret. The Revelation of Jesus Christ. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 2000. Barr, David L. ‘The Apocalypse of John as Oral Enactment.’ Interpretation 40 (1986): 243–56. ———. New Testament Story: An Introduction. Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth, 1987. ———. Tales of the End: A Narrative Commentary on the Book of Revelation. Santa Rosa, Calif.: Polebridge, 1998. ———. ‘Towards an Ethical Reading of the Apocalypse: Reflections on John’s Use of Power, Violence and Misogyny.’ Pages 358–73 in SBL Seminar Papers 1997. SBL Seminar Papers 36. Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1997. Barth, Else M., and Erik C. W. Krabbe. From Axiom to Dialogue: A Philosophical Study of Logics and Argumentation. New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1982. Bauckham, Richard. The Climax of Prophecy: Studies in the Book of Revelation. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1993. ———. ‘The Economic Critique of Rome in Revelation 18.’ Pages 47–90 in Images of Empire. Edited by L. Alexander. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991. ———. ‘Synoptic Parousia Parables and the Apocalypse.’ New Testament Studies 23 (1977): 162–76. ———. The Theology of the Book of Revelation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993. Beagley, Alan J. The ‘Sitz im Leben’ of the Apocalypse with Particular Reference to the Role of the Church’s Enemies. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 50. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1987. Beale, Gregory K. The Book of Revelation. New International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1999.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

227

———. John’s Use of the Old Testament in Revelation. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 166. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998. ———. ‘The Purpose of Symbolism in the Book of Revelation.’ Calvin Theological Journal 41 (2006): 53–66. Beasley-Murray, George R. The Book of Revelation. New Century Bible. Rev. ed. London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1978. Beekman, John, and John Callow. Translating the Word of God. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1974. Beider, W. ‘Die sieben Seligpreisungen in der Offenbarung Johannes.’ Theologische Zeitschrift 10 (1954): 13–30. Beisecker, Thomas D., and Donn W. Parson. eds. The Process of Social Influence. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1972. Bell, Albert A. ‘The Date of John’s Apocalypse: The Evidence of Roman Historians Reconsidered.’ New Testament Studies 25 (1978): 93–102. Benoit, William L., and James J. Lindsey. ‘Argument Fields and Forms of Argument in Natural Language.’ Pages 215–24 in Argumentation: Perspectives and Approaches. Edited by F. H. van Eemeren, et al. Pragmatics and Discourse Analysis 3A. Dordrecht: Foris, 1987. Berger, Peter L. and Thomas Luckmann. The Social Construction of Reality. Garden City, N.Y.: Anchor Books, 1966. Betz, Hans D. Galatians: A Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Churches in Galatia. Hermeneia. Philadelphia, Pa.: Fortress, 1979. ———. ‘The Problem of Apocalyptic Genre in Greek and Hellenistic Literature: The Case of the Oracle of Trophonius.’ Pages 577–97 in Apocalypticism in the Mediterranean World and the Near East. Edited by D. Hellholm. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1983. ———. 2 Corinthians 8 and 9: A Commentary on Two Administrative Letters of the Apostle Paul. Hermeneia. Philadelphia, Pa.: Fortress, 1985. Bitzer, Lloyd F. ‘Aristotle’s Enthymeme Revisited.’ Pages 141–55 in Aristotle: The Classical Heritage of Rhetoric. Edited by K. Erickson. Metuchen, N.J.: Scarecrow Press, 1974. Blount, Brian K. Revelation: A Commentary. The New Testament Library. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 2009. Böcher, Otto. ‘Die Johannes-Apokalypse in der neueren Forschung.’ Pages 2.25.5:3850–93 in Aufstieg und Niedergang der

228

SOTERIOLOGY AS MOTIVATION

römischen Welt. Edited by Wolfgang Haase. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1988. Boring, M. Eugene. ‘Narrative Christology in the Apocalypse.’ Catholic Biblical Quarterly 54 (1992): 702–23. ———. Revelation. Interpretation. Louisville: John Knox Press, 1989. Brighton, Louis A. Revelation. Concordia Commentary. St. Louis, Mo.: Concordia, 1999. Bruce, Steve. Choice and Religion: A Critique of Rational Choice Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999. Brummett, Barry. ‘Using Apocalyptic Discourse to Exploit Audience Commitments through “Transfer”.’ Southern Communication Journal 54 (1988): 58–73. Brütsch, Charles. Die Offenbarung Jesu Christi: Johannes-Apokalypse. 2nd ed. 3 vols. Zürcher Bibelkommentare; Zürich: Zwingli, 1970. Bull, Klaus-Michael. ‘Wir werden alle vor den Richterstuhl Gottes gestellt werden’ (Röm 14,10): Zur Funktion des Motivs vom Endgericht in den Argumentationen des Römerbriefes.’ Pages 125–43 in Apokalyptik als Herausforderung neutestamentlicher Theologie. Edited by Michael Becker and Markus Öhler. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament. Second Series 214. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006. Caird, George Bradford. A Commentary on the Revelation of Saint John the Divine. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1966. Callahan, Allen D. ‘Apocalypse as Critique of Political Economy: Some Notes on Revelation 18.’ Horizons in Biblical Theology 21 (1999): 46–65. ———. ‘The Language of Apocalypse.’ Harvard Theological Review 88 (1995): 453–70. Carey, Greg. ‘The Apocalypse and Its Ambiguous Ethos.’ Pages 163–80 in Studies in the Book of Revelation. Edited by Stephen Moyise. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2001. ———. Elusive Apocalypse: Reading Authority in the Revelation to John. Studies in American Biblical Hermeneutics 15. Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 1999. Carey, Greg, and L. G. Bloomquist, eds. Vision and Persuasion: Rhetorical Dimensions of Apocalyptic Discourse. St. Louis: Chalice Press, 1999. Carr, David. Time, Narrative, and History. Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana University Press, 1986.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

229

Charles, R. H. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Revelation of St. John. 2 vols. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1920. Cherniak, Christopher. Minimal Rationality. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1986. Collins, Adela Yarbro. The Combat Myth in the Book of Revelation. Harvard Dissertations in Religion 9. Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1976. ———. Crisis and Catharsis: The Power of the Apocalypse. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1984. ———. ‘Numerical Symbolism in Jewish and Early Christian Apocalyptic Literature.’ Pages 1221–87 in Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt II/21/2. Edited by Wolfgang Haase. New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1984. ———. ‘The Political Perspective of the Revelation to John.’ Journal of Biblical Literature 96 (1977): 241–56. ———. ‘Reading the Book of Revelation in the 20th Century.’ Interpretation 40 (1986): 229–42. ———. ‘Revelation 18: Taunt-Song or Dirge?’ Pages 185–204 in L’Apocalypse johannique dans le Nouveau Testament. Edited by J. Lambrecht. Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium 53. Leueven, Belgium: Leuven University Press, 1980. Collins, John J. Apocalypse: The Morphology of a Genre. Semeia Studies 14. Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1979. Comblin, José. Le Christ dans l’Apocalypse. Paris: Desclée, 1965. Corgan, Verna C. ‘Perelman’s Universal Audience as a Critical Tool.’ Journal of the American Forensic Association 23 (1987): 147– 57. Cothenet, Edouart. ‘Le symbolisme du culte dans l’Apocalypse.’ Pages 223–38 in Le Symbolisme dans le culte des grandes religions. Edited by J. Ries. Louvain-la-Neuve: Centre d’Histoire des Religions, 1985. Cotterell, Peter, and Max Turner. Linguistics and Biblical Interpretation. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1989. Coutsoumpos, Panayotis. ‘The Social Implications of Idolatry in Revelation 2:14: Christ or Caesar?’ Biblical Theology Bulletin 27 (1997): 23–27. Cowan, Joseph L. ‘The Uses of Argument—An Apology for Logic.’ Mind 73 (1964): 27–45.

230

SOTERIOLOGY AS MOTIVATION

Cruz, Virgil P. ‘The Beatitudes of the Apocalypse: Eschatology and Ethics.’ Pages 269–83 in Perspectives on Christology: Essays in Honor of Paul K. Jewett. Edited by M. Shuster and R. A. Muller. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1991. Cupitt, Don. What Is a Story? London, Eng.: SCM Press, 1991. Dalrymple, Rob. ‘These Are the Ones … (Rev 7).’ Biblica 86 (2005): 396–406. Dearin, Ray D., ed., The New Rhetoric of Chaim Perelman: Statement and Response. Lanham, Md.: University Press of America, 1989. ———. ‘Perelman’s Concept of “Quasi-Logical” Argument: A Critical Elaboration.’ Pages 78–94 in Advances in Argumentation Theory and Research. Edited by J. R. Cox and C. A. Willard. Carbondale, Ill.: Southern Illinois University Press, 1982. Debanné, Marc J. ‘An Enthymematic Reading of Philippians: Towards a Typology of Pauline Arguments.’ Pages 481–503 in Rhetorical Criticism and the Bible. Edited by S. Porter and D. Stamps. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 195. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2002. Decock, Paul. ‘The Works of God, of Christ, and of the Faithful in the Apocalypse of John.’ Neotestamentica 41 (2007): 37–66. ———. ‘The Symbol of Blood in the Apocalypse of John.’ Neotestamentica 38 (2004): 157–82. Den Dulk, Matthijs. ‘The Promises to the Conquerors in the Book of Revelation.’ Biblica 87 (2006): 516–22. deSilva, David A. ‘Honor Discourse and the Rhetorical Strategy of the Apocalypse of John.’ Journal for the Study of the New Testament 71 (1998): 79–110. ———. Perseverance in Gratitude: A Socio-rhetorical Commentary on the Epistle ‘to the Hebrews.’ Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2000. ———. ‘The Revelation to John: A Case Study in Apocalyptic Propaganda and the Maintenance of Sectarian Identity.’ Sociological Analysis 53 (1992): 375–95. ———. Seeing Things John’s Way: The Rhetoric of the Book of Revelation. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 2009. ———. ‘The Social Setting of the Revelation to John: Conflicts Within, Fears Without.’ Westminster Theological Journal 54 (1992): 273–302. ———. ‘A Socio-Rhetorical Investigation of Revelation 14:6–13: A Call to Act Justly toward the Just and Judging God.’ Bulletin for Biblical Research 9 (1999): 65–117.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

231

———. ‘The Strategic Arousal of Emotions in the Apocalypse of John: A Rhetorical-Critical Investigation of the Oracles to the Seven Churches.’ New Testament Studies 54 (2008): 90–114. ———. ‘What Has Athens to Do with Patmos? Rhetorical Criticism of the Revelation of John (1980–2005).’ Currents in Biblical Research 6 (2008): 256–89. ———. ‘X Marks the Spot? A Critique of the Use of Chiasmus in Macro-Structural Analyses of Revelation.’ Journal for the Study of the New Testament 30 (2008): 343–71. Diefenbach, Manfred. ‘Die “Offenbarung des Johannes” offenbart, dass der Seher Johannes die antike Rhetorklehre kennt.’ Biblische Notizen 73 (1994): 50–57. Donelson, Lewis R. Pseudepigraphy and Ethical Argument in the Pastoral Epistles. Hermeneutische Untersuchungen zur Theologie 22. Tübingen: Mohr, 1986. du Rand, Jan A. ‘The New Jerusalem as Pinnacle of Salvation: Text (Rev 21:1–22:5) and Intertext.’ Neotestamentica 38 (2004): 275– 302. ———. ‘A Socio-Psychological View of the Effect of the Language (Parole) of the Apocalypse of John.’ Neotestamentica 24 (1990): 351–65. ———. ‘Soteriology in the Apocalypse of John.’ Pages 465–504 in Salvation in the New Testament: Perspectives on Soteriology. Supplements to Novum Testamentum 121. Edited by Jan G. van der Watt. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Duff, Paul B. ‘“I Will Give to Each of You as Your works Deserve”: Witchcraft Accusations and the Fiery-Eyed Son of God in Rev 2.18–23.’ New Testament Studies 43 (1997): 116–33. ———. Who Rides the Beast? Prophetic Rivalry and the Rhetoric of Crisis in the Churches of the Apocalypse. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001. Dunn, James D. G. Baptism in the Holy Spirit: A Re-Examination of the New Testament Teaching. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1970. Eemeren, Frans H. van. ‘Argumentation Studies’ Five Estates.’ Pages 9–24 in Argument and Critical Practices: Proceedings of the Fifth SCA/AFA Conference on Argumentation. Edited by J. Wenzel. Annandale, Va.: Speech Communication Association, 1987.

232

SOTERIOLOGY AS MOTIVATION

Eemeren, Frans H. van, and Rob Grootendorst. Argumentation, Communication, and Fallacies: A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1992. ———. Speech Acts in Argumentative Discussions: A Theoretical Model for the Analysis of Discussions Directed towards Solving Conflicts of Opinions. Pragmatics and Discourse Analysis 1. Dordrecht: Foris, 1984. Eemeren, Frans H. van, Rob Grootendorst, and Francisca Snoeck Henkemans. Fundamentals of Argumentation Theory: A Handbook of Historical Backgrounds and Contemporary Developments. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1996. Eemeren, Frans H. van, Rob Grootendorst, J. Anthony Blair, and Charles A. Willard, eds. Argumentation: Across the Lines of the Discipline. Proceedings of the Conference on Argumentation 1986. Pragmatics and Discourse Analysis 3C. Dordrecht: Foris, 1987. ———. Argumentation: Analysis and Practices. Proceedings of the Conference on Argumentation 1986. Pragmatics and Discourse Analysis 3B. Dordrecht: Foris, 1987. ———. Argumentation: Perspectives and Approaches. Proceedings of the Conference on Argumentation 1986. Pragmatics and Discourse Analysis 3A. Dordrecht: Foris, 1987. ———. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Argumentation. 2 vols. Dordrecht: Foris, 1991. Eemeren, Frans H. van, Rob Grootendorst, Sally Jackson, and Scott Jacobs. Reconstructing Argumentative Discourse. Tuscaloosa: The University of Alabama Press, 1993. Ehninger, Douglas, and Wayne Brockriede. Decision by Debate. New York: Dodd, 1963. Ellingworth, Paul. ‘Salvation to our God.’ Bible Translator 34 (1983): 444–45. Ennis, Robert H. ‘Applying Soundness Standards to Qualified Reasoning.’ Informal Logic 24 (2004): 23–39. ———. ‘Probably.’ Pages 145–64 in Arguing on the Toulmin Model: New Essays in Argument Analysis and Evaluation. Edited by David Hitchcock and Bart Verheij. Argumentation Library 10. Dordrecht: Springer, 2006. Enroth, Anne-Marit. ‘The Hearing Formula in the Book of Revelation.’ New Testament Studies 36 (1990): 598–608.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

233

Eriksson, Anders, Thomas H. Olbricht, and Walter Übelacker, eds. Rhetorical Argumentation in Biblical Texts: Essays from the Lund 2000 Conference. Emory Studies in Early Christianity. Harrisburg, Pa.: Trinity Press International, 2002. Esler, P. ‘Political Oppression in Jewish Apocalyptic Literature: A Social Scientific Approach.’ Listening: Journal of Religion and Cultures 28 (1993): 181–99. Farrer, Austin Marsden. The Rebirth of Images: The Making of St. John’s Apocalypse. Boston: Beacon, 1963. Fekkes, Jan. Isaiah and the Prophetic Traditions in the Book of Revelation: Visionary Antecedents and their Development. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 93. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994. Fisher, Walter R. Human Communication as Narration: Toward a Philosophy of Reason, Value, and Action. Columbia, S.C.: University of South Carolina Press, 1987. ———. ‘Judging the Quality of Audiences and Narrative Rationality.’ Pages 85–103 in Practical Reasoning in Human Affairs: Studies in Honor of Chaim Perelman. Edited by James L. Golden and Joseph J. Pilotta. Synthese Library 183. Boston: D. Reidel Publishing, 1986. ———. ‘Technical Logic, Rhetorical Logic, and Narrative Rationality.’ Argumentation 1 (1987): 3–21. Ford, Josephine M. Revelation. Anchor Bible 38. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1975. Freeman, James B. Dialectics and the Macrostructure of Arguments: A Theory of Argument Structure. Pragmatics and Discourse Analysis 10. New York: Foris, 1991. ———. ‘Relevance, Warrants, Backing, Inductive Support.’ Argumentation 6 (1992): 219–35. ———. ‘Systematizing Toulmin’s Warrants: An Epistemic Approach.’ Pages 87–101 in Arguing on the Toulmin Model: New Essays in Argument Analysis and Evaluation. Edited by David Hitchcock and Bart Verheij. Argumentation Library 10. Dordrecht: Springer, 2006. Frey, Jörg. ‘The Relevance of the Roman Imperial Cult for the Book of Revelation: Exegetical and Hermeneutical Reflections on the Relation between the Seven Letters and the Visionary Main Part of the Book.’ Pages 231–55 in The New Testament and Early Christian Literature in Greco-Roman Context: Studies in

234

SOTERIOLOGY AS MOTIVATION

Honor of David E. Aune. Edited by John Fotopoulos. Leiden: Brill, 2006. Friesen, Steven. ‘Satan’s Throne, Imperial Cults and the Social Settings of Revelation.’ Journal for the Study of the New Testament 27 (2005): 351–73. Fuller, J. William. ‘I Will Not Erase His Name form the Book of Life (Revelation 3:5).’ Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 26 (1983): 297–306. Gager, John G. Kingdom and Community: The Social World of Early Christianity. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1975. Gaines, Elizabeth Ann. ‘The Eschatological Jerusalem: The function of the image in the literature of the Biblical period.’ Ph.D. diss., Princeton Theological Seminary, 1988. Geis, Michael L., and Zheng-Sheng Zhang. ‘Conditional Sentences in Speech Act Theory.’ Pages 233–45 in Proceedings of the Third Eastern States Conference on Linguistics. Edited by Fred Marshall. Columbus, Ohio: OSU Department of Linguistics, 1987. Giblin, Charles H. ‘The Millennium (Rev 20.4–6) as Heaven.’ New Testament Studies 45 (1999): 553–70. ———. ‘Recapitulation and John’s Apocalypse.’ Catholic Biblical Quarterly 56 (1994): 81–95. Giesen, Heinz. Die Offenbarung des Johannes. Regensburger Neues Testament. Regensburg: Verlag Friedrich Pustet, 1997. Gitay, Yehoshua. ‘The Realm of Prophetic Rhetoric.’ Pages 218– 229 in Rhetoric, Scripture and Theology: Essays from the 1994 Pretoria Conference. Edited by Stanley E. Porter and Thomas H. Olbricht. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 131. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996. Golden, James L., and Joseph J. Pilotta. Practical Reasoning in Human Affairs: Studies in Honor of Chaim Perelman. Synthese Library 183. Dordrecht: Reidel, 1986. Goodnight, G. Thomas. ‘Complex Cases and Legitimation Inference: Extending the Toulmin Model to Deliberative Argument in Controversy.’ Pages 39–48 in Arguing on the Toulmin Model: New Essays in Argument Analysis and Evaluation. Edited by David Hitchcock and Bart Verheij. Argumentation Library 10. Dordrecht: Springer, 2006. ———. ‘Legitimation Inferences: An Additional Component for the Toulmin Model.’ Informal Logic 15 (1993): 41–52.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

235

Goodwin, David. ‘Distinction, Argumentation, and the Rhetorical Construction of the Real.’ Argumentation and Advocacy 27 (1991): 141–58. Grassi, Ernesto. Rhetoric as Philosophy: The Humanist Tradition. University Park and London: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1980. Grice, Herbert P. Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1989. Gundry, Robert H. ‘The New Jerusalem: People as Place not Place for People.’ Novum Testamentum 29 (1987): 254–64. Guttesen, Poul F. Leaning Into the Future: The Kingdom of God in the Theology of Jürgen Moltmann and in the Book of Revelation. Princeton Theological Monograph Series. Eugene, Oreg.: Pickwick Publications, 2009. Habermas, Jürgen. The Theory of Communicative Action: Volume 1: Reason and the Rationalization of Society. Translated by T. McCarthy. Boston, Mass.: Beacon Press, 1981. Hamblin, Charles L. Fallacies. London: Methuen, 1970. Harland, Philip A. ‘Honouring the Emperor or Assailing the Beast: Participation in Civic Life among Associations (Jewish, Christian and Other) in Asia Minor and the Apocalypse of John.’ Journal for the Study of the New Testament 22 (2000): 99– 121. Harman, Gilbert. Change in View: Principles of Reasoning. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1986. Hartman, Lars. ‘Survey of the Problem of Apocalyptic Genre.’ Pages 329–44 in Apocalypticism in the Mediterranean World and the Near East. Edited by D. Hellholm. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1983. Harrington, Wilfrid J. Revelation. Sacra Pagina Series 16. Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1993. Hays, Richard B. The Faith of Jesus Christ: An Investigation of the Narrative Substructure of Galatians 3:1–4:11. Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1983. Hellholm, David. Das Visionenbuch des Hermas als Apokalypse: Formgeschichtliche und texttheoretische Studien zu einer literarischen Gattung. Coniectanea biblica: New Testament Series. Lund: Gleerup, 1980. ———. ‘Enthymemic Argumentation in Paul: The Case of Romans 6.’ Pages 119–79 in Paul in his Hellenistic Context.

236

SOTERIOLOGY AS MOTIVATION

Edited by Troels Engberg-Pedersen. Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress Press, 1995. ———. ‘The Problem of Apocalyptic Genre and the Apocalypse of John.’ Semeia 36 (1986): 13–64. Hellholm, David, ed. Apocalypticism in the Mediterranean World and the Near East: Proceedings of the International Colloquium on Apocalypticism, Uppsala, August 12-17, 1979. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1983. Hemer, Colin J. The Letters to the Seven Churches of Asia in their Local Setting. The Biblical Resource Series. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2001. Hitchcock, David L. ‘Does the Traditional Treatment of Enthymemes Rest on a Mistake?’ Argumentation 12 (1998): 15– 37. ———. ‘Enthymematic Arguments,’ Informal Logic 7 [1985]: 83–79. ———. ‘Good Reasoning on the Toulmin Model.’ Pages 203–218 in Arguing on the Toulmin Model: New Essays in Argument Analysis and Evaluation. Edited by David Hitchcock and Bart Verheij. Argumentation Library 10. Dordrecht: Springer, 2006. ———. ‘Reasoning by Analogy: A General Theory.’ Pages 109–24 in The Generalizability of Critical Thinking: Multiple Perspectives on an Educational Ideal. Edited by S. P. Norris. New York: Teachers College Press, 1992. ———. ‘Toulmin’s Warrants.’ Pages 69–82 in Anyone Who Has a View: Theoretical Contributions to the Study of Argument. Edited by F. H. van Eemeren et al. Argumentation Library 8. Boston, Mass.: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2003. ———. ‘Validity in Conductive Arguments.’ Pages 58–66 in New Essays in Informal Logic. Edited by R. H. Johnson and J. A. Blair. Windsor: Informal Logic, 1994. Hitchcock, David, and Bart Verheij, eds. Arguing on the Toulmin Model: New Essays in Argument Analysis and Evaluation. Argumentation Library 10. Dordrecht: Springer, 2006. Holloway, Paul A. ‘The Enthymeme as an Element of Style in Paul.’ Journal of Biblical Literature 120 (2001): 329–42. Holtz, Traugott. ‘Die “Werke” in der Johannesapokalypse.’ Pages 426–41 in Neues Testament und Ethik: Festschrift für Rudolf Schnackenburg. Edited by Helmut Merklein. Freiburg: Herder, 1989.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

237

Homcy, Stephen L. ‘“To Him Who Overcomes”: A Fresh Look at What “Victory” Means for the Believer According to the Book of Revelation.’ Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 38 (1995): 193–201. Humphrey, Edith M. ‘In Search of a Voice: Rhetoric through Sight and Sound in Revelation 11:15–12:17.’ Pages 141–60 in Vision and Persuasion: Rhetorical Dimensions of Apocalyptic Discourse. Edited by Greg Carey and L. Gregory Bloomquist. St. Louis, Miss.: Chalice Press, 1999. Jauhiainen, Marko. ‘Recapitulation and Chronological Progression in John’s Apocalypse: Towards a New Perspective.’ New Testament Studies 49 (2003): 543–59. Johns, Loren L. The Lamb Christology of the Apocalypse of John: An Investigation into Its Origins and Rhetorical Force. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 167. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003. ———. ‘The Lamb in the Rhetorical Program of the Apocalypse of John.’ Pages 2:762–84 in SBL Seminar Papers 1998. Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers 37. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1998. Johnson, Ralph H. Manifest Rationality: A Pragmatic Theory of Argumentation. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum, 2000. Johnstone, Henry W. ‘Argumentation and Formal Logic in Philosophy.’ Argumentation 3 (1989): 5–16. Jonsen, Albert R., and Stephen E. Toulmin. The Abuse of Casuistry: A History of Moral Reasoning. Los Angeles, Calif.: University of California Press, 1988. Jürgen C. H. Lebram. ‘The Piety of the Jewish Apocalypses.’ Pages 171–210 in Apocalypticism in the Mediterranean World and the Near East. Edited by D. Hellholm. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1983. Kallas, J. ‘The Apocalypse—An Apocalyptic Book?’ JBL 86 (1967): 68–80. Keener, Craig. Revelation. New International Version Application Commentary. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2000. Kennedy, George A. New Testament Interpretation through Rhetorical Criticism. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1984. ———. Classical Rhetoric and Its Christian and Secular Tradition from Ancient to Modern Times. 2nd ed. Chapel Hill, N.C.: University of North Carolina Press, 1999.

238

SOTERIOLOGY AS MOTIVATION

Kienpointner, Manfred. ‘The Empirical Relevance of Perelman’s New Rhetoric.’ Argumentation 7 (1993): 419–37. Kirby, John T. ‘The Rhetorical Situations of Revelation 1–3.’ New Testament Studies 34 (1988): 197–207. Kistemaker, Simon J. Revelation. New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 2001. Klumpp, James F. ‘Warranting Arguments: The Virtue of Verb.’ Pages 103–113 in Arguing on the Toulmin Model: New Essays in Argument Analysis and Evaluation. Edited by David Hitchcock and Bart Verheij. Argumentation Library 10. Dordrecht: Springer, 2006. Knight, Jonathan M. ‘Apocalyptic and Prophetic Literature.’ Pages 167–88 in Handbook of Classical Rhetoric in the Hellenistic Period: 330 B.C.–A.D. 400. Edited by Stanley E. Porter. New York: Brill, 1997. Kock, Christian. ‘Multiple Warrants in Practical Reasoning.’ Pages 247–259 in Arguing on the Toulmin Model: New Essays in Argument Analysis and Evaluation. Edited by David Hitchcock and Bart Verheij. Argumentation Library 10. Dordrecht: Springer, 2006. Koester, Craig R. Revelation and the End of All Things. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2001. Kooy, Vernon H. ‘The Apocalypse and Worship—some Preliminary Observations.’ Reformed Review 30 (1976): 198–209. Krabbe, Erik C. W. ‘Review of Informal Logic.’ Argumentation 3 (1992): 368–73. Kraft, Heinrich. Die Offenbarung des Johannes. Handbuch zum Neuen Testament 16a. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1974. Kraus, Manfred. ‘Arguing by Question: A Toulminian Reading of Cicero’s Account of the Enthymeme.’ Pages 313–26 in Arguing on the Toulmin Model: New Essays in Argument Analysis and Evaluation. Edited by David Hitchcock and Bart Verheij. Argumentation Library 10. Dordrecht: Springer, 2006. Kraybill, J. Nelson. Apocalypse and Allegiance: Worship, Politics, and Devotion in the Book of Revelation. Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2010. ———. Imperial Cult and Commerce in John’s Apocalypse. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 132. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

239

Krodel, Gerhard, A. Revelation. Augsburg Commentary on the New Testament. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1989. Kurz, William. ‘Hellenistic Rhetoric in the Christological Proof of Luke-Acts.’ Catholic Biblical Quarterly 42 (1980): 171–95. Ladd, George E. A Commentary on the Revelation of John. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1972. Lancellotti, Angelo. Sintasi ebraica nel greco dell’ Apocalypsealisse. I. Uso dell forme verbali. Assisi: Studio Teologico Portiuncola, 1964. Langsdorf, Lenore. ‘On the Uses of Language in Working and Idealized Logic.’ Argumentation 4 (1990): 259–68. Lee, Michelle V. ‘A Call to Martyrdom: Function as Method and Message in Revelation.’ Novum Testamentum 40 (1998): 164– 94. Lohmeyer, Ernst. Die Offenbarung des Johannes. Handbuch zum Neuen Testament 16. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1970. Lohse, Eduard. Die Offenbarung des Johannes. Das Neue Testament Deutsch 11. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1988. Loisy, Alfred. L’Apocalypse de Jean. Paris: Nourry, 1923. Longenecker, Bruce W., ed. Narrative Dynamics in Paul: A Critical Assessment. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 2002. ———. ‘“Linked Like a Chain”: Rev 22.6–9 in Light of an Ancient Transition Technique.’ New Testament Studies 47 (2001): 105– 17. Longman, Tremper, III, and Daniel G. Reid. God is a Warrior. Studies in Old Testament Biblical Theology. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1995. Lorenzen, Paul. Normative Logic and Ethics. Hochschultaschenbücher 236. Mannheim: Bibliographisches Institut, 1969. Lorenzen, Paul, and Kuno Lorenz. Dialogische Logik. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1978. Louw, Johannes P., and Eugene Nida, eds. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains. 2 vols. New York: United Bible Society, 1988. Maier, Harry O. Apocalypse Recalled: The Book of Revelation after Christendom. Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress Press, 2002. Malina, Bruce J. On the Genre and Message of Revelation: Star Visions and Sky Journeys. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, 1995. Maneli, M. Perelman’s New Rhetoric as Philosophy and Methodology for the Next Century. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1994.

240

SOTERIOLOGY AS MOTIVATION

Mangina, Joseph L. Revelation. Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Brazos, 2010. Manning, Rita, C. ‘Beyond Argumentation: The Role of Narrative in Moral Reasoning.’ Pages 170–77 in Argumentation: Analysis and Practices. Edited by F. H. van Eemeren, et al. Pragmatics and Discourse Analysis 3B. Dordrecht: Foris, 1987. McNicol, Allan J. The Conversion of the Nations in Revelation. Library of New Testament Studies 438. New York: T&T Clark, 2011. McPeck, John. Critical Thinking and Education. Oxford: Martin Robertson, 1981. ———. Teaching Critical Thinking: Dialogue and Dialectic. New York: Routledge, Chapman & Hall, 1990. Mead, James K. Biblical Theology: Issues, Methods, and Themes. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press, 2007. Measell, James, S. ‘Perelman on Analogy.’ Journal of the American Forensic Association 22 (1985): 65–71. Meeks, Wayne A. ‘Apocalyptic Discourse and Strategies of Goodness.’ Journal of Religion 80 (2000): 461–75. ———. The Moral World of the First Christians. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1986. Michaels, J. Ramsey. Revelation. IVP New Testament Commentary 20. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1997. Miller, Gerald R., Michael Burgoon, and Judee K. Burgoon. ‘The Functions of Human Communication in Changing Attitudes and Gaining Compliance.’ Pages 400–74 in Handbook of Rhetorical and Communication Theory. Edited by C. C. Arnold and J. W. Bowers. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1984. Miller, Patrick D. The Divine Warrior in Early Israel. Harvard Semitic Monographs. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1973. Minear, Paul S. I Saw a New Earth: An Introduction to the Visions of the Apocalypse. Washington: Corpus, 1969. Mitchell, Margaret M. Paul and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation. Hermeneutische Untersuchungen zur Theologie 28. Tübingen: Mohr, 1991. Montgomery, James A. ‘The Education of the Seer of the Apocalypse.’ Journal of Biblical Literature 45 (1926): 70–80. Moo, Douglas, J. The Letter of James: An Introduction and Commentary. The Pillar New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2000.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

241

Moores, John D. Wrestling with Rationality in Paul: Romans 1–8 in a New Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995. Morris, Leon. The Book of Revelation: An Introduction and Commentary. 2nd ed. Tyndale New Testament Commentaries 20. Leicester: InterVarsity, 1987. Morton, Russell, S. One upon the Throne and the Lamb: A Tradition Historical/Theological Analysis of Revelation 4–5. Studies in Biblical Literature 110. New York: Peter Lang, 2007. Moss, Jean D., ed. Rhetoric and Praxis: The Contribution of Classical Rhetoric to Pracitcal Reasoning. Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1986. Mounce, Robert, H. The Book of Revelation. Rev. ed. New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1997. Mowry, Lucetta. ‘Revelation 4–5 and Early Christian Liturgical Usage.’ Journal of Biblical Literature 71 (1952): 75–84. Moyise, Steven. The Old Testament in the Book of Revelation. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 115. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995. Müller, Ulrich B. Die Offenbarung des Johannes. Ökumenischer Taschenbuch-Kommentar 19. Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1984. Murphy, Frederick J. Fallen Is Babylon: The Revelation of John. New Testament in Context. Valley Forge, Pa.: Trinity Press International, 1998. Mussies, Gerhard. The Morphology of Koine Greek as used in the Apocalypse of St John: A Study in Bilingualism. Novum Testamentum Supplements 27. Leiden: Brill, 1971. ———. ‘The Greek of the Book of Revelation.’ Pages 167–77 in L’Apocalypse johannique et l’Apocalyptique dans le Nouveau Testament. Edited by J. Lambrecht. Leuven: Ducelot, 1980. Neufeld, Edmund K. ‘The Gospel in the Gospels: Answering the Question “What Must I do to be Saved?” from the Synoptics.’ Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 51 (2008): 267–96. Nikolakopoulos, Konstantin. ‘Rhetorische Auslegungsaspekte der Theologie in der Johannesoffenbarung.’ Pages 166–80 in ‘… was ihr auf dem Weg verhandelt habt’: Beiträge zur Exegese und Theologie des Neuen Testaments: Festschrift für Ferdinand Hahn zum 75. Geburtstag. Edited by P. Müller, et al. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2001. Nida, Eugene A. Exploring Semantic Structures. Munich: Fink, 1975.

242

SOTERIOLOGY AS MOTIVATION

Nwachukwu, Oliver O. Beyond Vengeance and Protest: A Reflection on the Macarisms in Revelation. Studies in Biblical Literature 71. New York: Peter Lang, 2005. O’Banion, John D. ‘Narration and Argumentation: Quintilian on Narratio as the Heart of Rhetorical Thinking.’ Rhetorica 5 (1987): 325–51. O’Keefe, Daniel J. Persuasion: Theory and Research. Current Communication: An Advanced Text Series 2. Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage, 1990. O’Leary, Stephen D. Arguing the Apocalypse: A Theory of Millennial Rhetoric. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994. O’Rourke, John. ‘The Hymns of the Apocalypse,’ The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 30 (1968): 399–409. Osborne, Grant R. Revelation. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2002. Owens, Wil L. ‘The Doctrine of Sanctification with Respect to Its Role in Eternal Salvation.’ Ph.D. diss., Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2008. Ozanne, C. G. ‘The Language of the Apocalypse.’ Tyndale House Bulletin 16 (1965): 3–9. Paglieri, Fabio and Cristiano Castelfranchi. ‘The Toulmin Test: Framing Argumentation within Belief Revision Theories.’ Pages 359–77 in Arguing on the Toulmin Model: New Essays in Argument Analysis and Evaluation. Edited by David Hitchcock and Bart Verheij. Argumentation Library 10. Dordrecht: Springer, 2006. Pate, Marvin C. and Douglas W. Kennard. Deliverance Now and Not Yet: The New Testament and the Great Tribulation. Studies in Biblical Literature 54. New York: Peter Lang, 2003. Pattemore, Stephen. The People of God in the Apocalypse: Discourse, Structure, and Exegesis. Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 128. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. ———. Souls under the Alter: Relevance Theory and the Discourse Structure of Revelation. UBS Monograph Series 9. New York: United Bible Society, 2003. Penley, Paul T. Common Tradition behind Synoptic Sayings of Judgment and John’s Apocalypse: An Oral Interpretive Tradition of Old

BIBLIOGRAPHY

243

Testament Prophetic Material. Library of New Testament Studies 424. London: T & T Clark, 2010. Perelman, Chaim. The New Rhetoric and the Humanities: Essays on Rhetoric and Its Application. Synthese Library 140. Dordrecht: D. Reidel, 1979. ———. The Realm of Rhetoric. Translated by William Kluback. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1982. Perelman, Chaim, and L. Olbrechts-Tyteca. The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation. Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press, 1969. Perry, Peter S. ‘Critiquing the Excess of Empire: A Synkrisis of John of Patmos and Dio of Prusa.’ Journal for the Study of the New Testament 29 (2007): 473–96. ———. The Rhetoric of Digressions. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2. Reihe 268. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009. Peters, Olutola K. The Mandate of the Church in the Apocalypse of John. Studies in Biblical Literature 77. New York: Peter Lang, 2005. Peterson, David G. ‘Worship in the Revelation to John.’ Reformed Theological Review 47 (1988): 67–77. Pilch, John J. ‘Lying and Deceit in the Letters to the Seven Churches: Perspectives from Cultural Anthropology.’ Biblical Theology Bulletin 22 (1992): 126–35. Pinto, Robert C. ‘Evaluating Inferences: The Nature and Role of Warrants.’ Pages 115–43 in Arguing on the Toulmin Model: New Essays in Argument Analysis and Evaluation. Edited by David Hitchcock and Bart Verheij. Argumentation Library 10. Dordrecht: Springer, 2006. Porter, Stanley E. ‘Ancient Rhetorical Analysis and Discourse Analysis of the Pauline Epistles.’ Pages 249–74 in The Rhetorical Analysis of Scripture: Essays from the 1995 London Conference. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 146. Edited by Stanley E. Porter and Thomas H. Olbricht. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997. ———. ‘The Theoretical Justification for Application of Rhetorical Categories to Pauline Epistolary Literature.’ Pages 100–22 in Rhetoric and the New Testament: Essays from the 1992 Heidelberg Conference. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 90. Edited by Stanley E. Porter

244

SOTERIOLOGY AS MOTIVATION

and Thomas H. Olbricht. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993. Porter, Stanley E., and Thomas H. Olbricht, eds. Rhetoric and the New Testament: Essays from the 1992 Heidelberg Conference. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 90. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993. Porter, Stanley E., and Thomas H. Olbricht, eds. Rhetoric, Scripture and Theology: Essays from the 1994 Pretoria Conference. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 131. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996. Poythress, Vern S. The Returning King. Phillipsburg, N.J.: P & R Publishing, 2000. Prigent, Pierre. L’Apocalypse de Saint Jean. Commentaire du Nouveau Testament 14. Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1988. ———. Apocalypse et liturgie. Neuchâtel: Delachaux and Niestlé, 1972. Rad, Gerhard von. Holy War in Ancient Israel. Translated by Marva J. Dawn. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1991. Räpple, Eva Maria. The Metaphor of the City in the Apocalypse of John. Studies in Biblical Literature 67. New York: Peter Lang, 2004. Reddish, Mitchell G. Revelation. Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary. Macon, Ga.: Smyth & Helwys, 2001. Redditt, Paul L. ‘The Rhetoric of Jewish Apocalyptic Eschatology.’ Perspectives in Religions Studies 28 (2001): 361–71. Rescher, Nicholas. Pascal’s Wager: A Study of Practical Reasoning in Philosophical Theology. Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press, 1985. Resseguie, James L. The Revelation of John: A Narrative Commentary. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2009. ———. Revelation Unsealed: A Narrative-Critical Approach to John’s Apocalypse. Leiden: Brill, 1998. Rissi, Mathias. The Future of the World: An Exegetical Study of Rev 19:122:15. Studies in Biblical Theology 2/23. London: SCM, 1972. ———. Time and History: A Study on the Revelation. Translated by Gordon C. Winsor. Richmond, Va.: John Knox Press, 1966. Robbins, Vernon K. ‘From Enthymeme to Theology in Luke 11:1– 13.’ Pages 191–214 in Literary Studies in Luke-Acts: Essays in Honor of Joseph B. Tyson. Edited by R. P. Thompson and T. E. Phillips. Macon, Ga.: Mercer University, 1998.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

245

Rochette, Joël. La rémission des péchés dans l’Apocalypse: Έbauche d’une sotériologie originale. Roma: Pontificia Università Gregoriana, 2008. Roloff, Jürgen. The Revelation of John. Translated by John E. Alsup. Continental Commentaries. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993. Rossing, Barbara R. The Choice between Two Cities: Whore, Bride, and Empire in the Apocalypse. Harvard Theological Studies 48. Harrisburg, Pa.: Trinity Press International, 1999. Rowland, Christopher. ‘The Lamb and the Beast, the Sheep and the Goats: “The Mystery of Salvation” in Revelation.’ Pages 181–92 in A Vision for the Church: Studies in Early Christian Ecclesiology in Honour of J. P. M. Sweet. Edited by Markus Bockmuehl and Michael B. Thompson. T&T Clark: Edinburgh, 1997. ———. The Open Heaven: A Study of Apocalyptic in Judaism and Early Christianity. New York: Crossroad, 1982. Royalty, Robert M. ‘The Dangers of the Apocalypse.’ Word & World 25 (2005): 283–93. ———. ‘Don’t Touch this Book!: Revelation 22:18–19 and the Rhetoric of Reading the Apocalypse of John.’ Biblical Interpretation 12 (2004): 282–99. ———. ‘Etched or Sketched? Inscriptions and Erasures in the Messages to Sardis and Philadelphia (Rev. 3.1–13).’ Journal for the Study of the New Testament 27 (2005): 447–63. ———. ‘The Rhetoric of Revelation.’ Pages 596–617 in SBL Seminar Papers 1997. SBL Seminar Papers 36. Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1997. ———. The Streets of Heaven: The Ideology of Wealth in the Apocalypse of John. Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 1998. Schrage, Wolfgang. The Ethics of the New Testament. Translated by David E. Green. Philadelphia, Pa.: Fortress Press, 1988. Schreiner, Thomas R., and Ardel B. Caneday. The Race Set Before Us: A Biblical Theology of Perseverance & Assurance. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2001. Schroeder, Christopher. ‘Knowledge and Power, Logic and Rhetoric, and Other Reflections in the Toulmin Mirror: A Critical Consideration of Stephen Toulmin’s Contributions to Composition.’ Journal of Advanced Composition 17 (1997): 95– 107.

246

SOTERIOLOGY AS MOTIVATION

Schüssler Fiorenza, Elisabeth. The Book of Revelation: Justice and Judgment. Philadelphia, Pa.: Fortress Press, 1985. ———. ‘The Followers of the Lamb: Visionary Rhetoric and Social-Political Situation.’ Semeia 36 (1986): 123–46. ———. Priester für Gott: Studien zum Herrschafts- und Priestermotiv in der Apokalypse. Münster: Aschendorff, 1972. ———. ‘Redemption as Liberation: Apoc 1:5f. and 5:9f.’ Catholic Biblical Quarterly 36 (1974): 220–232. ———. Revelation: Vision of a Just World. Proclamation Commentaries. Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress Press, 1991. Searle, John R. Expression and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979. ———. Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969. Seibold, D. R., R. D. McPhee, M. S. Poole, N. E. Tanita, and D. J. Canary. ‘Argument, Group Influence, and Decision Outcomes.’ Pages 663–92 in Dimensions of Argument: Proceedings of the Second Summer Conference on Argumentation. Edited by G. Ziegelmueller and J. Rhodes. Annandale, Va.: Speech Communication Association, 1981. Seiss, Joseph A. Letters to the Seven Churches. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 1956. Shepherd, Massey. The Paschal Liturgy and the Apocalypse. London: Lutterworth Press, 1964. Sherwin-White, A. N. The Letters of Pliny: A Historical and Social Commentary. Oxford: Clarendon, 1966. Shin, Eun-Chul. ‘More Than Conquerors: The Conqueror (NIKΆΩ) Motif in the Book of Revelation.’ Ph.D. diss., Pretoria University, 2006. Siegel, Harvey. Relativism Refuted: A Critique of Contemporary Epistemological Relativism. Synthese Library 189. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company, 1987. Siegert, Folker. Argumentation bei Paulus gezeigt an Röm 9–11. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 34. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1985. Slater, Thomas B. ‘On the Social Setting of the Revelation to John.’ New Testament Studies 44 (1998): 232–56. Slob, Wouter H. ‘The Voice of the Other: A Dialogico-Rhetorical Understanding of Opponent and of Toulmin’s Rebuttal.’ Pages 165–80 in Arguing on the Toulmin Model: New Essays in

BIBLIOGRAPHY

247

Argument Analysis and Evaluation. Edited by David Hitchcock and Bart Verheij. Argumentation Library 10. Dordrecht: Springer, 2006. Smalley, Stephen S. The Revelation to John: A Commentary on the Greek Text of the Apocalypse. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 2005. Smith, Charles R. ‘The Book of Life.’ Grace Theological Journal 6 (1985): 219–30. Smith, Ian. ‘A Rational Choice Model of the Book of Revelation.’ Journal for the Study of the New Testament 85 (2002): 97–116. Smith, Robert H. ‘Why John Wrote the Apocalypse (Rev 1:9).’ Currents in Theology and Mission 22 (1995): 356–61. Spano, Eric Joseph. ‘Erasure and Endurance: Aspects of Soteriology in Revelation.’ Ph.D. diss., Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2008. Stanley, Alan P. Did Jesus Teach Salvation by Works?: The Role of Works in Salvation in the Synoptic Gospels. The Evangelical Theological Society Monograph Series 4. Eugene, Oreg.: Pickwick , 2006. Stewart, Alexander E. ‘Cosmology, Eschatology, and Soteriology in Hebrews: A Synthetic Analysis.’ Bulletin for Biblical Research 20 (2010): 545–560. ———. ‘James, Soteriology, and Synergism.’ Tyndale Bulletin 61 (2010): 293–310. ———. ‘Narrative World, Rhetorical Logic, and the Voice of the Author in 4 Ezra.’ Journal of Biblical Literature 132 (2013): 373– 91. ———. ‘When are Christians Saved and Why Does it Matter? An Investigation into the Rhetorical Force of First Peter’s Inaugurated Soteriology.’ Trinity Journal 32 (2011): 221–235. Stone, Michael E. Fourth Ezra: A Commentary on the Book of Fourth Ezra. Hermeneia. Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress Press, 1990. Stuhlmacher, Peter. Historical Criticism and Theological Interpretation of Scripture: Towards a Hermeneutics of Consent. Translated by Roy Harrisville. Philadelphia, Pa.: Fortress Press, 1977. Sweet, John P. M. Revelation. London: SCM Press, 1979. Talbert, Charles H. The Apocalypse: A Reading of the Revelation of John. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1994. ———. ‘Divine Assistance and Enablement of Human Faithfulness in the Revelation of John Viewed within Its Apocalyptic Context.’ Pages 265–82 in Getting ‘Saved’: The Whole Story of Salvation in the New Testament. Edited by Charles

248

SOTERIOLOGY AS MOTIVATION

H. Talbert and Jason A. Whitlark. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2011. Thompson, Leonard. The Book of Revelation: Apocalypse and Empire. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990. ———. ‘A Sociological Analysis of Tribulation in the Apocalypse of John.’ Semeia 36 (1986): 147–74. Thompson, Steven. The Apocalypse and Semitic Syntax. Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 52. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985. Thurén, Lauri. Argument and Theology in 1 Peter: The Origins of Christian Paraenesis. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 114. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995. ———. ‘Is There Biblical Argumentation?’ Pages 77–92 in Rhetorical Argumentation in Biblical Texts. Edited by A. Eriksson, T. H. Olbricht, and W. Übelacker. Emory Studies in Early Christianity. Harrisburg, Pa.: Trinity Press International, 2002. ———. ‘On Studying Ethical Argumentation and Persuasion in the New Testament.’ Pages 464–78 in Rhetoric and the New Testament: Essays from the 1992 Heidelberg Conference. Edited by Stanley E. Porter and Thomas H. Olbricht. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 90. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993. Tonstad, Sigve K. Saving God’s Reputation: The Theological Function of Pistis Iesou in the Cosmic Narratives of Revelation. Library of New Testament Studies 337. London: T & T Clark, 2006. Toulmin, Stephen. The Uses of Argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1958. Toulmin, Stephen, Richard Rieke, and Allan Janik. An Introduction to Reasoning. 2nd ed. New York: Macmillan, 1984. van der Watt, Jan G., ed. Salvation in the New Testament. Supplements to Novum Testamentum 121. Leiden: Brill, 2005. van Kooten, George H. ‘The Year of the Four Emperors and the Revelation of John: The “Pro-Neronian” Emperors Otho and Vitellius, and the Images and Colossus of Nero in Rome.’ Journal for the Study of the New Testament 30 (2007): 205–48. Verheij, Bart. ‘Evaluating Arguments Based on Toulmin’s Scheme.’ Pages 181–202 in Arguing on the Toulmin Model: New Essays in Argument Analysis and Evaluation. Edited by David Hitchcock

BIBLIOGRAPHY

249

and Bart Verheij. Argumentation Library 10. Dordrecht: Springer, 2006. Viertel, Weldon E. ‘The Hermeneutics of Paul as Reflected in Romans and Galatians.’ Ph.D. diss., University of Waco, 1976. Voss, James F. ‘Toulmin’s Model and the Solving of Ill-Structured Problems.’ Pages 303–311 in Arguing on the Toulmin Model: New Essays in Argument Analysis and Evaluation. Edited by David Hitchcock and Bart Verheij. Argumentation Library 10. Dordrecht: Springer, 2006. Walton, Douglas N. Fundamentals of Critical Argumentation. Critical Reasoning and Argumentation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. ———. Informal Logic: A Handbook for Critical Argumentation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989. ———. The Place of Emotions in Argument. University Press, Pa.: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 1992. ———. Scare Tactics: Arguments that Appeal to Fear and Threats. Argumentation Library 3. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2000. Walton, John. The Lost World of Genesis One. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2009. Warnick, Barbara. ‘Judgment, Probability, and Aristotle’s Rhetoric.’ Quarterly Journal of Speech 75 (1989): 299–311. Warnick, Barbara, and Susan L. Kline. ‘The New Rhetoric’s Argument Schemes: A Rhetorical View of Practical Reasoning.’ Argumentation and Advocacy 29 (1992): 1–15. Weinstein, Mark. ‘Towards a Research Agenda for Informal Logic and Critical Thinking.’ Informal Logic 2 (1990): 121–43. ———. ‘A Metamathematical Extension of the Toulmin Agenda.’ Pages 49–69 in Arguing on the Toulmin Model: New Essays in Argument Analysis and Evaluation. Edited by David Hitchcock and Bart Verheij. Argumentation Library 10. Dordrecht: Springer, 2006. Wenzel, Joseph W. ‘On Fields of Argument as Propositional Systems.’ Journal of the American Forensic Association 18 (1982): 204–13. ———. ‘The Rhetorical View of Argumentation: Exploring a Paradigm.’ Argumentation 1 (1987): 73–89. Wilder, Amos N. ‘The Rhetoric of Ancient and Modern Apocalyptic.’ Interpretation 25 (1971): 436–53.

250

SOTERIOLOGY AS MOTIVATION

Willard, Charles A. ‘Argument Fields and Theories of Logical Types.’ Journal of the American Forensic Association 17 (1981): 129–45. Wintgens, Luc J. ‘Rhetoric, Reasonableness and Ethics: An Essay on Perelman.’ Argumentation 7 (1993): 451–60. Witherington, Ben, III. Revelation. New Cambridge Bible Commentary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003. Witulski, Thomas. Die Johannesoffenbarung und Kaiser Hadrian: Studien zur Datierung der neutestamentlichen Apokalypse. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2007. Wohlrapp, Harold. ‘Toulmin’s Theory and the Dynamics of Argumentation.’ Pages 327–35 in Argumentation: Perspectives and Approaches. Edited by F. H. van Eemeren, et al. Pragmatics and Discourse Analysis 3A. Dordrecht: Foris, 1987. Woods, John. ‘Ad Baculum, Self-Interest, and Pascal’s Wager.’ Pages 343–49 in Argumentation: Across the Lines of Discipline. Edited by F. H. van Eemeren, et al. Pragmatics and Discourse Analysis 3. Dordrecht: Foris, 1987. ———. ‘Eight Theses Reflecting on Stephen Toulmin.’ Pages 379–97 in Arguing on the Toulmin Model: New Essays in Argument Analysis and Evaluation. Edited by David Hitchcock and Bart Verheij. Argumentation Library 10. Dordrecht: Springer, 2006. Woods, John, and Douglas N. Walton. Argument: The Logic of the Fallacies. Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson, 1982. ———. Fallacies: Selected Papers, 1972–1982. Pragmatics and Discourse Analysis 9. Dordrecht: Foris, 1989. Wright, Nicholas T. The New Testament and the People of God. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992. Yost, Mary. ‘Argument from the Point of View of Sociology.’ Quarterly Journal of Public Speaking 3 (1917): 109–27. Young, Richard A. ‘A Classification of Conditional Sentences Based on Speech Act Theory.’ Grace Theological Journal 10 (1989): 29–49.

INDEX INDEX OF BIBLICAL REFERENCES Genesis 2:9 3:1 3:15 3:22–24 49:10

136 106 108 136 96

Exodus 7:20–25 8:15 8:19 8:23 8:32 9:7 9:12 9:22–25 9:34–35 10:12–15 10:20 10:21–23 10:27 11:7 11:10 14:5 14:13 14:30 15:1–3 15:2 19:5–6 19:6 19:10 19:14 19:16–19

105 105 105 110 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 110 105 105 178 178 132 178 182 99, 184 165 165 104

20:25–26 32:32–33

110 136

Leviticus 17:11 19:14 19:32 20:25–26 25:17 25:36 25:43

183 144 144 110 144 144 144

Numbers 10:35

132

Deuteronomy 6:2 144 6:24 144 10:12 144 13:4 144 17:19 144 18:15–20 108 19:15 102 29–30 108 31:12–13 144

251

Joshua 6

105

2 Samuel 7

96

1 Kings 8:47–48

131

252

2 Kings 17:35–38

SOTERIOLOGY AS MOTIVATION

144

1 Chronicles 17:11–14 96 21:1 106 2 Chronicles 6:16 96 6:23 156 6:37–38 131 Job 1:6–12 2:1 7:12 9:13 26:12–13 34:11

106 106 106 106 106 156

Psalms 1 2 2:2 2:8–9 7:12 9:5 18:50 20:7 24:7–10 27[28]:4 61[62]:13[12] 69[68]:28 74:2 74:13–14 78:34 84:9 87:6 89:9–10 106:10 106:21 112:1 132:10 132:17

148 117 108 136 131 136 108 132 132 156 156 136 179 106 131 108 136 106 179 179 144 108 108

Proverbs 3:11–12 16:6 24:12

142 144 156

Ecclesiastes 12:13 144 Isaiah 1:27 4:3 6:9–10 7:22 9:2–7 13:10–13 26:19–21 27:1 30:7 34:4 41:1 42:1–7 44:21 46:8–9 47:5 48:20 49:1–7 50:4–9 51:9–10 52:13–52:12 52:11

131 136 135 180 108 105 100 106 106 105 104 108 126 126 104 145 108 108 106 108 145

Jeremiah 5:3 5:21 17:10 34:15 50:8 51:6 51:45

131 135 156 131 145 145 145

Lamentations 2:4–5 132 2:10 104 3:28–29 104

INDEX Ezekiel 3:27 12:2 13:9 14:6 18:30 24:14 32:6–8 33:20 34:23–24 47:12

135 135 136 131 131, 156 156 105 156 108 136

Daniel 2 2:28 7–12 7:10 7:21 11–12 11:35 12:1–2 12:1 12:2 12:12–13

104 101 104 136 106 101 165 136 101 100 148, 150

Hosea 12:2

156

Joel 2:28–32 3–4

109 201

Amos 5:18–20 8:3

109 104

Micah 6:5

126

Habakkuk 2:20 3:6–11

104 105

Zephaniah 1:7

104

253 1:11 1:14–16

104 109

Zechariah 1:6 2:13 3:1 4:2–6 14:3

131 104 106 128 132

Matthew 3:2 3:8 5:3–11 6:10 7:13–14 9:11 10:22 10:32–33 11:6 11:15 11:19 11:20–21 12:28 12:29 12:37 12:41 13:9 13:21 13:24–30 13:43 13:16 13:21 16:17 16:27 18:16 21:44 24:1–2 24:1–14 24:9 24:9 24:13 24:21 24:42–43

131 131 148 199 210 210 199–200 199 148 135 210 131 199 100 199 131 135 101 153 135 148 101 148 156 102 101 101 104 101 101 199 101 138

254

SOTERIOLOGY AS MOTIVATION

24:46 25:1–13 25:13 25:31 25:34

148 153 138 199 199

Mark 1:4 1:15 2:16 3:27 4:9 4:17 4:23 6:12 8:34–35 12:28–31 10:29–30 13:1–2 13:35–37

131 101, 131 210 100 135 101 135 131 130 127–128 199 101 138

Luke 1:45 5:30 6:20–22 7:23 7:34 8:8 8:11–14 10:17–19 10:20 10:23 11:27–28 12:36–40 12:37 12:43 13:3 13:5 13:29 14:15 14:35 15:7 15:10 17:21

148 210 148 148 210 135 199 100 136 148 148 138 148 148 131 131 170 148 135 131 131 199

18:8 18:14 19:11 20:18 21:5–6 21:19 21:20–24 21:28 21:31 22:29–30 23:29 24:47

153 199 199 101 101 199 101 199 199 170 148 131

John 1:5 1:29 1:36 5:24–29 5:24 5:28–29 6:47 6:54 7:9 7:14 8:31 12:31–33 13:17 13:34–35 15:5–6 15:12–13 15:17 16:33 19:8 20:29

166 183 183 101 199 100 199 199 166 166 199 100 148 128 199 128 128 101 166 148

Acts 2:16–17 2:38 3:19 5:31 8:22 11:18 11:19 13:24

101 131 131 131 131 131 101 131

INDEX 14:22 17:30 17:32 19:4 20:21 20:23 20:35 24:15 26:2 26:20

101, 199 131 210 131 131 101 148 100 148 131

Romans 2:4 2:6–10 2:6–11 2:13 3:19 3:24 4:5 4:7–8 5:1 5:3 5:9–10 6:1–11 8:12–15 8:23 8:24 8:29–30 8:35 9:14–24 12:12 13:8–10 13:11 14:22 16:20

131 199 156 199 104 199 199 148 199 101 199 130 199 199 199 210 101 210 101 128 199 148 153

1 Corinthians 1:18 199, 210 3:15 199 3:16–17 102 5:5 199 5:7 183 6:9–11 199 6:11 199

255 7:40 9:23–27 9:25 10:11 10:16 13:1–13 14 15:1–2 15:1–3 15:2 15:50

148 199 131, 141 101 165 128 60 126 199 199 199

2 Corinthians 1:4 101 1:8 101 2:15 199 4:16–18 130, 158 4:17 101, 145 6:2 101 6:4 101 7:9–10 131 8:2 101 11:15 156 12:21 131 Galatians 2:17 4:4 4:5 5:2–6 5:5 5:13–14 5:19–21 5:22 6:7–10 6:16

199 101 199 199 199 128 199 128 199 99

Ephesians 1.1 1:4 1:5 1:7 1:13–14 2:5 2:8

128 210–211 199 165, 199 199 199 199

256 2:13 2:19 2:20–22 5:2 5:5–10 5:22–32 9:1

SOTERIOLOGY AS MOTIVATION 165 99 102 128 199 103 128

Philippians 2:12–13 199 3:10–11 130 4:3 136 Colossians 1:21–23 1:24 2:15

199 101 100

1 Thessalonians 1:6 101 3:3 101 4:1–7 199 5:4–6 138 5:8–9 199 5:19–22 60 2 Thessalonians 1:4 101 1:5 199 1:7–10 100 2:6–12 100 2:13–17 199 1 Timothy 1:11 4:1 4:16 6:15

148 101 199 148

2 Timothy 1:9 2:11–12 2:25 3:1 3:12

199 130 131 101 101

4:14 4:18 4:8

156 199 131, 141

Titus 2:13 3:5 3:7

148 199 199

Hebrews 1:2 1:2 1:14 2:1–4 2:9 2:14 3:1–4:13 5:11–6:12 6:1 9:12 9:14 9:22 9:26 9:28 10:1–12 10:19–39 10:19 10:33 12:2 12:4–11 12:12–29 12:14 12:23 13:1

101 101 199 199 131 100 199 199 131 199 165 165 101 199 102 200 165 101 130 142 200 199 136 128

James 1:1 1:12 1:25 2:8 2:14–26 5:3

99 131, 141, 148 148 128 202 101

1 Peter 1:1

99

INDEX 1:2 1:5 1:9 1:11 1:17 1:18–19 1:19 1:20 1:22 2:2 2:4–10 2:5 2:9 2:17 2:21 3:8 3:14 3:21 4:7 4:14 4:17 5:4

165 199 199 130–131 156 199 165 101 128 199 102 102 99 128 130–131 128 148 199 153 148 101 131, 141

2 Peter 1:10–11 1:12–15 2:4 3:1 3:3 3:9

199 126 100 126 101 131

1 John 1:6 1:7 2:3–4 2:9 2:15 2:18 2:29 3:1–3 3:6–10 3:11–18 4:1–4 5:11–13

199 165 199 199 199 101 199 199 199 128 60 199

257 Jude 5 6 18 20–24

126 100 101 199

Revelation 1:1–2 1:1

98 56, 67, 100, 101, 106, 113, 124, 148, 152, 224 71 106 4, 78, 98, 124, 148, 150–151, 175, 194, 207, 220, 224 95, 97, 103 157, 182 22, 71, 77, 97, 103, 165, 176, 179, 182, 191– 193, 196, 211 97, 99, 176, 183, 192–193 106 190 95 63, 77, 97, 98, 101, 184, 211, 221, 224 8, 97, 98 71 127 103 180 103, 127 154–155 24, 197 95 24, 97, 127 98, 101, 103, 113 102, 128 8, 103, 126, 154

1:2 1:3–4 1:3 1:4 1:5–6 1:5 1:6

1:7–8 1:7 1:8 1:9 1:11 1:12 1:12–20 1:13 1:13–14 1:13–16 1:13–19 1:16 1:17 1:18 1:19 1:20 2:1

258 2:1–3:22 2–3 2:2 2:2–3 2:4–5 2:4 2:5–7 2:5

2:6 2:7 2:8

2:9–10 2:9

2:10–11 2:10

2:11 2:12 2:13

2:14–15 2:14–16 2:14

SOTERIOLOGY AS MOTIVATION 125 133, 191, 198 60, 77, 98, 157, 202 98, 127 223 124, 127, 136, 148, 154, 175, 194, 207, 221, 224 76 75–77, 98, 103, 110, 123, 125, 136, 155, 157, 175, 194, 200, 207, 221–222 78, 98, 128, 157 24, 75, 103, 106, 134–136, 158, 175, 180, 190, 194, 207, 224 24, 95, 97, 103, 130, 154 98, 101 24, 99, 106

106, 180, 199 75, 77, 101, 106, 123, 129, 133, 141, 175, 180, 190, 194, 207, 222–223 103, 134–136, 158, 175, 190, 194, 207, 224 103, 154 71, 77–78, 97, 98, 106 64, 154 197 61, 64, 78, 96, 98, 124, 136, 148, 154, 160, 175, 194, 207, 221224

2:15 2:16

2:16–17 2:17 2:18 2:19–21 2:19 2:20–23 2:20–24 2:20 2:21–22 2:21–23 2:22–23 2:22 2:23

2:24 2:25–26 2:25–28 2:25 2:26–27 2:26–28 2:26

2:27–28 2:28 2:29 3

78, 98 67, 98, 103, 106, 123–124, 131, 136, 139, 148, 151, 155, 175, 194, 200, 207, 221–224 76 103, 106, 134– 136, 158, 175, 190, 194, 207, 224 103, 154 76 78, 98, 157, 202 98 197 96, 98, 124, 136, 148, 154, 175, 194, 207, 221, 224 98 103 155 78, 157, 223–224 58, 78, 124, 136, 148, 156–157, 175, 194, 200– 201, 207, 221, 224 106 223 123, 133, 175, 194, 207 78, 133–134 125, 180 133–136, 175, 194, 207, 224 24, 78, 133, 157, 190, 222 106 190 103, 135, 158 24, 67, 77

INDEX 3:1

3:2–3 3:2–6 3:2 3:3 3:4–5 3:4

3:5

3:6 3:7 3:8

3:9 3:10 3:11

3:12–15

8, 24, 103, 139, 154, 202 123, 136, 138, 151, 175, 194, 207, 223 76 75, 78, 136, 138, 154, 157, 162, 175, 194, 207, 220 75–76, 78, 98, 103, 139, 155, 221–222 106 64, 124, 139, 148, 160, 175, 180, 190, 192, 194, 197, 207, 220, 224 75, 110, 134–136, 138, 175, 180, 193–194, 197– 198, 200, 207, 224 24, 103, 135, 158 24, 96, 103, 154, 185 78, 103, 124, 137, 148, 157, 161– 163, 175, 194, 202, 207, 220, 224 99, 106 77, 98, 124, 148, 162–163, 175, 194, 207, 220, 224 67, 76, 78, 106, 123–124, 131, 136, 139, 148, 151, 175, 180, 194, 200, 207, 223–224 154

259 3:12 3:13 3:14 3:15 3:16–17 3:16 3:17 3:18–19 3:18

3:19–20 3:19–22 3:19

3:20–21 3:20 3:21

3:23 4–21 4–22 4 4:1–11 4:1–22:7 4:1 4:2–3 4:4 4:5 4:8–11

102, 106, 134, 136, 175, 190, 194, 207, 224 103, 135, 158 71, 77, 95, 103, 154 78, 124, 136, 148, 154–155, 157, 162, 175, 194, 202, 207, 224 220 103, 124, 136, 142, 148, 155, 164, 175, 194, 207, 224 64, 141, 198 123, 141, 164, 196, 224 76, 141–142, 180, 223 103 76 98, 141–142, 193, 196, 221 180 124, 142, 148, 169–170, 175, 223–224 25, 75, 97, 103, 106, 134–135, 137, 158, 166, 175, 190, 194, 207, 224 157 158 154, 158 56 72 58, 143 101, 113 103 180 103, 191 103

260 4:8 4:9–10 4:10 4:11 4:12 4:13 5:1 5:2 5:5–6 5:5 5:6–14 5:6 5:7 5:8 5:9–10 5:9

5:10

5:11–14 5:11 5:12 5:13 6–22 6:1–22:7 6:2 6:9–11 6:9

6:10 6:11

6:16–17 6:17 7 7:1–8 7:1–17 7:3 7:3–8

SOTERIOLOGY AS MOTIVATION 95, 185 103 172 96, 160 159 159 103 24, 170 75, 98, 166 75, 96 72 97, 101 103 185 157, 176, 182, 193 97–98, 160, 179, 182, 184, 190, 191–193, 211 97, 99, 106, 182– 183, 192–193 103 24 97 103 152 67 75 71, 99, 125, 147, 149, 161, 166, 180, 191 71, 75, 97, 103, 221, 224 67, 185 101, 151–153, 180, 190, 224 106 24, 106, 170 8, 67, 71, 99 163, 191–193, 210 17, 99 98, 103 185, 203

7:3–9 7:5–8 7:9 7:9–14 7:9–17 7:10 7:13–14 7:13 7:14–15 7:14–17 7:14 7:15–17 7:15 7:16–17 7:16 7:17 8 8–9 8:1–5 8:1 8:2 8:2–5 8:3–4 8:3–5 8:3 8:5 8:7 8:8–11 8:12 9 9:1–11 9:2–5 9:4 9:6 9:11–12 9:18 9:19 9:20 9:20–21

98, 176 98 98 180 72, 104, 191 178–179, 190 180 24 164, 175, 194, 207 165 24, 97, 101, 149, 157, 161, 166, 184, 193 99, 106, 190 99, 103, 124, 148, 156, 193, 221, 224 160 165 103, 165 8 105 72 104 101 125 185 104, 191 98, 110 104 105 105 105 56, 71 105 25 98, 185 24 101 174 101 76, 78, 157, 174 105, 167

INDEX 10 10:1–11:13 10:6–7 10:6 10:7 10:8–11 10:9 11 11–13 11:1–2

11:1–14 11:1 11:2–3 11:2 11:3–6 11:3–7 11:3–13 11:3 11:4 11:5 11:7–10 11:7 11:10 11:12 11:15–19 11:15 11:17 11:18 11:19 12 12:1–13:18 12:2 12:5–6 12:5–12 12:5 12:6 12:7–9 12:7–10 12:7–12 12:9 12:10–11 12:10–12

67 17, 99 104 96, 106, 172 96 98 24 24, 67, 72, 75–76 104 102, 163, 185, 193 71 103 104 102, 185 125 98, 128 99, 191 102 71, 101 103, 170, 185 98 71, 75, 102 128, 146 191 72, 104 106, 172, 189 95, 106, 160 24, 125, 185 104 8, 67, 75 106 96 102 106 97, 117 102, 104, 163, 185 97, 145 125 110 106, 191 184 71–72, 99

261 12:10 12:11

97, 106, 178, 190 71, 75, 97, 103, 149, 151, 157, 165–166, 193 12:12 97, 106, 224 12:14–15 106 12:14–17 163 12:14 102, 104, 185 12:16 185 12:17–13:18 97 12:17 71, 78, 97, 103, 106 13 24, 64, 71 13:1–2 106 13:3–4 100 13:4–8 154 13:4 24, 144 13:5–7 102 13:5–8 144 13:5 102, 104, 106 13:6 101 13:7 75, 102, 106, 149, 158, 185 13:8 95, 100, 136, 144, 176, 185, 193, 203, 210 13:9–10 157–158, 170 13:9 24, 135, 158 13:10 77, 124, 148, 157–159, 185, 224 13:11 106, 158 13:12–14 106 13:12 100 13:14 191 13:15–18 98 13:15 106, 149 13:16–17 98, 100 13:16 72 13:17 170 13:18 101, 157 14 8 14:1–5 72, 106, 190–192 14:1 98

262 14:2 14:3–4 14:3 14:4 14:5 14:6–7 14:7

14:8–20 14:8 14:9–11 14:9 14:10 14:11–12 14:11 14:12 14:13

15 15:1–4 15:1–16:21 15:1 15:2–3 15:2–4 15:2 15:3–4 15:3 15:4 15:5–8 15:6 15:7

SOTERIOLOGY AS MOTIVATION 24, 77 98, 184 150, 193 75, 101 193 76, 110, 211 72–73, 76, 96, 123, 136, 143– 144, 172, 175, 194, 207, 220, 224 125 104 107, 124, 136, 145, 148, 159, 171, 175, 194, 207, 223–224 72, 98, 100, 170 185 101 98, 100, 170 77–78, 124, 148, 157, 175, 185, 224 78, 99, 124, 148– 149, 156–157, 175, 190, 194, 201, 207, 220, 223–224 168 25, 72 104 101, 168, 174 99 168, 191 75, 224 167 67, 146 24, 106, 124, 148, 167, 170, 175, 220, 224 168 174 125, 172

15:8 16 16:1–7 16:2 16:5–7 16:5 16:6 16:7 16:9 16:11 16:12–16 16:13 16:14 16:15

16:17–21 16:18–21 16:19 16:21 17 17:1–19:10 17:1 17:6 17:8

17:9–11 17:9 17:14 17:16 17:17 18 18:1–24 18:2–3 18:2 18:4 18:5 18:6–8

174 24, 75–76 72 72, 98, 100 125 67, 146 24, 98, 149, 185 146 76, 105, 167, 174 78, 105, 157, 167 106 106 101, 104, 106 78, 106, 124, 138, 148, 150–151, 162, 175, 180, 194, 207, 223– 224 104 104 104 174 24, 72, 75 104 125 98, 149, 185 95, 136, 176, 185, 193, 203 101 157 75, 77, 106, 125, 203 104 125 8, 146–147, 191 106 160 104 76, 123, 125, 136, 145, 147, 174– 175, 185, 194, 207, 223–224 146 125, 160

INDEX 18:6 18:8 18:10 18:17 18:18 18:19–21 18:20 18:23–24 18:24 19 19:1–2 19:1–3 19:1–7 19:1–8 19:1 19:2–3 19:2 19:5 19:6–7 19:6–9 19:6 19:7–8 19:7–9 19:7 19:8 19:9

19:10–11 19:10 19:11–16 19:11–21 19:11–21:8 19:13 19:14 19:15–21 19:15 19:19–21 19:19

78, 124, 148, 156–157, 200– 201, 221, 224 125, 174 104 104 24, 170 104 76, 123, 125, 146, 175, 185, 194, 207, 220, 224 160 149, 185 75–77 160 106 191 72 178, 190 104 67, 146 72–73, 76, 98 160 103, 170 106 180 189 76, 106, 147–148 101, 161, 180, 185, 193, 202 106, 124, 148– 149, 175, 194, 207, 224 101 71–73, 103 106 132 104 180 125 100, 178 106, 117 106 104

263 19:20

19:21 20 20–22 20:2–3 20:2 20:3 20:4–5 20:4–6 20:4

20:5–6 20:5 20:6

20:7–9 20:7–10 20:7 20:8 20:9 20:10 20:11–15 20:12–13

20:12 20:13–14 20:13 20:14–15 20:14 20:15 21 21–22 21–22:5 21:1–6 21:1–22:5 21:1 21:2–4

72, 98, 100, 172, 191 132 64, 67, 71 61, 134 100 106 191 100 71, 99, 190–191 71–72, 98, 100, 103, 149, 221 101 100 124, 148–149, 175, 183, 185, 194, 207, 224 103 178 106 24, 104, 191 185 106, 172, 191 106 124, 148, 156– 157, 201, 224 78, 136, 193, 221 167 78, 221 107, 172 179 124, 136, 148, 170, 172–173, 175, 194, 207, 223–224 75–76 165, 191, 201 97 75, 138 137, 177–178, 186, 189 106, 190 106

264 21:2

21:3–4 21:3–7 21:3 21:4 21:5–8 21:5 21:6–7 21:6 21:7–8 21:7 21:8

21:9–26 21:9–22:5 21:9 21:10 21:12 21:14 21:22 21:23 21:24–26 21:27 22 22:1–2 22:1–5 22:1 22:2 22:3–4 22:3 22:4 22:5

22:6–7 22:6–9 22:6

SOTERIOLOGY AS MOTIVATION 136, 185, 189, 190, 193 190 171 165, 178, 185 179 194 106, 190 106 95, 165, 190 136, 138 75, 134, 137–138, 224 74, 106–107, 134, 146, 174 106 190 189 136, 185 96 97 101, 102 165 178 106, 124, 136, 146, 148, 173– 175, 194, 207, 223–224 24, 76 165 106, 171, 189 137, 165, 190 136, 178, 190 165, 190 98 98, 136, 165 136–137, 172, 190 106, 124, 148, 224 25 67, 101, 113, 152

22:7 22:8–9 22:8 22:9 22:10 22:11 22:12 22:13 22:14 22:15 22:16 22:17

22:18–19 22:18 22:19 22:20

24 26 29

78, 124, 148, 150–151, 175, 194, 207, 224 72–73 56 60 106, 124, 148, 152, 220, 224 24, 76, 185 77–78, 106, 124, 148, 151, 156– 157, 162, 201, 224 95 106, 124, 148– 151, 166, 175, 190, 194, 207, 223–224 74, 106–107, 146 96, 136 106, 110, 143, 165, 171, 208 124, 136, 148, 170, 174–175, 194, 207, 223– 224 24 185, 190, 200 106, 124, 148, 152, 224 64 75 24

Apocrypha and Septuagint Baruch 14:13 15:7 44:8–15 83:4–9

109 109 109 109

Sirach 10:19

144

INDEX 16:12 16:14 19:20 23:14 23:27 28:6–7 36:1–17 7:28

156 156 144 126 144 126 201 126

Tobit 13–14 4:21

201 144

Wisdom of Solomon 5:16 131 Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Apocalypse of Abraham 29.17–20 125 2 Baruch 14:13 15:7 15:8 44:8–15 83:4–9

109 109 131, 141 109 109

1 Enoch 24:3–25:6 41:1–2 71:15 89–90 90:19 91:12 95:3 95:7 96:1 98:12

136 156 109 183 125 125 125 125 125 125

2 Enoch 8:3–7

136

265 4 Ezra 7:112–114 7:50 8:1 8:33 8:52

87, 208 109 109 109 156 136

6 Ezra 16:63–67

195

Joseph and Aseneth 15:4 136 Jubilees 23:30 30:22

125 136

4 Maccabees 13:13–15 15:2–3 17:12–18 13:13–15 15:2–3

130, 158 130, 158 131, 141 130 130

Psalms of Solomon 2:16 156 14:2–3 136 14:10 136 17:8 156 Sibylline Oracles 3 201

Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs 201

Testament of Benjamin 3:8 183 Testament of Joseph 19:8 183 Testament of Levi 18:10–11 136

266

SOTERIOLOGY AS MOTIVATION

Dead Sea Scrolls 1QH 9:25 131 1QM 12.2–5 136 1QS 4:7 131

Apostolic Fathers

INDEX OF MODERN AUTHORS

Bell, Albert A. 57 Benoit, William L. 39 Berger, Peter L. 88, 177 Betz, Hans D. 2, 13 Bitzer, Lloyd F. 124 Bloomquist, L. G. 12 Blount, Brian K. 1, 71, 77, 129, 136, 139–140, 150, 152, 162–163, 166, 184 Böcher, Otto 8 Boring, M. Eugene 66, 83, 89– 94, 99–100, 102–103, 107, 165, 177, 188 Brighton, Louis A. 197 Brockriede, Wayne 39 Bruce, Steve 34 Brummett, Barry 109 Brütsch, Charles 103 Bull, Klaus-Michael 47 Burgoon, Judee K. 59 Burgoon, Michael 59 Caird, George Bradford 66, 95, 99, 102, 126, 134–135, 147, 152–153, 162, 166– 167, 172, 177–179, 181, 197, 202 Callahan, Allen D. 28, 69 Callow, John 215–217, 223 Caneday, Ardel B. 199 Carey, Greg 8, 12, 17–18, 26, 31–32, 60, 62, 121 Carr, David 88 Castelfranchi, Cristiano 112 Charles, R. H. 28, 134, 177 Cherniak, Christopher 35

Aberle, David, F. 62 Afzal, Cameron 88, 111, 180, 211 Altink, William 144 Aune, David Edward 1–2, 4, 9, 17, 22–23, 56–58, 74, 102, 105, 123–126, 129, 131–133, 144–146, 154, 162–163, 165, 169, 177, 183, 185, 197 Austin, John L. 28, 28, 48–49, 122 Bandstra, Andrew J. 180, 183, 192 Barker, Margaret 197 Barr, David L. 4, 72, 82, 90, 93, 111, 186–187 Barth, Else M. 49 Bauckham, Richard 4, 18–19, 58, 69–70, 95, 99, 102, 109, 117, 126, 138, 165– 167, 177–178, 183–184 Beagley, Alan J. 102 Beale, Gregory K. 1–3, 5, 8–9, 19, 27, 56–58, 72–73, 95, 98–102, 104–105, 117, 126, 128, 134–137, 141, 144, 147, 158, 161–162, 165, 167, 170, 172, 174, 177–178, 180, 184, 196– 197, 202 Beasley-Murray, George R. 134, 177, 183 Beekman, John 215–217, 223 Beider, W. 148 Beisecker, Thomas D. 54

Martyrdom of Polycarp 17:1 131, 141 19:2 131, 141

INDEX Collins, Adela Yarbro 2, 4, 56– 58, 62–64, 68–69, 104, 177, 187, 189, 194 Collins, John J. 3 Comblin, José 183 Corgan, Verna C. 37 Cothenet, Edouart 103 Cotterell, Peter 46, 215–216, 222 Coutsoumpos, Panayotis 58 Cowan, Joseph L. 39 Cruz, Virgil P. 148 Cupitt, Don 87, 209 Dalrymple, Rob 71, 99 Dearin, Ray D. 37 Debanné, Marc J. 123 Decock, Paul 74, 77, 183, 193, 198, 201–202 Den Dulk, Matthijs 74, 96–97 deSilva, David A. 1, 3–4, 9, 11–13, 15–16, 29, 34, 56– 61, 82, 110, 113, 122–123, 125, 127, 129–132, 139– 140, 143–144, 155, 162– 163, 165, 171, 205 Diefenbach, Manfred 17, 24– 25, 30 Donelson, Lewis R. 13, 123, 177 du Rand, Jan A. 28, 64–65, 177–179, 184–185, 189– 191 Duff, Paul B. 17–18, 60, 62, 109 Dunn, James D. G. 90, 198 Eemeren, Frans H. van 5, 34– 39, 44, 46, 48–50, 52–53, 215 Ehninger, Douglas 39 Ellingworth, Paul 179 Ennis, Robert H. 55 Enroth, Anne-Marit 135, 159 Eriksson, Anders 12 Esler, P. 31

267 Farrer, Austin Marsden 28 Fekkes, Jan 8, 19, 27–28, 117 Fisher, Walter R. 37, 39, 88 Ford, Josephine M. 177, 183, 197 Freeman, James B. 39, 41, 45, 50, 112 Frey, Jörg 113 Friesen, Steven 57, 61, 69 Fuller, J. William 197 Gager, John G. 62, 186–187 Gaines, Elizabeth Ann 3, 68, 189, 201 Geis, Michael L. 168–169, 172–173, 175 Giblin, Charles H. 99, 104, 191 Giesen, Heinz 143 Gitay, Yehoshua 1, 62, 81, 201 Golden, James L. 37 Goodnight, G. Thomas 84 Goodwin, David 37 Grassi, Ernesto 85 Grice, Herbert P. 49 Grootendorst, Rob 5, 34–39, 44, 46, 48–50, 52–53, 215 Gundry, Robert H. 178, 190 Guttesen, Poul F. 94, 110, 113, 200 Habermas, Jürgen 84 Hamblin, Charles L. 53 Harland, Philip A. 69 Harman, Gilbert 35 Harrington, Wilfrid J. 103, 177 Hartman, Lars 2 Hays, Richard B. 6, 89–92 Hellholm, David 2–3, 123, 194, 205 Hemer, Colin J. 3, 8, 55, 57, 64, 170 Henkemans, Francisca Snoeck 5, 34–39, 44, 46, 48–50, 52–53, 215 Hitchcock, David 5, 39, 44–45 Holloway, Paul A. 123

268

SOTERIOLOGY AS MOTIVATION

Holtz, Traugott 77, 201–202 Homcy, Stephen L. 6, 74 Humphrey, Edith M. 28 Jackson, Sally 49 Jacobs, Scott 49 Janik, Allan 39, 41–44, 53, 83– 84 Jauhiainen, Marko 105 Johns, Loren L. 17, 21–22, 29, 77, 121, 183–184 Johnson, Ralph H. 38, 48, 50, 52–53, 177 Johnstone, Henry W. 35 Jonsen, Albert R. 30 Jürgen C. H. Lebram 57, 84, 183 Kallas, J. 67, 185–186 Keener, Craig 56–57, 99–100, 102–103, 129, 131, 136, 140, 162, 172, 174, 197 Kennard, Douglas W. 184, 192 Kennedy, George A. 11–14, 55, 83, 85–86, 127 Kienpointner, Manfred 37 Kirby, John T. 17, 22, 28–29, 122, 160, 215 Kistemaker, Simon J. 99–100, 102, 104 Kline, Susan L. 37 Klumpp, James F. 44 Knight, Jonathan M. 6, 57–58 Kock, Christian 30 Koester, Craig R. 66, 99, 102– 103 Kooy, Vernon H. 72 Krabbe, Erik C. W. 49 Kraft, Heinrich 29 Kraus, Manfred 31 Kraybill, J. Nelson 66, 69–70, 77 Krodel, Gerhard, A. 180 Kurz, William 123 Ladd, George E. 99–100, 102, 162

Lancellotti, Angelo 29 Langsdorf, Lenore 39 Lee, Michelle V. 34 Lindsey, James J. 39 Lohmeyer, Ernst 186 Lohse, Eduard 102, 162, 197 Loisy, Alfred 129 Longenecker Bruce W., 6, 17, 25, 89 Longman, Tremper III 132 Lorenzen, Paul 49 Louw, Johannes P. 133, 217– 222 Luckmann, Thomas 88, 117 Maier, Harry O. 20, 100 Malina, Bruce J. 183 Maneli, M. 37 Mangina, Joseph L. 99, 103– 104 Manning, Rita, C. 7, 116–117 McNicol, Allan J. 167, 178 McPeck, John 38 Mead, James K. 209 Measell, James, S. 37 Meeks, Wayne A. 2, 74, 82, 211 Michaels, J. Ramsey 144, 177 Miller, Gerald R. 59 Miller, Patrick D. 132 Minear, Paul S. 137, 190 Mitchell, Margaret M. 13–14, 104, 197 Montgomery, James A. 28 Moo, Douglas, J. 202 Moores, John D. 123 Morris, Leon 177 Morton, Russell, S. 68 Moss, Jean D. 30 Mounce, Robert, H. 56, 95, 104, 126, 144, 147, 167, 172, 177 Mowry, Lucetta 72 Müller, Ulrich B. 178

INDEX Murphy, Frederick J. 129, 162– 163, 197 Mussies, Gerhard 28 Neufeld, Edmund K. 202 Nida, Eugene A. 133, 215, 217–222 Nikolakopoulos, Konstantin 17, 24 Nwachukwu, Oliver O. 70, 148, 150 O’Banion, John D. 7, 115 O’Keefe, Daniel J. 54 O’Leary, Stephen D. 31–34, 62, 67, 121, 187–188 O’Rourke, John 72 Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. 35, 52 Olbricht, Thomas H. 12 Osborne, Grant R. 67, 76, 126–127, 129, 134–136, 140, 143–144, 146, 149– 150, 153–154, 157, 162– 163, 166–167, 170, 177, 184, 197 Owens, Wil L. 199 Ozanne, C. G. 28, 56 Paglieri, Fabio 111 Parson, Donn W. 54 Pate, Marvin C. 184, 192 Pattemore, Stephen 4, 31–32, 34, 46 Penley, Paul T. 7 Perelman, Chaim 6, 13, 35–38, 45, 52, 85, 206 Perry, Peter S. 4, 17, 69 Peters, Olutola K. 2, 6, 71–72, 74, 76 Peterson, David G. 72, 91 Pilch, John J. 31 Pilotta, Joseph J. 37 Pinto, Robert C. 45 Porter, Stanley E. 26 Poythress, Vern S. 71 Prigent, Pierre 72, 129, 163 Rad, Gerhard von 132

269 Räpple, Eva Maria 26 Reddish, Mitchell G. 103–104, 197 Redditt, Paul L. 32 Reid, Daniel G. 132 Rescher, Nicholas 210 Resseguie, James L. 93, 104 Rieke, Richard 39, 41–44, 53, 83–84 Rissi, Mathias 8, 94, 101–103, 106, 108–109, 178, 192 Robbins, Vernon K. 16, 123 Rochette, Joël 177, 179 Roloff, Jürgen 57, 183, 197 Rossing, Barbara R. 17, 23, 149, 205 Rowland, Christopher 57, 177, 198 Royalty, Robert M. 8, 17, 19– 20, 29, 60, 63, 66, 82, 92– 93, 118 Schrage, Wolfgang 74, 175, 193 Schreiner, Thomas R. 199 Schroeder, Christopher 45, 47 Schüssler Fiorenza, Elisabeth 1, 8, 11–12, 14–15, 55–56, 64–68, 109, 117–118, 148, 153, 117–178, 180, 182– 184, 187, 191–192, 196– 198, 205 Searle, John R 48–49, 122 Seibold, D. R. 37 Seiss, Joseph A. 197 Shepherd, Massey 72 Sherwin–White, A. N. 62 Shin, Eun–Chul 74, 134, 190 Siegel, Harvey 45 Siegert, Folker 35, 53 Slater, Thomas B. 65 Slob, Wouter H. 50 Smalley, Stephen S. 56, 129, 132, 144, 162–163, 165, 169–170, 172, 174

270

SOTERIOLOGY AS MOTIVATION

Smith, Charles R. 196, 198 Smith, Ian 29, 31, 33–34, 53, 151, 205 Smith, Robert H. 63 Spano, Eric Joseph 177, 197 Stanley, Alan P. 26, 87, 202 Stewart, Alexander E. 87, 199, 202 Stone, Michael E. 208 Stuhlmacher, Peter 209 Sweet, John P. M. 34, 62, 99, 102–103, 132, 169, 171– 172, 178, 197 Talbert, Charles H. 102, 172, 177, 183, 185, 193, 195, 197, 202 Thompson, Leonard 62–63, 72–73, 177 Thompson, Steven 28 Thurén, Lauri 26, 31, 35, 38, 45–48, 51, 54, 133, 140, 215, 217, 221 Tonstad, Sigve K. 67, 93 Toulmin, Stephen 5–7, 30–31, 35, 37–48, 50, 53, 55, 78, 83–86, 112, 123–124, 140, 150, 194, 206–207, 212, 224 Turner, Max 46, 215–216, 222

Übelacker, Walter 12 van Kooten, George H. 57 Verheij, Bart 5, 39, 45 Viertel, Weldon E. 13 Voss, James F. 40 Walton, Douglas N. 35, 46, 50, 53, 210 Walton, John 4 Warnick, Barbara 37, 39 Weinstein, Mark 39, 45 Wenzel, Joseph W. 39, 84–85 Wilder, Amos N. 8 Willard, Charles A. 45 Wintgens, Luc J. 37 Witherington, Ben, III. 1, 9– 11, 17, 20–21, 31, 56–57, 65, 70, 89, 91, 95, 99–100, 103, 113, 121, 165–166, 197 Witulski, Thomas 57 Wohlrapp, Harold 39 Woods, John 46, 53, 210 Wright, Nicholas T. 7, 87, 90, 92 Yost, Mary 51 Young, Richard A. 122, 168– 169 Zhang, Zheng-Sheng 168–169, 172–173, 175

INDEX OF SUBJECTS

52 Aristotle 12, 22, 27, 32, 113, 123 Asia Minor 59, 61, 66–67, 77 Asian churches 21, 61, 63, 65 Babylon 18–19, 23, 76, 78, 104–105, 109, 125, 145– 147, 156–157, 174, 191, 198 Balaam 58, 60–61, 78, 96, 98, 131, 154 Beast 60, 72, 75, 97–98, 102,

Aelius Theon of Alexandria 12 altar 64, 75 Antipas 64, 77 Apocalypse writing of 97–98 sending of 97 Argumentation argumentation analysis 5, 7, 11–13, 26–27, 30–32, 34, 37–38, 48, 78, 123, 206–207, 212, 224 persuasive argumentation

INDEX 106, 143–145, 154, 157, 167, 172, 188, 191, 213 mark of 65, 100, 109, 159– 160, 171 second beast 19, 158 bowls 104, 114, 164 chiastic arrangement 14, 24, 27, 146 Christ 18, 61, 64–71, 75–77, 83, 92, 94–97, 101–103, 108, 110, 128, 130–137, 139–140, 149, 156–157, 160, 163, 165–166, 170, 179, 182, 189, 192, 196, 198, 200–202 return of 5, 74, 82, 86, 99– 100, 104, 106–107, 111, 114, 125–126, 138, 152– 153, 176, 180, 185–186, 188, 190, 203, 205–206, 209 denial of 59 Cicero 12, 17, 30 crown of life 129–131, 140– 141, 180, 190, 200 death second death 109, 136, 190, 194 decision making 51, 53, 88, 144, 152 declarations of blessedness 124, 148– 151, 159, 175, 194, 207 of imminence 124, 144, 148, 151–152, 224 Domitian 57, 62, 64 door, knocking on 142, 169 ethos 13, 16–17, 21–22, 51–52, 60, 83, 121, 127 ekphrasis 19, 23, 195 emotional appeals 51, 53, 82, 116, 118, 121, 210 Ephesus 3, 76–77, 127–128, 139, 154

271 false prophet 19 goals epideictic 16 deliberative 16 Heracles 23 Heilsgeschichte 91 Hermogenes of Tarsus 12 Jezebel 18–19, 58, 60–61, 78, 96, 98, 154 John and hyperbole 24 oxymoron 24 paradox 22, 24, 73 rhetorical question 1, 11, 24–25, 55–56, 66, 167 irony 19–20, 24 antistrophe 24 chiasmus 24 paronomasia 24 lamb blood of 75, 97, 165–167, 182–184, 192–193 bride of 103, 109, 147, 189 death of 75, 77, 95, 97, 165–166, 213 marriage of 149, 189 Passover 182 symbolism 21–22 logos / logoi 13, 16, 21–22, 51, 88, 115, 121–122, 206 Laodicea 63, 76, 78, 141–142, 154, 169–170, 196, 198 Lucian of Samosta 25 macarism 148–150, 158–159, 220, 223–224 martyrdom 21, 64, 66, 68, 98, 101, 134, 149, 158–159, 166 Millerite movement 33 millenarian movement 31, 62 amillenialism 100 premillenialism 100 Nero 57 New Jerusalem 19, 23, 65, 74,

272

SOTERIOLOGY AS MOTIVATION

96, 114, 137, 146, 150, 173, 176, 188–91, 193 Nicolatians 78 overcoming of the beast 75, 102 of Christ 75, 78 pragma-dialectics 48–49 externalization 49 socialization 49 functionalization 49 dialectification 49 perseverance 6, 59, 74, 76–79, 98, 114, 125, 149, 158, 169, 176, 185, 188, 193, 195, 201, 205, 207, 211, 213 paraenesis 2 Pergamum 3, 64, 76, 78, 96, 131–132, 154 parousia 102, 152, 170, 186 persuasion 11, 27, 29–30, 51– 54, 83, 85–86, 113, 117, 121 pathos 13, 16–17, 21–22, 51–53, 83, 121 parataxis 27 parallelism 27, 75 parallel structures 27 Patmos 69, 97 Philadelphia 65, 78, 140, 163 plagues 105, 110, 145, 168, 174 Quintilian 7, 12, 17–18, 25, 115–116, 123 repentance 6, 24, 59, 64, 74– 76, 78–79, 98, 105, 107, 114, 125, 128–129, 131– 132, 139, 141, 149, 169, 176, 195, 201, 205, 207, 211, 213 relativism 36, 45–46 Relevance Theory 31–32, 46 resistance 65, 187 non-violent 22, 77, 183 robes 97, 161, 180

washing of 151, 165–167 Roman Empire 17, 20, 64, 66, 145, 191, 196 Roman culture 20, 63–64, 70 imperial cult 69–70, 171, 207 propaganda 69–70 rhetoric epideictic 12, 14, 16, 20–21 Greco-Roman rhetorical tradition 11–13, 17, 21, 24, 27–28, 78, 212 Hebrew rhetorical devices 24–27 of religion 85–86 sacrifice expiatory sacrifice 21 food sacrificed to idols 40– 42, 64, 131 salvation eschatological 3, 110, 151, 162, 175, 178, 187, 195– 196 of saints 188–189 loss of 129, 175, 196–197, 200 seals 92, 103–104, 114, 164 sin 22, 74, 109, 145–147, 179, 183–184, 202–203, 208 Sardis 19, 64, 76, 78, 139, 160 Satan 19, 60, 94, 97–98, 100, 103, 106–107, 109–110, 140, 191 sexual immorality 64, 74 Smyrna 64–65, 77, 140 speech-act theory 48–49, 55, 122, 168 symbolic language 4, 88, 105, 117, 138, 141 synkrisis 19, 23, 70 temple 19, 101, 136, 190 measuring of 102–103 theodicy 32, 67

INDEX Thyatira 3, 64, 76–78, 96, 154 testing of prophecy 60 tribulation 14, 59, 62, 64–67, 77, 79, 98, 101, 129–130, 137, 165–167, 184–185, 189 Verbal argumentation indicators 5, 215–216, 218 vulnerability 21, 183 violence 21–23 whore 23, 60 universal audience 36, 52 witnesses 71, 75, 77, 99, 102– 103, 146, 166, 196 worship of God 5–6, 70–76, 99, 103, 107, 114, 125, 143– 145, 159, 167, 172, 186, 189, 193, 200–202, 205, 211, 213 woman in the wilderness 102

273