32 Two others—criminals—were also led away to be executed with him. 33 When they arrived at the place called The Skull, they crucified him there, along with the criminals, one on the right and one on the left. 34 Then Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, because they do not know what they are doing.” And they divided his clothes and cast lots.
35 The people stood watching, and even the leaders were scoffing: “He saved others; let him save himself if this is God’s Messiah, the Chosen One!” 36 The soldiers also mocked him. They came offering him sour wine 37 and said, “If you are the king of the Jews, save yourself!”
38 An inscription was above him: This Is the King of the Jews.
~Luke 23.32-38
Title: On the Crucifixion and Why It Matters at Christmas Text: Luke 23.32-38 Series: Who is Jesus? A Study of the Gospel of Luke Church: South Caraway Baptist Church, Jonesboro, AR Date: December 18, 2022
It is commonly accepted wisdom among most Christians that the Book of Revelation is the hardest book of the Bible to interpret and understand, and it certainly does stand out as one of the most unique books of the New Testament. Those who do attempt to read it are immediately confronted by literary forms, images and symbols, and pastoral concerns that are so unlike their own lived experiences that they tend to put it down faster than they picked it up. Couple this with the myriad of disagreements that exist over the meaning of all these details, and it seems easier to simply leave this book of the Bible to the domain of trained Biblical scholars. However, the book itself affirms, “Blessed is the one who reads aloud the words of this prophecy, and blessed are those who hear the words of this prophecy and keep what is written in it, because the time is near.” (Revelation 1.3) So, when we neglect and ignore this final book of the Bible, we miss out on the blessing that it very clearly promises. But how do we overcome the intimidating and off-putting obstacles that keep us from drinking deeply from its pages?
When we are met with an interpretive challenge like the Book of Revelation, we must return to our basic hermeneutical convictions, those fundamental interpretive principles that help us navigate the Scriptural waters. And one of those rules that is particularly helpful for understanding the Book of Revelation is this: A text without a context is a pretext for a proof text. In other words, when we understand who the biblical author is writing to and why he is writing to them, we are in a better position to understand what he is saying. Or to put it another way, the meaning of the text must be grounded in the inspired intention of the biblical author. He is writing to real people with real needs, and he intends for his message to truly address those needs. If we come up with an interpretation that would make zero sense for the original audience, then we must reevaluate our understanding of the text. Of course, any reconstruction of the historical audience must begin with the details in the text, but historical sources from the time period can add additional detail to our understanding of the audience and their situation.
Fortunately for us, John identifies his intended audience directly; in chapter 1, verse 11, we read, “Write on a scroll what you see and send it to the seven churches: Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea.” We must affirm that these were seven real churches that were located in the Roman province of Asia Minor, or what we would call modern day Turkey. Each one of these seven churches is addressed directly in the letters of chapters 2 and 3, but the author’s concern for these churches cannot be limited to these first few chapters, even if they are primary for understanding the particular needs of these churches. The entire book was written to and for the members of these seven churches of Asia Minor. As to the date of writing, there are two views that are held by biblical scholars. The majority view holds that the book was written during the reign of the Emperor Domitian (81-96 CE); the minority view suggests that the book was written during the reign of the Emperor Nero (54-68 CE). Either of these dates is possible for the book’s composition, but a review of the historical evidence slightly favors the later date, meaning that the Book of Revelation was probably written sometime around 95 CE.
Regardless of which date is preferred, it is clear that these seven churches were facing challenges both internally and externally. These Christians were living in a world that was openly hostile to their faith in Christ, and while there was no official imperial policy of persecution at this time, they were facing intense social pressure in their local communities to compromise their convictions and conform to the Roman way of life. Culturally, they simply had no where to belong. The Jews had rejected them, and the Gentiles would not accept them. They were ostracized marginalized outsiders who did not belong to the world they lived in. And Jesus is writing to them through John to encourage them to persevere in faithfulness, to hold on to the blessed hope that is His appearing. The Revelation is a reminder that they are part of something bigger than themselves, that the victory and vindication that they long for is ahead of them, and that there will be a day when all oppression shall cease. This is the message of Revelation. It is not about beasts and bowls; rather, it is about Christ, our King, who is coming again in glory and power to do away with sin once and for all and establish His perfect Kingdom on earth.
Of course, there are those who would disagree with this assessment of the message of Revelation. Some, particularly those who hold to an early date for the book, would suggest that part or perhaps all of the book was fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. Problems with the early date notwithstanding, it is not clear how this understanding addresses the needs of Christians living in the Roman province of Asia Minor. As noted above, they were facing persecution from the Jews living in those cities, but Jerusalem was not the primary enemy that they were facing. In fact, the Book of Revelation makes it clear that while earthly enemies may affect us, they are not our ultimate foe anyway. Therefore, the destruction Jerusalem would hold little promise for bringing their persecution to an end and accomplishing the victory that the book promises. Further, it isn’t clear how the book’s descriptions of “all the nations”, “all those who live on the face of the earth”, and “the whole earth” can refer only to the people of Israel or the citizens of Jerusalem. So, while this view attempts to maintain the book’s relevance for the original audience by positing all fulfillment in the first century, in actuality, it does the exact opposite. In fact, it completely undercuts the hope and blessing that the book promises its readers, both in the first century and today.
The Book of Revelation paints a glorious and beautiful picture of the hope that is ours in Christ Jesus. It is the promise of a world that is free from the contamination of sin, free from the heavy burden of the curse, free from all opposition to Christ and His people. As Christians, we must remember that this is our blessed hope. This world’s troubles and difficulties are not the end of our story; no, we are part of something that is bigger than ourselves, an eternal story that far surpasses our momentary lives here on earth. Moreover, the Book of Revelation teaches us that our sufferings, our difficulties, our heartaches, they matter deeply to God. He takes note of every wrong, every insult that we suffer, and one day, He will right those wrongs and vindicate His people. This is the central message of Revelation. Of course, the difference is in the details as they say, and there are still many details within the pages of Revelation that we must wrestle with. But this is the point, we must wrestle with them. We cannot ignore or neglect this last book of the Bible simply because it is too challenging, too difficult, too different. We must explore with our minds and our hearts what the Spirit is saying to His church. We must pray that He will give us ears to hear, and when we engage this book in earnest, we may be confident that we will find the strength to persevere and hold fast in hope.
For further study, see Osborne, Grant R. Revelation. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2002.
Charles-André van Loo’s 18th-century Augustine arguing with Donatists
I once was told by a well meaning deacon in a church that I previously pastored that my preaching was not “spirit led”. Now, in the interest of transparency, at that time, for the AM services I was ordering my preaching schedule by the traditional Christian calendar and selecting my texts from the Revised Common Lectionary. For my reasoning on this, see my posts here and here. And for the PM services, I was preaching expositionally verse-by-verse through the Minor Prophets. My purpose in this post is not to defend myself against the criticism; it was perhaps well intended. Rather, I would like to examine the underlying presupposition that informs such a critique.
In many rural Bible-Belt churches, it is usually assumed that being “spirit led” is synonymous with spontaneity, that the preacher who is “led by the Spirit” receives a direct word from the Lord to be preached to the church every week. To put it another way, it is the spiritual perception of the preacher that informs and empowers the preaching task rather than the systematic study of Holy Scripture. In its most egregious expression, I have seen many a preacher step into the pulpit and cast his prepared sermon aside, explaining that God had given him another sermon just a few moments before during the song service.
The problem with this kind of perspective on preaching is that it locates the efficacy of preaching in the preacher, in his spirituality, in his perceptivity and attunement to the voice of the Spirit. It removes the power of preaching from the inspired Word of God and puts it in the experience of the “so-called” man of God. As the Apostle Paul would say, “May it never be!”
Of course, this is not a new question in the life of the church; after all, there is nothing new under the sun (Eccl 1.9). This same issue had to be addressed in the early church, and at that time it was called Donatism, so named after Donatus Magnus, who was consecrated as Bishop of Carthage in 313 AD. Beginning in 303 AD, the Emperor Diocletian issued a series of edicts rescinding the legal rights of Christians in the Roman Empire and demanding that they comply with traditional pagan worship practices. This time period is now known as the “Great Persecution”, because this was the last and most severe persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire before Constantine issued the Edict of Milan in 313 AD, essentially legalizing Christianity.
However, during that ten year period of persecution, rather than become martyrs, some Christian priests capitulated to the persecution and surrendered their copies of Holy Scripture as a token repudiation of their faith. These traditores, as they were later called, were eventually reinstated to their ministerial service, but the validity of their continued ministry was questioned by Donatus and his followers. In other words, the Donatists argued that the administration of the sacraments by traditores was invalidated by their previous moral compromise. This position became known as ex opere operantis, which is Latin for “from the work of the worker”, meaning that the validity of the ministry depended on the worthiness of the bishop performing it.
It was the great theologian Augustine, Bishop of Hippo from 396-430 AD, that was the most vocal opponent of the Donatists. In his seven volume work On Baptism, Against the Donatists, he argued for the counter position ex opere operato, which is Latin for “from the work worked”, meaning that the validity of the ministry rests not in the one who performs it but in the finished work of Christ and is guaranteed by the promise of God. In other words, the efficacy of God’s grace is not dependent upon the human vessel offering it but on the power of God to affect change in the one who receives it. This position eventually won the day, and the Donatists were subsequently condemned by the church as heretics.
Coming back to our original question as to the efficacy and power of preaching, the assumption that this is based on the spirituality of the preacher is not unlike the heresy of the Donatists. It puts the power in the man instead of putting it where it belongs, which is in the Spirit inspired Word of God. As the Apostle Paul reminds us, “All Scripture is inspired by God and is profitable for teaching, for rebuking, for correcting, for training in righteousness.” (2 Tim 3.16), and as God promises through the prophet Isaiah, “my word that comes from my mouth will not return to me empty, but it will accomplish what I please and will prosper in what I send it to do.” (Isa 55.11)
So, instead of placing the blame on our pastors for ineffective and powerless preaching, maybe we should turn the question back on ourselves and ask if we are open to receiving what the Spirit has already said in His Word. As long as the Word of God is being faithfully and accurately proclaimed, then the responsibility falls to the hearers to respond accordingly. Therefore, let us pray that the Spirit will give us the eyes to see, the ears to hear, and the heart to receive what He is saying to the church through His inspired Word!
Faith seeking Understanding 