Psalm 2 and the Book of Revelation 3

I've been trying to read Revelation with Psalm 2 glasses on.

4) Passages which follow the pattern of Psalm 2

Psalm 2 gives us the following pattern War/Persecution > Vindication/Enthronement / > Warnings/Blessings.

E.g. A united world makes war against God and Christ (1-3) > God responds in wrath by establishing (thereby vindicating him although he is rejected) his King/Christ/Son (4-6) who will judge/rule the nations (7-9) > warnings and blessings given accordingly (10-12).

There are many passages of Revelation which follow this same pattern or part of it.

11:7-13: The beast wars against God’s witnesses and kills them (and the world is apparently united in rejoicing about this), God raises them from the dead to his throne room (thereby vindicating them).

12:1-6: The Dragon wars/persecutes/tries to kill the offspring of the woman who is the King from Psalm 2, who is subsequently snatched up to the heavenly throne (thus himself enthroned).

13:1-14:13: Various wars/persecutions on God’s people are engineered by the beasts (13). Next we see the Lamb/Son and all the other sons of God standing on Mount Zion (14:1-5 cf. Psalm 2:6-7). Warnings and promises of blessing follow (14:6-13).

16:14-21: Kings unite to war against God, God proclaims from the temple (Zion again!) that ‘it is done’ and God’s enemies are judged with the fury of God’s wrath (cf. Psalm 2:5, 12).

See also 17:13ff (to probably the end of 19 or maybe 20:6 or maybe the end of the book with the description of the New Jerusalem and the blessings and warnings of 21) which seems to follow the same pattern.

John evidently saw the 'persecution > enthronement' pattern of Psalm 2 in the life/death/resurrection of Jesus himself (as did the rest of the apostles, see Acts 4:23-31) and as somehow normative for subsequent kingdom/church-history, with himself (and Christians in general perhaps, given 12:11) in the shoes of the Psalmist - proclaiming warnings and blessings. Psalm 2 tells the story of the Messiah, the Messiah's people and the Messiah's Kingdom.

Psalm 2 and the Book of Revelation 2

I've been trying to read Revelation with Psalm 2 glasses on

3. Themes and Allusions

These vary in how specifically they echo Psalm 2 (i.e. I’m pretty convinced they do so intentionally, but judge for yourself).

The world united in revolt (Psalm 2:1-3): See 11:10, 13:3 and 7-14, 16:14, 17:13-14, 19:19. Two things strike me as interesting here in the way John draws on Psalm 2; first is the role which the beast and the dragon play in unifying the world and second is the way that the revolt against Christ is manifested in persecution/war against his people/saints/prophets.

God’s terrifying wrath (Psalm 2:5): See 6:15-17, 11:13. We should note that in Psalm 2 God’s wrath is manifested in his declaration that he’s established his King on Zion (Psalm 2:6), see 11:15-18 (a passage saturated in Psalm 2 allusions) and 14:1.

The swiftness of Judgment (Psalm 2:12): Psalm 2 warns that the Son’s ‘wrath is quickly kindled’ and Revelation 18 echoes this idea of swift and unexpected judgment, see 18:7, 8, 9, 10, 17, 19. The target is Babylon, which is associated with (but not the same as) the kings of the earth in 17:2 and 18:9.

The ‘Gospel Call’ (Psalm 2:10-12): This is echoed in the eternal gospel of 14:7 and the global reign of the Lord God Almighty in 15:3-4.

The Beattitude (Psalm 2:12): The ‘blessed are’ formula crops up all over Revelation (yes there are seven, none of them directly quote from Psalm 2, several of them come after ‘Psalm-2-esque’ proclamations of judgment and or warning), see 1:3, 14:13, 16:15, 19:9, 20:6, 22:7, 22:14. The ‘refuge’ is perhaps alluded to in 7:15.

Psalm 2 and the Book of Revelation

One of the courses I’m doing this semester is on Biblical Theology and the Book of Revelation. Part of the out-of-class work involves reading Revelation at least once a week.

This week David Field suggested we read Revelation with Psalm 2 in our minds. For my benefit/thinking processes I’m going to blog some of the references and allusions I’ve spotted, and, who knows, maybe others will find it helpful too.

1. Direct Quotations and Near-Quotations

2:26-27, 12:5, 11:18, 19:15. Three of the four (all except 11:18) reference the reign of the Son in ruling the nations 'with a rod of iron'. I reckon 2:26-27 especially is worth a good look where this is extended to the one who overcomes.

Plus all the times ‘Kings of the earth’ appears (see below).

2. Characters

The main characters of Psalm 2 are big players in Revelaton as well

The Kings of the Earth (Psalm 2:2): These Kings are mentioned all over the book, although interestingly enough, the phrase ‘kings of the earth’ is used seven times, see 1:5, 6:15, 17:2, 17:18, 18:9, 19:19 and 21:24-26. (NB. While we're on the subject, its worth thinking about why most contemporary preaching I've heard on Psalm 2 moves very quickly from the Kings of the earth to the whole world being in revolt against God and Christ. This of course is true and is taught in the Psalm (Psalm 2:1), however, the Psalm (and apparently Revelation) have a special emphasis upon the political rulers of the nations. Why is that?)

God and his Christ/Son (Psalm 2:2, 6 and 11-12): Psalm 2 portrays the rule of the Christ (‘anointed’) as being God’s own rule. Similarly Revelation characteristically talks of the joint rule of the Christ (or the Lamb, who is seen to be the Davidic King of Psalm 2 in Rev 5) and God in for e.g. 3:21, 6:15-17, 11:15, 22:3. An interesting line of investigation would be to think why John usually uses ‘Lamb’ to describe the Christ in these passages?

The Psalmist/Prophet (Psalm 2:1-7, especially 10-12): John is commissioned, as the Psalmist before him, to prophesy against national Kings (10:11).

Not sure what all of this means yet, except that it means the events of Revelation are a fulfilment of Psalm 2.

The Reformed are Reforming

THIS is interesting. May the Lord, in time, do something similar here.

Playing the Numbers Game

Aubrey Malphurs helpfully advises church planters not to ‘overemphasize or denigrate numerical growth’[1].

I suspect it’s the denigrating numerical growth that English-born ‘conservative’ evangelicals like me find all too easy. Hence our instant suspicion of anything big and visionary that talks in 'success' language (i.e. anything American).

But here’s the fact of the matter: numerical growth matters.

Perhaps you’ve heard it said ‘it’s not numerical growth that counts but spiritual growth’. Of course, the reality is that both spiritual growth and numerical growth matter, and the two shouldn't be divorced.

God wants to save large numbers of people.
We could go to many bible texts to show this, from the uncountable multitude in Revelation 7 to the dramatic harvest in the parable of the sower (Mark 4). We should pray, plan, and work for numerical growth.

Of course this should be qualified by a thousand qualifications about how dangerous it can be to focus on numbers. The trouble is that sometimes the importance of numerical growth is suffocated under a pile of qualifications and we sit on our conservative bottoms not going for numerical growth all the while patting ourselves on the back for not being like 'other men' (usually Hybels and Warren). So I’m not going to mention the warnings and dangers of going for numerical growth because if you’re

a. English or
b. Conservative evangelical

you’ve already thought of them all!

Since every extra number represents a person in the new earth instead of hell, how can numbers not matter? Since part of the God-honouring wonder of the eschatological Church is its sheer size, how can numbers not matter?

God wants his saved people to become like Christ.
Actually, this is an important part of the nature of the salvation of God – that his people are transformed into true human beings in the likeness (and for the everlasting glory) of his Son, Jesus Christ the second Adam, the true Israel, the Author and Finisher of our faith. So of course we must invest our time in growing in maturity in Him. And since God’s people must persevere and grow if they are to make their calling and election sure, true numerical growth that counts into eternity cannot be divorced from growth in maturity.

The answer is not either or, but how to make sure we integrate the two, as a growing church must aim for maturity or else its growth will amount to nothing, and as a maturing church that wants to continue maturing must aim to keep growing.

[1] Aubrey Malphurs, Planting Growing Churches for the 21st Century (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1992) p.63

Ever read anything good on the Song of Songs?

This should be more than worth a read (warning, it's quite long as it's a masters dissertation). Elsewhere on the blogosphere it is being rated as the best thing around on the Song of Songs. And, knowing the author and her general premise on this sadly neglected book of the bible, I'm guessing it probably is. It's a pdf file so don't know if that creates problems for mac users or not.

Mars Hill Church

Following on from the previous post, this church looks interesting. Mars Hill Church Seattle is pastored by Mark Driscoll, and defines itself as in some ways an emerging church whilsts wanting to be distanced from the theological liberalism elsewhere in the movement (Mark seems to be basically Reformed Evangelical in his thinking as far as I can tell, with some Charismatic stuff thrown in for good measure). Apparently Don Carson recommended two books by Mark at a recent conference as combining good theology and practice with respect to the whole Emerging Church issue.

The Emerging Church

I recently finished reading Don Carson’s ‘Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church’ (snappy title again from the Don). My interest in the book stems from

a. My interest in Church Planting, particularly in planting churches that will reach out to ‘dechurched’ and ‘unchurched’ people groups in the UK.

b. My interest in ecclesiology (doctrine of the Church). What does it mean to be the Church? What are the non-negotiables, what is ‘up for grabs’?

These combined mean I have come across Emerging Church ideas over the years, since the movement is, by and large, an attempt to re-think Church in the light of postmodernism. In interacting with ‘Emergent’ and ‘Fresh Expressions’ material I have been both stimulated and alarmed. Both of these ‘movements’ seem to be asking so many of the right questions, yet all the while coming up with some pretty bad answers.

The book is well-written and being taken at least partially from addresses given at various times this helps hold Carson back from using too many big words (except perhaps in chapter 4).

Carson starts by identifying the Emerging Church Movement (Chapter 1) as being characterised by protest against modernism, traditional evangelicalism (in its cultural conservatism), and the seeker-sensitive/megachurch movement, often linking the three under the heading of how the church has woefully capitulated to modernism (p.41). This definition shapes the discussion from there onwards, with Carson asserting that the movement must be assessed on the accuracy of its reading of contemporary culture and the scriptures. He then hints at his conclusion by asking

‘Is there at least some danger that what is being advocated is not so much a new kind of Christian in a new emerging church, but a church that is so submerging itself in the culture that it risks hopeless compromise.’ (p.44)

That the Emerging Church Movement is in exactly such a danger is what Carson goes on to assert in the rest of the book. So, having identified the strengths of the movement and commended them for attempting to engage with modern culture (often with evangelistic concerns) in chapter 2, Carson goes on to argue that emerging church leaders have misread modernism (and Christianity that is influenced by modernist thought) and uncritically looked to postmodernism (which he also argues they have read simplistically) as the antidote (chapter 3). Then in the fourth chapter Carson sets forward his own analysis of postmodernism and its ‘contribution and challenges’. This essentially boils down to a distinction between 'hard' and 'soft' postmodernism; hard postmodernism being the really dangerous one since it says we must either be omniscient and thus knowing all things completely, or ignorant, knowing absolutely (!) nothing (and since we are not omniscient therefore we know nothing, and cannot be absolute or certain about nothing).

In chapter 5 he applies this thinking to the Emergent Church movement arguing that it ‘vehemently denounces modernism, but offers nothing very penetrating when it comes to postmodernism’ (p. 125) and has consequently failed to distinguish between the positive criticisms of modernism that postmodernism makes and the false dichotomy of hard postmodernism. This means the movement is characterised by a dislike of certainties and absolute truth-claims, an avoidance of difficult truth-related questions, and a failure to handle scripture responsibly and let it be the final arbiter in matters of truth and falsehood. As the final stroke in his analysis of the movement in chapter 6, Carson examines two books by prominent emerging church leaders (Brian McLaren’s Generous Orthodoxy and Steve Chalke’s The Lost Message of Jesus) and from them ably illustrates the weaknesses from chapter 5. Both writer’s redefinitions of judgment, repentance, the atonement and sin lead Carson to conclude

‘I have to say, as kindly but as forcefully as I can, that to my mind, if words mean anything, both McLaren and Chalke have largely abandoned the gospel.’ (p.186)

In seeking to correct errors in some evangelical thinking and practice (cultural conservatism, arrogance and sectarianism, failure to listen and engage with the culture etc.), it seems the Emergent movement has ‘swung the pendulum so far the other way’ (p. 187, emphasis mine) as to fall into another set of errors.

In the final two chapters Carson turns to scripture, firstly listing many and briefly commenting on ten passages of scripture that talk of propositional truth and historical facts, then finishing with a brief exposition of 2 Peter 1 as it relates to issues of truth and experience, subjective and objective knowledge, showing how the bible sees the two as inter-related (against the false antithesis found in postmodern thought). Here Carson concludes the book by saying that if emerging church leaders want their movement to be faithful and to bear lasting fruit

‘they need to spend more time in careful study of scripture and theology… to take great pains not to distort history and theology alike…And above all, they need to embrace all the categories of the Scriptures, with the Scriptures’ balance and cohesion – including as we saw in the previous chapter, what the bible says about truth, human knowing, and related matters’ (p.234)

In all this Carson hopes the movement can learn to be both

‘faithful to the bible and effective in evangelizing the rising number of alienated biblical illiterates in our culture’ and thus help ‘brothers and sisters who are more culturally conservative than they are to learn to reconnect with the culture’ (p.234).

This book is well worth the read, even if it means persevering some of the more technical material in the middle. If the book has a weakness it’s that Carson doesn’t give a detailed evangelical alternative to the questions the Emerging Church raises, though perhaps this was outside the scope of this book. As far as I can tell we need an approach to being the church (and planting new churches) that is driven from start to finish by the bible as well as in touch with 21st century western culture(s).

1966 and all that

Following on from comments in a lecture this afternoon, some might find THIS an interesting read. It's my brief thoughts after reading the first volume of Dr D. M. Lloyd-Jones' biography by Iain Murray and offers an insight into something of the ministry and legacy of the man other than the controversy surrounding 1966.

Whilst on that subject, suffice to say I am of the opinion that Lloyd-Jones has been proved right in much of what he called for and warned against back then, even if the results of his disagreement with Stott were tragically damaging. And it is interesting to note that many of John Stott's heirs at least implicitly recognise the rightness of some of the Doctor's insights. Evangelical Anglicans (conservative ones anyway), who are John Stott's closest theological heirs, have been spearheading the 'gospel partnership' movement, whilst those evangelicals who've most rigorously pursued the politics of Keele have often (not always of course, but often) gone on to lose sight of John Stott's gospel. I say this tentatively and humbly, and in full knowledge that hindsight is a wonderful thing, all the while prayerful that the mistakes I make in my life (whether theologically or politically) don't damage the cause of the gospel too much.

Perhaps I will dare to comment more when I have finished reading the second volume of the Lloyd-Jones book and the relevant Stott volumes.

More Keller

My attention has been drawn to three talks by Tim Keller look which look interesting. I haven't listened to them right through but he's usually a good listen. He's speaking on 'Preaching the Gospel', 'Doing Justice' and 'Being the Church in our Culture', mp3s of which can be found at THIS site.