Revelation 2 and the Return of Jezebel: Who Do You Say She Was?

To the church of Thyatira, John writes,

But I have this against you, that you tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess and is teaching and seducing my servants to practice sexual immorality and to eat food sacrificed to idols. I gave her time to repent, but she refuses to repent of her sexual immorality. Behold, I will throw her onto a sickbed, and those who commit adultery with her I will throw into great tribulation, unless they repent of her works, and I will strike her children dead. And all the churches will know that I am he who searches mind and heart, and I will give to each of you according to your works. (Rev. 2:20-23, ESV)

Some interesting suggestions have been made concerning the identity of the “Jezebel” (Ἰεζάβελ) mentioned in Rev. 2:20-23.

1. Some argue this Jezebel was the actual name of a troublesome woman in Thyatira who, coincidently, mirrored the notorious Jezebel of the Old Testament.

2. Others argue that the name “Jezebel” is used as a title for an actual woman in the church of Thyatira who was causing the aforementioned disturbances. The reason for the title being quite obvious, since the Jezebel of the Old Testament led Israel into Baal worship and sorcery (1 Kings 16:31-34; 21:25-26; 2 Kings 9:22). So calling this woman “Jezebel” would have come as a strong rebuke to her and the congregation that tolerated her. She, like the Jezebel before her, was leading people astray.

3. Still yet others argue that “Jezebel” stands for a corrupt faction in the church of Thyatira and not necessarily an actual, historical woman per se (cf. 2 John 1 [?]).

Here's what we know about this "Jezebel" according to the passage:

• She calls herself a "prophetess" (ἡ λέγουσα ἑαυτὴν προφῆτιν).
• She's teaching and seducing Christians to "practice sexual immorality" (πορνεῦσαι) and "eat foods sacrificed to idols" (φαγεῖν εἰδωλόθυτα).
• She refuses to repent of "her sexual immorality" (τῆς πορνείας αὐτῆς).
• Some are committing "adultery with her" (τοὺς μοιχεύοντας μετ᾽ αὐτῆς).
• She has "children" (τὰ τέκνα αὐτῆς).
• Jesus threatens to cast her onto a sickbed (βάλλω αὐτὴν εἰς κλίνην), throw her fellow adulterers into great tribulation (εἰς θλῖψιν μεγάλην), and kill her children (ἀποκτενῶ ἐν θανάτῳ).

So, was this "Jezebel" the actual name of a real first century woman in the church of Thyatira, a title used for a real first century woman in the church of Thyatira, or a name given to a corrupt faction in the church of Thyatira? What do you think?

James Cone on the Importance of One's Own Context for Doing Theology

"I respect what happened at Nicea and Chalcedon and the theological input of the Church Fathers on Christology; but that source alone is inadequate for finding out the meaning of black folks’ Jesus. It is all right to say as did Athanasius that the Son is homoousia (one substance with the Father), especially if one has a taste for Greek philosophy and a feel for the importance of intellectual distinctions. And I do not want to minimize or detract from the significance of Athanasius’ assertion for faith one iota. But the homoousia question is not a black question.

"Blacks do not ask whether Jesus is one with the Father or divine and human, though the orthodox formulations are implied in their language. They ask whether Jesus is walking with them, whether they can call him up on the “telephone of prayer” and tell him all about their troubles. To be sure Athanasius’ assertion about the status of the Logos in the Godhead is important for the church’s continued Christological investigations. But we must not forget that Athanasius’ question about the Son’s status in relation to the Father did not arise in the historical context of the salve codes and the slave drives. And if he had been a black slave in America, I am sure he would have asked a different set of questions. He might have asked about the status of the Son in relation to slaveholders.

"Perhaps the same is true of Martin Luther and his concern about the ubiquitous presence of Jesus Christ at the Lord’s Table. While not diminishing the importance of Luther’s theological concern, I am sure that if he had been born a black slave his first question would not have been whether Jesus was at the Lord’s Table but whether he was really present at the slave’s cabin, whether slaves could expect Jesus to be with them as they tried to survive the cotton field, the whip, and the pistol.

"Unfortunately not only white seminary professors but some blacks as well have convinced themselves that only the white experience provides the appropriate context for questions and answers concerning things divine. They do not recognize the narrowness of their experience and the particularity of their theological expressions. They like to think of themselves as universalpeople. That is why most seminaries emphasize the need for appropriate tools in doing theology, which always means white tools, i.e., knowledge of the language and thought of white people. They fail to recognize that other people also have thought about God and have something significant to say about Jesus’ presence in the world.

"My point is that one’s social and historical context decides not only the questions we address to God but also the mode or form of the answers given to the questions."

-James H. Cone, God of the Oppressed, rev. ed. (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1997), 13-14.

Eschatology Debate

A few weeks ago, John Piper moderated a lively and spirited discussion on Eschatology with three panelists (pastor-theologians), each representing three distinct views on the millennium: the premillennial view defended by James Hamilton, the amillennial view by Sam Storms, and the postmillennial view by Douglas Wilson.

Piper, though moderating, did not hide the fact that he holds to the premillennial view and even ended up siding with Hamilton at times during the exchange. But he was totally fair in allowing the panelists enough time to explain and defend their positions. It's encouraging to see Christians strongly disagreeing all the while maintaining genuine love and respect for one another as brothers in Christ.

This kind of conversation is simply impossible in many churches. Too often a difference of opinion, especially on eschatology, is tantamount to apostasy. Piper and company have done a good job demonstrating how theological differences can and should be seriously and passionately debated among the people of God.

For audio and video of the event, see here.

German, Family, and Genesis 1

While things have been pretty slow on this blog (as usual), I have been quite busy elsewhere. In the beginning of September I enrolled in a introductory German course in midtown Manhattan. We are using the instructor's own unpublished grammar and workbook (which are quite excellent by the way) and have thus far worked through identifying and translating definite/ indefinite articles, der and ein words, nouns, noun phrases, compound nouns, adjectives and adverbs, participles, pronouns, prepositions, and other fun stuff. It helps that German has a case system similar to that of Greek. For those learning German, check out this helpful blog.

On the home front, my son has started walking and is turning our home upside down! He is so awesome.

In the blogosphere much discussion has ensued concerning Tremper Longman's openness to the question of the historicity of Adam and Eve. (In addition see the posts by James Anderson, Jeremy Pierce, and Nick Norelli.) I do not see this topic (and others directly related, such as hermeneutics, biological evolution, inerrancy, etc.) going away any time soon, as evidenced here (the ever-so-popular 'slippery slope' argument), here (Bruce Waltke's new article on evolution), and here (Peter Enns' future book project on Christianity and evolution). Personally, I do not think the slippery slope argument is helpful at all. I'd love to elaborate further, but I'll leave that for another time. Right now it's time to go play with my boy!

Review of John H. Walton's 'The Lost World of Genesis One' - Part 1

John Walton has a new book out titled “The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate.” I just finished reading it a little over a week ago and I must say it’s engaging and quite provocative. His thesis is a bold one, and if he’s right, tons of the combative ‘science vs. faith’ literature (especially in regards to the relationship between modern science and the creation account in Genesis 1) can be sent to the flames.

He argues, quite strongly, that the creation account in Genesis 1 is not concerned with creation in a material sense (e.g., the physical nature of things) but with creation in a functional sense (e.g., the role/function things have). Genesis 1 is not about how God brought material things into existence ex nihilo, rather it’s about how God assigned functions to things that were already in existence. This is how ancient Near Eastern peoples (hence, the writer and audience of Genesis 1) understood “creation” and “existence.”

Walton’s not saying that matter is eternal or that God did not create what we see. He takes that for granted, saying that other passages in the bible, especially the NT, clearly teach physical, material creation ex nihilo. But not Genesis 1. Genesis 1 is about the functional ordering of the cosmos. He also argues that the creation week in Genesis 1 is best understood as a representation or symbol of God creating a cosmic temple. The temple is not “created” until God inaugurates the temple by resting on the seventh day, thus indicating that God’s temple (i.e., the cosmos) is complete. He uses two lines of evidence to support his thesis: (1) the bible, particularly how the Hebrew verb used in Genesis 1:1 (“to create”) is used functionally, not materially, throughout Scripture; and (2) the literature of the ancient Near East and how ancient peoples viewed creation in functional (not material) terms.

If you’re like me then by now all sorts of red flags must be popping up in your minds! Walton, however, needs to be listened to carefully and fairly. Our initial reaction is probably to reject his thesis out of hand, but this is because, he argues, our worldview is so concerned with the material aspects of things that to image Genesis 1 as being about functional creation rather than material creation seems unimaginable. But our worldview isn’t the worldview of ancient peoples, including the ancient Israelites, and our cosmology isn’t the same as theirs. He says, rightly, that we must try to read and understand Genesis 1 the way the ancient Israelites would have understood it.

Part 2 coming soon.

How Calvinism Lost its Way

Over at the Koinonia blog, Douglas Estes has written an interesting post on how some Calvinists have inappropriately used their Calvinism as a club to beat people over the head with. If you're a Calvinist, take notes on how not to act toward your non-Calvinist brothers and sisters.

See his post here: "Return to Calvin: A Personal Reflection on how Calvinism has Lost its Way."

Jesus Wore Pants!

So says this baptist pastor.

Sigh.

The use and abuse of Deuteronomy 22:5 continues. For a sane response see Claude Mariottini's post here.

(HT: Claude Mariottini)