Scripture, Tradition, and John's Truncated Letters

The Meaning of 2 John 12 and 3 John 13-14

2 and 3 John may be the least-quoted and least-studied books of the New Testament. I doubt that many books have been written on "The Theology of 3 John." As you can see at the far right of the word count graph in a previous post, these letters are about the size of contemporary academic abstracts—245 and 219 words respectively (in Greek). (1 John is not a very long letter either, but it is nearly ten times the length of 3 John!) In view of the brevity and lack of theological depth of these letters, one might be excused for wondering—without any irreverence intended—why God saw fit to include these letters in the Bible. Do they offer any theological insight that could not be gained from other books?

As I was puzzling over this recently, I was struck by two similar statements that appear near the end of the respective letters:

Though I have many things to write to you, I do not want to do so with paper and ink; but I hope to come to you and speak face to face, so that your joy may be made full. (2 John 12 NASB)

13 I had many things to write to you, but I am not willing to write them to you with pen and ink; 14 but I hope to see you shortly, and we will speak face to face. (3 John 13-14 NASB)

Taken at face value, these statements suggest an explanation for why the two letters are so brief and cursory. It is not that the author has little to say; quite the opposite. He has much to say, but he refrains from saying it because he prefers to communicate his full message face to face (literally "mouth to mouth," but translated idiomatically for obvious reasons) rather than with "pen and ink."1 2

Various interpretations for the socio-rhetorical function of these statements have been offered. Watson suggests that the stated desire to visit the audience is merely an "epistolary convention" and does not imply an actual intention to visit.3 For Funk, too, the "nearly word-for-word" parallel between 2 John 12 and 3 John 13-14 "suggests that the author is drawing upon a formulaic convention of his own if not of wider usage," though he appears to think it reflects an actual intention.4 Polhill takes the statements as expressing a genuine desire to personally visit.5 Painter sees these statements as the author's own customary sign-off: this "must have been the way the Elder was accustomed to end his letters."6 Interestingly, under his reconstruction of the literary and chronological relationship between the three Johannine epistles,7 2 John was written before 1 John, and 1 John actually contains the "much more" that 2 John 12 indicates the author had wished to say.8 This might indicate either that the author was unable to make his planned visit (and thus had to put his ideas down in pen and ink in a follow-up letter) or else that 1 John contains the substance of an address the author gave face-to-face when he did make his intended visit. Thatcher thinks the statements contain "an underlying threat."9 In 2 John, "While John seems hopeful that his readers will remain loyal to him, he subtly warns them of his intention to come and see just how loyal they are."10 Jobes likewise sees an element of subtlety in the expressed wish,11 but she sees the thought of "many more things to say" as having substance: "This suggests the elder's sense that he owes more of an explanation to Gaius, as opposed to just wanting casual conversation with him."12

Watson's view that these statements are merely an epistolary convention is doubtful, since he offers no evidence for such a convention outside 2 and 3 John. The repetition of the formula in both letters may indicate it is a customary salutation for the author, but this of course does not imply he did not mean it. That he did mean it is implied by the unusual brevity of the letters: he explains why his letters are brief because they are. The expressed desire to visit is, moreover, entirely understandable within the historical setting of the letters. What pastor would not prefer to deal with sensitive, divisive issues within his flock in person?13

If Painter is correct, we do have in 1 John the substance of the "many things" the author refrained from writing in 2 John (as per 2 John 12). Certainly the main themes hit on in 2 John (the commandment of love; Jesus Christ having come in the flesh) are treated in more detail in 1 John. However, it seems clear that we do not have the substance of the "many things" the author wanted to say to Gaius as per 3 John 13-14. Du Rand summarizes the theme of 3 John as, "Show hospitality towards those who go out for the sake of his Name,"14 and neither 1 John nor any other Johannine writing specifically addresses the subject of hospitality toward missionaries. Thomas adds that most scholars believe the problem with Diotrephes (3 John 9-10) is unrelated to false teaching.15 Rather, it has to do with Diotrephes' refusal to recognize the author's authority, more specifically by refusing to receive his emissaries.16

Thus, in both 2 and 3 John, we have a letter-writer abbreviating his remarks because he intends to communicate more fully in person—with the result that no record of the full message survives (at least in the case of 3 John).

Theological Implications

The article so far may seem a rather dull treatment of an obscure detail at the end of two ancient letters. However, it is in light of the canonization of 2 and 3 John as Holy Scripture that this detail becomes theologically significant. From our point of view, the author's decision to abbreviate his remarks in favour of face-to-face communication seems very regrettable. His audience's gain was our loss, in that the "many things" he communicated orally (assuming the intended visit did take place)17—were never recorded in the Bible for posterity but are lost to history. There is no question that, had the author simply put pen to ink with the "many things" he had intended to write, the theological value of 2 and 3 John as books of the Bible would be more readily apparent.

The theological question this raises is, "Why did the Divine Author of Scripture inspire (or at least permit) the human author of 2 and 3 John to truncate these letters, omitting a full account of his instructions and their theological basis?" A definitive answer to this question does not seem achievable, but let us consider some possibilities. Could it be that the "many things" the author wished to write included errors, so the Holy Spirit prevented him from writing in order to safeguard the inerrancy of Scripture? Not likely. Why should divine inspiration forsake the author at this point, right on the tails of his assertion, "you know that our testimony is true" (3 John 12)?

A second suggestion: perhaps, although the author's message would be inspired, the Holy Spirit judged that the detriment to the original audience in receiving it in "pen and ink" rather than "face to face" outweighed the benefit to posterity in having it preserved in writing. This is more plausible, but we should bear in mind that divine inspiration is not a zero-sum game. In so many other New Testament epistles, the Holy Spirit was able to achieve both ends: communicating the message effectively (one assumes) to the original audience while also preserving it for posterity. This includes highly sensitive content, like an order to expel an incestuous man from the church (1 Cor. 5), or denunciations of various opponents by name (e.g., 1 Tim. 1:20).

I would suggest a third explanation, one which (if correct) reveals something important about the nature of divine revelation. I would suggest that the "many things" our author wanted to communicate were not lost to posterity. I do not mean that a written record of the "many things" has been preserved (apart from the possibility that 1 John constitutes the substance of the "many things" referred to in 2 John 12). What I mean is that the "many things" were not lost because they were incorporated into the apostolic tradition. If indeed John the Elder visited his charges and spoke the "many things" to them face to face, their content was thereby subsumed into the deposit of faith which the Church received from the apostles and transmitted through subsequent generations down to the present day. Thus, while the specific content of this message is irretrievably lost, the spiritual and doctrinal benefit it provided to the first-century Church did not vanish into history but helped make the Church what it was and is. The benefit still accrues to us today.

The abridgment of 2 and 3 John poses no problem for a theology of revelation which grants some authority to tradition alongside Scripture. It is difficult to explain, however, within a restorationist paradigm which excludes even a subordinate epistemological role for tradition. (Such a paradigm is sometimes called Solo Scriptura or Nuda Scriptura to distinguish it from Sola Scriptura). Under restorationism, whatever benefits Gaius may have received from a face-to-face meeting with John are lost to us today, because the Church subsequently became completely corrupt, abandoned the deposit of faith, and needed to be restored using Scripture alone.

Moreover, under a restorationist paradigm, the only enduring, unbreakable legacy of the apostolic church was the production of the New Testament. Writing the New Testament (and doing things recorded in the New Testament) was the apostles' crowning achievement. In fact, it was their only achievement that still has relevance for us today. Whatever they may have said and done that was not written down may have helped their own generation, but it is no help to us. Within this paradigm, it is difficult to explain why an inspired and/or apostolic writer would opt to omit material from Scripture in order to communicate it orally. And 2 and 3 John are only one example of this problem. What about the majority of the apostles whose writings have not survived, if they wrote at all? What benefit does today's Church gain from their labours in the Master's vineyard?

Conclusion

The author of 2 and 3 John left "many things" out of these letters because he preferred to communicate them orally rather than in writing. This is puzzling if writing the New Testament was the inspired/apostolic writers' most important and enduring task in contrast to the transient value of their unrecorded oral teaching. If, however, the apostles' bequest to the Church included both writings and oral tradition, then the statements in 2 John 12 and 3 John 13-14 are readily understandable, since the "many things" the writer did not write down were not lost to posterity but absorbed into the apostolic tradition. The Holy Spirit then did not have to balance the needs of the first century believers against ours, but could minister to both at the same time.

Footnotes

• 1 Note the past tense "I had many things to write" in 3 John 13; this may suggest the author had initially intended to write a longer letter but changed his mind. Jobes writes, "The use of the imperfect tense may express the idea that the elder has had, and will continue to have, these many things on his mind for a while" (Karen H. Jobes, 1, 2, & 3 John [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2014] 334).
• 2 Compare similar references to omitting material in John's Gospel: first in Jesus' discourse in John 16:12, and second in the editorial comments at 20:30-31 and 21:25. The reasons for the omissions are different there, but the conclusions of this article could also be applied to them. Jobes (1, 2, & 3 John, 334) notes the echo of John 16:12.
• 3 On 2 John: "the Presbyter provides a succinct statement of his desire in conventional terms in v. 12...It must not be inferred from the mention of a desire to visit that the Presbyter has any real intention of visiting the audience. Such an expressed wish is an epistolary convention." (Duane F. Watson, "A Rhetorical Analysis of 2 John According to Greco-Roman Convention," New Testament Studies 35 [1989], 104-130, here 129). Similarly, on 3 John 13-14, although Watson thinks the "notification of a coming visit" "accentuat[es] the message by noting it has many more facets which are better discussed in person... which enable[s] the body-closing to form a bridge to further communication" (Duane F. Watson, "A Rhetorical Analysis of 3 John: A Study in Epistolary Rhetoric," Catholic Biblical Quarterly 51 [1989] 479-501, here 499), in a footnote he adds, "This antithesis between reality and hope is probably not an indication of a planned visit or the seriousness of the situation, but is merely an epistolary convention with stylistic flair. Therefore it is probably not functioning as a rhetorical constraint" (Watson, "A Rhetorical Analysis of 3 John," 500 n. 142).
• 4 "the author expresses his preference for face-to-face conversation over the letter, a preference he hopes to indulge by coming to see them" (Robert W. Funk, "The Form and Structure of II and III John," Journal of Biblical Literature, 86 [1967] 424-30, here 428-29).
• 5 "Like Paul, John probably often had to communicate with his churches by letter when he would much have preferred the “joy” of a personal visit" (John Polhill, "The Setting of 2 and 3 John," Southern Baptist Journal of Theology [2006] 28-39, here 33-34).
• 6 John Painter, 1, 2, and 3 John (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2002) 380.
• 7 This is a disputed issue. Thomas writes that "there is little consensus about the order of the Johannine Epistles’ composition, with nearly every conceivable order having been set forth" (John Christopher Thomas, "The order of composition of the Johannine epistles," Novum Testamentum, 37 [1995] 68-75, here 68).
• 8 Painter, 1, 2, and 3 John, 334.
• 9 Tom Thatcher, "3 John," In Expositor’s Bible Commentary (ed. Tremper Longman III & David E. Garland; vol. 13; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006) 525-38, here 537.
• 10 Tom Thatcher, "2 John," In Expositor’s Bible Commentary (ed. Tremper Longman III & David E. Garland; vol. 13; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006) 507-23, here 523; similarly, on 3 John 13-14, "It is an 'apostolic parousia' which subtly enforces obedience to instructions lest one should be censured at a potential visit" (Thatcher, "3 John," 537).
• 11 The elder wishes to emphasize that he is "still able to travel the distance between him and his original readers"; and he "might be testing the waters to see if the sister church was still open to receive him" (Jobes, 1, 2, & 3 John, 277-78).
• 12 Jobes, 1, 2, & 3 John, 334, on 3 John 13-14. Similarly, the closing of 2 John "suggests that the situation caused by confusion, strife, and heretical teaching called for more than could be said in these brief notes" (Jobes, 1, 2, & 3 John, 335).
• 13 As du Rand writes, "By arranging cola 22 and 23-24 in an antithetical parallelism, it is ensured that the reader clearly realizes the seriousness of the resolution by the presbuteros to visit them rather than to write a letter" (J. A. du Rand, "The Structure of 3 John," Neotestamentica 13 [1979] 121-131, here 128).
• 14 du Rand, "The Structure of 3 John," 129.
• 15 Thomas, "Order of composition," 71.
• 16 Watson states, "The exigence prompting the Presbyter to write is the refusal of Diotrephes, a new and ambitious leader of a Johannine church, to extend hospitality to traveling missionary brethren of the Johannine Community" (Watson, "A Rhetorical Analysis of 3 John," 481). Some take epidechomai in 3 John 9 to mean "acknowledge someone's authority" while others take it to mean "receive" or "welcome". See Margaret M. Mitchell, "'Diotrephes does not receive us': The Lexicographical and Social Context of 3 John 9-10," Journal of Biblical Literature, 117 (1998) 299-320, esp. 317-19.
• 17 It seems likely that such a visit did take place. The preservation of the letters implies they were well-received by the original recipients, who would therefore have supported the author's wish to come to them.

Christadelphian apologetics, modern scholarship, and the historicist interpretation of Revelation

Introduction
The appeal to mainstream biblical scholarship in Christadelphian apologetics

Christadelphian interpretation of the Book of Revelation

Modern scholarship and the historicist view of Revelation
Response in Christadelphian apologetics
Conclusion

Introduction

The purpose of this article is to point out an inconsistency in recent Christadelphian apologetics, namely the tendency to appeal to mainstream biblical scholarship to 'confirm' the validity of Christadelphian exegetical and theological positions, but to dismiss or even ignore mainstream biblical scholarship where its conclusions contradict Christadelphian exegetical and theological positions. This seems to be a straightforward case of confirmation bias, 'in which people selectively attend to evidence that supports their conclusion and overlook contrary evidence.'1

The appeal to mainstream biblical scholarship in Christadelphian apologetics

In some Christadelphian circles, modern critical scholarship of the Bible is being pressed into service as a tool for apologetics. This seems to be particularly characteristic of the work of Jonathan and Dave Burke, two of the foremost Christadelphian apologists. Jonathan Burke has devoted a ten-part series of blog posts to advocating the use of 'scholarly literature' in Christadelphian biblical interpretation and apologetics. Here, Burke claims that his proposal is nothing new: 'Professional scholarship has long been used by Christadelphians to help interpret the Bible and to defend our faith.'

Moreover, the Christadelphian apologetics periodical Defence and Confirmation, for which both Burkes serve as editors, recently devoted an entire issue to discussing how modern, mainstream scholarship has, over the last century, 'increasingly supported the Christadelphian view on most of our doctrines'. The issue contains articles highlighting support in modern scholarship for Christadelphian beliefs in five areas: Jesus' self-understanding, baptism, the immortality of the soul, the atonement, and Satan/demons. These appeals to modern scholarship are problematic for several reasons,2 but my purpose here is simply to note the form of the argument.

If increasing scholarly support for a Christadelphian viewpoint leads to increasing confidence in this position, to what does decreasing scholarly support for a Christadelphian viewpoint lead? We will revisit this question after demonstrating its relevance using a case in point.

Christadelphian interpretation of the Book of Revelation

Christadelphians have traditionally held to the continuous historical or historicist interpretation of the Book of Revelation, which interprets the visions from chapter 4 onward as a long-term forecast of world history from the end of the first century through the present and into the eschatological future. This view was introduced to the Christadelphians by Dr. John Thomas (1805-71), the movement's founder, whose magnum opus was Eureka: An Exposition of the Apocalypse, a three-volume work written toward the end of his life. Dr. Thomas appears to have regarded the historicist interpretation of Revelation as virtually an article of faith. A Statement of Faith provided by Dr. Thomas to the editor of a magazine in 1869 included the following among the propositions that Christadelphians 'from the very first most surely believed and [which have been] taught by their recognized scribes and their literature':

19. They regard the Roman church as “the Mother of Harlots;” and the papal dynasty as “the name of blasphemy,” seated on the seven heads of Rome (Rev. xiii. 1; xvii. 9,) and the paramour of the Old Mother. They hold, also, that their harlot-daughters answer to the state churches of Anti-Christendom; and the “abominations of the earth,” to all the dissenting names and denominations, aggregately styled “names of blasphemy,” of which the European body politic, symbolized by the eight-headed scarlet-coloured beast, is said to be “full.” – (Rev. xvii. 3.) 

24. They teach we are living in the period of the sixth vial, in which Christ appears upon the theatre of mundane events; and that the two great leading and notable signs of the times are the drying-up up of the Ottoman Power, and the imperial French Frog Power in its political operations in Rome, Vienna, and Constantinople, during the past twenty-one years. – (Rev xvi. 12, 16)3

It seems Dr. Thomas took it for granted that all Christadelphians agreed with these interpretations of apocalyptic symbols. However, the Birmingham Statement of Faith authored by Robert Roberts after Dr. Thomas' death in 1871 omitted any explicit reference to symbols from Revelation, presumably reflecting a view that these did not form part of the core doctrines of the 'One Faith' necessary for fellowship. Consequently, the continuous historical view of Revelation has never been enforced as a boundary marker for Christadelphian fellowship (with the exception of certain ultra-conservative ecclesias.)4

Nevertheless, while not enforced as a matter of fellowship, the continuous historical view has dominated Christadelphian interpretation of Revelation. Jonathan Burke helpfully provides a table summarizing interpretations of Revelation through history. Among the Christadelphian expositors listed there are 48 historicists (49 if we count Burke himself), three futurists, one 'partial futurist', one preterist, one 'partial preterist', and two unknowns. Thus, according to this tally, over 85% of Christadelphians who have written on the Book of Revelation have advocated the continuous historical view. Indeed, no non-historicist Christadelphian appears in the table before 1956. This suggests that the continuous historical view enjoyed unchallenged status for the first century of Christadelphian history. Its popularity may be waning, however: of the nine Christadelphian works since 1980, plus Burke's own, only six (60%) have been historicist.

Modern scholarship and the historicist view of Revelation

Quotations from a few scholars will suffice to establish the unfavourable verdict that modern scholarship has passed on the historicist interpretation of Revelation. Osborne writes as follows:

Because of its inherent weaknesses (its identification only with Western church history, the inherent speculation involved in the parallels with world history, the fact that it must be reworked with each new period in world history, the total absence of any relevance for John or his original readers; see also Beale 1999; 46), few scholars today take this approach.5

Pate:

The primary strength of this view lies in its attempt to make sense of Revelation for the interpreter by correlating the prophecies directed to the seven churches of Asia Minor with the stages comprising church history. The vast majority of scholars agree, however, that this single strength is far outweighed by its many weaknesses.6

Boring:

The major problems [with the historicist view], of course, are apparent: (a) The book would have meant nothing to its first readers, who would have to wait centuries before it could be properly understood; (b) it misunderstands prophecy by reducing it to prediction; (c) the variety of interpretations cancel each other out and invalidate the method. Although widely held by Protestant interpreters after the Reformation and into the twentieth century, no critical New Testament scholar today advocates this view.7

In a popular-level book, Wagner and Helyer write:

The historicist interpretation has an impressive list of proponents from the past, including Martin Luther, John Wycliffe, John Knox, William Tyndale, Sir Isaac Newton, John Wesley, and C.H. Spurgeon. However, like disco music and tapered jeans, the historicist approach is out of style today. Few people in the twenty-first century subscribe to this perspective.8

In his book Apocalypse and Millennium: Studies in Biblical Eisegesis (note the last word in the title), Newport remarks on 'how central historicism has been, and continues to be, to the Millerite-Seventh-day Adventist-Davidian/Branch Davidian tradition'.9 He continues:

it is clear from the evidence that while historicism and mainstream scholarly biblical studies were destined to go their separate ways during the course of the nineteenth century, historicism itself continues to live on, indeed to thrive, in this narrower, largely non-critical context.10

Response in Christadelphian apologetics

We observed earlier that Christadelphian apologists have recently been claiming that Christadelphian theology has increasingly been vindicated by mainstream biblical scholarship. However, we are now faced with a clear counterexample: a case where a traditional Christadelphian hermeneutic, despite enjoying reasonable popularity in centuries past, has now been abandoned by mainstream biblical scholarship.

How do Christadelphian apologists respond to this counterexample? Largely, it would seem, by dismissing or ignoring it. For instance, Jonathan Burke, the most vocal proponent of the 'vindication by modern scholarship' apologetic, published a table of interpretations of Revelation through history which we referred to above. Burke's list extends through 2007 and yet it omits virtually all the mainstream, technical commentaries on Revelation from the past 50 years, of which there have been plenty.11 Alongside numerous Christadelphian writers, Burke includes four non-Christadelphian defenders of the historicist view in his table from the past 50 years. They are as follows:

• Francis Nigel Lee, a Presbyterian systematic theologian and Church historian whose books on eschatology seem to have been published by obscure denominational publishers.12 Lee was unquestionably a learned man and an ardent defender of the historicist view (or 'historicalist', as he preferred to call it). In his book John's Revelation Unveiled, Lee included a list of defenders of the 'historicalist' view down through history.13 The list is quite impressive through the nineteenth century but then conspicuously thins out!
• David Pio Gullon, a Seventh Day Adventist exegete (apparently a faculty member at the Universidad Adventista del Plata in Argentina) who wrote a paper on the interpretation of Revelation in a SDA denominational peer-reviewed journal. Gullon notes that the historicist view has been gradually rejected by the mainstream but comments, 'It is difficult to say just why the historicist school of interpretation faded in popularity'.14 Gullon thus appears sympathetic to the historicist view (unsurprisingly, given his denominational affiliation), but he does not defend it in this article.
• Alan Campbell, who apparently authored a webpage (now defunct) entitled Opening the Seals of the Apocalypse.
• E.G. Cook, a Baptist who apparently wrote a work in 1970 (no bibliographical information is provided by Burke)

On another website, Burke has provided detailed information about 'historicist exposition' of specific sections and symbols within Revelation. For seven distinct sections within the book, Burke provides a separate table summarizing interpretation of the symbols down through history. Each page bears the subtitle 'Expositors Agree'. Curiously, though, each table truncates in the mid-twentieth century, and sources cited from the 20th century are mostly Christadelphian.

In short, Burke's work on Revelation shows a distinct interest in non-Christadelphian support for the historicist view, but an equally distinct failure to acknowledge the rejection of the historicist view by contemporary, mainstream biblical scholarship. It is not merely that Burke fails to critically engage with mainstream scholarship on Revelation; he seems to act as though it didn't exist! Yet Burke claims that Christadelphians have traditionally 'quick to identify and use scholarly Bible commentary (even from apostate theologians)'. Why has he been so slow to identify and use scholarly Bible commentary on the interpretation of the Apocalypse?

While one cannot presume to know Burke's motives, it seems entirely possible that mainstream biblical scholarship has been ignored in this case precisely because its unfavourable verdict on the historicist view of Revelation clashes with his apologetic narrative in which mainstream biblical scholarship progressively vindicates Christadelphian theology.

Dave Burke has published a paper online entitled Revelation: Four Interpretive Models. Perhaps written as an academic assignment, this paper is more forthright about the decline of historicism, acknowledging that it has been 'widely abandoned' and 'long overtaken in popularity by futurism'. However, he adds that 'it retains strong support among some conservative Christian denominations and sects, including Baptists, Presbyterians, Seventh Day Adventists, and Christadelphians'. Burke does not cite a single Baptist or Presbyterian (or Seventh Day Adventist) in support of this statement, and also appears not to draw any distinction between scholarly and non-scholarly support here (odd in an academic paper). Burke does not appear to have appreciated historicism's complete lack of support within mainstream biblical scholarship today.

After describing the four models and their historical pedigrees, Burke moves on to evaluation. He judiciously asserts, 'None of the exegetical models reviewed by this paper is without its problems, however minor.' However, he then proceeds to lambast the preterist, futurist and idealist views, describing them with terms like 'demonstrably partisan', 'suspect', 'arbitrary', 'highly subjective', 'dubious', '[having a] severe weakness', and 'ad hoc'. When he gets to historicism, though, he does not admit any problems. Acknowledging its widespread abandonment, he dismisses this because 'it was the prevailing model for at [sic] 1,700 years'. Thus Burke thrusts aside modern scholarship via an appeal to tradition - the precise opposite of the approach favoured in Defence and Confirmation, where tradition is thrust aside via an appeal to modern scholarship! Moreover, Burke virtually ignores scholarly criticism of the historicist view.15

Conclusion

By comparing the 'appeal to mainstream scholarly opinion' argument used by prominent Christadelphian apologists with same apologists' neglect of or disdain for mainstream scholarly opinion on the historicist view of Revelation, what do we learn? We learn that the 'confirmation from mainstream scholarship' argument carries little weight, because it is a case of confirmation bias. Where scholarly opinion drifts toward the Christadelphian position on a particular exegetical or theological issue,16 it is heralded and celebrated; where scholarly opinion drifts in the other direction, it is dismissed or ignored.

If increasing scholarly support for a position held by Christadelphians is construed as strengthening the dogmatic posture of Christadelphians, but decreasing scholarly support for a position held by Christadelphians is not construed as weakening the dogmatic posture of Christadelphians, then the appeal to scholarship is arbitrary and tendentious.

This kind of engagement with scholarly literature contains little scope for self-criticism, and that is what makes it particularly dangerous. Indeed, while Burke says Christadelphians have traditionally been quick to 'use' biblical scholarship, often with an explicitly apologetic goal,17 Christadelphians have not traditionally been quick to do biblical scholarship - that is, to participate in it and make meaningful contributions to it. Christadelphians have traditionally 'used' biblical scholarship from the sidelines. Here, the apologist can weave together a literature review (often highly selective) that gives his claims the appearance of scholarly rigour, whilst remaining exempt from criticism by the scholarly community itself. Such use of critical scholarship is unfortunately not very critical or scholarly.

However, there is perhaps some reason for optimism. On Revelation specifically, non-historicist interpretations seem to be gaining ground among Christadelphians. On the broader issue of Christadelphians' relationship to mainstream biblical scholarship, it appears that the number of Christadelphians undertaking formal biblical and/or theological studies is on the rise (the Burkes included, I believe). Christadelphians seem poised to begin moving from the grandstand of biblical scholarship into the arena. This will no doubt be to the benefit of scholarship, which will be challenged by a fresh perspective in a number of areas, and to Christadelphian theology, which may finally have its day in the court of academic opinion.

Footnotes

• 1 Prinstein, Michael J. (Ed.) (2013). The Portable Mentor: Expert Guide to a Successful Career in Psychology (2nd ed.). New York: Springer, p. 128.
• 2 Not least of these, in the area of Satan and demons, is the failure to acknowledge that the 'accommodation theory' of the Synoptic accounts of demon possession and exorcism has no standing in mainstream scholarship.
• 3 Quoted in Hemingray, Peter. (2003/2008). John Thomas: His Friends and His Faith (2nd ed.). The Christadelphian Tidings, pp. 335-338.
• 4 The Republic, Missouri Unamended Ecclesia has added articles to the Doctrines to be Rejected portion of its Statement of Faith explicitly rejecting the futurist and preterist views of Revelation and, indeed, rejects the notion 'that any theory that radically departs from the "continuous historical intepretation" as generally elaborated by John Thomas in Eureka is to be received.' The following qualifier is added: '(This does not require unqualified acceptance of the interpretation of all events  and symbols-simply that the events "which must shortly come to pass" began to transpire shortly after the Apocalypse was given to the Apostle John in Patmos and that they have continued to unfold in the nearly 1900 years since that divine revelation.)'
• 5 Osborne, Grant R. (2002). Revelation. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, p. 19. Emphasis added.
• 6 Pate, C. Marvin. (2009). Reading Revelation: A Comparison of Four Interpretive Translations of the Apocalypse. Grand Rapids: Kregel Academic, p. 9. Emphasis added. He continues, listing the weaknesses of the historicist view: 'The historicist outline applies only to the history of the Western church, ignoring the spread of Christianity throughout the rest of the world. Since images such as the beast of Revelation 13 are always identified with people and events contemporary to the interpreter, the historicist reading of Revelation is constantly being revised as new events occur and new figures emerge. Most problematic for historicism is the complete lack of agreement about the various outlines of church history. History is like a moving target for those who want to read Revelation in this way, and there is no consensus about what the book means, even among interpreters within the same school of interpretation.'
• 7 Boring, M. Eugene. (2011). Revelation. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, pp. 48-49. Emphasis added.
• 8 Helyer, Larry R. & Wagner, Richard. (2008). The Book of Revelation for Dummies. Hoboken: Wiley, p. 74. Emphasis added.
• 9 Newport, Kenneth G.C. (2000). Apocalypse and Millennium: Studies in Biblical Eisegesis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 17.
• 10 ibid. Emphasis added.
• 11 Beale, Osborne, Mounce, Aune, Kistemaker, Thomas, Patterson, Prigent, Witherington, Harrington, Ford, Thompson, Roloff, Kraft, etc.
• 12 Lee's book John's Revelation Unveiled scarcely interacted with contemporary technical commentaries on Revelation, and appears to have been ignored or gone unnoticed by subsequent scholarship (for instance, Google Scholar finds only one citation of it).
• 13 Lee, Francis Nigel. (2000). John's Revelation Unveiled. Lynwoodrif: Ligstryders, p. 6.
• 14 Gullon, David Pio. (1998). Two Hundred Years from Lacunza: The Impact of His Eschatological Thought on Prophetic Studies and Modern Futurism. Journal of the Adventist Theological Society, 9(1-2), 71-95. Here p. 79 n. 46. Gullon suggests 'excessive date-setting' and 'diversity in its interpretations' as possible explanations, but does not mention the first reason given by Boring, which seems to me to be the primary reason for scholars' rejection of historicism.
• 15 Burke interacts with just one critic (Herrick) of historicism, and on just one point of criticism - which is relegated to a footnote. Burke's reference list is, moreover, noticeably light on scholarly commentaries on Revelation. The only book-length commentaries on Revelation he cites are those of Garrow and Cory, neither of which could be described as technical.
• 16 One might go as far as to say, whenever support for a Christadelphian position is found in scholarship!
• 17 As Burke writes, 'Professional scholarship has long been used by Christadelphians to help interpret the Bible and to defend our faith.'

The Accuser of our Brethren, Part 9: Satan and Angels

This video discusses the relationship between Satan and angels, and argues that Satan himself is an angelic being, according to the Bible. Key passages include Matthew 25:41, Revelation 12:7-9 and 2 Corinthians 11:14.

Revelation 12:7-9 makes a lot more sense against the background of Daniel 10, which teaches that angelic princes (both good and evil) are involved in human political affairs. For an excellent discussion of this topic, see the article Daniel 10 and the Notion of Territorial Spirits, by DE Stevens.

Why walk on water?

One of Jesus’ most famous miracles was the time when he walked on water. This incident is recorded in Matthew 14, Mark 6 and John 6. Mark’s account reads as follows:

“45 Immediately he made his disciples get into the boat and go before him to the other side, to Bethsaida, while he dismissed the crowd. 46 And after he had taken leave of them, he went up on the mountain to pray. 47 And when evening came, the boat was out on the sea, and he was alone on the land. 48 And he saw that they were making headway painfully, for the wind was against them. And about the fourth watch of the night he came to them, walking on the sea. He meant to pass by them, 49 but when they saw him walking on the sea they thought it was a ghost, and cried out, 50 for they all saw him and were terrified. But immediately he spoke to them and said, "Take heart; it is I. Do not be afraid." 51 And he got into the boat with them, and the wind ceased. And they were utterly astounded” (Mark 6:45-51)

This was a pretty cool miracle. But what does it mean? Was Jesus just showing off, or was he trying to teach something? Two rules of thumb when it comes to Jesus are: #1, pretty much everything he did was meant to teach something. #2, the Old Testament is our most important source for understanding the symbolism of his actions.

The Old Testament background that puts this incident in context is Yahweh’s power over the sea. The most famous example of this was the parting of the Red Sea (Exodus 14). Several other passages, some of them referring to this event, refer to Yahweh as making a path or even walking on the sea:

“[God] alone stretched out the heavens and trampled the waves of the sea” (Job 9:8)

“Have you entered into the springs of the sea, or walked in the recesses of the deep?” (Job 38:16)

“Your way was through the sea, your path through the great waters; yet your footprints were unseen.” (Psalm 77:19)

“Thus says the LORD, who makes a way in the sea, a path in the mighty waters” (Isaiah 43:16)

“You trampled the sea with your horses, the surging of mighty waters.” (Habakkuk 3:15)

A closer examination of two of the above passages reveals that they have remarkable textual parallels to the Gospel accounts of this miracle.

The first is Job 9:8. The Septuagint (LXX) is an ancient Greek translation of the Old Testament which was the main Bible read by first century believers like Mark. Job 9:8 LXX reads, “Who alone stretched out the sky and walks on the sea as on dry ground” (New English Translation of the Septuagint). In Greek, the phrase translated ‘walks on the sea’ (peripaton...epi thalassei) is nearly identical to the phrase translated ‘walking on the sea’ in Mark 6:48 (peripaton epi tes thalasses). This has led commentators to believe that Mark saw Jesus’ miracle as a realization of Job 9:8 LXX.

The second is Isaiah 43:10-16. We’ve already read v. 16, which referred to God making a way in the sea (an allusion to the parting of the Red Sea). Now let’s consider v. 10-13:

“10 ‘You are my witnesses,’ declares the LORD, ‘and my servant whom I have chosen, that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor shall there be any after me. 11 I, I am the LORD, and besides me there is no savior. 12 I declared and saved and proclaimed, when there was no strange god among you; and you are my witnesses,’ declares the LORD, ‘and I am God. 13 Also henceforth I am he; there is none who can deliver from my hand; I work, and who can turn it back?’”

The parallel between this passage and the account of Jesus walking on the water is not obvious in English – we again have to compare the Greek Septuagint of Isaiah to the Greek of Mark. A small but important phrase is used in both places: ego eimi. It is used by God in Isaiah 43:10 (where it is translated ‘I am he’), and by Jesus in Mark 6:50 (where it is translated ‘it is I’).

In Isaiah, the phrase ego eimi functions as an expression of God’s absolute, unique existence (see also Isaiah 41:4; 43:25; 45:18; 46:4; 51:12). God has always existed and always will, and there is no other! In Mark, the phrase ego eimi primarily serves simply to identify Jesus (“It’s me Jesus, not a ghost!”) However, given the extraordinary event and this Old Testament background, scholars have suggested that Jesus was also using the phrase to express something else:

“In the original setting of the story, ‘it is I’ probably served as an identification formula…However, Mark may intend his readers to see a more pregnant meaning in these words. In numerous places in the OT, God identifies himself with the words ‘I am’…This, along with the fact that in the OT, God is portrayed as walking on the waters, would further give to ‘it is I’ a theophanic sense.” (Robert H. Stein, Mark, p. 326)

A theophany is when God appears to men. So the point is, when Jesus walked to his disciples on the water and then said “It is I,” he was not only saying, “It is I, your teacher, Jesus of Nazareth.” He was saying, “It is I, the One who has power to make a path in the sea.” But as learned Jews would know from the Old Testament, it is Yahweh and Yahweh alone who rules the sea and traverses it freely. If we read between the lines, what is Jesus really saying about himself?