The Seven Messages of Revelation and Vassal Treaties: Literary Genre, Structure, and Function 9781463236236

Citation preview

The Seven Messages of Revelation and Vassal Treaties

Gorgias Biblical Studies

41

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.

The Seven Messages of Revelation and Vassal Treaties

Literary Genre, Structure, and Function

David E. Graves

9

34 2014

Gorgias Press LLC, 954 River Road, Piscataway, NJ, 08854, USA www.gorgiaspress.com Copyright © 2014 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. 2014

‫ܘ‬

9

ISBN 978-1-4632-0378-8

ISSN 1935-6870

reprinted from the 2009 Gorgias Press edition.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A Cataloging-in-Publication record is available from the Library of Congress. Printed in the United States of America

TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents ..................................................................................... v List of Tables............................................................................................ ix Preface ....................................................................................................... xi Acknowledgments ................................................................................. xiii Abbreviations .......................................................................................... xv Ancient Sources ...................................................................... xvi Modern Sources ...................................................................... xix Introduction .............................................................................................. 1 Key Issues ......................................................................................... 4 Contribution ..................................................................................... 5 1 Chapter One – ANEVT Research................................................ 7 Survey of Previous Research on ANEVT ................................... 7 ANEVT Structure in the Pentateuch ................................... 13 Vassal Treaties of Esarhaddon .............................................. 15 Opposition to the ANEVT in the OT................................. 18 Proponents for the Influence of the ANEVT in Revelation ........................................................................ 20 Opponents of the ANEVT in Revelation ........................... 25 Present Contribution .............................................................. 28 2 Chapter Two – Preliminary Issues.............................................. 31 Methodology .................................................................................. 31 Definitions ...................................................................................... 34 Torah ......................................................................................... 35 Covenant ................................................................................... 37 Lawsuit ...................................................................................... 39 Paraenesis.................................................................................. 40 Date of Revelation ........................................................................ 41 Authorship ...................................................................................... 42 Unity ................................................................................................43 John’s Prophetic Office ................................................................ 44 Summary ......................................................................................... 47 v

vi

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

3

Chapter Three – Literary Genre ................................................. 49 Letters ..............................................................................................51 Imperial Edicts ............................................................................... 54 Imperial Edict Form ............................................................... 54 Similarities of Imperial Edicts Compared With ANEVT ........................................................................... 55 Common Ancestry Hypothesis ............................................. 56 Prophetic Oracles .......................................................................... 82 Methodology ............................................................................ 83 Form-Historical Analysis........................................................ 84 Semitic Origin of the Messages ................................................... 92 Influence of ANEVT Form .................................................. 94 Torah and the Prophet’s Influence on the Messages ........................................................................120 Conclusion ....................................................................................122 Chapter Four – Literary Structure ............................................125 Methodology ................................................................................125 Presence of the ANEVT Structure in Revelation ..................126 The ANEVT Structure Identified in Revelation as a Whole ..........................................................................127 The ANEVT Structure Identified in the SMR .................130 Corroborative Arguments for ANEVT Influence .................191 The Presence of Torah in the SMR ....................................192 Suitability of the Covenant Theme .....................................199 The ANEVT and Anatolian Literature..............................209 Summary .................................................................................210 Answers to Arguments Against ANEVT Influence ..............210 Absence of the Term Covenant ..........................................211 Inconsistent Pattern ..............................................................212 Forced into a Foreign Framework ......................................216 Parallels Do Not Prove Dependence .................................221 Summary .................................................................................222 Conclusion ....................................................................................223 Chapter Five – Exegesis of Revelation 2:8-11 ........................225 Historical Context of Smyrna ....................................................225 Messenger Preamble Formula—v. 8b ......................................227 Description of the Suzerain .................................................228 The Transcendent Suzerain–The First and the Last..................................................................................228 The Suzerain–Dead and Has Come to Life ......................233

4

5

TABLE OF CONTENTS

6

7

vii

Historical Prologue—v. 9...........................................................234 The Suzerain Knows Their Afflictions ..............................234 The Suzerain Knows Their Poverty and Riches...............236 The Suzerain Knows the Enemy ........................................241 Summary .................................................................................251 Ethical Stipulations—v. 10a ......................................................252 First Imperative—Do Not Fear..........................................253 Second Imperative—Be Faithful to Death .......................264 Sanctions—v. 10b, 11b...............................................................266 The Blessing of the Crown of Life .....................................267 Overcomers ............................................................................275 The Blessing of No Second Death .....................................279 Summary .................................................................................281 Proclamation Witness Formula—v. 11a ..................................281 The Call to Hear the Lawsuit ..............................................282 The Mystery of Theodicy .....................................................282 The Rîb B Warning ................................................................283 Conclusion ....................................................................................285 Chapter Six – Literary Function ................................................287 Covenant Lawsuit Oracles .........................................................290 Prophets Function as Legal Witnesses...............................290 SMR Function As Covenant Lawsuits ...............................292 Bandy’s Lawsuit Arguments ................................................296 Legal Function of the ANEVT ...........................................297 The Superiority of Christ’s Kingship .................................298 The Kingdom of God...........................................................299 Summary .................................................................................300 Paraenetic Lawsuit Oracles ........................................................301 The Pure Paraenetic Form in the Message to Smyrna............................................................................302 Summary .................................................................................303 Parabolic Revealing/Concealing ...............................................303 OT Parabolic Roots ..............................................................304 The Influence of the Synoptic Parables .............................305 The Revealed/Concealed Function of Apocalypse .........307 ANEVT Structure Reveals/Conceals ................................307 Summary .................................................................................310 Conclusion ....................................................................................310 Chapter Seven – Epilogue..........................................................313 Contributions ...............................................................................317

viii

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

Supports the Prophetic Oracle Genre of Revelation 2–3 ..............................................................318 Reinforces the Theological Significance of the Covenant ........................................................................319 Strengthens the Paraenetic Role of the Exalted Christ ..............................................................................322 Summary .................................................................................324 Implications ..................................................................................324 The Theological Context......................................................324 The Modern Relevance.........................................................330 Suggestions for Future Research...............................................331 Exegesis of the Remaining Six Messages...........................331 The Relationship Between the Structure of the SMR and Rest of the Book .........................................332 The Implications of the Suzerain/Vassal Relationship for Lamb Christology ...........................332 The Connection Between Covenant and Kingdom ........333 The Place of Revelation 2:10 in Martyrdom Studies ............................................................................334 Conclusion ....................................................................................336 Bibliography ..........................................................................................339 Primary Sources and Reference Works....................................339 Secondary Sources .......................................................................349 Dissertations .................................................................................397 Index of Subjects ..................................................................................401 Index of Authors ..................................................................................415 Index of Primary Sources ....................................................................425 Index of Hebrew Terms ......................................................................445 Index of Greek Terms .........................................................................447 Index of Foreign Terms ......................................................................449

LIST OF TABLES Table 1. ANEVT Structures ............................................................................. 14 Table 2. Aune’s Similar Prophetic Structure .................................................. 80 Table 3. Messenger Preamble Comparison .................................................. 144 Table 4. Historical Prologue Comparison .................................................... 152 Table 5. Stipulations Comparison .................................................................. 157 Table 6. Blessing and Curse Comparison ..................................................... 166 Table 7. Witness Document Comparison .................................................... 176 Table 8. Deposit and Public Reading Comparison .................................... 181 Table 9. ANEVT Summary Comparison ..................................................... 191 Table 10. Evidence of the Decalogue ........................................................... 195 Table 11. Antithetic Parallels in Rev 21–22 ................................................. 205 Table 12. First and Last ................................................................................... 228

ix

PREFACE This volume is the product of more than seven years of study, begun when I was a graduate student at Highland Theological College and the University of Aberdeen. One of my supervisors at the time, Professor Jamie Grant at Highland Theological College, encouraged me to publish my dissertation and with the support of my Aberdeen supervisor, Professor I. Howard Marshall, I slightly edited my work into this present volume. My original intention for my dissertation was to provide an exegetical study of the message directed to the church of Smyrna, and concentrate on the martyrdom motif. However, while studying the text to the seven churches I recognized the recurring structure of the Hittite vassal treaties, which is also well documented in the Old Testament Torah. Shortly thereafter, I discovered two articles (Shea and Du Preez) that identified the same structure in the messages of Revelation and neither individual were familiar with the other’s work, leading me to believe that I was not imposing something onto the text. Thus began the research for this volume that has been both personally challenging and rewarding. The notion of the influence of the ancient Near Eastern vassal treaty structure was not new to me but went back some 33 years to when I was an undergraduate student at Atlantic Baptist College and was reading about Meredith Kline’s work on this subject. It fascinated me then and continues to do so, culminating in this volume. During the course of my research David Aune’s suggestion that the seven messages were influenced by Imperial Edicts intrigued me but never satisfied my impression that they were first and foremost influenced by the OT Torah. The vassal treaty structure common to both the OT and what I believed to be evident in the messages to the churches in Revelation, naturally lent itself to further investigation. xi

xii

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

The purpose of this volume is not only to provide the reader with exegetical and background information on the messages to the seven churches of Asia Minor but to help the reader analyse the genre, structure and function of these proclamations. Therefore, there is a great deal of interdisciplinary data in the book that is becoming increasingly necessary in academic research. Since this is my first published book, I would like to dedicate it to my wife Jane and our daughters Jessica and Rebecca, who supported me during my long hours of research and encouraged me when needed. My hope and prayer is that this research will lead not only to a deeper understanding of the seven messages to the church but also that it will enrich our understanding of the covenant relationship between Christ and his church. David E. Graves July 30, 2009

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Special thanks are due to those who have patiently guided me through this study. Five groups deserve special mention: my supervisors at Highland Theological College (Professors Jamie Grant and Alistair Wilson) and University of Aberdeen (Professor I. Howard Marshall) who carefully read numerous drafts of this earlier dissertation and for prodding me to think more deeply and communicate more clearly; my external readers, Edwin Yamauchi and Allan Millard, for reading their respective materials (GraecoRoman, ancient Near Eastern) and for their helpful comments; special friends and family, Emily Belli, Steven Dempters, Benne Faber, Jessica Grimes, Eileen Mantz, Doug Mantz, Kevin Rogers, Scott Stripling, and Rick Thomas who also read various portions of this manuscript later in the process and for their perceptive recommendations; the library staff at Atlantic Baptist University, especially Ivan Douthwright, Irene Ferguson, and Andrew Marshall and also Martin Cameron at Highland Theological College, for their untiring patience as I requested numerous difficult-to-locate books and articles; the editorial staff at Gorgias Press for accepting my Ph.D. dissertation for publication; and professor Kenneth Kitchen for permission to use the chart in Table 1. In addition to those friends mentioned above, I want to thank Jack Wytock, whose friendship and encouragement prompted me to pursue this research. Also, special thanks to my daughters for their love and patience. Thanks to my daughter Jessica for her excellent grammar skills and for taking time from her busy schedule to offer helpful suggestions regarding grammar and structure. Deepest thanks to my daughter Rebecca for sharing my passion for classics, and quietly cheering me on in my research. In addition, my deepest appreciation belongs to my wife, Jane, for her loving support, careful proofreading, inexhaustible encouragement, and un-

xiii

xiv

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

ending strength she continued to extend to me as she battled cancer during these seven years. Finally, I want to thank God the Father who loved me, the Lord Jesus Christ who saved me, and the Holy Spirit who quickened me. I want to thank the triune God for his covenant faithfulness and blessing which ultimately granted me the opportunity to complete this volume. By His grace I was able to press on to the end as an overcomer. Sola Deo Gloria

ABBREVIATIONS Abbreviations and general format conventions will conform to the standards set out by The SBL Handbook of Style: for Ancient Near Eastern, Biblical and Early Christian Studies by Patrick H. Alexander, et al. eds. second printing (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2002) and Kate L. Turabian, A Manual for Writers of Term Papers, Theses, and Dissertations, 6h ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996). This work follows the SBL Handbook of Style abbreviations for general literary conventions, Bible translations, Biblical books, Dead Sea scrolls, pseudepigraphical, early patristic books, targumic material, Mishnah, Talmud, other Rabbinic works, Nag Hammadi tractates, commonly used periodicals, reference works and serials. Unless otherwise indicated the references to the works of Josephus, Pliny, Philo, Strabo, and other early church sources reflect the Loeb Classical Library numbering system and Latin abbreviations. Eusebius is used from the new updated translation by C. F. Cruse published by Hendrickson unless otherwise indicated. Scripture quotations are taken from the Holy Bible, New International Version®, Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society. Used by permission of Hodder & Stoughton, a member of the Hodder Headline Group. All rights reserved. “NIV” is a trademark of International Bible Society. UK trademark number 1448790. The Septuagint is based on Septuaginta edited by Alfred Rahlfs, Copyright © 1935 by the Württembergische Bibelanstalt / Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft (German Bible Society), Stuttgart. Greek translations are my own and based on the Greek text of the 4h edition of The Greek New Testament (Münster/Westphalia: Institute for New Testament Textual Research, 1975). ed., Kurt Aland, et al., unless otherwise indicated. Philological work is based on Michael S. Bushell, Michael D. Tan BibleWorks™ Version 5 (1992-2002). Where no book is cited before the reference this will refer to a citation from the book of Revelation and has been removed to simplify the xv

xvi

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

text (example: 3:5; 2:6). General abbreviations are used sparingly however, I utilize the following: Ancient Sources 1 Apol. Justin Martyr, Apologia 1; First Apology 1 En. 1 Enoch, Ethiopic Apocalypse 1QS Serek ha-Yahad or Rule of the Community, Manual of Discipline from Qumran Cave 1 1QH Hodayoth or Thanksgiving Hymns from Qumran Cave 1 1QM Milchamah or War Scroll from Qumran Cave 1 2 Bar. 2 Baruch, Syriac Apocrypha 2 Clem. 2 Clement 4QEn First book of 1 Enoch materials from Qumran Cave 4 4QFlor Florilegium from Qumran Cave 4 4QMMT Miqsat macaśê ha-Torah from Qumran Cave 4 4QTest Testimonia from Qumran Cave 4 Acts Pil. Acts of Pilate, The Medieval Gospel of Nicodemus, NT Apocrypha Ag. Ap. Josephus, Against Apion Agr. Cato the Elder, De agricultura AJ. Sophocles, Ajax An. Tertullian, De anima Ann. Tacitus, Annales Antichr. Hippolytus, De antichristo Ap. John Apocryphon of John Apoc. Ab. Apocalypse of Abraham Apoc. El. Apocalypse of Elijah Apost. Const. Apostolic Constitution, commonly called the Clementine Liturgy Arch. Cicero, Pro Archia b. (before rabb. txt.) Babylonian Talmud b. Bar. Babylonian Talmud tractate Barakot b. Meg. Babylonian Talmud tractate Megillah b. Šabb. Babylonian Talmud tractate Shabbat b. Sotah Babylonian Talmud tractate Sotah CD Covenant of Damascus, Cairo (Genizah text) of the Damascus Document Cels. Origen, Contra Celsum

ABBREVIATIONS

xvii

Civ. Augustine, De civitate Dei Comm. Isa. Basil the Great, Commentary on Isaiah Comp. Scribonius Largus, Compositiones Comp. Phil. Flam. Plutarch, Comparatio Philopoemenis et Titi Flaminini Conf. Augustine, Confessiomum libri XIII Cor. Plutarch, Marcius Coriolanus Corp. Hermet. Corpus Hermeticum Descr. Pausanias, Graeciae description Dial. Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho the Jew Dig. Ulpian, Digest of Justinian Ep. Arist. The letter of Aristeas Ep. Mor. Seneca the Younger, Epistulae morales Ep. Pliny the Younger, Epistulae Faust. Augustine, Contra Faustum Manichaeum Flac. Cicero, Pro Flacco Fort. Cyprian, Exhortation to Martyrdom: Addressed to Fortunatus FrgPol. Fragments on Polycarp Fug. Philo, De fuga et inventione Geogr. Strabo, Geography Gk. Apoc. Ezra Greek Apocalypse of Ezra Gos. Mary Gospel of Mary Gos. Thom. Gospel of Thomas Greg Gregorianum Gyn. Soranus, Gynaeciorum libri Haer. Hippolytus, Refutatio omnium haeresium (Philosophoumena) Haer. Irenaeus, Against Heresies Hippoc. Hippocrates Hist. eccl. Eusebius, Historia ecclesiastica Hist. Polybius, The Histories or The Rise of the Roman Empire Hom. Luc. Origen, Homiliae in Lucam Hom. Num. Origen, Homiliae in Numeros Hymn. Hom. Hesiod, Hymnus Homericus Hypoth. Philo, Hypothetica Il. Homer, Illad Inst. Cassiodorus, Institutiones J.W. Josephus, Jewish War Jub. Jubilees

xviii

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

Jusj. Laps. Legat. Life m. m. ’Abot m. Sanh. m. Sotah m. Tamid Magn. Mart. Ascen. Isa. Mart. Ignat. Mart. Pionii Mart. Pol. Med. Mem. Midr. Mos. Nat. Noe Od. Odes Sol. Or. Bas. Or. Or. P.Oxy. Pan. Panath. Paneg. Phil. Philost. Phld. Pirqe ’Abot Pirqe R. El. Pist. Soph. Plant. Praem. Pseud. Clem. Rec. Quaest. Conv. Rab.

Hippocrates, Jus jurandum, The Oath Cyprian, De lapsis Philo, Legatio ad Gaium Josephus, The Life The Mishnah (ed. Herbert Danby) Mishnah tractate Avot Mishnah tractate Sanhedrin Mishnah tractate Sotah Mishnah tractate Tamid Ignatius, To the Magnesians Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah Martyrdom of Ignatius Martyrdom of Pionius Martyrdom of Polycarp Aulus Cornelius Celsus, De Medicina Xenophon, Memorabilia Rabbinic Writing, Midrash Philo, De vita Mosis I, II Pliny the Elder, Naturalis historia Ambrose, De Noe et arca Homer, The Odyssey Odes of Solomon Gregory of Nazianzus, Oratio in Iaudem Basilii Orationes Sibylline , Oracles Oxyrhynchus papyri Epiphanius, Panarion (Adversus haereses) Aristides, Panathenaic Oration Isocrates, Panegyricus (Or. 4) Cicero, Orationes philippicae Philostratus Ignatius, To the Philadelphians Sayings of the Jewish Fathers Pirqe Rabbi Eliezer Pistis Sophia Philo, De Plantatione Philo, De Praemiis et poenis Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions Plutarch, Quaestionum convivialium libri IX Rabbah, rabbinic writing

ABBREVIATIONS rabb. Rom. Hist. Scorp. ScrMed Sert . Shem. Sim. Smyrn. Sobr. Somn. Soph. Jes. Chr. Strom. T. Ab. T. Ben. T. Dan T. Job T. Jud. T. Levi Test. Tg. Tg. Isa. Tg. Jer. Tg. Neof. Tg. Onq. Tim. Vis. Vit. Apoll. Vit. Polyc. Vit. Soph. Vit.

xix

rabbinic Dio Cassius, Roman Histories Tertullian, Scorpiace Scripta Mediterranea Plutarch, Sertorius Shemoth Shepherd of Hermas, Similitude Ignatius, To the Smyrnaeans Philo, De sacrificiis Abelis et Caini Philo, De somniis I, II Sophia of Jesus Christ Clement of Alexandria, Stromata Testament of Abraham Testament of Benjamin Testament of Dan Testament of Job Testament of Judah Testament of Levi Cyprian, To Quirinius: Testomonies against the Jews Targum The Targum of Isaiah The Targum of Jeremiah Targum Neofiti Targum Onqelos Plutarch, Timoleon Shepherd of Hermas, Vision Flavius Philostratus, De Vita Apollonii Pionius, Vita Polycarp Flavius Philostratus, Vita Sophistarum, Life of Sophocles Plutarch, Vitae Parallelae

Modern Sources § section AB Anchor Bible ABD The Anchor Bible Dictionary (6 vols. ed. David Noel Freedman) ABul Art Bulletin ACNT Augsburg Commentary on the New Testament Series

xx

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

AF AGNT AJA AJANT AJT AnBib ANE ANET ANEVT AnOr ANRW ANTC AUSS BA BAR BASOR BDAG BDB BECNT BHM Bib BibOr BJRL BJS BKC BM BMC BN BNTC

attention formula Analytical Lexicon to the Greek New Testament (eds. Timothy Friberg, and Barbara Friberg) American Journal of Archaeology L’Apocalypse johannique et l’ Apocalyptique dans le Nouveau Testament American Journal of Theology Analecta biblica ancient Near East The Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament (ed. James B. Pritchard) ancient Near Eastern vassal treaties (treaty) Analecta Orientalia Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt:Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der neueren Forschung (ed. Wolfgang Haase and Hildegard Temporini) Abingdon New Testament Commentaries Andrews University Seminary Studies Biblical Archaeologist Biblical Archaeology Review Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research Bauer, Walter, F. W. Danker, W. F. Arndt, and F. W. Gingrich, eds. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature Brown, Francis, S. R. Driver, and C. A. Briggs, eds. A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament Bulletin of the History of Medicine Biblica Biblica et orientalia Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library of Manchester Brown Judaic Studies The Bible Knowledge Commentary British Museum British Museum Catalogue Biblische Notizen Black’s New Testament Commentaries

ABBREVIATIONS BR BS BSac BST BT BurH BZ BZAW CAD CahT CBQ CBR CBSC CC CE Chm CIG CIJ CJ CNT COED COS CRINT CTJ CTSJ DAC DBib DBSup DGRRPD

xxi

Biblical Research Bible and Spade Bibliotheca sacra The Bible Speaks Today The Bible Translator Buried History Biblische Zeitschrift Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Chicago Assyrian Dictionary (eds. A. Leo Oppenheim and Erica Reiner) Cahiers théologiques Catholic Biblical Quarterly Currents in Biblical Research The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges Continental Commentaries The Catholic Encyclopedia (eds. Charles G. Herbermann, Edward A. Pace, Conde B. Pallen, Thomas J. Shahan, and John J. Wynne) Churchman Corpus inscriptionum graecarum (ed. August Boeckh et al.) Corpus inscriptionum judaricarum (ed. P. Jean-Baptiste Frey). Classical Journal Commentaire du Nouveau Testament Concise Oxford English Dictionary (ed., Catherine Soanes, and Angus Stevenson) The Context of Scripture. Edited by William W. Hallo and K. Lawson Younger, Jr. 3 vols. Leiden, 1997– Compendia rerum iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum Calvin Theological Journal Chafer Theological Seminary Journal Dictionary of the Apostolic Church (James Hastings) Dictionary of the Bible (James Hastings) Dictionnaire de la Bible: Supplement Die deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerke: Redaktionsund religionsgeschichtliche Perspektiven zur “Deuteronomismus”–Diskussion in Tora und Vorderen Propheten

xxii

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

DJG DSA DSB dtr EBC ECB ECR EDRL EECh EGT ESCJ ESV ETL ETS EvQ ExpTim FRLANT GELNT GNS GNTE GTCEC GTJ HALOT HF HisEd HLR HNT HTR

Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels (eds. J. B. Green, S. McKnight, and I. H. Marshall) Die Staatsverträge des Altertums. Vol. 3: Die Verträge der griechisch-römischen Welt von 338 bis 200 v. Chr. 3.492 (eds. Hermann Bengtson, and Hatto H. Schmitt) The Daily Study Bible Deuteronomistic (history, writer): Deuteronomist The Expositor’s Bible Commentary Eerdmans Commentary on the Bible (eds. James D. G. Dunn and John W. Rogerson) Eastern Churches Review Encyclopedic Dictionary of Roman Law (ed. Adolf Berger) Encyclopedia of the Early Church (ed. Angelo di Berardino) Expositor’s Greek Testament Studies in Christianity and Judaism/Études sur le christianisme et le judaïsme English Standard Version Ephemerides theologicae lovanienses Evangelical Theological Society Evangelical Quarterly Expository Times Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten and Neuen Testaments Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Joseph Henry Thayer) Good News Studies Guides to New Testament Exegesis The Greek Testament: A Critical and Exegetical Commentary Grace Theological Journal The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (Ludwig Koehler, Walter Baumgartner, and Johann J. Stamm, eds.) hearing formula History of Education Harvard Law Review Handbuch zum neuen Testament Harvard Theological Review

ABBREVIATIONS HUCA IBD IBS IC ICC IDBSup IGRom Int ISBE IVPNTC JAAR JAC JAMA JANESCU JAOS JBL JEA JEH JETS JHS JJS JKF JLR JMA JNES JÖAI JQR JRASC JRE JRH JSJSup JSNT

xxiii

Hebrew University College Annual The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible (gen. ed. George A. Buttrick) Irish Biblical Studies Interpretation Commentary International Critical Commentary Series Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, Supplementary Volume (ed. Keith Crim) Inscriptiones Graecae ad Res Romanas Pertinentes. 4 vols. (eds. G. Lafaye, and R. Cagnat) Interpretation The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (eds. James Orr, John L. Nuelsen, Edgar Y. Mullins, Morris O. Evans, Melvin Grove Kyle) InterVarsity Press New Testament Commentary Series Journal of the American Academy of Religion Journal of Ancient Civilizations Journal of the American Medical Association Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society of Columbia University Journal of the American Oriental Society Journal of Biblical Literature Journal of Egyptian Archaeology Journal of Ecclesiastical History Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society Journal of Hellenic Studies Journal of Jewish Studies Jahrbuch für kleinasiatische Forschung Journal of Law and Religion Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology Journal of Near Eastern Studies Jahreshefte des Österreichischen archäologischen Institut The Jewish Quarterly Review Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada Journal of Religious Ethics Journal of Religious History Journal for the Study of Judaism: Supplements Journal for the Study of the New Testament

xxiv

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

JSNTSup JSOT KEK L&N LBI LEC LEH LNTS LSJ MAJF MNTC MSJ MTS NCamBC NCB NDBT NedTT Neot NIBC NICNT NICOT NIDNTT NIDOTTE NIGTC NovT NTC NTD NTS

Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar uber das Neue Testmanet Louw, J. P. and E. A. Nida, eds. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains Library of Biblical Interpretation Library of Early Christianity Lust, Johan, Erik Eynikel and Katrin Hauspie, eds. A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint The Library of New Testament Studies Liddell, Henry G. and Robert Scott, eds. The Abridged Liddell-Scott Greek-English Lexicon Mémorial André-Jean Festugière: Antiquité païenne et chrétienne The Moffatt New Testament Commentary The Master’s Seminary Journal message to Smyrna The New Cambridge Bible Commentary New Century Bible Commentary New Dictionary of Biblical Theology (eds.T. Desmond Alexander, Brian S. Rosner, D. A. Carson, and Graeme Goldsworthy) Nederlands theologisch tijdschrift Neotestamentica New International Biblical Commentary New International Commentary on the New Testament New International Commentary on the Old Testament New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (ed. Brown, Colin) New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis (ed. Willem A.VanGemeren) New International Greek Testament Commentary Novum Testamentum New Testament Commentary Neue Testament Deutsch New Testament Studies

ABBREVIATIONS OBO OCD OGIS OTE ÖTKNT OtSt PC PCNT PECS PIASH PTMS PW

RAC RB RBL RevExp RivB RSA RSPT SAM SBLSS SBT SBTS SMR SNT SNTSMS

xxv

Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis The Oxford Classical Dictionary (eds. Simon Hornblower, and Antony J. S. Spawforth) Orientis Graeci Inscriptiones Selectae, Supplementum Sylloges Inscriptionum Graecarum (ed. Wilhelmus Dittenberger) Old Testament Essays Ökumenischer Taschenbuchkommentar zum Neuen Testament Oudtestamentische Studiën Proclamation Commentaries A Popular Commentary on the New Testament by English and American Scholars of Various Evangelical Denominations Princeton Encyclopaedia of Classical Sites (eds.Richard Stillwell, William L. MacDonald, and Marian Holland McAllister) Proceedings of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities Princeton Theological Monograph Studies Pauly’s Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft (New edition. eds. Georg Wissowa, Wilhelm Kroll, Kurt Witte, Karl Mittelhaus and Konrat Ziegler) Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum Revue Biblique Reveiw of Biblical Literature Review and Expositor Rivista Biblica Italiana Religion in South Africa Revue des Sciences Philosophiques et Théologiques Studies in Ancient Medicine Society of Biblical Literature: Resources for Biblical Study Studies in Biblical Theology Sources for Biblical and Theological Study seven messages of Revelation Studien zum Neuen Testament Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series

xxvi

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

SOED SPCK SPNO SR StBL SUBSB SZDZDL TAPS TB TDNT TDOT Them ThSt TJ TLZ TNTC TOTC TPINTC TQ TR TRu TSAJ TSK TWNT TZ UF VT VTE VTSup WBC WDBA WMANT

C. T. Onions, Shorter Oxford English Dictionary Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge Studia Paulo Naster Oblata Studies in Religion Studies in Biblical Literature Scripture Union Bible Study Books Studien Zum Deuteronomium und Zur deuteronomistischen Literatur Transactions of the American Philosopical Society Tyndale Bulletin Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (eds. G. Kittel and G. Friedrich) Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament (eds. G. Johannes Botterweck, and Helmer Ringgren) Themelios Theologische Studiën Trinity Journal Theologische Literaturzeitung The Tyndale New Testament Commentary The Tyndale Old Testament Commentary Trinity Press International New Testament Commentaries Theologische Quartalschrift Textus Receptus Theologische Rundschau Texte und Studien zum antiken Judentum Theologische Studien und Kritiken Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament (eds. G. Kittel and G. Friedrich). Theologische Zeitschrift Ugarit-Forschungen Vetus Testamentum vassal treaties of Esarhaddon Vestus Testamentum, Supplements Word Biblical Commentary Wycliffe Dictionary of Biblical Archaeology (ed. Charles F. Pfeiffer) Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament

ABBREVIATIONS WNWCD WTJ WUNT WycBC ZABR ZAW ZKT ZNW ZPE ZPEB ZRGG

W

xxvii

Webster’s New World College Dictionary (ed. Michael Agnes) Westminster Theological Journal Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament The Wycliffe Bible Commentary Zeitschrift für altorientalische und biblische Rechtsgeschichte Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible (ed. Merrill C. Tenney) Zeitschrift Für Religions- und Geistesgeschichte variable content occurs

INTRODUCTION A whole generation of scholars has wrestled with the genre, structure, and function of the seven proclamations1 of Revelation (2– 3).2 David E. Aune highlights the complexity of study for the seven proclamations when he writes that a satisfactory solution to the twin problems of the internal literary structure of the proclamations to the seven churches of Rev 2–3 and the external literary form to which they have the closest generic relationship continues to challenge New Testament scholarship.3

While it is possible to analyse the literary structure of the seven proclamations without looking for some existing form into which it might fit, most scholars examine such forms to see if one provides the pattern followed by John.4 Some of the proposed pos-

1 The terms proclamations, messages and oracles will be used interchangeably to refer to what traditionally have been called letters. Often these will be referred to as the “Seven Messages of Revelation” or the SMR. See chapter 3—Letters, 39. 2 Lars Hartman, “Form and Message: A Preliminary Discussion of ‘Partial Texts’ in Rev 1–3 and 22, 6 ff.,” in AJANT (ed. Jan Lambrecht; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1980), 129–49; David E. Aune, “The Form and Function of the Proclamations to the Seven Churches,” NTS 36 (1990): 182–204; Robert L. Thomas, “Literary Genre and Hermeneutics of the Apocalypse,” MSJ 2.1 (1991): 79–92; Bruce J. Malina, On the Genre and Message of Revelation: Star Visions and Sky Journeys (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1995). 3 Aune, “Form,” 182. 4 The comparison of these proclamations to other literary forms is understandable as many of the words and phrases within the messages are

1

2

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

sibilities for the structure of the messages include revelatory letters,5 Greek oracles,6 royal/imperial edicts,7 and prophecy in speech oracles.8 To help identify a suitable structure, it is useful not only to consider internal indicators, but also to examine the external Graeco-Roman9 and Hebraic-Semitic10 influence on the messages. similar to these external documents. See chapter 3—Prophetic Oracles, 82. 5 Klaus Berger, “Apostelbrief und apostolische Rede: Zum Formular frühchristlicher Briefe,” ZNW 65 (1974): 212–19; Ulrich B. Müller, “Literarische und formgeschichtliche Bestimmung der Apokalypse des Johannes als einem Zeugnis frühchristlicher Apokalyptik,” in Apocalypticism in the Mediterranean World and the Near East: Proceedings of the International Colloquium on Apocalypticism, Uppsala. August 12–17, 1979 (ed. David Hellholm; Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1983), 601 n. 6a. 6 John T. Kirby, “The Rhetorical Situation of Rev 1–3,” NTS 34.2 (1988): 197–207. 7 David E. Aune, Prophesy in Early Christianity and the Ancient Mediterranean World (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983; repr., Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2003), 326; “Form,” 183. 8 Ulrich B. Müller, Prophetie und Predigt im Neuen Testament: Formgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zur Urchristlichen Prophetie (SNT 10; Gütersloh: Mohn, 1975). 9 The genre of the messages as Greek oracles and Roman imperial edicts presupposes a Graeco-Roman influence. The Graeco-Roman local reference allusions within the messages, as proposed by Ramsay, Hemer, and others, are not the focus of this book and will only be examined in conjunction with the exegesis of the message to Smyrna in chapter five. There is also a significant Graeco-Roman/Hebraic-Semitic influence on the content of the other six messages in Revelation, but it will not be considered. Colin J. Hemer, The Letters to the Seven Churches of Asia in their Local Setting (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989); William M. Ramsay, The Letters to the Seven Churches (Updated Edition. ed. Mark W. Wilson. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994); Charles H. H. Scobie, “Local References in the Letters to the Seven Churches,” NTS 39.4 (1993): 606–24; contra Leonard L. Thompson, The Book of Revelation: Apocalypse and Empire (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990), 202–204. 10 The term Hebraic-Semitic is a broad category which will be used to describe the influence of both Hebrew and Semite characteristics. In this context, the term Semitic includes the broader cultural and linguistic characteristics of the Akkadian, Ugaritic, Hebrew and other Semitic languages and cultures. The Hittites were not Semites because they spoke

INTRODUCTION

3

Over 20 years ago, David Aune established the standard description of the genre of the seven proclamations of Revelation 2–3 as “royal or imperial edict” (Graeco-Roman influence),11 largely on the negative basis that the texts do not “rigidly replicate the generic features of any known ancient literary form.”12 The present work will challenge Aune’s statement by showing that there is a known form that is replicated in the messages, although not rigidly, namely that of the ancient Near Eastern vassal treaties (ANEVT) via the Torah and OT lawsuit material. The influence of the ANEVT on the seven messages of Revelation (SMR) indicates a Hebraic-Semitic influence which has a long history. It starts with the Hittite and Assyrian treaties, and it is identifiable in the OT pentateuchal material, as well as the OT prophetic oracles. This large body of material eventually influences John. While the Torah unmistakably shows the presence of the ANEVT structure,13 elements are also present in the covenant lawsuit material of the OT prophets. Given the influence of the Torah on the prophets, it is natural for the prophetic use of the covenant lawsuit to contain elements of the ANEVT, particularly the sanctions of blessing and cursing evident in OT Rîb patterns. John’s messages are hybrid14 an Indo-European language; however, since they were located in Asia Minor, and influenced the Semitic world, they will also be included under this term. Thus, the term will embrace concepts from the ancient Near East including OT allusions, covenant structure, and vassal treaties. The Hebraic-Semitic influence is evident from the OT influence in Revelation as well as the genre of prophetic speech oracles. See chapter 3—Prophetic Oracles, 82. 11 Aune, “Form,” 183; Prophecy, 326. 12 David E. Aune, Revelation 1–5 (WBC 52a; Dallas: Word, 1997), 125; Aune, “Form,” 195. Aune bases his claim on Hartman and Karrer. Hartman, “Form,” 142; Martin Karrer, Die Johannesoffenbarung als Brief: Studien zu ihrem literarischen, historischen und theologischen Ort (FRLANT 140.1; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986), 159ff. 13 Kenneth A. Kitchen, On the Reliability of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 284–88. 14 Hybrid is used here as something “composed of incongruous elements” (Soanes and Stevenson, eds., “hybrid,” COED 488). The work will attempt to argue that John is not duplicating either OT prophetic oracles or the message of Deuteronomy, but rather that he composes his own

4

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

prophetic oracles incorporating the covenant lawsuit15 message of the prophets, structured after the covenant schema found in the Torah. The treaty scheme was not some amorphous idea of treaty but the covenant treaty of the Torah found throughout the OT. This work will attempt to show that the genre of the seven messages in Revelation 2–3 is hybrid prophetic oracle influenced by the Hebraic-Semitic covenantal elements functioning as a set of paraenetic16 lawsuits. The presence of the ANEVT structure within the messages, consistent with the prophetic genre, will be demonstrated for each of the SMR, but exegetically highlighted more fully in the message to Smyrna17 (2:8–11), as a clear example of what is present in all of the messages. The ANEVT structures within the SMR are appropriate for prophetic oracles that call the churches to repentance and covenantal faithfulness.

KEY ISSUES This work wrestles with three key issues. First, it identifies the literary genre and the relationship, if any, between Hebraic-Semitic prophetic oracles and a Graeco-Roman imperial edict structure in

unique brand of lawsuit oracle packaged with the ANEVT structure used by Moses in Deuteronomy to create what could be called a hybrid prophetic lawsuit oracle. 15 Alan S. Bandy has documented the prominent theme of judgment in Revelation, “of which the lawsuit is a subsidiary.” He posits, following Harvey’s work, “The letters as covenant lawsuit speeches” (“The Prophetic Lawsuit in the Book of Revelation: An Analysis of the Lawsuit Motif in Revelation with Reference to the Use of the Old Testament,” [Ph.D. diss., Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2007], 347, 222; Julien Harvey, Le plaidoyer prophétique, contre Israël après la rupture de l’alliance: Étude d’une formule littéraire de l’Ancien Testament [Paris: Bruges, 1967], 172–96). See chapter 1—Alan Bandy (2007), 27. 16 Sometimes spelled parenetic, it is an element of speech, here identified as promising, blessing, or warning with a persuasive exhortation to repent. In this context parenetic is linked by Aune with “salvationjudgment oracles” (Prophesy, 326; see Müller, Prophetie, 94). See chapter 2— Definitions, 34. 17 Justification for selecting Smyrna above the other six messages can be found in chapter 2—Methodology, 31.

INTRODUCTION

5

the seven proclamations.18 Second, it identifies the presence of the ANEVT structural influence on the SMR exegetically demonstrated within the message to Smyrna (2:8–11).19 Third, it explores the function of the SMR within the context of the first-century church of Asia Minor, and it explores whether John consciously or unconsciously blends various traditions from different backgrounds.20 The focus is upon how literary, rhetorical, and cultural background contexts condition the linguistic usage, grammatical style, and conceptual framework of the text.

CONTRIBUTION The contribution of this work can be summed up in three statements. First, the presence of ANEVT structure within the SMR supports the prophetic oracle genre of Revelation 2–3. Second, although some scholars, like Gräßer,21 challenge the place of the covenant relationship within the NT, the presence of covenant lawsuit elements within the SMR,22 presented in an ANEVT schema, reinforces the covenant in the NT, as still theologically significant in the way God’s dealing with the church is presented. Third, the ANEVT schema strengthens the paraenetic role of the exalted Christ (king) addressing his church (subjects) against the background of the pseudo-kingship of the Roman emperor.

18

See chapter 3—Literary Genre, 49. See chapter 4—Literary Structure, 125. 20 David E. Aune, “The Apocalypse of John and Graeco-Roman Revelatory Magic,” NTS 33.4 (1987): 481. 21 Erich Gräßer, Der Alte Bund im Neuen: Exegetische Studien zur Israelfrage im Neuen Testament (WUNT 35; Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1985), 135– 67; Scott W. Hahn, “Covenant in the Old and New Testaments: Some Current Research (1994–2004),” CBR 3.2 (2005): 282–85. 22 Bandy, “Lawsuit,” 215–27. 19

1 CHAPTER ONE – ANEVT RESEARCH SURVEY OF PREVIOUS RESEARCH ON ANEVT The discoveries of the Mesopotamian and Hittite treaties,1 along with other documents,2 have revealed structural similarities between the ANEVT and Israelite covenants.3 The broad cultural 1 Ernst F. Weidner, Politische Dokumente aus Kleinasien (Boghazköi Studies 8, 9. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1923, repr. 1970); Johannes Friedrich, Staatsverträge des Hatti-Reiches (2 vols.; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1926); Guy Kestemont, Diplomatique et droit internationale en Asie Occidentale (1600–1200 av. J.C.) (Institut Orientaliste 9; Louvain-la-Neuve: Université Catholique de Louvain, 1974); Emmanuel Laroche, Catalogue des textes hittites (Études et commentaires 75; Paris: Éditions Klincksieck, 1971), nos. 8–11, 14–30, 32–45. Gary M. Beckman identifies thirty-five Hittite treaties and translates twenty-two from ca. 1500–1200 BC (Hittite Diplomatic Texts [2d ed.; SBLWAW 7; ed. Harry A. Hoffner, Jr.; Atlanta: Scholars, 1999], 6–8). For a list of Hittite treaties and various sources, see John H. Walton, Ancient Israelite Literature in its Cultural Context: A Survey of Parallels between Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern Texts (LBI. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990), 96– 100. 2 Other documents include the Babylonian kudurru, Neo-Assyrian (Simo Parpola and Kazuko Watanabe eds., New-Assyrian Treaties and Loyalty Oaths [SAA 2; Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 1988], no. 1–107, 28– 58), and Syro-Palestinian (Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Aramaic Inscriptions of Sefire [BibOr 19A; rev. ed.; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1995], nos. 46–48) . 3 Scholars have identified two distinct types of treaties; parity (between equals) and suzerain-vassal (between greater and lesser). John A. Thompson, The Ancient Near Eastern Treaties and the Old Testament (London: Tyndale, 1964), 12; James B. Pritchard, ed. The Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament (3d ed. with supplement; Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969), 201. George E. Mendenhall and Kenneth A. Kitchen suggest that the treaties of the first millennium BC do not correspond to the Sinai covenant but correspond to the Hittite treaties of the late-second-millennium (Mendenhall, Law and Covenant in Israel and the Ancient Near East [Pittsburgh: The Presbyterian Board of Colportage of

7

8

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

milieus reflected in this wide variety of treaties4 are all similar and have impacted the OT documents.5 Much of the research has focused on Deuteronomy, although the ANEVT parallels have also been noted in Exodus 20, Joshua 24, and the Prophets.6 The research in ANEVT has its origins in the works of those who have detected the presence of the ANEVT structure in the OT covenant.7 Western Pennsylvania, 1955], 53–70; “Covenant,” IDB 1:714; Kitchen, Ancient Orient and Old Testament [London: Tyndale, 1966], 91, 99; Reliability, 283–94). Peter C. Craigie argues that the reason for the Hittite treaty being the closest formal similarity between the Hebrew covenant . . . [was] . . . the fortuitous nature of the archaeological discovery. It is the Hittite treaties that are known, but according to the hypothesis, the Hebrew covenant would be similar to the no longer extant Egyptian vassal treaties. Finally, it should be noted that the early uses of brt that are known in Egyptian texts come from the period of the pharaoh who is thought to have been in power at the time of the Exodus (The Book of Deuteronomy [NICOT 5; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976], 83).

Cf. Dennis J. McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant: A Study in the Ancient Oriental Documents and in the Old Testament (AnBib 21a; Rome: Biblical Institute, 1981), 152–3; Donald J. Wiseman, “The Vassal-Treaties of Esarhaddon,” Iraq 20 (1958): 3. For an excellent survey of the influence of the ANEVT on the covenant cf. Petrus J. Gräbe, New Covenant, New Community: The Significance of Biblical and Patristic Covenant Theology for Contemporary Understanding (Bletchley, Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2006), 30–36. 4 Amnon Altman, “Rethinking the Hittite System of Subordinate Countries from the Legal Point of View,” JAOS 123.4 (2003): 741–56. 5 René A. Lopez, “Israelite Covenants in the Light of Ancient Near Eastern Covenants,” CTSJ 9.4 (2003): 97–102. 6 See chapter 3—ANEVT Influence on the Torah, 97. 7 This is only representative of a larger body of material. George E. Mendenhall, “Covenant Forms in Israelite Tradition,” BA 17 (1954), 50– 76; F. Charles Fensham, “Malediction and Benediction in Ancient Near Eastern Vassal-Treaties and the Old Testament,” ZAW 74 (1962), 1–9; “Clauses of Protection in Hittite Vassal-Treaties and the Old Testament,” VT 13 (1963): 133–43; Thompson, Treaties, 1–39; Delbert R. Hillers, Treaty-curses and the Old Testament Prophets (BibOr 16; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1964), 6; McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant, 51–81. For a more detailed list of sources cf. Gary N. Knoppers, “Ancient Near Eastern

CHAPTER ONE – ANEVT RESEARCH

9

The research in ANEVT has its origins in Mendenhall and Bickerman, who detected the presence of the ANEVT structure in the OT covenant relationship with Israel.8 Based on research by Korošec,9 Mendenhall identified six elements in the suzerainty treaty10 which form a functional structure. These elements are the preamble,11 historical prologue,12 stipulations,13 blessing and cursing,14 witness,15 and

Royal Grants and the Davidic Covenant: A Parallel?” JAOS 116.4 (1996): 670 n. 2. 8 George E. Mendenhall based his work Law and Covenant in Israel and the Ancient Near East on his Ph. D. dissertation, “The Verb in Early Northwest Semitic Dialects,” (Ph.D. diss., John Hopkins University, 1947). This is only representative of a larger body of material. Elias Bickerman, “Couper une alliance,” Archives d’histoire du droit oriental 5 (1950–1951): 133–56; Mendenhall, “Covenant Forms,” 50–76; Fensham, “Malediction,” 1–9; “Clauses,” 133–43; Thompson, Treaties, 1–39; Hillers, Treaty-curses, 6; McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant, 51–81. For a more detailed list of sources cf. Knoppers, “Grants,” 670 n. 2. 9 Viktor Korošec, Hethitische Staatsverträge: Ein Beitrag zu ihrer juristischen Wertung (Leipzig: Weicher, 1931), 12–14. E. Von Schuler questions Korošec’s uniform structure of the Hittite treaties (“Sonderformen hethitischer Staatsverträge,” JKF 2 [1965]: 445–64). Gary M. Beckman believes that the narrow set of texts available for his research primarily from the reign of king Muršili II misled Korošec (“Hittite Treaties and the Development of Cuneiform Treaty Tradition,” in Die deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerke: Redaktions- und religionsgeschichtliche Perspektiven zur “Deuteronomismus”–Diskussion in Tora und Vorderen Propheten [ed. Marku Witte et al.; BZAW 365; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2006], 184 n. 25). 10 While Mendenhall identifies four different types of secular covenants as suzerainty, parity, patron, and promissory, he argues that the biblical model fits best with the suzerainty treaties (“Covenant,” IDB 1:716–23). 11 Walton prefers the title Introduction of the Speaker (Israelite Literature, 101). Harvey uses the term Titulature («Le ‘RÎB-pattern’, réquisitoire prophétique sur la rupture de l’alliance,» Bib 43.2 [1962]: 186). McCarthy and James Du Preez, following Korošec, use the term Titulary, a replacement of the Germanism titulature (Treaty and Covenant, 51, 67; Du Preez, “Ancient Near Eastern Vassal Treaties and the Book of Revelation: Possible Links,” RSA 2.2 [1981]: 33–34; Korošec, Staatsverträge, 11–14). 12 John Bright uses the term historical recital while McCarthy simply uses the history or historical narrative (Covenant and Promise [Philadelphia:

10

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

deposit/public reading.16 The components fluctuate in number and order throughout the various ANEVT (Hittite, Assyrian, Aramean, etc.); however, according to Lopez, “Scholars have come to a consensus that the six elements” form a single, basic, uniform treaty formulary used throughout the ANE as a typical pattern.17 Westminster, 1976], 37; McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant, 51, 53). Pritchard uses the title Historical Introduction (ANET, 203). 13 McCarthy uses the term stipulations but prefers clause or terms as he believes they are better suited to the idea of the “prescriptions of treaties” (Treaty and Covenant, 51 n. 3). Beckman primarily uses the term provisions but also makes use of stipulations (Hittite Diplomatic Texts, 3). 14 Julien Harvey uses the French terms Malédictions et bénédictions («RÎB-pattern,» 186). These terms are used interchangeably with cursing and blessing by many writers. Robert Muse prefers the German term Weckruf, literally wake up, watch or hear for the curse (“Revelation 2–3: A Critical Analysis of Seven Prophetic Messages,” JETS 29.2 [1986]: 160). Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza translates Weckruf as “exhortation to watch” and as Siegerspruch for benediction translating it as a “conqueror’s saying” (Revelation: Vision of a Just World [PC; ed. Gerhard Krodel; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991], 47). Frederick P. Mazzaferri used the German term Weckformel literally waking formula for the curse (Genre of the Book of Revelation from a Source-Critical Perspective [Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1989], 121). 15 Harvey uses the French phrase Invocation des dieux («RÎB-pattern,» 186), while Meredith G. Kline uses Invocation of Witnesses (Treaty of the Great King: The Covenant Structure of Deuteronomy: Studies and Commentary [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1963], 15). 16 The deposit and public reading elements are not part of the structure. Rather they are functional elements that accompanied the treaties but demonstrate solidarity with the elements of the ANEVT formulary. The deposit and public reading elements provide a delivery mechanism for perpetuity. Mendenhall, “Covenant Forms,” 59–60; Korošec, Staatsverträge, 12– 14; Beckman, “Hittite Treaties,” 284–86. Harvey uses the French term Détails techniques («RÎB-pattern,» 186). Beckman prefers the term depositions (Hittite Diplomatic Texts, 3). Du Preez and McCarthy prefer the term Document Clause as they combine the element of public reading with preservation (“Vassal Treaties,” 38; McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant, 52, 63). See chapter 4—The ANEVT Structure Identified in the SMR, 130. 17 Lopez, “Covenants,” 9:72. McCarthy agrees and states that “in spite of variations in different times and places, variations even of some importance, there is a fundamental unity in the treaties. And this unity goes back beyond the Hittite examples unto the third millennium” (Treaty

CHAPTER ONE – ANEVT RESEARCH

11

Kline18 and Kitchen19 argue that the Hittite treaty form influences the OT covenant, particularly identified in Deuteronomy.20 Weinfeld finds fault with Mendenhall’s supposition that only Hittite treaties served as the model and archetype of the Biblical covenant. The pattern of the Hittite state treaties is, without doubt, reflected in the covenant forms of the early biblical sources (Ex. 19–24; Jos. 24), but the discovery of state treaties formulated in the traditional pattern and dating from the same period of Deuteronomy militates against the view that the author of Deuteronomy has imitated ancient treaty forms. It is more likely, as will become apparent later on, that the author of Deuteronomy formulated the Covenant of the Plains of Moab on the pattern of political treaties current in his own time which propagated the tradition of and Covenant, 80). Noel Weeks cautions that “there is no fixed treaty form, even within one society at one particular time. Rather there is a clustering around a typical pattern: but that clustering includes, if we take the Hittites as example, grants, decrees, instructions and other sorts of texts” [emphasis added] (Admonition and Curse: The Ancient Near Eastern Treaty/Covenant Form as a Problem in Inter-Cultural Relationships [Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2004], 174). 18 Meredith G. Kline argues that God’s covenant with Israel providentially coincides with the suzerainty treaties of the Hittites; thus, the treaty form was “available, needing only to be taken up and inspired by the breath of God” (Structure of Biblical Authority [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972], 37). 19 Kitchen claims that the ANEVT served as the “model and archetype of the Biblical covenant” (Reliability, 290). 20 Kline, Biblical Authority, 43; Treaty, 48–49; Kenneth A. Kitchen, “The Patriarchal Age: Myth or History?” BAR 21.2 (1995): 48–57, 89–95; Reliability, 286; “Egypt, Qatna, and Covenant,” UF 11 (1979): 453–64; “The Fall and Rise of Covenant, Law and Treaty,” TynBul 40 (1989): 118– 35; cf. Itamar Singer, “Hittites and the Bible Revisited,” in “I will Speak the Riddles of Ancient Times” (eds. Aren M. Maeir and P. de Miroschedji; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2004), 723–56; Harry A. Hoffner, Jr. “Ancient Israel’s Literary Heritage Compared with Hittite Textual Data,” in The Future of Biblical Archaeology: Reassessing Methodologies and Assumptions (eds. James K. Hoffmeier and Alan Millard; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 182–83.

12

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES the Hittite treaty. Furthermore, it is in Deuteronomy rather than Exodus or Joshua that the original pattern has been preserved [emphasis added].21

Thus, Israel understood its relationship with Yahweh, the Great King, in terms of ancient Near Eastern treaty culture.22

21

Moshe Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School (Oxford: Clarendon, 1972), 60–61. Weinfeld argues for similarities between various aspects of the VTE,21 while still pointing out some Hittite influence in Deuteronomy (“Traces of Assyrian Treaty Formulae in Deuteronomy,” Bib 46 [1965]: 417–27). Cf. Moshe Weinfeld, “The Vassal Treaties of Esarhaddon and the Dating of Deuteronomy,” OtSt 14 (1965): 152–54; Weinfeld, Deuteronomic School, 59–60. While Weinfeld acknowleges that “many affinities between the VTE and the Deuteronomic covenant have been established,” he also points out, in his commentary, that the “affection [love motif] of Deuteronomy follows the Hittite line and not the Assyrian one” (Deuteronomy 1–11 [AB; New York: Doubleday, 1991], 17, 8). He observes that “the major sections of the Hittite state treaties, such as the preamble, the historical prologue, the stipulation of undivided allegiance, the clauses of the treaty, the invocation of witnesses, the blessings and curses, together with other features which appear in the Hittite treaty, such as the oath-imprecation, the deposit of the treaty, and its periodic reading, are all found in the book of Deuteronomy, whereas many of them are lacking in Exod. 19–24 and in Josh. 24” (Deuteronomic School, 61). For Weinfeld’s comparison of the Hittite and Assyrian treaties see “Covenant Making in Anatolia and Mesopotamia,” JANESCU 22 (1992): 139. 22 Kline, Biblical Authority, 43. Weeks acknowledges that since the common patterns and “forms from different civilizations look sufficiently similar to have a common origin, there must have been links, direct or indirect, between the different manifestations of treaties”(Admonition and Curse, 11). However, while Weeks goes on to remind us of the lack of direct evidence for this connection and that “each national tradition relates to the others in complex ways” (Admonition and Curse, 11), the ANEVT structural similarities are still remarkably evident. For a current survey of the influence of ANEVT structure see Richard M. Davidson, “The Covenant Lawsuit Motif in Canonical Perspective,” Unpublished paper presented at the ETS, NT Group (Providence, Rhode Island, November 20, 2008).

CHAPTER ONE – ANEVT RESEARCH

13

ANEVT Structure in the Pentateuch Scholars have securely established the presence of the ANEVT structure within the Pentateuch,23 particularly in Deuteronomy,24 with the Sinai covenant and the renewal of the covenant.25 Moses appears in the Torah as the prototypical prophet; he has direct communication with Yahweh and divine instruction to speak to God’s people (Exod 4:14–16; 7:1–2; Deut 5:23–27; 18:9–22; 34:10). Recently Jeffrey J. Niehaus argues for the same ANEVT pattern in the Noahic covenant (Gen 9:1–18), the Abrahamic covenant (Gen 15:1–19), and the Davidic covenant (2 Sam 7:1–17).26

23 Exodus, Deuteronomy, Joshua 24 and the Prophets are analyzed comparatively under each element of the ANEVT structure in chapter 4– Presence of the ANEVT Structure in Revelation, 126. 24 See chapter 3—ANEVT Influence on the Torah, 97. 25 Generally, scholars view Deuteronomy as a “covenant renewal document” (Ronald Youngblood, The Heart of the Old Testament [2d ed.; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998], 51). See Kline, Treaty, 28; John A. Thompson, Deuteronomy (TOTC 5; Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1979), 19. For a detailed list of scholars see Knoppers, “Grants,” 671 n. 3. Gerhard Von Rad views Deuteronomy as a farewell speech structured as “regular covenant formulary” and considers that its Sitz im Leben imitates a periodic cultic celebration (Deuteronomy: A Commentary [Old Testament Library; 2d ed.; Atlanta: Knox, 1966], 22–23; The Problem of the Hexateuch and Other Essays [New York: McGraw-Hill, 1966], 27–33). Weinfeld, also views Deuteronomy as a farewell speech but links it to a covenant succession ceremony (Deuteronomy, 4–5). 26 Jeffrey J. Niehaus, “Covenant: An Idea in the Mind of God,” JETS 52.2 (2009): 231.

14

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

Table 1. ANEVT Structures27

27

Reprinted by permission from Kitchen, “Patriarchal Age,” 54.

CHAPTER ONE – ANEVT RESEARCH

15

Vassal Treaties of Esarhaddon Assuming a late date for Deuteronomy, Frankena and Steymans argue that Deuteronomy follows the Assyrian vassal treaties of Esarhaddon of the seventh century BC.28 Pakkala argues against Deuteronomy being influenced by any particular late Assyrian vassal treaty but does believe it stands in the ANEVT tradition.29 Kitchen vociferously argues for the Hittite influence on the Pentateuchal texts (see Table 1).30 Wiseman’s earlier observation supports Kitchen’s claim. Wiseman maintains that the collection of vassal-treaties of Esarhaddon in their form, language and spirit . . . continues the tradition well-known from the Hittite treaties and Old Testament covenants (some of which may well have originated in the second millennium

28 R. Frankena, “The Vassal-Treaties of Esarhaddon and the Dating of Deuteronomy,” OtSt 14 (1965): 122–54; Hans Ulrich Steymans, Deuteronomium 28 und adê zur Thronfolgeregelung Asarhaddons: Segen und Fluch im Alten Orient und in Israel (OBO 145. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1995), 34–52; “Eine assyrische Vorlage fur Deuteronomium 28,20–44,” in Bundesdokument und Gesetz: Studien zum Deuteronomium (HBS 4; ed. G. Braulik; Freiburg: Herder, 1995), 118–41; “Die literarische und historische Bedeutung der Thronfolgevereidigungen Asarcaddons,” in Die deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerke: Redaktionsund religionsgeschichtliche Perspektiven zur “Deuteronomismus”–Diskussion in Tora und Vorderen Propheten (eds. Marku Witte et al.; BZAW 365; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2006), 331–49; S. B. M. Levinson, “‘But You Shall Surely Kill Him’ The Text-Critical and NeoAssyrian Evidence for MT Deuteronomy 13:10,” in Bundesdokument und Gesetz. Studien zum Deuteronomium (ed. Georg Braulik; Herders Biblische Studien 4; Freiburg, Herder, 1995), 37–63; cf. the survey in Gräbe, New Covenant, 34–36. 29 Juha Pakkala, “Der literar- und religionsgeschichtliche Ort von Deuteronomium 13,” in Die deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerke: Redaktionsund religionsgeschichtliche Perspektiven zur “Deuteronomismus”–Diskussion in Tora und Vorderen Propheten (eds. Marku Witte et al.; BZAW 365; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2006), 133–34. 30 Kitchen, Reliability, 283–90.

16

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES BC) and to be found in treaties made by both Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian kings.31

In addition, Wiseman, following Mendenhall, maintains that “there is no proof that the idea or form of these treaties [Esarhaddon] first came into Assyria or N. Syria from the Hittites.”32 Thus, according to Wiseman, there is no proof of a connection between the OT documents and the VTE, and he makes no decision on the relationship between the Hittite treaties and the OT, except that this tradition is well known. Rofé points out that “Aramaic and Assyrian treaties of the First Millennium are quite dissimilar to their [OT] structure,”33 and argues for a similar structure to the Hittite code once the interpolations are identified. McConville admits that Deuteronomy is “not quite like either of the two known patterns, though its blessings place it, on balance, closer to the Hittite type in form.”34 Christoph Koch argues that Deuteronomy is not the product of a singular influence but that like the Aramaic inscriptions of Sefire evidence both Hittite and Neo-Assyrian influence.35 In the 60’s–70’s Weinfeld argued for the influence of Esarhaddon treaties along with Assyrian and Aramean treaties on Deut 31

Wiseman, “Vassal-Treaties,” 28. Emphasis added. Wiseman, “Vassal-Treaties,” 28 n. 216; Mendenhall, “Covenant Forms,” 61. 33 Alexander Rofé, “The Covenant in the Land of Moab (Deuteronomy 28:69–30:20): Historico-Literary, Comparative, and Formcritical Considerations,” in A Song of Power and the Power of Song: Essays on the Book of Deuteronomy (SBTS 3; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1993), 277. 34 J. Gordon McConville, Deuteronomy (Apollos Old Testament Commentary; eds. David W. Baker and Gordon J. Wenham; Leicester: Apollos, 2002), 402. McConville and Koch point out that the VTE, do not contain the blessings like the Hittite treaties. Christoph Koch also draws attention to the fact that the historical prologue is also missing in the Sefire ,and VTE, (“Zwischen Hatti und Assur: Traditionsgeschichtliche Beobachtungen zu den aramäischen Inschriften von Sfire,” in Die deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerke: Redaktions- und religionsgeschichtliche Perspektiven zur “Deuteronomismus”–Diskussion in Tora und Vorderen Propheten [eds. Marku Witte et al.; BZAW 365; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2006], 379–406). 35 Koch, “Zwischen Hatti und Assur,” in Die deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerke, 379–406. 32

CHAPTER ONE – ANEVT RESEARCH

17

29:9 ff.36 while “the warnings against treason and inciting treason met with in Deut 13 closely resemble those found in Hittite, Aramean, and Assyrian treaties.”37 Weinfeld’s later work (1990’s) acknowledges that Deuteronomy was influenced by a variety of models: Deuteronomy is actually dependent on two models of covenant: the Hittite one and the Assyrian one. The Hittite model is old and seems to underlie the old biblical covenant tradition. Deuteronomy shows connections with both sets of loyalty oaths: one of the second millennium and the other of the first millennium. The Hittite model pervaded the old biblical tradition, which Deuteronomy used and reworked in accordance with the prevalent covenantal pattern reflected in the VTE,.38

36

Moshe Weinfeld points out that the “similarity between the covenant form of the book of Deuteronomy and ancient near Eastern treaties lies not only in their external structure but also in their basic mode of formulation” (“Deuteronomy: The Present State of Inquiry,” in A Song of Power and the Power of Song: Essays on the Book of Deuteronomy [SBTS 3; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1993], 27 n. 33); cf. Weinfeld, Deuteronomic School, 59–157; “Covenant Terminology in the Ancient Near East and Its Influence on the West,” JAOS 93.2 (1973): 190–99; “‘Bond and Grace’— Covenantal Expressions in the Bible and in the Ancient World—A Common Heritage,” Lešonenu 36 (1971–72): 85–105; “The Loyalty Oath in the Ancient Near East,” UF 8 (1976): 379–414; “Ancient Near Eastern Patterns in Prophetic Literature,” VT 27 (1977): 178; “The Common Heritage of Covenantal Traditions in the Ancient World,” in I trattati nel mondo antico - Forma, ideologia, funzione (Saggi di storia antica) (eds. Luciano Canfora, Mario Liverani and Carlo Zaccagnini: vol. 2 I trattati nel mondo antico - Forma, ideologia, funzione (Saggi di storia antica), eds. Luciano Canfora, Mario Liverani and Carlo Zaccagnini: Roma: L'Erma, 1990), 175–91. Moshe Weinfeld posits a different model for the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants in ANE land grants (“The Covenant of Grant in the Old Testament and in the Ancient Near East,” JAOS 90.2 [1970]: 184–203; Knoppers, “Grants,” 672). 37 Weinfeld, “Deuteronomy,” 255 n. 33. 38 Weinfeld, Deuteronomy, 9; “Covenant Terminology,” 93, 190–99; “Covenant Making,” 135–39; McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant, 133–40.

18

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

But it must be remembered that ancient texts survived in a haphazard fashion;39 thus evidence of dozens of Late Bronze Age Hittite treaties does not necessarily prove that the formulation of Deuteronomy was only Hittite. However, the connection with both Hittite and Assyrian treaties demonstrates the breadth and variety of treaty culture in the ANE, providing a broad framework for a parallel with the messages.40 Pakkala argues for this breadth of ANEVT culture: In modifizierter Form wurde ein politisches Dokument für eine theologische Aussage benutzt. Die religiöse Beziehung zwischen Gott und Israel wurde analog zu dem Schema politischer Verträge erfasst.41

In fact, Rogers notes that both Balzer and McCarthy believe that one can “rightly speak of a set ‘form’ which was used in the ancient world.”42 While the schema of the messages may not always follow the exact pattern of the various ANEVT, the various elements are functionally equivalent,43 and their treaty/covenant Deuteronomic genre recognized by the original first century readers. Opposition to the ANEVT in the OT While most OT scholars accept the parallels between God’s covenant with Israel and the ANEVT, some remain critical.44 Mayes, in 39 Alan R. Millard, Reading and Writing in the Time of Jesus (New York: New York University Press, 2000), 17–41. 40 Koch, “Zwischen Hatti und Assur,” in Die deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerke, 379–406. 41 Translation: “In modified form a political document was used for a theological statement. The religious relationship between God and Israel acquired a pattern analogous to political contracts” (Pakkala, “Deuteronomium 13,” in Die deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerke, 134). 42 Cleon L. Rogers, Jr. “The Covenant with Abraham and Its Historical Setting,” BSac 127 (1970): 246; McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant, 7. 43 Weinfeld, Deuteronomic School, 148. René A. Lopez conveys the same idea but uses the phrase “serves the same purpose” (“Israelite Covenants in the Light of Ancient Near Eastern Covenants,” CTSJ 10.4 (2004), 76). 44 Friedrich Nötscher, “Bundesformular und ‘Amtschimmel’: Ein kritischer Uberblick,” BZ 9 (1965): 181–214; Erhard Gerstenberger, Wesen

CHAPTER ONE – ANEVT RESEARCH

19

his commentary on Deuteronomy, contests the ANEVT parallels by claiming that “the only really essential element of such a ceremony (and so also of the form), the stipulations, is missing.”45 However, Kline and Thompson clearly identify the stipulations while Rofé concludes his analysis of Mayes confident that “nearly all the elements of the Hittite treaties show here, and in the very same order.”46 Ernest W. Nicholson maintains that the Sinai’s covenant “only superficially resembles” the ANEVT form and that similarities with Deuteronomy are “more apparent than real,” protesting that Deuteronomy is not a “legal document in the sense that the treaties are.”47 However, Weinfeld claims that Nicholson misunderstands the basis of the parallel and points out that “the covenant of God with Israel is not to be paralleled to political pacts between states in the ancient Near East but is to be compared with the loyalty oaths of vassals to their suzerains.”48 Gerstenberger maintains that the OT “does not contain drafts of treaties, but, at best, narratives and sermons about covenants.”49 Dumbrell, following Nicholson, posits that the book of Deuteronund Herkunft des “apodiktischen Rechts,” (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1965); Ernest W. Nicholson, God and His People: Covenant and Theology in the Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon, 1986), 70–71; Dale Patrick, Old Testament Law (Atlanta: Knox, 1985), 224. 45 A. D. H. Mayes, Deuteronomy (NCB; Grand Rapids: 1981), 1. Patrick dismisses any serious discussion of the parallels for the same legal argument as Nicholson and also points out that “no one biblical text has all the component parts of a suzerainity treaty” (OT Law, 224). For a refutation of this criticism, see chapter 4—Inconsistent Pattern, 212. 46 Rofé, “Covenant,” 277. 47 Nicholson, God and His People, 70–71; “Covenant in a Century of Study since Wellhausen,” in A Song of Power and the Power of Song: Essays on the Book of Deuteronomy (ed. Duane L. Christensen; SBTS 3; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1993), 85–87. 48 Weinfeld, Deuteronomy, 9. 49 Erhard Gerstenberger, review of D. J. McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant, JBL 83.2 (1964): 198–9; cf. Erhard Gerstenberger, “Covenant and Commandment,” JBL 84 (1965): 38–51. Gordon J. Wenham argues that the OT covenant form in Deuteronomy is a distinctive form only found in the OT (“The Structure and Date of Deuteronomy,” [Ph.D. diss., University of London, 1969]).

20

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

omy is different from the ANEVT because it focuses on covenant renewal rather than covenant initiation.50 Kline sees no contradiction and declares, “Deuteronomy is a covenant renewal document which in its total structure exhibits the classic legal form of the suzerainty treaties of the Mosaic age.”51 The renewal presupposes the earlier Mosaic covenant and the structure it follows. Weinfeld states that this is the author of Deuteronomy’s achievement the author enriched: the covenant theme by introducing all the elements of the vassal treaty, while he blurred the covenantal pattern by putting it in homiletic setting. Unlike the treaty, Deuteronomy is not a legal document but an oration. The structure of the speech follows a legal pattern, but its style is that of a sermon. The author of Deuteronomy had in mind the covenantal pattern in the form in which it had been lying before him in the tradition and in the manner in which it was generally formulated in his time. Nevertheless he presented the materials in a style that is free from rigid adherence to formality.52

Rogers acknowledges the challenge “of trying to ‘find’ or ‘fit’ the [ANEVT] form into Scripture”53 but points out that this does not exclude the similarities between ANEVT and Israelite covenants.54 Proponents for the Influence of the ANEVT in Revelation

Eduard Lohse (1960) In 1960 Lohse was the first to notice, “Ihr Aufriß erinnert an das Schema der alttestamentlichen Bundesvermahnung, in der auf 50

William J. Dumbrell, The Faith of Israel: A Theological Survey of the Old Testament (2d ed.; Grand Rapids: Baker. 2002), 57. 51 Kline, Treaty, 28. The messages in Revelation maintain a similar focus on covenant renewal while demonstrating a parallel to the ANEVT. 52 Weinfeld, Deuteronomic School, 157. On this point Nicholson agrees with Weinfeld’s argument (God and His People, 68). 53 Rogers, “Covenant with Abraham,” 250. 54 Rogers, “Covenant with Abraham,” 251.

CHAPTER ONE – ANEVT RESEARCH

21

Gottes Gebote hingewiesen ist.”55 Lohse believes that the ANEVT in the SMR (Die Briefe), which was similar to Exodus 19:3–8, Deuteronomy 24:3–7 and Joshua 24, conveys an obligation to obey the covenant with blessing for obedience and the curse for disobedience.56 He does not develop any other features of the covenant nor connect them with the ANEVT elements. However, he does see a legal context for the messages’ parallel with Amos 1–2.57

James Du Preez (1970–1981) In 1970 James Du Preez was the first to mention similarities between Revelation and OT covenant structures following the ANE forms of agreement. Du Preez merely mentions the connection in passing, but perceptively highlights the uniqueness of God’s covenant revelation compared to the ANEVT.58 In an article published in 1981, he more formally identifies the ANEVT structure in the book of Revelation.59 However, Du Preez only mentions the SMR when examining the curse and blessing formula. He does not analyze the rest of the covenant structure in the messages.60

55

Translation: “Their structure reminds of the schema of the Old Testament covenant exhortation” (Eduard Lohse, Die Offenbarung des Johannes [NTD 11; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1960], 23–24). 56 In a footnote, David Hill dismisses Lohse’s arguments as “not convincing” (New Testament Prophecy [Atlanta: Knox, 1979], 221 n. 38). 57 Lohse, Offenbarung, 24. 58 James Du Preez, “Mission Perspective in the Book of Revelation,” EQ 42 (1970): 152–67. 59 Du Preez, “Vassal Treaties,” 33–43. Other writers not mentioned by Du Preez but significant to the development of the parallels between the OT covenant and the ANEVT are: Charles F. Whitley, “Covenant and Commandment in Israel,” JNES 22 (1963): 37–48; Klaus Baltzer, The Covenant Formulary in Old Testament, Jewish, and Early Christian Writings (trans. David E. Green; Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1971), 22–24; Walton, Israelite Literature, 95–107; Claus Westermann, Basic Forms of Prophetic Speech (trans. Hugh Clayton White; Louisville: Knox, 1991); Ralph L. Smith, Old Testament Theology: Its History, Method, and Message (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1993), 140–46. 60 Du Preez, “Vassal Treaties,” 39. A summary of Du Preez’s Afrikaans doctoral dissertation at the University of Stellenbosch, South

22

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

Meredith G. Kline (1972) In 1972, Meredith Kline, writing independently of Du Preez and Lohse, also makes brief reference to the ANEVT structure. He comments, quite perceptively, that Revelation can be compared to ANEVT: The Book of Revelation is replete with treaty analogues from its opening preamble-like identification of the awesome Lord Christ; through the letters to the churches, administering Christ’s covenantal lordship after the manner of the ancient lawsuit; on through the elaborately expounded prophetic sanctions which constitute the major part of the book; and down to the closing documentary clause and canonical curse.61

William H. Shea (1983) In 1983, William H. Shea, apparently without awareness of Du Preez, Lohse or Kline,62 identified the Hittite suzerainty treaty structure in the SMR,63 but makes no connection between the covenant structure and the prophetic office.64 Shea’s work has been influential, making periodic appearances in various writings but not without controversy.

Africa is published as an article translated as “Mission Perspective in the Book of Revelation.” 61 Kline, Biblical Authority, 74. 62 William H. Shea admits his ignorance of their work when he states that “it has not previously been studied, as far as I am aware” (“The Covenantal Form of the Letters to the Seven Churches,” AUSS 21 [1983]: 71). 63 Shea, “Covenantal,” 77–84. In the same journal, there is an article by Kenneth A. Strand dealing with the covenant structure of the entire book of Revelation (“A Further Note on the Covenantal Form in the Book of Revelation,” AUSS 21 [1983]: 251–64). 64 Grant R. Osborne quotes three articles by Shea but overlooks “The Covenantal Form of the Letters to the Seven Churches” (Revelation [BECNT; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002], 820). Stephen S. Smalley does not mention any of Shea’s or Strand’s articles in his commentary on Revelation (The Revelation to John: A Commentary on the Greek Text of the Apocalypse [Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2005]).

CHAPTER ONE – ANEVT RESEARCH

23

David Chilton (1987) Chilton wrote a commentary on Revelation using the ANEVT structure as the five divisions of his work. According to Chilton the structure of the SMR “follows the same general pattern” and “each message itself recapitulates the entire five-part covenant structure.”65 Chilton considers the SMR as the Historical Prologue portion of the overall ANEVT structure of the Book. While he listed the elements of the ANEVT structure in the message to Ephesus,66 he does not address the treaty structure in the other messages and neglects the ANEVT structure for the remaining chapter. Further, he strangely identifies 2:6–7 as “Succession Arrangements” which does not correspond to the ANEVT function.67 While Chilton contributes to the discussion of the ANEVT structure and the book of Revelation, his material on the SMR needs further development.

R. Dean Davis (1992) R. Dean Davis, in a book based upon his Ph.D. dissertation under Shea, argues that chapters four and five are judicial displays of the courtroom of God’s judgment following a covenant theme, which he believes dominates the entire book of Revelation.68 Davis also found what he claimes are covenant elements of kingdom, temple, and salvation in Revelation 1–369 along with the covenantal struc65 David Chilton, The Days of Vengeance: An Exposition of the Book of Revelation (Fort Worth: Dominion, 1987), 85. 66 Chilton, Vengeance, 86. Ray R. Sutton in Appendix 5 of his work outlines the book of Revelation using the ANEVT structure and describes the structure in the messages using Ephesians as his example identical to Chilton (That You May Prosper: Dominion by Covenant [Tyler, Tex.: Institute for Christian Economics, 1987], 253); cf. chapter 3–ANEVT/Torah Influence on the Prophetic Lawsuit, 101. 67 Chilton, Vengeance, 86. 68 R. Dean Davis, “The Heavenly Court Scene of Revelation 4–5,” (Ph.D. diss., Andrews University, 1986); The Heavenly Court Judgment of Revelation 4–5 (Lanham: University Press of America, 1992). 69 According to David E. Aune, it is difficult to see the covenant connection with some of these themes. For example, how is the presence of the temple theme an indication of the covenant? (Review of R. Dean

24

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

ture following the suzerainty treaties.70 However, Aune objects to Davis’s judgment scene interpretation: Evidence that this is a judgment scene is simply not present. The author [Davis] errs principally in not recognizing that scenes which depict God enthroned in the midst of his angelic beings function in a variety of ways (all analogous to the activities and functions of earthly royal courts); nor does he investigate the many other heavenly throne scenes in Revelation itself.71

However, if there were a legal judgment evident in these throne scenes, then the action in them would be issuing legally binding covenants of the judge/king. Whatever their technical denomination (i.e., heavenly council session, or the like), their operative function is that of a legal judgment, much the same as in an earthly court.

Gregory K. Beale (1998) Beale briefly mentions Shea and the covenant structure in the messages, commenting, “A qualified version of Shea’s view is plausible.”72 Beale even suggests three arguments for accepting Shea’s “proposed covenantal scheme” and allows that it “forms at least part of the general background”73 for the SMR. Chapter three will consider these arguments.

Gordon Campbell (2004) More recently, in 2004, an article by Gordon Campbell also mentions the ANEVT covenant structure, briefly arguing that each of

Davis, The Heavenly Court Judgment of Revelation 4–5, CBQ 55 [1993], 804– 805). 70 Davis, Court Judgment, 63–65, 217. 71 Aune, review of Davis, 805. 72 Gregory K. Beale, The Book of Revelation (12 vol. NIGTC 12; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 37, 227; Shea, “Covenantal,” 71–84. 73 Beale, Rev, 227.

CHAPTER ONE – ANEVT RESEARCH

25

the letters is “in miniature a five-part covenantal scenario.”74 Among the possible proposals, Bandy considers Campbell’s arguments “the most plausible because he does not rigidly force a fivefold covenantal structure on the seven letters.”75 Opponents of the ANEVT in Revelation Opponents to the arguments for the presence of the ANEVT in Revelation focus on Shea’s limited treatment of the subject material. Apart from Aune’s brief footnote,76 only Ph.D. dissertations briefly criticise Shea. This calls for a more thorough investigation of the arguments involved.

David E. Aune (1983–1997) Aune produces three arguments against Shea’s proposal: (1) he forces the messages into a foreign (ANEVT) framework, (2) in the text there are too many exceptions to the ANEVT structure, and (3) he has broken down the structure of the messages into inappropriate categories.77 Chapter four will address each of these arguments.

Mark Wilson (1997) Wilson’s dissertation (1997) focuses on the promise sayings elucidating a victory motif within a chiastic rather than covenantal structure.78 Wilson acknowledges Shea’s view as an “attractive hypothe74

Gordon Campbell, “Findings, Seals, Trumpets, and Bowls: Variations Upon the Theme of Covenant Rupture and Restoration in the Book of Revelation,” WTJ 66 (2004): 78 n. 2979. 75 Bandy, “Lawsuit,” 217. 76 In 1990 Aune mentions Shea in a footnote listing three arguments against Shea’s views (“Form,” 182 n. 4). Aune, in his commentary, only, mentions Shea’s “covenant suzerainty treaty”as one of the proclamations unlikely literary forms (Rev 1–5, 119). 77 Aune, “Form,” 182 n. 4. 78 Mark W. Wilson, “A Pie in a Very Bleak Sky? Analysis and Appropriation of the Promise Sayings in the Seven Letters to the Churches in Rev 2–3,” (D.Litt. diss., University of South Africa, 1997), 195.

26

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

sis”79 but criticises the covenantal genre because of the lack of covenant language, particularly the absence of the “standard Hebrew phrase tyrb trk (LXX diati,qemai diaqh,khn)”80 within the letters. According to Wilson, since this Hebrew phrase is missing, then the entire concept of the covenant is also absent and the “seven letters do not constitute a covenant renewal.”81 Chapter four will handle Wilson’s argument.82

Alain M. de Lassus (2005) A recent dissertation from France (2005) by de Lassus addresses the genre of the seven letters and reviews William Shea’s arguments for their covenant structure. De Lassus takes exception to Shea’s arguments.83 Thus, de Lassus argues that, to make Shea’s case, the elements of the covenant structure «devraient se trouver à l’intérieur du septénaire des lettres.»84 However, de Lassus acknowledges the presence of covenant in Revelation (4:3 compare Gen 9:12–17; 11:19); but concludes that covenant does not have a significant interpretive role: L’hypothèse de Shea était certainement intéressante, mais elle semble dépourvue de fondement sur le plan littéraire. Du reste, l’analyse littéraire de Shea est relativement sommaire. Le motif de l’alliance est certes présent dans l’Apocalypse, mais il n’est pas une clé pour l’interprétation du septénaire des lettres.85

79 Wilson’s dissertation examines the chiastic structure of the seven letters focusing on the victory motif as the books macro-dynamic theme and appropriation of the promise sayings (“Promise Sayings,” 131). 80 Wilson, “Promise Sayings,” 131. 81 Wilson, “Promise Sayings,” 131. 82 See chapter 4—Answers to Arguments Against ANEVT Influence, 210. 83 Alain-Marie de Lassus, «Le septénaire des lettres de l’apocalypse de Jean: De la correction au témoignage militant,» (Ph.D. diss., University of Strasbourg, 2005), 41–44; Shea, “Covenantal,” 77–84. 84 Translation “should be inside the seven letters” (de Lassus, «Le Septénaire,» 44). 85 Translation “The hypothesis of Shea was certainly interesting, but it seems deprived of a basis on the literary level. The remainder of the

CHAPTER ONE – ANEVT RESEARCH

27

Prompted by de Lassus’ comments, I think there is a need to expand the brief literary analysis of Shea and explore the priority and role of the covenant in the interpretation of the messages.

Alan Bandy (2007) Alan Bandy’s dissertation provides the most recent (2007) investigation of the covenant lawsuit motif in the Apocalypse as a whole, but it only deals briefly with the more specialized role of the covenant lawsuit within the SMR.86 It is here that Bandy’s argument, that the seven letters are “prophetic oracles similar to the OT prophets, and more specifically as covenant lawsuit speeches,”87 is seminal for this study. However, Bandy is unconvinced of the parallels between ANEVT and the SMR, due to the weak arguments of J. du Preez, William H. Shea, and Kenneth A. Strand, noting inconsistencies between their arguments.88 Bandy’s dissertation indicates that the prophetic lawsuit motif is not dependent on ANEVT for its defence, arguing, “One may posit that the structure of the seven letters exhibits some covenantal features without rigidly corresponding to them [ANEVT structural elements].”89 Therefore, it is possible for someone to find prophetic oracles in Revelation with the lawsuit motif, without embracing Shea’s view of the ANEVT background. However, as he admits, it would strengthen his argument. In addition, Bandy is open to the idea of an ANEVT structure, but argues that Shea has not done a convincing job of presenting his case, and remains open to a more sustainable argument. Bandy states, “The fivefold covenantal structure provides an literary analysis of Shea is relatively brief. The covenant motif is certainly present in the Apocalypse, but it is not a key for the interpretation of the seven letters” (de Lassus, «Le Septénaire,» 44). 86 Bandy, “Lawsuit,” 200–227; “Word and Witness: An Analysis of the Lawsuit Motif in Revelation based on the Witness Terminology,” (paper presented at the annual meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society. Valley Forge, PA., November 17, 2005). 87 Bandy, “Lawsuit,” 226. 88 Bandy, “Lawsuit,” 31–37; cf. chapter 1—Survey of Previous Research on ANEVT, 7 and chapter 4—Answers to Arguments Against ANEVT Influence, 210. 89 Bandy, “Lawsuit,” 218.

28

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

interesting avenue for analyzing the seven letters, but several caveats militate against a wholesale adoption of this thesis.”90 Bandy credits Gordon Campbell with the “most plausible”91 unforced proposal for covenantal structure.92 Following Bandy’s examination of my thesis Bandy presented a paper at the 2008 Evangelical Theological Society in which he supported the ANEVT structure in the SMR.93 Present Contribution Although Kline was apparently the first to make the connection between the ANEVT and the book of Revelation94 (though Lohse earlier identified the OT covenant parallels), Shea published the key article on the ANEVT and the SMR.95 The first thread of this work, then, not only defends Shea’s basic view, but also carries it forward in wider analysis of the ANEVT structure within the SMR to develop a theoretically sound working basis for highlighting the influence of the ANEVT structure in the SMR. Thus, it will be necessary consider in depth Bandy’s (and others’) arguments against a wholesale adoption of this covenantal structure. Campbell’s approach will be important for a plausible proposal as advocated by Bandy. Following the calls by Thompson for further NT study between covenant structure and Near Eastern treaty patterns,96 a

90

Bandy, “Lawsuit,” 217. Bandy, “Lawsuit,” 217. 92 See chapter 1—Gordon Campbell (2004), 24. 93 Alan S. Bandy, “Pattern of Prophetic Lawsuits in the Book of Revelation,” Unpublished paper presented at the ETS, NT Group (Providence, Rhode Island, November 20, 2008). 94 Kline, Biblical Authority, 73–74. 95 Shea, “Covenantal,” 71–84. 96 Thompson, Treaties, 39. Cornelis Van der Waal also points out the neglect of the covenantal structure of the NT (The Covenantal Gospel [ed. H. DeJong; trans. G. L. Bertram; Neerlandia, Alberta: Inheritance Publications, 1990], 96). Hoffner further pleads with Hittitologists for more biblical interpretation, arguing the need for more biblical research in this specialized field (“Hittite Textual Data,” 176). While this work does 91

CHAPTER ONE – ANEVT RESEARCH

29

second thread of this work seeks to make possible closer comparison and integration of areas of ancient Near Eastern and NT studies. Also, this work seeks to make ANE and NT studies relevant to a better contextual understanding of covenant lawsuit structure in the NT.

not specialize in Hittitology it may contribute to biblical research in this field.

2 CHAPTER TWO – PRELIMINARY ISSUES

At the outset, this chapter deals with several preliminary issues that are necessary in any study dealing with a biblical book. First, we will examine the methodological strategy and then clarify a few key definitions. Then two preliminary issues will be considered without extensive discussion: the relevance of the date and Johannine authorship. I take an agnostic position on these two issues, since the argument of the book does not hinge on their outcome. However, the unity of the book of Revelation and John’s prophetic office has a bearing on the argument and will be discussed to determine their function.

METHODOLOGY The backbone of the methodology employed will involve the integration of historical, theological, and literary analysis to arrive at the meaning of the text.1 Therefore, this study will incorporate an interdisciplinary set of hermeneutical tools. Most scholars acknowledge the influence of the OT prophets in the Book of Revelation.2 Also, Bandy has traced the background 1 N. T. Wright, The New Testament and the People of God: Christian Origins and the Question of God (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), 31–144; Adolf Schlatter, The History of the Christ: The Foundation of New Testament Theology (trans. Andreas J. Köstenberger; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1997), 17–20. 2 Ferrell Jenkins, The Old Testament in the Book of Revelation (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1972); Richard J. Bauckham, The Climax of Prophecy (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1993), 243–57; Steve Moyise, The Old Testament in the Book of Revelation (JSNTSup 115; Sheffield: Academic, 1995); Gregory K. Beale, John’s Use of the Old Testament in Revelation (JSNTSup 166; Sheffield: Academic, 1998).

31

32

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

of the “literary phenomenon of the lawsuit motif in Revelation”3 back to the OT. The OT may also hold the key to the theological significance and literary structure of the SMR. Most scholars also agree that John wrote4 the seven prophetic messages to historical first-century churches in Asia Minor. Therefore, this work will interpret the messages on the assumption that John was addressing his contemporary Christian readers5 in a prophetic manner, and like Scripture generally, Revelation has a permanent and lasting message for subsequent readers.6 This is evident from the proclamation witness formula7 attached to each of the messages: “he who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches” (2:7, 11, 17, 29; 3:6, 13, 22).8 Two preliminary issues must be considered: how do the messages in Revelation fit within the larger corpus, and what type of discourse are we dealing with? Thus, the literary unity of the SMR in relation to each other and the rest of Revelation and the literary genre

3

Bandy, “Lawsuit,” 81. See chapter 2—Authorship, 42. 5 Beale maintains that there are no specific prophesied historical events in Revelation except “2:10, 22 and 3:9–10 which are unconditional prophecies to be fulfilled imminently in the specific local churches of Smyrna, Thyatira, and Philadelphia” (Rev, 48 n. 16). 6 According to Richard J. Bauckham, Paul’s messages were “addressed to specific churches as representative of all the churches” (The Theology of the Book of Revelation [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993], 16); cf. Beale, Rev, 204; A. F. Johnson, Hebrews–Revelation (EBC 12; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1981), 420; André Feuillet, The Apocalypse (trans. T. E. Crane; New York: Alba House, 1965), 50; Robert L. Thomas, “Chronological Interpretation of Revelation 2–3,” BSac 124.496 (1967): 327; Simon J. Kistemaker, Exposition of the Book of Revelation (NTC 14; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), 12, 108. 7 See chapter 4—Proclamation Witnesses Formula, 170. 8 It is conceded that this phrase could refer to each church individually as it is repeatedly addressed to each church. But as Ramsay points out, “those others [cities] were not much in the writer’s mind: he was absorbed with the thought of that one city: he saw only death before it. But the other cities which were connected with it may be warned by its fate; and he that overcometh shall be spared and honoured” (Letters, 28). 4

CHAPTER TWO-PRELIMINARY ISSUES

33

of the SMR need to be considered. Are they letters, prophetic messages/oracles, or imperial edicts? Next, we will consider the literary framework or structure/form of the seven prophetic oracles in chapter four. Evidence will be gathered for the Hebraic-Semitic (Torah, OT prophetic, and ANEVT) influence, in the prophetic oracles.9 Tigay, while pointing out the dangers of “parallelomania,”10 provides criteria for identifying parallels between ANE documents and the scriptures. He indicates that, “In the case of the Hebrew scriptures and the rest of the ancient Near East, frequent contacts between pre-Israelite Palestine and the Israelites, on the one hand, and Egypt, Mesopotamia, and Syro-Palestinian states on the other hand, provide sufficient channels to make borrowing in principle likely.”11 The primary criteria for borrowing are set out by Albright in a shared complexity “forming a pattern.”12 This pattern identified as the ANEVT structure will be examined in chapter four. If traces of the ANEVT structure of preamble, historical prologue, stipulations, witness, and blessing/cursing are present within the SMR,13 then this would support both the prophetic and covenant nature of the messages. This study will argue that the potential for recognizing that inter-relationships between the ANEVT schema of the prophetic 9 Semitic influence is also evident in the imperial edicts, providing a plausible explanation for Aune’s observation of similarities between the imperial edicts and the structure of the seven proclamations. Aune does acknowledge “what could be construed as a Near Eastern [Persian and Anatolian] epistolary prescript, i.e., the archaic ta,de le,gei formula” (“Form,” 195). 10 Samuel Sandmel, “Parallelomania,” JBL 81 (1962): 1–13. 11 Jeffrey H. Tigay, “On Evaluating Claims of Literary Borrowing,” in The Tablet and the Scroll. Near Eastern Studies in Honor of William W. Hallo (eds. Mark Cohen, Daniel C. Snell, and David B. Weisberg; Bethesda MD: Capital Decisions, 1993), 251. 12 William Foxwell Albright, From the Stone Age to Christianity (New York: Doubleday, 1957), 67. 13 Mendenhall, “Covenant Forms,” 59–60. The witness is assumed in the seven oracles given the fact that God is his own party to the covenant, although one could understand the witnesses through the book as the angel (1:1; 2:1, 8, 12, 18; 3:1, 7, 14), the Spirit (2:7, 11, 17, 29; 3:6, 13, 22), the church (2:1, 8, 12, 18; 3:1, 6, 14), and Christ (1:5; 3:15).

34

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

oracles (Hebraic-Semitic) and the imperial edicts (Graeco-Roman) are present in the SMR, by singling out Smyrna as a test case. A two-way argument will be arranged to prove this: establishing the presence of the ANEVT elements in the six messages confirms the justification for their presence in the message to Smyrna; likewise, the clarity of the ANEVT elements in the message to Smyrna makes this phenomenon more likely in the remaining six messages. Thus, these arguments require the documentation of the presence and influence of the ANEVT elements in Revelation 2–3, and justify their presence in the message to Smyrna. This will require a concentrated detailed study of the ANEVT structure in the message to Smyrna (2:8–11), making it more evident in the remaining six messages. This choice of the message to Smyrna (Smu,rna 1:11; 2:8) is based on two major considerations. First, a longstanding personal interest in the location and message has stimulated my thoughts in this direction. Second, the usefulness of the message to Smyrna in making the case for the broader hypothesis is justified through the process of elimination. While any of the churches could have been analyzed in the SMR, only the messages to Smyrna and Philadelphia are without a Hebraic-Semitic malediction. Focusing on either of these two messages would provide a more ready model for analysis of the malediction/benediction contrast. Otherwise, the extra dimension of contrast between blessing and cursing in the other messages containing maledictions would deflect analysis onto the wider and differing roles of the covenant elements of malediction/benediction. The focus could be distorted by unduly emphasizing the antithetical benediction within the five messages. To deal with one of the messages that exhibits no malediction, and therefore appears to be an exception to the combined “blessing and cursing” element of the structure, strengthens the case for this hypothesis by determining that the blessing element is part of the ANEVT structure. Therefore, based on this rationale and personal interest, Smyrna is chosen for analysis because it demonstrates an exceptional test case.

DEFINITIONS Before beginning the literary analysis of the SMR in Chapter Four, I regard it as important to provide a brief working definition of

CHAPTER TWO-PRELIMINARY ISSUES

35

some theological terms used throughout and describe how they pertain to the seven proclamations.14 Torah In NT Greek, no,moj is normally15 identified with the Law of Moses or the Pentateuch (Torah; See 1 Cor 9:8–9; 14:34; Gal 4:21–31),16 14 For the definition of context, genre, form, and structure cf. David E. Aune, The Westminster Dictionary of New Testament and Early Christian Literature and Rhetoric (Westminster John Knox Press, 2003). 15 Thomas R. Schreiner points out that there are occasions when Paul uses no,moj to mean principle, order or rule (Rom 3:27; 7:21, 23, 25; 8:2) (The Law and Its Fulfillment: A Pauline Theology of Law [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1993], 34); cf. Heikki Räisänen, “Das ‘Gesetz des Glaubens’ (Rom 3:27) und des ‘Gesetz des Geistes’ (Rom 8:2),” NTS 26 (1980): 101–17; Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans (NICNT 6; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 249, 460–67, 474–77; Stephen Westerholm, Israel’s Law and the Church’s Faith: Paul and His Recent Interpreters (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), 123–26; F. F. Bruce, “Paul and the Law of Moses,” BJRL 57 (1975): 259–60. 16 W. Gutbrod, “no,moj,” TDNT 4:1059; J. Jocz, “Torah,” ZPEB 5:780; Bruce M. Metzger, “The Formulas Introducing Quotations of Scripture in the NT and the Midrash,” JBL 70 (1951): 303; Michael Winger, By What Law? The Meaning of No,moj in the Letters of Paul (SBL Dissertation Series 128; Atlantia: Scholars, 1992), 197; Robert J. Banks, Jesus and the Law in the Synoptic Tradition (SNTSMS 28; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975), 214–15; Alan F. Segal, “Torah and nomos in Recent Scholarly Discussion,” SR 13 (1984): 27; Stephen Westerholm, “Torah, nomos, and Law: A Question of ‘Meaning,’” SR 13 (1986): 327–36; Schreiner, Law, 33 n. 1; contra G. Wallis, “Torah and Nomos: Zur Frage nach Gesetz und Heil,” TLZ 105 (1980): 321–22; Samuel Sandmel, Judaism and Christian Beginnings (New York: Oxford University Press, 1978), 119. Some scholars argue that Paul is conveying the idea of legalism when using no,moj. See C. F. D. Moule, “Obligation in the Ethic of Paul,” in W. R. Farmer, C. F. D. Moule, and Reinhold R. Niebuhr, eds., Christian History and Interpretation: Studies Presented to John Knox (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967), 392–93; Daniel P. Fuller, Gospel and Law: Contrast or Continuum? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), 97–99. For counter argument that it is the OT scriptures cf. Walter Bauer et al., eds., “no,moj,” BDAG 545; Douglas J. Moo, “‘Law’, ‘Works of the Law,’ and Legalism in Paul,” WTJ 45 (1983): 85–88; Westerholm, Israel’s Law, 130–34. James A. Sanders proposes that “the oldest and most common meaning is something ap-

36

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

although as with all biblical terms, it must ultimately be determined by the context.17 While some scholars posit that the connection between no,moj and the Law of Moses is only applicable when the definite article is present,18 the majority of scholars reject that idea.19 Moo and Westerholm agree that no,moj in Paul’s writings normally means the Jewish Torah, but also in their writings20 maintain the idea that “works of the law” involve human activity required by the Mosaic Law. However, the OT does not understand Torah as pure law in the modern legal sense of the term (Isa 1:10; 8:16; Prov 13:4),21 but as pointed out by Jocz, Torah captures “a way of life derived from the covenant-relationship between God and Israel” (cf. m. ’Abot).22 However, within the context of this proximate to what we mean by the word revelation. . . that is authoritative tradition” (Torah and Canon [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1972], 2–3). 17 The context is already limited since the term no,moj is absent from the gospel of Mark, epistles of Peter and John, and Revelation. 18 J. B. Lightfoot, The Epistle of St. Paul to the Galatians (London: Macmillan, 1865; repr., Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1957), 118; John F. Walvoord, “Law in the Epistle to the Romans,” BSac 93 (1937):15–30; A. Wakefield Slaten, “The Qualitative Use of no,moj in the Pauline Epistles,” AJT 23 (1919): 213–18. 19 Andrea van Dülmen, Die Theologie des Gesetzes bei Paulus (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1968), 131–32; George E. Howard, “Christ the End of the Law. The Meaning of Romans 10:4ff,” JBL 88 (1969): 331 n. 2; Richard N. Longenecker, Paul: Apostle of Liberty (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1976), 118–19; Moo, “Law and Legalism,” 75–77; Heikki Räisänen, Paul and the Law (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983), 16–18; Brice L. Martin, Christ and the Law in Paul (Leiden: Brill, 1989), 21–22; Schreiner, Law, 33. As well, Gutbrod maintains that this distinction is absent within Jewish literature. Gutbrod, TDNT 4:1047. 20 Moo, “Law and Legalism,” 90–100; Romans, 211–17; Stephen Westerholm, “Whence ‘The Torah’ of Second Temple Judaism,” in Law in Religious Communities in the Roman Period (eds. Peter Richardson and Stephen Westerholm; Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 1991), 19–43; Israel’s Law, 130–34; “Torah, nomos, and Law,” 327–36. 21 Hans-Helmut Esser, “no,moj,” NIDNTT, 2:440. The OT never calls the Ten Commandments law but distinguishes it from Torah (Exod 24:4) and incorporates law as part of Torah. 22 Jocz, ZPEB 5:779; Esser, NIDNTT, 2:441. Emil Schürer mentions a significant study by Monsengwo Pasinya where he argues that the LXX

CHAPTER TWO-PRELIMINARY ISSUES

37

work the term Torah will be used in its broad sense to refer to the Pentateuch, focusing on the Decalogue and Deuteronomy. Covenant Covenant is usually the translation given to tyrb;23 however, given the multiple uses of tyrb,24 there is no scholarly consensus regarding its root meaning.25 While Mendenhall acknowledges that “the etymology of the term is uncertain,” he does admit that most embrace the “derivation from Akkadian birîtu, ‘fetter,’ or a cognate root.”26 In both Akkadian and Hittite (išhiul covenant bond), the suzerainty treaties were referred to by a pair of terms, literally meaning bond and oath.27 Weinfeld argues on the basis of similarities rendering of Torah as no,moj implies no legalistic bias but is meant to convey the wide overtones of the underlying Hebrew concept” (The History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ [3 vols.; eds. Geza Vermes, Fergus Milar, and Martin Goodman; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1986], 2:321 n. 22; 315; Laurent Monsengwo Pasinya, La notion de nomos dans le pentateuque grec [AnOr 52; Rome: Biblical Institute, 1973; repr., Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2005]). For an earlier argument cf. Sheldon H. Blank, “The LXX Renderings of Old Testament Terms for Law,” HUCA 7 (1930): 259–83. 23 Ernst Kutsch argues that tyrb does not mean covenant (bund) but rather Verpflichtung [obligation] (Verheißung und Gesetz: Untersuchungen zum sogenannten Bund im Alten Testament [BZAW 13; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1973], 1). Murray Newman challenges Kutsch stating that “although obligation is invariably one element in the meaning of berît, it does not exhaust that meaning. Relationship is also an essential feature” (Review of Meredith G. Kline, The Structure of Biblical Authority and Ernst Kutsch, Verheißung und Gesetz: Untersuchungen zum sogenannten Bund im Alten Testament, JBL 94.1 [1975]: 120). For the translation of tyrb in the Septuagint, Vulgate and NT see Gräbe, New Covenant, 12–14. 24 Baltzer, Covenant, 1–8. 25 Rogers, “Covenant with Abraham,” 242–49; Mendenhall, “Covenant,” IDB 1:714–16; Walther Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament (2 vols.; Philadelphia: Knox, 1965–67), 1:36–45; Lopez, “Covenants,” 9:95; McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant, 17–24. For a survey of the meaning of tyrb, see Gräbe, New Covenant 8–30. 26 Mendenhall, “Covenant,” IDB 1:715. 27 Hittite išhiul and lingaiš, Akkadian rikiltu/rikištu/riksu u māmītu (plural riksāte u māmīte). The Addadian word riksu (Sumerian kešda) literally means a “fetter” and refers to the bond of the obligation and māmītu re-

38

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

with ANE literature and the LXX term diaqh,kh28 that the Hebrew tyrb means bond.29 Weinfeld points out that the Hittite term for covenant išhiul also means bond, maintaining the same meaning in Sumerian kešda, Arabic ‘qd, Latin vinculum fidei and Greek use by Homer harmonia (Il. 22:255).30 Beckman points out that this designation refers to the two most important constituent elements of the agreements: the stipulations (‘binding’), and the curses and blessings (‘oaths’) by which the contracting parties invoked the gods as witnesses and guarantors of these provisions.31

However, as Gräbe and others point out, “the semantic function of tyrb in the Old Testament is far removed from the meaning that can be derived from a general etymology.”32 Despite the uncertainty over the etymology of the term, most scholars agree that tyrb “came to signify a binding agreement between two parties.”33 fers to the oath of the obligation. Paul Kalluveettil, Declaration and Covenant: A Comprehensive Review of Covenant Formulae from the Old Testament and the Ancient Near East (AnBib 88; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1982), 15; Korošec, Staatsverträge, 34–36; Moshe Weinfeld, “The Origin of the Apodictic Law: An Overlooked Source,” VT 23 (1973): 65. 28 The LXX uses diaqh,kh for theological reasons. 29 Weinfeld, “Covenant Terminology,” 190–99; Weinfeld, “Common Heritage,” 175–91. 30 Weinfeld, “Covenant Terminology,” 190 n. 2 31 Beckman, Hittite Diplomatic Texts, 2. 32 Gräbe, New Covenant, 10; cf. James Barr, “Some Semantic Notes on the Covenant,” Beiträge zur Alttestamentlichen Theologie: Festchrift für Walther Zimmerli zum, 70 (eds. Herbert Donner, Robert Hanhart and Rudolf Smend; Göttingen: Vandenhoek & Ruprecht, 1977), 23–38. 33 Rogers, “Covenant with Abraham,” 243; McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant, 20; Walther Eichrodt, “The Covenant and Law: Thoughts on Recent Discussion,” Int 20 (1966): 304; Theology OT, 1:37; J. Gordon McConville, “berît,” NIDOTTE 1:747, 752. Moshe Weinfeld states that “The original meaning of the Heb. berît . . . is not ‘agreement of settlement between two parties,’ as commonly argued. berît implies first and foremost the notion of ‘imposition,’ ‘liability,’ or ‘obligation,’ as might be learned from the ‘bond’ etymology” (“berît,” TDOT 2:255). However, Weinfeld appears to confuse the etymological usage of bond with its use in the OT

CHAPTER TWO-PRELIMINARY ISSUES

39

Gräbe defines tyrb “as a general comprehensive term for a fellowship enabling relationship. This relationship does not exclude differentiations appropriate to different contexts,”34 such as contract, agreement, promise and mutual understanding. Wenham points out that “in a secular context berit is often translated ‘treaty’, . . . but when it refers to God’s treaty with Israel it is translated ‘covenant’.”35 Hugenberger defines covenant as “an elected, as opposed to natural, relationship of obligation established under divine sanction.”36 Covenant, within the suzerain/vassal relationship, is used as both divine commitment and human obligation. Niehaus argues that the “original, archetypel covenant idea was part of God’s very, relational nature, . . . an idea in the mind of God.”37 According to Niehaus this archetypel covenant forms the basis of all subsequent covenants and influences their structure and composite elements. Lawsuit A lawsuit (Gerichtsrede or court speech) is an action or claim brought for judgment before a law court to remedy a grievance. In the ANE context, Assyrian kings adopted the task of plaintiff and judge when a vassal violated a treaty. The suzerain sues the violator and administers the punishment, by attacking the rebels. Within the scriptures. According to The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew, the etymological meaning developed from a bond imposed on someone to a “covenant, agreement, or obligation between individuals (e.g., friends, spouses) or groups, ruler and subjects, deity and individual or people, etc.” (David J. A. Clines, ed., The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew [5 vols.; Sheffield: Academic, 1995], 2:264). 34 Gräbe, New Covenant, 11–12; Alistair I. Wilson and Jamie A. Grant, “Introduction,” in The God of Covenant: Biblical, Theological and Contemporary Perspectives (eds. Alistair I. Wilson and Jamie A. Grant; Leicester: Apollos, 2005), 12. 35 Gordon J. Wenham, “Grace and Law in the Old Testament,” in Law, Morality and the Bible (eds. Bruce Kaye and Gordon Wenham; Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1978), 5. 36 Gordon P. Hugenberger, Marriage as Covenant: A Study of Biblical Law and Ethics Governing Marriage, Developed from the Perspective of Malachi (VTSup, 52; Leiden: Brill: 1994), 171. 37 Niehaus, “Covenant,” 233.

40

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

biblical context, God also operates as both plaintiff and judge.38 God delivers the lawsuit through the prophets as an indictment against His people for breaking the terms of the covenant agreement: Hear what the LORD says: Arise, plead your case before the mountains, and let the hills hear your voice. Hear, you mountains, the indictment of the LORD, and you enduring foundations of the earth, for the LORD has an indictment against his people, and he will contend with Israel (Mic 6:1–2 ESV; cf. Hos 2:14, 20; 3:2, 15; 4:1).

Paraenesis The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary defines paraenesis (paraenetic adj.) as an “exhortation, advice; a hortatory composition.”39 It comes from the Greek verb paraine,w meaning to exhort or admonish (Acts 27:9, 22).40 Paraenesis is a series of encouraging admonitions or persuasive exhortations, which do not necessarily refer to concrete situations (for example, Col 3–4, Eph 4–6, and various sections of

38 Kirsten Nielsen, Yahweh as Prosecutor and Judge: An Investigation of the Prophetic Lawsuit (Rîb-Pattern); (trans. Frederick Cryer; JSOT 9; Sheffield: University of Sheffield Press, 1978). Michael De Roche argues that because in a lawsuit there are three parties (plaintiff, judge, and accused) seeking the resolution of an accusation and because the biblical covenant portrays one party (Yahweh) functioning as both judge and plaintiff, that the term covenant lawsuit should be dropped (“Yahweh’s Rîb against Israel: A Reassessment of the So-Called ‘Prophetic Lawsuit’ in the Pre-exilic Prophets,” JBL 102.4 [1983]: 563–74). However, according to G. Ernest Wright the biblical imagery of lawsuit is used as a metaphor evoking the forensic nature of the courtroom to depict the nature of God’s justice and does not require an exact parallel (“The Lawsuit of God: A Form-Critical Study of Deut. 32,” in Israel’s Prophetic Heritage [ed. Bernhard W. Anderson and Walter Harrelson; New York: Harper & Row, 1962], 26–67). However, as De Roche points out, this does “not mean that the prophets never drew upon images and forms from the realm of the courts” (“Yahweh’s Rîb,” 571); cf. Westermann, Prophetic Speech, 199–200. 39 Onions, ed.,”paraenesis,” SOED 2:1508. 40 Joseph H. Thayer, “paraine,w,” GELNT 3992.

CHAPTER TWO-PRELIMINARY ISSUES

41

James41). The SMR demonstrate a paraenetic function in their exhortation to repent.

DATE OF REVELATION Scholars vigorously debate the date of Revelation’s composition. There are three periods put forth: the reign of Nero42 (AD 54–68), the reign of Domitian43 (AD 81–96), and the reign of Trajan44 (AD 98–117). It is beyond the scope of this volumne to solve the issue of the date, as it is irrelevant for this argument.45 The view one 41 Martin Dibelius popularized Paraenesis (James: A Commentary on the Epistle of James [rev. Heinrich Greeven; trans. Michael A. Williams; ed. Helmut Köster; Hermeneia: A Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976]). 42 The early date is after Nero’s reign around AD 54–68. It was popular with scholars in the 19th century but also promoted by Hill, NT Prophecy, 218–9 n. 1; Albert A. Bell, Jr., “The Date of John’s Apocalypse. The Evidence of Some Roman Historians Reconsidered,” NTS 10.1 (1978): 93; J. Christian Wilson, “The Problem of the Domitianic Date of Revelation,” NTS 39 (1993): 587. For an extensive discussion cf. Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., Before Jerusalem Fell: Dating the Book of Revelation (Tyler, Tex.: Institute for Christian Economics, 1989), 68–85 and Beale, Rev, 20–26. 43 Irenaeus (writing in AD c.175–c.195) places the date of the work of Revelation “near the end of Domitian’s reign” (Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 5.8.5). For a detailed discussion cf. Beale, Rev, 4–20; Aune, Rev 1–5, lvi– lxx. 44 The Trajanic date would reconcile statements by Irenaeus who writes in Book 2 and 3 of his Against Heresies about John’s presence in Ephesus “until the time of Trajan” (Eusebius Hist. eccl. 3:21; 3.23.1, 6; Irenaeus Haer. 2.33; 3.3). For the Trajanic date cf. Austin Farrer, The Revelation of St. John the Divine (Oxford: Clarendon, 1964), 37; F. Gerald Downing, “Pliny’s Prosecutions of Christians,” JSNT 34 (1988): 105–23; Martin Hengel, The Johannine Question (Philadelphia: Trinity, 1989), 80–81; David A. deSilva, “The Social Setting of the Revelation to John: Conflicts Within, Fears Without,” WTJ 54 (1992): 280; Steven J. Friesen, Imperial Cults and the Apocalypse of John: Reading Revelation in the Ruins (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 150. 45 One could use either an early or a late date for first-century suffering and persecution. While the immediate circumstances would be different, the general issue of the threat of the imperial cult and Jewish antagonism is present in both periods. Wilson argues that “the

42

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

takes about Revelation’s date of composition need not impact one’s understanding of the structural composition of the messages or the function of those messages as paraenetic lawsuit oracles.

AUTHORSHIP Scholars hotly debate authorship and several prominent scholars such as Kiddle, Beale, Aune, Beasley-Murray, Michaels, and deSilva conclude that to determine the identity of John is a hopeless endeavour.46 Kiddle comments, “The authorship of Revelation may prove the one mystery of the book which will be never [sic] revealed in this world.”47 I will simply use John as the name for the author of Revelation.48 persecution of 95 and 96 was the creation of Eusebius and Lightfoot, not of Domitian” (“Domitianic Date,” 605). Beale argues for a later persecution under Domitian’s reign (Rev, 12–16; Duane Warden, “Imperial Persecution and the Dating of First Peter and Revelation,” JETS 34.2 [1991]: 203–12). Yarboro Collins questions the “widespread view that apocalyptic literature is crisis literature” (“Dating the Apocalypse of John,” BR 26 [1981]: 42) and hypothesizes for a “perceived crisis” in Asia Minor toward the end of Domitian’s reign (Crisis and Catharsis: The Power of the Apocalypse [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1984], 84–110). However, as Loren T. Struckenbuck points out, this “recent doubt cast on the notion of an organized persecution of Christians during the latter part of Domitian’s reign. . . does not require a Neronian date” (“Revelation,” in Eerdmans Commentary on the Bible [ed. James D. G. Dunn and John W. Rogerson; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003], 1536). 46 Martin Kiddle, The Revelation of St. John (MNTC 17; London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1952), 33; Beale, Rev, 35–36; David E. Aune, “Prophetic Circle of John of Patmos and the Exegesis of Rev 22:16,” JSNT 37 (1989):103–16; George R. Beasley-Murray, The Book of Revelation (NCB; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983), 36–37; J. Ramsey Michaels, Interpreting the Book of Revelation (GNTE; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992), 27–29. DeSilva describes it as a “seemingly insoluble question of authorship” (“Social Setting,” 282). For a detailed treatment of authorship cf. Osborne, Rev, 2– 6 and Aune, Rev 1–5, xlvii–lvi. 47 Kiddle, Rev, 33. 48 Stephen S. Smalley, “John’s Revelation and John’s Community,” BJRL 69 (1987): 564–5; Rev, 3; Herman Hoeksema, Behold, He Cometh: An Exposition of the Book of Revelation (ed. Homer C. Hoeksema; Grand Rapids: Reformed Free Publishing Association, 1974), 2.

CHAPTER TWO-PRELIMINARY ISSUES

43

UNITY Although Aune cautions that the “literary unity and coherence of Revelation have been exaggerated, though they certainly exist in some levels of composition,”49 the scholarly consensus is for the literary unity of the entire book of Revelation.50 Even within the messages (2–3) themselves, Hahn observes that scholarly consensus has abandoned the notion of seven independent proclamations; instead, “Die Sendschreiben stellen einen festen Bestandteil des apokalyptischen Entwurfs dar.”51 Therefore, scholars treat the seven messages as a unity within the context of the visions in Revela49 Aune, Rev 1–5, cviii; cf. Yarbro Collins who states, “It is now generally accepted that the author of the book of Revelation used sources, but not as many or as extensive ones as some source critics have argued” (“The Book of Revelation,” in The Encyclopedia of Apocalypticism [ed. John Joseph Collins et al.; London: Continuum International, 2000], 389). 50 See Rakoto E. Modeste for an excellent review and defence of the literary unity (style and grammar) of Revelation, arguing for strong coherence in both the content and from the situational, compositional, and theological unity concluding that, above all, “the letters and visions… are united by their common focus on Christ and his judgment and salvation” (“Unity of the Letters and Visions in the Revelation of John,” [Ph.D. diss., Lutheran School of Theology, 1991], 64). In addition Gerald Mussies’ detailed work has reaffirmed the unity of the book on linguistic grounds. Mussies argues persuasively for the uniformly scattered presence of Semitic linguistic character of both Hebrew and Aramaic (The Morphology of Koine Greek as Used in the Apocalypse of St. John [Leiden: Brill, 1971], 351); cf. Stephen S. Smalley, Thunder and Love: John’s Revelation and John’s Community (Milton Keynes, England: Word, 1994), 97–101; C. H. Parez, “The Seven Letters and the Rest of the Apocalypse,” JTS 12 (1911): 284– 86; contra Adela Yarbro Collins, The Combat Myth in the Book of Revelation (Harvard Dissertations in Religion 9; Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1976), 32–40; Ramsay, Letters, 27–28. 51 Translation: “the letters represent a firm component of the apocalyptic design” (Ferdinand Hahn, “Die Sendschreiben der Johannesapokalypse: Ein Beitrag zur Bestimmung Prophetischer Redeformen,” in Tradition und Glauben: Das frühe Christentum in seiner Umwelt [eds., Gert Jeremias et al.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1971], 362). Feuillet, Apocalypse, 48; Beasley-Murray, Rev, 71; Kistemaker, Rev, 109; Gerhard A. Krodel, Revelation (ACNT; Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1989), 100.

44

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

tion.52 This unity does not obliterate the individual elements within each church, evident in the unique local references and messages to each church. Revelation 2 and 3 are a coherent literary unity. These chapters contain seven mutually inter-related parts that are individually, cumulatively, and collectively embedded within the larger text, to which they both reciprocally contribute to the whole message. In addition, unity of the text does not necessarily depend on single authorship. Ford, for example, views Revelation as composed by three different authors, but also insists that it displays a closely written literary unity that she attributes to the work of a fourth editor.53 It is apparent then that authorship, whether John’s single authorship or multiple authorship proposed by Charles, Ford, and Thompson, does not hinder the cohesion of both form and content in the resulting text. Most scholars agree that Revelation is a unified book, even if they believe that Revelation had multiple authors. Therefore, this volumne will not duplicate the arguments on unity, but rather treat the book of Revelation in its entirety as a multi-layered unity.54

JOHN’S PROPHETIC OFFICE Regardless of which John wrote Revelation, scholars do accept John as a prophet.55 Technically, John does not call himself a proph52 L. C. Tengbom, “Studies in the Interpretation of Revelation Two and Three,” (Ph.D. diss., Hartford Seminary Foundation, 1976), 84–88. 53 J. Massyngberde Ford, Revelation: Introduction, Translation and Commentary (AB 38; New York: Doubleday, 1985), 46; Leonard L. Thompson, Revelation (ANTC 37; Nashville: Abingdon, 1998), 37–91; Robert H. Charles, The Revelation of St. John (2 vols.; ICC 1; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1920, repr. 1963), 2:147. 54 Aune, Rev 1–5, cx–cxxxiv; Alan S. Bandy, “The Structure of the Book of Revelation,” (Unpublished paper presented at the ETS, San Diego, CA., November 16, 2007), 5. 55 Isbon T. Beckwith, The Apocalypse of John (New York: MacMillan 1919), 337, 344; Ned B. Stonehouse, The Apocalypse in the Ancient Church (Goes, Holland: Oosterbaan & Le Cointre, 1929), 48; David E. Aune, “The Social Matrix of the Apocalypse of John,” BR 26 (1981): 17; Rev 1– 5, liii; “Prophetic Circle,”105; Colin J. Hemer, “Seven Churches,” in A

CHAPTER TWO-PRELIMINARY ISSUES

45

et (profh,thj)56 in the strictest sense; however, Revelation is described as a prophecy (profhtei,a, 1:3; 22:7, 10, 18–19). John is also told to “prophesy again” (10:11), and a blessing is promised to “The one who reads aloud the words of this prophecy” (1:3) and keeps it (22:7). John’s prophetic office is also evident from the prophetic commission,57 oracle formula,58 spirit,59 activity,60 and Dictionary of Biblical Tradition in English Literature (ed. David Lyle Jeffrey; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992), 696; deSilva, “Social Setting,” 284; Michaels, Interpreting Rev, 29; Bauckham, Climax, xi, 243–57; Jan Fekkes III, Isaiah and Prophetic Traditions in the Book of Revelation: Visionary Antecedents and Their Development (JSNTSup 93; Sheffield: JSOT, 1994), 37–58; Beale, Rev, 36; Robert H. Mounce, The Book of Revelation (NICNT 17; rev. ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 65; Stuckenbruck, “Revelation,” in ECB (eds., Dunn and Rogerson), 1536; Bandy, “Lawsuit,” 178–83. 56 Aune concludes that John “comes close to designating himself a prophet when he attributes these words to the revelatory angel in 22:9: ‘I am thy fellow servant, and of thy brethren the prophets.’” (“Social Matrix,”18–19). 57 Rev 1:10–20, 4:1–2, 5:1–5 set out John’s prophetic commission, with a later recommission in 10:8–11 where John is told to eat the scroll in the tradition of the OT prophets (10:7). Ezekiel is the pattern for John’s commission (Ezek 2:8–3:3, 14); cf. Bauckham, Climax, 243–57, 266; Beale, Rev, 550; Osborne, Rev, 13; Mazzaferri, Genre, 265–79; Aune, “Prophetic Circle,” 105. Hill identifies it as a “call-narrative” (NT Prophecy, 82). 58 The letters of Revelation open with a traditional prophetic formula ta,de le,gei W. This formula is repeated seven times in the letters of Revelation (2:1, 8, 12, 18; 3:1, 7, 14). It is an OT archetypal signature used by prophets to introduce the speaker (W) of the oracles. For a detailed examination of ta,de le,gei W ; cf. chapter 4—Messenger Preamble Formula, 141. 59 The phrase “in the Spirit” (evn pneu,mati) is used four times in Revelation in conjunction with John’s ministry (1:10; 4:2; 17:3; 21:10). Again, there are connections with the Spirit’s role within the OT prophetic office. particularly in Ezekiel. The phrase evn pne,umati is used 15 times in the OT LXX with two occurrences in Ezek 11:24 and 37:1. However, the root pneu/ma is used 29 times in Ezekiel (Ezek 1:4, 12, 20f; 2:2; 3:12, 14, 24; 8:3; 10:17; 11:1, 5, 19, 24; 13:11; 18:31; 20:31; 21:12; 27:26; 36:26f; 37:5f, 8ff., 14; 43:5 evpV evme. pneu/ma, Ezek 2:2; 3:24; me pneu/ma Ezek 3:12; 11:1, 24; 43:5; to. pneu/ma Ezek 3:14). John demonstrates continuity with the OT prophets by sharing the same prophetic Spirit. See Beale, Rev, 203; Robert L. Thomas, Revelation 1–7:

46

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

malediction61 within Revelation. This cumulative evidence for John’s prophetic office is the strength of this argument. John stands in the tradition of the major Old Testament prophets like Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel utilizing a similar classic prophetic commission62 (10:11; cf. Ezek 3:4–6; Dan 7:14); bringing to bear a warning of covenant unfaithfulness63 (2:4; 10; 16; 20; 26; 3:2; 15); and prophesying in the era of early Christian prophecy.64

Exegetical Commentary (gen. ed. Kenneth Barker; Chicago: Moody, 1992), 91; Aune, Rev 1–5, liv; Smalley, Rev, 8. 60 John’s measuring of the temple in 11:1–2 is in line with the prophetic enactment of Ezekiel 40–42 where Ezekiel measures the inside of the temple. See Beale, Rev, 559–62; Bauckham, Climax, 266. 61 Revelation concludes with a dual malediction upon anyone found tampering with John’s prophecy (22:18–19). Such copyright protection was common in ancient Near Eastern literature. Kistemaker, Rev, 594 n. 29. However, according to Du Preez, John was specifically writing in the Mosaic prophetic tradition recorded in the OT covenant book of Deuteronomy with its warning against adding or taking way from divine revelation [4:2] (“Vassal Treaties,” 39). 62 Wilson, “Promise Sayings,” 12; Bauckham, Climax, 246, 264; Mazzaferri, Genre, 284, 295–96; J. Otis Yoder, “The Prophetic Work of the Spirit: Lessons from Rev 2 and 3,” in Encounter with the Holy Spirit (ed. Geo R. Brunk; Scottdale: Herald, 1972), 139; Christopher Rowland, “Apocalypse, Prophecy and the New Testament,” in Knowing the End from the Beginning: The Prophetic, the Apocalyptic and their Relationships (eds., Lester L. Grabbe and Robert D. Haak; vol. 46 of Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha Supplement Series; eds., Lester L. Grabbe and James H. Charlesworth; Sheffield: Academic, 2003), 149. 63 See chapter 3—ANEVT/Torah Influence on the Prophetic Lawsuit, 101. 64 Several scholars argue that John’s hermeneutic is a “re-reading (une relecture) of the Old Testament in the light of the Christ event,” and that he proceeds creatively. Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, “Apokalypsis and Propheteia: The Book of Revelation in the Context of Early Christian Prophecy,” in AJANT (ed. Jan Lambrecht; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1980), 107–108; Heinrich Kraft, “Zur Offenbarung des Johannes,” TRu 38 (1973): 81–98; Feuillet, Apocalypse, 50, 65; David Hill, “Prophecy and Prophets in the Revelation of St. John,” NTS 18 (1971–1972): 417; Smalley, Rev, 8.

CHAPTER TWO-PRELIMINARY ISSUES

47

SUMMARY Since the arguments for both date and authorship were not paramount to the arguments made in this work, they will not be considered any further. The name John will be used throughout the book to describe the author, as he has described himself. Furthermore, John was writing as a prophet in an OT prophetic tradition. In addition, finding the classic OT covenant structure in the messages dependant on the ANEVT, as in the OT Torah, would strengthen the argument for OT links.65

65

See chapter 3—Literary Genre, 49.

3 CHAPTER THREE – LITERARY GENRE Few modern scholars dispute the principle that literary genre vitally shapes message and meaning. Presently, the question is how does genre shape the SMR — how, and by what means? Initially, the key issue is to divide the internal genre-structure inside the SMR from the external, contextual genre-matrix in the whole book of Revelation.1 The former must take priority,2 especially because, despite the volume of genre studies already written,3 as Blevens rightly observes, “The [external] genre of Revelation remains elusive.”4 1

Aune, Rev 1–5, 119. See chapter 3—Semitic Origin of the Messages, 92. 3 E. Frank Tupper, “The Revival of Apocalyptic in Biblical and Theological Studies,” RevExp 72.3 (1975): 279–303; Jan Lambrecht, “The Book of Revelation and Apocalyptic in the New Testament,” in AJANT (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1980), 18; David Hellholm, ed., Apocalypticism in the Mediterranean World and the Near East: Proceedings of the International Colloquium on Apocalypticism, Uppsala. August 12–17, 1979 (Tübingen: MohrSiebeck, 1983); David E. Aune, “The Apocalypse of John and the Problem of Genre,” in Early Christian Apocalypticism: Genre and Social Setting (Vol. 36 of Semeia; Decatur, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1986), 65–69; John M. Court, The Book of Revelation and the Johannine Apocalyptic Tradition (Sheffield: Sheffield, 2000). 4 James L. Blevins., “The Genre of Revelation,” RevExp 77.3 (1980): 393. While some commentators point to a specific genre of apocalypse (avpoka,luyij to uncover, to reveal Rev 1:1), such as prophecy (profhtei,a Rev 1:3) and epistle (Tw/| avgge,lw| Tw/| evn . . . evkklhsi,aj gra,yon\ Rev 1:11; 2:1, 8, 12, 18; 3:1, 7, 14; 14:13; 19:9; 21:5), most acknowledge that the book of Revelation is composed in a mixed genre (mixtum compositum). See Gerhard von Rad’s designation of the form critical term mixtum compositum for a mixed genre of apocalyptic literature (Theologie des Alten Testaments [2 vols.; 6th ed.; Munich: Auflage, 1975], 2:331); cf. David Mathewson, “Revelation in Recent Genre Criticism: Some Implications for Interpreta2

49

50

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

However, the necessity of working with internal genre-structure in situ alone5 has not barred scholars from proposing distinct genrestructures for the combined SMR. Proposals come in three main types:6 letters,7 imperial edicts,8 and prophetic messages/oracles.9 In reviewing these literary types, basic questions cannot be ignored. For example, are the SMR individually composed in the letter genre, or are they a collective group, a single proclamation with the individual messages recapitulating the same content? Can one treat the SMR as a set of unified messages insulated from the rest of Revelation? Does an identification of the SMR as imperial edicts depend upon whether or not one shapes links with the Hebraiction,” TJ 13 (1992): 206; Beale, Rev, 37, 39, 356; Michaels, Interpreting Rev, 21, 30–32; Donald A. Carson et al., eds., An Introduction to the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992), 479; Beasley-Murray, Rev, 12–29; Bauckham, Theology, 1. Robert M. Royalty questions the exegetical value of a mixed genre (The Ideology of Wealth in the Apocalypse of John [Macon: Mercer University Press, 1998], 157 n. 18). Aune allows for the mixed genre designation of “prophetic edicts” on the basis of Fowler’s distinction between modes and kinds (“Form,” 183 n. 6). For Alastair Fowler the kind (external structure) is missing from the mode. Thus, a “tragic novel” is a novel in kind but a tragedy in mode. Fowler argues that “when a modal term is linked with the name of a kind, it refers to a combined genre, in which the overall form is determined by the kind alone” (Kinds of Literature: An Introduction to the Theory of Genres and Modes [Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1982; repr., Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987], 107). 5 John Joseph Collins, “Introduction: Towards the Morphology of a Genre,” in Apocalypse: The Morphology of a Genre (vol. 14 of Semeia; Missoula: SBL, 1979), 14. 6 Kirby proposes a type of Greek oracle; cf. Kirby, “Rhetorical,” 197–207. 7 Ramsay, Letters, 11–24; Michaels, Interpreting Rev, 30–31. J. H. Roberts categorizes them as messages (“A Letter to Seven Churches in the Roman Province of Asia,” in Reading Revelation [eds. J. E. Botha, P. G. R. Villiers, and J. Engelbrecht; Pretoria: van Schaik, 1988], 17–35). 8 Aune identifies chapters 2–3 as proclamations in the form of imperial edicts (“Form,” 183ff.; Rev 1–5, 126). 9 Bauckham, Climax, 2; Smalley, Rev, 47. Schüssler Fiorenza categorizes them as prophetic letters (The Book of Revelation: Justice and Judgment [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985], 165).

CHAPTER THREE-LITERARY GENRE

51

Semitic background through a common ANEVT connection? Answers to these basic questions actually require more than one approach. Therefore, this chapter will jointly examine genre and structure, before looking at the structure in more detail in chapter four.

LETTERS Aune has documented prophetic literature in the form of letters from Mari and Hellenistic Egypt,10 and letters communicating divine revelation (i.e., oracles or prophecies) in examples from the ancient Near East.11 Prophetic letters are also found in the OT, particularly Jeremiah, and early Jewish writings (2 Chr 21:12–15; Jer 29:4–32; Ep Jer 6:15–7:4; 7:24–35; 2 Bar. 77:17–19; 78–87; 1 En. 92:1–5; 94:1–105:2).12 Mazzaferri claims that rather than delivering his prophetic oracle in person, John follows the practice of the early Christian prophets who write letters like some OT prophets.13 It is well documented in Scripture that letters were circulated to more than one church (1 Pet 1:1; Col 4:13).14 If the genre of prophetic letter existed, were the messages in Revelation constructed using it? Are the SMR individually composed in the letter genre, or are they part of a single document addressed to the corporate church?15 Although several commentators 10

Aune, Rev 1–5, lxxiii; Herbert B. Huffmon, “Prophecy in the Mari Letters,” BA 31 (1968): 101–24; T. C. Skeat and E. G. Turner, “An Oracle of Hermes Trismegistos at Saqqara,” JEA 54 (1968): 199–208. 11 Aune, Prophecy, 72–73; Aune, Rev 1–5, lxxiii–lxxiv, 125; Meindert Dijkstra, “Prophecy by Letter (Jeremiah 29:24–32),” VT 33 (1983), 321 n. 2. 12 See Dennis Pardee for a detailed discussion of these texts and their epistolary form (Handbook of Ancient Hebrew Letters [SBLSBS 15; Chicago: Scholars, 1982], 175–78, 181). Concerning Jeremiah 29 and 2 Chronicles 21, Aune states that they “are all prophetic oracles in epistolary form introduced with prophetic rather than epistolary formula” (Rev 1–5, lxxiv). 13 Mazzaferri, Genre, 143–44. This has justified Berger calling this style of writing prophetic or oracular letters; cf. Berger, “Apostelbrief,” 190–231. 14 Michaels, Interpreting Rev, 30; Bauckham, Theology, 14. 15 For Müller, “each city is completely individually addressed, depending on its condition” (Müller, Prophetie, 100). Court sees these SMR as

52

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

use the term letter to describe Revelation 2–3 collectively,16 they would have to mean that John employed a very specialized sevenfold form of letter.17 The typical characteristics that describe Paul’s letters are detailed messages placed between personal salutations and postscripts. However, the SMR are missing all of these characteristics.18 Aune and others point out that the book of Revelation itself opens (1:4–5), and closes (22:21) with “a formal epistolary framework,”19 which indicates a single circulating document.20 In addition, the blessing-and-curse attachments at the beginning and ending (1:3; 22:18) imply that the church was to read the whole book from beginning to ending as a single message.21 This has led “one letter containing messages to all seven churches” (Myth, 21). Michaels maintains that the category of letter is simply a framework (Interpreting Rev, 32). 16 Aune, Prophecy, 275; Ramsay, Letters, 25–35; Beale, Rev, 223; Berger, “Apostelbrief,” 212–19. While Karrer maintains that Revelation belongs to the epistolary form, he does not see an influence from the epistolary literature of the contemporary culture (Brief, 49–66). Beale also sees these as more than mere letters and argues that chapters 2–3 should “be seen as a group of prophetic messages” (Rev, 229). 17 Bauckham, Theology, 13; Muse, “Rev 2–3,” 150. Carson, Moo and Morris identify the literary genre as epistle, but they settle on a combined genre (Introduction to NT, 479). 18 Muse observes that this would make it very unlikely that the letters ever circulated alone among the churches, particularly with the formal elements of a letter missing (“Rev 2–3,” 149); cf. Heinrich Kraft, Die Offenbarung des Johannes (HNT 16a; Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1974), 52–53. 19 Aune, Rev 1–5, lxxii; Charles, Rev, 1:8; Beale, Rev, 223; Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, “Composition and Structure of the Revelation of John,” CBQ 39 (1977): 364–5. Smalley recognizes the entire book’s epistolary style but argues that, “this work is much more than a letter.” Smalley identifies the apocalyptic and prophetic elements of its message (Rev, 46– 47). 20 Yarbro Collins, “Revelation,” 387. 21 Charles is an exception to this, as he believes that the letters were written to individual churches and then later edited to have a universal appeal (Rev, 1:43–7). Ramsay believes that the messages are mere “literary epistles . . . not intended to be sent directly to the churches to which they were addressed” (Letters, 27).

CHAPTER THREE-LITERARY GENRE

53

Bauckham to conclude that the book as a whole is a letter, while the messages to the churches are prophetic oracles within this singular letter.22 Michaels supports this idea that the seven proclamations should not be referred to as letters: to speak of letters within a letter does not make sense, and there is no textual evidence that these messages were ever separated so that each congregation received only the communication bearing its name.23

If a letter is virtually defined by its distinctive, introductory salutation and its closing, with key themes inserted between, the SMR can, at most, be excerpts from a letter form—where the excerpt itself changes the discourse genre. To what is the genre changed? These messages contain structured, disciplined, and formal content, not personal spontaneous correspondence. Court concludes that these documents are “further removed from the type of the ‘true letter’ than any other New Testament composition.”24 John addresses churches he knows well with a preliminary message from Christ before communicating a general message that each church was to read publicly.25 The plural address in the refrain “let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches” (2:7, 11, 17, 29; 3:6, 13, 22) is a strong indication that all the churches were to read the document.26

22

Bauckham, Theology, 12, 16. Stuckenbruck observes that “although the intervening part of the book is not structured as an ancient letter, there are some indications that the author continues to be conscious of this form of communication” (“Revelation,” 1536). 23 Michaels, Interpreting Rev, 32. 24 John M. Court, Myth and History in the Book of Revelation (London: SPCK, 1979), 21. 25 Bauckham, Theology, 14. Aune also suggests that this “public reading would replace a prophetic address to the congregations by one or more of their local prophets” (Prophecy, 275); cf. Paul S. Minear, I saw a New Earth: An Introduction to the Visions of the Apocalypse (Washington: Corpus Books, 1968), 5. 26 Michaels, Interpreting Rev, 32.

54

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

IMPERIAL EDICTS According to Rudberg, Benner, and Aune, the messages to the seven churches also display similarities to the form used in imperial edicts–particularly in a letter of Darius I from Magnesia.27 Aune makes a sophisticated, two-part claim that: 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 salvationjudgment oracle.28

Imperial Edict Form Aune identifies five elements to the Roman imperial edicts however, only four are actually found in the messages. Following are the five elements he identifies. 1. The praescriptio is the introduction of the emperor/magistrate who issues the document with his title and name. According to Benner, and quoted by Aune, praescriptio is the “only formal characteristic consistently recurring in imperial edicts.”29 It is followed in the Greek with le,gei or le,gousi, “he or they say.”30 According to Aune, each of the SMR begin with the praescriptio; however, the “verb of declaration precedes the Christological predications, while in imperial edicts it follows the name (s) and title (s) of the issuing magistrate (s) or emperor.”31 2. The premium, or preface has no parallel in the messages.

27 Gunnar Rudberg, “Zu den Sendschreiben der JohannesApokalypse,” Eranos 11 (1911): 170–79; Margareta Benner, The Emperor Says: Studies in the Rhetorical Style in Edicts of the Early Empire (Göteborg: Acts Universitatis Gothoburgensis, 1975); Aune, Rev 1–5, 126. 28 Aune, “Form,” 183; Prophecy, 326; Rev 1–5, 119, 126; The New Testament in Its Literary Environment (LEC 8; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1987), 242; Beale, Rev, 228. 29 Benner, Emperor, 26. 30 Fergus Millar, The Emperor in the Roman World (London: Duckworth, 1977), 221–2; Aune, Rev 1–5, 128. 31 Aune, Rev 1–5, 128.

CHAPTER THREE-LITERARY GENRE

55

3. The narratio or narrative functions in reporting information to those addressed. A variety of “semantic subdomains” of the oi=da clause32 are used in imperial edicts to recount the narrative. The proclamations share a similar “functional counterpart” in the oi=da clause. 4. The dispositio, or orderly arrangement and disposition of arguments, function as the positive and negative aspect of the arguments in the edicts. The dispositio find a similar exhortation and threat in the SMR. 5. The sanctio, or corroboratio of the edicts parallels the conditional promise of victory at the close of each of the messages. Aune does admit, however, that into this “relatively rigid formal structure, the author introduces a great deal of variation.”33 Similarities of Imperial Edicts Compared With ANEVT Aune’s comparison of the main elements of imperial edicts with the SMR shows a number of similarities with the elements of the ANEVT, including a prominent functional parity between them: 1. praescriptio = preamble. These two elements function similarly by introducing the King/emperor who issues the oracle/decree with his title and name. 2. narratio = oi=da clause or historical prologue. These function similarly by reporting information to those addressed. In the case of the ANEVT, this information is specifically the history between the suzerain and vassal. 3. dispositio and sanctio or corroboratio = cursing and blessing. These two elements function as positive and negative sanctions, as do the ANEVT blessings and cursings. They conclude with a conditional promise of victory/blessing. Aune undercuts his own argument with two provisos: (1) Aune admits that there is nothing like a proemium (the second stage Related terms such as akou,ein, “to hear”; ginw,skein, “to come to know”; evpiginw,skein, “to learn about”; and punqa,nesqai, “to learn” are used. 33 Aune, Rev 1–5, 129. It should also be acceptable for the formal structure of the ANEVT to contain a degree of variation. 32

56

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

of the Imperial edict) to be found in any of the SMR. The proemium is also not found in the ANEVT. (2) The Roman edicts are highly variable. The first element, the praecriptio, is essentially their only “consistently recurring”34 element. The SMR actually have fewer robust similarities with imperial edicts, as documented by Rudberg, Benner, and Aune, than they do with the ANEVT. The ANEVT structure is therefore, in these terms, the closest parallel. Common Ancestry Hypothesis There are similarities between the SMR and the imperial edict structure as pointed out by Aune. One possible explanation may be due, not to contemporary influence, but to a common ANEVT ancestry.35 Is it possible that the similar structure between the imperial edicts and OT covenantal form is partly due to a common ancestry tracing its roots back to ancient legal documents Semitic origin, structured after the law codes of the ANEVT?36 John may have used the contemporary imperial edict framework to convey the covenantal message as both the Graeco-Roman and HebraicSemitic form may have shared the same heritage in their connection with the ancient legal systems of the ANEVT. What evidence is there for this hypothesis? One must ask whether the five features of the ANEVT are peculiar to the Hittite/Assyrian treaties or have influenced other later oath/treaty structures.37 Preliminary evidence indicates that elements of the imperial edict do line up with some 34

Aune, Rev 1–5, 129. For a probing investigation of ANEVT occurrences in various cultures, see Weeks, Admonition and Curse. 36 Lorenzo d’Alfonso demonstrates links between Hittite and late Assyrian treaties through an earlier Mittanni heritage. While d’Alfonso does not go so far as to speak of a Hittite legal tradition, he points out that the Assyrians were aware of the Hittite treaties and the court of Carchemish adapting Hittite legal practices (“Die hethitische Vertragstradition in Syrien (14.–12. Jh. V. Chr.),” in Die deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerke: Redaktionsund religionsgeschichtliche Perspektiven zur “Deuteronomismus”–Diskussion in Tora und Vorderen Propheten [eds. Marku Witte et al.; BZAW 365; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2006], 303–29). 37 For the debate over the influence of the Hittite treaties on the treaties of Esarhaddon, see chapter 1—Vassal Treaties of Esarhaddon, 15. 35

CHAPTER THREE-LITERARY GENRE

57

of the structural components of the messages as far as they inherit elements of the ANEVT legal structure passed down through the centuries from shared usage.38 However, to prove that the similarities with the imperial edicts, identified by Aune, are from a common influence following ancient legal structures rooted in ANEVT, three arguments must be established: (1) That the ANEVT influenced Greek literature; (2) That the ANEVT structure persisted into the first century; and (3) That John had knowledge of the ANEVT structures.

ANEVT Influence on Greek Literature ANE influence on Greek writings (and vice versa) has been studied in such detail39 that scholars have given these relationships their 38 Cultural dependence is advanced by Jonathan A. Goldstein, Semites, Iranians, Greeks, and Romans: Studies in Their Interactions (BJS 217. Atlanta: Scholars, 1990); Cyrus H. Gordon, The Common Background of Greek and Hebrew Civilizations (New York: Norton & Co., 1965); John Pairman Brown, Ancient Israel and Ancient Greece: Religion, Politics, and Culture (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003), 49–80. 39 Edwin M. Yamauchi states,

Though we cannot uncritically accept all the stories which ascribed a Near Eastern inspiration for the various Greek philosophers of Ionia, a careful study of both the historical situation and of the respective texts of the west and of the east, convinces M. L. West that the traditions of such borrowing are sound in the case of the following 6th-cent. BC philosophers: Pherecydes, Anaximander, Anaximenes, and Heraclitus” (“Daniel and Contacts between the Aegean and the Near East Before Alexander,” EQ 53.1 [1981]: 47).

See also Yamauchi, Greece and Babylon: Early Contacts between the Aegean and the Near East (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1967), 85; Persia and the Bible (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996), 379–94; “Greece and Babylon Revisited,” in To Understand the Scriptures: Essays in Honor of William H. Shea (ed. David Merling; Berrien Springs, MI: Institute of Archeology/Horn Archaeological Museum, 1997), 129–55; Peyton Randolph Helm, “‘Greeks’ in the Neo-Assyrian Levant and ‘Assyria’ in Early Greek Writers,” (Ph.D. diss., University of Pennsylvania, 1980); M. L. West, The East Face of Helicon: West Asiatic Elements in Greek Poetry and Myth (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997); Early Greek Philosophy and the Orient (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1971); Robert Mondi, “Greek Mythic Thought in the Light of the

58

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

own titles: Hellenorientalia40 and Hellenosemitica41 leading to what Burkert calls an “orientalizing revolution.”42 Some of Cyrus H. Gordon’s parallels have been criticized; however, as Yamauchi points out Greek and Near Eastern cultures as appropriately linked by Gordon: Though he may be proven to be mistaken in some details, surely Professor Gordon is correct in emphasizing the common background of Greek and Near Eastern cultures. With publication of more data, scholars like Walcot are beginning to realize the great debt that Greek religion owed to Semitic sources.43

Near East,” in Approaches to Greek Myth (ed. L. Edmunds; Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1990), 142–98. 40 C. Lambrou-Philippson, Hellenorientalia: The Near Eastern Presence in the Bronze Age Aegean, C. 3000–1100 BC (Göteborg: Aström, 1990). While some scholars have drawn unsubstantiated conclusions and ignored the archaeological evidence to focus on mythological-etymological arguments there is still a number of scholars who have put forth reasonable arguments for the Hittite influence on Greek culture using archaeology. However, the mythological-etymological heritage provides an avenue for the influence to be more enduring than just material remains. James D. Muhly, review of Michael C. Astour, Hellenosemitica, an Ethnic and Cultural Study in West Semitic Impact on Mycenaean Greece, JAOS 85.4 (1965): 585–8; Edward Ullendorff, “Ugaritic Studies within their Semitic and Eastern Mediterranean Setting,” BJRL 46 (1963): 236–49. 41 Astour, Hellenosemitica. Michael Astour was a student of Cyrus H. Gordon and classmate of Edwin M. Yamauchi. He had an influence on Martin Bernal, a professor of political science at Cornell and the grandson of the Egyptologist Alan Gardiner. Bernal was also influenced by another of their classmates, David Owen. However, according to Edwin M. Yamauchi, Bernal, in his series Black Athena, goes far beyond the evidence (“Martin Bernal’s Black Athena Reviewed,” JAC 14 [1999]: 145–52). 42 Walter Burkert, The Orientalizing Revolution–The Near Eastern Influence in the Early Archaic Age (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1995). 43 Yamauchi, “Daniel,” 45–46; Peter Walcot, Hesiod and the Near East (Cardiff: University of Wales, 1966); Éléments orientaux dans la religion grecque ancienne (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1960); Les syncretismes dans les religions de l’antiquité (Leiden: Brill, 1975).

CHAPTER THREE-LITERARY GENRE

59

Geller summarizes the various influences of Mesopotamian culture on Hellenistic life by examining the contributions through the Aramaic language, legal contracts, medicine, and law. He illustrates this by “considering the continuing cultural impact of Babylonia in Hellenistic Jewish life.”44

Loyalty-oath Treaties (1300 BC–3 BC) Weinfeld demonstrates that the ANEVT continued in the loyaltyoath treaties of the Greek, Hellenistic, and Roman periods.45 Weinfeld thoroughly argues that covenant terminologies “penetrated the Greek milieu” and were “later adopted by the Romans.”46 Brown identifies representative loyalty-oath47 treaties, which over the centuries have displayed striking similarities in form and structure to the ANEVT. These include treaties between Esarhaddon and Median city-rulers48 (672 BC); Ephebic and Plataean Oaths49 (4th cent. BC); Smyrna-Magnesia50 (Seleucus II; 243 BC); and AugustusPaphlagonians51 (3 BC). Weinfeld documents the similarities between the Hittite treaties and the Smyrna-Magnesia (Greek Anato-

44

Mark J. Geller, “The Influence of Ancient Mesopotamia on Hellenistic Judaism,” in Civilizations of the Ancient Near East (4 in 2 vols. ed. Jack M. Sasson; Peabody: Hendrickson, 2000), 1:43. 45 Weinfeld, “Loyalty Oath,” 383, 405. 46 Weinfeld, “Covenant Terminology,” 190. 47 The loyalty-oath treaties share the same characteristic, an oath from a greater to a lesser, with the Suzerainty treaties. Brown, Israel and Hellas, 253. 48 Parpola and Watanabe, Treaties, nos. 1–107; 28–58; Wiseman, “Vassal-Treaties,” 1–99; Pritchard, ANET, 534. 49 The oath of Athenian Ephebes is on the same stone as the oath of Athenians at Plataea. Marcus Niebuhr Tod ed., Greek Historical Inscriptions: From the Sixth Century BC to the Death of Alexander the Great in 323 BC (Chicago: Ares, 1985), 204. 50 Dittenberger, OGIS 1:229; Hermann Bengtson and Hatto H. Schmitt. eds. Die Staatsverträge des Altertums. Vol. 3: Die Verträge der griechischrömischen Welt von 338 bis 200 v. Chr. 3.492 (Munich: Beck, 1969), 3:492. 51 Dittenberger, OGIS 2:532; Victor Ehrenberg and A.H.M. Jones, eds., Documents Illustrating the Reigns of Augustus and Tiberius (2d ed.; Oxford: Clarendon, 1955–1976), 315.

60

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

lia) treaty in the areas of loyalty, curses, and exposing rebels.52 Brown concludes that the treaties prove similar to the classical world and the Israelite world: The treaties constitute the highest-level contact between the classical world on one hand, and the world of Israel and the ancient Near East on the other. The old treaty between Rome and Carthage53 (Polybius Hist. 3.26.1, 508/7 BC?) shows how specific “Semitic” formulas could enter the Greek and Latin worlds.54

With the Augustus-Paphlagonians treaty (3 BC), we are at the brink of the first-century Roman Empire. Weinfeld persuasively demonstrates that relations between the Egyptians, Hurrians, Hittites, Kassites, Assyrians and even Achaeans [Greeks] were formalized by means of treaties, based on a common vocabulary, . . . common formal procedures,55

and a common set of treaty phrases. Common Vocabulary: The most fundamental evidence for the transference of ANEVT elements to other cultures is the common vocabulary repeated from treaty to treaty. To demonstrate how covenant terms have “penetrated the Greek milieu and were later on adopted by the Romans,“56 Weinfeld argues the following: the Greeks, who apparently borrowed the treaty terminology from the East, used identical terms for covenant, horkos, synthēkē, and likewise combined them into a hendiadys horkos kai synthēkē. . . . The identity in covenant formulations and idiomatic expressions in Mesopotamia, Syro-Palestine, Anatolia, Greece and Rome seems to point towards a common origin of the treaty terminology in the ancient world.

52

Weinfeld, “Loyalty Oath,” 382–3. See Bengtson and Schmitt, DSA 2:121. 54 Brown, Ancient Israel, 255. 55 Weinfeld, “Common Heritage,” 176. 56 Weinfeld, “Covenant Terminology,” 190. 53

CHAPTER THREE-LITERARY GENRE

61

The similarity in idioms is too great to enable the supposition of independent growth. The identity in the nomenclature of the treaty as: bond, oath, faith on the one hand and kindness, friendship, love, brotherhood, peace on the other; the use of hendiadys in all the areas as: bond and oath, covenant and grace, friendship and peace, kindness and truth, love and friendship, etc.; identical verbs in expressing the establishment of a treaty as: “to cut a pact,” to put, give and erect the covenant, and the verbs “to enter the covenant,” “to guard/remember” and also the identical expression in the sphere of “violation,” all these could hardly be the product of coincidence.57

Yamauchi even demonstrates this as a two-way street of crossinfluence: The converse of Greek words in Semitic dialects is the phenomenon of Semitic words in Greek from centuries before Alexander’s conquests. A symposium edited by Krause listed 40 Akkadian words in European languages, including six in Greek.58

Common Period: Weinfeld adds a significant corroborating explanation: the fact that most of the idioms sprang up in the middle of the second millennium, the time when international relations on a global scale started to crystallize (contacts between Assyria and Egypt and between Egypt and the Hittite empire) teaches us that the origin of the treaty terminology is to be sought in the East, at the El Amarna period.”59

57

Weinfeld, “Covenant Terminology,” 191, 197. Yamauchi, “Daniel,” 44. Emily Vermeuleand [Greece in the Bronze Age (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1972), 71–72] and Emilia Masson accept Semitic etymologies for over 20 Greek words (Recherches sur les plus anciens emprunts sémitiques en grec [Paris: Klincksieck, 1967], 19–67); cf. Wilhelm Krause, “Griechische-orientalische Lehnwortbeziehungen.” Festschrift für Karl Vretska (Heidelberg: C. Winter, 1970), 89. 59 Weinfeld, “Covenant Terminology,” 198. 58

62

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

Craigie proposes a hypothesis that the Israelites encountered the suzerainty treaty while in Egypt:60 the word brt/bryt is used in Egyptian with two senses, sometimes distinguished by a determinative: (a) ‘contract, contractual labor’; (b) ‘covenant, treaty’. . . . In the Exodus, the Hebrews were liberated from the Egyptian brt by their God.61

The common influence from the international treaty form, rooted in Anatolia and Syria in the second millennium,62 provided enduring standards throughout the ANE into the seventh century (Assyrian vassal treaties of Esarhaddon [VTE,]) and into the Roman period.63 60 See McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant, 125–6; Kitchen, “Egypt,” 453– 64; Reliability, 286. 61 Craigie, Deuteronomy, 80–83. 62 There are those who argue that the Sinai covenant was not fashioned after the treaty structure until after the seventh century BC; cf. Ernest W. Nicholson, Exodus and Sinai in History and Tradition (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1973); Thompson, Deuteronomy, 14–21; Wenham, “Deuteronomy;” McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant, 256–76. Still others argue that the idea of the covenant itself was a late addition in the seventh century BC. Georg Fohrer, History of Israelite Religion (Nashville: Parthenon, 1972); Ronald E. Clements, Prophecy and Tradition (Oxford: Blackwell, 1975). While several scholars argue for the dependence of Deuteronomy on the Assyrian vassal treaties of Esarhaddon (VTE,) of the seventh century BC, [Frankena, “Vassal-Treaties,” 122–54; Weinfeld, Deuteronomic School; Steymans, Deuteronomium 28], McConville suggests that it is impossible “to settle the dating of Deuteronomy on the basis of the treaty analogies alone, or to explain them as the result of the exclusive influence of either the Hittite or the Assyrian types. It is best to think of Deuteronomy as drawing on the treaty tradition of the ANE rather freely” (Deuteronomy, 24). This principle of free influence has relevance in the context of the SMR, as there is not a direct or specific dependence on the ANEVT of either the Hittite or Assyrian flavour. Kitchen effectively demonstrates the close structural parallels between the ANEVT of the Late Bronze Age and the biblical covenants arguing for a date in the second millennium for the biblical covenant (Reliability, 290). 63 Fensham, “Curses,”134. Weinfeld does state that the “Egyptians, who dominated the southern Syrian region at the same time the Hittites

CHAPTER THREE-LITERARY GENRE

63

Yamauchi and others set out epigraphic and archaeological evidence for the period before Alexander the Great, for crossfertilization between Greek, Syro-Palestinian, Neo-Babylonian, Mesopotamian, and Assyrian cultures.64 Waldbaum and Magness document the presence of Greek pottery: [pottery] from Ashkelon and Tel Miqne-Ekron, supported also by evidence from Tel Batash and Kabri, shows definitively that specific types of East Greek pottery were present in the Levant before the end of the seventh century.65

Gordon, a leading expert in Semitic languages, describes a shared milieu of myths, traditions, calendars, scripts, etc. through-

dominated the area of northern Syria, did not use this type of treaty format [ANEVT] when establishing relations with their vassals. We have evidence about loyalty oaths of vassals to the Egyptian overlord but no attestations of written treaties” (“Covenant Making,” 135); cf. David Lorton, The Juridical Terminology in International Relations in Egyptian Texts through Dynasty XVII (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, 1974), 163 ff.; Weinfeld, “Loyalty Oath,” 379–414. The use of the ANEVT by the Syrians and Hittites would put vassal treaties in contact with the Egyptians. 64 Yamauchi, “Daniel,” 38–39; Greece, 47ff., 54ff., 81; Watrous L. Vance, “Late Bronze Age Kommos: Imported Pottery as Evidence for Foreign Contact,” ScrMed 6 (1985): 7–18; Volkmar Fritz, The City in Ancient Israel (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1995), 26; George M. A. Hanfmann, “A ‘Hittite’ Priest from Ephesus,” AJA 66.1 (1962): 4; J. Kaplan, “Mesopotamian Elements in the Middle Bronze II Culture of Palestine,” JNES 30.4 (1971): 293–307; Simo Parpola, “The Assyrian Tree of Life: Tracing the Origins of Jewish Monotheism and Greek Philosophy,” JNES 52.3 (1993), 161–208. For numismatic evidence see Edith Porada, “Greek Coin Impressions from Ur,” Iraq 22 (1960): 228–34; Edwin M. Yamauchi, “Two Reformers Compared: Solon of Athens and Nehemiah of Jerusalem,” in The Bible World: Essays in Honor of C. H. Gordon (G. Rendsberg et al., eds.; New York: KTAV, 1980), 275. 65 Jane C. Waldbaum and Jodi Magness, “The Chronology of Early Greek Pottery: New Evidence from Seventh-Century B. C. Destruction Levels in Israel,” AJA 101.1 (1997): 23; Jane C. Waldbaum, “Greeks in the East or Greeks and the East? Problems in the Definition and Recognition of Presence,” BASOR 305 (1997): 1–17.

64

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

out the Bronze Age ANE cultures.66 A period of Greek contact with not only the Anatolian region but Palestine as well67 provided the ideal opportunity to begin transferring the ANEVT schema, through trade and cross-fertilization of ideas, to other cultures. Common Phrases and Customs: In addition to a common vocabulary and cross-cultural influence, the ancient Near Eastern nations and Greeks shared common phrases–certainly not as the “result of an independent creation.”68 Weinfeld lists seven phrases including a descriptor for sacrificing a three-year-old animal, which was common not only in Israel and Mesopotamia, but also among the Greeks.69 One phrase, “to come to help with all the heart” (Akkadian ana tillatišu ina kūl libbi) or “to come to help with all the soul” (Hittite anda uarišša-in šakuuaššarit ZI-it),70 is also found in the treaty 66 Cyrus H. Gordon, Homer and Bible: The Origin and Character of East Mediterranean Literature (Ventnor, NJ: Ventnor, 1967). 67 Bernal views the origins of Western civilization (Greece) as having African (Egyptian and Phoenician) cultural roots based primarily on linguistic grounds rejecting most archaeological evidence. This has led to a heated debate over the origins of Western civilization, leading to accusations on both sides of racism. Jacques Berlinerblau, Heresy in the University: The Black Athena Controversy and the Responsibilities of American Intellectuals (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1999). One must guard against racist assumptions in the “ethnic wars” in the debate over ethnicity of culture and Oriental influence on the Greeks. Thus, Morris is cautious about the use of linguistics (Gordon and Bernal) but emphasises the archaeological evidence to support an “Oriental” Greece distancing herself from Bernal’s “Revised Ancient model, which would derive much of the roots of Greek civilization from Egyptian colonists on Crete and Greece in the Middle Bronze and Late Bronze Ages” (Yamauchi, “Athena Reviewed,” 145–52; Sarah Morris, “Daidalos and Kadmos: Classicism and ‘Orientalism,’” Arethusa, Special Issue [1989]: 39; Martin Bernal, Black Athena: The Afroasiatic Roots of Classical Civilization. Volume 1: The Fabrication of Ancient Greece 1785–1985 [London: Rutgers University Press, 1987], 40); cf. James D. Muhly, “Black Athena versus Traditional Scholarship,” JMA 3 (1990): 53–55, 83–110. 68 Weinfeld, “Covenant Terminology,” 198. 69 Weinfeld, “Covenant Terminology,” 198; Deuteronomic School, 103; Paul Stengel, Die griechischen Kultusaltertümer (Munich: Beck, 1920), 119 n. 17, 137. 70 Weidner, Politische, no. 3.2.17, no. 4.10.

CHAPTER THREE-LITERARY GENRE

65

between Judas Maccabeus (Semitic party) and the Romans: “The people of the Jews shall help them . . . with all their heart” (1 Macc 8:25 auvtoi/j kardi,a| plh,rei). Weinfeld also surveys six other influential phrases, including, “To be a friend to friends, an enemy to enemies,” “As long as heaven and earth endure,” and “All the deities are witnesses including heaven and earth, mountains, rivers etc.”71

Gilgamesh and Homer (2100 BC–800 BC) There is growing recognition of the connection between the Epic of Gilgamesh (Sumerian and Akkadian version 2100–1000 BC) and Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey (800 BC).72 The extensive comparison of the influence of Eastern literature on Greece by M. L. West leads him to conclude that “both the Iliad and Odyssey show, beyond all reasonable question, the influence of the Gilgamesh epic, and more especially the Standard Babylonian version of that poem.”73 Karavites demonstrates ancient Near Eastern influence on “treaty-like ‘agreements’ in Homer.”74 He identifies five of the ANEVT themes in the Homeric epics: “(1) the Preamble, (2) The Recounting of Antecedent History, (3) Stipulations, (4) Invocations of the Gods as Witnesses, [and] (5) Curses and Blessings.”75 Minor variations aside, all elements are quite discernible. He makes a cautionary statement, however:

71

Weinfeld, “Covenant Terminology,” 199. Karavites, Homer, 4–5; John F. Priest, “Orkia in the Iliad and Consideration of a Recent Theory,” JNES 23.1 (1964): 48–56; Hope Nash Wolff, “Gilgamesh, Enkidu, and the Heroic Life,” JAOS 89 (1969): 392– 98; Gerald K. Gresseth, “The Gilgamesh Epic and Homer,” CJ 70 (1975): 1–18; T. Abusch, “The Epic of Gilgamesh and the Homeric Epics,” in Mythology and Mythologies (R. M. Whiting ed.; Helsinki: Melammu Symposia, 2001), 1–6; Andrew R. George, The Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic: Introduction, Critical Edition and Cuneiform (vol. 1; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), 55. 73 West, Helicon, 587. 74 Karavites, Homer, 82–107; Brown, Ancient Israel, 254. 75 Karavites, Homer, 83. For discussion of those who differ on the Near East influence on Homer, cf. Karavites, Homer, 4–5. 72

66

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES in the Homeric epics the various agreements are not separately created documents that the poet incorporated into his narrative, but rather themes to be distilled by us from the poems’ themes which are usually not couched in anything like the highly stylized language of the Near East treaties.76

He acknowledges that “Homer makes no pretence of describing legal texts in his works,” but nevertheless maintains that Homer’s agreements are quasi-legal transactions establishing what amount to legally binding bilateral or multilateral rights–and duties–relationships among the covenanters, relationships that are either explicitly or implicitly stated.77

The term used for covenant in Homer is harmonia (a`rmo,nioj means “to bind”; Il. 22:255).78 Closely related are the o`mo,noia coins of the first century AD, which represent the binding of cities together in a covenant alliance.79 Smyrna had developed a complex network of alliances with other cities that had uniquely set her apart from the other seven cities.80 This was demonstrated in the o`mo,noia (political concord or alliance) coins which Smyrna had encour76

Karavites, Homer, 83. Karavites, Homer, 82. 78 Weinfeld, “Covenant Terminology,” 190 n. 2. 79 Nicholas Purcell defines homonoia as “Concordia: The cult of personified harmonious agreement within the body politic of Rome” (“Concordia,” OCD 375). Although there were alliances with more cities during the reign of Gordian, there were more coins produced under Domitian’s reign. Under Domitian the cities of Ephesus, Laodicea, and Sardis were strong participants in o`mo,noia coins; cf. Dietrich O. A. Klose, Die Münzprägung Von Smyrna in der Römischen Kaiserzeit (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1987), 50. During the Gordian period Smyrna minted o`mo,noia coins with eight cities and the Koinon of Asia. The Koinon were the provincial council of the Asian cities. This indicates a sudden intensification of diplomatic activity. Martin J. Price and Bluma L. Trell, Coins and Their Cities: Architecture on the Ancient Coins of Greece, Rome, and Palestine (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1977), 32; John Paul Lotz, “The Homonoia coins of Asia Minor and Ephesians 1:21,” TB 50.2 (1999): 173–88. 80 Ramsay, Letters, 193. 77

CHAPTER THREE-LITERARY GENRE

67

aged as a mutual acknowledgment of religious practices with the surrounding cities. The height of the coins’ popularity was during the time of Domitian.81 Klose concludes that this popularity supports the following point: shows that at least in these cases a mutual arrangement, a kind of ‘Homonoia contract’ must have been present, the sudden occurrence of so many Homonoia coins can therefore not be based only on a whim of the people of Smyrna, who were responsible for minting copies.82

While these treaties were made between equal parties (parity treaties), rather than suzerainty treaties, still the homonoia cities were exposed to the concept of a covenant binding alliance, at least of a religio-political nature.83 Likewise, the language within the messages of Revelation display similar quasi-juridical characteristics in the binding relationship between Yahweh and the churches (2:4, 20; 3:3, 15). It is consistent then for God to continue revealing himself to his people in Revelation in the context of covenant treaty structure and terminology. Gresseth believes that the similarities between the Homeric work and the Near Eastern epic are not coincidental but “point to the general causative factors behind the resemblance.”84 He believes that “lines of cultural derivation” are “traceable from the Sumerian materials from which the Akkadian epic was formed to 81 Although there were alliances with more cities during the reign of Gordian, more coins were produced under Domitian’s reign. Under Domitian the cities of Ephesus, Laodicea, and Sardis were strong participants in o`mo,noia coins. Klose, Münzprägung, 46, 50; Price and Trell, Coins, 32. The o`mo,noia goddess is pictured on several of the coins from Smyrna during the reigns of Marcus Aurlius, Commodus, Faustina, Caracalla, and Gordian. Klose, Münzprägung, tables 57–63. 82 Klose, Münzprägung, 51; Steven J. Friesen, Twice Neokoros (vol. 116 of Religions in the Graeco-Roman World; eds. R. Van Den Broek, H. J. W. Drijvers and H. S. Versnel; Leiden: Brill Academic, 1993), 2. 83 Klose concludes that o`mo,noia was not a legal term but rather a vague generic religious-political concept used to settle various political disputes on a voluntary basis (Münzprägung, 46). 84 Gresseth, “Homer,” 1 n. 3.

68

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

the world of Homer.”85 Karavites specifies that Hittite treaties, “because of their more developed form . . . geographic proximity . . . and the probable contacts of the Hittites with the Mycenaean civilization,”86 comprise the primary bridge between ANE culture and some Greek literature. Homer, if part of the Smyrnaean community,87 would have been almost inevitably open to influence from the ANEVT in his writing, consciously or unconsciously. Given that ANE influence had reached Asia Minor in Homer’s day, and Hittite/Akkadian vocabulary, if not ANEVT schema, had influenced Anatolia/Asia Minor literature. In light of these facts what is possible in John’s lifetime, living in Asia Minor 800 years later?88 If the imperial edicts 85

Gresseth, “Homer,” 2. Karavites, Homer, 83. Burkert notes that “Greece was in contact with the Levant since Bronze Age times, and through trade ports probably picked up Mesopotamian motifs which entered the Homeric literature of the 8/7th centuries BCE” (Orientalizing Revolution, 225); cf. West, Helicon; Brown, Ancient Israel, 8. 87 The traditional birthplace of Homer was Smyrna (Strabo Geogr. 6:14.37; Aristides Panath. 328; Cicero Arch. 7.8.19; Plutarch Sert. 1.3); cf. Wolfgang Schadewalt, Legende von Homer dem fahrenden Sänger, Ein altgriechisches Volksbuch (Leipzig: Artemis, 1942), 55ff.; Von Homers Welt und Werk, Aufsätze und Anlegungen zur Homerischen Frage (Stuttgart: Koehler Verlag, 1965), 96ff.; Albin Lesky, Geschichte der griechischen Literatur (Bern: Francke, 1971), 59 n. 1; Klose, Münzprägung, 24; George E. Bean, Aegean Turkey: An Archaeological Guide (London: Ernest Benn, 1966), 45; Carlo Heyman, “Homer on Coins from Smyrna,” SPNO 12 (1982): 161; William M. Calder et al., “Smyrna,” OCD 1417. 88 There are also Hittite tablets mentioning military campaigns against a people called Ahhiyawa in western Anatolia. Initially there was heated debate over their identification, but the identification of the Ahhiyawa is generally accepted by recent scholars to be the Mycenaean Achaeans. Edwin M. Yamauchi, “Historic Homer: Did it Happen?” BAR 33.2 (2007): 35; Eric Cline, “Archilles in Anatolia: Myth, History and the Assuwa Rebellion,” in Crossing Boundaries and Linking Horizons (eds. Gordon D. Young, Mark W. Chavalas and Richard E. Averbeck; Bethesda, MD: CDL, 1997), 202–203; George L. Huxley, Achaeans and Hittites (Belfast: Queens University Press, 1960). Furthermore, the Iliad and the Odyssey 86

became the universally accepted frame of reference, in fact, the only frame of reference upon which the cultural language common to all those who

CHAPTER THREE-LITERARY GENRE

69

of the Roman period themselves trace their roots, albeit in seed form,89 to the secular Near Eastern treaties, this indicates that, in John’s period, writing a message following ancient treaty forms would not be foreign to the church in Smyrna. Weinfeld, who is not concerned with Smyrna, traces the influence of the ANEVT on the Roman imperial oaths: The formal similarity between oaths and treaties in East and West is so great that it seems to be impossible not to assume an eastern influence on the West (Greece and Rome) in this area. Even were we to assume a chance independent formulation of the formulae and ceremonies, we would be forced to admit that the oriental treaties have much in common with the occidental ones. . . . It is difficult to contend that such a full overlapping with the Near Eastern loyalty oaths is purely co-incidental, and it is our opinion that the loyalty to the Roman Emperor has its roots in an ancient Near Eastern tradition.90

Likewise, the close overlap of the imperial edicts and the prophetic oracles is no accident: both share ANEVT roots. Some may object to this by appealing to the gap between Mesopotamia and first-century Asia Minor. Mary Knox interacts with the idea of a connection between Mesopotamian seals and Greek literature. She observes that there is a belonged to the Ancient Greek civilization was formed, and therefore an inseparable part of the identity of those who saw this civilization as their own (Margalit Finkelberg, “Homer as a Foundation Text,” in Homer, the Bible and Beyond [eds. Margalit Finkelberg and Guy G. Stroumsa; Jerusalem Studies in Religion and Culture 2; Leiden: Brill, 2003], 96).

The Iliad and Odyssey enjoyed greater and more enduring popularity than the other Greek epics, which propelled them into a significant area of influence in the first century. 89 Karavites acknowledges the tricky question of whether “there is direct or indirect connection between the Homeric world and the Near East,” but “assumes an association between the two” following the parallels with the Hittite treaties and the Old Testament (Homer, 82 n. 3). If there is a connection with the SMR, this would provide another parallel. 90 Weinfeld, “Loyalty Oath,” 402, 405.

70

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES long gap of time and place between Mesopotamia in 2500 BC and the Odyssey; a gap which at present can only be bridged by postulating persistent oral tradition and possible transmission via, say, Ugarit.91

However, she points out that such transmission is not inherently improbable, and the 1500– year gap between the Odyssey and the earliest modern versions of the tale [Cyclops], as well as its extremely wide geographical distribution, testify to its enduring appeal.92

Hanson makes a good analogy to explain the extended influence on the Hebraic-Semitic roots in explaining why there are similarities with the Graeco-Roman period: If one were to set a common MB II A Canaanite lamp alongside a typical lamp of the Iron II variety, the untutored bystander may fail to discern any historical connection between them. If one then filled in the typology with representatives from MB II B-C, LB I and II and Iron I, that same bystander would recognize immediately that the Iron Age lamp develops in an unbroken continuum from the MB specimen. Our point is that: the origins of apocalyptic cannot be explained by a method which juxtaposes seventh and second century compositions and then proceeds to account for the features of the latter by reference to its immediate environment. The apocalyptic literature of the second century and after is the result of a long development reaching back to pre-Exilic times, and beyond, and not a new baby of second century foreign parents.93

Ancient literatures developed gradually over time and appear to have had a lasting effect on various cultures, even those far removed by geography and time. 91 Mary Knox, “Polyphemos and His Near Eastern Relations,” JHS 99 (1979): 165. 92 Knox, “Polyphemos,” 165. 93 Paul D. Hanson, “Jewish Apocalyptic Against Its Near Eastern Environment,” RB 78 (1971): 32; “Studies in Origins of Jewish Apocalyptic,” (PhD. diss., Harvard University, 1969).

CHAPTER THREE-LITERARY GENRE

71

The Hippocratic Oath (ca. 460–ca. 377 BC) The same gradual, cumulative development applies to the Hippocratic Oath (sacramentum) attributed to the father of medicine, Hippocrates, in the fourth century BC.94 Graham describes the original nature of the oath as “redolent of a covenant, a solemn and binding treaty.”95 This ancient covenant preserves the ANEVT schema and influences the ethical standards of Western civilization to the modern day. The Oath96 is as follows: I swear by Apollo the Healer and by Æsculapius, by Hygieia, and Panacea, and by all gods and goddesses, making them my witnesses [witnesses] that I will fulfil according to my power and judgment this oath and this covenant. I will look on him who taught me this art as I do my own parents, and will share with him my livelihood. . . I will prescribe regimen in order to benefit the sick, and not to do them injury or wrong [stipulations]. . . If then I fulfil this oath and do not violate it, may I enjoy my life and art and be held in honour among all men for ever [blessing]; but if I transgress and prove false to my oath, then may the contrary befall me [curse] (Hippoc. Jusj. 1:289–302 [Jones and Withington, LCL]).

The preamble and historical prologue are omitted,97 but, as Gene Tucker points out, “Even the Hittite treaties themselves often omitted the ‘History’ clause. But in spite of numerous varia94 A. J. Brock, Greek Medicine, Being Extracts Illustrative of Medical Writers from Hippocrates to Galen (London: Dent & Sons, 1929; New York: AMS, 1972), 2; J. T. Vallance, “Hippocrates,” OCD 710. 95 David Graham, “Revisiting Hippocrates: Does an Oath Really Matter?” JAMA 284.22 (2000): 2842. 96 A third century AD fragment from the Oxyrhynchus papyri (P.Oxy. 31.2547) contains a portion of the Hippocratic Oath. J. W. B. Barns et al., eds., The Oxyrhynchus Papyri (vol. 31 (45); Graeco-Roman Memoirs; London: Egypt Exploration Society, 1966), No. 2547. 97 The historical prologue may be represented by the section stating, “To consider dear to me as my parents him who taught me this art” (Hippoc. Jusj. 1:302 [Jones and Withington, LCL]) since it functions in a historical fashion. However, it is not necessary to have the historical prologue to make the argument.

72

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

tions from place to place and from time to time, the essential elements persisted.”98 McCarthy lists these essentials as “the obligations to be assumed and the invocation of the gods with the consequent implications of divine sanctions.”99 The Hippocratic Oath constitutes a striking and useful parallel to both Hittite middle treaties, phase IV (1600–1400 BC) and Assyrian late treaties, East, phase VI (900–650 BC) where the preamble (title), witnesses, stipulations, and curses occur (without blessings).100 Comparing the Babylonian Diagnostic Handbook with the Corpus Hippocraticum, Geller makes the following conclusion: Enough similarities exist in the phraseology and descriptions of symptoms to suggest some kind of relationship between pre-Hippocratic Greek and Babylonian medicine. One might even go so further to suggest that there was only one major system of medicine in the oikumene of the Near East before Hippocrates, which later diverged into two quite different systems.101

However, the presence of the ANEVT schema within the Hippocratic Oath would reinforce these findings and demonstrate the influence of the ANE cultures on ancient Greek literature.

98 Gene M. Tucker, “Covenant Forms and Contract Forms,” VT 15.4 (1965): 495; cf. chapter 4—Inconsistent Pattern, 212. 99 McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant, 26. 100 See Table 1. Kitchen, “Patriarchal Age,” 53–55; Reliability, 287–8; Ancient Orient, 90–102; The Bible in its World (Exeter: Paternoster, 1977), 79–85; “Fall and Rise of Covenant,” 118–35. 101 Mark J. Geller, “West Meets East: Early Greek and Babylonian Diagnosis,” in Magic and Rationality in Ancient Near Eastern and Graeco-Roman Medicine (eds. H. F. J. Horstmanshoff and Marten Stol; SAM 27; Leiden: Brill, 2004), 61; “Influence,” 1:47–48. Marten Stol and Philip J. van der Eijk also find similarities between the Babylonian practices and Hippocrates (Stol, “An Assyriologist Reads Hipppocrates,” in Magic and Rationality, 71; van der Eijk, “Divination, Prognosis and Prophylaxis: The Hippocratic Work ‘On Dreams’ [De Victu 4] and Its Near Eastern Background,” in Magic and Rationality, 214).

CHAPTER THREE-LITERARY GENRE

73

ANEVT Structure in the First Century Secondly, how did the ANEVT structure persist into the first century to influence the imperial edicts and possibly John? Alexander the Great’s library at Alexandria in 332 BC contained the Greek collection of Corpus Hippocraticum. From this library, the Roman Empire absorbed fundamental medical principles from Hippocrates.102 While there was some opposition to his views, physicians were practically acquainted with Hippocratic medicine and the Oath.103 Pines points out that even though the Hippocratic Oath was composed several centuries earlier than the Didache, it was “at the time of the emergence of Christianity, that the Hippocratic Oath became popular.”104 First-century Influence (234 BC–AD 150): Leading up to the first century, Cato the Elder (234–149 BC) is strongly influ102

P. M. Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria (3 vols.; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1972), 1:325–30, 364–5; 2:540 nn. 243–5; Vivian Nutton, “Museums and Medical Schools in Antiquity,” HistEd 4.1 (1975): 5; Heinrich von Staden, “Liminal Perils: Early Roman Receptions of Greek Medicine,” in Tradition, Transmission, Transformation (eds. F. Jamil Ragep, Sally P. Ragep and Steven Livesey; Leiden: Brill, 1996), 369–418. Bacchius (c. 275–200 BC) was responsible for compiling “one of the more influential Hippocratic lexica of all time” including the Oath, which influenced Callimachus, Zeno, and Heraclides of Erythrae. Heinrich von Staden, ed., Herophilus: The Art of Medicine in Early Alexandria: Edition, Translation and Essays (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 428, 431, 489. Hippocrates’ “teaching continued as the orthodox canon of medicine for centuries” under the designation of Dogmatists, Logicists or Rationalists, and Plato and Aristotle followed in their thought processes (Brock, Greek Medicine, 12–13). 103 J. T. Vallance admits that it is not “clear how common were contracts and agreements like those contained in the Hippocratic Oath. The Oath is probably aimed at a specific, and perhaps rather small, group of doctors” (“Medicine,” OCD 946). Still, the mention of the Oath by ancient writers does indicate their awareness. 104 Shlomo Pines, “The Oath of Asaph the Physician and Yohanan Ben Zabda. Its Relation to the Hippocratic Oath and the Doctrina Duarum Viarum of the Didache,” PIASH 9 (1975): 247; Ludwig Edelstein, The Hippocratic Oath: Text, Translation and Interpretation (BIHM, suppl. 1; Baltimore: Johns Hopkins, 1943), 63–64.

74

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

enced by Hippocrates (Cato Agr. 1.1.4).105 Aulus Cornelius Celsus (ca. 25 BC–AD ca. 50) wrote De Medicina, one of the best sources of Alexandrian medicine, with a strong devotion to Hippocrates106 (Celsus Med. 1.8; 1.15; 3.9.2; 4.5.2; 8.20.4; etc.). Scribonius Largus (AD 1–50),107 Claudius’ physician, quotes the Hippocratic Oath (sacramentum) in his defence against abortion (AD 43–47; Largus Comp. 5).108 It would not be strange, then, if the medical oath of Largus, containing the ANEVT schema, found its way into the imperial edicts of Claudius his patient. Two physicians from the first century, working in Ephesus, an important medical centre,109 also demonstrate a familiarity with the Corpus Hippocraticum.110 Rufus (AD 98–117)111 and Soranus (AD

105 Vallance, OCD 710; James S. Elliott, Outlines of Greek and Roman Medicine (Boston: Longwood, 1978), 39. 106 Elliott, Medicine, 73; Aulus Cornelius Celsus, On Medicine (vol. 1; LCL; Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1938), 1. 107 William D. Ross and Vivian Nutton, “Scribonius Largus,” OCD 1370. 108 Sergio Sconocchia, ed., Scribonii Largi Compositiones (Leipzig: Teubner, 1983), 2; cf. Plutarch (AD ca. 46–ca. 127) for a use of the Oath (Vit. 23.3–4). 109 In the first century Ephesus had a medical school (Museum) modelled after the Alexandrian tradition, with a president, priest, and several doctors. Nutton, “Museums,” 6. A Jewish doctor by the name of VIouli,oj held the position of avrci,atroj in Ephesus during the first century. Emperor Antonius Pius limited the number of government funded doctors to ten per city, perhaps indicating an overabundance of doctors in Ephesus in the first century; cf. Paul R. Trebilco, Jewish Communities in Asia Minor (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 173–74; Wellmann, “Ephesus,” PW 2, 1896: cols 264–6; Josef Keil, “Ärzteinschriften aus Ephesos,” JÖAI 8 (1905): 128–38. 110 Ludwig Edelstein and Vivian Nutton, “Rufus of Ephesus,” OCD 1337; Brock, Greek Medicine, 20, 112, 123. 111 Rufus writes in Greek rather than Latin, making his work available to the masses in the west. In the first-century, medicine had moved away from the secret society, implied in the Hippocratic Oath, to being openly available to the public. Therefore, while in its early history it was a private administration of an Oath, by the second century BC onward, medicine (with its oath) was “available to all who wished to learn” (Nutton, “Mu-

CHAPTER THREE-LITERARY GENRE

75

98–138) both studied at Alexandria and quoted the Hippocratic Oath (Soranus Gyn. 1.19.60).112 Galen (Claudius Galenus) of Pergamum (AD 129–ca. 199/216) was a well-known Greek physician who studied medicine in Smyrna (AD 150),113 Corinth, and Alexandria.114 Pergamum, one of the seven cities of Revelation, possessed a university, a library rivalling Alexandria, and a medical school dedicated to Asclepius,115 Galen’s family god. Hippocrates plays an important role in the development of Galen’s works since he considered Hippocrates his personal god.116 Furthermore, the Gospel writers (particularly Luke) give evidence of an awareness and use of medical terms also used specifically by Hippocrates and other ancient physicians.117 Greek medical seums,” 8); cf. Edelstein, Hippocratic Oath, 40–48; Franz Rosenthal, “An Ancient Commentary on the Hippocratic Oath,” BHM 30 (1991): 52–87. 112 Soranus wrote the Life of Hippocrates, and as his first biographer he had close knowledge of his writings. Vallance, OCD 710. The early church fathers were also familiar with Soranus’s work (Tertullian An. 6:1 [3x]; 8:1; 14:1; 15:1; 25:1; 44:1). Marinus (AD ca. 130) wrote a commentary on the aphorisms of Hippocrates. William D. Ross and Vivian Nutton, “Marinus,” OCD 924; Elliott, Medicine, 95. 113 Smyrna was a centre for medicinal training (Strabo Geogr. 6:12.8.20). Nutton, “Museums,” 7; Cecil J. Cadoux, Ancient Smyrna: A History of the City from the Earliest Times to 224 AD (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1938), 232; Aune, Rev 1–5, 160. Thyatira (Moschianus), and Philadelphia (Aurelius Lucianus) also employed famous doctors. Nutton, “Museums,” 8. 114 Ludwig Edelstein and Vivian Nutton, “Galen,” OCD 621; Brock, Greek Medicine, 21–22; Phillip De Lacy ed. and trans., Galen on the Doctrines of Hippocrates and Plato (3 vols.; CMG; Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1978– 1980); Vallance, OCD 949. 115 Brock reports that “there is no evidence that it [the Oath] was enforced by any of the medical guilds, such as that of the Asclepiads. It seems a private bond between teacher and taught” (Greek Medicine, 35–36). 116 Edelstein and Nutton, OCD 621. 117 Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church (4 vols.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1963), 1.407–408; Edward H. Plumptre, 1 & 2 Timothy (PCNT; ed. Philip Schaff; New York: Scribner’s, 1879–1883); F. F. Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles: Greek Text with Introduction and Commentary (revised 3d ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 7; William Kirk Hobart, The Medical Language of St. Luke (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1954). Henry J. Cadbury

76

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

terms are used by the gospel writers, but several of these terms show close connection with Hippocrates. Luke employs pneu/ma (8:55)118 as a medical term119 while Matthew and Mark also show a familiarity with Hippocrates’ medical vocabulary (a;nhqon [Matt 23:23]; kullo,j [Matt 15:30; 18:8 and Mark 9:43]).120 Several medical terms are used in Revelation: evme,w (3:16); kinna,mwmon (kinnamw,minoj 18:13); and mhro,j (19:16). While, as Cadbury points out, “we have no way of knowing how far medical language had penetrated into the vocabulary of every day life,”121 the presence of medical language used by Hippocrates in the documents of the gospel writers indicates they were either well educated or perhaps even well-read in medical literature.122 This does not prove that John knew the Hippocratic Oath but does indicate that the authors of the NT were familiar with medical terminology and may have known about the Hippocratic Corpus and Oath. Church Fathers (AD 150–585): The Hippocratic Corpus was also known to early church fathers, including Clement of Alexandria (AD 150–ca. 211/216; Strom. 2.20.17; 6.2.5 [x2]); Tertullian (AD ca. 160–240; An. 15.1 [2x]; 25.1); Hippolytus (AD 170–236; Haer. 5.2 [2x]); Ambrose (AD 340–397; Noe 25.424); Jerome (AD 347–420; Epist. 52.15; 109.2; 125.16; Vigil. 4; Jov. 1.3; 2.11); Augustine (AD 354–430; Civ. 2, 5, 8; Conf. 3.5; 4.3; Faust. 33.6 [4x]); and Cassiodorus (AD ca. 490–ca. 585; Inst. 1.1.31). Several church fa-

claims that Hobart’s research does not prove that Luke was a physician; however, authorship or occupation is not necessary for this arguement. We only need to indicate that Luke was familiar with medical language and both Hobart and Cadbury demonstrate this through their research (The Style and Literary Method of Luke [Cambrige, Mass.: Periodicals Service, 1920], 39–72). 118 According to Cadbury, these terms, employed by Luke, are listed in Hippocrates’ glossary (Literary Method of Luke, 62–3 n. 78). 119 Hobart, Medical, 221. 120 Cadbury, Literary Method of Luke, 47. 121 Cadbury, Literary Method of Luke, 49. 122 Cadbury, Literary Method of Luke, 39–72.

CHAPTER THREE-LITERARY GENRE

77

thers have specific knowledge of the Hippocratic Oath123 (Jerome Epist. 52.15; Gregory Nazianzus [AD 329–389] Or. Bas. 7.10). Oxyrhynchus Papyri (AD 224–237): Other Graeco-Roman oaths from Oxyrhynchus in Egypt have similar ANEVT structures including an Oath of Office (AD 232/3; AD 224–25; P.Oxy. 43.3097–8) and Oath on Undertaking Service (AD 237; P.Oxy. 43.3132).124

Oath of Asaph and Yohanan (ca. fourth–sixth century AD): The covenant, which Asaph ben Berakhyahu and Yohanan ben Zabda125 made with their pupils,126 also bears similarity to the ancient ANEVT structure, although it presents the blessing without a curse. However, all other elements are present, which shows that the influence of the ANEVT continues well beyond the first

123

Robert M. Veatch and Carol G. Mason argue that the Oath did not influence Christian ethic; however, for our argument, we do not need to demonstrate that Christianity embraced the Hippocratic ethic. We simply need to demonstrate that they were aware of the Hippocratic Corpus and Oath (“Hippocratic vs. Judeo-Christian Medical Ethics: Principles in Conflict,” JRE 15.2 (1987): 87). See Edelstein, Hippocratic Oath, 17 n. 45; 62; Paul Carrick, Medical Ethics in Antiquity: Philosophical Perspectives on Abortion and Euthanasia (Dordrecht, Holland: Reidel, 1985), 66, 159. 124 These documents are stored in the Papyrology Room, Ashmolean Museum, Oxford. J. R. Rea et al., eds., The Oxyrhynchus Papyri (vol. 43 (60); Graeco-Roman Memoirs; London: Egypt Exploration Society, 1975), Nos. 3097–8. 125 A fascinating detail is that the co-author of this oath of Asaph is Yohanan ben Zabda, which is the Hebrew and Aramaic form translates John son of Zebedee. Pines raises the question as to “whether the apostle or a namesake of his is the Yohanan ben Zebda referred to here?” (Pines, “Oath of Asaph,” 251.) It is unlikely, given the late date, that this John son of Zebedee, the author of the Hebrew oath, is the John of Revelation. Pines does not mention any connection with Revelation but believes this John is a pseudepigraphical composition like Asaph. 126 Pines, “Oath of Asaph,” 223–64.

78

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

century (i.e., into the sixth century AD),127 through the Greek Hippocratic Oath and the Judeo-Christian covenant idea.128 Pines examines similarities between the Hippocratic Oath, the oath of Asaph, and the Didache:129 [There is an] apparent influence of Greek medical ethics, as exemplified by the Hippocratic Oath, on the Didache, and also for the importance which seems to be attached in the latter text to the prohibitions against magei,a, farmakea, astrology, divination, incantation, and so on.”130

He does not mention the similarities with the ANEVT structure.131 Pines has well documented that there is a link between the Hippocratic Oath and a few lines in the Didache.132 Thus, the ancient treaty structure may have entered into the Christian community through documents like the Didache. Whether the John of Revelation had any contact with the Didache is uncertain, but it does place the influence of the ANEVT, through the Hippocratic Oath, into the first century.

127

The Medieval Oathes of the Kynkes of Arms, Heraudes, and Pursuivants also follows the pattern of the ANEVT. Travers Twiss, ed., The Black Book of the Admiralty: With an Appendix (Rerum Britannicarum Medii Aevi Scriptores, 4 vols.; Abingdon: Professional Books, 1985), 1:295–9. 128 Pines, “Oath of Asaph,” 224–6. Pines’ translation from Hebrew of Süessman Muntner, “Sefer ha-Refuot,” Meqorot le-Toledot ha-Biologia (ed. Frederick S. Bodenheimer; Jerusalem: Genizah, 1952), 45–46; Introduction to the Book of Assaph the Physician (Jerusalem: Geniza, 1957), Appendix I. 129 Pines points out that the Hebrew oath is a Jewish text while the Didache is a Christian (Greek/Latin) text. He makes the connection between the two documents through the similarities with the literature of the Qumran sect and their notoriety as healers (“Oath of Asaph,” 256 n. 111). 130 Pines, “Oath of Asaph,” 248. 131 To my knowledge no one has identified the ANEVT structure in the Hippocratic Oath prior to this research. 132 Pines observes that according to a Syriac tradition John the apostle was the author of the Didache (“Oath of Asaph,” 254). See Paul A. de Lagarde, Reliquiae juris ecclesiastici antiquissimae. Syriace primus edidit (Leipzig: Teubnerus, 1856), 19–23.

CHAPTER THREE-LITERARY GENRE

79

Romans Adopt Greek Terminology: Weinfeld documents how the ANEVT covenant terminology of “bond and oath, love and friendship, to cut a covenant, keep/remember, break, and trespass, ‘penetrated the Greek milieu and were later on adopted by the Romans.’”133 The messenger formula ta,de le,gei W, “obsolete in Koine Greek,”134 appears in all ancient traditions including ANEVT, Persian, Hebrew, and in its shortened form le,gei is used in the edicts of Roman emperors.135 Aune documents all but the ANEVT occurrence.136 The style of prophetic speech described by Aune in terms of messenger formula (ta,de le,gei; ANEVT–preamble), commission formula (gra,yon; ANEVT– messenger commission), proclamation formula (listen – “he who has an ear;” ANEVT–prophetic signature), legitimation formula (“what the Spirit says;” ANEVT– document witnesses)137 correspond to OT elements of the ANEVT.138 The terminology, however, employed by Aune to describe this type of prophetic speech is different than what is used to describe the ANEVT, but the function is markedly similar.139 Table Two illustrates how Aune labels the features of Israelite prophecy almost identical in function to the “Early Christian Prophetic Speech.” In Aune’s thinking, the structure of early Christian prophetic speech is virtually identical to that of Israelite prophecy. Aune switches the terms oracle formula and oath (Legitimation) formulas and renames the Revelation formulas as mystery formulas, but their functions remain the same.

133

Weinfeld, “Covenant Terminology,” 190. Aune, Rev 1–5, 141. 135 The formula ou[twj le,gei (thus says) is found in five Augustan edicts between 7–4 BC. See Ehrenberg and Jones, eds., Documents, 311. 136 Aune, Rev 1–5, 126–7, 141–2. 137 Aune’s description of the oath formula and the mystery formula are absent from the SMR but found elsewhere in Rev (Prophecy, 333). 138 See chapter 4—The ANEVT Structure Identified in the SMR, 130. 139 See chapter 3—Similarities of Imperial Edicts Compared with ANEVT, 55. 134

80

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

General Formulaic Features of Ancient Israelite Prophecy140 The Messenger Formula The Commission Formula The Proclamation Formula The Divine Oracle Formula Oath Formulas Revelation Formulas

The Basic Framing Features of Early Christian Prophetic Speech141 Messenger Formulas Commission Formulas Proclamation Formulas Legitimation Formulas Oracle Formulas The ‘Mystery’ Formula

Table 2. Aune’s Similar Prophetic Structure

John’s Knowledge of the ANEVT Structure John would have acquired his knowledge of the ANEVT treaty schema from a variety of sources. Apart from the OT Torah, John would have been exposed to the Loyalty-oath treaties, ancient Greek poetic and medical literature. John’s exposure to the ANEVT structure derived from the Torah read in the synagogue142 and OT prophetic writings is further strengthened from the firstcentury treaties between Anatolian cities and oaths that surrounded him in the Graeco-Roman world. Since John’s residence in Ephesus may have overlapped with the first-century physicians Rufus and Soranus,143 it is possible that John was also familiar with the Hippocratic Oath and its structure. Even if John did not have personal knowledge of the Oath,144 there is evidence of the ANEVT structure from the Oath in first-century Ephesus, Smyrna, and Per140

Aune, Prophecy, v, 89–91. Aune, Prophecy, ix, 327–33. 142 See chapter 3—Torah Influence on the Early Church, 105. 143 This is possible if one accepts a late date for writing Revelation. See chapter 2—Date of Revelation, 41. 144 The disciples were known to cure the sick and raise the dead (Matt 10:8; Acts 3:11–12; 4:9, 30). In the reign of Tiberius, in the third century, it was still recognized by Epiphanius (AD 374–377) that Christian bishops occasionally practiced medicine (Pan. 2.30.4). This does not prove that John had direct knowledge of the Hippocratic Oath, but it helps support the case for the early Christians’ familiarity with medical practices and terminology; cf. Cadbury, Literary Method of Luke, 39–72. 141

CHAPTER THREE-LITERARY GENRE

81

gamum, together with the evidence in the Didache. At the least, the ANEVT would not be out of place in John’s documents, and it is widely recognized as covenantal oath/treaty language appropriate for prophetic material.

Idea in the Mind of God The influence of the ANEVT structure has been traced from the ANE to the first century. However, Niehaus may offer the primary reason behind the similarities between various covenants in different periods. He argues that behind the ANEVT structure showing up so often throughout history is the notion that covenant is “an idea in the mind of God.”145 The ANEVT structure is reflected in the relational nature of being created in the image of God, and it is divinely embedded in the very idea of covenant relationships. It is not so much the reproduction of a previous structure as a reflection of the mind of God.

Summary This research proposes that the ANEVT structure travels through Greek literature and reaches first-century Rome and Asia Minor within the Hippocratic Oath, imperial edicts, and treaties between Anatolian cities, making a noticeable impact on inter-city relations, official state proclamations, and medicine. Ultimately the common structure is a reflection of the mind of God. This supports the common ancestry hypothesis evident from similar ANEVT structure within literature outside the Torah. The early church was already familiar with the ANEVT structure from the Torah, but it may have been exposed to it from these other cultural influences as well. The early church fathers were certainly aware of the Hippocratic Oath. If the ANEVT structure is found in the Hippocratic Oath quoted by Scribonius Largus, it can also be found in the imperial edicts of Claudius his patient and in the seven oracles of John. If the ANEVT structure is found in the Jewish Oath of Asaph and Yohanan, influenced by the Hippocratic Oath and the Didache, then it could have influenced the oracles of another John. 145

Niehaus, “Covenant,” 225-46.

82

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

The imperial edicts are just one of many types of ancient documents influenced by the ANEVT structure arguing that the imperial edicts are not the only possibility for comparison.

PROPHETIC ORACLES If the messages are not letters in the traditional sense, and the imperial edict form does not initially influence them, then what are they and what influences them? Feuillet, Beasley-Murray, Michaels, and Bauckham identify them as prophetic oracles,146 while others insist on the term prophetic messages.147 Aune prefers a “mixed genre created by the author. . . . [primarily from] the form and content of royal and imperial edicts,”148 and secondarily, following Hahn and Müller149 from “…a prophetic speech form that may be designated the paraenetic salvation-judgment oracle.”150 Scholars almost universally maintain that John was a prophet,151 that the book of Revelation is described at the beginning and ending as a prophecy (profhtei,a, 1:3; 22:7, 10, 18–19), and that the relationship with the OT prophets is a generic key.152 If the SMR were an integral part of the book as a 146

Feuillet, Apocalypse, 48; Beasley-Murray, Rev, 72; Michaels, Interpreting Rev, 32; Smalley, Rev, 47. For Bauckham, the SMR are not only written as oracles (2:1–3:22) because “there are prophetic oracles which interrupt the accounts of the visions” (e.g., 13:9–10; 14:13b; 16:15 [Theology, 3]). Stuckenbruck identifies them as “seven oracular messages” (“Revelation,” 1536). 147 Hartman , “Form,” 142; Ernst Lohmeyer, Die Offenbarung des Johannes (HNT 16; Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1926), 40; M. Eugene Boring, Revelation (IC 17; eds. J. I. Mays, P. D. Miller and P. J. Achtemeier; Louisville: Knox, 1989), 85. Johnson speaks of them as messages (Rev, 431). Gordon Fee and Douglas Stuart assert that “even the seven letters bear this prophetic imprint” (How To Read The Bible For All Its Worth: A Guide to Understanding the Bible [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982], 208). 148 Aune, Rev 1–5, 119, 126; cf. chapter 3—Imperial Edicts, 54. 149 Hahn, “Sendschreiben,” 36; Müller, Prophetie, 94. 150 Aune, Rev 1–5, 119, 126; Prophecy, 326. 151 See chapter 2—John’s Prophetic Office, 44. 152 cf. Aune, Prophecy, 274–9; Bauckham, Theology, 4–5; Beale, Rev, 35, 1144; Michael D. Goulder, “The Apocalypse as an Annual Cycle of Prophecies,” NTS 27.3 (1981): 364; George Eldon Ladd, “Why Not Prophetic-Apocalyptic?” JBL 76 (1957): 192–200; Thompson, Rev, 35; Hill,

CHAPTER THREE-LITERARY GENRE

83

whole,153 and not an amendment, then the designation of prophecy would also include these messages. Stuckenbruck suggests, “It is possible that John has adapted visions, some perhaps already known to his audience, into a framework that enhanced their relevance.”154 It would appear that the SMR, and Revelation as a whole, fit best into the prophetic-apocalyptic genre in the tradition of classic OT prophecy as found in Daniel, Ezekiel, Zechariah, Isaiah, Hosea, and Amos.155 Methodology Doty observes that genre comprises a variety of factors: generic definitions ought not [to] be restricted to any one particular feature (such as form, content, etc.), but they ought to

“Prophecy,” 406; Hemer, Letters, 13; Mounce, Rev, 25; Henry Barclay Swete, The Apocalypse of St. John (London: Macmillan, 1906; repr., Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 1999), xvii–xxi; and M. Eugene Boring, “The Theology of Revelation: The Lord Our God the Almighty Reigns,” Int 40.3 (1986): 257. Chilton maintains, “Revelation is a prophecy, with a specific covenantal orientation and reference” (Vengeance, 11). Aune states that the “conscious continuity between OT prophecy and Revelation” has “obvious merit,” but he also points out Morton’s review of Mazzaferri who sees “classical prophecy” as a caricature of the OT text (Rev 1–5, lxxvi; cf. Russell Morton, review of F. D. Mazzaferri, The Genre of the Book of Revelation from a Source-Critical Perspective, CBQ 53 [1991]: 143–44; and Mazzaferri, Genre, 85–156). The following scholars place Revelation in the genre of NT prophecy: Kraft, Offenbarung, 52–53; Thomas, Rev 1–7, 23–29; Beasley-Murray, Rev, 19–29; Schüssler Fiorenza, “Apokalypsis,” 134–40; and Willem C. van Unnik, “A Formula Describing Prophecy,” NTS 9 (1962– 1963): 86–94. 153 See chapter 2—Unity, 43. 154 Stuckenbruck, “Revelation,” 1536. 155 Mazzaferri and Hill seek to separate the apocalyptic genre from the prophetic and place Revelation in the exclusive line of OT prophetic writings (Mazzaferri, Genre, 85–156; Hill, “Prophecy,” 401–18; NT Prophecy, 87–93). Feuillet argues, “These letters are a recollection of the prophets of the Old Testament, especially of the seven oracles at the beginning of the Book of Amos” (Apocalypse, 48). See chapter 2—John’s Prophetic Office, 44.

84

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES be widely enough constructed to allow one to conceive of a genre as a congeries of factors.156

So while the present chapter focuses on the genre, as Doty points out it also relates to the structure which helps define the genre. Similarly, Hellholm argues that the three elements of form, structure, and content, while not the same, must be taken together to determine genre.157 Aune, following Hellholm, defines a literary genre as a group of sentences demonstrating a “coherent and recurring pattern constituted by the interrelated elements of form, content, and function.”158 This work follows these categories but treats them in a different order. Chapter five will deal with the content of the message during the exegesis of the text, while chapter six will consider the function of the SMR, and chapters three and four will deal with the form/structure. One might argue that the content is necessary before identifying the form and function; however, there is a reciprocal relationship. The form and function help the messages define their content, and the content clarifies the form and function. Form-Historical Analysis Various scholars have approached the messages as prophetic oracles from a form-historical perspective by analysing their form and structure. While each scholar seems to have his or her own approach to the structural analysis of the messages, it is evident, as Stuckenbruck suggests, that the addresses are “highly stylized.”159 156

W. G. Doty, “The Concept of Genre in Literary Analysis,” in SBL 1972 Proceedings (ed. Lane C. McGaughy; Missoula, MT: Scholars, 1972), 1:439–40. 157 David Hellholm, “The Problem of Apocalyptic Genre and the Apocalypse of John,” in Early Christian Apocalypticism: Genre and Social Setting (vol. 36 of Semeia; Decatur, Ga.: Scholars, 1986), 26. 158 Aune, Rev 1–5, lxxi; Hellholm, “Genre,” 18. 159 Stuckenbruck, “Revelation,” 1540; contra André H. Grové investigates the “function of the relational particles and asyndeton to the pericopae [sic.]” (“Revelation 2 and 3–Uniformly Structured or Not?” Scriptura 73 [2000]: 193). His rationale is that “by doing so, one arrives in a verified way at the thought-structure of these passages.” His conclusion is that

CHAPTER THREE-LITERARY GENRE

85

This chapter will highlight and survey several approaches as important.

Ferdinand Hahn (1971) Hahn’s form-historical analysis of symmetrical constructions in the messages boldly searches for distinctive structures used by early Christian prophets.160 Hahn says that the messages have four main parts: (1) The messenger formula (die Botenformel);161 (2) The oi=da verb component, which is the most verbose and variable; (3) The hearing formula (der Weckruf); and (4) The overcomer sayings (der Überwinderspruch).162 However, there is a catch. Hartman explains that “of these (1) is well rooted in OT prophecy, (3) belongs to a wider Christian tradition, and (4) is largely inspired by Jewish apocalyptic.”163 Hahn can argue only that the oi=da parts, in terms of content and form, model a shifting but distinctive verbal mini-structure characteristic of early Christian prophecy.164 Hartman, makes the following evaluation of Hahn’s work: Hahn’s analyses seems to be to the point, but as there are no analogies to the oida-part outside of the Rev, his contention as to the Sitz must remain a conjecture, and so must his suggestion concerning the form of the whole messages. . . . Thus, even if Hahn’s contentions about the form of the messages and its Sitz must remain conjectural, enough details in the form

“each periscope has its own unique pattern. It’s therefore illegitimate to treat the seven messages as if they are identically moulded.” However, he does admit they are “shaped uniformly on a macro level, but not on a micro level” (“Uniformly Structured,” 193). Roberts also maintains that the structure of the SMR are “not rigid and stereotype” (“Letter,” in Reading Revelation [ed. Botha, Villiers, and Engelbrecht], 23). 160 Hahn, “Sendschreiben,” 357–94. 161 See chapter 4—Messenger Preamble Formula, 141. 162 The two elements that Hahn leaves out of his analysis of the central section of the messages are the promise of salvation and the threat of judgment (“Sendschreiben,” 257–94). 163 Hartman, “Form,” 142. 164 Hahn, “Sendschreiben,” 376–94.

86

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES of the elements indicate that they should be understood as prophetic messages.165

However, Huffmon points out that the similarities in the Near Eastern suzerain’s use of the verb to know in both Hittite and Akkadian texts constitute a significant analogy with the ANEVT use of know outside of Revelation.166 There are examples of a usage of oi=da that appears to be influenced by ANEVT usage in Homer.167 Scattered alternatives do not undermine Hahn so much as strengthen Hartman’s contention that the Revelation texts constitute piecemeal, and cumulative, if somewhat anomalous, prophetic messages.

Ulrich B. Müller (1975) Müller states, “These two prophetic speech forms [Busspredigt and Heilspredigt] are not merely literary imitations of OT models, but are drawn from a living, oral prophetic tradition within Judaism“168 traceable through John the Baptist (Matt 3:7–10) and back to the admonition speech in apocalyptic literature (1 En. 91:3, 10; Jub. 7:20, 29; 36:11, etc.).169 Aune, criticizing Müller’s approach for un165

Hartman, “Form,” 142–3. Herbert B. Huffmon, “The Treaty Background of Hebrew Yāda‘,” BASOR 181 (1966): 31–37; Herbert B. Huffmon and Simon B. Parker, “A Further Note on the Treaty Background of Hebrew Yāda‘,” BASOR 184 (1966): 36–38. 167 The general use of oi=da by Homer is identified 17 times in The Iliad (4.163, 360; 6.447; 7.237, 240f; 11.408; 14.72; 16.50; 18.192; 19.219, 421; 20.201, 432, 434; 21.440; 24.105) 21 times in The Odyssey (3.184; 4.551; 5.215, 423; 6.176; 7.25; 8.215; 10.267, 456; 11.69, 463; 14.365; 15.211; 16.469, 474; 17.307, 373, 563; 18.228; 20.309; 23.201), and 7 times in the Homeric Hymns (2.133, 229f; 4.208, 369; 5.113, 116). Peter Karavites has identified five elements of the ANEVT structure in Homer’s writings (800 BC). Possible ANEVT examples of oi=da ascribed to hero’s or kings: 4.356–60; 6.447; 7.232–42, etc. (Promise-giving and Treaty-making: Homer and the Near East [Mnemosyne Supplements 119; Leiden: Brill, 1992], 82–107). See chapter 3—Gilgamesh and Homer (2100 BC-800 BC), 65. 168 Müller, Prophetie, 103. 169 Müller, Prophetie, 79–81. Müller also attempts to find a connection with Paul’s use of the verb parakale,w (Rom 16:17) arguing that it is an 166

CHAPTER THREE-LITERARY GENRE

87

dervaluing the “stereotyped framework of each letter” in order “to impose alien categories upon them,”170 prefers instead Ferdinand Hahn’s structural analysis as “derived from the letters themselves,” and “not based on the imposition of external models (e.g., OT prophetic forms).”171 However, Hill defends Müller as “valuable . . . in calling attention to the undoubted prophetic form and character of the seven letters.”172

William H. Shea (1983) Shea’s major innovation is the identification of the ANEVT covenant structure in the SMR173 and the argument that, “More meaningful labels can be drawn very appropriately from the designations given to the sections of the suzerainty covenant.”174 Shea links the ANEVT schema to the SMR, observing that similar formulaic statements introduce each element: (1) Preamble: “The word of him who . . .” (2:1, 8, 12, 18, 3:1a, 7, 14); (2) Prologue: “I know your works . . .” (2:2–4, 6, 9, 11–15, 19–21, 3:1b, 8–10, 15); (3) Stipulations: “Repent, [etc.] . . .” (2:5a, 10, 16a, 24–25, 3:2–3a, 11, 18–20); (4) Witness: “Hear what the Spirit says to the churches.” (2:7a, 11a, 17a, 29; 3:6, 13, 22); and (5) Blessing: “To him who overcomes I will grant . . .” (2:7b, 11b, 17b, 26–28; 3:5, 12, 21). After the caveat that sequence-shifts are “in reality quite natural, for ancient covenant statements did not slavishly follow exactly

OT messenger formula which introduces prophetic speech. As Aune points out, this is perhaps the weakest part of his thesis (Review of Ulrich B. Müller, Prophetie und Predigt im Neuen Testament: Formgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zur urchristlichen Prophetie, JBL 97 [1978]: 450). See Jack T. Sanders for an argument that parakale,w is characteristic of an epistle (Review of Carl J. Bjerkelund, Parakalô. Form, Funktion und Sinn der parakalo-Sätze in den paulinschen Briefen, JAAR 37.1 [1969]: 89–90, 92). 170 Aune, review of Müller, 450–51. 171 Aune, Prophecy, 432 n. 162. 172 Hill, NT Prophecy, 84; Édouard Cothenet, Le Prophétisme dans le Nouveau Testament (DBSup 8; ed. Louis Pirot ; Paris: Letouzey et Ané, 1972), col. 1325. 173 See chapter 1 and 3—William H. Shea (1983), 22, 87. 174 Shea, “Covenantal,” 76.

88

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

the same order in every instance,”175 Shea concludes that a paralleled set of these discrete formulaic elements is intentionally parcelled into each letter.176 Without mentioning their prophetic nature,177 Shea explains the letters as “covenant renewal messages”178: [The letters] appear to provide restatements of the covenant to each of the seven successive churches … to view them as providing for a renewal of the more original covenant of the suzerain in each of these seven instances.179

This sidesteps any discussion of the messages’ prophetic nature. Nevertheless, Shea successfully establishes basic, new categories, and methodological approaches in studying the structure of the seven messages, which this work builds upon.180

Robert L. Muse (1986) Muse finds a five-part blessing/cursing structure in the prophecy of Amos 1–2: (1) Messenger–speech formula; (2) General proclamation of judgments; (3) Specific indictments; (4) Specific articulation of the announcement of punishment; and (5) Concluding formula. These are similar to the seven versions of “warning judgment message [curses?],” and “promise of salvation message [blessing?]” in Revelation 2–3.181 Muse seeks to demonstrate that these five elements have OT roots in five of the messages, but he agrees with Müller that Smyrna and Philadelphia are unique in having no OT

175

Shea, “Covenantal,” 82–83. Shea, “Covenantal,” 82. 177 Shea makes passing reference to the structure in Exodus 20 but only under the heading of the historical prologue, and he makes no reference to the prophets. He mentions Kline’s work on Deuteronomy but only as an example of work by other scholars (“Covenantal,” 71 nn. 2, 73, 83). 178 Shea, “Covenantal,” 83. 179 Shea, “Covenantal,” 83. 180 See chapter 4—The ANEVT Structure Identified in the SMR, 130. 181 Muse, “Rev 2–3,” 156–9. 176

CHAPTER THREE-LITERARY GENRE

89

parallel for their salvation oracles (promise of salvation message).182 Muse’s promising analysis falls short of identifying the messages’ covenantal aspect in OT prophetic tradition, and instead hypothesizes (using Müller’s salvation-sermon [Heilspredigt] analysis) that the resulting construct is simply a sevenfold “artistic creation of the NT prophet John.”183 Campbell further criticizes Muse for mistakenly identifying the form of the oracles, when in fact it was their content, which was different from the other five oracles, since they share the same prophetic form.184

David Aune (1982–1997) Aune identifies the eight, shared185 “stereotypical features” of the seven proclamations as: (1) Adscriptio or destination (“To the angel of the church in . . .); (2) Command to write (gra,yon); (3) Messenger formula (ta,de le,gei); (4) Christological predications (the speaker is the exalted Christ with descriptive titles); (5) Narratio (oi=da clause, varied with optional elements “not identified with the central message”); (6) Dispositio function (Central section highlighting repentance); (7) Proclamation formula (“he who has an ear”); and (8) Promise-to-the-Victor formula (“exhibits variety in form and structure and placement”).186 A more condensed arrangement is laid out in his work on prophecy, where he outlines the commissioning formula (command to write, messenger formula), central “I know” section (the narratio [oi=da clause]), the call to attention (the proclamation formula), and the exhortation to conquer (the promise-to-the-victor formula).187 As will be pointed out later in this chapter, Aune’s description/function of each of these elements is accurate; however, many of these elements simply represent Latin terms for the same

182

Muse, “Rev 2–3,” 156. Müller, Prophetie, 59–60; Muse, “Rev 2–3,” 154. 184 Campbell, “Findings,” 76 n. 19. 185 Aune states that he will list seven features but records eight (Rev 1–5, 119). 186 Aune, Rev 1–5, 119–24; “Form,” 184–94. 187 Aune, Prophecy, 275–9. 183

90

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

ANEVT function.188 This is also evidenced from the various terms used by Aune for the same function in his works (i.e., messenger formula, ta,de le,gei formula or prophetic formula).189 See Table 2.

Gregory Beale (1998) Beale identifies seven typical sections with slight variations between the seven proclamations: (1) “command to write to an angel of a church;” (2) “Christ’s self description” (ta,de le,gei); (3) “commendation of the Church’s good works;” (4) “accusation because of some sin;” (5) “exhortation to repent with a warning of judgement or an encouragement;” (6) “exhortation to discern the truth” (“he who has an ear. . . ); and (7) “promise to the conquerors.”190 Rather than any kind of formal descriptors, Beale prefers describing the function of each element.

Loren T. Stuckenbruck (2003) Stuckenbruck suggests that “their conformity to a pattern”191 is an indication of the messages’ intention to be treated as a collection for public reading in the seven churches. He also structures the SMR using a general description of their respective function: (1) “command to write the angel;” (2) “pronouncement” or “prophetic oracle” formula;192 (3) “descriptions of Christ;” (4) “description and evaluation of the circumstance faced by the church;” and (5) “summons to heed what ‘the Spirit says to the churches’ combined with a promise to ‘the one who conquers.’”193

Gordon Campbell (2004) Campbell argues, “The covenant has one beneficiary-the church-so a single message (albeit with seven closely paralleled component

188 See chapter 3—Similarities of Imperial Edicts Compared with ANEVT, 55. 189 Aune, Rev 1–5, 121; “Form,” 184; Prophecy, 275, 328. 190 Beale, Rev, 225. 191 Stuckenbruck, “Revelation,” 1540. 192 Stuckenbruck, “Revelation,” 1536. 193 Stuckenbruck, “Revelation,” 1540.

CHAPTER THREE-LITERARY GENRE

91

parts) shapes the opening septet.”194 Campbell breaks down the structure of the literary sequence as follows: (1) the promise and threat (2:5, etc.); (2) charges with punishment for breaking the covenant (2:4, etc. absent in two); (3) hearing refrain which awakens responsibility (2:7, etc.); (4) repentance exhortations (2:5, etc.); (5) “Messiah’s self-designation” as scrutineer (2:23; cf. Jer 17:10; Rev 2:16; 3:7; 14);195 (6) “actions associated with entering into a Covenant, like receiving a garment (3:4, 5; 18; cf. 1 Sam 18:4) or a new name (2:17; 3:12 cf. Abram, renamed Abraham, Gen 17:5; Isa 65:15);”196 and (7) the covenant Book of Life (3:5) bearing the names of the participants. Campbell follows a modified ANEVT structure and recognizes seven covenant audit elements identified “as mini covenant lawsuits . . . framed . . . by an opening address and a closing call to vigilance.”197 Campbell proposes the following form, using the message to Ephesus as his pattern:
Address (2:1a, re-using the overall preamble’s order to write, 1:11, 19). • Preamble (2:1b, underlining the suzerain’s qualities; cf. 1:12, 16, 20). • Historical prologue (2:2–4, 6, rehearsing duties which the church has successfully performed). • Ethical Stipulations (2:5a, required action for recovering covenant faithfulness). • Sanctions (2:5b, specifying the punishment in the event of no repentance). • Inheritance questions (2:7b, insuring the covenant is perpetuated).
Call to vigilance (2:7a, associating the Spirit with the risen Lord). Campbell sees the messages as both prophetic oracles and mini covenant lawsuits.

194

Campbell, “Findings,” 75. Campbell, “Findings,” 76. 196 Campbell, “Findings,” 77. 197 Campbell, “Findings,” 79. 195

92

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

Evaluation of Form-Historical Approaches There is a general increase in the number of functional elements within the messages, identified by scholars over time (Hahn 4, Müller 2 [only examines two of the elements], Muse 5, Shea 5, Aune 8, Beale 7, Stuckenbruck 5, and Campbell 7). There is no uniformity to the use of unique descriptors, as Beale does not use any while Aune’s functional descriptors have become more formal technical terms (i.e., messenger formula). Depending on one’s approach, the messages can be broken down either according to their Greco-Roman background (i.e., Aune’s Latin terms) or to their Hebraic-Semitic background (i.e., Shea and Campbell’s covenantal descriptors). Regardless of which structural scheme one chooses, there are variations within the individual messages. There is no commendation for obedience in Laodicea. There is no accusation for sin or exhortation to repent in Smyrna and Philadelphia. Therefore, there is no perfectly symmetrical solution available without some variations and exceptions to the structure. However, all these scholars agree that the OT prophetic tradition influenced the messages and that the messages resemble prophetic oracles. Stuckenbruck concludes that the genre of the messages may be the author’s original creation: It is possible that the writer, though familiar with the variety of genres [prophetic letters,198 prophetic speech,199 prophetic sermons200 or imperial edicts201] used in epistolary communication, has created his own form to address the various situations he perceived among the congregations, thereby endowing his message with an essential coherence.202

SEMITIC ORIGIN OF THE MESSAGES Ramsay has an apparent dilemma. He acknowledges that the book of Revelation is “Jewish in origin and general plan, and to a great 198

Berger, “Apostelbrief.” Hahn, “Sendschreiben.” 200 Müller, Prophetie. 201 Aune, Rev 1–5. 202 Stuckenbruck, “Revelation,” 1571; Karrer, Brief, 66. 199

CHAPTER THREE-LITERARY GENRE

93

extent Jewish in range of topics,” but he notes that the SMR “appear to be almost entirely non-Jewish in character and certainly non-Jewish in origin and model.”203 This makes the insertion of the messages problematic for Ramsay. However, evidence of Jewish OT prophetic influence in the lawsuit elements within the messages would end Ramsay’s dilemma because it would provide links for a smooth transition from the messages (2–3) to the visions (4–22).204 Many scholars support the Semitic origin of both the Apocalypse and the messages. Silberman signally claims that o` avmh,n in Revelation 3:14 is a mistransliteration of the Hebrew !wma used of the Torah in the midrash.205 Trudinger agrees with Silberman that many of the texts influence the “process and form of his [John’s] Greek composition,”206 but prefers this implied influence, over the extreme “Semitic original document”207 that Scott and Torrey suggest.208 Trudinger rejects Charles’ view that the author “thought in 203

Ramsay, Letters, 25. Aune holds that the author was a Palestinian Jew as a result of several arguments, one of which is the distinct Semitizing Greek indicating that he was not “a native Greek speaker but rather a native speaker of Aramaic and perhaps even Hebrew” (Rev 1–5, l); cf. Mussies, Morphology, 352–3. 204 John Marshall advances a rather extreme view where he argues that the entire document is Jewish in nature and not Christian (Parables of War: Reading John's Jewish Apocalypse [ESCJ 10. ed., Peter Richardson; Waterloo, Ont.: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 2001], 179). Marshall describes in his own words the hypothetical nature of his methods, insisting that it “is analogical rather than deductive, hypothetical rather than probative; it deals in possibility and probability rather than in demonstration and proof” (Parables, 98). 205 Lou H. Silberman, “Farewell to O AMHN: A Note on Rev 3:14,” JBL 82 (1963): 213–5. 206 L. Paul Trudinger, “O AMHN: (Rev 3:14) and the Case for a Semitic Original of the Apocalypse,” NovT 14 (1972): 278; L. Paul Trudinger, “Some Observations Concerning the Text of the Old Testament in the Book of Revelation,” JTS 17 (1966): 82–88. 207 Trudinger, “Semitic Original,” 279. 208 R. B. Y. Scott contended that Hebrew was the original language of Revelation, while Torrey maintains that the original language was Semitic (Aramaic not Hebrew) translated into Greek (The Original Language of the Apocalypse [Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1928]); cf. Charles C. Torrey, The Apocalypse of John (New Haven: Yale University, 1958), 27–48.

94

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

Semitic but wrote in Greek”209 as “too loose an explanation,” but still maintains that, “The book’s grammatical peculiarities need to be accounted for.”210 Despite differences, most scholars argue that Israelite-Jewish tradition influenced John. Influence of ANEVT Form Scholars have carefully documented the influence of the ANEVT, found in the Hittite and Assyrian treaties,211 on the OT Torah,212 and the prophetic Rîb pattern213 (Gerichtsrede; Rîb A threats / admonition and Rîb B promises).214 This large body of material, particularly the ANEVT pattern identified in Deuteronomy, influences 209

Charles, Rev, 2:cxliii. Trudinger, “Semitic Original,” 279. 211 McConville, Deuteronomy, 402; Kitchen, Reliability, 290. The ANEVT influence includes cross-fertilization between Hittite, Babylonian, Assyrian, and Sumerian treaties, indicating that the Hittites were not the only treaty-writers to influence the writing of other ancient treaties. 212 See chapter 1—Survey of Previous Research on ANEVT, 7; cf. Cleon L. Rogers, Jr., “The Covenant with Moses and Its Historical Setting,” JETS 14.3 (1971): 141–55; contra Gerstenberger, Wesen und Herkunft; “Covenant,” 38–51. 213 James Limburg prefers using the term “lawsuit-speech” abandoning both Rîb-pattern and Gerichtsrede; cf. “The Root byr and the Prophetic Lawsuit Speeches,” JBL 88 (1969), 291–304; “The Lawsuit of God in the Eighth Century Prophets,” (Ph.D. diss., Union Theological Seminary, 1969), 51; contra Dwight R. Daniels, “Is There a ‘Prophetic Lawsuit’ Genre?” ZAW 99–100 (1987–1988), 339–60; De Roche, “Yahweh’s Rîb,” 563–74. In Bandy’s estimation their critiques “do not warrant a jettisoning of the lawsuit speech as a prophetic form used to announce judgment and demonstrate God’s justice” (“Lawsuit,” 89). 214 Herbert B. Huffmon, “The Covenant Lawsuit in the Prophets,” JBL 68 (1959), 285–95; F. Charles Fensham, “Common Trends in Curses of the Near East: Treaties and Kudurru Inscriptions Compared with Maledictions of Amos and Isaiah,” ZAW 75 (1963): 155–75; “Malediction,” 1–9; Hillers, Treaty-curses, 6; E. C. Lucas, “Covenant, Treaty, and Prophecy,” Them 8.1 (1982): 22. See chapter 3—ANEVT/Torah Influence on the Prophetic Lawsuit, 101. There is evidence that the ANEVT even influenced the medical profession preserved in the Hippocratic Oath. See chapter 3—The Hippocratic Oath (ca. 460–ca. 377 BC), 71. 210

CHAPTER THREE-LITERARY GENRE

95

John. The prophetic office of Moses, as the prototypical prophet (Exod 4:14–16; 7:1–2; Deut 5:23–27; 18:9–22; 34:10), is John’s model in bringing the covenant lawsuit oracles to bear on the churches. Within the SMR, John employs the prophetic Rîb pattern, but he structures them after the ANEVT reflected in Deuteronomy. John creates his own form of hybrid prophetic oracle to address the circumstances of the individual churches. Evidence for this hypothesis follows.

ANEVT language used Metaphorically According to Thompson, the ANEVT uses the treaty idea / language metaphorically, and the same function applies in Revelation. Thompson explains: it seems clear that the Near Eastern covenant idea provided Israel with a significant metaphor for the exposition of the relationship which existed between Yahweh and herself. Not that the idea as it existed in the secular environment of the day was completely adequate to expound the many-sided aspects of the divine covenant between Yahweh and His people. But this concept borrowed from the realm of international law, and given special theological application, gave concrete expression to the deeper concept of divine election. The Near Eastern treaties, and in particular the Hittite suzerainty treaty, in their literary structure, in their vocabulary, in their historical setting and, in some measure, in their general spirit, have considerable significance, therefore, for Old Testament studies.215

In addition, the ANEVT has considerable significance for NT studies, particularly for the SMR. John presumably did not choose to structure his writing as an ANEVT. Nevertheless, since the OT covenantal structure was influenced by the ANEVT form, and since Revelation stands in the OT prophetic tradition, John’s writing inherited formal covenantal elements which crystallized aspects of OT treaty idea/language as a metaphor.216 215

Thompson, Treaties, 23. Emphasis added. The covenant is also seen as a “central metaphor for the relationship between God and his people” (Gräbe, New Covenant, 11). 216

96

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

ANEVT and the OT The association between the ANEVT, and the OT covenant between Yahweh and Israel, has received such a universal acceptance that Moriarty speaks of it as a consensus.217 Scholars have identified the vassal treaty form in Genesis 31; Exodus 19:3–8; 20:1–17; 24:3–8; Leviticus 26; Deuteronomy; Joshua 8:30–35; 24; and 1 Kings 5:1–12.218 McCarthy points out that Israel would have been influenced by the following: [the] shifting system of vassal and parity alliances among its Aramaean neighbours in Syria, a system of which it was itself a part, but perhaps even more important and certainly more immediate for the connection between Israel and the Mesopotamian legal tradition with its treaties was the influence of Assyria [1 Kgs 20]. Assyria remade the political world of Syria and Palestine, and treaties were part of the process. She had treaties with neighbors as near as Ashdod, Israel under the Omrids and after was an Assyrian vassal, and the kings of Judah served Assyria from Ahaz on [2 Kgs 18:25; Isa 36:10]. Without doubt Israel and Judah knew the Assyrian treaties because they were parties to them.219

Even prior to this period, the Israelites were relating to the Gibeonites and Kenites in treaty form.220 McCarthy concludes, “The treaty tradition is about as continuous as any can be.”221 217

Frederick L. Moriarty, “Prophet and Covenant,” Greg 46 (1965), 817; Thompson, Treaties, 13; Hillers, Treaty-curses, 6; contra Nicholson, God and His People, 63. However, Kitchen wonders if Nicholson has seen the “full corpus of such documents and failed even to detect both the existence and importance of the Near Eastern/Egyptian evidence on Hebrew berit, ‘covenant’” (Reliability, 563 n. 108); cf. Kitchen, “Egypt,” 453–64 and “Fall and Rise of Covenant,” 118–35. 218 Thompson, Treaties, 21–23; Kitchen, Ancient Orient, 90–102. See chapter 1— ANEVT Structure in the Pentateuch 13. 219 McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant, 287. 220 F. Charles Fensham, “The Treaty between Israel and the Gibeonites,” BA 27 (1964): 96–100; F. Charles Fensham, “Did a Treaty between the Israelites and the Kenites Exist?” BASOR 175 (1964): 51–54.

CHAPTER THREE-LITERARY GENRE

97

Arguing that the “secular phenomena of ancient Near Eastern law played a significant role in the shaping of biblical religion,”222 Gaffney explains how indirect influence became an important key: [When] ancient Hittite or Assyrian emperors and their legal scribes. . . . drafted instruments of international law governing the relationships between empire and vassal city-states, they were not aware of the ramifications of their legal categories for the religion of ancient Israel. Nonetheless, they set in motion a chain of events in intellectual history that culminated in the religious understanding of covenant and the related principles of monotheism, grace and election, sin and forgiveness, and life in community. This conclusion is grounded in a fairly solid consensus among biblical scholars that many of the categories that we now identify as religious trace their roots to the ‘secular’ reality of treaty drafting.223

This should not be surprising. These ancient, secular, legal relationships, which are central to the operation of contractual hierarchical power, by being integrated into the Graeco-Roman legal/medical system and culture, have come to shape contractual law, categories of social identity, and ethical responsibility affecting marriage, business, law, and theology, even today.

ANEVT Influence on the Torah224 ANEVT Structure in Exodus 20–25: Kline, and others, document parallels between the ANEVT, and Exodus. They argue for its genre as a miniature covenant and not a legal code (Exod 34:28; Deut 5:2–3; 9:9, 11, 15).225 Kline identifies the classic ANEVT

221

McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant, 288. Edward McGlynn Gaffney, Jr. “Of Covenant Ancient and New: The Influence of Secular Law on Biblical Religion,” JLR 2.1 (1984): 117. 223 Gaffney, “Covenant,” 143–4. 224 For the definition, see chapter 2—Definitions, 34. 225 Kline, Treaty, 14–26. Rogers, “Covenant with Moses,” 141–55; Youngblood, Heart of the OT, 49; Thompson, Treaties, 21. 222

98

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

structure within Exodus 20–25226 as follows: preamble (Exod 20:2a); historical prologue (Exod 20:2b); treaty stipulations (Exod 20:3–5); invocation of witnesses (“no thought of a realistic invocation of a third party as divine witness.”227); curses and blessings (Exod 20:5–7, 11–12); deposit in the sanctuary (Exod 25:16, 21; 40:20); and periodic public reading (Exod 24:7).228 McCarthy argues that the Hittite treaties did not influence Exodus 20–25.229 Kitchen responds that McCarthy erroneously makes the following claim: that some Hittite treaties lacked historical prologues (untrue for proper copies, including Mursil I/Niqmepa), and that a historical prologue occurs in a Neo-Assyrian treaty of the seventh century (again untrue).230

The precision of Kitchen’s claims weighs against McCarthy’s thesis, making Kitchen’s proposal that the Hittite treaties influence the ANEVT structure in Exodus more plausible. While the deposit and reading elements are not part of chapter twenty, the remaining elements follow in sequence according to the ANEVT structure.231 ANEVT Structure in Deuteronomy: Weinfeld posits that “it is in Deuteronomy rather than Exodus232 or Joshua [Exod 20– 226 Thompson identifies a mini covenant in Exodus 19:3–8 with preamble (3); historical prologue (4); statement of general principles (5a); blessings (5b, 6a) and oath (8). Again in Exodus 20:1–17 he discerns the following structure: preamble (2a); historical prologue (2b); general principles (3); curses (5b, 7b) blessings (6, 12b); (Treaties, 21). 227 Kline, Treaty, 15. For an explanation of the absence of the witness of the gods within the biblical texts, see chapter 4—Proclamation Witnesses Formula, 170. 228 The public reading of Deuteronomy forty years later would include the content of the Decalogue. 229 McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant, 15, 290. 230 Kitchen, Reliability, 290. Nicholson erroneously uses McCarthy to make his case (“Covenant in a Century,” 86). 231 Kline’s order of the deposits and readings elements might be reversed to reflect the natural order of the chapters. 232 John I. Durham, Exodus (WBC 3. Dallas: Word, 1987), 278–80; Alan Cole, Exodus: An Introduction and Commentary (TOTC 3. London: Tyndale, 1973), 150.

CHAPTER THREE-LITERARY GENRE

99

25; Josh 24233] that the original pattern has been preserved.”234 Kline observes the ANEVT structure in both Exodus and Deuteronomy, with Deuteronomy as the classic representation of the presence of the ANEVT structure235 as follows: preamble: covenant mediator (Deut 1:1–5); historical prologue: covenant history (Deut 1:6–4:49); stipulations: covenant life (Deut 5:1–26:49);236sanctions: curses and blessings or covenant ratification (Deut 27:1–30:20);237 and succession arrangements: covenant continuity (Deut 31:1–34:12).238 233

J. A. Thompson identifies the ANEVT structure in Joshua 24 as preamble (2a); historical introduction (2b–13); general principles (14); specific stipulations (25); oath (16, 21, 24); witnesses (22, 27) and covenant document (26); (“Covenant, Covenants,” WDBA 175–7; Treaties, 22); cf. Marten H. Woudstra, The Book of Joshua (NICOT 6; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981), 340; Cornelis Vonk, Inleiding op de profeten. Jozua (Barendrecht: De Voorzeide Leer, 1972); J. R. Rea, “Joshua,” in C. F. Pfeiffer and E. R. Harrison, eds., WycBC (Chicago: Moody, 1962); and J. Gray, Joshua, Judges, Ruth (NCB; 3d ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986). 234 Weinfeld, Deuteronomic School, 60; Craigie, Deuteronomy, 83; Thompson, Deuteronomy, 18; McConville, Deuteronomy, 402. Kitchen identifies the ANEVT structure in Exodus and Joshua but believes “the covenantform. . . finds its starting-point in Deuteronomy 32” (Ancient Orient, 96– 98). 235 Kline, Treaty, 9–10; Youngblood, Heart of the OT, 51–53; Mendenhall, “Covenant Forms,” 50–76; Thompson, Treaties, 22; Deuteronomy, 19. Weinfeld lists the primary elements as “titulary; historical introduction, which served as motivation for the vassal’s loyalty; stipulations of the treaty; a list of divine witnesses; blessing and curses; recital of the covenant; and the deposit of its tablets” (Deuteronomy, 7). 236 Thompson breaks the stipulations down into Basic (Deut 4:1–40; 5:1–11:32) and Detailed (Deut 12:1–26:19) and argues that verses 4:41–49 are scattered among the headings assigned throughout the document as an interpolation (Deuteronomy, 19). Lohfink observes an osculating pattern: Deut 4:1–40 paraenesis; Deut 5:1–63 narrative; Deut 6:4–8:20 paraenesis; Deut 9:1–10:11 narrative; Deut 10:12–11:32 paraenesis (Das Hauptgebot: eine Untersuchung literarischer Einleitungsfragen zu Dt. 5–11 [AnBib 20; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1963], 66ff.). 237 Thompson identifies this element as the document clause (Deut 27:1–30:20), blessings (Deut 28:1–14), curses (Deut 28:15–68), and recapitulation (Deut 29:1–30:20; Deuteronomy, 19). Rofé further identifies the recapitulated section as the inscription (Deut 28:69), historical prologue

100

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

Weinfeld identifies large elements of the ANEVT structure in Deuteronomy, including: the preamble, the historical prologue, the stipulation of undivided allegiance, the clauses of the treaty, the invocation of witnesses, the blessing and curses, together with other features which appear in the Hittite treaty, such as the oathimprecation, the deposit of the treaty, and its periodic reading.239

Thompson concludes that the evidence for the ANEVT influence on the structure of Deuteronomy is beyond debate, stating: that the structure of Deuteronomy is related in some way to the structure of the political treaties of the ancient Near East. Perhaps the Old Testament literary form is a special one which bears a close resemblance both to the treaties and the law

(Deut 29:1–9), statement of bond (Deut 29:10–14), stipulations (Deut 29:15–19a, 28), and the witnesses with condensed cursing and blessing (Deut 29:15–20; “Covenant,” 277). 238 Kline also labels this “Dynastic Disposition” (Treaty, 10). Under this heading, he includes invocation of witnesses, directions for the disposition, and public reading of the treaty (Treaty, 28). Thompson identifies this element as the covenant renewal (Deuteronomy, 19). Kline maintains that “Deuteronomy 32 is then Yahweh’s covenant lawsuit against his ungrateful and unfaithful people, prophetically delivered through Moses.” Kline argues that “the structure of these communications paralleled that of the original covenant document with such modifications as were necessary to transform the treaty into an indictment” (Treaty, 139; Wright, “Lawsuit of God,” 26–67); contra Mendenhall who believes that chapter 32 was composed by Samuel and is “prophecy in every sense of the term” and is not a “lawsuit” or “broken Rîb” but a “prophetic oracle” (“Samuel’s ‘Broken Rîb’: Deuteronomy 32,” in A Song of Power and the Power of Song: Essays on the Book of Deuteronomy [SBTS 3; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1993], 175, 178–79). Kline’s case is preferred due to the stated Mosaic authorship (Deut 31:30) and charges brought against the covenant breakers (Deut 32:5–6). The prophetic oracles also contain a lawsuit or Rîb. See chapter 3—ANEVT/Torah influence on the Prophetic Lawsuit, 101. 239 Weinfeld, Deuteronomic School, 61; “Assyrian Treaty,” 417–27.

CHAPTER THREE-LITERARY GENRE

101

codes of the ancient Near East. . . which owes much in its structure to ancient Near Eastern models.240

McCarthy agrees with Mendenhall that the evidence for Israel’s use of the Hittite treaty structure “to describe its special relationship with Yahweh, is irrefragable.”241 The covenantal treaty within the Torah is the standard for obedience within Israel (Exod 19:5; 24:7; Deut 6:3; 24, 25; 9:23; 11:13–23 etc.). The breach of the covenant treaty resulted in the covenant lawsuit, which is evident in the Rîb pattern within the prophets,242 brought against God’s people.

ANEVT/Torah Influence on the Prophetic Lawsuit Elements of the ANEVT structure, found in the Pentateuch, are also part of the lawsuit used by the prophets. While scholars have competently documented the ANEVT form in the Torah, its structure in the covenantal message of the prophets is more challenging. McCarthy makes this point below: There is no way to demonstrate that the prophetic . . . texts cited refer to treaties with the full generic structure. However, the powers involved knew and habitually used the form, and some of the texts allude to elements from the treaties (vassal kingship, curses, military help). It is hard to believe that the formal treaty genre was not involved even though the evidence is cumulative and supportive, not probative in itself.243

240

Thompson, Deuteronomy, 20–21. Dennis J. McCarthy, Old Testament Covenant: A Survey of Current Opinions (Richmond: Knox, 1972), 14. 242 Dennis J. McCarthy, “Covenant in the Old Testament: The Present State of Inquiry,” CBQ 27 (1965): 217–40; Weinfeld, Deuteronomic School, 47–50; Rogers, “Covenant with Moses,” 145; Michael Fishbane, “The Treaty Background of Amos 1:11 and Related Matters,”JBL 89.3 (1970): 313–18. 243 McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant, 288. 241

102

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

Harvey discovers ANEVT form in covenant lawsuit oracles244 found throughout the prophets.245 Chilton outlines the book of Hosea with the ANEVT schema: preamble (1); historical prologue (2–3); ethical stipulations (4–7); sanctions (8–9); and succession arrangements (10–14).246 Nicholson points out their connection: the vassal treaties have been regarded as the source or background of the nature and content of Yahweh’s Rîb ‘lawsuit’ with Israel, exemplified in a number of texts in the Old Testament (e.g., Deut 32; Isa 1:2–3; 10–20; Mic 6:1–8; Jer 2:5–13).247

Lucas provides two areas where the prophets’ preaching shows they were familiar with the Hittite suzerainty treaty of the second millennium BC.248 These two areas will be considered next. Similarity to Treaty Curses: First, Hittite curses parallel the prophet’s declaration that various disasters were punishments delivered against covenant lawbreakers (e.g., Amos 4; cf. Deut 28; Lev 26).249 This is particularly evident from the sanctions of blessing and cursing dominated by the prophetic Rîb pattern. Gaffney, describing Mendenhall’s influence, remarks that “then came the major prophets, who saw to it that the Mosaic ideal was never abandoned, and who indicted the people repeatedly for their failure to

244

Covenant lawsuit oracles within the prophets are a wellestablished genre. Huffmon, “Covenant Lawsuit,” 285–95; Hillers, Treatycurses, 6; F. Fensham, “Malediction,” 1–9; “Curses,” 155–75; William L. Holladay, “Jeremiah’s Lawsuit with God,” Int 17 (1963): 280–87; Harvey, Le plaidoyer, 172–96; and Lucas, “Covenant,” 22; contra Walther Eichrodt, “Prophet and Covenant: Observations on the Exegesis of Isaiah,” in Proclamation and Presence: Old Testament Essays in Honour of Gwynne Henton Davies; eds. John I. Durham and J. Roy Porter; Richmond: Knox, 1970, 175. 245 Harvey, Le plaidoyer, 172–96. See the extensive list in Harvey’s bibliography. 246 Chilton, Vengeance, 15. Chilton also uses this same outline for the message to the Church at Ephesus in Rev 2:1–7 (Vengeance, 86). See chapter 1–David Chilton (1987), 23. 247 Nicholson, God and His People, 63. 248 Lucas, “Covenant,” 19–23. 249 Fensham, “Malediction,” 1–9; Hillers, Treaty-curses, 6; Huffmon, “Covenant Lawsuit,” 285–95.

CHAPTER THREE-LITERARY GENRE

103

live up to that standard.”250 Eichrodt believes that Isaiah’s “message at one and the same time of both weal and woe, springs from the fact that his thought is rooted in Yahweh’s covenant.”251 Therefore, Lucas concludes, “It is possible to argue that the prophetic doom oracles are based on these curses.”252 Similarity to Elements of ANEVT: Second, the evidence of covenant lawsuit oracles contains several elements of the ANEVT (e.g., Hos 4:1–3; Isa 1:2–3; 3:13–15; Mic 6:1–5; cf. Deut 16:32).253 Wright lists them as a call for witnesses, a statement of the case, an account of the benevolent acts of Yahweh, and an indictment and sentence.254 Harvey identifies this structure as paralleling “the letters of accusation sent by a suzerain to a vassal accused of breaking a treaty.”255 Cautions: Eichrodt, following Clements,256 challenges the presence of any ANEVT sanctions pattern in the prophets: [It is] questionable whether we are on sure ground when the calling of heaven and earth as witnesses or judges (as in Isa 1:2 but also in Micah 6:1f.; Jer 2:12; Deut 32:1; Ps 50:4) is taken to be regular part of the covenant formula on the basis of similar appeals in the Hittite treaties,257 or when the origin of the pattern of weal and woe, so central to the prophetic message, is seen in the similar features of the curse and blessing formulae

250 Gaffney, “Covenant,” 124; Mendenhall, Law and Covenant, 26–46. Mendenhall points out that “Paul uses the covenant of Abraham to show the temporary validity of the Mosaic covenant, but in spite of this, the basic structure of New Testament religion is actually, as the early church constantly maintained, the continuation of Mosaic religion” (“Covenant Forms,” 75). 251 Eichrodt, “Prophet and Covenant,” 187. 252 Lucas, “Covenant,” 22. 253 Lucas, “Covenant,” 22. Lucas does acknowledge that not all elements are present. See Wright, “Lawsuit of God,” 26–67. 254 Wright, “Lawsuit of God,” 26–67. 255 Lucas, “Covenant,” 22; Harvey, Le plaidoyer, 172–96. 256 Ronald E. Clements, Prophecy and Covenant (SBT 43; London, SCM, 1965), 77ff. 257 Huffmon, “Covenant Lawsuit,” 285–95.

104

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES of covenant treaties in both the ancient Near East and the Old Testament.258

Lucas also cautions that this evidence does not prove conclusively the following: that the prophets knew the covenant in the vassal treaty form. After all, the curses in the treaties are only a special case of the more general use of curses in the ancient Near East and the law-suite oracles could be based on general law-court procedures. However, taken with the other evidence discussed above these two features [curses and other elements] help to build up a cumulative case in favour of the view that the Sinai covenant did originate in the second millennium BC and was modeled on the vassal treaty form of that era.259

The liturgy of the covenant renewal ceremonies (Deut 31:9– 13; 2 Kgs 23:1–3; Josh 24)260 could have handed down the suzerainty treaty form. Weinfeld suggests that it could have been handed down through the “literary tradition of covenant writing associated with scribes/wise men.”261 Regardless of how the prophets acquired the ANEVT elements, Harvey, Lucas, and Weinfeld identify their presence within the prophet’s covenant lawsuit oracles. While the ANEVT structure is not intact in the prophets, these scholars identify the critical elements arguing for the ANEVT influence upon the prophetic message. While the covenant is not the only theme employed by the prophets,262 and the ANEVT structure is difficult to find in the OT

258 Eichrodt, “Prophet and Covenant,” 175; contra Fensham, “Malediction,” 1–9; “Curses,” 155 ff. 259 Lucas, “Covenant,” 22. 260 Lucas points out that this is speculative as there is no indication whether or not Israel was faithful to the covenant renewal in Deut 31:9– 13. 261 Weinfeld, Deuteronomic School, 51–58; 158–78. 262 Gerhard Hasel, Old Testament Theology: Basic Issues in the Current Debate (4h ed. Revised, Updated and Enlarged; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 139–71. See chapter 4—Centrality in Both Testaments, 199.

CHAPTER THREE-LITERARY GENRE

105

prophets, there are still close similarities with the OT prophetic lawsuit oracles. Limburg makes this conclusion: Thus our examination of Rîb and of other key words in the lawsuit speeches reveals that their vocables [sic] are very much at home in the sphere of international relationships particularly in connection with international treaties.263

Torah Influence on the Early Church How was the early church exposed to the Torah as understood in the Pentateuch and Mosaic law?264 Torah and the Jew in the First Century AD: Scholars do not know with certainty the frequency with which Jewish leadership publicly read the Torah in the first century. Michael Graves proposes, “It is entirely plausible that the high priest at least would read from the Torah as part of the temple ceremony for the Day of Atonement.”265 Graves surveys the evidence for the public reading of Scripture in early Judaism and concludes, “It is clear that the Torah was read regularly and consecutively in early rabbinic practice.”266 Theodotus Inscription: The Theodotus Inscription is a first cen267 tury synagogue inscription written in a Hellenistic style with Greek uncials.268 It states the following: Limburg, “The Root byr,” 304. For a survey of the various positions concerning Christ’s view of the Mosaic law cf. Klaus Berger, Die Gesetzesauslegung Jesu: Ihr historischer Hintergrund im Judentum und im Alten Testament (WMANT 40.1; NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1972), 4–9; Banks, Law, 2–9; Douglas J. Moo, “Jesus and the Authority of the Mosaic Law,” JSNT 20 (1984): 4–5. 265 Michael Graves, “The Public Reading of Scripture in Early Judaism,” JETS 50.3 (2007): 471. 266 Graves, “Scripture,” 467–87. 267 Kee argues for a third or fourth-century date for this inscription on the basis that it was not found in situ (“Defining the First-Century CE Synagogue,” NTS 41 [1995]: 481–500). Atkinson challenges Kee’s interpretation of the archaeological data and concludes that “whether one accepts either the generally agreed upon pre-70 CE date or Kee’s third century dating of the Theodotus inscription, the very institutions documented in this inscription are clearly presupposed in both pre-70 CE archaeologi263 264

106

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES Theodotus, son of Vettanos, a priest and an archisynagogos, son of an archisynagogos grandson of an archisynagogos, built the synagogue for the reading of Torah and for teaching the commandments (Frey, CIJ 2.1404).269

The fact that Theodotus had several generations of avrcisuna,gwgwn in his family demonstrates the antiquity of the synagogue institution270 and the practice of reading the Torah in the synagogue. In addition, the Greek translation of the message would direct the Gentiles to the location of the reading of Torah. Torah in the Synagogue: There is no doubt that the synagogue was in existence during the NT period (Matt 4:23; 10:17; Mark 6:2; Luke 6:6; 4:33–38; 21:12; John 18:20; Acts 17:1, 10, 17; 22:19; Philo Legat. 132, Josephus Life 277, 280; J.W. 2.14.4; Ant. 14.10.23; 19.6.3).271 An inscription dating from around AD 60–80 referring cal remains and in epigraphical records” (“On Further Defining the FirstCentury CE Synagogue: Fact or Fiction? A Rejoinder to H. C. Kee,” NTS 43 [1997]: 502). For further discussions, see Millard, Reading, 158–60; John S. Kloppenborg, “The Theodotos Synagogue Inscription and the Problem of First-Century Synagogue Buildings,” in Jesus and Archaeology (ed. James H. Charlesworth; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006), 239 n. 7. 268 Millard, Reading, 159; Kloppenborg, “Theodotos,” 236–82. 269 K. C. Hanson and Douglas E. Oakman, eds., Palestine in the Time of Jesus. Social Structures and Social Conflicts (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998); Adolf Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East: The New Testament Illustrated by Recently Discovered Texts of the Graeco-Roman World (trans. Lionel R. M. Strachan; New York: Harper & Row, 1928; repr. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965), 439–41. 270 The precise origin of the institution of the synagogue is uncertain. See Leon Morris, The New Testament and the Jewish Lectionaries (London: Tyndale, 1964), 14; F. F. Bruce, New Testament History (Toronto: Doubleday, 1971), 143. Josephus mentions that Moses founded the synagogue (Ag. Ap. 2.17.75). Modern scholars since Carlo Sigonio (1524–1584) have argued for its origin during the Exile (W. White, “Synagogue,” ZPEB 5:556). 271 The remains of first-and second-century synagogues excavated in Israel (Gamla, Masada, Herodium, Capernaum [stratum A], and Qumran) and Asia Minor (Sardis, Halicarnassus, Acmonia) are impressive. See Dan Urman and P. V. M. Flesher, eds., Ancient Synagogues: Historical Analysis and Archaeological Discovery (Studia Post Biblica; Leiden: Brill, 1998); Lee I. Le-

CHAPTER THREE-LITERARY GENRE

107

to a Jewess (Rufina) who was “head of the Synagogue” in Smyrna represents evidence for first-century synagogues in Asia Minor.272 Atkinson states that the reading of the law was known “during the pre-70 CE period for Diaspora synagogues” (Philo Hypoth. 7.11– 14).273 The remains of parchment fragments from Deuteronomy and Ezekiel found inside the Masada synagogue provides evidence that “the synagogue of our period [first century] served as gathering places for the reading and exposition of scripture.”274 The Torah (Mishnah) was taught by the prominent rabbis, such as Hillel and Gamaliel I, who gathered around them large numbers of young pupils to teach the oral Torah (m. Sanh. 11:2; b. Sotah 49b; Josephus J.W. 1.33).275 Further, the evidence of the mezûzôt276 and tephîllîn277 (Deut 6:6–9), samples of which were both recovered at Qumran, ensured Torah was not far from the first century Jew (Matt 23:5; Josephus Ant. 4.213).278 vine, The Ancient Synagogue: The First Thousand Years (Second Edition; New Haven: Yale University Press, 2005); Eric M. Meyers, “Early Judaism and Christianity in the Light of Archaeology,” BA 51 (1988): 69–79; Donald D. Binder, Into the Temple Courts: The Place of the Synagogues in the Second Temple Period (SBLDS 169. Atlanta: SBL, 1999), 225; and Edwin M. Yamauchi, “Synagogue,” DJG 781–84. 272 Frey, CIJ 2:740–741, 743. The synagogue in Smyrna is also mentioned in the second-century in the account of the martyrdom of Pionius ( vIoudai/oi kalou/sin eivj sunagwga,j Mart. Pionii 13.1). For the role the synagogue played in the Diaspora in Asia Minor, see Levine, Ancient Synagogue, 81–173. Binder mentions second temple evidence of synagogues in Ephesus, Sardis, Halicarnassus, and Acmonia but neglects Smyrna (Synagogues, 276–89). 273 Atkinson, “Synagogue,” 501; Lee I. Levine, “The Nature and Origin of the Palestinian Synagogue Reconsidered,” JBL 115.3 (1996): 431; Charles Perrot, “The Reading of the Bible in the Ancient Synagogue,” in Mikra (eds. Martin Mulder and Harry Sysling; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988), 151–52. 274 Binder, Synagogues, 399, 175. 275 Schürer , History, 2:332–33. 276 Small containers used to hold Torah attached to the door frames of Jewish homes. 277 Phylacteries is Greek for tephîllîn and means “safeguard”. 278 Millard, Reading, 169–70.

108

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

Torah and Covenant Unfaithfulness: One of the prominent themes taught by the Torah was Israel’s suffering at various times in her history due to her disobedience to the terms of the Mosaic covenant (Deut 28:1–31:29; Lev 26:3–39; Dan 9:4–19; 2 Kgs 22:14–17; Jer 22:9; Ezra 9:6–15; Bar. 1:15–3:8/Deut 28:15–68).279 Thielman demonstrates that Josephus (AD 75–94) promotes the prominent theme, among both Jew and Gentile audiences,280 “that Israel’s suffering is a result of its violation of the Mosaic law“281 (Josephus J.W. 2.391–93; 5.401–19; Ant. 1.14). Thielman’s belief is “that at least in the second century the idea was common currency among Jews“282 (Jdt 8:18–19; 2 Macc 4:16–17; 6:12–17; 7:18, 32; 10:4; 1 En. 103:9–15). Presumably, the references in the SMR are to the present suffering of God’s people precipitated by unfaithfulness, just as in OT times. John’s message aligns with Josephus’s interpretation of Israel’s history and Jewish understanding in the first century, as well as of God’s covenant curse for disobedience to the Mosaic law. Torah in Jesus’ Teachings: The Torah was important in the teachings of Jesus, which is evident in the Sermon on the Mount.283 Jesus is laying out the laws of the King for his Kingdom (Matt 4:17/Mark 1:15; Matt 8:11/Luke 13:28; Matt 5:3/Luke 6:20; Matt 13:11/Mark 4:11; Matt 13:31/Mark 4:30; Matt 13:33/Luke 13:20;

279 Annie Jaubert, La notion d’alliance dans le Judaïsme aux abords de L'ère chrétienne (Patristica Sorbonensia 6. Paris: Seuil, 1963), 44. 280 Josephus modifies this theme to commend Judaism to his Gentile audience, but the essence of the biblical story remains. See Harold W. Attridge, The Interpretation of Biblical History in the ‘Antiquitates Judaicae’ of Flavius Josephus (Harvard Dissertations in Religion 7; Missoula, Mon.: Scholars, 1976), 76–92; 145–51. 281 Frank Thielman, Paul and the Law: A Contextual Approach (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1994), 51, 52–55. 282 Thielman, Law, 50–51. 283 For a survey of various theological interpretations of the Sermon on the Mount, see Donald A. Carson, The Sermon on the Mount: An Evangelical Exposition of Matthew 5–7 (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984), 151–57; Harvey McArthur, Understanding the Sermon on the Mount (New York: Harpers, 1960), 105–48.

CHAPTER THREE-LITERARY GENRE

109

Matt 18:3/Mark 10:15; Matt 19:14/Mark 10:14)284 and the manifestation of blessing identified in Kingdom citizens (Matt 5:3–12). His authority and unique claims are often presented using the astounding preamble, “Truly I say to you (avmh.n ga.r le,gw u`mi/n).”285 Jesus replies that his teaching does not abolish (katalu,w)286 the law, but rather fulfils (plhro,w)287 the Mosaic law and the prophets (cf. Matt 2:15, 17, 23; 5:17, 18; 11:13; etc.).288 Stott provides four arguments for Christ’s endorsement of the Mosaic law (Matt 2:5; 4:4–10; 11:10; etc.) and contrasts it with the oral tradition (Matt 5:21, 27; 8:13; 15:28; etc.) of the Pharisees.289 Metzger argues that the phrase “it is said” is a replacement for the Torah: “for although special phrases are sometimes employed for the Torah, the one most commonly used, ‘for it is said’, is applied without distinction to them all.”290 The glory of Jesus’ transfiguration before the disciples transcends the glory experienced by Moses 284

This ministry of preaching the kingdom is also consistent with Paul (Acts 20:25). 285 This phrase is used 100 times in the gospels, six of which are in the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew (Matt 5:18, 26; 6:2, 5, 16). It compares to the Prophetic “Thus says the LORD” announcing the authoritative word of God. See Richard T. France, Matthew (TNTC 1; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), 114–15. 286 “Do away with, annul, make invalid” (Walter Bauer et al., eds., “katalu,w,” BDAG 3468.103; Joseph H. Thayer, “katalu,w,” GELNT 2798). 287 France interprets it as Christ’s “teaching will transcend the Old Testament revelation, but, far from abolishing it, is itself its intended culmination” (Matthew, 114). For the various interpretations of plhro,w, see Moo, “Authority of the Mosaic Law,” 45 n. 170. 288 Within the NT the two-part formula was still understood as: o` no,moj kai. oi` profh/tai (Matt 5:17; 7:12; 9:13; 22:40; Luke 16:16, 19, 31; 24:27, 44 [here along with the added yalmoi,]; John 1:46; Acts 13:15; 24:14; 28:23; Rom 3:21); cf. 2 Macc 15:9; 4 Macc 18:10; Midr. Ps 90:4; Damascus Document 7:15–17; 1QS 1:1; 4QMMT, Acts Pil. 4:3; 12:23; 19:8; Melito of Sardis (Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 4.26.13); and Cyprian (Test. 1.4, 15; 4.28). 289 Stott, Sermon, 76–80. 290 Metzger, “Formulas,” 297–307; cf. W. D. Davies, The Setting of the Sermon on the Mount (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1964), 216, 428 n. 1; Carson, Sermon, 37.

110

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

(law) and obscures the identity of Elijah (prophets, John the Baptist) when he comes (Matt 17:1–13). Dempster argues for the continuity of the Torah in the NT writers and concludes that: While stressing the fundamental fact that the promises made in the prophets are fulfilled in the person of Jesus Christ and the community associated with him, the New Testament writers see the prophetic message as not a break with the Torah but as in fundamental continuity with it. . . . Both the Torah and Prophets looked forward to a prophet like Moses who would be announced by Elijah, who would come before the new day of revelation. . . . Jesus is the new Moses promulgating a new Torah, which brings out the implications of the old Torah— yet transcends it. Jesus’ ministry points to the fulfillment of the Torah and Prophets. . . . if the Prophets spill over the container of Torah, the New Testament ruptures the wineskins of the Prophets.291

Jesus points out some of the ramifications of his teaching on Torah by declaring that the least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than either Moses or Elijah (Matt 11:11–15).292 Regardless of how the early church understood the role of Torah in the first-century, there is little doubt that Jesus taught its importance. Torah in Paul’s Writings: Paul affirms that the entire OT law found in the Torah is fulfilled in the commandment to love one’s neighbour as oneself (Gal 5:14/Lev 19:18).293 Loving one’s neighbour fulfils the law (Rom 13:8–10; cf. b. Šabb. 31a). The first tablet of the law is summarized in the imperative to love God. However, Schreiner points out that while “Paul does not offer a casuistic eth291 Stephen G. Dempster, “The Prophets, the Canon and a Canonical Approach: No Empty Word,” in Canon and Biblical Interpretation (ed. Craig G. Bartholomew et al., eds.; vol. 7 of Scripture and Hermeneutics Series, eds. Craig G. Bartholomew and Anthony C. Thiselton; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006), 310–12. 292 Notice the hearing formula similar to the SMR in Jesus’ statement, “He who has ears, let him hear” (Matt 11:15). 293 Christ makes it clear that “all the Law and the Prophets hang (depend kre,matai) on these two commandments” (Matt 22:37–40; Luke 10:25–37).

CHAPTER THREE-LITERARY GENRE

111

ic, he does not allow love to float free at the ethical center without any articulation of definite requirements.”294 Paul demonstrates that love expresses itself through obedience to specific commands found in the Torah. These commands are directed against adultery, murder,295 stealing, and coveting (Rom 1:28; 13:9). Paul calls them the law of Christ296 (Gal 6:2; 1 Cor 9:21).297 Esser points out that this law “is the Torah of the Lord, which he himself has lived out. Now, on raising men to spiritual life, he can require of them its fulfilment.”298 Similarly, John could call the Ephesians to repentance for they have forsaken their first love (2:4). Love and obedience to the law were in harmony with Paul’s teaching in his letters (Gal 5:14; Rom 13:8; 1 Tim 1:12–17; 6:13–15). Torah and the Church in Asia Minor: Ignatius writes to Philadelphia and Smyrna with a message of love for one another and love for God and reinforcing their obedience by referring to “the law and the prophets” (Ignatius Phld. 9:2; 10:1; Smyrn. 6:1; 7:2; Matt 22:40). Ignatius’ correspondence indicates that at least two of the seven churches were familiar with the content of the Torah, and 294

Schreiner, Law, 147. James and John also appeal to the moral law as binding on believers (Jas 2:11; 1 John 3:12). 296 James uses the term royal law (Jas 2:8) . While the term royal (basiliko,j) here may not have a direct reference to the kingship of Christ [Martin Dibelius, Der Brief des Jakobus (6h ed.; KEK 15. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984), 110–113, 138], it does not contradict the truth that it is the “law as given from God as king” [Timothy Friberg and Barbara Friberg, “basiliko,j,” AGNT 4640 n.p.; Num 20,17; 21,22; 2 Sam 14,26; Johan Lust, Erik Eynikel and Katrin Hauspie, “basiliko,j,” LEH 1628 n.p.]. Mayor concludes that “Christ’s law is not addressed to slaves, who must obey whether they will or not, but to the heirs of the kingdom (2:5) who voluntarily embrace the law as their guide” (The Epistle of Saint James [3d ed.; New York: MacMillan, 1913; repr., Minneapolis: Klock & Klock, 1977], 90–91). 297 Some scholars argue that Paul viewed the “teaching of Jesus as a new Torah replacing the old” (Schreiner, Law, 157); cf. C. H. Dodd, “ENNOMOS CRISTOU,” in Studia Paulina in honorem J. de Zwaan (Haarlem: Bohn, 1953), 96–110; Davies, Sermon on the Mount, 352–64; Longenecker, Paul, 126–32. 298 Esser, NIDNTT 2:446. 295

112

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

their obligation to obey and serve the King of the Church (15:2–4; 17:14).299 Also, the congregations in Asia Minor would have heard the Apocalypse of John read in the seven churches (1:3, 11). In addition, from Ignatius’ letters, the churches of Philadelphia and Smyrna would have been familiar with the law of Moses (Ignatius Smyrn. 5:1), “meditating on the law” (Ignatius Phld. 4:3), the prophets (Ignatius Smyrn. 4:4; 5:2; 6:1; 9:1; Phld. 5:2; 9:1), Abel, Cain (Ignatius Smyrn. 7:1), and Moses (Ignatius Phld. 5:2; 9:1). Melito bishop of Sardis, in the second century, compiled six books of “extracts from the Law and the Prophets regarding the Saviour, and all of our faith” (Eusebius Hist. eccl. 4.26.13 [Meier]) indicating that the church in Sardis was familiar with the Torah in relation to Christ. Levine points out that “non-Jews visited Diaspora synagogues in large numbers throughout the first century C.E. and undoubtedly were familiar with what went on inside.”300 Their exposure to the Torah would have given them a deep appreciation for the significance of blessing and cursing on the plight of historical Israel (m. Sotah 7:6; m. Tamid 7:2).301 Thielman, summarizing his findings, points out the following:

299 The connection between the concept of the love of God and the ANEVT background has been pointed out by several scholars. William L. Moran posits that “we may be virtually certain that deuteronomic circles were familiar with the Assyrian practice of demanding an oath of allegiance from their vassals expressed in terms of love” (“The Ancient Near Eastern Background of the Love of God in Deuteronomy,” CBQ 25 [1963]: 84); Dennis J. McCarthy, “Notes on the Love of God in Deuteronomy and the Father-Son Relationship between Yahweh and Israel,” CBQ 27 (1965): 144–47; Nicholson, God and His People, 61. Rüterswörden questions literary dependency for the cultural term love arguing that it is an accidental parallel (“Die Liebe zu Gott im Deuteronomium,” in Die deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerke: Redaktionsund religionsgeschichtliche Perspektiven zur “Deuteronomismus”–Diskussion in Tora und Vorderen Propheten [ed. Marku Witte et al.; BZAW 365; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2006], 229–38). However, combined with other structural parallels, the use of love can be viewed as more than accidental. 300 Levine, Ancient Synagogue, 164. 301 Levine, Ancient Synagogue, 168.

CHAPTER THREE-LITERARY GENRE

113

the biblical notion that God would bring the blessings of the covenant on those who obeyed the law and the covenant’s curses on those who transgressed it provided an important framework to Jews in Paul’s time for understanding the historical suffering of God’ people. Violation of the law of Moses, the covenant that God had made with his people at Sinai, had brought Assyria, Babylon and Rome into God’s land and had scattered the land’s inhabitants among the nations. This conviction was not the private notion of the literate and sophisticated but was shared by many common people who attended worship in synagogue and temple. It seems safe to say that at the time when Paul wrote his letters, most Jews, whether common laborer or sophisticated priest, understood the scattering of their people throughout the world and the Roman domination of their land to be a result of Israel’s violation of the covenant that God had made with them at Sinai.302

Exhortations in the form of covenant lawsuit makes perfect sense to those who frequent the synagogue and hear the rationale for the suffering of Israel due to the covenant unfaithfulness of God’s people. It would be a small step for the churches in Asia Minor to understand that disobedience to God’s covenant brings with it the divine curse. This principle is already well established in Paul’s thinking with Christ taking upon himself the curse for us (Gal 3:10–13). Torah and Gentile Christians: The more challenging area with the issue of the exposure to the Torah in the first century is contact with Gentiles. They could have been exposed to the Law through their connection with the Jewish community in the synagogue (preaching/message of encouragement), from the law on their hearts (meditating), contact from Jewish friends (witnessing), and personal exposure from the Greek translations of the Torah (reading).

302

Thielman, Law, 55.

114

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

Exposure in the Synagogue: The early church was comprised of large numbers of Gentiles.303 There is evidence that the Gentiles were exposed to the Torah,304 which included the covenant structure, while attending the synagogue. According to Luke, “Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath” (Acts 15:21).305 Bruce points out that “the Pentateuch was read according to a triennial lectionary”306 marked as the sedarim (Exod 24:7; Deut 31:9–13; Mark 13:14; 1 Tim 4:13; Rev 1:3). Peter (Acts 2:8) along with Paul and Barnabas (Acts 13:14–16) expounded the Mosaic law (Torah) within the Jewish synagogue and the hearing of God-fearing Gentiles 303

Albert C. Sundberg, “The OT in the Early Church. A Study in Canon,” HTR 51. 4 (1958): 205. 304 Bruce, Acts, 301. As early as the second century AD there is evidence of a combined reading of the apostles and the prophets in the Christian service (Justin 1 Apol. 1:67). 305 According to Moo, Jesus’ usage of “you have heard” is most naturally interpreted as a reference to the “reading of the Scriptures in the synagogue” (“Authority of the Mosaic Law,” 18). 306 Bruce, Acts, 301; History, 275; Levine, Ancient Synagogue, 536; Adolf Büchler, “The Reading of the Law and Prophets in a Triennial Cycle,” JQR 5.3 (1893): 420–86; b. Meg. 29b. Morris is more cautious on the cycle of the lectionary in the early church but does not doubt the reading of the Torah in the synagogue (Lectionaries, 11–22); See Scott W. Hahn, “Canon, Cult and Covenant,” in Canon and Biblical Interpretation (ed. Craig G. Bartholomew et al., eds.; vol. 7 of Scripture and Hermeneutics Series, eds. Craig G. Bartholomew and Anthony C. Thiselton; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006), 210. Delling argues that due to the lack of evidence “there does not appear to be any justification for supporting that in the forms of service peculiar to Jewish Christianity readings from the Old Testament took place; there is no indication in the New Testament that they did. . . . also no evidence that the readings of passages from the Old Testament took place in the Gentile Christian area” (Worship in the New Testament [London: Darton, Longman &Todd, 1962], 92–93). However, the presence of OT quotes and allusions found throughout the NT, particularly Hebrews and Revelation, along with the reading of Revelation in the NT church argue against such a notion. Morris cautiously warns, “I do not think that we know enough about the apostolic age to affirm dogmatically that there was no such thing as the service of the Word. But if it did take place we know nothing about it” (Lectionaries, 38).

CHAPTER THREE-LITERARY GENRE

115

(kai. oi` fobou,menoi to.n qeo,n Acts 13:16), producing converts in Thessalonica (Acts 17:3–4), Berea (Acts 17:12), and Athens (Acts 17:17). The Jewish synagogues throughout the world brought the Torah and knowledge of Yahweh to the Gentile communities in the Greek language. Bruce states, “In the Gk.-speaking dispersion (and in Hellenistic synagogues in Palestine) the language used was Gk. (the lessons being read in the LXX version).”307 Central to this message of faith and forgiveness was the reminder that repentance is the prerequisite (Acts 2:37–38; 13:24). Paul in Acts 13:24–25 reminds his hearers of John the Baptist (Mark 1:4) who stands in the tradition of the OT prophets to call both Jew and Gentile to repentance. While Luke’s account of Paul’s sermon (Acts 13:14–43) does not contain the term covenant, Paul reminds the Jews and God-fearing Gentiles (Acts 13:26) of the judgment pronounced on Israel through the prophet Habakkuk (1:5; Acts 13:41) for breaking the covenant. Paul again mentions Habakkuk (2:4) in his letter to the Galatians (3:10) along with Deuteronomy 27:26 in the context of the covenant curse (Deut 27).308 Schreiner points out that God uses covenant curses to threaten: Israel with covenantal curses for failing to observe the law. The climax of the curses involved subjugation to a foreign power ([Deut] 28:49–52) and exile from the land ([Deut] 28:64–68; 29:24–28; 30:1).309

No doubt Paul is thinking of the covenant curses to befall, disobedient Israel in quoting Habakkuk 1:5. The prophetic lawsuits call to repentance or destruction is re-echoed in the SMR with a similar covenantal framework. Bruce posits the transmission path of Torah to the Gentiles: By attending the synagogue and listening to the reading and exposition of the sacred scriptures [Torah], these Gentiles, already worshippers of the “living and true God”, were familiar 307

Bruce, Acts, 301. Paul also demonstrates the discontinuity/continuity of the Mosaic law when he uses the law to defend his argument for righteousness (Rom 3:21). 309 Schreiner, Law, 47. 308

116

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES with the messianic hope in some form. . . The Gentile believers now provided a channel of communication with other Gentiles, not “God-fearers” like themselves but worshippers of pagan deities, who now “turned . . . from idols, to serve the living and true God” [1 Thess 1:9].310

From the Law on their Hearts: For those in Lystra and Derbe (Acts 14:6–20), where there were no ‘God-fearers,’ the message was presented to Gentiles who did not have an understanding of Israel’s history and to whom “the words of the prophets meant nothing. . . another point of contact had to be sought.”311 Nonetheless, Acts 14:15–17 illustrates Paul’s contention in his letter to the Romans, that even Gentiles have a knowledge of God (Rom 1:19ff) and the law of Moses written on their hearts (Rom 2:14– 15), so they are without excuse (Rom 1:20). As Moo points out, “While the Gentiles do not have the Mosaic law still moral norms which are part of the Mosaic law are present. “312 Paul writes that when Gentiles keep those moral norms they “do the things of the law” (Rom 2:14) and “keep the ordinances of the law” (Rom 2:26) even though they do not have the written Torah. Jewish Contact: The examples of Peter and Paul’s entire ministry among the Gentiles demonstrates this point (Acts 10:27–48; 17:16– 34; etc.). Individual Exposure to the Greek Translations of Torah: The Gentile community could easily have encountered the Torah through the various Greek translations. The collection of these “vast, diverse corpus of religious texts in Greek”313 is broadly known as the Septuagint (LXX). The Greek translation of the Tanakh314 was produced between the third-and first-century BC in Alexandria (Philo

310

Bruce, History, 276–77. Bruce, History, 277. 312 See Moo, “Law and Legalism,” 80; Schreiner, Law, 36. 313 Jennifer M. Dines, The Septuagint (ed. Michael A. Knibb; London: T&T Clark, 2004), 24. 314 The Torah is reported to be the first portion translated in the third century BC. See Martin David Goodman, “Septuagint,” OCD 1391. 311

CHAPTER THREE-LITERARY GENRE

117

Mos. 2.25–44)315 although according to Dines it is “unlikely that there ever was a single ‘Alexandrian (i.e., Septuagint) canon’ as such.”316 Scholars identify many of the OT quotes in the NT taken from the LXX, which indicates the prominence of the Greek translation in the first-century religious community. Gentiles and some Jews in Palestine used the Greek instead of the Hebrew text of the OT.317 NT Writers’ Interaction With Torah: The NT writers regularly quote or allude to Deuteronomy (Matt 4:1–11/Deut 8:3, 6:16, 6:13, 10:20; Matt 22:37/Deut 6:4; Acts 3:25–26/Gen 22:18; 26:4; Rom 1:18, 23/Deut 4:16, 17; Rom 10/Deut 30; Rom 15:10/Deut 32:43; 1 Cor 5:13/Deut 17:7; Gal 3:13/Deut 27:26; Gal 3:13/Deut 21:23; Eph 4:6, 1 Cor 8:4/Deut 6:7; Eph 6:1–3/Deut 5:16, 33; Eph 6:4/Deut 4:9; 2 Tim 3:15/Deut 4:6; 1 Peter 2:9; Titus 2:14/Deut 7:6; etc.).318 New Testament writers present legal obligations in terms of the metaphors of adoption (Isa 1:2, 4; 30:9; Jer 2:27; 3:19; Rom 8:23; 9:4; Rev 21:3, 7),319 marriage (Mal 2:14; Isa 5:1ff; Hos 3:2–3; 6:7; 9:15; Eph 5:23–27; Rev 21:2),320 enslavement (vassal relationship 1 Cor 7:22; Eph 6:9; Col 4:1),321 and Lord’s Supper (1 Cor 11:25; Rom 11:27; 2 Cor 3:6; 14–16; Heb 9:15–28; 10:16–18), 322

315

Karen Jobes and Moisés Silva, Invitation to the Septuagint (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2000), 1–10; Goodman, OCD 1391; Binder, Synagogue, 402; Emanuel Tov, “The Septuagint,” in Mikra (eds. Martin Mulder and Harry Sysling; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988), 162. 316 Dines, Septuagint, 12. 317 R. Timothy McLay, The Use of the Septuagint in New Testament Research (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 137–59. 318 Timothy H. Lim, “Deuteronomy in the Judaism of the Second Temple Period,” in Deuteronomy in the New Testament: The New Testament and the Scriptures of Israel, eds. Steve Moyise and Maarten J. J. Menken (LNTS 358; London: T&T Clark, 2007), 6. 319 Image of father-son. 320 Image of husband-wife. Hugenberger, Marriage. 321 Image of master-slave. 322 Millard argues for the influence of the ANEVT structure on the new covenant celebration of the Lord’s Supper (“Covenant and Communion in First Corinthians,” in Apostolic History and the Gospel. Biblical and

118

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

portraying the relationship between God and his people formalized by the covenant.323 The love of God for the church is the backdrop for the metaphorical lawsuit imagery (Matt 22:40; Ignatius Phld. 10:1; Smyrn. 6:1).324 The church’s obligation was obedience expressed in loyalty and service to the King of the Church (1 Tim 1:12–17; 6:13–15; Rev 15:2–4; 17:14). Summary: It is obvious that at least some of the first-century Jews and Gentiles were exposed to the Torah,325 which incorporated the ANEVT structure so prevalent in the Decalogue and Deuteronomy.

Covenant Lawsuit in Revelation Several commentators point out the forensic overtones within the book of Revelation. Comblin depicts Christ as judge in a cosmic legal battle with Satan.326 However, Caird provides the most consistent exposition of the lawsuit imagery in the book of Revelation (particularly 12:7–17; 18:20–19:21)327: [John] presents his argument in the form of a lawcourt debate, in which one witness after another is summoned, until God’s advocate, the paraclete, has all the evidence he needs to convince the world that Jesus is the Son of God, and so to win his Historical Essays Presented to F.F. Bruce [eds. W. Ward Gasque & Ralph P. Martin; Exeter: The Paternoster Press, 1970], 242–48). 323 Moshe Weinfeld points out the prophet’s use of “marriage, enslavement (i.e. a vassal relationship), and adoption representing not genetic-natural but artificial formalized relationship” within the OT covenant (“Prophetic Literature,” 189). 324 See chapter 3—Torah Influence on the Early Church, 105. 325 Millard, Reading, 158–66. 326 José Comblin applies Isa 40–55 as a lawsuit against false gods publicly exposing their illegitimate claims (Le Christ dans l’Apocalypse [Paris: Tournai, 1965], 147–49). See Alison A. Trites, The New Testament Concept of Witness (SNTSMS 31; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 35– 47. 327 James Valentine sees judicial motifs and lawsuit imagery throughout Revelation following the concept of justice and judgment (“Theological Aspects of the Temple Motif in the Old Testament and Revelation,” [Ph.D. diss., Boston University Graduate School, 1985], 105.

CHAPTER THREE-LITERARY GENRE

119

case. In the Revelation the courtroom setting is even more realistic [than the Gospel of John]; for Jesus had borne his testimony before Pilate’s tribunal, and the martyrs must face a Roman judge. What they have to remember as they give their evidence is that that evidence is being heard in a court of more ultimate authority, where judgments which are just and true issue from the great white throne.328

Furthermore, Caird also provides several indications within the SMR of the judicial nature of their persecution. He argues that in the letter to Smyrna the Jews, represented by the great accuser Satan, brought “criminal charges against some Christians.”329 For Pergamum, Caird sees the double-edged sword as the unlimited power (imperium) of the senatorial governor of Asia whose symbol was a sword (Rom 13:4). Caird concludes, “If a Christian should be called to confess his faith before a Roman court of justice, he must remember that it is Christ, not the proconsul, who has the sharp two-edged sword.”330 To the church in Thyatira John mentions the Book of Life which Caird sees as a change from “City Hall to lawcourt. At the Great Assize Christ the Advocate will acknowledge as his colleagues in sovereignty those who have been his colleagues in suffering.”331 Following the messages to the Churches, John is transported to the heavenly “throneroom where the heavenly King holds court (4:2).”332 Alan Bandy has also documented the prominent theme of judgment in Revelation, “of which the lawsuit is a subsidiary.”333 Bandy points out that “the lawsuit was an established prophetic subgenre as well as a common metaphor drawn from the stock of

328 G. B. Caird, A Commentary on the Revelation of St. John the Divine (London: A & C Black, 1966), 18. 329 Caird, Rev, 35. 330 Caird, Rev, 38. 331 Caird, Rev, 50. 332 Caird, Rev, 61. 333 Bandy, “Lawsuit,” 347.

120

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

biblical imagery.”334 He maintains that Gemser argues the following: The Rîb-pattern, parallels the lawsuit proceedings in ancient Israel and was used as a metaphor in the prophets to proclaim a controversy whereby God summons, accuses, threatens, and decides against his chosen people.335

Following Harvey, Bandy identifies the SMR as “covenant lawsuit speeches.”336 Harvey defines the Rîb-pattern according to its literary structure, as opposed to Gemser, who uses the idea of pattern to connote Israel’s psychological frame of mind in their predisposition to controversy.337 The SMR employ the same prophetic subgenre of lawsuit to convey Christ’s message to the churches and thus maintain a prophetic element. Torah and the Prophet’s Influence on the Messages This work posits that John imitates Moses as the prototypical prophet (1:1, 11, 19),338 combining the Deuteronomic (Torah) covenant obligations influenced by the suzerainty treaty structure with the prophetic lawsuit pattern (Rîb).339 While the influence of 334 Bandy, “Lawsuit,” 87; Berend Gemser, “The Rîb- or ControversyPattern in Hebrew Mentality,” in Wisdom in Israel and the Ancient Near East (ed. M. Noth and D. Winton Thomas; vol. 3 of VTSup, ed. G. W. Anderson et al.; Leiden: Brill, 1955), 3:128–29; Limburg, “Lawsuit of God,” 51. 335 Bandy, “Lawsuit,” 90; Gemser, “The Rîb,” 128–29; cf. Holladay, “Jeremiah’s Lawsuit,” 280–87; Lawrence A. Sinclair, “The Courtroom Motif in the Book of Amos,” JBL 85.3 (1966): 351–53; Wright, “Lawsuit of God,” 26–67; Nielsen, Prosecutor; Nicholson, God and His People, 64. 336 Bandy, “Lawsuit,” 222; Harvey, Le plaidoyer, 172–96. 337 Harvey, «RÎB-pattern,» 172–96, Le plaidoyer, 172. 338 John imitates Moses as the prototypical prophet with direct communication from Yahweh and divine instruction to speak to God’s people. See Aune, Prophecy, 124–25; O. Palmer Robertson, The Final Word (Carlisle: Banner of Truth Trust, 1997), 6. 339 Lohse argues that “the book of Revelation lays emphasis on the prophetic writings, not on the Thora (sic.)” since he desires to place distance between the synagogue and the church in an apologetic for the seeming anti-Semitic references in the text. He argues that the Pentateuchal allusions and reference to the “kingdom of priests” must be unders-

CHAPTER THREE-LITERARY GENRE

121

the ANEVT structure is closest to the Mosaic/prophetic material found in Deuteronomy, it is also consistent with the covenant lawsuit material of the later prophets, since the patriarchal material influenced the Rîb elements of the prophetic oracles.340 Bandy summarizes Allison Trites’ work on witness: [Trites] argues that the OT frequently employed witness language in the context of legal controversies. As such, the lawcourt imagery evoked judicial procedures common to the justice system of Israel based on the Law of Moses.341

John structures the messages after the same ANEVT pattern used by Moses.342 Chapter four demonstrates the ANEVT structure, which is present in the SMR.343

Conclusion From the form-historical analysis carried out by Hahn, Müller, Muse, Shea, Stuckenbruck and Campbell, it is apparent that these scholars share a similar opinion about the genre of the prophetic oracle messages. Although using slightly different labels to describe

tood in light of the prophets. However, this does not negate the presence of the Torah in Revelation (“Synagogue of Satan and Church of God,” Svensk Exegetisk Årsbok 58 [1993]: 113). 340 Walther Zimmerli, The Law and the Prophets: A Study of the Meaning of the Old Testament (trans. R. E. Clements; New York: Harper & Row, 1965), 52–57; Huffmon, “Covenant Lawsuit,” 285–95; McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant, 38; Sanders, Torah, 73–90. McCarthy points out “The Hittites had a literary-legal formula like the prophetic rîb in Israel” (Treaty and Covenant, 286). See Albrecht Goetze et al., Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft, Bd.2, Kulturgeschichte Kleinasiens (Munich: Beck, 1974), 92 n. 6. 341 Bandy, “Lawsuit,” 22. Gaffney also argues that “the very core of prophetic preaching—indictments, threats and promises—derives from the legal concept of covenant [Torah]” (“Covenant,” 136). 342 Pionius, bishop and martyr of Smyrna, addressing the men of Judea, appeals to Moses by quoting from Deuteronomy 22:4 (Mart. Pionii 4.4–6). The clergy in Smyrna were familiar with the Torah and quote it in public address. 343 See chapter 4—The ANEVT Structure Identified in the SMR, 130.

122

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

the structure, each identify similar functional elements.344 The consensus of the form-critical survey concludes that the genre of the SMR is that of prophetic oracle making the messages conducive to vassal treaty influence. Two considerations further reinforce the genre of the messages as prophetic oracles: the Semitic character of the book as a whole, and the influence of the ANEVT form on the messages. This section demonstrated the influence of the ANEVT structure on the Torah and the prophetic lawsuit oracles’ impact on the Revelation messages. Chapter four will demonstrate the presence in the messages of the covenantal form found in Deuteronomy (influenced by the ANEVT), along with the Rîb elements of the lawsuitspeeches of the later OT prophets.

CONCLUSION In this chapter, a number of conclusions are reached around the literary genre. First, the chapter shows that John did not write in a purely epistolary form and that the SMR are not letters. Second, arguing against Aune, it was shown that the imperial edict form does not influence the literary genre of the SMR. The SMR’s apparent similarity to imperial edicts is purely accidental. While the SMR at some points resemble imperial edicts, the genre of the messages is closer to OT prophetic oracle. Third, the form of the imperial edicts correlates with the seven oracles in Revelation because the edicts also inherit forensic elements of the ANEVT passed down through the centuries from a shared heritage exhibiting the primary characteristics of the classic loyalty oath. Fourth, the line of contact, influencing John’s generation, is evident from the ANEVT structural influence flowing through the Torah, OT prophets, the Hippocratic Oath, and the loyalty oath treaties of the Hellenistic and Roman period.

344 Müller only deals with the promise of salvation and the threat of judgment both of which Hahn neglects (Prophetie, 94).

CHAPTER THREE-LITERARY GENRE

123

Fifth, the literary genre of the SMR is prophetic oracle supported by a survey of various scholars’ form-historical analyses of SMR. Sixth, the seven prophetic oracles of Revelation are similar to both the imperial edicts and OT prophetic lawsuit oracles following the Deuteronomic law/Torah, since the ANEVT structure influenced both. Seventh, the early church is influenced by the ANEVT through the Torah. Chapter four will show how John used the Torah in the SMR.345 Finally, it was shown how Revelation was influenced by the OT covenant lawsuit that has also been influenced by the ANEVT. There is a connection between the Hebraic-Semitic covenant and Graeco-Roman edicts identified in the ANEVT documents. John wrote his messages to the seven churches in Revelation using a prophetic oracle genre in the tradition of OT prophets. Following the proposal that the genre of the SMR are prophetic oracles and not letters or imperial edicts, chapter four will examine the literary structure of these oracles. The next chapter will examine the arguments for the presence of the ANEVT in the SMR, corroborating evidence for this approach and answering the objections raised by sceptics.

345

See chapter 3–The Presence of Torah in the SMR, 192.

4 CHAPTER FOUR – LITERARY STRUCTURE If the genre of the messages to the seven churches is prophetic oracle, then what structural evidence is there to support this claim? Are they influenced by Greek oratory,1 imperial edicts, or prophetic speech2 (covenantal lawsuit) form? Or do they perhaps display a mixtum compositum of their own unique structural framework? We shall proceed to consider the literary framework or structure of the seven prophetic oracles. If, as is well established by scholars, the message of Revelation is in the heritage of the OT prophets, it would not be surprising to find Semitic elements, including Deuteronomic covenant structure, in its message (21:3, 7). Therefore, following the assumption that the SMR are prophetic oracles and contain OT allusions, the literary structure will be examined in light of Hebraic-Semitic influences. While John may not have been aware of his dependence on the ANEVT material in the Torah and the prophets, the identification of such a structure does help to identify the message as covenantal and prophetic.3

METHODOLOGY As documented in chapter one, Lohse, Du Preez, Kline, Shea, Davis, and Campbell propose a somewhat varied, Hebraic-Semitic

1

John T. Kirby sees a four point structure in proem, narration, proposition, and epilogue which is reminiscent of Greek oratory, in each of the messages (“Rhetorical,” 197–207). Aune is impressed with his treatment of the oi=da clause but believes that his treatment of proem and propositio are “problematic” (“Form,” 183 n. 5). Kirby also neglects to explain the absence of the probatio element. 2 See chapter 3—Ulrich B. Müller (1975), 86. 3 See chapter 2—John’s Prophetic Office, 44.

125

126

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

outline following the ANEVT structure for the SMR.4 Chapter three saw that the form-historical analysis carried out by Hahn, Müller, Muse, Shea, and Campbell supported a prophetic oracle genre that is compatible with ANEVT influence.5 Using different headings, most of these scholars identified the ANEVT structure in each of the messages. The effect of this chapter is to argue for the presence of the ANEVT structure in six of the seven messages in broad terms. Thus, chapter five’s function will be to show how a detailed study of one of the messages (Smyrna), on the basis of this analysis, both confirms the analysis of the specific message and sheds light on the interpretation of the message, by helping to make better sense of what is going on in the text. At the same time, if it throws light on the message to Smyrna, it also confirms the analysis of the other six messages. However, the first task is to examine the main argument for the influence of the ANEVT on the SMR. The presence of the ANEVT structure in six of the messages will be established by identifying the individual components of the ANEVT structure to see if they are present in the SMR and by using comparative tables. An examination of the auxiliary corroborating arguments will follow to support the idea that the SMR are influenced by the ANEVT. We will then consider the arguments against an ANEVT influence. The analysis of the ANEVT structure in six messages will confirm the use of detailed analysis in the message to Smyrna and will allow for the detailed exegesis of Revelation 2–11 in chapter five, as a test case for this hypothesis.

PRESENCE OF THE ANEVT STRUCTURE IN REVELATION Mendenhall’s classic Hittite treaty structure, comprised of preamble, historical prologue, ethical stipulations, blessing and cursing, divine witnesses, and deposit/public reading, are identified with slight variations, within

4 5

See chapter 1—Survey of Previous Research on ANEVT, 7. See chapter 3—Form-Historical Analysis, 84.

CHAPTER FOUR-LITERARY STRUCTURE

127

the seven oracles.6 Messenger preamble formula will be used rather than preamble, sanctions will combine blessing and cursing, and proclamation witness formula will replace divine witnesses. These are used to reflect a more precise identification of the inherent structural elements within the text. Campbell performs what he calls a covenant audit on the material using a covenant findings methodology.7 He locates the elements of the covenant structure present within the messages, which the king uses to audit the covenant faithfulness of the churches. A similar method of investigation is followed here to identify the ANEVT structure. The ANEVT Structure Identified in Revelation as a Whole Prior to investigating the SMR it is worth exploring whether the ANEVT has had an influence on the book as a whole. Do we find this ANEVT structure in any part of Revelation other than the SMR? Strand, Sutton, and Chilton8 recognize that Revelation, as a whole, contains the ANEVT structure with its five elements of the covenant pattern.9 In support of this structure are several features 6

Occasionally synonyms will be used for some terms: i.e., threat or malediction for curses; clauses or terms for stipulations; and benediction for blessing. See chapter 1—Survey of Previous Research on ANEVT, 7. 7 Campbell, “Findings,” 79 nn. 34; 76–77. 8 Kline comes close to identifying the structure while describing the analogy of the ANEVT in Revelation in passing: “Once again from the New Testament Apocalypse the lines can be traced through the Old Testament prophets to the eschatological curses and blessings of the sanctions section of the treaties. The Book of Revelation is replete with treaty analogues from its opening preamble-like identification of the awesome Lord Christ; through the letters to the churches, administering Christ’s covenantal lordship after the manner of the ancient lawsuit; on through the elaborately expounded prophetic sanctions which constitute the major part of the book; and down to the closing documentary clause and canonical curse” [emphasis added] (Biblical Authority, 73–74). 9 Strand outlines the pattern as follows: (1) Preamble (1:5a); (2) Historical Prologue (1:5b–6a); (3) Stipulations (Imperatives in SMR; 6:9–11; 7:13–14; 12:11, 17; 14:12–13; 16:15; 18:4; 20:4); (4) Witnesses (22:16a; 17a; 20a); and (5) Blessing-and-Curse Formulation (22:7b; 14a; 18–19; “Covenantal Form,” 251–64). Sutton’s structure is as follows: (1) Preamble (1:5a); (2) Historical

128

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

worth highlighting. Sanctions of blessing and cursing similar to the OT covenant sanctions from the “Covenant book par excellence”10 (Deut 4:2; 12:32; 28:1–68; 29:20) are applied to the churches (22:7b, 18–19. See also Isa 40–60).11 Several other features including witnesses,12 treaty clauses,13 and integrity formula14 have similar features to the Torah and the prophets. One could object that this point only deals with Revelation as a whole and not with the SMR. However, if Revelation as a whole is framed within the ANEVT structure and the seven messages are

Prologue (1:5b–6a); (3) Stipulations (Imperatives in SMR; 6:9–11; 7:13–14; 12:11, 17; 14:12–13; 16:15; 18:4; 20:4); (4) Witnesses (22:16a; 17a; 20a); (5) Blessing-and-Curse Formulation (22:7b; 14a; 18–19; Prosper, 253–67). Strand outlines the pattern as follows: (1) Preamble (1:5a); (2) Historical Prologue (1:5b–6a); (3) Stipulations (Imperatives in SMR; 6:9–11; 7:13–14; 12:11, 17; 14:12–13; 16:15; 18:4; 20:4); (4) Witnesses (22:16a; 17a; 20a); and (5) Blessing-and-Curse Formulation (22:7b; 14a; 18–19; “Covenantal Form,” 251–64). Chilton also identifies the seven letters as part of the Historical Prologue within the covenant structure of the entire book (Vengeance, 10–20, 46; Beale, Rev, 227). 10 Du Preez, “Mission,” 154. 11 William J. Dumbrell, The End of the Beginning (Homebush West: Lancer, 1985), 97–101. According to Westermann, the messages parallel the salvation-oracles found in Isaiah 54:4, Jeremiah 30:10–11, and 35:18 (Prophetic Speech, 199–200). Beale makes the connection with the OT sanctions arguing, “If the church is faithful, it will inherit the covenantal blessings of the new creation originally promised to Israel. But unfaithfulness will bring the curse of exclusion from the blessings” (Rev, 227–28). 12 The witnesses are identified as an angel, the Spirit, the church, (22:16–20 marture,w), and Christ (1:5; 3:14 ma,rtuj). 13 There is also the use of the treaty clauses (Deut 19:9; 29:1–29) in Revelation 22:6 (Du Preez, “Mission,” 154). 14 This integrity formula (not to add to or subtract from) functions prophetically, just like the commands in Deuteronomy (22:16–20; Deut 4:2). Michael Tilly argues, “Here the inspiration of God’s revealed word mediated by the prophets receives special emphasis particularly in the context of the warning demarcation from illegitimate prophecy and idolatry” (“Deuteronomy in Revelation,” in Deuteronomy in the New Testament: The New Testament and the Scriptures of Israel, eds. Steve Moyise and Maarten J. J. Menken [LNTS 358; London: T&T Clark, 2007], 184).

CHAPTER FOUR-LITERARY STRUCTURE

129

found in Revelation, then the seven messages may also be patterned on the ANEVT structure. A further objection may be raised that this argument would create a structure within a structure, or that it would appear contradictory. Although the presence of the ANEVT in the book as a whole is distinct from its use in the messages, Deuteronomy also identifies this pattern of recapitulated structure. Both Deuteronomy and Revelation demonstrate the influence of the ANEVT structure on the overall structure, as well as smaller sections within the larger document. Thus, as well as in the complete Deuteronomic text,15 Kline and Rofé also identify the ANEVT pattern in Deuteronomy 4 and 29 respectively.16 Given the unity of the messages with the rest of Revelation,17 the reuse of the ANEVT structure in the SMR is consistent with the way in which the recapitulation pattern is used in Deuteronomy.18 It appears that John follows the same pattern employed by Moses in Deuteronomy (chapters 4, 29)19 by also reusing the ANEVT structure in the smaller sections of the messages in Revelation. Rather than this duplication being odd, it is a possible documented example of the Mosaic use/reuse of ANEVT structure. In fact, if Deuteronomy influences John,20 then this principle of reused structure (covenant structure within a covenant structure) may have influenced John as well. Deuteronomy may provide 15

Kline, Treaty, 48–49. Kline’s structure is (1) “Identification of the speaker (vv. 1, 2, 5, 10);” (2) “Appeal to covenant history (vv. 10ff., 20ff., etc.);” (3) “Basic stipulation of undivided allegiance (vv. 15ff., etc.);” (4) “Blessing-curse sanctions (vv. 27ff.);” (5) “Invocation of witnesses (v. 26);” and (6) “Arrangements for the perpetuation of the covenant (vv. 9, 10, 21, 22)” (Treaty, 31). Rofé identifies Deuteronomy 29 as a mini covenant following the similar ANEVT pattern: (1) Inscription (28:69); (2) Historical prologue (29:1– 9); (3) Statement of bond (29:10–14); (4) Stipulations (29:15–19a, 28); (5) Witnesses (29:15; 22); (6) Condensed curse and blessing (29:15–20; “Covenant,” 277). 17 See chapter 1—Definitions, 35. 18 Weinfeld, Deuteronomic School, 15. 19 Sutton, Prosper, 253. 20 See chapter 4—The Presence of Torah in the SMR, 192. 16

130

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

another pattern for comparison with Revelation–that of recapitulated structure. The presence of the ANEVT in the book as a whole is compatible with the presence of the structure in the messages. Kline’s words on this phenomenon within Deuteronomy are appropriate here: this reflection of the total treaty pattern within the undisputed unity of this brief passage [Deut 4] is a significant clue to the nature of the larger document in which it is embedded and an interesting indication of how Moses’ thought and expression this day were operating within the traditional forms required by the occasion.21

It is a fitting indicator of how John thought as well. Like Deuteronomy (Deut 4:29–31), John is dealing with covenant renewal22 and a call to repentance.23 Such an occasion suits the use of the covenant lawsuit oracles packaged in Deuteronomic structure. If, as will be argued, John is influenced by the Deuteronomic text, then its recapitulated pattern would support John’s similar use of the ANEVT structure, not only in Revelation as a whole, but also in the smaller portion of the messages. John is following even more closely the pattern found in the structure of Deuteronomy. The ANEVT Structure Identified in the SMR Perhaps the most obvious argument for the ANEVT structure in the SMR is the presence of the Deuteronomic structure, as influenced by the ANEVT, clearly delineated in the SMR. Lohse also

21

Kline, Treaty, 31. Similar to the covenant renewal ceremony in Deut 27:1–8, John is to write the content of the vision on a scroll (1:11, 19), and he is to call the seven churches, back to their covenant relationship with God. See Niehaus for the distinctions between a covenant and covenant renewal in the OT (Niehaus, “Covenant,” 234–40). For details of the churches legal obligations, see chapter 4—Evidence of the Decalogue, 193. 23 See chapter 6—Paraenetic Lawsuit Oracles, 301. 22

CHAPTER FOUR-LITERARY STRUCTURE

131

sees in the letters (Die Briefe) an OT covenant schema similar to Exodus 19:3–8, Deuteronomy 24:3–7,24 and Joshua 24.25

The Messenger’s Commission One of the characteristics of apocalyptic literature is the presence of a mediating messenger who functions as angelus interpres, ‘interpreting angel’26 (Ezek 40–48; Zech 1–6; Dan 7–12). Such an angel is mentioned in Revelation 1:1 and 22:6; each church has a corresponding angel (2:1; 8; 12; 18; 3:1; 7; 14) with mediatorial angels scattered throughout the book (17:1–18; 21:9–22:5). The concept of mediatorial angels has roots in both the Hebraic-Semitic and Graeco-Roman world. a;ggeloj Defined as Messengers: In Revelation, there was a need for someone (messenger) to deliver the king’s royal messages to the seven churches. Thus, in Revelation 1:11, 19, John is commissioned to write (gra,yon) and commanded to deliver the messages, through the messenger (tw/| avgge,lw| 2:1, 8; 12; 18; 3:1; 7; 14) of the churches. This shows that John is distinguished from the messenger, and the article tw/| distinguishes between the messengers of the individual churches.27 An a;ggeloj is defined as an envoy dispatched to deliver a message; thus, the term refers to a messenger or angel.28 Three Categories of Interpretation: The difficulty, as Thomas points out, in identifying a;ggeloi is partially due to the fact that they can be “used of both human envoys (cf. Luke 9:52) and spirit beings (cf. Luke 1:11), of good angels (cf. Heb 1:13–14) and

24

See chapter 1—ANEVT Structure in the Pentateuch, 13. Lohse, Offenbarung, 24. See chapter 1—Proponents for the Influence of the ANEVT in Revelation, 20. 26 Michael Mach, Entwicklungsstadien des Jüdischen Engelglaubens in Vorrabbinischer Zeit (TSAJ 34; Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1992), 142–44; Hansgünter Reichelt, Angelus interpres: Texte in der Johannes-Apokalypse (Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1994), 34–136. 27 Thomas, Rev 1–7, 126–7; John F. Walvoord, Revelation (BKC; ed. Roy B. Zuck; Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1983), 53. 28 The cognate verb avgge,llw (I announce) and noun avggeli,a (message) convey this meaning. Walter Bauer et al., eds., “a;ggeloj,” BDAG 7. 25

132

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

evil spirits (cf. Jude 6; 2 Pet 2:4).”29 In addition, each view has its own difficulties.30 Thus, the identity of the a;ggeloj is disputed, and has led to three main categories of interpretation. Unfallen Angels: The most popular view is unfallen angels,31 who are heavenly personifications,32 or counterparts,33 and guardians of the churches34 (Ps 34:7; 91:11; Dan 10:13–21; Matt 18:10;

29

Thomas, Rev 1–7, 127. For detailed treatments of the problem, cf. Loren T. Stuckenbruck, Angel Veneration and Christology: A Study in Early Judaism and the Christology of the Apocalypse of John (WUNT 2.70. Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1995), 232– 38; Hemer, Letters, 32–34; Kraft, Offenbarung, 50–52; Müller, Prophetie, 87– 89; Karrer, Brief, 169–86 and Aune, Rev 1–5, 108–12 . 31 H. Bietenhard, “a;ggeloj,” NIDNTT 1:103; Walter Grundmann, “a;ggeloj,” TDNT 1:74. 32 Beckwith, Apocalypse, 445–46; James Moffatt, The Revelation of St. John the Divine (EGT 5; ed. W. Robertson Nicoll; London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1910), 348; Leon Morris, The Revelation of St. John (TNTC 20; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), 57; Kiddle, Rev, 17:17; Mounce, Rev, 63. 33 James H. Moulton, “It is His Angel,” JTS 3 (1902): 514–16; Ramsay, Letters, 50; Charles, Rev, 1:34–35; Beasley-Murray, Rev, 69; Pierre Prigent, L’Apocalypse de Saint Jean (CNT 14; Lausanne: Delachaux et Niestlé, 1981), 34; Johnson, Rev, 430; Lohmeyer, Offenbarung, 18–20; Krodel, Rev, 103; Beale, Rev, 217; and others. Osborne prefers a combination of literal angel and heavenly counterpart (p. 99). Osborne, Rev, 98. Originally, Ulrich B. Müller held that the angels were a “literary fiction” created by John to deal with his lack of knowledge regarding the ecclesiological structure of the Asia Minor churches (Zur Frühchristlichen Theologiegeschichte. Judenchristentum und Paulinismus in Kleinasien an der Wende vom ersten zum zweiten Jahrhundert nach Christus [Gütersloh: Mohn, 1976], 33–34). Ultimately, Müller settled on accepting the counterpart theory (Die Offenbarung des Johannes [ÖTKNT; Gütersloh: Mohn, 1984], 88). 34 Karrer, Brief, 185–6; E. J. Banks, “Smyrna,” ISBE 4:8183; Hill, “Prophecy,” 406; Roland H. Worth, Jr., The Seven Cities of Apocalypse and Roman Culture (New York: Paulist, 2002), 111; Ramsay, Letters, 50; Charles, Rev, 1:34–35; Caird, Rev, 24; Lohmeyer, Offenbarung, 20; Michael Wilcock, I Saw Heaven Opened (London: InterVarsity, 1975), 41; Ford, Rev, 386–7; Johnson, Rev, 430; Beasley-Murray, Rev, 69–70; Swete, Apocalypse, 73. The Ascension of Isaiah speaks of “the descent of the angel of the Christian Church, which is in the heavens” (3:15). This view was also common in the writings of the early church fathers (Gregory of Nazianzus Or. Bas. 42; 30

CHAPTER FOUR-LITERARY STRUCTURE

133

Acts 12:15; Heb 1:14). Variations on this theme include Swete who identified a Persian parallel of heavenly bodies35 with earthly communities as counterparts.36 Also, Enroth and others appealing to 22:16 propose that a;ggeloi refers to “visionary counterparts of the other prophets in the community,”37 rather than to the churches themselves. A case could be made that a;ggeloj is a heavenly being who typifies each church (1:20) as being in God’s protection (1:16) and thus personifies the church, but it functions as the means through whom Christ conveys his word to the church.38 This view would be compatible with the notion of messengers delivering a message to the churches on behalf of the suzerain.39 Human Church Leaders: A second category is human messengers (angels), who represent untitled church leaders,40 ecclesiastical Origen Hom. Luc. 23; Hom. Num. 20.3; Jerome Comm. Mich. 6:1, 2; Basil Comm. Isa. 1.46; Hippolytus Antichr. 59; Moffatt, Rev, 348). 35 Michal Wojciechowski believes that the seven churches, represented by the seven stars, are to be identified with the sun, the moon and five planets (“Seven Churches and Seven Celestial Bodies,” BN 45 [1988]: 48–50). 36 Swete, Apocalypse, 22; Caird, Rev, 25. 37 Anne-Marit Enroth, “The Hearing Formula in the Book of Revelation,” NTS 36 (1990): 604; Schüssler Fiorenza, “Apokalypsis,” 145–46; Schüssler Fiorenza, Rev: Vision, 52–53; Aune, “Social Matrix,” 23; Beale, Rev, 217. 38 See Karrer’s documented case from the Book of Giants from Qumran (4QEnGiantsa fragment 8) of Enoch writing to a fallen angel (Brief, 57–59, 172). Stuckenbruck points out that the parallel with Revelation breaks down as Enoch appears “otherworldly” in the text, and the angel is clearly fallen; cf. Stuckenbruck, Angel Veneration, 236. However, as Stuckenbruck cautions, there is no “one angel-one congregation correspondence” in either first-century Christian or Jewish literature (Angel Veneration, 237). 39 Stuckenbruck argues persuasively that given the “admonitory tone” of the associated messages the “author’s representation of angels in the seven letters involves a demotion from views of angelic functions held by the intended readers” (Angel Veneration, 238). However, this would not necessarily undercut the church’s understanding of angels as messengers sent from God. 40 This could mean men who are moral representatives of each church but are without a unique leadership function. Thomas proposes

134

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

bishops/elders,41 or Christian prophets.42 While Schüssler Fiorenza argues that this lacks support from the text,43 it must be pointed out that all positions are deficient in this area. According to Thomas, a;ggeloj represents men of the church “without a unique leadership function.”44 He argues that it is easier to answer the objections of this view, than it is to answer the objections of the “heavenly angels” argument. Müller suggests that “John addresses the seven messages to ‘angels’ because he does not want to mention the official local leaders of the churches.”45 Müller bases his argument on the apparent struggle between bishops and prophets in Asia Minor at this time. Banks also argues for a human messenger who can be identified as bishops: the seven angels of the seven churches (1:20) received seven letters, figurative letters, and therefore it would seem that the

Epaphroditus (Phil 2:25; 4:18) and Epaphras (Col 4:12) as examples of church representatives who helped Paul while in prison (Rev 1–7, 117–18, 127). See David S. Clark, The Message from Patmos: A Postmillennial Commentary on the Book of Revelation (1921; repr., Grand Rapids: Baker, 1989), 30. 41 Richard C. Trench, Commentary on the Epistles to the Seven Churches of Asia (2d ed., London: Parker, Son & Bourn, 1861), 53–58, 78, 82; Hugh Martin, The Seven Letters (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1956), 56; William H. Brownlee, “The Priestly Character of the Church in the Apocalypse,” NTS 5 (1958–1959): 224–25; Müller, Prophetie, 101; R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. John’s Revelation (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1963), 97; Hoeksema, Rev, 41–42; Beasley-Murray, Rev, 69; William Hendriksen, More than Conquerors (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1982), 58 n.1; Philip Edgcumbe Hughes, The Book of Revelation: A Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 30–31; Kistemaker, Rev, 103, 111; Banks, “Smyrna,” ISBE 4:8183 and others. 42 Friedrich Spitta, Dia Offenbarung von Johannes (Halle: Waisenhaus, 1889), 38–39; W. D. Davies, “A Note on Josephus Antiquities 15.136,” HTR 47 (1954): 135–40; Kraft, Offenbarung, 50–52; Hill, NT Prophecy, 30; George T. Montague, The Apocalypse (Ann Arbor: Servant, 1992), 56. 43 Schüssler Fiorenza, “Apokalypsis,” 105. Swete dispels this view as “this person was in no sense a Church-ruler, and offers no true analogy” (Apocalypse, 22). 44 Thomas, Rev 1–7, 118. 45 Müller, Frühchristlichen, 34.

CHAPTER FOUR-LITERARY STRUCTURE

135

seven angels are also figurative and may refer to the seven bishops who presided over the seven churches of Asia.46

Some Elusive Meaning: Hemer provides the possibility of some kind of mysterious meaning for the angels, although he does not give it much weight.47 He does raise the similarities of this view of the angels with several obscure Anatolian cultural practices. One similarity Hemer mentions is of “a pagan expression of the idea of a guardian of the individual reappears in Aelius Aristides, writing of an experience in Smyrna” (Aristides Works 26 [Dindorf]).48 While an understanding of the angels that stresses the role of a guardian is unlikely, Hemer believes that these obscure allusions in Aristides make the mysterious idea of the angel “less strange than it appears.”49 Thus, Hemer argues for a combination of various “complex and elusive ways or at differing levels, so that we cannot expect to assign it a lexical equivalent that tells the whole story.”50 Conclusion: The major dilemma in understanding the symbolism focuses on the antithesis between the meaning of heavenly beings and human leaders. Central to this present argument is the role of messengers bringing proclamations from the suzerain, and that this role does not require one to specify with precision the identity of the messenger. Whether the messenger is of human or heavenly origin may not affect their royal envoy role. Within the context of Revelation the angels could be heavenly beings typifying each church (1:20), protected by the hand of God (1:16), and thus could be said to personify the church but function as messengers to convey Christ’s message to the church. The Angels’ Function: Whether the seven angels are heavenly angels or earthly angels they function similarly to John and the other prophets, namely to communicate the prophetic message of the resurrected Lord.51 Revelation 1:20 differentiates between the angels and the churches. The message of Christ is written to 46

Banks, “Smyrna,” ISBE 4:8183. Hemer, Letters, 32. 48 Hemer, Letters, 33. 49 Hemer, Letters, 32. 50 Hemer, Letters, 32. 51 Schüssler Fiorenza, “Apokalypsis,” 120. 47

136

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

the angels (messengers) as representatives of the churches although they are separate. However, it is clear that the message is meant to be conveyed to the churches by the angels associated with each church. This would also be consistent with understanding the angels’ function as messengers (i.e., messenger to the church).52 According to Aune, the angels should be interpreted as messengers: [The angels] should be regarded as prophetic messengers rather than guardian angels or church officials, it would appear that John is functioning as a kind of master prophet in transmitting revelatory messages to the churches under his (real or assumed) jurisdiction through local prophetic messengers. But this is purely hypothetical and incapable of demonstration.53

The identity of the angels may be impossible to determine with certainty; however, the context seems to indicate that the angels of the churches (1:20) are representing either the churches or themselves. Either way they function as messengers carrying a divine message to the churches. While Roloff argues against angels as messengers since in the ancient world messengers only delivered messages,54 his argument does not take into consideration that in order to deliver a message, one must first receive it. The messages to the churches were delivered to a;ggeloi who in turn communicated them to the churches (22:16). Messengers within OT Prophets: The concept of a;ggeloi delivering divine oracles is prevalent throughout the first-century

52

It is unclear whether the angel in 22:16 is to be identified with the seven angels of the churches; however, the function is similar in that “I, Jesus, have sent my angel (messenger) to give you [u`mi/n] this testimony for the churches” (22:16). For the possible meaning for u`mi/n, see Beale, Rev, 1143–48. Regardless of the identity of the u`mi/n, the message is mediated. Note also the forensic tone of to “testify” (22:18, 20) as in a lawsuit. 53 Aune, Prophecy, 197. Thomas maintains that these church representatives were “without a unique leadership function” (Rev 1–7, 118). 54 Jürgen Roloff, The Revelation of John (CC; trans., John E. Alsup; Zurich: Theological, 1984; repr., Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), 39.

CHAPTER FOUR-LITERARY STRUCTURE

137

Greco-Roman and Hebrew-Semitic world.55 The OT LXX uses a;ggeloi to represent prophets ($alm 1 Kgs 19:2; 2 Kgs 5:10; Ezek 23:40; Hag 1:13) who convey the message received from the Lord.56 Aune identifies angels as interpreters stating: One characteristic feature of apocalyptic literature is the presence of a stock literary figure who functions as a supernatural mediator, angelus interpres, “interpreting angels,” who begins to appear in late OT prophecy (Ezek 40–48; Zech 1–6; Dan 7– 12). This angelus interpres may have developed by analogy to revelatory dialogues between God and a human recipient of revelation, i.e., passages in which God himself provides an interpretation of a vision (Jer 1:11–13; Job 38–42:6).57

The use of a;ggeloi for prophets and priests was occasionally found in the LXX.58 The a;ggeloj may be connected to the Hebrew $alm as it is translated by the LXX in Mal 2:7 (a;ggeloj kuri,ou pantokra,toro,j the messenger of the LORD of hosts) where it refers to the Jewish priests (Mal 2:1). In addition to this Jewish context, the Johannine usage could be broadened to include the prophetic office and administration. The plural wykalm in Isaiah 44:26 is rendered tw/n avgge,lwn in the LXX and appears to refer to prophets earlier in the verse. Second Chronicles 36:15–16 also uses messengers (LXX tou.j avgge,louj)

55

Johann Michl, “Engel I–IX,” RAC 5 (1962): 53–60. While in the SMR the proclamations were sent to the angels of the church, possibly as representatives. The message was meant to be passed onto the churches (1:11; 22:8, 16) and publicly read (1:3; cf. the hearing formula 2:7, etc., 22:18). The messages did not stop with the angels. 57 Aune, Rev 1–5, 16; John S. Holladay, “Assyrian Statecraft and the Prophets of Israel,” HTR 63 (1970): 30–33. Hemer believes the angel imagery is a “concept developed under Jewish influence” (Letters, 34). 58 Davies, “Josephus,” 138. 56

138

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

and prophets59 interchangeably from the practice of God’s prophets being his messengers.60 Another phrase of interest is Messenger of the Covenant (amyq $almw LXX o` a;ggeloj th/j diaqh,khj Covenant-Angel)61 in Malachi 3:1.62 Calvin makes the following statement about this term: He called John the Baptist at the beginning of this verse a messenger, the messenger of Jehovah; and now he calls Christ a messenger, but he is the messenger of the covenant; for it was necessary that the covenant should be confirmed by him.63

Messengers within Judaism: Several scholars find a parallel with synagogue messenger (rwbc xylX),64 who represented the entire congregation in prayer.65 In first-century Judaism one of the roles of the leader of the synagogue (avrcisuna,gwgoj Mark 5:22, 35–38; Luke 8:49; 13:14; Acts 13:15; 18:8, 17) was to rotate among the members of the congregation the responsibility for prayer (messenger

ß omits profh,thj but as Davies speculates, “It may well be that ß regards the reference to angelous as sufficient to indicate prophets” (“Josephus,” 139). 60 Davies points out that the “phrase ‘rising up early and sending’ is associated with God’s sending of the prophets” in Jer 29:19; 26:5; 35:14 (“Josephus,” 138). 61 This phrase is found nowhere else in Scripture. 62 Stephen G. Dempster argues for the ban inaugurated by the Messenger of Yahweh in Malachi upon covenant violators (“The Prophetic Invocation of the Ban as Covenant Curse: A Historical Analysis of a Prophetic Theme,” [Th.M. diss., Westminster Theological Seminary, 1978], 134–37). 63 John Calvin, Commentaries on The Twelve Minor Prophets (22 vols.; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979), 15:569; cf. C. F. Keil, Minor Prophets (10 vol.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977), 10:459. 64 Hermann L. Strack and Paul Billerbeck, Kommentar zum NT aus Talmud und Midrasch (4 vols; Munich: Beck, 1922–1928), 3:790–2; John Lightfoot, Horae Hebraicae et Talmudicae (5 vols in 1; Cambridge: Field & Hayes, 1658–1674) 2:90–95. 65 Richard Watson, A Biblical and Theological Dictionary (New York: Waugh & Mason, 1833), 940. 59

CHAPTER FOUR-LITERARY STRUCTURE

139

of the congregation).66 Yamauchi points out that from Luke 13:10–17 and Acts 18:1–17, “we can infer that such an officer [avrcisuna,gwgoj] was responsible for keeping the congregation faithful to the Torah,”67 a role John could be emulating here in Revelation. Billerbeck believed that xylX was widely accepted as the authorized person equivalent to an apostle and angel. Therefore, he concludes that in John’s day it could have been equal to “angel of the church,” and widely used of the leader of the congregation.68 However, Beasley-Murray points out that “the seven letters, although addressed to the angels of the churches, have in view the congregations themselves, not simply their leaders.”69 Aune believes that “such a subordinate position cannot seriously be proposed for the role of the a;ggeloj.”70 In addition, the congregation, rather than God’s appointed messenger, appoints the office. Nevertheless, the concept of a messenger within the synagogue was familiar to the first-century Jewish Christian. 71 Messengers within ANEVT: Within the ANEVT context, there was a continual flow of professional royal messengers72 linking the courts of the suzerain and vassals. As a line in the letter of Hattusili III to the Babylonian king, Kadashman-Enlil II, states, “[Only 66 S. Safrai, “The Synagogue,” in The Jewish People in the First Century (ed. Y. Aschkenasy; vol. 2 of CRINT; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976), 2:915; Kaufmann Kohler, The Origins of the Synagogue and the Church (New York: MacMillan, 1929), 66; Walter Bauer et al., eds., “avrcisuna,gwgoj,” BDAG 952.27. 67 Yamauchi, “Synagogue,” DJG 782. 68 Strack and Billerbeck, Kommentar, 3:790–2. 69 Beasley-Murray, Rev, 69. 70 Aune, Rev 1–5, 112. 71 The use of messenger for a;ggeloj is also documented in late Jewish apocalyptic literature (Apoc. Ab. 20–31; 2 Bar. 22:1–30:5; 39:1–43:3; 50:1– 51:16; 4 Ezra 8:27–9:25; 13:20–56). However, an ‘a;ggeloj is a human or heavenly messenger according to context. The specialised biblical meaning does not eliminate the other usage. For more details, see Mach, Entwicklungsstadien, 142–44; Reichelt, Angelus interpres, 34–136. 72 Akkadian ālikūtu (function of) “messenger”; āliku “he who goes”; ālikum “one who goes with a message”; also šapru “one who sends or carries a message” (Oppenheim and Reiner (ed), “ālikūtu,” CAD A, 1:375). Cf. Beckman, Hittite Diplomatic Texts, 5.

140

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

if two kings] are hostile do their messengers not travel continually between them” (No. 23, §6).73 According to Beckman, “in order that the partner could be certain that the envoy was presenting his master’s position accurately, he was also given a dispatch in Akkadian (see No. 2, §59; cf. No. 22F, §§10–14).”74 Holladay describes the activity of the messenger in receiving the message from the suzerain (sent to the messenger) and then delivering it to the vassal, as a regal representative of the Great King: The royal messenger stood in the court of the Great King, participated in the deliberative processes of the court, received the declaration of the king’s wishes from the king’s own mouth, and then carried the tablet or sealed roll of papyrus to its destination—in the case of imperial state administration, to the court of the vassal king. Here, received in the manner befitting a representative of the Great King, he would break the seals, hold up the letter, and proclaim: “To PN1, thus (says) PN2: I am well, may your heart be at peace. Now concerning the matter of. . . . “75

Summary: Just as the king would send a messenger to the vassal to warn of the offenders’ coming judgment and the enforcement of the covenant sanctions, John is instructed to send a similar message of covenant unfaithfulness to the angels (messengers) who in turn deliver the message to the churches (1:11; 22:8, 16) where they were to be publicly read (1:3; see also the hearing formula 2:7 etc.; 22:18). Enroth, following Schüssler Fiorenza, argues: “the angel of each community may be the prophet of the community and probably belongs to the same group as John and his followers who are prophets.”76 The responsibility of these messengers for the actions of the churches points to their leadership position and raises their function of a messenger to new levels.77 73

Beckman, Hittite Diplomatic Texts, 5. Beckman, Hittite Diplomatic Texts, 5. 75 Holladay, “Statecraft,” 31. 76 Enroth, “Formula,” 604; Schüssler Fiorenza, Rev: Justice, 145–6. 77 Thomas, Rev 1–7, 117; Henry Alford, Hebrews–Revelation (GTCEC 4; rev. ed. Everett F. Harrison; Chicago: Moody, 1968), 560. 74

CHAPTER FOUR-LITERARY STRUCTURE

141

This prophetic/angelic messenger receives and delivers the suzerain’s message in a typical prophetic formula (2:1b),78 reminiscent of the ANE messengers. While the term angel is predominantly used as heavenly angels in Revelation, this usage is still closely connected with the sinful earthly church which is held responsible and accountable for its actions; the message is mediated by this special messenger. Regardless of whether this angel is of divine origin or human envoy from within the churches its function remains the same – a recipient (2:1; etc.) and deliverer of the divine message of John. The Spirit’s message reaches the churches (2:7; etc.) through the meditorial work of the angels (2:1; etc.). This is precisely the role of the messenger in ANEVT: a messenger who carries/delivers the royal message of the suzerain.

Messenger Preamble Formula It appears that the preamble is multilayered in the message of Revelation as it is a complex montage of prophetic messages set in the broader context of the covenant lawsuit message of the book itself.79 The classic OT prophetic messenger formula,80 ta,de le,gei W (or some variation) is repeatedly used to introduce what the king (W) will say to each church (2:1, 8, 12, 18; 3:1a, 7, 14).81 According to Kirby, this section is designed “to establish the ethos of the Christ of the vision (1:10–20) so that he is then able to administer praise and blame with the authority accorded to divinity.”82 As Campbell 78

Muse, “Rev 2–3,” 147–61. Bandy, “Lawsuit,” 362–63; Strand, “Covenantal Form,” 251–64; Sutton, Prosper, 253–67; Chilton, Vengeance, 15. 80 Osborne, Rev, 128. While Müller identifies ta,de le,gei within Revelation as a “messenger formula of Old Testament prophecy,” he goes further to identify the messages to the churches as eschatological sermons, unlike the OT judgment speeches (Prophetie, 47–49). 81 Beale, Rev, 229. 82 Kirby, “Rhetorical,” 201. Aune points out that “the messenger formula, and the more comprehensive commission formula not only reflect the OT prophets’ view of themselves as messengers, but also and more importantly they are formulaic means of affirming the divine origin and truth of the prophetic message” (Prophecy, 115). 79

142

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

has argued, “The covenant mechanism provides the logic for such credibility and authority.”83 The various titles of Christ found in the SMR, which are drawn from chapter one of Revelation, can be identified with the suzerain84 in the preamble of the ANEVT.85 The Great King (W) identifies himself as “the First and the Last. I am the Living One; I was dead, and behold I am alive for ever and ever!” (1:17–18; cf. 1:8; 10–20).86 Various parts of these titles are repeated individually in the message to the churches identifying a different aspect of the Suzerain/King, the Great King of the covenant,87 as the lawsuit is delivered to the messengers (a;ggeloj) of the churches. The use of the ta,de le,gei W formula in the messages reveals that Jesus is speaking in the role of Yahweh, and John stands in the role of Yahweh’s prophet with divine/prophetic authority.88 Aune recounts how ta,de was obsolete in first-century

83

Campbell, “Findings,” 79 n. 33. The title “King of king and Lord of lords” (19:16) presents Christ as the great king of the covenant who speaks as the suzerain. 85 In the biblical accounts, the message of the suzerain is communicated through human agents; i.e. Moses, Joshua, and John. Craigie, Deuteronomy, 38. This should not be taken to mean that the human agents were the kings but indicates their role as spokesman through their prophetic office. Significantly, the authority of the divine message of the King is in no way diminished simply because it passes through the prophetic offices. For example, in Exodus 7:1–2 Moses is as God to Aaron, Aaron is Moses’ prophet or messenger, and Pharaoh is the recipient of the prophetic word. Robertson, Final Word, 6. 86 Rev 1:12–20. There are parallels with the opening verses of Revelation (1:1) and Deuteronomy (Deut 1:3) with Moses and John (and angel) both given a revelation from the transcendent God. Sutton, Prosper, 255. 87 Various titles for Jesus Christ are recorded throughout Revelation as in Lamb (avrni,on used 30 times only in Rev), and King of kings and Lord of Lords (19:16) just to mention a few. John A. Bengel points out that the phrase “who is and who was and who is to come” in 1:4, 8 recalls the covenant name for Yahweh, “I am who I am,” used in Exod 3:14 (“Word Studies in Revelation,” in vol. 2 of New Testament Word Studies [new trans. by Charlton T. Lewis and Marvin R. Vincent; Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1971], 2:413). 88 Osborne, Rev, 111 n. 5; Muse, “Rev 2–3,” 147–61; Wilson, “Promise Sayings,” 12. 84

CHAPTER FOUR-LITERARY STRUCTURE

143

Koine Greek89 and thus conveys a sense of archaism,90 arguing for John re-employing an ancient prophetic form. Ephesus “These are the words91 of him (Ta,de le,gei W) who Smyrna Pergamum Thyatira Sardis

Philadelphia

Laodicea SmyrnaMagnesia treaty

89

holds the seven stars in his right hand and walks among the seven golden lampstands:” (2:1b). “These are the words of him (Ta,de le,gei W) who is the First and the Last, who died and came to life again (2:8). “These are the words of him (Ta,de le,gei W) who has the sharp, double-edged sword” (2:12b). “These are the words of the Son of God (Ta,de le,gei W), whose eyes are like blazing fire and whose feet are like burnished bronze” (2:18b). “These are the words of him (Ta,de le,gei W) who holds the seven spirits of God and the seven stars. I know your deeds; you have a reputation of being alive, but you are dead” (3:1b). “These are the words of him (Ta,de le,gei W) who is holy and true, who holds the key of David. What he opens no-one can shut, and what he shuts noone can open” (3:7b). “These are the words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the ruler of God’s creation (Ta,de le,gei W)” (3:14b). While the strict Ta,de le,gei W formula is absent here, there is a functional preamble with the identity of the speaker. “Resolved by the demos, proposal of the strategoi.”92 (241–242 BC). Also,

Aune, “Form,” 187; Rev 1–5, 121. Aune, “Form,” 187. 91 The comparative features of each of the elements are italicized to aid in the comparison between the various periods since different vocabulary is sometimes used in different eras. 92 Bengtson and Schmitt, DSA 3:492.1; Dittenberger, OGIS 1:229.1. These treaties between cities are not classic suzerain/vassal treaties; however, they do demonstrate many of the suzerain/vassal characteristics of a 90

144

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

Hippocratic Oath Prophets

Joshua Deuteronomy Decalogue ANEVT

this is present in the Ephebic and Plataean oaths (1–6; 4th cent. BC), and the AugustusPaphlagonians treaty (1–7; 3 BC). The preamble is missing in the Hippocratic Oath in line with many of the ANEVT.93 “This is what the LORD says: (ta,de le,gei W, LXX Amos 1:6, 9, 11, 13; 2:1, 4, 6, 11, 12; 5:3, 4, 15; 7:11, 17; Mic 2:3; 3:5; etc.). ta,de le,gei W is used 390 times in the Hebrew prophets (see discussion below). “This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: (ta,de le,gei W, LXX; Josh 24:2a). “Thus says the Lord.” KJV “These are the words (oi` lo,goi ou]j evla,lhsen LXX) Moses spoke to all Israel in the desert east of the Jordan.” (Deut 1:1–6a).94 “And God spoke all these words (lo,gouj tou,touj le,gwn LXX)” (Exod 20:1).95 §1 “[Thus says]96 My Majesty, Mursili, [Great King, King of Hatti], Hero, Beloved of the Storm-god; [son of] Suppiluliuma, [Great King, King of Hatti, Hero]:”97

Table 3. Messenger Preamble Comparison greater over a lesser, dealings between the city of Smyrna and the soldiers at Magnesia and those at Magnesia becoming citizens of Smyrna. 93 In this context, the teacher is providing the solemn oath and is not acting as a prophet. See chapter 3—The Hippocratic Oath (ca. 460–ca. 377 BC), 71. 94 Weinfeld, Deuteronomic School, 66. 95 Nicholson, following McCarthy, rejects Mendenhall and others’ view “that the influence of the treaty-form can be seen in the Sinai periscope in Exodus 19:1–24; 11 or, more exclusively, in the decalogue in Exodus 20” (God and His People, 68). See chapter twelve of McCarthy, Treaty. However, Nicholson concentrates on the dissimilarities rather than on the parallels and does not take into consideration the unique context for the biblical usage. 96 Square brackets within the ANEVT quotes are provided by Beckman.

CHAPTER FOUR-LITERARY STRUCTURE

145

Ta,de le,gei W is only found once in the NT outside of Revelation but also within the context of the NT prophet Agabus (Acts 21:11).98 The use of this phrase by Agabus and John indicates that it is part of the continuation of the inspired OT prophetic method. Persian kings employed the formula ta,de le,gei W in the introduction of their royal decrees (Josephus Ant. 11.26).99 This messenger formula was also found in a prophetic speech of the Mari letters.100 This has led Aune to compare the messages to imperial edicts.101 However, the close proximity of the ta,de le,gei W formula with the other ANEVT elements argues for their inclusion as part of the ANEVT package. Given the proliferation of the ta,de le,gei W formula in the 102 OT, with over 424 occurrences in the OT prophets,103 the early

97 Beckman, Hittite Diplomatic Texts, 59. To illustrate the ANEVT structure within the biblical text, extracts from a sample treaty between Mursilis II (c. 1339–1306 BC) and Tuppi-Teshshup of Amurru (Modern northern coastal region of Lebanon) is cited in each treaty element of the comparison tables (Beckman, Hittite Diplomatic Texts, 59–64). This treaty is a representative sample of many of the Hittite treaties of the second century. Other similar treaties include, but are not limited to, those between Shattiwaza of Mittanni and Suppiluliuma I of Hatti, Muwattalli II of Hatti and Alaksandu of Wilusa, and Tudhaliya IV of Hatti and Shaushga-muwa of Amurru (Beckman, Hittite Diplomatic Texts, 42–48; 87–93; 103–108). See McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant, 84; and William W. Hallo and K. Lawson Younger Jr., eds., Context of Scripture (3 vols.; Leiden: Brill, 1997–2002), 3:94–100. 98 Hill, NT Prophecy, 77. 99 Bauer et al., eds., “o[de, h[de, to,de,” BDAG 553; Aune, Rev 1–5, 126– 29; “Form,” 187. 100 Aune, Prophecy, 89. 101 See chapter 3—Imperial Edicts, 54. 102 Hebrew hwhy rma hk (LXX ta,de le,gei ku,rioj) is used 34 times in the Minor Prophets, 64 times in Jeremiah, 26 times in Isaiah, and 127 times in Ezekiel. Of the six prophetic formula classifications identified by Aune the message formula, “Thus says Yahweh,” is the formula employed by John in Revelation. Aune, Prophecy, 89–90; Beale, Rev, 111. 103 The statistics were calculated using the Hebrew order of the prophetic books. Representative examples, of the 424 occurrences of ta,de le,gei, include Amos 1:6; Mic 2:3, Obad 1:1; Hag 1:2; Zech 1:3.

146

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

church would clearly understand this as a prophetic term.104 Throughout the OT, various endings are added to the prophetic formula, such as Lord God of Israel;105 Sovereign Lord;106 of the Hebrews;107 of David;108 and the Lord Almighty.109 Thus, this pattern of ta,de le,gei W, followed by a royal title, constitutes a messenger formula introducing a recognized prophetic oracle. Ta,de le,gei W was also used to convey a royal message through a messenger (Exod 5:10; 1 Kgs 2:30; 20:2, 5; 2 Kgs 1:11; 18:19, 29; Isa 36:4, 14, 16; 1 Esd 2:2; Jdt 2:5). Thus, this places the proclamations more in the genre of prophetic messages than mere letters or apocalyptic writing.110 Frequently111 the ANEVT text would open with the statement, “These are the words of. . . ,” followed by the identification of the suzerain. The primary function of the preamble within the ANEVT was to identify the character of the Suzerain/King who establishes the covenant. Normally the preamble contains the opening words (LXX le,gei; Akkadian awāte)112 of the suzerain,

Walter Bauer, “o[de, h[de, to,de,” BDAG 553. Used 20 times e.g., Ezek 34:18; Jer 7:3; Isa 17:6. 106 Used 7 times exclusively in Isa 7:7; 10:24; 14:24; 17:3; 19:4; 22:15, 104 105

25. 107

Used in Exod 9:1; 10:3. Used in 2 Chr 21:12; Isa 38:5. 109 “Lord Almighty” is used 28 times primarily in Zechariah and Haggai (e.g., Zech 1:3). Only this last name phrase is used nine times in Revelation (1:8; 4:8; 11:17; 15:3; 16:7, 14; 19:6, 15; 21:22). 110 Beale, Rev, 229; Bauckham, Theology, 5; Hill, NT Prophecy, 81–82; Bandy, “Lawsuit,” 207. According to Westermann, “Lindblom investigates the (later so-called) ‘messenger formula,’ ‘Thus said the Lord,’ and finds out that it is exclusively characteristic of prophetic literature” (Prophetic Speech, 35, 82). 111 The preamble was “attested in all periods in all locations” (Walton, Israelite Literature, 102). John A. Thompson, “The Near Eastern SuzerainVassal Concept in the Religion of Israel,” JRH 3 (1964): 4. 112 J. Wijngaards, Vazal van Jahweh (Baarn: Bosch & Keuning, 1965), 153. 108

CHAPTER FOUR-LITERARY STRUCTURE

147

which identify his name, title, attributes, and occasionally his genealogy.113 The prophetic uses of ta,de le,gei W brings to bear the covenant lawsuit against the disobedient people of God to return to their covenant pledge (Amos 2:4; Zech 1:3). The messenger formula is not only deeply prophetic, but it is also an integral part of the covenant relationship of the suzerain who speaks “Thus says the Lord” to his vassal.114 Minear points out the strong emotional impact of the formula: This conventional formula, simple and direct, would conjure up in a worshipping congregation the fear and trembling associated with standing before God and hearing his awesome words of judgment and warning (Exod 19:5–25; Deut 5:2– 5).115

John, therefore, adopts ta,de le,gei W as his prophetic messenger formula or “oracular preamble“116 to introduce the Suzerain/King who would judge the church in classic OT prophetic prescription and to make the message understandable to a firstcentury reader with a Jewish background.

Historical Prologue Immediately following the ta,de le,gei W, each of the SMR begins with the classic prophetic oi=da (to know [dy) phrase,117 which Hillers identifies as a “literary pattern known as the lawsuit of God.”118 113

Mendenhall, “Covenant Forms,” 59; Shea, “Covenantal,” 72–73; Youngblood, Heart of the OT, 42–43; Thompson, Treaties, 16; Kline, Treaty, 50; Walton, Israelite Literature, 101; Kitchen, Ancient Orient, 92. 114 Matitiahu Tsevat, “The Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian Vassal Oaths and the Prophet Ezekiel,” JBL 78 (1959): 199–204; Thompson, “Suzerain-Vassal,” 12; Harvey, «RÎB-pattern,» 180–88. 115 Minear, New Earth, 43. 116 Hill, NT Prophecy, 77. 117 Hartman, “Form,” 143. Baltzer uses antecedent history (Baltzer, Covenant, 20–24) while Aune identifies this as the narratio section (Rev 1–5, 121). 118 Delbert R. Hillers, Covenant: The History of a Biblical Idea (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins, 1969), 120.

148

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

The king, who enters into covenant with his subjects, acknowledges his historical intimacy with their circumstances so that we are justified in calling this section a historical prologue. The historical prologues within the seven churches all convey Jesus’ knowledge (oi=da I know) of the deeds (e;rga) of the vassals and indicate previous knowledge and past relationship.119 Five of the messages use the phrase oi=da, sou ta. e;rga; Smyrna and Pergamum record a variation of phrases (th.n qli/yin and pou/ katoikei/j). This variation may be due to the distinction in circumstance for each of these churches. It is not their deeds which are highlighted, but rather Smyrna’s afflictions and poverty, as well as the location of Satan’s throne in Pergamum. This still does not negate the historical nature of prologue and the suzerain’s knowledge of each church, but it demonstrates the intimate history between the two parties. The dissimilarities in phrasing are consistent with the ANEVT influence and do not weaken it. Ephesus “I know your deeds (Oi=da ta. e;rga), your hard work

Smyrna

119

and your perseverance. I know that you cannot tolerate wicked men, that you have tested those who claim to be apostles but are not, and have found them false. You have persevered and have endured hardships for my name, and have not grown weary. Yet I hold this against you: You have forsaken your first love. . . . But you have this in your favor: You hate the practices of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate.” (2:2–4, 6). “I know your afflictions (Oi=da, sou th.n qli/yin) and your poverty-- yet you are rich! I know the slander

de Lassus, «Le Septénaire,» 41. Bandy points out a distinction between the ANEVT, where the historical prologue was meant to “rehearse the prior relationship between the two parties,” and the oracle which “merely recounts the deeds of the churches” (“Lawsuit,” 217). However, there is a previous historical knowledge that God is involved in, as he “walks among the lampstands” (2:1), holds the seven stars (3:1), and where Pergamum “remains true to my name” (2:13). This history cannot be denied in both situations and creates a functional equivalence with the ANEVT.

CHAPTER FOUR-LITERARY STRUCTURE

Pergamum

Thyatira

Sardis Philadelphia

Laodicea

149

of those who say they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan” (2:9). “I know (Oi=da pou/ katoikei/j) where you live– where Satan has his throne. Yet you remain true to my name. You did not renounce your faith in me, even in the days of Antipas, my faithful witness, who was put to death in your city–where Satan lives. Nevertheless, I have a few things against you: You have people there who hold to the teaching of Balaam, who taught Balak to entice the Israelites to sin by eating food sacrificed to idols and by committing sexual immorality. Likewise you also have those who hold to the teaching of the Nicolaitans” (2:13–15). “I know your deeds (Oi=da, sou ta. e;rga), your love and faith, your service and perseverance, and that you are now doing more than you did at first. Nevertheless, I have this against you: You tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess. By her teaching she misleads my servants into sexual immorality and the eating of food sacrificed to idols. I have given her time to repent of her immorality, but she is unwilling” (2:19–21). “I know your deeds (Oi=da, sou ta. e;rga); you have a reputation of being alive, but you are dead” (3:1c). “I know your deeds (Oi=da, sou ta. e;rga). See, I have placed before you an open door that no-one can shut. I know that you have little strength, yet you have kept my word and have not denied my name. I will make those who are of the synagogue of Satan, who claim to be Jews though they are not, but are liars–I will make them come and fall down at your feet and acknowledge that I have loved you” (3:8–9). “I know your deeds (Oi=da, sou ta. e;rga), your love and faith, your service and perseverance, and that you are now doing more than you did at first. Nevertheless, I have this against you: You tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess. By her teaching she misleads my servants

150

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

SmyrnaMagnesia treaty

Hippocratic Oath

Prophets

Joshua

120

into sexual immorality and the eating of food sacrificed to idols. I have given her time to repent of her immorality, but she is unwilling” (2:19–21). “Whereas previously, at the time when King Seleucus crossed over into Seleukis, when many and great perils beset our city and territory, the demos maintained its good-will and friendship toward him. . . etc.” (241–242 BC).120 The typical formulaic style of the ANEVT is missing because it is not a suzerainty treaty. However, it does function as a historical prologue. The historical prologue is missing in this document, which is often the case with the Hittite treaties.121 However, there is certainly an acknowledgment of history with the teacher expressed in the future financial obligations for the student’s previous education. “I brought you up out of Egypt and redeemed you from the land of slavery. I sent Moses to lead you, also Aaron and Miriam. My people, remember what Balak king of Moab counseled and what Balaam son of Beor answered. Remember your journey from Shittim to Gilgal, that you may know the righteous acts of the LORD” (Mic 6:4– 5). “But I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt.” (Hos 13:4). “Remember the law of my servant Moses, the decrees and laws I gave him at Horeb for all Israel” (Mal 4:4).122 “But I took your father Abraham from the land beyond the River and led him throughout Canaan and gave him many descendants. I gave him Isaac, and to Isaac I gave Jacob and Esau. I assigned the

Bengtson and Schmitt, DSA 3:492.2–33; Dittenberger, OGIS 1:229.2–33. 121 See chapter 3—The Hippocratic Oath (ca. 460–ca. 377 BC), 71. 122 Other examples using knowledge (t[d) are found in Jeremiah 22:15–16 and Hosea 4:1–2.

CHAPTER FOUR-LITERARY STRUCTURE

Deuteronomy

Decalogue

123

151

hill country of Seir to Esau, but Jacob and his sons went down to Egypt. . . Then I sent Moses and Aaron, and I afflicted the Egyptians by what I did there, and I brought you out. . . . I brought you to the land of the Amorites who lived east of the Jordan. . . . I sent the hornet ahead of you, which drove them out before you. . . . So I gave you a land on which you did not toil” (Josh 24:2b–13, 17–18). “The LORD our God said to us at Horeb, “You have stayed long enough at this mountain. . . . See, I have given you this land. . . . I took the leading men of your tribes. . . . I gave the Reubenites and the Gadites the territory north of Aroer. . . I know you have much livestock. . . . I commanded Joshua” (Deut 1:6–3:29).123 “I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery” (Exod 20:2).124

The first person pronoun “I” is used 37 times in these three verses, and this is consistent with the characteristic of the historical prologue. Nicholson protests that the resemblance with the vassal treaties is “more apparent than real” since Deuteronomy “is not a legal document in the sense that the treaties are. It is not treaty-like in its manner of presentation; rather, it is a valedictory speech of Moses, an extended oration in homiletic style” (God and His People, 70–71). Weinfeld responds that Moses, who “was apparently familiar with the structure of political treaties, has here supplied the formal validating part of the covenant lacking in the earlier [Exodus] sources” (Deuteronomic School, 67). It appears that Moses was free to present his material free from rigid formality. Nicholson also bases his argument on a late date and similarities with the Assyrian treaties rather than the acknowledged parallels with the earlier Hittite treaties. Kitchen, “Patriarchal Age,” 54–55; Reliability, 287–88. 124 The historical prologue within the Decalogue conveys the suzerain’s knowledge (oi=da LXX) of the deeds (e;rgon LXX) of the vassals. “But I know (oi=da LXX) that the king of Egypt will not let you go unless a mighty hand compels him” (Exod 3:19). “They made their lives bitter with hard labour (e;rgon LXX) in brick and mortar and with all kinds of work (e;rgon LXX) in the fields; in all their hard labour (e;rgon LXX) the

152

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

ANEVT

§2 “Aziru, your [grandfather, Tuppi-Teshshup], became the subject of my father.12 When it came about that the kings of the land of Nuhashshi [and the king of the land of Kinza became hostile (to my father)], Aziru did not become hostile.13 [When my father made war on his enemies], Aziru likewise made war. And Aziru protected only my father, and my father protected [Aziru], together with his land. . . . [An undetermined number of lines have been lost.] §4 But when your father died, according to [the request of your father], I did not cast you off. My father died, and I [took my seat] upon the throne [of my father]. . . §5 And as I took care of you according to the request of your father, and installed you in place of your father, I have now made you swear an oath to the King of Hatti and the land of Hatti, and to my sons and grandsons.”125

Table 4. Historical Prologue Comparison126

The historical context of the suzerainty treaty lists the suzerain’s knowledge as designating a “mutual legal recognition on the Egyptians used them ruthlessly” (Exod 1:14). Nicholson draws attention to an apparent dissimilarity with the treaties but focuses on Exodus 19 as the historical prologue rather than Exodus 20:1. Nicholson, God and His People, 69. According to Kitchen, McCarthy hesitates to make a clear correlation between the treaties and Sinai covenant, on a false premise that Hittite treaties lack historical prologues and are “untrue for proper copies, including Mursil II/Niqmepa” (Reliability, 290). See McCarthy, OT Covenant; Treaty and Covenant, 51–85; Amir Sumaka’i Fink, “The Historical Prologue in a Letter from Šuppiluliuma II to ‘Ammurapi’, King of Ugarit (RS 18.038),” in “I will Speak the Riddles of Ancient Times” (eds. Aren M. Maeir and Pierre de Miroschedji: vol 2. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2006), 674, 682–83; and Walton, Israelite Literature, 102. Beckman observes that the historical prologue is actually a “striking peculiarity of the Hittite documents. . . a feature seldom found elsewhere” (“Hittite Treaties,” 298). 125 Beckman, Hittite Diplomatic Texts, 59. 126 Emphasis added.

CHAPTER FOUR-LITERARY STRUCTURE

153

part of the suzerain and vassal,”127 particularly of the vassal’s past relationship to the Great King.128 Its purpose was primarily a historical summary. Fink highlights several important characteristics of the historical prologue in Hittite letters: (1) in most letters, it directly follows the opening formula; (2) it is abbreviated in order to conform to letter conventions; (3) the father or ancestors of the correspondent and of the addressee are in many cases the focal point of the prologue; and (4) frequently, the historical prologue, which at first glance seems merely nostalgic, in fact provides justification and legitimization for a significant request or demand presented by the sender later on in the letter.129

Thompson concludes that: “it provided the raison d’être for the establishment of the treaty,”130 it revealed formal terms that keep recurring. Huffmon is the first to indicate that the Near Eastern suzerain used the verb to know (Hebrew [dy; Hittite šak; Akkadian idû) “in two technical legal senses: to recognize as legitimate suzerain or vassal, and to recognize treaty stipulations as binding.”131 127

Huffmon, “Treaty Background,” 31–37. Mendenhall, “Covenant Forms,” 59; Thompson, Treaties, 16; Thompson, “Suzerain-Vassal,” 4; Walton, Israelite Literature, 102. The historical prologue characteristic of the Hittite treaties of the second millennium is noticeably absent from the Assyrian treaties of the first millennium BC (Nicholson, God and His People, 66). Weinfeld speculates that the historical prologue’s absence in the Assyrian documents is “not that it was unknown to the Assyrians but, more likely, a matter of principle” (Deuteronomic School, 68). Nicholson also points out that Deuteronomy is missing the “designation of Yahweh as king” although it is likely that Yahweh is called king in Deuteronomy 33:5. Nicholson dismisses it as a “late interpolation into the book” (God and His People, 71 n. 31). For a critical evaluation of Nicholson, see Kitchen, “Fall and Rise of Covenant,” 118–35. For an extensive treatment of the “historical prologue” in the Hittite treaties, see Amnon Altman, The Historical Prologue of the Hittite Vassal Treaties (Ramat-Gan, Israel: Bar-Ilan University Press, 2004). 129 Fink, “Historical Prologue,” 2:682–83. 130 Thompson, “Suzerain-Vassal,” 4. 131 Hillers, Covenant, 121; Huffmon, “Treaty Background,” 31–37; Huffmon and Parker, “Further Note,” 36–38. 128

154

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

Hillers points out the adapted use of the common verb “to know” in the ANE and its implications for the prophets: thus verbs meaning “to know” in ordinary contexts were used for “to recognize,” “be loyal to,” in the vocabulary of international relations over a wide range of the ancient world, and the reader will anticipate the significance of this for the prophets.132

Mendenhall points out another formal characteristic of ANEVT in “the ‘I–Thou’ form of address. Since the Hittite king is the author of the covenant, he speaks in the first person directly to the vassal.”133 The first person perspective is also identifiable in Revelation.

Formal Ethical Stipulations The transition in the text is indicated by the imperative verbs, fashioned as ethical stipulations within the messages, and presented in terms of commands:134 repent (2:5, 16, 21, 22, 3:3, 19), remember (2:5; 3:3), do not be afraid (2:10), be faithful (2:10, 13; 3:14), wake up (3:2, 3), and be earnest (3:19).135 The stipulations are connected with the blessing and cursing, as in the OT covenant stipulations of Deuteronomy 30:19. All churches are exhorted to repent,136 except Smyrna and Philadelphia; these churches are exhorted to continue in faithfulness. These exhortations to the churches function in the same way as the stipulations in a covenant, conveying the new covenant obligation of faithfulness to their king.137

132

Hillers, Covenant, 122. Mendenhall, “Covenant Forms,” 59. 134 Aune identifies the central sections of each proclamation as dispositio, which means “arrangement,” not marked by any characteristic phrase but imperative verbs (Rev 1–5, 122). 135 Aune identifies the formulae “let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches” and “the one who overcomes” as stipulations or injunctions, though they are more implicit (Rev 1–5, 126). 136 Thyatira is to change its ways. 137 Shea, “Covenantal,” 75. 133

CHAPTER FOUR-LITERARY STRUCTURE Ephesus Smyrna

Pergamum Thyatira

Sardis

Philadelphia Laodicea

SmyrnaMagnesia treaty

155

“Remember the height from which you have fallen! Repent and do the things you did at first” (2:5a). “Do not be afraid of what you are about to suffer. I tell you, the devil will put some of you in prison to test you, and you will suffer persecution for ten days. Be faithful, even to the point of death, and I will give you the crown of life” (2:10). “Repent therefore!” (2:16a). “Now I say to the rest of you in Thyatira, to you who do not hold to her teaching and have not learned Satan’s so-called deep secrets (I will not impose any other burden on you): Only hold on to what you have until I come”(2:24–25). “Wake up! Strengthen what remains and is about to die, for I have not found your deeds complete in the sight of my God. . . . Remember, therefore, what you have received and heard; obey it, and repent.” (3:2–3a). “I am coming soon. Hold on to what you have, so that no-one will take your crown” (3:11). “I counsel you to buy from me gold refined in the fire, so that you can become rich; and white clothes to wear, so that you can cover your shameful nakedness; and salve to put on your eyes, so that you can see. Those whom I love I rebuke and discipline. So be earnest, and repent.” (3:18–19). “I shall abide by the agreements which I conclude with the Smyrnaeans for all time; and I shall preserve the alliance and good-will toward King Seleucus and the city of the Smyrnaeans; and I shall preserve . . . etc.”138 (241–242 BC). These words are also present in Ephebic and Plataean oaths (6-14; 14–16; 4th cent. BC) and the AugustusPaphlagonians treaty (9-16; 16–24; 3 BC).

138 Bengtson and Schmitt, DSA 3:492.62–68, 73–77; Dittenberger, OGIS 1:229.62–68, 73–77.

156

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

Hippocratic Oath

Prophets

Joshua

Deuteronomy

“that I will fulfil according to my power and judgment this oath and this covenant. . . I will prescribe regimen in order to benefit the sick, and not to do them injury or wrong.” (Hippoc. Jusj. 1:289 [Jones and Withington, LCL]).139 “Again and again I sent all my servants the prophets to you. They said, ‘Each of you must turn from your wicked ways and reform your actions; do not follow other gods to serve them. Then you will live in the land I have given to you and your fathers.’ But you have not paid attention or listened to me” (Jer 35:15). “Though you commit adultery, O Israel, let not Judah become guilty. “Do not go to Gilgal; do not go up to Beth Aven. And do not swear, ‘As surely as the LORD lives!’ (Hos 4:15). “Now fear the LORD and serve him with all faithfulness. Throw away the gods your forefathers worshipped beyond the River and in Egypt, and serve the LORD. But if serving the LORD seems undesirable to you, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your forefathers served beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you are living. But as for me and my household, we will serve the LORD. ‘Now then’, said Joshua, ‘throw away the foreign gods that are among you and yield your hearts to the LORD, the God of Israel’” (Basic— Josh 24:14–15; Detailed—Josh 24:14–25). “These are the stipulations, decrees and laws Moses gave them when they came out of Egypt” (Deut 4:45). “Hear now, O Israel, the decrees and laws I am about to teach you. Follow them so that you may live and may go in and take possession of

139 This oath is made to the medical students’ teacher prior to entering the medical practice and is made in the presence of the witnesses listed in the preamble.

CHAPTER FOUR-LITERARY STRUCTURE

Decalogue

ANEVT

157

the land that the LORD, the God of your fathers, is giving you” (Deut 5:1; Basic—Deut 4– 11; Detailed—Deut 12–26).140 “You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God” (Exod 20:3–17; Basic— Exod 22–31; Detailed—Lev 1–25). §5 “Observe the oath and the authority of the King. I, My Majesty, will protect you, TuppiTeshshup. And when you take a wife and produce a son, he shall later be king in the land of Amurru. And as you protect My Majesty, I will likewise protect your son. You, Tuppi-Teshshup, in the future protect the King of Hatti, the land of Hatti, my sons, and my grandsons. . . . You shall not turn your eyes to another. . . §8 As I, My Majesty, protect you, Tuppi-Teshshup, be an auxiliary army for My Majesty and [for Hatti]. . . [etc.].”141

Table 5. Stipulations Comparison142

Within the ANEVT context, this section sets forth the covenant “obligations imposed upon and accepted by the vassal.”143 Baltzer distinguishes between basic and detailed stipulations.144 140

While Nicholson has challenged Weinfeld’s views on the stipulations and law section, Weinfeld argues that although the ANEVT differ from Deuteronomy in “substance,” they are “functionally equivalent” (Deuteronomic School, 148). 141 Beckman, Hittite Diplomatic Texts, 60–62. 142 Emphasis added. 143 Mendenhall, “Covenant Forms,” 59; “Covenant,” IDB 1:714; Shea, “Covenantal,” 72; Bright, Covenant, 37; Thompson, “SuzerainVassal,” 4; McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant, 51 n. 3. The vassal-treaties of Esarhaddon list thirty-three stipulations, which follow the divine witnesses, and are to be kept by the vassal. Parpola and Watanabe, Treaties, nos.1–6, 46–57; Wiseman, “Vassal-Treaties,” 23–24.

158

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

Mendenhall observes that a key element of the Hittite treaty145 is that “the parity between the vassals, created by the Hittite king must not be changed. One cannot be a slave or dependant of another. Every hostile action against a co-vassal is hostility against the king himself.”146 The dominant theme of the ANEVT stipulations was the vassal’s loyalty and faithfulness with all controversies to be settled by the suzerain.147 Loyalty to the suzerain would ensure protection and avoid punishment and possible attack.148 What is more, Altman points out that “the vassal’s obligations, as well as the suzerain’s undertakings, were backed by a ceremonial oath taken by both of them before the images of the gods.”149

Sanctions The text moves from the ethical stipulations and legal requirements of the seven churches, to the sanctions150 set out for obedience or disobedience. The sanctions are clearly aligned with the faithfulness of the church (2–3) and resulting in the blessing of the new crea144 Baltzer, Covenant, 20, 22–24. Walton identifies stipulations formulated in the precative, imperative, and conditional forms (Israelite Literature, 103). 145 For the similarities with the stipulations of the king of Mari see J. R. Kupper, “Zimri-Lim et ses vassaux,” in Marchands, Diplomates et Empereurs, Etudes sur la civilisation mésopotamienne offertes à P. Garelli (eds. D. Charpin and F. Joannès; Paris: Recherche sur la Civilisations, 1911), 179– 84. 146 Mendenhall, “Covenant Forms,” 59. 147 Thompson, Treaties, 16. 148 Lucas argues for the gracious nature of the stipulations as “the vassal keeps the stipulations of the covenant not to earn favour but as a response of gratitude for the overlord’s benefactions” (“Covenant,” 23). However, Lucas misses the element of threat and obligation in his comments. 149 Altman, “Rethinking,” 748; “Who Took an Oath on a Vassal Treaty: Only the Vassal King or Also the Suzerain?—the Hittite Evidence,” ZABR 9 (2003): 178–84; contra Beckman, Hittite Diplomatic Texts, 2. 150 Campbell prefers the term sanctions “since the issue is ratification of the covenant” and prefers “a designation which covers both eventualities” of blessing and curse (“Findings,” 80 n. 40).

CHAPTER FOUR-LITERARY STRUCTURE

159

tion (no more curse 22:3, 7, 14) or with unfaithfulness and the curse (absence of the blessings 20:12–15).151 However, the messages within the new covenant focus on the blessings152 and the promise of salvation in contrast with the OT and ANEVT pattern.153 Because of this change in order de Lassus argues that the SMR are inconsistent with the ANEVT.154 However, ANEVT were also inconsistent in the use of the malediction and benediction. Hillers notes, “That a few Assyrian inscriptions contain only a blessing, promised to those who will care for the memorial, and no curse.”155 Benediction: All seven churches mention a blessing, while only six of the churches mention curses,156 leaving Philadelphia (3:10) without a malediction. The OT provides the framework for a biblical understanding of the benediction and malediction, which may shed light on the covenantal pattern evident in the messages to the churches. Within an OT covenant structure, one of the ways the consequences of the blessings and curses are reflected in their relationship, is with the inheritance of land (longevity or exile). Those displaying covenant faithfulness would live long in the land and be established by God and not destroyed (~rx āram or êrem, 151

Du Preez, “Mission,” 154. Shea prefers the order blessing then cursing, since the messages focus on blessings (“Covenantal,” 74). Note that in the OT blessings precede curse in Lev 26 and are definitely evident in Deut 27–30. 153 Bandy, “Lawsuit,” 218 n. 120. The blessing is rare in ANEVT, but it is found at the end of the law code of Hammurabi and Hittite treaties. Wiseman, “Vassal-Treaties,” 27. Weinfeld explains the absence of the blessing in the Assyrian treaties in that “the Hittites felt it necessary not only to justify their demands for loyalty but also to give promises of help in time of danger, as well as to bestow divine blessings for loyal service. The Assyrian treaties neither gave promises to the vassal nor bestowed blessings, but, on the contrary, they increased and expanded the list of threats and curses in order to terrorize him” (Deuteronomic School, 68). 154 de Lassus, «Le Septénaire,» 44. 155 Hillers, Treaty-curses, 6 n. 18; cf. chapter 4—Inconsistent Pattern, 212. 156 The curse is present in Ephesus 2:5b; Smyrna 2:10a; Pergamum 2:16b; Thyatira 2:22–23; Sardis 3:3b; and Laodicea 3:16 while absent in Philadelphia. 152

160

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

destruction157 Exod 22:20; Deut 4:1, 4; 8:1–4, 18–20; 11:9; 16:20; 28:9). Longevity of life is central to the covenant blessing in the OT. McCarthy explains that some of the ANEVT included a land grant.158 Wijngaard states that the promise of the land was considered one of the greatest gifts of the suzerain to the vassal.159 For Israel, the gift of land was first understood as Canaan (Gen 12:7; 15:18; Deut 1:8), then as the Davidic Kingdom (2 Sam 7), and ultimately as the new heaven and the new earth (Ps 37:11; Isa 65:17; Rev 5:10; 21:1–22:5). Thus, the consummation of the covenant promises to those who overcome is understood eschatologically. Within the NT context, the promise of the inheritance of the land is fulfilled in the inheritance of the kingdom of God,160 which according to Holwerda “embraces all nations, the entire creation, and even the cosmos itself” (1 Cor 3:21–3; Rom 8:17–25; John 6:39, 44, 54).161 Is it possible that the temporal land grant is also promised to the faithful obedience and repentance of the churches (removal or establishment of the lampstand [church 1:20] from its place [2:5]) as a precursor of better things to come? Noticeable is the promise of longevity for those faithful to the covenant (21:7) of course, understood or reinterpreted in a certain way (as is very deliberately done in 1 En. 102:4–104:8). Malediction: The idea of curse is not a foreign concept in Revelation as it is found in Revelation 22:3 (katana,qema) as the fulfilment of Zechariah 14:11 (~rx; LXX avna,qema) and Isaiah 34:1–2 (~rx; LXX avpo,llumi). The curse is removed by the redemptive work of the Lamb (5:6; 5:12; 7:14, 17; 12:11; 17:14; 22:3).162 It is rooted in the ancient idea of the āram or êrem (~rx), defined by 157

See chapter 4—Malediction, 160. McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant, 73. 159 Wijngaards, Vazal, 150. 160 James D. Hester argues that inheritance was an important part of Paul’s argument even though there is no specific mention of it in his letters (Paul’s Concept of Inheritance [Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd, 1968], 82). 161 David E. Holwerda, Jesus and Israel: One Covenant or Two? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 104. 162 Beale, Rev, 1112; D. Müller, “avna,qema,” NIDNTT 1:414. 158

CHAPTER FOUR-LITERARY STRUCTURE

161

BDB as “ban, devote, exterminate. . . most often of devoting to destruction cities of Canaanites and other neighbours of Isr., exterminating inhabitants, and destroying or appropriating their possessions.”163 The ~rx or curse was pronounced on people (Canaanites) as a result of sin; thus, it was understood as a form of punishment within the Torah (Lev 27:19, 28–29; Num 21:2; Deut 13:16–17; Josh 6:21; 10:28; cf. Isa 11:15).164 If the five cursed cities had been destroyed, then this would follow the characteristic archetype of the OT ~rx. According to Aune, the curse’s connection with Zechariah 14:11 leads to the possibility for the removal of suffering and persecution, resulting in absolute protection in the New Jerusalem.165 This would culminate in the ultimate fulfilment of the covenant blessings, and by antithesis the final completion of the malediction in eternal punishment. Further, in a broad sense within the ANEVT, the entire household is affected by the curse.166 The Deuteronomic covenant stresses that the “fruit of your womb will be cursed, and the crops of your land, and the calves of your herds and the lambs of your flocks” (Deut 28:18).167 163

Francis Brown et al., eds., “~rx,” BDB 355–56. HALOT defines ~rx “to dedicate something to Y. by the ban [to devote to destruction] and thus rule out redemption” (Ludwig Koehler et al., eds., “~rx,” HALOT 1:354). See Dempster, “Ban,” 134–37. 164 Philip D. Stern, The Biblical êrem: A Window on Israel’s Religious Experience (BJS 211; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991), 89–121; Hyung Dae Park, Finding Herem? A Study of Luke-Acts in Light of Herem (LNTS 357; ed Mark Goodacre; London: T&T Clark, 2007), 8–17; Beale, Rev, 1112; Osborne, Rev, 773. 165 Aune, Rev 1–5, 1179. 166 Weinfeld, “Common Heritage,” 187–88. The curses are common in the treaties of the Hittite Empire, Old Babylonian, Assyrian, Egyptian, and other periods. As Wiseman points out, the idea of the curse or divine retribution was “an integral part of religious belief throughout the ancient Near East at all periods” (“Vassal-Treaties,” 27). For an analysis of the role of imprecation in the ANE as protectors of the law, see Jan Assman, “When Justice Fails: Jurisdiction and Imprecation in Ancient Egypt and the Near East,” JEA 78 (1992): 149–62. 167 Within the New Covenant there appears to be a more individualistic responsibility (Jer 31:27–30) which moves away from the idea of com-

162

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

For writers of the documents in the NT, Christ (Lamb) fulfils the stipulations of the old covenant through his perfect obedience and by taking upon himself the curse of (kata,qema) the covenant (22:3). The work of Christ enables the believer to appropriate the blessings of forgiveness and eternal life (2:10c) by Christ himself bearing the curse (kata,ra) on the cross (Deut 21:22–23; Gal 3:13). Strand interprets the work of Christ in covenantal terms: the Suzerain’s own infinite sacrifice was made in order to establish the covenant relationship and is the fundamental standard by which to measure the crucial significance of that relationship. It is a relationship so vitally important that it must also be safeguarded by the vassal’s own death, if need be (2:13; 12:11; 14:12–13; etc.).168

Revelation points to the consummation of the covenant through the work of the Lamb (suzerain) by permanently removing the curse (kata,qema 22:3). The Lion/King (5:5) triumphs by humbling himself to become the suffering lamb (5:6, 8) turning the suzerain/vassal motif upside down. Ephesus Curse: “If you do not repent, I will come to you and

Smyrna Pergamum

remove your lampstand from its place” (2:5b). Blessing: “To him who overcomes, I will give the right to eat from the tree of life, which is in the paradise of God” (2:7b). Curse: “you will suffer persecution for ten days (2:10a). Blessing: “I will give you the crown of life” (2:10b). Curse: “Otherwise, I will soon come to you and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth” (2:16b). Blessing: “To him who overcomes, I will give some of the hidden manna. I will also give him a

munal responsibility. Certainly there is no mechanical/magical execution of the curse as symbolized by the imagery of the melting wax. Weinfeld, “Covenant Making,” 138; “Loyalty Oath,” 400–401. However, in contrast to the ANEVT, there is the possibility of the curse being turned into a blessing through repentance. Fensham, “Curses,” 158, 173–74. 168 Strand, “Covenantal Form,” 264.

CHAPTER FOUR-LITERARY STRUCTURE

Thyatira

Sardis

Philadelphia

Laodicea

163

white stone with a new name written on it, known only to him who receives it” (2:17b). Curse: “So I will cast her on a bed of suffering, and I will make those who commit adultery with her suffer intensely, unless they repent of her ways. I will strike her children dead. Then all the churches will know that I am he who searches hearts and minds, and I will repay each of you according to your deeds” (2:22–23). Blessing: “To him who overcomes and does my will to the end, I will give authority over the nations—‘He will rule them with an iron sceptre; he will dash them to pieces like pottery’—[Psalm 2:9] just as I have received authority from my Father. I will also give him the morning star” (2:26–28). Curse: “But if you do not wake up, I will come like a thief, and you will not know at what time I will come to you” (3:3b). Blessing: “Yet you have a few people in Sardis who have not soiled their clothes. They will walk with me, dressed in white, for they are worthy. He who overcomes will, like them, be dressed in white. I will never blot out his name from the Book of Life, but will acknowledge his name before my Father and his angels” (3:4–5). Curse: No malediction present. Blessing: “Since you have kept my command to endure patiently, I will also keep you from the hour of trial that is going to come upon the whole world to test those who live on the earth. . . . Him who overcomes I will make a pillar in the temple of my God. Never again will he leave it. I will write on him the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which is coming down out of heaven from my God; and I will also write on him my new name” (3:10, 12). Curse: “So, because you are lukewarm–neither hot nor cold–I am about to spit you out of my mouth. You say, ‘I am rich; I have acquired wealth and do not need a thing.’ But you do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked” (3:16– 17). Blessing: “Here I am! I stand at the door

164

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

SmyrnaMagnesia treaty Hippocratic Oath

Prophets

and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will go in and eat with him, and he with me. To him who overcomes, I will give the right to sit with me on my throne, just as I overcame and sat down with my Father on his throne” (3:20–21). Blessing: “If I swear truthfully, may all be well for me but [Curse:] if I swear falsely may destruction visit myself and my seed” (241–242 BC).169 Blessing: “If then I fulfil this oath and do not violate it, may I enjoy my life and art and be held in honour among all men for ever; [Curse:] but if I transgress and prove false to my oath, then may the contrary befall me” (Hippoc. Jusj. 1:289 [Jones and Withington, LCL]). Blessing: “I will bless them and the places surrounding my hill. I will send down showers in season; there will be showers of blessing” (Ezek 34:26; see also Hag 2:19). Curse: “And he said to me, ‘This is the curse that is going out over the whole land; for according to what it says on one side, every thief will be banished, and according to what it says on the other, everyone who swears falsely will be banished’” (Zech 5:3).170

169 Weinfeld, “Loyalty Oath,” 398; Bengtson and Schmitt, DSA 3:492.69, 78; Dittenberger, OGIS 1:229.69, 78. These sanctions are also present in the Ephebic and Plataean oaths (40-46; 4th cent. BC), and the Augustus-Paphlagonians treaty (25-35; 3 BC). 170 Fensham and Hillers demonstrate the frequent and striking parallels between the ANEVT, the OT prophetic writings, and the covenant curses (“Curses,” 155–75; “Malediction,” 1–9; Hillers, Covenant, 134–38); contra Eichrodt questions the influence of the ANEVT on the OT: “It is equally questionable whether we are on sure ground when . . . the origin of the pattern of weal and woe, so central to the prophetic message, is seen in the similar features of the curse and blessing formulae of covenant treaties in both the ancient Near East and the Old Testament” (“Prophet and Covenant,” 175). Eichrodt does not provide further explanation for his distinction between weal and woe, particularly when the prophets use the curse and blessing vocabulary.

CHAPTER FOUR-LITERARY STRUCTURE Joshua

Deuteronomy

Decalogue

171

165

Curse: “If you forsake the LORD and serve foreign gods, he will turn and bring disaster on you and make an end of you, [Blessing] after he has been good to you” (Implicit in Josh 24:19–20).171 Blessings: “If you fully obey the LORD your God and carefully follow all his commands that I give you today, the LORD your God will set you high above all the nations on earth. All these blessings will come upon you and accompany you if you obey the LORD your God: You will be blessed in the city and blessed in the country” (Deut 28:1–14). Curse: “However, if you do not obey the LORD your God and do not carefully follow all his commands and decrees I am giving you today, all these curses will come upon you and overtake you: You will be cursed in the city and cursed in the country” (Deut 28:15–68).172 Blessing: “Now if you obey me fully and keep my covenant, then out of all nations you will be my treasured possession. Although the whole earth is mine, you will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. ‘These are the words you are to speak to the Israelites’” (Exod 19:5). “for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, [Curse] punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but [Blessing] showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments. You shall

Contra Weinfeld writes, “nor is Josh 24:20 a malediction” (Deuteronomic School, 62 n. 3), see McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant, 152. 172 Weinfeld and McCarthy see “evidence for the influence of the treaty-form upon” Deuteronomy (Weinfeld, Deuteronomic School, 66 n. 1; McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant, 152). According to Nicholson, both allow “for flexibility in the author’s use of the treaty-form, and . . . to a great extent the way in which the book as we have it differs from the treatyform is due to the way in which it has developed from its original core” (God and His People, 71).

166

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

ANEVT

not misuse the name of the LORD your God, for the [Curse] LORD will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name” (Exod 20:5–7). “Therefore the [Blessing] LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy. Honour your father and your mother, [Blessing] so that you may live long in the land the LORD your God is giving you” (Exod 20:11–12).173 Curse: §21 “If Tuppi-Teshshup [does not observe these words] of the treaty and of the oath, then these oath gods shall destroy Tuppi-Teshshup, [together with his person], his [wife], his son, his grandsons, his household, his city, his land, and together with his possessions. [Blessing] §22 But if Tuppi-Teshshup [observes] these [words of the treaty and of the oath] which [are written] on this tablet, [then] these oath gods [shall protect] TuppiTeshshup, together with his person, his wife, his son, his grandsons, [his city, his land], his(!) household, his subjects, [and his possessions].”174

Table 6. Blessing and Curse Comparison175 173

Nicholson maintains that Exodus 20 “lacks the curses and blessings formulae which were a constant feature of the treaties.” He also eliminates the promises and threats in Exodus 23:20–33, arguing that these are “not strictly related to the preceding laws but are concerned with obedience to the angel who is to lead the people into the promised land” and is “a secondary addition to the periscope” (God and His People, 68–69). Weinfeld also argues that blessings and cursings are “completely lacking in the covenants in Exodus and Josh. 24” (Deuteronomic School, 66). Kline points out that “the Decalogue does not stand alone as the total revelation of the covenant at Sinai” (Exod 23:20–33; Deut 27–30) and argues that the customary ANEVT “invocative form has yielded to the declarative, and that in the style of the motive clause” characteristic of OT law, (Treaty, 16 n. 9). See Berend Gemser, The Importance of the Motive Clause in Old Testament Law, VTSup 1 (Leiden: Brill, 1953): 50–66. 174 Beckman, Hittite Diplomatic Texts, 64. 175 Emphasis added. The book of Revelation, as a whole, also records a blessing and curse (1:3; 22:7; 18–19).

CHAPTER FOUR-LITERARY STRUCTURE

167

A standard characteristic of the ANEVT is the regularity of the list of blessings and curses (oaths) along with the stipulations (binding), which are the most important elements.176 This feature is consistent within the OT (Amos 1–2), and the two elements of blessing and curse are also central in the new covenant book of Revelation177 and, in particular, SMR.178 In the context of the prophetic sanctions, the vassal is cursed (maledictions) for disobedience (dishonours the treaty), and blessed (benedictions) for obedience to the stated stipulations179 (honours the treaty).180 As Mendenhall points 176 Beckman, Hittite Diplomatic Texts, 2. Weinfeld points out that sanctions were “included not only in treaty texts but in all types of official legal settlements: judicial arrangements in connection with border conflicts, grants and land transactions, the imposition of a system of laws upon the people, imposing an oath in connection with succession, and assuring the loyalty of officials, soldiers, and craftsmen” (Deuteronomic School, 61–62). 177 The book of Revelation opens with a blessing (1:3) for those who publicly read and hear the words of the prophecy, while it closes with a maledictory oath for the preservation and transmission of the covenant text to the churches (22:18–19). The malediction and benediction pronounced upon the oral prophetic transmission within Revelation further solidify the authority of the Suzerain/king within the Churches. Muse, “Rev 2–3,” 156–59. This feature is also present in other early church documents (Ap. John 2.1.35). David L. Barr suggests that these words “function in the situation of extended orality as a control on the reader to faithfully reproduce the words of the prophecy” (“The Apocalypse of John as Oral Enactment,” Int 40.3 [1986]: 251). The covenant message must be guarded because it comes from the king of the church. 178 Shea, “Covenantal,” 74, 77–78. Strand fully agrees with Shea’s analysis (“Covenantal Form,” 264). Hill identifies the presence of blessings and curses in “seven beatitudes” (1:3, 14:13; 16:15; 19:9; 20:6; 22:7 and 22:14) and “seven woe-sentences” (8:13; 9:12; 11:14; 12:13; 18:10, 16, 19; NT Prophecy, 79). 179 Fensham identifies the curse-clause within the Akkadian texts of Ugarit, vassal-treaty of Sefire, but the benediction is absent from the vassal-treaties of Esarhaddon. He explains that “this may be explained by the rigid attitude of the Assyrians against their vassals or by the mutilated state of the tablets. Where the benediction is used, it is couched in the casuistic style like the malediction-clauses” (“Malediction,” 6). See Mendenhall, “Covenant Forms,” 60; Barr, “Oral Enactment,” 243–256; Thompson, Treaties, 17; “Suzerain-Vassal,” 4; Beckman, Hittite Diplomatic Texts, 3 and

168

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

out, sanctions surrounding the stipulations, mirrored in the OT, were usually identified in terms of “destruction, sterility, misery, poverty, plague, famine. The blessings conversely are divine protection, continuity of the vassal’s line, health, prosperity, and peace”181 (Lev 26:1–13; Deut 27–28). Walton makes a subtle distinction between the curses and blessings: this section entails not the specifics of what the suzerain will do in the event of either faithfulness to or violation of the treaty, but rather, the actions of the gods either for or against the vassal.182

Fensham describes the connection between the prophets and covenant by noting that the prophets’ duty was to describe broken covenant: The “Day of the Lord” might, thus be regarded as the day of the execution of punishment after the breach of covenant. The broken covenant, and the calamities accompanying it, is vividly described by the prophets, especially Jeremiah and Ezekiel. The only solution for this broken covenant is the forming of a new covenant between God and his obedient remnant (cf. Jer 31:31; Ezek 34:25; 37:26).183

How then, do the sanctions function within the seven oracles? Earlier scholars identified the blessings and curses as “dynamic,” David J. Bederman, International Law in Antiquity, (Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press, 2001), 144–46. 180 There are similar prophetic oracles within the Synoptic tradition. The phrase o` e;cwn w=ta avkoue,tw can be found with a similar structure in Matt 11:15, 12:9, 43, among the eschatological parables. Fensham also mentions this in a footnote: “the idea of breach of covenant is very important in the writings of Qumran” (“Malediction,” 6 n. 37; Hillers, Treatycurses, 3). 181 Mendenhall, “Covenant,” IDB 1:715; Whitley, “Covenant,” 37. Fensham points out that “the ‘Heil-Unheil’-prophecies form the core of the prophetic message” (“Malediction,” 8 n. 48). Fensham loosely translates the German as Salvation-Damnation. 182 Walton, Israelite Literature, 104. 183 Fensham, “Malediction,” 9.

CHAPTER FOUR-LITERARY STRUCTURE

169

automatically working in themselves with inherent effectual power of their own, as when Isaac blesses Jacob and is unable to retract his blessing once it is given (Gen 27:35).184 However, Thiselton has refuted this view with several effective arguments:185 1) God’s pronouncement of his word is the issue in question. The power of the blessing and the curse resides within the deity, not the words.186 2) The blessings and curses are “effective, in most cases, only when performed by the appropriate person in the appropriate situation.”187 Lucas draws an important theological implication of the blessings and curses within covenant law. He sees the obedience of the vassals as a response of gratitude to the gracious act of the suzerain. He believes that the Hittite treaties were not legal contracts but gracious gifts of the overlords: The Hittite treaties are not contracts. They are gifts of grace given by the overlord to define and confirm an existing relationship (hence the historical prologue). . . . The point of the blessings and curses is that the faithful vassal continues to enjoy these benefactions, whereas persistent infidelity (which in the context of the treaty is seen as an expression of gross ingratitude) effectively puts an end to the relationship expressed by the covenant. However, the end is not necessarily definitive. The overlord could exercise mercy and renew the relationship with a repentant vassal.188

184

Gerhard von Rad, Old Testament Theology (2 vols.; New York: Harper & Row, 1962), 2:80ff.; O. Prochsch, “le,gw,” TWNT 4:89–100. 185 Anthony C. Thiselton, “The Supposed Power of Words in the Biblical Writings,” JTS 25 (1974), 283–99. 186 G. B. Caird, The Language and Imagery of the Bible (London: Duckworth, 1980), 22; Thiselton, “Power of Words,” 290ff. 187 Thiselton, “Power of Words,” 294. 188 Lucas, “Covenant,” 22–23; McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant, 79. Fensham seems to take exception to this idea when he states that “The mechanical, magical execution of the treaty-curse if stipulations of a legal document should be broken, stands in glaring contrast to the egotheological approach of the prophetic writings” (“Curses,” 173).

170

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

This call to repentance over the breached covenant is precisely what is found in the seven oracles. Since the blessing and curse are central to the ANEVT and Deuteronomic covenant structure,189 along with the covenant lawsuit of the prophetic message, it is fair to argue that their presence in the SMR provides a clue to their genre and helps substantiate their covenantal/prophetic character.190 With the combination of the SMR’s covenant structure found in Deuteronomy (Torah) which is dependant on the ANEVT, and the blessing/curse elements central in the covenant lawsuit of the prophets, John’s messages provide evidence of being hybrid prophetic oracles.

Proclamation Witnesses Formula With the distribution of the stipulations, along with blessings and curses, it was customary for ancient treaty/oath documents to be sealed with a list of divine witnesses. This common, although not universal, feature of the ANEVT invoked a list of gods of the suzerain and vassal as witnesses to the covenant agreement.191 Also, natural witnesses of “mountains, rivers, springs, the great sea, heaven and earth, winds and clouds”192 were called upon as guarantors against disobedience. 189

Mendenhall, “Covenant Forms,” 60; Thompson, Treaties, 17. Shea does not connect the covenant blessing and cursing with the prophetic office; however, he focuses on the interpretation of the text, not genre (“Covenantal,” 83). 191 Mendenhall, “Covenant Forms,” 60; Thompson, Treaties, 16–17; “Suzerain-Vassal,” 4; McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant, 52, 63; Huffmon, “Covenant Lawsuit,” 291. Harvey identifies this development within the treaty as Invocation des dieux («RÎB-pattern,» 186). The divine witnesses were also listed in the vassal-treaties of Esarhaddon (672 BC), Bar-ga’ayah (8th cent. BC), Aššur-nirari VI of Assyria (753–746 BC) (Wiseman, “Vassal-Treaties,” 22–23), and Old Babylonian Syria. André Finet, “Les dieux voyageurs en Mésopotamie,” Akkadica 21 (1981):1–13. 192 Mendenhall, “Covenant,” IDB 1:715. Huffmon explores the role of the mountains, rivers, heaven, earth, sea, winds, and clouds as witnesses to the covenant lawsuit in Isa 1:2–20, Mic 6:1–8, Jer 2:4–13, Deut 32:1, and Ps 50:1–15 (“Covenant Lawsuit,” 285–95). See the calling of meteorological and natural phenomena as witnesses, e.g., in 1 En. 101. 190

CHAPTER FOUR-LITERARY STRUCTURE

171

Although there is an apparent absence of such a list in the SMR, this still does not eliminate the presence of the remaining structure, particularly when it is remembered that some elements of the structure were missing from the ANEVT.193 However, witness language is found richly throughout Revelation from the use of heavens and earth (12:12),194 to the formal witnesses’ role of angels, John (1:2), the church, the spirit, and Christ (22:7b; 16–20; cf. Deut 4:26). The Greek ma,rtuj–marturi,a (witness or testimony) is found nine times in Revelation (1:2, 9; 6:9; 11:7; 12:11, 17; 15:4; 19:10; 20:4). The witness is assumed in the SMR, but the witness signature attached to each oracle (2:7; 11; 17; 29; 3:6; 13; 22; cf. 22:18) indicates that the Spirit of Christ195 is like an independent voice underlining what the message says. The Spirit of Christ functions here similarly to the witness formula, but in a different form of expression. Not only does the phrase “He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches” (2:7, etc.) serve as a divine 193 See chapter 4—Inconsistent Pattern, 212. Despite this, some commentators like de Lassus use this inconsistency to argue against ANEVT influence. He argues,

«Il est discutable d’interpréter cette formule comme si l’Esprit était témoin d’une alliance entre le Christ et les Églises. Quant à la mention conjointe du ciel et de la terre en 12, 12, outre le fait qu’elle se trouve en dehors du septénaire des lettres et que la mer y est associée à la terre (ce qui n’est pas le cas dans le formulaire d’alliance), elle n’a rien qui relève du témoignage.» Translation: “It is debatable to interpret this formula as if the Spirit was a witness of a covenant between Christ and the Churches. As regards the joint mention of the heaven and earth in 12:12, apart from the fact that it occurs separately from the group of seven letters and that the sea is associated with the earth (which is not the case in the covenant form), it contains nothing that pertains to witness” (de Lassus, «Le Septénaire,» 43–44). 194 Heaven and earth are connected in at least six occurrences. de Lassus, «Le Septénaire,» 42. 195 de Lassus, «Le Septénaire,» 42. The debate over the speaker in 22:18 leans toward the Spirit of Christ rather than John given the context that Jesus is the speaker in both verse 16 and 20. Osborne, Rev, 794. The phrase is also found in 13:9, and a variation of it can be found in 13:18.

172

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

witness,196 but it also serves as a “proclamation formula . . . i.e., as an injunction to an audience to pay very close attention to the message that it accompanies.”197 It not only identifies the speaker, but, according to Aune, “when the proclamation formula concludes an oracle, it functions as a prophetic signature.”198 This formula witnesses to the divine nature of the message spoken by the prophet; the prophetic message introduced by the divine Spirit of Christ is the faithful witness (1:5; 3:14). Since the message is preceded and followed by words of Christ, it appears that the Lord (Christ) is the actual speaker of the formula. Christ identifies his words with the voice of the Spirit speaking to the churches. It is as though Christ authenticates John’s message by the witness formula, and by so doing, calls the church to pay attention to the message. This is different from an independent Spirit-borne message and fits the context where no external ratification is needed. As Aune points out, this formula has “no close verbal parallels in ancient literature with the exception of the parable tradition found in the synoptic Gospels and in some apocryphal gospels” (Matt 11:15; 13:9, 43; Luke 8:8; 14:35; 1 Cor 14:37–38; Odes Sol. 3:10–11).199 There appears to be a paraenetic function connected with this formula.200 However, there is a partial variation on this formula in Ezekiel 3:27. As demonstrated by Aune, this formula has its roots in the legal courtroom or in the introduction of legal instruction (Mic 6:2; Jer 2:4–5; Isa 49:1; 51:4).201 They witnessed to the authentication of the divine author as an incentive to listen to the message. This proclamation witness formula calls the churches to hear the proclamation of the divine witness and to heed the message by the Spirit who spoke it. Thus, this repeated phrase of the messenger functions as a proclamation witness formula, calling the churches to hear the proclamation of the divine witness, as authenticated by the voice of Christ and inspired by the Spirit. 196

Bandy, “Lawsuit,” 218 n. 120. Aune, Rev 1–5, 123. 198 Aune, Rev 1–5, 123. 199 Aune, Rev 1–5, 123. 200 See chapter 6—Parabolic Revealing/Concealing, 303. 201 Aune, Rev 1–5, 123. 197

CHAPTER FOUR-LITERARY STRUCTURE Seven Churches

SmyrnaMagnesia treaty

Hippocratic Oath Prophets

173

Within the highly developed NT prophecy the witnesses are clearly identified through the book as the angel, the Spirit, the church and Jesus (22:16–20). However the witnesses are assumed in the messages (especially the conclusion in 22:7b, 18–19, part of which alludes to Deut 4:26 and 22:16–20, where an angel, the Spirit, the church, and Jesus are formally termed “witnesses”). “I swear by Zeus, Ge, Helios, Ares, Athena Areia and the Tauropolos, and the Sipylene Mother, and Apollo in Pandoi, and all the other gods and goddesses, . . . Aphrodite Stratonikis”202 (241–242 BC). The witnesses are also present in the Ephebic and Plataean oaths (16–20; 4th cent. BC) and the Augustus-Paphlagonians treaty (8–9; 3 BC). Zeus and the other immortal gods are called forth as witnesses of the oath in the Iliad (800 BC; Homer, Iliad, 3:276-300). “I swear by Apollo the Healer and by Æsculapius, by Hygieia, and Panacea, and by all gods and goddesses, making them my witnesses” (Hippoc. Jusj. 1:289 [Jones and Withington, LCL]). “Go now, write it on a tablet for them, inscribe it on a scroll, that for the days to come it may be an everlasting witness” (Isa 30:8). “‘For they have done outrageous things in Israel; they have committed adultery with their neighbours’ wives and in my name have spoken lies, which I did not tell them to do. I know it and am a witness to it,’ declares the LORD” (Jer 29:23). “May the LORD be a true and faithful witness against us if we do not act in accordance with everything the LORD your God sends you to tell us” (Jer 42:5). “Hear, O peoples, all of you, listen, O earth and

202 Bengtson and Schmitt, DSA 3:492.61, 70–72; Dittenberger, OGIS 1:229.61, 70–72.

174

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

Joshua

Deuteronomy

203

all who are in it, that the Sovereign LORD may witness against you, the Lord from his holy temple” (Mic 1:2). “Then Joshua said, ‘You are witnesses against yourselves that you have chosen to serve the LORD.’ ‘Yes, we are witnesses,’ they replied. . . ‘See!’ he said to all the people. ‘This stone will be a witness against us. It has heard all the words the LORD has said to us. It will be a witness against you if you are untrue to your God.’” (Josh 24:22, 27).203 “I call heaven and earth as witnesses against you this day that you will quickly perish from the land that you are crossing the Jordan to possess. You will not live there long but will certainly be destroyed” (Deut 4:26). “This day I call heaven and earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses” (Deut 30:19). “After Moses finished writing in a book the words of this law from beginning to end, he gave this command to the Levites who carried the ark of the covenant of the LORD: ‘Take this book of the law and place it beside the ark of the covenant of the LORD your God. There it will remain as a witness against you’” (Deut 31:24–26). “Assemble before me all the elders of your tribes and all your officials, so that I can speak these words in their hearing and call heaven and earth to testify against them” (Deut 31:28). “Listen, O heavens,

Hillers, Covenant, 52; McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant, 162. Since the pillars were left in the wilderness, Beyerlin suggests that the stones were symbolic for the presence of the twelve tribes (Exod 24:4). Walter Beyerlin, Herkunft und Geschichte der ältesten Sinaitraditionen (Tübingen: MohrSiebeck, 1961), 55.

CHAPTER FOUR-LITERARY STRUCTURE

Decalogue

ANEVT

204

175

and I will speak; hear, O earth, the words of my mouth” (Deut 32:1–47).204 “The LORD said to Moses, ‘Chisel out two stone tablets like the first ones, and I will write on them the words that were on the first tablets, which you broke’. . . . Then the LORD said to Moses, ‘Write down these words, for in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel. . . . And he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant--the Ten Commandments’” (Exod 34:1, 27–28). “He took the Testimony and placed it in the ark” (Exod 40:20).205 §16 “[The Thousand Gods shall now stand] for this [oath]. They shall observe [and listen]. §17 [The

Hillers proposes that the Israelites themselves are the witnesses to the covenant (Covenant, 52). However, the heavens and the earth and mountains and rivers are the more plausible witnesses, according to Rogers, since the ‘heaven and earth’ are mentioned several times in Deut (4:26; 30:19; 31:28) along with being called as witnesses in God’s lawsuit against Israel. Rogers, “Covenant with Moses,” 153. Kline points out “a formal literary approximation to the invocation of the oath witnesses in Deut 4:26; 30:19; and 31:28 where by the rhetorical device of apostrophe God calls heaven and earth to be witnesses of his covenant with Israel” (Treaty, 15). See Huffmon, “Covenant Lawsuit,” 288–93; and R. North, “Angel-Prophet or Satan-Prophet,” ZAW 82 (1970): 47–49; contra Georg Fohrer, Das Buch Jesaja. Zurcher Bibelkommentare (2d ed. Zürich: Zwingli, 1966) 1:24–25. 205 The primary witness remains the “book of the Covenant” which was itself placed in the Ark of the Covenant (Testimony). Albright, Stone Age, 16–17; Kitchen, Ancient Orient, 108; Hillers, Covenant, 160–61. Kline points out that “The purpose of Israel’s copy of the covenant was that of a documentary witness (Deut 31:26). It was a witness to and against Israel, reminding of obligations sworn to and rebuking for obligations violated, declaring the hope of the covenant beatitude and pronouncing the doom of covenant curses” (Treaty, 21). Furthermore, Kline posits that “Israel’s eating and drinking in the persons of her representatives on the mount of God (Exod 24:11) was a recognized symbolic method by which people swore treaties” (Treaty, 16). See Wiseman, “Vassal-Treaties,” 40 (line 153– 156 of Ramataia Treaty).

176

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES Sun-god of Heaven, the Sun-goddess] of Arinna, the Storm-god of Heaven, the Storm-god of Hatti, [Sheri], Hurri, Mount Nanni, Mount Hazzi, [the Storm-god of the Market(?), the Stormgod] of the Army. . . . §20 the mountains, the rivers, the springs, the great sea, heaven and earth, the winds, and the clouds. They shall be witnesses to this treaty [and] to the oath.” 206 Table 7. Witness Document Comparison207

In the OT, the witness in the ANE treaty sense is noticeably absence. As Gaffney points out, the Decalogue does not possess the divine witnesses “for the obvious reason that this would be completely inconsistent with the stipulation of monotheism embedded in the first commandment.”208 Weinfeld makes a similar point about the lack of witnesses in the OT: In the Biblical covenant we are obviously not to expect any [divine witnesses] but the one God who is party to the covenant, however natural forces are invoked as witnesses: heaven and earth (Deut 4:26; 30:19; 31:28; Isa 1:2; Hos 2:21–22), and in prophecy mountains and hills (Mic 6:1–2).209

206

Beckman, Hittite Diplomatic Texts, 63. Emphasis added. 208 Gaffney, “Covenant,” 125. Kitchen points out that “the gods of paganism were excluded, so the god-lists of the Ancient Oriental covenants are not found in the biblical ones” (Ancient Orient, 97). Huffmon, “Covenant Lawsuit,” 285–95. 209 Weinfeld, “Loyalty Oath,” 395; contra Eichrodt writes, “It is equally questionable whether we are on sure ground when the calling of heaven and earth as witnesses or judges (as in Isa 1.2 but also in Micah 6.1f.; Jer 2.12; Deut 32.1; Ps 50.4) is taken to be regular part of the covenant formula on the basis of similar appeals in the Hittite treaties” (“Prophet and Covenant,” 175). However, Eichrodt gives no evidence for his doubts. 207

CHAPTER FOUR-LITERARY STRUCTURE

177

Harvey proposes that the vassals themselves are witnesses (Josh 24:22; Exod 24:8; Deut 26:16–19; 1 Sam 12:20–25), abandoning the polytheistic term “heaven and earth.”210 The absence of an expressly stated list of divine witnesses is not an argument against the ANE influence on the SMR, but indicates the superiority of the biblical suzerain where the Spirit of Christ himself is the divine witness in the theistic NT covenant context. Although the Christ is the speaker, the inclusion of the stated witness is assumed in the oracles, and one must look to the context within Revelation for this connection (22:7b, 18–19). Since there is a change in the situation from the ANEVT, there is a change of form in the NT. While the idea of divine witness is central to the book as a whole, it is assumed within the oracles due to the unique circumstances of the messages. The witness formula is functionally equivalent to the ANEVT’s, but it is conveyed in a different form of expression.

Deposit and Public Reading In addition, there is the issue of the continuation of the covenant or what the OT understood as covenant renewal or perpetuation of the covenant.211 While these two elements are not part of a formal ANEVT literary structure, they were important features that accompanied them. Within the ancient Near East, the covenant was perpetuated through the deposit of the document in a safe place, and the public reading of it in a covenant renewal ceremony. The deposit and public reading portion of the treaties are perpetuity in210

Harvey, Le plaidoyer, 107; Klaus Baltzer, Das Bundesformular (WMANT 4; Neukirchen: Neukirchener, 1964), 35. The monotheistic nature of the Hebrew witness in contrast with Hittite Polytheism could also explain why the order is reversed from blessings–curses–witness to witness–curses–blessing in the OT. See Kitchen, Ancient Orient, 97; Bright, Covenant, 37. Weinfeld mentions a second witness in the great stone which Joshua placed in the Shechem sanctuary (Deuteronomic School, 62). 211 Campbell uses the phrase inheritance questions, but he sees the conqueror formula as this feature when it is more appropriate as a blessing given to the overcomer (“Findings,” 80). Chilton prefers using succession arrangements, and Sutton prefers continuity (Vengeance, 16–20; Sutton, Prosper, 96).

178

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

structions made by the vassal and are not part of the treaties literary structure. Instructions to read the covenant publicly and deposit it is also present through Christ’s directions that these prophetic oracles should be circulated and heard (implies reading) in the churches (1:11; 2:7, 11 etc.). Thus, the instruction given to John to “write on a scroll what you see and send it to the seven churches” (1:11) functions as the deposit and the call formula (call to hear the messages). Thus, the instruction functions in the role of perpetuating the covenant. The repeated phrase “He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches”212 (2:7, 11, 17, 29, 3:6, 13, 22) implies that these oracles were to be read publicly in the Churches (1:3; 11; 19; 22:16, 18), so the members could hear and not forget the Spirit’s message. Since these messages are to be treated as a whole, the deposit/public reading element is functionally present as similar instructions for the perpetuity of the messages.213 Revelation Deposit: “Write on a scroll what you see and send (deposit) it to the seven churches: to Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia and Laodicea” (1:11). Public reading: “Blessed is the one who reads the words of this prophecy, and blessed are those who hear it and take to heart what is written in it, because the time is near” (1:3). “He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches” (2:7, 11, 17, 29, 3:6, 13, 22). “I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book” (22:18–19).

212 The proclamation messenger formula combines the two features of the divine witness and the public reading. 213 The remembrance of the covenant messages by the churches is also functionally equivalent to the covenant renewal ceremony (Weinfeld, “Common Heritage,” 189) in the Lord’s Supper as words of institution are read publicly (1 Cor 11:23-26).

CHAPTER FOUR-LITERARY STRUCTURE SmyrnaMagnesia treaty

Hippocratic Oath Prophets

Joshua

179

Public administration: “Let the Smyrnaeans and those from Magnesia appoint men, [each of them as many as] each may reckon to be sufficient, to administer the oath to the peoples of those in Smyrna and of those in Magnesia. . . [etc.]”214 (241–242 BC). Public reciting: “I swear” (Hippoc. Jusj. 1:289 [Jones and Withington, LCL]). Deposit: “So Moses wrote down this law and gave it to the priests, the sons of Levi, who carried the ark of the covenant of the LORD, and to all the elders of Israel. [Public reading:] Then Moses commanded them: ‘At the end of every seven years, in the year for cancelling debts, during the Feast of Tabernacles, when all Israel comes to appear before the LORD your God at the place he will choose, you shall read this law before them in their hearing’” (Deut 31:9–13; cf. Neh 8:3; Jer 36:10). Deposit: “Take this book of the law and place it beside the ark of the covenant of the LORD your God. There it will remain as a witness against you” (Deut 31:24–26). Deposit: “And Joshua recorded these things in the book of the law of God. Then he took a large stone and set it up there under the oak near the holy place of the LORD” (Josh 24:26; cf. 2 Kgs 23:1– 3). Public reading: “Afterwards, Joshua read all the words of the law–the blessings and the curses–just as it is written in the book of the law” (Josh 8:34).

214 Bengtson and Schmitt, DSA 3:492.61, 79–89; Dittenberger, OGIS 1:229.79–89.

180

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

Deuteronomy

Decalogue

Deposit: “At that time the LORD said to me, ‘Chisel out two stone tablets like the first ones and come up to me on the mountain. Also make a wooden chest’. . . . then I came back down the mountain and put the tablets in the ark I had made, as the LORD commanded me, and they are there now” (Deut 10:1–5; 31:9–13). “After Moses finished writing in a book the words of this law from beginning to end, he gave this command to the Levites who carried the ark of the covenant of the LORD: ‘Take this book of the law and place it beside the ark of the covenant of the LORD your God. There it will remain as a witness against you’” (Deut 31:24–26). Public Reading: “It is to be with him, and he is to read it all the days of his life so that he may learn to revere the LORD his God and follow carefully all the words of this law and these decrees” (Deut 17:19). “At the end of every seven years, in the year for cancelling debts, during the Feast of Tabernacles, when all Israel comes to appear before the LORD your God at the place he will choose, you shall read this law before them in their hearing” (Deut 31:10–12). Deposit: “Then put in the ark the Testimony, which I will give you” (Exod 25:16). “He took the Testimony and placed it in the ark” (Exod 40:20). Public reading: “Then he took the Book of the Covenant and read it to the people. They responded, ‘We will do everything the LORD has said; we will obey.’ Moses then took the blood, sprinkled it on the people and said, ‘This is the blood of the covenant that the LORD has made with you in accordance with all these words.’” (Exod 24:7–8).

CHAPTER FOUR-LITERARY STRUCTURE ANEVT

181

Deposit: §8 “[A duplicate of this tablet is deposited] in the land [of Mittanni before the Stormgod, Lord of kurinnu of Kahat.” Public Reading: “It shall be read repeatedly, for ever and ever], before the king of the land [of Mittanni and before the Hurrians]”215

Table 8. Deposit and Public Reading Comparison216

Within the suzerainty treaty, Mendenhall identifies the “provision for deposit in the temple and periodic public reading,”217 which is mirrored in the OT (Exod 25:16; 40:20; Deut 10:1–5; 31:9–13, 24– 26; Josh 24:26; cf. 2 Kgs 23:1–3). Millard believes that “the deposit of the stone tablets in the Ark, which was then placed in the holiest part of the Tabernacle, is exactly like the deposit of ancient treaty texts in the presence of the gods.”218 Lucas and Weinfeld observe that the liturgy of the covenant renewal ceremony could have been the way the suzerainty treaty form was passed down to the later prophetic generation.219 This ratification ceremony was also closely connected with the documentary clause and the words of the

215 The description of the deposit and public reading of the treaty are missing from the treaty between Mursili II and Tuppi-Teshshup, possibly in one of the sections that Beckman identifies as missing from the tablets. He points out that “an undetermined number of lines have been lost” and that another section of seven lines are badly damaged (Hittite Diplomatic Texts, 60). The damaged section is the historical portion where it would be natural for the deposit and public reading to be mentioned. Therefore, this missing section is taken from the “Treaty between Shattiwaza of Mittanni and Suppiluliuma I of Hatti” (Hittite Diplomatic Texts, 51). 216 Emphasis added. 217 Mendenhall, “Covenant Forms,” 60; Mendenhall, “Covenant,” IDB 1:715; Thompson, “Suzerain-Vassal,” 4. Harvey uses the term “technical details” (détails techniques) to describe the “conservation of the documents” («RÎB-pattern,» 186). 218 Alan R. Millard, “The Tablets in the Ark,” in Reading the Law: Studies in Honour of Gordon J. Wenham (eds., J. Gordon McConville and Karl Möller; London: T&T Clark, 2007), 265. 219 Lucas, “Covenant,” 22; Weinfeld, Deuteronomic School, 51–58; 158– 78.

182

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

prophets.220 Barr makes this conclusion about the deposit and public readings: [The deposit and oral readings] serve as limits on oral invention. On the other hand, as words read before the assembly they function to increase the status and power of the reading. By guaranteeing the integrity of the presentation, they increase the power of the oral message? The hearers are assured that they hear the “very word of John,” so to speak. In hearing the voice of John, they hear far more, . . . the prophet as surrogate for Jesus.221

The delivery and public reading of the SMR in the churches are functionally equivalent to the deposit and public reading of the ANEVT.

Outline of the ANEVT Structures in the SMR EPHESUS 2:1a

“To the angel [messenger] of the church in Ephesus write:”

Messenger Preamble Formula 2:1b

“These are the words of him who holds the seven stars in his right hand and walks among the seven golden lampstands:”

Historical Prologue 2:2-4

220

“I know your deeds, your hard work and your perseverance. I know that you cannot tolerate wicked men, that you have tested those who claim to be apostles but are not, and have found them false. You have persevered and have endured hardships for my name, and have not grown

A similar situation is established in The Shepherd of Hermas when Hermas is asked, “‘Can you report these things to God’s elect?’ I said to her, ‘Madam, I cannot remember so many things; but give me the little book, so that I can copy it.’ . . . Hermas is to take this book back and give it to the “elders” to be read in church and send it abroad to others to do likewise” (Vis. 2.1.3; 2.2.2–3 [Lightfoot]). Barr, “Oral Enactment,” 251 n. 20. 221 Barr, “Oral Enactment,” 251.

CHAPTER FOUR-LITERARY STRUCTURE weary. Yet I hold this against you: You have forsaken your first love.”

Ethical Stipulations 2:5a

“Remember the height from which you have fallen! Repent and do the things you did at first.”

Sanctions - Curse 2:5b

“If you do not repent, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place.”

Historical Prologue 2:6

“But you have this in your favor: You hate the practices of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate.”

Proclamation Witness Formula, Deposit, and Public Reading 2:7a

“He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.”

Sanctions - Blessing 2:7b

“To him who overcomes, I will give the right to eat from the tree of life, which is in the paradise of God.”

SMYRNA 2:8a

“To the angel [messenger] of the church in Smyrna write:”

Messenger Preamble Formula 2:8b “These

are the words of him who is the First and the Last, who died and came to life again.”

Historical Prologue 2:9

“I know your afflictions and your poverty– yet you are rich! I know the slander of those who say they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan.”

Ethical Stipulations 2:10

“Do not be afraid of what you are about to suffer. I tell you, the devil will put some of you in prison to test you, and you will suffer persecution for ten days. Be faithful, even to the point of death,”

Sanctions - Blessing 2:10d

“and I will give you the crown of life.”

183

184

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

Proclamation Witness Formula, Deposit, and Public Reading 2:11a

“He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.”

Sanctions - Blessing 2:11b

“He who overcomes will not be hurt at all by the second death.”

PERGAMUM 2:12a

“To the angel [messenger] of the church in Pergamum write:”

Messenger Preamble Formula 2:12b

“These are the words of him who has the sharp, double-edged sword.”

Historical Prologue 2:13-15

“I know where you live– where Satan has his throne. Yet you remain true to my name. You did not renounce your faith in me, even in the days of Antipas, my faithful witness, who was put to death in your city– where Satan lives. Nevertheless, I have a few things against you: You have people there who hold to the teaching of Balaam, who taught Balak to entice the Israelites to sin by eating food sacrificed to idols and by committing sexual immorality. Likewise you also have those who hold to the teaching of the Nicolaitans.”

Ethical Stipulations 2:16a

“Repent therefore!”

Sanctions - Curse 2:16b

“Otherwise, I will soon come to you and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth.”

Proclamation Witness Formula, Deposit, and Public Reading 2:17a

“He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.”

Sanctions - Blessing 2:17b

“To him who overcomes, I will give some of the hidden manna. I will also give him a white stone with a new name written on it, known only to him who receives it.”

CHAPTER FOUR-LITERARY STRUCTURE THYATIRA 2:18a

“To the angel [messenger] of the church in Thyatira write:”

Messenger Preamble Formula 2:18b

“These are the words of the Son of God, whose eyes are like blazing fire and whose feet are like burnished bronze.”

Historical Prologue 2:19-21

“I know your deeds, your love and faith, your service and perseverance, and that you are now doing more than you did at first. Nevertheless, I have this against you: You tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess. By her teaching she misleads my servants into sexual immorality and the eating of food sacrificed to idols. I have given her time to repent of her immorality, but she is unwilling.”

Sanctions - Curse 2:22-23

“So I will cast her on a bed of suffering, and I will make those who commit adultery with her suffer intensely, unless they repent of her ways. I will strike her children dead. Then all the churches will know that I am he who searches hearts and minds, and I will repay each of you according to your deeds.”

Ethical Stipulations 2:24-25

“Now I say to the rest of you in Thyatira, to you who do not hold to her teaching and have not learned Satan’s socalled deep secrets (I will not impose any other burden on you): Only hold on to what you have until I come.”

Sanctions - Blessing 2:26-28

“To him who overcomes and does my will to the end, I will give authority over the nations–‘He will rule them with an iron scepter; he will dash them to pieces like pottery’–just as I have received authority from my Father. I will also give him the morning star.”

Proclamation Witness Formula, Deposit, and Public Reading 2:29

“He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.”

185

186

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

SARDIS 3:1a

“To the angel [messenger] of the church in Sardis write:”

Messenger Preamble Formula 3:1b

“These are the words of him who holds the seven spirits of God and the seven stars.”

Historical Prologue 3:1c

“I know your deeds; you have a reputation of being alive, but you are dead.”

Ethical Stipulations 3:2

“Wake up! Strengthen what remains and is about to die, for I have not found your deeds complete in the sight of my God. 3a Remember, therefore, what you have received and heard; obey it, and repent.”

Sanctions - Curse 3:3b

“But if you do not wake up, I will come like a thief, and you will not know at what time I will come to you.”

Sanctions - Blessing 3:4-5

“Yet you have a few people in Sardis who have not soiled their clothes. They will walk with me, dressed in white, for they are worthy. He who overcomes will, like them, be dressed in white. I will never blot out his name from the Book of Life, but will acknowledge his name before my Father and his angels.”

Proclamation Witness Formula, Deposit, and Public Reading 3:6

“He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.”

PHILADELPHIA 3:7a

“To the angel [messenger] of the church in Philadelphia write:”

Messenger Preamble Formula 3:7b

“These are the words of him who is holy and true, who holds the key of David. What he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.”

Historical Prologue 3:8

“I know your deeds. See, I have placed before you an open door that no one can shut. I know that you have little strength,

CHAPTER FOUR-LITERARY STRUCTURE yet you have kept my word and have not denied my name. 9 I will make those who are of the synagogue of Satan, who claim to be Jews though they are not, but are liars– I will make them come and fall down at your feet and acknowledge that I have loved you.”

Sanctions - Blessing 3:10

“Since you have kept my command to endure patiently, I will also keep you from the hour of trial that is going to come upon the whole world to test those who live on the earth.”

Ethical Stipulations 3:11

“I am coming soon. Hold on to what you have, so that no one will take your crown.”

Sanctions - Blessing 3:12

“Him who overcomes I will make a pillar in the temple of my God. Never again will he leave it. I will write on him the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which is coming down out of heaven from my God; and I will also write on him my new name.”

Proclamation Witness Formula, Deposit, and Public Reading 3:13

“He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.”

LAODICEA 3:14a

“To the angel [messenger] of the church in Laodicea write:”

Messenger Preamble Formula 3:14b

“These are the words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the ruler of God’s creation.”

Historical Prologue 3:15

“I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other!”

Sanctions – Curse 3:16-17

“So, because you are lukewarm– neither hot nor cold– I am about to spit you out of my mouth. You say, ‘I am rich; I have acquired wealth and do not need a thing.’ But you do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked.”

187

188

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

Ethical Stipulations 3:18-19

“I counsel you to buy from me gold refined in the fire, so you can become rich; and white clothes to wear, so you can cover your shameful nakedness; and salve to put on your eyes, so you can see. Those whom I love I rebuke and discipline. So be earnest, and repent.”

Sanctions - Blessing 3:20-21

“Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with him, and he with me. To him who overcomes, I will give the right to sit with me on my throne, just as I overcame and sat down with my Father on his throne.”

Proclamation Witness Formula, Deposit, and Public Reading 3:22

“He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.”

Summary The evidence of the ANEVT structure is characterized by the presence of their classic elements: messenger preamble formula, historical prologue, ethical stipulations, sanctions (blessing and cursing), proclamation witness formula, and deposit/public reading within the SMR. It appears that John did not randomly arrange the sequence of the elements in the seven messages, but that he rather purposefully chose these particular elements and arranged them in this closely structured order. Of all the possible elements and orders that John could have chosen, he followed this one, the ANEVT structure from Deuteronomy. There is enough of a definable ANEVT pattern and functional equivalence, with breadth of treaty material in each of the messages, that the original readers would have read them as treatyesque prophetic oracles that call the churches to repentance.

Smyrna

Pergamum Thyatira

Sardis Philadelphia

Laodicea

4:1– 7:17; 12:11, 17 etc.

Rev 2:1b Rev 2:8b

2:2– 4, 6 2:9

2:5a

Rev 2:12b Rev 2:18b

2:13– 15 2:19– 21

2:24– 25

Rev 3:1b Rev 3:7b

3:1c

3:2–3a

3:8–9

3:11

Rev 3:14b

3:15

3:18– 19

2:10ac

2:16a

8:1– 14:20; 22:7b; 14a; 18–19 2:5b; 7b No Curse; 2:10d; 11b 2:16b; 17b 2:22– 23; 26–28 3:3b– 5 No Curse; 3:10, 12 3:16– 17; 20–21

189

Deposit and Public Reading

1:5b– 6a; 2:1– 3:22

Proclamation Witness Formula

Rev 1:5a; 1–20

Sanctions

Ethical Stipulations

Ephesus

Historical Prologue

Document Revelation including Seven Churches

Messenger Preamble Formula

CHAPTER FOUR-LITERARY STRUCTURE

22:16; 17a; 20a

1:3, 11; 15:1– 22:21

2:7a

2:7a

2:11a

2:11a

2:17a

2:17a

2:29

2:29

3:6

3:6

3:13

3:13

3:22

3:22

190

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

SmyrnaMagnesia treaty

3:492. 1222

3:492 .2–33

Hippocratic Oath Prophets223

Absent Amos 1:6, 9, 11, 13; 2:1, 4, 6; 5:3, 4, 15; 7:11, 17; Mic 2:3; 3:5; etc. Josh 24:2a

Absent Mic 6:4– 5; Hos 13:4; Mal 4:4

Joshua

24:2b –13, 17– 18

3:492. 62– 68, 73–77 1:289

3:492. 69, 78

3:492. 61, 70– 72 1:289

3:492 .61, 79– 89 1:289

Jer 35:15; Hos 4:15

Ezek 34:26; Hag 2:19; Zech 5:3

Isa 30:8; Jer 29:23; 42:5; Mic 1:2

Deut 31:9– 11, 24– 26; Neh 8:3; Jer 36:10

24:14 –25

24:19 –20

24:22, 27

8:34; 24:26 ; 2 Kgs 23:1– 3

1:289

222 Bengtson and Schmitt, DSA 3:492.1–89; Dittenberger, OGIS 1:229.1–89. 223 The references listed are small samples of a much larger selection representing the elements of the ANEVT structure. The prophets focused on the covenant sanctions, rather than the full structure. However, most prophets used some elements. See chapter 3—ANEVT/Torah influence on the Prophetic Lawsuit, 101.

CHAPTER FOUR-LITERARY STRUCTURE Deuteronomy

Deut 1:1–6a

1:6– 3:29

4:45; 5–26

28:1– 68

4:26; 30:19; 31:24 –26, 28; 32:1– 47

Decalogue

Exod 20:1

20:2

19:5; 20:5– 7; 11– 12

34:1, 27– 28; 40:20

ANEVT

1224

2–4

20:3– 17; 22– 31; Lev 1–25 5–15

21–22

16-20

191 10:1, 5; 17:19 ; 31:9– 13, 24– 26 24:7– 8; 25:16 ; 40:20 8225

Table 9. ANEVT Summary Comparison

CORROBORATIVE ARGUMENTS FOR ANEVT INFLUENCE Several corroborative arguments support the proposal that the ANEVT covenant schema forms an important part of the structure of the seven oracles. Several of these arguments have been proposed by Beale to support “at least part of the general background”226 for the ANE covenant form. These arguments do not stand alone, but they cumulatively form an explanation for the presence of the ANEVT structure in the SMR. Certainly one can only speculate as to what John’s understanding of Torah might have been, but there is certainly evidence of material drawn from the Torah sprinkled throughout the SMR, indicating that John was at least conscious of Torah.

224

“Treaty between Mursilis II and Tuppi-Teshshup of Amurru” (Beckman, Hittite Diplomatic Texts, 59–64). 225 “Treaty between Shattiwaza of Mittanni and Suppiluliuma I of Hatti” (Beckman, Hittite Diplomatic Texts, 51). 226 Beale, Rev, 227.

192

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

The Presence of Torah in the SMR The Torah227 includes the ANEVT structure, particularly in the Decalogue and Deuteronomy.228 If the SMR includes the ANEVT structure, then it could be expected that the SMR would also contain other elements of the Torah.229 Of course, the key link in this syllogism would be evidence of these other elements from the Torah in the SMR. What follows are several indications for the presence of elements from the Torah, particularly the Decalogue and Deuteronomy, in the SMR.230

Messenger Formula Christ introduces himself with ta,de le,gei W, a classic formula (2:1, 8, 12, 18; 3:1, 7, 14)231 used by OT prophets to introduce their prophetic utterances from God (Exod 20:1). This same messenger formula is used by Moses as he speaks on behalf of God before Pharaoh to let God’s covenant people go (firstborn son Exod 4:22; 5:1, 10; 7:17, 26; 8:16; 9:1, 13; 10:3; 11:4). If ta,de le,gei W is used by the prophet Moses, and if John also uses ta,de le,gei W, then John may be using the messenger formula in the same manner as the prophet

227 Torah is used here in the general sense of the law of Moses or the Pentateuch, not specifically as a way of life. See chapter 2–Definitions, 34. 228 See chapter 1—ANEVT Structure in the Pentateuch, 13. 229 Sutton argues that “If Revelation is a covenant lawsuit against God’s Old Testament people, we would expect the Apocalypse to take this form [ANEVT]” (Prosper, 254). As Sutton views the book of Revelation from a preterist perspective, however, the argument does not require that the addressees be God’s OT people. Therefore, it can also refer to the NT church. 230 See Bauckham for John’s use of an eschatological exodus as a symbolic theme in Revelation (Theology, 70–72). For Deuteronomy’s influence on the book of Revelation cf. 1:18 (Deut 32:40); 5:3 (Deut 5:8); 6:10 (Deut 32:34); 9:14 (Deut 1:7); 9:20 (Deut 32:17); 10:5ff. (Deut 32:40); 12:12 (Deut 32:34); 12:16 (Deut 11:6); 15:3ff. (Deut 32:4; 34:5); 16:2 (Deut 28:35); 16:5 (Deut 32:4); 17:14 (Deut 10:17); 19:2 (Deut 32:34); 19:16 (Deut 10:17); 21:17 (Deut 3:11); 22:18ff. (Deut 4:1ff.; 13:1; 29:19ff.). See Tilly, “Deuteronomy in Revelation,” 169–224. 231 See chapter 4—Messenger Preamble Formula, 141.

CHAPTER FOUR-LITERARY STRUCTURE

193

Moses–prophetically. This could indicate a preliminary link with the Torah.

Balaam and Balak Connection John not only uses ta,de le,gei W, his

was also focused on the Torah from the allusion to Balaam and Balak (Deut 23:4–5; Num 20:2–24:25) in the message to Pergamum (2:14).232 Since the story of Balaam is only found in the Torah, it is a strong possibility that the Torah influenced his writing.233

Evidence of the Decalogue The presence of the Torah is evident from the commandments (laws) of God (Deut 5:1–22; Exod 20) in the SMR. Furthermore, the Decalogue is well documented as containing the ANEVT structure.234 If there is evidence of the Decalogue in the SMR then it may also be possible that the ANEVT structure is also present. The first commandment (Deut 5:7) is alluded to in Thyatira (2:22 spiritual adultery), Laodicea (3:16 lukewarmness), and Ephesus (2:4; cf. Deut 7:12–13; Deut 10:12–13; see also Deut 6:5; 11:1, 13, 22; 13:3; 30:6, 16). Christ commends the covenant faithfulness of some in Ephesus and rebukes others for forsaking their first love and breaking their covenant bond. John reminds the Ephesian church that they are being unfaithful to their covenant obligations and relationship with Christ. God’s people are called to love God and obey his laws with all their heart, soul, and strength (Deut 6:5; 10:12; 11:13; 13:3; 26:16; 30:2, 6, 17–18). The second commandment (Deut 5:9–10) is broken by Pergamum in accepting Balaam’s teaching to “eating food sacrificed to idols” and thus committing idolatry (2:14–15; cf. Deut 4:15–31). The third commandment (Deut 5:11) is alluded to in a positive way in the message to Pergamum (2:17) and Philadelphia (3:12). Here God’s name is not taken in vain but rather written

232

John also mentions Jezebel (2:20; 1 Kgs 16–21), recalling the parallel OT stories further demonstrating that John’s mind was on the OT. 233 Bauckham, Theology, 71–72. 234 See chapter 3–ANEVT Influence on the Torah, 97.

194

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

upon the overcomer. Pergamum is commended for remaining true to God’s name (2:13; cf. Deut 29:20). The fourth commandment (Deut 5:12–15) is implied in the hard work of the Ephesian church (2:2). The positive implication of keeping Sabbath rest is working hard the other six days (Deut 5:13). The fifth commandment (Deut 5:16) is implied in the message to Thyatira (2:23). The commandment to “Honor your father and your mother” is given with a promise that their children “may live long” (Deut 5:16). The malediction on the Thyatiran church to “strike her children dead” (2:23) may be connected to this commandment. The second tablet of the law (Deut 5:17) is also mentioned. The sixth commandment is alluded to in Pergamum (2:13) with the murder of Antipas. The seventh commandment (Deut 5:18) is broken by Pergamum (2:14–15) and Thyatira (2:20–23). Both churches are admonished for committing immorality and spiritual adultery. The imagery of adultery is a classic portrayal of spiritual adultery, which represents the broken covenant (Hos 1). The eighth commandment (Deut 5:19) is alluded to in Sardis where that church’s punishment is portrayed in terms of a thief (3:3). The ninth commandment (Deut 5:20) is broken by Sardis where this church is accused of hypocrisy (3:1; one aspect of hypocrisy is lying to oneself), and Philadelphia, referred to as the Synagogue of Satan, is accused of being full of lying members (3:9; cf. Deut 19:18). The tenth commandment (Deut 5:21) is implied in the message to Smyrna (2:8 Poverty and wealth) and Laodicea whose members claim they are rich (3:17). Covetousness is directly linked to riches in Deuteronomy 7:25. All Ten Commandments are explicitly referred to, alluded to, or implied in the seven messages. All seven churches are represented focusing a substantial portion of their message on the moral law of God as expressed in the Decalogue in the Torah. In the messages to five of the seven churches the commandments had been broken through various transgressions. However, the Decalogue is alluded to or implicitly represented in all the church messages.

First Second Third Fourth Fifth Six Seventh Eighth Ninth Tenth

2:4

2:22

195

Laodicea

Philadelphia

Sardis

Thiatyra

Pergamum

Smyrna

Commandment

Ephesus

CHAPTER FOUR-LITERARY STRUCTURE

3:16

2:14– 15 2:17

3:12

2:2 2:23 2:13 2:14– 15

2:20– 23 3:3 3:1

2:8

3:9 3:17

Table 10. Evidence of the Decalogue

The Tree of Life Imagery The blessing promised to the Ephesian overcomers is “the right to eat from the tree of life, which is the paradise of God” (2:7). The covenant fellowship and communion once lost in the Garden of Eden will be restored for the overcomers (22:14). The imagery is drawn from the Torah (Gen 2:9).

The Morning Star Imagery The blessing of the morning star to Thyatira (2:28), is “representative (by metonymy) of messianic rule”235 (22:16; Ps 2:8–9; Isa 11:1). This language is confirmed by Numbers 24:14–20.236 John probably not only had Psalm 2 in mind, but also the Torah, as the star

235

Beale, Rev, 268. A. Gangemi, “La stella del mattino (Apoc. 2,26–28),” RivB 26 (1978): 241–74. 236

196

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

and ruler imagery in Numbers 24 is part of Balaam’s fourth oracle;237 Torah and particularly Balaam (2:14) are on John’s mind.

oi=da Formula The oi=da formula, evident in each of the SMR, is also found in the Torah (Exod 3:7; 19; 33:12; 17; Deut 3:19; 31:21) used in the prophetic sense (Amos 3:2; Hos 13:4–5). Again the Balaam oracles are the focus of the oi=da formula along with the blessing and curse motifs in the Torah.238 Balak seeks to compel Balaam to place a curse on Israel and states, “For I know (oi=da) that those you bless are blessed, and those you curse are cursed” (Num 22:6).

“Never Blot Out His Name” Imagery The blessing to the overcomers of Sardis, that Christ “will never blot [evxalei,yw] out his name from the Book of Life” (3:5), has ancient Israelite roots (Exod 32:32–33; Ps 69:28; Dan 12:1; Isa 4:3; cf. 1QM 12:1–2).239 While this motif also has NT usage (Luke 10:20; Heb 12:33; Hermas Sim. 2.9), its roots go back to the Torah (evxalei,yw Exod 17:14; 32:32–33; Deut 9:14; 25:19; 29:20; 32:26). In addition, it is worth noting here that the “Book of Life” motif is originally set in the judicial context of the court both in the ANE

237 Beale points out that “Numbers 24:17 was also interpreted messianically in Jewish writings” (T. Levi 18:3; T. Jud. 24:1; CD 7.18–21; 1QM 11.6–7; 4QTest 9–13; so Beale, Rev, 268); cf. Aune, Rev 1–5, 213; Hemer, Letters, 125; John P. M. Sweet, Revelation (2d ed. TPINTC. London: SCM, 1990), 97; Smalley, Rev, 79. 238 The curse motif is picked up again later in 16:2. This is a quote from Deut 28:35 where in the context Tilly states, “Conditional curses aimed at every Israelite who does not listen to the voice of Yahweh and does not obey his commands (vv. 15–45). Rev 16:2 and Deut 28:35 both threaten a painful, polluting, disfiguring skin disease leading ultimately to complete social isolation” (“Deuteronomy in Revelation,” 171). 239 Smalley, Rev, 85; Aune, Rev 1–5, 223. Beale argues that Daniel is the basis for the Revelation passage, he also notes that “part of the contextual idea from Exodus 32 and Psalm 69 has been utilized in Rev 3:5b within the Danielic two-book scheme” (Rev, 281).

CHAPTER FOUR-LITERARY STRUCTURE

197

and the OT.240 The metaphor of the books of life conveys the covenant faithfulness of the king who will preserve the names of the overcomers eternally in relationship with the King of life (13:8; 17:8; 20:12, 15; 21:27; Phil 4:3; Luke 10:20; Heb 12:23).

A New Name Imagery The blessing for the overcomers in Pergamum is “a new name written” (2:17). In Philadelphia this is the blessing: “I will write on him the name of my God. . . I will also write on him my new name” (3:12). While most scholars agree that Isaiah 56:5; 62:2; 65:15 are primarily behind the allusion to this blessing,241 the Aaronic blessing of Numbers 6:27 also states that Aaron and his sons were to “put my [God’s] name on the Israelites and I will [he would] bless them.” Part of God’s blessing on all Israelites was that they have God’s name bestowed upon them as God’s possession (Deut 28:10; Isa 43:7; Dan 9:18–19). Aune makes this point related to the bestowal of God’s name on the Israelites: [this is] an allusion to Exod 28:36–38, where instructions are given for writing the inscription “Holy to the Lord” on a gold plate to be mounted on the front of Aaron’s high priestly headdress, on his forehead.242

This is reminiscent of the ultimate covenant blessing described in the formula: “They will be his people and God himself will be with them and be their God” (21:3). The writing of the name on the overcomer is an indication of possession in covenant relationship. Again, this concept of blessing and naming originates in the Torah.

The Paraenetic Role of Repentance A key paraenetic, prophetic role running through the messages is the call to repentance. Revelation 2–3 mentions it seven times (2:5x2, 16, 21, 22; 3:3, 19). Repentance was a central covenantal 240

Shalom M. Paul, “Heavenly Tablets and the Book of Life,” JANESCU 5(1973): 345–53; Aune, Rev 1–5, 223; Smalley, Rev, 85. 241 Beale, Rev, 293. 242 Aune, Rev 1–5, 242.

198

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

hallmark of the Torah and the OT prophets, who called the people of Israel to repentance for breaking the stipulations of the Mosaic covenant (Deut 4:29–31; 30:1–5; 2 Kgs 17:13–14).243 The SMR bear this classic mark of repentance with the prophets. Israel’s affliction is a result of its violation of the terms of the Mosaic covenant (Deut 28:1–31:29; cf. Jdt 8:18–19; 2 Macc 4:16–17; 6:12–17; 7:18, 32; 10:4; 1 En. 103:9–15). This view was also held in John’s day as documented by Josephus (J.W. 2.391–93; 5.401–19; Ant. 1.14) and led John to call the churches to repentance.244

Conclusion Therefore, the wide range of echoes from various parts of the Torah, such as the inclusion of references to Deuteronomy in Revelation, allow for the possibility that John may also have picked up the ANEVT structure. While there is no way of knowing exactly what John understood as “Torah,” it does indicate that John’s mind was focused on the first books of the OT and may have absorbed the ANEVT structure from the writings of the Torah. This is certainly different than arguing that because there are allusions to the Torah in Revelation, there are also ANEVT structures. However, the presence of the ANEVT structure in the Torah245 allows for its use by John alongside other OT elements from the Torah in Revelation (11:19; 21:3, 7). Given John’s use of the Torah, it would not be strange for him to make use consciously or unconsciously of the ANEVT structure, particularly, since as Bandy points out, John demonstrates a heavy use of the OT covenant theme,246 which also contains the same structure. The ANEVT structure would be suitable for conveying a covenant message written in the tradition of

243

William L. Holladay, The Root SHUBH in the Old Testament: with Particular Reference to its Usages in Covenantal Contexts (Leiden: Brill, 1958); Hans W. Wolff, “Das Kerygma des deuteronomistischen Geschichteswerkes,” ZAW 73 (1961): 171–86; Lohse, Offenbarung, 24; Dempster, “Canon,” 300. 244 See chapter 3—Torah and Covenant Unfaithfulness, 108. 245 See chapter 1—ANEVT Structure in the Pentateuch, 13. 246 Bandy, “Lawsuit,” 201–27.

CHAPTER FOUR-LITERARY STRUCTURE

199

an OT prophet.247 For John to pick up other echoes from the Torah such as the AVEVT structure would be reasonable given his previous use of the Torah. While the messages could be delivered using another type structure (imperial edicts),248 the close parallel between the structure in the SMR and Deuteronomy in particular is a stronger and more compelling argument. Suitability of the Covenant Theme If Deuteronomy (Torah) contains the ANEVT structure and the SMR are similar to Deuteronomy (covenant obligation and renewal),249 then it is possible that the content of the SMR is packaged using a similar Deuteronomic covenant structure.250 Thus, one of the links between SMR and Deuteronomy is the suitability of the covenant theme. Beale marshals this argument and states, “the covenant theme is particularly appropriate because Jesus is viewed with attributes of Yahweh and is addressing the churches, which are now also seen as the continuation of true Israel.”251 The covenant theme delivered to the churches, using the ANEVT structure, is a suitable approach given the historical context and function of the SMR.252

Centrality in Both Testaments The covenant is an important, if not central,253 theme of the OT, and to a less obvious extent, the New Testament (covenant).254 The

247

See chapter 2—John’s Prophetic Office, 44. See chapter 3—Imperial Edicts, 54. 249 See chapter 1—ANEVT Structure in the Pentateuch, 13. 250 Petrus J. Gräbe sees the relevance of the connection between the ANEVT structure and the importance of the Covenant (New Covenant, 30–36). 251 Beale, Rev, 227–28. 252 Bandy argues that the prophetic covenant lawsuit material influenced the message of Revelation, which is examined in chapter 1—Alan Bandy (2007), 27. 253 While the covenant is an important theme it is certainly not the only theme, as others have proposed their own emphasis such as kingdom, love, loving kindness, etc. See Hasel’s survey of the central themes 248

200

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

leitmotiv of the covenant in scripture is “I will be your God and you will be my people” (Jer 7:23; 11:4; 24:7; 30:22; 31:1; 33; 32:28; Ezek 11:20; 14:11; 36:28; 37:23, 27; Hos 1:10; Joel 2:27; Zech 2:11; 8:8).255 This leitmotiv is used in its modified form in Rev 21:3, 7 (Hos 2:23). This formulary implies correspondence to a covenant definition. In fact, the prophets employed a diverse covenant vocabulary outside of the use of the term covenant.256 Eichrodt, a leading proponent of the centrality of the covenant, makes this point: the concept of the covenant was given this central position in the religious thinking of the OT so that, by working outward of the OT, including those that oppose the centrality of the covenant (OT Theology, 139–71). 254 Whether Covenant and Testament have the same meaning in church tradition is debated by Kautzsch, Kutsch, and Gräßer. Emil Kautzsch states that it is misleading [Irreführend] (Biblische Theologie des Alten Testaments [Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1911], 60). Joachim Begrich argues that to translate berit as covenant “is a mistake and it should be eliminated from scholarly theological usage” (“Berit. Ein Beitrag zur Erfassung einer alttestamentlichen Denkform,” ZAW 60 [1944]: 1–11). Kutsch also claims that it is a “false translation” [Fehlübersetzung] (Verheißung, 206; see Gräßer, Bund, 5); cf. Georg Fohrer does not think that the covenant plays any role in Israel’s history between the end of the 13h to the 7h century BC (“Alten Testaments –‘Amphiktyonie’ und ‘Bund’?” TLZ 91 [1966]: 893–904; “Der Mittelpunkt einer Theologie des Alten Testaments,” TZ 24 [1968]: 162– 63). This provides the rationale for Lothar Perlitt’s claim for the “covenant silence” in the prophets of the 8h century (Bundestheologie im Alten Testaments [WMANT 36; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1971]); contra Eichrodt, “Prophet and Covenant,” 167–88; “Covenant and Law,” 305; Clements, Prophecy and Covenant, 77ff.; Weinfeld, TDOT 2:225. 255 The covenant formula has been studied in detail by Rudolf Smend (Die Bundesformel [ThSt 68; Zürich: EVZ, 1963]). See Norbert L. Lohfink, “Dt 26:17–19 und die ‘Bundesformel’,” ZKT 91 [(1969): 517–53; repr., SZDZDL; (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1990), 1:211–61; Rolf Rendtorff, The Covenant Formula: An Exegetical-Theological Investigation (trans. M. Kohl; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998); and Sabine van den Eynde, “Covenant Formula and Bryt: The Links between a Hebrew Lexeme and a Biblical Concept,” OTE 12 (1999): 122–48. Paul Wells draws some theological conclusions (“Covenant, Humanity, and Scripture: Some Theological Reflections,” WTJ 48 [1986]: 29–32). 256 Mendenhall, “Covenant,” IDB 1:715.

CHAPTER FOUR-LITERARY STRUCTURE

201

from it, the structural unity of the OT message might be made more readily visible.257

However, while Eichrodt argues for the centrality of the covenant in the OT, he does not see its dependence on the ANEVT in the prophets;258 one does not necessarily lead to the other. Nevertheless, the ANEVT structure provides more consistency and stability for the message of the covenant, 259 thus it allows for the possibility that John used a modified genre in Revelation adapted from the prophets. This adapted genre could be described as a hybrid prophetic oracle. Also, the covenant does not need to be the central theme in scripture for it to exert an important influence on the message and relationship with God’s people, as well as contain the ANEVT structure.

OT Covenant Allusions and Themes in Revelation The centrality of the covenant theme in Revelation is surprisingly important given that diaqh,kh is only mentioned once.260 Shea points out the one reference to the term: is at the very center of the book (11:19) and is connected with the Ark of the Covenant, just as the ten stipulations of the Mosaic covenant were connected with the Ark at the center of the Israelite tabernacle.261

As a reminder of the covenant faithfulness of God (Gen 9:13, 16),262 the prominence of the rainbow is displayed around the throne (4:3; Gen 9:12–17, Noachic Covenant) and the angel (10:1). John revisits the covenant in the last two chapters of Revelation as

257

Eichrodt, Theology OT, 1:17. Eichrodt, “Prophet and Covenant,” 175; contra Fensham, “Malediction,” 1–9. 259 The influence of the ANE on the concept of the covenant is competently documented by McCarthy and Kitchen (McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant, 51–85; Kitchen, “Egypt,” 453–64; Reliability, 283–94). 260 See chapter 4—Absence of the Term Covenant, 211. 261 Shea, “Covenantal,” 72; Du Preez, “Mission,” 154. 262 Smalley, Rev, 206; cf. Smalley, Thunder, 77–79. 258

202

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

the kingdom263 is brought in,264 God is eternally acknowledged as God, and His people will forever be his obedient vassals (21:3, 7).265 These mark just a few of the many covenant allusions evident in the book of Revelation.266 Therefore, following the large number of these allusions and themes267 in Revelation, it would not be unusual or surprising for John to make use of the ANEVT structure. Beale argues that it “permits the plausibility of the employment of such a major [covenantal] theme as this”268 in the messages. Also, the presence of the covenant theme does not prove that the treaty structure was used by John. However, the presence of the covenant theme in the Pentateuch, structured after the ANEVT, 269 certainly enhances the probability of its use by John alongside other OT allusions and themes in Revelation (11:19; 21:3, 7). Thus, this line of reasoning is a subsidiary supportive argument.

263

For the kingdom of God and Kingship in Revelation, see Jan A. Du Rand, “Your Kingdom come on Earth as It is in Heaven: The Theological Motif of the Apocalypse of John,” Neot 31 (1997): 59–75. 264 The term used is tabernacle (skhnh, 21:3; John 1:14) and it hearkens back to the Exodus and the OT covenant relationship with Israel in the wilderness. Smalley, Thunder, 157. 265 Robert Govett, The Apocalypse Expounded by Scripture (London: Thynne, 1920), 118. Thomas dismisses this view from the fact that Jeremiah’s new covenant (Jer 31:31–34) was one of mercy and this scroll is following judgment (Rev 1–7, 377). However, central to the New Covenant is Christ drinking the cup of divine wrath (1 Cor 11:25) to provide the blessing. 266 See Bandy on the prophetic lawsuit motif in Revelation detailing the many allusions to the forensic nature of the book (“Lawsuit,” 177– 342). 267 There are more OT allusions in Revelation than any other NT writing; cf. Swete, Apocalypse, cxxxix–clii; Beale, Rev, 77; Dave Mathewson, “Assessing OT Allusions in the Book of Revelation,” EvQ 75.4 (2003): 325; Smalley, Rev, 9. 268 Beale, Rev, 227. 269 See chapter 1—ANEVT Structure in the Pentateuch, 13.

CHAPTER FOUR-LITERARY STRUCTURE

203

Appropriate for the Consummation of Redemption Vos has perceptively made the connection between the OT prophetic/covenant message and the NT: if the work of salvation has a covenantal form at its root, then the rest of its unfolding is bound to correspond to it and proceed in a covenantal way. The covenant of redemption does not stand by itself, but is the basis of the economy of salvation.270

Therefore, as the book of Revelation is concerned with the consummation of redemption, one would expect to find covenantal elements within the messages to the churches as well as within the book as a whole.271 Indeed, Smalley demonstrates that John’s theology contains “strong covenant overtones” and is “presented in terms of the new covenant.”272

Antithetic Parallels to Chapters 21–22 The covenant is integral to the arguments in the SMR that are supported by the strong antithetic parallelism or mirroring contrast between the SMR and chapter 21:9–22:5 (see Table 10 below).273 If an appropriate connection can be identified with chapters 21 and 22, where there is a clear covenant statement (21:3, 7), and the SMR,

270 Geerhardus Vos, “The Doctrine of the Covenant in Reformed Theology” in Redemptive History and Biblical Interpretation (ed. Richard B. Gaffin, Jr.; Phillipsburg, N. J.: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1980), 252. 271 Du Preez argues for the relevance of Missions in the book of Revelation as supported by the covenant:

One of the main truths that permeates Revelation is the concept of the Covenant and thus also of the sovereignty of God: God reveals Himself in Christ as King of His people via the Covenant, He lets His Kingdom come through the Covenant of grace. . . . For this purpose–that He might be glorified–God, by virtue of His right to reign as universal Lord of the Covenant in Christ, gathers all nations a universal covenant people, i.e., a people drawn from Jews and Gentilesalike (“Mission,” 153–55). 272 See Smalley for frequent allusions to the covenant in Revelation (Thunder, 155–57). 273 Davis, Court Judgment, 64, 70; Beale, Rev, 134.

204

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

then it could be argued that the lawsuit message of the SMR is consistent with the rest of the book because of the book’s unity. Kline alertly argues that the later chapter’s suitability of 21:9– 22:5 to serve as the closing contrast to the opening picture of the Church in this present evil world (Rev 2, 3) [depends upon] the fact that the imperfections attending the residence of the Church on earth are conspicuous by their absence or their opposites in Rev 21:9 ff.274

This contrast is theologically framed in terms of the church militant and the church triumphant. Kline’s contrasts are cumulatively convincing.

SMR

Rev 21–22

The false Jews of Philadelphia and Smyrna described as the “synagogue of Satan” (2:9; 3:9). The false apostles of Ephesus (2:2).

The gates of the new Jerusalem inscribed with the names of the true “twelve tribes of Israel” (21:12). The “twelve true apostles of the lamb” (21:14). Those in the “lamb’s Book of Life” (21:27). “The throne of God” (22:1). In glory “they will not need the light of a lamp or the light of the sun, for the Lord God will give them light” (22:5). The purity of the redeemed church (21:16, 18, 21) in the new Jerusalem where “nothing impure will ever enter it, nor will anyone who does what is shameful or deceitful” (21:27).

The death in Sardis (3:1). Satan’s throne in Pergamum (2:12). The potential for the lampstand being removed (1:20; 2:5).

The impurities of the churches: lukewarmness, heresies, spiritual adultery, and lies (2:14, 15, 20; 3:2, 9, 16).

274 Meredith G. Kline, “A Study in the Structure of the Revelation of John,” (paper presented at Westminster Theological Seminary, 1945), 19.

CHAPTER FOUR-LITERARY STRUCTURE In the churches of Asia Minor God’s people must face persecution (2:8–10; 3:10) overcoming through abiding in the promise of God.

205

The new Jerusalem, the glorified saints, safe from persecution (21:4), abide in the presence of God (21:23) and reign with God forever and ever (22:5). The overcomers inherit correlated covenant communion blessings in eternal life (2:7/22:2; 2:11/21:27, 22:3; 2:17/22:4; 2:26–28/22:5, 21:22–22:16; 3:5/21:27, 22:5; 3:12/ 21:10, 22:4; 3:21/22:1, 22:5).

Table 11. Antithetic Parallels in Rev 21–22275

These parallels are not coincidental. Kline notes that Revelation is full of similar elements of contrast, but, notwithstanding, insists that “in 21:9–22:5 there is an accumulation of points of contrast that indicates distinctiveness.”276 The message of the book of

275

Emphasis added. In the last two items there is a theological antithetical parallel rather than a verbal correlation. While there is no lukewarmness specifically mentioned in 21–22, it is one of the impurities in the messages that is contrasted by the pure church. Likewise, the absence of any specific reference to persecution in 21–22 is an argument from silence although the absence of persecution in heaven is a theological truth reinforced by the absence of suffering, tears, and pain (21:4). Antithetical parallels are not limited to chs. 21–22 but found scattered throughout the visions in Revelation (7:15; 8:12; 13:8; 17:8; 18:20, 23; 20:12, 15, etc.). 276 Kline, “Structure of Rev,” 19. The embracing of the antithetical parallelism or recapitulation theory does not exclude elements of chiasmus, liturgy, drama, or other structural observations; cf. Beale, Rev, 108– 51; Aune, Rev 1–5, xc–xcix. As Johnson has wisely observed, “All such schemes must, however, be subordinate to the exegesis of the book” (Rev, 411). As Osborne has argued, “No single structural scheme for the book will suffice because the sections relate at more than one level” (Rev, 29).

206

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

Revelation is antithetically parallel to the surrounding imperial culture.277 Michaels’ case study of the term liars (yeudh/) used in Revelation 2–3 demonstrates unifying verbal and thematic consistency in the meaning of liars and lying throughout Revelation.278 The Smyrnaean church suffered from “the blasphemy of those who claim to be Jews and are not” (2:9).279 This same spirit of lying occurs throughout the visions as liars will not enter heaven (21:8, 27; 22:15), but are of their father the devil (beast 13:11–18 and false prophet o` yeudoprofh,thj 16:13; 19:20; 20:10). The martyrs are antithetically contrasted with these false prophets since “no lie was found in their mouth” (yeu/doj /14:4, 5). Those thrown into “the lake burning with fire and sulphur, which is the second death” include “all the liars” (yeude,sin /21:8).280 Related to this, Beale, basing his arguments on Kline and Farrer, sees a unity “not synchronously or thematically parallel but antithetically parallel, forming a boundary or inclusion for the inner five (or six) sections, which recapitulate one another.”281 Beale argues that the antithetical parallel strengthens the connection between Rev 2-3 and the rest of Revelation:

277

The phenomena of parallelism is consistent with the Hebraic practice, where it is antithetically prominent in wisdom literature (Ps 1:6; Prov 1:29; 10:1, 7). 278 Michaels, Interpreting Rev, 42–43. 279 See Ephesus yeudh,j 2:2; Thyatira 2:20; Philadelphia yeu,domai 3:9. 280 Michaels points out that one “should notice that the preceding verse explicitly recalls the repeated promises to those who ‘overcome’ in chapters 2–3: The one who overcomes will inherit these things, and I will be his God and he will be my son’ ([covenant formula] 21:7). This may also explain why the list in v. 8 begins unexpectedly with the ‘cowardly’ (toi/j . . . deiloi/j ). Although there is no explicit mention of ‘cowardice’ in the SMR (or anywhere else in the book), ‘the cowardly’ is an appropriate contrast to ‘the overcomer’ (on ‘cowardly and unbelieving,’ see the pronouncement of Jesus in Mark 4:40; also 2 Tim 1:7–8” (Interpreting Rev, 42 n. 28). 281 Beale, Rev, 135; Kline, “Structure of Rev,” 19; Farrer, Rev, 83–86; Sweet, Rev, 44–47.

CHAPTER FOUR-LITERARY STRUCTURE

207

the link between the letters and the visions is reinforced by the antithetical parallels between the imperfections of the church in the old creation (chs. 2–3)282 and its corresponding perfections in the new creation (21:9–22:5).283

The connection of the SMR with the later chapters of Revelation is further demonstrated by direct parallels between promises to conquerors given to the churches in the seven cities (2:7, 11, 17, 26–28; 3:5, 12, 21) and the vision of the Holy City, the new Jerusalem (21:7).284 Wilson states “continuity between each promise in the seven letters and its fulfillment in the future eschaton can be clearly seen.”285 This also links the seven churches in 1:4-4:2 with the new Jerusalem in 19:6–22:9.286 Accepting the antithetical parallelism principle provides a strong argument for covenantal dealings with the churches. The covenant relationship is identified with the consummated covenantal communion in the glorified eternal state (21:3, 7)287 and it is antithetically parallel to the broken covenant relationship in the mes-

282

Dempster observes a related parallel with the Torah. “The ending vision of the prophetic Revelation resonates with the beginning of the Torah, but it explodes those constraints. Now heaven has finally united with earth and there is a city with an innumerable host of people, not just a garden with two individuals. There is not just one tree of life but two; there is no more sea, no more night, no more sun, no more temple” (“Canon,” 313). 283 Beale, Rev, 134; Kline, “Structure of Rev,” 19; Wilcock, Heaven Opened, 200–203; Smalley, Rev, 522. By contrast, Charles sees Rev 20–22 “full of confusion and contradiction” (Rev, 2:44). Charles speculates that John died after authoring up to 20:3, and he suggests that a number of independent documents were compiled by a “faithful but unintelligent disciple” (Rev, 2:147). Smalley responds to Charles’s proposal as “idiosyncratic and searches for a consistency which apocalyptic visions rarely exhibit” (Rev, 379 n. 2). 284 Michaels, Interpreting Rev, 40; Hemer, Letters, 16. 285 Wilson, “Promise Sayings,” 127. 286 Hemer, Letters, 44. 287 Smalley sees this passage as a “vision of God dwelling in a covenant relationship with his people in the past, present and future” (Rev, 20).

208

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

sages.288 As Beale states, the covenant formula289 in Revelation 21:3, 7 indicates “that the new creation, towards which history is moving, will bring to fulfilment the new covenant promised in the book of Jeremiah and inaugurated by Jesus Christ.”290 It is significant that the consummation of the covenant, including the removal of the curse in 21:3, 7, is antithetically parallel to the covenant lawsuit encouragement given to overcomers in the SMR. The Smyrnaeans will persevere through current persecution and suffering which will be removed later when they become the glorified people of the New Jerusalem (21:7; 2:3, 10, 13, 19; 3:3, 8). Through the new covenant, the terrifying barriers of the Sinai covenant are removed, thus granting free access into the presence of God. Those “whose names are written in the Lamb’s Book of Life” (21:27) will see God face to face. Robertson echoes this interpretation: A “new heaven and a new earth” prepare the way for the consummate dwelling of God among his people (21:1). . . . At the heart of the covenant may be found the substance that unifies the long history of God’s dwelling with his people.291

Compatibility with New Covenant Community Beale also echoes covenantal parallelism: The recapitulation of the covenant formula is suitable because a new covenant community has now been inaugurated in con288 Bauckham makes a similar comparison with the SMR when he states, “When the Old Testament covenant formulary, . . . which was adapted to apply to all nations in 21:3, is adapted again in 21:7, it forms God’s promise to the Christian martyrs, the faithful witnesses whom John’s readers are called to become, summing up all the promises made to those who ‘conquer’ in the seven messages to the churches” (Theology, 137). 289 “I will be your God, and you will be my people” (Exod 6:7; Lev 26:12; Jer 7:23; 11:4; 24:7; 30:22; 31:1; 33; 32:28; Ezek 11:20; 14:11; 36:28; 37:23, 27; Hos 1:10; Joel 2:27; Zech 2:11; 8:8). 290 Gregory K. Beale, “Revelation (Book),” NDBT 359; Smalley, Rev, 528. 291 O. Palmer Robertson, Covenants: God’s Way with His People (Philadelphia: Great Commission Publications, 1987), 51.

CHAPTER FOUR-LITERARY STRUCTURE

209

trast to the old one, which has been decisively judged. If the church is faithful, it will inherit the covenantal blessings of the new creation originally promised to Israel (Isa 40–60). But unfaithfulness will bring the curse of exclusion from the blessings.292

The compatibility of the NT imagery of the church as the true Israel (7:1–8; 12:10–12; Rom 9:6; Gal 6:16; Heb 12:22–23),293 along with characteristics of Yahweh being attributed to Jesus as the King of the church (1:17–18; 19:11–12; Isa 62:2–5), provide a rationale for the covenantal suzerain/vassal relationship. The paraenetic salvation oracles are employed in the SMR to promote perseverance in the face of temptation to compromise, and to challenge them to overcome and gain consummated salvific blessing in covenant communion with God. Far from being imposed on the text,294 the covenant is central to the SMR and inherent to the covenant message in Revelation 21–22. The ANEVT and Anatolian Literature The close ANEVT heritage in other Anatolian literature such as the loyalty-oath treaty between Smyrna and Magnesia,295 the Homeric epics (Iliad and Odyssey written 800 BC),296 and the influence of the Hippocratic Oath on Anatolian medicine297 argue for the possibility of John’s awareness of the ANEVT structure outside of the OT. John would have had familiarity with the ANEVT structure from both his Hebraic-Semitic background and the GraecoRoman context.

292 Beale also sees the “book” in chapter 5 “as a covenantal promise of an inheritance when seen in the light of” God’s plan of judgment and salvation and “of the broader theological context of the Apocalypse concerning paradise lost and regained” (Rev, 227–28, 340–41). 293 Smalley, Rev, 187b; Dumbrell, End of the Beginning, 97–101. 294 C. Freeman Sleeper, The Victorious Christ: A Study of the Book of Revelation (Louisville: Knox, 1996), 107; Aune, review of Müller, 450–51. 295 See chapter 3—Loyalty-oath Treaties (1300 BC–3 BC), 59. 296 See chapter 3—Gilgamesh and Homer (2100 BC–800 BC), 65. 297 See chapter 3—The Hippocratic Oath (ca. 460–ca. 377 BC), 71.

210

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

Summary Cumulative arguments support the proposal that the ANEVT covenant schema form the structure of each of the seven oracles. Secondly, John’s reliance on the Torah in the SMR was demonstrated from allusions, themes, similar covenant obligations, and renewal with a focus on Deuteronomy. Since the SMR include elements of the Torah, and since the ANEVT structure was used, particularly in Deuteronomy within the Torah,298 then the SMR may also contain a similar ANEVT structure. Thirdly, the connection of the messages in Revelation with the Deuteronomic structure is consistent with the covenant themes and allusions. The ANEVT structure is appropriate for correspondence that contains covenant sanctions compatible with the new covenant community. The message is strategically delivered at the consummation of redemption evident from the antithetic parallel with Revelation 21–22. It is consistent with the covenant sanctions and provides a rationale for the use of the ANEVT structure to bring to bear the covenant lawsuit in the form of prophetic oracles. In addition, it is evident from the similarities with Anatolian literature that John would have familiarity with the ANEVT structure. John then would have been shaped not only by his HebraicSemitic background, but also by the Graeco-Roman context. However, perhaps the strongest argument for the influence of the ANEVT structure is the identification of each element of the structure, nearly identical in order, to the ANEVT. When all of the evidence is accumulated, it strengthens the justification for the presence of the ANEVT structure in the SMR.

ANSWERS TO ARGUMENTS AGAINST ANEVT INFLUENCE Opponents have raised a variety of arguments, which can be grouped into seven categories, mostly directed at Shea,299 challenging the presence of the covenantal lawsuit structure in the messages. Each will be examined and answered in turn.

298 299

See chapter 1—ANEVT Structure in the Pentateuch, 13. Shea, “Covenantal,” 71–84.

CHAPTER FOUR-LITERARY STRUCTURE

211

Absence of the Term Covenant Wilson criticises Shea’s view on the ANEVT structure by stressing the lack of covenant (diaqh,kh) language within the messages and interpreting this absence as damaging to the structural argument.300 Wilson bases his argument strictly on the absence in the SMR of the OT Hebrew phrase tyrb trk (LXX diati,qemai diaqh,khn Exod 24:8; Deut 4:23; 5:2),301 and he argues that since this language is missing, then the entire concept of the covenant and its accompanying structure must be absent. Wilson implies that without the use of the specific term covenant in the SMR, the ANEVT structure of the covenant also cannot be present. However, one does not need covenant language for the ANEVT structure to be present. Certainly, covenant language is not opposed to the structure but it is not dependent upon it. Conversely, even if the term covenant were used in the SMR, this does not mean that the covenant structure would also be present, as is evident from the OT prophets. The presence of the covenant theme is present within the OT prophets but the ANEVT structure is not present. Thus, this argument against the ANEVT misses the mark. However, even if Wilson’s argument were accepted as valid in the SMR, it would not hold up because, as Hillers points out with regard to the OT prophets, just because the early references to covenant (diaqh,kh) are infrequent, does not mean that the idea of cove-

300 Wilson does admit the use of diaqh,kh (11:19) in connection with the Ark of the Covenant within the temple and recognizes it as “an integral part of the final promise found in Revelation 21:7” (“Promise Sayings,” 130–31). Gräßer questions the centrality and extent of the covenant concept in the NT (Bund, 135–67). Kline however, considers the Ark of the Covenant, within the temple of God in heaven, “the depository of God’s table of remembrance” and a reminder of God’s oath and faithfulness in bringing “to pass the promised blessing” (Treaty, 24). 301 Wilson, “Promise Sayings,” 131. However, Beale points out that Rev 22:7b, 18–19 “part of which alludes to Deut 4:2 and 22:16–20, where an angel, the Spirit, the church, and Jesus are formally termed ‘witnesses’” demonstrating a covenantal influence in the book as a whole (Rev, 227). See Strand, “Covenantal Form,” 251–64.

212

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

nant is absent.302 Hillers argues that covenant ideas are not dependent on covenatal language: admittedly these early references are infrequent, but this is not a really serious problem, for the idea is often present where the word ‘covenant’ is absent. . . . even if the word ‘covenant’ is not prominently on display in their writings, the complex of ideas associated with covenant is present as an invisible framework.303

Scott Hahn cautions that “one cannot link a concept such as ‘covenant’ to just one lexical item (diaqh,kh). Instead, one needs to examine an entire semantic domain associated with the concept.”304 As several scholars have argued, the issue must not simply rest on the strict presence of the term diaqh,kh, but rather on whether there are theological elements of the covenant in the messages to the churches,305 and on the compatibility of the messages with the consummation of redemption in the New Covenant community. The presence or absence of the term covenant does not prove the use of covenant structure. Inconsistent Pattern Aune and Beale argue that Shea’s “verse-by-verse analysis reveals far too many exceptions to the overall schema“306 and thus his

302

Although the term Trinity is not found in Scripture, one need not deny the presence of this concept in the NT (1 Pet 1:1–2; Eph 1:1–2). 303 Hillers, Covenant, 120, 123–24; Treaty-curses, 83. Rendtorff identifies three distinct types of covenant formulae in “(1) ‘I will be God for you’; (2) ‘You shall be a people for me’; (3) where the two statments are combined in a single formula, though here the sequence of the two elements changes” (Covenant, 13). 304 Hahn, “Covenant,” 282, 285; Stanley E. Porter and Jacqueline C.R. de Roo. eds., The Concept of the Covenant in the Second Temple Period (JSJSup 71; Leiden: Brill, 2003), 282. 305 See chapter 4—Suitability of the Covenant Theme, 199 and OT Covenant Allusions and Themes in Revelation, 201. 306 Aune, “Form,” 182 n. 4.

CHAPTER FOUR-LITERARY STRUCTURE

213

analysis is “overstated.”307 Bandy also questions the apparent inconsistency for the use of necessary elements: If John intentionally modelled the seven letters on this fivefold covenantal pattern then how can one account for the otherwise unexplained additions and omissions of various structural elements that are essential to the ANE/OT covenants?308

Aune, Wilson, and de Lassus argue that because the malediction (curse) is missing in two of the churches, the SMR do not follow a typical ANEVT order.309 This argument does not, however, account for the fact that there is no rigid ANEVT order, as the treaties themselves differ in their order.310 Mendenhall indicates that the six elements of the Hittite treaty text are not rigid: “there is considerable variation in the order of the elements as well as in the wording. Occasionally one or another of the elements may be lacking, whether by design or accident it is difficult to say.”311 McCarthy points out that the “treaty was an adaptable genre” and notes that authors would apply a “change of emphasis on basic generic elements as circumstances change (e.g., in harder times there is greater emphasis on the ever-present majesty of the Great king), but the essentials remain.”312 This is reinforced by Thompson: that in the Hittite treaties the treaty Gattung was not a rigid one. There was a considerable variation possible both in the order 307

Beale, Rev, 227. Bandy, “Lawsuit,” 217–18. 309 Aune, Rev 1–5, 119; Wilson, “Promise Sayings,” 131; de Lassus, «Le Septénaire,» 44. Patrick uses a similar argument–since no OT biblical text contains all of the elements of the Hittite treaty, there is no parallel (OT Law, 224). 310 Frankena points out that “there is a difference of order even between the vassal-treaties themselves” (“Vassal-Treaties,” 147); cf. Hillers, Treaty-curses, 6 n. 18. 311 Mendenhall, “Covenant Forms,” 59; Kitchen, Ancient Orient, 93; Thompson, “Suzerain-Vassal,” 5. McCarthy demonstrates the omissions and variations of the elements within the construction of the vassal treaties “to warrant the conclusion that the scheme did not impose itself rigidly” (Treaty and Covenant, 52). 312 McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant, 73, 52 n. 4. 308

214

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES in which the elements occurred, and in the wording of each section. . . . This feature of variation inside a broadly fixed pattern is significant in the study of the covenant Gattung in the Old Testament, since it suggests that rigidity of literary form should not be expected, although it is normal for most of the elements of the pattern to be represented somewhere in a given passage.313

However, as Beckman points out, “With some omissions and a certain variation in the order of components, most of these vassal treaties follow a similar pattern.”314 The critical distinction is whether the SMR display a similar pattern. On a macro level there is a definable structure, but on a micro level there are differences in arrangement.315 Aune argues for similarities between the SMR and the imperial edicts. However, in Beale’s opinion, this does not exclude the covenantal structure “since the covenantal background would enhance the OT prophetic speech form, which itself was a development of the covenantal cursings and blessings of Exodus and Deuteronomy” (cf. 22:3; Deut 11:26–28).316 Beale considers the two approaches to be congruent. By contrast, Campbell disagrees with any syncretism with the imperial edicts by criticizing Aune’s explanation with these words: combining the imperial/royal edict used in the Persian empire with the prophetic paraenetic salvation-judgment oracle, makes for an unwieldy and unlikely amalgam of two unrelated generic categories. A more economical solution entails what I refer to here, as covenant ‘findings’; these reflect the various Biblical adaptations of the suzerainty treaties and are alone in accounting satisfactorily for both the oracular form, the parenetic function, and the positive/negative content of the sevenpronouncements-in-one.317 313

Thompson, Treaties, 15. Beckman, Hittite Diplomatic Texts, 2. 315 Grové, “Uniformly Structured,” 193. 316 Beale, Rev, 228. 317 Campbell, “Findings,” 79 n. 34. 314

CHAPTER FOUR-LITERARY STRUCTURE

215

Campbell certainly has a point in comparing the two categories of royal Persian edicts and prophetic oracles because Aune strains at relating two unrelated genres. The SMR have more in common with prophetic oracles than imperial edicts, and prophetic oracles have more in common with ANEVT than imperial edicts. There are closer similarities between the SMR and the ANEVT than imperial edicts.318 Furthermore, the vague similarities with the imperial edicts can be partially explained by their common ANEVT ancestry.319 Also, as Aune himself freely admits, elements of the imperial edicts are also missing (premium) as well as “a great deal of variation” with praescriptio as the only “consistently recurring” element.320 In fact, as demonstrated, there is more of a rigid pattern/order in the SMR with the ANEVT, than with the imperial edicts. Because of the absence of the witness element, de Lassus charges inconsistency.321 Since this element is missing from the SMR, then this is inconsistent from the ANEVT. However, the exceptions to the overall schema are also accounted for by the differences in the historical and cultural setting between the ANEVT and the first-century messages.322 The witness by the gods is not necessary in the oracles in the same way as the suzerainty treaties due to the monotheistic NT context. God exists as his own witness. Therefore, it is not a fair criticism to argue, as Aune and Wilson do, that since the curse is missing in two of the churches that the SMR do not follow a typical ANEVT structure.323 It was not unusual for an ANEVT to have a different order, or even for it to be missing some of these elements. In fact, these SMR consist of more typical elements than some of the ANEVT themselves. The 318

See chapter 3—Similarities of Imperial Edicts Compared with ANEVT, 55. 319 See chapter 3—Common Ancestry Hypothesis, 56. 320 Aune, Rev 1–5, 129. See chapter 3—Imperial Edict Form, 54 and Similarities of Imperial Edicts Compared With ANEVT, 55. 321 de Lassus, «Le Septénaire,» 44. 322 See chapter 4—Proclamation Witnesses Formula, 170. 323 Aune, Rev 1–5, 119; Wilson, “Promise Sayings,” 131.

216

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

treaty was shaped to the needs of the suzerain and circumstances of the vassal while clearly revealing a classic treaty structure.324 John is clearly influenced by the ANEVT through the Torah and OT prophets. The essential elements of the structure are all present in an orderly pattern, demonstrating a parallel to the ANEVT schema. Forced into a Foreign Framework Aune opposes Shea’s thesis with this argument: forced the structure of the seven proclamations into a framework which is essentially alien to them (the seven proclamations deal primarily with a temporary situation rather than the legal establishment of a long-term relationship).325

There are basically three, arguably related, issues raised here: (1) the forcing of an alien structure; (2) the long-term relationship versus temporary situation; and (3) the legal versus non-legal aspects of the proclamations. Each of these will be examined in turn.

Imposing an Alien Structure According to Aune the covenant framework of Shea is “essentially alien”326 to the proclamations. According to Grové, both Shea and Aune’s methods suffer from “the danger that one can artificially force the seven messages into a certain pattern. By this method one does not take the structure of the seven messages as starting point, but an already existing framework.” Grové also argues that Aune and Shea “do not verify the methods by which these patterns are determined.”327 Furthermore, according to Grové, the structure is “shaped uniformly on macro level, but not on micro level. This distinction is not made by” Aune and Shea.328 The method used in this work, of first examining the structure of the SMR prior to looking at the ANEVT, safeguards against imposing a foreign cate-

324

McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant, 78. Aune, “Form,” 182 n. 4. 326 Aune, “Form,” 182 n. 4. 327 Grové, “Uniformly Structured,” 193. 328 Grové, “Uniformly Structured,” 193. 325

CHAPTER FOUR-LITERARY STRUCTURE

217

gory, and the macro/micro differences were also addressed previously under the inconsistent pattern.329 Sleeper uses a similar argument against Chilton, stating that he has imposed a “covenant lawsuit model drawn from the OT“330 on Revelation. Sleeper states, “His use of the covenant lawsuit is not convincing.”331 Sleeper does not take his analysis of the covenant lawsuit any further and fails to provide additional evidence for his objection. Campbell also points out that Sleeper “fails to discuss Chilton’s results and shows no awareness of the independent corroborative work of Shea, Strand, or Davis.”332 Since OT content is prolific in Revelation333 and since the covenant is such an integral part of its message,334 it is not strange or imposing to find covenant lawsuit motifs in the message of Revelation (21:3, 7). Even de Lassus who is critical of Shea’s structure agrees with him at this point: Shea a sans doute raison d’attirer l’attention sur le motif de l’alliance. Il est exact qu’étant donné l’omniprésence de l’Ancien Testament dans l’Apocalypse il est raisonnable de penser y trouver ce motif. 335

While Aune approves of Shea’s treatment of the oi=da clause, he believes that his stipulation category is inappropriate.336 However, the imperative obligations (repent, remember, do not fear, be faithful, wake up, and stand firm) imposed upon the churches by their Lord are functionally equivalent to the classic covenantal stipulations imposed by the suzerain, particularly when understood

329

See chapter 4—Inconsistent Pattern, 212. Sleeper, Victorious, 107. 331 Sleeper, Victorious, 108. 332 Campbell, “Findings,” 78 n. 29. 333 See chapter 2—John’s Prophetic Office, 44 and chapter 4—The Presence of Torah in the SMR, 192. 334 See chapter 4—Suitability of the Covenant Theme, 199. 335 Translation: “Shea is undoubtedly right to draw attention to the reason for the covenant. It is exactly there, that given the omnipresence of the Old Testament in the Apocalypse, it is reasonable to find this motif” (de Lassus, «Le Septénaire,» 43). 336 Aune, “Form,” 182 n. 4. 330

218

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

against the backdrop of the Deuteronomic influence.337 Stipulation is certainly an appropriate category and not foreign to a covenant lawsuit context.338 Bandy also illustrates his objection by raising apparent discrepancies between the nature of the ANEVT and the SMR: The purpose of the historical prologue in the ANE covenants was to rehearse the prior relationship between the two parties, but in the seven letters it merely recounts the deeds of the churches.339

Regarding the ANEVT, Hillers concludes that any prologue, “tells a story fitted to the particular partners involved. The treaty form was not a standard contract form in which you needed only to fill in the proper names and sign on the line.”340 Certainly these particular partners required the churches to be reminded of their historical deeds and their breach of God’s covenant. What is clear, with even the ANEVT, is that the SMR are not carbon copies of each other; each reflects a peculiar historical context different from the other. In the SMR it is essential to acknowledge a history between God and his people.341 Bandy, who also agrees with the covenantal lawsuit influence within Revelation, points out what he believes to be several “severe weaknesses” in Du Preez, Shea, and Strand’s methodology.342 He argues that they have used the following flawed approach: [They have approached the] covenantal structure from a deductive rather than an inductive analysis. Rather than examining structural markers in the text, they tend to approach the text with a predetermined model and then look for the markers.343

337

See chapter 4—The Presence of Torah in the SMR, 192. See chapter 3—Covenant Lawsuit in Revelation, 118. 339 Bandy, “Lawsuit,” 217. 340 Hillers, Covenant, 30–31. 341 See chapter 4, 5—Historical Prologue, 147; 234. 342 Bandy, “Lawsuit,” 36. 343 Bandy, “Lawsuit,” 36. 338

CHAPTER FOUR-LITERARY STRUCTURE

219

Bandy does admit that this is not an entirely invalid approach, but that their methodology is too forced for his support. Aune, describing his own methodology, may be making a veiled reference to Shea when he states that “every attempt has been made to treat the material in its own terms rather than impose foreign categories upon it, a frequent tendency in form-critical analysis.”344 However, if Aune’s imperial edicts do not impose foreign categories on the text, then neither does applying the covenant lawsuit framework to Revelation, as the same methodology was followed, as Aune outlines, and the same precautions used. Conveniently, Aune sees both a Graeco-Roman and an Israelite-Jewish tradition as non-imposing.345 The forcing of the structure into a covenant framework is refuted by the consistent structured form that is evident in each of the messages. This may have more to do with the way in which Shea presents his material by beginning with the ANEVT structure and then moving to the SMR, rather than by exposing the inherent structure of the SMR.

Long-term Versus Temporary Relationship According to Aune, Shea forces the structure into a long-term covenantal relationship. Aune, on the other hand, believes that “the seven proclamations deal primarily with a temporary situation.”346 While the phrase long-term relationship is certainly relative, the entire tone of the messages is set against the backdrop of the eternal relationship with the King of kings (2:7, 10, 11; 3:12, 21). The perseverance of the churches (2:2, 19; 3:10) is also evidence for their long-term relationship.

Legal Versus Non-legal Aspects of SMR Aune questions the legal elements of the SMR presumably because he sees forensic characteristics in the ANEVT. Aune’s reference to the “legal establishment of a long-term relationship”347 is no doubt referring to the legal elements of the covenant. 344

Aune, Prophecy, 18. Aune, Prophecy, 276–77. 346 Aune, “Form,” 182 n. 4. 347 Aune, “Form,” 182 n. 4. 345

220

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

Patrick also uses a similar argument to justify ignoring the Hittite suzerainty treaty in his treatment of biblical law. As Patrick points out, while biblical law is not identical to Hittite treaties, this does not rule out a similar parallel in structure along with performing a different function within the state of Israel and possibly raising the imagery to a higher level.348 In fact, God does enter into a treaty (tyrb covenant Gen 15:18; 17:4, 7; Exod 2:24; 6:4; 19:5; 26:23– 29) with His people Israel, resulting in peace with their God (~wlX peace Num 6:26; ~wlX ytyrb covenant of peace Num 25:12; Luke 2:14; Acts 10:36; Rom 5:1). Gemser also points out that Hosea, the least legally minded of the prophets, also brings to bear the “Rîb (br controversy) between Yahweh and his people and its leaders, religious as well as political” (Hos 4:1, 4; Mic 6:2; Jer 2:9).349 In addition, Bandy raises issues surrounding the essence of a covenant: a covenant represents a foundational document establishing the boundaries and terms of a relationship between two parties. The seven letters presuppose an already established covenantal relationship. At best, then, the seven letters represent an investigative audit350 to evaluate the churches on the basis of the new covenant stipulations.351 348

Patrick, OT Law, 224. Thompson also argues that “both the thinking and the language of the Near Eastern treaties fell far short of such a concept of covenant as was known in Israel. In a sense, therefore, Israel required a special covenant vocabulary to give expression to these wider ranges of thinking” (“Suzerain-Vassal,” 15–16). 349 Gemser, “The Rîb,” 128–33. De Roche points out a distinction between the Rîb concept and the lawsuit motif arguing “that a Rîb is a contention, while a lawsuit is a particular way of solving a contention” (“Yahweh’s Rîb,” 569). However, here they will be used interchangeably in this study. 350 Campbell is the first to highlight this distinction. He remarks, Indeed, the audit is rooted in salvation-history in such a way as to show both continuity and discontinuity between the renewed covenant set in place by the mediator . . . What God has now done in Jesus their Messiah and in the church reconfigures the covenant and brings it to fruition, so that the Christians in Roman Asia can rehearse their own story in terms of the story of God’s dealings with Israel, whose heirs the churches are

CHAPTER FOUR-LITERARY STRUCTURE

221

At this point Bandy solves his own dilemma. Indeed, the content of the seven messages is not the establishment of a covenant relationship, but the legal subpoena for breach of a contract. The legal aspect of the proclamations in Revelation is specifically supported by the proclamation formula (“He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches” [2:7, 11, 17, 29; 3:6, 13, 22]) at the end of each of the seven proclamations.352 Aune points out the legal role of the proclamation formula in the OT: proclamation formulas, originally derived from use in public assemblies and court of law (cf. Mic 6:2; Jer 2:4) were used to introduce legal teaching (Prov 4:1; Job 13:6; 33:1, 31; 34:2, 16; Isa 49:1; 51:4) and instruction in wisdom (Deut 32:1; Prov 7:24; Ps 49:1; Isa 28:23).353

This would support the legal nature of the seven proclamations.354 Also, noticeable are the various accusations (of violations of the Torah’s moral law) which were brought by Christ and identified in each of the churches.355 Bandy has written extensively on the forensic character of the SMR and concludes that they are best represented by “prophetic lawsuit oracles addressed to God’s covenant people.”356 However, again the presence of legal language does not prove ANEVT structure, as Bandy is supportive of the legal structure within the SMR but is cautious about their ANEVT structure. Parallels Do Not Prove Dependence Bandy also points out that “the existence of parallels does not prove dependence. One could equally assert that this phenomenon

taken to be (“Findings,” 77). 351

Bandy, “Lawsuit,” 217. Aune, Rev 1–5, 123. 353 Aune, “Form,” 193–4. 354 See chapter 3—Covenant Lawsuit in Revelation, 118. 355 See chapter 4—Evidence of the Decalogue, 193. 356 Bandy, “Lawsuit,” 222; cf. Bandy’s section on “The Prophetic Lawsuit and the Seven Letters” (“Lawsuit,” 215–26). 352

222

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

occurs incidentally from John’s use of the OT.”357 But while Bandy is correct that the ANEVT parallels do not “prove” that John intentionally used this structure, at least the presence of the parallels indicates some kind of influence, even if unconscious influence. However, the similarities with the ANEVT schema are so dominant over seven messages that they argue for more than an incidental use of the OT by John. There is certainly a strong influence from the Deuteronomic structure and the prophetic lawsuit oracle patterns of the OT, which have been well accepted by scholars as dependent on ANEVT schema.358 Bandy argues that Du Preez, Shea, and Strand assume that there is a link between the ANEVT and the book of Revelation, but he states that “no evidence exists that John intentionally patterned his structure after Hittite vassal treaties.”359 While John may not have intentionally used the ANEVT structure, it is possible that he intentionally used Deuteronomy and the prophetic oracles to convey his message and in so doing inherited the ANEVT structure. The influence of the ANEVT schema on the SMR could be derived through the use of OT Deuteronomic covenant structure and prophetic lawsuit oracles in the messages. John uses the Torah and the OT prophetic oracles, which the ANEVT schema influenced. It is precisely the inclusion of the ANEVT schema rather than some other elements of the Torah or prophetic structure that is significant. The inclusion of the ANEVT structure over seven prophetic messages is particularly noteworthy. Summary The opposition to the influence of the ANEVT on the SMR centres around two main arguments. First, the pattern is inconsistent 357

Bandy, “Lawsuit,” 36–37. Bauckham mentions that apocalyptic writers “customarily incorporated pre-existing items or blocks of traditional material. . . adapted in highly creative ways to the author’s own purposes (as is usually the case in the Apocalypse of John)” (Climax, 83–84). In addition, it would not be strange for John to use the traditional OT Torah and prophetic material creatively. 358 See chapter 1—Survey of Previous Research on ANEVT, 7. 359 Bandy, “Lawsuit,” 37.

CHAPTER FOUR-LITERARY STRUCTURE

223

with the ANEVT. Second, a foreign structure is forced onto the SMR. However, given Revelation’s strong Hebraic-Semitic content, it is not foreign or forced to find the structure of Deuteronomy presented as an OT prophetic lawsuit. This is consistently indigenous to John’s oracular form, paraenetic function,360 and lawsuit content, as well as unique in explaining John’s adaptation of the ANEVT structure in a hybrid prophetic oracle. While Aune prefers to argue that the SMR are patterned after the imperial edicts, this structure, rather than the ANEVT structure, connects on a purely superficial level. Aune’s arguments would carry more weight if John had not been so reliant on the Torah and the Prophets throughout Revelation. It seems impossible for John to be relying so heavily on the OT and for him not to pick up at least some of the ANEVT structure that is so prevalent in Deuteronomy and influential upon the prophetic lawsuit. On closer examination, given its Hebraic-Semitic context, the ANEVT structure is not a forced or a foreign structure but a natural fit within the SMR.

CONCLUSION Firstly, we identified the ANEVT structure in the book of Revelation, which also contains the SMR potentially producing a structure within a structure pattern. We noted that Deuteronomy also reveals this pattern, which demonstrates a recapitulation of the ANEVT structure, in both the book as a whole, as well as smaller sections. Deuteronomy provides another pattern for comparison with Revelation–that of a recapitulated structure. Secondly, we established the main arguments for the presence of the five point ANEVT structure in the SMR. The evidence was examined for the presence of each classic element of the ANEVT structure: messenger preamble formula, historical prologue, ethical stipulations, sanctions (blessing and cursing), and proclamation witness formula. The evidence shows that five elements361 of the

360

See chapter 6—Literary Function, 287. The deposit/public reading element is part of the overall intention of the combined oracles and it is not repeated for each of the messages. 361

224

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

ANEVT schema are present in each of the seven prophetic oracles,362 and in a consistent order to form a patterned structure. John’s messages are hybrid prophetic oracles which incorporate the covenant lawsuit of the prophets packaged in the earlier covenant structure found in the Torah. John delivers the prophetic oracles to the churches using a covenant lawsuit theme presented in the Deuteronomic structure of the ANEVT. Thirdly, we examined the various corroborating arguments for the influence of the ANEVT structure on the SMR. While any one of these arguments on its own may be considered inconclusive, collectively they present a reasonable context to argue for the ANEVT structure. These arguments consisted of John’s use of the Torah in SMR which also exhibits the ANEVT structure; the suitability of the covenant theme in Revelation that provides a fertile context for the ANEVT structure; and the possibility of John being aware of other Anatolian literature influenced by the ANEVT structure. Finally, the last section answered the objections raised by the opposition to this particular approach. Four main arguments were answered: (1) The absence of the covenant does not argue against this view as the presence or absence of the term covenant does not prove the use of covenant structure; (2) The inconsistent pattern is answered by the fact that the ANEVT was also not a set pattern and could offer variations. The exceptions to the elements and order can each be explained by the unique context of the documents in which they are used; (3) The argument that the ANEVT structure is forced into this foreign framework by the fact that the ANEVT structure is evident from within its Hebraic-Semitic context and consistent with prophetic oracles; (4) To the argument that just because there are parallels with the ANEVT does not prove dependence, we agreed but argued that it is possible that John intentionally used Deuteronomy and the prophetic oracles to convey his message. This point is supported by the high probability for the sequence of seven identical patterns. Attention now turns to Revelation 2:8–11 to identify the inherent structure found in the message to Smyrna. 362

See chapter 3—Prophetic Oracles, 82.

5 CHAPTER FIVE – EXEGESIS OF REVELATION 2:8-11 This chapter will examine the content of the message to Smyrna in the light of the proposed covenant structure and background. It was argued in chapter four that the ANEVT structure can be traced in the messages to six of the churches, and that this indicates that there is a high degree of probability that the structure can be found in the message to Smyrna (MTS).1 At the same time, the detailed evidence for its presence in the MTS will help to confirm its presence in the other six messages. In order to understand the MTS, it is helpful to examine both the cultural (Graeco-Roman) history of Smyrna, as well as the (Hebraic-Semitic) OT theological roots of the message.2

HISTORICAL CONTEXT OF SMYRNA Smyrna3 (Turkish-Izmir) is about 35 miles north of Ephesus4 and the third largest city in Turkey. Smyrna’s history covers two succes-

1

See chapter 4–The ANEVT Structure Identified in the SMR, 130. While Thompson is highly critical of Hemer’s (including Ramsay’s) referentiality as a primary way to interpret a text (Apocalypse and Empire, 202–203), Thompson sees the apocalypse as “grounded in first-century Asian life and [believes that it] necessarily entangles itself in all power structures in all dimensions of human society.” Thompson’s aversion is to social stereotypes of “upheaval and crisis” when he argues that it is “not class-specific or status-specific” (Apocalypse and Empire, 196–97). 3 There is debate over any etymological connection between Smu,rna (the city) and smu,rna (myrrh); cf. Hemer, Letters, 58; J. Rendel Harris, “The Early Colonists of the Mediterranean,” BJRL 10 (1926), 330; “mu,rra,” LSJ 1155; Wilhelm Michaelis, “smu,rna,” TDNT 7:457. However, Cadoux 2

225

226

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

sive locations and spans some 3000 years from her traditional origins among the Amazons (Strabo Geogr. 5:11.5.4; 6:12.3.21; Pliny. Nat. 10:5.118). In ancient times, it was a beautiful city with purposely-symmetrical streets (Mart. Pionii 4.2; Pionius Vit. Polyc. 30.4; Aristides Works 41.19; Or. 42.770–76).5 It was an important seaport with two harbours (Strabo Geogr. 6:14.1.37),6 one that could be closed for security and that has been silted in since the early 19th century.7 The harbour stimulated trade and commerce, which developed the city into a commercial metropolis.8 It was an imperial cult centre, winning the honour of Rome and permission to build two temples, one to Caesar Tiberius and the other to Livia (Tacitus Ann. 4.55–56). Smyrna was a cultured metropolis known for its famous poets, orators, and theologians including Homer (Strabo Geogr. 6:14.1.37; Aristides Panath. 328; Cicero Arch. 7.8.19; Plutarch states, if there is a connection between the substance of myrrh and the city, it “remains an unsolved mystery” (Smyrna, 31). 4 For the historical background of Smyrna consult the following: Cadoux, Smyrna, 23–170; John M. Cook, The Greeks in Ionia and the East (Ancient Peoples and Places 31; New York: Praeger, 1963), 68–74; William M. Ramsay, “Smyrna,” DBib (1902), 4:553–56; Letters, 251–2; Ekrem Akurgal, Ancient Civilizations and Ruins of Turkey from Prehistoric Times until the End of the Roman Empire (2d ed.; Istanbul: Mobil Oil, 1985; “Smyrna,” PECS 847– 8; James Strahan, “Smyrna,” DAC 2:513–14; D. S. Potter, “Smyrna,” ABD 6:73–5; Richard Chandler, Travels in Asia Minor and Greece (2 vols. 3d ed.; Oxford: Claredon, 1825); David E. Graves, “Local References in the Letter to Smyrna (Rev 2: 8–11), Part 1: Archaeological Background,” BS 18.4 (2005): 114–23; “Part 2: Historical Background,” BS 19.1 (2006): 23– 31; “Part 3: Jewish Background,” BS 19.2 (2006): 41–47; and “Part 4: Religious Background,” BS 19.3 (2007): 88–96. 5 Hemer, Letters, 59; W. M. Calder, “Smyrna as Described by the Orator Aelius Aristides,” in Studies in the History and Art of the Eastern Provinces of the Roman Empire (Aberdeen: Aberdeen University Press, 1906), 95–116. 6 Cook, Greeks in Ionia, 17; Charles F. Pfeiffer, “Smyrna,” WDBA 542; Calder, “Smyrna Described by Aelius Aristides,”100. 7 George Horton, The Blight of Asia: An Account of the Systematic Extermination of Christian Populations by Mohammedans and of the Culpability of Certain Great Power; with the True Story of the Burning of Smyrna (Indianapolis: BobbsMerrill, 1953), 101. 8 William M. Ramsay, Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia (2 vols.; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1895), 2:571.

CHAPTER FIVE-EXEGESIS OF REVELATION 2:8-11 227 Sert. 1.3),9 Aristides,10 Irenaeus,11 Ignatius of Antioch, 12 Pionius, and of course Polycarp. The church of Smyrna was placed in the midst of this thriving cultural setting.

MESSENGER PREAMBLE FORMULA—V. 8B Ta,de le,gei o` prw/toj kai. o` e;scatoj o]j evge,neto nekro.j kai. e;zhsen\(2:8b). John begins with ta,de le,gei W (2:1, 8,12,18; 3:1a, 7, 14), setting the context for the one who will speak to the churches.13 He proceeds to describe Christ as transcendent to Smyrna in a format familiar to the Christian community. Within the OT prophetic structure (Num 22:15–16; Judg 11:14–15; 1 Kgs 2:30; 2 Chr 36:23; Ezra 1:2) this prophetic messenger preamble formula14 ta,de le,gei W, introduces the sovereign’s message. Minear maintains that John is using this OT formula: The Old Testament prophets had established this formula as the appropriate introduction for God’s address to his people. This conventional formula, simple and direct, would conjure up in a worshipping congregation the fear and trembling associated with standing before God and hearing his awesome words of judgment and warning.15

This address carries with it all the awesomeness of Sinai, together with the legitimate prophetic authority necessary to carry Christ’s word to the Christian community. The messenger preamble formula was also common in the preambles of the ANEVT, where it secures the authority of the suzerain by providing his names, titles, and attributes. Revelation’s messen9

Bean, Aegean Turkey, 45. Charles A. Behr, Aelius Aristides and the Sacred Tales (Amsterdam: A.M. Hakkert, 1968), 1, 4 n. 5; Cook, Greeks in Ionia, 202. 11 Beckwith, Apocalypse, 338; William H. Simcox, The Revelation of St. John the Divine (CBSC; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1890), xii; Yarbro Collins, Crisis, 26. 12 Grant, DBib 927. 13 Beale, Rev, 229. 14 See chapter 4—Messenger Preamble Formula, 141. 15 Minear, New Earth, 43. 10

228

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

ger preamble formula is thus identical in function to the ANEVT preamble and the OT formula. Description of the Suzerain As Sutton indicates, the preamble highlights the “Creator-creature” relationship, which he identifies as one of “transcendence.”16 This arises from the description of Christ in terms of eternity and victory over death through the resurrection (2:8). Transcendence is precisely the doctrinal concept conveyed by the first and the last. Beale captures the spirit of the text when he states, “He [Christ] is the sovereign God of history who alone possesses the attribute of eternity.”17 What better attribute to encourage those about to experience suffering and persecution? The Transcendent Suzerain–The First and the Last The description clearly echoes the earlier usage in Revelation 1:17– 18a, and ties this description of the King of the covenant to that of the One “like the son of man”18 described there. The parallels are unmistakable as the following comparison illustrates. Revelation 1:17–18a Revelation 2:8b evgw, eivmi o` prw/toj kai. kai. o` e;scatoj kai. o` zw/n19 kai. evgeno, geno,mhn ne nekro.j kai. ivdou. zw/n eivmi eivj tou.j aivw/naj tw/n aivw,nwn

ta,de le,gei o` prw/toj kai. o` e;scatoj o]j evge,neto nekro.j kai. e;zhsen\ hsen

Table 12. First and Last

The messenger preamble formula is used to stimulate divine confidence in a church threatened with suffering and martyrdom.20 16

Sutton, Prosper, 21–40, 282; Beale, Rev, 213. Beale, Rev, 239. 18 The passage in Rev 2:8 may be a quote from Dan 8:18; 10:10, 12, or it may be a mere coincidence in language. 19 Omitted by a few MSS possibly because of the parallel in Rev 2:8. 20 Swete, Apocalypse, 31; Hemer, Letters, 65. 17

CHAPTER FIVE-EXEGESIS OF REVELATION 2:8-11 229 However, Christ’s prw/toj declaration could also be understood antithetically with Smyrna’s early struggle for pre-eminence within Asia Minor. Smyrna, Ephesus, and Pergamum each identified themselves as first;21 Pergamum classified itself as the First and Metropolis;22 Ephesus called itself the first and greatest Metropolis of Asia23 leaving Smyrna the honour of displaying the first of Asia (prw,th th/j VAsi,aj), on some of her coins.24 While the titles NEWKOROS and PRWTH ASIAS are found on inscriptions prior to AD 212,25 this is the full phrase, as found in numerous inscriptions: first of Asia in beauty and size, and the most brilliant, and Metropolis (Capital) of Asia, and thrice Temple–Warden (Neokoros) of the Augusti, according to the decrees of the most sacred Senate, and ornament of Ionia,26

21

Ramsay, Cities and Bishoprics, 2:632; David Magie, Roman Rule in Asia Minor, to the End of the Third Century After Christ (2 vols.; Roman History; ed., T. James Luce; Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1950; repr., New York: Arno, 1975), 2:635–6. 22 Pergamum was also the first city to be Twice Temple-Warden. Magie, Roman Rule, 2:636. 23 Cadoux, Smyrna, 291. 24 Barclay V. Head, Catalogue of the Greek Coins of Ionia in the British Museum (Bologna: Alnaldo Forni, 1964), nos. 405, 413–4; Klose, Münzprägung, 40; Cadoux, Smyrna, 291; Magie, Roman Rule, 2:636; Ramsay, Letters, 185. 25 Lafaye and Cagnat, IGRom 4:1388, 1418, 1428, 1482F; Boeckh, CIG 2:3179, 3851; Klose, Münzprägung, 40; Barbara Burrell, Neokoroi: Greek Cities and Roman Emperors (Leiden: Brill, 2004), 289. 26 H PRWTH THS ASIAS KALLEI KAI MELEQEI KAI LAMPROTATH KAI MHTROPOLIS THS ASIAS KAI TRIS NEWKOROS TWN SEBASTWN KATA TA KOGMATA THS IEROTATHS SUNKAHTOY KAI KOSMOS THS IWNIAS SMYRNAIWN POLIS. Klose, Münzprägung, 40; Boeckh, CIG 2:3202; Lafaye and Cagnat, IGRom 4:1420. For other variant readings, see Boeckh, CIG 2:3179d, 3191, 3197, 3204–3206A, 3851; Lafaye and Cagnat, IGRom 4:541, 1419a, 1421, 1424–1426, 1482; Donald F. McCabe, Smyrna Inscriptions: Texts and List (ed. Tad Brennan and R. Neil Elliott; Princeton: Princeton Institute for Advanced Study, 1988),150, 156, 171, 172; Dittenberger, OGIS 2:514.

230

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

This inscription does not appear until the reign of Caracalla (ruled AD 211–217).27 As Klose points out, this title was too long for coins and was shortened.28 In addition, a partial or late appearance of this phrase on Smyrna’s coins does not indicate the inception of primacy but rather a formalizing of a deep-rooted belief by the citizens of Smyrna.29 This formalizing is evident from the use of the shorter words PRWTH ASIAS on her coins prior to AD 212. The primacy between cities is evident from the rivalry over first, second, or third rank neokoros as the site for the provincial imperial temple (Philost. Vit. Soph. 1.25.10; AD 172?). While Smyrna claimed to be the prw,th th/j VAsi,aj, Christ declares that he is o` prw/toj kai. o` e;scatoj, because he provides a superior foundation for security.30 While a deliberate contrast with Smyrna’s prominence is not necessarily the primary purpose for John using o` prw/toj kai. o` e;scatoj,31 prw,th th/j VAsi,aj, it was such a celebrated idea that it was used on Smyrna’s coinage.32 The

27

Klose, Münzprägung, 40. Klose, Münzprägung, 40. 29 Antoninus Pius (AD 138–161) addresses a long standing dispute between Ephesus and Smyrna (AD 143) over the use of the term “First and Greatest metropolis in Asia” (Magie, Roman Rule, 2:636). The o`mo,noia coins minted during this time between Ephesus, Pergamum, and Smyrna “probably celebrated the settlement of this dispute” (Cadoux, Smyrna, 264, 263 n. 5). 30 Krodel understands first of Asia as “mocked in Christ’s selfdesignation” (Rev, 110). 31 Moyise argues that this title derives from Isa 44:6; 48:12 and notes that it is “remarkable that a statement concerning the eternity of God is juxtaposed with a statement about Christ’s death and resurrection. The profundity of this combination weakens the case for supposing that it originated from a desire to allude to Smyrna’s history” (OT in Rev, 115:30). Moyise contends for Johannine construction of 1:17b “as a juxtaposition of a divine title and Christian testimony” (OT in Rev, 115:30–31). 32 Magie, Roman Rule, 2:636; Klose, Münzprägung, 40; Cadoux, Smyrna, 291; Head, BMC Ionia, nos. 405, 413–4. Surprisingly Hemer does not make this connection; rather, under his heading “The First and the Last,” he deals with the idea of resurrection found in “Who was dead, and has come to life” (Letters, 60–65). 28

CHAPTER FIVE-EXEGESIS OF REVELATION 2:8-11 231 primacy of Smyrna in Asia was an important ideology among the citizens of Smyrna in the first century. The security derived from him who is called the first and the last33 is further strengthened by the concept of eternity. Two distinct aspects of eternity, past and future, are connected by kai. in the expression o` prw/toj kai. o` e;scatoj to express the God/King as eternal.34 This title is picked up from 1:17 and, in addition, it is used alongside the title the Alpha and the Omega in Revelation 22:13 to strengthen the eternity of Christ. The appellation the first and the last35 is used of Yahweh by the prophet Isaiah (Isa 41:4; 44:6; 48:12).36 Nielsen observes that Yahweh’s court speeches against the nations in Isaiah 40–55 function as cosmic lawsuits37 “in which Yahweh and his witnesses are placed on one side and the gods of the nations and their supporters on the other.”38 Lincoln observes that “Yahweh is both prosecuting witness and judge. . . . When there is no reply, Yahweh asserts that Yahweh is ‘first, and will be with the last.’”39 Delitzsch, commenting on Isaiah 48:12, gives one of the motivations for listening to Jehovah: the fact that Jehovah is awh (ever since Deut 32:39, the fundamental clause of the Old Testament credo), i.e., the absolute and eternally unchangeable One, the Alpha and Omega of all history, more especially of that of Israel, the creator of earth and

33 Roland H. Worth raises the question, “If Jesus is first in the debated Pergamon-Ephesian-Symranaian sense of ‘primary’ or ‘of most importance,’ in what sense would Jesus be regarded as last?” (The Seven Cities of Apocalypse and Greco-Asian Culture [New York: Paulist, 2002].75). He links the allusion to the last with the historical setting of Smyrna. 34 Thomas, Rev 1–7, 161 n. 13; Swete, Apocalypse, 30–31. 35 This is believed to be the only allusion to an OT passage in the letter to Smyrna. 36 Moyise, OT in Rev, 115:30–31. Beale makes the connection while dealing with 1:8. Beale, Rev, 199; Hemer, Letters, 61; Charles, Rev, 1:31. 37 Andrew T. Lincoln, Truth on Trial: The Lawsuit Motif in John’s Gospel (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2000), 39. 38 Nielsen, Prosecutor, 25. 39 Lincoln, Truth on Trial, 39.

232

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES heavens. . . . at whose almighty call they stand ready to obey, with all the beings they contain.40

The controversy God has with his creation is held in the transcendent court of the covenant-making and covenant-keeping judge. This primacy appellation in the SMR functions similarly because John, like Isaiah, demonstrates the transcendent claim of Yahweh throughout history in context of a covenant lawsuit.41 Campbell argues, “The covenant mechanism provides the logic for such credibility and authority.”42 There is an elimination of any competition from either the emperor cult or the Cybele religion (Mart. Pionii 15.7).43 Yahweh transcends all others as the first and the last. Thus, the message to Smyrna opens with a classic transcendent statement for its preamble. Christ, in his role as the God/King, is described in terms of eternal transcendence, and his pre-eminence is contrasted with Smyrna’s struggle for her own pre-eminence within Asia Minor.44

40

F. Delitzsch, Isaiah (10 vol.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977), 7:251. For Isaiah, God’s sovereignty was displayed in the raising up of Cyrus (Isa 44:28). Lincoln, Truth on Trial, 39; Weinfeld, “Common Heritage,” 183. 42 Campbell, “Findings,” 79 n. 33. 43 Smyrna was home to a number of temples, particularly Sipylene Cybele and Zeus. Swete, Apocalypse, lxi; Rousas J. Rushdoony, Thy Kingdom Come: Studies in Daniel and Revelation (Fairfax, Va.: Thoburn, 1970), 107. Wilson, quoting Akurgal, dedicates a single sentence to the religious background of Smyrna and mistakenly identifies the temple of Cybele as the “only known temple of significance” (“Promise Sayings,” 37). Akurgal, PECS 848; Cadoux, Smyrna, 202. Pausanias also mentions the temple of Asclepius (Pausanias Descr. 2.36.9; 7.5.9; Tacitus Ann. 3.63). Other temples to the Neokorie and the temple of the Tyche are depicted on the coinage of Smyrna. Klose, Münzprägung, 38. 44 M. Robert Mulholland, Jr., Revelation: Holy Living in an Unholy World (Grand Rapids: Francis Asbury, 1990), 99. 41

CHAPTER FIVE-EXEGESIS OF REVELATION 2:8-11 233 The Suzerain–Dead and Has Come to Life The description of the King continues with the phrase o[j evge,neto nekro.j kai. e;zhsen, which is literally, who became dead and lived again.45 This phrase, used alongside o` prw/toj kai. o` e;scatoj (1:17; 2:8; 22:13), identifies Christ and refers back to the description of the power of the son of man over death in Revelation 1:18 (see also Isa 41:4; 44:6; 48:12). Strand argues that the sovereignty of the transcendent Christ is demonstrated in his overcoming of death by the power of the resurrection to live again.46 It unmistakably recalls the resurrection event.47 The risen Christ is encouraging news for a church about to experience suffering. Beale states that Smyrnaeans “could take comfort in their suffering because just as Christ had likewise suffered and overcome it, so too would they.”48 The risen Christ had been victorious over death; likewise, Smyrnaeans could face suffering and martyrdom knowing that their faithfulness would be rewarded with the crown of life.49 Beckwith and Swete point out the implications for the Smyrnaean church: by remembering “that Christ himself, the eternal one, shared the martyr’s death, but revived again,”50 “so will his martyrs triumph over death” (2 Tim 2:8).51 In the genealogical preamble, the God/King is identified as the eternal, transcendent, resurrected Christ, the alpha and omega, who was crucified and raised to life. The preamble functions in the same way as in the ANEVT in announcing the King.

Thomas explains that “the aorist e;zhsen is ingressive and focuses on the beginning of life. Christ ‘began to live’ after death” (Rev 1–7, 161 n. 14). Walter Bauer et al., eds., “za,w,” BDAG 336; Buist M. Fanning, Verbal Aspect in New Testament Greek (Oxford: Oxford University, 1990), 252–53. 46 Strand, “Covenantal Form,” 261. 47 Aune, Rev 1–5, 161; Lenski, Rev, 96; Osborne, Rev, 128. For possible connections to local references for the resurrection, see Hemer, Letters, 62; Scobie, “Local References,” 609. 48 Gregory K. Beale, review of Colin J. Hemer, The Letters to the Seven Churches of Asia in Their Local Setting, TJ 7.2 (1986): 110. 49 Mounce, Rev, 76. 50 Beckwith, Apocalypse, 453. 51 Swete, Apocalypse, 31; Mounce, Rev, 74. 45

234

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

HISTORICAL PROLOGUE—V. 9 Oi=da, sou th.n qli/yin kai. th.n ptwcei,an avlla. plou,sioj ei= kai. th.n blasfhmi,an evk tw/n lego,ntwn VIoudai,ouj ei=nai e`autou,j kai. ouvk eivsi.n avlla. sunagwgh. tou/ Satana/ (2:9). Christ is in the midst (me,soj) of the churches (lampstands 1:13, 20); therefore, he is so intimately familiar with their circumstances (1:12–13) that he knows their afflictions, poverty, and slander as part of their “fellowship of his sufferings” (Phil 3:10). The relationship that Christ has with the churches is reflected in the covenant relationship with their God, and is central to their relationship with the King. Within the ANEVT and after the preamble, the historical context is listed. This is where the suzerain records his knowledge of the past relationships with his vassals.52 As indicated in chapter four, an important feature of the historical prologue is the notable similarity between the ANEVT and the prophetic message in terms of their use of the first person.53 As in the ANEVT, the message to Smyrna also begins with the first person singular; oi=da recounting the God/King’s intimate knowledge of the churches. The Suzerain Knows Their Afflictions The omniscient God/King intimately knows the afflictions of the church of Smyrna: I know of your afflictions (Oi=da, sou th.n qli/yin 2:9; never ginw,skw).54 Huffmon and Boyle explain the common use of the term know (LXX oi=da Hebrew [dy) as a technical legal term by the Hittite and Akkadian treaties that is paralleled in the OT prophets (Amos 3:2; Hos 13:4–5).55 They speculate that [dy 52

Thompson, Treaties, 16. See chapter 4–Historical Prologue, 147. 54 Oi=da is used of the churches in three areas: “I know your works” (2:2, 19; 3:1, 8, 15), “I know your tribulation” (2:9), and “I know where you live” (2:13). It appears that this is conveying the clarity of the prophetic vision. Bandy, dependant on Mazzaferri, states that “judgment is clearly implied with the repeated oi=da” (“Word and Witness,”12; Mazzaferri, Genre, 244). 55 According to Huffmon the word know is used in both the sense of the god(s) recognizing “the king as a legitimate ruler” and “recognition of 53

CHAPTER FIVE-EXEGESIS OF REVELATION 2:8-11 235 may “refer to mutual legal recognition on the part of the suzerain and vassal and may serve as a technical term for recognition of the treaty stipulations as binding.”56 Early in Israel’s history oi=da was used to refer to an omniscient God who noticed the afflictions of his children in Egypt under taskmasters. This is why God states, “I know their sufferings” (Exod 3:7 ESV; oi=da ga.r th.n ovdu,nhn auvtw/n LXX).57 Because God is omniscient, he knows the condition of the vassals; however, the use of the term know in the OT goes beyond a simple care for or knowledge of, it conveys the sense of covenant relationship (Hosea 2:22; 4:1; 5:4). “You only have I chosen (lit. known [dy) among all the families of the earth; therefore, I will punish you (covenant curse) for all your iniquities” (Amos 3:2). Harrelson acknowledges the technical covenantal usage of know in Amos, who “uses the verb ‘to know’ in the sense of the covenant relationship.”58 Harrelson also points out that in some passages know “refers to the vassal’s ‘knowing’ the suzerain, i.e., to Israel’s recognizing Yahweh as its (sole) legitimate God.”59 This indicates the reciprocal covenant relationship between Yahweh and Israel. The covenantal use of know is also an integral part of the New Covenant in Jeremiah: “I will give them a heart to know ([dy; oi=da LXX) me, that I am the LORD. They will be my people, and I will be their God, for they will return to me with all their heart” (Jer 24:7). “No longer will a man teach his neighbour, or a man his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ bethe treaty stipulations as binding” (“Treaty Background,” 31, 33). Marjorie O. Boyle, “The Covenant Lawsuit in the Prophet Amos,” VT 21 (1971): 344–45. Huffmon and Parker point out a similar usage in the Akkadian text found at Mari and a Ugaritic text from Ras Shamra (“Further Note,” 36–38). 56 Boyle, “Covenant Lawsuit,” 244; Huffmon, “Treaty Background,” 34. 57 For the use of oi=da by Balaam in the Torah; cf. chapter 4—The Presence of Torah in the SMR, 192. 58 Walter Harrelson, Interpreting the Old Testament (New York: Einehart & Winston, 1964), 346; Bruce Vawter, The Conscience of Israel (New York: Sheed & Ward, 1961), 95. On the silence of the prophetic use of the term covenant, see Mendenhall, Law and Covenant, 46. 59 Huffmon, “Treaty Background,” 35.

236

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

cause they will all know ([dy; oi=da LXX) me” (Jer 31:34). The use of oi=da is central both to the ANEVT as well as to the covenant relationship between God and his people. Thompson argues that “a myriad of qualities, behavioural traits, religious commitments, psyco-social understandings, and social, political interactions coalesce into a term like ‘tribulation.’”60 Christ knows the history of afflictions (qli,bw) experienced by the Smyrnaean church and endured at the “hands of its Jewish and heathen persecutors and oppressors” (1 Thess 3:4; Heb 11:37; Acts 20:23; Rev 1:9, etc.).61 Morris understands the tribulation to mean “the burden that crushes.”62 The omniscience of the God/King alone is great comfort for those facing afflictions,63 but add to this the covenant relationship (I know) of the King with his subjects, and there is momentous encouragement. The evidence of local references in Smyrna and the other churches reinforces the fact that their King, who stands in the midst of the lampstands, is intimately knowledgeable of the afflictions that crush the Smyrnaeans.64 The Suzerain Knows Their Poverty and Riches The sovereign Lord also knows their poverty. Osborne develops the special role of poverty within the old covenant. Since the land belonged to Yahweh and has been given in trust to his people as a whole, there should not be poverty (cf. Deut 8:9; 15:1–18; 24:14–22). The prophets see the presence of poverty as a special proof of the apostasy of the nation as a whole, and ‘the poor’ becomes a semitechnical term for the remnant of Israel as persecuted by the rebellious nation (e.g.,

60

Leonard L. Thompson, “A Sociological Analysis of Tribulation,” in Early Christian Apocalypticism: Genre and Social Setting (ed. Adela Yarbro Collins; vol. 36 of Semeia, ed. John Dominic Crossan; Decatur, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1986), 170. 61 Trench, Commentary, 136. 62 Morris, Rev, 63. 63 Lenski, Rev, 97. 64 Paul Gardner, review of Colin J. Hemer, The Letters to the Seven Churches of Asia in Their Local Setting, Chm 101.3 (1987): 279–80.

CHAPTER FIVE-EXEGESIS OF REVELATION 2:8-11 237 Isa 41:17; 51:21–23; 54:11). Both in the OT and the NT the poor have a special relationship to God as their protector.65

Malina points out that compared with modern economic arrangements, poverty took on a different meaning in antiquity, “Determined by the social structure considered primary in the culture in question.”66 Mullin makes this point about the label poor: [The term poor] applied, in particular, to the vast majority of the people in any city-state who, having no claim to the income of a large estate, lacked that degree of leisure and independence regarded as essential to the life of a gentleman. . . . “the poor” as recipients of a wealthy man’s benevolence would primarily be unfortunate members of his own class. . . . “some ought to be poor” (Aristotle) and . . . . “deserve misfortune” (Cicero).67

Malina argues that the “cultural criteria of the day had the word ‘poor’ pointing to the socially impotent, while the label ‘rich’ or ‘wealthy’ attached to the greedy and avaricious.”68 If Malina’s evaluation of NT social norms is correct, then the term poverty in this context may mean that these Christians were culturally and socially impotent. As a result of their Christian status the Smyrnaeans were adversely affected economically. There is some debate over the meaning of ptwcei,a in the NT. Trench distinguishes between ptwco.j (having nothing at all) and pe,nhj (having nothing superfluous).69 However, Osborne argues 65

Osborne, Rev, 130. The covenant is integrated into the identification of the martyrs in 4 Esd 8:27: “Look not at the deeds of the impious but at those who have kept Thy covenants amid affliction” (4 Esd 8:27 i.e. the martyrs). Moffatt, Rev, 355. 66 Bruce J. Malina, “Wealth and Poverty in the New Testament and Its World,” Int 41 (1987): 360. 67 Redmond Mullin, The Wealth of Christians (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 1984), 17. According to Royalty, when Christ speaks of wealth he speaks in terms of a “Stoic philosopher. . . devaluing wealth and extolling the virtue of poverty” (Ideology of Wealth, 175). However, Christ is not promoting stoic philosophy; rather, he is acting as the sovereign protector. 68 Malina, “Poverty,” 367. 69 “ptwco,j,” LSJ 1550; Joseph H. Thayer, “ptwcei,a,” GELNT 557.

238

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

that since pe,nhj, a quote from the LXX, is only found in 1 Corinthians 9:9 that the NT writers “make no such distinction.”70 But while the distinction may not be as sharp in the NT, the use of the term by the Greek writers indicates that it was understood to mean utter destitution in the culture of the day71 and justified the use of ptwcei,a as a life of extreme destitution and poverty, possibly leading to a life of beggary.72 The obvious question is “why was this church so poor in such a prosperous city” (Strabo Geogr. 6:14.1.15)?73 Aune perceptively mentions that “the fact that no mention is made of the economic poverty of the other six Christian communities suggests that the situation of this congregation is unusual.”74 Smyrna’s strong ties to Rome and the imperial cult (Tacitus Ann. 4.55–56),75 combined with a significant Jewish population,76 are factors which would cause difficulty for Christians.77 Witherington suggests that their poverty “was possibly based in the guild system. To work at a particular trade one had to be a member of a guild, but the latter required participation in various pagan religious ceremonies.”78 Hemer summarizes the possible causes for the poverty of Smyrna into four categories:79 (1) Christians were the poorest class of society (1 Cor 1:26; Jas 2:5);80 (2) the generosity of the Christians 70

Osborne, Rev, 129 n. 2. Thayer, GELNT 557; LSJ 1550. 72 Bammel, “ptwcei,a,” TDNT 6:911. 73 Johnson, Rev, 438; Cadoux, Smyrna, 228–29; Howard Carroll, “Polycarp of Smyrna: With Special Reference to Early Christian Martyrdom,” (Ph.D. diss., Duke University 1946), 20; Ramsay, Letters, 193. 74 Aune, Rev 1–5, 161. 75 Johnson, Rev, 438. 76 See chapter 5—Historical Context of Smyrna, 225. 77 Ben Witherington, III. Revelation (NCamBC. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 98; Smalley, Rev, 65. 78 Witherington, Rev, 98; Schüssler Fiorenza, Rev: Vision, 56. 79 Hemer, Letters, 68. 80 While Deissmann has been credited for the view that early Christians were predominantly from the lower social classes, the general consensus today is that Christians represented all strata within society (Light from the Ancient East; Edwin A. Judge, The Social Pattern of Christian Groups in the First Century: Some Prolegomena to the Study of New Testament Ideas of Social 71

CHAPTER FIVE-EXEGESIS OF REVELATION 2:8-11 239 gifts (Acts 2:45; 1 Cor 16:3; 2 Cor 8:2–5);81 (3) their possessions are confiscated or stolen by aggressive neighbours (Heb 10:34);82 and (4) persecution from the Jews and Romans resulting in the loss of their jobs (2 Cor 6:10; 8:2).83 Most commentators combine one or more of these causes.84 Several commentators combine Jewish and Roman persecution with confiscation of property, and looting by hostile mobs.85 However, Thompson argues that the tribulation and suffering mentioned associated with Smyrna is future oriented and does not appear to refer to “present social distress.”86 This is certainly true of the future suffering in verse 10 (a] me,lleij pa,scein), but the afflictions and suffering of verse 8 are not connected to time (oi=da perfect tense).87

Obligation [London: Tyndale, 1960]). See Robin Scroggs, “The Sociological Interpretation of the New Testament: The Present State of Research,” NTS 26 (1980): 168–71. 81 Aune believes that this is “improbable” (Rev 1–5, 161); cf. Swete, Apocalypse, 32. 82 Aune, Rev 1–5, 161; Beale, Rev, 240; Caird, Rev, 35; Morris, Rev, 64; Mounce, Rev, 74; Osborne, Rev, 130; A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament: The General Epistles and the Revelation of John (Nashville: Broadmen, 1934), 6:302; Simcox, Rev, 13; Swete, Apocalypse, 31; Trench, Commentary, 136; Walvoord, Rev, 61. Beckwith states that while this is “without intimation here,” it is “conceivable” (Apocalypse, 453). Aune believes that this is “improbable” (Rev 1–5, 161). 83 Aune, Rev 1–5, 161; Charles, Rev, 1:56; Caird, Rev, 35; Hemer, Letters, 68; Osborne, Rev, 129; Swete, Apocalypse, 31. 84 George Eldon Ladd, A Commentary on the Revelation of John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972); 42; Mounce, Rev, 74; Trench, Commentary, 136; Johnson, Rev, 438. 85 In the Ephesian letter, William Barclay identifies kai. as an epexegetic and. There is no reason why kai. should not have the same usage in the Smyrnaean letter. “It does not simply add something to that which goes before, as if it were adding another item to a list in a catalogue; it explains what has gone before” (Letters to the Seven Churches [London: Abingdon, 1957], 19). 86 Thompson, “Tribulation,” in Early Christian Apocalypticism (ed. A. Collins), 149. 87 A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research (Nashville: Broadmen, 1934), 357.

240

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

By contrast, the God/King parenthetically88 acknowledges the true character of the Smyrnaean overcomers. Even though the church members were poor socio-economically, God knows the real condition of his people. He states, but you are rich (avlla. plou,sioj ei=). Rich is used in a metaphorical sense as treasure laid up in heaven89 in Matthew 6:19–21=Luke 12:33–34; Luke 6:20=Matthew 5:3; Luke 12:21; 1 Corinthians 1:5; 2 Corinthians 6:10.90 In a similar way, James employs the same Greek words referring to “those who are poor (ptwco,j) in the eyes of the world to be rich (plou,sioj) in faith” (Jas 2:5).91 Trench explains that John employs “a very beautiful parenthesis, declaring as they [these verses] do the judgment of heaven concerning this Church of Smyrna, as contradistinguished from the judgment of earth.”92 The Smyrnaeans were the opposite of the Laodiceans. Smyrna is intentionally contrasted with the wealth of Laodicea (3:17); the Laodiceans were spiritually poor, while the poor church in Smyrna was spiritually rich.93 Despite Smyrna’s physical suffering and poverty, the church’s real condition was one of riches toward God (Rom 8:32; Col 2:3; 1 Tim 6:18; Matt 6:20; 19:21; Luke 12:21; 2 Cor 8:9). That God is their sovereign and protector is a wealth of encouragement to an impoverished people. The God/King is not only protector but also preserver of impoverished Christians. Christ vindicates the poor in the interpretation of the Torah in the Beatitudes as they “inherit the kingdom of God” (Matt 5:3; Luke 6:20; compared with “inherit the crown of life” 2:10). Here, the God/King recognizes the rich spiritual value of the covenant people because he defines their true value.

88

Robertson, Word Pictures, 6:302; Trench, Commentary, 136; Lenski, Rev, 97. 89 Aune, Rev 1–5, 161. 90 Aune, Rev 1–5, 161; Osborne, Rev, 130. The Stoics also used wealth figuratively. Seneca Ep. Mor. 62:3; Philo Praem. 104; Somn. 1:179; Plant. 69; Sobr. 56; Fug. 17. 91 Walvoord, Rev, 61; Ramsay, DBib (1902), 4:554. 92 Trench, Commentary, 136; Robertson, Word Pictures, 6:302. 93 Beale, Rev, 305; Robertson, Word Pictures, 6:302.

CHAPTER FIVE-EXEGESIS OF REVELATION 2:8-11 241 The Suzerain Knows the Enemy Not only are the vassals known to the King, but the conduct of their enemies is also laid bare before his omniscient gaze. This gaze recognizes “the slander (blasfhmi,a) of those who say they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan” (2:9). Most lexicons define blasfhmi,a as reviling or railing in the sense of “‘defaming God’ . . . by claiming some kind of equality with God. Any such statement was regarded by the Jews of biblical times as being harmful and injurious to the nature of God.”94 Thayer defines this term as “impious and reproachful speech injurious to the divine majesty.”95 However, is the activity of blasfhmi,a directed solely at the Messiah, or is it also directed at Christians? Several commentators suggest that slander against God’s people is essentially blasphemy against God and that they are difficult to separate.96 Lambrecht argues that blasphemy should not be understood theologically, as is the case elsewhere in Revelation (13:1, 5, 6; 16:11, 21; 17:3), but rather as Jewish slander (Mark 15:29; Rom 38; 1 Cor 10:30; 1 Pet 4:4) before pagan magistrates during court proceedings in Smyrna.97 Following Roman law, Lambrecht argues that “these Jews must have been delatores: they formulate an accusatio.”98 The context of imprisonment (2:10), as well as NT examples

J. P. Louw and E. A. Nida, “blasfhme,w; blasfhmi,a,” L&N 33.400, 434; Robertson, Word Pictures, 6:302; Kiddle, Rev, 27. 95 Joseph H. Thayer, “blasfhmi,a , blasfhmi,aj,” GELNT 102; Lohse, “Synagogue,” 119. 96 Osborne, Rev, 131; Mulholland, Rev, 101; Simcox, Rev, 13; Lenski, Rev, 97–98. Justin recounts how “Barchochebas, the leader of the revolt of the Jews, gave orders that Christians alone should be led to cruel punishments, unless they would deny Jesus Christ and utter blasphemy” (1 Apol. 31.5–6 [Roberts]). 97 John J. O’Rourke, “Roman Law and the Early Church,” in The Catacombs and the Colosseum: The Roman Empire as the Setting of Primitive Christianity (ed. Stephen Benko and John J. O’Rourke; Valley Forge: Judson, 1971), 179; Aune, Rev 1–5, 162. 98 Jan Lambrecht, “Jewish Slander: A Note on Revelation 2:9–10,” ETL 75.4 (1999): 423; Philip L. Mayo, “Those Who Call Themselves Jews:” The Church and Judaisim in the Apocalypse of John (PTMS 60; Eugene: Pickwick, 94

242

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

(Mark 14:12–14; Matt 27:22–23; Luke 23:20–23; John 19:6–7, 14– 15; Acts 13:5–12; 13:45; 18:13–17; 22:30; 23:25–30; 24:1–22; 25:1– 27; 26:1–7, 11), supports the forensic nature of this interpretation. The early church also recounts Jewish cursing and blaspheming against Christians (Irenaeus Haer. 26.2; Tertullian Scorp. 10.10; Justin Dial. 16.2; 47.4,15, etc.), including those in Smyrna (Mart. Pol. 12:2–3; 13:1; Ignatius Smyrn. 1.2).99 This historical account provides evidence of the blasphemy against the church vocalized by enemies of the King of kings (cf. 17:12–14). Polycarp interprets blasphemy in this light when he declares to the Roman authorities “How can I blaspheme my King who saved me?” (Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 4.15.25 [Cruse]). From the perspective of a theocracy, this slanderous language could be interpreted as treason toward the Great King (cf. Ps 2). In the context of a covenant relationship, a word of slander against God’s people is equivalent to an attack on the King (see imprecations Ps 69; 109; 137).100 However, within Revelation, Christ’s Kingship as the ‘lion of Judah’ (5:5) is radically redefined as the suffering/slain Lamb (5:6, 12; 13:8; cf. Isa 53:7). The suzerain/vassal image is turned upside down and redefined in terms of Lamb Christology, which raises the suzerain/vassal relationship to a new level of significance. The vassal (Lamb) is the new suzerain standing in the centre of the throne (5:6), ruling in humility and strength, worthy to open the scroll (5:9). By contrast, those who were previously vassals (redeemed) will also reign as suzerains with the Lamb (5:10; 7:9).101 2006), 62–66; Bandy, “Lawsuit,” 220 n. 127; Adolf Berger, “Accusatio,” EDRL 340; Aune, Rev 1–5, 163. 99 Thompson points out that “Josephus says that Jews aren’t inclined to ‘blaspheme’ (Ag. Ap. 236–7). One person’s blasphemia is, of course, another person’s confession of faith (cf. Artemis at Acts 19:37; Jesus on the cross at Matt 27:39; Gentiles at 1 Pet 4:4)” (Rev, 68). 100 John N. Day, “The Imprecatory Psalms and Christian Ethics,” (Ph.D. diss., Dallas Theological Seminary, 2001), 201. 101 For an analysis of Lamb Christology, see Loren L. Johns, The Lamb Christology of the Apocalypse of John: An Investigation into Its Origins and Rhetorical Force (WUNT 2.167. Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 2004); Matthias R. Hoffmann, The Destroyer and the Lamb: The Relationship between Angelomor-

CHAPTER FIVE-EXEGESIS OF REVELATION 2:8-11 243

Actual Jews The God/King was aware of the deepest roots of treason in Satan’s activity against God’s rule in the Jewish synagogue. There is more than a resistance to the offence of the gospel; there is open hostility to the Christians in Smyrna by Jews who are vilified as belonging to Satan (2:9, 3:9). That VIoudai,ouj refers to ethnic Jews102 outside the Church (Matt 3:9; John 8:33; Rom 2:28–29; 2 Cor 11:22; Gal 6:15 and Phil 3:4; Pseud. Clem. Rec. 5.34) with no spiritual substance is the general consensus of commentators,

phic and Lamb Christology in the Book of Revelation (Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 2005); David J. MacLeod, “The Lion Who is a Lamb: And Exposition of Revelation 5:1–7,” BSac 164 (2007): 323–40. For a critique of John’s views cf. George Heyman, review of Loren L. Johns, The Lamb Christology of the Apocalypse of John: An Investigation into Its Origins and Rhetorical Force, RBL (http://www.bookreviews.org 2005); Robert M. Royalty, review of Loren L. Johns, The Lamb Christology of the Apocalypse of John: An Investigation into Its Origins and Rhetorical Force, RBL (http://www.bookreviews.org 2005). 102 Several commentators have proposed that these Jews were either Gentiles who pretend to be Jews or Jewish proselytes. Peter Pilhofer, “The Early Christian Community of Smyrna—Smyrna in the New Testament and Beyond,” (paper presented at the First International Symposium on Ancient Smyrna, Izmir. July 23, 2003), 6; David Stern, Jewish New Testament Commentary (Chandler, AZ: Messianic Jewish Resources International, 1992), 795–96; J. Ramsey Michaels, Revelation (IVPNTC; Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1997), 74. On the basis of Ignatius’s letters others claim they are Judaizers. John C. Gager, The Origins of Anti-Semitism (New York: Oxford University Press, 1983), 132; Kraft, Offenbarung, 60–61; Prigent, L’Apocalypse, 47–48; David Frankfurter, “Jews or Not? Reconstructing the ‘Other’ in Rev 2:9 and 3:9,” HTR 94.4 (2001): 423; Marshall, Parables, 132–4. Based on Irenaeus (Haer. 1.30.15) and Hippolytus (Haer. 5.12) Barclay M. Newman, Jr. proposes a connection with the Gnostic sects, particularly the Ophites connected with serpent worship (Rediscovering the Book of Revelation [Valley Forge: Judson, 1968], 48–49). Alan Le Grys and Helmut Koester connect the Synagogue of Satan with the Nicolaitans arguing that the dispute was internal in the church (“Conflict and Vengeance in the Book of Revelation,” ExpTim 104 [1992], 77; “GNOMAI DIAPHORAI: The Origin and Nature of Diversification in the History of Early Christianity,” in Trajectories through Early Christianity, ed. J. M. Robinson and H. Koester [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971], 148–49).

244

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

based on the evidence of the text and historical context.103 The parallel passage in Philadelphia indicates that these Jews lie (yeu,domain 3:9), either about their identity as Jews or the slander they perpetrate against the churches. Revelation 3:9 indicates a group outside the Church as the Synagogue group would “come and fall down at your [Christ’s] feet” (3:9). It may also imply that those faithful to God in the churches are true Jews.

Historical Context The evidence for Jews living in Smyrna in the first and second century is persuasive 104 (Cicero Flac. 68; Philo Legat. 245; Josephus J.W. 2.398; 7.43; Ant. 14.115; Sibylline Or. 3.271; Augustine Civ. 6.11). Van der Horst claim’s that an estimated population in Asia Minor in the first century is in excess of one million.105 In addition, 103

Adela Yarbro Collins, “Vilification and Self-Definition in the Book of Revelation,” HTR 79 (1986): 314; Alan James Beagley, The ‘Sitz im Leben’ of the Apocalypse With Particular Reference to the Role of the Church’s Enemies Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1987), 179; Beale, Rev, 25 n. 127, 31 n. 15; Aune, Rev 1–5, 162; Osborne, Rev, 131 n. 4; Schüssler Fiorenza, Rev: Justice, 118; Hemer, Letters, 65–68; Theodor Zahn, Die Offenbarung des Johannes, 2 vols. Leipzig: Deichert, 1924–1926, 229; Friedrich Düsterdieck, Critical and Exegetical Handbook to the Revelation of John (Funk & Wagnalls, 1884; repr., 6th ed. Winona Lake: Alpha, 1979), 138; Thompson, Rev, 68– 69; Adela Yarbro Collins, “Persecution and Vengeance in the Book of Revelation,” in Apocalypticism in the Mediterranean World and the Near East (ed. David Hellholm; Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1983), 739. 104 Elizabeth Leigh Gibson, “Jews in the Inscriptions of Smyrna,” JJS 56.1 (2005): 66–79; Lafaye and Cagnat, IGRom 4:1431.29; Frey, CIJ 2:742.29; Boeckh, CIG 2:3148; McCabe, Inscriptions, 54; A. Thomas Kraabel, “The Roman Diaspora: Six questionable Assumptions,” JJS 33 (1982), 455; E. Mary Smallwood, Jews Under Roman Rule: From Pompey to Diocletian (Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity 20; Leiden: Brill, 1976), 234 n. 59; 507; William H. C. Frend, Martyrdom and Persecution in the Early Church: A Study of a Conflict from the Maccabees to Donatus (Oxford: Blackwell, 1965), 148 n. 47. 105 P. W. van der Horst, “Jews and Christians in Aphrodisias in the Light of their Relations in Other Cities of Asia Minor,” NedTT 43 (1989): 106–107. While van der Horst’s article deals with Aphrodisias many of his arguments can also apply to Smyrna, as the lack of direct evidence is simi-

CHAPTER FIVE-EXEGESIS OF REVELATION 2:8-11 245 Jewish persecution of Christians in the early church is well documented in Acts (6:9–15; 9:23, 29; 12:1–3; etc.) and the early church fathers.106 In the account of the martyrdom of both Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna (Mart. Pol. 1.13; 12.2; FrgPol. 64.23)107 and Pionius, lar in both cities, and his use of indirect evidence applies to other cities in the region. Silberschlag points out that “the origin of Jews in Asia Minor is still a matter of conjecture” and goes on to trace the roots of the Jews back to a fragment from Clearchus’s book On Sleep (Peri. u]pnou) recorded by Josephus in Contra Apionem 1.176–83. E. Silberschlag, “The Earliest Record of Jews in Asia Minor,” JBL 52 (1933): 67. 106 Frend, Martyrdom, 259. 107 Judith M. Lieu doubts Jews spoke these words claiming Jews would not call upon city gods “to accuse someone else of avoiding their worship without running the risk of having the same charge turned against themselves” (“Accusations of Jewish Persecution in Early Christian Sources, with Particular Reference to Justin Martyr and the Martyrdom of Polycarp,” in Tolerance and Intolerance in Early Judaism and Christianity [eds. Graham N. Stanton and Gedaliahu A. G. Stroumsa; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998], 285–6). Herbert Musurillo ascribes the Jews’ remarks to different groups in the crowd (The Acts of the Christian Martyrs [Oxford: Clarendon, 1972], 11 n. 16). However, as Robert F. Tannenbaum points out, Godfearers in Aphrodisias “are said to have one foot in the pagan temples and another in the synagogue” (“The GodFearers: Did They Exist? Jews and God-Fearers in the Holy City of Aphrodite,” BAR 12.5 [1986]: 56). Several commentators argue that the very fact that the Jews gathered wood on the Sabbath and ventured into the stadium to watch Polycarp burn argues for the Jewish hostility. Banks, “Smyrna,” ISBE 4:8183; William H. C. Frend, “The Persecutions: Some Links between Judaism and the Early Church,” JEH 9 (1958): 157; Beagley, ‘Sitz im Leben’ of the Apocalypse, 179–80; Beale, Rev, 25 n. 127, 31 n. 15; and Merrill F. Unger, Archaeology and the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1962), 282. Aune, with others, believes thatthis entire account is “historically tendentious as well as strikingly anti-Jewish, consciously formulated in an attempt to replicate the Gospel narratives of the passion of Jesus” (Rev 1– 5, 162). Musurillo, Christian Martyrs, xiv; Alford, Hebrews–Rev, 4:566; Boudewijn Dehandschütter, “The Martyrium Polycarpi: A Century of Research,” ANRW 27.2:485–522. J. B. Lightfoot cautions, Not to place more weight on the differences between the various witnesses than is warranted. . . . In any case, compared to many of the later accounts of martyrdom the story is told with a good deal of restraint,

246

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

priest in Smyrna (AD 250; Mart. Pionii 2.1; 3.6; 4.2, 8; 13.1; 14.1),108 the Jews had a hand in both acts.109 Lieu and others attempt to argue away the predominance of Jewish involvement in persecution, stating that it was an illusion of persecution more Christian imagination than fact.110 However, even given Lieu’s best efforts to argue away the evidence, there appears to be sufficient justification for claiming a predominantly Jewish influence in early Christian persecution. Frend captures the argument well when he states that: “the troubles of the early Church were due as much to the virulence of the Christian-Jewish controversy as to any other cause” (cf. Tertullian Scorp. 9.2; 10.6).111 Thompson accounts for the conflict in this way: and may be judged to provide a generally reliable, and certainly very moving, account of Polycarp’s martyrdom (The Apostolic Fathers [ed. and rev. Michael W. Holmes; trans. J. R. Harmer; 2d ed.; London: Macmillan, 1891; repr., Grand Rapids: Baker, 1989], 133). 108

S. Zincone, “Pionius,” EECh 2:688–9. Although an argument from silence, Thompson points out that “Ignatius does not mention any conflict between Jews and Christians in his letter to either Smyrna or Polycarp” (Rev, 70). 110 Lieu, “Persecution,” 279. Aune, following D. R. A. Hare, posits that “the suffering of Christians was in part a theological convention in Christian apologetics requiring little or no evidence” (Rev 1–5, 163; Hare, The Theme of Jewish Persecution of Christians in the Gospel According to St. Matthew [SNTSMS 6. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967]). 111 Frend, “Persecutions,” 156–57; Beagley, ‘Sitz im Leben’ of the Apocalypse, 179; van der Waal, Covenantal, 125. For more on the relationship between the Church and synagogues, see Aune, Rev 1–5, 168–72; Peder Borgen, “Polemic in the Book of Revelation,” in Anti-Semitism and Early Christianity (ed. Craig A. Evens and D. A. Hagner; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), 199–211; Friedrich W. Horn, “Zwischen der Synagoge des Satans und dem neuen Jerusalem: Die christlich-jüdische Standortbestimmung in der Apokalypse des Johannes,” ZRGG 46.2 (1994): 143–62; Steven J. Friesen, “Sarcasm in Revelation 2–3: Churches, Christians, True Jews, and Satanic Synagogues,” in Reality of Apocalypse: Rhetoric and Politics in the Book of Revelation (ed., David L. Barr.; SBLSS 39; Atlanta: Scholars, 2006), 127– 46; Paul Duff, “The ‘Synagogues of Satan’: Crisis Mongering and the Apocalypse of John,” in Reality of Apocalypse: Rhetoric and Politics in the Book of Revelation (ed., David L. Barr.; SBLSS 39; Atlanta: Scholars, 2006), 147– 68; and Smallwood, Jews Under Roman Rule, 508. 109

CHAPTER FIVE-EXEGESIS OF REVELATION 2:8-11 247 [the] conflict with the synagogue probably arises for John because, on the one hand, Christians had lost their ‘Jewish shelter’ in dealing with the Romans, and on the other hand, Asian Jews participated fully in the social and policital [sic.] structures of Roman life.112

Although sunagwgh, is used only once in the NT outside of Revelation (Jas 2:2), here it is used to distinguish the Jewish community from the Christian church and identify the Jews as the agent of persecution.113 This is even more significant when it is remembered that John was also a Jew. The church in Smyrna was not understood as opposing Judaism generally but as opposing a specific group in the synagogue in Smyrna. That the phrase Synagogue of Satan refers to some of those in the local Jewish synagogue (sunagwgh,) at Smyrna (and Philadelphia),114 and not the Christian church (evkklhsi,a), is indicated from the distinctive use in Scripture of these Greek terms, and their polemical tone.115 Although no synagogue has yet been discovered in Smyrna,116 several inscriptions verify the presence of a Jewish syn112

Thompson, “Tribulation,” in Early Christian Apocalypticism (ed. A. Collins), 149; cf. 159–62. 113 Trench, Commentary, 139. Polemical remarks were also found within the Qumran community (1QM 15:9; 1:2; 4:9; 1QH 2:22). 114 It is not the Synagogue per se that is spoken of in a derogatory fashion but its connection with Satan. 115 Some commentators argue for confusion of the two terms. However, Simcox points out that “the distinction between the two words is not always maintained: Israel is called “the Church” in Acts vii. 38, and the assembly of Christian Jews is called a “synagogue” in St James ii. 2, and almost in Heb X. 25” (Rev, 14). Ladd, Rev, 44; Trench, Commentary, 139; Düsterdieck, Rev, 138; contra Le Grys, “Conflict and Vengeance,” 77. John Marshall takes exception to the distinction between synagogue and church and translates them respectively as a group led together and assembly with sunagwgh. tou/ Satana, translated gathering of the adversary (Parables, 83–87, 133). 116 Because the modern city of Izmir stands over the ancient ruins of Smyrna the fact that no synagogue has been discovered does not carry a lot of weight. P. W. van der Horst uses the same argument for the absence of a synagogue in Aphrodisias (“Jews and Christians,” 112).

248

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

agogue.117 An inscription dating from around AD 60–80 refers to a Jewess by the name of Rufina who was “head of the Synagogue” in Smyrna.118 In the account of Pionius’ martyrdom, Jewish rulers (a;rcwn; Mart. Pionii 13.2) and the synagogue (vIoudai/oi kalou/sin eivj sunagwga,j; Mart. Pionii 13.1) are mentioned as located in Smyrna. Fox makes several conclusions from the evidence in Mart. Pionii. First, there was “a Jewish community of some size and rank.”119 Second, Jews and Gentiles lived in close proximity to each other. Third, the Jews had “contacts in the city’s life.”120 Fourth, there was a “strong Jewish community” in Smyrna.121 The historical evidence from the martyrdoms of Polycarp and Pionius concurs with the statement about Jewish persecution in Revelation 2:9; there is sufficient evidence to support the claim of a significantly hostile Jewish community in Smyrna in the first and second centuries. Perhaps the purported Jewish persecution in 2:9 reflects a hostility that betrays the closeness between the Christians (who are true Jews) and the non-Christian Jews (who are not true Jews).

Role of the Imperial Cult The imperial cult played a significant role in the Jewish treatment of Smyrnaean Christians.122 Judaism benefited from legal sanctions

117 Colin J. Hemer, “Unto the Angels of the Churches,” BurH 11 (1975): 62; Robin J. Lane Fox, Pagans and Christians (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 1987), 481; Ramsay, Letters, 300; Unger, Archaeology, 285. 118 Frey, CIJ 2:740–741, 743. 119 Lane Fox, Pagans and Christians, 481. 120 Lane Fox, Pagans and Christians, 481. 121 Lane Fox, Pagans and Christians, 482. 122 The imperial cult was not the only influence on the Christian church as Thompson well documents. Thompson points out that “some of the fundamental elements contributing to the reality of tribulation and oppression were the Christian gospel of the crucified King, faithful behavior as imitation of Christ, social-political relations in the cities of Asia, and the affirmation of Christian separatism from the Roman world” (“Tribulation,” in Early Christian Apocalypticism [ed. A. Collins], 170).

CHAPTER FIVE-EXEGESIS OF REVELATION 2:8-11 249 (religio licita),123 and the Christians were considered by many in the first century to be a form of Judaism (Josephus Ag. Ap. 2.6; Philo Legat. 349–67).124 Jealousy over this privileged status soon festered among many Jews, leading many of them to slander Christians (Mark 15:29; Rom 3:8; 1 Cor 10:30; 1 Pet 4:4). Also, many of the Christians were converted Jews who lost their special Jewish status after AD 70 when the Romans removed their national status, and Jewish leaders accused Christians before the magistrates (Justin Dial. 16.4; 47.4; 93.4; 95.4; 96.2; 108.3; 133.6; 137.2).125 Kiddle envisages the process for the persecution of Christians in Smyrna in this passage: In cities like Smyrna, where the Imperial cult had been enthusiastically fostered for many years, it must have been an easy matter to urge the authorities to action. . . . Once disowned by Judaism, of which to the casual eye of the pagan they might seem merely an eccentric and troublesome sect, they were at the mercy of the prejudices of local administrators. And certain Jews were not content with disowning and ridiculing their opponents; there is reason to believe that they would on occasion traduce them, laying malicious accusations at their charge— accusations, for example, of disloyalty and positive sedition.126

123

A. Thomas Kraabel recounts how many Jews in Asia Minor still had the right to observe Sabbath along with other Jewish rites (“Judaism in Western Asia Minor under the Roman Empire with a Preliminary Study of the Jewish Community at Sardis,” [Ph.D. diss., Harvard University, 1968], 6, 52, 136). 124 Bandy, “Lawsuit,” 122; Beale, Rev, 8, 240; Osborne, Rev, 131; Yarbro Collins, “Vilification,” 313; Ford, Rev, 393; Shim’on Applebaum, “The Legal Status of the Jewish Communities of the Diaspora,” in The Jewish People in the First Century (ed. Y. Aschkenasy; vol. 2 of CRINT, Section 1; Assen, Netherlands: Van Gorcum, 1976), 420–63; S. R. F. Price, Rituals and Power: The Roman Imperial Cult in Asia Minor (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984), 220–21. 125 Grant, DBib 927; Thompson, “Tribulation,” in Early Christian Apocalypticism (ed. A. Collins), 149. 126 Kiddle, Rev, 27; Osborne, Rev, 130; Beale, Rev, 240; Mulholland, Rev, 360.

250

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

It is probable that Jewish persecution is the context within which the Jewish synagogue in Revelation is to be understood as a synagogue of Satan, and this reference sets the stage for the anticipated suffering in 10a. John aligns the activity of the synagogue with that of the great accuser Satan (avlla, sunagwgh. tou/ satana/), the enemy of the Great King.127 This is not an anti-Semitic128 statement within the context of the NT setting; it is an accurate statement of the Sitz im Leben of the social climate in Smyrna. As Bauckham explains, Jews were persecuting fellow Jews: [The conflict was] an intra-Jewish dispute. This is not the Gentile church claiming to supersede Judaism, but a rift like that between the temple establishment and the Qumran community, who denounced their fellow-Jews as ‘an assembly of deceit and a congregation of Belial’ (1QH 2:22).129

Stuckenbruck points out that the persecution may have been in the form of verbal attacks:

127

Trench, Commentary, 139; Caird, Rev, 35. The phrase throne of Satan is used in Pergamum “when the hostility was enforced by the heathen” (J. L. Campbell, The Patmos Letters (London: Morgan & Scott Ltd., 1898), 89). 128 Some scholars have claimed that John reflects the anti-Semitic attitudes of the early church fathers like Chrysostom. Jocelyn Hellig, The Holocaust and Anti-Semitism: A Short History (Oxford: One World, 2003), 205– 9; Moshe Lozer, “The Lamb and the Scapegoat: The Dehumanization of the Jews in Medieval Propaganda Imagery,” in Anti-Semitism in Times of Crisis (eds. Sander L. Gilman and Steven T. Katz; New York: New York University Press, 1991), 38–80. Steven J. Friesen also charges Hemer with “anti-Semitic stereotypes” (“Revelation, Realia, and Religion: Archaeology in the Interpretations of the Apocalypse,” HTR 88.3 [1995]: 305); contra Rushdoony, Thy Kingdom Come, 107–8; Trench, Commentary, 139. According to Aune, the term vIoudai/oj here is not meant to condemn Jews generally “but only those associated with synagogues in Smyrna and Philadelphia” (Rev 1–5, 162). Jacques Ellul places the proper emphasis on the attack of the Jews when he states that they “are not condemned as Jews but as Persecutors” (Apocalypse: The Book of Revelation [trans. George W. Schreiner; New York: Seabury, 1977], 130). 129 Bauckham, Theology, 124.

CHAPTER FIVE-EXEGESIS OF REVELATION 2:8-11 251 Some form of social or political persecution is, however, not a necessary inference from the text. The “slander” may, more generally, presuppose a situation of mutual conflict among members of both religious communities who traded accusations in accordance with their respective interests.130

As several scholars point out, the persecution in the first century was not a widespread phenomenon,131 and the Synagogue dispute is only mentioned in Smyrna and Philadelphia. Summary God, the Great King, is familiar with the Smyrnaean plight, and intimately aware of their afflictions, their poverty, and the schemes of their enemy. The persecution by the Jewish elements in their community led to affliction and may have contributed to their poverty. The King is not only protector, but also preserver of impoverished vassals. He pronounces them spiritually rich toward God. In this passage, the Suzerain/King recognizes the rich spiritual value of the covenant people and the suzerain’s protection of the vassals132 against the slanderous behaviour of Satan’s instrument, the Jewish synagogue. There is history between God and his children, evident from the similar message to Philadelphia where the King declares that he has loved (hvga,phsa,) them (3:9). The message to Smyrna is not God entering into a covenant relationship with his people, but it is a demonstration of a historical covenant relationship rooted in love. The lawsuits were brought against a people 130

Stuckenbruck, “Revelation,” 1541; Thompson, Apocalypse and Empire, 126. 131 Most scholars do not accept Eusebius’ accounts of widespread persecution (Hist. eccl. 3.17–20; 5.8.6); cf. Sweet, Rev, 26; Yarbro Collins, “Dating,” 33; Thompson, “Tribulation,” in Early Christian Apocalypticism (ed. A. Collins), 153. 132 The role of the suzerain in protecting the vassals from their enemies is evident in Deuteronomy (7:23; 23:14; 31:5; 32:29) and the ANEVT (“Treaty between Mursilis II and Tuppi-Teshshup of Amurru” [Beckman, Hittite Diplomatic Texts, 61 §8,9]). There is a functional equivalence in the way the historical prologue is used in the SMR to express protection and assurance for the suffering church.

252

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

who already had a covenant relationship with a covenant-making and covenant-keeping God (Deut 5:10; 7:12–13). There is evidence of a strong history between Yahweh and his children (suzerain/vassal). Verse 9 functions in the same way as the historical prologue of the ANEVT and Deuteronomy because it acknowledges God’s relationship with his people by describing their suffering and poverty and preserving them as spiritually rich toward God.

ETHICAL STIPULATIONS—V. 10A mh, fobou/ a] me,lleij pa,scein ivdou. me,llei ba,llein o` dia,boloj evx u`mw/n eivj fulakh.n i[na peirasqh/te kai. e;chte qli/yin h`merw/n de,ka gi,nou pisto.j a;cri qana,tou (2:10a). The loyalty of the churches is called for through obedience to stated ethical stipulations. While the stipulations for most of the churches involved correction of deficiencies, Smyrna and Philadelphia were called to continued faithfulness. The stipulations surrounding Smyrna are given in terms of two imperatives—Do not fear, and Be faithful—and in response the king pledges to give the crown of life. Within the ANEVT context, the loyalty of the vassals to the suzerain was also demonstrated by their obedience to the obligations of the stated stipulations.133 In addition, Thompson observes that the treaty stipulations were the “invention of the suzerain alone, without any consulting with the vassal who was merely bound by oath to render obedience.”134 Strand points out striking similarities between Revelation and the ANEVT: The whole concept of vassal obligations within the covenant relationship is built upon the prior goodness of the suzerain. . . . Obedience to the covenant stipulations—summarized in the book of Revelation as ‘the commandments of God’ and ‘the testimony of Jesus’ (12:17; cf. 14:12) —represents the Chris133 Mendenhall, “Covenant Forms,” 59; Shea, “Covenantal,” 72; Thompson, Treaties, 16. 134 Thompson, Treaties, 13; Mendenhall, “Covenant Forms,” 60.

CHAPTER FIVE-EXEGESIS OF REVELATION 2:8-11 253 tian’s obligation of love that stems from Christ’s own prior love.135

The stipulations are framed in covenant terms as obligations for God’s people to be faithful. In the message to Smyrna God grants the crown of life by grace and not due to any inherent right of the vassal. Thompson also observes that there is “no evidence that the suzerain bound himself by any kind of oath, although, no doubt, the treaty relationship was intended to protect the vassal from capricious attack by the suzerain.”136 Obviously, this point breaks down with God the suzerain, as God is unchangeable, longsuffering, and gracious. Christ the king “holds the keys of death and Hades” (1:18); thus, he secures the “crown of life” (2:10), and protection from “the second death” (2:11) for his vassals. In addition, in the covenant, God binds himself in oath to his vassals through the cutting of the animals (Gen 15:9–18a), symbolizing the consequences in the event of God’s non-compliance (Jer 39:18). Similarly, in Revelation’s Lamb Christology the cutting (slaying) of the Lamb137 played a central role (5:6, 12; 7:14; 12:11; 13:8) in his redemptive work. Christ binds himself to his people through the redemptive work of the Cross. This demonstrates how much better God’s covenant is compared to the ANEVT. First Imperative—Do Not Fear The stipulations begin with the suzerain’s first imperative: “do not fear the things which you are about to suffer” (mh, fobou/ a/ ] me,lleij pa,scein 2:10). The phrase is emphatic according to Osborne, who translates it “don’t be afraid of anyone.”138 Beale paraphrases the phrase this way: they are “not to fear” the imminent trial because their lives and destiny are in the hands of the eternal Pantokrator of history, 135

Strand, “Covenantal Form,” 264. Thompson, Treaties, 13. 137 See Weinfeld for the details in the ANEVT of killing a sacrificial lamb to ratify the treaty (Deuteronomic School, 102–104). 138 Osborne, Rev, 132. 136

254

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES who has already experienced persecution, even to death, and yet overcame it through resurrection.139

A similar logical argument is put forth in Revelation chapter one where the great motivation against fear is the eternal victory of the King: “Fear not (mh, fobou/)/ ; I am the first and the last” (1:17).140 Swete points out the need to be reminded of the victorious accomplishments of the King as “there were worse things in store than ptwcei,a or even blasfhmi,a; imprisonment, perhaps death, might await the faithful at Smyrna“141 (2:10). Cyprian states, “In the Apocalypse, divine protection is promised to our sufferings. ‘Fear nothing of these things,’ it says, ‘which thou shalt suffer’” (Cyprian Fort. 11.76 [Roberts]). The divine protection of the Great King is the greatest comfort for the believer in times of suffering.

The Suzerain’s Adversary—The Devil The Smyrnaean church must contend with more than prison and torture; the spiritual world is active with more than mortals. Behold the devil (o` dia,boloj)142 is also at work behind the scenes affecting disorder:143 “about to throw some of you into prison” (2:10 ESV ivdou. me,llei ba,llein144 o` dia,boloj evx u`mw/n eivj fulakh.n). Job (1:2), along with other biblical accounts (Zech 3:1,2; Luke 22:3; 23:2; John 13:2, 27; 19:12; Acts 17:5–8; 24:2), provides a similar heavenly perspective from which to view this activity. However, 139

Beale, Rev, 242. Robertson, Word Pictures, 6:301. 141 Swete, Apocalypse, 32; Robertson, Word Pictures, 6:301. 142 The reason for John’s change of the title “Satan” in 2:9 to “Devil” here is unclear. Osborne’s suggestion that it “is probably for emphasis” (Rev, 133) is unsatisfactory since there is no support and because the LXX uses the terms synonymously. 143 Ellul, Apocalypse, 131; Andrew Tait, The Messages to the Seven Churches of Asia Minor (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1884), 199. 144 Keep on casting. According to Thomas, “the durative idea of the present tense of ba,llein is in keeping with the continuation of imprisonment suggested by the ten-day length of the imprisonment” (Rev 1–7, 167 n. 42; Beckwith, Apocalypse, 454). 140

CHAPTER FIVE-EXEGESIS OF REVELATION 2:8-11 255 like Job, Satan’s activities are restricted by the sovereign King.145 Even the devil’s schemes are not to be feared for (behold ivdou.)146 they are used by God to bring about his purposes (Acts 2:23, 36; 4:10).147 Whether the persecution is carried out, as Kiddle believes, by the “Imperial authorities,”148 or as Bell proposes, by the Jewish element within Smyrna, 149 Satan is still at the root of both instruments. The procedure is described by Bell in that the Jews “as private citizens, will bring charges against the Christians before the local magistrate and demand that he take action against them.”150 As indicated already, Satan is ascribed a significant role in the account of the martyrdom of Polycarp (Mart. Pol. 2.4; 17.1) and was a common theme in the martyrdom accounts of the early church. This indicates a consciousness of satanic activity in the suffering of early Christian martyrs (Mart. Ascen. Isa. 3.11; 5.1; Mart. Ignat. 7; Justin Dial. 5; 1 Apol. 5; 30.78; 57.1; 63.10; 131.2; Origen Cels. 6:27; Cyprian Laps. 1, 2; Eusebius Hist. eccl. 5.1.16).151 Here the Smyrnaean suffering and possible martyrdom is directly linked to the immediate treasonous activity of the devil, the antagonist of the Great King.

The Suzerain’s Testing The stipulations declared by the suzerain in the form of the imperatives, “Do not fear” (2:10a), and “Be faithful” (2:10b) take on greater significance when the various elements are listed. The vassals may be expected to experience suffering, prison, testing, tribu145

Osborne, Rev, 133; Wilcock, Heaven Opened, 46. According to Hill, “the common word ‘Behold’ (ivdou.), though used frequently in the body of the book to introduce a fresh vision, appears six times in the letters (2:10, 22, 3:8, 9, 20; 4:1) in a way which seems to begin ‘a specific word of prophetic revelation’, a function it performs in Old Testament prophetic literature as well” (NT Prophecy, 78). 147 Beale, Rev, 242. 148 Kiddle, Rev, 28; Mounce, Rev, 76; contra Bell., “Date,” 101. 149 Bell., “Date,” 101. 150 Bell., “Date,” 101. 151 Trench, Commentary, 143. For a detailed analysis of the role of the devil in martyrdom, see Lieu, “Persecution,” 279–95. 146

256

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

lation, and possibly death. God, the Great King, is conscious of the condition of his people, and, much like Job, brings them through a period of testing to purify his subjects. Prison: The partitive construction of u`mw/n with evx indicates that the imprisonment and suffering was not universal. Several commentators recognize the idiomatic use of the partitive construction in the middle of verse ten (u`mw/n, peirasqh/te, and e]xete) and conclude that only some (cf. Luke 11:49; Rev 3:9; 11:9)152 from within the church would experience the suffering and imprisonment mentioned.153 If John were speaking to the whole church collectively he would have used “you (singular) will be cast into prison.” Since he wants to say “some of you,” he is forced to use the plural form of you with the partitive construction.154 In support of the short-term theory of ten days, Krodel states that the Romans never used incarceration for an extended period as punishment.155 The purpose of the ancient prison system may be helpful in determining the purpose of the imprisonment and testing. Were prisons used for punishment,156 or for holding prisoners 152

Hemer shows that the grammatical construction also points to Johannine authorship. “The partitive with evk expresses the object of a verb in 2.10 and the subject in 11.9 (cf. John 6.39; John 21.10, with avpo,; 2 John 4, all in ‘Johannine’ writings” (Letters, 267 n. 43). Also, see Thomas, Rev 1– 7, 167 n. 39; Beckwith, Apocalypse, 454; Robertson, Word Pictures, 6:302. 153 Thomas, Rev 1–7, 167 n. 43. 154 Aune, Rev 1–5, 158. 155 Krodel, Rev, 112. Brian Rapske corroborates Krodel’s finding stating that “prisoners in this situation [imprisonment] were simply awaiting death; practically speaking, they were suffering punishment” (The Book of Acts in its First Century Setting: The Book of Acts and Paul in Roman Custody [vol 3; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994], 19). 156 Worthy views Smyrna’s punishment as “imprisonment alone” (Greco-Asian, 77). Hemer, following Ramsay, suggests that prison was never used as a punishment in ancient times (Hemer, Letters, 68; Ramsay, Letters, 199). Adolf Berger and Andrew W. Lintott assert that “Roman criminal law did not recognize the imprisonment of free persons as a form of punishment” (“Prison,” OCD 1248). However, Mounce cautions that while most commentators observe that prison, in the first century, was more a place to await execution, several NT passages (Acts 16:23; 2 Cor 11:23) suggest that prison “also served as a place of temporary confine-

CHAPTER FIVE-EXEGESIS OF REVELATION 2:8-11 257 for trial and execution, or both? Rapske lists six different uses for prison in the Roman world, including protection, remand, awaiting sentence, execution, coercion, and punishment.157 He comments, “Whether temporary or lifelong, it is nowhere actually threatened in Republican legislation and no legal provisions for it seem to have been made.”158 In fact, Rapske states that in the Imperial period “confinement is explicitly prohibited as a punishment for citizens.”159 In support Rapske quotes Ulpian who states that imprisonment was explicitly forbidden as punishment: “prison indeed ought to be employed for confining men, not for punishing them” (Dig. 48.19.8.9). Further support comes from Callistratus who wrote the following in the 3d century AD: in the mandates given by the emperors to provincial governors, it is provided that no one is to be condemned to permanent imprisonment; and the deified Hadrian [117–35 AD] also wrote a rescript to this effect (Dig. 48.19.35).

However, Ulpian’s comments are precipitated because “Governors are in the habit of condemning men to be kept in prison or in chains” (Dig. 48.19.8.9; see Josephus Ant. 20.9.5).160 Krodel demonstrates from the letter of Pliny how death could follow imprisonment “unless the Christians apostatized, ‘cursed’ Christ, and worshiped the emperor.”161 Therefore, the most likely understandment and punishment” (Rev, 76); cf. Morris, Rev, 64. The cost to the city for mere confinement would be an unnecessary burden, and, according to Pliny, some cities used the unreliable service of slaves (Pliny Ep. 10.19, 20). See A. H. M. Jones, The Greek City: From Alexander to Justinian (Oxford: Clarendon, 1940), 213. 157 Rapske, Custody, 10–20; Krodel, Rev, 112; Hemer, Letters, 68; Osborne, Rev, 133. Berger and Lintott only list three possibilities for imprisonment: (1) to enforce obedience to the magistrate’s decisions (coercitio); (2) to detain until trial (custodia reorum); or (3) to detain after trial until execution (OCD 1248). 158 Rapske, Custody, 17; Ferdinand H. Hitzig, “Carcer,” PW 3:1578. 159 Rapske, Custody, 18. 160 See Rapske for more examples of prison as punishment (Custody, 16–20). 161 Krodel, Rev, 112.

258

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

ing of prison in the context is with confinement in expectation of the real possibility of physical death (2:10).162 The jurist Venuleius Saturninus (2d cent. AD) confirms this: “Should the accused confess, he shall be thrown into a public prison until sentence is passed on him” (Philostratus Vit. Apoll. 7:21 [Conybeare, LCL]). Where Roman citizens were involved sometimes, the governors had to delay execution to confirm the sentence or refer the case to a higher court (Dig. 28.3.7; 48.22.6); in fact the phrase “being cast into prison” was used synonymously with execution. Testing: The purpose for the imprisonment is “in order (i[na) that you may be tried (peirasqh/te).”163 Debate exists over the identification of the passive agent responsible for the testing. Is it the King or the adversary who is behind this testing? Peira,zw can be translated either test (from God. 1 Pet 1:7, 4:12; Luke 4:12; Jas 1:2–3; Heb 11:17)164 or tempt (from the Devil as in the temptation of Christ; cf. Matt 4:1; Mark 1:13; Luke 4:13; Gal 6:1; 1 Thess 3:5; 1 Cor 10:13; Heb 2:18; Jas 1:13; o` peira,zwn is a title for the Devil. Matt 4:3).165 Alford suggests that if testing were intended, then dokimasqh/te (may be approved) would have been used rather than peira,zw.166 However, the fact remains that peira,zw is used in the context of testing in other passages (see above). Therefore, peira,zw could have the meaning of testing in Revelation 2:10. Osborne has provided a case for both meanings, which seems more appropriate given the use of the devil in the context (2:9), and of “me,llei which carries overtones of divine destiny each time it is used.”167 Tested (peira,zw) is used with the Ephesian church (2:2) to determine the authenticity of the false apostles. Peira,zw in 2:9 could bear a similar meaning to test their faith. The Great King 162

Osborne, Rev, 133; Thomas, Rev 1–7, 168; Johnson, Rev, 438. Robertson, Word Pictures, 6:302; Thompson, Rev, 69. 164 Lenski, Rev, 99. 165 Trench, Commentary, 143–44; Swete, Apocalypse, 32; Simcox, Rev, 14; J. P. Louw and E. A. Nida, “peira,zw,” L&N 27.46, 332; 88.308, 775– 6. 166 Alford, Hebrews–Rev, 4:566; Thomas, Rev 1–7, 168. 167 Osborne, Rev, 133; Thomas, Rev 1–7, 168; Swete, Apocalypse, 32; Beckwith, Apocalypse, 454. 163

CHAPTER FIVE-EXEGESIS OF REVELATION 2:8-11 259 employs the tempting of Satan for the purpose (i[na) of strengthening his vassal’s loyalty and faith by these tests (Job 1:8–12; 22:25; 23:10; 32:10).168 Completeness of Testing: Christ appears to provide a duration for the afflictions (tribulation 2:9) of ten days. A debate plays out on several levels over the meaning and significance of these ten days.169 The majority of commentators take the ten days as symbolical/figurative.170 What do days represent? Are they 24 hour periods,171 years172 or extended periods of time?173 Is this extended period, represented by the number ten, a short,174 long,175 pro168

Beale, Rev, 242. Hemer makes an unlikely local reference connection with “gladiatorial contests” (Letters, 69–70), while Barr connects them to the ten days of mourning in the “Rites of Niobe” (“Oral Enactment,” 245 n. 9); contra Osborne, Rev, 134. 170 Hoeksema points out that “it may safely be adopted as a general rule that the indications of time and space in the Book of Revelation are to be taken in the symbolical sense of the word” (Rev, 71). Ramsay, Letters, 200; Martin, Seven Letters, 61; Beale, Rev, 243; Bauckham, Climax, 263 n. 35. 171 Thomas, Rev 1–7, 170–71. Beale disagrees with Thomas’s argument because of his failure to recognize “a literary allusion to Daniel.” (Rev, 243 n. 62). 172 If a day is taken as equal to one calendar year (Num 14:34; Ezek 4:6; Dan 9:24–26; 12:11; Rev 11:2, 3; 12:6), ten days of persecution would be equal to ten years, the duration of the Diocletian persecution (AD 303–313). Tait, Messages, 204; Walter Scott, Exposition of the Revelation of Jesus Christ (Westwood, N.J.: Revell, 1968), 72; contra Thomas, Rev 1–7, 169 n. 47. 173 Aune, Rev 1–5, 166; E. M. Blaiklock, Cities of the New Testament (New York: Revell, 1965), 100; F. F. Bruce, The Revelation of John (NTC; ed. G. C. D. Howley; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1969), 638; Hendriksen, Conquerors, 65; Kistemaker, Rev, 125; Lenski, Rev, 100; Swete, Apocalypse, 32; Mounce, Rev, 76; Ramsay, Letters, 200; and Morris, Rev, 64. 174 In support of this position, the number ten is said to be an acknowledged symbol for a very short period (cf. Gen 24:55; Num 11:19; 14:22; 1 Sam 1:8; 25:38; Job 19:3; Jer 42:7; Neh 5:18; Dan 1:12; Acts 25:6; etc). Charles, Rev, 1:58; Caird, Rev, 35; Düsterdieck, Rev, 139; Hoeksema, Rev, 72; Hughes, Rev, 61; Kiddle, Rev, 28; Mounce, Rev, 76; Simcox, Rev, 14; Smalley, Rev, 66. 169

260

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

longed (full),176 or indefinite period177 such as symbolical years? Because so many able scholars have proposed such a variety of theories,178 caution must be exercised in the interpretation of this phrase. The meaning may well be a combination of several views, as argued by some commentators.179 Several commentators identify h`merw/n in Rev 2:10 as a genitive of time.180 The significance of the genitive of time,181 according to Dana and Mantey, is “distinction of time rather than point of time (locative) or duration of time (accusative).”182 Robertson 175 E. W. Hengstenberg, The Revelation of John (trans. Patrick Fairbairn; 2 vols.; Edinburgh: T& T Clark, 1852), 1:140; Hoeksema, Rev, 71; Lenski, Rev, 100; Osborne, Rev, 134. 176 Moses Stuart, A Commentary on the Apocalypse (Vol. 2; Andover: Allen, Morrill & Wardwell, 1845. Repr., Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2001), 2:70. 177 For Beckwith ten days “denotes a period not long, but enough so to bring severe trial to the sufferers” (Apocalypse, 254; cf. 454). There is a limit to the suffering (ten days), but it is known to God. Swete, Apocalypse, 32. 178 For a general survey, see Worth, Greco-Asian, 76; Osborne, Rev, 133–34. 179 Beale argues for a figurative interpretation but acknowledges that a literal position is “possible” (Rev, 243). Osborne argues for a combination of small “round numbers” signifying a “brief period of time” and “prolonged enough to designate serious persecution” (Rev, 134). 180 Thomas, Rev 1–7, 170; Osborne, Rev, 134 n. 8; Mounce, Rev, 76 n. 18; Robertson, Word Pictures, 6:302. Beckwith mentions that “the gen. with vbs. denotes not duration of time, but a period to some point in which an event belongs; . . . In this place h`merw/n may be a gen. of measure after qli/yin, a tribulation of ten days; cf. Lk. 2:44” (Apocalypse, 454). 181 James A. Brooks and Carlton L. Winbery define an adverbial genitive of time as,

A genitive which is used adverbially to express time usually indicates kind of time, time within which, or one time as opposed to another time. Time is also expressed in Greek by the . . . accusative to indicate time throughout which—duration or extent of time (Syntax of New Testament Greek [Washington: University Press of America, 1979], 9). 182 H. E. Dana and Julius Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek (Toronto: MacMillan, 1957), 77; F. Blass, A. Debrunner, and R. W. Funk, ed. A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature

CHAPTER FIVE-EXEGESIS OF REVELATION 2:8-11 261 maintains that the genitive “is the case of genus (ge,noj) or kind.”183 Thus, Osborne maintains that in Revelation “the genitive h`merw/n should be translated as ‘for’ or ‘during’ (genitive of time), indicating a period of ‘time within which.’”184 This understanding of the genitive leads Smalley and Lenski to translate h`merw/n de,ka as lit. “during ten days,”185 which indicates that the trial is limited by the scope of the ten days. This signifies the kind or class of trial as a ten day trial. The use of the genitive in this context lends itself to the Smyrnaean church, which experienced a kind of trial within a period of time (the last days) in contrast with “the millennium and life of the world to come (20:4–6; 21:1–8).”186 In addition, what does the number ten signify for the testing? Several scholars see a figurative OT allusion in the Torah (Gen 24:55; 31:7, 41; Exod 7:14–25; 20:1–17; Num 14:22; Deut 23:3 with Neh 13:1; Job 19:2–3) or the prophets (1 Sam 25:38; Neh 4:12; Dan 1:12–14, 20; 3:12, 18) as predilection for the use of round numbers,187 which were used to indicate a complete or “thorough

(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961), §186; James H. Moulton, A Grammar of New Testament Greek, Volume 3: Syntax (Edinburgh: Clark, 1963), 3:235. A. T. Robertson maintains that it “Implies nothing as to duration” (Grammar, 495). 183 Robertson, Grammar, 493. 184 Osborne, Rev, 134 n. 8. Mounce and Robertson translate the genitive of time as within ten days (Mounce, Rev, 76 n. 18; Robertson, Word Pictures, 6:302). 185 Smalley, Rev, 66; Lenski, Rev, 99. William G. MacDonald also identifies an adverbial genitive of time as “a temporal occasion, telling when something occurred” (Greek Enchiridion: A Concise Handbook of Grammar for Translation and Exegesis [Peabody: Hendrickson, 1986], 80). Joseph H. Thayer, “h`me,ra,” GELNT 2389; cf. Sophocles Aj. 131.623; Euripides, Ion 720; hvmata pa,nta, Homer, Iliad 8.539; 12.133; 13.826. 186 Krodel, Rev, 113. 187 John J. Davis, Biblical Numerology: A Basic Study of the Use of Numbers in the Bible (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1968), 122; Adela Yarbro Collins, “Numerical Symbolism in Jewish and Early Christian Apocalyptic Literature,” (ANRW II.21.2; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1984), 1243. Osborne indicates ten as a “small but round number. . . . signifying a complete yet brief period of time as in Gen 24:55; Num 11:19; Dan 1:12; Pirqe ’Abot 5:3” (Rev, 134).

262

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

testing.”188 Some see the reference to ten days as a symbolical reference to the concept of completeness, which indicates limitations to the extent of the suffering rather than a time period.189 This argument is strengthened by the conclusion that SMR were influenced by the Torah190 and by the general use of ten in Revelation (ten horns 13:1, ten royal diadems 17:3, 7, 12, 16). Beale identifies Daniel and his friends, who are tested for ten days (Dan 1:12–14), against the backdrop of the imperial cult and trade guilds as its source: “for both Judaism and early Christianity Daniel and his three friends became the model for those who would rather be persecuted for their faith than worship idols.”191 As Daniel and his friends “were tempted to compromise with pagan religion,”192 so the Smyrnaean church was tempted to compromise with the imperial cult.193 The Jews were jealous that the Christians were claiming exemption from participation in the worship of Roma, since the Jews viewed christianity as a sect and not Jewish. The Jews were turning Christians over to the authorities to be tested by the Roman authorities; in some cases, Christians were See Thomas, Rev 1–7, 170; Beckwith, Apocalypse, 254, 454; Mounce, Rev, 76. 188 Smalley identifies this OT connection but explains, “It is more likely that the numeral is chosen because it represents a period which includes real suffering” (Rev, 66). Beale, Rev, 243 n. 63; Krodel, Rev, 113; Martin, Seven Letters, 61; Beasley-Murray, Rev, 82. See chapter 5— The Transcendent Suzerain–The First and the Last, 228; contra Düsterdieck, Rev, 139. 189 Blaiklock, Cities, 100, Aune, Rev 1–5, 166; Ramsay, Letters, 200; Swete, Apocalypse, 32; Hoeksema, Rev, 72; Sutton, Prosper, 257. 190 See chapter 3—Torah and the Prophet’s Influence on the Messages, 120. 191 Beale, Rev, 242–3; cf. Rev 13:7–8; 14–15, 18 with Dan 3:12, 18 in the LXX; cf. 4 Macc 18:11–18. Thompson, Rev, 69; Osborne, Rev, 134; Chilton, Vengeance, 103. 192 Beale, Rev, 243. 193 See the account of Polycarp who was martyred for refusing to “swear by the genius of Caesar” (Mart. Pol. 9.2; 10.1) when challenged by the Roman governor. cf. Rev 13:7–8, 14–15, 18 comp. Dan 3:12, 18. Beale points out that in the early church Nebuchadnezzar’s image was viewed “as prototypical of the Roman emperor’s image” (Rev, 243 n. 60).

CHAPTER FIVE-EXEGESIS OF REVELATION 2:8-11 263 imprisoned and put to death.194 This message, if connected to Daniel, would have encouraged the Smyrnaean Christians to know that Daniel endured the test, and after ten days was successful. The ten days show parallels to both the Torah and the prophets, arguing for its figurative use in Revelation. Given the genitive mood for h`merw/n, it seems erroneous to look for a duration of time for the meaning of the ten days.195 Kistemaker interprets the ten days as “the completeness of the period of suffering, which is neither long nor short but full, for its termination is sure.”196 Smalley states that the ten days indicates “a period which includes real suffering, but is itself restricted; and the limit is known to God (cf. 2 Cor 4:17–18).”197 The persecution will not be prolonged and the church will survive it. Lenski sums up the argument best when he states the following: In these letters the Lord himself uses symbolical expressions; the seven stars and the seven pedestal lamps in which also the number seven is symbolical. So we take “during ten days” to mean “during a complete period,” one that is long enough for the complete trial according to the Lord’s purpose. “Ten” is here not multiplied by itself, and for this reason this period is not one of great duration. The actual duration is not revealed by this “ten.”198

194 Frend, Martyrdom, 67; Price, Rituals, 199. See chapter 5—Role of the Imperial Cult, 248. 195 Thomas argues that the duration must be short to “provide an encouragement for those in Smyrna” (Rev 1–7, 170). Tait, Messages, 204–5; Trench, Commentary, 146. Charles, Rev, 1:58; Alford, Hebrews–Rev, 4:567. These commentators cite Isa 36:20; 54:8; Ps 30:5; Matt 24:22; 2 Cor 4:17; 1 Pet 1:6; 5:30; Rev 1:9; 2:3 for the idea of a short period. God reminds his Church that suffering is short from his perspective (2 Pet 3:8; Ps 90:4; 2 Cor 4:17). Hengstenberg, Rev, 1:174; Swete, Apocalypse, 32. Several commentators allow for a long period extending to the martyrdom of Polycarp in AD 155; cf. Simcox, Rev, 14. 196 Kistemaker, Rev, 125; Hendriksen, Conquerors, 65; Beckwith, Apocalypse, 254, 454. 197 Smalley, Rev, 66. 198 Lenski, Rev, 100.

264

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

Hoeksema believes that “a certain definite period is allotted to the devil during which he may persecute the church of Christ, a period which is determined not by himself, but by the will and council of the Lord.”199 The purpose of such a statement was to bring encouragement, so whenever the Smyrnaean church experienced eschatological woes, 200 the church would know that the woes would be for a complete fulfilled time. The Smyrnaean Christians knew that whenever they experience suffering or tribulation, under God it is for a controlled and limited time. They knew that suffering would ultimately come to completion, which would have been encouraging and meaningful for them. This would certainly be a comforting motivation for these Smyrnaean Christians not to fear their suffering and to persevere through these eschatological woes. Thus, the imperative of their King was to fear not. Second Imperative—Be Faithful to Death The stipulations are further emphasised with the declaration of the King’s second imperative: to be faithful to death (gi,nou pisto.j a;cri qana,tou 2:10). The Great King who states “I died, and behold I am alive forevermore” (1:18 ESV) is the one who will grant the crown of life to those who are faithful unto death (2:10). Several scholars draw similarities between the Christians’ faithful loyalty to Christ and Smyrna’s allegiance to the Romans.201 The statement “our most faithful and most ancient ally” (Cicero Phil. 11.2.5 [Yonge]) is often quoted to support this idea.202 Regard199

Hoeksema, Rev, 72. Donald A. Carson points out that qli/yin may refer to eschatological woes (Mark 13:9; Rom 2:9) or persecution (John 15:18–16:4a; Acts 11:19; Eph 3:13), but in Revelation 2:10 and John 16:33 both of these ideas are combined (cf. Matt 24; Rev 7:14; The Gospel According to John [Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 1991], 549–50). 201 Hemer, Letters, 70; Cadoux, Smyrna, 113–5; Worth, Greco-Asian, 77; Charles, Rev, 1:55; Swete, Apocalypse, lxi, 30; Blaiklock, Cities, 100; Ramsay, Letters, 201. 202 Otto F. A. Meinardus, St. John of Patmos and the Seven Churches of the Apocalypse (New York: Caratzas Brothers, 1979), 62; Ramsay, Letters, 201; Ford, Rev, 395. 200

CHAPTER FIVE-EXEGESIS OF REVELATION 2:8-11 265 less of whether Rome’s enemies were Mithridates, Carthage, or the Seleucid kings, Smyrna was faithful to Rome.203 The Great King now appeals to the Smyrnaean Christians to remain faithful204 “as their community had been in the dangerous days before Rome’s triumph was assured.”205 The Smyrnaeans’ faithfulness is to extend even to death (a;cri qana,tou); however, does a;cri mean extent (to the point of death), or temporal (when you die)? As Osborne observes, “In the parallel 12:11 (‘they did not love their lives to the point of death’), a reference to degree fits better in the context.”206 Trench agrees pointing out that this phrase until death “is an intensive, not an extensive term. . . . ‘to the sharpest and worst which the enemy can inflict upon thee, even to death itself:’”207 To what extent does John expect death to be an inevitable outcome of following the Lamb (cf. Rev 14:1-5)? Smyrna is called to follow the Lamb “to the point of death” which sounds more like an exceptional possibility. The overcomer is called to follow the Lamb if necessary to death and “not live their lives so much as to shrink from death” (12:11). There is a close similarity between the conditional promise, Be faithful unto death, and I will give you the crown of life (v. 10; Cyprian Test. 490) and the messenger formula (v. 8) which also “contains the same

203

Hemer and others trace Smyrna’s boast of faithfulness to the early history of her loyalty to Seleucus II to the point of suffering under his rule (243 BC). Smyrna’s allegiance was quickly transferred to Attalus I Soter (241–197 BC). Hemer, Letters, 70; Boeckh, CIG 2:3137; Dittenberger, OGIS 1:229; McCabe, Inscriptions, 9. Polybius (218 BC) testifies to Smyrna’s loyal support of Attalus and the sympathetic reception of her ambassadors, “because the Smyrnaeans had most of all men kept faith with him” (Hist. 5.77.6). Cadoux, Smyrna, 128 n. 2; 113–5. Tacitus also recounts that the Smyrnaean’s highlighted their past faithfulness when they pleaded with Tiberius for the privilege of building an imperial temple in AD 26 (Tacitus Ann. 4:56). 204 Can best be translated keep on becoming faithful (gi,nou pisto.j). Robertson translated it “‘keep on proving faithful unto death’ (Heb 12:4) as the martyrs have done” (Word Pictures, 6:301). 205 Worth, Greco-Asian, 78. 206 Osborne, Rev, 134–5. 207 Trench, Commentary, 146.

266

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

life/death contrast.”208 Ellul argues that the command to remain faithful is accompanied in a promise of eternal blessing: exhortation comes precisely from the one who gives the crown of life; it is he, and he alone, who makes us faithful. . . This church is under a threat of death; therefore the one who speaks to her exhorts her, is the one who has passed through death (2:8) to live again. And it is the same for their destiny; these men are going to die in the persecution but will have nothing else to endure except physical death: they are assured of rising again (2:11).209

There appears to be a close relationship between pi,stij (2:19; 14:12; 17:14) and pisto,j (2:10, 13; 13:10) in Revelation. The King requires that his people remain faithful and, if necessary, even to the point of martyrdom. Believers persevere to the end by faith, by placing their trust in the sovereign King who will vindicate his people in time. It is to those who are faithful even unto death that the promise of ultimate victory is given (2:13). As Beale has put it, “It is by means of the churches’ ‘perseverance’ through such ‘tribulation’ that they reign in an invisible messianic ‘kingdom’ (cf Rev 1:6, 9) which had previously been so long awaited.”210

SANCTIONS—V. 10B, 11B kai. dw,sw soi to.n ste,fanon th/j zwh/j (2:10b). nikw/n ouv mh. avdikhqh/| evk tou/ qana,tou tou/ deute,rou (2:11b). Although maledictions are present in five of the churches’ messages, within the messages to Philadelphia 211 and Smyrna only the blessing is mentioned.212 The ethical imperative of overcoming 208

Krodel, Rev, 113; Mulholland, Rev, 99. Ellul, Apocalypse, 131. 210 Beale, review of Hemer, 109. 211 This same blessing is implied in the covenant message to Philadelphia. “I am coming soon. Hold on to what you have, so that no-one will take your crown (to.n ste,fano,n)” (3:11). 212 The curse is present in Ephesus 2:5b; Pergamum 2:16b; Thyatira 2:22–23; Sardis 3:3b; and Laodicea 3:16. Philadelphia, like Smyrna, is missing a curse; cf. chapter 4—Inconsistent Pattern, 212. 209

CHAPTER FIVE-EXEGESIS OF REVELATION 2:8-11 267 is accompanied with a divine benediction upon those faithfully enduring persecution. Within the Smyrnaean message the eschatological fulfilment of the covenant macarism (beatitude 1:3) for those overcomers obedient to the stipulations is the King’s gracious pledge of eternal preservation (eternal life), metaphorically conveyed by the crown of life. The King graciously grants the crown, which represents life in the fullest eternal sense, to the overcoming subjects. The prophetic sanctions, where the vassal is cursed (maledictions) for disobedience (dishonours the treaty), and blessed (benedictions) for obedience to the stated stipulations (honours the treaty), is a central element of the ANEVT structure and is also present within the SMR.213 The fact that only the blessings are mentioned in two of the churches is not an argument against ANEVT given the unique circumstances of these two exceptions; the early church would still be aware of the curses in the other five messages. The messages are crafted to address the individual circumstances similar to the various constructions of the ANEVT, and they are not meant to rigidly force a structure on the text. The Blessing of the Crown of Life God the Great King grants the pledge of the crown of life (to.n ste,fanon th/j zwh/j) to all who belong to Christ. The macarism for the Smyrnaean overcomers is metaphorically represented by the crown of life for the blessing of eternal life (see also Jas 1:12).214 The crown motif is also picked up again in Revelation 4 where the elders are viewed by Hurtado as heavenly representatives of the faithful215 and wear gold crowns (4:4). Their crowns are laid before the throne while they exalt the one on the throne (4:10–11; cf. 1 En. 61.11–12). Three elements from 4:4 are common to the SMR: 213

See chapter 4 and 5—Sanctions, 158, 266. Royalty maintains that the “virtues that bring wealth to the Smyrnaeans are struggle and patient endurance” (Ideology of Wealth, 163). Royalty appears to strain the analogy to connect suffering and wealth in this context. 215 L. W. Hurtado, “Revelation 4–5 in the Light of Jewish Apocalyptic Analogies,” JSNT 25 (1985): 113–14. 214

268

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

The elect are promised (1) white garments (3:5), (2) crowns (2:10; 3:11), and (3) a throne to sit on (3:21).216 Hurtado believes that “the vision of the twenty-four elders [Rev 5] seems to be assurance of the heavenly reality of the promises.”217 The King will bless his subjects with the crown of life if they overcome (2:11 etc.) in perseverance (u`pomonh, endurance Jas 1:3–4) under suffering (2:3, 2 Tim 3:11–15). This paraenetic macarism pattern has ancient roots and appears repeatedly in James 1:12, 25; 5:10–11a; 1 Peter 3:14; 4:14 and Rev 14:12–14 (see also Jas 1:2–4; 2 Tim 4:8; th/j do,xhj ste,fanon see 1 Pet 4:19–5:7).218 The similarities in the references to the crown motif within the biblical text (2:10; cf. 4:4, Jas 1:12) suggest the use of an unwritten saying preserved in oral tradition, or a borrowing from a written text.219 Mayor suggests that “it is an instance of loose quotation”220 that was borrowed from the various NT usages of ste,fanoj. Hemer on the other hand states, “There is no ground for dogmatism here about possible literary relationship with James 1.12.”221 Grundmann believes that these many passages have “no literary dependence, so that they must go back to a common original.”222 The commonality between Revelation 2:10 and James 1:12 may be identified in the centrality of the blessing within the covenant relationship of God and His people. Ropes understands the crown of life, in James, as the gracious “mark of honour to be given by the Great King to his friends” (Ep.

216

See Mart. Ascen. Isa. 8.26; 9.7–18. Hurtado, “Revelation 4–5,” 113. 218 For Jewish references to the elect receiving crowns in the coming age; cf. 1QS 4:7; 1QH 9:25; b. Bar. 17; T. Ben. 4.1. 219 Walter Grundmann believes that “the inner relation between the three sayings, which promise to those who suffer, and in some circumstances may even suffer martyrdom, the victor’s crown from the Lord’s hand, points to a common hortatory basis” (“ste,fanoj, stefano,w,” TDNT 7:630). 220 Mayor, James, 50. 221 Hemer, Letters, 72. 222 Grundmann, TDNT 7:630 n. 76. 217

CHAPTER FIVE-EXEGESIS OF REVELATION 2:8-11 269 Arist. 280).223 Tasker maintains that the crown motif in James “is not a sign of royalty, nor a prize as it is in 1 Cor. ix. 25, but a gift showing the approval of the divine Giver.”224 The macarism for those who persevere under suffering is central to the NT covenantal blessing, but this idea of the blessing for the overcomers also finds support within the Rabbinical literature, Nag Hammadi Codices, and early Christians texts (Shem. Rab. 31; Hermas Vis. 2.2.7; Gos. Thom. 58). Likewise, in Revelation, following the overcomers’ period of testing, the victor will receive the crown of life.225 Fensham brings out a similar parallel in the ANEVT where the suzerain promises to protect the vassal on the basis of his or her faithfulness and obedience.226 In the vassal-treaty between Muwattališ and Alakšanduš we have a command for Alakšanduš to protect Muwattališ against his enemies.227 Fensham comments that “one of the most humane stipulations in the Hittite treaties is the promise of protection of the vassal against enemies. . . . There was no enemy to fear.”228 Likewise, Yahweh requires faithfulness because he is a jealous God (Exod 20:3–6) and promises protection in such passages as Exodus 23:22; 34:11–17; and Deuteronomy 3:8–24.229 As Fesham points out, “The protection of Yahweh can only be attained by an obedient nation. Unfaithfulness of the vassal, in this case the 223

James Hardy Ropes, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle of James (ICC 1916. rep.; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1954), 152. 224 R. V. G. Tasker, The General Epistle of James (TNTC 16; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983), 45. 225 Simon J. Kistemaker, Exposition of the Epistle of James and the Epistles of John (NTC 10; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1986), 47. 226 In the Akkadian Sěfire treaties we find tšm‘n means obedience. There are no protection clauses in the Sěfire and Esarhaddon treaties. This is likely due to the fact that they are dated to the first millennium rather than the second millennium with the Hittite treaties. Fensham, “Clauses,” 139 n. 1; Kitchen, Reliability, 285. The Sěfire and Esarhaddon treaties have more similarities with the prophets than the Pentateuch. Fensham, “Clauses,” 142. 227 Fensham, “Clauses,” 139. 228 Fensham, “Clauses,” 140. 229 Amos 1–2:3 also picks up on the judgment on foreign nations.

270

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

people of the Lord, means punishment and rejection.”230 The covenant lawsuit against the seven churches is couched in this ancient legal language. For the overcomers there is the blessing of the King’s divine protection. To put it another way, perseverance in suffering is to be consummated in the ultimate protection from all enemies in eternal life (21:4, 7–8, 27; 22:3). Kiddle states that the crown “bestowed alike for civil merit and military or athletic prowess, was for Christians the sign of immortality.”231 The Great King grants the crown of eternal life to those who have finished the race in accordance with the King’s stipulations. The comfort for the Smyrnaean Christians focuses on the blessing, which is given to those who overcome and persevere in suffering (also 21:7). The verb di,dwmi [kai. dw,sw soi to.n ste,fanon] has a basic meaning of give, but it varies greatly depending on the context. In this context the King graciously grants (gives) the covenant blessing of the crown of life because of their perseverance.232

The Cultural Setting of the Crown Hemer can speak of the crown as being a “pervasively common numismatic emblem233 and a constant theme of the rhetorical panegyrics of Aelius Aristides in the following century.”234 Smyrna in 230

Fensham, “Clauses,” 143. Kiddle, Rev, 28; Worth, Greco-Asian, 79; Swete, Apocalypse, 33. 232 The idiomatic expression, “to give the right hand,” is also coincidentally used in Deuteronomy 11:16 (“See, I am setting before you today a blessing and a curse–” [ivdou. evgw. di,dwmi evnw,pion LXX]) where di,dwmi is used in granting the covenant blessing; i.e. dexia.j di,dwmi; to give right hands, literally to shake hands, to establish a covenant. Gal 2:9; make a covenant, (di,dwmi auvtw/| diaqh,khn LXX) Num 25:12; Deut 4:8; (didou.j no,mouj) Heb 8:10; (evdo,qh no,moj) Gal 3:15. J. P. Louw and E. A. Nida, “didwmi,” L&N 34.42, 451. 233 Hemer points out that “variations of the motif occur on every pre-Imperial coin listed in BMC (Nos. 1–119), and sometimes three times on the same coin (Nos. 35–46). Similar emblems are almost obsessively common throughout the abundant and otherwise more varied types of the Empire” (Letters, 59–60). 234 Colin Hemer, “ste,fanoj,” NIDNTT 1:406. 231

CHAPTER FIVE-EXEGESIS OF REVELATION 2:8-11 271 the first century was culturally surrounded by ste,fanoj imagery235 as well as popularized in early apocalyptic literature (T. Levi 8.2, 9; also crown of glory used by T. Ben. 4.1; Ascen. Isa. 9.7, 24; 11.40; Hermas Sim. 8.2.1; 8.3.6). Beckwith summarizes the evidence: the crown occurs so often in antiquity as a mark of royalty, honor, a prize of victory, etc., that it is unnecessary to seek (so, some com.) for a local origin of the metaphor, i.e. in the games celebrated at Smyrna.236

The Crown Used Metaphorically The perishable crown or wreath is used metaphorically for the eschatological reward of the righteous in the OT Pseudepigrapha and Apocrypha (T. Job 40:3; T. Ab.10.9; Gk. Apoc. Ezra 6:17; Apoc. El. 1:8; Ascen. Isa. 7:22; 9:24; Wis 5:16; Herm. Sim. 8.2.1–4; 8.3.6) and within the OT (2 Sam 12:30; 1 Chr 20:2; Esth 8:15; 1 Macc 10:20; 13:37, 39; 2 Macc 14:4; Ps 20:4; 64:11f; Job 19:9; 31:36; 15:6; 32:2; 40:4; 45:12; Prov 1:9; 4:9; 12:4; 14:24; 16:31; 17:6; Sir 6:3; 11:11, 18; 25:6; 50:12; Zech 6:14; Isa 22:18, 21; 28:3, 5; 62:3; Jer 13:18; Lam 2:15; 5:16; Ezek 16:12; 21:31; 23:42; 28:12)237 and NT (Acts 6:8; Phil 4:1; 1 Cor 9:25; 2 Tim 4:7–8; Jas 1:12; 1 Pet 5:4; 2 Tim 2:5; 1 Thess 2:19; Rev 6:2; 12:1).238 ste,fanoj is also used me235

For further details, see Gregory M. Stevenson, “Conceptual Background to Golden Crown Imagery in the Apocalypse of John,” JBL 114.2 (1995): 257–272; Aune, Rev 1–5, 172–75; Hemer, Letters, 70–76; Grundmann, TDNT 7:615–36; Zeph Stewart, “Greek Crowns and Christian Martyrs.” (MAJF eds. E. Lucchesi and H. D. Saffrey. Geneva: Cramer, 1984), 119–24; and Erwin R. Goodenough, “The Crown of Victory in Judaism,” ABul 28 (1946): 139–59. For a comprehensive discussion of the athletic metaphor in early Christian writings, see Reinhold Merkelbach, “Der Griechische Wortchatz und die Christen,” ZPE 18 (1975): 108–36. 236 Beckwith, Apocalypse, 455. 237 LXX a glorious crown a beautiful wreath for the remnant of his people (o` ste,fanoj th/j evlpi,doj Is 28:5); a crown of beauty (ste,fanoj ka,llouj Isa 62:3); your glorious crowns (ste,fanoj do,xhj Jer 13:18; Lam 2:15); a beautiful crown (kai. ste,fanon kauch,sewj Ezek 16:12); beautiful crowns on their heads (kai. ste,fanon kauch,sewj Ezek 23:42), etc. 238 Hemer, Letters, 72. Ste,fanoj occurs 19 times (Matt 27:29; Mark 15:17; John 19:2, 5; 1 Cor 9:25; Jas 1:12; 1 Pet 5:4; Phil 4:1; 1 Thess 2:19; 2

272

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

taphorically by the authors of the Martyrdom of Polycarp: “a crown of immortality” (avfqarsi,aj ste,fanon Mart. Pol.17.1; 19.2 [Lightfoot and Harmer]; Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 5.1). Ignatius, who also wrote to Polycarp in his letter to the Magnesians, uses crown metaphorically to refer to the unity of church officers: “That beautifully woven spiritual crown which is your presbytery and the godly deacons” (pneumatikou/ stefa,nou Ignatius Magn. 13.1 [Lightfoot and Harmer]). It is clear that ste,fanoj used as a metaphor for eternal life was familiar to the NT audience from its numerous occurrences demonstrated above. Goodenough makes this conclusion based on these occurrences: these instances are clearly an adaptation of the crown both as it appeared in Greek religious games and in the Greek mystery, where it symbolized deification and immortality. That is we have Paul in two passages, and the authors of II Timothy, James and Revelation, all using the same pagan figure, but these are four authors who it is very hard to believe knew and drew upon each other. It is just as hard to believe that each of the four borrowed the figure for the Christian experience independently from paganism, even while Christians then and for a century and a half later were hating the pagan crowns and mysteries.239

From the leafy construction of the crown, the meaning or value of the crown conveyed the idea that “it brought to one who won it the divine power of the tree, a power which was basically that of life, as in the proverbial ‘tree of life’”240 (Plutarch Cor. 3.3; Comp. Phil. Flam. 3; Quaest. Conv. 5.3). Clement of Alexandria argues against the adoption of the physical crown by Christians but allows for the usage of a symbolical meaning (2 Clem. 7:3). Thus, the use Tim 2:5; 4:8) in the NT (8 times in Rev 2:10; 3:11; 4:4, 10; 6:2; 9:7; 12:1; 14:14) while dia,dhma (royal crown) occurs 3 times (12:3; 13:1;19:12) all in Revelation. Other variations include the crown of righteousness (th/j dikaiosu,nhj ste,fanoj 2 Tim 4:8); crown of glory (th/j do,xhj ste,fanon 1 Pet 5:4); the crown in which we will glory (h' ste,fanoj 1 Thess 2:19). 239 Goodenough, “Crown,” 154. 240 Goodenough, “Crown,” 150.

CHAPTER FIVE-EXEGESIS OF REVELATION 2:8-11 273 of crown metaphorically is consistent with how many early authors have utilized it. For Lenski the crown imagery, “Need not insist on royalty, victory is enough. . . . This is the life of glory in heaven which is symbolized by a glorious crown.”241 The crown metaphorically stands for eternal life.242

An Epexegetical Genitive The genitive th/j zwh/j has been interpreted either as possessive243 (the crown which belongs to eternal life) or epexegetical244 (appositional, the crown which consists in life). The majority of commentators understand it to mean that the crown symbolical of life, rather than that life possesses a crown. There appears to be a connection to the tree of life245 (to. xu,lon th/j zwh/j Gen 2:9; 3:22, 24) applied to the overcomer of Revelation 2:7, which reads, “to him who overcomes, I will give the right to eat from the tree of life, which is in the paradise of God” (2:7). Beale 241 Lenski, Rev, 101. Alford disagrees with the view later expressed by Lenski and states that “ste,fanoi of ch. v. can only be royal crowns,—that the word is employed by all the Evangelists of the ‘Crown of thorns,’— and that the imagery of this book is not anywhere drawn from Gentile antiquity, but is Jewish throughout” (Hebrews–Rev, 4:567). 242 Beale, Rev, 244; Smalley, Rev, 67; Ladd, Rev, 45. 243 Charles, Rev, 1:59. 244 Swete, Apocalypse, 33; Hemer, Letters, 72; Hemer, NIDNTT 1:406; Lenski, Rev, 101; R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of The Epistle to the Hebrews and The Epistle of James (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1966), 538; Alexander Ross, The Epistles of James and John (NICNT 13; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1967), 32 n. 14; Sophie Laws, A Commentary on the Epistle of James (BNTC 13; London: A & C Black, 1980), 68. Hemer points out that the possessive view “is connected by Charles with a supposed parallel in 2 Enoch 14.2 and 3 Baruch 6.1, referring to a nimbus of light surrounding the sun. It is much more natural to think of ‘the crown (=prize) which consists in life’” (Letters, 72). Kistemaker considers the phrase “idiomatic . . . and can be translated ‘the crown, that is, fullness of life” (Rev, 125). Mayor identifies the Greek as “genitive of definition” (James, 49). Beale uses the term “appositional to or explanatory of ‘the crown,’ explaining its nature” (Rev, 244). 245 Grundmann, TDNT 7:630. Hemer also finds a local setting for the tree of life in the sacred tree of Artemis in Ephesus (Letters, 44–50).

274

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

summarizes the implications for the redemptive history of the tree of life and more correctly associates xu,lon to the effects of the cross rather than to the cross itself: In genesis 2–3 the image of the “tree of life” together with the “paradise of God” symbolizes the life-giving presence of God, from which Adam and Eve are separated when they are cast out of the garden paradise (cf. 2:9; 3:22–24 [23–25] [LXX]; Ezek 28:13; 31:8–9). Revelation speaks of the consummated restoration of this divine presence among humanity in the future (22:1–4), which has already been inaugurated in the present. Therefore, the “tree” refers to the redemptive effects of the cross, which bring about the restoration of God’s presence, and does not refer to the cross.246

Charles argues for an eschatological fulfilment for the crown of life: “as the tree of life (cf. ii. 7 note, xxii. 2, 14) is a symbol of the blessed immortality in Christ, so the crown of life appears to symbolize its full consummation.”247 The phrase crown of life appears to have OT Jewish wisdom roots (Prov 4:9; 3:18)248 as an eschatological symbol referring to the “reward of eternal life for those who remain faithful even to death.”249 Beale describes the contrast in this way: yet their defeat in death by the authority of the Roman crown meant their victory of life and inheritance of a heavenly ‘crown’ (v 10). This crown connotes participation in Christ’s heavenly, victorious rule (so ste,fanoj [‘crown’] in 6:2; 14:14).250

246 Beale, Rev, 235. Hemer, Kraft, and Roberts hold that the tree equals the cross (Hemer, Letters, 41–52, 55; Kraft, Offenbarung, 59). Richard Roberts maintains that in Ramsay “it is not impossible that here xu,lon may contain an allusion to the cross” (“The Tree of Life (Rev 2:7),” ExpTim 25 [1913–14]: 332). 247 Charles, Rev, 1:59. 248 Mayor, James, 49. 249 Robert W. Wall, Revelation (NIBC 18; Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2002), 73. 250 Beale, Rev, 244.

CHAPTER FIVE-EXEGESIS OF REVELATION 2:8-11 275 According to the Testament of Levi, the reward of the blessed is eating the fruit of the tree of life (T. Levi 18.11). Roberts points out that the tree of life is placed in the Paradise of God (5:6; 13:8).251 The ideas of paradise and heaven, the city of God, merge in 2 Bar. 4 and T. Dan 5.12. Thus, they connect the imagery of the tree of life with the crown of life in an eschatological realization.252 The imminent return of Christ is explicitly stated in all SMR except Smyrna. The absence of the Parousia within this message may be explained by the presence of the pledge of the Crown of Life that would be given by the King at his return.253 As Grundmann states, “The imperishable crown . . . is an eschatological gift of God which is granted to the victor in the contest.”254 Beale concludes that persevering faith “guarantees identification with Christ (cf. 1:9) and hence participation in his eternal resurrection life (cf. reference to death and resurrection in the introduction of Christ in 2:8ba).”255 The eternal communion between God and his covenant people is represented by the imagery of the tree and crown in paradise. Overcomers The overcomers (nika,w) in Smyrna (2:11b) are strongly tied to the covenant formula in Revelation 21:7256 as these are the ones who will be called sons and stand in covenant relationship with God to

251

Roberts, “Tree,” 332. J. Schneider, “xu,lon,” TDNT 5:40. 253 Hemer, Letters, 74. 254 Grundmann, TDNT 7:629. 255 Beale, Rev, 243. 256 “I will be your God, and you will be my people” (21:7; Exod 6:7; Lev 26:12; Jer 7:23; 11:4; 30:22; Ezek 36:28; Joel 2:27). Revelation 21:7 appears to be a quote from 2 Sam 7:14 with modifications working to suit John’s theological purpose. The promise given to King David by the prophet Nathan that Solomon would be his successor is a messianic prophecy pointing to the Son of God (Ps 89:26–29). Kistemaker, Rev, 560. Qumran understood 2 Sam 7:14 to be fulfilled with God establishing forever the future temple and tabernacle (4QFlor; Midr. 1:1–13). See chapter 4—Antithetic Parallels to Chapters 21–22, 203. 252

276

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

inherit the crown of life (2:10; Jas 1:12).257 The covenant formula is clearly present within Revelation 21:7 as God promises to stand in covenant relationship to the overcomers (nika,w). Hill examines the views of Käsemann, Hahn, and Müller258 who claim that the ‘Overcoming-words’ (Überwinderspruch) to him who conquers, originated in the prophetic tradition. However, Hill links the overcomers’ words to early Christian prophecy: the participial phrase does not describe an objective, generally valid, state of affairs leading to the expression of an automatic and inevitable judgment: it functions rather as a condition upon which certain promises or consequences depend. . . . the ‘Overcoming-words’, by reason of their eschatological character, may well have been a form used occasionally in early Christian prophecy.259

To overcome is legal language to prevail the verdict in a legal suit (Rom 3:4). Thayer explains that, in keeping with the covenant lawsuit, nika,w used intransitively means, “when one is arraigned or goes to law, to win the case, maintain one's cause.”260 The overcomers (nika,w) are those who refuse to compromise their faith despite the threat of persecution. Victory is theirs even when in the eyes of the world they look defeated. Carson states that the verb nika,w does not “merely refer to personal overcoming, the preservation of personal integrity in the fact of protracted opposition.”261 Rather, Christ has conquered (overcome) the world and is the prince of this world (John 17:33); those who are in him overcome. These are the true conquerors (2:26–29). Wilcock points out that “nowhere does the New Testament promise freedom from suffering in this life; indeed, without the cross there will be no crown.”262 To be an overcomer does not mean to be free from suffering but 257

James E. Rosscup persuasively argues that the ‘overcomers’ are all true believers for “every saved person overcomes” (“The Overcomer in the Apocalypse,” GTJ 3.2 [1982]: 278–9). 258 Müller, Prophetie, 104ff. 259 Hill, NT Prophecy, 83. 260 Joseph H. Thayer, “nika,w,” GELNT 3620. 261 Carson, John, 550. 262 Wilcock, Heaven Opened, 46.

CHAPTER FIVE-EXEGESIS OF REVELATION 2:8-11 277 rather to experience suffering and persevere through it. For those who persevere, this persecution truly will be a victorious overcoming; in the prophetic sense, they will inherit the eternal blessing of God (Jas 1:12; 5:11). John further explains the way in which one overcomes: “They overcame him by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony; they did not love their lives so much as to shrink from death” (12:11). As Homcy posits, the Lamb and his followers are both victorious: Revelation is not only an apocalyptic portrait of the Lamb’s triumph but also a prophetic exhortation for his followers to triumph in him. . . It is “he who overcomes” that will inherit the blessings of the Lamb’s victory (21:7).263

Beale comments that “Polycarp’s Martyrdom was probably interpreted against the background of this promise” for it is said that following his death he “was crowned with the crown of immortality (to,n th/j avfqarsi,aj ste,fanon).”264 The crown of life is the blessing for the overcomer, and one must persevere unto the end in order to wear it. Müller regards the “overcoming words” as “paraenetical in character,”265 and he argues that “The one overcoming by no means will be hurt” (o` nikw/n ouv mh. avdikhqh/| Rev 2:11b). The use of the double negative (ouv mh. ) indicates an emphatic emphasis.266 Krodel comments that not everyone will be an overcomer: this is the only conqueror saying that is formulated negatively, probably in response to Jewish threats. It will not be the faithful Christians who will be subject to the second death after the final judgment. The expression second death has its origins in Judaism [cf. Tg. Isa. 22:14; 65.15; Tg. Onq. Deut 33:6; Tg. Neof. 263 Stephen L. Homcy, “To Him who Overcomes: A Fresh Look as What Victory Means for the Believer according to the Book of Revelation,” JETS 38.2 (1995): 193. 264 Beale, Rev, 244; cf. chapter 5—Sanctions, 266. 265 Müller, Prophetie, 104. 266 Dan Lioy, The Book of Revelation in Christological Focus (StBL 58; ed. Hemchand Gossai; New York: Peter Lang, 2003), 127; Morris, Rev, 65.

278

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES Deut 33:6; Tg. Jer. 51:39, 57; Pirqe R. El. 34], and in Revelation John uses it to point to the final fate of the wicked (20:14–15; 21:8).267

The Smyrnaean overcomers are emphatically promised that they will not be hurt by the second death. Overcomers are also made a kingdom and priests according to Revelation 1:5b, 6 and 5:9–10, and many commentators have seen this as already-and-not-yet or inaugurated eschatology.268 Bandstra best describes the relationship between overcomer and kingly function: John preserves the future sense of the saints reigning with Christ: …On one interpretation of this passage, this is a promise to martyrs (and perhaps to all Christians who die in the Lord) that even after death their priestly and royal functions will not cease—but continue in heaven. What Revelation 1:5b, 6 and 5:9, 10 therefore do is balance out the ‘not yet’ of the future by affirming that ‘already now’ Christians rule in Christ’s name on the earth. To be sure, such reigning is not now apart from suffering—any more than was the case with Jesus himself. Jesus by being the Lamb that was slain and the One who conquered because He was slain, calls all of us to ‘conquer’ in His name, thus ‘to conquer’ or ‘to overcome’ through the suffering of love that He demonstrated.269

Remarkably the King dissolves the effects of martyrdom by raising the saints from the dead and eradicating all suffering and making the subject a king and priest (1 Pet 2:9; Rev 1:6; 5:10; 20:6). The King has gone before his subjects and has experienced suffering and death as the ultimate martyr on their behalf. The Great King ultimately restored the breached covenant (21:3, 7) through the suffering servant (Isa 52:13; 53:11).

267

Krodel, Rev, 113. Andrew J. Bandstra, “A Kingship and Priests: Inaugurated Eschatology in the Apocalypse,” CTJ 27.1 (1992): 22–23; Swete, Apocalypse, 82; Lohmeyer, Offenbarung, 57, 193, 197; Hendriksen, Conquerors, 112, 230–32; Caird, Rev, 77, 297; Boring, “Theology,” 108–11. 269 Bandstra, “Kingship and Priests,” 22–23. 268

CHAPTER FIVE-EXEGESIS OF REVELATION 2:8-11 279 The Blessing of No Second Death The King, as part of the covenant blessings, promises that the overcomers will definitely not experience the second death (evk tou/ qana,tou tou/ deute,rou Rev 2:11b). The promise of the second death is set against the fulfilment within the New Jerusalem in Revelation 20:6, 14; 21:8 in terms of the lake of fire, which is understood as eternal punishment, “the negation of eternal life.”270 The parallel passage is in Revelation 20:6: Blessed and holy are those who have part in the first resurrection. The second death has no power over them, (o` deu,teroj qa,natoj ouvk e;cei evxousi,an), but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for a thousand years (20:6).

If one sets aside the millennial controversy and focuses on the rest of the verse, it is striking and helpful to see the similarities between Revelation 20:6 and 2:11b. There is no doubt that for the overcomer the absence of the second death is a great blessing given by the king: No true Christian, much less one who dies a martyr’s death, need fear anything beyond the pang of the first death. The second death of condemnation in the lake of fire leaves the faithful scatheless, no matter how others may suffer from the terrors.271

Thompson draws significant conclusions from the OT relationship between Yahweh/Israel and the ANE suzerain/vassal, which have relevant principles that apply in the present context: The metaphor of the suzerain-vassal relationship gave expression to this relationship in a most vivid and concrete way. And yet, it was only a metaphor. The relationship between YHWH and Israel was something far deeper than could be defined as a

270

Morris, Rev, 65; Thompson, Rev, 70. Mulholland comments that “this was a common perception in rabbinic Judaism” (Rev, 103 n. 19); cf. Tg. Jer. on Deut 33:6, and the Tg. Jer. 51:39, 57; Isa 52:14; 65:6. 271 Moffatt, Rev, 355; Caird, Rev, 36.

280

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES legal compact. It was concerned with the solemn engagement and commitment of YHWH to Israel and of Israel to YHWH on the highest possible level. It involved a religious relationship of the highest order with reciprocal faithfulness of a kind that was unknown among the suzerains and vassals of the ancient Near East. In that relationship election and commitment were the fundamental elements. The suzerain-vassal metaphor only gave formal and concrete expression to the meaning of the relationship involved in that election and commitment.272

The message to Smyrna further develops the metaphor beyond election and commitment to yet a higher realm of perseverance in suffering consummated in the blessing of eternal life for overcomers. This was truly good news for those facing martyrdom.273 Mulholland applies the significance of the message to the modern church by pointing out that “the church in Smyrna is but a microcosm of what the larger church is to be in the world; it is one example of what it means to be faithful citizens of New Jerusalem in the midst of Fallen Babylon.”274 Remarkably, the King not only promises the overcomers deliverance from the second death, but he also promises a share in his kingdom. Here we see that the biblical idea of covenant is raised to an eschatological plane superior to the ANEVT. The covenant relationship is perfectly restored by the Great King (21:3, 7). The first and the last (2:8) delivers from the second death and restores to full covenant fellowship those separated by its breach. The Smyrnaean readers would have seen in this statement an encouraging promise from the King to persevere in their suffering even to the point of the first death (martyrdom) knowing that the overcomers will definitely not experience the second death.

272

Thompson, “Suzerain-Vassal,” 16; G. Ernest Wright, The Old Testament Against its Environment (Chicago: Allenson, 1951), 54–60. 273 Morris, Rev, 65. 274 Mulholland, Rev, 104.

CHAPTER FIVE-EXEGESIS OF REVELATION 2:8-11 281 Summary Hemer sums up by saying that “eternal life, untouched by the threat of spiritual death, shall be the prize of the faithful ‘athlete’ who endures persecution to the suffering of physical death.”275 This is not the attitude of heroism of just a few individuals, but it is “the self-evident consequence of faith; one who is a Christian must also be able to suffer.”276 Dibelius points out that “early Christianity was capable of arguing for the necessity of suffering by referring to eschatological”277 ideals (Mark 13:7ff; Hermas Vis. 4.2.5; 4.3.4). The divine macarism upon the overcomers (those faithfully enduring persecution) is the eschatological fulfilment of the covenant blessing. Smyrna is blessed as she perseveres under trial, which is metaphorically consummated in the crown of life. The covenant blessing provided incentive for the suffering church to persevere.

PROCLAMATION WITNESS FORMULA—V. 11A o` e;cwn ou=j avkousa,tw ti, to. pneu/ma le,gei tai/j evkklhsi,aij (2:11a). The witnesses to the ANEVT were traditionally the suzerain/vassal’s pantheon of gods.278 Under the OT prophetic court, the witness, called upon to observe the covenant, was either God himself, or at times the natural elements. In addition, with both biblical and Near Eastern covenants, the community-at-large gathered to witness the covenant (2 Kgs 23:1–3). In the treaty between Smyrna and Magnesia in the 3rd century BC, it was mutually agreed that representatives be appointed to ensure that none leave before the treaty had been heard by all present.279 Here in the oracle to Smyrna there is no need for a long list of witnesses as the Spirit of Christ acts as his own witness (2:11) to the covenant lawsuit. Christ is portrayed to the church of Laodicea as bringing the “words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the ruler of God's creation” (3:14 from 1:5). Since there is a change 275

Hemer, NIDNTT 1:406. Dibelius, James, 90. 277 Dibelius, James, 72. 278 See chapter 5—Proclamation Witness Formula, 281. 279 Bengtson and Schmitt, DSA 3.492:80–81. 276

282

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

in the situation in the New Testament because God is speaking as his own witness, there is a change of form from the polytheistic context of the ANE culture. The Spirit is the judge presiding over the covenant case. The Call to Hear the Lawsuit This proclamation witness formula calls the churches to hear the proclamation of the divine witness and to heed the message by the Spirit who spoke it. The Smyrnaean congregation is called to hear what the Spirit-Judge has to say about the covenant breaking conduct of the churches. In the case of Smyrna (and Philadelphia) there is only commendation and not condemnation. The spirit testifies that there is no fault with her, and the call to persevere echoes forth from the courts. The Mystery of Theodicy The hearing that summons the subjects is the hearing of faith. This is a hearing280 of faith similar to three others experienced in Scripture (Job 38:1; 40:6 with 40:3; 42:1–6; Ps 46:8–11; 73:3,13–14; Hab 2:4–3:3–15). All three OT individuals experience the same response: the answer to theodicy is theophany. The answer to the problem of suffering is found within God himself who vindicates himself, which in each case leads to the silence of faith. Job explores the mystery of the theodicy of his own life. The Lord silenced Job by speaking to him out of the theophany of the storm (compare Job 38:1; 40:6 with 40:3; 42:1–6). When Asaph questions why did the righteous suffer while the wicked prosper (Ps 73:3, 13–14), God answers in his sanctuary (Ps 73:17a), and Asaph is confined to the silence of faith (Ps 73:17b; 28 see also Ps 46:8–11). In addition, God speaks to Habakkuk in the theophany of 3:3–15 and in his holy temple (compare Hab 2:4 with 2:20a), which results in Habakkuk’s silence of faith in 2:20b and 3:16b–18. This is also reiterated in the septenary messages to the churches. John is taken up into a theophanic vision in the Spirit where God 280 Hill points out that the inspired utterance is a call to hear and not to see the same vision that John was privileged to see (NT Prophecy, 77).

CHAPTER FIVE-EXEGESIS OF REVELATION 2:8-11 283 delivers his message to his prophet (1:10). Again the temple is the scene of much of the drama of Revelation (7:15; 11:1–6, 19; 14:15, 17; 15:5–8; 16:1–7). Upon the announcement of the judgment of the seventh seal in chapter eight, there was silence in heaven (8:1; Isa 41:1, 17–20). Again, God’s ultimate dealing with theodicy in final judgment creates the eternal silence of faith.281 The problem of theodicy within the church of Smyrna is addressed within the nature of God who knows their afflictions, exhorts the faithful not to be afraid, and grants the blessing of the crown of life to those who overcome. The Smyrnaean church is to be silenced by faith to witness “what the Spirit says to the churches” (2:11). The Rîb B Warning Nielsen, following Julien Harvey’s work, argues for a specific type of ANE treaty, Rîb B, which he identifies as closest to the OT treaty, and which also appears to be used in the covenant lawsuits of the seven oracles in a restorative rather than punitive sense. Nielsen observes this about the treatment of the prophetic lawsuit in the OT: [Prophetic lawsuit in the OT is] understood as a form of paranesis; this is most evident in the species of the Rîb which Harvey designates Rîb B, in which the verdict is replaced by a warning. According to Harvey, we should seek the background of this phenomenon in the type of letter which a Hittite suzerain would send his vassal when the latter had broken the covenant, but when the suzerain had not yet decided to send a declaration of war. As long as the suzerain felt that it was still

281

Beale sees a strong Jewish background for a “primeval silence” associated with the end of the world and judgment. He points out three metaphorical meanings: “silence as an indication that God has heard the saint’s prayers; silence as an indication of the revelatory announcement by God; and silence in relation to the temple liturgy” (Rev, 448–53).

284

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES possible to preserve the relationship, he could be content to issue a warning.282

This phenomenon of warning was designed to call God’s people to repentance rather than to deliver the full force of the verdict (ban, êrem, rîb)283 to destroy his people. As Nielsen points out, “the specific phrasing and structure of the lawsuit thus contribute to the emphasizing of Yahweh’s salvatory intent, in spite of his role as prosecutor and judge.”284 The purpose of the covenant lawsuit was restorative rather than punitive. Enroth likewise argues for a paraenetic interpretation of the hearing formula (Weckformel or Weckruf) and conclude that “the HF [hearing formula] is positive, for it does not contain the idea of judgment or of hardening. On the contrary, it underlines the promise and the possibility of salvation.”285 Consequently, the call to hear is employed as a Rîb B covenantwarning document. Rather than a declared verdict,286 one observes a warning given to produce repentance within the seven churches of Asia Minor. The courtroom motif allows for the tension between God as Judge and prosecutor.287 Hear ye, . . . give ear. . . . introduces the complaint in the prophets and “calls for the atten-

282

Nielsen, Prosecutor, 75; Harvey, Le plaidoyer, 153–7; Gemser, “The Rîb,” 3:128–33. 283 See chapter 4—Malediction, 160. 284 Nielsen, Prosecutor, 75. 285 Enroth contrasts the paraenetic (Heikki Räisänen, Die Parabeltheorie im Markusevangelium [Publications of the Finnish Exegetical Society 26; Helsinki: Finnish Exegetical Society, 1973]) interpretation of the hearing formula with the esoteric (Martin Dibelius, “Wer Ohren hat zu hören, der höre,” TSK 83 [1910]: 461–71), and noetic (Vittorio Fusco, Parola e regno: La sezione delle parabole [Mc 4, 1-34] nella prospettiva marciana [Aloisiana 13; Brescia: Morcelliana, 1980), 243–50] ; “Formula,” 598–9). See chapter 6– Parabolic Revealing/Concealing, 303. 286 Nielsen maintains, “It was not the curse-clauses of the covenant which were automatically activated, as von Waldow thought, but Yahweh who, after conducting a trial against his people, decided to punish them” (Prosecutor, 77). 287 Nielsen, Prosecutor, 77.

CHAPTER FIVE-EXEGESIS OF REVELATION 2:8-11 285 tion of witnesses.”288 Huffmon comments on the role of the witnesses: The source of the literary appeal to the natural elements is no doubt actual court procedure, either an appeal to the judges to hear the case or to witnesses to attend the trial. Mixed by the prophets with the covenant form, in which the natural phenomena is invoked as witnesses, the two different settings have been merged into a literary type used as a means of religious communication by the prophets in order to express indictment and trial of Israel because of unfulfilled covenant obligations.289

Yahweh, the judge, appeals to the heavens and the earth to hear ([mX) the case of the lawyer/prophet for the plaintiff.290 In Revelation, through John, God testifies using the lawsuit against the churches. A blessing is promised to those who hear the words of the testimony of the witnesses delivered through the messengers of the churches: John, who testifies (marture,w) to everything he saw–that is, the word of God and the testimony (marturi,a) of Jesus Christ. Blessed is the one who reads the words of this prophecy, and blessed are those who hear it and take to heart what is written in it, because the time is near. . . . And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness (VIhsou// Cristou/ o` ma,rtuj o` pisto,j), and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth (1:1–3, 5 Emphasis added)

CONCLUSION The essential elements of the ANEVT are identified within the prophetic message to convey a covenant lawsuit message of encouragement to the overcomers within the Church of Smyrna. Five 288

R. B. Y. Scott, “The Literary Structure of Isaiah’s Oracles,” in Studies in Old Testament Prophecy (ed. H. H. Rowley; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1950), 179; Nielsen, Prosecutor, 77. 289 Huffmon, “Covenant Lawsuit,” 293. 290 Huffmon, “Covenant Lawsuit,” 286.

286

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

unmistakable elements, constituting a structure, are employed to convey a covenantal prophetic message of encouragement to the overcomers in the Smyrnaean church. The preamble, marked by the prophetic oracular formula ta,de le,gei W, calls attention to what the Great King, identified here as “the First and the Last,” the eternal, transcendent, resurrected Christ, will say to Smyrna. Secondly, the historical prologue is characterized by the omniscient King’s intimate knowledge of Smyrna’s suffering. This suffering results in physical poverty but also in spiritual wealth. The root of the suffering is identified with the activity of Satan through the Jewish synagogue in Smyrna. God is aware of this activity that is seen as treasonous against the Great King. Thirdly, the Great King sets out Smyrna’s stipulations in terms of two imperatives—Do not fear and Be faithful. Fourthly, in response to these stipulations, God pledges to give the blessing of the crown of eternal life. The heart of the message to the Smyrnaean church is the covenant blessing expressed in obedience to the stated stipulations of faithfulness in the face of suffering. The eschatological macarism for the overcomers’ obedience to the stipulations will be the King’s gracious pledge of eternal preservation (eternal life) metaphorically conveyed by the crown of life. Finally, acting as his own witness in the court case, the SpiritJudge calls the Smyrnaean congregation to hear what he has to say to the covenant breaking conduct of the churches. There is no need to call upon external witnesses, as in the ANEVT, since God acts as his own witness in the court case. We now turn to examine how these prophetic oracles function within the book of Revelation and for the churches.

6 CHAPTER SIX – LITERARY FUNCTION The following chapter is an examination of the function of the SMR within the context of the first-century church of Asia Minor. Why were these messages given to the churches? What was the relevance of the covenant structure to the seven churches? What was consciously or unconsciously in John’s mind in using this structure? As established in chapter three, the literary genre of these proclamations is prophetic oracle, as opposed to letters or imperial edicts.1 This chapter will further examine how these prophetic oracles function in relation to the seven churches.2 As Aune has wisely pointed out, the function is closely connected to the content of the messages.3 Thus, one must examine the content of the messages for clues as to their function. This goal can also be assisted by the genre and form of the messages. Yarbro Collins distinguishes between function and form in determining the genre of these documents.4 She is right to do so as there is a distinction between them, without a complete separation. Indeed, Sider points to a cause and effect relationship between the two arguing, “Affinity of forms can tell us much about functions.”5 In addition, determining how the OT writers used prophetic oracles (covenant lawsuit) may give some clues as to how they function here.

1

See chapter 3—Prophetic Oracles, 82. Hartman identifies a role for the sociolinguistic side of genre when he observes, “There is often a connection between genre and sociolinguistic situation and function” (“Genre,” 330–31). 3 Aune, Rev 1–5, lxxxvii. 4 Yarbro Collins, “Persecution,” 729. 5 John W. Sider, “The Meaning of Parabole in the Usage of the Synoptic Evangelists,” Bib 62 (1981): 453. 2

287

288

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

Hartman posits a double function for the SMR when he maintains the following: on the one hand they engage the readers/listeners, so that they become directly and explicitly involved in the prophecy; their own and their neighbors’ virtues and vices are mustered. On the other hand, the messages correspond to a common phenomenon in revelatory literature, viz., that the divine revelation usually responds to problems and situations presented before or brought forward during the visions.6

Scobie suggests that the strong local reference presence served as “collective reinforcement”7 in John’s proclamations: The various churches would immediately note the advice and warnings, reinforced by local references, given to the other communities. John seeks in a sense to shame each church into complying with his demands by creating a situation in which the various churches will be closely watching each other. In this way he reinforced his appeal to each individual community.8

Against this broad backdrop, Wilson examines Revelation 2–3 and summarizes twelve possible functions.9 While he demonstrates that most are unlikely, he argues for the possibility of multiple functions consistent with “a pluralism of methods.”10 The twelve categories include rhetorical,11 covenant renewal,12 liturgical,13 war-

6

Hartman, “Form,” 143–44. Scobie, “Local References,” 622. 8 Scobie, “Local References,” 623. 9 Wilson, “Promise Sayings,” 318–29. 10 Wilson, “Promise Sayings,” 319. 11 Kirby, “Rhetorical,” 197–207. 12 Shea, “Covenantal,” 71–84. 13 Pierre Prigent, Apocalypse et Liturgie (CahT 52; Paris: Delachaux et Niestlé, 1964), 36–45; Ugo Vanni, “Liturgical Dialogue as a Literary Form in the Book of Revelation,” NTS 37 (1991): 348–72. 7

CHAPTER SIX-LITERARY FUNCTION

289

fare,14 salvation history,15 juridical,16 therapeutic,17 ethical,18 character development,19 eschatological,20 paraenetic,21 and prophetic.22 Certainly there is a grain of truth to many of these; however, four of them (covenant renewal, juridical, paraenetic, and prophetic) will be highlighted, and one new function (parabolic) will be added. This section will consider three of these jointly due to their close connection (covenant renewal, juridical, and prophetic).

14

Yarbro Collins, Apocalypse, xiv; Bauckham, Climax, 213; Charles H. Giblin, The Book of Revelation: The Open Book of Prophecy (GNS 34; Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 1991), 29 n. 29. 15 Léandre Poirier, Les Sept Églises: ou Le Premier septénaire prophétique de l’Apocalypse (Ann Arbor: Edwards Brothers, 1943), 43; Ethelbert W. Bullinger, Commentary on Revelation (New York: Revell, 1902; repr., Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1990), 86–102; Arthur Crosthwaite, “The Symbolism of the Letters to the Seven Churches,” ExpTim 22 (1910): 307–309; Trench, Commentary, 229–49. 16 Ernst Käsemann, New Testament Questions of Today (London: SCM, 1969), 77; Schüssler Fiorenza, Justice, 101; Beasley-Murray, Rev, 315, 339; Michelle V. Lee, “A Call to Martyrdom: Function as Method and Message in Revelation,” NovT 40.2 (1998): 164–91. 17 John C. Gager, Kingdom and Community: The Social World of Early Christianity (Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, 1975), 56; Jan A. Du Rand, Johannine Perspectives. Part 1: Introduction to the Johannine Writings (Midrand: Orion, 1991), 286. 18 Amos N. Wilder, Eschatology and Ethics (New York: Harper & Row, 1950), 11, 74; Boring, Rev, 95. 19 “Righteous character is developed through conquering” and encouraged through exhortations. Beatrice S. Neall, The Concept of Character in the Apocalypse, with Implications for Character Education (Washington: University Press of America, 1983), 126. 20 Joachim Jeremias, “li,qoj, para,deisoj”TDNT 5:768; Ragnar Leivestad, Christ the Conqueror (London: SPCK, 1954), 216–17; Yarbro Collins, Apocalypse, x. 21 See chapter 6—Paraenetic Lawsuit Oracles, 301. 22 See chapter 6—Covenant Lawsuit Oracles, 290.

290

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

COVENANT LAWSUIT ORACLES Prophets Function as Legal Witnesses Old Testament prophets functioned as prosecuting attorneys delivering a subpoena to the disobedient covenant people (Isa 1; Micah 6). The OT prophets employed a subgenre of prophetic oracles called prophetic lawsuit oracle.23 Hahn defines it as “the development of a situation in which one of the covenant parties fails to fulfil the obligations,”24 while Walton speaks of this phenomenon as “covenant jeopardy.”25 Trites and Hill suggest that Revelation defines a prophet in terms of function. That is, the prophet functions as a legal witness (ma,rtuj, 11:3, 10),26 who brings to bear the judgment of the covenant27 in prophetic terms like Elijah and Moses (11:6).28 Hill argues 23

Hermann Gunkel and Joachim Begrich, Einleitung in die Psalmen: die Gattungen der religiösen Lyric Israels (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1933), 329; Huffmon, “Covenant Lawsuit,” 285–95; Wright, “Lawsuit of God,” 26–67; Boyle, “Covenant Lawsuit,” 338–62; Grant R. Osborne, The Hermeneutical Spiral: A Comprehensive Introduction to Bible Interpretation (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1991), 215–16. 24 Hahn, “Covenant,” 272. 25 John H. Walton, Covenant: God’s Purpose, God’s Plan (Grand Rapids: Zondervan: 1994), 94–107. 26 Kistemaker and Trites both argue for a dual meaning of “witness/testify” and “one who suffers death” being present within Revelation although “the first meaning is stressed and the second implied,” (Kistemaker, Rev, 84; Alison A. Trites, “Ma,rtuj and Martyrdom in the Apocalypse. A Semantic Study,” NovT 15.1 [1973]: 72–80; NT Witness, 154–74). Hill, “Prophecy,” 408. For more details on this debate, see Paul Ellingworth, “The Marturia Debate,” BT 41.1 (1990): 138–39. For a development of the use of marturi,a cf. H. Strathmann, “ma,rtuj,” TDNT 4:483– 85, 490, 502–3; Petros Vassiliadis, “The Translation of MARTURIA IHSOU in Rev,” BT 36.1 (1985): 129–34; Beagley, ‘Sitz im Leben’ of the Apocalypse, 3; Swete, Apocalypse, 35. For a recent treatment of marturi,a as a legal term, see Bandy, “Word and Witness,” and “Lawsuit,” 178–83. 27 The judgment mentioned of withholding rain (1 Kgs 8:35–40; 17:1–7; Deut 11:17; 28:23–24), water turning to blood (Exod 6:5; 7:14–25; 24:1), and plagues (Deut 28:21; 32:24; 1 Kgs 8) are covenantal judgments upon both Israel and the nations (Egypt). Elijah withholding the rain

CHAPTER SIX-LITERARY FUNCTION

291

that in 11:1–13 “a profh,thj is a ‘witness’ who fearlessly summons men to repentance, suffers and wins vindication.”29 By following this definition of a prophet in Revelation, Hill considers the oracles to the churches as classic prophetic messages calling for repentance. God calls Smyrna to persevere in suffering and to overcome, to receive the ultimate vindication of the blessing of eternal life (crown of life 2:8–11). The prophetic practice in the OT of delivering the oracles first to Israel and then to the nations may be followed in Revelation, and it may link chapter 11 with chapters 2–3, also arguing for an OT prophetic legal message.30 In chapter 11 the two prophetic witnesses bring their message to bear on the world’s legal system (nations 1:9; 6:9; 12:11, 17; 20:4), which results in a “judgment of the persecutors in the heavenly court.”31 The Spirit brings to bear upon the churches (Israel) the prophetic legal witness in Revelation 2–3 in a covenant lawsuit calling them to repentance and perseverance. The symbolic significance of the number two becomes apparent in that “only two lampstands (churches) among the seven in the letters (chs. 2–3) are not rebuked for some inadequacy in their witness.”32 Schüssler Fiorenza argues that “the structure of the book underscores that the main function of Rev is the prophetic interpretation of the situation of the community.”33 The connection of ma,rtuj between chapter 11 and 2–3 further strengthens the legal aspect of the prophetic oracles of John.

represents the covenant judgment upon Israel, and Moses declaring the plagues represents the covenant judgment upon the nations. 28 For a list of the various views for the two witnesses, see Beale, Rev, 572 n. 293. The precise identification of the witnesses is not important to the argument of this thesis as most scholars acknowledge that this is not speaking of two reincarnated prophets. 29 Hill, “Prophecy,” 408. 30 André Feuillet, «Essai d’interprétation du chapitre xi de l’Apocalypse,» NTS 4 (1957–58): 183–200; de Lassus, «Le Septénaire,» 181. See chapter 3—Covenant Lawsuit in Revelation, 118. 31 Beale, Rev, 575. 32 Beale, Rev, 575. 33 Schüssler Fiorenza, Justice, 175.

292

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

SMR Function As Covenant Lawsuits Following this same legal line of thinking, Du Preez, Horton, Sutton, Hill, Chilton, and Bandy all employ the term “Covenant Lawsuit“34 within Apocalyptic research. Witherington, following Aune and Hahn, also argues for the forensic character of Revelation’s rhetoric, particularly within the seven proclamations: the exhortative nature of the central section of these prophecies is clear, and the often strongly negative tone reminds us that Christian Prophets and seers, such as John, saw themselves having a similar role to OT prophets as “guardians and preservers of Christian behavior, beliefs, and customs.”35 They, too, could be prosecutors of the covenant lawsuit, but in this case it is the new covenant lawsuit.36

The churches had broken the stipulations of the Decalogue (commands of God; 12:17; 14:12). The commands and laws37 of God were broken through various violations listed in the proclamations to five of the seven churches: Ephesus had forsaken her first love (2:4); Pergamum had committed idolatry, immorality, and false teaching (2:14–15); Thyatira had committed immorality and spiritual adultery (2:20–23); Sardis had been accused of hypocrisy (3:1); Laodicea had been accused of lukewarmness (3:16). Aune argues that John is writing to a community that keeps the commandments 34 Du Preez, “Mission,” 163–4; Michael S. Horton, Covenant and Eschatology: The Divine Drama (London: Knox, 2002), 133; Sutton, Prosper, 253; Hill, NT Prophecy, 15; Chilton, Vengeance, 11, 13, 15; Bandy, “Lawsuit,” 2, 215. Beale prefers the term “prophetic lawsuit” (Rev, 1144). 35 Aune, Prophecy, 277. 36 Ben Witherington III, Jesus the Seer: The Progress of Prophecy (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1999), 365. 37 The two terms law, and commandments (12:17; 14:12) are used interchangeably in other parts of scripture (Gen 26:5; Lev 26:15; Deut 5:31; 6:1; 7:11; 8:11; 11:1; 26:16–17; 30:16; 1 Kgs 2:3; 2 Kgs 17:34, 37; 1 Chr 28:7; 2 Chr 14:4; Neh 1:7; 9:13–14; Dan 9:5). In each case when the OT uses the terms “commands and laws” together they refer to the Mosaic law. Charles makes much of the absence of the term law in Revelation [Rev, 1:35] while John Marshall maintains that it should be understood in its Jewish sense of Mosaic law , (Parables, 17).

CHAPTER SIX-LITERARY FUNCTION

293

of God in a moral rather than a ritual sense.38 This breaking of God’s commands resulted in divine prophetic maledictions (curses) brought against five of the churches (Ephesus [2:5b]; Pergamum [2:16b]; Thyatira [2:22–23]; Sardis [3:3b]; and Laodicea [3:16]) through the covenant lawsuit oracles of the prophet John. Mazzaferri maintains that John “delivers a forceful, prophetic message in typical conditional style to both the righteous and the wicked, urging the first to remain steadfast and the second to repent.”39 In fact, Fekkes is doubtful that John resorted to quoting poetry (Ps 2:8–9) in the Thyatiran proclamation and responds, “It is more likely that John highlights these particular OT consolations because he wants the readers to appreciate the prophetic foundation of his statements.”40 John functions as a prophet in a long line of prophets, reaching back to Moses,41 administering the Mosaic law of God (Torah) as a prophetic legislator (Matt 5:17–18), to the individual churches. When John conveys the word of Christ, he is acting as a 38 David E. Aune, Revelation 6–16 (WBC 52b; Dallas: Word, 1997), 709–13; contra Edward P. Sanders argues that this distinction is premature and uncharacteristic of first-century Judaism (Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977], 112; Judaism: Practice and Belief, 63 B. C. E.–66 C. E. [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1992], 194–5). 39 Mazzaferri, Genre, 170; J. Webb Mealy, After the Thousand Years: Resurrection and Judgment in Revelation (Sheffield: JSOT, 1992), 84. 40 Fekkes, Prophetic Traditions, 69. 41 Moses is the “pre-eminent prophet”in that he demonstrates prophetic language when delivering the oracles of the plaques before Pharaoh (Exod 4:22; 5:1; 7:17; 8:1, 20; 9:1, 13; 10:3; 11:4). Moses dealt with God “face to face” (Num 12:6–8 [mouth to mouth]; Exod 33:11; Deut 5:4; 34:10). Dempster points out the prophetic nature of Moses’ last words: “sketch out two possible futures for the nation: obedience leading to life and disobedience leading to death (Deut 28). The divine word is not empty but is a life and death matter (Deut 32:47). At the same time, Moses predicts death for the people, but they will be able to obtain renewed life if they repent when God’s judgement comes to them in the last days (Deut 4:30; 30:1; 31:29)” (“Canon,” 298; Robertson, Final Word, 1). Brevard S. Childs portrays Moses as the prototype of all genuine prophets (Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments [Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993], 169).

294

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

legislator in the Mosaic tradition.Those victorious over the Beast can now sing the unified “song of Moses” and “song of the Lamb” (15:3).42 Hugenberger understands the new Moses (Deut 34:11; 18:15), as envisioned in Revelation 15:3, to be the servant of Yahweh.43 John’s message is a legal revelation in the tradition of the new Moses. The churches broke the law of God, thus violated the covenant, and were imminently ripe for the judgement of God. However, on the church of Philadelphia the prophetic malediction was withheld, leaving the antithetical benediction (blessings) present. While the blessing appears within all the churches, it is contingent on repentance and obedience, and the antithesis of the curse is present within Philadelphia. Those who obey the commands of God’s law are blessed (14:12–13).44 Campbell not only identifies the proclamations as prophetic but also as covenantal in the following quotation: Following the setting of the scene, focused upon the mediator of the new covenant and upon the blessings he bestows, seven solemn proclamations (2:1–3:22) authorized by Messiah himself (ta,de le,gei, 2:1; etc.) are addressed to the community representative of the new covenant. I shall demonstrate below how these findings take the form of indivisible mini covenant lawsuits that prosecute the terms of an existing relationship to the Messiah, Jesus, who is mediator and revealer of the divine will. A detailed audit of the churches’ life reveals them to be judicially innocent or culpable. This examination is carried out by the one who, as their sovereign, is perfectly acquainted with their situation as vassals (oi=da [(sou)(ta. e;rga)], 2:2; etc), loves 42 Cf. Rev 15:3–4 with Exod 15. Beale sees this song as “the typological fulfillment of that to which the Red Sea victory pointed” (Rev, 792). 43 Gordon P. Hugenberger, “The Servant of the Lord in the ‘Servant Songs’ of Isaiah: A Second Moses Figure,” in The Lord’s Anointed: Interpretation of Old Testament Messianic Texts (eds. Phillip E. Satterthwaite et al.; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995), 105–40. Dempster points out two earlier prophets, Elijah and Jeremiah, who had failed to fulfil the Mosaic prophecy (“Canon,” 306–307). 44 In this context those who persevere in patient endurance are the martyrs. Caird, Rev, 188.

CHAPTER SIX-LITERARY FUNCTION

295

them (1:5), and walks among their lampstands (1:13): His verdict is final.45

John couched his message to the seven churches in the form of a covenant court speech (Gerichtsrede)46 using typical lawsuit language.47 Many of the same features are repeated in the OT prophetic lawsuits, such as covenant renewal (Hosea 10–14), witnesses to the covenant (Deut 31:30–33:29; Isa 30:8; Jer 29:23; 42:5; Micah 1:2), and blessing and curse (Deut 28:1–68; Ezek 34:26; Hag 2:19; Zech 5:3; Hosea 8–9). John brings to bear the full weight of the forensic pronouncements on the lawbreakers48 delivering oracles utilizing maledictory oath imprecations and salvation benedictions against the new covenant people.49 God continues to desire the restoration of the intimate covenantal communion present in the garden before the fall. The covenantal language carries through into the NT, perpetually remembered in the Lord’s Supper (blood of the New Covenant 1 Cor 11:25). This language eventually carries forward into Revelation, where the relationship crystallizes in the formula: “I will be your God and you will be my people” (21:3, 7), and ultimately consummates in the return of the ultimate overcomer (17:14; 21:7), the King of kings and Lord of lords (19:16). Present with Christ will be his covenant people, “His called, chosen, and faithful followers” (17:14). There will be no more curse (22:3), only blessing (22:7; 22:14) for those who keep the word of John’s prophecy and wash

45

Campbell, “Findings,” 75; Kenneth A. Strand, “‘Overcomer’: A Study in the Macro-dynamic of Theme Development in the Book of Revelation,” AUSS 28 (1990): 242. 46 Huffmon, “Covenant Lawsuit,” 285. 47 If the same person is the author of the Gospel and Revelation, the covenant lawsuit motif would not be a foreign idea or instrument to employ in Revelation, particularly in the oracular address to the church. Lincoln argues for the presence of the covenant lawsuits in the Gospel of John (Truth on Trial). 48 Weinfeld, “Loyalty Oath,” 379–414. 49 Müller claims that the seven letters reveal either a “Repentancepreaching” [Busspredigt] or “salvation-word” [Heilswort] (Prophetie, 41–61).

296

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

their robes, take possession of the tree of life and enter the gates of the eternal city (22:14).50 The call to perseverance in suffering plays an integral role in the consummation of this blessing. The sufferings of Christ have purchased this ultimate covenant relationship between God and his people. More than this, the true followers of the Lamb follow Christ wherever he goes (14:4–5); to be faithful to the covenant is to align oneself with the sufferings of Christ in accordance with this timeless reality, as Christ was the slaughtered Lamb ‘from the foundation of the world’ (13:8). Therefore, “this calls for patient endurance and faithfulness on the part of the saints” (13:10b) in order that they might know his blessing. Bandy’s Lawsuit Arguments Bandy effectively argues that “the prophetic oracles addressed to the seven churches in Asia Minor closely resemble the covenant lawsuit speech of the OT.”51 Bandy points out that “the lawsuit was an established prophetic subgenre as well as a common metaphor drawn from the stock of biblical imagery.”52 Bandy admits that the ANEVT structure would strengthen the covenant lawsuit argument, but he is cautious about embracing it entirely.53 Bandy uses three lines of argument. First, because John is addressing a new covenant community he uses “covenant language and imagery. . . . He has the right to deal with their infractions as their king.”54 Second, the oracles demonstrate legal themes that “evoke lawsuit imagery”55 and these oracles have similar OT lawsuit speeches. Finally, they mirror several features of the prophetic

50

Dumbrell, End of the Beginning, 115–16. Bandy, “Lawsuit,” 215. 52 Bandy, “Lawsuit,” 87; Gemser, “The Rîb,” 128–29; Limburg, “Lawsuit of God,” 51. 53 Bandy, “Lawsuit,” 216–17. 54 Bandy, “Lawsuit,” 215–18; Campbell, “Findings,” 73–74; Beale, Rev, 227. 55 Bandy, “Lawsuit,” 215, 218–22. 51

CHAPTER SIX-LITERARY FUNCTION

297

Rîb-pattern.56 Bandy concludes by arguing that “the cumulative effect of these observations suggests that John intentionally incorporated the covenant lawsuit speech to highlight the juridical nature of these oracles.”57 Legal Function of the ANEVT The Hittite treaty between Mursilis and Duppi-Tessub uses the term oath twenty times and loyalty twice, while it uses the term loyal eleven times.58 Although a loyalty oath/treaty is distinct from a lawsuit, it is related. Someone creates a lawsuit using an oath; breaking the oath or covenant evokes the lawsuit.59 There is a difference in the function of the SMR from the ANEVT. The Hittite treaties functioned as loyalty oaths entered between vassals and suzerains, while the SMR went beyond already established loyalty oaths to call the seven churches to account for their loyalty to the king.60 Bandy points out that this is not a fresh covenant relationship, but as Campbell posits, it is a covenant audit to scrutinize the churches’ behaviour and remind them of their covenant obligations. The covenant structures remind the churches of their original covenant relationship and their obligations to that bond. Campbell explains the function of the renewed covenant in the following: Indeed, the audit is rooted in salvation-history in such a way as to show both continuity and discontinuity between the re-

56

Bandy, “Lawsuit,” 222–26; Nielsen, Prosecutor; Boyle, “Covenant Lawsuit,” 338–62; Gemser, “The Rîb,” 128–33. See chapter 4—Legal Versus Non-legal Aspects of SMR, 219. 57 Bandy, “Lawsuit,” 215. 58 “Treaty between Mursilis II and Tuppi-Teshshup of Amurru” (Beckman, Hittite Diplomatic Texts, 59–64). Pritchard, ANET, 201–03. 59 For a survey of the covenant as treaty, see McCarthy, OT Covenant, 10–34. 60 God will also judge the nations once he deals with the churches. Bandy points out that “This pattern is established by the Song of Moses in Deuteronomy 32 in that once the covenant people repent and obey Yahweh promises to exact vengeance on Israel’s pagan enemies” (“Lawsuit,” 226–27; Klassen, “Vengeance,” 300–311).

298

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES newed covenant set in place by the mediator . . . What God has now done in Jesus their Messiah and in the Church reconfigures the covenant and brings it to fruition, so that the Christians of Roman Asia can rehearse their own story in terms of the story of God’s dealings with Israel, whose heirs the churches are taken to be.61

To carry out this audit, John wisely employs the ANEVT structure while speaking to the churches as an OT prophet,62 utilizing prophetic oracles constructed with covenant lawsuit arguments. In this sense, one can speak of the oracles as hybrid lawsuit oracles. The ANEVT schema would have been familiar to those living in first-century Asia Minor, both from their Hebraic-Semitic (Torah)63 and Graeco-Roman (Hippocratic Oath)64 context. With the high concentration of allusions from the Torah65 and the OT in the SMR, these churches would have recognized the Rîb pattern and the ANEVT structure so prominent in Deuteronomy.66 The firstcentury Asia Minor cultural setting would expose these churches to the Loyalty-oath treaties, the writings of Homer, and the Hippocratic Oath. The ANEVT structure is an integral part of the first century cultural fabric. It is very possible then that the seven churches understood the ancient roots of the ANEVT as native to the Hebrew-Semitic Torah and the OT prophetic oracles, along with the Graeco-Roman writings. The Superiority of Christ’s Kingship Aune, Michaels, and Beale observe that if John has in mind the imperial edict genre, then Christ is portraying his sovereign kingship and royal sovereignty in contrast to the “pseudo-kingship” of

61

Campbell, “Findings,” 77. While Beale does agree with the covenant structure of Revelation, he does not develop this in any further detail (Rev, 1144). 63 See chapter 3—Torah Influence on the Early Church, 105. 64 See chapter 3—Common Ancestry Hypothesis, 56. 65 See chapter 4—The Presence of Torah in the SMR, 192. 66 See chapter 1—ANEVT Structure in the Pentateuch, 13. 62

CHAPTER SIX-LITERARY FUNCTION

299

the Roman Caesar.67 John uses this imperial edict “form to present the exalted Christ as a king addressing his subjects.”68 Aune explains that the imperial edicts form highlights of Christ’s exalted status: The author’s use of the royal/imperial edict form is part of his strategy to polarize God/Jesus and the Roman emperor, who is but a pale and diabolical imitation of god. In his role as the eternal sovereign and King of kings, Jesus is presented as issuing solemn and authoritative edicts befitting his status.69

However, this kingship argument applies equally as well if the genre is prophetic oracle, in the form of a covenant lawsuit. In fact, it strengthens the ANEVT argument. Not only is the sovereign king’s power contrasted with the pseudo-kingship of the Roman emperor, but the sovereign king’s love of justice is also a point of contrast. The sovereign king exercises supreme justice by bringing the law against the vassals who have violated the covenant. In addition, the covenantal lawsuit genre, influenced by the ANEVT, strengthens the kingship argument by providing a substantial basis for the content of his message. The literary genre, structure, and function are more deeply coherent with the ANEVT argument than the imperial edicts. John designs the messages and visions to bring healing to a hurting first-century community.70 The Kingdom of God In contrast with Caesar’s kingdom, the Kingdom of God (Matt 4:23; 4:17; 5:3, 10; 6:33; 9:35;10:7; 12:28; 13:11ff ; 16:19, 28; 18:3–4; 19:14; 21:43; 24:14; 25:34; Acts 28:30–31; 14:22; 19:8; 20:25; 28:23; Rev 1:6; 1:9; 11:15; 12:10) is governed by a superior king. The Kingdom of God and prophecy are inextricably linked as Bauckham states:

67

Aune, Rev 1–5, 129; Michaels, Interpreting Rev, 32–33; Beale, Rev,

228. 68

Aune, Rev 1–5, 127; Rudberg, “Sendschreiben,” 173–76. Aune, Rev 1–5, 129. 70 Modeste, “Unity,” 59. 69

300

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES both concern the establishment of God’s kingdom in the world. Prophecy within the churches equips the churches to fulfil their prophetic ministry to the world, which is their indispensible role in the coming of God’s kingdom, the task to which it is the function of Revelation to call them.71

The covenant acts as the legislation of the kingdom. Covenant defines the King's relationship to His people (“has made us to be a kingdom and priests to serve his God and Father” (1:6; 5:10; see 20:4–6; 22:3–5; Exod 19:5–6).72 Those God brings (ransoms) out of Egypt are his own people (Deut 7:8; 13:5).73 As Kline has put it, “Covenant administration is Kingdom administration.”74 Davis remarks that Christ’s vassals form a community or kingdom: in both 1:6 and 5:10 the Christian community of seven churches has become a “kingdom” in the sense of royal rule as vassals of their suzerain, Jesus Christ. . . They are a kingdom, not just because they are under a king, but because they fulfil a kingly function of participating in the messianic reign of Christ.75

Eschatologically the kingdom of God is consummated in Revelation 20:6.76 Summary The functions of the SMR connect them to their genre and structure. The prophetic oracles of John function in part as lawsuit oracles utilizing the Deuteronomic covenant structure against the violators of the commands of God as an audit. In this sense, one can speak of the messages as hybrid lawsuit, oracles which utilize the ANEVT schema, familiar from the churches Hebraic-Semitic 71

Bauckham, Theology, 121. Davis, Court Judgment, 67–70; Du Preez, “Mission,” 156–8. 73 This imagery may also be used of the new exodus paid with the blood of the Passover Lamb (cf. Rev 5:6, 9–10; Isa 35:10; 51:11). Bauckham, Theology, 70–71. 74 Meredith G. Kline, “Law Covenant,” WTJ 27 (1964): 17. 75 Davis, Court Judgment, 70. 76 Ladd, Rev, 27. 72

CHAPTER SIX-LITERARY FUNCTION

301

and Graeco-Roman backgrounds. The use of these hybrid lawsuit oracles portrays the superiority of Christ’s kingship over against the “pseudo-kingship” of the Roman Emperors. The kingdom of God is superior to the earthly kingdom of the Romans, as the overcomers in the churches become a kingdom and priest to serve their king (1:6; 5:10).

PARAENETIC LAWSUIT ORACLES A second functional element of the SMR is the paraenetic77 aspect of the oracles. While relatively rare in Jewish apocalyptic literature78 and in Revelation 4–21, it is an important component of 2–3 and 22:10–21.79 Hill points out the value of this analysis: “For the illumination it brings to the question of the prophet’s purpose: clearly he spoke to warn, judge, appeal (for repentance) and to encourage.”80 According to Aune, Hill, Müller, and Cothenet, John’s message, as an early Christian prophet, would be understood as paraenetic81 in “broadly functional terms.”82 First century Christians would understand this paraenetic message to involve the following activities: edification, exhortation, endurance, perseverance, and consolation.83 Müller focuses on the central section of each message, which is described as a paraenetic sermon of salvation (Heilspredigt im paränetischen) and a sermon of repentance (Bussparaklese or Busspredigt).84 For Müller this salvation-word (Heilswort) is an unconditional (Unbedingte) announcement of eschatological salvation with three

77

For the definition of Paraenesis, see chapter 2—Definitions, 34. John Collins, “Introduction,” 6–8; Aune, Rev 1–5, lxxxvii. 79 Minear identifies eight paraenetic literary forms including the SMR (New Earth, 215–21). 80 Hill, NT Prophecy, 84; Cothenet, Prophétisme, col. 1325. 81 Aune, Prophecy, 326; Hill, NT Prophecy, 84, 86; Müller, Prophetie, 93– 96; Cothenet, Prophétisme, col. 1325. 82 Aune, Prophecy, 19. 83 John E. Goldingay traces the paraenetic background in the SMR to Daniel where paraenesis is presented “in story form, in keeping with OT precedents” (Daniel [WBC; Vol 30; Dallas: Word, 1989], 320). 84 Müller, Prophetie, 93–96. The promise of salvation and the threat of judgment are not mentioned by Hahn (“Sendschreiben,” 257–94). 78

302

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

elements, which he highlights in the message to Smyrna.85 Müller traces the roots of these paraenetic sermons through John the Baptist (Matt 3:7–10) to the admonition speech in apocalyptic literature (1 En. 91:3, 10; 92:1ff. and 94:1–5; Jub. 7:20, 29; 36:11, etc.).86 The Pure Paraenetic Form in the Message to Smyrna In Revelation 2:8–11, Müller identifies the pure form of his Heilspredigt im paränetischen in a (1) reference to the situation (v. 9), (2) reference to comfort in the face of impending tribulation (v. 10a) and (3) warning in the form of a conditional proclamation of salvation (v. 10b).87 The paraenetic nature of the oracle to Smyrna is captured by the imperatives: to comfort (“do not be afraid” 2:10a), to warn (“be faithful” 2:10b), to exhort (“let him hear” and “he who overcomes” 2:11), and to console (“will not be hurt at all by the second death” 2:11). Aune summarizes the paraenetic elements as follows: (1) faithfulness through conquering (2:7, 11b, 17b, 26; 2:5, 12, 21); (2) encouragement to remember their previous condition (2:5a; 3:2, 3a); (3) encouragement not to fear (2:10); (4) exhortation to perseverance (2:15; 3:11; 13:10c; 14:12a); and (5) exhortation to holiness (22:11).88 The exhortation to the conquerors, according to Aune, “is to encourage Christians to meet the challenges which face them in circumstances of religious and political oppression.”89 There is a dual emphasis on faithfulness to God and perseverance in suffering. Du Rand describes the function this way: “to

85

Müller, Prophetie, 62. Müller certainly acknowledges the conditional nature of the repentance necessary within the churches but sees the Heilswort as unconditional. 86 Müller, Prophetie, 79–81. Müller also attempts to find a connection with Paul’s use of the verb parakale,w (Rom 16:17) arguing that it is an OT messenger formula which introduces prophetic speech. As Aune points out this is perhaps the weakest part of his thesis (review of Müller, 450). Consult Sanders for an argument that parakale,w is characteristic of an epistle (review of Bjerkelund, 89–90, 92). 87 Müller, Prophetie, 93–96. 88 Aune, Rev 1–5, lxxxvii–lxxxviii. 89 Aune, Prophecy, 278.

CHAPTER SIX-LITERARY FUNCTION

303

provide consolation and to suppress the distinction between the flawed present and the ideal future.”90 Summary The paraenetic function is not in conflict with the covenant audit, as the churches are exhorted to be faithful to their covenant calling, and are called to repentance as a paraenetic function of prophetic oracles. The paraenetic role of the messages involves warning, judging appealing for repentance, and encouraging. The churches’ previous exposure to the imagery of the OT scriptures would recognize the covenant lawsuit prophetic oracles with a paraenetic call to overcome, repent, persevere, and endure. Thus, we are justified in calling the SMR paraenetic lawsuit oracles.

PARABOLIC REVEALING/CONCEALING Beale, Bauckham, and others have suggested a third function for the SMR as revealing/concealing the paraenetic message.91 This conclusion is based upon the synoptic parallel92 with the hearing formula o` e;cwn ou=j avkousa,tw, (2:7, 11, 17, 29; 3:6, 13, 22) which is found with a similar structure (o` e;cwn w=ta avkoue,tw “He who has ears, let him hear”) among the eschatological parables in Matthew (11:15; 13:9; 43) and Luke (8:8; 14:35).93 90

Jan A. Du Rand, “The Imagery of the Heavenly Jerusalem (Revelation 21:9–22:5),” Neot 22 (1988): 70. 91 Beale, Rev, 236–9; Gregory K. Beale, “The Hearing Formula and the Visions of John in Revelation,” in A Vision for the Church: Studies in Early Christian Ecclesiology in Honour of J. P. M. Sweet (ed. M. Bockmuehl and M. B. Thompson. Edinburgh: Clark, 1997), 167–80; Richard J. Bauckham, “Synoptic Parousia Parables and the Apocalypse,” NTS 23 (1977): 162– 76. 92 Aune, Rev 1–5, 155. 93 The hearing formula is also found in the Gnostic texts. Gos. Thom. 8.21, 24, 63, 65, 96; Gos. Mary 7.10, 8, 16; Pist. Soph. 1.17, 19, 33, 42, 43; 2.68, 86, 87; 3.124, 125; Soph. Jes. Chr. 98, 105, 107. This has led Hahn and Dibelius to argue that the formula originated in the early church (Hahn, Sendschreiben, 378; Dibelius, Ohren, 471). However, there is evidence for its OT roots and as T. Alec Burkill point out, “It is quite unnecessary and even erroneous to attribute this view of history to the early Christian

304

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

OT Parabolic Roots Mazzaferri believes that the “call to hear” is connected to the “attention formula” of the OT (1 Kgs 22:19; Mic 2:3; 3:5; Amos 7:16; Isa 6:9–10; 7:3; 8:1–4; Jer 42:15; Ezek 3:27; etc.). He builds his case around “the imperatival [mev and the object rbd. It occurs at least 40 times with seven variants. Most common is hwhy rbd w[mev. . . . The AF appears in the major prophets some 31 times in all.”94 Aune challenges Mazzaferri stating that “the formula has no close verbal parallel in ancient literature with the exception of the parable tradition in the Synoptic Gospels.”95 However, Aune overlooks the tight verbal connections and central hearing formula found in the Torah–Shema (Deut 6:4 a;koue vIsrah,l. . .), which would be heard in the synagogue each Sabbath. Muse also observes an OT connection, arguing that “the call (Weckruf or Weckformel) to ‘hear’ (2:7, 11, etc.) seems to be rooted in an apocalyptic-wisdom tradition of Israel, and appears to connect Revelation 2–3 to the synoptic parable tradition, especially the traditions of Matthew and Mark.”96 Beale proposes that the role of the hearing formula, present in each of the SMR (2:7; etc.), was developed from the parabolic nature of the OT prophets in hardening and blinding (Isa 6:9–10).97 This passage presents a fitting connection, considering the historical “context of compromise with idols.”98 He demonstrates the hardening role within the OT prophets and makes a strong connection with the parabolic elements within the symbolic visions of chapters 4–21: the visions of trumpets and bowls [which] are modeled, not coincidentally, on the Exodus plague signs, which functioned

community alone” (“The Hidden Son of Man in St. Mark's Gospel,” ZNW 52 [1961]: 206–13). 94 Mazzaferri, Genre, 121; Wilson, “Promise Sayings,” 165. 95 Aune, “Form,” 193. 96 Muse, “Rev 2–3,” 160. 97 Beale, Rev, 236–9; Beale, “Hearing Formula,” in Vision for the Church (ed. Bockmuehl and Thompson), 167–80. 98 Beale, Rev, 239.

CHAPTER SIX-LITERARY FUNCTION

305

originally to harden Pharaoh and the Egyptians but to convey revelation and salvation to Israel.99

The Influence of the Synoptic Parables Not only is the hearing formula found in the OT, but Beale, Aune, Muse, and Bauckham also find a parallel with the synoptic parables (Matt 11:15; 13:9–17, 43; Mark 4:9, 23; Luke 8:8; 14:35; compare with 1QS 4:11).100 Beale points out this parallel: “the one having ears, let him hear” is based on virtually the same wording in the Synoptic Gospels, which itself alludes to this exhortation is a formulaic exhortation to heed the message of the symbolic parables. In its paradigmatic NT use . . . it has the dual function of signifying that symbolic revelation will be received by the elect but rejected by unbelievers. Therefore, the exhortation assumes a mixed audience, of which only a part will respond positively. The formula also shows that Christ’s words are none other than the words of the Spirit and that Christ dwells among the churches through the Spirit.101

Enroth, Räisänen, and Hall argue that the source of the hearing formula is found in the OT, and, while there are connections with the synoptic sayings, they have been “formally modified only by a process of deparabolisation into paraenetical exhortations.”102 Enroth maintains that John strips the hearing formula from its Synoptic roots and “edits it and uses it in a new context.”103 However, regardless of whether John modifies the synoptic usage, the OT prophetic usage also conveys the idea of concealing/revealing as pointed out by Beale above. Certainly the disciples were wit99

Beale, Rev, 238–9. Beale, “Hearing Formula,” 167–180; Beale, Rev, 236–39; Aune, Rev 1–5, 155; Bauckham, “Parables,”165; Muse, “Rev 2–3,” 160. 101 Beale, Rev, 234. 102 Hill, NT Prophecy, 85; Räisänen, Parabeltheorie, 85–86; Enroth, “Formula,” 605. Joachim Jeremias translates Mark 4:11b as “But for those who are without all things are obscure” (The Parables of Jesus [London: SCM, 1958], 14); Bauckham, “Parables,”162–76. 103 Enroth, “Formula,” 601. 100

306

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

nesses to a number of events and instructions which were not shared with the public (Mark 8:30; 9:9).104 Watts concludes his investigation on the hiddenness within the Synoptic parables by observing the following: the true significance of the parables seems not always to be immediately apparent—they appear to require further explanation by Jesus—which suggests that there could well be a certain ‘hiddenness’ to the parables. If so, then there may be some grounds for seeing a divine veiling at work.105

Although it may be debated whether there is concealing or revealing in the synoptic usage,106 concealing/revealing is certainly consistent with the context of Revelation. 104 See William Wrede, The Messianic Secret (trans. J. C. Greig; Cambridge: James Clark, 1901, 1971), 34–36 for a list of all messianic secrets. Heikki Räisänen, The ‘Messianic Secret’ in Mark (trans. Christopher Tuckett; Edinburgh: T& T Clark, 1990), 76–141. Malina and Pilch argue against Wrede’s older views considering Jesus’ silence as an honorable behavior in the ancient world. Bruce J. Malina and John Pilch, eds., Handbook of Biblical Social Values (Peabody, MA.: Hendrickson, 2000); cf. David E. Aune’s survey of the Messianic secret debate (“The Problem of the Messianic Secret,” NovT 11 (1969): 1–31). 105 Rikki E. Watts, Isaiah’s New Exodus in Mark (Tübingen, MohrSiebeck, 1997), 208 n. 124. 106 Béda Rigaux observes that “the secret is knowledge which man cannot attain without revelation” («Révélation des mystères et perfection à Qumran et dans le Nouveau Testament,» NTS 4 (1957–1958): 242 n. 1). Simon J. Kistemaker identifies the revealing/concealing this way: “Believers hear the parables, and receive them in faith and understanding. . . . Unbelievers reject the parables because they are alien to their thinking” (The Parables of Jesus [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1980], xix). See William L. Lane, Commentary on the Gospel of Mark (NICNT 2; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), 158; Herman N. Ridderbos, The Coming of the Kingdom (Philadelphia: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1962), 124; Rigaux, «Révélation,» 242 n. 1; and David Hill, Gospel of Matthew (NCB 1; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981), 226–7; contra I. Howard Marshall argues, “It looks as though Jesus is here dividing men into two rigid groups; there are those to whom God had revealed the truth and those from whom he has concealed it. This, however, is not so” (cf. The Gospel of Luke: A Commentary on the Greek Text [NIGTC; Exeter: Paternoster, 1978], 322). I. Howard Marshall believes

CHAPTER SIX-LITERARY FUNCTION

307

The Revealed/Concealed Function of Apocalypse Enroth points out that the usage of the hearing formula (HF) is a “‘Wanderlogion,’ i.e. it is easy to move it from one context to another. The HF is always connected with its context and it is the context that determines its function.”107 Inherently the genre of apocalyptic literature manifests the concept of hiding and revealing, particularly in the context of the hearing formula. Concealment statements are found in Jewish apocalyptic literature (“the secret(s) of the kingdom” 2 Bar. 48:2–3; 4 Ezra 12:36– 37), apocryphal writings (Wis 2.22; Tob 12.7, 11; Sir 22.22; etc.), Hermetic literature (Corp. Hermet. 13:13), and the Dead Sea Scrolls (1QS 4:6; 8:11–12; 9:17, 21–22; 11:5–6; 1QH 4:7; 5:25–26; 8:12ff). Concealment statement can only be found in Daniel 2 in the OT.108 The apocalyptic context of Revelation is appropriate for the use of the concealment statements in the SMR. Hunter uses the illustration of “smoked glass we use to observe an eclipse, it conceals in order to reveal.”109 ANEVT Structure Reveals/Conceals Marcus point out that the incomprehensible secret of the kingdom “becomes manifest in the event of the crucifixion-and-resurrection. . . . The cross marks the climax of the themes of Revelation and incomprehension in the Gospel.”110 The second coming is also introduced and concealed in a similar way; it includes paraenetic lawsuit oracles which function like synoptic parables delivered to the churches and which conceal and reveal the mystery of the kingdom of God (1:20; 10:7). Also, the mystery of the beast and Babylon will be revealed (17:5, 7). The notion of hiddenness is perthat the distinction in the hidden/revealed dichotomy “is between possession of knowledge and lack of knowledge” (St. Mark [SUBSB; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1967], 17). For a survey of various views, see Räisänen, Parabeltheorie; Fusco, Parola, 156–57; Enroth, “Formula,” 598. 107 Enroth, “Formula,” 598; Hahn, Sendschreiben, 378. 108 See Joel Marcus, “Mark 4:10–12 and Marcan Epistemology,” JBL 103 (1984): 559–61; Rigaux, «Révélation,» 242 n. 1. 109 A. M. Hunter, Interpreting the Parables (London: SCM, 1960), 14. 110 Marcus, “Mark 4:10–12,” 570.

308

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

fectly consistent with a book that is a mystery (musth,rion 1:20; 10:7; 17:5, 7), and it is itself a work of revealing (avpoka,luyij “as an action uncovering, disclosing, revealing”).111 There is nothing hidden that will not be revealed (Mark 4:21–22). While the primary purpose of the covenant lawsuit was restorative, it also functions in a classic parabolic role to inform and harden: “He who has an ear let him hear what the Spirit says to the Churches” (2:7, 11, 17, 29; 3:6, 13, 22).112 Stauffer places the book in context with these words: We may read the Book of Revelation with new understanding when we see it as the apostolic reply to the declaration of war by the divine emperor [Domitian] in Rome. And when we realize the perilous political situation in which the book was both written and ‘published’ (22:10), we understand the reason for its mysterious and veiled pictorial language and its preference for words and pseudonyms from the Old Testament.113

One of the functions of the Hebraic-Semitic covenantal structure was to conceal the paraenetic message from the Roman authorities while at the same time to reveal (illuminati) them to churches.114 As those living in the first century would be familiar with the outward identification of the imagery used in the parables, they were still hidden (blinded) from understanding the deeper meaning. The messages to the seven churches function in the same way. Beale proposes that the church, as the “continuation of the true Israel as God’s people,”115 receives Christ’s message that “en111

Timothy Friberg and Barbara Friberg, “avpoka,luyij,” AGNT

2974. 112 Scholars debate whether the hardening role of the parables was the intention of God or the by-product of an unrepentant heart. As John Nolland points out, “For the rest, the mysteries of the kingdom of God remain enigmatic. They too hear the preaching of Jesus; they too experience his ministry; but the heart of the matter remains opaque to them” (Luke 1–9:20 [WBC 35A; Dallas: Word, 1989], 380). 113 Ethelbert Stauffer, Christ and the Caesars: Historical Sketches (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1955), 176. 114 Leon Morris, Apocalyptic (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984), 38. 115 Beale, Rev, 238.

CHAPTER SIX-LITERARY FUNCTION

309

lighten[s] some but blind[s] others. . . . But like Israel, the church, which has become compromising and spiritually lethargic and has entertained idolatrous allegiances, so that the parabolic method of revelation is instituted.”116 Hill argues that through the prophetic vehicle, the churches in Revelation are addressed: Divine judgments and directives are brought to bear upon the life of the Church (es). . . . Judging from the Revelation, the prophetic message is addressed directly to the community of faith rather than to those outside the Church.117

Therefore, the parabolic method is captured in the formula “he who has an ear, let him hear” as the message was concealed from unbelievers and informed true believers.118 The message of Revelation is primarily a condemnation of the Roman Empire, its leaders and culture. The imperial cult was a fundamental characteristic of Graeco-Roman life. As Friesen points out, “John was not criticizing a particular emperor; he was denouncing the cultic system that provided the backbone of the social order.”119 Those outside would be familiar with the GraecoRoman historical allusions and the ANEVT structure through the imperial edicts and Graeoco-Roman literature. However, the message encased in the Hebrew-Semitic OT prophetic covenantal language would camouflage the message from the Roman authorities. Stauffer states that the mystery in the messages was intentional: The book was intended to be enigmatic to outsiders, to the enemies of Christ and the emperor’s censors, and at the same time a revelation to those who partook of the affliction of Christ and His kingdom. “He that hath an ear, let him hear” (2:7).120

116

Beale, Rev, 238. Hill, NT Prophecy, 85–86. 118 Beale, Rev, 238. 119 Steven J. Friesen, “Ephesus: Key to a Vision in Revelation,” BAR 19 (1993): 34. 120 Stauffer, Christ, 176. 117

310

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

The spiritual meaning that lay behind the messages’ structure would be hidden (blind) to those outside the church. Summary In true parabolic style (“He who has an ear, let him hear“), John directs the SMR to the Christian community and conceals them from those outside the church by formulating them in OT prophetic language, while still wrapping them in their own historical setting.121 The structure and the content of the oracles are inseparably bound together, creating the context for connecting the written text with the “extra-textual world”122 and communicating with a suffering church. John here employs the parabolic practice of revealing/concealing and shielding the suffering123 churches from further persecution at the hands of the authorities who do not hear. Each message climaxes with the promised inheritance of eternal life, which is provided to those who hear and overcome.

CONCLUSION Scholars have proposed many possible functions for the SMR, including several of the possibilities merging to form multiple functions. Three functions that relate, more than the others, to the issues of the ANEVT structure are covenant lawsuit, paraenetic salvationjudgment oracles, and parabolic revealing/concealing. First, the SMR function as a type of lawsuit audit, where the churches’ conduct is examined. If necessary the churches are called to repentance or are exhorted to persevere. The sovereign rule of 121

Watts, Isaiah’s New Exodus, 208. Jeffrey T. Reed, “The Cohesiveness of Discourse: Toward a Model of Linguistic Criteria for Analyzing New Testament Discourse,” in Discourse Analysis and the New Testament: Approaches and Results (JSNTSup 170; Studies in New Testament Greek 4; eds. Stanley E. Porter and Jeffrey T. Reed; Sheffield: Academic, 1999), 32. 123 The parables are also used within the context of suffering (Mark 4:17; 8:34–9:1; 13:9, 11–13). Marcus posits that “those suffering are only part of the ‘mystery of the kingdom of God’ according to which those outside are blinded by the forces of darkness so that they oppose God’s kingdom” (“Mark 4:10–12,” 572–3). 122

CHAPTER SIX-LITERARY FUNCTION

311

Christ’s kingship is contrasted with the “pseudo-kingship” of the Roman emperor. Christ, as king, addresses his subjects with lawsuit oracles composed with ANEVT structure. Christ demonstrates a superior argument than if the oracles were influenced by imperial edicts; Christ’s kingdom is superior to the kingdom of the Roman Empire. Second, the prophetic oracles function as paraenetic salvationjudgment oracles, and they produce a perlocutionary force of trust and obedience which elicit perseverance in suffering. The paraenetic function of the message to Smyrna is identified as comfort (2:10a), warning (2:10b), exhortation (2:11), and consolation (2:11). The great suzerain calls his subjects to conquer, to remember, to be fearless, to persevere, to be faithfulness, to endure suffering, and to be holy as he is holy. This is consistent with the auditing function of the lawsuit oracles. The final function involves a parallel with a parabolic revealing and concealing phenomenon in the Synoptic Gospels. The hearing formula indicates a similar parable-like function in blinding and disclosing the mystery of the kingdom of God to the churches. While scholars make a case for these three functions operating in the context of imperial edicts arguments, this author argues that they operate better with the hypothesis that the ANEVT structure influences the SMR. The positions of Aune, Beale, and others on the function of the SMR are not exclusive to an imperial edict influence. In fact, understanding the ANEVT structural influence on the SMR works better, as the king is central to their message, and the church would be equally familiar with the covenant context and obligations of that relationship. John may not have been fully conscious of the presence of the ANEVT structure within the prophetic message; however, John had a familiarity with the Torah, and prophetic tradition, and appropriated their familiar structures.

7 CHAPTER SEVEN – EPILOGUE The previous chapters have focused on the genre, structure, content, and function of the SMR to demonstrate the presence and development of the ANEVT structure in them. Following the opening hypothesis and key issues in the introduction, chapter one surveys how scholars, especially Shea, have increasingly identified the ANEVT structure (both Hittite and Assyrian) in the OT, particularly in Deuteronomy. These scholars independently observed its influence in the SMR. This identification has not been without some opposition, although it is limited primarily to four scholars, three of whom briefly interact with Shea in their dissertations. Chapter two considers several preliminary issues including the methodology used, significant definitions, date of Revelation, authorship, unity, and John’s prophetic office. Chapter three compared other possibilities for identifying the genre of the SMR. It was determined that John’s messages were not patterned after letters, nor imperial edicts,1 but after prophetic oracles there are rooted in the Torah and OT prophetic tradition. The claim that the genre of the SMR is prophetic oracle is supported by a survey of various scholars’ form-historical analyses of SMR. Aune’s contention that the SMR are influenced by the imperial edicts was determined to be less evident than that the ANEVT structure is duplicated in Deuteronomy. Similarities between the imperial edicts and the SMR are explained through the presence of similar influences derived from common use of the legal structure of the ANEVT. The influence of this structure can be traced behind the Torah, the OT prophets, the Hippocratic Oath, and the loyalty oath treaties of the Hellenistic and Roman 1

See chapter 3—Imperial Edicts, 54.

313

314

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

period. Chapter three also demonstrated how the early church was influenced by the ANEVT through the Torah and provides the possibility for John to come in contact with the ANEVT structure. Certainly, Revelation was influenced by the OT covenant lawsuit that has also been influenced by the ANEVT; however, the ANEVT structure found behind Deuteronomy and the prophets became the primary influence on the SMR. Given John’s reliance on the OT, the OT more likely influenced John than the GraecoRoman local reference. Chapter four examines more closely the evidence for the presence of the ANEVT structure in the SMR, it corroborated evidence for this approach, and answered the objections raised by the opposition. Firstly, the main argument for ANEVT influence is the identification of the five elements of the ANEVT structure in the book as a whole and in the SMR: messenger preamble formula, historical prologue, ethical stipulations, sanctions (blessing and cursing), and proclamation witness formula.2 John did not randomly arrange the sequence of the elements in the seven messages; rather, he purposefully chose these particular elements in this closely structured order. The consistent order of the five elements in each of the seven messages constitutes a patterned structure indicating John’s intention to maintain a structured argument. John’s intention is evident from the messages’ Hebraic-Semitic context (Torah) and is consistent with prophetic oracles. John’s messages are hybrid prophetic oracles, which incorporate the covenant lawsuit of the OT prophets and are structured after the covenant schema found in Deuteronomy. Secondly, the argument for ANEVT influence is corroborated by three arguments. These include: (1) Since the Torah includes the ANEVT structure evident in Deuteronomy,3 and if the SMR includes the ANEVT structure, then it is to be expected that the SMR also contain other elements of the Torah; (2) John’s reliance on covenant themes and allusions, including an antithetic parallel 2

The deposit/public reading is an instruction for the perpetuity of the documents and is not part of the structure. However, it is also present in Revelation. 3 See chapter 1—ANEVT Structure in the Pentateuch, 13.

CHAPTER SEVEN-EPILOGUE

315

with Revelation 21–22, provides a legitimate rationale for the employment of the ANEVT structure in John’s covenant disputation; and (3) John could be familiar with the ANEVT structure in other Anatolian literature, such as the Hippocratic Oath. Rather than being foundations for the ANEVT structure, these arguments corroborate and support its presence. Lastly, chapter four answers objections from those opposed to the ANEVT structure hypothesis, The answers are focused around two main arguments: the ANEVT pattern is inconsistent and the pattern is forced upon the text. These objections were demonstrated to be weak and insubstantial. It is argued that the ANEVT pattern is appropriate for John’s prophetic office and covenant lawsuit role. While chapter four demonstrates the presence of the ANEVT structure within the messages for each of the SMR, it is exegetically highlighted more fully in chapter five in the message to Smyrna (2:8–11), as the clearest example of what is present in all of the messages. Chapter five is an exegetical survey of the message to Smyrna, and it identifies the five essential ANEVT elements as a structure within the proclamation. It also shows how it conveys a prophetic covenant lawsuit message of encouragement to the overcomers. (1) The preamble, marked by the prophetic oracular formula ta,de le,gei W, calls attention to what the eternal, transcendent, resurrected King will say to Smyrna. (2) A demonstration of the omniscient King’s intimate knowledge of Smyrna’s suffering, which is physical poverty but is seen by the suzerain as actual spiritual wealth, functions as the historical prologue. The hostile satanic activity of the members of the Jewish synagogue also does not evade the omniscient eye of the King. (3) The Great King presents two imperatives —Do not fear, and Be faithful—before Smyrna as stipulations for their obedience. (4) Smyrna is exhorted to faithfulness in the face of suffering, with the King’s gracious pledge of eternal preservation (eternal life), which is metaphorically conveyed by the crown of life for a blessing. (5) Acting as his own witness in the court case, the Spirit-Judge calls the Smyrnaean congregation to hear what he has to say to the covenant breaking conduct of the churches. There is no need to call upon external witnesses, as in the ANEVT, as God acts as his own witness in the court case. Chapter six examines the three pertinent functions of the SMR that relate to the ANEVT structure: functions of covenant

316

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

lawsuits, paraenetic salvation-judgement oracles, and parables that reveal and conceal. Firstly, the SMR fulfil the function of covenant lawsuit audits where God examines the churches’ conduct and if necessary calls for both repentance and perseverance. John contrasts the sovereign rule of Christ’s kingship with the “pseudo-kingship” of the Roman emperor. Christ, as king, addresses his subjects with lawsuit oracles composed with an ANEVT structure, which demonstrates a superior argument than if they were influenced by imperial edicts. Christ’s kingdom is superior to the kingdom of the Roman Empire. Secondly, the messages function as paraenetic salvation-judgment oracles because they produce trust and obedience and elicit perseverance in suffering. The paraenetic function of the message to Smyrna is identified as comfort (2:10a), warning (2:10b), exhortation (2:11), and consolation (2:11). Christ as king calls his citizens to conquer, to remember, to be fearless, to persevere, to be faithful, to endure suffering, and to be holy as he is holy. This is consistent with the auditing function of lawsuit oracles. Thirdly, and finally, the hearing formula fulfils a parallel function to the synoptic phenomenon of parable-like function in blinding and disclosing (revealing and concealing) the mystery of the kingdom of God to the churches. While scholars make a case for these three functions operating in the context of imperial edicts arguments, this author argues that they are more appropriately used with the hypothesis that OT ANEVT structures influence the SMR. It is within a covenant relationship that the king is central to their message, and the churches would be equally familiar with the covenant context and obligations of that relationship. John may not have been fully conscious of the presence of the ANEVT structure within the prophetic message; however, he had a familiarity with the Torah and prophetic tradition as well as an appreciation of their familiar structures. This book argues that John is not duplicating either OT prophetic oracles or the message of Deuteronomy. Rather, he combines the covenant lawsuit message of the prophets with the covenant formulary structure (ANEVT) found in Deuteronomy to construct his own unique genre of hybrid lawsuit oracle that functions as a set of paraenetic lawsuits. It can be demonstrated within each of the SMR, but it can be seen most clearly in the message to Smyrna (2:8–11). The ANEVT structure within the SMR is appro-

CHAPTER SEVEN-EPILOGUE

317

priate for prophetic oracles that call the churches to repentance and covenant faithfulness. John delivers the prophetic oracles using the metaphor of the ANEVT,4 which is entrenched in the covenant lawsuit framework (form), to present the content of the prophetic message to the seven churches in Revelation.

CONTRIBUTIONS While several articles and commentaries briefly discuss the ANEVT structure of the SMR, no prior study has thoroughly and convincingly investigated the ANEVT structure in the SMR or systematically interacted with other scholars in the field. This study defends Shea’s claim for the influence of the ANEVT structure on the SMR along with Bandy’s belief of a covenant lawsuit motif functioning in the book. This study also challenges Aune’s claim that the structure is similar to imperial edicts and does not “rigidly replicate the generic features of any known ancient literary form.”5 This study demonstrates that there is a known form that is replicated in the messages, namely that of the ancient Near Eastern vassal treaties (ANEVT)6 via the Torah7 and OT lawsuit8 material. Following Du Preez this work concludes that the literary form of the seven prophetic proclamations to the churches “bears resemblance to the general pattern of ancient Near Eastern vassal treaties.”9 This study contributes to the current scholarship on the Book of Revelation by addressing issues related to the genre of the SMR and their socio-historical background in first-century Asia Minor. Detecting the presence of the ANEVT structure lays the foundation for further research regarding the genre, structure, content, 4 This idea, while arrived at independently, is not original. Several scholars have also pointed out a covenant structure to the entire book of Revelation following the ANEVT. Du Preez, “Vassal Treaties,” 33–41; Strand, “Covenantal Form,” 3. It appears that both arrived at this idea independently of each other and from two different faith traditions. 5 Aune, Rev 1–5, 125; Aune, “Form,” 195. Aune bases his claim on Hartman (“Form,” 142) and Karrer (Brief, 159ff.). 6 See chapter 1—Survey of Previous Research on ANEVT, 7. 7 For a definition of Torah, see chapter 1—Definitions, 34. 8 See chapter 6—Covenant Lawsuit Oracles, 290. 9 Du Preez, “Vassal Treaties,” 41.

318

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

and function of the messages and further general study in the book of Revelation. This book argued that the study of this genre and of its Hebrew-Semitic and Graeco-Roman social setting is helpful for historical-critical studies of the messages to the churches and, in addition, for historical reconstructions of the communities within which and for which these oracles were written. Three contributions arise from this investigation: (1) the genre of the prophetic oracles, (2) the theological significance of the new covenant, and (3) the paraenetic role of the risen Christ in the SMR. Supports the Prophetic Oracle Genre of Revelation 2–3 Parts of the Torah show the same kind of structure as the ANEVT structure, and some of the prophets contain individual elements of this structure as it is found in the Torah (i.e., the Covenant lawsuit, Rîb, blessing and curse). Therefore, to find these same individual elements of this structure (sanctions) in the SMR could be a result of prophetic influence. As the Prophets use the Rîb to bring the covenant lawsuit before the people of Israel, so John also employs the same prophetic subgenre of lawsuit to convey Christ’s message to the churches and thus maintains a prophetic element.10 John was influenced by both the ANEVT structure and the prophetic lawsuit. The ANEVT structure within these messages is part of a Hebraic-Semitic influence and its presence supports the establishment of the use of a prophetic oracle genre. John delivers these “paraenetic salvation-judgment oracles“11 in the prophetic tradition of the OT covenant lawsuit, so the oracles take the form of covenant lawsuit oracles (blessing and cursing). The churches had broken the commands of God (14:12),12 and this resulted in divine prophetic maledictions (curses, threat, Drohwort) brought against six of the churches, which left Philadelphia to receive the antithetical benediction (covenant blessing, promise, Ver-

10

See chapter 3—Covenant Lawsuit in Revelation, 118. Aune, Prophesy, 326. 12 For the details of disobeying the commandments of God (12:17; 14:12) and breaking the covenant, see chapter 6—Covenant Lawsuit Oracles, 290. 11

CHAPTER SEVEN-EPILOGUE

319

heissungswort, Heilswort).13 John delivers these prophetic oracles in the form of court speech (Gerichtsrede) ; he uses lawsuit language which involves maledictory oath imprecations and salvation benedictions against the new covenant people. The benediction is proclaimed to those who are faithful in persevering through suffering, and it is eschatologically consummated in the blessing metaphor of the crown of life (compare Jas 1:12). The lawsuit element by itself supports a prophetic oracle genre. Reinforces the Theological Significance of the Covenant The research on the ANEVT structure in the SMR illustrates the value of OT covenant treaty studies and demonstrates the continuity of this important field within NT theology. Although the documentation is overwhelming, some like Gräßer question the centrality of the covenant and the extent of the covenant concept in the NT.14 While the term covenant is certainly not as prevalent in the NT as it is in the OT, still the covenant motif is central to the redemptive work of Christ,15 and it is tied perpetually to the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor 11:25) and the final consummation (21:3, 7).16 Smalley concludes his argument for the presence of the covenant and its connection to redemption in Revelation by saying that “the human need for God’s redemption, and the divine work of transformation through Christ, give expression and point to the covenant story.”17 The recapitulation of the covenant message following an ANEVT 13 Walther Zimmerli, “Das Wort des Göttlichen Selbsterweises (Erweiswort), eine prophetische Gattung,” in Gottes Offenbarung: Geasamelte Aufsäte zum Alten Testament (Munich: Beck, 1963), 120–32. 14 Gräßer, Bund, 135–67; Hahn, “Covenant,” 282–85. 15 Arguing from the internal logic of Hebrews, Michael Theobald persuasively argues for the centrality of the covenant idea from “the theological soteriology in the covenant and the ‘ecclesiology’ with the people of the covenant” (“Zwei Bünde und ein Gottesvolk,” TQ 176 [1996]: 310). 16 Hahn states that “In the New Testament, Jesus and his church are presented as the fulfillment of the promises and institutions of the old covenant” (“Canon,” 220). For an extensive bibliography, see Steve Moyise, The Old Testament in the New (New York: Continuum, 2001). 17 Smalley, Thunder, 157.

320

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

pattern in each of the seven oracles is consistent with the seven patterns in the judgments of the seals, trumpets, and bowls (6–11, 16). The examination of the presence of covenant lawsuit elements within the SMR,18 packaged in an ANEVT schema, contributes to a better understanding of the role of the covenant in the NT and a continuing development of covenantal studies particularly within Revelation. As Horton has pointed out, focus on the covenant and eschatology help to “reintegrate Old Testament and New Testament scholarship.”19 Through the exploration of the ANEVT structure of the SMR, the biblical text and theological implications of this divine prophecy to the churches is better understood. While the pattern may have slightly faded through the centuries, the existence of the five distinct elements of the ANEVT within the messages helps identify the messages as hybrid covenant lawsuit oracles. The Great King continues to relate to his people through covenant language and with the use of a similar structure until the “covenant’s consummation,”20 when the royal vassals will dwell with the suzerain eternally in his presence. The ANEVT schema is important for NT covenant studies as it forms the framework for the NT covenant structure. It informs and clarifies our understanding of the covenant structure. Horton states, “God’s covenant with his people through the history of Israel and the church, is the stage on which the divine drama is performed.”21 In keeping with his analogy of the stage, the ANEVT structure represent the planks used to build the stage. In the context of Deuteronomy 27, Kline points out its “concentrated covenant pattern as the framework for the great call for decision (Deut 30:15-20).”22 It is the framework for the call to repentance:

18

Bandy, “Lawsuit,” 215–27. Horton, Covenant, 18. 20 Horton, Covenant, 17. 21 Horton, Covenant, 15. 22 Kline, Treaty, 34. 19

CHAPTER SEVEN-EPILOGUE

321

[The covenant pattern is a] historical recital of the Lord’s mighty acts of grace (Deut 29:2ff); a reiteration of the primary stipulation to love God, with the corollary prohibition of alien alliances (29:18ff); the invocation of heaven and earth as witnesses (30:19); and, of course, the curses and blessings throughout chapters 27–30.23

One finds parallels to these motifs in the SMR: the “historical recital of the Lord’s mighty acts of grace”24 (1:4–6; 17–18). The “reiteration of the primary stipulation to love God”25 is revealed in the negative to the Ephesians (see also Laodicea 3:19), who are exhorted to recall the distance they had fallen from that love and are called to repentance (2:4–5). The messages contain prohibitions of alien alliances in the practice of the Nicolaitans (2:6), synagogue of Satan (2:9; 3:9); teaching of the Nicolaitans (2:15), teaching of Jezebel (2:20), wealth of Laodicea (3:17), and the overall threat of the alliance with the imperial cult (2:13, 14, 20). The invocation of heaven and earth as witnesses (Deut 30:19) is functionally equivalent to the formal witnesses’ (ma,rtuj) roles of angels, the church, the spirit, and Christ (22:7b; 16–20; cf. Deut 4:26). Heavens and earth are also involked as witnesses (12:12).26 The curses and blessings are likewise scattered, both among the messages as in Deuteronomy, as well as SMR. Thus, the covenant message is built with the planks of the ANEVT structure. The Supreme Judge and Ruler adjudicates over his church for whom he has procured the victory, and from whom he requires obedience to his ethical stipulations (moral law). Christ is a person and not a system, as the system is not a rigid structure (ANEVT) which cannot bend to accommodate the church situations. Rather, it displays the gracious compassion of the Great King who rules and reigns victorious over the nations and his church. The encouragement of the seven churches is strengthened through the covenant-keeping God, who is still bound to them in 23

Kline, Treaty, 34. Kline, Treaty, 34. 25 Kline, Treaty, 34. 26 Heaven and earth are connected in at least six occurrences. de Lassus, «Le Septénaire,» 42. 24

322

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

covenant terms, and through having experienced the ancient call to repentance and obedience which was so fundamental to the people of Israel in the OT (Hos 1:1).27 Even though the seven churches may not have understood all the nuances and roots of the ANEVT dependence, it is clear that Yahweh has chosen to continue dealing with his people in these ancient forms. The call to repentance and divine forgiveness are at the heart of the New Covenant which was predicted by Jeremiah (31:31). To treat the NT church on the basis of blessing and curse may appear to be a form of retribution, but Eichrodt responds to the unrealistic view this way: [It perverts] the promise of blessing and curse after the proclamation of the commandments into a dependence of Salvation-by-works obedience. . . Again we should consider more seriously whether the New Testament does not also know the threat of curse for the disobedient, without thereby basing salvation on a retribution dogma. Besides passages in Matthew (18:15ff.) and 1 Corinthians (5:1ff. and 6:9ff. ), the controversial passages in Hebrews (4:1; 6:2 ff. ; 12:15–17) and the letters to the churches in Revelation could be cited.28

God’s treatment of his people is never out of revenge but restorative justice as is evident in the SMR.29 Strengthens the Paraenetic Role of the Exalted Christ Rudberg and Aune argue that the imperial edicts genre strengthens the paraenetic role of the exalted Christ; however, Beale points out that it is also consistent with a covenantal understanding of the text 27 As pointed out by Thiselton, the blessings and curses are not dynamic, working automatically by themselves, but their efficacy resides in the control of the deity and the proper authority who pronounces them (“Power of Words,” 294). See. chapter 4–Malediction, 160. 28 Eichrodt, “Covenant and Law,” 319. 29 John R. Donahue, “Biblical Perspectives on Justice,” in The Faith that Does justice: Examining the Christian Sources for Social Change (ed. John C. Haughey; New York: Paulist, 1977), 72; Christopher D. Marshall, Beyond Retribution: A New Testament Vision for Justice, Crime, and Punishment (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), 52.

CHAPTER SEVEN-EPILOGUE

323

and prophetic oracle genre portrayed in ANEVT schema.30 Gräbe, speaking about the OT covenant, points out how it strengthens the position of Christ: Yahweh, the God of Israel, commits himself to help his people, who are under threat from their enemy, and establishes a covenant with them. Because of this covenant, their ritual responsibilities are henceforth to him, and not to the Assyrian King.31

Gräbe’s comments consistently apply equally to the SMR as they do to the Old Covenant. The exalted King’s message to the Churches is best understood against the paraenetic role contrasting the rule of Christ over against the pseudo-kingship of the Roman rulers. DeSilva describes the social implications of his prophetic message: looking at the recent developments in the status of the church now that the synagogue has made a decisive declaration against sectarianism. He perceives the shape of things to come, and seeks through the medium of apocalyptic to deliver a word of the Lord which will prepare the churches to meet the coming crisis effectively, that is, in such a way as to preserve communitas rather than to accommodate to the societas. His Apocalypse is a call for radical, social action, for choosing life in the margins of society rather than assimilation.32

At the heart of the paraenetic oracles are the covenant bonds of the sovereign, who will judge the church and the nations but will keep the overcomers. The oracular structure reinforces the paraenetic function of this cultural contrast between the rule of Christ and Caesar.

30

Rudberg, “Sendschreiben,” 179; Aune, “Form,” 199, 204; Beale, Rev, 228. 31 Gräbe, New Covenant, 36; Eckart Otto, “Die Ursprünge der Bundestheologie im Alten Testament und im Alen Orient,” ZABR 4 (1998): 61. 32 deSilva, “Social Setting,” 302.

324

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

Summary As Campbell points out, John’s adaptations of the various biblical usages of the ANEVT structure “are alone in accounting satisfactorily for both [sic] the oracular form, the parenetic function, and the positive/negative content of the seven-pronouncements-in-one.”33 Rather than providing a new outline, the suzerainty structure provides, in Shea’s estimation, more meaningful labels which are “drawn very appropriately from the designations given to the sections of the suzerainty covenant.”34 The descriptive labels are new and appropriately describe their respective functions.

IMPLICATIONS The presence of the ANEVT structure in the SMR has broad hermeneutical implications for questions about the theological context of the covenant, and the relevance of the seven messages for the modern church. The Theological Context When the genre, structure, content, and functional elements are considered, several implications emerge around a covenant context for the SMR. It is not being argued here, like Eichrodt does with the OT,35 that the covenant idea is the only or the predominant theme within the NT.36 Rather, the covenant concept is present,

33

Campbell, “Findings,” 79 n. 34. Shea, “Covenantal,” 76. 35 Eichrodt, Theology OT. 36 Loretz, Fensham, and Hillers argue to some extent for the covenant as the unifying principle for the NT. Oswald Loretz, Die Wahrheit der Bibel. Freiburg: Herder, 1964; F. Charles Fensham, “Covenant, Promise and Expectation in the Bible,” TZ 23 (1967): 305–22; Hillers, Covenant, 178–88. In fact, there appears to be no one overarching theme that can unify the entire NT, including such important themes as promise, love, resurrection, or Kingdom of God. V. Warnach, Agape: Die Liebe als Grundmotiv der neutestamentlichen Theologie (Düsseldorf: Patmos, 1951); Ceslas Spicq, «Nouvelles réflexions sur la théologie biblique,» RSPT 42 (1958): 212–15; Walter C. Kaiser, Jr. “The Centre of Old Testament Theology: The Promise,” Them 10 (1974): 9; Manfred Kwiran, The Resurrection of the 34

CHAPTER SEVEN-EPILOGUE

325

important, and often neglected in NT studies. The implication of this study is that the presence of the covenant concept as in the SMR is an important feature of NT theology and eschatology and that its role needs further study.

Covenant Relationship The covenantal structure of the messages indicates that God continues to deal with his people (church) in terms of a binding covenantal relationship with covenant stipulations and obligations between parties. Every church should be aware that the king of the church is examining it just as Yahweh scrutinized Israel under the old covenant.37 There is a Hebraic-Semitic covenant context in which God continues to speak to his people as their king and saviour.

Covenant Responsibilities The Church’s special status as God’s covenant people explains the detailed scrutiny of their faithfulness by their king.38 The paraenetic tone of the messages implies a relationship of responsibilities on the part of the church, similar to those required of Israel. God holds his people accountable to his stipulations and judges them for failing to keep the terms of the covenant. The messages are placed within the context of a larger framework of judgment in the book of Revelation. Bandy places a structure on these judgments: essentially, Revelation contains three separate trials: (1) believers who face judgment from the world’s courts where they must overcome as faithful witnesses (i.e., the Imperial cult); (2) Christ as judge of his churches (chs. 2–4); and (3) the nations on trial for failing to worship the creator God and persecuting his witnesses (4–20).39

Dead. Exegesis of 1 Cor 15 in German Protestant Theology from F. C. Baur to W. Künneth (Basel: Kommissionsverlag, 1972), 335–57. 37 Campbell, “Findings,” 80. 38 Campbell, “Findings,” 80. 39 Bandy, “Word and Witness,” 24.

326

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

The messages to the churches are just one part of a larger legal case.

Covenant Renewal The relationship between the old and new covenant is one of renewal rather than replacement: The fulfillment of the old in the new is neither abrogation nor termination; hence, there is no point in speaking of ‘replacement.’ Instead, the relationship between the new covenant and the old is precisely one of renewal that is both restorative and transformative.40

This renewal of the old covenant in the new provides the rationale for both the language and the structure found in the SMR. Campbell points out that renewal is essential for the covenant’s longevity: Covenant renewal is implied by the lawsuit mechanism and terminology, for as with every such event in Israel’s history, judicial review of the weaker partner’s fidelity to his responsibilities creates a future for the covenant relationship.41

Within the institution of the Lord’s Supper (Matt 26:28; Mark 14:24; Luke 22:20; 1 Cor 11:25), the covenant is central to the NT message of redemption as a covenant renewal ceremony as declared in Christ’s words of institution.42 God rescues the new covenant people from the curse using the means of the blood of Christ in order that they might experience the blessing of eternal salvation. The redemptive reminder of their relationship to their king is perpetually instituted in the Lord’s Supper. Robertson draws a connection between the Lord’s Supper, the covenant and the Exodus. On the popular level, it has been assumed that the Lord’s Supper was the occasion of Christ’s making his last will and testament. But it must be remembered that it was a covenant meal

40

Hahn, “Covenant,” 273. Campbell, “Findings,” 80. 42 Youngblood, Heart of the OT, 56. 41

CHAPTER SEVEN-EPILOGUE

327

that was being celebrated on this occasion. In the context of the covenantal meal of the Passover Jesus introduced the provisions of the new covenant meal. Clearly his intention was to proclaim himself as the Passover Lamb, who was taking on himself the curses of the covenant. His death was substitutionary; his blood was ‘poured out’ for his people. His words were not those of testamentary disposition, but those of covenant fulfillment and inauguration.43

From a Roman Catholic theological perspective, Hahn also argues for a typological reading of the Eucharist and Christ as the “new Moses”44: As the first exodus is preceded by the institution of the liturgical memorial, by which Israelites would annually celebrate their establishment as a people of God, so too Christ institutes a memorial of his exodus sacrifice in the Eucharist inaugurated in the last supper with his disciples.45

Ratzinger argues for the unity between the covenant at Sinai and the new covenant: with regard to the issue of the nature of covenant, it is important to note that the Last Supper sees itself as making a covenant: it is the prolongation of the Sinai covenant, which is not abrogated, but renewed. Here renewal of the covenant, which from earliest times was doubtless an essential element of Israel’s liturgy, attains its highest form possible.46 43

Robertson, Covenants: God’s Way, 12–13. The atoning work of Christ is understood in Luke 9:31 as an exodus (e;xodon/Deut 16:3). Dale C. Allison, Jr., The New Moses: A Matthean Typology (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1993); Watts, Isaiah’s New Exodus; David W. Pao, Acts and the Isaianic New Exodus (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2000); Sylvia C. Keesmaat, Paul and His Story: (Re)-interpreting the Exodus Tradition (JSNTSup 181; Shefield: Academic, 1999). 45 Hahn, “Canon,” 222; Scott W. Hahn, “Kingship by Covenant: A Biblical Theological Study of Covenant Types and Texts in the Old and New Testaments,” (Ph.D. diss., Marquette University, 1995). 46 Joseph C. Ratzinger, “The New Covenant: On the Theology of the Covenant in the New Testament,” in Many Religions—One Covenant (San 44

328

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

Hahn argues that three conclusions can be drawn from the theme of the covenant. First, he finds that God’s covenant with humanity forms the narrative structure and dramatic content of the Bible; second, he notes that the biblical covenants are initiated to form kinship or familial bonds between God and his people or family; and third, he argues that covenant-making is a cultic, liturgical act, as much as a legal and ethical one.47 This last point has not been well-studied. But it is critical to see the unity of Scripture and liturgy in the establishment, renewal, and maintenance of God’s covenant relationship with his people. Again, simply put, for both Christians and Jews, the scriptural texts were originally enacted in the liturgy for the purposes of remembering and ritualizing the divine saving events, and renewing the people’s covenant relationship with God.48 From Hahn’s perspective, “Covenants have not only legal but social, ethical, familial and cultic-liturgical aspects.”49 He goes on to describe these other aspects of covenant: What is unveiled is nothing less than the liturgical consummation of human history in Christ. The vision John sees is that of a Eucharistic kingdom, in which angels and holy men and women worship ceaselessly around the altar and throne of God. . . . Jesus, described throughout the book as “the Lamb,” with obvious reference to the lamb of the Passover, brings about a new exodus.50

The implicit analogy evoked by Christ’s words in the institution of the Lord’s Supper is with Moses sprinkling sacrificial blood (Exod 24:8) to ratify the ‘book of the Covenant’ (Heb 9:11–23; 7:1–22), Christ functions as High Priest, mediator, second Moses, Francisco: Ignatius, 1999), 62; Meredith G. Kline, “The Correlation of the Concepts of Canon and Covenant,” in New Perspectives on the Old Testament (ed. J. Barton Payne; Waco, TX: Word, 1970), 270–72. 47 Hahn, “Canon,” 211. 48 On the liturgical aspect of the covenant, see Jon D. Levenson, Sinai and Zion: An Entry into the Jewish Bible (Minneapolis: Winston, 1985), 80–81; Albert Vanhoye, Old Testament Priests and the New Priest According to the New Testament (Petersham, MA: St. Bede’s, 1986), 181–82. 49 Hahn, “Covenant,” 285. 50 Hahn, “Canon,” 224–25.

CHAPTER SEVEN-EPILOGUE

329

and sacrificial lamb (2 Cor 3:6–18).51 Thus, Christ became “the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance—now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant” (Heb 9:15).52 Also, as Kline points out, the testament is only in force once the testator dies (Deut 34:1–12), “So the Deuteronomic Covenant in its testamentary aspect . . . would not become operative until the death of Moses.”53 Similarly, the covenant is sealed with the death/blood of Christ (5:9–10; cf 1 Cor 11:25). The new covenant is renewed in the shedding of Christ’s blood represented by the cup being poured (Luke 22:20), as he is the mediator of the New Covenant (Heb 9:15; 12:24).

Covenant Consummation Campbell captures the essence of covenant renewal when he reminds of the eschatological tendency to revive the old marriage metaphor and to bring it to consummation in the marriage feast of the lamb. Campbell interprets the marriage feast imagery in this way: in favour of the Bride’s innocence (or conversely, establishing her guilt) drives a complex, prophetic-apocalyptic plot which will oscillate between the church’s fulfilment of her vows and unfaithfulness to her call and election, until its final resolution in the Lamb’s marriage.54

The imagery is ultimately consummated in the gathering of all God’s people in perfect covenant relationship, where “they will be

51

Mendenhall, “Covenant,” IDB 1:723. Moisés Silva, “Is the Law Against the Promises? The Significance of Galatians 3:21 for Covenant Continuity,” in Theonomy: A Reformed Critique (ed. William S. Barker and W. Robert Godfrey; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990), 153–67; cf. Acts 2:25–28 and 34–35. Davis, Court Judgment, 35. 53 Kline, Treaty, 148. 54 Campbell, “Findings,” 80. 52

330

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God” (21:3) forever. The Modern Relevance A further implication is the modern relevance of the ANEVT structure for the church. Du Preez posits that John used the ANEVT structure to communicate to the world in general: [The ANEVT structure] indicates that it pleased the God of the Scriptures to make use of data from the Israelite Umwelt [environment] of that time in order to communicate his unique revelation for all times to the world.55

This has caused some commentators56 to prophetically view the spiritual condition of each church as a successive period in church history. Beale objects that the messages are applicable to all churches: there is no indication of such a prophetic intention nor does church history attest to any such pattern. What is likely is that the number “seven” refers to the church universal in both a geographical and temporal sense (see on 1:4) and that the conclusion of each letter extends its application to all the churches. Therefore, what we find in the letters is potentially relevant for the church of every time and place.57

55

Du Preez, “Vassal Treaties,” 41. Thomas, “Chronological,” 321–31; James L. Boyer., “Are the Seven Letters of Revelation 2–3 Prophetic?” GTJ 6.2 (1985): 267–73. Four interpretive approaches are generally categorized by most scholars: preterist (contemporary history), historicist (world/church history), futurist (eschatological history), and idealist (non-historical); cf. Morris, Rev, 16– 18; Johnson, Rev, 408–13; Mounce, Rev, 24–30; Beckwith, Apocalypse, 318– 36; Beale, Rev, 44–49; Osborne, Rev, 18–22; Smalley, Rev, 15–16 and Swete, Apocalypse, ccvii–ccxix. Court identifies eight approaches as chiliastic, Alexandrian, recapitulation, historical, eschatological, contemporaryhistorical, literary, and comparative (Myth, 1–17). 57 Beale, Rev, 204; “Use of the OT,” 132; Johnson, Rev, 420; Feuillet, Apocalypse, 50. 56

CHAPTER SEVEN-EPILOGUE

331

That these prophetic messages apply to all future churches is confirmed by the call to hear the lawsuit in the proclamation witness formula of the SMR: “Let anyone who has an ear listen to what the Spirit is saying to the churches” (2:7, 11, 17, 29; 3:6, 13, 22).58 John wrote out of his own immediate historical context with impending fulfillment but against the backdrop of eternity.59 Thus, Martin maintains that “whenever heresy, slackness, self-satisfaction, or luke-warmness threaten the life of the Church, the words of the Seven Letters speak again.”60 If God still speaks to his church covenantally then these messages are a reminder that Christ the king is still scrutinizing his church in covenantal terms of faithfulness. Those who are faithful and overcome are promised a variety of blessings at the end of each message, but they are all summed up in 21:7: “He who overcomes will inherit all this, and I will be his God and he will be my son.” The joy of the inheritance of heaven is the presence of God in the company of his people.61 The paraenetic message for the modern suffering Church is that God is their sovereign and promises to the overcomer, an eternal covenant relationship62 with their king. The SMR contain enormous paraenetic relevance for the modern church.

SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH Exegesis of the Remaining Six Messages As has been done with the message to Smyrna, there is a need to exegete the other six messages and to develop the covenantal structure identified in each oracle. While the ANEVT structure was identified in each of the messages, a detailed exegesis of each of the 58

Bauckham, Theology, 16. Mounce, Rev, 29. 60 Martin, Seven Letters, 14–15. 61 Beale, Rev, 234. 62 Each message promises eternal life using a different metaphor (“eat of the tree of life” 2:7; “not be hurt by the second death” 2:11; “hidden manna. . . a white stone with a new name written on it” 2:17; “given him the morning star” 2:28; “dressed in white. . . never blot out his name from the Book of Life” 3:5; “a pillar in the temple of my God. Never again will he leave it. 3:12; “the right to sit with me on my throne” 3:21). 59

332

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

messages may draw out further detailed nuances of the covenant structure and demonstrate the intimate connection with the message. The Relationship Between the Structure of the SMR and Rest of the Book Further research would help to establish that there is an integral relationship between the covenant structure of the SMR and the lawsuit motif in the remainder of the book of Revelation. Strand, Sutton, and Chilton have all recognized the ANEVT structure in the book of Revelation as a whole,63 but there is a need to develop the detailed structure exegetically and to tie this in with the SMR. Sutton provides a theological overview of covenant and dominion following the ANEVT structure in his work That You May Prosper; however, he does not deal with Revelation apart from his appendix A.64 Strand’s brief article is also a good start, but it can hardly address the covenantal intricacies of the whole book of Revelation.65 Perhaps the most detailed work in connecting the ANEVT structure to Revelation is Chilton’s work The Days of Vengeance: An Exposition of the Book of Revelation.66 However, this work, while referring to the ANEVT, is more a defence of partial preterism and postmillenial eschatology than a commentary on the covenant structure of Revelation. What is the relationship between the covenant structure in the SMR and the rest of Revelation and how is this exegetically explained? The Implications of the Suzerain/Vassal Relationship for Lamb Christology There is need to further develop the implications of the Lion/Lamb motif (5:5–9) in light of the ANEVT Suzerain/Vassal

63

Strand, “Covenantal Form,” 251–64; Sutton, Prosper, 253–67; Chilton, Vengeance, 10–20. 64 Sutton, Prosper, 253–67. 65 Strand, “Covenantal Form,” 251–64. 66 Chilton, Vengeance.

CHAPTER SEVEN-EPILOGUE

333

relationship.67 These implications were merely touched upon in their importance for Lamb Christology; however, an in-depth study is necessary to work out further connections and relevance to the Christology of Revelation. Although the Lamb has been crucified, he still rules and reigns. How does this suffering Lamb rule and reign? Does this signal a merging of the suzerain/vassal imagery into the Lion/Lamb image? Smalley comments on these paradoxical images: John’s rebirth of images in this passage [5:6] is such that the nature of divine power, seen in the conquering Messiah (the Lion), must be understood and interpreted in the light of God’s sacrificial love revealed in Jesus the Christ (the Lamb).68

Is there an ANE relevance for the investiture of the Lamb?69 Are the roles reversed for the suzerain and vassal in Revelation? The Lion of the tribe of Judah (5:5) suffers as a Lamb, while the vassals purchased by the blood of the Lamb “reign on the earth” as “a kingdom and priests to serve our God” (5:9–10; cf. Dan 7:14, 18). In following “the Lamb wherever he goes” (14:4), the overcomer not only suffers but also reigns with the conquering messianic Lamb. Further research to develop this contrast would contribute to the importance of Lamb Christology in Revelation. The Connection Between Covenant and Kingdom This book opens the door to further research on the relationship between covenant and kingdom. It has been observed that the suzerain rules over a kingdom by means of a covenant. While the covenant motif is sparse in the NT, the idea of the Kingdom of God (heaven) is plentiful and thus raises the question whether the covenantal idea was taken up in the Kingdom imagery within the

67

For a treatment of Lamb Christology, see Johns, Lamb Christology; Hoffmann, The Destroyer and the Lamb; MacLeod, “Lion Who is a Lamb,” 323–40. 68 Smalley, Rev, 133. 69 Aune, Rev 1–5, 336–38.

334

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

NT.70 Mendenhall hints at the Kingdom connection when he writes the following: the covenant given is not a mythical presentation of the timeless, divine, cosmic process, but is an historical event whereby the disciples are bound together with their Lord as the new Israel—the new Kingdom.71

Du Preez argues for the connection between Covenant and Kingdom when he states, “The comparison between the ancient vassal treaties and the book of Revelation has helped to make it clear how closely Covenant and Kingdom are linked together in the Bible.”72 Further research to develop this connection would be useful. The Place of Revelation 2:10 in Martyrdom Studies There is need of further development of the relationship between benediction/maledictions, as well as between suffering and martyrdom. It is significant that the first to mention the idea of the victor’s crown and martyrdom together were the authors of the Martyrdom of Polycarp from Smyrna (Mart. Pol. 17.1; 19.2), and John in the message to Smyrna (2:10). This reasserts the importance of Revelation 2:10 in the development of martyrdom studies. Martyrdom must be understood in light of this blessing and cursing, which is fulfilled in Christ the sovereign suzerain. The suffering experienced by Smyrna was not a commercial transaction where there was blessing for obedience and curse for disobedience, but as the suffering of Job illustrates, suffering was eschatological in nature. As Mendenhall points out, “The curses and blessings are not reducible to an historical correlation of obedience and prosperity, disobedience and calamity, for they are eschatological —to be imposed at the end of time.”73

70 James Stuart Russell, The Parousia: The New Testament Doctrine of Christ’s Second Coming (London: T. Fisher Unwin,1887. Repr. Bradford, Penn: International Preterist Association, 2003), 38–66. 71 Mendenhall, “Covenant Forms,” 75. 72 Du Preez, “Vassal Treaties,” 41. 73 Mendenhall, “Covenant Forms,” 75. Emphasis added.

CHAPTER SEVEN-EPILOGUE

335

Building on Trites’ list of legal connotations within the messages74 there are direct or implied allusions to the covenant relationship between God (king/suzerain) and his people (vassals). The covenant relationship and faithfulness of the King is a strong motivation for the churches to persevere under suffering.75 Trites writes: “under these conditions [persecution] one would expect that words with forensic overtones would be given their full weight in any message of encouragement.” The literary genre and covenant structure play a pertinent role in understanding the martyrdom/suffering message. Smyrna witnessed a long history of documented suffering and martyrdom.76 Is it possible that this is connected to the prophetic 74

Trites points out the forensic connotations in such words as ma,rtuj (2:13; 3:14), satana/j (2:9, 13, 24; 3:9), dia,boloj (2:10), qro,noj (2:13), o`mologe,w (3:5), avrne,omai (2:13; 3:8), e;cw with kata, (2:4, 14, 20; 3:17), eu`ri,skw (3:2), pisto,j (2:10, 13; 3:14), avlhqino,j (3:7, 14). Trites, NT Witness, 161–62. Mazzaferri adds two more to the list in di,dwmi (2:7, 10, 17, 23, 26, 28; 3:21) and oi=da (Rev 2:2, 9, 13, 19, 3:1, 8, 15). Mazzaferri concludes, “repeatedly, therefore, John’s opening vision portrays Christ as Judge investigating his people in the very shadow of the Advent” (Genre, 243–44). 75 See chapter 6—Literary Function, 287. 76 Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna was martyred in Smyrna, ca. AD 156– 161 (Mart. Pol; Eusebius Hist. eccl. 4.15.3–45); Aristion, possibly first presbyter of Smyrna, was a martyr (Apost. Const. vii. 45; Eusebius Hist. eccl. 3.39.4, 14; John Berthram O’Connell, The Roman Martyrology [London: Burns & Oates, 1962], 102, Ven. 1630). Papirius was martyred during the reign of Marcus Aurelius (J. B. Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers: Clement, Ignatius and Polycarp [2 vols.; London: MacMillian, 1890; repr., Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, 1989], 2:462; Pionius Mart. Pionii 23.1; Eusebius Hist. eccl. 4.15.46); Dioskorides AD May 21, 324? (Siméon Vailhé, “Smyrna,” CE 14:60); Athanasius of Attalia, 1653; Nicholas of Karaman, 1675; Dioscorus; Demus, 1763; Alexander of Salonica, 1794; Procopius, 1810; Agathangelus, 1818; Nektarius, 1820 (Meinardus, Patmos, 73–74). Athanasios, 1819 (Richard Clogg, “Little Known Orthodox NeoMartyr, Athanasios of Smyrna (1819),” ECR 5.1 (1973): 28–36). Chrysostom, 1922. Approximately 50,000 Christians were martyred in Smyrna in 1922; Chrysostom was one of them (Horton, Blight of Asia, 99; Lysimachos Oeconomos, The Martyrdom of Smyrna and Eastern Christendom: A File of Overwhelming Evidence, Denouncing the Misdeeds of the Turks in Asia Minor and

336

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

word of suffering in Rev 2:10 (Ignatius Smyrn. 4.2)? Aune leaves the door open in the following quotation: These and other passages in Revelation reflect either instances of Christian suffering that have occurred in the past or the prophetic expectation that such suffering will occur in the future, or perhaps a combination of the two.77

Revelation 2:10 may shed new light on the relationship between martrydom studies and the significance of covenantal malediction and benediction.

CONCLUSION Because John relied heavily on the writings of the OT, he incorporated the structural framework of some of them. The ANEVT structure is found in the Torah, particularly Deuteronomy, and the ANEVT structure is also found in the SMR; therefore, it is reasonable to believer that John was influenced by the Torah in writing the SMR. This is particularly persuasive considering the presence of additional material from the Torah found in the SMR. Since the SMR has the same ANEVT structure and various other allusions from Deuteronomy, then it is safe to say that the SMR are influenced by the Torah. The Hebraic-Semitic (ANEVT) influence on the messages to the churches would be more likely than the Greek/Roman influence of the imperial edicts given the weight of OT content in Revelation, the structural similarities to Deuteronomy, and the prophetic usage of the Rîb pattern borrowed from not only the prophets but also the Torah. The OT (Torah and prophets) Hebraic-Semitic influence is the source for the genre of the SMR rather than the less suitable imperial edicts. The covenant relationship represented by the ANEVT structure is perfectly suited to the apocalyptic message and contrasts the rights of RoShowing their Responsibility for the Horrors of Smyrna (London: George Allen and Unwin, 1922); Marjorie Harjorie Dobkin, Smyrna 1922: The Destruction of a City (New York: Newmark, 1988), 133; Edward Hale Bierstadt, The Great Betrayal: A Survey of the Near East Problem (New York: McBride, 1924), 24-25; Meinardus, Patmos, 75). 77 Aune, Rev 1–5, lxv.

CHAPTER SEVEN-EPILOGUE

337

man emperors and the King of kings and Lord of lords. This covenant relationship is ultimately consumated in the New Jerusalem where the church “will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God (21:3). “He who overcomes will inherit all this, and I will be his God and he will be my son” (21:7) forever.

BIBLIOGRAPHY PRIMARY SOURCES AND REFERENCE WORKS Abegg, Martin G., Jr., James E. Bowley, Edward M. Cook, Emanuel Tov, eds. The Non-Biblical Texts from Qumran. Vol.1 of The Dead Sea Scrolls Concordance. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Agnes, Michael, ed. Webster’s New World College Dictionary. 4h ed. Cleveland: Wiley, 2006. Alexander, Patrick H., John F. Kutsho, James E. Ernest, Shirley A. Decker-Lucke, and for the Society of Biblical Literature David L. Petersen, eds. The SBL Handbook of Style: for Ancient Near Eastern, Biblical and Early Christian Studies. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1999. Alexander, T. Desmond, Brian S. Rosner, D. A. Carson, and Graeme Goldsworthy, eds. New Dictionary of Biblical Theology. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2000. Apuleius. Opera Omnia. Edited by G. F. Hildebrand. 2 vols. Leipzig: Teubner, 1842. Aristides, P. Aelius. The Complete Works. Translated by Charles A. Behr. 2 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1986. ________. Works of Aristides. Translated by G. Dindorf. 3 vols. Leipzig: Weidmann, 1829. Aune, David E. The Westminster Dictionary of New Testament and Early Christian Literature and Rhetoric. Westminster John Knox Press, 2003. Baldick, Chris, ed. The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Literary Terms. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990. Barns, J. W. B., M. Browne, and J. C. Shelton, eds. Nag Hammadi Codices. Greek and Coptic Papyri from the Cartonnage of the Covers: The Coptic Gnostic Library, Edited with English Translation, Introduction and Notes Published Under the Auspices of the Institute for Antiquity and Christianity. Nag Hammadi Studies 16. Leiden: Brill, 1981. 339

340

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

Barns, J. W. B., Peter Parsons, John Rae, and Eric G. Turner, eds. The Oxyrhynchus Papyri. Vol. 31. Nos. 2531—2616. GraecoRoman Memoirs No. 45. London: Egypt Exploration Society, 1966. Bauer, Walter, F. W. Danker, W. F. Arndt, and F. W. Gingrich, eds. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 3d ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999. Beckman, Gary M. Hittite Diplomatic Texts. 2d ed. Society of Biblical Literature Writings from the Ancient World 7. Edited by Harry A. Hoffner, Jr. Atlanta: Scholars, 1999. Behr, Charles A. Aelius Aristides and the Sacred Tales. Amsterdam: A.M. Hakkert, 1968. Bengtson, Hermann and Hatto H. Schmitt, eds. Die Staatsverträge des Altertums. Vol. 3: Die Verträge der griechisch-römischen Welt von 338 bis 200 v. Chr. 3.492. Munich: Beck, 1969. Berardino, Angelo di, ed. Encyclopaedia of the Early Church. Translated by Adran Walford. 2 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992. Berger, Adolf. Encyclopedic Dictionary of Roman Law. Transactions of the American Philosopical Society 43. Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 1953. Boeckh, August et al., ed. Corpus inscriptionum graecarum. 4 vols. Berlin: Reimer, 1828–1877. Botterweck, G. Johannes, and Helmer Ringgren, eds.Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Translated by John T. Willis, Geoffrey W. Bromley, and Davie E. Green. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975. Brown, Colin, ed. New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology. 4 vols. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1975–1985. Brown, Francis, S. R. Driver, and C. A. Briggs, eds. A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1968. Buttrick, George A., gen. ed. The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. 4 vols. and suppl. Nashville: Abingdon, 1962–1975. Cassiodorus. “Institutiones: Book 1 and 2. Magni Aurelii Cassiodori Variarum libri 12.” Pages 1–499 in Corpus Christianorum Series Latina 96. Edited by Å. J. Fridh. Brepols: Turnhout, 1973.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

341

Cassius, Dio. Roman History. Translated by Ernest Cary and Herbert B. Foster. 9 vols. Loeb Classical Library 61–70. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1968. Cato, Marcus Porcius. Roman Farm Management: The Treatises of Cato and Varro. Translated by A Virginia Farmer. Whitefish, MT: Kessinger, 1918, 2004. Celsus, Aulus Cornelius. De Medicina. Vol. 1. Edited by F. Marx. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1915. ________. On Medicine. Vol. 1. Translated by W. G. Spencer. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1938. Cerutti, Steven M. Cicero: Pro Archia Poeta Oratio. Bolchazy-Carducci Publishers, 1998. Charles, Robert H., ed. The Ascension of Isaiah. London: Black. 1900. ________. The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English. 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon. 1913. Charlesworth, James H., ed. Damascus Document, War Scroll, and Related Documents. The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts With English Translations 2. Westminster/John Knox, 1995. ________. The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts With English Translations. Westminster: Knox, 2000. ________. The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Vol. 1: Apocalyptic Literature and Testaments. Vol. 2: Expansions of the Old Testament and Legends, Wisdom and Philosophical Literature, Prayers, Psalms, and Odes, Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1983–1985. Cicero, Marcus Tullius. Orations: In Catilinam 1–4. Pro Murena. Pro Sulla. Pro Flacco. Translated by C. MacDonald. Vol 10. Loeb Classical Library 324. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977. ________. Philippics. Translated by W. C. A. Ker. Loeb Classical Library, 1926. ________. The Orations of Marcus Tullius Cicero. Translated by C. D. Yonge. London. George Bell & Sons. 1903. Clines, David J. A. ed., The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew. 5 vols. Sheffield: Academic, 1995.

342

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

Cresswell, R. H. The Liturgy of the Eighth Book of ‘The Apostolic Constitutions’, Commonly called The Clementine Liturgy. 2d ed. London: SPCK. New York: Macmillan, 1924. Crim, Keith, ed. Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, Supplementary Volume. Nashville: Abingdon, 1976. Danby, Herbert, ed. The Mishnah. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993. De Lacy, Phillip, ed. and trans. Galen on the Doctrines of Hippocrates and Plato. 3 vols. Corpus Medicorum Graecorum. Berlin: Akademie, 1978–1980. de Lagarde, Paul A. Reliquiae juris ecclesiastici antiquissimae. Syriace primus edidit. Leipzig: Teubnerus, 1856. di Berardino, Angelo, ed. Encyclopedia of the Early Church. Translated by A. Walford. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992. Dittenberger, Wilhelmus, ed. Orientis Graeci Inscriptiones Selectae, Supplementum Sylloges Inscriptionum Graecarum. 2 vols., Leipzig: Hirzel, 1903–1905. Edelstein, Ludwig. The Hippocratic Oath: Text, Translation and Interpretation. Bulletin of the Institute of the History of Medicine. Supplement 1. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins, 1943. Ehrenberg, Victor and A. H. M. Jones, eds. Documents Illustrating the Reigns of Augustus and Tiberius. 2d ed. Oxford: Clarendon, 1955– 1976. Elliott, James K. The Apocryphal New Testament: A Collection of Apocryphal Christian Literature in an English Translation Based on M. R. James. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005. Epiphanius of Salamis. The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis, Book I (Sects 1-46). Translated by Frank Williams. Leiden, Brill: 1987. ________. The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis, Book II and III (Sects 47-80, De Fide). Translated by Frank Williams, Leiden, Brill: 1993. ________. The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis, Book II and III (Sects 47–80, De Fide). Translated by Frank Williams, Leiden, Brill: 1993. Euripides. Euripides, Volume IV. Trojan Women. Iphigenia among the Taurians. Ion. Translated by David Kovacs. Loeb Classical Library 10. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. Eusebius, Pamphilius. Eusebius: The Church History: A New Translation with Commentary. Translated by Paul L. Maier. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1999.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

343

________. Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History. Translated by C. F. Cruse. New Updated Edition. Peabody: Henderson, 1998. Fitzmyer, Joseph A. The Aramaic Inscriptions of Sefire. Revised Edition (Biblica et orientalia 19A; Rome: Biblical Institute, 1995. Freedman, David Noel, ed. The Anchor Bible Dictionary. 6 vols. London: Doubleday, 1992. Freedman, H., and Maurice Simon. Midrash Rabbah. 10 vols. London: Soncino, 1992. Fremantle, W. H. The Principal Works of St. Jerome: A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church. 6 vols. Second Series. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983. Frey, P. Jean-Baptiste, ed. Corpus inscriptionum judaicarum. 2 vols. Sussidi allo studio delle anichitá cristiane. Rome: Pontifical Institute of Christian Archaeology, 1936–1952. Friberg, Timothy and Barbara Friberg, eds. The Analytical Greek New Testament. 3d ed. Grand Rapids: Baker 1981. Green, J. B., S. McKnight, and I. H. Marshall, eds. Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1992. Guillaumont, Antoine, H.-Ch. Puech, G. Quispel, W. Till, and Yassah Abd Masih, eds. The Gospel According to Thomas: Coptic Text Established and Translated. New York: Harper & Row, 1959. Hammer, Reuven. The Classic Midrash: Tannaitic Commentaries on the Bible. Paulist Press, 1995. Hastings, James, John A. Selbie, and John C. Lambert, eds. Dictionary of the Apostolic Church. 2 vols. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1919. Hastings, James, John A. Selbie, John C. Lambert, and Shailer Mathews, eds. A Dictionary of the Bible. 4 vols. Edinburgh: Charles Scribner’s Sons. 1902. Hayward, Robert. The Targum of Jeremiah. Wilmington, DE: Glazier, 1987. Head, Barclay V. Catalogue of the Greek Coins of Ionia in the British Museum. Bologna: Alnaldo Forni, 1964. Herbermann, Charles G., Edward A. Pace, Conde B. Pallen, Thomas J. Shahan, and John J. Wynne, eds. The Catholic Encyclopedia. 15 vols. New York : Appleton, 1911. Hertz, Joseph H. trans. Sayings of the Fathers. Springfield, NJ: Behrman, 1996.

344

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

Hesiod. The Homeric Hymns and Homerica. Translated by H. G. Evelyn-White. Loeb Classical Library 57. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1914. Hippocrates. Vol. I: Ancient Medicine. Translation by W. H. S. Jones and E. T. Withington. Loeb Classical Library. No 147. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1923. Homer. The Iliad. Translated by A. T. Murray. 2 vols. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1924. ________. The Odyssey. Translated by A. T. Murray. 2 vols. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1919. Hornblower, Simon and Antony J. S. Spawforth, eds. The Oxford Classical Dictionary. Rev. 3d ed. Oxford: Clarendon, 2003. ________. On the Peace. Areopagiticus. Against the Sophists. Antidosis. Panathenaicus. Vol. 2. Translated by George Norlin. 3 vols. The Loeb Classical Library 229. London: Harvard University Press, 1929. ________. To Demonicus. To Nicocles. Nicocles or the Cyprians. Panegyricus. To Philip. Archidamus. Vol. 1. Translated by George Norlin. 3 vols. The Loeb Classical Library 209. London: Harvard University Press, 1928. Izydorczyk, Zbigniew. The Medieval Gospel of Nicodemus: Texts, Intertexts, and Contexts in Western Europe. Medieval and Renaissance Texts and Studies. Tempe, Ariz.: Arizona State University, 1997. Josephus, Flavius. The Works of Flavius Josephus. Translated by H. St. J. Thackeray. 9 vols. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1926. Kittel, G., and G. Friedrich, eds. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. 10 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964–1976. ________. Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament. 10 vol. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1933–1979. Koehler, Ludwig, Walter Baumgartner, and Johann J. Stamm, eds. The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Translated and edited under the supervision of M. E. J. Richardson. 5 vols. Leiden: Brill 1994–1999. Lafaye, G. and R. Cagnat, eds. Inscriptiones Graecae ad Res Romanas Pertinentes. 4 vols. Paris: Leroux, 1911–1927.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

345

Largus, Scribonius. Compositiones. Edited by Sergio Sconocchia. Leipzig: Teubner, 1983. Laroche, Emmanuel. Catalogue des textes hittites. Études et commentaires 75. Paris: Éditions Klincksieck, 1971. Layton, Bentley, ed. Nag Hammadi Codex II, 2-7. 2 Vols. Leiden: Brill, 1989. Liddell, Henry G. and Robert Scott, eds. The Abridged Liddell-Scott Greek-English Lexicon on CD-ROM. BibleWorks™ Version 5.0. 1992–2002. From the public domain. Via BibleWorks™ programming 2001. Print ed.: Edited by Henry G. Liddell, Robert Scott, and Henry S. Jones. A Liddell-Scott Greek-English Lexicon. 9th ed. with revised supplement. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1968. Lightfoot, J. B. The Apostolic Fathers: Clement, Ignatius and Polycarp. 2 vols. London: MacMillian, 1890. Reprint. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, 1989. ________. The Apostolic Fathers. Edited by Michael W. Holmes. Translated by J. R. Harmer. 2d ed. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1989. Lightfoot, John. Horae Hebraicae et Talmudicae. 5 vols in 1. Cambridge: Field & Hayes, 1658–1674. Louw, J. P. and E. A. Nida, eds. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains on CD-ROM. BibleWorks™ Version 5.0. 1992–2002. Print ed. Edited by J. P. Louw and E. A. Nida. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains. 2d ed. New York: NY United Bible Societies, 1988. Lust, Johan, Erik Eynikel and Katrin Hauspie, eds. A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint on CD-ROM. BibleWorks™ Version 5.0. 1992–2002. Print ed. Edited by Johan Lust, Erik Eynikel and Katrin Hauspie. A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint. Revised Edition. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2001. McCabe, Donald F. Smyrna Inscriptions: Texts and List. Edited by Tad Brennan and R. Neil Elliott. Princeton: Princeton Institute for Advanced Study, 1988. Mead , G. R. S. trans. Pistis Sophia: A Gnostic Gospel. San Diego: Book Tree, 2006. ________. Thrice Great Hermes: Studies in Hellenistic Theosophy and Gnosis. 3 vols. London: Theosophical Publishing Society, 1906.

346

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

Musurillo, Herbert A. The Acts of the Christian Martyrs. Translated by Herbert A. Musurillo. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1972. O’Connell, John Berthram. The Roman Martyrology. London: Burns & Oates, 1962. Onions, C. T. The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary on Historical Principles. 2 vols. 3d Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1973. Oppenheim, A. Leo and Erica Reiner, eds. Chicago Assyrian Dictionary M. 2 vols. Chicago: Oriental Institute, 1977. Orr, James. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia on CD-ROM. 1915, 1t ed. BibleWorks™ Version 5.0. 1992–2002. Print ed. James Orr, John L. Nuelsen, Edgar Y. Mullins, Morris O. Evans, Melvin Grove Kyle, eds. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. 5 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans [1939] 1997. Pardee, Dennis. Handbook of Ancient Hebrew Letters. Society for Biblical Literature Sources for Biblical Study 15. Chicago: Scholars, 1982. Parpola, Simo and Kazuko Watanabe eds. New-Assyrian Treaties and Loyalty Oaths. State Archives of Assyria Vol. 2. Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 1988. Pauly, August F. Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft. New edition. Georg Wissowa, Wilhelm Kroll, Kurt Witte, Karl Mittelhaus and Konrat Ziegler, eds. 49 vols. Stuttgart: Metzler, 1894–1980. Pausanius. Description of Greece. Vol. 1 Attica and Cornith. Translation by W. H. S. Jones. 4 vols. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1918. Pfeiffer, Charles F., ed. The Biblical World: A Dictionary of Biblical Archaeology. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1966. ________. ed. Wycliffe Dictionary of Biblical Archaeology. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1973. Repr., Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2000. Philo. The Works of Philo: Complete and Unabridged in One Volume. Translated by C. D. Yonge. Peabody: Henderson, 1993. ________. Works. Translated by F. H. Colson. 10 vols. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1938. Philostratus, Flavius. Lives of the Sophists. Eunapius: Lives of the Philosophers and Sophists. Translated by Wilmer C. Wright. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1921.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

347

________. The Life of Appollonius of Tyana. Translated by F. C. Conybeare. 2 vols. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1989. Pliny the Elder. Natural History. Translated by H. Rackham, et al. 10 vols. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1938. Pliny the Younger. Letters. Translated by William Melmoth. 2 vols. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1957. Plutarch. Lives. Translated by Bernadotte Perrin. 11 vols. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1914. Polybius. The Histories. 2d ed. 5 vols. Edited by T. Büttner-Wobst, Leipzig: Teubner, 1882–1904. Pritchard, James B., ed. The Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. 3d ed. with supplement. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969. Rayor, Diane. The Homeric Hymns: A Translation, with Introduction and Notes. Joan Palevsky Classic Literature Book. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2004. Rea, J. R. et al., eds. The Oxyrhynchus Papyri. Vol. 43. Nos. 3088– 3150. Graeco-Roman Memoirs No. 60. London: Egypt Exploration Society, 1975. Roberts, Alexander, James Donaldson, Philip Schaff, and Henry Wace, eds. Ante-Nicene Fathers. 10 vols. Repr., New Ed. Hendrickson Publishers, 1994. ________. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: First Series. 14 vols. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1994. Schaff, Philip. Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory Nazianzen: Select Orations of Saint Gregory Nazianzen, Sometime Archbishop of Constantinople. Translated by Charles Gordon Browne and James Edward Swallow. New York: Christian Literature, 1893. Sconocchia, Sergio, ed. Scribonii Largi Compositiones. Leipzig: Teubner, 1983. Seneca. Ad Lucilium Epistulae Morales. Edited by L. D. Reynolds. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1965. Sibylline. Sibylline Oracles: Translated from the Greek into English Blank Verse. Translated by Milton S. Terry. Cincinatti: Cranston & Stowe’s, 1899; New York: AMS, 1973.

348

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

________. The Sibylline Oracles, Books III–V. Translated by Herbert N. Bate. London: SPCK, 1918. Soanes, Catherine and Angus Stevenson, eds. Concise Oxford English Dictionary. 11h ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005. Soranus. Soranus’ Gynaecology. Translated with an Introduction by Owsei Temkin, Nicolson J. Eastman, Ludwig Edelstein, and Alan F. Guttmacher. London: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1991. Stanford, W. B. Sophocles: Ajax. Bristol Greek Texts Series. London: Duckworth, 1981. Stillwell, Richard, William L. MacDonald, and Marian Holland McAllister. eds. Princeton Encyclopaedia of Classical Sites. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1976. Strabo. The Geography of Strabo. Translated by Horace Leonard Jones. 8 vols. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1989. Strack, Hermann L. and Paul Billerbeck. Kommentar zum NT aus Talmud und Midrasch. 4 vols. Munich: Beck, 1922–1928. Tacitus, Publius Cornelius. The Annals of Imperial Rome. Translated by Michael Grant. Vol. 3 & 4. Aylesbury: Penguin, 1989. ________. The Complete Works of Tacitus. Edited by Moses Hadas. Translated by Alfred John Church and William Jackson Brodribb. New York: Modern Library, 1942. Tenney, Merrill C. The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible. 5 vols. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1975. Thayer, Joseph Henry. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament on CD-ROM. BibleWorks™ Version 5.0. 1992–2002. Complete and Unabridged. Electronic Edition; International Bible Translators, Inc., [1889] 1998–2000. Print ed. Thayer, Joseph Henry. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament. 4h ed. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1951. Tod, Marcus Niebuhr, ed. Greek Historical Inscriptions: From the Sixth Century BC to the Death of Alexander the Great in 323 BC. Chicago: Ares, 1985. Ulpian, The Digest of Justinian. 2 vols. Edited by Alan Watson. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1998. VanGemeren, Willem A. New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1997. Waldstein, Michael and Frederik Wisse, The Apocryphon of John: Synopsis of Nag Hammadi Codices II,1;III,1; And IV,1 With BG

BIBLIOGRAPHY

349

8502,2. Nag Hammadi and Manichaean Studies. Leiden: Brill Academic, 1995. Watson, Richard. A Biblical and Theological Dictionary Explanatory of the History, Manners, and Customs of the Jews, and Neighbouring Nations With an Account of the Most Remarkable Places and Persons Mentioned in Sacred Scripture; an Exposition of the Principal Doctrines of Christianity, and Notices of Jewish and Christian Sects and Heresies. New York: Waugh & Mason, 1833. Weidmann, Frederick Walter. Polycarp and John: The Harris Fragments and Their Challenge to the Literary Traditions. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1999. Weidner, Ernst F. Politische Dokumente aus Kleinasien. Boghazköi Studies 8, 9. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1923, repr. 1970.

SECONDARY SOURCES Abusch, T. “The Epic of Gilgamesh and the Homeric Epics.” Pages 1-6 in Mythology and Mythologies. Edited by R. M. Whiting. Helsinki: Melammu Symposia, 2001. Akurgal, Ekrem. Ancient Civilizations and Ruins of Turkey from Prehistoric Times until the End of the Roman Empire. Translated by John Whybrow and Mollie Emre. 2d ed. Istanbul: Mobil Oil Turk A. S., 1985. Albright, William Foxwell. From the Stone Age to Christianity. New York: Doubleday, 1957. Alford, Henry. Hebrews–Revelation. The Greek Testament: A Critical and Exegetical Commentary 4. Revised by Everett F. Harrison. Chicago: Moody, 1968. Allison, Dale C., Jr. The New Moses: A Matthean Typology. Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1993. Altman, Amnon. “Rethinking the Hittite System of Subordinate Countries from the Legal Point of View.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 123.4 (2003): 741–56. ________. The Historical Prologue of the Hittite Vassal Treaties. RamatGan, Israel: Bar-Ilan University Press, 2004. ________. “Who Took an Oath on a Vassal Treaty: Only the Vassal King or Also the Suzerain?—the Hittite Evidence.” Zeitschrift für altorientalische und biblische Reschtsgeschichte 9 (2003): 178–84. Applebaum, Shim’on. “The Legal Status of the Jewish Communities of the Diaspora.” Pages 420–463 in The Jewish People in the

350

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

First Century. Section 1. Edited by Y. Aschkenasy. Vol. 2 of Compendia rerum iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976. Assman, Jan. “When Justice Fails: Jurisdiction and Imprecation in Ancient Egypt and the Near East.” The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 78 (1992): 149–62. Astour, Michael C. Hellenosemitica: An Ethnic and Cultural Study in West Semitic Impact on Mycenaean Greece. 2d ed. Leiden: Brill, 1967. Atkinson, Kenneth. “On Further Defining the First-Century CE Synagogue: Fact or Fiction? A Rejoinder to H. C. Kee.” New Testament Studies 43 (1997): 491–502. Aune, David E. Prophecy in Early Christianity and the Ancient Mediterranean World. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983. Repr., Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2003. ________. “Prophetic Circle of John of Patmos and the Exegesis of Revelation 22:16.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 37 (1989): 103–16. ________. Revelation 1–5. Word Biblical Commentary 52a. Dallas: Word, 1997. ________. Revelation 6–16. Word Biblical Commentary 52b. Dallas: Word, 1997. ________. Review of R. Dean Davis, The Heavenly Court Judgment of Revelation 4–5. Catholic Biblical Quarterly 55 (1993): 804–5. ________. Review of Ulrich B. Müller, Prophetie und Predigt im Neuen Testament: Formgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zur Urchristlichen Prophetie. Journal of Biblical Literature 97 (1978): 450–452. ________. “The Apocalypse of John and Graeco-Roman Revelatory Magic.” New Testament Studies 33.4 (1987): 481–501. ________. “The Apocalypse of John and the Problem of Genre.” Pages 65–9 in Early Christian Apocalypticism: Genre and Social Setting. Edited by Adela Yarbro Collins. Vol. 36 of Semeia. Edited by John Dominic Crossan. Decatur, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1986. ________. “The Form and Function of the Proclamations to the Seven Churches.” New Testament Studies 36 (1990): 182–204. ________. The New Testament in Its Literary Environment. Library of Early Christianity 8. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1987. ________. “The Problem of the Messianic Secret.” Novum Testamentum 11 (1969): 1–31.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

351

________. “The Social Matrix of the Apocalypse of John.” Biblical Research 26 (1981): 16–32. Baltzer, Klaus. Das Bundesformular. Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament, 4. Neukirchen: Neukirchener, 1964. ________. The Covenant Formulary in Old Testament, Jewish, and Early Christian Writings. Translated by David E. Green. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1971. Bandstra, Andrew J. “A Kingship and Priests: Inaugurated Eschatology in the Apocalypse.” Calvin Theological Journal 27.1 (1992): 1,–25. Bandy, Alan S. “Pattern of Prophetic Lawsuits in the Book of Revelation.” Unpublished paper presented at the Evangelical Theological Society, New Testament Group. Providence, Rhode Island, November 20, 2008. ________. “The Structure of the Book of Revelation.” Unpublished paper presented at the Evangelical Theological Society, San Diego, CA., November 16, 2007. ________. “Word and Witness: An Analysis of the Lawsuit Motif in Revelation based on the Witness Terminology.” Unpublished paper presented at the Evangelical Theological Society. Valley Forge, PA., November 17, 2005. Banks. Robert J. Jesus and the Law in the Synoptic Tradition. Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 28. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975. Barclay, William. Letters to the Seven Churches. London: Abingdon, 1957. Barr, David L. “The Apocalypse of John as Oral Enactment.” Interpretation 40.3 (1986): 243–56. Barr, James. “Some Semantic Notes on the Covenant.” Pages 23– 38 in Beiträge zur Alttestamentlichen Theologie: Festchrift für Walther Zimmerli zum 70. Edited by Herbert Donner, Robert Hanhart and Rudolf Smend. Göttingen: Vandenhoek & Ruprecht, 1977. Bauckham, Richard J. “Synoptic Parousia Parables and the Apocalypse.” New Testament Studies 23 (1977): 162–76. ________. The Climax of Prophecy. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1993. ________. The Theology of the Book of Revelation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993.

352

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

Beagley, Alan James. The ‘Sitz im Leben’ of the Apocalypse With Particular Reference to the Role of the Church’s Enemies. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1987. Beale, Gregory K. John’s Use of the Old Testament in Revelation. Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series 166. Sheffield: Academic, 1998. ________. “Revelation (Book).” Pages 356–63 in New Dictionary of Biblical Theology. Edited by T. Desmond Alexander, Brian S. Rosner, D. A. Carson and Graeme Goldsworthy. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2000. ________. Review of Colin J. Hemer, The Letters to the Seven Churches of Asia in Their Local Setting. Trinity Journal 7.2 (1986): 107–11. ________. The Book of Revelation. The New International Greek Testament Commentary 12. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998. ________. “The Hearing Formula and the Visions of John in Revelation.” Pages 167–80 in A Vision for the Church: Studies in Early Christian Ecclesiology in Honour of J. P. M. Sweet. Edited by M. Bockmuehl and M. B. Thompson. Edinburgh: Clark, 1997. Bean, George E. Aegean Turkey: An Archaeological Guide. London: Ernest Benn, 1966. Beasley-Murray, George R. The Book of Revelation. The New Century Bible Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983. Beckman, Gary M. “Hittite Treaties and the Development of Cuneiform Treaty Tradition.” Pages 279–301 in Die deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerke: Redaktions- und religionsgeschichtliche Perspektiven zur “Deuteronomismus”–Diskussion in Tora und Vorderen Propheten. Edited by Marku Witte, Konrad Schmid, Doris Prechel, and Jan Christian Gertz. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 365. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2006. Beckwith, Isbon T. The Apocalypse of John. New York: MacMillan, 1919. Bederman, David J. International Law in Antiquity. Cambridge Studies in International and Comparative Law. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press, 2001. Begrich, Joachim. “Berit. Ein Beitrag zur Erfassung einer alttestamentlichen Denkform.” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 60 (1944): 1–11.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

353

Bell, Albert A., Jr. “The Date of John’s Apocalypse. The Evidence of Some Roman Historians Reconsidered.” New Testament Studies 10.1 (1978): 93–102. Bengel, John Albert. “Word Studies in Revelation.” Pages 831–933 in vol. 2 of New Testament Word Studies. New translation by C. T. Lewis and M. R. Vincent. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1971. Benner, Margareta. The Emperor Says: Studies in the Rhetorical Style in Edicts of the Early Empire. Göteborg: Acts Universitatis Gothoburgensis, 1975. Berger, Klaus. “Apostelbrief und apostolische Rede: Zum Formular frühchristlicher Briefe.” Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche 65 (1974): 212–19. ________. Die Gesetzesauslegung Jesu: Ihr historischer Hintergrund im Judentum und im Alten Testament. Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament 40.1. NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener, 1972. Berlinerblau, Jacques. Heresy in the University: The Black Athena Controversy and the Responsibilities of American Intellectuals. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1999. Bernal, Martin. Black Athena: The Afroasiatic Roots of Classical Civilization. Volumne 1: The Fabrication of Ancient Greece 1785– 1985. London: Rutgers University Press, 1987. Beyerlin, Walter. Herkunft und Geschichte der ältesten Sinaitraditionen. Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1961. Bickerman, Elias. “Couper une alliance.” Archives d’histoire du droit oriental 5 (1950–1951): 133–56. Bierstadt, Edward Hale. The Great Betrayal: A Survey of the Near East Problem. New York: McBride, 1924. Blaiklock, E. M. Cities of the New Testament. New York: Revell, 1965. Blank, Sheldon H. “The LXX Renderings of Old Testament Terms for Law.” Hebrew University College Annual 7 (1930): 259–83. Blass, F., A. Debrunner, and R. W. Funk, eds. A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961. Blevins, James L. “The Genre of Revelation.” Review and Expositor 77.3 (1980): 393–408. Borgen, Peder. “Polemic in the Book of Revelation.” Pages 199– 211 in Anti-Semitism and Early Christianity. Edited by Craig A. Evens and D. A. Hagner. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993.

354

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

Boring, M. Eugene. Revelation. Interpretation Commentary 17. Edited by J. I. Mays, P. D. Miller and P. J. Achtemeier. Louisville: Knox, 1989. ________. “The Theology of Revelation: The Lord Our God the Almighty Reigns.” Interpretation 40.3 (1986): 257–69. Boyer, James L. “Are the Seven Letters of Revelation 2–3 Prophetic?” Grace Theological Journal 6.2 (1985): 267–73. Boyle, Marjorie O. “The Covenant Lawsuit in the Prophet Amos.” Vetus Testamentum 21 (1971): 338–62. Bright, John. Covenant and Promise. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1976. Brock, A. J. Greek Medicine, Being Extracts Illustrative of Medical Writers from Hippocrates to Galen. London: Dent & Sons, 1929. New York: AMS, 1972. Brooks, James A., and Carlton L. Winbery. Syntax of New Testament Greek. Washington: University Press of America, 1979. Brown, John Pairman. Ancient Israel and Ancient Greece: Religion, Politics, and Culture. Repr. from Israel and Hellas. Volume II: Sacred Institutions with Roman Counterparts. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 276. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2000. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003. Brownlee, William H. “The Priestly Character of the Church in the Apocalypse.” New Testament Studies 5 (1958–1959): 224–5. Bruce, F. F. New Testament History. Toronto: Doubleday, 1971. ________. “Paul and the Law of Moses.” Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library of Manchester 57 (1975): 259–79. ________. The Acts of the Apostles: Greek Text with Introduction and Commentary. Revised 3d ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990. ________. The Revelation of John. A New Testament Commentary. Edited by G. C. D. Howley. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1969. Büchler, Adolf. “The Reading of the Law and Prophets in a Triennial Cycle.” The Jewish Quarterly Review 5.3 (1893): 420–86. Bullinger, Ethelbert W. Commentary on Revelation. New York: Revell, 1902. Repr., Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1990. Burkert, Walter. The Oientalizing Revolution-The Near Eastern Influence in the Early Archaic Age. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1995. Burkill, T. Alec “The Hidden Son of Man in St. Mark's Gospel.” Zeitschrift für die neutesteamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche 52 (1961): 206–13.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

355

Burrell, Barbara. Neokoroi: Greek Cities and Roman Emperors. Leiden: Brill, 2004. Cadbury, Henry J. The Style and Literary Method of Luke. Cambrige, Mass.: Periodicals Service, 1920. Cadoux, Cecil J. Ancient Smyrna: A History of the City from the Earliest Times to 224 AD. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1938. Caird, G. B. A Commentary on the Revelation of St. John the Divine. London: Adam & Charles Black, 1966. ________. The Language and Imagery of the Bible. London: Duckworth, 1980. Calder, W. M. “Smyrna as Described by the Orator Aelius Aristides.” Pages 95–116 in Studies in the History and Art of the Eastern Provinces of the Roman Empire. Edited by W. M. Ramsay. Aberdeen: Aberdeen University Press, 1906. Calvin, John. Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets. Translated by John Owen. Vol. 15. Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society, 1848. Repr., Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979. Campbell, Gordon. “Findings, Seals, Trumpets, and Bowls: Variations Upon the Theme of Covenant Rupture and Restoration in the Book of Revelation.” Westminster Theological Journal 66 (2004): 71–96. Campbell, J. L. The Patmos Letters. London: Morgan & Scott Ltd., 1898. Carrick, Paul. Medical Ethics in Antiquity: Philosophical Perspectives on Abortion and Euthanasia. Dordrecht, Holland: Reidel, 1985. Carson, Donald A. The Gospel According to John. Leicester: InterVarsity Press, 1991. ________. The Sermon on the Mount: An Evangelical Exposition of Matthew 5–7. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984. ________, Douglas J. Moo, and Leon Morris, eds. An Introduction to the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992. Chandler, Richard. Travels in Asia Minor and Greece. 2 vols. 3d ed. Oxford: Clarendon. 1825. Charles, Robert H. The Revelation of St. John. The International Critical Commentary. 2 vols. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1920, Repr. in 1963. Childs, Brevard S. Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993. Chilton, David. The Days of Vengeance: An Exposition of the Book of Revelation. Fort Worth: Dominion, 1987.

356

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

Clark, David S. The Message from Patmos: A postmillennial Commentary on the Book of Revelation. 1921. Repr. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1989. Clements, Ronald E. Prophecy and Covenant. Studies in Biblical Theology 43. London, SCM, 1965. ________. Prophecy and Tradition. Oxford: Blackwell, 1975. Cline, Eric. “Archilles in Anatolia: Myth, History and the Assuwa Rebellion.” Pages 202–203 in Crossing Boundaries and Linking Horizons. Edited by Gordon D. Young, Mark W. Chavalas and Richard E. Averbeck. Bethesda, MD: CDL, 1997. Clogg, Richard. “Little Known Orthodox Neo-Martyr, Athanasios of Smyrna (1819).” Eastern Churches Review 5.1 (1973): 28–36. Cole, Alan. Exodus: An Introduction and Commentary. Tyndale Old Testament Commentary 3. London: Tyndale, 1973. Collins, John Joseph. “Introduction: Towards the Morphology of a Genre.” Pages 1–20 in Apocalypse: The Morphology of a Genre. Edited by John J. Collins. Vol. 14 of Semeia. Edited by Robert W. Funk. Missoula, Mont.: The Society of Biblical Literature, 1979. Comblin, José. Le Christ dans l’apocalypse. Paris: Tournai, 1965. Cook, John M. The Greeks in Ionia and the East. Ancient Peoples and Places 31. General Editor Glyn Daniel. New York: Frederick A. Praeger, 1963. Cothenet, Édouard. Le Prophétisme dans le Nouveau Testament. Dictionnaire de la Bible: Supplement 8. Edited by Louis Pirot. Paris: Letouzey et Ané, 1972. Court, John M. Myth and History in the Book of Revelation. Atlanta: Knox, 1979. ________. The Book of Revelation and the Johannine Apocalyptic Tradition. Sheffield: Academic, 2000. Craigie, Peter C. The Book of Deuteronomy. The New International Commentary on the Old Testament 5. Edited by R. K. Harrison. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976. Crosthwaite, Arthur. “The Symbolism of the Letters to the Seven Churches.” Expository Times 22 (1910): 307–309. d’Alfonso, Lorenzo. “Die hethitische Vertragstradition in Syrien (14.–12. Jh. V. Chr.).” Pages 303–29 in Die deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerke: Redaktionsund religionsgeschichtliche Perspektiven zur “Deuteronomismus”–Diskussion in Tora und Vorderen Propheten. Edited by Marku Witte, Konrad Schmid, Doris Prechel, and

BIBLIOGRAPHY

357

Jan Christian Gertz. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 365. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2006. Dana, H. E. and Julius R. Mantey. A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament. Toronto: MacMillan, 1957. Daniels, Dwight R. “Is There a ‘Prophetic Lawsuit’ Genre?” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 99–100 (1987–1988), 339–60. Davidson, Richard M. “The Covenant Lawsuit Motif in Canonical Perspective.” Paper presented at the 60th annual meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society, New Testament Group, 1-8. Providence, Rhode Island: November 20, 2008. Davies, W. D. “A Note on Josephus Antiquities 15.136.” Harvard Theological Review 47 (1954): 135–40. ________. The Setting of the Sermon on the Mount. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1964. Davis, John J. Biblical Numerology: A Basic Study of the Use of Numbers in the Bible. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1968. Davis, R. Dean. The Heavenly Court Judgment of Revelation 4–5. Lanham: University Press of America, 1992. Dehandschütter, Boudewijn. “The Martyrium Polycarpi: A Century of Research.” Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt:Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der neueren Forschung 27.2:485–522. Edited by Hildegard Temporini and Wolfgang Haase. Berlin: de Gruyter , 1993. Deissmann, Adolf. Light from the Ancient East: The New Testament Illustrated by Recently Discovered Texts of the Graeco-Roman World. Translated by Lionel R. M. Strachan. New York: Harper & Row, 1928. Repr. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965. De Roche, Michael. “Yahweh's Rîb against Israel: A Reassessment of the So-Called ‘Prophetic Lawsuit’ in the Pre-exilic Prophets.” Journal of Biblical Literature 102.4 (1983): 563–74. Delitzsch, F. Isaiah. Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament 7. Edited by C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch. Translated by James Martin, et al. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976. Delling, Gerhard. Worship in the New Testament. London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1962. Dempster, Stephen G. “The Prophets, the Canon and a Canonical Approach: No Empty Word.” Pages 294–329 in Canon and Biblical Interpretation. Edited by Craig G. Bartholomew, Scott Hahn, Robin Parry, Christopher Seitz and Al Wolters. Vol. 7

358

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

of Scripture and Hermeneutics Series. Edited by Craig G. Bartholomew and Anthony C. Thiselton. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006. deSilva, David A. “The Social Setting of the Revelation to John: Conflicts Within, Fears Without.” Westminster Theological Journal 54 (1992): 273–302. Dibelius, Martin. Der Brief des Jakobus, mit Ergänzungen von Heinrich Greeven. 6h ed. Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar uber das Neue Testmanet 15. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984. ________. James: A Commentary on the Epistle of James. Revised by Heinrich Greeven, translated by Michael A. Williams, edited by Helmut Köster. Hermeneia: A Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976. ________. “Wer Ohren hat zu hören, der höre.” Theologische Studien und Kritiken 83 (1910): 461–71. Dijkstra, Meindert. “Prophecy by Letter (Jeremiah 29:24–32).” Vetus Testamentum 33 (1983): 319–22. Dines, Jennifer M. The Septuagint. Edited by Michael A. Knibb. London: T&T Clark, 2004. Dobkin, Marjorie Housepian. Smyrna 1922: The Destruction of a City. New York: Newmark, 1988. Dodd, C. H. “ENNOMOS CRISTOU.” Pages 96–110 in Studia Paulina in honorem J. de Zwaan. Haarlem: Bohn, 1953. Donahue, John R. “Biblical Perspectives on Justice.” Pages 68–85 in The Faith that Does justice: Examining the Christian Sources for Social Change. Edited by John C. Haughey. New York: Paulist, 1977. Doty, W. G. “The Concept of Genre in Literary Analysis.” Pages 413–48 in Society of Biblical Literature 1972 Proceedings. Vol 2. Edited by Lane C. McGaughy. Missoula, MT: Scholars, 1972. Downing, F. Gerald. “Pliny’s Prosecutions of Christians.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 34 (1988): 105–23. Duff, Paul “The ‘Synagogues of Satan’: Crisis Mongering and the Apocalypse of John.” Pages 147–68 in Reality of Apocalypse: Rhetoric and Politics in the Book of Revelation. Edited by David L. Barr. Society of Biblical Literature: Resources for Biblical Study 39. Atlanta: Scholars, 2006. Dumbrell, William J. The End of the Beginning. Homebush West: Lancer, 1985.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

359

________. The Faith of Israel: A Theological Survey of the Old Testament. 2d ed. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002. Du Preez, James. “Ancient Near Eastern Vassal Treaties and the Book of Revelation: Possible Links.” Religion in South Africa 2.2 (1981): 33–43. ________. “Mission Perspective in the Book of Revelation.” The Evangelical Quarterly 42 (1970): 152–67. Du Rand, Jan A. Johannine Perspectives. Part 1: Introduction to the Johannine Writings. Midrand: Orion, 1991. ________. “The Imagery of the Heavenly Jerusalem (Revelation 21:9–22:5).” Neotestamentica 22 (1988): 65–86. ________. “Your Kingdom come on Earth as It is in Heaven: The Theological Motif of the Apocalypse of John.” Neotestamentica 31 (1997): 59–75. Durham, John I. Exodus. Word Biblical Commentary 3. Dallas: Word, 1987. Düsterdieck, Friedrich. Critical and Exegetical Handbook to the Revelation of John. Translated from the 3d Edition of the German by Henry E. Jacobs. Funk & Wagnalls, 1884. Repr., 6th ed. Winona Lake: Alpha, 1979. Eichrodt, Walther. “Prophet and Covenant: Observations on the Exegesis of Isaiah.” Pages 167–88 in Proclamation and Presence: Old Testament Essays in Honour of Gwynne Henton Davies. Edited by John I. Durham and J. Roy Porter. Richmond: Knox, 1970. ________. “The Covenant and Law: Thoughts on Recent Discussion.” Interpretation 20 (1966): 302–21. ________. Theology of the Old Testament. 2 vols. Philadelphia: Knox, 1965–67. Ellingworth, Paul. “The Marturia Debate.” The Bible Translator 41.1 (1990): 138–9. Elliott, James S. Outlines of Greek and Roman Medicine. Boston: Longwood, 1978. Ellul, Jacques. Apocalypse: The Book of Revelation. Translated by George W. Schreiner. New York: Seabury, 1977. Enroth, Anne-Marit. “The Hearing Formula in the Book of Revelation.” New Testament Studies 36 (1990): 598–608. Fanning, Buist M. Verbal Aspect in New Testament Greek. Oxford: Oxford University, 1990. Farrer, Austin. The Revelation of St. John the Divine. Oxford: Clarendon, 1964.

360

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

Fee, Gordon and Douglas Stuart. How To Read The Bible For All Its Worth: A Guide to Understanding the Bible. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982. Fekkes III, Jan. Isaiah and Prophetic Traditions in the Book of Revelation: Visionary Antecedents and Their Development. JSNTSup 93. Sheffield: JSOT, 1994. Fensham, F. Charles. “Clauses of Protection in Hittite VassalTreaties and the Old Testament.” Vetus Testamentum 13 (1963): 133–43. ________. “Common Trends in Curses of the Near East: Treaties and Kudurru Inscriptions Compared with Maledictions of Amos and Isaiah.” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 75 (1963): 155–75. ________.” Covenant, Promise and Expectation in the Bible.” Theologische Zeitschrift 23 (1967): 305–22. ________. “Did a Treaty between the Israelites and the Kenites Exist?” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 175 (1964): 51–54. ________. “Malediction and Benediction in Ancient Near Eastern Vassal–Treaties and the Old Testament.” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 74 (1962): 1–9. ________. “The Treaty between Israel and the Gibeonites.” Biblical Archaeologist 27 (1964): 96–100. Feuillet, André. «Essai d’interprétation du chapitre xi de l’Apocalypse.» New Testament Studies 4 (1957–58): 183–200. ________. The Apocalypse. Translated by T. E. Crane. New York: Alba House, 1964. Finet, André. «Les dieux voyageurs en Mésopotamie.» Akkadica 21 (1981):1-13 Fink, Amir Sumaka’i. “The Historical Prologue in a Letter from Šuppiluliuma II to ‘Ammurapi’, King of Ugarit (RS 18.038).” Pages 673–88 in “I will Speak the Riddles of Ancient Times:” Archaeological and Historical Studies in Honor of Amihai mazar on the Occasion of His Sixtieth Birthday. Edited by Aren M. Maeir and Pierre de Miroschedji. Vol. 2 of 2. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2006. Finkelberg, Margalit. “Homer as a Foundation Text.” Pages 75–96 in Homer, the Bible and Beyond. Edited by Margalit Finkelberg and Guy G. Stroumsa. Jerusalem Studies in Religion and Cul-

BIBLIOGRAPHY

361

ture 2. Edited by Guy G. Stroumsa and David Shulman. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Fishbane, Michael. “The Treaty Background of Amos 1:11 and Related Matters.” Journal of Biblical Literature 89.3 (1970): 313– 18. Fohrer, Georg. “Alten Testaments –‘Amphiktyonie’ und ‘Bund’?” Theologische Literaturzeitung 91 (1966): 893–904. ________. Das Buch Jesaja. Zurcher Bibelkommentare. 2d ed. Zürich: Zwingli, 1966. ________. “Der Mittelpunkt einer Theologie des Alten Testaments.” Theologische Zeitschrift 24 (1968): 161–72. ________. History of Israelite Religion. Nashville: Parthenon, 1972. Ford, J. Massyngberde. Revelation: Introduction, Translation and Commentary. The Anchor Bible 38. New York: Doubleday, 1985. Fowler, Alastair. Kinds of Literature: An Introduction to the Theory of Genres and Modes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1982. Repr., Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987. France, Richard T. Matthew. The Tyndale New Testament Commentary Volumne 1. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988. Frankena, R. “The Vassal-Treaties of Esarhaddon and the Dating of Deuteronomy.” Oudtestamentische Studiën 14 (1965): 122–54. Frankfurter, David. “Jews or Not? Reconstructing the ‘Other’ in Rev 2:9 and 3:9.” Harvard Theological Review 94.4 (2001): 403– 25. Fraser, P. M. Ptolemaic Alexandria. 3 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1972. Frend, William H. C. Martyrdom and Persecution in the Early Church: A Study of a Conflict from the Maccabees to Donatus. Oxford: Blackwell, 1965. ________. “The Persecutions: Some Links between Judaism and the Early Church.” Journal of Ecclesiastical History 9 (1958): 141– 158. Friedrich, Johannes. Staatsverträrge des Hatti-Reiches. 2 vols. Hinrichs, Leipzig: 1926. Friesen, Steven J. “Ephesus: Key to a Vision in Revelation.” Biblical Archaeology Review 19 (1993): 24–37. ________. Imperial Cults and the Apocalypse of John: Reading Revelation in the Ruins. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001.

362

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

________. “Revelation, Realia, and Religion: Archaeology in the Interpretation of the Apocalypse.” Harvard Theological Review 88.3 (1995): 291–314. ________. “Sarcasm in Revelation 2–3: Churches, Christians, True Jews, and Satanic Synagogues.” Pages 127–46 in Reality of Apocalypse: Rhetoric and Politics in the Book of Revelation. Edited by David L. Barr.. Society of Biblical Literature: Resources for Biblical Study 39. Atlanta: Scholars, 2006. ________. Twice Neokoros. Vol. 116 of Religions in the Graeco-Roman World. Edited by R. Van Den Broek, H. J. W. Drijvers and H. S. Versnel. Leiden: Brill Academic, 1993. Fritz, Volkmar. The City in Ancient Israel. Sheffield: Academic, 1995. Fuller, Daniel P. Gospel and Law: Contrast or Continuum? Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980. Fusco, Vittorio. Parola e regno: La sezione delle parabole (Mc 4, 1-34) nella prospettiva marciana. Aloisiana 13; Brescia: Morcelliana, 1980. Gaffney, Edward McGlynn., Jr. “Of Covenants Ancient and New: The Influence of Secular Law on Biblical Religion.” Journal of Law and Religion 2.1 (1984): 117–44. Gager, John C. Kingdom and Community: The Social World of Early Christianity. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1975. ________. The Origins of Anti-Semitism. New York: Oxford University Press, 1983. Gangemi, A. “La stella del mattino (Apoc. 2,26–28).” Rivista Biblica Italiana 26 (1978): 241–74. Gardner, Paul. Review of Colin J. Hemer, The Letters to the Seven Churches of Asia in Their Local Setting. Churchman 101.3 (1987): 279–80. Geller, Mark J. “The Influence of Ancient Mesopotamia on Hellenistic Judaism.” Pages 43–54 in Civilizations of the Ancient Near East. 4 in 2 vols. Edited by Jack M. Sasson. Peabody: Hendrickson, 2000. ________. “West Meets East: Early Greek and Babylonian Diagnosis.” Pages 11–61 in Magic and Rationality in Ancient Near Eastern and Graeco-Roman Medicine. Edited by H. F. J. Horstmanshoff and Marten Stol. Vol. 27 of Studies in Ancient Medicine. Edited by John Scarborough, Philip J. van der Eijk, Ann Hanson, and Nancy Siraisi. Leiden: Brill, 2004.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

363

Gemser, Berend. The Importance of the Motive Clause in Old Testament Law. Vetus Testamentum Supplements 1. Leiden: Brill, 1953. ________. “The Rîb-or Controversy-Pattern in Hebrew Mentality.” Pages 120–137 in Wisdom in Israel and the Ancient Near East. Edited by M. Noth and D. Winton Thomas. Vol. 3 of Vetus Testamentum Supplements. Edited by G. W. Anderson, P. A. H. De Boer, M. Burrows, H. Cazelles, H. Hmmershaimb, M. Noth. Leiden: Brill, 1955. Gentry, Kenneth L., Jr. Before Jerusalem Fell: Dating the Book of Revelation. Tyler, Tex.: Institute for Christian Economics, 1989. George, Andrew R. The Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic: Introduction, Critical Edition and Cuneiform. 2 Vol. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003. Gerstenberger, Erhard. “Covenant and Commandment.” Journal of Biblical Literature 84 (1965): 38–51. ________. Review of D. J. McCarthy. Treaty and Covenant. Journal of Biblical Literature 83.2 (1964): 198–99. ________. Wesen und Herkunft des “apodiktischen Rechts.” Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1965. Giblin, Charles H. The Book of Revelation: The Open Book of Prophecy. Good News Studies 34. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 1991. Gibson, Elizabeth Leigh. “Jews in the Inscriptions of Smyrna.” Journal of Jewish Studies 56.1 (2005): 66–79. Goetze, Albrecht, Walter Otto, Hermann Bengtson, and Iwan von Müller. Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft, Bd.2, Kulturgeschichte Kleinasiens. Munich: Beck, 1974. Goldingay, John E. Daniel. Word Biblical Commentary. Vol 30. Dallas: Word, 1989. Goldstein, Jonathan A. Semites, Iranians, Greeks, and Romans: Studies in Their Interactions. Brown Judaic Studies 217. Atlanta: Scholars, 1990. Goodenough, Erwin R. “The Crown of Victory in Judaism.” Art Bulletin 28 (1946): 139–59. Gordon, Cyrus H. Homer and Bible: The Origin and Character of East Mediterranean Literature. Ventnor, NJ: Ventnor, 1967. ________. The Common Background of Greek and Hebrew Civilizations. New York: Norton & Co., 1965. Goulder, Michael D. “The Apocalypse as an Annual Cycle of Prophecies.” New Testament Studies 27.3 (1981): 342–67.

364

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

Govett, Robert. The Apocalypse Expounded by Scripture. London: Thynne, 1920. Gräbe, Petrus J. New Covenant, New Community: The Significance of Biblical and Patristic Covenant Theology for Contemporary Understanding. Bletchley, Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2006. Graham, David. “Revisiting Hippocrates: Does an Oath Really Matter?” Journal of the American Medical Association 284.22 (2000): 2841–2. Gräßer, Erich. Der Alte Bund im Neuen: Exegetische Studien zur Israelfrage im Neuen Testament. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 35. Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1985. Graves, David E. “Local References in the Letter to Smyrna (Rev 2: 8–11), Part 1: Archaeological Background.” Bible and Spade 18.4 (2005): 114–23. ________. “Local References in the Letter to Smyrna (Rev 2: 8– 11), Part 2: Historical Background.” Bible and Spade 19.1 (2006): 23–31. ________. “Local References in the Letter to Smyrna (Rev 2: 8– 11), Part 3: Jewish Background.” Bible and Spade 19.2 (2006): 41–47. ________. “Local References in the Letter to Smyrna (Rev 2: 8– 11), Part 4: Religious Background.” Bible and Spade 19.3 (2007): 88–96. Graves, Michael. “The Public Reading of Scripture in Early Judaism.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 50.3 (2007): 467–87. Gray, J. Joshua, Judges and Ruth. The New Century Bible Commentary. 3d ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986. Gresseth, Gerald K. “The Gilgamesh Epic and Homer.” Classical Journal 70 (1975): 1–18. Grové, André H. “Revelation 2 and 3–Uniformly Structured or Not?” Scriptura 73 (2000): 193–210. Gunkel, Hermann and Joachim Begrich. Einleitung in die Psalmen: die Gattungen der religiösen Lyric Israels. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1933. Hahn, Ferdinand. “Die Sendschreiben der Johannesapokalypse: Ein Beitrag zur Bestimmung Prophetischer Redeformen.” Pages 257–94 in Tradition und Glauben: Das frühe Christentum in seiner Umwelt. Edited by Karl Georg Kuhn, Gert Jermias,

BIBLIOGRAPHY

365

Heinz-Wolfgang Kuhn, Hartmut Stegemann. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1971. Hahn, Scott W. “Canon, Cult and Covenant: The Promise of Liturgical Hermeneutics.” Pages 207–35 in Canon and Biblical Interpretation. Edited by Craig G. Bartholomew, Scott Hahn, Robin Parry, Christopher Seitz and Al Wolters. Vol. 7 of Scripture and Hermeneutics Series. Edited by Craig G. Bartholomew and Anthony C. Thiselton. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006. ________. “Covenant in the Old and New Testaments: Some Current Research (1994–2004).” Currents in Biblical Research 3.2 (2005): 263–292. Hallo, William W. and K. Lawson Younger, Jr. eds. The Context of Scripture: Canonical Compositions, Monumental Inscriptions and Archival Documents from the Biblical World. 3 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1997–2002. Hanfmann, George M. A. “A ‘Hittite’ Priest from Ephesus.” American Journal of Archaeology 66.1 (1962), 1–4. Hanson, K. C., and Douglas E. Oakman, eds. Palestine in the Time of Jesus. Social Structures and Social Conflicts. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998. Hanson, Paul D. “Jewish Apocalyptic Against Its Near Eastern Environment.” Revue Biblique 78 (1971): 31–58. Hare, D. R. A. The Theme of Jewish Persecution of Christians in the Gospel According to St. Matthew. Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 6. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967. Harrelson, Walter. Interpreting the Old Testament. New York: Einehart & Winston, 1964. Harris, J. Rendel, “The Early Colonists of the Mediterranean.” Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library of Manchester 10 (1926): 300–340. Hartman, Lars. “Form and Message: A Preliminary Discussion of ‘Partial Texts’ in Rev 1–3 and 22, 6 ff.” Pages 129–49 in L’Apocalypse johannique et l’ Apocalyptique dans le Nouveau Testament. Edited by Jan Lambrecht. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1980. Harvey, Julien. «Le ‘RÎB-pattern’, réquisitoire prophétique sur la rupture de l’alliance.» Biblica 43.2 (1962): 172–96.

366

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

________. Le plaidoyer prophétique, contre Israël après la rupture de l’alliance : Etude d’une formule littéraire de l’Ancien Testament. Paris: Bruges, 1967. Hasel, Gerhard. Old Testament Theology: Basic Issues in the Current Debate. 4h Edition. Revised, Updated and Enlarged. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991. 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. ________. “The Problem of Apocalyptic Genre and the Apocalypse of John.” Page 13–64 in Early Christian Apocalypticism: Genre and Social Setting. Edited by Adela Yarbro Collins. Vol. 36 of Semeia. Edited by John Dominic Crossan. Decatur, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1986. Hellig, Jocelyn. The Holocaust and Anti-Semitism: A Short History. Oxford: OneWorld, 2003. Hemer, Colin J. “Seven Churches.” Pages 696–98 in A Dictionary of Biblical Tradition in English Literature. Edited by David Lyle Jeffrey. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992. ________. The Letters to the Seven Churches of Asia in their Local Setting. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989. ________. “Unto the Angels of the Churches.” Buried History 11 (1975): 4–27, 56–83, 110–35, 164–90. Hendriksen, William. More than Conquerors. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1982. Hengel, Martin. The Johannine Question. Philadelphia: Trinity, 1989. Hengstenberg, E. W. The Revelation of John. Translated by Patrick Fairbairn. 2 vols. Edinburgh: T& T Clark, 1852. Hester, James D. Paul’s Concept of Inheritance. Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd, 1968. Heyman, Carlo. “Homer on Coins from Smyrna.” Studia Paulo Naster Oblata 12 (1982): 161–74. Heyman, George. Review of Loren L. Johns, The Lamb Christology of the Apocalypse of John: An Investigation into Its Origins and Rhetorical Force. Review of Biblical Literature. http://www.bookreviews.org (2005). Hill, David. Gospel of Matthew. New Century Bible Commentary 1. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981. ________. New Testament Prophecy. Atlanta: Knox, 1979.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

367

________. “Prophecy and Prophets in the Revelation of St. John.” New Testament Studies 18 (1971–1972): 401–18. Hillers, Delbert R. Covenant: The History of a Biblical Idea. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1969. ________. Treaty-curses and the Old Testament Prophets. Biblica et orientalia 16. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1964. Hobart, William Kirk. The Medical Language of St. Luke. Reprint. Dublin: Hodges, Figgis, & Co.: 1882. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1954. Hoeksema, Herman. Behold, He Cometh: An Exposition of the Book of Revelation. Edited by Homer C. Hoeksema. Grand Rapids: Reformed Free Publishing Association, 1974. Hoffmann, Matthias R. The Destroyer and the Lamb: The Relationship between Angelomorphic and Lamb Christology in the Book of Revelation. Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 2005. Hoffner, Harry A., Jr. “Ancient Israel’s Literary Heritage Compared with Hittite Textual Data.” Pages 176–192 in The Future of Biblical Archaeology: Reassessing Methodologies and Assumptions. Edited by James K. Hoffmeier and Alan Millard. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004. Holladay, John S. “Assyrian Statecraft and the Prophets of Israel.” Harvard Theological Review 63 (1970): 29–52. Holladay, William L. “Jeremiah’s Lawsuit with God.” Interpretation 17.2 (1963): 280–87. ________. The Root SHUBH in the Old Testament: with Particular Reference to its Usages in Covenantal Contexts. Leiden: Brill, 1958. Holwerda, David E. Jesus and Israel: One Covenant or Two? Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995. Homcy, Stephen L. “To Him who Overcomes: A Fresh Look as What Victory Means for the Believer according to the Book of Revelation.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 38.2 (1995): 193–201. Horn, Friedrich W. “Zwischen der Synagoge des Satans und dem neuen Jerusalem: Die christlich-jüdische Standortbestimmung in der Apokalypse des Johannes.” Zeitschrift Für Religions- und Geistesgeschichte 46.2 (1994): 143–62. Horton, George. The Blight of Asia: An Account of the Systematic Extermination of Christian Populations by Mohammedans and of the Culpability of Certain Great Powers; with the True Story of the Burning of Smyrna. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1953.

368

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

Horton, Michael S. Covenant and Eschatology: The Divine Drama. London: Knox, 2002. Howard, George E. “Christ the End of the Law. The Meaning of Romans 10:4ff.” Journal of Biblical Literature 88 (1969): 331–37. Huffmon, Herbert B. “Prophecy in the Mari Letters.” Biblical Archaeologist 31 (1968): 101–24. ________. “The Covenant Lawsuit in the Prophets.” Journal of Biblical Literature 68 (1959): 285–95. ________. “The Treaty Background of Hebrew Yãda‘.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 181.1 (1966): 31–37. ________. and Simon B. Parker. “A Further Note on the Treaty Background of Hebrew Yãda‘.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 184.4 (1966): 36–38. Hugenberger, Gordon P. Marriage as Covenant: A Study of Biblical Law and Ethics Governing Marriage, Developed from the Perspective of Malachi. Vestus Testamentum Supplements, 52; Leiden: Brill: 1994. ________. “The Servant of the Lord in the ‘Servant Songs’ of Isaiah: A Second Moses Figure.” Pages 105–40 in The Lord’s Anointed: Interpretation of Old Testament Messianic Texts. Edited by Phillip E. Satterthwaite, Richard S. Hess and Gordon J. Wenham. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995. Hughes, Philip Edgcumbe. The Book of Revelation: A Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990. Hunter, A. M. Interpreting the Parables. London: SCM, 1960. Hurtado, L. W. “Revelation 4–5 in the Light of Jewish Apocalyptic Analogies.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 25 (1985): 105–24. Huxley, George L. Achaeans and Hittites. Belfast: Queens University Press, 1960. Jaubert, Annie. La notion d’alliance dans le Judaïsme aux abords de L'ère chrétienne. Patristica Sorbonensia 6. Paris: Seuil, 1963. Jenkins, Ferrell. The Old Testament in the Book of Revelation. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1972. Jeremias, Joachim. The Parables of Jesus. Translated by S. H. Hooke. London: SCM, 1958. Jobes, Karen and Moisés Silva. Invitation to the Septuagint. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2000. Johns, Loren L. The Lamb Christology of the Apocalypse of John: An Investigation into Its Origins and Rhetorical Force. Wissenschaftliche

BIBLIOGRAPHY

369

Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.167. Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 2004. Johnson, A. F. Hebrews—Revelation. 12 vols. The Expositor’s Bible Commentary 12. Edited by Frank E. Gaebelein. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1981. Jones, A. H. M. The Greek City: From Alexander to Justinian. Oxford: Clarendon, 1940. Judge, Edwin A. The Social Pattern of Christian Groups in the First Century: Some Prolegomena to the Study of New Testament Ideas of Social Obligation. London: Tyndale, 1960. Kaiser, Walter C., Jr. “The Centre of Old Testament Theology: The Promise.” Themelios 10 (1974): 1–10. Kalluveettil, Paul. Declaration and Covenant: A Comprehensive Review of Covenant Formulae from the Old Testament and the Ancient Near East. Analecta biblica 88. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1982. Kaplan, J. “Mesopotamian Elements in the Middle Bronze II Culture of Palestine.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 30.4 (1971): 293–307. Karavites, Peter (Panayiotis). Promise-giving and Treaty-making: Homer and the Near East. Mnemosyne Supplements 119. Leiden: Brill, 1992. Karrer, Martin. Die Johannesoffenbarung als Brief: Studien zu ihrem literarischen, historischen und theologischen Ort. Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten and Neuen Testaments 140.1. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986. Käsemann, Ernst. New Testament Questions of Today. London: SCM, 1969. Kautzsch, Emil. Biblische Theologie des Alten Testaments. Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1911. Kee, Howard Clark. “Defining the First-Century CE Synagogue.” New Testament Studies 41 (1995): 481–500. Keesmaat, Sylvia C. Paul and His Story: (Re)-interpreting the Exodus Tradition. Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series 181. Shefield: Sheffield Academic, 1999. Keil, C. F. Minor Prophets. 10 vols. Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament 10. Edited by C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch. Translated by James Martin, et al. 10 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977. Keil, Josef. “Ärzteinschriften aus Ephesos.” Jahreshefte des Österreichischen archäologischen Instituts 8 (1905): 128–38.

370

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

Kestemont, Guy. Diplomatique et droit internationale en Asie Occidentale (1600-1200 av. J.C.). Institut Orientaliste 9. Louvain-la-Neuve: Université Catholique de Louvain, 1974. Kiddle, Martin. The Revelation of St. John. 17 vols. The Moffatt New Testament Commentary 17. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1952. Kirby, John T. “The Rhetorical Situation of Revelation 1–3.” New Testament Studies 34.2 (1988): 197–207. Kistemaker, Simon J. Exposition of the Book of Revelation. 14 vols. New Testament Commentary 14. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001. ________. Exposition of the Epistle of James and the Epistles of John. 14 vols. New Testament Commentary 10. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1986. ________. The Parables of Jesus. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1980. Kitchen, Kenneth A. Ancient Orient and Old Testament. London: Tyndale, 1966. ________. “Egypt, Qatna, and Covenant.” Ugarit-Forschungen 11 (1979): 453–64. ________. On the Reliability of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003. ________. The Bible in its World. Exeter: Paternoster, 1977. ________. “The Fall and Rise of Covenant, Law and Treaty.” Tyndale Bulletin 40 (1989): 118–35. ________. “The Patriarchal Age: Myth or History?” Biblical Archaeology Review 21.2 (1995): 48–57, 89–95. Kline, Meredith G. “A Study in the Structure of the Revelation of John.” Unpublished paper given at Westminster Theological Seminary, 1945. ________. “Law Covenant.” Westminster Theological Journal 27 (1964): 1–20. ________. “The Correlation of the Concepts of Canon and Covenant.” Pages 265–79 in New Perspectives on the Old Testament. Edited by J. Barton Payne. Waco, TX: Word, 1970. ________. The Structure of Biblical Authority. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972. ________. Treaty of the Great King: The Covenant Structure of Deuteronomy: Studies and Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1963. Kloppenborg, John S. “The Theodotos Synagogue Inscription and the Problem of First-Century Synagogue Buildings.” Pages

BIBLIOGRAPHY

371

236–82 in Jesus and Archaeology. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006. Klose, Dietrich O. A. Die Münzprägung Von Smyrna in der Römischen Kaiserzeit. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1987. Knoppers, Gary N. “Ancient Near Eastern Royal Grants and the Davidic Covenant: A Parallel?” Journal of the American Oriental Society 116.4 (1996): 670. Knox, Mary. “Polyphemos and His Near Eastern Relations.” Journal of Hellenic Studies 99 (1979):164–5. Koch, Christoph. “Zwischen Hatti und Assur: Traditionsgeschichtliche Beobachtungen zu den aramäischen Inschriften von Sfire.” Pages 379–406 in Die deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerke: Redaktions- und religionsgeschichtliche Perspektiven zur “Deuteronomismus”–Diskussion in Tora und Vorderen Propheten. Edited by Marku Witte, Konrad Schmid, Doris Prechel, and Jan Christian Gertz. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 365. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2006. Koester, Helmut. “GNOMAI DIAPHORAI: The Origin and Nature of Diversification in the History of Early Christianity.” in Trajectories through Early Christianity. Edited by J. M. Robinson and H. Koester. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971. Kohler, Kaufmann. The Origins of the Synagogue and the Church. New York: MacMillan, 1929. Korošec, Viktor. Hethitische Staatsverträge: Ein Beitrag zu ihrer juristischen Wertung. Leipzig: Weicher, 1931. Kraabel, A. Thomas. “The Roman Diaspora: Six Questionable Assumptions.” Journal of Jewish Studies 33 (1982): 455–64. Kraft, Heinrich. Die Offenbarung des Johannes. Handbuch zum neuen Testament 16a. Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1974. ________. “Zur Offenbarung des Johannes.” Theologische Rundschau 38 (1973): 81–98. Krause, Wilhelm. “Griechische-orientalische Lehnwortbeziehungen.” Festschrift für Karl Vretska. Heidelberg: C. Winter, 1970. Krodel, Gerhard A. Revelation. Augsburg Commentary on the New Testament Series. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1989. Kupper, J. R. “Zimri-Lim et ses vassaux.” Pages 179–84 in Marchands, Diplomates et Empereurs, Etudes sur la civilisation mésopotamienne offertes à P. Garelli. Edited by D. Charpin and F. Joannès. Paris: Recherche sur la Civilisations, 1911.

372

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

Kutsch, Ernst. Verheißung und Gesetz: Untersuchungen zum sogenannten Bund im Alten Testament. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 13. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1973. Kwiran, Manfred. The Resurrection of the Dead. Exegesis of 1 Cor 15 in German Protestant Theology from F. C. Baur to W. Künneth. Basel: Kommission, 1972. Ladd, George Eldon. A Commentary on the Revelation of John. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972. ________. “Why Not Prophetic-Apocalyptic?” Journal of Biblical Literature 76 (1957): 192–200. Lambrecht, Jan. “Jewish Slander: A Note on Revelation 2:9–10.” Ephemerides theologicae lovanienses 75.4 (1999): 421–29. ________. “The Book of Revelation and Apocalyptic in the New Testament.” L’Apocalypse johannique et l’ Apocalyptique dans le NouveauTestament. Edited by J. Lambrecht. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1980. Lambrou-Philippson, C. Hellenorientalia: The Near Eastern Presence in the Bronze Age Aegean, C. 3000–1100 BC. Göteborg: Aström, 1990. Lane Fox, Robin J. Pagans and Christians. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 1987. Lane, William L. Commentary on the Gospel of Mark. 17 vols. The New International Commentary on the New Testament 2. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975. Laws, Sophie. A Commentary on the Epistle of James. 17 vols. Black’s New Testament Commentaries 13. London: A & C Black, 1980. Le Grys, Alan “Conflict and Vengeance in the Book of Revelation.” Expository Times 104 (1992): 76–80. Lee, Michelle V. “A Call to Martyrdom: Function as Method and Message in Revelation.” Novum Testamentum 40.2 (1998): 164– 91. Leivestad, Ragnar. Christ the Conqueror. London: SPCK, 1954. Lenski, R. C. H. The Interpretation of St. John’s Revelation. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1963. ________. The Interpretation of the Epistle to the Hebrews and The Epistle of James. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1966. Lesky, Albin. Geschichte der griechischen Literatur. Bern: Francke, 1971. Levenson, Jon D. Sinai and Zion: An Entry into the Jewish Bible. Minneapolis: Winston, 1985.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

373

Levine, Lee I. The Ancient Synagogue: The First Thousand Years, Second Edition. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2005. ________. “The Nature and Origin of the Palestinian Synagogue Reconsidered.” Journal of Biblical Literature 115.3 (1996): 425– 48. Levinson, Bernard M. “‘But You Shall Surely Kill Him!’: The TextCritical and Neo-Assyrian Evidence for MT Deuteronomy 13:10.” Pages 37–64 in Bundesdokument und Gesetz: Studien zum Deuteronomium. Edited by Georg Braulik. Herder's Biblical Studies 4. Freiburg: Herder, 1995. Lieu, Judith M. “Accusations of Jewish Persecution in Early Christian Sources, with Particular Reference to Justin Martyr and the Martyrdom of Polycarp.” Pages 279–95 in Tolerance and Intolerance in Early Judaism and Christianity. Edited by Graham N. Stanton and Gedaliahu A.G. Stroumsa. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998. Lightfoot, Joseph. B. The Epistle of St. Paul to the Galatians. London: Macmillan, 1865. Repr., Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1957. Lim, Timothy H. “Deuteronomy in the Judaism of the Second Temple Period.” Pages 6–26 in Deuteronomy in the New Testament: The New Testament and the Scriptures of Israel. Edited by Steve Moyise and Maarten J. J. Menken. The Library of New Testament Studies 358. London: T&T Clark, 2007. Limburg, James. “The Root byr and the Prophetic Lawsuit Speeches.” Journal of Biblical Literature 88 (1969): 291–304. Lincoln, Andrew T. Truth on Trial: The Lawsuit Motif in John’s Gospel. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2000. Lioy, Dan. The Book of Revelation in Christological Focus. Studies in Biblical Literature 58. Edited by Hemchand Gossai. New York: Peter Lang, 2003. Lohfink, Norbert L. Das Hauptgebot: eine Untersuchung literarischer Einleitungsfragen zu Dtn 5–11. Analecta biblica 20. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1963. ________. “Dtn 26,17–19 und die ‘Bundesformel’.” Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie 91 (1969): 517–53. Repr., Studien Zum Deuteronomium und Zur deuteronomistischen Literatur. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk (1990): 1: 211–61. Lohmeyer, Ernst. Die Offenbarung des Johannes. Handbuch zum neuen Testament 16. Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1926.

374

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

Lohse, Eduard. Die Offenbarung des Johannes. Neue Testament Deutsch 11. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1960. ________. “Synagogue of Satan and Church of God.” Svensk Exegetisk Årsbok 58 (1993): 105–23. Longenecker, Richard N. Paul: Apostle of Liberty. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1976. Lopez, René A. “Israelite Covenants in the Light of Ancient Near Eastern Covenants.” Chafer Theological Seminary Journal 9.4 (2003): 92–111; 10.4 (2004): 72–106. Loretz, Oswald. Die Wahrheit der Bibel. Freiburg: Herder, 1964. Lorton, David. The Juridical Terminology in International Relations in Egyptian Texts through Dynasty XVII. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, 1974. Lotz, John Paul. “The Homonoia Coins of Asia Minor and Ephesians 1: 21.” Tyndale Bulletin 50.2 (1999): 173–88. Lozer, Moshe. “The Lamb and the Scapegoat.” Pages 38–80 in Anti-Semitism in Times of Crisis. Edited by Sander L. Gilman and Steven T. Katz. New York: New York University Press, 1991. Lucas, E. C. “Covenant, Treaty, and Prophecy.” Themelios 8.1 (1982): 19–23. MacDonald, William G. Greek Enchiridion: A Concise Handbook of Grammar for Translation and Exegesis. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1986. MacLeod, David J. “The Lion Who is a Lamb: And Exposition of Revelation 5:1–7.” Bibliotheca Sacra 164 (2007): 323–40. Mach, Michael. Entwicklungsstadien des Jüdischen Engelglaubens in Vorrabbinischer Zeit. Texte und Studien zum antiken Judentum 34. Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1992. Magie, David. Roman Rule in Asia Minor, to the End of the Third Century After Christ. 2 vols. Roman History. Edited by T. James Luce. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1950. Repr., New York: Arno, 1975. Malina, Bruce J. and John Pilch, eds. Handbook of Biblical Social Values. Peabody, MA.: Hendrickson, 2000. Malina, Bruce J. On the Genre and Message of Revelation: Star Visions and Sky Journeys. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1995. ________. “Wealth and Poverty in the New Testament and Its World.” Interpretation 41 (1987): 356–67. Marcus, Joel. “Mark 4:10–12 and Marcan Epistemology.” Journal of Biblical Literature 103 (1984): 559–61.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

375

Marshall, Christopher D. Beyond Retribution: A New Testament Vision for Justice, Crime, and Punishment. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001. Marshall, I. Howard. St. Mark. Scripture Union Bible Study Books. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1967. ________. The Gospel of Luke: A Commentary on the Greek Text. 12 vols. The New International Greek Testament Commentary 2. Exoter: Paternoster, 1978. Marshall, John W. Parables of War: Reading John's Jewish Apocalypse. Studies in Christianity and Judaism. Studies in Christianity and Judaism/Études sur le christianisme et le judaïsme 10. Edited by Peter Richardson. Waterloo, Ont.: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 2001. Martin, Brice L. Christ and the Law in Paul. Leiden: Brill, 1989. Martin, Hugh. The Seven Letters. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1956. Masson, Emilia. Recherches sur les plus anciens emprunts sémitiques en grec. Paris: Klincksieck, 1967. Mathewson, David. “Assessing OT Allusions in the Book of Revelation.” Evangelical Quarterly 75.4 (2003): 311–25. ________. “Revelation in Recent Genre Criticism: Some Implications for Interpretation.” Trinity Journal 13 (1992): 193–213. Mayes, A. D. H. Deuteronomy. The New Century Bible Commentary. Grand Rapids: 1981. Mayo, Philip L. “Those Who Call Themselves Jews:” The Church and Judaisim in the Apocalypse of John. Princeton Theological Monograph Studies 60. Eugene: Pickwick, 2006. Not available for ILL in Canada. Mayor, Joseph B. The Epistle of Saint James: the Greek Text with Introduction, Notes and comments and Further Studies in the Episle of St James. 3d ed. New York: MacMillan, 1913. Repr., Minneapolis: Klock & Klock, 1977. Mazzaferri, Frederick D. Genre of the Book of Revelation from a SourceCritical Perspective. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1989. McArthur, Harvey. Understanding the Sermon on the Mount. New York: Harpers, 1960. McCarthy, Dennis J. “Covenant in the Old Testament: The Present State of Inquiry.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 27 (1965): 217–40. ________. “Notes on the Love of God in Deuteronomy and the Father-Son Relationship between Yahweh and Israel.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 27 (1965): 144–47.

376

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

________. Old Testament Covenant: A Survey of Current Opinions. Richmond: Knox, 1972. ________. Treaty and Covenant: A Study in the Ancient Oriental Documents and in the Old Testament. Rome: Biblical Institute, 1981. McConville, J. Gordon. Deuteronomy: Apollos Old Testament Commentary. Edited by David W. Baker and Gordon J. Wenham. Leicester: Apollos, 2002. McLay, R. Timothy. The Use of the Septuagint in New Testament Research. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003. Mealy, J. Webb. After the Thousand Years: Resurrection and Judgment in Revelation. Sheffield: JSOT, 1992. Meinardus, Otto F. A. St. John of Patmos and the Seven Churches of the Apocalypse. New York: Caratzas Brothers, 1979. Mendenhall, George E. “Covenant Forms in Israelite Tradition.” Biblical Archaeologist 17 (1954): 50–76. ________. Law and Covenant in Israel and the Ancient Near East. Pittsburgh: The Presbyterian Board of Colportage of Western Pennsylvania, 1955. ________. “Samuel’s ‘Broken Rîb’: Deuteronomy 32.” Pages 169– 80 in A Song of Power and the Power of Song: Essays on the Book of Deuteronomy. Edited by Duane L. Christensen. Sources for Biblical and Theological Study 3. Edited by David W. Baker. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1993. Merkelbach, Reinhold, “Der Griechische Wortchatz und die Christen.” Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 18 (1975): 108– 136. Metzger, Bruce M. “The Formulas Introducing Quotations of Scripture in the NT and the Midrash.” Journal of Biblical Literature 70.4 (1951): 297–307. Meyers, Eric M. “Early Judaism and Christianity in the Light of Archaeology.” Biblical Archaeologyist 51 (1988): 69–79. Michaels, J. Ramsey. Interpreting the Book of Revelation. Guides to New Testament Exegesis. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992. ________. Revelation. IVP New Testament Commentary Series. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1997. Michl, Johann. “Engel I-IX.” Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum 5 (1962): 53–258. Millar, Fergus. The Emperor in the Roman World. London: Duckworth, 1977.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

377

Millard, Alan R. “Covenant and Communion in First Corinthians.” Pages 242–48 in Apostolic History and the Gospel. Biblical and Historical Essays Presented to F.F. Bruce. Edited by W. Ward Gasque & Ralph P. Martin. Exeter: The Paternoster Press, 1970. ________. Reading and Writing in the Time of Jesus. New York: New York University Press, 2000. ________. “The Tablets in the Ark.” Pages 254–66 in Reading the Law: Studies in Honour of Gordon J. Wenham. Edited by J. Gordon McConville and Karl Möller. London: T&T Clark, 2007. Minear, Paul S. I saw a New Earth: An Introduction to the Visions of the Apocalypse. Washington: Corpus Books, 1968. Moffatt, James. The Revelation of St. John the Divine. Expositor’s Greek Testament 5. edited by W. Robertson Nicoll. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1910. Mondi, Robert. “Greek Mythic Thought in the Light of the Near East.” Pages 142–98 in Approaches to Greek Myth. Edited by L. Edmunds. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1990. Montague, George T. The Apocalypse. Ann Arbor: Servant, 1992. Moo, Douglas J. “Jesus and the Authority of the Mosaic Law.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 20 (1984): 3-49. ________. “‘Law’, ‘Works of the Law,’ and Legalism in Paul.” Westminster Theological Journal 45 (1983): 73–100. ________. The Epistle to the Romans. 17 vols. The New International Commentary on the New Testament 5. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996. Moran, William L. “The Ancient Near Eastern Background of the Love of God in Deuteronomy.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 25 (1963): 77–87. Moriarty, Frederick L. S. J. “Prophet and Covenant.” Gregorianum 46 (1965): 817–33. Morris, Leon. Apocalyptic. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984. ________. The New Testament and the Jewish Lectionaries. London: Tyndale, 1964. ________. The Revelation of St. John. 20 vols. Tyndale New Testament Commentary 20. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975. Morris, Sarah. “Daidalos and Kadmos: Classicism and ‘Orientalism.’”Arethusa (Special Issue) (1989): 39–54. Morton, Russell. Review of F. D. Mazzaferri, The Genre of the Book of Revelation from a Source-Critical Perspective. Catholic Biblical Quarterly 53 (1991): 143–144.

378

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

Moule, C. F. D. “Obligation in the Ethic of Paul.” Pages 389–406 in W. R. Farmer, C. F. D. Moule, and Reinhold R. Niebuhr, eds. Christian History and Interpretation: Studies Presented to John Knox. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967. Moulton, James H. Grammar of New Testament Greek, Volume 3: Syntax. Edinburgh: Clark, 1963. ________. “It is His Angel.” Journal of Theological Studies 3 (1902): 514–22. Mounce, Robert H. The Book of Revelation. 17 vols. The New International Commentary on the New Testament 17. Rev. ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998. Moyise, Steve and Maaten J. J. Menken, eds. Deuteronomy in the New Testament: The New Testament and the Scriptures of Israel. The Library of New Testament Studies 358. London: T&T Clark, 2007. Moyise, Steve. The Old Testament in the Book of Revelation. Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series 115. Sheffield: Academic, 1995. ________. The Old Testament in the New. New York: T&T Clark, 2001. Muhly, James D. “Black Athena versus Traditional Scholarship.” Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 3 (1990): 53–55, 83–110. ________. Review of Michael C. Astour., Hellenosemitica, an Ethnic and Cultural Study in West Semitic Impact on Mycenaean Greece. Journal of the American Oriental Society 85.4 (1965): 585–8. Mulholland, M. Robert, Jr. Revelation: Holy Living in an Unholy World. Grand Rapids: Francis Asbury, 1990. Müller, Ulrich B. Die Offenbarung des Johannes. Ökumenischer Taschenbuchkommentar zum Neuen Testament 19. Gütersloh: Mohn, 1984. ________. “Literarische und Formgeschichtliche Bestimmung der Apokalypse des Johannes als einem Zeugnis Frühchristlicher Apokalyptik.” Pages 601–41 in Apocalypticism in the Mediterranean World and the Near East: Proceedings of the International Colloquium on Apocalypticism, Uppsala. August 12–17, 1979. Edited by David Hellholm. Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1983. ________. Prophetie und Predigt im Neuen Testament: Formgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zur Urchristlichen Prophetie. Studien zum Neuen Testament 10. Gütersloh: Mohn, 1975.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

379

________. Zur Frühchristlichen Theologiegeschichte. Judenchristentum und Paulinismus in Kleinasien an der Wende vom ersten zum zweiten Jahrhundert nach Christus. Gütersloh: Mohn, 1976. Mullin, Redmond. The Wealth of Christians. Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 1984. Muntner, Süessman. “Sefer ha-Refuot.” Meqorot le-Toledot ha-Biologia. Edited by Frederick S. Bodenheimer. Jerusalem: Genizah, 1952. ________. Introduction to the Book of Assaph the Physician:The Oldest Existing Text of a Medical Book Written in Hebrew With Some Aphorismes Choosen From the Original Text According to All Available Mss. Jerusalem: Genizah, 1957. Muse, Robert L. “Revelation 2–3: A Critical Analysis of Seven Prophetic Messages.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 29.2 (1986): 147–61. Mussies, Gerald. The Morphology of Koine Greek as Used in the Apocalypse of St. John. Leiden: Brill, 1971. Musurillo, Herbert A. The Acts of the Christian Martyrs. Oxford: Clarendon, 1972. Neall, Beatrice S. The Concept of Character in the Apocalypse, with Implications for Character Education. Washington: University Press of America, 1983. Newman, Barclay M., Jr. Rediscovering the Book of Revelation. Valley Forge: Judson, 1968. Newman, Murray. Review of Meredith G. Kline, The Structure of Biblical Authority and Ernst Kutsch, Verheißung und Gesetz: Untersuchungen zum sogenannten Bund im Alten Testament. Journal of Biblical Literature 94.1 (1975): 117–18, 120. Nicholson, Ernest W. “Covenant in a Century of Study since Wellhousen.” Pages 78–93 in A Song of Power and the Power of Song: Essays on the Book of Deuteronomy. Edited by Duane L. Christensen. Sources for Biblical and Theological Study 3. Edited by David W. Baker. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1993. ________. Exodus and Sinai in History and Tradition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1973. ________. God and His People: Covenant and Theology in the Old Testament. Oxford: Clarendon, 1986. Niehaus, Jeffrey J. “Covenant: An Idea in the Mind of God.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 52.2 (2009): 225-46.

380

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

Nielsen, Kirsten. Yahweh as Prosecutor and Judge: An Investigation of the Prophetic Lawsuit (Rîb-Pattern). Translated by Frederick Cryer. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament. Supplement Series 9. Sheffield: University of Sheffield Press, 1978. Nolland, John. Luke 1–9:20. Word Biblical Commentary 35A. Dallas: Word, 1989. Nötscher, Friedrich. “Bundesformular und ‘Amtschimmel’: Ein kritischer Uberblick,” Biblische Zeitschrift 9 (1965) 181–214. North, R. “Angel-Prophet or Satan-Prophet.” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 82 (1970): 31–67. Nutton, Vivian. “Museums and Medical Schools in Antiquity.” History of Education 4.1 (1975): 3–15. O’Rourke, John J. “Roman Law and the Early Church.” Pages 165–86 in The Catacombs and the Colosseum: The Roman Empire as the Setting of Primitive Christianity. Edited by Stephen Benko and John J. O’Rourke. Valley Forge: Judson, 1971. Oeconomos, Lysimachos. The Martyrdom of Smyrna and Eastern Christendom: A File of Overwhelming Evidence, Denouncing the Misdeeds of the Turks in Asia Minor and Showing their Responsibility for the Horrors of Smyrna. London: George Allen & Unwin, 1922. Osborne, Grant R. Revelation. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. New York: Baker Academic, 2002. ________. The Hermeneutical Spiral: A Comprehensive Introduction to Bible Interpretation. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1991. Otto, Eckart. “Die Ursprünge der Bundestheologie im Alten Testament und im Alen Orient.” Zeitschrift für altorientalische und biblische Rechtsgeschichte 4 (1998): 1–84. Pakkala, Juha. “Der literar- und religionsgeschichtliche Ort von Deuteronomium 13.” Pages 125–37 in Die deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerke: Redaktionsund religionsgeschichtliche Perspektiven zur “Deuteronomismus”–Diskussion in Tora und Vorderen Propheten. Edited by Marku Witte, Konrad Schmid, Doris Prechel, and Jan Christian Gertz. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 365. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2006. Pao, David W. Acts and the Isaianic New Exodus. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2000. Parez, C. H. “The Seven Letters and the Rest of the Apocalypse.” The Journal of Theological Studies 12 (1911): 284–86.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

381

Park, Hyung Dae. Finding Herem? A Study of Luke-Acts in Light of Herem. Library of New Testament Studies 357. Edited by Mark Goodacre. London: T&T Clark, 2007. Parpola, Simo. “The Assyrian Tree of Life: Tracing the Origins of Jewish Monotheism and Greek Philosophy.” Journal of Eear Eastern Studies 52 (1993) 161–208. Pasinya, Laurent Monsengwo. La notion de nomos dans le pentateuque grec. Analecta orientalia 52. Rome: Biblical Institute, 1973. Repr. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2005. Patrick, Dale. Old Testament Law. Atlanta: Knox, 1985. Paul, Shalom M. “Heavenly Tablets and the Book of Life.” Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society of Columbia University 5 (1973): 345–53. Perlitt, Lothar. Bundestheologie im Alten Testaments. Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament 36. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1971. Perrot, Charles. “The Reading of the Bible in the Ancient Synagogue.” Pages 137–59 in Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity. Edited by Martin Mulder and Harry Sysling. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988. Pilhofer, Peter. “The Early Christian Community of Smyrna— Smyrna in the New Testament and Beyond.” Paper presented at the First International Symposium on Ancient Smyrna, Izmir. July 23, 2003. Pines, Shlomo. “The Oath of Asaph the Physician and Yohanan Ben Zabda. Its Relation to the Hippocratic Oath and the Doctrina Duarum Viarum of the Didache.” Proceedings of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities 9 (1975): 223–64. Plumptre, Edward H. 1 & 2 Timothy. A Popular Commentary on the New Testament by English and American Scholars of Various Evangelical Denominations. Edited by Philip Schaff. New York: Scribner's, 1879–1883. Poirier, Léandre. L'Eglise dan l'Apocalypse. Montreal: Publication des Facultés S. J. de Montreal, 1962. Porada, Edith. “Greek Coin Impressions from Ur.” Iraq 22 (1960): 228–34. Porter, Stanley E. and Jacqueline C. R. de Roo, eds. The Concept of the Covenant in the Second Temple Period. Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 71: Leiden: Brill, 2003.

382

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

Price, Martin J. and Trell, Bluma L. Coins and Their Cities: Architecture on the Ancient Coins of Greece, Rome, and Palestine. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1977. Price, S. R. F. Rituals and Power: The Roman Imperial Cult in Asia Minor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984. Priest, John F. “Orkia in the Iliad and Consideration of a Recent Theory.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 23.1 (1964): 48–56. Prigent, Pierre. Apocalypse et Liturgie. Cahiers théologiques 52. Paris: Delachaux et Niestlé, 1964. ________. L’Apocalypse de Saint Jean. 14 vols. Commentaire du Nouveau Testament 14. Lausanne: Delachaux et Niestlé, 1981. Räisänen, Heikki. “Das ‘Gesetz des Glaubens’ (Rom 3:27) und des ‘Gesetz des Geistes’ (Rom 8:2).” New Testament Studies 26 (1980): 101–17. ________. Die Parabeltheorie im Markusevangelium. Publications of the Finnish Exegetical Society 26. Helsinki: Finnish Exegetical Society, 1973. ________. Paul and the Law. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983. ________. The ‘Messianic Secret’ in Mark. Translated by Christopher Tuckett. Edinburgh: T& T Clark, 1990. Ramsay, William M. Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia. 2 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1895. ________. The Letters to the Seven Churches. Updated Edition. Edited by Mark W. Wilson. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1994. Rapske, Brian. The Book of Acts in its First Century Setting: The Book of Acts and Paul in Roman Custody. Vol 3. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994. Ratzinger, Joseph C. “The New Covenant: On the Theology of the Covenant in the New Testament.” Pages 47–77 in Many Religions—One Covenant. San Francisco: Ignatius, 1999. Rea, J. R. “Joshua.” in Charles F. Pfeiffer and E. R. Harrison, eds. The Wycliffe Bible Commentary. Chicago: Moody, 1962. Reed, Jeffrey T. “The Cohesiveness of Discourse: Toward a Model of Linguistic Criteria for Analyzing New Testament Discourse.” Pages 28–46 in Discourse Analysis and the New Testament: Approaches and Results. Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series 170. Studies in New Testament Greek 4. Edited by Stanley E. Porter and Jeffrey T. Reed. Sheffield: Academic, 1999.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

383

Reichelt, Hansgünter. Angelus interpres: Texte in der JohannesApokalypse. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1994. Rendtorff, Rolf. The Covenant Formula: An Exegetical-Theological Investigation. Translated by Margaret Kohl. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998. Ridderbos, Hermon N. The Coming of the Kingdom. Philadelphia: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1962. Rigaux, Béda. «Révélation des mystères et perfection à Qumran et dans le Nouveau Testament.» New Testament Studies 4 (1957– 1958): 237–62. Roberts, J. H. “A Letter to Seven Churches in the Roman Province of Asia.” Pages 17–35 in Reading Revelation. Edited by J. E. Botha, P. G. R. Villiers, and J. Engelbrecht. Pretoria: van Schaik, 1988. Roberts, Richard. “The Tree of Life (Rev 2:7).” The Expository Times 25 (1913–1914): 332. Robertson, A. T. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research. Nashville: Broadmen, 1934. ________. Word Pictures in the New Testament: The General Epistles and the Revelation of John. 6 vol. Nashville: Broadmen, 1934. Robertson, O. Palmer. Covenants: God’s Way with His People. Philadelphia: Great Commission Publications, 1987. ________. The Final Word. Carlisle: Banner of Truth Trust, 1997. Rofé, Alexander. “The Covenant in the Land of Moab (Deuteronomy 28:69–30:20): Historico-Literary, Comparative, and Formcritical Considerations.” Pages 269–80 in A Song of Power and the Power of Song: Essays on the Book of Deuteronomy. Edited by Duane L. Christensen. Sources for Biblical and Theological Study 3. Edited by David W. Baker. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1993. Rogers, Cleon L., Jr. “The Covenant with Abraham and Its Historical Setting.” Bibliotheca sacra 127 (1970): 241–56. ________. “The Covenant with Moses and Its Historical Setting.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 14.3 (1971):141–55. Roloff, Jürgen. The Revelation of John. A Continental Commentary. Translated by John E. Alsup. Zurich: Theological, 1984; Repr., Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993. Ropes, James Hardy. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle of James. International Critical Commentary Series. 1916. Repr., Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1954.

384

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

Rosenthal, Franz. “An Ancient Commentary on the Hippocratic Oath.” Bulletin of the History of Medicine 30 (1991): 52–87. Ross, Alexander. The Epistles of James and John. 17 vols. The New International Commentary on the New Testament 13. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1967. Rosscup, James E. “The Overcomer in the Apocalypse.” Grace Theological Journal 3.2 (1982): 261–86. Rowland, Christopher. “Apocalypse, Prophecy and the New Testament.” Pages 149–66 in Knowing the End from the Beginning: The Prophetic, the Apocalyptic and their Relationships. Edited by Lester L. Grabbe and Robert D. Haak. Vol. 46 of Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha Supplement Series. Edited by Lester L. Grabbe and James H. Charlesworth. Sheffield: Academic, 2003. Royalty, Robert M. Review of Loren L. Johns, The Lamb Christology of the Apocalypse of John: An Investigation into Its Origins and Rhetorical Force. Review of Biblical Literature. http://www.bookreviews .org (2005). ________. The Ideology of Wealth in the Apocalypse of John. Macon: Mercer University Press, 1998. Rudberg, Gunnar. “Zu den Sendschreiben der JohannesApokalypse.” Eranos 11 (1911): 170–79. Rushdoony, Rousas John. Thy Kingdom Come: Studies in Daniel and Revelation. Fairfax, Va.: Thoburn, 1970. Russell, James Stuart. The Parousia: The New Testament Doctrine of Christ’s Second Coming. London: T. Fisher Unwin,1887. Repr. Bradford, Penn: International Preterist Association, 2003. Rüterswörden, Udo. “Die Liebe zu Gott im Deuteronomium.” Pages 229–38 in Die deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerke: Redaktionsund religionsgeschichtliche Perspektiven zur “Deuteronomismus”– Diskussion in Tora und Vorderen Propheten. Edited by Marku Witte, Konrad Schmid, Doris Prechel, and Jan Christian Gertz. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 365. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2006. Safrai, S. “The Synagogue.” Pages 908–44 in The Jewish People in the First Century. Section 2. Edited by Y. Aschkenasy. Vol. 2 of Compendia rerum iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976. Sanders, Edward P. Judaism: Practice and Belief, 63 B. C. E.–66 C. E. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1992.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

385

________. Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977. Sanders, James A. Torah and Canon. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1972. Sanders, Jack T. Review of Carl J. Bjerkelund, Parakalo. Form, Funktion und Sinn der parakalo-Satze in den paulinschen Briefen. Journal of the American Academy of Religion 37.1 (1969): 89–90, 92. Sandmel, Samuel. Judaism and Christian Beginnings. New York: Oxford University Press, 1978. ________. “Parallelomania.” Journal of Biblical Literature 81 (1962): 1–13. Schadewalt, Wolfgang. Legende von Homer dem fahrenden Sänger, Ein altgriechisches Volksbuch. Leipzig: Artemis, 1942. ________. Von Homers Welt und Werk. Aufsätze und Anlegungen zur Homerischen Frage. Stuttgart: Koehler, 1965. Schaff, Philip. History of the Christian Church. 4 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1963. Schlatter, Adolf. The History of the Christ: The Foundation of New Testament Theology. Trans. Andreas J. Köstenberger. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1997. Schreiner, Thomas R. The Law and Its Fulfillment: A Pauline Theology of Law. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1993. Schürer, Emil. The History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ. 3 vols. Revised and edited by Geza Vermes, Fergus Milar, and Martin Goodman. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1973–1987. Schüssler Fiorenza, Elisabeth. “Apokalypsis and Propheteia: The Book of Revelation in the Context of Early Christian Prophecy.” Pages 105–28 in L’Apocalypse johannique et l’ Apocalyptique dans le Nouveau Testament. Edited by J. Lambrecht. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1980. ________. “Composition and Structure of the Revelation of John.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 39 (1977): 364–5. ________. Revelation: Vision of a Just World. Proclamation Commentaries. Edited by Gerhard Krodel. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991. ________. The Book of Revelation: Justice and Judgment. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985. Scobie, Charles H. H. “Local References in the Letters to the Seven Churches.” New Testament Studies 39.4 (1993): 606–24. Scott, R. B. Y. “The Literary Structure of Isaiah’s Oracles.” Pages in 179–186 in Studies in Old Testament Prophecy. Edited by H. H. Rowley. Edinburgh: T& T Clark, 1950.

386

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

________. The Original Language of the Apocalypse. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1928. Scott, Walter. Exposition of the Revelation of Jesus Christ. Westwood, NJ: Revell, 1968. Scroggs, Robin “The Sociological Interpretation of the New Testament: The Present State of Research.” New Testament Studies 26 (1980): 164–79. Segal, Alan F. “Torah and nomos in Recent Scholarly Discussion.” Studies in Religion 13 (1984): 19–27. Shea, William H. “The Covenantal Form of the Letters to the Seven Churches.” Andrews University Seminary Studies 21 (1983): 71–84. Sider, John W. “The Meaning of Parabole in the Usage of the Synoptic Evangelists.” Biblica 62 (1981): 453–70. Silberman, Lou H. “Farewell to O AMHN: A Note on Rev 3: 14.” Journal of Biblical Literature 82 (1963): 213–15. Silberschlag, E. “The Earliest Record of Jews in Asia Minor.” Journal of Biblical Literature 52 (1933): 66–77. Silva, Moisés. “Is the Law Against the Promises? The Significance of Galatians 3: 21 for Covenant Continuity.” Pages 153–67 in Theonomy: A Reformed Critique. Edited by William S. Barker and W. Robert Godfrey. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990. Simcox, William Henry. Revelation of St. John the Divine. The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges. Edited by J. J. S. Perowne. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1890. Sinclair, Lawrence A. “The Courtroom Motif in the Book of Amos.” Journal of Biblical Literature 85.3 (1966): 351–53. Singer, Itamar. “Hittites and the Bible Revisited.” Pages 723–56 in “I will Speak the Riddles of Ancient Times:” Archaeological and Historical Studies in Honor of Amihai mazar on the Occasion of His Sixtieth Birthday. Edited by Aren M. Maeir and Pierre de Miroschedji. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2006. Skeat, T. C. and E. G. Turner. “An Oracle of Hermes Trismegistos at Saqqara.” Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 54 (1968): 199–208. Slaten, A. Wakefield. “The Qualitative Use of no,moj in the Pauline Epistles.” American Journal of Theology 23 (1919): 213–18. Sleeper, C. Freeman. The Victorious Christ: A Study of the Book of Revelation. Louisville: Knox, 1996.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

387

Smalley, Stephen S. “John’s Revelation and John’s Community.” Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library of Manchester 69 (1987): 564–5. ________. The Revelation to John: A Commentary on the Greek Text of the Apocalypse. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2005. ________. Thunder and Love: John’s Revelation and John’s Community. Milton Keynes, England: Word, 1994. Smallwood, E. Mary. Jews Under Roman Rule: From Pompey to Diocletian. Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity 20. Leiden: Brill, 1976. Smend, Rudolf. Die Bundesformel. Theologische Studiën 68. Zürich : EVZ, 1963. Smith, Ralph L. Old Testament Theology: Its History, Method, and Message. Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1993. Spicq, Ceslas. «Nouvelles réflexions sur la théologie biblique.» Revue des Sciences Philosophiques et Théologiques 42 (1958): 212–15. Spitta, Friedrich. Die Offenbarung von Johannes. Halle: Waisenhaus, 1889. Stauffer, Ethelbert. Christ and the Caesars: Historical Sketches. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1955. Stengel, Paul. Die griechischen Kultusaltertümer. Munich: Beck, 1920. Stern, David. Jewish New Testament Commentary. Chandler, AZ: Messianic Jewish Resources International, 1992. Stern, Philip D. The Biblical êrem: A Window on Israel’s Religious Experience. Brown Judaic Studies 211; Atlanta: Scholars, 1991. Stevenson, Gregory M “Conceptual Background to Golden Crown Imagery in the Apocalypse of John.” Journal of Biblical Literature 114.2 (1995): 257–72. Stewart, Zeph. “Greek Crowns and Christian Martyrs.” Pages 119– 24 in Mémorial André-Jean Festugière: Antiquité païenne et chrétienne. Edited by E. Lucchesi and H. D. Saffrey. Genevea: Cramer, 1984. Steymans, Hans Ulrich. Deuteronomium 28 und adê zur Thronfolgeregelung Asarhaddons: Segen und Fluch im Alten Orient und in Israel. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 145. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1995. ________. “Die literarische und historische Bedeutung der Thronfolgevereidigungen Asarcaddons.” Pages 331–49 in Die deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerke: Redaktionsund religionsgeschichtliche Perspektiven zur “Deuteronomismus”–Diskussion in Tora und Vorde-

388

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

ren Propheten. Edited by Marku Witte, Konrad Schmid, Doris Prechel, and Jan Christian Gertz. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 365. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2006. ________. “Eine assyrische Vorlage fur Deuteronomium 28,20– 44.” Pages 119–41 in Bundesdokument und Gesetz: Studien zum Deuteronomium. HBS 4. Edited by Georg Braulik. Freiburg: Herder, 1995. Stol, Marten. “An Assyriologist Reads Hipppocrates.” Pages 63–78 in Magic and Rationality in Ancient Near Eastern and Graeco-Roman Medicine. Edited by H. F. J. Horstmanshoff and Marten Stol. Vol. 27 of Studies in Ancient Medicine. Edited by John Scarborough, Philip J. van der Eijk, Ann Hanson, and Nancy Siraisi. Leiden: Brill, 2004. Stonehouse, Ned B. The Apocalypse in the Ancient Church. Goes, Holland: Oosterbaan & Le Cointre, 1929. Strand, Kenneth A “A Further Note on the Covenantal Form in the Book of Revelation.” Andrews University Seminary Studies 21 (1983): 251–64. ________. “‘Overcomer’: A Study in the Macro-dynamic of Theme Development in the Book of Revelation.” Andrews University Seminary Studies 28 (1990): 237–54. Stuart, Moses. A Commentary on the Apocalypse. 2 Vol. Andover: Allen, Morrill and Wardwell, 1845. Repr., Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2001. Stuckenbruck, Loren T. Angel Veneration and Christology: A Study in Early Judaism and the Christology of the Apocalypse of John. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.70. Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1995. ________. “Revelation.” Pages 1535–72 in Eerdmans Commentary on the Bible. Edited by James D. G. Dunn and John W. Rogerson. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003. Sundberg, Albert C “The OT in the Early Church. A Study in Canon.” Harvard Theological Review 51. 4 (1958): 205–26. Sutton, Ray R. That You May Prosper: Dominion by Covenant. Tyler, Tex.: Institute for Christian Economics, 1987. Sweet, John P. M Revelation. 2d ed. Trinity Press International New Testament Commentaries. London: SCM, 1979. Swete, Henry Barclay. The Apocalypse of St. John. London: Macmillan, 1906; Repr., Eugene, Or: Wipf & Stock, 1999.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

389

Tait, Andrew. The Messages to the Seven Churches of Asia Minor: An Exposition of the First Three Chapters of the Book of Revelation. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1884. Tannenbaum, Robert F “The God-Fearers: Did They Exist? Jews and God-Fearers in the Holy City of Aphrodite.” Biblical Archaeology Review 12.5 (1986): 54–57. Tasker, R. V. G. The General Epistle of James. 20 vols. Tyndale New Testament Commentary 16. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983. Theobald, Michael. “Zwei Bünde und ein Gottesvolk.” Theologische Quartalschrift 176 (1996): 309–25. Thielman, Frank. Paul and The Law: A Contextual Approach. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1994. Thiselton, Anthony C. “The Supposed Power of Words in the Biblical Writings.” Journal of Theological Studies 25 (1974): 283–99. Thomas, Robert L. “Chronological Interpretation of Revelation 2– 3.” Bibliotheca Sacra 124.496 (1967): 321–31. ________. “Literary Genre and Hermeneutics of the Apocalypse.” The Master’s Seminary Journal 2.1 (1991): 79–92. ________. Revelation 1–7: An Exegetical Commentary. Edited by Kenneth Barker. Chicago: Moody, 1992. Thompson, John A. Deuteronomy. Tyndale Old Testament Commentary 5. Edited by Donald J. Wiseman. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1979. ________. The Ancient Near Eastern Treaties and the Old Testament. London: Tyndale, 1964. ________. “The Near Eastern Suzerain-Vassal Concept in the Religion of Israel.” Journal of Religious History 3 (1964): 1–19. Thompson, Leonard L. “A Sociological Analysis of Tribulation.” Pages 147–74 in Early Christian Apocalypticism: Genre and Social Setting. Edited by Adela Yarbro Collins. Vol. 36 of Semeia. Edited by John Dominic Crossan. Decatur, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1986. ________. Revelation. Abingdon New Testament Commentaries 37. London: Abingdon, 1998. ________. The Book of Revelation: Apocalypse and Empire. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990. Tigay, Jeffrey H “On Evaluating Claims of Literary Borrowing.” Pages 250–55 in The Tablet and the Scroll. Near Eastern Studies in Honor of William W. Hallo. Edited by Mark Cohen, Daniel C.

390

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

Snell, and David B. Weisberg. Bethesda MD: Capital Decisions, 1993. Tilly, Michael. “Deuteronomy in Revelation.” Pages 169–224 in Deuteronomy in the New Testament: The New Testament and the Scriptures of Israel. Edited by Steve Moyise and Maarten J. J. Menken. The Library of New Testament Studies 358. London: T&T Clark, 2007. Torrey, Charles C. The Apocalypse of John. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1958. Tov, Emanuel. “The Septuagint.” Pages 161–87 in Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity. Edited by Martin Mulder and Harry Sysling. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988. Trebilco, Paul R. Jewish Communities in Asia Minor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991. Trench, Richard C. Commentary on the Epistles to the Seven Churches of Asia. 2d ed. London: Parker, Son & Bourn, 1861. Trites, Alison A “Ma,rtuj and Martyrdom in the Apocalypse. A Semantic Study.” Novum Testamentum 15.1 (1973): 72–80. ________. The New Testament Concept of Witness. Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 31. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977. Trudinger, L. Paul, “O AMHN: (Rev 3: 14) and the Case for a Semitic Original of the Apocalypse.” Novum Testamentum 14 (1972): 277–79. ________. “Some Observations Concerning the Text of the Old Testament in the Book of Revelation.” Journal of Theological Studies 17 (1966): 82–88. Tsevat, Matitiahu. “The Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian Vassal Oaths and the Prophet Ezekiel.” Journal of Biblical Literature 78 (1959): 199–204. Tucker, Gene M “Covenant Forms and Contract Forms.” Vetus Testamentum 15.4 (1965): 487–503. Tupper, E. Frank. “The Revival of Apocalyptic in Biblical and Theological Studies.” Review and Expositor 72.3 (1975): 279– 303. Twiss, Travers, ed. The Black Book of the Admiralty: With an Appendix. Rerum Britannicarum Medii Aevi Scriptores. 4 vols. Abingdon: Professional Books, 1985.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

391

Ullendorff, Edward. “Ugaritic Studies within their Semitic and Eastern Mediterranean Setting.” Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library of Manchester 46 (1963): 236–49. Unger, Merrill F. Archaeology and the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1962. Urman, Dan and P. V. M. Flesher, eds. Ancient Synagogues: Historical Analysis and Archaeological Discovery. Studia Post Biblica. Leiden: Brill, 1998. van den Eynde, Sabine. “Covenant Formula and Bryt: The Links between a Hebrew Lexeme and a Biblical Concept.” Old Testament Essays 12 (1999): 122–148. van der Eijk, Philip J “Divination, Prognosis and Prophylaxis: The Hippocratic Work ‘On Dreams’ (De Victu 4) and Its Near Eastern Background.” Pages 187–218 in Magic and Rationality in Ancient Near Eastern and Graeco-Roman Medicine. Edited by H. F. J. Horstmanshoff and Marten Stol. Vol. 27 of Studies in Ancient Medicine. Edited by John Scarborough, Philip J. van der Eijk, Ann Hanson, and Nancy Siraisi. Leiden: Brill, 2004. van der Horst, P. W “Jews and Christians in Aphrodisias in the Light of their Relations in Other Cities of Asia Minor.” Nederlands theologisch tijdschrift 43 (1989): 106–107. van der Waal, Cornelis. The Covenantal Gospel. Edited by H. DeJong. Translated by G. L. Bertram. Neerlandia, Alberta: Inheritance Publications, 1990. van Dülmen, Andrea. Die Theologie des Gesetzes bei Paulus. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1968. van Unnik, Willem C. “A Formula Describing Prophecy.” New Testament Studies 9 (1962–1963): 86–94. Vance, Watrous L. “Late Bronze Age Kommos: Imported Pottery as Evidence for Foreign Contact.” Scripta Mediterranea 6 (1985): 7-18. Pages 7–11. Vanhoye, Albert. Old Testament Priests and the New Priest According to the New Testament. Petersham, MA: St. Bede’s, 1986. Vanni, Ugo. “Liturgical Dialogue as a Literary Form in the Book of Revelation.” New Testament Studies 37 (1991): 348–72. Vassiliadis, Petros. “The Translation of MARTURIA IHSOU in Revelation.” The Bible Translator 36.1 (1985): 129–34. Vawter, Bruce. The Conscience of Israel. New York: Sheed & Ward, 1961.

392

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

Veatch, Robert M. and Carol G. Mason. “Hippocratic vs. JudeoChristian Medical Ethics: Principles in Conflict.” The Journal of Religious Ethics 15.2 (1987): 86–105. Vermeule, Emily. Greece in the Bronze Age. Chicago: University of Chicago, 1972. von Rad, Gerhard. Deuteronomy: A Commentary. Old Testament Library. 2d ed. Atlanta: Knox, 1966 . ________. Old Testament Theology. Translated by D. M. G. Stalker. 2 vols. New York: Harper & Row, 1962. ________. The Problem of the Hexateuch and Other Essays. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1966. ________. Theologie des Alten Testaments. 2 vols. 6th Edition. Munich: Auflage, 1975. von Schuler, E. “Sonderformen hethitischer Staatsvertäge.” Jahrbuch für kleinasiatische Forschung 2 (1965): 445–64. von Staden, Heinrich, ed. Herophilus: The Art of Medicine in Early Alexandria: Edition, Translation and Essays. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. ________. “Liminal Perils: Early Roman Receptions of Greek Medicine.” Pages 369–418 in Tradition, Transmission, Transformation. Edited by F. Jamil Ragep, Sally P. Ragep and Steven Livesey. Leiden: Brill, 1996. Vonk, Cornelis. Inleiding op de profeten. Jozua. Barendrecht: De Voorzeide Leer, 1972. Vos, Geerhardus. “The Doctrine of the Covenant in Reformed Theology.” Pages 234–67 in Redemptive History and Biblical Interpretation. Edited by Richard B. Gaffin, Jr. Phillipsburg, N.J.: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1980. Walcot, Peter. Éléments orientaux dans la religion grecque ancienne. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1960. ________. Hesiod and the Near East. Cardiff: University of Wales, 1966. ________. Les syncretismes dans les religions de l’antiquité. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1975. Waldbaum, Jane C “Greeks in the East or Greeks and the East? Problems in the Definition and Recognition of Presence.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 305 (1997): 1–17. ________. and Jodi Magness. “The Chronology of Early Greek Pottery: New Evidence from Seventh-Century B. C. Destruc-

BIBLIOGRAPHY

393

tion Levels in Israel.” American Journal of Archaeology 101.1 (1997): 23–40. Wall, Robert W. Revelation. New International Biblical Commentary. Edited by W.Ward Gasque. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2002. Wallis, G. “Torah and Nomos: Zur Frage nach Gesetz und Heil.” Theologische Literaturzeitung 105 (1980): 321–32. Walton, John H. Ancient Israelite Literature in its Cultural Context: A Survey of Parallels between Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern Texts. Library of Biblical Interpretation. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990. ________. Covenant: God’s Purpose, God’s Plan. Grand Rapids: Zondervan: 1994. Walvoord, John F. “Law in the Epistle to the Romans.” Bibliotheca sacra 93 (1937):15–30. ________. Revelation. The Bible Knowledge Commentary. Edited by Roy B. Zuck. Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1983. Warden, Duane. “Imperial Persecution and the Dating of First Peter and Revelation.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 34.2 (1991): 203–12. Warnach, V. Agape: Die Liebe als Grundmotiv der Neutestamentlichen Theologie. Düsseldorf: Patmos, 1951. Watts, Rikki E. Isaiah’s New Exodus in Mark. Tübingen, MohrSiebeck, 1997. Weeks, Noel. Admonition and Curse: The Ancient Near Eastern Treaty/Covenant Form as a Problem in Inter-Cultural Relationships. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2004. Weinfeld, Moshe. “‘Bond and Grace’—Covenantal Expressions in the Bible and in the Ancient World—A Common Heritage.” Lešonenu 36 (1971–72): 85–105. ________. “Ancient Near Eastern Patterns in Prophetic Literature.” Vetus Testamentum 27 (1977): 178–95. ________. “Covenant Making in Anatolia and Mesopotamia.” Pages 32–49 in “The Place Is Too Small for Us”: The Israelite Prophets in Recent Scholarship. Edited by Robert P. Gordon. Sources for Biblical and Theological Study. Edited by David W. Baker. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1995. Repr. from Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society of Columbia University 22 (1992): 135–39.

394

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

________. “Covenant Terminology in the Ancient Near East and Its Influence on the West.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 93.2 (1973): 190–99. ________. Deuteronomy 1–11. The Anchor Bible 5. New York: Doubleday, 1991. ________. Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School. Oxford: Clarendon, 1972. ________. “Deuteronomy: The Present State of Inquiry.” Pages 21–35 in A Song of Power and the Power of Song: Essays on the Book of Deuteronomy. Edited by Duane L. Christensen. Sources for Biblical and Theological Study 3. Edited by David W. Baker. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1993. Repr. from Journal of Biblical Literature 86.3 (1967): 249–62. ________. “The Common Heritage of Covenantal Traditions in the Ancient World.” Pages 175–91 in I trattati nel mondo anticoForma, ideologia, funzione (Saggi di storia antica). Edited by Luciano Canfora, Mario Liverani and Carlo Zaccagnini. Vol. 2 of I trattati nel mondo antico-Forma, ideologia, funzione (Saggi di storia antica). Edited by Luciano Canfora, Mario Liverani and Carlo Zaccagnini. Roma: L'Erma, 1990. ________. “The Covenant of Grant in the Old Testament and in the Ancient Near East.” The Journal of the American Oriental Society 90.2 (1970): 184–203. ________. “The Loyalty Oath in the Ancient Near East.” UgaritForschungen 8 (1976): 379–414. ________. “The Origin of the Apodictic Law: An Overlooked Source.” Vetus Testamentum 23 (1973): 63–75. ________. “The Vassal Treaties of Esarhaddon and the Dating of Deuteronomy.” Oudtestamentische Studiën 14 (1965): 152–54. ________. “Traces of Assyrian Treaty Formulae in Deuteronomy.” Biblica 46.4 (1965): 417–27. Wells, Paul. “Covenant, Humanity, and Scripture: Some Theological Reflections.” Westminster Theological Journal 48 (1986):17–45. Wenham, Gordon J “Grace and Law in the Old Testament.” Pages 1–24 in Law, Morality and the Bible. Edited by Bruce Kaye and Gordon Wenham. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1978. West, M. L. Early Greek Philosophy and the Orient. Oxford: Clarendon, 1971. ________. The East Face of Helicon: West Asiatic Elements in Greek Poetry and Myth. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

395

Westerholm, Stephen. Israel’s Law and the Church’s Faith: Paul and His Recent Interpreters. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988. ________. “Torah, nomos, and Law: A Question of ‘Meaning.’” Studies in Religion 15 (1986): 327–36. ________. “Whence ‘The Torah’ of Second Temple Judaism.” Pages 19–43 in Law in Religious Communities in the Roman Period. Edited by Peter Richardson and Stephen Westerholm. Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 1991. Westermann, Claus. Basic Forms of Prophetic Speech. Translated by Hugh Clayton White. Louisville: Knox, 1991. Whitley, Charles F “Covenant and Commandment in Israel.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 22 (1963): 37–48. Wijngaards, J. Vazal van Jahweh. Baarn: Bosch & Keuning, 1965. Wilcock, Michael. I Saw Heaven Opened. London: InterVarsity, 1975. Wilder, Amos N. Eschatology and Ethics. New York: Harper & Row, 1950. Wilson, Alistair I and Jamie A. Grant. “Introduction.” Pages 12–20 in The God of Covenant: Biblical, Theological and Contemporary Perspectives. Edited by Alistair I. Wilson and Jamie A. Grant. Leicester: Apollos, 2005. Wilson, J. Christian. “The Problem of the Domitianic Date of Revelation.” New Testament Studies 39 (1993): 587–605. Wiseman, Donald J “The Vassal Treaties of Esarhaddon.” Iraq 20, (1958): 1–99. Witherington, Ben, III. Jesus the Seer: The Progress of Prophecy. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1999. ________. Revelation. The New Cambridge Bible Commentary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003. Wojciechowski, Michal. “Seven Churches and Seven Celestial Bodies.” Biblische Notizen 45 (1988): 48–50. Wolff, Hans W “Das Kerygma des deuteronomistischen Geschichteswerkes.” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 73 (1961): 171–86. Wolff, Hope Nash. “Gilgamesh, Enkidu, and the Heroic Life.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 89 (1969): 392–98. Worth, Roland H., Jr. The Seven Cities of Apocalypse and Greco-Asian Culture. New York: Paulist, 2002. Worth, Roland H., Jr. The Seven Cities of Apocalypse and Roman Culture. New York: Paulist, 2002.

396

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

Woudstra, Marten H. The Book of Joshua. The New International Commentary on the Old Testament 6. Edited by R. K. Harrison. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981. Wrede, William. The Messianic Secret. Translated by J.C. Greig. Cambridge: James Clark, 1901, 1971. Wright, G. Ernest. “The Lawsuit of God: A Form-Critical Study of Deuteronomy 32.” Pages 26–67 in Israel’s Prophetic Heritage: Essays in Honor of James Muilenberg. Edited by Bernhard W. Anderson and Walter Harrelson. New York: Harper & Row, 1962. ________. The Old Testament Against its Environment. Chicago: Allenson, 1951. Wright, N. T. The New Testament and the People of God: Christian Origins and the Question of God. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992. Yamauchi, Edwin M. “Daniel and Contacts between the Aegean and the Near East Before Alexander.” Evangelical Quarterly 53.1 (1981): 37–47. ________. Greece and Babylon: Early Contacts Between the Aegean and the Near East. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1967. ________. “Greece and Babylon Revisited.” Pages 129–55 in To Understand the Scriptures: Essays in Honor of William H. Shea. Edited by David Merling. Berrien Springs, MI: Institute of Archeology/Horn Archaeological Museum, 1997. ________. “Historic Homer: Did it Happen?” Biblical Archaeology Review 33.2 (2007): 29–37. ________. “Martin Bernal’s Black Athena Reviewed.” Journal of Ancient Civilizations 14 (1999): 145–52. ________. Persia and the Bible. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996. ch. 11 “Persia and the Greeks.” ________. “Two Reformers Compared: Solon of Athens and Nehemiah of Jerusalem.” Pages 269–92 in The Bible World: Essays in Honor of C. H. Gordon. G. Rendsberg et al., eds. New York: KTAV, 1980. Yarbro Collins, Adela. Crisis and Catharsis: The Power of the Apocalypse. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1984. ________. “Dating the Apocalypse of John.” Biblical Research 26 (1981): 33–75. ________. “Numerical Symbolism in Jewish and Early Christian Apocalyptic Literature.” Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt II.21.2, 1221–87. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1984.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

397

________. “Persecution and Vengeance in the Book of Revelation.” Page 729–49 in Apocalypticism in the Mediterranean World and the Near East: Proceedings of the International Colloquium on Apocalypticism, Uppsala. August 12–17, 1979. Edited by David Hellholm. Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1983. ________. “The Book of Revelation.” Pages 384–414 in The Encyclopedia of Apocalypticism. Edited by John Joseph Collins, Bernard McGinn, and Stephen J. Stein. London: T&T Clark, 2000. ________. “Vilification and Self-Definition in the Book of Revelation.” Harvard Theological Review 79 (1986): 308–20. Yoder, J. Otis. “The Prophetic Work of the Spirit. Lessons from Revelation 2 and 3.” Pages 136–55 in Encounter with the Holy Spirit. Edited by Geo R. Brunk. Scottdale: Herald, 1972. Youngblood, Ronald. The Heart of the Old Testament. 2d ed. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998. Zahn, Theodor. Die Offenbarung des Johannes. 2 vols. Leipzig: Deichert, 1924–1926. Zimmerli, Walther. “Das Wort des Göttlichen Selbsterweises (Erweiswort), eine prophetische Gattung.” Pages 120–132 in Gottes Offenbarung: Geasamelte Aufsäte zum Alten Testament. Munich: Kaiser, 1963. ________. The Law and the Prophets: A Study of the Meaning of the Old Testament. Trans. by R. E. Clements. New York: Harper & Row, 1965.

DISSERTATIONS Attridge, Harold W. The Interpretation of Biblical History in the ‘Antiquitates Judaicae’ of Flavius Josephus. Harvard Dissertations in Religion 7. Missoula, Mon.: Scholars, 1976. Bandy, Alan S. “The Prophetic Lawsuit in the Book of Revelation: An Analysis of the Lawsuit Motif in Revelation with Reference to the Use of the Old Testament.” Ph.D. diss., Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2007. Binder, Donald D. Into the Temple Courts: The Place of the Synagogues in the Second Temple Period. Society for Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 169. Atlanta: Society for Biblical Literature, 1999. Carroll, Howard. “Polycarp of Smyrna: With Special Reference to Early Christian Martyrdom.” Ph.D. diss., Duke University, 1946.

398

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

Davis, R. Dean. “The Heavenly Court Scene of Revelation 4–5.” Ph.D. diss., Andrews University, 1986. Day, John N “The Imprecatory Psalms and Christian Ethics.” Ph.D. diss., Dallas Theological Seminary, 2001. de Lassus, Alain-Marie. «Le septénaire des lettres de l’apocalypse de Jean: De la correction au témoignage militant.» Ph.D. diss., University of Strasbourg, 2005. Dempster, Stephen G “The Prophetic Invocation of the Ban as Covenant Curse: A Historical Analysis of a Prophetic Theme.” Th.M. diss., Westminster Theological Seminary, 1978. Hahn, Scott W. “Kingship by Covenant: A Biblical Theological Study of Covenant Types and Texts in the Old and New Testaments.” Ph.D. diss., Marquette University, 1995. Hanson, Paul D “Studies in Origins of Jewish Apocalyptic.” Ph.D. diss., Harvard University, 1969. Helm, Peyton Randolph. “‘Greeks’ in the Neo-Assyrian Levant and ‘Assyria’ in Early Greek Writers.” Ph.D. diss., University of Pennsylvania, 1980. Kraabel, A. Thomas “Judaism in Western Asia Minor under the Roman Empire with a Preliminary Study of the Jewish Community at Sardis.” Ph.D. diss., Harvard University, 1968. Limburg, James. “The Lawsuit of God in the Eighth Century Prophets.” Ph.D. diss., Union Theological Seminary, 1969. Mendenhall, George E. “The Verb in Early Northwest Semitic Dialects.” Ph.D. diss., John Hopkins University, 1947. Modeste, Rakoto Endor. “Unity of the Letters and Visions in the Revelation of John.” Ph.D. diss., Lutheran School of Theology, 1991. Tengbom, L. C “Studies in the Interpretation of Revelation Two and Three.” Ph.D. diss., Hartford Seminary Foundation, 1976. Valentine, James. “Theological Aspects of the Temple Motif in the Old Testament and Revelation.” Ph.D. diss., Boston University Graduate School, 1985. Wenham, Gordon J “The Structure and Date of Deuteronomy.” Ph.D. diss., University of London, 1969. Wilson, Mark Wayne. “A Pie in a Very Bleak Sky? Analysis and Appropriation of the Promise Sayings in the Seven Letters to the Churches in Revelation 2–3.” D.Litt. diss., University of South Africa, 1997.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

399

Winger, Michael. By What Law? The Meaning of No,moj in the Letters of Paul. SBL Dissertation Series 128. Atlantia: Scholars, 1992. Yarbro Collins, Adela. The Combat Myth in the Book of Revelation. Harvard Dissertations in Religion 9. Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1976.

INDEX OF SUBJECTS Aaron, 142, 150, 197 Achaeans, 60 adoption, 117 adultery, 111, 156, 163, 173, 185, 193, 204, 292 Æsculapius, 71, 173 affliction, 148, 183, 234, 235, 236, 239, 251, 259, 283 Akkadian, 2, 37, 61, 64, 65, 67, 68, 86, 139, 140, 146, 153, 167, 234, 235, 269 Alexandria, xix, 73, 75, 76, 116, 272, 361, 392 Alexandrian, 74, 117, 330 Alpha and Omega, 231, 233 Amazon, 226 Amurru, 145, 157, 191, 251, 297 analogy, 70, 86, 127, 134, 137, 267, 320, 328 Anatolian, 33, 64, 80, 81, 135, 209, 210, 224, 315 ancient Near East, 10, 18, 19, 21, 29, 33, 38, 39, 51, 57, 60, 62, 64, 68, 72, 100, 104, 141, 161, 164, 177, 191, 196, 201, 213, 218, 279, 280, 282, 283, 333 Ancient Near East, 17 ancient Near Eastern vassal treaties

ANEVT, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27, 28, 33, 34, 47, 51, 55, 56, 57, 59, 60, 62, 63, 64, 65, 68, 69, 71, 72, 73, 74, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 86, 87, 90, 91, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 101, 102, 103, 104, 112, 117, 118, 121, 122, 123, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 139, 141, 142, 144, 145, 146, 148, 150, 154, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 164, 166, 167, 170, 171, 177, 182, 188, 190, 191, 192, 193, 198, 199, 201, 202, 209, 210, 211, 213, 215, 216, 218, 219, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 227, 228, 233, 234, 236, 251, 252, 253, 267, 269, 280, 281, 285, 286, 296, 297, 298, 299, 300, 307, 309, 310, 311, 313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318, 319, 320, 321, 322, 323, 324, 330, 331, 332, 336 antithetic, 34, 205, 207, 210, 294, 318

401

402

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

Apocalypse, the, 26, 27, 93, 112, 217, 225, 254 apocalyptic, 42, 43, 49, 52, 70, 83, 85, 86, 131, 137, 139, 146, 207, 222, 271, 277, 301, 302, 304, 307, 323, 329, 336 Apocrypha, 172, 271, 307 Apollo, 71, 173 Arabic, 38 Aramaic, 59 Aramean, 10, 16 archaeology, 8, 11, 57, 58, 63, 64, 68, 105, 106, 226, 245, 248, 250 archisynagogos, 106 Aristides, 135, 226, 227, 270 ark of the covenant, 174, 179, 180 Asclepius, 75, 232 Ashkelon, 63 Asia, 2, 3, 5, 32, 50, 66, 68, 69, 74, 81, 106, 107, 111, 112, 113, 119, 132, 134, 205, 220, 226, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 236, 244, 248, 249, 254, 284, 287, 296, 298, 317, 335, 362 Asia Minor, 42 Assyrian, 3, 7, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18, 39, 56, 57, 60, 62, 63, 72, 94, 96, 97, 98, 100, 112, 137, 147, 151, 153, 159, 161, 313, 323 Assyrian treaties, 3, 12, 16, 17, 18, 56, 94, 96, 151, 153, 159 Augustus, 59, 155, 164, 173 Babylonia, 7, 16, 63, 65, 72, 94, 139, 147, 161, 170 Balaam, 149, 150, 193, 196, 235 Balak, 149, 150, 193, 196 Beatitudes, 167, 240

benediction, 10, 34, 127, 159, 167, 267, 294, 318, 334, 336 blasphemy, 206, 241, 242 blessing, 3, 4, 9, 10, 21, 33, 34, 45, 52, 55, 71, 77, 88, 99, 100, 102, 103, 112, 126, 127, 128, 129, 154, 158, 159, 162, 164, 166, 167, 169, 170, 177, 188, 195, 196, 197, 202, 209, 211, 223, 266, 267, 268, 269, 270, 277, 279, 280, 281, 283, 285, 286, 291, 294, 295, 296, 314, 315, 318, 322, 326, 334 blood, 277, 290, 295, 300, 326, 327, 328, 333 Book of Life, 91, 119, 163, 186, 196, 204, 208, 331 book of the law, 174, 179, 180 bowls, 304, 320 bride, 329 Bronze Age, 64 Caesar, 226, 262, 299, 323 Carchemish, 56 Carthage, 60, 265 Christ, 5, 22, 31, 33, 36, 43, 46, 53, 89, 90, 105, 110, 111, 112, 113, 118, 119, 120, 127, 128, 133, 135, 138, 141, 142, 162, 171, 172, 177, 178, 192, 193, 196, 202, 203, 208, 209, 221, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 236, 237, 240, 241, 242, 248, 253, 257, 258, 259, 264, 267, 274, 275, 276, 278, 279, 281, 285, 286, 289, 293, 295, 296, 298, 300, 301, 305, 308, 309, 311, 316, 318, 319, 321, 322, 323, 325, 326, 327, 328, 331, 333, 334, 335

INDEX OF SUBJECTS Christian, 21, 23, 31, 32, 35, 46, 49, 51, 75, 77, 78, 79, 80, 85, 93, 114, 119, 133, 134, 139, 208, 226, 227, 230, 236, 237, 238, 239, 242, 243, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 251, 253, 255, 260, 261, 272, 276, 279, 281, 292, 300, 301, 303, 310, 322, 336, 398 churches, 4, 22, 32, 34, 52, 53, 67, 87, 88, 90, 95, 113, 120, 127, 128, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 139, 140, 141, 142, 148, 154, 159, 160, 163, 167, 171, 172, 178, 182, 188, 199, 203, 204, 205, 207, 208, 212, 213, 215, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 224, 225, 227, 234, 236, 244, 252, 266, 267, 282, 283, 285, 286, 287, 288, 291, 292, 294, 297, 298, 300, 302, 303, 305, 307, 308, 310, 311, 315, 316, 317, 318, 320, 322, 323, 325, 330, 335, 336 commission formula, 80 content, 2, 44, 50, 53, 82, 83, 85, 89, 98, 102, 111, 130, 199, 214, 217, 223, 225, 249, 284, 287, 299, 310, 313, 317, 324, 328, 336 continuity, 45, 83, 99, 115, 168, 177, 207, 220, 297, 319 court of law, 221 covenant, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 33, 34, 36, 37, 39, 40, 46, 47, 59, 60, 62, 66, 71, 77, 79, 87, 88, 90, 91, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 108, 113,

403

114, 115, 118, 120, 121, 123, 125, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 138, 140, 141, 142, 146, 147, 148, 151, 152, 154, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 174, 175, 176, 177, 179, 180, 181, 190, 191, 192, 193, 195, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 224, 225, 228, 232, 234, 235, 236, 237, 240, 242, 251, 252, 253, 266, 267, 268, 270, 275, 276, 278, 279, 280, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288, 290, 291, 292, 293, 295, 296, 297, 298, 299, 300, 303, 308, 310, 311, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318, 319, 320, 321, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329, 331, 332, 333, 335, 336 covenant formula, 200, 235, 295 covenant lawsuit, 12 covenant renewal, 13, 20, 26, 88, 100, 104, 130, 177, 178, 181, 199, 210, 288, 289, 295, 326, 327, 328, 329 crown, 267, 268, 270, 271, 272, 273 crown of life, 183, 233, 240, 252, 253, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269, 270, 274, 275, 276, 277, 281, 283, 286, 291, 315, 319 culture, 12, 18, 52, 58, 59, 64, 68, 97, 206, 237, 238, 282, 309

404

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

curse, 3, 8, 9, 10, 12, 21, 22, 33, 34, 38, 52, 55, 60, 62, 71, 72, 77, 88, 94, 96, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 108, 112, 113, 115, 126, 127, 128, 129, 154, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 174, 175, 177, 179, 188, 196, 208, 209, 212, 213, 215, 223, 235, 242, 266, 267, 270, 284, 293, 294, 295, 314, 318, 321, 322, 326, 327, 334 Cybele, 232 Day of Atonement, 105 Dead Sea Scrolls, 307 Decalogue, 37, 98, 118, 130, 151, 166, 191, 192, 193, 194, 292 decrees, 11, 145, 150, 156, 165, 180, 229 deities, 65, 116 deposit, 10, 12, 98, 99, 100, 126, 177, 178, 181, 182, 188, 223, 314 Deuteronomy, 3, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 37, 40, 46, 62, 88, 94, 98, 99, 100, 101, 104, 107, 112, 117, 118, 121, 122, 128, 129, 130, 142, 151, 153, 157, 165, 170, 192, 196, 198, 199, 210, 223, 224, 251, 252, 297, 298, 313, 314, 316, 327, 336 Devil, 254, 258 Diaspora, 107, 112, 244, 249 Diocletian, 244, 259, 387 disciples, 80, 305, 327, 334 divine oracle formula, 80 Domitian, 41, 42, 66, 67, 308

early church, 105, 114, 118, 241, 244, 245, 298 earth, 40, 157, 160, 163, 165, 170, 171, 173, 174, 175, 176, 187, 204, 207, 208, 231, 235, 240, 278, 285, 321, 333 edicts, 55 Egypt, 11, 33, 51, 61, 62, 71, 77, 96, 150, 151, 156, 161, 201, 235, 290, 300 Egyptian, 60, 63, 150, 305 Ekron, 63 Elijah, 110, 290 endurance, 65, 187, 266, 267, 268, 294, 296, 301, 303, 311, 316 Ephebic oath, 59, 155 Ephesian, 193, 195, 231, 239, 258, 321 Ephesus, 23, 41, 63, 66, 67, 74, 80, 91, 102, 107, 159, 178, 189, 193, 204, 206, 225, 229, 230, 266, 273, 292, 293, 309 Esarhaddon, 8, 12, 15, 16, 59, 62, 157, 167, 170, 269 eschatology, 278, 320, 325, 332 etymology, 37, 38 Eucharist, 327 exhortations, 40, 91, 154, 289, 305 Exodus, 8, 12, 13, 62, 88, 97, 98, 99, 151, 166, 202, 304, 306, 310, 326, 327 Ezekiel, 45, 46, 145, 147 first and the last, 142, 183, 228, 231, 232, 254, 280, 286 formula, 10, 21, 33, 45, 51, 79, 85, 87, 88, 89, 90, 92, 103, 121, 127, 128, 140, 141, 145, 146, 147, 153, 171, 172, 176,

INDEX OF SUBJECTS 177, 178, 188, 192, 196, 197, 200, 206, 208, 221, 223, 227, 228, 265, 275, 282, 284, 286, 295, 302, 303, 304, 305, 309, 314, 315, 331 French, 10 functionally equivalent, 18, 157, 177, 178, 182, 217, 321 futurist, 330 Gamaliel, 107 genre, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 18, 26, 32, 35, 45, 46, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 82, 83, 84, 94, 97, 101, 102, 121, 122, 123, 125, 126, 146, 170, 201, 213, 234, 236, 287, 293, 298, 299, 300, 304, 307, 313, 316, 317, 318, 319, 322, 324, 335, 336 Gentile, 106, 108, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 203, 242, 243, 248, 250, 273 German, 10, 168, 325 goddesses, 71, 173 gods, 38, 71, 72, 98, 118, 156, 157, 158, 165, 166, 168, 170, 173, 176, 181, 215, 231, 245, 281 grace, 61, 97, 169, 203, 253, 321 Graeco-Roman, 2, 3, 4, 5, 34, 56, 67, 70, 71, 72, 77, 80, 97, 106, 123, 131, 209, 210, 219, 225, 298, 301, 309, 314, 318 grants, 9, 13, 17 Great King, 10, 12, 140, 142, 153, 242, 250, 251, 254, 255, 256, 258, 264, 265, 267, 268, 270, 278, 280, 286, 315, 320, 321 Greece, 57, 58, 60, 61, 63, 64, 65, 66, 68, 69, 226

405

Greek, 2, 22, 35, 38, 40, 43, 50, 54, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 63, 64, 68, 69, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 78, 79, 80, 81, 93, 105, 107, 113, 115, 116, 125, 143, 171, 229, 233, 238, 239, 240, 247, 257, 260, 261, 271, 272, 273, 306, 310, 336, 375 Halicarnassus, 106, 107 Hatti, 157 hearing formula, 110, 133, 137, 284, 303, 304, 305, 307, 311, 316 heart, 64, 140, 178, 193, 208, 235, 285, 286, 308, 322, 323 heaven, 157, 160, 163, 170, 171, 174, 175, 176, 187, 205, 206, 207, 208, 211, 240, 273, 275, 278, 283, 321, 331, 333 heaven and earth, 65, 103, 171, 174, 175, 177, 321 Hebraic-Semitic, 2, 3, 4, 33, 34, 51, 56, 70, 92, 123, 125, 131, 209, 210, 223, 224, 225, 298, 300, 308, 314, 318, 325, 336 Hebrew, 2, 8, 26, 33, 37, 38, 39, 43, 51, 57, 77, 78, 79, 86, 93, 96, 117, 120, 137, 145, 153, 177, 200, 211, 234, 298, 309, 318 Hellenism, 51, 59, 105, 115, 122, 313 Hellenorientalia, 58 Hellenosemitica, 58 Hillel, 107 Hippocratic Oath, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 80, 81, 94, 122, 144, 150, 156, 164, 173, 179, 190, 209, 298, 313, 315

406

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

historical prologue, 9, 12, 16, 23, 33, 55, 71, 88, 98, 99, 100, 102, 126, 127, 128, 147, 148, 150, 151, 152, 153, 169, 188, 189, 218, 223, 234, 251, 252, 286, 314, 315 historicist, 330 Hittite, 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 22, 28, 37, 38, 56, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 68, 69, 71, 86, 94, 95, 97, 98, 101, 102, 103, 121, 126, 139, 140, 145, 150, 151, 152, 153, 157, 158, 159, 161, 166, 167, 169, 176, 177, 181, 191, 213, 214, 220, 222, 234, 251, 269, 283, 297, 313 Homer, 38, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 86, 209, 227, 261, 298 Hosea, 102, 220 Hurrians, 60 hybrid, 3, 4, 95, 170, 201, 223, 224, 298, 300, 314, 316, 320 Hygieia, 71, 173 hypocrisy, 194, 292 idealist, 330 idolatry, 128, 193, 292 idols, 116, 149, 157, 184, 185, 193, 262, 304 Iliad and Odyssey, 65, 69, 209 immorality, 149, 184, 185, 292 imperial cult, 41, 226, 238, 248, 262, 309, 321 imperial edict, 2, 3, 4, 33, 34, 50, 54, 55, 56, 68, 69, 73, 74, 81, 82, 92, 122, 123, 125, 145, 199, 214, 215, 219, 223, 287, 298, 299, 309, 311, 313, 316, 317, 322, 336

imperial edicts, 55, 56, 57, 79, 81, 82, 122, 123 imprecation, 12, 100, 161 imprisonment, 241, 254, 256, 257, 258 invocation, 12, 72, 98, 100, 175, 321 Isaiah, 45, 102, 103, 145, 231, 232, 285, 294, 306, 310, 327 Israel, 7, 9, 11, 15, 18, 20, 21, 35, 36, 39, 40, 57, 59, 60, 63, 64, 65, 68, 95, 96, 97, 101, 102, 104, 106, 108, 112, 113, 115, 116, 117, 120, 121, 128, 137, 146, 150, 156, 160, 161, 173, 175, 179, 180, 196, 198, 199, 200, 202, 204, 209, 220, 231, 235, 236, 247, 279, 285, 290, 291, 297, 298, 304, 305, 308, 318, 320, 322, 323, 325, 326, 327, 334, 362 Israelite, 7, 8, 9, 20, 21, 33, 62, 79, 80, 94, 96, 147, 149, 165, 175, 184, 196, 197, 201, 219, 327, 330 Izmir, 225, 243, 247 Jeremiah, 51, 102, 120, 145, 168, 202, 208, 235, 294, 322 Jesus, 18, 35, 105, 106, 111, 114, 118, 136, 142, 148, 160, 171, 173, 182, 199, 206, 208, 209, 211, 220, 231, 241, 242, 245, 252, 259, 278, 285, 292, 294, 298, 299, 300, 305, 306, 308, 319, 327, 328, 333 Jews, 65, 108, 112, 113, 115, 117, 118, 119, 149, 183, 187, 203, 204, 206, 239, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250, 255, 262, 328

INDEX OF SUBJECTS Jezebel, 149, 193, 321 Johannine, 137, 230, 256 John, 1, 3, 5, 31, 32, 42, 44, 45, 46, 47, 51, 52, 53, 56, 68, 73, 76, 77, 78, 80, 81, 82, 89, 95, 108, 111, 112, 119, 120, 122, 123, 125, 129, 130, 131, 132, 134, 135, 136, 139, 140, 141, 142, 145, 147, 170, 171, 172, 178, 182, 188, 191, 192, 193, 195, 198, 201, 202, 203, 207, 208, 209, 210, 213, 216, 222, 223, 224, 227, 230, 232, 240, 247, 250, 254, 256, 265, 275, 277, 278, 282, 285, 287, 288, 291, 292, 295, 296, 298, 299, 300, 301, 305, 309, 310, 311, 313, 314, 315, 316, 318, 324, 328, 330, 333, 334, 335, 336, 386 John the Baptist, 86, 110, 115, 138, 302 Josephus, xvi, 108 Joshua, 12, 13, 99, 142, 151, 156, 174, 177, 179, 190, 396 Judah, 156 Judaism, 35, 36, 59, 86, 105, 107, 108, 117, 132, 138, 244, 245, 247, 248, 249, 250, 262, 271, 277, 279, 293 judge, 40, 282, 284, 286, 315, 321, 335 Kassites, 60 King of kings, 295, 299 Kingdom, 109, 160, 202 Kingdom of God, 240, 299, 300, 301, 307, 311, 316, 324, 333 Kingdom of heaven, 110

407

kingship, 5, 101, 111, 298, 299, 301, 311, 316, 323 lamb, 142, 160, 161, 162, 204, 208, 242, 250, 253, 265, 277, 278, 294, 296, 300, 327, 328, 329, 332, 333 lamb Christology, 242, 253, 332, 333 lampstand, 148, 182, 234, 236, 291, 295 language, 3, 15, 26, 59, 66, 67, 68, 76, 81, 93, 95, 115, 121, 171, 195, 211, 220, 221, 228, 242, 270, 276, 293, 295, 296, 308, 309, 310, 319, 320, 326 Laodicea, 66, 67, 92, 159, 178, 189, 193, 240, 266, 281, 292, 293, 321 Late Bronze Age, 18, 62, 63 Latin, 38, 60, 74, 78, 89, 92 law and the prophets, 111, 114, 121 law code of Hammurabi, 159 law codes, 56, 101 law court, 39 law of Christ, 111 law of Moses, 35, 36, 105, 112, 113, 114, 116, 121, 192 law, biblical, 220 law, contractual, 97 law, international, 95, 97 law, moral, 111, 194, 221, 321 law, Roman, 241, 256 law, royal, 111 Law, the, 36, 107, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 115, 116, 123, 150, 166, 174, 179, 180, 194, 292, 294, 299 lawcourt, 276

408

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

lawsuit, 3, 4, 5, 22, 27, 29, 32, 39, 40, 42, 91, 93, 94, 95, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 113, 115, 118, 119, 120, 122, 123, 125, 127, 130, 136, 141, 147, 170, 175, 192, 199, 202, 204, 208, 210, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 231, 232, 251, 270, 276, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 287, 290, 291, 292, 293, 294, 295, 296, 297, 298, 299, 300, 301, 303, 307, 308, 310, 311, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318, 320, 326, 331, 332 legal, 19, 20, 21, 24, 36, 56, 59, 66, 67, 96, 97, 117, 118, 121, 130, 151, 152, 153, 158, 167, 169, 172, 216, 219, 220, 221, 234, 248, 257, 270, 276, 280, 290, 291, 292, 294, 296, 297, 313, 326, 328, 335 legitimation formulas, 79, 80 let him hear, 32, 53, 154, 171, 178, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 221, 302, 303, 305, 308, 309, 310 liars, 149, 194, 206 library, 73, 75 lion, 162, 243, 332, 333 liturgy, 104, 181, 205, 283, 327, 328 Livia, 226 Lord’s Supper, 117, 178, 295, 319, 326, 328 loyalty-oath, 17, 59, 60, 63, 69, 80, 84, 162, 164, 176, 295, 298 macarism, 267, 268, 269, 281, 286 Maccabeus, 65

Magnesia, 54, 59, 144, 179, 190, 209, 281 malediction, 34, 46, 127, 159, 161, 163, 165, 167, 213, 294, 336 Marcus Aurelius, 335 Mari, 51, 145, 158, 235 marriage, 97, 117, 329 marriage feast, 329 martyr, 233, 279 martyrdom, 107, 228, 233, 245, 248, 255, 263, 266, 268, 278, 280, 334, 335 martyrs, 119, 206, 208, 233, 237, 255, 265, 278, 294 mediator, 99, 137, 220, 294, 298, 328 medical, 74, 75, 76, 78, 80, 94, 97, 156 medicine, 59, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 80, 81, 209 medieval, xvi, 78, 250 Mesopotamia, 7, 33, 59, 60, 63, 64, 68, 69, 96 messenger, 79, 85, 87, 88, 89, 92, 131, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 145, 146, 147, 172, 178, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 192, 223, 227, 228, 265, 285, 302, 314 messenger commission, 79 messenger formula, 79, 89, 90, 127, 147, 188, 192, 265 Messiah, 91, 220, 241, 294, 298, 333 metaphor, 40, 95, 117, 118, 119, 120, 197, 240, 267, 271, 272, 279, 280, 296, 317, 319, 329, 331

INDEX OF SUBJECTS millennium, 7, 10, 17, 153, 261, 269 morning star, 163, 185, 195, 331 Mosaic covenant, 20, 103 Mosaic law, 105, 108, 109, 114, 115, 116, 292, 293 Mosaic prophecy, 46, 294 Moses, 4, 13, 20, 36, 94, 95, 97, 100, 101, 102, 106, 108, 109, 110, 112, 114, 120, 121, 129, 130, 142, 144, 150, 151, 156, 174, 175, 179, 180, 192, 193, 198, 201, 290, 291, 293, 294, 297, 327, 328 mountains, 40, 65, 170, 175, 176 museum, 57, 73, 74, 75, 77, 229, 343 mystery formula, 79, 80 Nag Hammadi, 269 Nero, 41 new covenant, 8, 15, 37, 38, 39, 95, 117, 154, 159, 161, 167, 199, 202, 203, 208, 210, 212, 220, 235, 292, 294, 295, 296, 318, 319, 322, 323, 326, 327, 329 Nicolaitans, 148, 149, 183, 184, 243, 321 oath, 12, 37, 38, 56, 59, 61, 71, 74, 77, 78, 79, 81, 98, 99, 100, 112, 122, 144, 152, 156, 157, 158, 164, 167, 170, 173, 175, 179, 209, 211, 252, 253, 295, 297, 313, 319 oath formulas, 80 obedience, 21, 92, 101, 111, 118, 158, 160, 162, 167, 169, 252, 257, 267, 269, 286, 293, 294, 311, 315, 316, 321, 322, 334 Odyssey, 65, 68, 70, 86

409

Old Testament, 3, 4, 7, 8, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 27, 28, 31, 33, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 45, 46, 47, 51, 56, 69, 79, 80, 82, 83, 85, 86, 87, 88, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 99, 100, 101, 102, 104, 108, 110, 114, 115, 117, 118, 121, 122, 123, 125, 127, 128, 131, 136, 137, 141, 145, 147, 152, 154, 159, 161, 164, 166, 167, 169, 177, 181, 192, 193, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 208, 209, 211, 213, 214, 216, 217, 220, 222, 223, 225, 227, 228, 230, 231, 234, 235, 237, 255, 261, 262, 271, 274, 279, 280, 281, 282, 283, 285, 287, 290, 291, 292, 293, 294, 295, 296, 297, 298, 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 307, 308, 309, 310, 313, 314, 316, 317, 318, 319, 320, 322, 323, 324, 326, 328, 330, 336, 353, 396 oracle formulas, 80 oracles, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 27, 33, 42, 45, 50, 51, 54, 55, 79, 81, 82, 83, 89, 90, 95, 100, 102, 103, 104, 105, 121, 122, 123, 125, 126, 127, 128, 130, 136, 146, 148, 168, 170, 171, 172, 177, 178, 191, 196, 201, 209, 210, 214, 215, 221, 222, 223, 224, 281, 283, 287, 290, 291, 293, 295, 296, 298, 299, 300, 301, 302, 303, 307, 310, 311, 313, 314, 316, 317, 318, 319, 320, 323, 331 overcome, 87, 160, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 209, 233,

410

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

268, 270, 273, 276, 277, 278, 283, 291, 302, 303, 310, 325, 331, 337 overcomer, 85, 177, 194, 195, 196, 197, 205, 206, 208, 240, 265, 267, 269, 270, 273, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279, 280, 281, 285, 286, 295, 301, 315, 323, 331, 333 Palestine, 64 Panacea, 71, 173 Paphlagonians treaty, 59, 60, 155, 164, 173 parable, 172, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 311, 316 paraenesis, 4, 5, 40, 41, 42, 54, 82, 99, 172, 197, 209, 214, 223, 268, 277, 284, 289, 301, 302, 303, 307, 308, 310, 311, 316, 318, 322, 323, 324, 325, 331 parallelomania, 33 Parousia, 275 Passover, 300, 327, 328 Pentateuch, 3, 13, 15, 35, 101, 105, 114, 120, 192, 202, 269, 298, 314 Pergamum, 75, 81, 119, 148, 159, 178, 184, 189, 193, 197, 204, 229, 230, 250, 266, 292, 293 persecution, 41, 119, 161, 205, 208, 228, 239, 245, 246, 248, 249, 250, 251, 254, 255, 259, 260, 263, 264, 266, 267, 276, 281, 310, 335 perseverance, 182, 185, 208, 209, 219, 264, 266, 268, 269, 270, 277, 280, 282, 291, 294,

296, 301, 302, 303, 310, 311, 316, 335 Persian, 33, 79, 133, 145, 214, 215 Pharaoh, 142, 192, 293, 305 Pharisees, 109 Philadelphia, 32, 34, 75, 88, 92, 111, 112, 154, 159, 178, 189, 193, 197, 204, 206, 244, 247, 250, 251, 252, 266, 282, 294, 318 physician, 73, 78 Pionius, 107, 121, 226, 227, 245, 246, 248, 335 plague, 168, 304 Plataean oath, 59, 155, 164, 173 Polycarp, 227, 238, 242, 245, 246, 248, 255, 262, 263, 272, 277, 334, 335 poverty, 148, 168, 234, 236, 237, 238, 240, 251, 286, 315 preamble, 9, 12, 22, 33, 55, 65, 87, 91, 98, 99, 100, 102, 126, 127, 128, 141, 142, 146, 147, 156, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 223, 227, 228, 232, 233, 234, 286, 314, 315 preterist, 192, 330 priest, 74, 105, 106, 113, 120, 137, 165, 179, 246, 278, 279, 300, 301, 333 proclamation formula, 79, 80, 89, 172, 221 proclamations, 1, 3, 5, 25, 33, 35, 43, 50, 54, 55, 81, 89, 90, 137, 146, 216, 219, 221, 287, 288, 292, 294, 317 prophecy, 2, 45, 46, 49, 79, 82, 83, 85, 88, 89, 100, 128, 137, 141, 167, 173, 176, 178, 275,

INDEX OF SUBJECTS 276, 285, 288, 294, 295, 299, 320 prophet, 13, 44, 45, 47, 82, 89, 95, 102, 104, 115, 120, 136, 140, 142, 144, 145, 172, 182, 192, 199, 206, 231, 275, 283, 285, 290, 293, 298, 301 prophetic lawsuit, 28 prophetic material, 81, 121, 222 prophetic oracles, 3, 4, 27, 33, 34, 51, 53, 69, 82, 84, 91, 92, 100, 121, 122, 123, 125, 168, 170, 178, 188, 210, 215, 222, 224, 286, 287, 290, 291, 296, 298, 300, 303, 311, 313, 314, 316, 318, 319 prophets, 8, 9, 13, 40, 46, 94, 110, 112, 136, 137, 138, 145, 190, 223, 290, 292, 318 Pseudepigrapha, 271 public reading, 10, 53, 90, 98, 100, 105, 126, 177, 178, 181, 182, 188, 223, 314 Qumran, 78, 106, 107, 133, 168, 247, 250, 275, 306 ratification, 99, 158, 172, 181 redemption, 161, 203, 210, 212, 319, 326 remnant, 168, 236, 271 repent, 4, 41, 87, 90, 92, 154, 183, 184, 185, 186, 188, 217, 293, 297, 303 repentance, 4, 89, 91, 111, 115, 130, 160, 162, 170, 188, 197, 198, 284, 291, 294, 295, 301, 302, 303, 310, 316, 317, 320, 321, 322 resurrection, 228, 233, 254, 275, 279, 307 Revelation formulas, 80

411

Roma, 262 Roman emperor, 5, 262, 299, 311, 316 Roman Empire, 60, 73, 226, 241, 249, 309, 311, 316 Romans, 35, 36, 57, 59, 60, 65, 79, 116, 239, 247, 249, 256, 264, 301 Rome, 60, 69, 81, 113, 226, 238, 265, 308 sanctions, 3, 22, 55, 72, 91, 99, 102, 103, 127, 128, 129, 140, 158, 164, 167, 168, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 210, 223, 248, 266, 267, 314, 318 Sardis, 66, 67, 106, 107, 112, 159, 163, 178, 186, 189, 194, 196, 204, 249, 266, 292, 293 Satan, 118, 119, 121, 148, 149, 155, 175, 204, 241, 243, 246, 247, 250, 251, 254, 255, 259, 286, 321 schema, 4, 5, 18, 21, 33, 64, 68, 71, 72, 74, 80, 87, 102, 131, 191, 210, 212, 215, 216, 222, 224, 298, 300, 314, 320, 323 scroll, 45, 130, 173, 178, 202, 242 seals, 69, 140, 320 second millennium, 15, 17, 61, 62, 102, 104, 153, 269 Sefire, 7, 16, 167 Semitic, 2, 9, 33, 43, 56, 58, 60, 61, 63, 65, 92, 93, 94, 120, 122, 125, 137, 223, 250, 298, 309, 318, 336 Septuagint, 37, 116, 117 LXX, 26, 36, 37, 38, 45, 115, 116, 117, 137, 138, 145, 146, 151, 160, 211, 234,

412

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

235, 236, 238, 254, 262, 270, 271, 274 Sermon on the Mount, 108 seven churches, 1, 52, 54, 90, 111, 112, 123, 125, 130, 131, 133, 134, 148, 158, 159, 178, 194, 207, 270, 284, 287, 292, 295, 296, 297, 298, 300, 308, 317, 321 seven letters, 25, 26, 27, 43, 82, 87, 128, 133, 134, 139, 171, 207, 213, 218, 220, 221, 259, 262, 295, 330, 331 Sinai, 7, 13, 19, 62, 104, 113, 144, 152, 166, 208, 227, 327, 328 slander, 234, 241, 242, 244, 249, 251 SMR Seven Messages of Revelation, 1, 3, 4, 5, 21, 22, 23, 24, 27, 28, 32, 33, 34, 41, 49, 50, 51, 54, 55, 56, 62, 69, 79, 82, 84, 85, 87, 90, 93, 95, 108, 115, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 137, 142, 147, 159, 167, 170, 171, 177, 182, 188, 191, 192, 193, 196, 198, 199, 203, 204, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 221, 222, 223, 224, 232, 235, 251, 262, 267, 275, 287, 288, 292, 297, 298, 300, 301, 303, 304, 307, 310, 311, 313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318,

319, 320, 321, 322, 323, 324, 326, 331, 332, 336 Smyrna, 2, 4, 5, 32, 34, 59, 66, 67, 68, 69, 75, 80, 88, 92, 107, 111, 112, 119, 121, 126, 132, 134, 135, 144, 148, 154, 159, 178, 179, 189, 190, 194, 204, 209, 225, 226, 227, 229, 230, 231, 232, 234, 236, 238, 240, 241, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 263, 264, 265, 266, 270, 271, 275, 280, 281, 282, 283, 285, 286, 291, 302, 311, 315, 316, 331, 334, 335, 336 Smyrnaean, 68, 155, 179, 206, 233, 236, 237, 239, 240, 248, 251, 254, 255, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 267, 270, 278, 280, 283, 286, 315 Smyrna-Magnesia, 59 Soranus, 75 sovereign, 227, 228, 236, 237, 240, 255, 266, 294, 298, 299, 310, 316, 323, 331, 334 Spirit, 15, 45, 95, 131, 171, 206, 228, 282, 321 stipulations, 9, 10, 12, 19, 33, 38, 71, 72, 98, 99, 100, 102, 126, 127, 129, 153, 154, 156, 157, 158, 162, 167, 169, 170, 176, 188, 198, 201, 217, 220, 223, 235, 252, 253, 255, 264, 267, 269, 270, 286, 292, 314, 315, 321, 325 Sumerian, 37, 38, 65, 67, 94 suzerain, 7, 39, 55, 86, 88, 91, 103, 133, 135, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 146, 147, 148, 151,

INDEX OF SUBJECTS 152, 153, 158, 160, 162, 168, 169, 170, 177, 209, 216, 217, 227, 234, 235, 242, 251, 252, 253, 255, 269, 279, 280, 281, 283, 300, 311, 315, 320, 333, 334, 335 suzerainty, 9, 11, 20, 22, 24, 25, 37, 62, 67, 87, 95, 102, 104, 120, 150, 152, 181, 214, 215, 220, 324 symbol, 119, 135, 162, 174, 175, 192, 253, 259, 260, 262, 263, 272, 273, 274, 291, 304, 305 synagogue, 80, 105, 106, 107, 113, 114, 115, 120, 138, 149, 204, 241, 243, 245, 247, 250, 251, 304, 315, 321, 323 Synagogue of Satan, 194 synoptic Gospels, 172 Syria, 16, 62, 63, 96, 170 Syrians, 63 Syro-Palestinian, 33, 63 temple, 23, 46, 105, 107, 113, 163, 173, 181, 187, 207, 211, 232, 250, 265, 275, 282, 283, 331 Temple Warden, Neokoros, 229 Ten Commandments, 36, 175 ten days, 183, 256, 259, 260, 261, 262, 263 testimony, 119, 136, 171, 230, 252, 277, 285 theocracy, 242 Theodotus Inscription, 105 thief, 163, 164, 186, 194 throne, 24, 119, 148, 149, 152, 163, 184, 188, 201, 204, 242, 250, 267, 328, 331

413

Thyatira, 32, 75, 119, 154, 155, 159, 178, 185, 189, 193, 194, 195, 206, 266, 292, 293 Tiberius, 80, 226 Torah, xvi, 3, 13, 33, 35, 36, 37, 47, 80, 81, 93, 94, 97, 101, 105, 106, 107, 108, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 120, 121, 122, 123, 125, 139, 161, 170, 191, 192, 193, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 207, 210, 216, 217, 221, 222, 223, 224, 235, 240, 261, 263, 293, 298, 304, 311, 313, 314, 316, 317, 318, 336 Trajan, 41 treaty, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 28, 37, 39, 56, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 71, 72, 78, 80, 81, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 120, 122, 126, 127, 128, 130, 143, 144, 145, 150, 151, 152, 153, 155, 157, 158, 159, 161, 164, 165, 166, 167, 169, 170, 175, 176, 178, 181, 188, 190, 202, 209, 213, 214, 215, 216, 218, 220, 222, 234, 235, 252, 253, 267, 269, 281, 283, 297, 298, 313, 317, 319, 334 treaty, vassal, 15, 21, 23, 62, 104, 158 tribulation, 234, 236, 239, 248, 256, 259, 260, 264, 266, 302 trumpets, 304, 320 Tuppi-Teshshup, 145, 152, 157, 166, 181, 191, 251, 297 Turkey, 225

414

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

unity, 10, 32, 43, 44, 129, 130, 201, 206, 272, 327, 328 vassal, 3, 7, 15, 20, 39, 55, 62, 63, 96, 97, 99, 101, 102, 103, 104, 117, 118, 122, 140, 143, 147, 151, 153, 157, 158, 159, 160, 162, 167, 169, 170, 178, 209, 213, 214, 216, 222, 235, 241, 242, 252, 253, 259, 267, 269, 279, 281, 283, 317, 333, 334 vassal treaty of Essarhaddon, 12, 16, 17, 62 wealth, 163, 194, 237, 240, 267, 286, 315, 321 witness, 9, 12, 33, 38, 65, 71, 72, 79, 98, 99, 100, 103, 118, 121, 126, 127, 128, 129, 149,

156, 157, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 188, 208, 211, 215, 223, 231, 245, 281, 282, 283, 285, 286, 290, 291, 295, 306, 314, 315, 321, 325, 331 witness formula, 32, 171, 172, 177, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188 Yahweh, 12, 13, 40, 67, 94, 95, 96, 100, 101, 102, 103, 112, 115, 120, 138, 142, 145, 153, 196, 199, 209, 220, 231, 232, 235, 236, 252, 269, 279, 284, 285, 294, 297, 322, 323, 325 Yohanan, 73, 77, 81 Zechariah, 146 Zeus, 173, 232

INDEX OF AUTHORS

141, 146, 148, 159, 172, 198, 199, 202, 213, 218, 220, 221, 222, 234, 242, 249, 290, 292, 296, 297, 317, 320, 325 Banks. Robert J. 35, 105 Barclay, William 239 Barr, David L. 167, 182, 246, 259 Barr, James 38 Bauckham, Richard J. 53, 82, 146, 192, 193, 208, 222, 250, 259, 289, 299, 300, 303, 305, 331 Beagley, Alan James 244, 245, 246, 290 Beale, Gregory K. 24, 31, 32, 41, 42, 45, 46, 50, 52, 54, 82, 90, 92, 128, 132, 133, 136, 141, 145, 146, 160, 161, 191, 195, 196, 197, 199, 202, 203, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 211, 212, 213, 214, 227, 228, 231, 233, 239, 240, 244, 245, 249, 253, 254, 255, 259, 260, 262, 266, 273, 274, 275, 277, 283, 291, 292, 294, 296, 298, 299, 303, 304, 305, 308, 309, 311, 322, 323, 330, 331 Bean, George E. 68, 227 Beasley-Murray, George R. 42, 43, 50, 82, 83, 132, 134, 139, 262, 289 Beckman, Gary M. 38, 139, 140, 144, 145, 152, 157, 158, 166,

Abusch, T. 65 Akurgal, Ekrem 226, 232 Albright, William Foxwell 33, 175 Alford, Henry 140, 245, 258, 263, 273 Allison, Dale C., Jr. 327 Altman, Amnon 8, 153, 158 Applebaum, Shim’on 249 Aristotle 237 Assman, Jan 161 Astour, Michael C. 58 Atkinson, Kenneth 105, 107 Attridge, Harold W. 108 Aune, David E. 1, 3, 4, 24, 25, 33, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 75, 79, 80, 82, 84, 86, 87, 89, 90, 92, 93, 120, 122, 125, 131, 132, 133, 136, 137, 139, 141, 142, 143, 145, 147, 154, 161, 172, 196, 197, 205, 209, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 219, 223, 233, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242, 244, 245, 246, 250, 256, 259, 262, 271, 287, 292, 298, 299, 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 311, 313, 317, 318, 322, 323, 333, 336 Bandstra, Andrew J. 278 Bandy, Alan 4, 5, 25, 27, 28, 31, 32, 44, 45, 94, 119, 120, 121,

415

416

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

167, 176, 181, 191, 214, 251, 297 Beckwith, Isbon T. 44, 132, 227, 233, 239, 254, 256, 258, 260, 262, 263, 271, 330 Begrich, Joachim 200, 290 Bell, Albert A., Jr. 41, 255 Bengel, John Albert 142 Benner, Margareta 54, 56 Berger, Adolf xxii, 242, 256, 257 Berger, Klaus 2, 51, 52, 92, 105 Berlinerblau, Jacques 64 Bernal, Martin 58, 64 Beyerlin, Walter 174 Bickerman, Elias 9 Bierstadt, Edward Hale 336 Binder, Donald D. 107, 117 Blaiklock, E. M. 259, 262, 264 Blevins, James L. 49 Borgen, Peder 246 Boring, M. Eugene 82, 83, 278, 289 Boyer, James L. 330 Boyle, Marjorie O.234, 235, 290, 297 Bright, John 9, 157, 177 Brock, A. J. 71, 73, 74, 75 Brown, John Pairman 57, 59, 60, 65, 68 Brownlee, William H. 134 Bruce, F. F. 35, 75, 106, 114, 115, 116, 118, 259 Büchler, Adolf 114 Bullinger, Ethelbert W. 289 Burkert, Walter 58, 68 Burkill, T. Alec 303 Burrell, Barbara 229 Cadbury, Henry J. 76, 80 Cadoux, Cecil J. 75, 226, 229, 230, 232, 238, 264, 265 Caird, G. B. 118, 119, 132, 133, 169, 239, 250, 259, 278, 279, 294 Calder, W. M. 68, 226

Calvin, John 138 Campbell, Gordon 25, 28, 89, 90, 91, 92, 121, 125, 126, 127, 141, 142, 158, 177, 214, 215, 217, 220, 232, 294, 295, 296, 297, 298, 324, 325, 326, 329 Campbell, J. L. 250 Carrick, Paul 77 Carroll, Howard 238 Carson, Donald A. 50, 52, 108, 109, 264, 276 Chandler, Richard 226 Charles, Robert H. 44, 52, 93, 94, 132, 207, 231, 239, 259, 263, 264, 273, 274, 292 Childs, Brevard S. 293 Chilton, David 23, 83, 102, 127, 128, 141, 177, 217, 262, 292, 332 Cicero 237 Clark, David S. 134 Clements, Ronald E. 62, 103, 121, 200 Cline, Eric 68 Clogg, Richard 335 Cole, Alan 98 Collins, John Joseph 50, 301 Comblin, José 118 Cook, John M. 226, 227 Cothenet, Édouard 87, 301 Court, John M. 49, 53, 330 Craigie, Peter C. 8, 62, 99, 142 Crosthwaite, Arthur 289 d’Alfonso, Lorenzo 56 Dana, H. E. 260 Daniels, Dwight R. 94 Davidson, Richard M. 12 Davies, W. D. 109, 111, 134, 137, 138 Davis, John J. 261 Davis, R. Dean 23, 24, 203, 300, 329 Day, John N. 242

INDEX OF AUTHORS de Lassus, Alain-Marie 26, 27, 148, 159, 171, 213, 215, 217, 291, 321 De Roche, Michael 40, 94, 220 de Roo, Jacqueline C. R. 212 Dehandschütter, Boudewijn 245 Deissmann, Adolf 106, 238 Delitzsch, F. 232 Dempster, Stephen G. 110, 138, 161, 198, 207, 293, 294 deSilva, David A. 41, 42, 45, 323 Dibelius, Martin 41, 111, 281, 284, 303 Dijkstra, Meindert 51 Dines, Jennifer M. 116, 117 Dobkin, Marjorie Housepian 336 Dodd, C. H. 111 Donahue, John R. 322 Doty, W. G. 83, 84 Downing, F. Gerald 41 Du Preez, James 9, 10, 21, 22, 46, 125, 128, 159, 201, 203, 218, 222, 292, 300, 317, 330, 334 Du Rand, Jan A. 202, 289, 302, 303 Dumbrell, William J. 20, 128, 209, 296 Durham, John I. 98, 102 Düsterdieck, Friedrich 244, 247, 259, 262 Eichrodt, Walther 103, 104, 164, 176, 200, 201, 322, 324 Ellingworth, Paul 290 Elliott, James S. 74, 75 Ellul, Jacques 250, 254, 266 Enroth, Anne-Marit 133, 140, 284, 305, 307 Farrer, Austin 41, 206 Fekkes III, Jan 45, 293 Fensham, F. Charles 8, 9, 62, 94, 96, 102, 104, 162, 164, 167, 168, 169, 201, 269, 270, 324

417

Feuillet, André32, 43, 46, 82, 83, 291, 330 Finet, André 170 Fink, Amir Sumaka’i 152, 153 Finkelberg, Margalit 69 Fishbane, Michael 101 Fitzmyer, Joseph A. 7 Fohrer, Georg 62, 175 Ford, J. Massyngberde 44, 132, 249, 264 Fowler, Alastair 50 France, Richard T. 109 Frankena, R. 15, 62, 213 Frankfurter, David 243 Fraser, P. M. 73 Frend, William H. C. 244, 245, 246, 263 Frey, P. Jean-Baptiste 106, 107, 244, 248 Friedrich, Johannes 7 Friesen, Steven J. 41, 67, 246, 250, 309 Fritz, Volkmar 63 Fuller, Daniel P. 35 Fusco, Vittorio 284, 307 Gaffney, Edward McGlynn, Jr. 97, 102, 103, 121, 176 Gager, John C. 243, 289 Galen 75 Gangemi, A. 195 Gardner, Paul 236 Geller, Mark J. 59, 72 Gemser, Berend 120, 166, 220, 284, 296, 297 Gentry, Kenneth L., Jr. 41 George, Andrew R. 65 Gerstenberger, Erhard 18, 19, 94 Giblin, Charles H. 289 Gibson, Elizabeth Leigh 244 Goetze, Albrecht 121 Goldingay, John E. 301 Goldstein, Jonathan A. 57 Goodenough, Erwin R. 271, 272

418

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

Gordon, Cyrus H. 24, 57, 58, 63, 64, 68, 82 Goulder, Michael D. 82 Govett, Robert 202 Gräbe, Petrus J. 8, 38, 39, 199, 323 Graham, David 71 Grant, Jamie A. 39 Gräßer, Erich 5, 200, 211 Graves, David E. 226 Graves, Michael 105 Gray, J. 99 Gresseth, Gerald K. 65, 67, 68 Grové, André H. 84, 214, 216 Gunkel, Hermann 290 Hahn, Ferdinand 43, 82, 85, 86, 87, 92, 121, 122, 126, 212, 276, 290, 292, 301, 303, 307, 328 Hahn, Scott W. 5, 114, 212, 290, 319, 326, 327, 328 Hallo, William W. xxi, 33, 145 Hanfmann, George M. A. 63 Hanson, K. C. 106 Hanson, Paul D. 70 Hare, D. R. A. 246 Harrelson, Walter 40, 235 Harris, J. Rendel 225 Harrison, Everett R. 99 Hartman, Lars 1, 3, 82, 85, 86, 147, 287, 288, 317 Harvey, Julien 4, 9, 10, 102, 103, 104, 120, 147, 170, 177, 181, 283, 284 Hasel, Gerhard 104, 199 Head, Barclay V. 229, 230 Hellholm, David 2, 49, 84, 244 Hellig, Jocelyn 250 Helm, Peyton Randolph 57 Hemer, Colin J. 2, 44, 83, 132, 135, 137, 196, 207, 225, 226, 228, 230, 231, 233, 236, 238, 239, 244, 248, 250, 256, 257,

259, 264, 265, 266, 268, 270, 271, 273, 274, 275, 281 Hendriksen, William 134, 259, 263, 278 Hengel, Martin 41 Hengstenberg, E. W. 260, 263 Hester, James D. 160 Heyman, Carlo 68 Heyman, George 243 Hill, David 13, 21, 41, 45, 46, 82, 83, 87, 132, 134, 145, 146, 147, 167, 255, 276, 282, 290, 291, 292, 301, 305, 306, 309 Hillers, Delbert R. 8, 9, 94, 96, 102, 147, 153, 154, 159, 164, 168, 174, 175, 211, 212, 213, 218, 324 Hippocrates 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76 Hobart, William Kirk 75, 76 Hoeksema, Herman 42, 134, 259, 260, 262, 264 Hoffman, Matthias R. 242, 333 Hoffner, Harry A., Jr. 7, 11, 28 Holladay, John S. 137, 140 Holladay, William L. 102, 120, 198 Holwerda, David E. 160 Homcy, Stephen L. 277 Horn, Friedrich W. 246 Horton, George 335 Horton, Michael S. 292, 320 Howard, George E. 36 Huffmon, Herbert B. 51, 86, 94, 102, 103, 121, 153, 170, 175, 176, 234, 235, 285, 290, 295 Hugenberger, Gordon P. 39, 117, 294 Hughes, Philip Edgcumbe 134, 259 Hunter, A. M. 307 Hurtado, L. W. 267, 268 Huxley, George L. 68 Jaubert, Annie 108

INDEX OF AUTHORS Jenkins, Ferrell 31 Jeremias, Joachim 289, 305 Jobes, Karen 117 Johns , Loren L. 242, 243 Johnson, A. F. 32, 82, 132, 205, 238, 239, 258, 330 Jones, A. H. M. 59, 79, 257 Judge, Edwin A. 238 Kaiser, Walter C., Jr. 324 Kalluveettil, Paul 38 Kaplan, J. 63 Karavites, Peter 65, 66, 68, 69, 86 Karrer, Martin 3, 52, 92, 132, 133, 317 Käsemann, Ernst 289 Kautzsch, Emil 200 Kee, Howard Clark 105, 106 Keesmaat, Sylvia C. 327 Keil, C. F. 138 Keil, Josef 74 Kestemont, Guy 7 Kiddle, Martin 42, 132, 241, 249, 255, 259, 270 Kirby, John T. 2, 50, 125, 141, 288 Kistemaker, Simon J. 32, 43, 46, 134, 259, 263, 269, 273, 275, 290, 306 Kitchen, Kenneth A. 3, 11, 14, 15, 62, 94, 96, 98, 99, 147, 151, 152, 153, 175, 176, 177, 201, 213, 269 Kline, Meredith G. 10, 11, 12, 13, 19, 20, 22, 28, 37, 88, 97, 98, 99, 100, 125, 127, 129, 130, 147, 166, 175, 204, 205, 206, 207, 211, 300, 320, 321, 328, 329 Kloppenborg, John S. 106 Klose, Dietrich O. A. 66, 67, 68, 229, 230, 232 Knoppers, Gary N. 8, 13, 17 Knox, Mary 70

419

Koch, Christoph 16, 18 Koester, Helmut 243 Kohler, Kaufmann 139 Korošec, Viktor 9, 10, 38 Kraabel, A. Thomas 244, 249 Kraft, Heinrich 46, 52, 83, 132, 134, 243, 274 Krause, Wilhelm 61 Krodel, Gerhard A. 10, 43, 132, 133, 230, 256, 257, 261, 262, 266, 277, 278 Kupper, J. R. 158 Kutsch, Ernst 37, 200 Kwiran, Manfred 324 Ladd, George Eldon 82, 239, 247, 273, 300 Lambrecht, Jan 1, 46, 49, 241 Lambrou-Philippson, C. 58 Lane Fox, Robin J. 248 Lane, William L. 306 Laroche, Emmanuel 7 Laws, Sophie 273 Le Grys, Alan 243, 247 Lee, Michelle V. 289 Leivestad, Ragnar 289 Lenski, R. C. H. 134, 233, 236, 240, 241, 258, 259, 260, 261, 263, 273 Lesky, Albin 68 Levenson, Jon D. 328 Levine, Lee I. 107, 112, 114 Levinson, Bernard M. 15 Lieu, Judith M. 245, 246, 255 Lightfoot, John 138 Lightfoot, Joseph B. 36, 42, 182, 245, 272, 335 Limburg, James 94, 105, 120, 296 Lincoln, Andrew T. 231, 232, 295 Lioy, Dan 277 Lohfink, Norbert L. 99, 200 Lohmeyer, Ernst 82, 132, 278

420

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

Lohse, Eduard 20, 21, 22, 28, 120, 125, 130, 131, 198, 241 Longenecker, Richard N.36, 111 Lopez, René A. 8, 10, 18, 37 Loretz, Oswald 324 Lorton, David 63 Lotz, John Paul 66 Lozer, Moshe 250 Lucas, E. C. 94, 102, 103, 104, 158, 169, 181 MacDonald, William G. 261 Mach, Michael 131, 139 MacLeod, David J. 243, 333 Magie, David 229, 230 Magness, Jodi 63 Malina, Bruce J. 1, 237, 306 Marcus, Joel 307, 310 Marshall, I. Howard xxii, 306 Martin, Brice L. 36 Martin, Hugh 134, 259, 262, 331 Masson, Emilia 61 Mathewson, David 49, 202 Mayes, A. D. H. 19 Mayo, Philip L. 241 Mayor, Joseph B. 111, 268, 273, 274 Mazzaferri, Frederick D. 10, 45, 46, 51, 83, 234, 293, 304, 335 McArthur, Harvey 108 McCarthy, Dennis J. 8, 9, 10, 17, 18, 19, 37, 38, 62, 72, 96, 97, 98, 101, 112, 121, 144, 145, 152, 157, 160, 165, 169, 170, 174, 201, 213, 216, 297 McConville, J. Gordon 16, 38, 62, 94, 99, 181 McLay, R. Timothy 117 Mealy, J. Webb 293 Meinardus, Otto F. A. 264, 335, 336 Melito 112 Mendenhall, George E. 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 16, 33, 37, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 126, 144, 147,

153, 154, 157, 158, 167, 168, 170, 181, 200, 213, 235, 252, 329, 334 Merkelbach, Reinhold 271 Metzger, Bruce M. 35 Meyers, Eric M. 107 Michaels, J. Ramsey 42, 45, 50, 51, 52, 53, 82, 206, 207, 243, 298, 299 Michl, Johann 137 Millar, Fergus 54 Millard, Alan R. 11, 18, 106, 107, 117, 118, 181 Minear, Paul S. 53, 147, 227, 301 Modeste, Rakoto Endor 43, 299 Moffatt, James 132, 133, 237, 279 Mondi, Robert 57 Montague, George T 134 Moo, Douglas J. 36, 52, 109, 114, 116 Moran, William L. 112 Moriarty, Frederick L. S. J. 96 Morris, Leon 52, 64, 106, 114, 132, 236, 239, 257, 259, 277, 279, 280, 308, 330 Morris, Sarah 64 Morton, Russell 83 Moule, C. F. D. 35 Moulton, James H. 132, 261 Mounce, Robert H. 45, 83, 132, 233, 239, 255, 256, 259, 260, 261, 262, 330, 331 Moyise, Steve 31, 117, 128, 230, 231, 319 Muhly, James D. 58, 64 Mulholland, M. Robert, Jr. 280 Mulholland, M. Robert., Jr. 232, 241, 249, 266, 279, 280 Müller, Ulrich B. 2, 4, 51, 82, 86, 87, 88, 89, 92, 121, 122, 125, 126, 132, 134, 141, 160, 209, 276, 277, 295, 301, 302 Mullin, Redmond 237

INDEX OF AUTHORS Muntner, Süessman 78 Muse, Robert L. 10, 52, 88, 89, 92, 121, 126, 141, 142, 167, 304, 305 Mussies, Gerald 43, 93 Musurillo, Herbert A. 245 Neall, Beatrice S. 289 Newman, Barclay M., Jr. 243 Newman, Murray 37 Nicholson, Ernest W. 19, 20, 62, 96, 98, 102, 112, 120, 144, 151, 152, 153, 157, 165, 166 Niehaus, Jeffrey J. 13, 39, 81 Nielsen, Kirsten 40, 120, 231, 283, 284, 285, 297 Nolland, John 308 North, R. 175 Nutton, Vivian 73, 74, 75 O’Rourke, John J. 241 Oeconomos, Lysimachos 335 Onions, C. T. 40 Oppenheim, A. Leo 139 Osborne, Grant R. 22, 42, 45, 132, 141, 142, 161, 171, 205, 233, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 244, 249, 253, 254, 255, 257, 258, 259, 260, 261, 262, 265, 290, 330 Otto, Eckart 323 Pakkala, Juha 15, 18 Pao, David W. 327 Pardee, Dennis 51 Parez, C. H. 43 Park, Hyung Dae 161 Parpola, Simo 7, 59, 63, 157 Pasinya, Laurent Monsengwo36, 37 Patrick, Dale 19, 213, 220 Paul, Shalom M. 197, 246, 256, 272, 293, 302, 327, 389 Perlitt, Lothar 200 Perrot, Charles 107 Pfeiffer, Charles F. xxvi, 99, 226 Pilhofer, Peter 243

421

Pines, Shlomo 73, 77, 78 Pliny the Younger 41, 257 Plumptre, Edward H. 75 Poirier, Léandre 289 Porada, Edith 63 Porter, Stanley E. 212, 310 Price, Martin J. 66, 67 Price, S. R. F. 249, 263 Priest, John F. 65 Prigent, Pierre 132, 243, 288 Räisänen, Heikki 35, 36, 284, 305, 306, 307 Ramsay, William M. 2, 32, 43, 50, 52, 66, 92, 93, 132, 225, 226, 229, 238, 240, 248, 256, 259, 262, 264, 274 Rapske, Brian 256, 257 Ratzinger, Joseph C. 327 Rea, J. R. 77, 99 Reed, Jeffrey T. 310 Reichelt, Hansgünter 131, 139 Rendtorff, Rolf 200, 212 Ridderbos, Hermon N. 306 Rigaux, Béda 306, 307 Roberts, J. H. 50, 85 Roberts, Richard 274, 275 Robertson, A. T. 239, 240, 241, 254, 256, 258, 260, 261, 265 Robertson, O. Palmer. 120, 142, 208, 293, 326, 327 Rofé, Alexander 16, 19, 99 Rogers, Cleon L., Jr. 18, 20, 37, 38, 94, 97, 101, 175 Roloff, Jürgen 136 Ropes, James Hardy 269, 383 Rosenthal, Franz 75 Ross, Alexander 273 Rosscup, James E. 276 Rowland, Christopher 46 Royalty, Robert M. 50, 237, 243, 267 Rudberg, Gunnar 54, 56, 299, 322, 323

422

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

Rushdoony, Rousas John 232, 250 Russell, James Stuart 334 Rüterswörden, Udo 112 Safrai, S. 139 Sanders, Edward P. 293 Sanders, Jack T. 87, 302 Sanders, James A. 121 Sandmel, Samuel 33, 35 Schadewalt, Wolfgang 68 Schaff, Philip 75 Schlatter, Adolf 31 Schreiner, Thomas R. 35, 36, 110, 111, 115, 250 Schuler, E. Von 9 Schürer, Emil 107 Schüssler Fiorenza, Elisabeth 10, 46, 52, 83, 134, 135, 140, 238, 244, 289, 291 Scobie, Charles H. H. 2, 233, 288 Scott, R. B. Y. 93, 212, 285 Scott, Walter 259 Scroggs, Robin 239 Segal, Alan F. 35 Shea, William H. 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 28, 57, 87, 88, 92, 121, 125, 147, 154, 157, 159, 167, 170, 201, 210, 211, 212, 216, 217, 218, 219, 222, 252, 288, 313, 317, 324 Sider, John W. 287 Silberman, Lou H. 93 Silberschlag, E. 245 Silva, Moisés 117, 329 Simcox, William Henry 227, 239, 241, 247, 258, 259, 263, 386 Sinclair, Lawrence A. 120 Singer, Itamar 11 Skeat, T. C. 51 Slaten, A. Wakefield 36 Sleeper, C. Freeman 209, 217 Smalley, Stephen S. 22, 42, 43, 46, 50, 52, 82, 196, 197, 201,

202, 203, 207, 208, 209, 238, 259, 261, 262, 263, 273, 319, 330, 333 Smallwood, E. Mary 244, 246 Smend, Rudolf 38, 200 Smith, Ralph L. 21 Soranus 74, 80 Spicq, Ceslas 324 Spitta, Friedrich 134 Stauffer, Ethelbert 308, 309 Stengel, Paul 64 Stern, David 243 Stern, Philip D. 161 Stevenson, Gregory M. 3, 271 Stewart, Zeph 271 Steymans, Hans Ulrich 15, 62 Stol, Marten 72 Stonehouse, Ned B. 44 Strand, Kenneth A. 22, 27, 127, 128, 141, 162, 167, 211, 217, 218, 222, 233, 252, 253, 295, 317, 332 Stuart, Moses 260 Stuckenbruck, Loren T. 42, 45, 53, 82, 83, 84, 90, 92, 121, 132, 133, 250, 251 Sundberg, Albert C. 114 Sutton, Ray R. 23, 128, 129, 141, 142, 177, 192, 228, 262, 292, 332 Sweet, John P. M. 196, 206, 251 Swete, Henry Barclay 83, 132, 133, 134, 202, 228, 231, 232, 233, 239, 254, 258, 259, 260, 262, 263, 264, 270, 273, 278, 290, 330 Tait, Andrew 254, 259, 263 Tannenbaum, Robert F. 245 Tasker, R. V. G. 269 Tengbom, L. C. 44 Thayer, Joseph H. 40, 237, 238, 241, 261, 276 Theobald, Michael 319 Thielman, Frank 108, 112, 113

INDEX OF AUTHORS Thiselton, Anthony C. 114, 169, 322 Thomas, Robert L. 1, 32, 45, 83, 131, 132, 133, 134, 136, 140, 202, 231, 233, 254, 256, 258, 259, 260, 262, 263, 330 Thompson, John A. 7, 8, 9, 13, 19, 28, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 146, 147, 153, 157, 158, 167, 170, 181, 213, 214, 220, 234, 252, 253, 279, 280 Thompson, Leonard L.2, 44, 62, 82, 99, 100, 101, 225, 236, 239, 242, 244, 246, 247, 248, 249, 251, 258, 262, 279 Tigay, Jeffrey H. 33 Tilly, Michael 192, 196 Torrey, Charles C. 93 Tov, Emanuel 117 Trebilco, Paul R. 74 Trell, Bluma L. 66, 67 Trench, Richard C. 134, 236, 237, 239, 240, 247, 250, 255, 258, 263, 265, 289 Trites, Alison A. 118, 121, 290, 335 Trudinger, L. Paul 93, 94 Tsevat, Matitiahu 147 Tucker, Gene M. 72 Tupper, E. Frank 49 Twiss, Travers 78 Ullendorff, Edward 58 Unger, Merrill F. 245, 248 Urman, Dan 106 Valentine, James 118 van den Eynde, Sabine 200 van der Eijk, Philip J. 72 van der Horst, P. W. 244 van Der Horst, P. W. 247 van der Waal, Cornelis 28, 246 van Dülmen, Andrea 36 van Unnik, Willem C. 83 Vance, Watrous L. 63 Vanhoye, Albert 328

423

Vanni, Ugo 288 Vassiliadis, Petros 290 Vawter, Bruce 235 Veatch, Robert M. 77 Vermeule, Emily 61 von Rad, Gerhard 13, 49, 169 von Staden, Heinrich 73 Vonk, Cornelis 99 Vos, Geerhardus 203 Walcot, Peter 58 Waldbaum 63 Waldbaum, Jane C. 63 Wall, Robert W. 274 Wallis, G. 35 Walton, John H. 7, 9, 21, 146, 147, 152, 153, 158, 168, 290 Walvoord, John F. 36, 131, 239, 240 Warden, Duane 42 Warnach, V. 324 Watts, Rikki E. 306, 310, 327 Weeks, Noel 12, 56 Weidner, Ernst F. 7, 64 Weinfeld, Moshe 12, 13, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 37, 38, 59, 60, 61, 62, 64, 65, 66, 69, 79, 98, 99, 100, 101, 104, 118, 129, 144, 151, 153, 157, 159, 161, 162, 164, 165, 166, 167, 176, 177, 178, 181, 200, 232, 253, 295 Wenham, Gordon J. 16, 19, 39, 62, 181 West, M. L. 57 Westerholm, Stephen 35, 36 Westermann, Claus 21, 40, 128, 146 Whitley, Charles F. 21, 168 Wijngaards, J. 146, 160 Wilcock, Michael 132, 207, 255, 276 Wilder, Amos N. 289 Wilson, Alistair I. 39 Wilson, J. Christian 41

424

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

Wilson, Mark Wayne 2, 25, 26, 46, 142, 207, 211, 213, 215, 232, 288, 304 Winger, Michael 35 Wiseman, Donald J. 8, 15, 16, 59, 157, 159, 161, 170, 175 Witherington, Ben 238, 292 Wojciechowski, Michal 133 Wolff, Hans W. 198 Wolff, Hope Nash 65 Worth, Roland H., Jr. 132, 256, 260, 264, 265, 270 Woudstra, Marten H. 99 Wrede, William 306 Wright, G. Ernest 40, 100, 103, 120, 280, 290 Wright, N. T. 31 Yamauchi, Edwin M. xiii, 57, 58, 61, 63, 64, 68, 107, 139 Yarbro Collins, Adela 42, 43, 52, 227, 236, 244, 249, 251, 261, 287, 289 Yoder, J. Otis 46 Yohanan ben Zebda 77 Youngblood, Ronald 13, 97, 99, 147, 326 Zahn, Theodor 244 Zimmerli, Walther 38, 121, 319

INDEX OF PRIMARY SOURCES

1 En. 94:1–105:2 51 1 En. 94:1–5 302 1 Esd 2:2 146 1 Kgs 16–21 193 1 Kgs 17:1–7 290 1 Kgs 19:2 137 1 Kgs 2:3 292 1 Kgs 2:30 146, 227 1 Kgs 20 96 1 Kgs 20:2, 5 146 1 Kgs 5:1–12 96 1 Kgs 8 290 1 Kgs 8:35–40 290 1 Macc 10:20 271 1 Macc 13:37 271 1 Macc 13:39 271 1 Macc 8:25 65 1 Pet 1:1 51 1 Pet 1:1–2 212 1 Pet 1:6 263 1 Pet 1:7 258 1 Pet 2:9 117, 278 1 Pet 3:14 268 1 Pet 4:14 268 1 Pet 4:19–5:7 268 1 Pet 4:4 241, 242, 249 1 Pet 5:30 263 1 Pet 5:4 271, 272 1 Sam 1:8 259 1 Sam 12:20–25 177 1 Sam 18:4 91 1 Sam 25:38 259, 261

1 Chr 20:2 271 1 Chr 28:7 292 1 Cor 1:5 240 1 Cor 10:13 258 1 Cor 10:30 241, 249 1 Cor 11:23-26 178 1 Cor 11:25 117, 202, 295, 326, 329 1 Cor 14:34 35 1 Cor 14:37–38 172 1 Cor 16:3 239 1 Cor 3:21–3 160 1 Cor 5:13 117 1 Cor 5:1ff 322 1 Cor 6:9ff 322 1 Cor 7:22 117 1 Cor 8:4 117 1 Cor 9:21 111 1 Cor 9:25 271 1 Cor 9:8–9 35 1 Cor 9:9 238 1 Cor. 9:25 269 1 En. 101 170 1 En. 102:4–104:8 160 1 En. 103:9–15 108, 198 1 En. 61.11–12 267 1 En. 91:10 302 1 En. 91:3 302 1 En. 91:3, 10 86 1 En. 92:1–5 51 1 En. 92:1ff 302

425

426

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

1 Thess 1:9 1 Thess 2:19 1 Thess 3:4 1 Thess 3:5 1 Tim 1:12–17 1 Tim 4:13 1 Tim 6:13–15 1 Tim 6:18 1QH 2:22 1QH 4:7 1QH 5:25–26 1QH 8:12ff 1QH 9:25 1QM 1:2 1QM 12:1–2 1QM 15:9 1QM 4:9 1QS 1:1 1QS 11:5–6 1QS 21–22 1QS 4:11 1QS 4:6 1QS 4:7 1QS 8:11–12 1QS 9:17 2 Bar. 22:1–30:5 2 Bar. 39:1–43:3 2 Bar. 4 2 Bar. 48:2–3 2 Bar. 50:1–51:16 2 Bar. 77:17–19 2 Bar. 78–87 2 Chr 14:4 2 Chr 21 2 Chr 21:12 2 Chr 21:12–15 2 Chr 36:15–16 2 Chr 36:23 2 Clem. 7:3 2 Cor 11:22 2 Cor 11:23 2 Cor 3:6; 14–16 2 Cor 3:6–18 2 Cor 4:17

116 271, 272 236 258 111, 118 114 111, 118 240 247, 250 307 307 307 268 247 196 247 247 109 307 307 305 307 268 307 307 139 139 275 307 139 51 51 292 51 146 51 137 227 272 243 256 117 329 263

2 Cor 4:17–18 263 2 Cor 6:10 239, 240 2 Cor 8:2 239 2 Cor 8:2–5 239 2 Cor 8:9 240 2 En. 14.2 273 2 John 4 256 2 Kgs 1:11 146 2 Kgs 17:13–14 198 2 Kgs 17:34 292 2 Kgs 17:37 292 2 Kgs 18:19, 29 146 2 Kgs 18:25 96 2 Kgs 22:14–17 108 2 Kgs 23:1–3 104, 179, 181, 190, 281 2 Kgs 5:10 137 2 Macc 10:4 108, 198 2 Macc 14:4 271 2 Macc 15:9 109 2 Macc 4:16–17 108, 198 2 Macc 6:12–17 108, 198 2 Macc 7:18, 32 108, 198 2 Pet 2:4 132 2 Pet 3:8 263 2 Sam 12:30 271 2 Sam 14:26 111 2 Sam 7 160 2 Sam 7:14 275 2 Tim 1:7–8 206 2 Tim 2:5 271, 272 2 Tim 3:11–15 268 2 Tim 3:15 117 2 Tim 4:7–8 271 2 Tim 4:8 268, 272 3 Bar. 6.1 273 4 Esd 8:27 237 4 Ezra 12:36–37 307 4 Ezra 13:20–56 139 4 Ezra 8:27–9:25 139 4 Macc 18:10 109 4 Macc 18:11–18 262 4QEnGiantsa fragment 8 133 4QFlor 275

INDEX OF PRIMARY SOURCES 4QMMT Acts 10:27–48 Acts 10:36 Acts 11:19 Acts 12:1–3 Acts 12:15 Acts 13:14–16 Acts 13:14–43 Acts 13:15 Acts 13:24 Acts 13:24–25 Acts 13:26 Acts 13:41 Acts 13:45 Acts 13:5–12 Acts 14:15–17 Acts 14:22 Acts 14:6–20 Acts 15:21 Acts 16:23 Acts 17:1 Acts 17:10 Acts 17:12 Acts 17:16–34 Acts 17:17 Acts 17:3–4 Acts 17:5–8 Acts 18:1–17 Acts 18:13–17 Acts 18:17 Acts 18:8 Acts 19:37 Acts 19:8 Acts 2:23 Acts 2:36 Acts 2:37–38 Acts 2:45 Acts 2:8 Acts 20:23 Acts 20:25 Acts 21:11 Acts 22:19 Acts 22:30 Acts 23:25–30

109 116 220 264 245 133 114 115 109, 138 115 115 115 115 242 242 116 299 116 114 256 106 106 115 116 106, 115 115 254 139 242 138 138 242 299 255 255 115 239 114 236 109, 299 145 106 242 242

427

Acts 24:1–22 242 Acts 24:14 109 Acts 24:2 254 Acts 25:1–27 242 Acts 25:6 259 Acts 26:11 242 Acts 26:1–7 242 Acts 27:22 40 Acts 27:9 40 Acts 28:23 109, 299 Acts 28:30–31 299 Acts 3:11–12 80 Acts 3:25–26 117 Acts 4:10 255 Acts 4:9, 30 80 Acts 6:8 271 Acts 6:9–15 245 Acts 7:38 247 Acts 9:23 245 Acts 9:29 245 Acts Pil. 12:23 109 Acts Pil. 19:8 109 Acts Pil. 4:3 109 Ambrose Noe 25.424 76 Amos 1:11 101, 190 Amos 1:13 190 Amos 1:6 145, 190 Amos 1:9 190 Amos 1–2 21, 88, 167 Amos 1–2:3 269 Amos 2:1 190 Amos 2:4 190 Amos 2:6 190 Amos 3:2 196, 234, 235 Amos 4 102 Amos 5:15 190 Amos 5:3 190 Amos 5:4 190 Amos 7:11 190 Amos 7:16 304 Amos 7:17 190 Ap. John 2.1.35 167 Apoc. Ab. 20–31 139 Apoc. El. 1:8 271

428

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

Aristides Or. 42.770–76 226 Aristides Panath. 328 68, 226 Aristides Works 26 135 Aristides Works 41.19 226 Aristion Apost. Const. vii. 45 335 Ascen. Isa. 11.40 271 Ascen. Isa. 3:15 132 Ascen. Isa. 7:22 271 Ascen. Isa. 9.7, 24 271 Ascen. Isa. 9:24 271 Augustine Civ. 2, 5, 8 76 Augustine Civ. 6.11 244 Augustine Conf. 3.5 76 Augustine Conf. 4.3 76 Augustine Faust. 33.6 76 b. Bar. 17 268 b. Meg. 29b 114 b. Šabb. 31a 110 b. Sotah 49 107 Bar. 1:15–3:8 108 Basil Comm. Isa. 1.46 132 Cassiodorus Inst. 1.1.31 76 Cato Agr. 1.1.4 74 Celsus Med. 1.15 74 Celsus Med. 1.8 74 Celsus Med. 3.9.2 74 Celsus Med. 4.5.2 74 Celsus Med. 8.20.4 74 Cicero Arch. 7.8.19 68, 226 Cicero Flac. 68 244 Cicero Phil. 11.2.5 264 Clement, Strom. 2.20.17 76 Clement, Strom. 6.2.5 76 Col 2:3 240 Col 3–4 40 Col 4:1 117 Col 4:12 134 Col 4:13 51 Corp. Hermet.13:13 307 Cyprian Fort. 11.76 254 Cyprian Laps. 1, 2 255 Cyprian Test. 1.15 109 Cyprian Test. 1.4 109 Cyprian Test. 4.28 109

Cyprian Test. 490 265 Damascus Document 7:15–17 109 Dan 1:12 259, 261 Dan 1:12–14 261, 262 Dan 1:20 261 Dan 10:13–21 132 Dan 12:1 196 Dan 12:11 259 Dan 2 307 Dan 3:12, 18 261, 262 Dan 7:14 46 Dan 7:14, 18 333 Dan 7–12 131, 137 Dan 9:18–19 197 Dan 9:24–26 259 Dan 9:4–19 108 Dan 9:5 292 Deut 1:1–5 99 Deut 1:1–6 191 Deut 1:3 142 Deut 1:6–3:29 151 Deut 1:6–4:49 99 Deut 1:7 192 Deut 1:8 160 Deut 10:12 193 Deut 10:12–11:32 99 Deut 10:12–13 193 Deut 10:1–5 180, 181 Deut 10:17 192 Deut 10:20 117 Deut 11:1 193, 292 Deut 11:13 193 Deut 11:13–23 101 Deut 11:16 270 Deut 11:17 290 Deut 11:22 193 Deut 11:26–28 214 Deut 11:6 192 Deut 11:9 160 Deut 12:1–26:19 99 Deut 12:32 128 Deut 12–26 156 Deut 13 17 Deut 13:1 192

INDEX OF PRIMARY SOURCES Deut 13:16–17 Deut 13:3 Deut 13:5 Deut 15:1–18 Deut 16:20 Deut 16:32 Deut 17:19 Deut 17:7 Deut 18:15 Deut 18:9–22 Deut 18–20 Deut 19:18 Deut 19:9 Deut 21:22–23 Deut 21:23 Deut 22:16–20 Deut 22:4 Deut 23:14 Deut 23:3 Deut 23:4–5 Deut 24:14–22 Deut 24:3–7 Deut 24–26 Deut 25:19 Deut 26:16 Deut 26:16–17 Deut 26:16–19 Deut 27 Deut 27:1–30:20 Deut 27:1–8 Deut 27:26 Deut 27–28 Deut 27–30 Deut 28 Deut 28:10 Deut 28:1–14 Deut 28:1–31:29 Deut 28:15–68 Deut 28:1–68 Deut 28:18 Deut 28:21 Deut 28:23–24 Deut 28:35 Deut 28:49–52

161 193 300 236 160 103 180 117 294 13, 95 160 194 128 162 117 128 121 251 261 193 236 21, 131 181 196 193 292 177 115, 320 99 130 115, 117 168 159, 166 102, 293 197 99, 165 108, 198 99, 108, 165 128, 295 161 290 290 192 115

429

Deut 28:64–68 115 Deut 28:69 129 Deut 28:9 160 Deut 29 129 Deut 29:1 129 Deut 29:10–14 100, 129 Deut 29:1–29 128 Deut 29:1–30:20 99 Deut 29:15 129 Deut 29:15–19 100, 129 Deut 29:15–20 100, 129 Deut 29:18ff 321 Deut 29:1–9 100, 129 Deut 29:19ff 192 Deut 29:20 128, 194, 196 Deut 29:22 129 Deut 29:24–28 115 Deut 29:28 129 Deut 29:2ff 321 Deut 29:9 17 Deut 3:11 192 Deut 3:19 196 Deut 3:8–24 269 Deut 30 117 Deut 30:1 115, 293 Deut 30:15-20 320 Deut 30:16 193, 292 Deut 30:17–18 193 Deut 30:19 154, 174, 175, 176, 321 Deut 30:2 193 Deut 30:6 193 Deut 31:10–12 180 Deut 31:1–34:12 99 Deut 31:21 196 Deut 31:24–26 174, 179, 180 Deut 31:26 175 Deut 31:28 174, 175, 176 Deut 31:29 293 Deut 31:30 100 Deut 31:30–33:29 295 Deut 31:5 251 Deut 31:9–11 190

430

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

Deut 31:9–13 104, 114, 179, 180, 181 Deut 32 100, 102 Deut 32:1 103, 170, 176, 221 Deut 32:1–47 174 Deut 32:17 192 Deut 32:24 290 Deut 32:26 196 Deut 32:29 251 Deut 32:34 192 Deut 32:39 231 Deut 32:4 192 Deut 32:4; 34:5 192 Deut 32:40 192 Deut 32:43 117 Deut 32:47 293 Deut 32:5–6 100 Deut 33:5 153 Deut 34:10 13, 95, 293 Deut 34:11 294 Deut 34:1–12 329 Deut 4 130 Deut 4:1 129, 160 Deut 4:1–40 99 Deut 4:15–31 193 Deut 4:16, 17 117 Deut 4:1ff 192 Deut 4:2 128, 211 Deut 4:23 211 Deut 4:26 171, 173, 174, 175, 176, 321 Deut 4:29–31 130, 198 Deut 4:30 293 Deut 4:4 160 Deut 4:41–49 99 Deut 4:45 156 Deut 4:6 117 Deut 4:8 270 Deut 4:9 117 Deut 4–11 156 Deut 5:1 156 Deut 5:10 252 Deut 5:11 193 Deut 5:1–11:32 99

Deut 5:12–15 Deut 5:1–22 Deut 5:1–26:49 Deut 5:13 Deut 5:16 Deut 5:16, 33 Deut 5:1–63 Deut 5:17 Deut 5:18 Deut 5:19 Deut 5:2 Deut 5:20 Deut 5:21 Deut 5:2–3 Deut 5:23–27 Deut 5:2–5 Deut 5:31 Deut 5:4 Deut 5:8 Deut 5:9–10 Deut 6:1 Deut 6:13 Deut 6:16 Deut 6:24–25 Deut 6:3 Deut 6:4 Deut 6:4–8:20 Deut 6:5 Deut 6:6–9 Deut 6:7 Deut 7:11 Deut 7:12–13 Deut 7:23 Deut 7:6 Deut 7:8 Deut 8:11 Deut 8:1–4 Deut 8:3 Deut 8:9 Deut 9:11 Deut 9:1–10:11 Deut 9:14 Deut 9:15 Deut 9:23

194 193 99 194 194 117 99 194 194 194 211 194 194 97 13, 95 147 292 293 192 193 292 117 117 101 101 117, 304 99 193 107 117 292 193, 252 251 117 300 292 160 117 236 97 99 196 97 101

INDEX OF PRIMARY SOURCES Deut 9:9 97 Didache 73, 78, 81 Ep Jer 6:15–7:4 51 Ep Jer 7:24–35 51 Ep. Arist. 280 269 Eph 1:1–2 212 Eph 3:13 264 Eph 4:6 117 Eph 4–6 40 Eph 5:23–27 117 Eph 6:1–3 117 Eph 6:4 117 Eph 6:9 117 Epiphanius Pan. 2.30.4 80 Esth 8:15 271 Euripides, Ion 720 261 Eusebius Hist. eccl. 3.39.4,14 335 Eusebius Hist. eccl. 4.15.25 242 Eusebius Hist. eccl. 4.15.3–45 335 Eusebius Hist. eccl. 4.15.46 335 Eusebius Hist. eccl. 4.26.13 112 Eusebius Hist. eccl. 5.1.16 255 Exod 1:14 152 Exod 10:3 146, 192, 293 Exod 11:4 192, 293 Exod 15 294 Exod 17:14 196 Exod 19 152 Exod 19:1–24 144 Exod 19:3–8 21, 96, 131 Exod 19:5 101, 165, 220 Exod 19:5–25 147 Exod 19:5–6 300 Exod 19–24 11, 12 Exod 2:24 220 Exod 20 8, 144, 193 Exod 20:1 191, 192 Exod 20:11–12 165 Exod 20:1–17 96, 261 Exod 20:16 194 Exod 20:2 98, 151 Exod 20:3–17 157 Exod 20:3–5 98 Exod 20:3–6 269

431

Exod 20:5–7 165 Exod 20–25 97, 98, 99 Exod 22:20 160 Exod 22–31 157 Exod 23:20–33 166 Exod 23:22 269 Exod 24:1 290 Exod 24:3–8 96 Exod 24:4 36 Exod 24:7 98, 101, 114 Exod 24:7–8 180 Exod 24:8 177, 211, 328 Exod 25:16 98, 180, 181 Exod 26:23–29 220 Exod 27–28 175 Exod 28:36–38 197 Exod 3:19 151, 196 Exod 3:7 196, 235 Exod 32 196 Exod 32:32–33 196 Exod 33:11 293 Exod 33:12 196 Exod 33:17 196 Exod 34:1 175 Exod 34:11–17 269 Exod 34:28 97 Exod 4:14–16 13, 95 Exod 4:22 192, 293 Exod 40:20 98, 175, 180, 181 Exod 5:1 192, 293 Exod 5:10 146, 192 Exod 6:4 220 Exod 6:5 290 Exod 6:7 208, 275 Exod 7:1–2 13, 95, 142 Exod 7:14–25 261, 290 Exod 7:17 192, 293 Exod 7:26 192 Exod 8:1 293 Exod 8:16 192 Exod 8:20 293 Exod 9:1 146, 192, 293 Exod 9:13 192, 293 Ezek 11:20 200, 208

432

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

Ezek 14:11 Ezek 16:12 Ezek 21:31 Ezek 23:40 Ezek 23:42 Ezek 28:12 Ezek 28:13 Ezek 3:27 Ezek 3:4–6 Ezek 31:8–9 Ezek 34:18 Ezek 34:25 Ezek 34:26 Ezek 36:28 Ezek 37:23 Ezek 37:23, 27 Ezek 37:26 Ezek 37:27 Ezek 4:6 Ezek 40–48 Ezra 1:2 Ezra 9:6–15 FrgPol. 64.23 Gal 3:10 Gal 3:10–13 Gal 3:13 Gal 3:15 Gal 4:21–31 Gal 5:14 Gal 6:1 Gal 6:15 Gal 6:16 Gal 6:2 Gen 11:19 Gen 12:7 Gen 15:18 Gen 15:9–18a Gen 17:4 Gen 17:5 Gen 17:7 Gen 2:9 Gen 22:18 Gen 24:55 Gen 26:4

200, 208 271 271 137 271 271 274 172, 304 46 274 146 168 190, 295 200, 208, 275 208 200 168 208 259 131, 137 227 108 245 115 113 117, 162 270 35 110, 111 258 243 209 111 26 160 160, 220 253 220 91 220 195, 273 117 259, 261 117

Gen 26:5 292 Gen 27:35 169 Gen 3:22, 24 273 Gen 31 96 Gen 31:7, 41 261 Gen 9:12–17 26, 201 Gen 9:13, 16 201 Gk. Apoc. Ezra 6:17 271 Gos. Mary 7.10 303 Gos. Mary 7.16 303 Gos. Mary 7.8 303 Gos. Thom. 58 269 Gos. Thom. 8.21 303 Gos. Thom. 8.63 303 Gos. Thom. 8.65 303 Gos. Thom. 8.96 303 Gregory Or. Bas. 42 132 Gregory Or. Bas. 7.10 77 Hab 1:5 115 Hab 2:4 115, 282 Hab 2:4–3:3–15 282 Hag 1:13 137 Hag 1:2 145 Hag 2:19 164, 190, 295 Heb 1:13–14 131 Heb 1:14 133 Heb 10:16–18 117 Heb 10:25 247 Heb 10:34 239 Heb 11:17 258 Heb 11:37 236 Heb 12:15–17 322 Heb 12:22–23 209 Heb 12:23 197 Heb 12:24 329 Heb 12:33 196 Heb 2:18 258 Heb 4:1 322 Heb 6:2 ff 322 Heb 7:1–22 328 Heb 8:10 270 Heb 9:11–23 328 Heb 9:15 329 Heb 9:15–28 117

INDEX OF PRIMARY SOURCES Hermas Sim. 2.9 196 Hermas Sim. 8.2.1 271 Hermas Sim. 8.2.1–4 271 Hermas Sim. 8.3.6 271 Hermas Vis. 2.1.3 182 Hermas Vis. 2.2.2–3 182 Hermas Vis. 2.2.7 269 Hermas Vis. 4.2.5 281 Hermas Vis. 4.3.4 281 Hippocrates Jusj. 1:289 71, 156, 164, 173, 179 Hippocrates Jusj. 1:302 71 Hippolytus Antichr. 59 133 Hippolytus Haer. 5.2 76 Homer Iliad 11.408 86 Homer Iliad 14.72 86 Homer Iliad 16.50 86 Homer Iliad 18.192 86 Homer Iliad 19.219 86 Homer Iliad 20.201 86 Homer Iliad 21.440 86 Homer Iliad 22:255 66 Homer Iliad 22:255 38 Homer Iliad 3:276-300 173 Homer Iliad 4.163 86 Homer Iliad 6.447 86 Homer Iliad 7.237 86 Homer Illiad 12.133 261 Homer Illiad 13.826 261 Homer Illiad 8.539 261 Homer Odyssey 10.267 86 Homer Odyssey 11.69 86 Homer Odyssey 14.365 86 Homer Odyssey 15.211 86 Homer Odyssey 16.469 86 Homer Odyssey 17.307 86 Homer Odyssey 18.228 86 Homer Odyssey 20.309 86 Homer Odyssey 23.201 86 Homer Odyssey 3.184 86 Homer Odyssey 4.551 86 Homer Odyssey 5.215 86 Homer Odyssey 6.176 86 Homer Odyssey 7.25 86

433

Homer Odyssey 8.215 86 Hos 1 194 Hos 1:1 322 Hos 1:10 200, 208 Hos 10–14 102, 295 Hos 13:4 150, 190 Hos 13:4–5 196, 234 Hos 2:14 40 Hos 2:20 40 Hos 2:21–22 176 Hos 2:22 235 Hos 2:23 200 Hos 2–3 102 Hos 3:15 40 Hos 3:2 40 Hos 3:2–3 117 Hos 4:1 40, 235 Hos 4:1, 4 220 Hos 4:1–2 150 Hos 4:1–3 103 Hos 4:15 156, 190 Hos 4–7 102 Hos 5:4 235 Hos 6:7 117 Hos 8–9 102, 295 Hos 9:15 117 Ignatius Phld. 10:1 111, 118 Ignatius Phld. 4:3 112 Ignatius Phld. 5:2 112 Ignatius Phld. 9:1 112 Ignatius Phld. 9:2 111 Ignatius Smyrn. 1.2 242 Ignatius Smyrn. 4.2 336 Ignatius Smyrn. 4:4 112 Ignatius Smyrn. 5:1 112 Ignatius Smyrn. 5:2 112 Ignatius Smyrn. 6:1 111, 112, 118 Ignatius Smyrn. 7:1 112 Ignatius Smyrn. 7:2 111 Ignatius Smyrn. 9:1 112 Irenaeus Haer. 26.2 242 Isa 1 290 Isa 1.2 176 Isa 1:10 36

434

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

Isa 1:10–20 Isa 1:2 Isa 1:2, 4 Isa 1:2–20 Isa 1:2–3 Isa 10:24 Isa 11:1 Isa 11:15 Isa 14:24 Isa 17:3 Isa 17:6 Isa 19:4 Isa 22:15, 25 Isa 22:18 Isa 22:21 Isa 28:23 Isa 28:3, 5 Isa 28:5 Isa 3:13–15 Isa 30:8 Isa 30:9 Isa 34:1–2 Isa 35:10 Isa 36:10 Isa 36:14 Isa 36:20 Isa 36:4 Isa 38:5 Isa 4:3 Isa 40–60 Isa 41:1, 17–20 Isa 41:17 Isa 41:4 Isa 43:7 Isa 44:26 Isa 44:6 Isa 48:12 Isa 49:1 Isa 5:1ff Isa 51:11 Isa 51:21–23 Isa 51:4 Isa 52:13 Isa 52:14

102 103, 176 117 170 102, 103 146 195 161 146 146 146 146 146 271 271 221 271 271 103 190, 295 117 160 300 96 146 263 146 146 196 128, 209 283 237 233 197 137 233 231, 233 172, 221 117 300 237 172, 221 278 279

Isa 53:11 278 Isa 53:7 242 Isa 54:11 237 Isa 54:4 128 Isa 54:8 263 Isa 56:5 197 Isa 6:9–10 304 Isa 62:2 197 Isa 62:2–5 209 Isa 62:3 271 Isa 65:15 91, 197 Isa 65:17 160 Isa 65:6 279 Isa 7:3 304 Isa 7:7 146 Isa 8:1–4 304 Isa 8:16 36 Jas 1:12 267, 268, 271, 276, 277 Jas 1:13 258 Jas 1:2–3 258 Jas 1:2–4 268 Jas 1:25 268 Jas 1:3–4 268 Jas 2:2 247 Jas 2:5 240 Jas 2:8 111 Jas 5:10–11 268 Jas 5:11 277 Jdt 2:5 146 Jdt 8:18–19 108, 198 Jer 1:11–13 137 Jer 11:4 200, 208, 275 Jer 13:18 271 Jer 17:10 91 Jer 2:12 103, 176 Jer 2:27 117 Jer 2:4 221 Jer 2:4–13 170 Jer 2:4–5 172 Jer 2:5–13 102 Jer 2:9 220 Jer 22:15–16 150 Jer 22:9 108 Jer 24:7 200, 208, 235

INDEX OF PRIMARY SOURCES Jer 26:5 138 Jer 29 51 Jer 29:19 138 Jer 29:23 173, 190, 295 Jer 29:4–32 51 Jer 3:19 117 Jer 30:10–11 128 Jer 30:22 200, 208, 275 Jer 31:1 200, 208 Jer 31:31 168, 322 Jer 31:31–34 202 Jer 31:33 200, 208 Jer 31:34 236 Jer 32:28 200, 208 Jer 35:14 138 Jer 35:15 156, 190 Jer 35:18 128 Jer 36:10 179, 190 Jer 39:18 253 Jer 42:15 304 Jer 42:5 173, 295 Jer 42:7 259 Jer 7:23 200, 208, 275 Jer 7:3 146 Jerome Comm. Mich. 6:1, 2 132 Jerome Epist. 109.2 76 Jerome Epist. 125.16 76 Jerome Epist. 52.15 76, 77 Jerome Jov. 1.3 76 Jerome Vigil. 4 76 Job 1:2 254 Job 1:8–12 259 Job 13:6 221 Job 15:6 271 Job 19:2–3 261 Job 19:3 259 Job 19:9 271 Job 22:25 259 Job 23:10 259 Job 31:36 271 Job 32:10 259 Job 32:2 271 Job 33:1 221 Job 33:31 221

435

Job 34:16 221 Job 34:2 221 Job 38:1 282 Job 38–42:6 137 Job 40:3 282 Job 40:4 271 Job 40:6 282 Job 42:1–6 282 Job 45:12 271 Joel 2:27 200, 208, 275 John 1:14 202 John 1:46 109 John 13:2 254 John 13:27 254 John 15:18–16:4 264 John 16:33 264 John 17:33 276 John 19:12 254 John 19:14–15 242 John 19:2 ,5 271 John 19:6–7 242 John 21:10 256 John 6:39 160, 256 John 6:44 160 John 6:54 160 John 8:33 243 Josephus Ag. Ap. 2.17.75 106 Josephus Ag. Ap. 2.6 249 Josephus Ant. 1.14 108, 198 Josephus Ant. 11.26 145 Josephus Ant. 14.10.23 106 Josephus Ant. 14.115 244 Josephus Ant. 19.6.3 106 Josephus Ant. 20.9.5 257 Josephus Ant. 4.213 107 Josephus J.W. 1.33 107 Josephus J.W. 2.14.4 106 Josephus J.W. 2.391–93 108, 198 Josephus J.W. 2.398 244 Josephus J.W. 5.401–19 108, 198 Josephus J.W. 7.43 244 Josephus Life 277 106 Josephus Life 280 106 Josh 10:28 161

436

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

Josh 16 99 Josh 21 99 Josh 24 8, 11, 12, 21, 96, 99, 104, 131, 166 Josh 24:14–25 156 Josh 24:17–18 150 Josh 24:19–20 165 Josh 24:20 165 Josh 24:22 177 Josh 24:22, 27 174 Josh 24:26 179, 181 Josh 24:2b–13 150 Josh 6:21 161 Josh 8:30–35 96 Josh 8:34 179 Jub. 36:11 86, 302 Jub. 7:20 302 Jub. 7:20, 29 86 Jub. 7:29 302 Jude 6 132 Judg 11:14–15 227 Justin 1 Apol. 1:67 114 Justin 1 Apol. 131.2 255 Justin 1 Apol. 30.78 255 Justin 1 Apol. 31.5–6 241 Justin 1 Apol. 5 255 Justin 1 Apol. 57.1 255 Justin 1 Apol. 63.10 255 Justin Dial. 108.3 249 Justin Dial. 133.6 249 Justin Dial. 137.2 249 Justin Dial. 16.2 242 Justin Dial. 16.4 249 Justin Dial. 47.4 249 Justin Dial. 47.4,15 242 Justin Dial. 5 255 Justin Dial. 93.4 249 Justin Dial. 95.4 249 Justin Dial. 96.2 249 Lam 2:15 271 Lam 5:16 271 Largus Comp. 5 74 Lev 1–25 157 Lev 19:18 110

Lev 26 Lev 26:1–13 Lev 26:12 Lev 26:15 Lev 26:3–39 Lev 27:19 Lev 28–29 Luke 1:11 Luke 10:20 Luke 10:25–37 Luke 11:49 Luke 12:21 Luke 12:33–34 Luke 13:10–17 Luke 13:14 Luke 13:20 Luke 13:28 Luke 14:35 Luke 16:16 Luke 18:20 Luke 2 Luke 2:14 Luke 22:20 Luke 22:3 Luke 23:2 Luke 23:20–23 Luke 24:27 Luke 4:12 Luke 4:13 Luke 4:33–38 Luke 6:20 Luke 6:6 Luke 8:49 Luke 8:55 Luke 8:8 Luke 9:52 m. ’Abot m. Sanh. 11:2 m. Sotah 7:6 m. Tamid 7:2 Mal 2:1 Mal 2:14 Mal 3:1 Mal 4:4

96, 102, 159 168 208, 275 292 108 161 161 131 196, 197 110 256 240 240 139 138 108 108 172, 303, 305 109 106 260 220 326, 329 254 254 242 109 258 258 106 108, 240 106 138 76 172, 303, 305 131 36 107 112 112 137 117 138 150, 190

INDEX OF PRIMARY SOURCES Mark 1:13 258 Mark 1:15 108 Mark 1:4 115 Mark 10:14 109 Mark 10:15 109 Mark 13:11–13 310 Mark 13:14 114 Mark 13:7ff 281 Mark 13:9 310 Mark 14:12–14 242 Mark 14:24 326 Mark 15:17 271 Mark 15:29 241, 249 Mark 4:10–12 310 Mark 4:11 108, 305 Mark 4:17 310 Mark 4:21–22 308 Mark 4:23 305 Mark 4:30 108 Mark 4:40 206 Mark 4:9 305 Mark 5:22 138 Mark 5:35–38 138 Mark 6:2 106 Mark 8:30 306 Mark 8:34–9:1 310 Mark 9:43 76 Mark 9:9 306 Mart. Ascen. Isa. 3.11 255 Mart. Ascen. Isa. 5.1 255 Mart. Ascen. Isa. 8.26 268 Mart. Ascen. Isa. 9.7–18 268 Mart. Ignat. 7 255 Mart. Pionii 13.1 107, 246, 248 Mart. Pionii 13.2 248 Mart. Pionii 14.1 246 Mart. Pionii 15.7 232 Mart. Pionii 2.1 246 Mart. Pionii 3.6 246 Mart. Pionii 4.2 226 Mart. Pionii 4.2, 8 246 Mart. Pionii 4.4–6 121 Mart. Pol. 1.13 245 Mart. Pol. 10.1 262

437

Mart. Pol. 12.2 245 Mart. Pol. 12:2–3 242 Mart. Pol. 13:1 242 Mart. Pol. 17.1 255, 334 Mart. Pol. 19.2 334 Mart. Pol. 2.4 255 Mart. Pol. 9.2 262 Matt 10:17 106 Matt 10:7 299 Matt 10:8 80 Matt 11:10 109 Matt 11:11–15 110 Matt 11:13 109 Matt 11:15 110, 168, 172, 303, 305 Matt 12:28 299 Matt 12:43 168 Matt 12:9 168 Matt 13:11 108 Matt 13:11ff 299 Matt 13:19 172 Matt 13:31 108 Matt 13:33 108 Matt 13:43 303, 305 Matt 13:9 303 Matt 13:9–17 305 Matt 15:28 109 Matt 15:30 76 Matt 16:19 299 Matt 16:28 299 Matt 17:1–13 110 Matt 18:10 132 Matt 18:15ff 322 Matt 18:3 109 Matt 18:3–4 299 Matt 18:8 76 Matt 19:14 109, 299 Matt 19:21 240 Matt 2:15 109 Matt 2:17 109 Matt 2:23 109 Matt 2:5 109 Matt 21:43 299 Matt 22:37 117

438

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

Matt 22:37–40 Matt 22:40 Matt 23:5 Matt 24 Matt 24:14 Matt 24:22 Matt 25:34 Matt 26:28 Matt 27:22–23 Matt 27:29 Matt 27:39 Matt 3:7–10 Matt 3:9 Matt 4:1 Matt 4:1–11 Matt 4:17 Matt 4:23 Matt 4:3 Matt 4:4–10 Matt 5:10 Matt 5:17 Matt 5:17–18 Matt 5:18 Matt 5:21 Matt 5:26 Matt 5:3 Matt 5:3–12 Matt 6:16 Matt 6:19–21 Matt 6:2 Matt 6:20 Matt 6:33 Matt 6:5 Matt 7:12 Matt 8:11 Matt 8:13 Matt 9:13 Matt 9:35 Mic 1:2 Mic 2:3 Mic 3:5 Mic 6 Mic 6:1 Mic 6:1–2

110 109, 111, 118 107 264 299 263 299 326 242 271 242 86, 302 243 258 117 108, 299 106, 299 258 109 299 109 293 109 109 109 108, 240, 299 109 109 240 109 240 299 109 109 108 109 109 299 173, 190, 295 145, 190, 304 190, 304 290 103 40

Mic 6:1–5 103 Mic 6:1–8 102, 170 Mic 6:1f 176 Mic 6:2 220 Mic 6:2 172 Mic 6:2 221 Mic 6:4–5 150, 190 Midr. 1:1–13 275 Midr. Ps 90:4 109 Neh 1:7 292 Neh 13:1 261 Neh 4:12 261 Neh 5:18 259 Neh 8:3 179, 190 Neh 9:13–14 292 Num 11:19 259, 261 Num 14:22 259, 261 Num 14:34 259 Num 20 193 Num 20:17 111 Num 21:2 161 Num 21:22 111 Num 22 193 Num 22:15–16 227 Num 22:6 196 Num 24 193 Num 25:12 220, 270 Num 6:26 220 Num 6:27 197 Num12:6–8 293 Obad 1:1 145 Odes Sol. 3:10–11 172 Origen Cels. 6:27 255 Origen Hom. Luc. 23 133 Origen Hom. Num. 20.3 133 P.Oxy. 31.2547 71 P.Oxy. 43.3097–8 77 P.Oxy. 43.3132 77 Pausanias Descr. 2.36.9 232 Pausanias Descr. 7.5.9 232 Phil 2:25 134 Phil 3:10 234 Phil 3:4 243 Phil 4:1 271

INDEX OF PRIMARY SOURCES Phil 4:18 134 Phil 4:3 197 Philo Fug. 17 240 Philo Hypoth. 7.11–14 107 Philo Legat. 132 106 Philo Legat. 245 244 Philo Legat. 349–67 249 Philo Mos. 2.25–44 117 Philo Plant. 69 240 Philo Praem. 104 240 Philo Sobr. 56 240 Philo Somn. 1:179 240 Philostratus Vit. Apoll. 7:21 258 Philostratus Vit. Soph. 1.25.10 230 Pionius Mart. Pionii 23.1 335 Pionius Vit. Polyc. 30.4 226 Pirqe ’Abot 5:3 261 Pirqe R. El. 34 278 Pist. Soph. 1.17 303 Pist. Soph. 1.19 303 Pist. Soph. 1.33 303 Pist. Soph. 1.42 303 Pist. Soph. 1.43 303 Pist. Soph. 2.68 303 Pist. Soph. 2.86 303 Pist. Soph. 2.87 303 Pist. Soph. 3.124 303 Pist. Soph. 3.125 303 Pliny Ep. 10.19, 20 257 Pliny Nat. 10:5.118 226 Plutarch Comp. Phil. Flam. 3 272 Plutarch Cor. 3.3 272 Plutarch Quaest. Conv. 5.3 272 Plutarch Sert. 1.3 68, 227 Plutarch Vit. 23.3–4 74 Polybius Hist. 3.26.1 60 Prov 1:29 206 Prov 1:9 271 Prov 10:1, 7 206 Prov 12:4 271 Prov 13:4 36 Prov 14:24 271 Prov 16:31 271

439

Prov 17:6 271 Prov 3:18 274 Prov 4:1 221 Prov 4:9 271, 274 Prov 7:24 221 Ps 1:6 206 Ps 109 242 Ps 137 242 Ps 2 195, 242 Ps 2:8–9 195, 293 Ps 2:9 163 Ps 20:4 271 Ps 30:5 263 Ps 34:7 132 Ps 37:11 160 Ps 46:8–11 282 Ps 49:1 221 Ps 50:1–15 170 Ps 50:4 103, 176 Ps 64:11f 271 Ps 69 196, 242 Ps 69:28 196 Ps 73:13–14 282 Ps 73:17 282 Ps 73:3 282 Ps 89:26–29 275 Ps 90:4 263 Ps 91:11 132 Pseud. Clem. Rec. 5.34 243 Rev 1:1 120, 142 Rev 1:10–20 141, 142 Rev 1:11 34, 49, 91, 112, 120, 130, 131, 137, 140, 178 Rev 1:12–13 234 Rev 1:12–20 142 Rev 1:13 234, 295 Rev 1:1–3, 5 285 Rev 1:16 133, 135 Rev 1:17 233, 254, 291 Rev 1:17–18 142, 209, 228 Rev 1:18 192, 233, 253, 264 Rev 1:19 120, 130, 131, 178 Rev 1:2 171

440

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

Rev 1:20 133, 134, 135, 136, 160, 204, 234, 307 Rev 1:3 45, 52, 82, 112, 114, 137, 178, 267 Rev 1:4-4:2 207 Rev 1:4–5 52 Rev 1:4–6 321 Rev 1:5 127, 128, 172, 278, 281, 295 Rev 1:5b–6 127, 128 Rev 1:6 266, 278, 299, 300, 301 Rev 1:8 142, 146 Rev 1:9 171, 236, 263, 266, 291, 299 Rev 10:1 201 Rev 10:11 45, 46 Rev 10:5ff 192 Rev 10:7 307 Rev 11:10 290 Rev 11:1–13 291 Rev 11:15 299 Rev 11:1–6 283 Rev 11:17 146 Rev 11:19 198, 201, 202, 211, 283 Rev 11:2, 3 259 Rev 11:3 290 Rev 11:6 290 Rev 11:9 256 Rev 12:1 271, 272 Rev 12:10 299 Rev 12:10–12 209 Rev 12:11 127, 128, 160, 162, 253, 265, 277, 291 Rev 12:12 171, 192, 321 Rev 12:16 192 Rev 12:17 127, 128, 252, 292 Rev 12:3 272 Rev 12:6 259 Rev 12:7–17 118 Rev 13:1 241, 262, 272 Rev 13:10 266, 296 Rev 13:11–18 206 Rev 13:14–15 262

Rev 13:18 171, 262 Rev 13:5 241 Rev 13:6 241 Rev 13:7–8 262 Rev 13:8 197, 205, 242, 253, 275, 296 Rev 13:9 171 Rev 13:9–10 82 Rev 14:12 252, 266, 292 Rev 14:12–13 127, 128, 162, 294 Rev 14:12–14 268 Rev 14:13 82 Rev 14:14 272, 274 Rev 14:15 283 Rev 14:1-5 265 Rev 14:17 283 Rev 14:4 333 Rev 14:4–5 206, 296 Rev 15:2–4 112, 118 Rev 15:3 146, 294 Rev 15:3–4 294 Rev 15:3ff 192 Rev 15:5–8 283 Rev 16:11 241 Rev 16:13 206 Rev 16:15 82, 127, 128 Rev 16:1–7 283 Rev 16:2 192 Rev 16:21 241 Rev 16:5 192 Rev 16:7, 14 146 Rev 16–20 171 Rev 17:1–18 131 Rev 17:12 262 Rev 17:12–14 242 Rev 17:14 112, 118, 160, 192, 266, 295 Rev 17:16 262 Rev 17:3 241, 262 Rev 17:5, 7 307, 308 Rev 17:7 262 Rev 17:8 197, 205 Rev 18:13 76 Rev 18:20 205

INDEX OF PRIMARY SOURCES Rev 18:20–19:21 118 Rev 18:23 205 Rev 18:4 127, 128 Rev 19:11–12 209 Rev 19:12 272 Rev 19:16 76, 142, 192, 295 Rev 19:2 192 Rev 19:20 206 Rev 19:6, 15 146 Rev 19:6–22:9 207 Rev 2:1 33, 45, 49, 87, 91, 131, 141, 192, 227, 294 Rev 2:10 46, 87, 154, 162, 183, 219, 240, 253, 254, 255, 258, 260, 264, 266, 268, 272, 276, 302, 311, 316, 334, 335, 336 Rev 2:11 32, 53, 87, 171, 178, 184, 205, 207, 219, 221, 253, 266, 275, 277, 279, 281, 283, 302, 303, 304, 311, 316, 331 Rev 2:11–15 87 Rev 2:12 87, 131, 141, 184, 192, 204, 227 Rev 2:13 162, 184, 194, 195, 234, 266, 335 Rev 2:1–3:22 82 Rev 2:13–15 149 Rev 2:14 193, 196, 335 Rev 2:14–15 193, 194, 195, 204, 292 Rev 2:15 321 Rev 2:16 46, 87, 91, 154, 155, 159, 162, 184, 197, 266, 293 Rev 2:17 32, 53, 87, 91, 162, 171, 178, 184, 193, 195, 197, 205, 207, 221, 303, 331, 335 Rev 2:1–7 102 Rev 2:18 87, 131, 141, 185, 192, 227 Rev 2:19 185, 219, 234, 266, 335 Rev 2:19–21 87, 149 Rev 2:2 182, 195, 204, 219, 234, 258, 294, 335

441

Rev 2:20 46, 67, 204, 206, 321, 335 Rev 2:20–23 194, 195, 292 Rev 2:21 154 Rev 2:21–22 197 Rev 2:22 154, 185, 193, 195 Rev 2:22–23 159, 163, 266, 293 Rev 2:23 91, 194, 195, 335 Rev 2:24 185, 335 Rev 2:2–4 87, 91, 148 Rev 2:24–25 87, 155 Rev 2:26 46, 185, 335 Rev 2:26–28 87, 163, 205, 207 Rev 2:26–29 276 Rev 2:28 195, 335 Rev 2:29 32, 53, 87, 171, 178, 185, 221, 303, 331 Rev 2:3 263, 268 Rev 2:4 46, 67, 91, 111, 193, 195, 292, 335 Rev 2:4–5 321 Rev 2:5 87, 91, 154, 155, 159, 160, 162, 183, 197, 204, 266, 293 Rev 2:6 87, 148, 183 Rev 2:7 32, 53, 87, 91, 137, 140, 141, 162, 171, 178, 183, 189, 195, 205, 207, 219, 221, 273, 274, 302, 303, 304, 308, 309, 331, 335 Rev 2:8 33, 34, 45, 49, 87, 131, 141, 183, 189, 192, 194, 195, 227, 228, 233, 266, 275, 280 Rev 2:8–10 205 Rev 2:8–11 4, 5, 34, 224, 291, 302, 315, 316 Rev 2:9 87, 183, 204, 206, 234, 241, 243, 248, 258, 274, 302, 321, 335 Rev 20:10 206 Rev 20:12 197, 205 Rev 20:12–15 159 Rev 20:14 279 Rev 20:14–15 278

442

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

Rev 20:15 197, 205 Rev 20:3 207 Rev 20:4 127, 128, 291 Rev 20:4–6 261, 300 Rev 20:6 278, 279, 300 Rev 20–22 207 Rev 21:1 208 Rev 21:10 205 Rev 21:12 204, 205 Rev 21:1–22:5 160 Rev 21:14 204 Rev 21:16 204 Rev 21:17 192 Rev 21:1–8 261 Rev 21:2 117 Rev 21:22 146 Rev 21:22–22:16 205 Rev 21:27 197, 204, 205, 206, 208, 270 Rev 21:3 197, 198, 200, 202, 207, 208, 280, 330, 337 Rev 21:3, 7 117, 125, 202, 203, 278, 295 Rev 21:4 270 Rev 21:7 160, 198, 206, 207, 208, 211, 270, 275, 277, 280, 295, 331, 337 Rev 21:7–8 270 Rev 21:8 206, 278, 279 Rev 21:9–22:5 131, 203, 207 Rev 21–22 209, 210 Rev 22:1 204, 205 Rev 22:10 45, 82, 308 Rev 22:10–21 301 Rev 22:13 233 Rev 22:14 127, 128, 159, 195, 295, 296 Rev 22:1–4 274 Rev 22:15 206 Rev 22:16 127, 128, 136, 140, 178, 195 Rev 22:16–20 128, 173, 211, 321 Rev 22:17 127, 128

Rev 22:18 52, 136, 137, 140, 171, 178 Rev 22:18–19 45, 82, 128, 167, 177, 178 Rev 22:18ff 192 Rev 22:2 205 Rev 22:20 127, 128, 136 Rev 22:21 52 Rev 22:3 159, 160, 162, 205, 214, 270, 295 Rev 22:3–5 300 Rev 22:4 205 Rev 22:5 204, 205 Rev 22:6 128, 131 Rev 22:7 45, 82, 127, 128, 159, 171, 177, 295, 321 Rev 22:8 137, 140 Rev 2–3 43 Rev 3:1 87, 131, 141, 149, 186, 192, 194, 195, 204, 234, 292, 335 Rev 3:10 159, 163, 187, 205, 219 Rev 3:11 87, 155, 187, 266, 268 Rev 3:12 87, 163, 187, 193, 195, 197, 205, 207, 219, 331 Rev 3:13 32, 53, 87, 171, 178, 187, 221, 303, 331 Rev 3:14 87, 93, 128, 131, 141, 172, 187, 192, 227, 281, 335 Rev 3:15 46, 67, 187, 234, 335 Rev 3:16 76, 159, 187, 193, 195, 204, 266, 292, 293 Rev 3:16–17 163 Rev 3:17 194, 195, 240, 321, 335 Rev 3:18 91, 188 Rev 3:18–19 155 Rev 3:18–20 87 Rev 3:19 154, 197, 321 Rev 3:1a 227 Rev 3:2 46, 186, 204, 335 Rev 3:20 188 Rev 3:20–21 163 Rev 3:21 87, 188, 205, 207, 219, 268, 331, 335

INDEX OF PRIMARY SOURCES Rev 3:22 32, 53, 87, 171, 178, 188, 221, 303, 331 Rev 3:22–24 274 Rev 3:2–3 87, 155 Rev 3:28 331 Rev 3:3 67, 154, 159, 163, 186, 194, 195, 197, 293 Rev 3:3–15 282 Rev 3:3b 266 Rev 3:4 91, 186 Rev 3:4–5 163 Rev 3:5 87, 91, 196, 205, 207, 268, 331 Rev 3:6 32, 53, 87, 171, 178, 186, 221, 303, 331 Rev 3:7 87, 91, 131, 141, 186, 192, 227, 335 Rev 3:8 186, 234, 335 Rev 3:8–10 87 Rev 3:8–9 149 Rev 3:9 194, 195, 204, 206, 243, 256, 321, 335 Rev 4:10 272 Rev 4:10–11 267 Rev 4:2 119 Rev 4:3 26, 201 Rev 4:4 267, 268, 272 Rev 4:8 146 Rev 5 268 Rev 5:10 160, 242, 278, 300, 301 Rev 5:12 160, 242, 253 Rev 5:3 192 Rev 5:5 162, 242, 333 Rev 5:5–9 332 Rev 5:6 160, 242, 253, 275, 300, 333 Rev 5:6, 8 162 Rev 5:9 242 Rev 5:9–10 278, 300, 329, 333 Rev 6:10 192 Rev 6:2 271, 272, 274 Rev 6:9 291 Rev 6:9–11 127, 128 Rev 7:13–14 127, 128

443

Rev 7:14 160, 253, 264 Rev 7:15 205, 283 Rev 7:17 160 Rev 7:1–8 209 Rev 7:9 242 Rev 8:1 283 Rev 8:12 205 Rev 9:14 192 Rev 9:20 192 Rev 9:7 272 Rom 1:18, 23 117 Rom 1:19 116 Rom 1:20 116 Rom 1:28 111 Rom 10 117 Rom 11:27 117 Rom 13:4 119 Rom 13:8 111 Rom 13:8–10 110 Rom 13:9 111 Rom 15:10 117 Rom 16:17 86 Rom 2:14 116 Rom 2:14–15 116 Rom 2:26 116 Rom 2:28–29 243 Rom 3:21 109, 115 Rom 3:4 276 Rom 3:8 249 Rom 38 241 Rom 5:1 220 Rom 8:17–25 160 Rom 8:23 117 Rom 8:32 240 Rom 9:4 117 Rom 9:6 209 Seneca Ep. Mor. 62:3 240 Shem. Rab. 31 269 Sibylline Or. 3.271 244 Sir 11:11 271 Sir 11:18 271 Sir 22.22 307 Sir 25:6 271 Sir 50:12 271

444

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

Sir 6:3 271 Soph. Jes. Chr. 98, 105, 107 303 Sophocles Aj. 131.623 261 Soranus Gyn. 1.19.60 75 Strabo Geogr. 5:11.5.4 226 Strabo Geogr. 6:12.3.21 226 Strabo Geogr. 6:12.8.20 75 Strabo Geogr. 6:14.1.15 238 Strabo Geogr. 6:14.1.37 226 Strabo Geogr. 6:14.37 68 T. Ab.10.9 271 T. Ben. 4.1 268, 271 T. Dan 5.12 275 T. Job 40:3 271 T. Levi 18.11 275 T. Levi 8.2, 9 271 Tacitus Ann. 3.63 232 Tacitus Ann. 4.55–56 226, 238 Tacitus Ann. 4:56 265 Tertullian An. 14:1 75 Tertullian An. 15:1 75 Tertullian An. 25:1 75 Tertullian An. 44:1 75 Tertullian An. 6:1 75 Tertullian An. 8:1 75

Tertullian Scorp. 10.10 242 Tertullian Scorp. 10.6 246 Tertullian Scorp. 9.2 246 Tg. Isa. 22:14 277 Tg. Isa. 65.15 277 Tg. Jer. 51:39, 57 278, 279 Tg. Jer. Deut 33:6 279 Tg. Neof. Deut 33:6 278 Tg. Onq. Deut 33:6 277 Titus 2:14 117 Tob 12.7, 11 307 Ulpian Dig. 28.3.7 258 Ulpian Dig. 48.19.35 257 Ulpian Dig. 48.19.8.9 257 Ulpian Dig. 48.22.6 258 Wis 2.22 307 Wis 5:16 271 Zech 1:3 145, 146, 147 Zech 14:11 160, 161 Zech 1–6 131, 137 Zech 2:11 200, 208 Zech 3:1,2 254 Zech 5:3 164, 190, 295 Zech 6:14 271 Zech 8:8 200, 208

INDEX OF HEBREW TERMS

!wma $alm [dy [mX ~rx ~wlX amyq br

byr hb hwhy rbd rma rwbc trk tyrb xylX

93 137, 138 147, 153, 235, 236 285, 304 159, 160, 161 220 138 220

445

105 145 145, 304 304 145 138 26, 211 26, 37, 38, 39, 211, 220 138, 139

INDEX OF GREEK TERMS e;rga 151 e;rgon 148, 149, 294 e;scatoj 227, 228, 230, 231, 233 e`autou 234 ei=don 252, 254, 270 eivj 107, 228, 248, 252, 254 eivmi, 234, 240 eu`ri,skw 335 evgw,, 228, 270 evk 234, 252, 254, 256, 266, 279 evkklhsi,a 49, 247, 281 evlpi,j 271 evme,w 76 evnw,pion 270 evxalei,fw 196 evxousi,a 279 farmakea 78 fobe,w 115, 252, 253, 254 fulakh, 252, 254 gi,nomai 252, 264, 265 gra,fw 79, 89, 131 h`me,ra 252, 260, 261, 263 i[na 252, 258, 259 ka,lloj 271 kai, 60, 115, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231, 233, 234, 239, 252, 266, 270, 271 kale,w 107, 248 kardi,a 65 kata,qema 162 katalu,w 109 katoike,w 148, 149 kau,chsij 271 kinnamw,minoj 76 kullo,j 76

a;cri 252, 264, 265 a;ggeloj 49, 131, 132, 133, 134, 136, 137, 138, 139, 142 a;nhqon 76 a`rmo,nioj 66 auvto,j 235, 270 avdike,w 266, 277 avfqarsi,a 272, 277 avgge,llw 131 avggeli,a 131 avkou,w 281, 303 avlhqino,j 335 avlla, 234, 240, 250 avmh,n 93 avna,qema 160 avrci,atroj 74 avrcisuna,gwgoj 106, 138, 139 avrne,omai 335 avrni,on 142 ba,llw 252, 254 basiliko,j 111 blasfhmi,a 234, 241, 254 Cristou 285 de,ka 252, 261 deilo,j 206 deu,teroj 266, 279 di,dwmi 266, 270, 335 dia,boloj 252, 254, 335 dia,dhma 272 diaqh,kh 26, 38, 138, 201, 211, 212, 270 diati,qemai 26 dikaiosu,nh 272 do,xa 268, 271, 272 e;cw 168, 252, 256, 279, 281, 303, 335

447

448

SEVEN MESSAGES OF REVELATION AND VASSAL TREATIES

le,gw 33, 45, 54, 79, 89, 90, 141, 142, 145, 146, 147, 192, 227, 228, 234, 281, 286, 294, 315 ma,rtuj 171, 285, 290, 291, 321, 335 magei,a 78 marturi,a 171, 285, 290 me,llw 239, 252, 253, 254, 258 me,soj 234 mh, 252, 254, 266, 277 mhro,j 76 nekro.j 227, 228, 233 nika,w 266, 275, 276, 277 no,moj 35, 36, 37 o`mo,noia 66, 67, 230 o`mologe,w 335 oi=da 55, 85, 86, 89, 125, 147, 148, 149, 151, 196, 217, 234, 235, 236, 239, 294, 335 ou=j 281, 303 pa,scw 239, 252, 253 paraine,w 40 pe,nhj 237, 238 peira,zw 252, 256, 258 pisto,j 266, 285, 335 pisto.j 252, 264, 265 plhro,w 109 plou,sioj 234, 240 pneu/ma 45, 76, 281 profh,thj 45, 138, 291 profhtei,a 45, 49, 82 prw/toj 227, 228, 229, 230, 231, 233 ptwcei,a 234, 237, 238, 254 ptwco.j 237, 240 qa,natoj 252, 264, 265, 266, 279 qeo,j 115 qli,bw 236 qli/yij 148, 234, 252, 260, 264 qro,noj 335 sata,n 234, 247, 250, 335 Smu,rna 34 ste,fanoj 266, 267, 268, 270, 271, 272, 274, 277

sunagwgh, 107, 234, 247, 248, 250 ta,de 142 ta,de le,gei W 33, 45, 79, 141, 142, 145, 146, 147, 192, 193, 227, 286, 315 u`mi/n 136, 252, 254, 256 u`pomonh, 268 VIhsou/j 285 VIoudai/oj 234, 243, 248 VIouli,oj 74 xu,lon 273, 274, 275 yeudh,j 206 yeudoprofh,thj 206 zwh, 228, 266, 267, 273

INDEX OF FOREIGN TERMS Muwattališ 409 narratio 73, 74, 124, 125, 216 Neokoros 91, 344, 345 phylacteries 154 praescriptio 73, 74, 75, 321 proemium 73, 75 raison d’être 224 religio licita 375 rîb 4, 54, 131, 132, 133, 142, 143, 145, 146, 149, 173, 174, 175, 177, 328, 329, 432, 433, 451, 452, 454, 485, 511 riksu 51 riksu u māmītu 51 sacramentum 96, 100 šakuuaššarit 87 sanctio 74 šapru 204 Sěfire 409 Sitz im Leben 18, 378 tephîllîn 153, 154 tšm‘n 409 uarišša-in 87 Überwinderspruch 118 une relecture 63 vinculum fidei 51 Wanderlogion 468 Weckformel 13, 433, 464 Weckruf 13, 117, 433, 464

‘qd 51 accusatio 364 Adscriptio 124 Alakšanduš 409 āliku 204 ālikum 204 ālikūtu 204 ana tillatišu ina kūl libbi 87 awāte 214 berît 50, 53, 134, 297 birîtu 50 Botenformel 117 bund 50 coercitio 388 Corpus Hippocraticum 98, 99, 101 corroboratio 74 custodia reorum 388 delatores 364 dispositio 73, 74, 124, 225 Fehlübersetzung 297 Gattung 319, 486 Gerichtsrede 54, 132, 449, 486 Heilspredigt 120, 124, 460, 461 êrem 233, 235, 432 êrem 236 homonoia 51, 89, 91 idû 224 in situ 66, 150 50, 51 išhiul kešda 51 kudurru 9 lingaiš 51 mezûzôt 153

449