Is it only me that has to restrain himself from violence when someone refers to the Revelation as “Apocalyptic”? I guess using a long word derived from Greek is a handy way of disguising the fact that you have little idea of what’s actually going on in the book.

In Paradise Restored: A Biblical Theology of Dominion, David Chilton writes:

The Book of Revelation is often treated as an example of the “apocalyptic” genre of writings which flourished among the Jews between 200 B.C. and A.D. 100. There is no basis for this opinion whatsoever, and it is unfortunate that the word apocalyptic is used at all to describe this literature. (The writers of “apocalyptic” themselves never used the term in this sense; rather, scholars have stolen the term from John, who called his book “The Apocalypse [Revelation] of Jesus Christ.”) There are, in fact, many major differences between the “apocalyptic” writings and the Book of Revelation.

The “apocalyptists” expressed themselves in unexplained and unintelligible symbols, and generally had no intention of making themselves really understood. Their writings abound in pessimism: no real progress is possible, nor will there be any victory for God and His people in history. We cannot even see God acting in history. All we know is that the world is getting worse and worse. The best we can do is hope for the End – soon. But for now, the forces of evil are in control. (Sound familiar?) The practical result was that the apocalyptists rarely concerned themselves with ethical behavior. They weren’t much interested in how to live in the present (and actually taking dominion would be unthinkable); they just wanted to speculate about the coming cataclysms.

John’s approach in the Revelation is vastly different. His symbols are not obscure ravings hatched from a fevered imagination; they are rooted firmly in the Old Testament (and the reason for their seeming obscurity is that very fact: we have trouble understanding them only because we don’t know our Bibles). In contrast to the apocalyptists, who had given up on history, John presents history as the scene of redemption: God saves His people in their environment, not out of it; and He saves the environment.

Leon Morris, in his important study of Apocalyptic (Eerdmans, 1972), describes John’s worldview: “For him history is the sphere in which God has wrought out redemption. The really critical thing in the history of mankind has already taken place, and it took place here, on this earth, in the affairs of men. The Lamb ‘as it had been slain’ dominates the entire book. John sees Christ as victorious and as having won the victory through His death, an event in history. His people share in His triumph, but they have conquered Satan ‘by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony’ (Rev. 12:11). The pessimism which defers God’s saving activity until the End is absent. Though John depicts evil realistically, his book is fundamentally optimistic” (p. 79).

The apocalyptists said, The world is coming to an end: Give up! The Biblical prophets said, The world is coming to a beginning: Get to work!

Thus, the Book of Revelation is not an apocalyptic tract; it is, instead, as John himself reminds us repeatedly, a prophecy (1:3; 10:11; 22:7, 10, 18-19), completely in keeping with the writings of the other Biblical prophets. And — again in stark contrast to the apocalyptists — if there was one major concern among the Biblical prophets, it was ethical conduct. No Biblical writer ever revealed the future merely for the sake of satisfying curiosity: the goal was always to direct God’s people toward right action in the present. The overwhelming majority of Biblical prophecy had nothing to do with the common misconception of “prophecy” as foretelling the future. The prophets told of the future in order to stimulate godly living. The purpose of prophecy is ethical.

or What’s the Problem with Matthew 27:51-53?

Then, behold,
(Day 1 – Imperative / Light)
…..the veil of the temple
…..was torn in two
…..from top to bottom;
…..(Day 2 – Delegation / Waters)
……….and the Land quaked,
……….and the rocks were split,
……….(Day 3 – Law-Promise given)
……………and the graves were opened;
……………(Day 4 – Law-Promise opened)
……….and many bodies of the saints
……….who had fallen asleep were raised;
……….(Day 5 – Swarms / Witnesses)
…..and coming out of the graves
…..after His resurrection,
…..(Day 6 – Mediators)
they went into the holy city and appeared to many.
(Day 7 – Bridal Entry)

I’ve just read a few blog posts and comments concerning this text, and although it seems to us moderns to be

a) off-the-cuff,

b) strange, and to some academics

c), utterly incredible,

this is because the academics I was reading

a) are unfamiliar with literary structure and typology,

b) imagine a some discontinuity between the strange Old Testament prophets and Jesus, and

c) won’t believe the bizarre bits of the Bible unless they find them

i) corroborated elsewhere in the Bible,

ii) corroborated in Josephus, etc., or

iii) can discredit them by classifying them as a genre (such as apocalyptic, which is not a biblical genre) that renders them non-historical and thus non-embarrassing.

This

is

disgusting.

I’m not sure what the problem is with this event. Resurrection is always corporate, always plural. [1] Christ, the first “grain of wheat,” handed the baton on to His disciples and they did the same — as grains of Pentecostal wheat. The Garden “died” for the Land and the Land “died” for the World.

Their deaths resulted in what Revelation calls the “first” resurrection — all the Old Covenant saints entering into their rest, seated on thrones and judging (taking vengeance) on the leaders of Israel. That’s what Revelation’s about.

So the stuff that happens at the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ-as-Israel was a microcosm of the events that would happen to Israel herself over the following generation — “this generation.”

Judas was expelled, so Judah was expelled. The rocks were split and the veil was torn, so the Land was divided by the Gospel and the Temple was destroyed. And the small-scale resurrection in Matthew 27 prefigured the ascension of the “saints under the altar,” who had to wait until the final legal (i.e. “two”) witnesses testified against the Herodian Sodom/Egypt/Jericho/Babylon.

What do the preceding verses say? Which prophet prefigured the Ascension? [2] Which prophet prefigured the Resurrection? Jesus’ murderers, though they misheard Him, and though they themselves were “whited tombs,” knew the Scriptures.

The rest said, (Initiation)
…..“Let Him alone; (Delegation)
……….let us see if Elijah (Ascension)
………..will come to save Him.” (Offering)
……………And Jesus (Purification)
……….cried out again (Deut. Transformation)
…..with a loud voice, (Vindication / Oath)
and yielded up His spirit. (Ingathering)
(Matthew 27:49-50)

Then Elisha died, (De-Creation / Sabbath)
…..and they buried him. (Prostration / Passover)
……….And the [raiding] bands
……….from Moab invaded the land
……….in the spring of the year. (Firstfruits)
……………So it was, as they were burying a man,
……………that suddenly they spied a band [of raiders;]
……………(Testing – Pentecost)
……….and they put the man in the tomb of Elisha;
……….(Trumpets / Prophets)
…..and when the man was let down
…..and touched the bones of Elisha, (Atonement / Coverings)
he revived and stood on his feet. (Tabernacles / Succession)
(2 Kings 13:20-21)

____________________________________
[1] See Greater Eve.
[2] See The Lost Ark.

Keith Mathison writes:

“…apocalyptic literature was oriented toward the future and expressed its message in vivid symbolism encoded in dreams and visions. It is a genre of revelatory literature with a narrative framework, in which a revelation is mediated by an otherworldly being to a human recipient, disclosing transcendent reality.” [1]

Although this statement from Mathison’s helpful book is true, the more I learn the more I tend to believe our genre classification leaves a lot to be desired. The Bible is more organic than that.

Firstly, apocalyptic literature draws on Bible imagery beginning in the Garden of Eden right up to whatever stage in Bible history the particular “apocalyptic” passage appears, but it all takes place within the heavenly Tabernacle. The only reason it seems to be encoded is because we refuse to see the world as being a physical, literal symbol containing many physical, literal symbols; because we read the Bible like lawyers instead of poets; and because we have not been taught to look for familiar literary structures.

Secondly, all the imagery “takes on flesh” as the Bible history moves forward. Yes, the Tabernacle contained graven images [2], but all these images represented people. The Tent was history in a seed, a bit like that ominous black box in 2001: A Space Odyssey (but much less bland!) In the Old Testament, Israel’s history builds a Tabernacle. In the New Testament, Jesus is building a new Tabernacle out of people. The Tablets of Stone always, by the power of the Spirit, become tablets of flesh. The Words/symbols given to the prophet will “take on flesh” as they are measured out on the Land, tearing down the old house (death) and building up the new (resurrection).

Thirdly, the reality represented in apocalyptic passages is not transcendent, nor was it ever oriented towards the far future, to which Mathison would mostly agree. [3] It was always a message to that generation, and it demanded a moral response. “Hey guys, this is what’s coming. You are part of the Covenant community (which even extended from Israel to Nineveh, Tyre, Sidon and Babylon, although they became reprobate), and you have broken the Covenant.” The promised judgments always fell within a few generations of the prophets’ warnings.

God’s Ark, His “big black box,” makes stuff happen. The vivid, elemental Word-symbols take hold of history and give it a new beginning, a new cycle. They become vivid, elemental, prophetic living in His Man, which then becomes vivid death and resurrection in culture. The way to understand a person’s behaviour is to get to the heart. The way to understand history is to read the prophets.

If you struggle with the Tabernacle, get into James Jordan’s lectures. Link on the right, scroll down.

[1] From Age to Age: The Unfolding of Biblical Eschatology, p. 259-260.
[2] See Graven Words.
[3] See How to Read the Prophets, and Sweeping Genrelisations and Reading Revelation Through Frosted Glass.

One of the big problems with modern theology is its habit of categorising parts of the Bible into literary genres. For sure, the Bible contains historical prose, visions, poetry and songs. But many passages won’t actually fit into these neat little pigeon holes without hamstringing their intended purpose. And as it turns out, these “genre-lisations” are excuses to compromise with humanistic pop-philosophy and pop-history.

The three main gripes I have are misuses of the genres poetry, polemic and apocalyptic.

Poetry

There’s plenty of poetry in the Bible. But Genesis chapters 1-3, or even 1-11, are not poetry. Yes, they are carefully structured and often chiastic (symmetric), but they do not possess the forms of Hebrew poetry.1 Classing them as such is an excuse to relegate them to the realm of ideology instead of history. Yes, the Hebrews were “event orientated” in their literature, but the jury is still out on whether this was actually an oral tradition. Maintaining that Adam couldn’t write (or that Christ’s disciples didn’t write a gospel immediately, a la Dr. John Dickson) is a view based on pop-history, not the Bible.2

Polemic

“A polemic is part of the prophet’s speech, but not the speech of a king. Not to imply it is ‘beneath’ the king, but it seems to be a rhetorical crowbar to pry open ears.”3

The prophets were the Lord’s lawyers, bringing a covenant lawsuit to covenant breakers. This is not technically polemic. Or, it was as polemic as a sheriff turning up on your doorstep to serve papers.

It seems that certain passages of the Bible are classed as ‘polemic’ because we have problems with the actual history, at least, the parts that embarrass us because they ride against pop-history.

The same goes for early Genesis. None of Genesis is polemic for the benefit of Moses’ people. It is not addressed to them, and shows no signs of being an attack on ancient gods or a modification of Ancient Near East suzerainty covenants. Genesis is very clearly the original. The problem is our unbelief.

Neither is Revelation a polemic against Rome, despite what Richard Bauckham says.4 It concerns the Old Covenant people and their compromise with Rome. They were Covenant-breakers, and the Covenant structure is laced throughout the Revelation like brandy in a Christmas pudding (Get a review copy of my book Totus Christus to see this in action).

The only real polemic in the Bible might be the speeches of Job’s accusers, as they stitch their case together to scapegoat him. And they were the bad guys, the snakes in Job’s wilderness.

Apocalyptic

This one applies mainly to Isaiah, Ezekiel, Daniel and Revelation. The parts of these prophecies that don’t fit our interpretation of history get relegated to ideology, akin to the Jewish fables of the intertestament era. They lose their grip on actual history.

Sometimes this is understandable. Those who rightly refused to see Ezekiel 38-39′s Gog and Magog as a future battle still found it hard to pin it on something historical (including David Chilton). Jordan figured out that it was fulfilled in the book of Esther, and the Covenant “Egypt to Canaan” structure of Ezekiel confirms this (among many other more minor proofs). The prophecies of Isaiah concern the Restoration Covenant era, but this was an expansion of Israel’s spiritual influence. Because history doesn’t record a physical Jewish empire, the oracles are misunderstood and applied to the first century directly, or to some future Israel (applying oracles that concerned the Restoration of ancient Israel to modern Jews who are actually outside the Covenant!).

The apocalyptic sections of the New Testament suffer that same fate. Dispensationalists don’t understand that these concern a major change in the spiritual realm that was played out upon the first century Jews and the Roman empire, but the confusing imagery used is all firmly rooted in the Bible’s Covenant structure. It speaks a language we don’t understand.

So, these passages may be classed as apocalyptic, but unlike the Archibishop of Canterbury, we cannot conclude that John did see Jesus but it made him insane, and Revelation was the result!5 Nor can we cop out and say Matthew 24 jumped to the end of time, or that Revelation is just a general picture book of the church in the world. These prophecies commanded a moral response from their first audiences. All was to happen soon, upon this generation. Anything after that is just application, however helpful and important this may be. The prophecies are rooted firmly in history (a point which Bauckham makes, despite his misunderstanding of the purpose of the Revelation).

Apocalyptic is by definition a revelation of near historical events. It is not ideology from the subconscious of man for the purpose of rallying the troops or defining cultural identity.

None of these genres are an excuse for gnosticism, which, according to Jordan’s definition is this:

“Throughout history, the Christian Church has had to guard against the heresy of gnosticism. Gnosticism is not an ordinary heresy, because it does not manifest itself as a set of defined beliefs. Rather, gnosticism is a tendency: the tendency to replace the historic facts of Christianity with philosophical ideas. Gnosticism is the tendency to de-historicise and de-physicalise the Christian religion. Gnosticism transforms history into ideology and facts into philosophy. Gnosticism tends to see religion as man’s reflections about God and reality instead of as God’s revelation of Himself and His Word to man. As a tendency, gnosticism has always plagued the Church, and it is alive and well today, openly in ‘liberalism’, and in a more concealed fashion in ‘evangelicalism’.”6

So why is the Bible written the way it is? Peter Leithart writes:

As much as pragmatic Americans might wish it to be otherwise, the Bible is not an answer-book.  It includes advice, and laws, and rules, but a lot of it consists of puzzling prophecy, ancient history, obscure parables and apparently abstract theology.  What are we supposed to get from that?  We ask for an answer key, and God gives us poetry. Can’t we just skip the story and get to the moral?

No we can’t.

God gave us the Bible to guide us, but also – more fundamentally – to form us. By studying the Bible, hearing it, reading it, learning from it, we are being remade.7

So, it is we who are being recategorised, reformed according the Covenant. But we fight against it, and use literary genres to mask our unbelief and make the Bible palatable to an unbelieving world.

I guess this article is a polemic against gnosticism.

_____________

1. “Given the ratio of verbal forms, the statistical evidence for the text [of Genesis] being prose is overwhelming.” See Francis Humphrey, “The meaning of yôm in Genesis 1:1–2:4”, Journal of Creation 21(2):52–55, August 2007. Article online at www.creation.com
2. See James B. Jordan, Toward a Chiastic Understanding of the Gospel According to Matthew, Part 1, Biblical Horizons Newsletter No. 94. “Matthew is the first of the gospels; there can be little doubt of this. The notion that Mark was first because Mark is shorter is nonsensical. Matthew was one of the disciples and was a man of letters. Who better to take notes during Jesus’ lifetime? Moreover, immediately after Pentecost there would have been a demand for a book containing the teaching and works of Jesus. The Jews were a people of the book. Each time God did a great work, a new part of Scripture was written to tell about it. The 3000 converts on the day of Pentecost would have expected such a book, and we can be pretty sure that Matthew set right down to write it. Doubtless he spoke with the other disciples, and perhaps Matthew’s gospel is to some extent a joint work. It is perfectly reasonable to assume that within a month after Pentecost copies of Matthew’s gospel were in circulation.”
3. Sorry, can’t remember where I found this quote.
4. Richard Bauckham, The Theology of the Book of Revelation.  The use of “commercial imagery” to describe worship that is used in Revelation begins in Genesis 2 and appears many times throughout the Old Testament. See Worship as Commerce. If you want a handle on that, get into James Jordan’s lectures.
5. “The rantings of John the Divine about his theological rivals are part of the by-product of the very vision of the Living One that shows these ravings for what they are, by showing the radical and unconfined purpose of God in Jesus Christ” … ” we aren’t called to believe and endorse all they say, only to ask ourselves what we are taught here about the strangeness and sometimes the terror of the Word of God to fragile minds.“  Rowan Williams, Open To Judgment, p. 115-116. (Thanks to David Field for this).
6. James B. Jordan, Creation in Six Days, A Defense of the Traditional Reading of Genesis One, Chapter 4: Gnosticism Versus History.
7. Peter J. Leithart, Exhortation, Second Sunday of Trinity.

“Behold, the day of the LORD comes, Cruel, with both wrath and fierce anger, To lay the land desolate; And He will destroy its sinners from it. For the stars of heaven and their constellations Will not give their light; the sun will be darkened in its going forth, and the moon will not cause its light to shine.”

You’ll never understand a book if you only ever read the last chapter. If you thought this quote was from the New Testament you are almost right. It is from Isaiah 13, and Jesus quotes it. It begins: “The burden against Babylon which Isaiah the son of Amoz saw…”

Would Jesus’ audience have thought He was referring to the destruction of the cosmos? Nup. They would (or should) have realised that He was calling Judah a new Babylon, and that the “sun, moon and stars”, the governing lights of her kingdom were about to come crashing down.

Jesus had a sharp mind, and a sharp mouth. A lot sharper than us when we misinterpret Matthew 24.

There was a moment when Hitchens hit Doug with the old, “Jesus didn’t fulfill his words in Mathew 24.” It was an amazing response by Doug. Very authoritative on this section of Scripture being a description of the destruction of the temple in A.D. 70. Really powerful. You could hear multiple pin drops in the room between Christopher and Westminster profs and students. The hair on my arms stood up. Hitchens was stunned. He never again in debates brought up Scripture. Powerful stuff.

Gary DeMar writes:

“Can you imagine how a futurist would attempt to deal with Matthew 24? “Well, Jesus didn’t really mean ‘this generation,’ that is, that first-century generation. He was really referring to a future generation. Yes, ‘this generation’ does always mean the generation to whom Jesus was speaking everywhere else in the gospels, but it doesn’t mean that here. It might mean ‘race’ or ‘a future generation that sees these signs.’” Instead of hearing pins drop, there would have been out-loud laughing and dismissal.”

Full article here.

My Dear Woodworm,

As your most affectionate uncle and Senior Commander in Satan’s Army, I hereby write you to maintain your ongoing efforts to destroy the Enemy’s Church. You are but a Junior Tempter now, but with continued success you will surely rise through the ranks. Your orders are to attack and weaken the clergy, the leaders of the Opposition.

Your attack on the clergy should occur on three fronts. First, while allowing the preacher to pound the pulpit with regard to the truth of the Scriptures, have them deny their applicability. Tell them that the Old Testament is for ancient Israel, not for us. Teach them to hate God’s Law as being irrelevant, outdated, and harsh.

Second, convince the Opposition that Christ was defeated at the cross. After all, He died, didn’t He? Make the clergy believe that Christ now sits cowering and helpless in a corner of heaven, while Our Supreme Commander launches a blitzkrieg to decimate the ranks of the impotent Church.

Third, neutralize the Opposition by using his own weapons against him. In the past, the preaching of the gospel has decimated our ranks, so you must render their weapon ineffective by perverting and distorting the gospel. Convince the fools that the Enemy is powerless to save them apart from their choosing Him as Savior. Let them believe they are determiners of their own fate.

Fill the pulpits with cowards and wimps. Let them regard their feelings as more important than objective truth. We must portray the Grand Enemy as impotent by making the Enemy’s representatives in the pulpit appear weak and feminine. In certain communions, we have been most successful in placing women in the pulpit. Such easy victories are a pleasant surprise to our Father Below. For those who know the Enemy’s Word too well, our next best strategy is to place men who act like women in the pulpits. They should be characterized by weakness. If the preaching is weak, the Enemy’s servants will be readily defeated.

Woodworm, listen closely. Let the women dominate the pastoral search committee. The main criteria for a pastor should be that he’s tall and huggable. He must be filled with compassion, but be a doctrinal imbecile. He should crave counseling, the warm, fuzzy kind, and should refer to the Enemy’s Book only to establish a false legitimacy. Let him look rugged to give the illusion that he has backbone, but realize that we want the pulpits filled with invertebrates.

In neutering the clergy, cause them to disdain books. You must transform Christian bookstores into gift centers. Indulge them with religious music, knickknacks, bracelets, stationery, book covers, but nothing substantive. Displace the Bible commentaries with Precious Moments figurines. These fools will sacrifice their souls for trinkets.

What books they do read should be filled with doom and gloom. The destruction of hope in the Church is key to our success, so keep the masses frothing at the mouth with “end times” hysteria. Keep dashing their hopes with that captivating “any moment rapture” doctrine. The incessant gullibility of these religious simpletons makes them easy targets for prophetic deception. We now control most of the “Christian” publishers anyway because they are so easily swayed by their pagan owners. As revenues increase, doctrinal integrity will continue to be a diminishing concern.

But, you fool! You bungled our best battle plan for feminizing the Enemy’s camp. The uproar over gender-neutral Bibles will soon blow over. Let the controversy settle down and soon gender-neutrality will be a non-issue. The key to feminizing the pulpit lies in feminizing the Church’s view of God. Alter the Enemy’s Scriptures accordingly. Don’t blunder it next time.

As the clergy lose confidence in the Enemy, cause their fear to turn to panic in their anticipation of the Beast, Y2K, Armageddon, or whatever. It doesn’t matter what you cause them to fear, only that their hope is destroyed by turning them from the Enemy and His Book. Create an atmosphere of “end times” paranoia in the church that spills over into the public at large. Make this thinking ubiquitous. Start with TV evangelists and radio preachers. Then let the pagan news media fan the flames of doomsday scenarios. Cause the movie industry to create Satanic horror films, earthquake disasters, volcanic disasters, nuclear disasters, war disasters, global warming, acid rain, aliens, asteroids, and Armageddon. Let the music industry incessantly pound away the theme that Satan rules the universe. Let their destination be Hotel California.

Lastly, here is the list of 10 mantras I told you about. Pound these into the brains of the clergy until they are rendered ineffective. All their Scriptural interpretations should be filtered through these:

1. Satan is alive and well on planet Earth.

2. Christ was defeated at the cross.

3. The Church is predestined for failure.

4. God is judging the earth, there is no hope of revival.

5. Satan is the Prince of this World.

6. The world is getting worse and worse (the newspapers tell me so).

7. The church should not be involved in social issues.

8. We’re the “terminal generation.”

9. Our only hope is the rapture.

10. Gospel success is futile.

As the Opposition adopts these lies, we will be just as successful destroying the Enemy’s camp as we were with the Heaven’s Gate cult. Alas, so many fools, so few comets.

Your affectionate Uncle,
Tapescrew

www.credenda.org, Volume 11, No.2

“The apocalyptic beliefs of the first Christians have been proved to be false. It is clear from the New Testament that they all expected the Second Coming in their own lifetime. And, worse still, they had a reason, and one which you will find very embarrassing. Their Master had told them so. He shared, and indeed created, their delusion. He said in so many words, ‘this generation shall not pass till all these things be done.’ And he was wrong. He clearly knew no more about the end of the world than anyone else. This is certainly the most embarrassing verse in the Bible.”

(From C. S. Lewis, “The World’s Last Night” (1960), found in The Essential C.S. Lewis, p. 385)

Either C. S. Lewis was right, or Jesus was. The choice is obvious. All those things came to pass.

“He is great upon the ten toes of the beast, the four faces of the cherubim, the mystical meaning of badgers’ skins, and the typical bearings of the staves of the ark, and the windows of Solomon’s temple: but the sins of business men, the temptations of the times, and the needs of the age, he scarcely ever touches upon. Such preaching reminds me of a lion engaged in mouse-hunting, or a man-of-war cruising after a lost water-butt.”*

That’s a fair comment if study of symbols becomes an end in itself, but they were intended to convey crucial information. Surely the symbolic passages have more authority than our own anecdotes when trying to communicate abstract truth? There is nothing in Revelation that isn’t also elsewhere in the New Testament. It was not intended to be an isolated book, and the better it is understood, the more powerfully it can be incorporated into our teaching and preaching.

*Charles Spurgeon, Lectures to My Students, p. 76.

The approach of the book is marked by

1. Immersion in and informed reference to the rest of the Hebrew Scriptures. The use of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Ezra-Nehemiah, Esther, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Zechariah is astonishing and enriching at every turn. Use of or comment upon other books along the way are unfailingly stimulating and this applies to NT books as well, not least to Revelation which is greatly illumined by this work on Daniel.

2. Confident deployment of redemptive-historical paradigms which have themselves been recognized through close and repeated study of the whole Bible. In particular, theologico-spatial zones, old creation /new creation eras, and prophet /priest /king roles feature heavily and often have real power to unlock or clarify the subject in hand.

3. The closest of close structural analysis of the sort that comes from multiple readings. Chiasms and parallels and other patterning devices are attended to with great care and in such a way as positively informs the interpretation rather than being mere observations along the path.

4. Seriousness about chronology. This is one of the characteristics of Jordan’s work overall, since he sees emphasis on “ideas” at the expense of history as revealing and strengthening the gnosticism of much contemporary Christianity. The detailed chronological work lying behind his interpretation of Jeremiah and Ezekiel and his resolution of some of the Daniel “difficulties” is awesome.

5. Interpretative weight given to what still gets called “inter-testamental” history. Inter-testamental history is redemptive history and Jordan emphasizes that God speaks to and about that period in the patterns of Daniel 1-6 and in the prophecies of Daniel 1-7.

6. Attention to numerics: word-counts, significant numbers, and the meaning of numbers. There is work here to compare with Bauckham’s work on Revelation.

7. Typology. This is not a “typological” commentary as such because although half of Daniel is narrative, half of it is apocalyptic prophecy. But when you attend to redemptive-historical patterns and to literary structures and sequences and to the importance of history as Jordan does, then, in some sense, all your work will be typological. At the macro-historical this means that Daniel is one of God’s major interpretative words for the entire second phase of the first creation. The first creation has a former days and a latter days and then gives way to the new creation. Daniel tells us about the last centuries and decades of the latter days of the old world.

8. Cheerful (and sometimes curmudgeonly) unfashionableness. Early dating, traditional authorship, defense of biblical chronology, unashamed constant reference to Christ (how could it be otherwise?!), impatience with “unbelieving scholarship”, utter lack of interest in being respected and consistent resolve to be useful. This may be a difficult example for young scholars (like those in Daniel 1!) to follow but it is thoroughly refreshing.

9. Theological creativity at level “Genius”. I thought I knew Jordan’s work reasonably well but over and over and over again there are “aha!” moments. In my copy now there are almost more sentences and paragraphs marked than unmarked!”

“The Handwriting on the Wall” is available from www.americanvision.com
Also available as an e-book.