The following was previously posted on August 5, 2009, but it is well worth reading again.

By Greg Boyd, Ph.D.

Hello Internet comrades,

Some of you who have been visiting this site for a while may recall that I spend several months last year, beginning around March,  blogging mostly about the problem of reconciling the Old Testament God of war with the God of the cross revealed in Jesus. The more clearly one sees the unconditional and completely non-violent nature of God’s love, revealed in Christ, the more difficult and the more important this problem is to resolve.

Well, believe it or not, after further research, reading and praying, I think I’ve actually got an adequate response! I say “adequate,” because I can’t claim to have fully and definitively resolved this issue. There’s always going to be an element of mystery. But I feel I’ve hit upon some insights that provide a framework that allows me (and hopefully others) to affirm the inspiration of the Old Testament, including its violent strand, while at the same time holding that Jesus alone reveals the real character of God.

This material has actually got me pretty pumped, to the point that I sense God is leading me to take yet another break from my monstrously huge two volume project on Greek Philosophy and Early Church Theology (tentatively entitled The Myth of the Blueprint) and share my reflections in a book. (This is my last break for sure…probably…possibly….unlikely). I’ve tentatively entitled this forthcoming book, Jesus Versus Jehovah: Understanding the Violent God of the Old Testament in Light of the God of the Cross. I’ll periodically share aspects of this new project in this blog.

Here’s a thought to start with. I think its very clear Jesus affirmed the divine inspiration of the Old Testament. Out of fidelity to Jesus, I feel compelled to accept this collection of ancient writings as divinely inspired. Yet, also out of fidelity to Jesus, I feel compelled to emphatically repudiate it’s violence.

What’s interesting is that Jesus himself repudiated the violence of the Old Testament — despite his belief that this collection of writings was inspired. Jesus taught, “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also (Mt 5:38-39).

It’s true, as many scholars have argued, that most of the contrasts between what people had heard and what Jesus taught (”you’ve heard it said… but I say“) do not repudiate Old Testament itself but Jewish interpretations that rose up around Old Testament teachings. But this is clearly not the case with this passage, for the “eye for an eye” commanded is explicitly and repeatedly given in the Old Testament (e.g. Ex 21:24; Lev 24:19-20). In fact, this quid pro quo philosophy lies at the very heart of the law, especially its required violent punishments.

Most interestingly, in Deuteronomy Moses goes so far as to stress that the law must not be waved aside out of compassion. “Show no pity,” the text says, “ life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot” (Deut 19:21). Yet, Jesus not only commands people to “show pity,” he replaces the Old Testament quid pro quo ethic with his radical ethic of unconditional love.

For example, while the Old Testament allowed Israelites to hate their enemies and sometimes command them to slaughter them, Jesus forbid his disciples from ever hating or doing any harm to an enemy. Instead, he commanded people to “love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you” (Mt 5:43-45). Luke includes the command to “do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you” and “pray for those who mistreat you” (Lk 6:27-28).

Most surprising of all, Jesus emphatically makes loving enemies rather than hating them the precondition to being a child of God. We’re to love, bless, pray for and do good to our enemies “that you may be children of your Father in heaven” (Mt 5:45, emphasis added). Only if we love indiscriminately can we “be children of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked” (Lk 6:35). Small wonder, therefore, that when Peter drew his sword in self-defense — acting in accordance with Old Testament norms — Jesus rebuked him.

No where is the contrast between Jesus and Jehovah more evident than on this point. Jehovah commanded his people to “show no pity” on offenders and toward enemies. Jesus emphatically commands God’s people to do the opposite while teaching that this type of hostile attitude and violent behavior disqualifies one from being child of God. In other words, if you obey Jehovah, you’re not a child of God according to Jesus.

And yet, Jesus is the incarnation of Jehovah. His name means “Jehovah saves.” And, as I said, Jesus clearly believes the Old Testament is inspired. Quite a conundrum isn’t it? This is the nut Jesus Versus Jehovah is going to try to crack.

I’ll leave you with this teaser thought: Is it possible that some divinely inspired material is not supposed to reveal to us what God is like but what he is not like? Is it possible that some material is inspired precisely because God wants us to follow Jesus’ example and repudiate it?

Abraham believed God told him to sacrifice his child, yet he trusted that God was not really like the bloodthirsty Canaanite god Molech and thus would not make him follow through with his request, even though he had no choice but to move forward in obedience. He trusted thatw God would supply the commanded sacrifice , if only at the last minute (Gen. 22:8).

Think about it.

Posted at gregboyd.org

Dr. Darrell Bock is Research Professor of New Testament Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary. He is an Editor at Large for Christianity Today and is a Past President of the Evangelical Theological Society (2000-2001). Dr. Bock is the author of over twenty books and is a New York Times Best Selling author.

Major Area of Study:

Gospel Studies, Luke-Acts, Historical Jesus, Hermeneutics, Integration of theology and culture

Recent Books:

1. Interpreting the New Testament Text: Introduction to the Art and Science of Exegesis, co-editor
2. The Bible Knowledge Key Word Study: Volume 1 (Gospels) and Volume 2 (Acts through Ephesians), editor
3. The Missing Gospels; Unearthing the Truth Behind Alternative Christianities
4. Mark (Cornerstone Commentary, New Living Translation)
5. Breaking the DaVinci Code
6. Jesus in Context
7. Jesus According to Scripture
8. Studying the Historical Jesus
9. Blasphemy and Exaltation in Judaism and the Jewish Examination of Jesus
10. Luke 1:1-9:51
11. Luke 9:52-24:53

Book review by Fazale Rana, Ph.D.
Part 6

A Chapter-by-Chapter Response to Richard Dawkins’ The Greatest Show on Earth

Charles Darwin carefully side stepped the question of human origins in On the Origin of Species. But he wrote about it in detail in The Descent of Man, arguing that, like all species, humanity had evolved through a process of descent with modification from a common ancestor shared with apes. As Darwin put it, “In a series of forms graduating insensibly from some ape-like creature to man as he now exists, it would be impossible to fix on any definite point when the term ‘man’ ought to be used.”Yet when Darwin wrote The Descent of Man, he lacked direct evidence for human evolution. He argued humans must have evolved from an ape-like animal based on anatomical comparisons and embryological similarities among humans and other mammals. For Darwin, evidence of humanity’s “lowly origin” came from circumstantial evidence—an “indelible stamp”—evolution had left in “his bodily frame.”

Still, Darwin lacked full proof of human evolution. Paleontologists had yet to discover fossils demonstrating the gradual transition from ape-like creatures into modern humans. Such fossils would have powerfully corroborated his idea.

The first so-called ape-human intermediate interpreted from the fossil record was discovered in 1890 on the Indonesian island of Java by Dutch paleontologist Marie Eugene François Thomas Dubois. This species was initially dubbed Pithecanthropus erectus and later became known as Homo erectus. In 1924, anthropologist Raymond Dart uncovered a small skull interpreted to possess a blend of ape and human features. This fossil, nicknamed the Taung Child, appeared to be humanity’s most primitive predecessor and was formally classified as Australopithecus africanus.In the late 1950s, Louis Leakey unearthed the first Homo habilis specimen in East Africa. Paleontologists considered this species as the connection between the more primitive ape-like australopithecines and Homo erectus. They also regarded Homo habilis as the first species to use stone tools.

Following these few-and-far-between discoveries, an avalanche of findings ensued. In the decades since the discovery of H. habilis, paleontologists have uncovered a treasure trove of hominid fossils encompassing a wide-range of species and accompanying archeological remains. These discoveries have occurred throughout East, Central, and South Africa, Asia, the Middle East, and Europe—and the fossils continue to pour in.

For evolutionary biologists and the general public alike, each new hominid unearthed by paleontologists appears to fill in a gap in the evolutionary tree and clarify the pathway that human evolution took over the course of the last 6 million years.

In his latest book, The Greatest Show on Earth, evolutionary biologist and outspoken atheist Richard Dawkins makes this very point. He argues that the hominid fossil record looks exactly as expected if humans evolved from an ancient primate.

I’m currently working on a chapter-by-chapter response to the case Dawkins offers for biological evolution in his latest work. (Go here, here, here, here,  and here for comments on chapters 1–6.)

This week I continue my critique, focusing on chapter seven and Dawkins’ discussion of the fossil record as evidence for human evolution

Chapter Seven

According to Dawkins, human evolution will be verified once paleontologists discover transitional forms displaying any of the following properties:

1. Intermediate gait and brain size
2. Human-like gait with a chimpanzee-sized brain
3. Walking on all fours with a large, more human brain

Dawkins spends most of the chapter masterfully describing an assortment of hominid fossil finds, which he interprets as fulfilling these requirements. Once again he returns to a tactic utilized throughout the book, lampooning ill-informed young-earth creationists and setting up easily defeated straw man arguments. In doing so Dawkins attempts to create the perception that there are no good arguments against the evolutionary framework.

In one instance, he provides a transcript of a TV interview he conducted with Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America. Throughout the exchange, Wright adamantly refuses to accept that a relatively rich abundance of hominid fossil finds exists, even though Dawkins keeps telling her to go to a museum, any museum and see the evidence first-hand. Instead she repeatedly maintains the evidence for human evolution is a product of the imagination of Darwinists reflecting an atheistic philosophy.

Dawkins also decries another common tactic used by some young-earth creationists: dismissing the entire fossil record based on the Piltdown man forgery and the initial controversy surrounding the discovery and analysis of the first H. erectus find. Again, Dawkins tries to give the impression that no good scientific challenges have been raised against human evolution and that evolution-deniers have to ignore the evidence in order to reject biological evolution.

Response

Although Dawkins himself ignores old-earth creationism, it does represent another approach to the hominid fossil record. Old-earth creationism recognizes the authenticity of the finds, but interprets them within a creation model framework.

In the book Who Was Adam?, Hugh Ross and I present a scientific model for human origins derived from the biblical text. As part of that model we account for the hominids as animals created by God. Accordingly, these creatures existed for a time and then went extinct. The hominids appear to have been remarkable creatures that walked erect, possessed some level of limited intelligence, and emotional capacity. This allowed these animals to employ crude tools and even adopt some level of ‘culture’ much like baboons, gorillas, and chimpanzees. Still, the hominids were not spiritual beings, made in God’s image. This status applies exclusively to modern humans.

The hominids could be thought of like the great apes. If so, then it’s expected that anatomical, physiological, biochemical, and genetic similarities will exist between the hominids and modern humans to varying degrees. But since the hominids were not made in God’s image, they are expected to be clearly distinct from modern humans, particularly in their cognitive capacity, behavior, ‘technology,’ and ‘culture.’

In other words, the evolutionary paradigm is not the only framework that makes sense of the hominids found in the fossil record. It is possible to view these creatures as part of God’s creation.

But I would agree with Dawkins that the hominid fossil record provides the chief means to determine whether or not humans actually evolved. This record functions as a proxy for the natural history of these primates. If indeed humanity evolved from an apelike ancestor, the fossil record must display telltale patterns and features.

As noted in Who Was Adam? in order to uphold the theory of evolution, the root of the hominid fossil record should be a single, knuckle-walking ape-like primate that existed between 5 and 6 million years ago. Over time, a variety of hominids should appear in a branching treelike pattern from this ancestral form, and a clear evolutionary pathway from this supposed ancestor to modern humans should be readily evident.

Hominid fossils should also document the gradual emergence of the anatomical and behavioral traits that define humanity—such as a large brain size, advanced culture, and the ability to walk erect. Lastly, transitional forms that connect australopithecines to primitive Homo specimens and then these to modern humans should be readily discerned in the fossil record. If these broad requirements cannot be met, then human evolution cannot be declared a fact. In this case, other models for humanity’s origin should be entertained.

A number of advances indicate that the fine features of the hominid fossil record don’t match the expectations if humans evolved. For example, paleoanthropologists have concluded that the fossil evidence available to evolutionary biologists can’t be used to build reliable evolutionary relationships. (See here.)  Scientists have also discovered that the ability to walk erect didn’t emerge gradually. Instead this defining feature of humanity appeared suddenly. And a number of other studies eliminate important hominids from the human lineage. (See here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.)

The inability to identify transitional forms that document an unequivocal pathway from an ape-like ancestor to modern humans is intriguing in light of genetic diversity studies of people groups around the world. Geneticists can use this genetic variability to reconstruct early human history and in doing so have stumbled upon powerful evidence for the reliability of the biblical account of humanity. (See here.)

Collectively, the consensus that emerges from a large number of studies indicates that humanity originated recently (about 100,000 years ago) from East Africa (near the location theologians ascribe to the Garden of Eden) from a small population. Amazingly, studies using mitochondrial and Y-chromosomal DNA markers trace humanity’s origin back to a single man and woman. These studies also indicate that humanity’s migration around the world began at or near the Middle East.

Though these results are often presented and discussed within the context of the evolutionary paradigm, they have profound biblical implications. Evolutionary biologists refer to this account of humanity’s origin as the Out-of-Africa hypothesis, which looks like the biblical model awkwardly forced into the evolutionary framework. If humanity’s genesis happened in the way described in Scripture, the genetic diversity patterns observed among people groups around the world would be very similar to those discovered by geneticists and anthropologists.

Despite Dawkins’ claims, it looks as if Adam and Eve really existed, giving rise to all humanity.

Click here for original post.

By Charles R. Swindoll

2 Corinthians 12:2–10

Remember that suffering is not new. In what is probably the oldest book in the Bible, the book of Job, we read, “For man is born for trouble, as sparks fly upward” (Job 5:7). Now there’s a statement we need to teach our children and grandchildren, starting today. The message they consistently hear is that God has nothing but happiness and success in store for them if they’ll entrust their lives to Him. The Bible never promises that! Amazingly, while scraping sores from his diseased and pain-racked body, Job asked, “Shall we indeed accept good from God and not adversity?” He made that statement in response to his wife’s advice to “curse God and die.” She too was broken from the loss of her children and the misery of watching her husband suffer so terribly. (As a young preacher, I came down too hard on Job’s wife. Now I go easier on her. She was grieving, not blaming. She needed God’s perspective on her pain.) It was when her husband witnessed how deep her grief was that he responded as he did. He wanted her to realize that God is not a heavenly bellboy, delivering only pleasurable and comforting things to our door. He doesn’t exist to make us happy. We exist to bring Him glory.

We live in superficial, skeptical times. When hard times occur you will find scores of newly released titles questioning how a loving God could be so unfair and unjust. It is easy to be confused in one’s understanding of God. But He has not changed. His ways have not been altered. As with Job and Paul, He continues to allow suffering to mold us into humble, useful servants.

Throw one of us in a dungeon and we want to talk to our lawyer! Throw those guys in prison, and the world ends up with Pilgrim’s Progress, or some other magnificent literary work that endures for centuries, putting our suffering back into perspective. Resist the temptation to rethink God just because hard times come. Look deeper. Cling to Him tighter. Refuse to question His motives. He’s doing something great within you. Suffering is nothing new.

Click here for the original post.

Amidst a mob of madmen
She stood frightened and alone
As hate filled voices hissed at him
That she should now be stoned

But in the air around him
Hung a vast and wordless love
Who knows what loom at his lesson
He was in the middle of

At first he faced the fury
Of their self righteous scorn
But then he stooped and at once became
The calm eye of the storm

It was his wordless answer
To their dark and cruel demand
The lifetime in a moment
As he scribbled in the sand

It was silence it was music
It was art it was absurd
He stooped and shouted volumes
Without saying a single word
The same finger of the strong hand
That had written ten commands
For now was simply scribbling in the sand

Within the space of space and time
He scribbled in the sand
They came to hear and see as much
As they could understand
Now bound by cords of kindness
They couldn’t cast a single stone
And Jesus and the women found that they were all alone

It was silence it was music
It was art it was absurd
He stooped and shouted volumes
Without saying a single word
The same finger of the strong hand
That had written ten commands
For now was simply scribbling in the sand

Could that same finger come
And trace my souls sacred sand
And make some unexpected space
Where I could understand
That my own condemnation pierced
And broke that gentle hand
That scratched the words I’ll never know
Written in the sand

It was silence it was music
It was art it was absurd
He stooped and shouted volumes
Without saying a single word
The same finger of the strong hand
That had written ten commands
For now was simply scribbling in the sand

The same finger of the strong hand
That had written ten commands
For now was simply scribbling in the sand

Words and Music by Michael Card (2002)

 

By Rich Deem

Copernicus was the Polish astronomer who put forward the first mathematically based system of planets going around the sun. He attended various European universities, and became a Canon in the Catholic church in 1497. His new system was actually first presented in the Vatican gardens in 1533 before Pope Clement VII who approved, and urged Copernicus to publish it around this time. Copernicus was never under any threat of religious persecution - and was urged to publish both by Catholic Bishop Guise, Cardinal Schonberg, and the Protestant Professor George Rheticus. Copernicus referred sometimes to God in his works, and did not see his system as in conflict with the Bible.

By Josh McDowell
Part 1 of 5

[This talk gives] the background for what we’re going to look at in the next few sessions, which will be on the resurrection of Jesus Christ – Fact or Fallacy?

The background for what I am going to share is my own personal testimony where I truly believed that Christianity was a farce. I did not believe it was true. And as a student in the university, I set out to make a joke of Christianity; to explain away the historical reliability of the Bible and to make a joke of the resurrection. Because I concluded that no intelligent person could ever believe that somebody was killed, buried, and literally raised again the third day because it went against what I believed to be true.

But in my investigation, there were several intellectual conclusions I came to first and then after that, placed my trust in Christ as Savior and Lord. One was this, I came to the conclusion that I could hold the Bible, the Old and New Testament, in my hand and say, “It is historically accurate and it is historically reliable”. We did four sessions on the scriptures and their historical accuracy, but that was the first conclusion I came to as a non-Christian that this book is accurate and true. The second conclusion I came to was that the resurrection of Jesus Christ, as much as I did not want to believe it, was an historical fact. In other words, it did take place in history. I tried my best to refute that, but I couldn’t. The third conclusion I came to is that Jesus Christ truly was God incarnate, God taken on human flesh, that He lived as a man, He was crucified, buried, raised again and ascended to heaven and sent the Holy Spirit. Those were three of many conclusions that I had when I set out to make a joke of Christianity. In these sessions now, we’re going to look at just some of the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ. And I like to call this Fact or Fiction – Farce or Fact.

Now the basis of the resurrection and the importance of it is given by the apostle Paul. In 1 Corinthians 15, verses 13 to 17, Paul wrote, ‘But if there is no resurrection of the dead, not even Christ has been raised and if Christ has not been raised then our preaching is vain. Your faith also is vain. Moreover, we are even found to be false witnesses of God because we witnessed against God that He raised Christ, whom He did not raise, if in fact, the dead are not raised, for if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised, and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless’. What the apostle Paul does here is base everything that Christ taught, lived and died for upon the resurrection. That’s why it is so crucial to study it and come to understand it.

The skeptic, Dr. David Frederick Strauss, made this point about how critical the resurrection is as a skeptic, not a believer. He said, ‘The resurrection is a touchstone, not of only the life of Jesus, but of Christianity itself’. He says, ‘It touches Christianity to the quick and is decisive for the whole view of Christianity’.

Everything that Jesus taught, lived, and died for depended upon one thing: His resurrection, His burial, His ascent – His resurrection and then His ascension. My conclusion was, if I can show that Christ did not rise from the dead then my case was one against Christianity, but I was not able to do it and I’m going to share with you some of the reasons why in these sessions that we will have together.

Click here for the full article.

By Kenneth Samples
Part 4 of 4

What is the best explanation for how the human soul comes into being?

The Bible presents human beings as a unity of body and soul (Matthew 10:28). But just how did God bring about the origin of the human soul? Is there a specific position on this issue that holds greater explanatory power than another? Or is this profound topic an inexplicable mystery?

In part three of this series I explored the position of traducianism, the view that human beings derive both their bodies and souls from their parents through procreation. In this final article I will examine the viewpoint known as creationism.

What is Creationism?

Not to be confused with the doctrine of how God brought about the origin of the cosmos, creationism (or creatianism) is the view that each individual human soul is directly created by God ex nihilo (out of nothing) before being united with the body. This perspective postulates that the soul is created pure but is subsequently corrupted along with the body through the process of conception. The exact timing of the soul’s implantation in the body is debated, though many would argue in favor of the time of physical conception.

Biblical and Theological Support for Creationism

As I mentioned in my previous discussion of traducianism, Scripture does not address the topic of the soul’s origin in any formal or explicit way. Therefore, inferences and implications from Scripture must be drawn carefully and weighed accordingly.

1. Scripture appears to distinguish between the origin of man’s soul and body (Ecclesiastes 12:7; Isaiah 42:5; Zechariah 12:1; Hebrews 12:9).
2. The position of creationism seems more in keeping with the pure spiritual nature of the soul.
3. One of creationism’s strongest appeals is that it also preserves the soul as a simple, indivisible substance.
4. The creationism view seems to safeguard the sinless nature of Jesus Christ’s human soul better than does traducianism.

Concerns and Criticisms of Creationism

1. None of the biblical arguments are clinching or determinative in their support of creationism.
2. Creationism seems to have a much harder time explaining the transmission of original sin among humanity than does traducianism.
3. The position of creationism may serve to detract from man’s unity of body and soul.

In evaluating the positions of traducianism and creationism, important theological issues, such as the image of God and original sin, certainly impact the analysis.

Though creationism stands as the official position of the Roman Catholic Church, historic Christianity has never collectively issued an official orthodox position concerning the human soul’s origin. Believers would do well to carefully put all aspects of the Christian worldview to the test.

For a discussion of the human soul and the various positions concerning its origin, see the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology edited by Walter A. Elwell (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984), s.v. “Soul.”

For more about the historic Christian view of human nature, see my book, A World of Difference: Putting Christian Truth-Claims to the Worldview Test, especially chapter 10.

Dear Friends,

When Luke wrote the story of the gospel to Theophilus, he declared that his purpose was to set forth in order those things that are surely believed among us. He said that he wanted Theophilus to know the certainty of the things in which he had been instructed.

We are living in a day of great spiritual confusion. When Paul wrote to the Ephesians he spoke of how God had placed pastors and teachers in the church for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, and for the building up of the body of Christ. The purpose was to bring them into spiritual maturity that they would not be carried away with every wind of doctrine and slight cunning of men who lie in wait to deceive. These are days when there are many winds of doctrine blowing through the church. The greatest defense against deception is a solid foundation in the Word.

This is what we seek to develop through our studies in the Scriptures. We are dedicated to bringing you the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help us God. This is why we offer to you the studies in the Scriptures at near our costs, as we are wanting to make the Word of God available to all. We want you to build your spiritual house on the rock solid Word of God so that it will be able to withstand the fiercest storms

May God bless you as you study the Word.

In His love,

Pastor Chuck Smith
twft.org

By David Grabbe

¹The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John, ²who testifies to everything he saw—that is, the word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ. Revelation 1:1-2

The book itself tells us, right at the beginning, what it is about, but because of the way it is translated into English, we can read right over it and miss the book’s own declaration of its contents. We are immediately told that this book contains the revelation of Jesus Christ. This phrase is the title of the book. But what does “revelation” mean? It is the Greek noun apocalypsis, which is why this book is often called the “book of the Apocalypse.” This noun comes from the verb apocalupto, which literally means “to take away the veil,” such as when a painting or statue has its covering taken away. Even though apocalypsis is most often translated “revelation,” the best equivalent word in English is “unveiling.”

In common usage, when someone refers to the “Apocalypse,” or describes an event as being “apocalyptic,” he is usually talking about widespread devastation or ultimate doom. Mel Gibson recently produced and directed a movie entitled Apocalypto, which portrayed the end of the Mayan civilization—and it was a very bloody end.

Using “apocalypse” this way derives from the content of the book of Revelation, not from the word’s Greek meaning. Simply, apocalypsis and apocalupto refer to “taking away a veil” or “unveiling” rather than to cataclysmic events. However, in this specific instance of apocalypse, of a veil being taken away (when Jesus Christ returns), widespread devastation will in fact occur as this present age closes with wars and disasters.

In the Greek New Testament, apocalypsis appears in two senses. When used figuratively, it has the sense of “bringing someone to knowledge,” as in the English phrase “remove the veil of ignorance.” For example, when we say that a mystery is unveiled, we mean that the veil of ignorance is lifted so that the matter can be plainly understood. In terms of the book of Revelation, this is the sense that most interpreters and readers recognize in it. They see it as the unveiling of prophetic events to understanding.

However, when apocalypsis is used in a literal sense, it refers to “the visible appearance of one previously unseen,” as a woman shrouded by a veil is revealed when her covering is removed. In Revelation’s case, as the book of the Unveiling, apocalypsis literally refers to the visible appearance of One who is now hidden from human sight, and that One is, of course, Jesus Christ.

The New Testament consistently supports the literal sense of apocalypsis rather than the figurative, and that the “revelation of Jesus Christ” is not limited to His testimony or to His unlocking of prophecy. Instead, the “revelation of Jesus Christ” is, in fact, an advance record of His visible appearance in glory, to overthrow the spirit and human rulers of this world and to establish His Kingdom on earth.

A key to effective Bible study is to let the Bible interpret itself. Another key is to let the Bible’s usage of a word determine its meaning rather than to rely solely on what it means in secular Greek or Hebrew. Apocalypsis appears in eighteen places in the New Testament, and in ten of those places—including Revelation 1:1—it is used literally, referring to a person or a thing. In every case, it denotes the “visible appearance” or “unveiling” of that person or thing, confirming how it should be understood in Revelation 1:1.

Adapted from What Is the Book of Revelation?

Click here for the original post.