Papers by Jonathan Sedlak
The twentieth chapter of the book of Revelation is one the most controversial sections contained ... more The twentieth chapter of the book of Revelation is one the most controversial sections contained therein. In conversation with scholarly controversies, all of which are readily accessible to those investigating the topic today, this paper will attempt to supplement previous research by illustrating one path of interpretation that is frequently ignored, while also shining light on some basic assumptions that are reasonably questionable.
That path so often ignored is one which interprets the entire book as addressing a first century audience and their expectation of fulfillment. The unique contribution I would like to offer alongside this first century track is one that excludes Revelation 20:5a from its portrayal of ‘end times,’ on the grounds of it being a later scribal addition. Revelation 20:5a reads, “The rest of the dead did not come to life until after the thousand years were finished.”
This unusually lengthy textual variant is more significant than most New Testament scholars seem to acknowledge. It is not found in some of the oldest, best, and most widely attested manuscript traditions available today. Considering that Revelation has the poorest preservation among all Greek New Testament manuscript traditions, and chapter 20 is not contained in the majority of those dated between 150–500 CE, its omission among the oldest manuscripts that do contain chapter 20 is particularly important for discerning its authenticity. If Rev. 20:5a is, indeed, a late scribal addition, that leaves an enormous amount of scholarly conjecture about the final chapters of Revelation open to serious reevaluation and reconsideration.
In addition to showing the importance of Rev. 20:5a, I also hope to show that the so-called ‘millennium’ is not as pivotal as many scholars have imagined it to be. Part of my argument will entail that the ‘millennium’ plays such a minuscule role within the lengthy drama being told, that debates about its interpretive-timeline within history (whether in our past, present, or future) are noticeably misguided once the omission of Rev. 20:5a is taken into consideration. The ‘thousand years’ of Revelation chapter 20 need not be a crux of interpretation as long as 20:5a is considered spurious.
At this point I also wish to be especially clear about my motives and goals, considering how controversial all views of ‘end times’ seem to be. This paper is not an attempt to be dogmatic about how the final chapters of Revelation ought to be interpreted. I have no authority to propose any dogmas in that regard. I am also aware that the book in question has a complicated history of reception and a wide variety of textual variations, resulting in an even wider variety of interpretive options, as the scholarly conjecture over the last two millennia have evinced. Instead, this paper is intended to be an exegetical experiment. As such it invites the reader to reimagine the perspicuity of the original message contained in the closing chapters of Revelation, assuming that 20:5a was not original.
The outline of this paper is straightforward. Apart from this introduction and some concluding remarks, it consists of three distinct parts. The first part is contextual and text-critical; the second is exegetical and theoretical; the third is systematic and polemical.
In the first part I will quickly address a handful of generally credible perspectives about Revelation’s overall historical context and message. I will then contrast those perspectives with one that I find frequently overlooked and seriously compelling—one which has also grown in interest over the last two hundred years of scholarly research. Following that I will present a brief historical and text-critical case for 20:5a as a late scribal addition, so that the experimental exegesis offered in part two is ready to be considered.
In the second part I will provide an exegesis of Revelation chapter 20 without verse 5a. During that process I will attempt to simplify and synthesize the visions into one coherent message. This exegesis without 20:5a will also aid our understanding of the closing chapters that follow (i.e., chapters 21-22). In this section I hope to illustrate how lucid and uncomplicated the final visions of chapters 20-22 really are without 20:5a complicating everything else in sight.
The third part will attempt to reincorporate Revelation 20:5a into the ongoing discussion about the chapter’s overall message. The input of many scholars will also be taken into serious consideration in order to highlight the many ways in which the final chapters of Revelation have been interpreted with the presumed textual-validity of 20:5a. Such an endeavor will also exhibit a variety of ways in which the presumed textual-validity of 20:5a complicates the coherence of its surrounding visions, given its considerable perspicuity without it.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
When compared to the Synoptic Gospels, the Gospel of John is very unique. John’s Gospel does not ... more When compared to the Synoptic Gospels, the Gospel of John is very unique. John’s Gospel does not include many familiar stories like Jesus being baptized with water,1 Jesus being tested in the wilderness, Jesus being transfigured on a mountain, Jesus casting out demons, Jesus telling narrative parables, Jesus instituting the ‘Lord’s Supper,’ or Jesus’ climactic eschatological discourse on the Mount of Olives. In John’s Gospel the majority of Jesus’ ministry also takes place in Jerusalem, which is the exact opposite terrain on display throughout the Synoptic Gospels. In those Gospels Jesus mostly ministers outside of Jerusalem, except during the final week of his life.
These are not the only distinctive features of John’s Gospel. John also offers a wide variety of eye-witness testimony concerning the life and ministry of Jesus. Part of his testimony involves a copious number of parenthetical remarks—a variety of adjunctive materials inserted throughout the story, each serving a purpose of clarifying ambiguities for John’s intended audience. John’s Gospel contains over fifty of such personalized, parenthetical remarks, which is a surprising number compared to the Synoptic Gospels, which contain less than 20 total.
In many contemporary translations of John’s Gospel, a large number of these adjunctive statements are actually marked with parentheses (especially those considered to be glosses), and are relatively easy to notice. Others are less obvious, though, being delimited by commas in English translations. However, the most significant and profound parenthetical comments of John are even less obvious when they consist of lengthy epexegetical remarks blended among the sayings of Jesus, thereby appearing to be remarks of Jesus, not John. This paper seeks to categorize and highlight all of John’s parenthetical interjections, and to show how variations in usage between each category affect John’s overall purpose in writing his Gospel.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
In this paper, I exegete Psalm 21 from the Greek Septuagint. The first part consists of a fresh t... more In this paper, I exegete Psalm 21 from the Greek Septuagint. The first part consists of a fresh translation of Psalm 21 LXX, along with an attempt to outline an identifiable literary structure. The second part walks through the Psalm, section by section, comparing and contrasting themes presented within it, with a special focus on the way the structure and language illumines the main point of the psalm. The third part briefly surveys the citations, allusions, and echoes of this Psalm by scriptural authors in the New Testament era, thereby anchoring the main point of the Greek version of this Psalm within early Christian tradition.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
In this essay, I provide a succinct chapter-by-chapter review of Yoram Hazony's book, The Philoso... more In this essay, I provide a succinct chapter-by-chapter review of Yoram Hazony's book, The Philosophy of Hebrew Scripture. I begin by introducing the problem that is purported in the book, followed by a glimpse of the framework utilized for the book's methodology, as illustrated in part one of his work. Following that, I point out a number of interesting and useful philosophical observations from part two of his publication. Afterward, in an attempt to build upon Hazony's portrayal of the philosophy of Hebrew Scripture, I offer some feedback in the form of three specific critiques or "flaws" that I noticed as I was studying his important and worthwhile contribution to the topic.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
In Matthew’s Gospel we find Jesus’ famous Sermon on the Mount (chapter 5-7). Within that sermon, ... more In Matthew’s Gospel we find Jesus’ famous Sermon on the Mount (chapter 5-7). Within that sermon, we find this jarring declaration:
You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment.’ But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire” (vv. 21-22).
Many scholars and theologians over the centuries have offered numerous and varied interpretations of these declarations. Yet even across the broad, historical landscape of Christian interpretation, a dominant contemporary view can be summarized in two parts. First, Jesus drew upon the sixth commandment in order to introduce and clarify an equation between “anger” and “murder” in God’s sight, and second, this illustration of God’s greater righteousness (among other things) helps us appreciate why Jesus came to “fulfill" the law.
The primary purpose of this paper is not to dispute a relationship or link between “anger” and “murder.” A relationship or link between “anger” and “murder” is explicit and indisputable. This paper will evaluate the literary and historical context of that relationship in light of the Decalogue’s own prophetic words. While the predominant contemporary interpretation views this relationship as a conceptual equation between anger and murder for the ideal disciple to desire, it does not provide an appropriate conceptual framework for illustrating why Jesus came to “fulfill” the law. It is my contention that not only are equations between anger and murder likely not the original intent of what Jesus said (and what Matthew recorded), but also that such conceptualizations overlook what seems to be Jesus’ holistic utilization of the Decalogue throughout the Sermon.
The Decalogue is intricately woven throughout Jesus’ Sermon, so the commandments given at Sinai are not merely a couple odd quotations placed within it (i.e. the sixth commandment, “thou shalt not kill,” and the seventh commandment, “thou shalt not commit adultery”). I suggest that in Matt. 5:21-26, Jesus was also drawing out the ninth commandment (Exodus 20:16 and Deuteronomy 5:20) and its ethical extensions that are taught in the Torah, as illustrated chiefly in Exodus 23:1-2, and 7-8. I will also be arguing that Jesus utilized the framework of the Decalogue for his own commandments in order to show that he was not teaching contrary or adding to divine law, and that his first century opponents—leaders and teachers of the law—are the ones projected as the true destroyers of divine law, whereas Jesus and his disciples would be the ones called to fulfill it.
Before we can analyze Jesus’s jarring statement in the Sermon on the Mount, we must, in the first part, consider an overall literary structure for it. In part two, we will examine a specific literary substructure (5:21-48) embedding the verses of our focus (5:21-22). By turning our attention to this substructural context, we will be drawing out peculiarities and clues of meaning within the passages themselves. This careful study will guide us to an alternative exegesis from what is commonly expressed in commentaries about the Sermon on the Mount. Then, a detailed examination of verses 21-26 will highlight apparent parallels between murder and slander (not merely between murder and anger). Such parallels allow the perichoretic nature of divine law to open up further literary and conceptual parallels between Jesus’ use of the Decalogue within his Sermon just as the Decalogue exhibits within the surrounding Torah. That will lead us into the third and final part where we will revisit the close literary context and substructure of part one, in which we found the verses in question (Matt. 5:21-22). Simultaneously, we will incorporate the corresponding chiastic frameworks from part two into the whole Sermon. I will also examine the juxtaposition of ethical exhortations between the two corresponding frameworks in a similar manner to what we find illustrated in the Torah surrounding the ninth commandment. The conclusion will show how our careful exegesis provides readers a theme of embodying divine law and the prophetic motif of its destruction and fulfillment.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
The book of Revelation is acknowledged by many scholars to be a literary masterpiece, yet as Rich... more The book of Revelation is acknowledged by many scholars to be a literary masterpiece, yet as Richard Bauckham explains in The Climax of Prophecy, it is also “an extraordinarily complex literary composition.” Consequently, there is very little agreement about the book’s literary structure both as a whole and in its apparent parts. A significant reason for such disagreement is that John does not seem to have used any singularly obvious structure, although many scholars have attempted to prove otherwise. Rather, John seems to have placed numerous and varied structural markers throughout the book, each of which seem to have their own distinctive advantages for discerning the plot, but not necessarily the structure. In light of its extraordinarily complex composition, James B. Jordan suggests in The Vindication of Jesus Christ that it might be best to think of Revelation as a “polyphonic musical composition, in which several melodies are moving simultaneously but with perfect harmony and interaction.”
With Jordan’s suggestion in mind, the goal of this paper is to explore only one of Revelation’s apparent “melodies.” After this introduction, we will survey the trajectory of this “melody,” including some ways it will diverge from other reputable “melodies.” I will also explain briefly how that divergence affects our perception of Revelation’s unfolding drama. After that, the literary structure of this “melody” will be outlined, thereby illuminating some significant symmetry within it. Following the outline of its literary structure, a list of textual details will be presented, illustrating further symmetry within the literary structure. The final section will survey some of the themes found in each parallel section of the outline, followed by some concluding remarks.
To the degree that this goal is accomplished and my audience is persuaded of its relevance, I also hope that this work will spur further investigation into the polyphonic structure of the entire book, and especially its first eleven chapters, which both time and space will not allow for further discussion in this paper.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Numerous theologians have found Jesus’ statements in Matthew 11:11 to be perplexing, so much so t... more Numerous theologians have found Jesus’ statements in Matthew 11:11 to be perplexing, so much so that there is not much of a consensus as to his exact meaning. Speaking to the crowds about John, Jesus contends that the people of Israel went out to the wilderness to see someone who was “more than a prophet” (11:9). To justify this claim about their expectation, he quotes Exodus 23:20 (LXX) and Malachi 3:1, but he doesn’t stop there. Jesus addresses why their pursuit of this man was so important: “Among those born of women there has arisen no one greater than John the Baptist. Yet the one who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.”
As I understand those statements in context, Jesus was referring to those least in social status when compared with the aristocrats implied in 11:7-8 and the respected Jewish authorities implied in 11:18-19. Those least in the kingdom are those who choose to become disciples of the Lord Jesus—those who believe, acknowledge, and do something righteous in response to the gospel of God’s Kingdom as it draws near (Matt. 3:2; 4:17). Jesus’ specific statements about greatness also have a context. Because of the immediately preceding reference to John as a great messenger (ἄγγελος) of the Lord (Matt. 11:10), it seems that Jesus was referring to the least in the Kingdom as being great messengers of the Lord and their acts of mission in regard to the gospel of His kingdom. “The prophets prophesied until John,” Jesus said to the crowds, and “[John] is Elijah who is to come.” John the Baptist was a messenger sent from God in preparation for the coming Kingdom (Matt. 11:10-13; c.f. Mal. 3:1-5; 4:1-6). Indeed, no greater messenger than John had arisen in Israel’s history, yet Jesus promised that the messenger who is least in the kingdom of heaven is a greater messenger than John. As messengers of
God and disciples of the Messiah, their acts of mission, e.g. proclamation, mercy, and peacemaking were assured
of having a greater influence in helping others enter the Kingdom of God.
As we will see, achieving this great influence will require deconstruction of the idols among first century Jewish institutions—especially Herod’s Temple—while, at the same time, reconstruction of the people who follow Christ to be the new City of God—a new Jerusalem with Christ as its Temple. In this essay I plan on surveying the various ways in which Matthew’s Gospel presents these acts of mission (i.e. proclamation, mercy, peacemaking), especially as they are modeled in Jesus’ own mission to the least in the kingdom.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
In Making the Social World: The Structure of Human Civilization, John Searle challenges dualistic... more In Making the Social World: The Structure of Human Civilization, John Searle challenges dualistic philosophical theories in how they address the conceptual structure of human institutional reality. His concerns are with the creation and maintenance of the distinctive features of human civilization, and in particular the mode of existence of institutions such as civil governments, families, schools, trade unions, investment firms, social clubs,
etc., which he contends is based on one formal linguistic mechanism called a Status Function Declaration. . . . . (from p. 1)
(continued on p. 5) Overall, I think Searle’s concern with the creation and maintenance of societies’ distinctive linguistic
features is a valid one. What is declared and what we accept or recognize to be today actually does shape future
civilizations. When a teacher assigns homework, an office manager fires someone, or a Pastor absolves sinners,
a liturgy of language is shaping classrooms, corporations, and congregations. However, I think another important
question—a more fundamental one—deserves to be asked (and answered), and that is: Is human language itself
the most fundamental institutional reality? So far my comments have neither affirmed or denied this claim of
Searle’s. Yet, I am concerned that Searle’s affirmative argument raises more questions than it helps to answer. If
all human reality is, as Searle contends, merely the natural outgrowth of more fundamental physical, chemical,
and biological phenomena, it is impossible for there to be a pre-linguistic analogue for Declarations (which is what
leads Searle to conclude that human language is the most fundamental institutional reality). But if human reality is
the outgrowth of what God declared all things to be (Gen. 1:1-2:4), from beginning to end (Isa. 46:10), and is maintained in existence by the infinite and eternal communication of Father, Son, and Spirit, then that God is also the pre-linguistic analogue for all Declarations, and His language, His speech, Himself as the Word in the beginning of all creation really is the most fundamental institutional reality. It is only because of sin that the Triune
existence and personal involvement of God is suppressed in the minds of men (Rom. 1:18-21), and therefore does not share that most honorable Status Function in society.
(continued from p. 6) . . . As a Christian, I believe a Biblical worldview allows one to justify Searle’s linguistic paradigm with more clarity and sense. Within a Biblical worldview, a Creator-God who is the Word is presupposed (John 1:1) and that Word has spoken all things into existence. From these “basic facts,” divine speech acts and collective intentionality within the Trinitarian community of Father, Son, and Spirit would be the ultimate source from which all human language structures are derived.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
The Tangible Kingdom claims to be a book about re-creating the mission of Jesus, his apostles, an... more The Tangible Kingdom claims to be a book about re-creating the mission of Jesus, his apostles, and the
early Christian churches, when, in fact, it’s really about creating an intuitively dreamy fad for those who have been
disappointed with organized Christian religion in America. This is not to say it doesn’t make many valid points
about, or provide any helpful insights for, reforming ugly habits of American evangelicalism. What I am saying is
that the “incarnational presence” portrayed throughout this book is more anecdotal than ancient in its presentation.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Books by Jonathan Sedlak
Reading Matthew, Trusting Jesus: Christian Tradition and First-Century Fulfillment within Matthew 24-25, 2024
Available March 2024
Foreword by Peter J. Leithart
Theopolis Books (an imprint of Athanasius Press)
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Reading Matthew, Trusting Jesus: Christian Tradition and First-Century Fulfillment within Matthew 24-25, 2024
Limited Edition Hardcover will be available Summer/Fall 2024
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Uploads
Papers by Jonathan Sedlak
That path so often ignored is one which interprets the entire book as addressing a first century audience and their expectation of fulfillment. The unique contribution I would like to offer alongside this first century track is one that excludes Revelation 20:5a from its portrayal of ‘end times,’ on the grounds of it being a later scribal addition. Revelation 20:5a reads, “The rest of the dead did not come to life until after the thousand years were finished.”
This unusually lengthy textual variant is more significant than most New Testament scholars seem to acknowledge. It is not found in some of the oldest, best, and most widely attested manuscript traditions available today. Considering that Revelation has the poorest preservation among all Greek New Testament manuscript traditions, and chapter 20 is not contained in the majority of those dated between 150–500 CE, its omission among the oldest manuscripts that do contain chapter 20 is particularly important for discerning its authenticity. If Rev. 20:5a is, indeed, a late scribal addition, that leaves an enormous amount of scholarly conjecture about the final chapters of Revelation open to serious reevaluation and reconsideration.
In addition to showing the importance of Rev. 20:5a, I also hope to show that the so-called ‘millennium’ is not as pivotal as many scholars have imagined it to be. Part of my argument will entail that the ‘millennium’ plays such a minuscule role within the lengthy drama being told, that debates about its interpretive-timeline within history (whether in our past, present, or future) are noticeably misguided once the omission of Rev. 20:5a is taken into consideration. The ‘thousand years’ of Revelation chapter 20 need not be a crux of interpretation as long as 20:5a is considered spurious.
At this point I also wish to be especially clear about my motives and goals, considering how controversial all views of ‘end times’ seem to be. This paper is not an attempt to be dogmatic about how the final chapters of Revelation ought to be interpreted. I have no authority to propose any dogmas in that regard. I am also aware that the book in question has a complicated history of reception and a wide variety of textual variations, resulting in an even wider variety of interpretive options, as the scholarly conjecture over the last two millennia have evinced. Instead, this paper is intended to be an exegetical experiment. As such it invites the reader to reimagine the perspicuity of the original message contained in the closing chapters of Revelation, assuming that 20:5a was not original.
The outline of this paper is straightforward. Apart from this introduction and some concluding remarks, it consists of three distinct parts. The first part is contextual and text-critical; the second is exegetical and theoretical; the third is systematic and polemical.
In the first part I will quickly address a handful of generally credible perspectives about Revelation’s overall historical context and message. I will then contrast those perspectives with one that I find frequently overlooked and seriously compelling—one which has also grown in interest over the last two hundred years of scholarly research. Following that I will present a brief historical and text-critical case for 20:5a as a late scribal addition, so that the experimental exegesis offered in part two is ready to be considered.
In the second part I will provide an exegesis of Revelation chapter 20 without verse 5a. During that process I will attempt to simplify and synthesize the visions into one coherent message. This exegesis without 20:5a will also aid our understanding of the closing chapters that follow (i.e., chapters 21-22). In this section I hope to illustrate how lucid and uncomplicated the final visions of chapters 20-22 really are without 20:5a complicating everything else in sight.
The third part will attempt to reincorporate Revelation 20:5a into the ongoing discussion about the chapter’s overall message. The input of many scholars will also be taken into serious consideration in order to highlight the many ways in which the final chapters of Revelation have been interpreted with the presumed textual-validity of 20:5a. Such an endeavor will also exhibit a variety of ways in which the presumed textual-validity of 20:5a complicates the coherence of its surrounding visions, given its considerable perspicuity without it.
These are not the only distinctive features of John’s Gospel. John also offers a wide variety of eye-witness testimony concerning the life and ministry of Jesus. Part of his testimony involves a copious number of parenthetical remarks—a variety of adjunctive materials inserted throughout the story, each serving a purpose of clarifying ambiguities for John’s intended audience. John’s Gospel contains over fifty of such personalized, parenthetical remarks, which is a surprising number compared to the Synoptic Gospels, which contain less than 20 total.
In many contemporary translations of John’s Gospel, a large number of these adjunctive statements are actually marked with parentheses (especially those considered to be glosses), and are relatively easy to notice. Others are less obvious, though, being delimited by commas in English translations. However, the most significant and profound parenthetical comments of John are even less obvious when they consist of lengthy epexegetical remarks blended among the sayings of Jesus, thereby appearing to be remarks of Jesus, not John. This paper seeks to categorize and highlight all of John’s parenthetical interjections, and to show how variations in usage between each category affect John’s overall purpose in writing his Gospel.
You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment.’ But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire” (vv. 21-22).
Many scholars and theologians over the centuries have offered numerous and varied interpretations of these declarations. Yet even across the broad, historical landscape of Christian interpretation, a dominant contemporary view can be summarized in two parts. First, Jesus drew upon the sixth commandment in order to introduce and clarify an equation between “anger” and “murder” in God’s sight, and second, this illustration of God’s greater righteousness (among other things) helps us appreciate why Jesus came to “fulfill" the law.
The primary purpose of this paper is not to dispute a relationship or link between “anger” and “murder.” A relationship or link between “anger” and “murder” is explicit and indisputable. This paper will evaluate the literary and historical context of that relationship in light of the Decalogue’s own prophetic words. While the predominant contemporary interpretation views this relationship as a conceptual equation between anger and murder for the ideal disciple to desire, it does not provide an appropriate conceptual framework for illustrating why Jesus came to “fulfill” the law. It is my contention that not only are equations between anger and murder likely not the original intent of what Jesus said (and what Matthew recorded), but also that such conceptualizations overlook what seems to be Jesus’ holistic utilization of the Decalogue throughout the Sermon.
The Decalogue is intricately woven throughout Jesus’ Sermon, so the commandments given at Sinai are not merely a couple odd quotations placed within it (i.e. the sixth commandment, “thou shalt not kill,” and the seventh commandment, “thou shalt not commit adultery”). I suggest that in Matt. 5:21-26, Jesus was also drawing out the ninth commandment (Exodus 20:16 and Deuteronomy 5:20) and its ethical extensions that are taught in the Torah, as illustrated chiefly in Exodus 23:1-2, and 7-8. I will also be arguing that Jesus utilized the framework of the Decalogue for his own commandments in order to show that he was not teaching contrary or adding to divine law, and that his first century opponents—leaders and teachers of the law—are the ones projected as the true destroyers of divine law, whereas Jesus and his disciples would be the ones called to fulfill it.
Before we can analyze Jesus’s jarring statement in the Sermon on the Mount, we must, in the first part, consider an overall literary structure for it. In part two, we will examine a specific literary substructure (5:21-48) embedding the verses of our focus (5:21-22). By turning our attention to this substructural context, we will be drawing out peculiarities and clues of meaning within the passages themselves. This careful study will guide us to an alternative exegesis from what is commonly expressed in commentaries about the Sermon on the Mount. Then, a detailed examination of verses 21-26 will highlight apparent parallels between murder and slander (not merely between murder and anger). Such parallels allow the perichoretic nature of divine law to open up further literary and conceptual parallels between Jesus’ use of the Decalogue within his Sermon just as the Decalogue exhibits within the surrounding Torah. That will lead us into the third and final part where we will revisit the close literary context and substructure of part one, in which we found the verses in question (Matt. 5:21-22). Simultaneously, we will incorporate the corresponding chiastic frameworks from part two into the whole Sermon. I will also examine the juxtaposition of ethical exhortations between the two corresponding frameworks in a similar manner to what we find illustrated in the Torah surrounding the ninth commandment. The conclusion will show how our careful exegesis provides readers a theme of embodying divine law and the prophetic motif of its destruction and fulfillment.
With Jordan’s suggestion in mind, the goal of this paper is to explore only one of Revelation’s apparent “melodies.” After this introduction, we will survey the trajectory of this “melody,” including some ways it will diverge from other reputable “melodies.” I will also explain briefly how that divergence affects our perception of Revelation’s unfolding drama. After that, the literary structure of this “melody” will be outlined, thereby illuminating some significant symmetry within it. Following the outline of its literary structure, a list of textual details will be presented, illustrating further symmetry within the literary structure. The final section will survey some of the themes found in each parallel section of the outline, followed by some concluding remarks.
To the degree that this goal is accomplished and my audience is persuaded of its relevance, I also hope that this work will spur further investigation into the polyphonic structure of the entire book, and especially its first eleven chapters, which both time and space will not allow for further discussion in this paper.
As I understand those statements in context, Jesus was referring to those least in social status when compared with the aristocrats implied in 11:7-8 and the respected Jewish authorities implied in 11:18-19. Those least in the kingdom are those who choose to become disciples of the Lord Jesus—those who believe, acknowledge, and do something righteous in response to the gospel of God’s Kingdom as it draws near (Matt. 3:2; 4:17). Jesus’ specific statements about greatness also have a context. Because of the immediately preceding reference to John as a great messenger (ἄγγελος) of the Lord (Matt. 11:10), it seems that Jesus was referring to the least in the Kingdom as being great messengers of the Lord and their acts of mission in regard to the gospel of His kingdom. “The prophets prophesied until John,” Jesus said to the crowds, and “[John] is Elijah who is to come.” John the Baptist was a messenger sent from God in preparation for the coming Kingdom (Matt. 11:10-13; c.f. Mal. 3:1-5; 4:1-6). Indeed, no greater messenger than John had arisen in Israel’s history, yet Jesus promised that the messenger who is least in the kingdom of heaven is a greater messenger than John. As messengers of
God and disciples of the Messiah, their acts of mission, e.g. proclamation, mercy, and peacemaking were assured
of having a greater influence in helping others enter the Kingdom of God.
As we will see, achieving this great influence will require deconstruction of the idols among first century Jewish institutions—especially Herod’s Temple—while, at the same time, reconstruction of the people who follow Christ to be the new City of God—a new Jerusalem with Christ as its Temple. In this essay I plan on surveying the various ways in which Matthew’s Gospel presents these acts of mission (i.e. proclamation, mercy, peacemaking), especially as they are modeled in Jesus’ own mission to the least in the kingdom.
etc., which he contends is based on one formal linguistic mechanism called a Status Function Declaration. . . . . (from p. 1)
(continued on p. 5) Overall, I think Searle’s concern with the creation and maintenance of societies’ distinctive linguistic
features is a valid one. What is declared and what we accept or recognize to be today actually does shape future
civilizations. When a teacher assigns homework, an office manager fires someone, or a Pastor absolves sinners,
a liturgy of language is shaping classrooms, corporations, and congregations. However, I think another important
question—a more fundamental one—deserves to be asked (and answered), and that is: Is human language itself
the most fundamental institutional reality? So far my comments have neither affirmed or denied this claim of
Searle’s. Yet, I am concerned that Searle’s affirmative argument raises more questions than it helps to answer. If
all human reality is, as Searle contends, merely the natural outgrowth of more fundamental physical, chemical,
and biological phenomena, it is impossible for there to be a pre-linguistic analogue for Declarations (which is what
leads Searle to conclude that human language is the most fundamental institutional reality). But if human reality is
the outgrowth of what God declared all things to be (Gen. 1:1-2:4), from beginning to end (Isa. 46:10), and is maintained in existence by the infinite and eternal communication of Father, Son, and Spirit, then that God is also the pre-linguistic analogue for all Declarations, and His language, His speech, Himself as the Word in the beginning of all creation really is the most fundamental institutional reality. It is only because of sin that the Triune
existence and personal involvement of God is suppressed in the minds of men (Rom. 1:18-21), and therefore does not share that most honorable Status Function in society.
(continued from p. 6) . . . As a Christian, I believe a Biblical worldview allows one to justify Searle’s linguistic paradigm with more clarity and sense. Within a Biblical worldview, a Creator-God who is the Word is presupposed (John 1:1) and that Word has spoken all things into existence. From these “basic facts,” divine speech acts and collective intentionality within the Trinitarian community of Father, Son, and Spirit would be the ultimate source from which all human language structures are derived.
early Christian churches, when, in fact, it’s really about creating an intuitively dreamy fad for those who have been
disappointed with organized Christian religion in America. This is not to say it doesn’t make many valid points
about, or provide any helpful insights for, reforming ugly habits of American evangelicalism. What I am saying is
that the “incarnational presence” portrayed throughout this book is more anecdotal than ancient in its presentation.
Books by Jonathan Sedlak
That path so often ignored is one which interprets the entire book as addressing a first century audience and their expectation of fulfillment. The unique contribution I would like to offer alongside this first century track is one that excludes Revelation 20:5a from its portrayal of ‘end times,’ on the grounds of it being a later scribal addition. Revelation 20:5a reads, “The rest of the dead did not come to life until after the thousand years were finished.”
This unusually lengthy textual variant is more significant than most New Testament scholars seem to acknowledge. It is not found in some of the oldest, best, and most widely attested manuscript traditions available today. Considering that Revelation has the poorest preservation among all Greek New Testament manuscript traditions, and chapter 20 is not contained in the majority of those dated between 150–500 CE, its omission among the oldest manuscripts that do contain chapter 20 is particularly important for discerning its authenticity. If Rev. 20:5a is, indeed, a late scribal addition, that leaves an enormous amount of scholarly conjecture about the final chapters of Revelation open to serious reevaluation and reconsideration.
In addition to showing the importance of Rev. 20:5a, I also hope to show that the so-called ‘millennium’ is not as pivotal as many scholars have imagined it to be. Part of my argument will entail that the ‘millennium’ plays such a minuscule role within the lengthy drama being told, that debates about its interpretive-timeline within history (whether in our past, present, or future) are noticeably misguided once the omission of Rev. 20:5a is taken into consideration. The ‘thousand years’ of Revelation chapter 20 need not be a crux of interpretation as long as 20:5a is considered spurious.
At this point I also wish to be especially clear about my motives and goals, considering how controversial all views of ‘end times’ seem to be. This paper is not an attempt to be dogmatic about how the final chapters of Revelation ought to be interpreted. I have no authority to propose any dogmas in that regard. I am also aware that the book in question has a complicated history of reception and a wide variety of textual variations, resulting in an even wider variety of interpretive options, as the scholarly conjecture over the last two millennia have evinced. Instead, this paper is intended to be an exegetical experiment. As such it invites the reader to reimagine the perspicuity of the original message contained in the closing chapters of Revelation, assuming that 20:5a was not original.
The outline of this paper is straightforward. Apart from this introduction and some concluding remarks, it consists of three distinct parts. The first part is contextual and text-critical; the second is exegetical and theoretical; the third is systematic and polemical.
In the first part I will quickly address a handful of generally credible perspectives about Revelation’s overall historical context and message. I will then contrast those perspectives with one that I find frequently overlooked and seriously compelling—one which has also grown in interest over the last two hundred years of scholarly research. Following that I will present a brief historical and text-critical case for 20:5a as a late scribal addition, so that the experimental exegesis offered in part two is ready to be considered.
In the second part I will provide an exegesis of Revelation chapter 20 without verse 5a. During that process I will attempt to simplify and synthesize the visions into one coherent message. This exegesis without 20:5a will also aid our understanding of the closing chapters that follow (i.e., chapters 21-22). In this section I hope to illustrate how lucid and uncomplicated the final visions of chapters 20-22 really are without 20:5a complicating everything else in sight.
The third part will attempt to reincorporate Revelation 20:5a into the ongoing discussion about the chapter’s overall message. The input of many scholars will also be taken into serious consideration in order to highlight the many ways in which the final chapters of Revelation have been interpreted with the presumed textual-validity of 20:5a. Such an endeavor will also exhibit a variety of ways in which the presumed textual-validity of 20:5a complicates the coherence of its surrounding visions, given its considerable perspicuity without it.
These are not the only distinctive features of John’s Gospel. John also offers a wide variety of eye-witness testimony concerning the life and ministry of Jesus. Part of his testimony involves a copious number of parenthetical remarks—a variety of adjunctive materials inserted throughout the story, each serving a purpose of clarifying ambiguities for John’s intended audience. John’s Gospel contains over fifty of such personalized, parenthetical remarks, which is a surprising number compared to the Synoptic Gospels, which contain less than 20 total.
In many contemporary translations of John’s Gospel, a large number of these adjunctive statements are actually marked with parentheses (especially those considered to be glosses), and are relatively easy to notice. Others are less obvious, though, being delimited by commas in English translations. However, the most significant and profound parenthetical comments of John are even less obvious when they consist of lengthy epexegetical remarks blended among the sayings of Jesus, thereby appearing to be remarks of Jesus, not John. This paper seeks to categorize and highlight all of John’s parenthetical interjections, and to show how variations in usage between each category affect John’s overall purpose in writing his Gospel.
You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment.’ But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire” (vv. 21-22).
Many scholars and theologians over the centuries have offered numerous and varied interpretations of these declarations. Yet even across the broad, historical landscape of Christian interpretation, a dominant contemporary view can be summarized in two parts. First, Jesus drew upon the sixth commandment in order to introduce and clarify an equation between “anger” and “murder” in God’s sight, and second, this illustration of God’s greater righteousness (among other things) helps us appreciate why Jesus came to “fulfill" the law.
The primary purpose of this paper is not to dispute a relationship or link between “anger” and “murder.” A relationship or link between “anger” and “murder” is explicit and indisputable. This paper will evaluate the literary and historical context of that relationship in light of the Decalogue’s own prophetic words. While the predominant contemporary interpretation views this relationship as a conceptual equation between anger and murder for the ideal disciple to desire, it does not provide an appropriate conceptual framework for illustrating why Jesus came to “fulfill” the law. It is my contention that not only are equations between anger and murder likely not the original intent of what Jesus said (and what Matthew recorded), but also that such conceptualizations overlook what seems to be Jesus’ holistic utilization of the Decalogue throughout the Sermon.
The Decalogue is intricately woven throughout Jesus’ Sermon, so the commandments given at Sinai are not merely a couple odd quotations placed within it (i.e. the sixth commandment, “thou shalt not kill,” and the seventh commandment, “thou shalt not commit adultery”). I suggest that in Matt. 5:21-26, Jesus was also drawing out the ninth commandment (Exodus 20:16 and Deuteronomy 5:20) and its ethical extensions that are taught in the Torah, as illustrated chiefly in Exodus 23:1-2, and 7-8. I will also be arguing that Jesus utilized the framework of the Decalogue for his own commandments in order to show that he was not teaching contrary or adding to divine law, and that his first century opponents—leaders and teachers of the law—are the ones projected as the true destroyers of divine law, whereas Jesus and his disciples would be the ones called to fulfill it.
Before we can analyze Jesus’s jarring statement in the Sermon on the Mount, we must, in the first part, consider an overall literary structure for it. In part two, we will examine a specific literary substructure (5:21-48) embedding the verses of our focus (5:21-22). By turning our attention to this substructural context, we will be drawing out peculiarities and clues of meaning within the passages themselves. This careful study will guide us to an alternative exegesis from what is commonly expressed in commentaries about the Sermon on the Mount. Then, a detailed examination of verses 21-26 will highlight apparent parallels between murder and slander (not merely between murder and anger). Such parallels allow the perichoretic nature of divine law to open up further literary and conceptual parallels between Jesus’ use of the Decalogue within his Sermon just as the Decalogue exhibits within the surrounding Torah. That will lead us into the third and final part where we will revisit the close literary context and substructure of part one, in which we found the verses in question (Matt. 5:21-22). Simultaneously, we will incorporate the corresponding chiastic frameworks from part two into the whole Sermon. I will also examine the juxtaposition of ethical exhortations between the two corresponding frameworks in a similar manner to what we find illustrated in the Torah surrounding the ninth commandment. The conclusion will show how our careful exegesis provides readers a theme of embodying divine law and the prophetic motif of its destruction and fulfillment.
With Jordan’s suggestion in mind, the goal of this paper is to explore only one of Revelation’s apparent “melodies.” After this introduction, we will survey the trajectory of this “melody,” including some ways it will diverge from other reputable “melodies.” I will also explain briefly how that divergence affects our perception of Revelation’s unfolding drama. After that, the literary structure of this “melody” will be outlined, thereby illuminating some significant symmetry within it. Following the outline of its literary structure, a list of textual details will be presented, illustrating further symmetry within the literary structure. The final section will survey some of the themes found in each parallel section of the outline, followed by some concluding remarks.
To the degree that this goal is accomplished and my audience is persuaded of its relevance, I also hope that this work will spur further investigation into the polyphonic structure of the entire book, and especially its first eleven chapters, which both time and space will not allow for further discussion in this paper.
As I understand those statements in context, Jesus was referring to those least in social status when compared with the aristocrats implied in 11:7-8 and the respected Jewish authorities implied in 11:18-19. Those least in the kingdom are those who choose to become disciples of the Lord Jesus—those who believe, acknowledge, and do something righteous in response to the gospel of God’s Kingdom as it draws near (Matt. 3:2; 4:17). Jesus’ specific statements about greatness also have a context. Because of the immediately preceding reference to John as a great messenger (ἄγγελος) of the Lord (Matt. 11:10), it seems that Jesus was referring to the least in the Kingdom as being great messengers of the Lord and their acts of mission in regard to the gospel of His kingdom. “The prophets prophesied until John,” Jesus said to the crowds, and “[John] is Elijah who is to come.” John the Baptist was a messenger sent from God in preparation for the coming Kingdom (Matt. 11:10-13; c.f. Mal. 3:1-5; 4:1-6). Indeed, no greater messenger than John had arisen in Israel’s history, yet Jesus promised that the messenger who is least in the kingdom of heaven is a greater messenger than John. As messengers of
God and disciples of the Messiah, their acts of mission, e.g. proclamation, mercy, and peacemaking were assured
of having a greater influence in helping others enter the Kingdom of God.
As we will see, achieving this great influence will require deconstruction of the idols among first century Jewish institutions—especially Herod’s Temple—while, at the same time, reconstruction of the people who follow Christ to be the new City of God—a new Jerusalem with Christ as its Temple. In this essay I plan on surveying the various ways in which Matthew’s Gospel presents these acts of mission (i.e. proclamation, mercy, peacemaking), especially as they are modeled in Jesus’ own mission to the least in the kingdom.
etc., which he contends is based on one formal linguistic mechanism called a Status Function Declaration. . . . . (from p. 1)
(continued on p. 5) Overall, I think Searle’s concern with the creation and maintenance of societies’ distinctive linguistic
features is a valid one. What is declared and what we accept or recognize to be today actually does shape future
civilizations. When a teacher assigns homework, an office manager fires someone, or a Pastor absolves sinners,
a liturgy of language is shaping classrooms, corporations, and congregations. However, I think another important
question—a more fundamental one—deserves to be asked (and answered), and that is: Is human language itself
the most fundamental institutional reality? So far my comments have neither affirmed or denied this claim of
Searle’s. Yet, I am concerned that Searle’s affirmative argument raises more questions than it helps to answer. If
all human reality is, as Searle contends, merely the natural outgrowth of more fundamental physical, chemical,
and biological phenomena, it is impossible for there to be a pre-linguistic analogue for Declarations (which is what
leads Searle to conclude that human language is the most fundamental institutional reality). But if human reality is
the outgrowth of what God declared all things to be (Gen. 1:1-2:4), from beginning to end (Isa. 46:10), and is maintained in existence by the infinite and eternal communication of Father, Son, and Spirit, then that God is also the pre-linguistic analogue for all Declarations, and His language, His speech, Himself as the Word in the beginning of all creation really is the most fundamental institutional reality. It is only because of sin that the Triune
existence and personal involvement of God is suppressed in the minds of men (Rom. 1:18-21), and therefore does not share that most honorable Status Function in society.
(continued from p. 6) . . . As a Christian, I believe a Biblical worldview allows one to justify Searle’s linguistic paradigm with more clarity and sense. Within a Biblical worldview, a Creator-God who is the Word is presupposed (John 1:1) and that Word has spoken all things into existence. From these “basic facts,” divine speech acts and collective intentionality within the Trinitarian community of Father, Son, and Spirit would be the ultimate source from which all human language structures are derived.
early Christian churches, when, in fact, it’s really about creating an intuitively dreamy fad for those who have been
disappointed with organized Christian religion in America. This is not to say it doesn’t make many valid points
about, or provide any helpful insights for, reforming ugly habits of American evangelicalism. What I am saying is
that the “incarnational presence” portrayed throughout this book is more anecdotal than ancient in its presentation.