Messiah as Lion and Lamb:
Revelation 5:5-6 Decoded Via Attunement With Literary Mechanism
Adam G. Marquez
NT 512 The Epistles and Revelation
March 13, 2019
Introduction
There is contrasting imagery of Jesus as Messiah found in Revelation 5:5-6. John was ordered to see ‘The Lion’. When he looked, he beheld a lamb. The passage does not present a case of mistaken identity, it does not present confusion, nor is it referencing different characters. John was drawing on imagery, metaphor, and double entendre as literary mechanisms to present the reader with veiled messaging. Lion imagery has its own connotations, and especially so in biblical literature. The same can be said of lamb imagery. Understanding that John was engaged in the telling of his message, and that the means in which he told it matters, brings us to have to draw on tools which come from understanding things literarily[1].
The project at hand, then, is multifaceted. First, lion imagery must be explored to ascertain its value to the pericope. The same must be done for lamb imagery. Thirdly, the matter of John seeing differently from what had been revealed to him begs for discussion. All of that, however, is a build-up to being able to speak to what John’s message is, why it matters, and its significance on the broader understanding of Revelation. As it turns out, the Old Testament theme of salvation is about God’s conquering violence rescuing the believing community from oppression. John, in keeping with New Testament-think changes position to understand the mission of Messiah to be salvation through confounding evil in peace, birthed of compassion and sacrifice. John’s shift is crucial to the soteriological message of Revelation. But in order to get there, the foundation must be laid, and thinking about such things must be done by conceptualizing them literarily.
Thinking About the Bible Literarily
There are really only two approaches to reading the Bible through which all methodologies flow. There is a third, which sits in its own class, and is worth considering because of its broad influence in society, but is not a serious contender in the doing of theology responsibly, except for the consideration of it for remaining relevant. There are three men, each of whom, correspond to, and epitomize a respective approach: Robert Alter, Augustine, and Elie Wiesel.
Broadly, there is the difference between exegesis and eisegesis. They are thought to stand in stark contrast; exegesis being a critical analysis of a text with bent toward objectivity, while eisegesis is the importing of one’s paradigm into the text. Zanardi[2]persuasively argues that there really is no true exegesis and that all efforts are, in the end, a form of eisegesis. I tend to agree with Zanardi, but would add that there are spectrums of qualities and elegances of one’s efforts to uncover a text. So, while the industry intuitively uses the term ‘exegesis’ regularly, and by extension ‘eisegesis’ they are, in practice, useless in expressing the epistemological understanding of the pragmatics of theologizing. And that is why Robert Alter, Augustine, and Elie Wiesel will be put to task in bringing about some useful material in the metaphysic-as-foundation for our work with Revelation 5: 5-6.
Robert Alter has made a life of understanding Biblical texts literarily. His hermeneutical approach was birthed of philosophy’s aesthetics and literary criticism, where a desire to understand the meaning of a text was driven by an interest in its literary philosophic footprint, and a fascination with the literary mechanisms it took to get there. Of the three, Alter is the most exegetical (in the sense described above). He demonstrates an empathy for the text, which he hopes to hear, and once heard, hopes to have shape his understanding and theological view. Alter produced the seminal work on reading scripture literarily. In it he wrote:
The shape and meaning of any literary text will naturally be dependent to some extent on its linguistic fashioning. Because of that fact, I refer intermittently to matters of word-choice, sound-play, and syntax perceptible in the original Hebrew, occasionally even offering alternative translations to indicate a significant pun. All of this, I think, should be fairly easy for a reader to follow without any knowledge of Hebrew[3]… etc.
The Art of Biblical Narrative was one of his early works, his ability to interpret scripture evolved and has culminated in his recently published translation of the Old Testament; it is a beautiful work which aptly demonstrates what he was only theorizing about early on.
Augustine’s paradigms were undoubtedly shaped by his gnostic background, and his later acquired baseline of Neoplatonic thought. David Bentley Hart says of Augustine:
…the Latin-speaking Augustine… was far more selective in his use of scripture, was dependent on often grossly misleading translations, and had to expend enormous energy on qualifying, rephrasing, and explaining away a host of passages that did not really conform well to the theological system he imagined he had found in Paul’s writings. This is, if nothing else, instructive[4].
Augustine took a different practicing approach than did Alter. Augustine, whether wittingly or unwittingly, was importing his theology and dogma and retrofitting scripture to accommodate his previously determined beliefs. In the case of Augustine, his lack of awareness of literary dynamics of the text, has had long-lasting, unintended consequences.
Elie Wiesel has demonstrated an impressive ability to read the Bible literarily. Though his talent is displayed throughout his writings, his book, Messengers of God[5], is a showcasing and modeling of the kind of literary thinking Alter strove for. Wiesel’s renderings display the psychology of the tradition of Jewish theology, and brings his reader into an almost irreverent daring in thinking about the text in the more earthy way in which it is innately presented, and in which the western church’s collective mind is always endeavoring to sanitize.
Though Wiesel scores high in the quality and elegance of his elucidations, he falls short in the area of purpose. Wiesel, perhaps like a Michael Jordan or a Muhammed Ali, who were phenoms who possessed uncommon talents which drove their hard work to otherwise unattained places, was a natural. He appealed to scripture, in much the same way an academic might appeal to Shakespeare, for corroboration, validation, or veracity of argumentative position. Scripture was an authoritative baseline by which he could chart the validity of his philosophic, psychological, sociological, and positions on his own trauma; it was thedescription of God, by which he could accuse himself and God for the evil in the world.
The point of the above, and the way in which it pertains to the project at hand is that Revelation, and especially the pericope at hand, is indecipherable unless one proceeds correctly. Revelation, as is the seducing, intuitive inclination, ought not be read through a lens of predetermined theology, doctrine, beliefs, and dogma in the way Augustine would be so inclined. It is designed to challenge all those things. It must be read literarily in the ways that Alter and Wiesel would, should they have been interested in New Testament texts. The form and structure of the text plus the emulating of the way the authorized writers of scripture handled the text, ought to be what drives the reader’s understanding of the content of the text. The form and structure are cued by the literary mechanisms in which the text is delivered.
John himself, telegraphs this by constantly appealing to points in the Old Testament which are specifically literary in nature. He draws on the literary mechanisms which preceding apocalyptic and prophetic material necessarily utilize. For the pericope at hand, the lion must be understood in terms of the biblical literary use of ‘lion’. Then the use of those perspectives must be examined. The same is true for ‘lamb’. Just as important as ‘lion’ and ‘lamb’ is the literary mechanism of John going from a revelation of the messiah as ‘lion’ to understanding him as ‘lamb’. The purpose of that mechanism within the text is perhaps the most important element of all; it, I will argue, is the pivotal moment of Revelation.
The Lion
Massey[6], through a series of rigorous exegetical gymnastics, was able to build a convincing case that there is a prophetic substructure for each of the four gospels. He views four ‘branches’ found in prophetic texts to be the foundation for four expected authenticating identifiers upon which the gospels were written; each gospel epitomizes one of the branches. From there, he sees a correlation between each gospel and the four creatures found in Revelation 4. Massey goes from 23:5-6, to Matthew, to ‘king’, to ‘Lion’, to Revelation 4. His correlations are intriguing and, in the end, quite persuasive. For Massey, lions are kingly, majestic, regal, royal, lacking in temerity, beautiful, sovereign, imperial, authoritative, wise, …etc.[7].
Mounce makes it clear that the phrase “The Lion of the Tribe of Judah” is derived from Genesis 49:9 which is deeply rooted in the collective nostalgia of Israel. It is there where ‘lion’ is given the descriptors of: one who crouches, is kingly, one whose arousal is feared, a ruler impossible to dethrone, and who washes (marks his ruling veracity) in wine (blood)[8]. Trafton makes the point that the lion imagery in Revelation 5:5 is about the conquering nature of the lion[9].
John’s use of lion imagery in Revelation 5:5 is intended to accomplish several functions at once. By employing the title “Lion of the Tribe of Judah”, John calls on the messianic assumption of the believing community concerning messianic identity; he is declaring Jesus as the messiah of Old Testament prophecy. John is expressing that the Old Testament vision of the messiah is ferocious and rules through violent vindication of his peoples’ enemies. In that vein, he is loved because of the hope his people have in him, with the expectation of triumphant rescue (salvation) from oppression and oppressors. John is calling the believing community to remember that the messiah in whom they have hoped is a conquering victor, who rules in ferocious righteousness, and has emphasized power underwriting his governance.
The Suckling Lamb
In his translation of the New Testament, David Bentley Hart makes a distinction between ἀρνός/ ἀρνήν, which are the typical words for ‘lamb’, and ἀρνίον,which John consistently uses in Revelation. His claim is that the latter is intentional as it refers to a little lamb or a lambkin (a lamb which is still nursing); he thus translates ἀρνίονas ‘suckling lamb’[10]. The emphasis on a younglamb adds to the imagery which even more strikingly contrasts the imagery of ‘lion’ than an old lamb, or a powerful ram would. Lambs are more common than lions. Lambs reside among people. Lions are not in as much need of description and literary context for an author to draw on the collective psyche of his[11]audience.
Isaiah 53:7 is the obvious place from which John draws his imagery of the messiah as lamb. In the verses preceding (1-6), the character, who is revealed in verse 7 is given full description. What is interesting about the description is that it is not entirely lambly, however, a transition of ideas is provided. Mounce[12]wrote about the “Jewish stock of messianism” by which he was referring to the collective assumptions concerning messiah which the believing community held. Within those assumptions were the beliefs that the messiah would hold the lion characteristics of power, and would be an overthrower of empire. Isaiah, however insists that the messiah will be lamb-like, and that involves: being despised, forsaken, not being majestic, not attractive, not a drawing spectacle to behold, acquainted with grief, not ‘esteem’ material, afflicted, pierced, crushed, chastised, scourged, the bearer of others’ iniquity, oppressed… lambly. Isaiah’s description, from which John surely draws, is anything but lion-like.
Mathewson[13]has said that John’s messiah was the sacrificial lamb for the sins of humanity, that its horns suggested power, and the eyes symbolize that he sees everything. Trafton[14]recognized that the lamb was not without power, he understands the lamb’s horns to be a representation of power, and an apparatus with which it could gore and best an enemy. As much as that may be true, John must tell us explicitly that this lamb was once a slain lamb.
The Apex/ Lamb is the New Lion
In an effort to approach scripture literarily, I recently conducted a study of Revelation for a Bible study group. When I came across the ‘woe’ terminology in Revelation, I was reminded of Habakkuk which cued me to consider Habakkuk as foundational hermeneutic-lens material for Revelation. I took Habakkuk’s heart cry to be, not only a yawping on behalf of his nation in the face of his current events, but as a heart-cry in response to the relentlessly clinging and ever unsettled matter of theodicy, which frustratingly remains unresolved on the fringes of the backside-of-faith/ doubt. It lingers in the minds of each member, and the collective whole of the believing community. And like Habakkuk, all, who are daring enough to be honest about themselves, God, facticity, and theology, in order to keep believing, in order to remain faithful, must resign to finally declaring: “But I in the Lord will exalt, will rejoice in the God of my rescue. The Lord Master is my strength, He makes my feet like the gazelle’s and has me tread upon the heights” (Habakkuk 3:18- 19)[15].
But. Such resignation is not resolution, it is not satisfactory. To get there, Habakkuk (all of the believing community?) complains, is lionly[16]responded to by God through promises of violent salvation, argues, is lionly given a plan of salvation[17], and finally ends in resignation. It does not take too much literary imagination to hear a resignation which is the product of a brow-beating, surrender; it is the acquiescence of an argument lost to power, not to superiority of conceptual position. When I read Habakkuk, the philosopher in me is left disturbed because I know that God has more game than vanquishing enemies; a dead enemy comfort does not bring, a dead enemy restoration does not afford, a vanquished enemy a dead son or daughter does not bring back to life, a dead enemy reconciliation does not make. And then, there is the matter of Jesus and the way in which, under his messianic governance, all things are made new (Revelation 21).
I have come to understand Habakkuk, among other things, to be the pre-messiah anxiety of the believing community, with real concerns, and real longing to which God mustrespond. I have come to understand that Habakkuk, as one piece of the harmony of the totality of scripture, is really a prolegomenonicalinterlude for the believing community (all of creation?) who is in longing, and who awaits the completed lambly response to their yawp. Revelation is that response. Revelation 5:5-6 is the essential mechanism which transitions soteriology from unsatisfactory incompleteness to satisfactory resolution.
Hays agrees that Revelation 5:5-6 is essential by stating: “The shock of this reversal discloses the central mystery of the Apocalypse: God overcomes the world not through a show of force but through the suffering and death of Jesus, ‘the faithful witness[18].” In referring to the pericope at hand, Mounce writes: “In one brilliant stroke John portrays the central theme of NT revelation- victory through sacrifice[19].” As astonishing and important as this point of reversals is, it is not the only concept to be drawn from John’s literary mechanizing. There is the matter of Christ’s residing amongst us, or the Emmanuel-ness (Isaiah 7:14, Matthew 1:23) of messiah, that being, his relatability.
There is a scene in Job which makes some similar connections to the ones John is reaching for. The book of Job is really about: salvation, going from knowing ofGod to knowing God, and going from second guessing God to faithfully obeying him through hearing him, which is an expression of intimacy[20]. In the scene, Job, after having faced adversity, losing everything,, had his entire belief system about God challenged and deconstructed, had his essence domesticated by God, and his inculturation violently plucked from him, finally has an epiphany where he declares: “By the ear’s rumor I heard of you, / And now my eye has seen You. /
Therefore do I recant, / And I repent in dust and ashes[21].”
Alter’s rendering is important because he brings clarity to the literary idea that Job’s real problem is a lack of intimacy; he is plagued with only knowing God from a second-hand, distanced, indirect, source which is inherently wrought with compromised perspective. This, by the way, is Eve’s problem, and the core concern of Paul in 1Timothy 2:9-13[22]. The problem of ‘hearing’ as revelation, as opposed to direct experience, is a recurring theme which holds negative proverbial implications throughout scripture. Similarly, John hears, via the angel, that it is the lion who is able to open the scrolls. Until he beholds, his knowledge is hearsay.
Job, upon beholding, turns; he repents. That is to say that he moves to face the old way with his back, and the new way with his front seeing/ illuminated, perspective. Working from Joban precedence[23], John, records that John saw the lion which is a turning point for the soteriological purpose of Christ’s messiahship, it was movement from the past, lionly, ways with a resolution toward progress under the way of the lamb. The story of Job entails a message of salvation/ redemption for Job whose completeness was restored, and it entails a message of salvation for his friends who would otherwise have been destroyed. Their salvation was contingent upon Job’s turning. In the same way, John’s turning marks the possibility of messianic soteriology from the point of Christ’s death and resurrection, moving forward.
Summing it up
In stating all of the previous in succinct summery, one can say something like: John drew upon literary mechanisms to punctuate the significance of his statement which was that the messianic assumption of hope through power, dominance, and vindication, which were elements of the collective messianic assumption, was to be re-imagined and understood in New Testament-think where hope, justice, and salvation are accomplished through peace and sacrifice. That is not to say that the lionly aspect of the messiah has expired or lost relevance. It is not to say that incorporating the lamb aspect is new. It is a reminder that blue notes of prophetic theology are pertinent, relevant, and are a balancing essential to the soteriological plan which was shared from the beginning, and that it is within those blue notes that the soul of the story lives. What this means for the Messiah-ship of Jesus is that the believing community must understand that the Lordship of his reign is not monolithic, but nuanced. It is not to be understood in only old modes of imagining, but must take on paradigm-breaking aspects which have always been revealed, but which have been forgotten.
The idea of messiah is essential to the grand narrative of scripture, but John’s insistence of the nature of Jesus-as-messiah, directly experienced, is what makes the grand narrative worthwhile, and ripping it from mere fairytale, animates the story into reality. The world has always only known ‘kingdom’, ‘empire’, and peace through conquering control; matters of governance, and rulership have always, by necessity of how things work, been accomplished through the strong making everyone else complicit through dominance. There have always been multiple narratives, all speaking in harmony, concerning what messiah is, and what the messiah-person would do, but some strains of that narrative were emphasized while others were minimized or forgotten. John’s rendering of the messiah brings about a philosophic reality that can only exist under the unique characteristics of all of the nuanced narratives functioning in an ongoing maintenanced intactfulness; reality presents no other possibilities of alternative forms of governance.
Though there is a turn of emphasis wherein John expects the messiah to be understood in terms of peace and sacrifice, there is the matter of the extreme violence throughout revelation. That God is behind violent judgement throughout Revelation is undeniable. Such violence, however, does not usurp peace or sacrifice; it does not undermine the lamb. ‘Judgement’, invokes assumptions of eternality, hell, and punishment-as-revenge. I submit that judgement, even the most violent of forms, in God’s hands, has the purpose of pushing a reset button of sorts, or creating the possibility of entering a new phase of reordering and perfecting.
The pattern begins early in scripture. Creation becomes overgrown, and, as Robert Burns would have put it, “…Man’s inhumanity to man / Makes countless thousands mourn…[24].” God steps in and destroys while saving a remnant. From that remnant he intends and brings forth another stage of development. That pattern is repeated throughout the whole of the Old Testament. John’s Revelation is a montage of woven imagery which expresses the pattern in many varied ways with an increase in severity, urgency, and an heir of exponentiality, as though at the end of the age, the process had a new pace. Judgement is one of the tools employed by God to bring all of creation, finally, to a complete and transformed renewal. Judgement is not about a petty god throwing a tantrum in the face of things which bring him displeasure. It is an integral piece of the sociological process of evolutionary development to which Creator is faithfully committed. Somehow the animated heap of dust ,which is Genesis’ human, metamorphoses into thebride with whom, God who is completely other in nature, can fully engage.
That repeat cycle of the renewal pattern may have points of intersection with what Jesus does for his people in the area of hope, but is altogether a different topic which happens to run simultaneously with his other project. The point is that the violence, which is a lion aspect of God, does not stop under the new order of the lambly reign. The lambly reign is a new matter which will not be accomplished under the old methodology.
Mathewson observed the truth that: Revelation 4 and 5 were modelled on Roman imperial throne rooms. And that Revelation decentralizes Roman empire and places Jesus in the center of all of creation[25]. The scene is one in which a new way of governance was being described. The scene is one in which a phrase like, “there’s a new sheriff in town,” begins to express the new order. And, under this new order there is an expectation for things to be done differently. Jesus is Emmanuel, who rules his age of life[26], in unconventional ways, which are free of oppression, and exploitation. That age of life is a kingdom which transcends political bounds and facticity. It is a kingdom which is ruled by principles of love and not rules of complicity. At no other time, or in any other way has the world ever known the possibility of a cohesive collective whole functioning in governed unity without force of violence. The New Testament writers stand unified in the necessity of the above. Revelation is a restatement of it, drawing from the full authority of the Old Testament, placed at the ending capstone of scripture, in which what might otherwise be too open-ended, must find a point of precision at which all of the good news is aimed.
Conclusion
The pericope at hand, at first glance, may seem opaque in meaning, or even contradictory. It is through a literary read, however, that John’s expression can be understood. As is always the case with legitimate art, the vehicle of the content is at least as important as the content itself. What could have been stated in a more straightforward manner was not because to do so would have been to dilute the message and to dismember it from its validating heritage. In a few short sentences, John was able to powerfully convey a disturbance of the status quo, redefine the mission of the messiah for the believing community at the end of the age, reimagine what had been forgotten, and tie it all together to the authenticating veracity of Old Testament authorization via literary connection. John’s conveyance remains an ingenious stroke of brilliance which contributes to the living nature of scripture. The book of Revelation is not just an archaic, opaque, incoherent rambling of an unstable, ecstatic mystic, it is literature authored by the Holy Spirit and expressed through his instrument John; it is logos in the wake of logos incarnate. Revelation 5: 5-6 is ensconced, formatted in literary mechanism, in the middle of that expression for the purpose of gifting all who read it with the hope of God’s redemptive faithfulness in credible, meaningful, satisfaction of humanity’s collective heart-cry.
Reference List
Alter, Robert. 1981. The Art of Biblical Narrative.Chicago, IL: BasicBooks.
—. 2019. The Hebrew Bible.New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company.
Brueggemann, Walter. 1997. Theology of the Old Testament.Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press.
Burns, Robert. 1786. "Man Was Made to Mourn: A Dirge." In Poems, Cheilfly in the Scottish Dialect, Robert Burns, by John Wilson. Scotland: Kilmarnock.
Gorman, Michael. 2011. Reading revelation responsibly: Uncivil worship and witness following the Lamb into the new creation.Eugene, OR: Cascade Books.
Hart, David Bentley. 2017. A Translation: The New Testament.New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
—. 2003. The Beauty of the Infinite: The Aesthetics of Christian Truth.Grand Rapids, MI : Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.
Hayes, Richard B. 1996. The Moral Vision of the New Testament: A contemporary Introduction to New Testament Ethics; Cross, Community, New Creation.San Francisco: Harper.
Marquez, Adam. 2017. An Effort to Hear Job Literarily: Challenging Typical PHilosophic Lenses.Academic Paper, Philosophy of Literature, Metropolitan State University of Denver , Denver: Carol Quinn.
Massey, Preston T. 2018. The Branch: A Plausible Case for the Substucture of the Four Gospels.Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock Publishers.
Mathewson, David. 2019. "Class Lecture." NT 512 Epistles and Revelation.Littleton: Denver Seminary.
Mbamalu', Abiola I. 2014. "The Woman Was Deceived and Became a Sionner: A Literary-theological investigation of 1Timothy 2:11-15." HTS Teologiese/ Theological Studies/ 70(3)2062.
Mounce, Robert. 1977. The Book of Revelation .Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Robertson, O. Palmer. 1993. The Books of Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah.Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Trafton, Joseph. 2012. Reading Revelation: A literary and theological commentary.Macon, GA: Smyth and Helwys.
Wiesel, Elie. 1976. Messengers of God.New York, NY : Random House.
—. 1972. Night.Hill and Wang .
Zanardi, William J. 2003. "Fabricating Facts: How Exegesis Presupposes Eisegesis." Journal of Macrodynamic Analysis3: 250-263.
[1]Alter, Robert. 1981. The Art of Biblical Narrative.Chicago, IL: BasicBooks, Brueggemann, Walter. 1997. Theology of the Old Testament.Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press. Robert Alter wrote the seminal work on reading scripture literarily and has been on the frontlines of its development. Walter Brueggemann has been utilizing literary techniques his entire career and exemplifies them well throughout his breadth of voluminous writing.
[2]Zanardi, William J. 2003. "Fabricating Facts: How Exegesis Presupposes Eisegesis." Journal of
Macrodynamic Analysis3: 250-263.
[3]Alter, Robert, “Art of Biblical Narrative,”x
[4]Hart, David Bentley. 2017.A Translation: The New Testament.New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
[5]Wiesel, Elie. 1976. Messengers of God.New York, NY : Random House.
[6]Massey, Preston T. 2018. The Branch: A Plausible Case for the Substucture of the Four Gospels.Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock Publishers.
[7]Massey, Preston, “The Branch”, 250-251
[8]Mounce, Robert “Revelation”
[9]Trafton, Joseph. 2012. Reading Revelation: A literary and theological commentary.Macon, GA: Smyth and Helwys. 62
[10]Hart, David Bentley, “A Translation,” 504
[11]I used the male pronoun here in reference to John, not in an oversight of neutrality.
[12]Mounce, Robert, “Revelation,” 144
[13]Mathewson, David. 2019. "Class Lecture." NT 512 Epistles and Revelation.Littleton: Denver Seminary
[14]Trafton, Joseph, “Reading Revelation,” 64
[15]Alter, Robert. 2019. The Hebrew Bible.New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company.
[16]By ‘lionly’ I mean that which takes on previously described and defined characteristics of ‘lion’ within the text. I do the same for ‘lamb’ later.
[17]Robertson, O. Palmer. 1993. The Books of Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah.Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 173
[18]Hayes, Richard B. 1996. The Moral Vision of the New Testament: A contemporary Introduction to New Testament Ethics; Cross, Community, New Creation.San Francisco: Harper. 174
[19]Mounce, Robert, “Revelation,”144
[20]Marquez, Adam. 2017 An Effort to Hear Job Literarily: Challenging Typical Philosophic Lenses. Denver: Metropolitan State University of Denver., I wrote extensively about the literary form and structure of Job which drives a soteriological message.
[21]Alter, Robert, “Hebrew Bible,” 577, Job 42: 5-6
[22]Mbamalu', Abiola I. 2014. "The Woman Was Deceived and Became a Sionner: A Literary-theological investigation of 1Timothy 2:11-15." HTS Teologiese/ Theological Studies/ 70(3)2062
[23]Mathewson, David, "Class Lecture." 5/7/2019, Class discussion led to contemplating that at least part of Revelation is structured in the pattern of Job. If John draws from Job imagery and later employs Joban structure, it is reasonable to consider that he is drawing on the message of Job to influence his message overall, and at each point at where the imagery is put to use.
[24]Burns, Robert. 1786. "Man Was Made to Mourn: A Dirge." In Poems, Chiefly in the Scottish Dialect, Robert Burns, by John Wilson. Scotland: Kilmarnock.
[25]Mathewson, David, "Class Lecture." 5/7/2019
[26]Hart, David Bentley, “A Translation,” 487-547, goes in depth in explaining the nature of the term aeon(and its derivatives) which has typically been translated into English as ‘eternal’ or ‘everlasting’. Without making a statement to the truth value of eternality in soteriological theology, it is worthwhile to say that Jesus, throughout the Gospel of John (and the theme would be picked up elsewhere and throughout the New Testament), at least in part, was referring to an era of his governance which was without precedence philosophically, epistemologically, politically, or in practice.
