Commentary Search Project: John 21

For my class on the book of John I had to write a paper on one of the 15 sections of the book of John that has underwent heavy criticism in recent scholarship (called aporias). I decided to write my paper on whether or not John 21 was originally part of John 1-20. This paper is quite thick. If you find yourself having difficulty understanding it, don't worry about it--go do something else. I think it is important for Christians to defend the historicity and reliability of the Scriptures, but not to get so side-tracked by it that the Gospel takes a small place in our preaching, teaching, and writing ministries. This is my little two cents on John 21. If it is helpful--Praise the Lord--if it is not--I'm not losing any sleep over it. Enjoy!

Introduction

The Gospel of John contains a significant number of controversial texts in which the “chronological, topical, or dramatic flow of the narrative appears disjointed.”[1] One such text is John 21. For certain reasons (which will be discussed below), many scholars question whether John 21 was originally a part of the Fourth Gospel. This article will consist of four parts: (1) a description of the controversy regarding John 21, (2) a survey of three different commentators (D. A. Carson, Herman N. Ridderbos, and W. Hall Harris III) and how they deal with the controversy, (3) an evaluation of the approach and conclusion of the three different commentators from the vantage point of the author, and (4) a conclusion.

Description of Controversy

Many Johannine scholars question whether or not John 21 was originally a part of the Fourth Gospel. Because of this, the authorship of John 21 has also been under scrutiny in recent scholarship. Even the most conservative Johannine scholars concede that there is definite cause to at least question whether John 21 was originally part of the Fourth Gospel. The reasons for questioning the authorship and placement of John 21 are many, but the skepticism centers on three main observations: (1) John 20:30-31 is written as if it were the conclusion to the book; (2) John 21 contains many words (twenty-eight to be exact) that are not found in the rest of the book; (3) John 21:24 contains the pronoun “we” which suggests that John 21 was written by more than one person.

Survey of 3 Commentaries

1. D. A. Carson

D. A. Carson, in The Gospel According to John, approaches the controversy surrounding John 21 with conservative presuppositions. Carson argues that “ch. 21 was composed with the rest of the Gospel and was designed to be a kind of Epilogue that balances the Prologue (1:1-18) by tying up some loose ends and pointing the way forward.”[2] Rather than offensively attacking the opposing view, Carson begins his discourse by first answering the questions raised by those skeptical of the view that John 21 was originally a part of the Fourth Gospel.

The first matter of controversy addressed by Carson is Bultmann’s striking observation that there are twenty-eight words within John that are unique to John 21. Although he concedes this to be a reality, he responds by calling attention to the fact that a great majority of the words unique to John 21 “are so tied to the subject matter that they cannot be viewed as particularly significant.”[3] Furthermore, Carson strongly suggests that although there are many words in John 21 unique to the rest of the book, there are also many similarities between John 1-20 and John 21. For example, he points to John’s use of “Truly, Truly,” and then states there to be twenty-five other words and constructions which point to literary unity between the two bodies of the Fourth Gospel. By way of conclusion, Carson, quoting and expounding upon C. K. Barrett, says “As a result, even those scholars who are most thoroughly convinced that John 21 came from a different hand usually admit that these ‘linguistic and stylistic considerations… are not in themselves sufficient to establish the belief that ch. 21 was written by a different author.”[4]

Secondly, Carson attacks the argument which states that John 21 must have been added later because 20:30-31 most smoothly reads as the conclusion to the Gospel. Generally, scholars who hold to this position take things a step further by adding the observation that John 21 really does not do much to add to the content of John 1-20. They argue, “Jesus has risen, he has appeared, his ascension has been dealt with, the Spirit he promised has been bequeathed and his great commission solemnly uttered. What more is there to say?”[5] Carson does not argue that 20:31-33 is a conclusion of sorts, but he adds,

there remains certain authorial discretion: the book may end abruptly with the act of disclosure, the solution to the mystery, or it may wind down through a postscript that tells what happens to the characters, especially if what happens to them sheds a certain light backward into the principal plot of the work.[6]

Carson has much to say about what he thinks this information added by John, that “sheds a certain light backward into the principle plot of the work,” is. In fact, he provides nine different things that John 21 helpfully adds to the book as a whole.[7] Carson, quoting Hoskyns, sums up the most major contribution of ch. 21 by stating that “‘a Christian gospel ends properly... with a confident statement that this mission to the world, undertaken at His command and under His authority, will be the means by which many are saved.’”[8]

Carson ends by calling attention to the fact that “There is no textual evidence that the book was ever published without John 21.”[9] Even if Carson’s arguments in the previous two sections were weak (and it is the author’s contention that they were not), the argument in this section is highly effective to prove his thesis. The fact is that the manuscript evidence is in the favor of Carson so much so that he can say, “even if ch. 21 were added later, it was added by the same Evangelist who composed the rest.”[10] After stating this, he embraces ignorance in regard to the author’s use of “we” in 21:24. In essence he states that whoever the “we” refers to (an amanuensis or an informed group of John’s disciples), it “does not alter these basic realities.”[11]

2. Herman N. Ridderbos

Like Carson, Herman N. Ridderbos approaches the controversy regarding John 21 as a conservative. Ridderbos’ central thesis regarding John 21 is that “The primary facts are that it is no where lacking in the text tradition, and that, if it was added later, what existed before was only the Evangelist’s original unpublished position.”[12] Although his thesis sounds much like Carson’s, there are some differences in how the two go about defending it. While Carson argues that the stylistic unity between John 1-20 and John 21 is strong enough to be considered proof, Ridderbos suggests that “Besides typically Johannine characteristics, ch. 21 also contains a number of words and expressions that do not occur elsewhere in the Gospel, that one cannot simply ascribe to the special nature of the material.”[13]

Ridderbos then goes on to assert, “Though, then, style can probably not settle the issue, the case is stronger if one looks at content.”[14] The content which Ridderbos is primarily referring to is that which brings Peter and the beloved disciple into sharper focus. He further identifies the content as that which both vindicates Peter and reveals the role which Peter and the beloved disciple were to have in the church.[15] Thus, it is appropriate for him to say that ch. 21 was “added to describe the passage from Jesus’ work on earth to its continuation through the disciples.”[16] Ridderbos concludes this argument by saying, “If, with many contemporary authors, one concludes that all of ch. 21 was added by a later author, then one must also say that ch. 21 is made up of material that is closely connected with all that goes before and that completes the earlier material.”[17]

Ridderbos goes much further than Carson in suggesting that the “we” definitely refers to more than one author.[18] However, like Carson, Ridderbos does not let his conviction about who the “we” refers to affect his view of the unity between John 21 and the rest of the book.

3. W. Hall Harris III

Although W. Hall Harris III, the third commentator in view, is conservative and asserts basically the same thesis as Carson and Ridderbos, he approaches the controversy in his own unique way. Harris’ thesis is as follows:

If chapter 21 was indeed a later addition to the Fourth Gospel by a different author, it must have been added very early, because no extant Greek manuscript lacks the last chapter, and there is no serious evidence in the manuscript tradition for later addition.[19]

In much the same way as Ridderbos, Harris does not consider stylistic similarities and differences between John 1-20 and John 21 to be telling either way (i.e., they neither prove nor disprove unified authorship from ch. 1 to ch. 21). However, Harris does point out that one of the prominent scholars, C. K. Barrett, who holds to disconnected authorship between chs. 1-20 and ch. 21 says, “These linguistic and stylistic considerations, when weighed against the undoubted resemblances between chs. 1-20 and ch. 21, are not in themselves sufficient to establish the belief that ch. 21 was written by a different author.”[20]

Like Ridderbos, Harris suggests that it is the content and thought-flow of ch. 21 that is most helpful in establishing unified authorship for the Fourth Gospel. He then summarizes the content of ch. 21 in a way that reveals its contribution to the book as a whole:

chapter 21 is not as much of an addendum as some believe, and… it does in fact provide a necessary conclusion to the Fourth Gospel, which does not merely end with Thomas’ confession, but has repeatedly emphasized that the disciples will continue Jesus’ witness to the world after he has departed (15:27) and will carry on his mission in the world.[21]

Commentary Evaluation

The three commentaries in view were all very helpful in dealing with the issue of John 21 and its relationship to the rest of the book. All three of the commentators were correct in emphasizing the lack of manuscript evidence against the view which sees John 21 as being a later addition to chs. 1-20. The amazing thing about this discovery is that there is no need to provide proof for this thesis because the proof lay in the absence of proof to the contrary. Ultimately, this is the primary argument against those who postulate that John 21 was a later addition to the Fourth Gospel. Although it does not necessarily leave room for doubt, it successfully puts those who disagree on the defensive—at best, it relegates their position to unproven theory.

The only thing which could have been added is information regarding the earliest manuscript which shows John 21 connected to the rest of the book. This information could either solidify their observation or cause it to hold less weight. For example, if the earliest manuscript dates to the later part of the first century or the early part of the second century their position holds much more weight; however if the earliest manuscript dates to the last part of the second century or later their position is much weaker. Either way, the lack of manuscript evidence is not easy to dismiss as a staggering argument.

One difference which is evident between the three commentators is how they deal with the stylistic similarities and differences between chs. 1-20 and ch. 21. Carson puts much more weight in the stylistic similarities than does Ridderbos and Harris. Essentially, Ridderbos and Harris suggest that although there are stylistic similarities between the two bodies in the Fourth Gospel, they do not see them as being so striking as to be a solid argument for unified authorship. On the other hand, although Carson does not come out and specifically state that these stylistic similarities are enough to build a strong case for unified authorship, he does communicate that they add much weight to the overall argument. While Ridderbos and Harris are correct in suggesting that the stylistic similarities do not “slam home” an argument for unified authorship, Carson is correct in emphasizing these similarities as one proof among many. Surely, these similarities will not be sufficient in and of themselves, but, when considered alongside the rest of the evidence, they make more certain what is already convincing. Not only that, but they also provide a helpful framework for dealing with the differences in vocabulary and style between the two bodies of the Gospel.

Although Carson’s list of nine things that John 21 adds to the Gospel of John was enlightening, about three or four of the nine things were not helpful in establishing what Carson was trying to prove—i.e., that certain information in ch. 21 is so closely linked with the rest of the book that it proves that the two bodies of the Gospel are inseparably linked. For example, Carson mentions the fact that ch. 21 teaches that “Jesus is still ahead of the disciples, providing their needs and serving them.”[22] Although this observation is helpful, it does not prove anything regarding the unity of chs. 1-20 and ch. 21. Insightful teaching is not a proof of unity.

Nonetheless, about four or five of the things mentioned by Carson were helpful in understanding why John was so urgent to add ch. 21 to a document which seemed to come to a close in 20:31-33. Although these four or five insights were helpful, Ridderbos and Harris, by focusing on the overall teaching of John 21, seemed to be a bit more convincing. Surely, Carson did deal with the general teaching of John 21 (as seen previously in this article) and how it adds to the entire Gospel, however he put more emphasis on the specific details of John 21. The single most helpful statement regarding the addition that John 21 made to the Gospel was made by Ridderbos: “it was added to describe the passage from Jesus’ work on earth to its continuation through the disciples.”[23]

All three of the commentators were in agreement in regard to the use of “we” in 21:24. This verse is not evidence enough to establish a verifiable disunity between chs. 1-20 and ch. 21. John 21:24, rather than establishing proof that ch. 21 was written by someone other than the author of chs. 1-20, more like likely points to (as Carson suggests) a comment made by an amanuensis or an informed group of John’s disciples. Although it is possible to argue from this text that there was “minimal redactional activity” (emphasis mine) on the Fourth Gospel, there is no reason to suggest that the redactor added an entire chapter—namely, ch. 21.[24] There is simply too much evidence to suggest that, if there was a redactor, such an extensive addition would have been made to this Gospel.

Conclusion

Although there are many viable reasons to question whether John 21 was actually a part of the original book of John, there is simply not enough evidence to suggest that chs. 1-20 and ch. 21 were ever disjointed from one another. It is not as if there are some manuscripts which reveal that they were together and others which reveal that they were separate. Rather, there are only manuscripts which reveal that they are to be taken together. However, additional research on the earliest document which contains John 1-21 as a unified whole would be telling. On another note, there is no reason to suggest that the stylistic differences between chs. 1-20 and ch. 21 are so great that the same author could not have possibly written both bodies as one unified whole. Rather, the differences are easily dealt with by first understanding that many of them are the result of unique content in ch. 21, and then also by calling attention to the many parallels between the two bodies within the Fourth Gospel. Furthermore, it is not as if John were merely adding information disconnected from the rest of his Gospel.

The message contained within ch. 21 successfully brings the Gospel to a close with an eye on Jesus’ continued work through his disciples. Thus, although 20:31-33 reads as the conclusion to the book, John saw it necessary to end the Gospel in such a way as to show that Jesus’ work was not over upon his resurrection, but that it was to continue through his disciples with just as much emphasis as it did before. Although some may suggest that the author’s use of the first person plural personal pronoun “we” in 21:24 provides proof that ch. 21 was written by someone other than the author of chs. 1-20, because of all the information stated above, and because of the all-too-common use of an amanuensis, there is no reason to suspect that ch. 21 was written by someone other than the author of chs. 1-20. In conclusion, John 21 is best considered to be the Epilogue to the Gospel of John in the same way that John 1:1-18 is considered to be the Prologue to the Gospel of John.

---

[1] Gary M. Burge, Interpreting the Gospel of John, (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1992), 62. Burge labels these passages as “aporias” and “seams.”

[2] D. A. Carson, The Gospel According to John, (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1991), 665.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid., 666.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Ibid., 666-67.

[8] Ibid., 666.

[9] Ibid., 667.

[10] Ibid., 668.

[11] Ibid.

[12] Herman N. Ridderbos, The Gospel According to John, (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1997), 655.

[13] Ibid., 655-56.

[14] Ibid., 656.

[15] Ibid.

[16] Ibid., 658.

[17] Ibid., 656.

[18] Ibid.

[19] W. Hall Harris III, Commentary on the Gospel of John, (Biblical Studies Press, 2006).

[20] Ibid.

[21] Ibid.

[22] Carson, The Gospel According to John, 667.

[23] Ridderbos, The Gospel According to John, 658.

[24] Craig L. Blomberg, Jesus and the Gospels, (Nashville: Broadman and Holman Publishers, 1997), 173. Blomberg actually does support the idea of a redactor, however he suggests that the redactor did very little. Here is the full quote: “The closing two verses of the Gospel (21:24-25) support at least some minimal redactional activity, as they distinguish the beloved disciple who wrote down the events of the Gospel from a group of people (‘we’) who ‘know that his testimony is true’ and an ‘I’ who supposes that the whole world couldn’t contain the books that could be written about Jesus.”

A Thorough Redemption: An Exposition of Isaiah 63:1-6

For my Isaiah class at Liberty I wrote an exposition paper on Isaiah 63:1-6. I was extremely blessed by the writing and study of this passage. I have pasted the paper below. The paper is primarily academic and so if it proves to be a bit too difficult just skip down to the bottom of the paper and read the sections titled "Theological Significance" and "Application." The paper is broken up into four sections: 1. A detailed outline of the passage is given. 2. An exposition of the passage. 3. Theological significance of the passage. 4. Application of the passage. The biggest portion of the paper is the exposition of the passage. The footnotes of the paper are put in brackets--[ ]. Anyway, enjoy!

A THOROUGH REDEMPTION: AN EXPOSITION OF ISAIAH 63:1-6

Synthesis and Outline of Isaiah 63:1-6

Summary: Yahweh returns from Edom with blood-stained garments having single-handedly slaughtered the nations for the sake of redeeming his people.

Outline:

I. The watchman sees a triumphant warrior arrayed for battle approaching the city and asks for his identity. Yahweh responds by identifying himself as the redeemer of his people (63:1)

A. The watchman’s question: The watchman suspiciously questions the identity of a valiant warrior approaching the city (63:1a)
B. Yahweh’s response: Yahweh Identifies himself as the victorious conqueror over the enemies of his people. He has come to announce a salvation accomplished (63:1b)

II. Yahweh answers the watchman’s question about his bloody garments by calling attention to the fact that he has just completely pulverized his enemies (the nations) by himself (63:2-3)

A. The watchman’s question: The watchman asks this valiant warrior why his garments are covered with blood to such an extent (63:2)
B. Yahweh’s response: Yahweh’s garments are covered with blood to such an extent because he took on the nations by himself (63:3)

III. Yahweh, demonstrating his sovereign power, elaborates on why his garments are stained with blood by stating that since he could find no one to help, he redeemed his people by thoroughly destroying Israel’s enemies by himself (63:4-6)

A. Yahweh’s appointed time for securing redemption by way of destroying his enemies had come (63:4)
B. Yahweh looked, but found no one who would help in the task of destroying his enemies, for the sake of securing redemption. So he, in his wrath, won redemption for his people by himself (63:5)

1. No one among the peoples of the earth were righteous to help Yahweh bring about redemption (63:5a)
2. Yahweh takes matters into his own hands and accomplishes redemption in his own power (63:5b)

C. The enemies of God (the nations) are utterly defeated by Yahweh (63:6)

1. Yahweh destroys the nations by trampling them in his anger (63:6a)
2. Yahweh destroys the nations by filling them with their own blood in his rage(63:6b)
3. Yahweh destroys the nations by covering the ground with their blood (63:6c)


Exposition of the Text

Introduction

Isaiah 63:1-6 finds itself couched in the middle of a subsection within the context of the entire book. In this section, Isaiah is speaking to the Israelites of a future generation: those living at the end of the exile in Babylon. Isaiah’s purpose in writing this section of the book was to both encourage them in the salvation that God was going to accomplish, and to remind them of the necessity of living up to the righteousness demanded by their covenant with Yahweh.[1] Some scholars have argued that Isaiah 56-66 is comprised of one large chiastic construction. At the very heart of this construction sits chapters 60-62 with its emphasis on the final salvation which Israel will enjoy. Isaiah 63:1-6 (the passage in view) and 59:15b-21 serve as book ends to 60-62.[2]

Many scholars have been struck with confusion at why 63:1-6—a section dealing with the bloody, gruesome destruction of the nations—is found at the tail end of two chapters fleshing out the glories of Yahweh’s salvation for His people. Brevard Child’s has correctly suggested that Isaiah has put it here in order to “emphasize in the strongest manner possible that the divine judgment against the evil and injustice of those in rebellion against God’s rule must precede the entrance of God’s promised kingship in the transformation of Zion.”[3] Thus, the destruction of the nations is a necessity if the promises of 60-62 are to be realized. Claire Matthews suggests that the destruction of the nations and the redemption of Israel should be seen as two sides of the same event.[4] With this in mind, this section is only encouraging to those who are faithful to Yahweh’s covenant.

Yahweh Makes Himself Known (63:1)

This section begins with what many have considered to be something of a watchman manning his post.[5] Furthering this idea, Paul Allen Smith suggests a strong tie between 62:1 and 63:1.[6] In 62:1-6 Yahweh declares his determination to vindicate Israel. He states that he will set up “watchmen” on their walls who will not rest until Israel realizes the redemption promised by Yahweh. “Thus,” Allen says, “63:1-6 could be understood as a fulfillment, in visionary terms, of 62:1-2.”[7]

As the watchman stands on his post looking out, he sees a valiant warrior approaching the city. He asks the warrior to identify himself. This is the first of two questions asked in 63:1-6. Jan Leunis Koole suggests that these questions are asked to “make the reader/listener alert and curios.”[8] The watchman notices that Yahweh is coming from Edom and Bozrah. Bozrah is the main city in Edom.[9]

The identity of Edom and Bozrah is hotly debated among scholars. There are basically four positions: 1. Those who hold to a literal interpretation hold that Yahweh literally destroyed Bozrah and Edom.[10] 2. Others see that Edom and Bozrah refer to the direction from which the Lord came—the south.[11] 3. Many scholars interpret Edom and Bozrah to be Israel’s foremost enemy. Thus, they see Edom and Bozrah symbolizing all the enemies of Yahweh.[12] 4. Some scholars hold that Edom and Bozrah are utilized here for carrying out winepress imagery.[13] All of these positions have strengths and weaknesses. Also, it is not impossible to hold more than one view simultaneously without contradicting the laws of logic.

In light of the context of this passage, there is no doubt that the author is marshalling all of the winepress imagery he possibly can. With this in mind, the fourth position holds weight, and especially considering the fact that there is relationship between “Edom” and “red,” and between “Bozrah” and “grape harvest.”[14] Blenkinsopp also points out that “Edom, like its northern neighbor Moab, was well known as a center of viniculture (cf Isa 16:8-10).”[15]

One of the strengths of the second view is that Yahweh is not said to have destroyed Edom, but to merely have come from Edom. The third view holds weight because of Israel’s long somewhat dysfunctional distant-relative relationship with Edom. Edom had become something of a Babylon to Yahweh and his people—a stereotypical archrival enemy.[16]

Although the possibility of this oracle referring to the destruction of Edom by the Nabataeans in the 6th Century BC is a possibility, it is not likely. The thrust of the context of this passage suggests that God’s vengeance is against the nations. In fact, both B. Dicou and the Net Study Bible suggest that the plural suffixes on the verbs “stomped” and “trample” in 63:3 suggest that the object of the action was upon the nations symbolized by the nation of Edom.[17] Also, in 63:6, Yahweh further explains his redemptive action against “Edom”: “I trampled the nations in my anger” (emphasis mine).

Yahweh answers the watchman by declaring Himself the redeemer/vindicator. J.W. Olley suggests that “speaking” (or “announcing”) is always closely associated with “doing.” Thus, he says, Yahweh, in 63:1, was "speaking (acting) with a saving, just purpose, with a concern to bring about what is right."[18] Yahweh’s response to the watchman is evidence that the thrust of 63:1-6 communicates that the primary function of God’s acts of judgement are ultimately for the redemption and vindication of His people. Thus, although 63:1-6 graphically depicts an angry God destroying His enemies, it is imperative that the purpose of their destruction is not missed. Smith states that “63:1-6 draws out the implications” of God’s redemptive actions on behalf of his people “for other nations.”[19]

Yahweh Explains His Blood-Stained Attire (63:2-3)

This section of 63:1-6 beings with another question from the watchman to Yahweh: “Why are your clothes red?” This question is only reasonable. After all, would not the watchman want to know why this valiant warrior dripping with blood was covered so! The watchman would have had a situation on his hands if the warrior replied, “I just got done slaughtering the innocent.”—he would have had to call the ranks to action. However, this was not the answer he received from the great warrior, Yahweh.

The language used by the watchman conveys the absolute slaughter accomplished by Yahweh. He states that Yahweh looked like a man who just got done stomping on grapes in a winepress. Without a doubt, Isaiah is utilizing winepress imagery to communicate the nature and extent of God’s redemptive actions against the enemies of His people. Victor H. Matthews has helpfully described the process of the (somewhat) ancient process of treading grapes in a winepress:

The extraction of the juice took on various forms, from treading the grapes under foot to crushing them in wicker baskets above a catchment basin. Egyptian tomb paintings, especially those from the tomb of Ptahhotep, provide graphic depictions of this process… In these scenes the harvested grapes were first placed in a "treading trough" made of mud brick and sealed with a plaster surface. A group of men, holding on to a pole hung horizontally over the trough, then worked the grapes into a mash with their feet… A further pressing process then occurs when the crushed grapes are placed into a sack or closed wicker basket that is stretched over wide-mouth jars and twisted by a team of three or more men. [20]

According to this imagery here in 63:1-6, Yahweh is the one symbolized by the winetreader, while the nations are symbolized by the crushed grapes. In the same way that a vintner’s clothing becomes stained by the juice within the grapes he is crushing, Yahweh’s clothing becomes stained by the blood within the people he is crushing.[21]

In response to the watchman, Yahweh appeals to the fact that he had to destroy the peoples alone. Koole correctly explains that the reason why Yahweh’s garments are so stained is because he took on the nations alone.[22] In other words, all the blood of all the nations fell upon him and no one else.

Many scholars have seen a connection between 63:3 and Revelation 19:13 and 15. In Revelation 19:13 Christ is said to be “clothed with a robe dipped in blood,” and in 19:15 Christ is pictured as treading the “winepress of the fierce wrath of God.” The imagery is strikingly similar to that of Isaiah here in 63:3. Carroll D. Qsburn says, “Revelation 19:11-16 has attributed to Christ what the Isaiah text attributed to God.”[23]

It is vital that one does not mistakenly equate the imagery of 63:3 with the crucifixion of Christ, for in both Isaiah 63 and Revelation 19 the blood which splattered on the garments of the warrior was not the blood of the warrior, but rather the blood of the warrior’s enemies.[24] It is not as if the only blood which stains the garments of Christ will be his own—Revelation 19:13, 15 make this abundantly clear.

Yahweh Elaborates on His Redemptive Acts of Judgment (63:4-6)

After having just answered the watchman’s questions regarding his identity and blood-stained apparel, here Yahweh attempts to explain the answer he gave in 63:3 in more detail.[25] Yahweh begins his explanation by making reference to the “day of vengeance,” and the “year of redemption.” The “day of vengeance” is clearly connected to 61:2. In the context of 61:2, Yahweh speaks of a day in which Israel will be rebuilt, safe from attack, and served by the nations. Thus, as said earlier, the destruction of the nations and redemption of Israel are two sides of the same coin. It is no wonder why v. 4 contains both ideas side by side.[26] Koole, in speaking of “the day of vengeance,” helpfully suggests that “there is no question here of a sudden fit of anger but of a plan which God had formed long ago.”[27] This day is the day in which He has planned to make his promises of redeeming his people a reality.

Barry G. Webb suggests that 63:4b should be translated “year of his ‘redeemed’ (his people).”[28] However, such a rendering of this passage misses the point of the passage. The context puts the emphasis on Yahweh as both the avenger and redeemer of his people, Israel. The word translated “redemption” (go’el) refers to the idea of a kinsman redeemer. The NET Study Bible says this about the usage of the function of a go’el: “He was also responsible for avenging the shed blood of a family member (see Num 35:19–27; Deut 19:6–12).[29]

The time for Yahweh to redeem his people (by destroying their enemies) had come, but he could find no one to come along side as a helper. Similar language is used in Isaiah 59:16b. This passage communicates a great difference between God’s actions in exilic and post exilic times. During the exile God worked through Cryus, the king of Persia, to cut his people free from the bondage of the Babylonians in 538 BC. With great contrast, both in 59:16 and 63:5 Isaiah states that Yahweh took matters into His own hands. Blenkinsopp says, “The statement therefore marks a turning away from the historical arena and international affairs in the search for intimations of a change in fortune for Israel and therefore comes a step closer to embracing an apocalyptic world view.”[30]

Some scholars have tried to speculate as to why Yahweh destroyed the nations. Goldingay says, “Yahweh’s explicit dissatisfaction is with having to act alone rather than with the necessity of bloodshed.”[31] There simply is not enough textual, historical, or grammatical support for this position. Webb, on the other hand, states that God destroyed the nations because of their ill treatment of his people.[32] Although this postulation is easier to defend than Goldingay’s, Walter Bruggemann correctly suggests that the text does not specifically state Yahweh’s specific motivation for taking such action—it must be “inferred.”[33]

Isaiah, in 63:6, further describes the extent of destruction inflicted upon the enemies of Yahweh and his people. Koole states that Isaiah stopped using winepress imagery in v. 3. He suggests that “trodden down” refers to Yahweh treading his enemies into the mud;[34] He suggests that “drunk” refers to the way in which the people were “trodden down”—in humiliation;[35] He suggests that “poured out their lifeblood” refers to God humbling the arrogant—he makes them “sit on the ground” (Isa 47:1; Eze 26:16).[36]

Although Koole’s suggestions are not completely lacking, it is always best to follow the suit of the context unless there is overwhelming evidence to not do so. Surely, these terms (“trodden down,” “drunk,” and “poured out their lifeblood”) may mean many different things in other contexts. However, since these terms can convey winepress imagery, and since Isaiah has heavily leaned upon winepress imagery in the immediate context to convey meaning, there is no reason why these terms should not be interpreted on the basis of their relationship to winepress imagery.[37]

John Oswalt says, “The theme of judgment is brought to a powerful climax in this verse, both through the development of the “wine vat” theme and also through the introduction of the related image of the wine cup full of God’s wrath.”[38] The reference to Yahweh making the nations drunk could very well mean that they will be drunk on their own blood. The idea here is that the wine vat of God’s wrath will be so full of blood that the nations therein will drown in it.[39]

Isaiah 63:6c literally reads, “and I brought down to the ground their juice.”[40] “Juice” is a clear usage of winepress imagery and carries the symbolic meaning of blood. The meaning conveyed is that of death—their lifeblood will has been spilled on the ground.

Theological Significance

The Wrath and Love of God

Isaiah 63:1-6 is one of the most gruesome passages in the entire Bible. This passage portrays the radical character of God in a way that causes a weak stomach to churn. Here God is seen as the one who crushes real people under his weight in the same way that a vintner crushes grapes under his weight. Yahweh is a God covered with blood--the blood of his enemies. This in no way calls into question the love of God. In fact, God’s purpose for dealing with his enemies in such a drastic way is for the sake of redeeming his own people. Although this passage is more of a precursor of the “day of judgment” than it is of the cross, it is important to know that God sent his only Son to die in the place of his enemies. Thus, Christ was thrown in the wine vat and trampled on by the Father in order to propitiate the sins of the world. Make no mistake about it: because of the love with which God loved us, his garments were dripping with the blood of his own Son at Golgotha. Surely, he crushed his one and only Son, but it was for the redemption of the world.

The Independence and Sovereignty of God:

Yahweh is not the sort of God who is in need of those who follow Him. Yahweh is completely independent and “does whatever He pleases” (Psalm 115:3). When he found no one to help defeat the nations of the world, he took it upon himself and successfully brought about salvation by his own strong right arm. God is not in need of human brilliance, strength, ingenuity, or discipline.

Application

Celebrating Deliverance

Often times Christians have such a difficult time with passages like 63:1-6 that they end up neglecting them altogether. The problem with this is that they are missing out on one of the most uplifting and encouraging passages in all the Bible. John Oswalt brilliantly illustrates this passage by likening Yahweh to a World War II “blood-spattered, smoke-begrimed GI” who breaks into a concentration camp to set the prisoners free. He asks, “Does he look distasteful to those prisoners?”[41] The obvious answer is, “Absolutely not!” Although we, like God, ought not delight in the destruction of the wicked, we ought to rejoice in the deliverance accomplished by Yahweh. What would heaven be like if God did not demand payment for sin? What would heaven be like if murders, rapists, child molesters, and robbers were allowed through her gates? Celebrate your deliverance--it secures your safety and ultimate hope for bliss.

Seriousness of Rejecting Yahweh

Too often in our culture today God is communicated as if he were a hippy in the sky flipping the world a peace sign, calling the whole world to gather around for a big group hug. Because of this popular approach, very few people today have a true fear of the Lord. Isaiah 63:1-6 is a beckon call to those who fearlessly and carelessly live in unrepentant sin. As seen in the pages above, this is not just a picture of Yahweh: Isaiah 63:1-6 finds its ultimate fulfillment in Christ destroying his enemies in the eschaton. How much more seriously would we take sin if we understood God’s relation to it? God is not some sort of a heartless, blood-thirsty villain. It appears this way only to those who do not understand the glory of God and the vileness of sin.

Footnotes:

[1] Frederic Wm. Bush, David Allen Hubbard, and William Sanford Lasor, Old Testament Survey 2nd ed., (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1996), 299.
[2] Claire R. Matthews, Defending Zion, (New York: Walter De Gruyter Inc, 1995), 83. Matthews has arranged this construction in a visually helpful way.
[3] Brevard Childs, Isaiah, (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001), 519.
[4] Matthews, Defending Zion, 81.
[5] Joseph Blankinsopp, Isaiah 56-66, (New York: Doubleday, 2003), 247.
[6] Paul Allen Smith, Rhetoric and Redaction in Trito Isaiah, (Brill Academic Pub, 1984), 43.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Jan Leunis Koole, Isaiah III, (Belgium: Peters Publishers, 2002), 331.
[9] Ibid.
[10] See Julian Morgenstern, “Further light from the book of Isaiah upon the catastrophe of 485 B.C.,” in Hebrew Union College Annual 37 (1966), 15-17. Morgenstern identifies the destruction mentioned in 63:1 as referring to the destruction of Edom by the Nabataeans in the 6th Century.
[11]See John F. A. Sawyer, Isaiah: Chapters 33 to 66, (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1986), 196. Sawyer points to Deut 33:2; Judges 5:4-5; and Hab 3:3 as examples of Yahweh coming from the south (Edom).
[12] See John MacArthur, The Macarthur Bible Commentary, (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, Inc., 2005), 838. Macarthur says, “Edom represents a God-hating world.”
[13] See John Goldingay, Isaiah, (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 2004), 353. Goldingay suggests that “Edom and Bozrah’s names suggest pools of grape juice that turn out to be pools of blood.”
[14]Ibid. In order to prove these connections Goldingay offers an abundance of Scripture.
[15]Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 56-66, 250.
[16] Koole, Isaiah III, 327-331.
[17] Smith, Rhetoric and Redaction in Trito Isaiah, 40. And NET Bible, (Biblical Studies Press, 2006), Isaiah 63:3.
[18] J.W. Olley, “Notes on Isaiah 32:1, 45:19,23 and 63:1,” in Vetus testamentum 33 (1983), 452.
[19] Smith, Rhetoric and Redaction in Trito Isaiah, 42. Thus, Koole is most likely mistaken in making the assertion that the main emphasis in 63:1-6 is theocentric rather than soteriological. Koole, Isaiah III, 342.
[20] Victor H. Matthews, “Treading the Winepress” in Semeia 86 (1999), 20.
[21] There is a great deal of debate concerning the word “stain” (63:3). The word in the original conveys the idea of defilement. Although this is the case, very few today have issues with translating it as “stain,” because “guilty” simply does not fit into the context of this passage. See Koole, Isaiah III, 217-18.
[22]Ibid., 338. Koole suggests that Isaiah uses “garments” (plural) to indicate the extent of blood that covered him.
[23]Carroll D. Qsburn, “Alexander Campbell and the text of Revelation 19:13,” in Resoration Quarterly 25 (1982), 134.
[24] John Calvin acutely attacked this common misuse of 63:1-6: “This chapter has been violently distorted by Christians, as if what is said here related to Christ, whereas the Prophet speaks simply of God himself; and they have imagined that here Christ is red, because he was wet with his own blood which he shed on the cross. But the Prophet meant nothing of that sort.” John Calvin, Isaiah, (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2000). Calvin is correct in rejecting the idea that this passage refers to the death of Christ, but goes to far by not qualifying that it does refer to Christ when he tramples upon his enemies in the eschaton.

[25] Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 56-66, 250.

[26] In regard to Isaiah speaking of the “day of vengeance” and the “year of redemption:” It is a possibility that Isaiah, wanting to communicate the long lasting effects of his redemption, distinguishes vengeance and redemption with the words “day” and “year.” This is not to say that he wanted to downplay God’s justice, but rather that he wanted to build up the redemptive work of Yahweh.
[27]Koole, Isaiah III, 341.
[28] Barry G. Webb, The Message of Isaiah, (Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity Press, 1996), 240.
[29] The NET Bible, Isaiah 63:4.
[30] Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 56-66, 250.
[31] Goldingay, Isaiah, 354.
[32] Webb, The Message of Isaiah, 240.
[33] Walter Bruggemann, Isaiah, (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1998), 227.
[34] Koole, Isaiah 56-66, 342. He identifies this as potter language.
[35] Ibid., 342-43. Here Koole states that drunkenness “denotes the stupid conceit and impudence and at the same time the defenselessness in which the drunkard displays paltriness and merely makes himself an object of ridicule.”
[36] Ibid., 343. He suggests that it has nothing to do with the literal destruction of the nations, but rather with the humiliation of the arrogant.
[37] The term “trodden down” is rare, but the intended meaning is clear considering the context of the passage.
[38] John Oswalt, The Book of Isaiah: Chapters 40-66, (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1998), 603.
[39] Ibid. This same imagery can be found in 49:26; Rev 14:10; 16:19.
[40] The NET Bible, Isaiah 63:6.
[41] John Oswalt, Isaiah, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2003), pg 661-62

Exit Ivory Tower

Well, I finished my two classes last Friday. As I mentioned two posts ago, my missions class rendered me useless in every area of life. So, what have I been doing since last Friday? Actually I have only been doing three things: Sleeping, eating, and catching up on lost time with my bride and son. Simply put, I have done a lot of nothing and I'm not apologizing for it. After completing my courses I vowed to do no reading, writing, or thinking for one full week. As you can see, I am breaking my vow right now, but "Hey, ya can't win em all."

Anyway, I have had an excellent time with my family. My vacation lasts until Monday. Pray that my classes next semester are a bit more reasonable. Also, for those of you out there looking for a class on missions: make sure that the class you take doesn't expect so much out of you that you have no time left for... ummm.... what was it again... oh yeah... MISSIONS! Anyway, I am thankful that I am now freed up to do the most important things--minister to my family, my local church, and the lost in my community.

For those of you who don't know: The helmet James is wearing in the picture is to reshape his head. Because of his inability to hold up his head, and because of all the time he spent at the hospital James got a wicked (New Hampshire word) bad flat spot on the back of his head. The helmet helps reshape the head--he will have to wear it for a couple more months. It smells like a mixture between sweat, vinegar, and cheese. Not all the alcohol swabs in the world can take away the smell--oh well.

Enter Ivory Tower

If you haven't noticed, I haven't written in a while. Right now I am in the heat of battle with my classes at seminary. My "Introduction to World Missions" course has been sucking every spare minute of my life away. I have never had a class that has expected so much work out me. I have literally given up every aspect of my life to merely do the minimal work for the class. I have never had a class that has pulled me away from what is most important (family, ministry, etc.) as this one has. I have been studying from 8 am till 10 pm, Monday through Saturday (Ok, so I don't go straight through: I take a 30 min break for lunch and an hour break for supper). The good thing is that I have learned a lot. But, as a result, I have not been writing much on my blog. This class will be over in less than two weeks--until that time I will not be very regular in my writing. In the meantime I will be putting up pictures of James and stuff like that (I know, thats the main reason most of you come here anyway.)

Please pray for me during these next two weeks. Pray that the Lord would give me supernatural ability to get all of my work done on time--pray that I would produce quality work. Most of all, pray that I would retain it and that it would be useful for ministry in the future. Pray for Kristal as I am not able to help much with James. Pray for Kelly (my mother-in-law) as she is having to pick up where I cannot help.

Also, James is doing really well. Please continue to pray. He is starting to get congested and is throwing up again. We are praying that he is not coming down with RSV again (the doctor said it was a possibility). Aside from all of this, he is really progressing. Kristal has been working with him a lot lately on his motor development. She is such a good mommy.

Anyway, pray for me as I enter my theological ivory tower divorced from the world, family and ministry. I have already been in the tower for a few weeks and cannot wait to get back to normalcy.