Ὁ ἐρχόμενος: A trinitarian approach  to “the One coming”

Laurentiu F.   Mot

doi:10.56487/dl.v23i2.1196

Autores/as

Laurentiu F. Mot Adventus University Cernica, Romania

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.56487/dl.v23i2.1196

Palabras clave:

Eschaton — Apocalipsis — Ὁ ἐρχόμενος — Trinidad

Resumen

El interrogante principal de esta investigación es cuál es el significado del título ὁ ἐρχόμενος (Ap 1,4.8; 4,8), cuando se aplica a Aquel que está sentado en el trono (Ap 4,3). El modelo de un Dios inamovible hace que su representación como Uno que viene a la tierra parezca antinatural. El modelo de un Espíritu omnipresente hace que su venida a la tierra parezca innecesaria. Sin embargo, hay ciertas corrientes de interpretación en cuya cuenta el estudio sugiere que el eschaton no es solo el segundo advenimiento de Jesús, sino también la venida del Dios Padre y del Espíritu. La investigación se basa en elementos críticos textuales, exegéticos e intertextuales, y sostiene que la fórmula “el que es y que era y que ha de venir” debe interpretarse a la luz de la imagen griega de varios dioses que están continuamente en el tiempo (pasado, presente y futuro). La venida de Dios en el Apocalipsis es, en última instancia, el traslado de un trono portátil, imagen que sintoniza con la representación judía del trono divino, como objeto móvil. Asimismo, se revela que el Espíritu es la causa de la gran resurrección (Romanos) y que hace promesas escatológicas en primera persona del singular, algunas relacionadas con el momento de la Parusía (Apocalipsis). Esto tiene implicaciones para la comprensión del eschaton como la conclusión de la historia provocada por la presencia y la participación directa del Dios triuno.

Descargas

Los datos de descarga aún no están disponibles.

Referencias

Saint Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologica, trans. by Fathers of the English Dominican Province (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, 2009), s. v. I q.31 a.1 ad 1.

Robert A. Morey, The Trinity: Evidence and issues (Iowa Falls, IA: World Bible Publishers, 1996), 438–439.

John M. Frame, The doctrine of God (Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R, 2002), 706-707.

Millard J. Erickson, Christian theology, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1998), 1191-1200; Louis Berkhof, The history of Christian doctrines (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1949), 270-272; Roy E. Gingrich, Introduction to theology, 2 vols. (Memphis, TN: Riverside, 2001), 2:35; Robert L. Reymond, A new systematic theology of the Christian faith (Nashville, TN: T. Nelson, 1998), 988-1047; Augustus Hopkins Strong, Systematic theology (Bellingham, WA: Logos, 2004), 1003-1014; Morton H. Smith, Systematic theology, vol. 1: Prolegomena, theology, anthropology, Christology (Greenville SC: Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary Press, 1996), 765-789; Rousas John Rushdoony, Systematic theology, 2 vols (Vallecito, CA: Ross House Books, 1994), 2:877-881; Robert Duncan Culver, Systematic theology: Biblical and historical (Ross-shire, UK: Mentor, 2005), 1111-1119; Norman L. Geisler, Systematic theology, vol. 4: Church, last things (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House, 2005), 552-553; Charles Hodge, Systematic theology, 3 vols (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos, 1997), 3:790-836; Edward Wilhelm August Koehler, A summary of Christian doctrine: A popular presentation of the teachings of the Bible (St. Louis, MO: Concordia, 1999), 296-298; James Petigru Boyce, Abstract of systematic theology (Bellingham, WA: Logos, 2010), 451-453.

C. Fred Smith, “Does classical Theism deny God’s immanence?,” Bibliotheca Sacra 160 (2003): 23-33, esp. 26.

Thomas C. Oden, The living God: Systematic theology (San Francisco, CA: HarperSanFrancisco, 1992), 1:29.

Norman L. Geisler, Systematic theology, vol. 2: God, creation (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House, 2003), 257.

Isa 13,6.9; Ezek 13,5; 30,3; Joel 1,15; 2,1.11.31; 3,14; Amos 5,18.20; Obad 1,15; Zeph 1,7; Zech 14,1; Mal 4,5. Cf. Acts 2,20; 1 Cor 3,13; 1 Cor 5,5; 2 Cor 1,14; 1 Thess 5,2; 2 Thess 2,2; 2 Pet 3,10; Rev 1,10.

Psa 50,3; Isa 19,1; 40,10; 62,11; 66,15; Jer 47,4; Ezek 7; Hab 3,3; Mal 4,1.

A footnote would definitely be insufficient to articulate this hypothesis. However, and in brief, the idea is that the creation act is associated in Scripture not only with God the Father, but also with the Spirit and Jesus. The Spirit can lay behind the expression רוּחַַ אֱֱלֹהִִים (Gen 1,2), though contemporary scholarship recognizes that this is not without doubts. E.g., Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis- Chapters 1-17, NICOT (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1990), 111-114; Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 1-15, WBC (Dallas, TX: Word, 2002), 16-17. Cf. E. A. Speiser, Genesis: Introduction, translation, and notes, AYB (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2008), 5. If the expression means “the Spirit of God” as elsewhere in the Old Testament (e.g., Gen 41,38; Ex 31,3; 35,31; Num 24,2; 1 Sam 10,10; 11,6; 2 Chr 15,1; etc.) this may affirm the presence of the Spirit at the act of creation. That Christ is presented in the NT as a Creator is a fact present in multiple texts. The most evident are John 1,3; Col 1,15-16; and Heb 1,2.10. For more details, see Ekkehardt Mueller, “Creation in the New Testament,” Journal of the Adventist Theological Society, 15, no 1 (Spring 2004): 47-62, esp. 57-59.-

It is probably an oversimplification but the idea can by supported that God provided the means of salvation, which is Christ’s sacrifice, and that the Spirit is the one securing this sacrifice for individual benefit of the repentant and believing sinner. In other words, salvation is a work that involves all three persons of the Trinity. The illustration of Kevin Vanhoozer, The drama of doctrine: A canonical-linguistic approach to Christian theology (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2005), 448, is well fit here: The Father is the playwright and producer of the action; the Son is the climax and summation of the action. The Spirit, as the one who unites us to Christ, is the dresser who clothes us with Christ’s righteousness, the prompter who helps us remember our biblical lines, and prop master who gives gifts (accessories) to each church member, equipping us to play our parts.

Larry L. Lichtenwalter, “The person and work of the Holy Spirit in the general Epistles and the Book of Revelation”, Journal of the Adventist Theological Society 23, no 2 (2012): 72-111, esp. 75-76. See also J. Todd Billings, The Word of God for the people of God: An entryway to the theological interpretation of Scripture (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2010), 197-206.

In 1,8 one may conjecture that the subject is Christ, since He is the one described in v. 7 as the One coming. However, the title “the One who is and was and is coming” is a title exclusively applied to the Father as other titles which are descriptive of the Father (e.g., Alpha and Omega, the Almighty, etc.) are used in conjunction with this. See also Woodrow W. Whidden, “Trinitarian evidences in the Apocalypse,” Journal of the Adventist Theological Society 11, nos 1-2 (Spr-Aut, 2000): 248-260, esp. 249-250.

Robert H. Mounce, The Book of Revelation, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1997), 46. Mounce refers to Pausanias, Description of Greece 10: Ζεὺς ἦν, Ζεὺς ἔστιν, Ζεὺς ἔσσεται; Mounce also mentions that the “shrine of Minerva at Sais provides the inscription, ‘I am all that hath been and is and shall be’ (Plutarch, De Isid. 9)”. Other references include Plutarch, Isis and Osiris 9; Plato, Timaeus 37E (λέγομεν γὰρ δὴ ὡς ἦν ἔστιν τε καὶ ἔσται).

Clemens Alexandrinus, Stromata 5.6.34.6.1, explains the meaning of the tetragrammaton (YHWH) as ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἐσόμενος. See also the Jerusalem Targum to Deut 32,39: “I am he who is and who was and I am he who will be …”. J. Massyngberde Ford, Revelation: Introduction, translation, and commentary (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2008), 377.

According to Pierre Prigent, the meaning really is that God will be. Pierre Prigent, L’Apocalypse de Jean, Commentaire Du Nouveau Testament XIV (Lausanne, CH: Delachaux et Niestle, 1981), 16. Prigent would translate ὁ ἐρχόμενος as ὁ ἐσόμενος, although he recognizes that the would-be formula has been altered in order to describe God in Christological terms, as the idea of coming is usually conveying the return of the Son.

So Simon J. Kistemaker and William Hendriksen, New Testament commentary: Exposition of the Book of Revelation, NT 20 (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1953-2001), 81. They affirm: “This greeting is unique and reveals God’s infinity with respect to present, past, and future. God is timeless from eternity to eternity” . Richard Lehmann argues that the coming of God conveys two things: God is not atemporal or timeless (He comes into our history) and He is in “constant proximity” (based on the present participle). God is present but also on the way to his followers. Cf. Richard Lehmann, L’Apocalypse de Jean: Commentaire biblique (Norderstedt, DE: BoD, 2018), 26-27.

R. H. Charles, A critical and exegetical commentary on the Revelation of St John, vol. 1 (Edinburgh, UK: T&T Clark International, 1920), 10 (italics mine).

M. Eugene Boring, Revelation, interpretation, a Bible commentary for teaching and preaching (Louisville, KY: John Knox Press, 1989) 75.

E.g., Isa 40,28 ( אֱֱלֹהֵֵי עוֹלָָם ), Rom 16,26 (ὁ αἰώνιος θεός). See also Heb 9,14 which speaks about the eternal Spirit and the living God: πόσῳ μᾶλλον τὸ αἷμα τοῦ Χριστοῦ, ὃς διὰ πνεύματος αἰωνίου ἑαυτὸν προσήνεγκεν ἄμωμον τῷ θεῷ, καθαριεῖ τὴν συνείδησιν ἡμῶν ἀπὸ νεκρῶν ἔργων εἰς τὸ λατρεύειν θεῷ ζῶντι.

E.g., 2 Cor 5,19 (θεὸς ἦν ἐν Χριστῷ κόσμον καταλλάσσων ἑαυτῷ); John 14,9-10 (λέγει αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς τοσούτῳ χρόνῳ μεθ᾽ ὑμῶν εἰμι καὶ οὐκ ἔγνωκάς με, Φίλιππε; ὁ ἑωρακὼς ἐμὲ ἑώρακεν τὸν πατέρα πῶς σὺ λέγεις δεῖξον ἡμῖν τὸν πατέρα; οὐ πιστεύεις ὅτι ἐγὼ ἐν τῷ πατρὶ καὶ ὁ πατὴρ ἐν ἐμοί ἐστιν).

Steven E. Runge, A Discourse grammar of the Greek New Testament (Bellingham, WA: Logos, 2010), 16, gives a generic example: If I choose to do X when Y and Z are also available options, this means that I have at the same time chosen not to do Y or Z. Most of these decisions are made without conscious thought. As speakers of the language, we just do what fits best in the context based on what we want to communicate. Although we may not think consciously about these decisions, we are nonetheless making them.

The best manuscript agreement is not the only reason why ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν should be accepted in Rev 11,17. The most effective text-critical methodology especially applicable in Revelation is the following. J. K. Elliott, in “A short textual commentary on the Book of Revelation and the ‘New’ Nestle”, Novum Testamentum 56 (2014): 68-100, esp. 71: I tend to accept as “original” a reading that conforms to the language, style, vocabulary (and, indeed, the theology) of the earliest recoverable text. One can plot and establish each Biblical author’s style and usage from the many ‘safe’ places where all extant manuscripts are in agreement, there being no reported variant. Having established the usage from the secure places, variants that concern a feature agreeing with the authors’ practice elsewhere are likely to represent the earlier text. Obviously, it may transpire that some hitherto firm readings may he challenged by subsequent collations, but, in general, it often works out that one is able to establish an author’s preferences and then one can see which variants conform to and which readings disagree with that usage. In our case, the original formula appears to have been the complete one (1,4.8; 4,1) while the scribe tries to harmonize 11,17 with this earlier formula, nonetheless, leaving the short formula in 16,5 as it is.

“Dieu et le Christ n’ont plus a ‘venir’, la Parousie a eu lieu”. Ernest Bernard Allo, Saint Jean L’Apocalypse, 2nd ed. (Paris, FR: Librairie Victor Lecoffre, 1921), 150. “On ne dit pas, cette fois: ‘qui vient’ (cf. i,8; iv,8), parce que precisement, Dieu arrive” (“It does not say this time ‘who is coming’ (cf. I,8; iv,8) because precisely, God is coming”). Alfred Loisy, L’Apocalypse de Jean (Paris, FR: Emile Nourry, 1923), 219. So also Gerhard Maier, Die Offenbarung des Johannes Teil 1: Kapitel 1-11, HTA (Witten, DE: SCM, 2014) 497; Ranko Stefanović, Revelation of Jesus Christ (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 2002) 360; George Eldon Ladd, A Commentary on the Revelation of John (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1972), 162. “Its absence (except in some inferior authorities) in 11:17 illustrates the meaning, for there a visitation of God is spoken of as having already come to pass”. F. J. A. Hort, The Apocalypse of St. John 1-3: The Greek text with introduction, commentary, and additional notes (London, UK: Macmillan, 1908), 11.

Ekkehardt Mueller, “Jesus and His Second Coming in the Apocalypse”, Journal of the Adventist Theological Society 11, nos 1-2 (Spr-Aut, 2000): 205-215, esp. 206-207.

John does not only describe the future God ontologically, but in terms of His works: He comes to save and judge. The NT writer most probably envision those plentiful OT prophetic instances where God is depicted as coming to do these very things: to save and judge (e.g. Psa 96,13; 98,9; Isa 40,10; 66,15; Zech 14,5). Early Christians understood this Jewish background in reference to God’s coming to complete the final purpose of the world and identified the event as the Parousia of Jesus Christ. Richard Bauckham, in The theology of the Book of Revelation, NTT (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 29-30, says: Thus John interprets the divine name as indicating not God’s eternity in himself apart from the world, but his eternity in relation to the world. This is the biblical God who chooses, as his own future, his coming to his creation, and whose creation will find its own future in him (cf 21:3).

Ranko Stefanović, Revelation of Jesus Christ (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 2002), 357, 359-360.

Kenneth A. Strand, “The eight basic visions”, in Symposium on Revelation-Book I, ed. by Frank B. Holbrook (Silver Spring, MD: Biblical Research Institute, 1992), 29.

“Dieu n’est pas appele ici ὁ ἐρχόμενος, parce qu’il est la deja, en pleine activite de juge” (Allo, L’Apocalypse, 234). So also, Loisy, L’Apocalypse de Jean, 287; Traugott Holtz, Die Offenbarung des Johannes: Neubearbeitung (Gottingen, DE: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2008), 22.

Theodor Zahn, in Die Offenbarung des Johannes, vol. 2 (Leipzig, DE: Erlangen, 1926), 365, says: Das Himmelsgewolbe selbst, an welchem ein Licht nach dem andern erloschen ist, gleicht einer Schriftrolle, welche bis dahin entrollt gewesen war und, in welcher, wie wir hinzudenken durlen, Astronomen und Astrologen seit Jahrtausenden forschend gelesen haben, reist sich nun vom Horizont ab und wird nun wieder von unsichtbarer Hand zusammengerollt, weil der Menschensohn, der jetzt noch mit dem Weltschopfer uber allen Himmeln thront, auf den Wolken des Himmels zur Erde kommen soll.

Isbon T. Beckwith, The Apocalypse of John: Studies in introduction with a critica land exegetical commentary (New York, NY: Macmillan, 1919), 529-530. See also Paige Patterson, Revelation, NAC 39, ed. by E. Ray Clendenen (Nashville, TN: B&H, 2012), 188; Leon Morris, Revelation: An introduction and commentary, TNTC 20 (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1987), 111.

Stephen S. Smalley, The Revelation to John (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2005), 170.

Robert L. Thomas, Revelation 1-7: An exegetical commentary (Chicago, IL: Moody, 1992) 456. Pointing to Gen 3,8 as a background, Henry Barclay Swete, The Apocalypse of St. John, 2nd ed., CCGNT (New York, NY: Macmillan, 1906), 92-93, remarks: “The Apocalyptist foresees the same shrinking from the sight of God in the last generation of mankind which Genesis attributes to the parents of the race”.

David Aune reveals five possible meanings of the silence in Rev 8,1, of which I mention only three here: primordial silence, a prelude to divine visitation, and silence in worship. Aune embraces the last option. David E. Aune, Revelation 6-16, WBC (Dallas, TX: Word, 2002), 507. However, the context of the seals seems to rather confirm the second option.

Wolfhart Pannenberg, Systematic theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1991-1998), 3:622.

Leslie C. Allen, The Books of Joel, Obadiah, Jonah, and Micah, NICOT (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1976), 98.

In ancient Christianity, to be “in the Spirit” reclaimed the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, a manifestation of the last days ( Joel 2,28). Having this gift effectively working within it, it is equivalent to say that the church lives in the eschatological times. Before that actually happens, the Spirit directs the life of the church towards the Parousia. The visions received and related by John were meant to provide an eschatological meaning to the historical circumstances of the seven churches of Asia during the reign of Domitian. “They were to show the meaning in those circumstances of living towards the coming of Christ”. Richard Bauckham, The climax of prophecy (Edinburgh, UK: T. & T. Clark, 1993), 159.

Ibid., 161.

“Here the Spirit of God that resurrected Jesus is not only the very Spirit animating the churches in Rome but also the basis of their future hope”. Robert Jewett, Romans: A commentary, Hermeneia (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2006), 492.

James D. G. Dunn, Romans 1-8, WBC (Dallas, TX: Word, 2002), 445. See also Pannenberg, Systematic theology 3:622.

Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Romans: A new translation with introduction and commentary, AYB (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2008), 491.

“The formula also shows that Christ’s words are none other than the words of the Spirit and that Christ dwells among the churches through the Spirit”. G. K. Beale, The Book of Revelation: A commentary on the Greek text (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1999), 234.

“The Holy Spirit is also speaking directly through these letters, and that is the more likely emphasis here”. Grant R. Osborne, Revelation, BECNT (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2002), 122.

R. C. H. Lenski, The interpretation of St. John’s Revelation (Columbus, OH: Lutheran Book Concern, 1935), 92.

Τῷ νικῶντι δώσω αὐτῷ φαγεῖν ἐκ τοῦ ξύλου τῆς ζωῆς, ὅ ἐστιν ἐν τῷ παραδείσῳ τοῦ θεοῦ (Rev 2,7), Ὁ νικῶν οὐ μὴ ἀδικηθῇ ἐκ τοῦ θανάτου τοῦ δευτέρου (Rev 2,11), Τῷ νικῶντι δώσω αὐτῷ τοῦ μάννα τοῦ κεκρυμμένου καὶ δώσω αὐτῷ ψῆφον λευκήν (Rev 2,17).

Bauckham, Climax of prophecy, 166-168. For similar thoughts, see Smalley, Revelation to John, 577; Craig R. Koester, Revelation: A new translation with introduction and commentary, AYB (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2014), 844.

Klaus Berger, Die Apokalypse des Johannes: Kommentar (Freiburg, DE: Herder, 2017) 1516.