Homosexuality Universalism The Gospel and the SBC

Biblical Theology And The Westminster Standards Revisited: Union With Christ And Justification Sola Fide

By Lane G. Tipton

[Lane G. Tipton was inaugurated as the Charles Krahe Professor of Systematic Theology at Westminster Theological Seminary on November 13, 2012. This article is a revised version of his inaugural address.]

The Westminster Shorter Catechism, question 30, asks the question that lies at the heart of the application of redemption: “How does the Spirit apply to us the redemption purchased by Christ?” The answer: “The Spirit applieth to us the redemption purchased by Christ, by working faith in us, and thereby uniting us to Christ in our effectual calling.”

Basic to both the question and the answer is a distinction, commonplace in Reformed theology, between redemption accomplished (historia salutis) and redemption applied (ordo salutis). This question and answer in its simplicity and profundity provides an instructive paradigm that ought to orient our thinking about the nature of the redemption accomplished by Christ, on the one hand, and applied in Christ, on the other hand.

Gaining clarity on this basic distinction, particularly with reference to the relationship between union with Christ by faith and justification in Christ by faith alone, will occupy the bulk of this presentation.

I.

Addressing the accomplishment of redemption, answer 30 speaks of redemption “purchased” by Christ. This pecuniary language is designed to locate the redemption of believers in a unique and unrepeatable event in redemptive history, by which the Mediator and Surety of the covenant of grace secures the redemption of his people in his humiliation and exaltation.

Stated in summary terms, Jesus Christ, as our Redeemer, executes the threefold office of a prophet, priest, and king, both in his estate of humiliation and in his estate of exaltation (WSC 23).

The accent on the once-for-all character of the securing of redemption by Christ, both in his estate of humiliation and exaltation, finds clear expression in Westminster Shorter Catechism 25:

How doth Christ execute the office of a priest? Christ executeth the office of a priest, in his once offering up of himself a sacrifice to satisfy divine justice, and reconcile us to God, and in making continual intercession for us.

The accent in the first half of the answer falls properly on the once-for-all character of Christ’s substitutionary sacrifice of himself to satisfy divine justice (cf. Heb 9:26). Yet that once-for-all past earthly ministry that culminates in death is not divorced from the present, ongoing heavenly ministry of Christ as resurrected, ascended, and interceding (cf. Heb 7:24–25). The two estates of the Redeemer, humiliation and exaltation, provide the basic redemptive-historical framework for understanding the climax of the historia salutis in the once-for-all, unrepeatable work of Christ.

Put a bit more expansively, the accomplishment of redemption is clearly associated with the unique and unrepeatable sufferings and glory of the Messiah. This way of speaking accents the Son-centered, or Christ-centered, character of the gospel. The gospel, viewed from the standpoint of redemption accomplished, is centrally focused on Christ, crucified and raised.

This is, of course, rooted in the teaching of Christ and the Apostles. Jesus defines the gospel under the rubric of the suffering and glory of the Messiah (Luke 24:44–47). Paul identifies as of “first importance” for the gospel the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ according to the Scriptures (1 Cor 15:1–4; Rom 1:1–4). Peter affirms the same basic redemptive-historical perspective, where he speaks of the salvation of the church rooted in the “sufferings of Christ and his subsequent glories” (1 Pet 1:10–12). The sufferings of the Messiah, his humiliation and exaltation, fulfill the Old Testament Scriptures (Jesus), encapsulate the gospel (Paul), or distill the essence of salvation (Peter). Christ himself, his person and work for us, comprises the climactic expression and essential eschatological realization of the historia salutis. This is a benefactor-centered understanding of redemption accomplished, and this perspective exerts a controlling perspective on the nature of redemption applied in Christ—the ordo salutis.

II.

The Westminster Shorter Catechism continues by focusing on the essential concern of the ordo salutis, the application of redemption. Again, Q&A 30:

How doth the Spirit apply to us the redemption purchased by Christ? The Spirit applieth to us the redemption purchased by Christ, by working faith in us, and thereby uniting us to Christ in our effectual calling.

Key to the theology of redemption applied is its Christ-centered character. Matching a benefactor-centered notion of redemption accomplished is a benefactor-centered notion of redemption applied. Believers come to benefit from the redemption accomplished by Christ when the Spirit works faith in them, thereby uniting them to Christ in their effectual calling. Union with Christ by a Spirit-wrought faith is the central redemptive reality of the gospel, viewed from the standpoint of redemption applied. Union with Christ lies at the center of the ordo salutis—the application of redemption—in the Westminster Shorter Catechism.

In summary terms, Q&A 31 reads:

What is effectual calling? Effectual calling is the work of God’s Spirit, whereby, convincing us of our sin and misery, enlightening our minds in the knowledge of Christ, and renewing our wills, he doth persuade and enable us to embrace Jesus Christ, freely offered to us in the gospel.

In effectual calling the Spirit of Christ persuades and enables the sinner to embrace Jesus Christ as he is freely offered in the gospel. The Spirit, in a unilateral and monergistic work of renewal, effects a decisive breach with the reigning power of sin and enables faith, which is both gifted to and exercised by the believer (cf. Eph 2:8).

As B. B. Warfield has noted, divine sovereignty, expressed in effectual calling, enables an attendant human response, so that no sooner does God call the sinner than the sinner is united to Christ by a Spirit-wrought faith.[1] Faith, then, supernaturally wrought in effectual calling, is the instrumental bond of union with Christ. Sinners are united to Christ by a Spirit-enabled faith in effectual calling. Therefore, the movement from a benefactor-centered expression of redemption accomplished is matched with a benefactor-centered expression of redemption applied.

III.

Let us move on, then, to consider how Spirit-wrought union with Christ by faith alone relates to justification by faith alone.

The Westminster Larger Catechism expands and expounds what union with Christ involves. What, specifically, are the benefits of being united to Christ by faith in effectual calling? Westminster Larger Catechism, Q&A 65 asks, “What special benefits do the members of the invisible church enjoy by Christ?” The answer, “The members of the invisible church by Christ enjoy union and communion with him in grace and glory.” Notice that before any particular benefit is discussed in the Westminster Larger Catechism, union and communion with Christ is invoked. This positions union with Christ as the organizing structure in terms of which the Spirit applies to believers several benefits of redemption. In addition—and this is a point I can only note in passing, although it is of importance—notice that union and communion with Christ is set in terms of grace and glory, language that denotes the eschatological “already” and “not yet” of the believer’s situation in Christ. Union with Christ is an expansive reality that encompasses both realized and future aspects of eschatology.

Question 66 recapitulates and expands what we saw from Q&A 30 of the Westminster Shorter Catechism. Question 66, “What is that union which the elect have with Christ?” The answer:

The union which the elect have with Christ is the work of God’s grace, whereby they are spiritually and mystically, yet really and inseparably, joined to Christ as their head and husband; which is done in their effectual calling.

While this is a more elaborate statement than what we found in Westminster Shorter Catechism 30, what remains constant is the central role played by union with Christ in the application of redemption. It is within this basic frame of reference that we need to understand Westminster Larger Catechism 69. The question reads, “What is the communion in grace which the members of the invisible church have with Christ?” The answer is as follows:

The communion in grace which the members of the invisible church have with Christ, is their partaking of the virtue of his mediation, in their justification, adoption, sanctification, and whatever else, in this life, manifests their union with him.

This language crisply delineates the relationship between union with Christ and justification—between the benefactor to whom we are united and an attendant benefit of that union.

Justification is a forensic benefit of union with Christ, and, as such, the benefit of justification manifests Spirit-wrought union with Christ by faith. This needs to be explicit: the believer’s justification is never applied apart from or prior to union with Christ by faith alone.

Richard B. Gaffin, Jr., summarizes the constellation of these realities tersely when he comments,

Faith is Spirit-worked, sovereignly and effectively. Union with Christ, then, is forged by the Spirit’s working faith in us, a faith that “puts on” Christ (Gal. 3:27), that embraces Christ as he is offered to faith in the gospel.[2]

I should note at this point that the Westminster Standards and Calvin are in fundamental agreement here, a point that Gaffin has expressed quite clearly.[3]

The net effect of the teaching contained in the Shorter and Larger Catechisms is that union with Christ occurs by a Spirit-wrought faith in effectual calling.

Following closely upon this, and integrally related to it, the divines insist that justification is also by faith alone. Westminster Shorter Catechism 33 asks, “What is justification?” The answer is,

Justification is an act of God’s free grace, wherein he pardoneth all our sins, and accepteth us as righteous in his sight, only for the righteousness of Christ imputed to us, and received by faith alone.

Justification is by faith alone (sola fide) and based on the imputed righteousness of Christ alone. Critical to note in this formulation is the location of justification relative to union with Christ, on the one hand, and faith, on the other hand. Spirit-engendered faith is the sole instrumental bond of union with Christ. The faith that unites to Christ is likewise the sole instrumental organ that receives the imputed righteousness of Christ. Justification does not precede, either temporally or logically, union with Christ by faith.

These twin truths must be kept clear throughout. First, union with Christ is by faith alone in effectual calling. Second, justification in Christ, which manifests the logically prior, Spirit-wrought union with Christ, is likewise by faith alone. These truths, of course, derive from the biblical data with regard to (a) the central structural significance of union with Christ in the application of redemption, and (b) the uniform testimony of Scripture that the believer’s justification is by faith alone.

Regarding the former, Scripture teaches that believers are effectually called in Christ (1 Cor 1:9); made alive together with Christ (Eph 2:5); and die and rise with Christ in the past-historical event of his death and resurrection (Rom 6:7), in the present personal reality of faith-union (Col 2:12), and bodily in the age to come (1 Cor 15:45–49). It is in Christ that believers have every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places (Eph 1:3). Christ has become for believers “righteousness, holiness and redemption” (1 Cor 1:30) and the “life-giving Spirit” (1 Cor 15:45). Believers have been justified in Christ (Rom 8:1; Gal 2:17), sanctified in Christ (Rom 6:10–11; 1 Cor 6:11), and adopted in Christ (Gal 3:26). In brief, Paul can say that “Christ in you” is the “hope of glory” (Col 1:27).

Scripture also teaches that justification is by faith alone in Christ alone. The biblical testimony to this truth is clear, but I will cite one particularly relevant text, noted by Murray in Redemption Accomplished and Applied—a text that has controlling significance on our understanding of justification by faith. In Gal 2:16 Paul declares that we have “believed in Jesus Christ, so that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law.” In commenting on this verse Murray observes, “In a word, faith in Christ is in order to justification and is therefore regarded as antecedent to it (cf. also Romans 4:23, 24).”[4] It is in this context, then, that we are to understand Paul’s language that believers are justified by faith (Rom 3:28), as they receive the free gift of righteousness (Rom 5:17). There is no justification for believers prior to or apart from Spirit-engendered faith-union with Christ.

The Westminster Standards therefore situate the justification of believers within (a) the larger context of union with Christ by faith, and (b) faith as the exclusive receiving instrument of imputed righteousness. There is no context for the justification of believers that occurs prior to union with Christ, whether that priority is understood temporally or logically. Likewise, there is no context for a justification of believers that occurs prior to faith, either temporally or logically.

IV.

The Standards are also painstaking in their insistence that the justification of believers occurs only within the context of faith-union with Christ, and not in the eternal decree or in the past-historical atonement or resurrection of Jesus Christ. Put with a different focus, the justification of believers does not occur in terms of predestinarian or past-historical union with the Mediator but only in terms of present personal union with Christ by faith.

The Westminster Confession of Faith 11.4 makes this clear:

God did, from all eternity, decree to justify all the elect; and Christ did, in the fulness of time, die for their sins, and rise again for their justification: nevertheless, they are not justified, until the Holy Spirit doth, in due time, actually apply Christ unto them.

While it is certainly true, and must be affirmed, that the justification of the elect was ordained from all eternity, this must be distinguished from the actual, existential reality of justification by faith in union with Christ. Put a bit differently, the predestinarian union that includes an ordained justifying aspect cannot be collapsed into existential union by faith with its applied justifying aspect. Predestinarian union is the eternal ground of existential (or faith) union, and the purposing of justification in the Mediator is the eternal ground for the application of justification in the Mediator, but the divines insist that the decree to justify is at no point to be collapsed into the actual application of justification in union with Christ by faith.

Likewise, while it is clear that Christ died so that we might be justified by faith (Rom 8:33), and while it is true that justification is grounded in his shed blood (Rom 5:9), and that Christ was raised for our justification (Rom 4:25), believers are not justified until they are actually united to Christ by faith, and by faith alone receive his imputed righteousness as the sole ground for their remission of sins and are accepted for his righteousness before God.

Westminster Confession 11.4 therefore locates two grounds for the believer’s union with Christ by faith and the imputed righteousness that is received by faith alone. The eternal ground is predestinarian union ordained by God in the pretemporal decree. In that decree God ordains that believers will in due time be justified by faith, when, by Spirit-wrought faith, the righteousness of the Mediator will be imputed to them. The past-historical judicial ground for union with Christ by faith alone, and justification by faith alone, rests in the once-for-all complex of events associated with Christ’s humiliation and exaltation (Rom 8:33–34).

That being said, the justification of the believer is not actually effected until the time-point of Spirit-wrought union with Christ by faith in effectual calling. We must maintain without any form of equivocation that believers are not personally justified until they are united to Christ by faith in their effectual calling. Put most basically, in terms of the initial exercise of saving faith in effectual calling, we do not believe that we are justified in Christ; we believe in order that we might be justified by faith in Christ (Gal 2:16).

Faith is unto justification; justification is not unto faith. We must avoid at all costs the Barthian error that the message of gospel is that you have been reconciled. Therefore, believe. You have been justified. Therefore, believe. The message is rather the reverse: believe that you may be justified (Gal 2:16). The justification of believers is not prior to Spirit-wrought faith in any sense of the term. Only by speaking in this way can we maintain the basic distinction between the historia salutis and the ordo salutis as found in Westminster Confession of Faith 11.4.

V.

It is within this biblical and confessional context we have sketched, as incomplete as it is, that I want to express concern about a dogmatic distinction that has developed in some quarters within the Reformed tradition and warn against some perceived dangers that distinction introduces.

Louis Berkhof in his magnum opus, Systematic Theology, distinguishes between objective/active justification and subjective/passive justification. Regarding “objective/active” justification, Berkhof says,

This is justification in the most fundamental sense of the word. It is basic to what is called subjective justification, and consists in a declaration which God makes respecting the sinner, and this declaration is made in the tribunal of God. This declaration is not a declaration in which God simply acquits the sinner, without taking any account of the claims of justice, but is rather a divine declaration that, in the case of the sinner under consideration, the demands of the law are met. The sinner is declared righteous in view of the fact that the righteousness of Christ is imputed to him. In this transaction God appears, not as an absolute Sovereign who simply sets the law aside, but as a righteous Judge, who acknowledges the infinite merits of Christ as a sufficient basis for justification, and as a gracious Father, who freely forgives and accepts the sinner. This active justification logically precedes faith and passive justification. We believe the forgiveness of sins.[5]

Regarding “passive/subjective” justification, he says,

Passive or subjective justification takes place in the heart or conscience of the sinner. A purely objective justification that is not brought home to the sinner would not answer the purpose. The granting of a pardon would mean nothing to a prisoner, unless the glad tidings were communicated to him and the doors of the prison were opened. Moreover, it is exactly at this point that the sinner learns to understand better than anywhere else that salvation is of free grace. When the Bible speaks of justification, it usually refers to what is known as passive justification. It should be borne in mind, however, that the two cannot be separated. The one is based on the other. The distinction is simply made to facilitate the proper understanding of the act of justification. Logically, passive justification follows faith; we are justified by faith.[6]

What emerges from these statements is a concern to distinguish between what obtains “in the tribunal of God” as opposed to what “takes place in the heart or conscience of the sinner.” Certainly this distinction is valid and useful.

The declaration of justification has unique reference to the tribunal of God’s justice; the sinner’s legal relationship to the tribunal of God’s justice is changed in justification. The declaration of justification occurring in the tribunal of God is the objective reality that the sinner comes to know as true by faith “in his heart or conscience.” What the sinner receives by faith in Christ (passive justification) is a declaration of righteousness that obtains before the tribunal of God’s justice (active justification).

However, the appropriate distinction between the tribunal of God and the conscience of the sinner is clouded when Berkhof positions “faith” in his formulation. He says, “This active justification logically precedes faith and passive justification. . . . Logically, passive justification follows faith.”[7] As useful as it is to distinguish between justification in relation to the tribunal of God’s justice, on the one hand, and the conscience of the sinner, on the other hand, the distinction between active justification logically preceding faith and passive justification logically following faith raises concerns. If active justification is a blessing of redemption applied (ordo salutis), and if active justification logically precedes faith, then active justification logically precedes faith-union with Christ. This is not possible from a biblical and confessional perspective.

Moreover, the matter becomes more concerning when we observe that what comes into view is a judicial declaration before the tribunal of God with respect to a sinner’s justification. Berkhof is suggesting that the declaration of the sinner’s righteousness logically precedes faith, by which the sinner is united to Christ in his effectual calling and by which the sinner receives the imputed righteousness of Christ.

A rather startling consequence seems to follow from Berkhof’s formulation. Active justification is, logically at least, non-pistic justification. Active justification logically precedes faith. Active justification is a declaration of righteousness that does not bring into view the sinner’s faith by which he is united to Christ. To the extent that we take Berkhof’s language seriously, faith logically cannot come into view when we speak of the legal declaration of righteousness that obtains before the tribunal of divine justice. Berkhof’s formulation therefore requires us to speak of justification in its active or objective aspect as logically prior to faith in the sense that union with Christ by faith is not brought into the picture.

This way of speaking does not cohere at all with what we surveyed from Scripture and the Westminster Standards. The implications of Berkhof’s formulation would be two-fold. First, justification sola fide would need to be qualified in terms of a more basic, logically prior, non-pistic justification. The problem here is that the only justification that Scripture allows us to affirm regarding believers is justification by faith in union with Christ. Hence, Berkhof’s formulation clouds a clear affirmation of justification sola fide.

Second, to the extent that the declaration does not yet bring into view faith, by which alone righteousness is imputed, we would be left with a legal fiction. That is to say, we would be left with a judicial declaration that is not according to the truth of imputed righteousness received by faith alone. In both of these ways, Berkhof’s formulation does not cohere with a biblical or confessional notion of justification by faith alone by virtue of union with Christ by faith alone.

Perhaps sensing these lines of critique, and seeking in some way to soften them, Berkhof makes a qualifying statement that, taken on its own, seems to undermine the notion that active justification can be logically prior to faith. He describes active justification, you will recall, as

a declaration which God makes respecting the sinner, and this declaration is made in the tribunal of God. . . . [and then he says] The sinner is declared righteous in view of the fact that the righteousness of Christ is imputed to him.[8]

It is hard to see how this statement coheres with his earlier formulation.

Here is the key question to ask at this point: how precisely can God declare a sinner righteous in a way that brings into view the imputed righteousness of Christ, when the declaration logically precedes the faith that receives imputed righteousness in the first place? In other words, it is by faith that God imputes righteousness to the sinner. If the declaration of justification brings into view the righteousness of Christ imputed and received by faith, then the declaration of righteousness cannot logically precede the faith that receives the imputed righteousness. If anything, the declaration of righteousness would presuppose the faith that receives the imputed righteousness, but this would contradict Berkhof’s insistence that active justification logically precedes faith.

We are left with a lack of clarity, and troubling implications associated with that lack of clarity, in Berkhof’s formulation regarding the relationship of faith to so-called active and passive aspects of justification. How ought we to respond to Berkhof’s formulations, given the problems we have encountered?

Let me begin by saying that there is a sense in which Berkhof is on the right track. When he says that the declaration of righteousness brings into view the imputed righteousness of Christ, received by faith alone, he is moving in the right direction. However, to maintain consistently that declaration brings into view imputed righteousness, Berkhof would need to abandon his notion that the declaration of righteousness logically precedes faith. It is precisely Berkhof’s notion that legal declaration in the tribunal of God precedes faith (and union with Christ by faith) that neither Scripture nor the Westminster Standards will sustain.

It is therefore critical to clarify the relationship between the declaration of righteousness in Christ and the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to the believer by faith. In order to gain clarity at this point we will need to abandon Berkhof’s notion that the declaration of righteousness logically precedes union with Christ by faith and replace it with something more adequate—a positive alternative. What does the positive alternative look like when developed with more rigor?

VI.

Moving now in a positive direction, we need to note first and foremost that no aspect of forensic justification comes to believers (logically or temporally) prior to union with Christ by faith, so that justification sola fide depends on union with Christ sola fide. This statement has significant implications that we need to spell out more clearly.

The declaration of righteousness depends on and brings into view the righteousness of Christ that is imputed by faith alone to the believer. The declaration of justification brings into the tribunal of God (objective aspect) the concrete reality of union with Christ by Spirit-wrought faith, and the imputation of his righteousness received by faith alone (subjective aspect), as that reality to which the declaration is addressed. It is only when a sinner, by faith, is united to Christ in effectual calling, and when the sinner receives by faith alone the imputed righteousness of Christ, that the sinner is declared righteous before God.

The declarative aspect of justification in Christ presupposes the imputation of the righteousness of Christ as the sole ground for the sinner’s right standing before God. Imputation without declaration is empty. Declaration without imputation is blind. The declarative and the imputative are distinct, inseparable, and simultaneous aspects of the one reality of the justification of believers united to Christ by a Spirit-wrought faith. The two aspects of justification—the declarative and the imputative—logically presuppose one another; the one is unintelligible without the other.

Justification, in other words, is a forensically constitutive declaration that brings into view the imputed righteousness of Christ given only in union with Christ and received by faith alone. As John Murray has noted, justification “is declarative in such a way that is it also imputative. . . . The justifying act is constitutive. . . . The justification of the ungodly is constitutively and imputatively declarative.”[9] This means that the declaration of righteousness is not prior to the imputation of righteousness, either logically or temporally, because the declaration takes into account the constitutive act of imputation; and the transaction of imputation is situated within the broader reality of union with Christ by Spirit-wrought faith.

Precisely as a consequence of these priorities the Westminster Standards do not make the declaration of justification logically prior to either Spirit-wrought union, on the one hand, or the faith that lays hold of Christ and receives his imputed righteousness, on the other hand. Instead, the declaration of righteousness is situated concretely within Spirit-forged faith-union, and a faith that lays hold of Christ and his imputed righteousness.

The objective/active concern is preserved in this formulation, since it is the God-approved righteousness of Christ himself that appears before the tribunal of divine justice on my behalf. The subjective/passive concern is preserved in this formulation, because what comes to me is a constitutively declarative act of imputation, received by faith. However, and this is critical to maintain, neither the declaration of righteousness nor the imputation of righteousness is logically prior to union with Christ by faith, but comes to the believer only in terms of that union which is by faith. John Murray puts it with characteristic brevity and clarity: “Justification does not consist in that which is reflected in our consciousness; it consists in the divine act of acquittal and acceptance. And it is precisely this that is by faith.”[10] The implications of this are wide-ranging, but I will develop only two very briefly.

First, if we want to locate the judicial ground for the believer’s union with Christ, we do not need to look to the forensic benefit of the believer’s justification. Rather, we need to look to the past-historical work of Christ, crucified and raised. It is not merely in the atoning death of Christ that we find the judicial ground for the believer’s justification by faith alone in union with Christ; it is also found in the resurrection of Christ as justified. It is the God-approved resurrection righteousness of Christ, imputed to me by faith alone, that stands at the tribunal of divine justice on my behalf. The objective righteousness is the resurrection-validated righteousness of Jesus Christ (1 Tim 3:16), and just in light of this we can make sense of Paul’s language that Christ was “raised for our justification” (Rom 4:25). The past-historical work of Christ in his humiliation and exaltation supplies the judicial ground for union with Christ by faith.

Second, Berkhof makes a curious statement about the way that Scripture relates to the so-called active aspect of justification that logically precedes faith. He says, “When the Bible speaks of justification, it usually refers to what is known as passive justification.”[11] He says this, I believe, for the obvious reason that Scripture’s uniform testimony is that believers are justified by faith alone in Christ alone. I would challenge Berkhof precisely at the point regarding scriptural support for his notion that the declaration of righteousness before the tribunal of God logically precedes faith-union with Christ. Scripture does not teach that the declarative aspect of the believer’s justification logically precedes faith and union with Christ by faith.

This point then brings us directly to consider our principium, the norma normans of our theology, Holy Scripture. Murray again is insightful:

There have been good protestants who have maintained that this faith is not the antecedent of justification but the consequent, that we do not believe in order to be justified but we believe because we have been justified, and that the faith referred to is the faith that we have been justified. The witness of Scripture does not appear to bear out this view of the relation of faith to justification. . . . We cannot believe that we are justified until we are first justified. . . . The faith by which we are justified is the initial and primary act of faith in Jesus Christ by which in our effectual calling we are united to Christ and invested with his righteousness unto our acceptance with God and justification by him.[12]

Certainly Murray’s insistence is tethered to the uniform teaching of Scripture. At stake in our discussion, among other things, is the foundational role that Scripture must play in our theology of union with Christ and justification.

We must avoid at all costs speculative, dogmatic constructions that move us away from Scripture and our confessional standards normed by Scripture. A dogmatic distinction that makes the declaration of righteousness logically prior to union with Christ by faith, no matter how noble in its motivation, clouds the precious biblical truth that believers are justified only by faith alone in their Spirit-effected union with Christ. The Scriptures teach that believers are clothed with the righteousness of Christ only as they are ingrafted into him by a Spirit-wrought faith. The declarative act of justification takes squarely into account this Spirit-wrought union, and the attendant imputation of Christ’s righteousness that is received by faith alone within that union. The God-approved, resurrection-validated righteousness of Christ obtains before the tribunal of divine justice for me (active aspect). Yet that righteousness is mine only by faith in my Spirit-wrought union with Christ (passive aspect).

Let us, then, remind ourselves anew, from Scripture and our confessional standards—and in that order—of the basic biblical truths that believers are justified by faith alone and that no aspect of justification obtains in the tribunal of God or comes to believers apart from or prior to faith-union with Christ. In this way we can continue to reform according to Scripture as we confess that justification sola fide depends on union with Christ sola fide.

Notes

1. B. B. Warfield, “On the Biblical Notion of ‘Renewal,’” in The Works of Benjamin B. Warfield: Vol. 2, Biblical Doctrines (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2000), 439-66.
2. Richard B. Gaffin, Jr., “Justification and Union with Christ,” in A Theological Guide to Calvin’s Institutes: Essays and Analysis (Calvin 500 Series; ed. David W. Hall and Peter A. Lillback; Phillipsburg, N.J.: Presbyterian & Reformed, 2008), 259.
3. Richard B. Gaffin, Jr., “Biblical Theology and the Westminster Standards,” in The Practical Calvinist: An Introduction to the Presbyterian and Reformed Heritage; In Honor of D. Clair Davis’ Thirty Years at Westminster Theological Seminary (ed. Peter A. Lillback; Fearn, Ross-shire: Christian Focus, 2002), 425-44.
4. John Murray, Redemption Accomplished and Applied (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1955), 129.
5. Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986), 517 (italics mine).
6. Ibid. (italics mine).
7. Ibid.
8. Ibid.
9. John Murray, “Appendix A: Justification,” in Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968), 352-53.
10. M urray, Redemption Accomplished, 129.
11. Berkhof, SystematicTheology, 517.
12. M urray, RedemptionAccomplished, 128.

Thirsting For God: The Levitical Inheritance Motif In The Apocalypse

By Samuel L. Rico

[Samuel L. Rico is a Chaplain (Captain) in the United States Army, Headquarters and Headquarters Battalion, Fort Carson, Colo. The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Navy, Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government.]

The Apocalypse unveils the saints’ reward at the consummation of history: God.[1] This truth echoes the Levitical inheritance motif in the OT, for the Lord had declared to Aaron, “You shall have no inheritance in their land, neither shall you have any portion among them. I am your portion and your inheritance” (אני חלקך ונחלתך [Num 18:20]). This article traces the development of the Levitical inheritance motif in the OT, and its impact on the Apocalypse.

I. Inheriting God: Body To Soul

The Pentateuch teaches that the Levites inherited God, which entailed that their priestly service to him was their source of physical existence (cf. Num 18:1–32). Rigid exegesis might suggest that the Levitical inheritance motif contains no relational or spiritual quality within the Pentateuch. A consideration of the context of the OT, however, reveals a relational dynamic. The inception of a relational/spiritual nuance surfaces in the book of Deuteronomy. It develops further in the Psalter through the reality of “portion” (חלק), namely, that God being one’s “portion” implies more than physical sustenance; it implies spiritual sustenance.[2]

This study argues that the Levitical inheritance motif frames the background for understanding the saints’ reward in the Apocalypse. In the eschaton the triune God is our inheritance and portion. Moreover, the hope of fellowship with the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit enables the church to endure suffering and persecution.

1. No Land But God: The Levitical Inheritance

When considering the Levites’ inheritance, it is imperative to note the relation between the OT Hebrew roots חלק 3 (“portion”) and נחל 4 (“inheritance”). Both roots have a variety of noun and verbal forms. Nevertheless, they each can signify a possession of land.[5] Moreover, at times, the portion is the inheritance (cf. 1 Chr 16:18; Ps 105:11).[6] When the two roots appear in combination (as nouns) they may form a hendiadys (cf. Gen 31:14).[7] Both can be used in the context of land ownership. The concern here is how these terms relate to the Levites.

As noted, the Levites inherited no land, they inherited God. Numbers 18:20 reveals the Levites’ disassociation from the land: “And the Lord said to Aaron, ‘You shall have no inheritance in their land, neither shall you have any portion (לא תנחל וחלק לא־יהיה לך) among them: I am your portion and your inheritance (אני חלקך ונחלתך) among the people of Israel.’”[8] The syntagm in Num 18:20b אני חלקך ונחלתך (“I am your portion and your inheritance”) signals that they inherit God as their portion.

The tight construction of the Hebrew in Num 18:20 reveals this close association between inheritance and portion (תנחל וחלק). In Num 18:20a the verb תנחל 9 immediately precedes the noun חלק; it is ideologically joined to it with the conjunction ו:תנחל וחלק .10 The related syntagm follows where God asserts that he is their portion and inheritance: אני חלקך ונחלתך (“I am your portion and your inheritance” [Num 18:20b]).[11] Numbers 18:20 proves that the Levites had neither inheritance (נחל) nor portion (חלק) of land among the sons of Israel; rather, “God was Levi’s special portion and inheritance.”[12]

In what sense, then, did the Levites inherit God for physical sustenance? Since the Levites had no land to live off, God was their source for provision (cf. Deut 14:27, 29; 18:1). For their service, God granted the Levites a right to the tithes (Num 18:8, 21), to eat from the grain, sin, and guilt offerings (Num 18:9–10; Deut 18:1), to partake in “all the best of the oil and all the best of the wine and of the grain” (Num 18:12), and to eat ripe fruits (Num 18:13). God commanded that after the Levites offered to him the best of the fat and meat of the offerings, the rest was theirs: “It is your reward in return for your service in the tent of meeting” (Num 18:31; cf. Num 18:30).

Scholars affirm that the Levites were to trust God for their physical sustenance. R. K. Harrison states, “Their trust was to be placed in Him completely as far as subsistence was concerned.”[13] Likewise, Timothy Ashley argues, “Their inheritance is Yahweh himself. Just as the other Hebrews will be supported by their share [חלק], so the priests will be supported by theirs, i.e., Yahweh. . . . In this way the priests would be made to depend on God rather than on the land.”[14] Milgrom also notes that the Levites had no land inheritance. He states that in Num 18:20–24 God promises “tithes to the Levites as a reward for their potentially lethal guard duties.”[15]

2. Physical Provision To Spiritual Provision

The reality that God was the Levites’ inheritance primarily refers to physical provision in the Pentateuch. Nevertheless, even in the Pentateuch, the genesis of a relational nuance emerges. The passage in Deut 10:8–9 discusses the Levites’ portion and inheritance in a context that appears to entail spiritual overtones. Moses notes the Levites’ special relationship with God: “At that time the Lord set apart the tribe of Levi to carry the ark of the covenant of the Lord, to stand before the Lord, to minister to him, and to bless his name.”[16] Moses then adds, “Therefore, Levi has no portion or inheritance (חלק ונחלה) with his brother. The Lord himself is his inheritance (נחלתו).”

Deuteronomy 10:8–9 may imply both a privileged and relational aspect to this unique Levitical rite in that they are “set apart”: “The Lord set apart the tribe of Levi to carry the ark . . . to stand before the Lord, to minister to him. . . . The Lord himself is his inheritance.”[17] Jeffrey Tigay, however, notes no relational dynamic to the Levitical inheritance. He understands Deut 10:8 to describe ritual duties.[18] Nevertheless, he states that their devotion was especially recognized by Yahweh “because it was they who rallied to Moses and punished the worshipers of the calf (see Exod 32:26–29). The priesthood is an appropriate reward for their devotion.”[19]

Although Tigay refrains from discussing spirituality in relation to the Levites’ inheritance, he does assert that “Deuteronomy is the first book in the Torah to speak of loving God.”[20] Subsequently, when considering the context of the inheritance motif in Deuteronomy, it is probable that the motif assumes a spiritual nuance in the final book of the Torah. The corpus of Deuteronomy is full of relational language where God appeals to the affections and heart of man.[21] The greatest commandment comes from Deuteronomy: “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might” (Deut 6:5).[22] Moreover, the greatest commandment precedes the Levitical rite in Deut 10:9; and thus, when we read Deut 10:8–9, it is reasonable to understand that “the Lord is his inheritance” entails relational overtones.

A final passage worthy of mention because of its rhetoric and syntax is Ezek 44:28. This passage precisely accentuates that God is the Levities’ inheritance: “This shall be their inheritance: I am their inheritance (והיתה להם לנחלה אני נחלתם): and you shall give them no possession in Israel; I am their possession (אחזתם אני).” It places two statements in apposition: “This shall be their inheritance: I am their inheritance,” and “You shall give them no possession in Israel: I am their possession.”[23]

In the above passages an extraordinary reality surfaces: God is the Levites’ property.[24] As Christensen states, “Theirs was the noblest inheritance of all, for Yahweh himself is declared to be Levi’s family property (נחלה).”[25] In Ezek 44:28, as in Num 18:20, God asserts that he is the Levities’ property. Ezekiel 44:28 makes this plain with the use of אני, a first person pronoun: אני נחלתם (“I am their inheritance”) and אני אחזתם (“I am their possession”). Zimmerli adds, “The proximity in form of the statement אני נחלתם (‘I am their property’) and אני אחזתם (‘I am their possession’) to the momentous sentence of self-presentation אני יהוה (‘I am Yahweh’) can certainly not be ignored.”[26]

3. חלק (“Portion”) In The Psalms

The relational element in the God-inheritance motif is reinforced and developed by the intimate OT theme, “The Lord is my portion.”[27] Two significant developments to this reality take place in the Psalter: (1) the Lord as portion applies to a broader referent than the Levites, and (2) when the Psalter expresses that the Lord is “my portion” (חלקי) it implies sustenance in a spiritual sense.

There are contexts in the Psalms when the writer apparently lacks no food, but uses “portion” (חלק) to express his need for God.[28] For instance, in Ps 16 the flow of thought reveals that God is the portion for his heart: “I say to the Lord, ‘You are my Lord; I have no good apart from you.’ . . . The Lord is my chosen portion (חלקי). . . .You make known to me the path of life; in your presence there is fullness of joy; at your right hand are pleasures forevermore” (Ps 16:2, 5, 11).

In other contexts, the psalmist does lack food so he takes the opportunity to allegorize: just as his body needs food, his soul needs God. This is plain in Ps 63:1: “A Psalm of David, when he was in the wilderness of Judah. O God . . . my soul thirsts for you; my flesh faints for you, as in a dry and weary land where there is no water.”[29] God is his soul’s portion, his cup.

The passage in Ps 73:25–26 also bolsters the notion that Yahweh is the Israelites’ inward sustenance, namely, the חלק of their soul: “Whom have I in heaven but you? And there is nothing on earth that I desire besides you. My flesh and my heart may fail, but God is the strength of my heart and my portion (חלקי) forever.”[30] Commenting on this passage, Calvin aptly states, “The portion of an individual is a figurative expression. . . . The reason why God is represented as a portion is, because he alone is abundantly sufficient for us, and because in him the perfection of our happiness consists.”[31]

The Psalms were for corporate Israel. If the Sons of Korah or David avowed, “The Lord is my portion,” then the lay Israelite could join in this praise. As Van Dam states, “As God was Levi’s special portion and inheritance, so in a more general sense he was of every godly Israelite (Ps 119:57; cf. the name Hilkiah, ‘Yahweh is my portion’).”[32]

The presence of חלקי (“my portion”) in the Psalms extends the Torah’s notion אני חלקך ונחלתך (“I am your portion and your inheritance”) to all Israelites. It also develops the notion that God, as one’s חלק, speaks to satisfying the needs of the soul, not just the flesh. The Psalms provide two developments that frame the background to an understanding of the saints’ ultimate reward in the Apocalypse: God is the inheritance for all Israelites, and this inheritance is inherently spiritual and relational.

4. A Kingdom Of Priests

The Apocalypse applies the Levitical priesthood imagery to all believers: “To him who [has] made us a kingdom, priests to his God and Father” (Rev 1:6). Revelation 1:6 alludes to the promise God gave Moses in Exodus concerning the nation of Israel: “You shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation” (Exod 19:6).

At one time only the high priest could enter the holy of holies and stand before God. Aaron and the Levites bore the name of God on their foreheads (cf. Exod 28:36–38). “Holy to the Lord” was engraved on a plate of pure gold on the turban of the high priest as he entered the holy of holies: “It shall regularly be on his forehead, that they may be accepted before the Lord” (Exod 28:38). John picks up the forehead imagery in Revelation and applies it to all believers: “They will see his face, and his name will be on their foreheads” (Rev 22:4; cf. Exod 28:38).

In the eschaton all saints have access to God. Accordingly, Beale asserts, “In the future all of God’s people will become high priests with God’s ‘name on their foreheads’ and standing, not one day a year, but forever in God’s presence.”[33]

Moreover, Derek Kidner states from Num 18:20 that just as the Levites inherited God, so all saints will inherit God. Concerning the phrase, “I am your portion and your inheritance,” he asserts, “So David, and every singer of his psalm, can now see that this is no peculiarity of priesthood but a pointer to the true riches of each member of God’s Israel, that ‘kingdom of priests’ (cf. Exod 19:6).”[34]

II. God: The Reward In The Apocalypse.

Deuteronomy 18:2 states, “The Lord himself is his inheritance” (יהוה הוא נחלתו [LXX κύριος αὐτὸς κλῆρος αὐτοῦ]). The HB and the LXX in this passage employ a reflexive pronoun, הוא and αὐτός respectively, emphasizing that the inheritance is indeed God. A similar phenomenon occurs in John’s version of the covenant formula in Rev 21:3. The rhetoric in Rev 21:3 stresses the eschatological reality that God dwells with his people. It reads, “Behold, the dwelling of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself (αὐτὸς ὁ θεός) will be with them as their God.”

Revelation 21:3 clusters several phrases together to affirm God’s presence with his people: “The dwelling of God is with men,” “He will dwell with them,” “They will be his people,” and “God himself will be with them as their God.” John brings together the proper noun “God,” the reflexive pronoun “himself,” and the preposition “with,” to herald the eschatological expectation of the early church, namely, that “God himself will be with them as their God.”

1. Μισθός (“Reward”)

The idea of “reward” (μισθός)[35] in the context of Rev 22:12 adds further proof that God is the saints’ inheritance.[36] Two ideas occurring at the close of Revelation influence the interpretation of μισθός (Rev 22:12) as it applies to God’s people: first, the covenant formula in Rev 21:7 (“I will be his God and he will be my son”), and second, the setting of Rev 21–22 (i.e., the new heaven and the new earth where God satisfies the thirsty [Rev 21:6; 22:17]).

The context of μισθός (Rev 22:12) is the vision of the new heaven and the new earth (Rev 21–22). The realization of this anticipated epoch occurs when God dwells with man (Rev 21:1–3). The present age ends when John sees “a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away” (Rev 21:1). He sees the “new Jerusalem coming down out of heaven from God” (Rev 21:2). Then, “Behold, the dwelling place of God is with men,” and “God himself will be with them as their God” (Rev 21:3). Thus Bauckham argues, “The New Jerusalem coming down out of heaven from God (Rev 21:2) is his divine presence with us.”[37] Accordingly, Beasley-Murray states, “‘Behold, the dwelling of God is with men.’ That is the supreme blessing of God for man and the climax of man’s aspirations.”[38]

2. Christ’s Second Coming

A major theme of Rev 21–22 is the imminent return of Jesus. Three times Christ states, “Behold, I am coming soon.”[39] The cry at the end of Revelation is, “Come, Lord Jesus!” (Rev 22:20). The hope and desire of this last vision is that Jesus would hasten as he promised. Thus, in Rev 22:12 when Jesus (i.e., God the Son) states, “My reward is with me,” the important aspect is this: he is coming.[40] This point is reinforced in that Rev 22:12 alludes to Isa 40:10, which directs us to behold God. Isaiah states, “Behold your God. Behold, the Lord God comes with might” (Isa 40:9b-10a). It is as though Isaiah is saying, “Look, God is coming to us!” Thus, seen in this context, the exclamatory, “Behold, your God,” coupled with the promise, “I will be his God and he will be my son,” reinforces the notion that the saints’ reward is God himself.

“The throne of God and of the Lamb will be in it, and his servants will worship him” (Rev 22:3).[41] Then the saints “will see his face” and God’s name “will be on their foreheads” (Rev 22:4). The saints experience God’s uninterrupted presence. God’s presence with his people is such that, “Night will be no more. They will need no light of lamp or sun, for the Lord God will be their light” (Rev 22:5). The saints dwell in the new Jerusalem “having the glory of God, its radiance like a most rare jewel, like a jasper, clear as crystal” (Rev 21:11). “The city has no need of sun or moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light and its lamp is the Lamb” (Rev 21:23). “His servants will worship him. They will see his face” (Rev 22:3b-4a). “The Lord God will be their light” (Rev 22:5b).

The radiance of God’s glory in Rev 22:5 (“Night will be no more. They will need no light of lamp or sun, for the Lord God will be their light”) and the saints’ enjoyment of it allude to Isa 60:19, which reads, “The sun shall be no more your light by day, nor for brightness shall the moon give you light; but the Lord will be your everlasting light, and your God will be your glory.” The vision in Rev 21–22 echoes the focus of Isa 60:19, namely, “Your God will be your glory.”[42]

From the above arguments it is probable that the Apocalypse reveals that the μισθός (“reward”) that God in Christ brings is himself. How else can we interpret the trajectory of the fulfillment of the covenant promise in, “I will be his God and he will be my son,” but as a relationship that includes mutual possession? Is it not this: the saints shall inherit God! Revelation 21:7 makes this clear: “He who overcomes shall inherit these things, and [i.e.,] I will be his God and he will be My son.” The triune God is our μισθός—our reward. “He who testifies to these things says, ‘Surely I am coming soon.’ Amen. Come, Lord Jesus!” (Rev 22:20).

The OT teaches that the Levites inherited God as their portion; he was their possession. As redemptive history progresses this notion extends to all Israel, namely, that God is their inheritance and portion. This development is especially prominent within the Psalms through “portion” language. And at the consummation of history John applies this reality to all saints; he extends the referent of the Levitical property deed to all believers. He demonstrates this, in part, through priesthood imagery (Rev 1:6, “made us a kingdom of priests”) and forehead imagery (Rev 22:4).

The full scope of inheriting God applied to all Israel, and subsequently, the saints in Revelation. The OT covenant formula anticipated the eschatological promise that God is the inheritance and portion for all believers. John couches the ultimate covenant promise, “I will be his God, and he shall be my son,” in relational terms. This promise expresses mutual self-possession: “his God” and “my son.” Thus, the most probable conclusion concerning “reward” in the Apocalypse is this: inheriting God is the saints’ final reward. James Durham (1680) depicts the bliss the saints enjoy when they inherit God. Commenting on Rev 21:7 he avows,

They get now the possession of him, who in right and title was their portion before. They know what it is to have God their God, when he becomes all in all to them and they are filled with his fullness and see him as he is. . . . It is a word [Rev 21:7] that sets forth the height of happiness to be in the enjoying of God. . . . He [the conqueror] shall have God.[43]

III. Thirst Imagery In The Book Of Revelation

Revelation 21:7 reiterates the OT dictum, “I will be his God, and he will be my son.” This notion, which embodies the expression of the Levitical inheritance motif, comes in the context of thirst in Rev 21:6 and 22:17. Revelation 21:6 reads, “To the thirsty I will give from the spring of the water of life without payment”; and Rev 22:17, “Let the one who is thirsty come; let the one who desires take the water of life without price.” God promises to refresh the thirsty with the water of life. This verse alludes to a variety of passages in Scripture: Ps 36:9; Isa 55:1; Jer 2:13; and John 7:37–38. The following section explores the thirst motif in Scripture and how John uses it in his own message.

1. The Old Testament Thirst Motif In Revelation

The OT employs a variety of language to express desire for the things of God and God himself: waiting,[44] longing,[45] fainting,[46] seeking,[47] yearning,[48] thirsting,[49] and asking to see God’s glory.[50] This desire for God emerges in Revelation, and a prominent OT image that Revelation employs is thirst (cf. Rev 21:6; 22:17). Revelation teaches that in this age the saints thirst for their inheritance, which is fellowship with the triune God in the age to come.

The Psalter is perhaps the prime context for the thirst metaphor echoed in Revelation. In the Psalms the object of the believer’s thirst is God.[51] As noted, it is crucial to recognize that this thirst for God occurs in the Psalter, as the Psalter voices the desires all Israelites should and could possess. The psalmist who often expresses a thirst for God is David.

God (Yahweh) declared that David was a man after his own heart.[52] Accordingly, Judaism would have turned to David, as the paradigmatic covenant figure, to understand their devotion to the Lord. He was their celebrated king, and he thirsted for God. Moreover, he composed the majority of their worship manual, so it behooved Israelites to follow his lead.

David’s thirst for God is clear in several of his psalms: Ps 36:9, “You give them drink from the river of your delights. For with you is the fountain of life”; Ps 63:1, “O God, you are my God; earnestly I seek you; my soul thirsts for you; my flesh faints for you, as in a dry and weary land where there is no water”; and Ps 143:6, “I stretch out my hands to you; my soul thirsts for you like a parched land.”

Revelation echoes this Davidic thirst. This is seen in Rev 21:6–7, which alludes to Isa 55:1–3. Both passages contain two referents: thirst and the Davidic covenant. Revelation 21:6b and 7b read, “To the thirsty I will give from the spring of the water of life without payment,” and “I will be his God and he will be my son.” Isaiah 55:1–3 reads, “Ho, everyone that thirsts, come for water. . . . Hearken diligently unto Me . . . and let your soul delight itself in fatness. Incline your ear, and come unto Me (ולכו אלי); hear, and your soul shall live; and I will make an everlasting covenant with you, even the sure mercies of David” (Isa 55:1–3 rsv). Isaiah 55:1–3 and Rev 21:6–7 together exhibit an undertone of thirst within the Davidic promise, “I will be to him a father, and he will be to me a son” (2 Sam 7:14). A covenant between God and man embodies a profound existential dynamic that is more than a “legal contract”—it is a heartfelt thirst for God.[53]

2. God Satisfies The Thirsty

Notice that in the Isaiah passage the exhortation is “come” to God: ולכו אלי(“Come to me” [Isa 55:3a]). God states that the one who “thirsts” should “listen diligently to me” and “come unto me,” meaning that he alone “satisfies” (Isa 55:2). Israel had been laboring “for that which does not satisfy” (Isa 55:2). Thus, God states that they should “listen to me” and “come to me,” then they shall find satisfaction.[54]

The verb צמא (“to thirst”)[55] is used in Ps 42:2 and 63:1 and Isa 55:1. These verses teach that God is both the object of satisfaction and the one who satisfies the thirsty covenant member. In Ps 63 David cries out that his soul thirsts for God; in Isa 55 God swears to the thirsty that he will “make an everlasting covenant with you, even the sure mercies of David” (Isa 55:1; cf. 55:3). Together the Psalms and Isaiah teach that a hallmark of mercy in the Davidic covenant is this: God promises to satisfy the thirsty with himself.[56]

The passages Rev 21:6b and 22:17b echo the notion that God satisfies the thirsty: ἐγὼ τῷ διψῶντι δώσω ἐκ τῆς πηγῆς τοῦ ὕδατος τῆς ζωῆς δωρεάν (“To the thirsty I myself will give from the spring of the water of life as a gift” [21:6; trans. mine]); and ὁ διψῶν ἐπχέσθω, ὁ θέλων λαβέτω ὕδωρ ζωῆς δωρεάν (“The one who is thirsty, let him come; whoever wishes, let him take the water of life as a gift” [22:17b; trans. mine]). The important phrases in Rev 21:6b to note are τῷ διψῶντι δώσω (“to the thirsty I will give”), and τῆς πηγῆς τοῦ ὕδατος τῆς ζωῆς δωρεάν (“the spring [or fountain] of the water of life as a gift”). From Rev 22:17b the words we note are ὁ διψῶν (“the one who is thirsty”), and ὕδωρ ζωῆς δωρεάν (“water of life as a gift”). In Rev 21:6b and 22:17b, John brings together the imagery of thirst and the fountain of living water.

It is also noteworthy that these expressions in Rev 21:6 and 22:17 allude to several LXX passages: Ps 36:9 (LXX Ps 35:10), Isa 55:1, and Jer 2:13. Juxtaposing Rev 21:6b and 22:17 with these LXX verses illuminates their parallels:

Ps 35:10: ὅτι παρὰ σοὶ πηγὴ ζωῆς (כי־עמך מקור חיים) 

Isa 55:1: οἱ διψῶντες πορεύεσθε ἐφ᾿ ὕδωρ (כל־צמא לכי למים) 

Jer 2:13: πηγὴν ὕδατος ζωῆς (מקור מים חיים) 

Rev 21:6: τῷ διψῶντι δώσω ἐκ τῆς πηγῆς τοῦ ὕδατος τῆς ζωῆς δωρεάν 

Rev 22:17b: ὁ διψῶν ἐρχέσθω, ὁ θέλων λαβέτω ὕδωρ ζωῆς δωρεάν

That God satisfies the thirsty with himself is particularly manifest in Jer 2:13: “For my people have committed two evils: they have forsaken me, the fountain[57] of living waters and hewed out cisterns for themselves, broken cisterns that can hold no water.” The preceding verse, Jer 2:12, highlights God’s outrage that his people have chased false gods: “Be appalled, O heavens, at this; be shocked, be utterly desolate, declares the Lord.” God claims sole rights as the one who satisfies his people’s thirst.

The phrases “they have forsaken me” and “the fountain of living waters” stand in apposition: אתי עזבו and מקור מים חיים. This could be rendered, “Me they have forsaken, namely, the fountain of living waters.” The second clause interprets the first clause and signifies that God is the fountain of living water.

Moreover, God rebukes Israel because they have forsaken him. The text reveals a quality about God that makes their abandoning him tragic; namely, he is the מקור מים חיים (“fountain of living waters”). Consequently, God rebukes those who quench their thirst in a source other than himself (Jer 2:12–13) because only he can truly satisfy the thirsty.

As noted, Rev 21:6 alludes to Ps 36:9 (LXX Ps 35:10). In Ps 36:9 (Heb 36:10) David extols God: כי־עמך מקור חיים (“For with you is the fountain of life [LXX Ps 35:10 πηγὴ ζωῆς]”). In addition, Jer 2:13 appears to allude to Ps 36:10. Since Jeremiah wrote centuries after David, he likely understands that David intended to say this: God does not have a fountain—God is the fountain. Given the background texts to Rev 21:6–7, the implication is that when God promises, “To the thirsty I will give from the spring of life,” fulfillment for the thirsty is realized in the promise, “I will be his God.”

The internal echoes of Rev 21:6 and 22:17b contain a plethora of OT themes. John compresses so many OT allusions together it is hard to parse them out. The passages in Rev 21:6 and 22:17b pull the following OT themes together: (1) exhortation to the thirsty in Isaiah within the context of the Davidic covenant, (2) imagery in Isaiah consistent with David’s own thirst for God, (3) an adaptation of the 2 Sam 7:14 covenant formula in Rev 21:6–7 within the context of thirst, (4) the notion of “the fountain of the waters of life” from Jer 2:13, and (5) David’s reference to God as the fountain of life (Ps 36:9). Revelation ties all these themes together.

3. The Relation Of Christ And The Holy Spirit To The Thirst Motif In Revelation

Since the “Revelation” is from Christ (Rev 1:1), it behooves us to consider his association to the thirst motif in the Apocalypse. Analysis of this subject reveals that the saints thirst for Christ. When comparing Rev 21–22 to John 4:4–16 and 7:37–38, an aspect of early church Christology surfaces: Christ satisfies the thirsty with himself through the Holy Spirit.

Revelation’s thirst motif echoes John 4:4–16, in particular, the notion that Jesus “gives” the living water. John 4:10 states, “If you knew the gift of God (τὴν δωρεὰν τοῦ θεοῦ), and who it is that is saying to you, ‘Give (δός) me a drink,’ you would have asked him, and he would have given you living water (ἔδωκεν ἄν σοι ὕδωρ ζῶν).” Then Jesus says, “But whoever drinks of the water that I will give (ὕδατος οὗ ἐγὼ δώσω) him will never be thirsty forever. The water that I will give (τὸ ὕδωρ ο῟ δώσω) him will become in him a spring of water (πηγὴ ὕδατος) welling up to eternal life” (John 4:14).

John 7:37–38 also proves crucial for understanding christological and trinitarian aspects in Revelation’s thirst motif. Jesus stands up “on the last day of the feast, the great day” and cries out, “If anyone thirsts, let him come to me and drink” (John 7:37). The living water Jesus gives is the Holy Spirit (John 7:39). And by virtue of their trinitarian relationship, Christ’s exhortation might theologically be interpreted, “Drink me.” [58]

It appears that Rev 21:6b borrows this imagery that Jesus gives the water and that Jesus, through the Holy Spirit, is the living water. The parallels may be seen as follows:

John 4:10, 14	Revelation 21:6; Revelation 22:17
τὴ δωρεὰν τοῦ θεοῦ (4:10)	δωρεάν (21:6)
	δωρεάν (22:17)
ἔδωκεν ἄν σοι ὕδωρ ζῶν (4:10)	δώσω…τοῦ ὕδατος τῆς ζωῆς (21:6)
ὕδατος οὗ ἐγὼ δώσω (4:14)
τὸ ὕδωρ ὃ δώσω (4:14)
John 7:37–38	Revelation 21:6; Revelation 22:17
τις διψᾷ	τῷ διψῶντι (21:6)
	ὁ διψῶν (22:17)
ἐρχέσθω	ἐρχέσθω (22:17)
πρός με καὶ πινέτω…	δώσω…τοῦ ὕδατος τῆς ζωῆς (21:6)
	λαβέτω ὕδωρ ζωῆς (22:17)
ὕδατος ζῶντος	τοῦ ὕδατος τῆς ζωῆς (21:6)
	ὕδωρ ζωῆς (22:17)

Jesus’ exhortation to the thirsty, “Let him come to me and drink” (John 7:37), parallels the invitation in Rev 22:17. Revelation 22:17 exhorts, “The Spirit and Bride say, ‘Come.’ And let the one who hears say, ‘Come.’ And let the one who is thirsty come.” The final response of the one who hears and the one who is thirsty then occurs in Rev 22:20b: “Amen. Come Lord Jesus!”

The imagery of “living water” (ὕδωρ ζωῆς) in the Apocalypse (Rev 21:7; 22:17) echoes the OT thirst motif (where God is the object of the thirst), and it echoes Jesus’ thirst motif. Revelation’s teaching that God is the believer’s portion and inheritance and the one who satisfies the thirsty, is an echo that reverberates throughout Scripture. This echo sounds in the Torah, continues through the Prophets and Psalms, appears again in the early church, and finds its consummation in the Apocalypse.

John closes his book with the cry of the thirsty: “Come, Lord Jesus!” (Rev 22:20). The final words of Scripture plead for the return of Christ. Revelation reveals that the essence of covenant faithfulness is this: we must recognize our need for God. Faith consists in acknowledging hunger pains and a parched soul. John, like David, models the essence of faith. He believes that only God in Christ through the Holy Spirit can satisfy his thirst.

To summarize, the final vision in Revelation echoes a multitude of biblical themes and motifs: David’s thirst for God; God’s promise in Isa 55 to satisfy the thirsty; God’s own statement that he is the fountain of life in Jer 2:13; the covenant promise, “I will be to him a father and he will be to me a son,” in 2 Sam 7:14; and Christ’s teaching that he is both the gift and the giver of the water of life.

John forges these thoughts together to teach that God in Christ satisfies the thirsty: “To the thirsty I will give from the spring of the water of life without payment. The one who conquers will inherit these things: I will be his God and he will be my son” (Rev 21:6b-7). In other words, the Apocalypse teaches that being in covenant with God consists in thirsting for God in Christ and crying out to God to quench this thirst.[59] God in Christ is covenant satisfaction to those who believe that he will quench this thirst with himself. God in Christ is the fullness of the Levitical inheritance. He is our חלק and נחל, our κληρονομία, our portion and inheritance. When we inherit him, then we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is (1 John 3:2).

IV. The Thirsty Conqueror

The Apocalypse closes with a vision of eternal bliss. In this vision God is the reward for those who endure suffering and martyrdom. They are the thirsty (Rev 21:6; 22:17). And only the thirsty are invited to drink “the water of life without payment” (21:7; 22:17). The thirsty are those who have endured persecution and, with the beloved disciple, have said in their hearts, “Come, Lord Jesus!” (22:20).

A curious phenomenon stands out in the final vision of Revelation, namely, a rhetorical and syntactical connection that surfaces between conquering imagery and thirsting imagery. Observe the structurally similar syntagms:

Rev 2:7: τῷ νικῶντι δώσω[60]	(“To the one who conquers, I will give”)
Rev 21:6: τῷ διψῶντι δώσω	(“To the one who thirsts, I will give”)
Rev 21:7: ὁ νικῶν κληρονομήσει	(“The one who conquers, will inherit”)

In Rev 21:6–7 imagery of conquering and thirst coincide: τῷ διψῶντι δῶσω is followed by ὁ νικῶν κληρονομήσει. Revelation draws a parallel between “the one who conquers” and “the one who thirsts.” Both metaphors apply to the saints. In John’s theology the one who conquers is the one who thirsts.

The proximity of the clauses, “To the one who thirsts, I will give” and “The one who conquers, will inherit,” governs the nuance of the inheritance motif in Revelation. Revelation 21:6 echoes the OT thirst motif—a thirst for God.[61] Accordingly, Osborne maintains that only those who thirst for God will inherit God: “21:6b-8 is addressed not to the future reality but to the current reader of the book.” He further mentions that the zenith of all the blessings is inheriting God, stating that this encapsulates the “Abrahamic covenant (Gen 17:7, ‘To be your God and the God of your descendants’) and especially the Davidic covenant (2 Sam 7:14, ‘I will be his father, and he will be my son’).”[62] We are challenged to make certain that we are indeed the “thirsty” for they are the only ones who will be given “the spring of the water of life.”[63]

1. Explicative Καί In Revelation 21:7

Determining the nuance of the Greek conjunction καί (“and”) in Rev 21:7 may strengthen the argument that the saints’ reward is God. Amongst its varied functions, a curious and particular use of καί to consider in Rev 21:7 is that it may convey the nuance of an explicative.

The Bauer-Danker Lexicon states that καί can operate as an explicative.[64] An explicative καί connects two clauses such that the latter clause explains the former. In other words, in a given sentence “A . . . καί . . . B” the καί functions such that thought B explains thought A. The καί explicative is rendered “namely” when the antecedent clause could stand on its own.[65] This use of καί is also known as an epexegetical conjunction, one “that imitates a clause that completes the idea of a noun or adjective.”[66]

The literary context of καί in Rev 21 is also crucial for discerning its nuance. Revelation 21:6–7 echoes themes studied earlier from Isa 55:1, Jer 2:13, Psalms, and inheritance imagery relating to the Levites. Above we considered how John ties these themes together to exhort the reader to come to God who quenches thirst. Thus, perhaps John employed a double entendre with the καί intending an explicative nuance. The nuanced undertone would read, “The one who conquers will inherit these things, namely (καί), I will be his God and he will be my son” (Rev 21:7).[67]

John sums up all the promises in Revelation by using the covenant formula, “I will be his God and he will be my son.” In other words, inheriting the multitude of blessings in Revelation may properly be subsumed under the blessing of inheriting God, for when the saints inherit God they inherit an infinite number of blessings. As Beale states, “The figurative point of all the multiple pictures of end-time blessings is interpreted at the conclusion of v 7 to be God’s presence with his people.”[68]

2. The Function Of The Beatific Visions In Revelation

The visions of God and Christ in the worship scenes throughout Revelation encourage the church to endure suffering. As Ton states, “Christians . . . faced with the frightening prospect of martyrdom were given this vision of the glory of Christ. . . . This experience changed their whole attitude and helped them to meet their martyrdom with composure, with joy, and yes, even with passion.”[69] Conversely, with refusing to develop a theology of rewards comes “the consequent refusal to see them as a motivation for working for Christ and His gospel, as the whole New Testament teaches us to do.”[70]

Revelation bursts with scenes where God receives worship for being God.[71] The Apocalypse presents God as the creator of the universe: “Worthy are you, our Lord and God, to receive glory . . . for you created all things” (Rev 4:11).[72] John reveals this truth to invoke a sense of wonder within readers that they inherit God, the being from whom and through whom all life and matter in the cosmos exist. Worshipping God is the reward that empowers the saints to endure suffering. John turns our gaze “not to an earthly synagogue or Christian community center, but to the heavenly sanctuary.”[73]

The worship scenes are like cinematic clips of the heavenly dimension. They inspire and motivate the saints to endure suffering, and even death by beheading (Rev 20:4).[74] The inheritance motif is therefore a midwife for John. It aids his main purpose: the realization of the consummation.[75] Revelation 22:20 closes the Apocalypse (and subsequently the canon) with a plea for the rewards of Rev 2–3 and the promise in Rev 21:3–7—“Amen. Come, Lord Jesus!”

V. Conclusion

The beloved disciple exhorts the church to conquer, so that they might inherit eternal life.[76] The penultimate sentence of the Apocalypse is a prayer, an utterance of longing, “Come, Lord Jesus” (Rev 22:20). It is fitting that John builds upon the majesty of the Levitical inheritance motif and applies it to all worshippers of Christ, who has “made us a kingdom, priests to his God and Father” (Rev 1:6). This idea complements how the hope of reward, that is, inheriting God, motivates the saints to endure suffering.

Throughout his exile on Patmos, John glimpses worship scenes and visions of inheriting God. Upon beholding the glory of God, he cries out, “Come, Lord Jesus!” John knows he has an everlasting inheritance, and like David he can say, “The lines have fallen for me in pleasant places; indeed, I have a beautiful inheritance [נחלת]” (Ps 16:6). Surely the prospect of Jesus coming soon motivates him and us to maintain our testimony “in the tribulation and the kingdom and the patient endurance that are in Jesus” (Rev 1:9). As John hoped, we hope. Our inheritance is coming soon.

Notes

1. Cf. the new heavens and the new earth in Rev 21-22: “The dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God” (Rev 21:3).
2. Ps 16:5-6: “The Lord is my chosen portion and my cup . . . indeed, I have a beautiful inheritance.” Ps 116:13: “I will lift up the cup of salvation and call on the name of the Lord.”
3. “Portion,” sometimes “territory” (BDB 324). In the LXX μερίς: “A portion of a whole that has been divided” or “share, portion” (BDAG 632).
4. The noun נחלה, sometimes “property” (BDB 635); the verb נחל “to take possession, inherit,” not to be confused with נחל “torrent” (BDB 636; the difference is vowel pointing: נָחַל vs. נַחַל, respectively). נחל in the LXX is κληρονομία: “inheritance” or “possession, property” (BDAG 547-48).
5. Cf. Num 36:2; Deut 4:38; Josh 13-19.
6. E.g., Ps 105:11: “To you I will give the land of Canaan as your portion for an inheritance.”
7. A hendiadys is “a literary device expressing an idea by means of two words linked by ‘and,’ instead of by a grammatically more complex form such as an adverb qualifying an adjective” (Microsoft™ Encarta College Dictionary [ed. Anne Soukhanov; New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2001]).
8. נחלתך; cf. LXX κληρονομία σου (“your inheritance”) and its connection to κληρονομήσει in Rev 21:7 (“will inherit”). The LXX often translates the root נחל with the verb κληρονομέω or the noun κληρονομία.
9. LXX κληρονομήσεις; cf. Rev 21:7κληρονομήσει.
10. Reading Num 18:20 LXX is helpful; note the verb κληρονομέω and the future tense of εἰμί. God states that he is the priests’ inheritance: οὐ κληρονομήσεις καὶ μερὶς οὐκ ἔσται σοι ἐν αὐτοῖς, ὅτι ἐγὼ μερίς σου καὶ κληρονομία σου (“You will have no inheritance, and neither shall there be a portion for you among them, because I am your portion and your inheritance” [trans. mine]). Rev 21:7 also uses the verb κληρονομέω and the future tense of εἰμί when speaking of the saints inheriting God: ὁ νικῶν κληρονομήσει ταῦτα καὶ ἔσομαι αὐτῷ θεὸς (“The one who conquers will inherit these things, and I will be his God” [trans. mine]).
11. Three clauses in Num 18:20 emphasize that God is the Levites’ portion and inheritance. The positive statement אני חלקך ונחלתך (the third clause) is reinforced by two preceding clauses, which are negative statements about what the Levites do not obtain: בארצם לא תנחל (“in their land you shall have no inheritance” [trans. mine]); וחלק לא־יהיה לך בתוכם (“and a portion shall not be to you among them” [trans. mine]).
12. Cornelius Van Dam, “חלק,” NIDOTTE 2:162.
13. R. K. Harrison, Numbers (Wycliffe Exegetical Commentary; Chicago: Moody, 1990), 251.
14. Timothy R. Ashley, The Book of Numbers (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 353.
15. Jacob Milgrom, Numbers (JPS Torah Commentary; New York: Jewish Publication Society, 1990), 154.
16. Van Dam (“חלק,” 2:162) twice states that the relationship and portion of Levi, i.e., Yahweh, is “special.”
17. Other verses demonstrate the close relationship between חלק and נחל: Deut 12:12; 14:27, 29; 18:1; Josh 17:4; 18:7; 1 Chr 16:18. The syntagm חלק ונחלה (“portion and inheritance”) in Deuteronomy becomes a formula about what the Levites lack, namely, a portion and inheritance. When we fill in the blank, we learn that Yahweh is their “portion and inheritance” (Num 18:2). Cf. Jer 10:16 and 51:19 which state that the Lord is the portion of his people: “He who is the portion (חלק) of Jacob, for he is the one who formed all things.” In Ezek 45 and 48:8-20 the temple and the most holy place are called portions (חלק), and here God is present with his people: “And the name of the city from that time on shall be, ‘The Lord is there’” (Ezek 48:35). See Eugene H. Merrill on Deut 18:2-5: “In a practical sense their allotment was the burnt offerings presented at the altar (cf. 14:28-29), but in a more profound and incomparably blessed way the Lord himself was their portion [emphasis added]” (Deuteronomy [NAC; Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1994], 268).
18. Jeffrey H. Tigay, Deuteronomy (JPS Torah Commentary; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1996), 106. Tigay’s remarks must be considered from the perspective of his Jewish presuppositions, which make for rigorous interpretations that appear to exclude the spiritual nuance. For instance, he sees no spiritual overtones to the passage “Man does not live on bread alone.” He translates Deut 8:3b, “In order to teach you that man does not live on bread alone, but that man may live on anything that the Lord decrees” (93). His argument against a spiritual gloss is that such an interpretation is “homiletically attractive but far from the plain sense of the verse, since the manna did not show that man has spiritual needs” (361 n. 7).
19. Ibid., 106.
20. Ibid., 77.
21. Deut 5:10; 6:5; 7:7, 9, 12-13; 10:12, 15; 11:1, 13; 13:3; 30:6.
22. Tigay, Deuteronomy, 76: “The idea of commanding a feeling is not foreign to the Torah, which assumes that people can cultivate proper attitudes.” See also p. 77: “In Hebrew, ‘heart’ (lev or levav) usually refers to the interior of the body, conceived of as the seat of thought, intention, and feeling, and ‘soul’ (nefesh) refers to the seat of emotions, passions, and desires.”
23. Perhaps to highlight the appositional statements, the esv renders Ezek 44:28 with two colons in one sentence! “This shall be their inheritance: I am their inheritance: and you shall give them no possession in Israel; I am their possession.”
24. See BDB 635§d.
25. Duane L. Christensen, Deuteronomy 1-11 (WBC 6a; Dallas: Word, 1991), 200.
26. Walther Zimmerli, Ezekiel: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel (ed. Paul D. Hanson with Leonard Jay Greenspoon; trans. James D. Martin; 2 vols; Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983), 2:462.
27. Ps 16:5; 73:26; 119:57; 142:5; Lam 3:24. Also see David’s use of נחלה rendered “heritage” in the esv: Ps 28:9; 33:12; 37:18; 74:2; 78:71; 94:5, 14; 106:5, 40. His expression that Israel is God’s “heritage” marks the idea of self-possession between God and his people. Lam 3:24 provides an illustrative occurrence, outside the Psalms, where the notion “The Lord is my Portion” refers to (one’s) soul sustenance. In this context, i.e., Babylon’s destruction of Jerusalem, Jeremiah lost everything that may properly be called a thing—except God. When Jeremiah uttered, “The Lord is my portion,” physical sustenance in a Levitical sense is clearly not in view (cf. Lam 3:4)—Jeremiah was emaciated!
28. Cf. Ps 16:5; 73:26; 119:57.
29. Cf. Ps 16:5-6; 143:6.
30. Marvin E. Tate, Psalms 51-100 (WBC; Dallas: Word, 1990), 230 n. 26c: “God as a ‘portion’ may recall the inheritance of the Levites—Yahweh himself (Deut 10:9).”
31. John Calvin, Psalms 36-92 (trans. Rev. James Anderson; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981), 156.
32. Van Dam, “חלק,” 2:162.
33. Beale argues the saints are all high priests: “In the new creation, all of God’s people living throughout the new world will be high priests always in the presence of God because the dimensions of the heavenly holy of holies and God’s ruling presence, symbolized by his throne [in the midst of his people, Rev 22:1, 3], have broken in and expanded to include the entire new cosmos” (G. K. Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission: A Biblical Theology of the Dwelling Place of God [New Studies in Biblical Theology 17; Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2004], 370).
34. Derek Kidner, Psalms 1-72 (TOTC; Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1973), 85.
35. BDAG 653§2: “recognition (mostly by God) for the moral quality of an action.”
36. Rev 22:12: “My reward (μισθός) is with me” (trans. mine). The immediate context of μισθός denotes punishment for the wicked (Rev 22:11, 15) and blessing for believers (Rev 22:14). Perhaps this dual referent is why the esv renders μισθός “recompense” (cf. esvRev 22:12). Other translations render it “reward” (cf. Rev 22:12niv, kjv, net, and nasb).
37. R. J. Bauckham, The Theology of the Book of Revelation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 140-43. Bauckham discusses the New Jerusalem as the divine presence.
38. G. R. Beasley-Murray, The Book of Revelation (NCBC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981), 311.
39. Rev 22:7, 12, 20.
40. Revelation implies the Trinity wherein God the Father and God the Son refer to themselves as the Alpha and the Omega; cf. Rev 1:8; 21:6; 22:13.
41. Notice the unity of God and the Lamb as 22:3 ends with a third person singular pronoun “him.”
42. The Hebrew expression captures the awesome truth disclosed: ואלהיך לתפארתך (“and your God is your glory” [trans. mine]).
43. James Durham, A Commentary upon the Book of the Revelation (Edinburgh: Printed by the heir of Andrew Anderson, 1680), 490-92. I am responsible for the translation from the original 1680 print.
44. Gen 49:18; Ps 25:5, 21; 27:14; 31:24; 33:20; 37:7, 9; 62:1, 5; 130:5-6; Isa 26:8.
45. Ps 84:2; 107:9; 119:20, 40, 82, 123, 131, 174.
46. Ps 63:1; 84:2.
47. Ps 27:4, 8; 63:1; Isa 26:9.
48. Isa 26:9.
49. Ps 42:1-2; 63:1; 143:6.
50. Exod 33:18; Ps 27:4.
51. Ps 42:2; 63:1; 143:6.
52. “The Lord has sought out a man after his own heart” (1 Sam 13:14; cf. Acts 13:22).
53. See G. K. Beale, The Book of Revelation: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 1057.
54. I. T. Beckwith mentions that God is the object of satisfaction (The Apocalypse of John [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1967]: 154, 289, 752).
55. BDB 854; LXX διψάω.
56. E.g., Ps 36:10: “You give them drink from the river of your delights.”
57. Hebrew מקור in Ps 36:9 and Jer 2:13 “spring” or “fountain” (BDB 881); LXX πηγὴν (BDAG 810).
58. Consider the perichoresis aspect of the Trinity, i.e., their shared penetration and inter-dependent union, yet without confusion and co-mingling; cf. Donald Macleod, The Person of Christ (Contours of Christian Theology; Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1998), 140-42. See also David E. Aune, Revelation (3 vols; WBC; Nashville: Nelson, 1998), 1128.
59. See also Isa 26:9, “My soul yearns for you in the night; my spirit within me earnestly seeks you.”
60. See the four uses of δώσω, 2:11, 17, 26; 3:21.
61. For the OT thirst motif see Isa 55:1-3; Ps 42; 63:1; 84:2; 143:6.
62. Grant Osborne, Revelation (BECNT; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002), 740. Osborne and Beasley-Murray (along with other scholars) note the change in Rev 21:7 where “God” replaces the “Father” of 2 Sam 7:14. They argue that John intentionally does this to preserve the unique relationship between God the Father and Jesus his Son.
63. Osborne, Revelation, 744.
64. BDAG 495§1c: “oft. Explicative; . . . a word or clause is connected by means of another word or clause, for the purpose of explaining what goes before it and so, that is, namely . . . ἀπήγγειλαν πάντα καὶ τὰ τῶν δαιμονιζομένωνthey told everything, namely, what had happened to the demoniacsMt 8.33.”
65. Alexander Buttmann, A Grammar of the New Testament Greek (trans. J. H. Thayer; Andover: Draper, 1873), 363h; Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 673; cf. BDF 263.
66. Wallace, Grammar, 678.
67. None of the commentaries take the καί as explicative. An argument that the καί may be rendered as an explicative in 21:7 rests on the fact that the Greek literally reads, “will inherit these things [ταῦτα]”; the object of inheritance is the plural ταῦτα. In other words, does the promise “I will be his God and he will be my son” adequately explain the plural ταῦτα? Though this promise appears singular, perhaps John implies that when we inherit God, we inherit everything. Earlier we cited Osborne who addressed the referent of ταῦτα and argued that it was best to understand it as referring to all of God’s promises (Revelation, 739).
68. Beale, Revelation, 1058.
69. Josef Ton, Suffering, Martyrdom, and Rewards in Heaven (Lanham, Md.: University Press of America, 1997), 106.
70. Ibid., 239.
71. Mazie Nakhro, “The Manner of Worship According to The Book of Revelation,” BSac 158 (2001): 165.
72. Ibid., 166.
73. Josephine M. Ford, “The Christological Function of the Hymns in the Apocalypse of John,” AUSS 36 (1998): 208.
74. J. P. Heil, “The Fifth Seal (Rev 6:9-11) as a Key to the Book of Revelation,” Bib 74 (1993): 243.
75. M. G. Reddish, Revelation (Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary; Macon, Ga.: Smyth & Helwys, 2001), 401.
76. See Beale, Revelation, 1120.