Home

Rev. 20:12-15 - The book of life


12 And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne; and books were opened, and another book was opened, which is that of life, and the dead were judged from the things written in the books, according to their works.

13 And the sea gave up the dead in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead in them, and they were judged, each according to their works.

14 Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire.

15 And if anyone was not found in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.


My translation
Submitted by andrew on Wed, 20/06/2007 - 17:45.

The idea of a ’book of life’ goes back to Exodus 32:32-33, where Moses fails to persuade the Lord to blot him rather than idolatrous Israel out of his book. YHWH’s response is: ’Whoever has sinned against me, I will blot out of my book.’ The upshot is that a plague is sent upon the people as punishment: to be blotted out of God’s book is, therefore, simply to be killed. In similar vein the Psalmist prays that his enemies in Israel will be punished: ’Let them be blotted out of the book of the living; let them not be enrolled among the righteous’ (Ps. 69:28). See also Psalm 10:13-14; Isaiah 4:3; Mal. 3:16.

Daniel 12:1 is particularly important. At a time of extreme eschatological crisis (in Daniel’s narrative this is the crisis provoked by Antiochus Epiphanes) the people will be delivered - ’everyone whose name shall be found written in the book’. Daniel also has the thought of ’books’ that are opened when God judges the oppressor of the saints of the Most High (7:10).

Paul speaks of ’Clement and the rest of my fellow workers, whose names are in the book of life’ (Phil. 4:3), which presupposes, I would suggest, the context of eschatological conflict indicated, for example, in Philippians 1:28-30.

The metaphor is also used in this way in Revelation. The one who remains faithful in times of persecution, who thus ’conquers’, will be clothed in white garments and his name will not be blotted out of the book of life (Rev. 3:5). Conversely, those whose names are not ’written before the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who was slain’ will worship the beast of Roman imperialism (Rev. 13:8; cf. 17:8). It is the community of the Lamb, that is, the community of the one who remained faithful to his Father to the point of death, which will survive the eschatological crisis that culminates in judgment on Rome.

The book of life so far, therefore, records the names of those whose lives are preserved by God, initially in a temporal sense, then in an eschatological sense. Revelation 20:11-15 uses much of the same imagery (throne, books, fire, book of life) but it appears to describe not an eschatological crisis within history but a final judgment prior to the absolute remaking of heaven and earth. It is a significant departure from the earlier judgments, first, that all the dead are judged, and secondly, that subsequently Death and Hades are thrown into the lake of fire. There cannot be another eschatological crisis.

The dead are ’judged by what was written in the books, according to what they had done’ (20:12). These correspond to the books that Daniel saw when the oppressor of Israel was judged: they record what has been done; they are part of the judicial procedure (Dan. 7:10). But then anyone whose ’name was not found written in the book of life’ is thrown into the lake of fire. So are the dead judged according to what is written in the books - that is, according to what they have done? Or is it only those whose names are already written in the ’book of life’ who will escape destruction? The problem is highlighted by the fact that David Aune in his three volume commentary on Revelation takes only half a dozen lines to dismiss verse 15 as a ’redactional insertion into the final text’ on the grounds that it ’appears to make superfluous the rendering of judgment on the basis of the deeds recorded in the books’ (D. Aune, Revelation 17-22, 1103).

So we are faced with a set of what may be intractable questions. Does the book of life in this final judgment record the names of the faithful martyrs - is it the ’book of the Lamb’ in this narrow sense? Does it record the names of all those who have received grace through Christ, who are in some sense exempted from the judgment according to works? Or does it simply ratify the judgment that is made on the basis of what people have done?

There is also the question of what is meant by ’what they had done’ (ta erga autōn). Does this refer to a general moral assessment - was someone basically a good person or not? Or does it presuppose a more specific, and historically more relevant, concern: Did this person oppose the God of Israel or not? Perhaps we should interpret the ’works’ that are written in the ’books’ against the background of the use of erga throughout Revelation to refer either to the works of the faithful ’saints’ (cf. Rev. 2:2, 19, 26; 14:13) or to the idolatrous works of those who in various ways oppose God (cf. Rev. 2:6, 22-23; 9:20).

See also:

The book of life

Submitted by peter wilkinson on Sat, 23/06/2007 - 00:16.

I only noticed this commentary after I had posted a response to Ryan on the book of life thread - so my remarks there may seem a little odd in the light of comments which had already been made by Andrew here.

As I see it, before Daniel 12:1, Andrew regards the book of life as referring simply to whether one is alive (in a straightforward physical sense) or not. To be “blotted out” of the book of life, before the developed meaning given by Daniel (and thenceforth in the NT), meant simply - to be killed.

From Daniel 12:1 onwards, Andrew takes inclusion in the book of life to mean being part of that group of martyrs, particularly in the 1st century prior to the parousia of judgement on Jerusalem and the temple, who were put to death for their faith.

Have I got this right?

Assuming that this is roughly how things are being presented (I may have incorporated material from elsewhere in Andrew’s version of eschatology to flesh out the account), I would want to add the following.

In the references to the book of life before Daniel, we see not simply the concept of being alive or, when “blotted out”, put to death, but also the concept of being part of the community of the faithful, God’s covenant people - and when “blotted out”, ceasing to be part of this covenant people.

Exodus 32:32-33 is set in the context of not only an individual’s (or a people’s) life or death, but of the entire covenant community. The overall issue at stake is whether an individual or a people will remain in the covenant community, and whether the covenant community itself will fulfil God’s purpose. To be “blotted out” (as Moses requests for himself, to atone for the people’s sin) means not only to be killed, but to lose the privilege of inclusion in the covenant community. This is the thought so powerfully taken up by Paul in Romans 9.

The idea of the “book” as the record of the covenant people in particular is reinforced in the OT by lists of names - genealogies, records of the faithful, returnees from exile etc. These are the names of those through whom God’s covenant purposes are being carried forward (or hindered, as the case may be).

The same can be seen in the other references Andrew cites. In Psalm 69:28, the parallelism of the verse is incremental: “let them not be enrolled among the righteous” takes us beyond simple life or death to inclusion amongst the covenant community. Isaiah 4:3 does the same - with “he who is left in Zion and remains in Jerusalem” - the idea is of the on-going destiny of the covenant community, and God’s purposes for that community. The same is true of Malachi 3:16 - God is separating out the faithful who will take forward his covenant purposes.

In this sense, Daniel 12:1 is not introducing something new in kind, but is adding those who are faithful to death to those who will take forward the covenant purpose, and be the covenant community - at a time of eschatological crisis. The focus, however, is not so much on the crisis, but on the faithfulness of the covenant people.

This, I would argue, is what is carried over into the NT, in Philippians 4:3 especially. Paul is entreating his “true yokefellow” to help Euodia and Syntyche to be reconciled - for they also have been his fellow-workers, and are just as much deserving of inclusion amongst others who have proved themselves faithful, which is the grounds for their inclusion in “the book of life”. It is faithfulness in the face of conflict, rather than the phenomenon of eschatological crisis which is primarily in view in Philippians 1:28-29.

The same emphasis falls in the Revelation passages: overcoming despite persecution is the basis of inclusion in the book of life - the stress being on faithfulness in the face of adversity. The issue at stake for the covenant community now is loyalty to Jesus in the face of imperial (and Jewish) opposition. In addition, such loyalty frustrates the opposition of the imperial power, as well as exhibiting in the person(s) concerned a faith which endures and survives. Persecution proved to be the very means which thwarted the persecutor’s purpose - as many were attracted to the faith of those persecuted by the way they endured hardship and death.

I would also argue that “life” in “the book of life” has additional significance over its OT use, since now the covenant community and its members enjoy the eschatological gift of the Spirit of life, overcoming the arch-enemy death.

This way of looking at “the book of life” provides a harmonious explanation of Revelation 20:12. Those whose names are in the book of life are the covenant community, who await a different judgement from those whose names are not included. It makes more sense if the names are those of the covenant community as whole, and not simply those who were put to death for their faith. These (the names of the covenant community as whole) are judged for their deeds, which will determine rewards, and the kind of resurrection they will enjoy. Those whose names are not in the book of life will not enjoy this kind of judgement, but will receive a judgement of being directly consigned to “the lake of fire”.

This judgement of deeds is implied in the parables of the talents and minas, and makes sense of otherwise puzzling statements by Paul in Romans 2:6,7,10, and 13. The “righteous requirements of the law” are fulfilled in those who go on to exhibit the deeds and attributes required by the law through the means of the Spirit. These deeds/attributes will be judged at the final judgement, as proceeding from those “declared righteous” (justified) by faith. A judgement of deeds makes a great deal of sense of much of what Paul says elsewhere - where there is no sense of “faith alone” (ie without exhibition of righteous deeds/works) being the final plea which brings God’s approval.

The main point being made here, in view of the commentary, is that there is no different eschatological category for those who are martyred (or put to death) for their faith from those who do not so die. The only difference implied is that those who suffer with Christ - which Paul says is a true test of discipleship for all, and not simply those in the 1st century - will also be glorified with him. The kind of resurrection we receive will in some way be related to the kind of life we have lived, and the kind of death we have died.

Community and the book of life

Submitted by andrew on Mon, 25/06/2007 - 00:35.

I agree that exclusion from the book of life also connotes exclusion from the covenant community. That’s an important point. I do feel, however, that the emphasis on life and the context of usage brings to the foreground the idea of surviving judgment or destruction. It becomes relevant when the life or continuity of the community is threatened - it is not used when the integrity of the community is not threatened.

It is faithfulness in the face of conflict, rather than the phenomenon of eschatological crisis which is primarily in view in Philippians 1:28-29.

Are these really two different things? To my way of thinking, at least, the conflict that they face at Philippi is symptomatic of the eschatological crisis.

Since the martyrs described in Revelation 20:4-5 are raised from the dead before the 1000 years, I would suggest that in fact they are excluded from those who are raised (the ’second resurrection’) and judged at the final judgment. So ’book of life’ does not refer to the martyrs - it actually excludes them.

I’m not clear what you’re saying about the judgment of deeds. It is surely all the dead who are judged according to their works in 20:12-13. Then according to verse 15 it would seem that those from this group whose names are not written in the book of life are destroyed in the lake of fire. In fact you could just as well argue that the book of life is an extended metaphor for the survival of the dead who are judged, whether or not they are part of the covenant community. In any case, I don’t see how the judgment according to works can be restricted to those who have been declared righteous - if I have understood you correctly.

Incidentally, I would disagree with your remarks about suffering as a true test of discipleship for all. I would say that in Romans 8 Paul writes for the community that faces suffering. It seems to me that in 8:17 he distinguishes between those who suffer and those who do not, but in any case, he does not write for the church following the foreseen eschatological crisis of the confrontation with paganism.

The Book of Life

Submitted by peter wilkinson on Mon, 25/06/2007 - 15:50.

Andrew, you said:

“I do feel, however, that the emphasis on life and the context of usage brings to the foreground the idea of surviving judgment or destruction. It becomes relevant when the life or continuity of the community is threatened - it is not used when the integrity of the community is not threatened.”

Yes, this is your central point, which you apply to a unique 1st century “eschatological crisis”, characterising the fulfilment of prophecies in Daniel 7, in particular. My response would be that I don’t see a unique eschatological crisis where you see it: in that I don’t see the conflict with Judaism or Rome to be uniquely eschatological! I would see the church as being in a more or less constant eschatological crisis in the sense of being in the uncomfortable position of living in cultures with which it must both identify and radically challenge. This doesn’t however mean living with constant anxiety or panic attacks, nor does it mean not having time or leisure to attend to issues concerning the created world as it is, in favour of the created world as it will be. The gift of the Spirit is given to participants in the world as it is, equipping them for this world as well as more fundamentally for the world as it is yet to be. We cannot live without this tension, and arguably we would do better to build our theology for practical life more around it.

You take Philippians 4:3 to support your case for a unique 1st century eschatological crisis. I don’t see that the evidence in Philippians necessarily or obviously takes it that way. Eschatological conflict with Rome is a theme of the letter for the lives of the Christian Philippians living in a Roman colony with two claims on their allegiance – Caesar and Christ. But this did not necessarily make it a unique eschatological conflict. Philippians 1:28 need not refer to a unique eschatological persecuting power. Paul advocates the kind of attitude in the face of opposition which would be appropriate for any age and any opposition. The substance of my argument would be that Paul’s fellow workers are described as being included in the “book of life” because they have been proved and attested as faithful followers of Jesus in a variety of ways, in which endurance through persecution and judgement was only one. In the “book of life” usages in Revelation, the emphasis falls on faithfulness as much as any unique qualities called for by a background of unique eschatological persecution.

This raises the question of what events the final judgements of Revelation (leading up to Revelation 20:12-15!) were referring to. It is a matter of interpretation, but I see too little anchoring of these events in historical detail of the 1st century alone to justify a completely 1st century interpretation. There is some evidence of a judgement on Jerusalem, rather more evidence of a judgement on Rome, but, to my mind, even more evidence to suggest that neither quite fill out the apocalyptic imagery, which points more to a greater judgement on the world system which underlies historic victims of judgements, a judgement which is yet to come, and which is greater and more comprehensive than them all.

There is potentially an issue with Revelation 20:12-15 which I had overlooked: which is the question of what happens to those participating in the “first resurrection” – (verse 5) in the judgements of 12-15. If they had “come to life” before “the rest of the dead” who are judged when “the one thousand years were ended” (when the “rest of the dead” came to life), what is their status amongst those who are judged in verses 12-15?

If we follow the language carefully, we see that in verse 12 it says “I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne”. Here, “the dead” are actually those who are conscious and alive, albeit in a post mortem state. If the writer had wanted to make a point about “the dead” who came alive after the 1000 years, as distinct from those who participated in “the first resurrection”, he might have found a way of making it in verse 12. But he doesn’t – he simply refers to all “the dead” as though they are actually conscious, including any who may or may not have already been resurrected.

We are approaching the issue of the intermediate state here, but it doesn’t look as if the writer is trying to make any consistent point about it. At the very least, we might take note of all the variant interpretations of the 1000 years, and approach any definitive account of these verses with caution. But my own position would be that there is considerably more figurative language here than is generally accepted – in which I associate myself with the interpretations of Berkouwer and Koenig.

The actual distinctions fall between those whose names are included in the book of life, and those whose names, presumably, are recorded in the other “books” – verse 12(a). If “the book of life” records, as suggested by earlier usage, all the names of the faithful covenant community, this would comfortably include both the martyrs of verse 4 and the rest of the covenant community in verse 5, in a context which is clearly that of final judgement, and which makes adequate sense of all the other usages of “the book of life”, as the record of the faithful at all times, and especially in times of stress and judgement.

I wish I could make this shorter so that it was more readable! At the very least, I wouldn’t want to build a major eschatalogical structure on the parts of Revelation 20 which are commonly used to defend major eschatological categories. I think that is where many eschatological systems have gone awry - too much certainty where there is too little grounds for certainty.

The particular significance of unique

Submitted by andrew on Tue, 26/06/2007 - 01:53.

I think we need to consider a bit more carefully what we mean by ’unique’.

I would say that the New Testament speaks of a ’unique’ eschatological crisis in the sense that every historical event or set of events is unique and unrepeatable. You could also call it a ’particular’ eschatological crisis - the very real, very significant crisis of the end of the age of second temple Judaism and the difficult birth of the church in the face of pagan opposition. The Old Testament describes or pre-describes similar crises in the history of Israel and it is entirely reasonable to suppose that Jesus and his followers spoke of the impending intervention of God in similar terms.

This is not to say that the church won’t face similar or analogous situations after this particular crisis. Nor is it to deny that the persecuted church will interpret its circumstances in the light of the hope that is expressed in the New Testament. But that does not detract from the historical particularity of the situation envisaged in the New Testament, which is exactly the same particularity that we ascribe to the death and resurrection of Jesus, the outpouring of the Spirit, and the destruction of Jerusalem. What we are arguing over is simply how far we extend this eschatological narrative.

There is another important aspect to this uniqueness, which is that the story of Jesus is determined by the particular conflicts with Judaism (the symbols of Judaism are transposed on to him) and Rome (Crossan has made this case very well in recent books). We should consider the possibility that we would not have the story about Christ that we have without the unique eschatological-narrative context.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.