Apocalyptic as literary genre and interpreting Revelation

[Martin Marprelate]

Quite often, the Bible elucidates its own symbols, though. Other times, it does not, and I would highly recommend reading Freud and Jung.

Freud was an atheist, and I rather think Jung was too. I don't think I shall be going to them to help me understand my Bible, thanks all the same.

 

[TCassidy]

Or am I missing something?

Yes. Both are imposed from without.

 

[TCassidy]

I never heard of Larry Pettegrew in my life, and on the basis of that quote, I am not too troubled.

I have heard of him, and count him as a friend. We had a great time chatting at the annual meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society in San Antonio last November.

Dr. Pettegrew completed his M.R.E., M.Div. and Th.M. at Central Baptist Theological Seminary; and his Th.D. at Dallas Theological Seminary.

Dr. Pettegrew taught at Pillsbury Baptist Bible College (my wife's alma mater) for over 10 years. While at Pillsbury, he served as chairman of both the Christian Education and Bible departments. Following his time at Pillsbury, he served as the Dean of Students and taught at Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary.

Dr. Pettegrew was then asked to join Central Baptist Theological Seminary (my alma mater but he was several years after I left), where he taught for 14 years, serving as Registrar and Academic Dean at different times while at Central.

Following Central, Dr. Pettegrew moved on to The Master’s Seminary and was the Professor of Theology for 12 years before accepting the executive vice presidency of Shepherds Theological Seminary—a position he presently holds in addition to his role as Academic Dean.

Dr. Pettegrew has published many articles in publications such as Bibliotheca Sacra, The Master’s Seminary Journal, and Central Bible Quarterly. He has also written and published The New Covenant Ministry of the Holy Spirit.

Degrees

B.A. Bob Jones University
M.R.E. Central Baptist Theological Seminary
M.Div. Central Baptist Theological Seminary
Th.M. Central Baptist Theological Seminary
Th.D. Dallas Theological Seminary

SPECIALTIES

American Fundamentalism
Doctrine of the Holy Spirit
Dispensationalism

Selected Publications

Books

The New Covenant Ministry of the Holy Spirit

From Backcover: He is our Helper, Comforter, and Counselor, and without Him we cannot live the Christian life. Yet His role in believers’ lives is at the heart of one of the Church’s most difficult and controversial issues.

It’s significantly easier to recognize that the Day of Pentecost changed the role of the Holy Spirit in the lives of God’s people than to clearly identity how that changed. At times the biblical data seems puzzling, and scholars have often confused the scriptural teaching about the Holy Spirit by isolating Bible verses from their context and elevating experience over doctrine.

In this revised edition of The New Covenant Ministry of the Holy Spirit, Larry Pettegrew does thorough and careful exegesis to build an accurate and meaningful biblical theology of the Holy Spirit. The author is also careful to emphasize genuine spirituality by including a discussion of the filling, fruit and gifts of the Holy Spirit.
Kregel, 1993

Journal Articles

“Teaching Principles of Christ.” Central Bible Quarterly, Spring, 1972.
“Teaching Methods of Christ.” Central Bible Quarterly, Summer, 1972.
“The Niagara Bible Conference and American Fundamentalism.” Part I. Central Bible Quarterly, Winter, 1976.
“The Niagara Bible Conference and American Fundamentalism.” Part II. Central Bible Quarterly, Spring, 1977.
“Liberation Theology and Hermeneutical Preunderstandings.” Bibliotheca Sacra, July-September, 1991.
“Dispensationalists and Spirit Baptism.” The Master’s Seminary Journal, Spring, 1997.
“A Kinder, Gentler Theology of Hell?” The Master’s Seminary Journal, Fall, 1998.
“The New Covenant.” The Master’s Seminary Journal, Fall, 1999.
“The Rapture Debate at the Niagara Bible Conference.” Bibliotheca Sacra, July-September, 2000.
“Theological Basis of Ethics.” The Master’s Seminary Journal, Fall, 2000.
“Interpretive Flaws in the Olivet Discourse.” The Master’s Seminary Journal, Fall, 2002.
“The Perspicuity of Scripture.” The Master’s Seminary Journal, Fall, 2004.
“Evangelicals, Paradigms, and the Emerging Church.” The Master’s Seminary Journal, Fall, 2006.
“The New Covenant and New Covenant Theology.” The Master’s Seminary Journal, Fall, 2007.

 

[JonC]

Yes. Both are imposed from without.

I understand how both Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology can be external frameworks imposed from without (regardless of whether right or wrong) as they exist external to the book. How is this true of Preterism (a position, BTW, I do not hold)?

 

[Jope]

Freud was an atheist, and I rather think Jung was too. I don't think I shall be going to them to help me understand my Bible, thanks all the same.

Well it's a good thing you're not going to them for their actual beliefs then, because you're pretty misinformed.

It's better to say Freud was an agnostic, and at one time early in his life he quite favoured, if not converted to, Christianity. He was also Jewish and was very Jewish or zealous for it in his childhood.

As for Jung, he was definitely a Christian, lol. Anyone who researches a little into him will find this out. You clearly need to do some research.

As I've quoted, they both proved the unconscious and dream interpretation to be legitimate from a scientific standpoint. Do you also deny Einstein's physics because he was a Jewish agnostic? Do you deny empirical, natural theology? That is what science is. The Bible says something against that you know. Romans 1:20.

"Freud worked in the laboratory of Ernst Brucke, one of a group of physiologists who had attempted to found a science of biology on thoroughly materialistic grounds. In his autobiography, Freud described Brucke as the person 'who carried more weight with me than anyone else in my whole life'" - Armand Nicholi Jr, The Question of God, p. 20

"Psychoanalysis first developed as a method of therapy in the strict medical sense. Freud had discovered that certain circumscribed disorders that have no discernible organic basis--such as hysterical convulsions, phobias, depressions, drug addictions, functional stomach upsets--can be cured by uncovering the unconscious factors that underlie them" - Karen Horney, Self Analysis, p. 7

"...I have not escaped from his [Brentano's] influence--I am not capable of refuting a simple theistic argument that constitutes the crown of his deliberations...He demonstrates the existence of God with as little bias and as much precision as another might argue the advantage of the wave over the emission theory" - Freud

"The bad part of it, especially for me, lies in the fact that science of all things seems to demand the existence of God..." - Freud

"Freud's early experiences with anti-Semitism critically influenced his attitude toward the spiritual worldview. In Austria over 90 percent of the population registered as Catholic. Freud said that in this environment 'I was expected to feel myself inferior and an alien because I was a Jew.'" - Armand Nicholi Jr., The Question of God, p. 21​

 

[Jope]

I understand how both Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology can be external frameworks imposed from without (regardless of whether right or wrong) as they exist external to the book. How is this true of Preterism (a position, BTW, I do not hold)?

Priscilla and Aquila explained to Apollos the way of God more accurately. Acts 18:26. Was their dogma also imposed? If not, what need did Apollos have for their dogma? If their dogma was imposed, is it not justified, being recorded in and part of the Word of God?

Why does the bible reference extra-biblical books so often?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-canonical_books_referenced_in_the_Bible

 

[Jope]

Here are some great excerpts from Jung:

"The Book of Revelation is on the one hand so personal and on the other so archetypal and collective that one is obliged to consider both aspects....as a leading light of the community, presumably [the author of revelation, probably John the apostle] had to live an exemplary life and demonstrate to his flock the Christian virtues of true faith, humility, patience, devotion, self- less love, and denial of all worldly desires. In the long run this can become too much, even for the most righteous. Irritability, bad moods, and outbursts of affect are the classic symptoms of chronic virtuousness [footnote: Not for nothing was the apostle John nicknamed "son of thunder*' by Christ]...But who hates the Nicolaitans? Who thirsts for vengeance and even wants to throw "that woman Jezebel" on a sickbed and strike her children dead? Who cannot have enough of blood- thirsty fantasies? Let us be psychologically correct, however: it is not the conscious mind of John that thinks up these fantasies, they come to him in a violent 'revelation.' They fall upon him involuntarily with an unexpected vehemence and with an intensity which, as said, far transcends anything we could expect as compensation of a somewhat one-sided attitude of consciousness." - Carl Jung, Answer to Job.


"One could hardly imagine a more suitable personality for the John of the Apocalypse than the author of the Epistles of John. It was he who declared that God is light and that 'in him is no darkness at all.' l (Who said there was any darkness in God?) Nevertheless, he knows that when we sin we need an 'advocate with the Father,' and this is Christ, 'the expiation for our sins' even though for his sake our sins are already for- given. (Why then do we need an advocate?) The Father has be- stowed his great love upon us (though it had to be bought at the cost of a human sacrifice!), and we are the children of God. He who is begotten by God commits no sins (Who commits no sin?) John then preaches the message of love. God himself is love; perfect love casteth out fear. But he must warn against false prophets and teachers of false doctrines, and it is he who an- nounces the coming of the Antichrist. His conscious attitude is orthodox, but he has evil forebodings. He might easily have dreams that are not listed on his conscious programme. He talks as if he knew not only a sinless state but also a perfect love, unlike Paul, who was not lacking in the necessary self-reflection. John is a bit too sure, and therefore he runs the risk of a dissocia- tion. Under these circumstances a counterposition is bound to grow up in the unconscious, which can then irrupt into con- sciousness in the form of a revelation. If this happens, the revela- tion will take the form of a more or less subjective myth, because, among other things, it compensates the one-sidedness of an indi- vidual consciousness. This contrasts with the visions of Ezekiel or Enoch, whose conscious situation was mainly characterized by an ignorance (for which they were not to blame) and was therefore compensated by a more or less objective and uni-versally valid configuration of archetypal material.So far as we can see, the Apocalypse conforms to these con- ditions. Even in the initial vision a fear-inspiring figure appears: Christ blended with the Ancient of Days, having the likeness of a man and the Son of Man. Out of his mouth goes a 'sharp two-edged sword,' which would seem more suitable for fighting and the shedding of blood than for demonstrating brotherly love. Since this Christ says to him, 'Fear not," we must as- sume that John was not overcome by love when he fell 'as though dead,' but rather by fear. (What price now the perfect love which casts out fear?)

Christ commands him to write seven epistles to the churches in the province of Asia. The church in Ephesus is admonished to repent; otherwise it is threatened with deprivation of the light ('I will come . . . and remove your candlestick from its place').

We also learn from this letter that Christ 'hates' the nicolaitans. (How does this square with love of your neigh-bour?)

The church in Smyrna does not come off so badly. Its enemies supposedly are Jews, but they are 'a synagogue of Satan,' which does not sound too friendly.

Pergamum is censured because a teacher of false doctrines is making himself conspicuous there, and the place swarms with Nicolaitans. Therefore it must repent 'if not, I will come to you soon.' This can only be interpreted as a threat.

Thyatira tolerates the preaching of 'that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess.' He will 'throw her on a sick- bed' and 'strike her children dead.' But 'he who . . . keeps my works until the end, I will give him power over the nations, and he shall rule them with a rod of iron, as when earthen pots are broken in pieces, even as I myself have received power from my Father; and I will give him the morning star/' Christ, as we know, teaches 'Love your enemies,' but here he threatens a massacre of children all too reminiscent of Bethlehem!..." - Carl Jung, Answer to Job.


"The Lamb, transformed into a demonic ram, reveals a new gospel, the Evangelium Aeternum, which, going right beyond the love of God, has the fear of God as its main ingredient. Therefore the Apocalypse closes, like the classical individuation process, with the symbol of the hieros gamos, the marriage of the son with the mother-bride. But the marriage takes place in heaven, where 'nothing unclean' enters, high above the devas-tated world. Light consorts with light. That is the programme for the Christian aeon which must be fulfilled before God can incarnate in the creaturely man. Only in the last days will the vision of the sun-woman be fulfilled. In recognition of this truth, and evidently inspired by the workings of the Holy Ghost, the Pope has recently announced the dogma of the Assumptio Mariae, very much to the astonishment of all rationalists. Mary as the bride is united with the son in the heavenly bridal- chamber, and, as Sophia, with the Godhead.

This dogma is in every respect timely. In the first place it is a symbolical fulfilment of John's vision. Secondly, it contains an allusion to the marriage of the Lamb at the end of time, and, thirdly, it repeats the Old Testament anamnesis of Sophia. These three references foretell the Incarnation of God. The second and third foretell the Incarnation in Christ, but the first foretells the Incarnation in creaturely man." - Carl Jung, Answer to Job

 

[Covenanter]

I understand how both Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology can be external frameworks imposed from without (regardless of whether right or wrong) as they exist external to the book. How is this true of Preterism (a position, BTW, I do not hold)?

Covenant theology is explicitly taught in the NC Scriptures, see e.g. the Lord's supper, Peter's sermons in Acts, & particularly Hebrews.

Preterism is understood by reading Revelation alongside the Olivet prophecy. Jesus' warnings are about to be fulfilled. First C history records that fulfillment.

Dispensationalism is not explicitly taught in Scripture.

Amil interpretation is an attempt to understand Revelation & apply in the the present 'last days' although it is not possible to report the specific fulfillment of the prophecies & say "this is that...." It is however a helpful way of applying the various visions to the persecuted church. Jesus is with us always, & didn't go away in AD 70. The section of the Olivet prophecy that applies to us is:

Mat. 24:35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.
36 But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only. 37 But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. 38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, 39 and knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. 40 Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left. 41 Two women shall be grinding at the mill; the one shall be taken, and the other left. 42 Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come.
read on...​

Underlined by Peter:

2 Peter 3:13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.
14 Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless. 15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation .....
​

There is no need at all for an imposed theological system.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

It's better to say Freud was an agnostic,

From Wikipaedia:

Freud regarded the monotheistic God as an illusion based upon the infantile emotional need for a powerful, supernatural pater familias. He maintained that religion – once necessary to restrain man's violent nature in the early stages of civilization – in modern times, can be set aside in favor of reason and science.[155] "Obsessive Actions and Religious Practices" (1907) notes the likeness between faith (religious belief) and neurotic obsession.[156] Totem and Taboo (1913) proposes that society and religion begin with the patricide and eating of the powerful paternal figure, who then becomes a revered collective memory.[157] These arguments were further developed in The Future of an Illusion (1927) in which Freud argued that religious belief serves the function of psychological consolation. Freud argues the belief of a supernatural protector serves as a buffer from man's "fear of nature" just as the belief in an afterlife serves as a buffer from man's fear of death. The core idea of the work is that all of religious belief can be explained through its function to society, not for its relation to the truth. This is why, according to Freud, religious beliefs are "illusions". In Civilization and Its Discontents (1930), he quotes his friend Romain Rolland, who described religion as an "oceanic sensation", but says he never experienced this feeling.[158] Moses and Monotheism (1937) proposes that Moses was the tribal pater familias, killed by the Jews, who psychologically coped with the patricide with a reaction formation conducive to their establishing monotheist Judaism;[159] analogously, he described the Roman Catholic rite of Holy Communion as cultural evidence of the killing and devouring of the sacred father.[98][160]

Moreover, he perceived religion, with its suppression of violence, as mediator of the societal and personal, the public and the private, conflicts between Eros and Thanatos, the forces of life and death.[161] Later works indicate Freud's pessimism about the future of civilization, which he noted in the 1931 edition of Civilization and its Discontents.[162]

In a footnote of his 1909 work, Analysis of a Phobia in a Five year old Boy, Freud theorized that the universal fear of castration was provoked in the uncircumcised when they perceived circumcision and that this was "the deepest unconscious root of anti-Semitism".[


Jung's assessment of Western religion arose both from his own experiences as well as from the psychotherapeutic work with his European clients. As a young man he had visions and dreams that were powerful and rich with meaning, yet he clung to Christianity. While he believed that God could "do stupendous things to me, things of fire and unearthly light", he was profoundly disappointed by his first communion—in his words, "nothing happened".[1] He saw the same symptoms in his clients, namely, a fascination with the power of the unconscious, coupled with the inadequacy of Western religious symbols and rituals to represent this power. Summing up his analysis of the modern European situation he said: "Our age wants to experience the psyche for itself ... knowledge, instead of faith."[2]

According to Murray Stein, Jungian training analyst and author, Jung related theological concepts and psychological concepts using three tenets:[3]

1. That words about theological constructs (such as "God") can be interpreted as referring to structures within the psyche.
2. That psychologists can evaluate the adequacy of theological constructs against the normative structure and dynamics of the psyche.
3. That words about the psyche are also words about God, due to the correspondence between the structures of subjectivity and objectivity.

Thus, proceeding by tenet #1 in Answer to Job, Jung interprets Yahweh as an archaic form of the self, Job as the ego, and Satan as the principle of individuation. Jung interprets the evolution of the god-image portrayed in the Old and New Testaments as a process of psychological development: In the Book of Job, the archaic self is prompted to develop toward consciousness by the more conscious ego, a process attended by dreams and prophesies (e.g. the Old Testament prophets). The self enters ego-consciousness (the incarnation of God in Jesus of Nazareth), followed by the emergence of the transcendent function (when the Holy Ghost comes to the disciples at Pentecost).[4]

In "A Psychological Approach to the Doctrine of the Trinity",[5] again by tenet #1 Jung interprets the Father as the self, the source of energy within the psyche; the Son as an emergent structure of consciousness that replaces the self-alienated ego; and the Holy Spirit as a mediating structure between the ego and the self. However, Jung believed that the psyche moves toward completion in fours (made up of pairs of opposites), and that therefore (using tenet #3 above) the Christian formulation of the Trinity would give way to a quaternity by including missing aspects (e.g. the feminine and evil). (This analysis prompted Jung to send a congratulatory note to Pope Pius XII in 1950 upon the adoption of the doctrine of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, to wit completing the quaternity.)

 

[John of Japan]

Basically, then, Revelation and Daniel (along with other passages) "speak the same language" and the genre is developed through scripture (not dependent on extra-biblical symbolism or literature of the time)?

Yes, that's my position.

Why I ask is the way D.A. Carson worded a few comments in his lectures. He mentions John's use of the literary genre to communicate in a way that would be clearly received by the immediate audience because they were familiar with apocalyptic literature (as it was a common genre of the culture). The question then (for me) is how much of the symbolism is prophetic vision and how much is John communicating through a literary genre (realizing either way that it is all of God). The difference (in my mind) would be the immediacy of the message (to the original audience) as opposed to a message leaning more towards a dictation (John writing what he saw without articulating it into a specific form). Or is it both?

I agree with Carson in that an educated first century reader starting in on the Revelation would, from John's opening statement, immediately classify the book as apocalyptic in genre. But then John specifically states in v. 2, "Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw." This, then, puts the book in the realm of revealed truth. Then in v. 3 he calls it prophecy. So the believing first century reader would then know that this is a cut above all previous (and later) apocalyptic literature.

John knew exactly how the word "Apocalypse" would be received by the reader, and under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit used that word deliberately. "1. of the revelation of truth.... 2. of revelations of a particular kind, through visions.... 3. in the eschatolog. sense of disclosure of secrets belonging to the last days" (BAGD lexicon, p. 92).

I'm finding it hard to word the question, so you have my apology if I'm being unclear (it is not intentional).

It's a complicated subject.

 

[John of Japan]

Covenant theology is explicitly taught in the NC Scriptures, see e.g. the Lord's supper, Peter's sermons in Acts, & particularly Hebrews.

The technical term in hermeneutics for a statement like this is "baloney." I thought you took Scriptures just as they are, and did not "interpret."

There is absolutely nothing in any of the passages you mentioned here about covenants of works, redemption and grace as imagined by covenant theologians.

Dispensationalism is not explicitly taught in Scripture.

Let me help: "That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him" (Eph. 1:10). Seems plain to me, unless you "interpret" it.

 

[John of Japan]

But it seems that the Preterist framework would be extracted from the book (even if in error, an error of interpretation of Revelation itself) while the Dispensational framework is imposed (it doesn't originate with the book). Or am I missing something?

Since with a grammatical-historical hermeneutic all of the book of Revelation from ch. 4 up to ch. 20, which announces the millennium, is about the tribulation period, I fail to see how a dispensational framework is imposed on the book. There are pretrib, midtrib and post-trib dispensationalists, so there really is no dispensational framework on the book. You either take it literally (there will be a tribulation period with all sorts of stuff going on, then a millennial reign, then a new heavens and a new earth), or you interpret it allegorically/"spiritually," in which case you can make it mean whatever you want.

 

[Covenanter]

John - please give an illustration of how you would use the principles of interpretation you advocate to interpret Rev. 6 - the seals.

 

[JonC]

Since with a grammatical-historical hermeneutic all of the book of Revelation from ch. 4 up to ch. 20, which announces the millennium, is about the tribulation period, I fail to see how a dispensational framework is imposed on the book. There are pretrib, midtrib and post-trib dispensationalists, so there really is no dispensational framework on the book. You either take it literally (there will be a tribulation period with all sorts of stuff going on, then a millennial reign, then a new heavens and a new earth), or you interpret it allegorically/"spiritually," in which case you can make it mean whatever you want.

I am not saying either framework is imposed on the book, but that I can understand how both could be imposed.

 

[John of Japan]

John - please give an illustration of how you would use the principles of interpretation you advocate to interpret Rev. 6 - the seals.

I don't have time to exegete the whole chapter for you if that's what you are asking. To put it simply, the seals represent linear, literal events on earth. The events are disasters, sent or allowed in judgment from God. The use of seals to show those events is a typical approach of Biblical apocalyptic literature.

The identity of the first rider is difficult, but interpreting literally we see that he conquers, but does not have a sovereign's crown, but a winner's crown, meaning he is not Christ. Rev. often interprets for us, but does not in this case, so it's not important for us to know. We may speculate that he is the Antichrist, but that is mere speculation.

 

[John of Japan]

I am not saying either framework is imposed on the book, but that I can understand how both could be imposed.

Okay, point taken.

 

[HankD]

One thing to avoid here is the tendency of covenant theology and NCT to interpret the NT (Rev. in this case) back into the OT (Daniel, for example). This ignores the doctrine of progressive revelation. The book of Daniel stands as revelation from God, much of which has been fulfilled...

Hmm, The 70th week of Daniel has occurred or will occur - when - IYO?
Presumably it is yet to come (the last half anyway IYO?).

Thanks
HankD

 

[John of Japan]

Hmm, The 70th week of Daniel has occurred or will occur - when - IYO?
Presumably it is yet to come (the last half anyway IYO?).

Thanks
HankD

The 70th week of Daniel is the 7 years of the Tribulation period, of which the last half, 3 1/2 years, is the "Great Tribulation."

 

[HankD]

The 70th week of Daniel is the 7 years of the Tribulation period, of which the last half, 3 1/2 years, is the "Great Tribulation."

Yes, I figured that would be the answer .

Thanks
HankD

 

[Jope]

From Wikipaedia:

I like Wikipedia. I also like the library. If you want I can go to the library and rent out the books I just returned on Freud, to prove to you that he had religious leanings later in his life. That would mean that it is better to label him an agnostic. But that would be beside the point: my question that remains unanswered is still needing attention regarding interpreting the book of revelation: do you reject natural theology, ie, empirical science?

As for Jung, laying aside his contributions to the unconscious and dreams as a science, he confesses the death burial and resurrection of the Lord, confesses Jesus as Lord, and does not hold any heretical teachings about Christianity. That's good enough for me. Even if he wasn't a Christian, as Freud, he made scientific advancements in the field of psychology. Specifically dream interpretation, and, lo and behold, he wrote much about the revelation of St. John!