Apocalyptic as literary genre and interpreting Revelation

[Jope]

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

Why is Coccieus (seventeenth century) the Father of covenant theology then?

Peter and the author of Hebrews never spiritualized the covenant promise of land to Abraham (ie the Jews), why do you?

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

You need to read more church history. Try Irenaeus, or Hippolytus, post 70AD, who explicitly teaches that the seventieth week of Daniel is yet future.

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...​

​

What about Matthew 24:20? Do you pray that your flight may not be on the sabbath or in the winter? I thought Paul taught we weren't to observe the Sabbath (Colossians)...

 

[Covenanter]

Why is Coccieus (seventeenth century) the Father of covenant theology then?

Covenant theology is straight from the Bible. The word for "covenant" occurs over 300 times. It is sometimes translated "testament" in the KJV NT even when quoting "covenant" Scriptures. In principle, covenant theology is required for understanding the Bible.

Peter and the author of Hebrews never spiritualized the covenant promise of land to Abraham (ie the Jews), why do you?

Did they not?

Heb. 8:1 Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens; 2 a minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man..... read on

Heb. 11:13 These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth. 14 For they that say such things declare plainly that they seek a country. 15 And truly, if they had been mindful of that country from whence they came out, they might have had opportunity to have returned. 16 But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city.​

1 Peter 2:4 To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious, 5 ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ......
9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light: 10 which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.​

I expect you know where Peter is quoting from -

Exo. 19:3 And Moses went up unto God, and the Lord called unto him out of the mountain, saying, Thus shalt thou say to the house of Jacob, and tell the children of Israel; 4 Ye have seen what I did unto the Egyptians, and how I bare you on eagles’ wings, and brought you unto myself. 5 Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine: 6 and ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.​

You need to read more church history. Try Irenaeus, or Hippolytus, post 70AD, who explicitly teaches that the seventieth week of Daniel is yet future.

Are they inspired?
You need to study the Bible more carefully.

​

What about Matthew 24:20? Do you pray that your flight may not be on the sabbath or in the winter? I thought Paul taught we weren't to observe the Sabbath (Colossians)...

That comes in the earlier section of Mat. 24. (see also Luke 21 & Mark 13.) Jesus is giving signs to the Jews in Judea preceding the AD 70 destruction of the temple, so the believers can flee the city. Are you ready to flee to the mountains when you see the signs?

 

[John of Japan]

Covenant theology is straight from the Bible. The word for "covenant" occurs over 300 times. It is sometimes translated "testament" in the KJV NT even when quoting "covenant" Scriptures. In principle, covenant theology is required for understanding the Bible.

If this is what you think covenant theology is, I beg of you to study the theologians. That is not what Berkhof and other covenant theologians teach it as. Everyone believes there are covenants in the Bible. I believe in the various covenants listed plainly in the Bible. But I do not believe in the invented covenants of covenant theology.

According to Berkhof, the covenant of works was in Eden between God an Adam. "This covenant enabled Adam to obtain eternal life for himself and for his descendants in the way of obedience” (Berkhof, p. 215). And the covenant of grace is described thusly by Berkhof: “The covenant of Grace may be defined as that gracious agreement between the offended God and the offending but elect sinner, in which God promises salvation through faith in Christ, and the sinner accepts this believingly, promising a life of faith and obedience” (Berkhof, p. 277; italics in original).

Neither of these covenants is mentioned or even referred to implicitly (much less explicitly) in any of the passages you mentioned. They do not exist in Scripture.

 

[Jope]

Covenant theology is straight from the Bible. The word for "covenant" occurs over 300 times. It is sometimes translated "testament" in the KJV NT even when quoting "covenant" Scriptures. In principle, covenant theology is required for understanding the Bible.

The phrase "covenant of redemption" never appears in the Bible. I searched. The phrase "covenant of grace" never appears in the bible. I searched. The phrase "covenant of works" never appears in the bible. I searched. The roots of covenant theology, it may be argued, can be traced to Augustine, a late Father of the Church. The roots of dispensational theology can be traced back long before Augustine. Your own teachers admit this. One example or proof: Hippolytus (post-70AD), who believed in the future fulfillment of daniel's seventieth week, was a student of Irenaeus, a student of Ignatius, Papias and Polycarp, students of John the Apostle, who wrote Revelation. Noteworthy is the fact that all or most of these men were premillennial. If we can't find some of these men's views on the millennium, owing to their works being lost or owing to their not making any statements about such, that was because there was no debate about the timing of the millennium yet.

"Premillennialism was extensively held in the Early Church... But the stress which many of its advocates placed on earthly rewards and carnal delights aroused widespread opposition to it: and it was largely replaced by the "spiritual view" of Augustine" (Oswald Allis, great advocate of Amillennialism).​

Did they not?

Heb. 8:1 Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens; 2 a minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man..... read on

Heb. 11:13 These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth. 14 For they that say such things declare plainly that they seek a country. 15 And truly, if they had been mindful of that country from whence they came out, they might have had opportunity to have returned. 16 But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city.​

1 Peter 2:4 To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious, 5 ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ......
9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light: 10 which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.​

​

Just because we get to be kings and priests doesn't mean that God has abrogated His Abrahamic land covenant with the Jews. Since you were just preaching on "explicit" teachings of the Word of God: can you find for me anywhere in the scriptures, where it is explicitly stated that God cancelled His Abrahamic land promise to the Jews? Hebrews 8 & 10, Acts 15, Galatians 3 and etc. never "explicitly" state that God cancelled His (unconditional) covenant made with Abraham and his descendants (the Jews): this abrogation doctrine is imposed by covenant theologians. And, these passages, which covenant theologians love to refer to, are not without comments and interpretations by the dispensational side. George Peters' Theocratic Kingdom, Proposition 50, should be looked into by any serious covenantal theologian looking for a dispensational interpretation and rebuttal of said passages.

I expect you know where Peter is quoting from -

Exo. 19:3 And Moses went up unto God, and the Lord called unto him out of the mountain, saying, Thus shalt thou say to the house of Jacob, and tell the children of Israel; 4 Ye have seen what I did unto the Egyptians, and how I bare you on eagles’ wings, and brought you unto myself. 5 Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine: 6 and ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.​

Are they inspired?
You need to study the Bible more carefully.

Again, just because Christians get to be kings and priests, doesn't negate God's promises to the Jews that they also get to become kings and priests and receive a land. You need to study the Bible more carefully. I'll be waiting for that "explicit" phrase in the Bible that you should be able to easily reference.

​

That comes in the earlier section of Mat. 24. (see also Luke 21 & Mark 13.) Jesus is giving signs to the Jews in Judea preceding the AD 70 destruction of the temple, so the believers can flee the city. Are you ready to flee to the mountains when you see the signs?

Am I ready to move to Jerusalem and observe the sabbath and forsake the teachings of Paul, who taught to neglect the Mosaic covenant? Nah

 

[Jope]

Are you ready to flee to the mountains when you see the signs?

I thought you just said that the great tribulation was fulfilled in 70AD?

 

[Jope]

If this is what you think covenant theology is, I beg of you to study the theologians. That is not what Berkhof and other covenant theologians teach it as. Everyone believes there are covenants in the Bible. I believe in the various covenants listed plainly in the Bible. But I do not believe in the invented covenants of covenant theology.

According to Berkhof, the covenant of works was in Eden between God an Adam. "This covenant enabled Adam to obtain eternal life for himself and for his descendants in the way of obedience” (Berkhof, p. 215). And the covenant of grace is described thusly by Berkhof: “The covenant of Grace may be defined as that gracious agreement between the offended God and the offending but elect sinner, in which God promises salvation through faith in Christ, and the sinner accepts this believingly, promising a life of faith and obedience” (Berkhof, p. 277; italics in original).

Neither of these covenants is mentioned or even referred to implicitly (much less explicitly) in any of the passages you mentioned. They do not exist in Scripture.

While I like your post, I do still favor the scriptures I do have this question:

Hosea 6:7 NET
At Adam they broke the covenant; Oh how they were unfaithful to me!
​

What "covenant" is Hosea referring to?

 

[Covenanter]

If this is what you think covenant theology is, I beg of you to study the theologians. That is not what Berkhof and other covenant theologians teach it as. Everyone believes there are covenants in the Bible. I believe in the various covenants listed plainly in the Bible. But I do not believe in the invented covenants of covenant theology.

According to Berkhof, the covenant of works was in Eden between God an Adam. "This covenant enabled Adam to obtain eternal life for himself and for his descendants in the way of obedience” (Berkhof, p. 215). And the covenant of grace is described thusly by Berkhof: “The covenant of Grace may be defined as that gracious agreement between the offended God and the offending but elect sinner, in which God promises salvation through faith in Christ, and the sinner accepts this believingly, promising a life of faith and obedience” (Berkhof, p. 277; italics in original).

Neither of these covenants is mentioned or even referred to implicitly (much less explicitly) in any of the passages you mentioned. They do not exist in Scripture.

I haven't defined CT in this thread; see the other thread - covenant theology confusion - we should work towards Biblical CT.

I don't agree with Berkhof.

 

[Covenanter]

Are you ready to flee to the mountains when you see the signs?

I thought you just said that the great tribulation was fulfilled in 70AD?

I did imply that. If you are still waiting for it, are you watching for the signs so you can flee to the mountains?

 

[Jope]

I did imply that. If you are still waiting for it, are you watching for the signs so you can flee to the mountains?

You need to review dispensational theology. Chafer explicitly teaches that the olivet discourse was written to the Jews and references numerous times Matthew 24:20 as proof.

"Pray that your flight [from earthly Jerusalem, a place of little relevance for Christians] may not be in winter or on a Sabbath [a day of little or no relevance for Christians]" (NET).​

 

[Yeshua1]

Reading several commentaries on Revelation, each point to the need to understand the book as written in apocalyptic form as a literary genre. Mounce points out that this is a type of literature that flourished from about 200 BC to 100 AD, and indicates that the book differs on a few points from apocalyptic literature. Still, going through the commentary it is often pointed out that this passage, or that passage, utilizes common aspects of the literary form to illustrate, symbolize, or highlight subjects either directly (cities, historical events) or abstractly (numerology).

My question is concerns the nature of interpretation when it comes to this type of material. On one hand, it seems that we are looking to the genre to interpret the message. And this makes sense to me. If apocalyptic, as a literary genre, was popular during the writing of Revelation then it seems to me that the original audience would have interpreted the message within the mode with which they were familiar.

But on the other hand, as a literary genre it is described as mimicking Old Testament prophesies and visions. If Revelation was written without consideration to genre, but as a direct prophesy (Revelation calls itself a prophesy in 1:3; 22:7; 10, 18, 19), then using apocalyptic as a literary genre to interpret the message may be misleading. It may be an instance of the “tail wagging the dog” as the genre being used to interpret Revelation may itself be aping the mode of the book.

My question is, in interpreting Revelation (and, I suppose, certain OT passages as well), how much should we rely on extra-biblical sources and forms?

Think that the Book of Revelation would best be seen as being visions God granted to John that fits in together with those given to Daniel and Zechariah and other OT prophets concerning the end of days.

Like it best as speaking to all generations of Christians, but that there is a specific fulfillment that will be summed up at the end of the AGE, when Jesus returns...

 

[John of Japan]

While I like your post, I do still favor the scriptures

You do realize I'm opposing covenant theology as being not from the Scriptures, right?

I do have this question:

Hosea 6:7 NET
At Adam they broke the covenant; Oh how they were unfaithful to me!
​

What "covenant" is Hosea referring to?

Not germane to the discussion. Without studying it out, I have no opinion.

 

[Yeshua1]

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. The book of Rev. then builds on that foundation with some of the same symbolism.

Would tend to see it as building upon those OT prophecies, as to given further understanding of what happens at end of this Age!

 

[Jope]

You do realize I'm opposing covenant theology as being not from the Scriptures, right?

Yes I realize that. I see some plausibility in their reference of the Hosea 6:7 passage though. That being said, I reject all parts of covenant theology that teaches the replacement of the Jews with Christians and the abrogation of the Abrahamic and Davidic covenant with the Jews.

 

[John of Japan]

I haven't defined CT in this thread; see the other thread - covenant theology confusion - we should work towards Biblical CT.

I don't agree with Berkhof.

You want me to read the 79 posts of that whole thread to figure you out, somehow? Don't have the time.

But if you don't agree with Berkhof, you shouldn't call your beliefs covenant theology, because that's exactly what he was teaching. Maybe you should delineate yourself as New Covenant Theology instead, since it also rejects the un-Biblical covenants of CT.

 

[John of Japan]

Yes I realize that. I see some plausibility in their reference of the Hosea 6:7 passage though. That being said, I reject all parts of covenant theology that teaches the replacement of the Jews with Christians and the abrogation of the Abrahamic and Davidic covenant with the Jews.

Okay, then, we're agreed.

 

[Yeshua1]

You want me to read the 79 posts of that whole thread to figure you out, somehow? Don't have the time.

But if you don't agree with Berkhof, you shouldn't call your beliefs covenant theology, because that's exactly what he was teaching. Maybe you should delineate yourself as New Covenant Theology instead, since it also rejects the un-Biblical covenants of CT.

I just completed work on a paper contrasting classical Covenant Theolgy with the NCT, would would have to say that was surprised as to how the NCT looks good st first look, but when you really get into it, much better to be either CT or Dispy!

 

[John of Japan]

I just completed work on a paper contrasting classical Covenant Theolgy with the NCT, would would have to say that was surprised as to how the NCT looks good st first look, but when you really get into it, much better to be either CT or Dispy!

It depends on which writer you read in NCT. It's a new theology still in flux. Generally, though, I consider it to be better than CT.

 

[Yeshua1]

It depends on which writer you read in NCT. It's a new theology still in flux. Generally, though, I consider it to be better than CT.

It started out from reformed Baptists circles, so do agree with them on Water Baptism, Church started in Acts, but how they view Israel/Church, and eliminating the Law as a moral code and the Sabbath....

 

[TCassidy]

The roots of dispensational theology can be traced back long before Augustine.

That proves not to be the case.

Noteworthy is the fact that all or most of these men were premillennial.

You seem to have conflated dispensationalism with premillennialism. The two are not the same.

Historic premillennialists such as you referenced were not dispensational.

Premillennialism is the historic view of the church fathers, and is rightly considered ancient. Dispensationalism is, on the other hand, of relatively late origin.

Virtually all dispensationalists are premillennial but all premillennialists are not dispensationalists (at least not in the classic sense).

 

[Yeshua1]

That proves not to be the case.

You seem to have conflated dispensationalism with premillennialism. The two are not the same.

Historic premillennialists such as you referenced were not dispensational.

Premillennialism is the historic view of the church fathers, and is rightly considered ancient. Dispensationalism is, on the other hand, of relatively late origin.

Virtually all dispensationalists are premillennial but all premillennialists are not dispensationalists (at least not in the classic sense).

Think that many of the Church Fathers did see the Second Coming in Historic premil views, others more A Mil, and most of the Church saw it in Amil terms after Augustine made his spiritualized views on understanding prophecy known!