Apocalyptic as literary genre and interpreting Revelation

[JonC]

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?

 

[Covenanter]

I shall join in - but want to start another thread.

 

[JonC]

Thanks. I know many here have studied not only the book but also the genre much more than I (I am only beginning to look at Revelation closely). I just keep running into the need to understand it as a literary genre and thought some here would be equipped to explain the reasoning.

 

[Jope]

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

A: As much as doesn't conflict with other scriptures and sound reason or empirical, pragmatic science or sense.

 

[JonC]

Thanks for your reply.

I've never really studied Revelation in depth and have begun devoting some time to read the book as well as a few commentaries (I'm awaiting one by Johnson, and I have one by Mounce). I've read some who argue against an extended use of extra-biblical materials on some topics (Piper, for example, in his objection to Wright's use of the Dead Sea Scrolls) but at the same time would argue the necessity of understanding the literary genre of Revelation to interpret the book as the original audience would have understood the writing.

I'm just wondering, insofar as the interpretation of Revelation, how much we glean from apocalyptic as a genre and how much we lean on it as prophesy. Or, perhaps as a genre it is distinctly Jewish and taken from OT Scripture.

On another thread a member mentioned how important it was to understand the genre in interpreting Revelation. But beyond that, nothing was mentioned to explain the reasoning and impact the genre, or even the genre itself. So while I am inclined to agree (I see the need to understand the reception the letter would have received by the immediate audience), I was hoping someone here would prove capable of expounding on the topic.

 

[kyredneck]

using apocalyptic as a literary genre to interpret the message may be misleading.

Thank you!

I'm not sure what is meant by 'apocalyptic' literature. Does it mean no one can really know for sure what it means? That it just implies GREAT exaggeration of circumstances and that's it? I don’t buy it, at all. That's no 'interpretation', at all.

It's symbolic AND allegorical for sure. The visions are vivid 'picture stories', many of which are not only prophetic but historical. For example, Revelation 12 is a 'picture story' of Genesis 3:15, which A.W. Pink referred to as the 'seed germ of all prophecy', and depicts the celestial woman (Psalms 87) manifest in this realm as all the heavenly born (Galatians 4:26) and the dragon, also celestial (Ephesians 6:12), with seven heads or epochs that coincide perfectly with the four beasts of Daniel and manifest in this realm as Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Persia, Greece (all history when the book was written), Rome (in which epoch the book was written), and the Holy Roman empire (prophetic at the time it was written), and represents the enmity that has ever been between the world powers and the people of God down through the ages.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Thank you!

I'm not sure what is meant by 'apocalyptic' literature. Does it mean no one can really know for sure what it means? That it just implies GREAT exaggeration of circumstances and that's it? I don’t buy it, at all. That's no 'interpretation', at all.

It's symbolic AND allegorical for sure. The visions are vivid 'picture stories', many of which are not only prophetic but historical. For example, Revelation 12 is a 'picture story' of Genesis 3:15, which A.W. Pink referred to as the 'seed germ of all prophecy', and depicts the celestial woman (Psalms 87) manifest in this realm as all the heavenly born (Galatians 4:26) and the dragon, also celestial (Ephesians 6:12), with seven heads or epochs that coincide perfectly with the four beasts of Daniel and manifest in this realm as Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Persia, Greece (all history when the book was written), Rome (in which epoch the book was written), and the Holy Roman empire (prophetic at the time it was written), and represents the enmity that has ever been between the world powers and the people of God down through the ages.

Yep! Apocalyptic literature uses symbols and imagery to convey truth. It is not meant to be obscure. The key is in the name Revelation. It's not meant to hide but to reveal. It is neither a history book, nor solely a book of prophecy. It has much to say to us that is helpful in understanding the present time.
https://marprelate.wordpress.com/2012/12/18/revelation-8-chapter-12-the-woman-the-dragon/

 

[Jope]

Thanks for your reply.

I've never really studied Revelation in depth and have begun devoting some time to read the book as well as a few commentaries (I'm awaiting one by Johnson, and I have one by Mounce). I've read some who argue against an extended use of extra-biblical materials on some topics (Piper, for example, in his objection to Wright's use of the Dead Sea Scrolls) but at the same time would argue the necessity of understanding the literary genre of Revelation to interpret the book as the original audience would have understood the writing.

I'm just wondering, insofar as the interpretation of Revelation, how much we glean from apocalyptic as a genre and how much we lean on it as prophesy. Or, perhaps as a genre it is distinctly Jewish and taken from OT Scripture.

On another thread a member mentioned how important it was to understand the genre in interpreting Revelation. But beyond that, nothing was mentioned to explain the reasoning and impact the genre, or even the genre itself. So while I am inclined to agree (I see the need to understand the reception the letter would have received by the immediate audience), I was hoping someone here would prove capable of expounding on the topic.

Coming from someone who has studied revelation quite a bit, I would recommend three books: first and foremost Mal Couch's commentary is a must grab. The second, Walvoord's "Bible Knowledge Commentary" or his "Every Prophecy of the Bible", or he also has a book on Revelation itself. Third, Dwight Pentecost's "Things to come", although it is not a book on Revelation, it will give you the keys to how to interpret Revelation.

 

[JonC]

[QUOTE="kyredneck, post: 2295416, member: 9690"I'm not sure what is meant by 'apocalyptic' literature. [/QUOTE]
This is a large part of what I am asking. It has been said that we need to understand, but no one seems willing or able to explain.

Are we calling it a genre that assumes biblical form, or does it apply actual OT symbolisms? Did John write in this form to communicate what he saw, or did he write what he saw? Or both?

 

[John of Japan]

Genre is important in exegesis, I believe. A Gospel is not biography, and it would be a mistake to interpret it as such. It is "gospel," a separate genre. Acts is history, and should be read as history; the epistles are letters and should be read as letters.

My son teaches hermeneutics here, and this is how he describes apocalyptic literature: prophecy on steroids! In prophecy, you might read: "And you shall go to Walmart, and consider buying a soft drink. Yet, remembering the lack of profit in a soft drink, you shall not buy it."

In an apocalyptic prophecy, it would be more like this: "And behold, you journey to a great white building, and there you shall search for yea, a long time. In the passing of time, you shall discover a drink, which verily can explode if you are careless. In your discovery, you shall not follow the way of man, who drinketh such a drink, but you shall reject the drink according to your doctrine, and all shall be well."

Now, Revelation is Biblical apocalyptic literature, different from the non-Biblical apocalyptic genre in that it is inspired and conveys eternal truth. OT apocalyptic books include Isaiah, Ezekiel, and especially Daniel. You cannot interpret Revelation correctly without knowing Daniel. They go together.

The main thing to look for in these two books is the use of symbolism. "Symbolisms occur throughout Scripture as a vehicle for diving revelation, but it is undoubtedly true that the final book of the New Testament because of its apocalyptic character contains more symbols than any other book in the New Testament. In this particular it is similar to the book of Daniel to which, in many respects, it is a counterpart, and also to Ezekiel and Zechariah in the Old Testament" (Revelation, by Walvoord, p. 25).

 

[Covenanter]

Genre is important in exegesis, I believe. A Gospel is not biography, and it would be a mistake to interpret it as such. It is "gospel," a separate genre. Acts is history, and should be read as history; the epistles are letters and should be read as letters.

My son teaches heremeneutics here, and this is how he describes apocalyptic literature. In prophecy, you might read: "And you shall go to Walmart, and consider buying a soft drink. Yet, remembering the lack of profit in a soft drink, you shall not buy it."

In an apocalyptic prophecy, it would be more like this: "And behold, you journey to a great white building, and there you shall search for yea, a long time. In the passing of time, you shall discover a drink, which verily can explode if you are careless. In your discovery, you shall not follow the way of man, who drinketh such a drink, but you shall reject the drink according to your doctrine, and all shall be well."

Thanks. That gives a totally incomprehensible explanation of the profoundly obscure.

 

[John of Japan]

Thanks. That gives a totally incomprehensible explanation of the profoundly obscure.

I have a bad habit of posting something and looking at it before I continue. Please look again.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

On the other hand, I read your post and easily understood it.

I have a bad habit of posting something and looking at it before I continue. Please look again.

 

[JonC]

Thanks. That gives a totally incomprehensible explanation of the profoundly obscure.

It's apocalyptic .

 

[John of Japan]

One characteristic of Biblical apocalyptic literature is that interpretations are often given in the text or in other books of the Bible. Walvoord (op cit) has a great list of the ones in Revelation on pp. 29-30. On the list are such items as the seven eyes (seven Spirits of God) in 5:6; the stars of heaven (12:4) which are fallen angels (12:9); the beast out of the earth (13:11-17), which is the false prophet (19:20), etc.

Notice this last one as an example. Allegorical (or "spiritual") interpretation will go on and interpret the Biblical interpretation (already given in the text) with a historical identity, saying in preterism that the false prophet is so-and-so from the first century. However, grammatical-historical interpretation will take the given interpretation, the false prophet, as a real and important false prophet, which the overall context then reveals is a prophet for the Antichrist, who has not yet been revealed (comparing Scripture with Scripture)

 

[Covenanter]

On the other hand, I read your post and easily understood it.

Sorry, but we need to understand what we're reading before we can interpret it. Labelling a book "apocalyptic" is a statement of the obvious, and doesn't help either understanding or interpretation.
Of course we should compare prophecy in different books, but best guidance comes from the Gospels and Epistles which use direct language which doesn't need interpretation.

 

[JonC]

Genre is important in exegesis, I believe. A Gospel is not biography, and it would be a mistake to interpret it as such. It is "gospel," a separate genre. Acts is history, and should be read as history; the epistles are letters and should be read as letters.

My son teaches hermeneutics here, and this is how he describes apocalyptic literature: prophecy on steroids! In prophecy, you might read: "And you shall go to Walmart, and consider buying a soft drink. Yet, remembering the lack of profit in a soft drink, you shall not buy it."

In an apocalyptic prophecy, it would be more like this: "And behold, you journey to a great white building, and there you shall search for yea, a long time. In the passing of time, you shall discover a drink, which verily can explode if you are careless. In your discovery, you shall not follow the way of man, who drinketh such a drink, but you shall reject the drink according to your doctrine, and all shall be well."

Now, Revelation is Biblical apocalyptic literature, different from the non-Biblical apocalyptic genre in that it is inspired and conveys eternal truth. OT apocalyptic books include Isaiah, Ezekiel, and especially Daniel. You cannot interpret Revelation correctly without knowing Daniel. They go together.

The main thing to look for in these two books is the use of symbolism. "Symbolisms occur throughout Scripture as a vehicle for diving revelation, but it is undoubtedly true that the final book of the New Testament because of its apocalyptic character contains more symbols than any other book in the New Testament. In this particular it is similar to the book of Daniel to which, in many respects, it is a counterpart, and also to Ezekiel and Zechariah in the Old Testament" (Revelation, by Walvoord, p. 25).

Thank you for the reply.

Is the symbolism something that is consistent with Scripture (for example, the symbolism in Daniel) or is it a symbolism that looks to the first century literature and understanding? Or, are these the same (did Daniel use an "apocalyptic language" - for lack of a better term - that was also commonly used by John's audience)?

Or, am I looking at this entirely wrong? I understand the genre, but I am not sure if we are dictating the meaning of Revelation based on a secular symbolism or if it still restricted to OT symbols.

 

[John of Japan]

Sorry, but we need to understand what we're reading before we can interpret it. Labelling a book "apocalyptic" is a statement of the obvious, and doesn't help either understanding or interpretation.
Of course we should compare prophecy in different books, but best guidance comes from the Gospels and Epistles which use direct language which doesn't need interpretation.

I find this to be reductionist. J. Barton Payne (not a dispensationalist) labels the Oliver Discourse as apocalyptic, as well as Mark 13, Luke 21, and portions of 1 & 2 Thess. (Encyclopedia of Biblical Prophecy, p. 85).

 

[John of Japan]

Thank you for the reply.

Is the symbolism something that is consistent with Scripture (for example, the symbolism in Daniel) or is it a symbolism that looks to the first century literature and understanding? Or, are these the same (did Daniel use an "apocalyptic language" - for lack of a better term - that was also commonly used by John's audience)?

Or, am I looking at this entirely wrong? I understand the genre, but I am not sure if we are dictating the meaning of Revelation based on a secular symbolism or if it still restricted to OT symbols.

I restrict it to OT symbols and the symbols explained in the text. (Again, see Walvoord and his list, as mentioned above.) Yes, Rev. is apocalyptic in genre, but it conveys prophetic truth, whereas the non-Christian apocalyptic books and even the pseudopigraphal apocalyptic books do not do that. Thus, the Biblical apocalyptic books must stand alone in the canon, not to be interpreted by non-canonical books.

 

[John of Japan]

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.