Apocalyptic as literary genre and interpreting Revelation

[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. According to J. Barton Payne (not a dispensationalist), the Olivet Discourse and parts of 1 & 2 Thess. are apocalyptic (Encyclopedia of Biblical Prophecy, p. 84). Understanding genre is important in any book of the Bible. You wouldn't interpret an epistle like a Gospel, so remember the genre when interpreting Rev. and other apocalyptic books and passages.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

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.

This is a bit of a drive-by shooting of Covenant Theology. The fact is that Revelation alludes to a vast number of O.T. texts, of which many but by no means all are from Daniel or Ezekiel. By tracing these, not only do the O.T. texts shed light on Revelation but also on occasion, vice versa.

 

[John of Japan]

This is a bit of a drive-by shooting of Covenant Theology. The fact is that Revelation alludes to a vast number of O.T. texts, of which many but by no means all are from Daniel or Ezekiel. By tracing these, not only do the O.T. texts shed light on Revelation but also on occasion, vice versa.

Actually, no, it's a generally accepted hermeneutic principle of CT and NCT. What you are describing here is not what I mean. You are talking about interpreting the NT from the quotes of the OT, which is valid.

“NCT follows the error of classic Covenant Theology in subordinating the Old Covenant to the new” (Larry Pettegrew, “The New Covenant and New Covenant Theology,” TMSJ, Fall 2007, p. 195).

 

[TCassidy]

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

I did too, and it made perfect sense to me.

 

[Covenanter]

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).

In a theological discussion, such labels are unhelpful. It is necessary to read the Scriptures & seek to understand them, not to label them.

"Reductionist" implies a straightforward understanding as far as possible, while "apocalyptic" implies prophetic, but those terms do not define whole books, only passsages within books.

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.

The great tendency of covenant theology is to see the whole of Scripture, the whole of God's revelation to man, in terms of an everlasting/eternal covenant relationship, made by the Father, realised by the Son as our covenant surety, and applied by the Holy Spirit.

The elect in all ages/dispensations are "my people" with the relationship "you will be my people, and I will be your God."

Of course God's revelation is progressive.

I find this to be reductionist. According to J. Barton Payne (not a dispensationalist), the Olivet Discourse and parts of 1 & 2 Thess. are apocalyptic (Encyclopedia of Biblical Prophecy, p. 84). Understanding genre is important in any book of the Bible. You wouldn't interpret an epistle like a Gospel, so remember the genre when interpreting Rev. and other apocalyptic books and passages.

No. I don't consider "understanding genre" to be of importance, genre follows reading & understanding the Scriptures as written. In over 60 years of Bible study I haven't felt the need for genre. And I don't like the use of "interpret" as it implies that straightforward understanding is inadequate. Of course we can ask the meaning/interpretation of parables, but interpreting is generally making something different from what is written - such as dreams.

Actually, no, it's a generally accepted hermeneutic principle of CT and NCT. What you are describing here is not what I mean. You are talking about interpreting the NT from the quotes of the OT, which is valid.

“NCT follows the error of classic Covenant Theology in subordinating the Old Covenant to the new” (Larry Pettegrew, “The New Covenant and New Covenant Theology,” TMSJ, Fall 2007, p. 195).

Covenant theology is NOT an error. Covenant theology, which defines our relationship with God, is a thread running through all Scripture. This may be best discussed in the Covenant theology thread.

 

[Covenanter]

"Squire Robertsson said: ↑
"On the other hand, I read your post and easily understood it."​

I did too, and it made perfect sense to me.

Your profile note:

The President of the Seminary I attended taught us many important things. One was:

"If a person cannot argue the issue he will usually try to argue the semantics. If he is too ignorant to argue the semantics he will usually try to argue personality."

"If you can't answer a man's argument all is not lost you can still call him vile names" Elbert Hubbard.​

​

That surely counts as TWO important things.

And arguing the semantics is what this thread has degenerated into. Semantics isn't doctrine.

 

[kyredneck]

It is neither a history book

9 Here is the mind that hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth:
10 and they are seven kings; the five are fallen, the one is, the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a little while. Rev 17

Five of the heads were HISTORY at the time of the writing.

 

[John of Japan]

In a theological discussion, such labels are unhelpful. It is necessary to read the Scriptures & seek to understand them, not to label them.

Seems like you've been using the label "preterism" on some threads. Unhelpful?

"Reductionist" implies a straightforward understanding as far as possible, while "apocalyptic" implies prophetic, but those terms do not define whole books, only passsages within books.

Actually, "apocalyptic" does indicate the whole book of Rev. according to 1:1.

The great tendency of covenant theology is to see the whole of Scripture, the whole of God's revelation to man, in terms of an everlasting/eternal covenant relationship, made by the Father, realised by the Son as our covenant surety, and applied by the Holy Spirit.

The elect in all ages/dispensations are "my people" with the relationship "you will be my people, and I will be your God."

Of course God's revelation is progressive.

And again, a label--covenant theology. Other than that, I'm really not sure what point you are making here vis a vis my own post.

No. I don't consider "understanding genre" to be of importance, genre follows reading & understanding the Scriptures as written. In over 60 years of Bible study I haven't felt the need for genre. And I don't like the use of "interpret" as it implies that straightforward understanding is inadequate. Of course we can ask the meaning/interpretation of parables, but interpreting is generally making something different from what is written - such as dreams.

So, you don't read letters as letters and Gospels as Gospels and Acts as history? Those are genres, specifically indicated to be so in Scripture. In fact, the Greek title of Revelation is Ἀποκάλυψις, or Apocalypse, as stated so in Rev. 1:2, which is a clear statement of genre.

Now, your 60 years of Bible study are admirable, but they give no authority whatsoever (especially here on the BB), and no guarantee that you are right. So frankly, if I were you, I wouldn't mention it again.

As far as using the word "interpret," to not use it is ridiculous. You have been interpreting ever since you came on the BB.

Covenant theology is NOT an error. Covenant theology, which defines our relationship with God, is a thread running through all Scripture. This may be best discussed in the Covenant theology thread.

Yes, CT is in error. It postulates 2 (or 3, depending on the interpreter) covenants which are taught nowhere in the Bible.

And no, I have no desire to post on the thread you mention, and I find it supercilious of you to suggest it.

 

[kyredneck]

Actually, "apocalyptic" does indicate the whole book of Rev. according to 1:1.

1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show unto his servants, even the things which must shortly come to pass: and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John; Rev 1

Yea, and to shortly come to pass also.

 

[John of Japan]

Mark 1:1--"The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God"--genre!

Rom. 16:22--"I Tertius, who wrote this epistle, salute you in the Lord."--genre!

Rev. 1:1--"The Revelation of Jesus Christ"--GENRE!!

 

[kyredneck]

Rev. 1:1--"The Revelation of Jesus Christ"--GENRE!!

Rev 1:1 -- "The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show unto his servants, even the things which must shortly come to pass" -- TIME INDICATOR!!

 

[JonC]

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.

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)?

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

 

[TCassidy]

That surely counts as TWO important things.

No, just one. Think about it.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

From my POV, what is happening here is the topic under consideration is being discussed from two different sets of presuppositions. And if not presuppositions, then two different models are being used.

 

[TCassidy]

Rev 1:1 -- "The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show unto his servants, even the things which must shortly come to pass" -- TIME INDICATOR!!

Rev 1:19 Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter;

"The things which thou hast seen." The things in the past.

"The things which are." The things in the present.

"The things which shall be hereafter." The things in the future."

There are your TIME INDICATORS for the Revelation.

Greek μετὰ ταῦτα meta tauta - means “after these things.” The expression refers to future times. The most natural interpretation, however, would seem to be, that it would stretch far into future years, and that it was designed to give at least an outline of what would be the character of the future in general.

 

[TCassidy]

From my POV, what is happening here is the topic under consideration is being discussed from two different sets of presuppositions. And if not presuppositions, then two different models are being used.

What so many fail to realize is that both Preterism and Dispensationalism are hermeneutical frameworks that are used to understand the scriptures. There will never be a consensus between two people who are using different hermeneutical frameworks to understand their bibles.

The Preterist hermeneutical framework forces the reader to understand that John was exiled early (even though it is clearly wrong) and that all of the extraordinary things mentioned in the Revelation have already happened (even though it is absurd to think so) including those things will be seen by every eye. This hermeneutic also denies any future for Israel, and denies they were and are God's chosen people through whom came the Messiah who still have a future in God's Perfect Plan.

The Dispensationalist hermeneutical framework, on the other hand, forces the reader to see a parenthesis for the entire present age, and not seeing the connection of Spiritual Israel and the Church as being a single entity. This hermeneutic makes it difficult for the Dispensationalist to see the Old Testament promises made to (Spiritual) Israel as they were being fulfilled in the Church.

Then there are people like me (you know, the guys who are right) who see the Old Testament, the New Testament, and the Kingdom. Meets my requirement of KISS.

 

[JonC]

What so many fail to realize is that both Preterism and Dispensationalism are hermeneutical frameworks that are used to understand the scriptures. There will never be a consensus between two people who are using different hermeneutical frameworks to understand their bibles.

The Preterist hermeneutical framework forces the reader to understand that John was exiled early (even though it is clearly wrong) and that all of the extraordinary things mentioned in the Revelation have already happened (even though it is absurd to think so) including those things will be seen by every eye. This hermeneutic also denies any future for Israel, and denies they were and are God's chosen people through whom came the Messiah who still have a future in God's Perfect Plan.

The Dispensationalist hermeneutical framework, on the other hand, forces the reader to see a parenthesis for the entire present age, and not seeing the connection of Spiritual Israel and the Church as being a single entity. This hermeneutic makes it difficult for the Dispensationalist to see the Old Testament promises made to (Spiritual) Israel as they were being fulfilled in the Church.

Then there are people like me (you know, the guys who are right) who see the Old Testament, the New Testament, and the Kingdom. Meets my requirement of KISS.

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?

 

[Jope]

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?

It is dream literature. Therefore, full of symbolism. Therefore, researching into elucidating dreams and symbolism therein would be paramount.

“...it is only since the end of the nineteenth century that modern psychology...[has] proved empirically the existence of a psyche outside consciousness” (Carl Jung, Aion, Researches into the Phenomenology of the Self, pp. 5-6).

“But if the analyst who is confronted by this dream material uses Freud's original technique of 'free association,' he finds that dreams can eventually be reduced to certain basic patterns” (Carl Jung, Man and His Symbols, p. 26).
​

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

"The poets and philosophers before me discovered the unconscious; what I discovered was the scientific method by which the unconscious can be studied" (Sigmund Freud).​

 

[Jope]

while the Dispensational framework is imposed (it doesn't originate with the book). Or am I missing something?

Yeah...Dispensationalism isn't imposed...

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Actually, no, it's a generally accepted hermeneutic principle of CT and NCT. What you are describing here is not what I mean. You are talking about interpreting the NT from the quotes of the OT, which is valid.

“NCT follows the error of classic Covenant Theology in subordinating the Old Covenant to the new” (Larry Pettegrew, “The New Covenant and New Covenant Theology,” TMSJ, Fall 2007, p. 195).

I never heard of Larry Pettegrew in my life, and on the basis of that quote, I am not too troubled. NCT devotees can speak for themselves, but Covenant Theology finds unity throughout the Bible. Christ is the key that opens the whole Bible (Colossians 1:24-29) and an understanding of the covenants is essential to understanding just how the key works from Genesis to Revelation.