Before Jerusalem Fell

by Kenneth L. Gentry by Kenneth L. Gentry

12.07.2013 Views

14 BEFORE JERUSALEM FELL Milo Connick states the case well when he writes: “The book of Revelation has the dubious distinction of being the most misunderstood composition in the New Testament. Many readers don’t know what to think of the writing, and others make altogether too much of it. ”5G Despite the very real diiliculties associated with the book, however, it is “given by inspiration of God and is profitable” (2 Tim. 3:16). Thus, surely it is the case that Swete overstated the matter when he wrote: “The key to the interpretation disappeared with the generation to which the book was addressed . . . , and apart from any clue to its immediate reference, it was little else but a maze of inexplicable mysteries. “5 7 Neither can we agree with Allen who despairingly lamented that “the book is, and must remain for the most part, unintelligible to the average reader.”5 8 Causes of D@ulp There is a variety of reasons that either independently or collectively have caused the would-be interpreter to stumble. Foremost among them seem to be the following (which, due to our main purpose, will not be given extensive consideration): First, unfamiliarity with its literary style. Revelation is considered by most scholars to be of the literary genre known as “apocalyptic.”5g This style is not unique to Revelation among canonical books – though it is not used elsewhere in canonical literature to the extent it is in Revelation. Go Apocalyptic imagery may be found in Daniel, Ezekiel, Berkeley Mickelson noted with mild understatement, “This is no small task” (Interpreting the Bible [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1963] p. 280). G. R. Beasley-Murray comments that “Rwelation is probably the most disputed and diflicuh book in the New Testament” (G. R, Beasley-Murray, Herschell H. Hobbs, Frank Robbins, Revelation: 2%ee Vitwpoirzt$ [Nashville: Broadman, 1977], p. 5). 56. C. Milo Connick, Tb New Tfitamsnt: An Introductwn to ItJ Hi.rto~, Literature, and Thought (Belmont, CA: Dickenson, 1972), p. 406. 57. Swete, Revelation, p. cxix 58. Willoughby C. Allen and L. W. Grensted, Introdwtion to the Books of the New Testarrmd, 3d ed. (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1929), p. 273. 59. The source of apocalyptic imagery, contrary to secularistic anthropologists, is not first century apocalypticism, but Old Testament era canonical prophetic imagery. The first century apocalyptic movement itself grew up in a literary milieu dominated by the Old Testament. Revelation is genealogically related to the Old Testament, not to non-canonical mythology. See note 1 above 60. “There is only one other Apocalypse which may be compared with [Daniel], and

Revelation Studies 15 and Isaiah most notably, but it is sprinkled throughout Scripture in numerous prophetic sections, including the teaching of Christ. “Of all the books of the New Testament this is the farthest removed from modern life and thought. . . . Apocalyptic has long ceased to be, as it once was, a popular branch of literature. “c’ This is especially troublesome for the “face value” school of interpreters. Second, overlooking its original author and audience. In a quest for “relevance,” commentators of the historicist and futurist schools seem to forget that John addressed Revelation to real, historical churches (Rev. 1:4, 11) about pressing and dire problems that he and they faced in the first century (Rev. 1:9 and chapters 2-3). In doing so a most fundamental rule of hermeneutics is breached. Two hermeneutics texts may be cited to illustrate the importance of this principie. Berkhof’s helpful study, Principles of Biblical Interpretation, teaches that hermeneutics “is properly accomplished only by the readers’ transposing themselves into the time and spirit of the author.”c2 Mickelsen’s widely used Interpreting the Bible notes: “Simply stated, the task of interpreters of the bible is to find out the meaning of a statement (command, question) for the author and for the first hearers or readers, and thereupon to transmit that meaning to modern readers.”c3 Needless to say, removing the setting of the book twenty or more centuries into the future is not conducive to a correct apprehension of its interpretation. Third, misconstrual of its original intent. Revelation has two fundamental purposes relative to ‘its original hearers. In the first place, it was designed to steel the first century Church against the gathering storm of persecution, which was reaching an unnerving crescendo of theretofore unknown proportions and intensity. A new and major feature of that persecu~ion- was the entrance of imperial Rome onto the scene. The first historical persecution of the Church by imperial Rome was by Nero Caesar from A.D. 64 to A.D. 68.64 that is the New Testament book of Revelation” (Edward J. Young, The Prophq of Daniel [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1949], p. 22). 61. Allen, Introduztwn, p. 273. 62. Louis Berkhof, Ptinci}les of Biblical Znterpretrztian (Grand Rapids: Baker, [1950] 1974), p. 11. 63. Mickelsen, Interpreting the Bibte, p. 5. 64. See later discussion in Chapter 17.

Revelation Studies 15<br />

and Isaiah most notably, but it is sprinkled throughout Scripture in<br />

numerous prophetic sections, including the teaching of Christ. “Of<br />

all the books of the New Testament this is the farthest removed from<br />

modern life and thought. . . . Apocalyptic has long ceased to be, as<br />

it once was, a popular branch of literature. “c’ This is especially<br />

troublesome for the “face value” school of interpreters.<br />

Second, overlooking its original author and audience. In a quest<br />

for “relevance,” commentators of the historicist and futurist schools<br />

seem to forget that John addressed Revelation to real, historical<br />

churches (Rev. 1:4, 11) about pressing and dire problems that he and<br />

they faced in the first century (Rev. 1:9 and chapters 2-3). In doing<br />

so a most fundamental rule of hermeneutics is breached. Two hermeneutics<br />

texts may be cited to illustrate the importance of this principie.<br />

Berkhof’s helpful study, Principles of Biblical Interpretation, teaches<br />

that hermeneutics “is properly accomplished only by the readers’<br />

transposing themselves into the time and spirit of the author.”c2<br />

Mickelsen’s widely used Interpreting the Bible notes: “Simply stated,<br />

the task of interpreters of the bible is to find out the meaning of a<br />

statement (command, question) for the author and for the first<br />

hearers or readers, and thereupon to transmit that meaning to modern<br />

readers.”c3 Needless to say, removing the setting of the book<br />

twenty or more centuries into the future is not conducive to a correct<br />

apprehension of its interpretation.<br />

Third, misconstrual of its original intent. Revelation has two<br />

fundamental purposes relative to ‘its original hearers. In the first<br />

place, it was designed to steel the first century Church against the<br />

gathering storm of persecution, which was reaching an unnerving<br />

crescendo of theretofore unknown proportions and intensity. A new<br />

and major feature of that persecu~ion- was the entrance of imperial<br />

Rome onto the scene. The first historical persecution of the Church<br />

by imperial Rome was by Nero Caesar from A.D. 64 to A.D. 68.64<br />

that is the New Testament book of Revelation” (Edward J. Young, The Prophq of Daniel<br />

[Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1949], p. 22).<br />

61. Allen, Introduztwn, p. 273.<br />

62. Louis Berkhof, Ptinci}les of Biblical Znterpretrztian (Grand Rapids: Baker, [1950]<br />

1974), p. 11.<br />

63. Mickelsen, Interpreting the Bibte, p. 5.<br />

64. See later discussion in Chapter 17.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!