Wednesday, October 20, 2010

Gordon Fee on Revelation

“The content of what ‘God gave him to show his servants’ has to do with ‘what must soon take place’ [Rev 1:1], a clause that anticipates the content of the rest of the book. Unfortunately, this brief clause has also served as the source of a considerable number of speculations about the end times. But as the narrative that will soon unfold makes relatively clear, this phrase has less to do with the End as such, and mostly to do with the somber events awaiting the churches of John’s day. Himself an exile on Patmos, what John had come to see clearly as awaiting a new generation of believers was the church’s coming collision with the Empire over who should rightly be proclaimed as ‘Lord and Savior’–the Roman emperors or the humble Galilean whom they had crucified, but who their followers asserted had been raised from the dead,” G. Fee, Revelation (NCCS 2011), 2-3.

“In the final sentence John further describes this word/testimony as ‘the words of this prophecy,’ language which, because of its primary meaning in English as ‘the foretelling or prediction of what is to come,’ can be misleading when used in the New Testament. To be sure, there is a future aspect to this ‘prophecy,’ but it is primarily a word spoken into the present situation of the seven churches; and its primary urgency is not about the final future event (recorded in chs. 20-22), but the near future for John and his readers. What makes John a truly Christian prophet is that from his position at the end of the first Christian century he clearly recognizes that the church and state are on a deadly collision course, wherein the church will suffer in the near future, but will know Christ’s triumph at the end (the ‘real’ future). Thus at the outset John uses apocalyptic language that is intended to merge what is seen with what is said. That is, for him this was a ‘seen’ word; but to communicate it to the church it had to become a written word, ‘the testimony’ that Jesus Christ gave by way of one vision following another,” ibid. 3-4.

“This reading/hearing phenomenon is made urgent by the final clause, ‘because the time is near’ [1:3], which has created a different kind of urgency for later readers. But what John almost certainly intended is that pending difficulties that the recipients of this Revelation were about to experience already stood at the door for them–as the unfolding of subsequent second-and third-century history actually bore out,” ibid. 4.

“Although the word ‘soon’ [22:6] can be ambiguous in some settings, John seems to be referring not the final events, about which he has just written, but to those that will soon overtake the believers in Asia Minor to whom John is writing…Here is a word (‘near’) [22:10] that has tended to fall on bad days among later interpreters, who tend to read it in light of what has most recently preceded (19:11-20:15 plus the eschatological pictures of 21:1-22:5). But in light of the whole book, that seems to be a misreading. What is near are the events prophesied throughout the book, that in light of what followers of the Slain Lamb are currently experiencing at the hands of the Empire, matters for them are going to continue to get worse, far worse, before God makes them better,” ibid. 308-10.

7 comments:

  1. Now experiencing Eternal Life in daily fellowship by the Spirit of Grace in Truth, it seems to me this sentence is strong:

    Thus at the outset John uses apocalyptic language that is intended to merge what is seen with what is said.

    It is recorded the Angel came to John and showed him the revelation God gave Christ to show His servants and he wrote down what he saw; and also he was attempting to write some of what he was shown during this revelation, some things, and was not permitted, while permitted to write the rest.

    It seems rather John was using the language the Angel of the Lord was directing him to use which we understand in retrospect is apocalyptic.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Is Fee still connected to the Pentecostal movement these days? As someone who grew up Assemblies of God but is now at a PCA church I'm embarrassingly out of the loop as to whether Fee is still connected to the Pentecostal movement. :( Stuff like what you've quoted is so far off from how eschatology usually gets discussed in AoG circles I'm surprised he hasn't gotten any trouble.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Fee's interpretation just seems like a bad dream linking Pentecostalism with Amillennialism.

    But in light of the whole book, that seems to be a misreading. What is near are the events prophesied throughout the book, that in light of what followers of the Slain Lamb are currently experiencing at the hands of the Empire, matters for them are going to continue to get worse, far worse, before God makes them better,” ibid. 308-10.

    This seems to imply, and I'm surely not going to buy the commentary to prove it, that the events of chapters 8-18 occurred already in the 2nd and 3rd centuries.

    I may be wrong about this, but that the impression it strongly gives.

    If so, I have other comments, but I'll save a dime to let others confirm my question.

    ReplyDelete
  4. To paraphrase the point I think he's making, Revelation covers past, present, and future events. For instance, the letters to the 7 churches deal with the present experience of the 7 churches, including things that have already happened to them. Likewise, Rev 12 allegorizes the life of Christ, which was a past event at the time John was writing.

    Therefore, one can't apply the "soon/near" time-markers in Revelation to everything that transpires in the narrative.

    There is, moreover, a cyclical quality to the persecutions which the people of God had or will confront. Some involve the near future, and others involve the distant future. That, too, is part of how Revelation narrative is structured. Up to a point, history repeats itself (with local variations).

    ReplyDelete
  5. Wenatchee the Hatchet said...

    "Is Fee still connected to the Pentecostal movement these days? As someone who grew up Assemblies of God but is now at a PCA church I'm embarrassingly out of the loop as to whether Fee is still connected to the Pentecostal movement. :( Stuff like what you've quoted is so far off from how eschatology usually gets discussed in AoG circles I'm surprised he hasn't gotten any trouble."

    I believe he's still Pentecostal, but he's also tried to introduce some midcourse corrections into Pentecostalism during his career as a NT scholar.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Steve wrote "What makes John a truly Christian prophet is that from his position at the end of the first Christian century he clearly recognizes that the church and state are on a deadly collision course, wherein the church will suffer in the near future, but will know Christ’s triumph at the end (the ‘real’ future)."

    I don't disagree with this, however the truth of this viewpoint is entirely a function of one's theological lens.

    For example, few dispute the connection between Revelation and Daniel. There is merit in better understanding Deniel to understand Revelation because they are not unrelated.

    Daniel wrote from Babylon. Daniel's prophecy is about the collision that was taking place between the House of Israel / House of Judah and the empires (of Gold, Silver, Bronze, Iron, Iron/Clay) represented in the poly-metallic statue (of [Daniel 2]).

    Just as Revelation was past/present/future to John, Daniel was also past/present/future to Daniel (arguably in the same proportions)

    What people miss in Daniel is that only one of the two Houses returned to rebuild the temple; the House of Judah returned, the House of Israel did not. The fact that the House of Israel did not return means Daniels vision proceeds forward all the way through Jesus' ministry to John, except that its primary story was about the House of Israel, not the House of Judah.

    Just as Revelation has seven 'ekklēsia' (churches), often seen as ages, Daniel likewise had a temporal division of seven. Daniel's vision, as God's period of punishing of Israel with heathen nations would last 'seven times' [Lev 26:18] (seven was associated with purification [Lev 14] and specifically with the mercy seat [Lev 16:14,19]; NOTE also that 1260 days from [Rev 11:3] is 3.5 or half of seven)

    The four empires seen to have been used to exact God's punishment of the House of Israel and the House of Judah were Babylon, Assyria, Greek and Rome. We know that Babylon and Assyria were used as the Bible says as much [2 Kings 15:29][2 Kings 17:3] etc. We also know that during the time of Jesus the House of Israel was under the dominion of the Greeks [John 7:35][James 1:1][1 Peter 1:1].

    This leaves Rome as the last empire to possess the House of Israel suggesting Revelation as the natural conclusion to Daniel's prophecy.

    Of all the NT books, Revelation has the most references to Israel, is arguably the most Hebrew in its outlook.

    But if one's theological lens assumes:
    -Two flocks, one Israelite flock scattered [Jer 50:6][Jer 23:1][Eze 24:6] etc and a NT flock [Luke 12:32]
    -Two brides, one Israelite bride [Isa 54:5][Jer 2:2][Song][Jer 16:9], and a NT bride [Rev 21:2]

    Than one is going to naturally see Revelation as a collision course between 'church (ekklēsia / assembly) and state and thus John appears nothing less than an eminently Christian prophet.

    On the other hand, if one's theological outlook sees only one bride, one flock, where prophetic language is consistent between OT and NT than the outlook is rather different.

    If the ekklēsia (the assembly) was the House of Israel, and blind and deaf House of Israel was the ekklēsia (called by a new name perhaps [Isa 62:2]) than John is no less an Israelite prophet in the same vein as Daniel.

    One naturally sees Revelation as a collision course between the House of Israel and Daniels last Iron Empire in the statue vision [Dan 2]. Israel has always been portrayed as the potters clay [Isa 29:16][Isa 41:25] and so the clay mixed with the Iron in [Daniel 2:41,43] would be the Roman Empire's involvement, not with the House of Judah, but with the House of Israel, and Revelation falls into line nicely with Daniel. The prophecies of Daniel and Revelation make nice book-ends.

    The stone of [Dan 2:34] and [Isa 8:14] is clearly the same stone that appeared during the Roman empire [Rom 9:33][1 Peter 2:8] Jesus.

    Indeed John was a Christian prophet, but he was no less a Hebrew one as well.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Hey, in my biased opinion we need more and not fewer amillenial Pentecostals! If it lets end-times books by Lindsey and LaHaye lose more of their market share because fewer people believe in that stuff that's a net positive.

    ReplyDelete