Rev 1:1-3
1The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants the things that must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John, 2 who bore witness to the word of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, even to all that he saw. 3 Blessed is the one who reads aloud the words of this prophecy, and blessed are those who hear, and who keep what is written in it, for the time is near.
Liberals seize on statements like this to prove that John entertained a false expectation regarding the imminent return of Christ.
However, that’s simplistic. One problem is that it artificially isolates statements like this from other kinds of statements. Take this verse:
Rev 1:19
19 Write therefore the things that you have seen, those that are and those that are to take place after this.
Scholars different on how to render this verse, and how to distribute the temporal referents, but the larger point is how the narrative in Revelation ought not be confined to future events.
Here’s a specific instance:
Rev 2:13
13"'I know where you dwell, where Satan’s throne is. Yet you hold fast my name, and you did not deny my faith even in the days of Antipas my faithful witness, who was killed among you, where Satan dwells.
Clearly John didn’t think that was going to happen anytime soon, for he’s describing a past event. And 2:13 ties in with this verse:
Rev 1:9
9I, John, your brother and partner in the tribulation and the kingdom and the patient endurance that are in Jesus, was on the island called Patmos on account of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus.
This describes a present event. John is suffering for the faith, and Christians like Antipas have already suffered for the faith.
To take this passage:
Rev 12
1And a great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars. 2She was pregnant and was crying out in birth pains and the agony of giving birth. 3And another sign appeared in heaven: behold, a great red dragon, with seven heads and ten horns, and on his heads seven diadems. 4His tail swept down a third of the stars of heaven and cast them to the earth. And the dragon stood before the woman who was about to give birth, so that when she bore her child he might devour it. 5She gave birth to a male child, one who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron, but her child was caught up to God and to his throne, 6and the woman fled into the wilderness, where she has a place prepared by God, in which she is to be nourished for 1,260 days.
7Now war arose in heaven, Michael and his angels fighting against the dragon. And the dragon and his angels fought back, 8but he was defeated, and there was no longer any place for them in heaven. 9And the great dragon was thrown down, that ancient serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world— he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him. 10And I heard a loud voice in heaven, saying, "Now the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God and the authority of his Christ have come, for the accuser of our brothers has been thrown down, who accuses them day and night before our God. 11And they have conquered him by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony, for they loved not their lives even unto death. 12Therefore, rejoice, O heavens and you who dwell in them! But woe to you, O earth and sea, for the devil has come down to you in great wrath, because he knows that his time is short!"
13And when the dragon saw that he had been thrown down to the earth, he pursued the woman who had given birth to the male child. 14But the woman was given the two wings of the great eagle so that she might fly from the serpent into the wilderness, to the place where she is to be nourished for a time, and times, and half a time. 15The serpent poured water like a river out of his mouth after the woman, to sweep her away with a flood. 16But the earth came to the help of the woman, and the earth opened its mouth and swallowed the river that the dragon had poured from his mouth. 17Then the dragon became furious with the woman and went off to make war on the rest of her offspring, on those who keep the commandments of God and hold to the testimony of Jesus. And he stood on the sand of the sea.
Clearly John doesn’t mean the time is near for all these events, since some of these events lie in the past. Take his little allegory about the life of Christ, from the Incarnation to the Ascension.
Indeed, this passage ranges along a temporal continuum, from past events, through present persecution, into the indefinite future.
Examples like this should forewarn us against applying time-markers like “soon” or “near” to the totality of events narrated in Revelation. For Revelation is backward-looking as well as forward-looking. And it also has an eye on contemporary developments.
One other point I’d make is that Revelation has a cyclical as well as linear view of history. To some extent, history repeats itself. And that is underscored by the recapitulatory parallelism we find in the narrative. Cf. Bauckham, The Climax of Prophecy, chap. 1.
On that account it would be simplistic to reduce John’s futuristic vision to a monolithic event. For there’s a certain periodicity in his view of history. History has a destination, but it doesn’t take the shortest route.
"History has a destination, but it doesn’t take the shortest route."
ReplyDeleteAin't that the truth.
Steve wrote: "On that account it would be simplistic to reduce John’s futuristic vision to a monolithic event.
ReplyDeleteDoesn't eschatology, as a matter of course, only concern itself with the 'end of all things'? (therefore the presupposition is that the scope of prophecy only illuminates eschatological events)
So an Eschatological understandings of prophecy will also confine its scope only to those interpretations that specifically illuminate narrow end-time questions, which means people will constantly be seeking confirmation about prophecy in specific events.
But, if the intended scope of prophecy is to illuminate all of history (where prophecy is history pre-written), and the restoration of creation is a foregone eschatological conclusion, than won't there be tension between the prophetic vision itself and various interpretations?
Even if the scope of prophecy isn't to illuminate all of history but merely a non-eschatological part of history, won't this be true?
If its true that it is too simplistic to reduce John's vision to a monolithic event, then is it also too simplistic to reduce it to an entire historical sub-plot?
So isn't the question is prophecy fundamentally eschatological in nature or isn't it?
Here in time and space we witness invisible forces, invisible forces that become visible and visible forces that become invisible.
ReplyDeleteIt all happens in time and space.
There is a verse I like to reference when thinking along the lines of this thread.
It places us in a collision route with destiny.
Here it is. Note the similarity with your point, well taken, above:
Act 26:16 But rise and stand upon your feet, for I have appeared to you for this purpose, to appoint you as a servant and witness to the things in which you have seen me and to those in which I will appear to you,
Of course, now, after all these years, one can realize that Paul isn't so much concerned with "...those in which I will appear to you, ...".
Though it is almost easy to say that it is 100% certain that Paul has left this world and entered into the Joy of the Lord after he passed out of this world and out of his flesh container, it is 100% certain that the just shall life by Faith and the Faith lived by is the Faith once delivered to the Saints, delivered through the Blood of His Cross by the sanctification work of the Holy Spirit!
There are only two ways of approaching it:
Hab 2:3 For still the vision awaits its appointed time; it hastens to the end--it will not lie. If it seems slow, wait for it; it will surely come; it will not delay.
Hab 2:4 "Behold, his soul is puffed up; it is not upright within him, but the righteous shall live by his faith.
Hab 2:5 "Moreover, wine is a traitor, an arrogant man who is never at rest. His greed is as wide as Sheol; like death he has never enough. He gathers for himself all nations and collects as his own all peoples."
So, I guess the only one who knows for sure when enough will be enough will be the Lord and those present when He is Present again as it is foretold, here:
Heb 9:27 And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment,
Heb 9:28 so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him.
John did write this foreboding Word as a future Word as well:
Rev 1:7 Behold, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him, and all tribes of the earth will wail on account of him. Even so. Amen.
Rev 1:8 "I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty."
I conclude, this is about as good a time to pray in communion with the Lord as yesterday's! :)
ἘΚΚΛΗΣΊΑ SAID:
ReplyDelete"Doesn't eschatology, as a matter of course, only concern itself with the 'end of all things'? (therefore the presupposition is that the scope of prophecy only illuminates eschatological events)"
As Fee rightly points out, we need to distinguish between the biblical concept of prophecy and the English meaning of the term. They're not interchangeable.
"So an Eschatological understandings of prophecy will also confine its scope only to those interpretations that specifically illuminate narrow end-time questions, which means people will constantly be seeking confirmation about prophecy in specific events."
You're operating with prefabricated categories rather than dealing with the specific scope of Revelation.
Moreover, it's arguable that Revelation isn't reducible to just one literary genre.
"But, if the intended scope of prophecy is to illuminate all of history (where prophecy is history pre-written), and the restoration of creation is a foregone eschatological conclusion, than won't there be tension between the prophetic vision itself and various interpretations?"
I didn't venture any claims about the scope of prophecy in general: my post was confined to the specific outlook of Revelation.
"Even if the scope of prophecy isn't to illuminate all of history but merely a non-eschatological part of history, won't this be true?"
That's a false dichotomy. But in any event, whatever Revelation illuminates it will do so truthfully.
"If its true that it is too simplistic to reduce John's vision to a monolithic event, then is it also too simplistic to reduce it to an entire historical sub-plot?"
What are you even referring to?
"So isn't the question is prophecy fundamentally eschatological in nature or isn't it?"
No, the question is to identify the historical outlook of a given prophet. There's no rule of thumb. You have to see what he actually talks about. You can't begin with a preconceived classification scheme which you superimpose on his oracles.
Steve said "As Fee rightly points out, we need to distinguish between the biblical concept of prophecy and the English meaning of the term. They're not interchangeable."
ReplyDeleteYes. I completely agree, this is the goal, which is why I was pondering the nature of prophecy. The challenge is to truly understand the intended biblical concept of prophecy. I suppose I was hinting that one of the impediments to succeeding at this is the continued tendency to interpret prophecy with an eschatological prejudice.
Steve said "Moreover, it's arguable that Revelation isn't reducible to just one literary genre."
I think you're correct about this, but even if we broaden our understanding of the prophetic/apocalyptic genre by flushing out its parts, theologians still tend to impose certain expectations on the reading of the text (Ill amplify this comment shortly).
Steve said "I didn't venture any claims about the scope of prophecy in general:"
I know.
The first part of my comment was not specifically critiquing what you had said. Rather, it was to develop a hypothetical line of thought to question whether our presuppositions about the intended scope of prophecy limited our ability to get at the proper Biblical concept of prophecy.
(continued)
ReplyDeleteSteve said "What are you even referring to?"
Fundamentally I was referring to the relationship between prophecy and overall history (beginning to end).
It stands to reason that if we make flawed assumptions about what we believed happened in history, we will likewise make flawed assumptions about whether or not prophecy has been fulfilled. Likewise we will also make flawed assumptions about which historical events prophecy specifically narrates, assuming events in the past are the only ones we can currently appreciate WRT fulfilment.
Similarly (and for the sake of argument), if our overall orthodoxy between testaments lacks cohesion, our sense of prophetic language will also lack cohesion and will make understanding prophetic narrative very difficult.
(Incidentally, I'm not overstating this last point;
Of the Bible's 31124 or so verses, approximately 23210 of those verses are OT. Of the 74.57% of the Bible which is OT, approximately 6641 of those OT verses are prophetic or predictive in nature.
Of the remaining 7914 NT verses, about 1711 of those verses are considered predictive or prophetic.
This means approximately 8352 verses in total are predictive or prophetic which is roughly just under 27% of the entire Bible.)
If we consider that God has a specific plan for His elect, beginning to end, than it stands to reason that prophecy is either that Historical sub-plot exactly, or related to it.
Steve said: "No, the question is to identify the historical outlook of a given prophet. There's no rule of thumb."
If the primary author of prophecy is God, and man is only the secondary author, and God sees the entire narrative beginning to end, I'm not sure this needs to be true.
In fact, specifically pegging the historical outlook of a given prophet, especially if our understanding of history is wrong, could be the source of obfuscation in the first place, as our frame of reference is the trees rather than the forest.
This was a good post, Steve.