Does our preaching reveal an Over-realised Christology?

Just recently I heard my minister again refer to people who inadvertently hold to an over-realised eschatology. He made the point that this belief can often be seen in the view taken of the resurrection when preached at funerals. It seems that too often our beliefs are revealed when our humanness is laid bare.
It got me thinking that perhaps an over-realised eschatology is only a symptom of an over-realised Christology.
Now we need to tread carefully here. I am not at all minimizing or downplaying the significance and centrality of Christ. After all, 1 Peter 3 tells us to set apart Christ as Lord in every activity, whether it be in our thoughts or our speech or our behaviour. So let's carefully define the concept.
An over-realised eschatology is one where people think and believe that all the benefits and realities of heaven we have now. For example since there's no sin in heaven I am sinless now. But of course that is so obviously false. I may have positional righteousness before God now by being in Christ, but I do not have practical righteousness and that is made abundantly clear by Scripture itself, in all the commands and exhortations found throughout the New Testament.
Likewise, an over-realised Christology is one where Christ's death and resurrection are made all there is to happen in regard to Christ's work - with sometimes the added phrase that "all we do now is await the second coming." In the vernacular, it says it's all done and dusted, nothing awaits us except the return of Christ and then heaven.
But when we put it that way we start to see the inadequacy of that approach or belief or hermeneutic. Biblically we quickly get into hot water, one cannot have a over-realised Christology if only half of the prophecies regarding the Messiah have come to fulfilment so far. That itself would be a denial of the veracity of God, the God who does indeed keep His Promises.
So how does this belief work itself out in practice? Well the sermons of many Preachers today seem to assume this over-realised Christology.
It's seen when Preachers take a passage of the Word of God and see the application as a call to proclamation, to going and declaring to all people "the Gospel" namely of the death and resurrection of Jesus, totally ignoring what the point of the passage is actually about. I have witnessed Preachers do this, both Anglican brothers and Baptists and it leaves me bewildered. Jesus' ministry did not stop at his death and resurrection. He told his disciples to wait in Jerusalem until they received the Holy Spirit. There is a progression to His Ministry, His work is ongoing. This is what the book of Acts lays out for us. To imply the Gospel is all there is, is to ignore Jesus' own words and the teachings of the New Testament.
I am certain some would not deny this truth, - that there is indeed more to come in the Plan of God. The problem is that the focus of their preaching actually teaches the opposite. It misguides their hearers and leaves the hearer taking on board an over-realised Christology. To call the hearer to repent and turn to Jesus, or to rejoice in the Gospel at that point when the passage before them doesn't teach this is to not "preach the whole council of God". We must remember that 'The Plan of God' is not some reductionistic gospel!
It is pretty difficult to put the focus on the Gospel message as such when preaching on the qualifications of an elder from 1 Timothy. That however is not to deny one can call upon their unbelieving listeners to repent and believe the gospel, for we need only remind them that one cannot exhibit that kind of character and behaviour without having been transformed by God when one turns to Jesus and becomes a disciple because of His death and Resurrection.  But that is quite different to ending a sermon on such a passage by referring to the Gospel or giving the impression that this is the meaning and application of the passage.


Is this over-realised Christology what motivates people when preaching from the Old Testament to quickly jump into the New Testament without having first explained how the original hearers would have understood it and applied it? Too often preaching the Old Testament is really preaching the New under the title of the Old Testament so we might assuage ourselves as having preached to our congregations both the Old and New Testament. Are we really only giving lip service to the Old Testament? the Scripture that Jesus loved.


Let's carefully expound the Scriptures, the whole Plan of God and not merely succumb to some overarching phrase we call "the Gospel."


In Christ,
Gary

Is our preaching succumbing to our Culture?

William Willimon Professor of Christian Ministry over at Duke University delivered an observation on Tuesday 20th Sept 2011 called "the Culture is overrated" which is even more poignant today.
He started by saying

When I recently asked a group of pastors what areas they wanted help with in their preaching, most replied, “To preach sermons that really hit my people where they live.”

At one time I would have agreed this was one of the primary purposes of Christian preaching—to relate the gospel to contemporary culture. Now I believe it is our weakness.

In leaning over to speak to the modern world, I fear we may have fallen in. Most of the preaching in my own denomination struggles to relate the gospel to the modern world. We sought to use our sermons to build a bridge from the old world of the Bible to the modern world; the traffic was always one way, with the modern world rummaging about in Scripture, saying things like, “This relates to me,” or, “I’m sorry, this is really impractical.” It was always the modern world telling the Bible what’s what.

This way of preaching fails to do justice to the rather imperialistic claims of Scripture. The Bible doesn’t want to speak to the modern world; the Bible wants to convert the modern world.

Much of what William says is challenging to our preaching to the world, but when we consider we are preaching mostly to our congregations, those professing to be Christians, claiming to be disciples of Jesus, then this speaks volumes about where they are at.


It certainly clear that many find it difficult to listen to expository preaching, they much prefer the 3 point sermon or topical sermon. In most cases for the expository sermon to be palpable it must begin with an attention getter from our world and end with some worldly relevance to my situation. As the kind professor pointed out, too often the focus is how all this "relates to me" in my situation, my life experiences.


Now I am not for a moment suggesting we go to the opposite end of the pendulum and have preaching not at all relating to the hearer, yet even saying it that way is to misunderstand the preaching of Scripture. It's not all about you. Frequently the application is seeing How Great God is and His faithfulness and dedication to fulfilling His plan and praising and Thanking Him. Many Christians at this point are in need of reassessing their attitude to God addressing them in the Bible.


William said "the Bible wants to convert the modern world". Just as aptly we might say that for believers listening to the Scriptures, "The Bible wants to transform you. make you more like Christ."

Read William and prayerfully reflect on how you listen to the Sermon this Sunday.



In Christ
Gary

Creation Genesis 1 and the Gap Theory

The Gap theory. This is just one of a number of views held about Genesis 1:1-2.

            It is frequently attributed to some early Jewish writers, some early Church “fathers” and some even today hold this view. Some translations, such as the TEV are now suggesting it by the use of "when" in verse 1, academics like Michael Hieser also teach it or at least that verse 1 is a dependent clause.

At least four different arguments are mentioned in support of this view that there is a gap in time between verses 1 & 2.

1. It suggested that the word create doesn’t mean out of nothing but God took something and formed it from that. This latter notion just pushes the creation question of origin one step further back. Eg Where did the matter come from for God to form it? Sometimes the word “create” bara, and “made” are used at the same time, as in the creation of man from the dust of the earth, vs 27, so  the word create can be used for out of nothing and also from stuff already there the context makes it clear. READ Hebrews 11:3. What comes to pass out of nothing? “What is seen” ie the universe was “out of nothing”.

2. Some suggest that God made the earth as a place for the angels and that they left their abode and tried to usurp God, or at least some did, eg satan. This then suggests that what we have in Genesis 1 is a recreation. But the text is clear in the following verses that this creation is of the universe, the sun and moon, etc not just of this planet. Granted that angels and satan just enter the story unannounced in chapter 3, but the focus is not on them, but God and mankind.
3. Some argue that verses 1-2 have a possible translation[1] of “in the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth” which is called a dependant clause.  Which means you expect further information to complete the sentence. So on this understanding verse 2 supplies that and the real down to business begins in verse 3. Illustration “when Carolyn and I got married in 1987.” This is illustrative that a dependent cluase needs further information to make the point. They say it must be a dependant clause because Ancient Near East Cosmologies such as Babylonian creation myth, the Enuma Elish begins this way. And when Masoretes added vowels to Hebrew in 600AD they translated it as a dependant clause. But the Hebrews knew their Old Testament had dependent and independent clauses but saw fit not to translated it this way, not even between 300-200BC when they wrote the Old Testament into Greek [ The Septuagint ] they left it as an independent clause. 

     4.   Lastly some argue “empty and void” vs 2 suggest destruction. And so this was the way God had the stuff at the time of satan’s rebellion before he “remade” it. However empty and void more aptly means  uninhabited. God made the Heavens and the Earth to be filled, not left uninhabited. Additionally, we must consider that Genesis 1 has the refrain “good” and that at the Creation of light God says it was good. It is difficult  then to think that verse 2 refers to something bad and that God has not bothered to point this out in the  text which has God declare good as a dominant phrase.

---

[1] Just because something is possible doesn’t mean it’s true.




In Christ
Gary

Myth and the Bible

For at least the last 100 years people have taken to type casting Genesis 1 &  2 as Myth. The contrast has for many been between the text as myth and the text as history. So what is the definition of myth being espoused lately?
William J Larkins JR points out in his book on Culture and Biblical hermeneutics that "the primary purpose of the Bible is to promote the faith of the one true God over the pagan myths of origin, power and destiny, and so direct reference to the lurid content of such myths is intentionally restricted." pg 208.
One should remember that part of the Biblical Worldview is the reality of the satanic and demonic and that this reality must not be scoffed at and dismissed as an adored relic of religious myth. One reason the Bible clearly has a negative attitude towards myth is that it is grounded in a distortion of the truth and that it leads people away from God. As we read in 2 Tim 4:4 which presents the contrast so well, that of the temptation to turn from the truth and "wander away to myth". See also in regard to myth, Titus 1:14, 2 Peter 1:16.
It is hard then to see how one could see a positive role for myth or declare The Word as myth without rejecting this Biblical foundation. Yet some still do this.
I am presently reading Gary Dorrien's 'The Word as True Myth' and I am looking forward to seeing how he deals with this for the suggestion is that the Bible as myth has been the foundation of liberalism since the Enlightenment. This consequence of the Enlightenment is seen in some theologians who declare that the New Testament contain "some accounts which are plainly mythical" Dorrien pg 6.
In declaring Acts 19:11-12 the healing by contact with cloths that touched Paul's body, or Matthew 17:24-27 about the coin in the fish's mouth, or the rock that followed Moses in the wilderness, 1 Cor 10:4 the immediate response seems appropriate that to take such accounts as myth is to assume that the God of the Bible doesn't act supernaturally. Which is exactly the consequences that the Enlightenment engendered through it's rejection of the Authority of God and the position that the reality of Kant's noumena was unknowable. The age of the patriarchs in Genesis 5:1-32 who lived an average of 857 years shouldn't be apriori ruled out under the classification of myth.  I for one doubt the proclaimed position of certain liberals that the biblical stories of the flood and Tower of babel are reworked from mythical Babylonian texts. ibid. There is a more cogent and reasonable answer to what is going  on  there given the  inspiration of  Scripture. However this is not Dorrien's concern in presenting a history of modern theology. pg 6.
Given these texts mentioned above are a motivation for liberals seeing some texts in the Bible as myth, even so this doesn't mean one can and should then infer all the Scripture is myth, yet as we see below this is the consequence of liberals who define myth as the language of religion.


Still, perhaps we are getting ahead of ourselves a bit. We really need first of all to define "myth".
At Dictionary.com we read of myth as

"a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, especially one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature."
and this starkly contrasts with the common understanding of myth, which is more commonly and nontechnically understood as narratives that exclude historicity, stories taken as not factually true. Others define myth as non-historical tales that contain a moral message.
Often times myth has been taken to be story about 'God' or 'the gods', and ultimate reality, especially pertaining to Creation. However it clear that myths do not always narrate about God or gods.
Already these definitions suggest that myth is normally contrasted with the historicity of the account described. However further investigation is required in gaining an understanding of what liberal theologians are getting at when citing a text as myth. 
Dorrien reveals how liberals have reworked the definition of myth over the years.
Beginning with the history of religion school in Germany with representatives such as Troeltsch, Gunkel, Wrede and others, who spoke of myth "primarily as fable or invention" to which Wrede amended it "as the use of imagery to express the otherworldly in terms of human relationships." pg 8. Dorrien calls Wrede's definition "a mode of understanding constitutive of religion itself." ibid  In other words, myth is the language of religion. This prefigured "the 20th century understanding of myth as a true story that discloses exemplary or sacred truths." ibid.  Ernest Cassirer and the literary figure Claude Levi-Strauss "understood myths as fundamental forms of world constructing thought." ibid.
The Theologian Tillich takes myth "as the essential mode of encounter with the sacred." Here "myth is the Universal category of religion." and "it's the narration of a sacred history that relates an even that took place in primordial Time, the fabled time of the beginnings. put differently it tells how a reality came into existence through the agency of divine beings, be it the whole of reality, the Cosmos, or only a fragment of reality."  ibid.
Gilkey's definition follows these attempts and declares it a sacred narrative that relates the  "real story" behind the worlds reality. Myth for him clearly is "a mode of language that features a distinctive set of elements"
We need to grasp here that the above understandings of myth see it as primarily the language of the text, an approach which is accepted, almost unargued because it is grounded upon implications accepted without question from the Enlightenment, where man can deal only with the phenomena and never delve into the realm of the noumena.
It's a language that addresses "the ultimate existential questions of human living and death" and to sum it up, again as both Niebuhr and Tillich maintained, it is "the essential language of religion."


So these definitions are somewhat wide ranging and to some extent fluid, they tend to assume a methodological approach that places myth as central to religion under which Christianity was just one of the many investigated religious phenomena. 


All in all, we haven't grasped the significance of the liberal approach to myth if we haven't understood that they love to contrast between so called sacred history and history. The notion that myth records sacred history whereas actual history is what historians deal with, the texts and phenomenological events of time.


Peter Enns who recently wrote a book on Creation understanding Genesis from a functional approach sees myth  as “an ancient, premodern, prescientific way of addressing questions of ultimate origins and meaning in the form of stories: Who are we? Where do we come from?” (40)
Subtly this definition avoids the question whether these stories narrate real history. And as such it can be seen as applying to certain biblical texts, but it stands as markedly different to the approach of early German liberals who see myth as the language of religion and thus of Scripture.




Returning once again to Claude Levi-Strauss  who intriguingly in his structural anthropology 1963 said

"all mythology is dialectic in its attempt to make cognitive sense out of the chaotic data provided by nature, and that this attempt inevitably traps the human imagination in a web of dualisms:"

Here the focus is man's striving in the face of nature with an attempt to make cognitive sense of his life. Yet for Levi-Straus these are paradoxes that can never be solved.

Still for us, to accept Levi-Strauss' approach is to undermine God's revealed Word where God makes sense of our sometimes chaotic existence due to the fall of man etc.










I like Larkin's definition of myth as "a fictional narrative that exceeds the limits of truth and goes beyond the facts" pg 308. It's a story that is fictional. The problem which then arises for the exegete is how to determine which parts are relevant to the interpretation of that text and the listeners. If it is fictional it suggests that much of the content of the story is merely a tool delivering the payload of the intention of the author and thus in regard to Genesis 1 & 2 the focus so easily ends up on man and his worth, and if anything has the chance of being man centred, and therefore self centred, such would be that type of interpretation.  Don't get me wrong, to have a proper definition of myth doesn't mean that you are classifying Scripture as myth. It merely asserts that you know exactly what Scripture isn't!


I must not bypass what someone has pointed out as being Gilbert Ryles interesting remarks on category mistakes in 'The Concept of mind' 1949 pg 8 where "myth represent the committing of a category mistake committed where there is a presentation of facts belonging to one category in the idioms appropriate to another. How that can be played out in the realm of Biblical Christianity is well worth considering.


Overall, one must remain faithful to the Biblical exhortation against myth, adhere to the inspiration of Scripture, reject Enlightenment presuppositions such as proffered by Kant and so easily endorsed by liberal theologians and exhibit great care in accepting some new nuance of myth.


In Christ
Gary

Exegetical analysis on Paul's conversion in Acts 9

In preparation for preaching on Acts 9. Saul's conversion I was struck by Paul's response to being blinded and hearing the voice of Jesus.
The first point is that Saul calls him Lord. Have you ever wondered why? Some might think is it the nature of the encounter that convinced him, yet our text hints that it is more. It starts with the voice calling Saul Saul. Why the repetition? Saul was blinded, he wasn't made deaf!
Being a Pharisee Saul knew his Scriptures. He knew how God had called to Abraham who was about to sacrifice his son. Genesis 22:11  Then in Genesis 46:2 God called to Jacob, it's "Jacob, Jacob. - don't be afraid to go down to Egypt" Again in Exodus 3:3 when God calls to Moses from the burning bush .. it's "Moses, Moses." He knew how also when God called to Samuel in 1 Sam 3 it's the repetition of the name again. "Samuel Samuel". [ This pointed calling is also significant in Jesus' words to Martha Martha in Luke 10:38-42 ] Scripture tells us that this repetition was common in the way God called to people for whom He had a significant part for them to play in His Plan. I am not detracting at all from God's self authenticating  authority by pointing this out, merely to say When God himself revealed himself to people in the Old Testament this characterised the encounter.



A second thing that strikes me as unusual is that Saul on having his blindness removed, in the next verse, vs 18, then he arose and even before he'd eaten he gets baptised. Context shows us that this is not Baptism in the Spirit, and anyway such Spirit Baptism would not require one to get up and be baptised before eating! That being the case it is water baptism being spoken of here. What is unusual about this is that baptism was only required of gentiles who wanted to come into the covenant fold of Israel and Worship the God of Israel. They needed cleansing but the Jews did not consider that they themselves needed it. That's why when John the Baptist came preaching and baptising it was confronting to Israel.
We read nothing in our text in chapter 9 that stands out as the reason for Saul to be baptised.
Yet there is a reason when one again considers context. When one remembers that Saul was at Stephen's stoning as recorded in Acts 7 things take on a different perspective.  The witnesses laid their garments at the feet of  young Saul as we are told in Acts 7:58. As John MacArthur says, the fact that the witnesses laid their garments at the feet of Saul, [ following Levitical law ] highly suggests Saul was at the forefront of the proceedings.
Now what had enraged the religious leaders was Stephen's declaration that he saw the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God 7:56. But almost passed over here in Stephen's speech is verse 51. where he calls them a stiff necked people, uncircumcised in hearts and ears. that is - just like gentiles and what follows is that if they are just like gentiles [ the uncircumcised ] they the Sanhedrin, are in need of cleansing! And this is just what Saul himself had been like!
Paul's Proclamation:


The last "anomaly" in our text, something that confronts us, is found in verse 20 The first recorded proclamation of Jesus to the Jews is to declare Him the Son of God. We know from reading and studying the Pauline letters a bit about Paul, and what figures as central in his teaching is the Messiah, the Christ. But that's not the first word on his lips, something we would have thought would be given his Jewish hearers. Here is something in need of deeper research. Indeed the Son is intimately tied up with the Messiah in Paul's writings, not merely as the same person but in conceptual terms. Now besides being intelligible to the Jews who saw Moses as a son, Israel as a son, angels as sons, more importantly given Nathans oracle in 2 Sam 7:14 God himself would adopt David's Royal descendants as heirs, "his house" of 2 Sam 7:11. Then it has been found that certain circles of the Qumran fellowship link the Davidic Messiah as Son of God. Scripturally, Paul's emphasis in Romans 1:3-4, Heb 1:5, 5:5 are focusing more on enthronement than birth ... see again the specifics of Acts 13:33 concerning this aspect.
In this regard also one cannot again bypass Acts 7 with Stephen's speech where he accuses the religious leaders of slaying the righteous one, who Stephen's declares he now sees standing at the right hand of God, a declaration that enrages the Sanhedrin who take him out of the city and stone him.


This isn't to say the Son does not signify the one of unique standing and intimate favour in God's Work. It is to suggest that enthronement, Jesus as God, is the focus here.


Some of the gems of Acts 9


In Christ
Gary

Hermeneutics and Ricoeur - one avenue worth investigating

Ricoeur's teachings on hermeneutics has found a wide reading in the field of hermeneutics, and also specifically in the arena of biblical Hermeneutics. Yet I think one can see parallels between Ricoeur's and that of Schleiermacher's, whose concept of God drove his hermeneutics.


As J I Packer noted about Schleiermacher in 'Scripture and Truth' ed Carson and Woodbridge pg 336.

Schleiermacher's God stirs our feelings but does not tell us things. Schleiermacher conceptualized the impact of biblical and later Christian language on the model of ritual incantation that casts an emotional spell rather than of person-to-person communication that informs. He read Scripture, dogma, and theology as religious feeling evocatively verbalized, just as his English contemporary and fellow romantic William Wordsworth. .. As a romantic valuing sensitivity of response to actual and potential experiences above all, and committed to vindicate religious awareness as part of the good life, Schleiermacher the theologian naturally drew his hermeneutical model from the world of art and aesthetics, and equally naturally turned his back on models from the worlds of philosophy and law, where the conveying of public facts, arguments, and lines of thought is the essence of the communicative process.... The biblical material is not at any point or in any respect the relaying of divinely uttered instruction, even when its writers think and claim the contrary.

What is important about the above statement is that if one has a "God" who only stirs our feeling and does not tell us things then our Hermeneutics is set to follow a certain course. It tells us that God does not speak, He does not call anyone to Covenantal faithfulness because there is no cognitive communication to mankind. it is purely emotion that stirs the feelings.  Thus there is no point in seeking the meaning of the text for the author of scripture does not tell us things or give us facts. It evacuates the text of the personhood of God and the nature of man's personhood. Just as one can eat chili and experience a pleasant stimulation of the taste buds, so another gets indigestion.




Now a similar evacuation of the meaningful communication of God to man happens in Ricoeur's schema.
As you read Ricoeur you see central to his hermeneutical method is that of poetic language. This he believes overcomes the problem that arose with Kant where Kant split the Noumena and Phenomenal, and relegated God to the Noumena. the problem with that was that the Noumena was unknowable, making God unknowlable. however, by suggesting that religious language is poetic, made up of metaphor and symbol, Ricoeur believes he has given a bridge from the noumenal to the phenomenal realm.
Yet truth on his approach escapes us just like it did with Schleiermacher. We are left with paradox. The nature of poetry is that it likewise does not give us facts about things. On his approach don't we presume that the resurrection of Jesus wasn't an historical reality but just a metaphor or symbol to garner feelings in our being?


Apart from the philosophical and theological issues we also have the problem of whether Ricoeur's theory comports with Scripture itself.
After all, what does one do with poetry itself and it appears as a definite genre in Scripture. The Psalms in places reflect poetry which is clearly different to the genre of historical narrative, or gospel commands and exhortations.
In the end doesn't Ricoeur's focus and emphasis that religious language is symbol and metaphor mean that truth has escaped us.
This is not to say Schleiermacher was all wrong. he drew our attention to the empathy etc of the writers and our situation [ see Packer pg 336 ] perhaps then Ricoeour has some positive things to say.
Still if what I outline above is correct then his approach is misguided.


In Christ
Gary

Hermeneutics sermon series #1

What I would do perhaps???

1.       Define hermeneutics – simply, it is how a persons reads and interprets the bible, something you already do. the question is how well!


      Technically it is the science and art of interpretation of texts. When it comes to the Bible it is the method in which we approach the Bible to interpret it and then apply it. James I Packer rightly points out the indispensable role of the Holy Spirit in this endeavour as it is He who illuminates the Bible for us. Yet there re are also principles we use in discovering the meaning of the text. namely we pay attention to the grammatical and the historical context of when it was written and also the historical meaning of the words used. Since the reformation this was called the grammatical historical hermeneutical method.

So why is this so important – such a big word? you might recoil at the word and such a technical definition as above.

Some might respond - "I prefer to just drift along", "I like to  keep things simple" "I want to just feel good" Yet we learn big words in our culture because they are significant to us. Eg "warranty." Our New car goes bust and I quickly appeal to warranty and read the complicated fine print.

2.       Why is the way to interpret scripture so important?

Because we want to make sure that we are going in the right direction concerning life and good works, 2 Tim 3:16-17 and not getting distracted from good works into second best or second rate or bad works! God has given us his revealed Word – don’t we need to hear what he says? And if so we need to hear it right – nothing worse than a spouse not interpreting what you say right – then all the more with listening to God.

And it’s important because God tells us here 2 Tim 3 that there are deceivers around – elsewhere we are told there are those who twist scripture to their own destruction and lead others astray. This no small matter.

3.       So first thing to understand is All Scripture is God – breathed.  2 Timothy 3:16-17. The very first point here is that God has spoken, even that He continues to speak in Scripture Hebrews 3:7 and the word is present tense. This is so important because there have been those who over the centuries have taught that God doesn't speak through His Word the Bible, and that there's an immense gulf [ Lessing's Ditch ] between the culture of the times of the Bible and today and we cannot understand the meaning of the text anyway. But this is nonsense.
      Secondly, God used people sure, but He used them with their cultural background and their experiences to say exactly what He wanted said. Explain "all Scripture = all writings", specifically the Old Testament, yet Peter 2 Peter 3:15-15, treats Paul's writings as Scripture and ...
So How am I to hear God? To listen, to Read His Word to us, the Scriptures. In Context.


      Perhaps I might also speak about Authority. The Authority of God and His Word in relation to Hermeneutics because we are tempted to follow and listen to other man centred and man made Authorities.


Your brother in Christ,
Gary

Why John Dickson's argument in Hearing Her Voice fails

Over at Lionel Windor's blog you can read an article by Andrew Heard critiquing John Dickson's argument in Hearing Her Voice. http://www.lionelwindsor.net/2014/09/08


I must say Andrew's argument is both well reasoned and thought provoking.
I would add to this that given John Dickson's argument hangs to a large extent on the meaning of didasko [ teach ] in 1 Tim 2:12, which Andrew points out that John wants to restrict to a technical sense of "passing on the oral traditions of the Apostles" in it's more narrow sense, which John wants to say means "deliver" or "pass on" then John's argument fails.
Why? Because Paul could more appropriately have used paradidomi [ deliver or pass on ] which when Paul used this in 1 Cor 11:23-24 has the very meaning that John wants it to have in 1 Timothy 2. This word is not rare in Paul's writings, he uses it at least 12 times in Romans and 1 Cor [ 6 each ]. So the very fact that Paul doesn't use the most appropriate Greek word to put his case [ as John
Dickson perceives it ] speaks volumes against Dickson's interpretation. It is part of hermeneutics that we take careful note of which words the author used and which ones he didn't when interpreting a passage, and that presents a powerful case against John's thesis. Certainly another possible alternative - rhuomi cannot be considered for for Paul's purpose in 1 Tim 2.
When you add to this how Paul uses teach [ didasko ] in 1 Timothy ( read both Claire Scott's articles, summarized by Lionel and Andrew's article to get the gist of this ) then his thesis is indeed weak and I'd say unacceptable.

But I would say this is not all to be said in critiquing it.
I would add as I've pointed out before, the scholarly support for his understanding of oral traditions doesn't say what he wants it to say, at least not in the case of Dunn 'Jesus Remembered'.
Secondly, and this follows on the tack of John's argument itself, that if we grant for the moment that teach in 1 Timothy 2 refers to passing on the oral traditions of the apostles, then Why does Paul go on to say in the same breath "nor have Authority." For if didasko meant what John wants it to mean nor have Authority is redundant since the apostolic oral tradition carries its own Authority.
Lastly, does this line of argument by Dickson mean that the "nebulous' oral traditions of the Apostles carry more Authority than the actual Scriptures before us? is that not a ludicrous idea?



In Christ
Gary

What the rolling debate about homosexuality teaches us

It has shown us that again hermeneutics is central. Indeed it seems clear that people are out to sever God from His Word. And this just reflects Eve in the garden of Eden "Has God said?".

Have a read of Alastair Roberts blog 'Alastair Adversaria' on the course the homosexual debate has run as Chris Seitz laid it out.

God Bless
Gary

Blessed and the beatitudes of Matthew 5

Blessed are the merciful 5:7,

Blessed are the poor in Spirit 5:3

The Beatitudes to some are quite confusing for we often take blessed to have the sort of connotation as in "that golfer is surely blessed with sporting abilities", that is there is something innate in them that they are able to perform wondrous feats.

I recently heard a friend mention that the blessedness of the beatitudes are often hard to grapple with when we don't feel blessed, when in fact the circumstances of our lives are anything but enhancing the feeling of being blessed.

Here I think he was on the perimeter of equating blessed with being happy. But happiness depends on happenstance, on the circumstances one finds themselves in. Yet the blessed status of Matthew 5 has nothing to do with outward circumstances. No matter what our circumstances, the inner peace of being right with God is a reality that God declares and affirms.

The tough thing is that in this passage it seems like often blessed is juxtaposed with those things that normally rattle us, that make us uncomfortable, unsettled.

Just look at "blessed are the merciful because they will receive mercy", yet often this is not our daily experience with others is it? or "blessed are the peace makers for they shall be called sons of God" - but who calls them that? often their actions go unnoticed, unappreciated. 

First of all take careful note that in the beatitudes, it isn't that one person is blessed with mercy, another with mourning and another with being peacemakers. No, all these are traits of a person belonging to the Kingdom of God.

These verses tell us that blessed is something quite different to reliance on sweet circumstances. It is the inward contentedness that has nothing to do with external circumstances. That is what God desires for His children and is the possession of the Child of the Kingdom of God. All Christians.

in Christ
Gary

Real Eschatological Hope declared in the barren wasteland of neo orthodoxyy

"Jesus, the victorious hero,
Conquers every foe,
At the feet of Jesus soon,
The whole world shall bow.
Jesus, glorious, out of night
Leads us onward to the light."

Rev Johann Christoph Blumhardt ( 1804 - 1880 )

How to reach Postmoderns with the Truth

How to reach postmodernists with the Truth?

For many people these days to talk about reaching postmoderns with the truth is a contradiction in terms, especially for those of a postmodernistic bent. For those who enthuse about postmodernism there is no “Absolute Truth” and yet they are confronted by the fact that Christianity unashamedly proclaims that there is Absolute Truth. There is only one God and only one way to Him as John 14:6 and Acts 4:14 declare.

What is one to do in the face of Postmodernism?

This is the question which all Christians and most importantly pastors have to work through in our present culture. Our task is to consider how we can reach Postmoderns in a biblically faithful and effective manner. By engaging with Vincent McCann’s ‘How can Christians Proclaim Absolute Truth in a Post Modern World?’  and Don Carson’s ‘The Gagging of God’ we can glean a way forward and not merely offer sound bites that whilst orthodox don’t seriously impact the unbeliever and leave him feeling secure in his own position.

Gregory J. Laughery wrote an article ‘Evangelicalism and Philosophy’ where he considers the lack of Christian interaction with Philosophy and so an understanding of how to converse with those who hold to different worldviews. We do not as Christians despise the intellect, in fact we ought to seek to improve our intellectual prowess in honour of God as much as possible. Though the challenge of our world may be a call to being open minded, as I love to say, this doesn’t mean we are to be empty headed. We must think and ask questions as wisely as possible. Asking the right questions becomes critical when dealing with secular worldviews such as postmodernism. Far too often as I hope to show below Christians jump on the latest bandwagon without critical assessment of the ideas being set forth.                 

This seems to have happened by and large with postmodernism. Too many have been ready to declare postmodernism a worthy reaction against modernism. However it may be better to describe the present mood to rather be supra modernism. With all the suggested epistemological difference there remains really a deep rooted desire to determine one’s own life irrespective of others. After all, the postmodern angst is more against religion and morality than against anything else. The present generation still loves the fruit of certainty delivered by modernism in the areas of Technology and Science with their ipods and ipads and iphones. Moreover, when something serious in life happens and they visit the doctor, they don’t dismiss the doctor’s advice as subjective twaddle but they clutch the script and head for the chemist. The Doctor almost takes over the role of God. This in itself is a good place for further discussion, but for the present let’s assume the postmodern child of modernism as described in the current debate. Whether he is illegitimate we will leave for another time, so let’s just assume for the moment the definition of Carson that postmodernism is a reaction against modernism. Even at this point it seems to me it is only the reaction of a child who hasn’t been raised with boundaries in life and finds out the hard way what this means in reality as he runs kicking and screaming through the community trying to live out his own self-determined rules, and then complaining when they don’t play by his rules.

Reaching the postmodern generation:

Rarely, in the abundance of postmodern literature do we have a consideration of the way the Christian is fruitfully able to reach the postmodern advocate. Vincent McCann’s article is an exception. In ‘How can ChristiansProclaim Absolute Truth in a Post Modern World?’  he deals with the complexities of the issue. I value his fairly succinct overview of the nature of Postmodernism, however at times his solution is not altogether orthodox. Particularly in regard to “experience” as typified in the ”Toronto Blessing” being an inroad to those decrying the certainty of knowledge.[i] 

This lack of certainty is a perspective which not merely infects our culture but is also spreading like leaven within the Church.

After giving a worthy description of Postmodernism McCann rightly says the Church “cannot compromise its proclamation that Jesus is the only way to God.” Secondly he claims there is a bridge that can link Christian belief and the Postmodern outlook because postmodernism includes some “elements of truth”. At this point he is presumably thinking of Postmodernisms rejection of the attitude of the Enlightenment that prevailed in modernism, the attitude that human reason alone is able to be the Arbiter of Truth, that modernistic mood that man has sure foundations for all knowledge and truth. Because McCann sees the Church similarly rejecting this understanding of Reason as the arbiter of Truth he sees a commonality with Postmoderns objections at this point.

Thirdly, he then mentions that one response the Church can take is the addressing of subjectivism, which “leads to a destruction of both intellectual honesty and life itself”. Furthermore McCann suggests there’s agreement between us in the limitations of human knowledge. But I would suggest the reasons underlying this argument and the conclusions derived from them are for unbeliever and believer polar opposites. Christians argue that knowledge and certainty are indeed limited due to our Creatureliness, however since we are created in the image of God we are able to know truly. This is not the case of the unbeliever in his worldview. The unbeliever says involved in the nature of knowledge is the notion that nothing is certain. Certainly we can agree the post Enlightenment attitude was one of over confidence. Amazingly McCann then suggests that ecstatic experiences like the Toronto Blessing may be one avenue to breaking through this negativity towards human reason. A fifth major response is to focus not on expository preaching but rather on “story”, a common suggestion now making the rounds in Christian circles. Lastly the truth the Church believes must be lived out in their lives or else it will fail to impact postmoderns.

What am I to make of this? At least Vincent makes an attempt to address this perplexing issue of reaching postmoderns. Many who write on postmodernism rarely or with clarity address how a Christian can reach the postmodern crowd with the Christian message.

Before reflecting upon Vincent’s approaches to reaching out to postmoderns and suggesting a couple of further approaches it will be of benefit for us to reflect upon his description of postmodernism and interact with it.

Certainly postmodernism is essentially anti-modern, to which as I pointed out above Carson’s helpful description of it is as a mood! Central to postmodernism is the idea that each individual is part of a community and all texts ( and here, even a persons actions are taken to be texts ) are to be interpreted in light of that community. This notion I might point out, has grave implications for hermeneutics, and leads to the rejection of meaning residing in the intentions of the author, and suggests instead that meaning is given to the text by the interpreter. It is exactly at this point that many fail to note the inconsistency of postmodern advocates in that the authors of postmodernism arguments assume the reader will understand their intentions and not read anything into the text. Indeed they tend to get upset when you don’t take what they have written in context and seriously. One idea which is a correlate of this notion of little “t” truth residing in local communities is the view that metanarratives are thus rejected. However, again many fail to see that Postmodernism is a metanarrative itself and it is just as exclusive as Christianity. They make absolute claims such as “all truths are equally valid and there is no universal standpoint which gives one the power to say this is wrong or that is right.”

The reason for Postmoderns decrying metanarratives, is that they are oppressive of minorities such as gays and women. However postmodernism is itself a metanarrative, declaring that this is the way that one should read a text. It seems to me that Postmoderns border on Gnosticism, a bit like Plato’s Philosopher Kings who decree what is right and good for everyone.

What should be raised with postmodern advocates is how they escape the conditioning of the “truth” of one’s group or social context to arrive at such a metanarrative as postmodernism?

Postmoderns when taking the approach of denigrating metanarratives would do well to read ‘Alice in Wonderland’ about making words mean anything and everything. Language, which is how we communicate with others our lofty thoughts and deep feelings becomes nonsense on this approach. Further, they seem to be in the same boat as the adherents to Scientific Positivism which philosophically imploded upon itself when it argued that nothing was true except that which is able to be demonstrated by Science. But this proposition itself was unable to be so demonstrated by Science. This type of nonsense we rightly call a self defeating argument.

And don’t let philosophers dismissively wave this aside saying this objection is only a relatively minor issue. It’s true that it can be an easily voiced argument but it should alert you to the serious problems of the view being proffered.

Still the real and present danger for us is with the postmodern assumption that the meaning of the text resides in the reader. From this assumption a whole new hermeneutical theory is created contrary to hermeneutics as it has been historically understood, and one which undermines biblical hermeneutics in particular.

Let’s see how taking into account the hermeneutics of Postmodernism itself undermines McCann’s suggestion of the fruitfulness for Christians resorting to “story” to proclaim the Gospel message to Postmoderns. Sure Jesus told stories, sure the Gospels in a limited sense are “story” ( they are actually theology, not chronological histories of Jesus’ life and ministry. ) however the postmodern hermeneutic allows him to interpret the story in a way which allows him to continue in his rebellion against God and to remain comfortable in his disobedience, all because he believes that meaning resides in the reader. And he is free to do this with any “story” he hears from the Christian evangelist. The very core of postmodernism undermines any cogent attempt to tell the Gospel to unbelievers who hold to postmodernism  because all meaning resides in the reader / hearer and not in the text. Yet Christianity unashamedly declares the Bible to be God’s Word, His revelation to man, and the meaning of it resides in the intention of the Author, God himself. The antithesis between Christian and postmodern rightly continues because the unbelieving worldview is at odds with the Sovereign Lord of all Creation.

The reality of this is a wakeup call to Preachers succumbing to the postmodern lie that story is the way forward in our current cultural climate. Steven D Degner, a Lutheran who has pondered much of the present Western Culture with amazing insight nonetheless considers story to be one of the ways forward for interacting with postmoderns. Not Ashamed of the Gospel in a Postmodern Age Again my concern with Degner is he doesn’t seem to understand the postmodern’s hermeneutic negates the Biblical message of What God is saying.

Given the above I find some of McCanns suggestions are inadequate and misplaced given the worldview of postmodernism itself.

Before we move on from this, we need to recognise further that the call by some to narrative preaching as the real kicker to reaching postmoderns fails for exactly the same reason. It just does not deal with the postmodern approach that meaning resides in the reader or hearer. They can interpret the narrative to suit themselves and never be challenged with the actual message of the Biblical teaching. Now hear me clearly on this, I am not ignoring or ruling out the work of the Holy Spirit to bring such a person to understanding and repentance, but I take it that Christian’s are also to bring down opposing strongholds and fortresses and make them captive to Christ. We are in a spiritual battle, which God equips us for, yet the battle is also carried out at the intellectual level, so “we demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God.” 2 Cor 10:4-5. In love we bring the Truth to bear upon unbelievers and their rebellious worldview so that there is no place to stand, except as Christians will argue, upon the sure Word of God. Certainly it is the Holy Spirit who convicts and brings to repentance. We convert no one, but God has chosen to use us in the endeavour of bringing His Word to unbelievers, and we need to do this wisely and with insight. This is merely seeing what Paul did in Acts 17 as a good model for dealing with unbelievers. Along with the central passage of 1 Peter 3 where we are to offer a defence of the faith in gentleness and respect.

Historically we find many who have lived a life fuelled by emotions and feelings and so are very difficult to reach with the Gospel message, something especially true of those who have drifted out of a Pentecostal environment. But then, those of Paul’s first century had also lived a life of excessive emotionalism and feelings directed in frenzy pagan worship. And Paul does not resort to story in that case but a clear apologetic.  What we hold to as back then is a clear declaration of the Gospel message and the destructive nature of such a pagan lifestyle, and wait to see the Holy Spirit convict the person.

Narrative Preaching - Ref Martin Weber an Adventist? ‘Reaching Postmodern Society’ Outlook September 2006 pg 7 suggests this, but so do many Anglicans and Calvinists.

Does Carson offer us a way to reach postmoderns?

Carson’s great tome, all 640 pages of it, looks at postmodernism and secularism in depth but the nuggets of how to reach postmoderns are hidden to a large extent within its pages. Sure he outlines in chapter 12 on page 494 a way forward for Christians. He lists four ways for us to proclaim the gospel message.

 A) He suggests the intellectual, moral, and existential bankruptcy of our age is to be ‘critiqued’. Here he suggests focusing on the human emptiness that arises from the postmodern worldview. Pg 495.

B) Further our evangelical endeavour must recognise what’s been labelled as the ‘paradigm shift’ in worldviews which has taken place in the West. Then we like Paul must modify our presentation to address that reality. Carson refers to Paul on Mars Hill Acts 17 ( pg 496-501 ) and then Biblical theology pg 501f.

C) The rudiments of the historic gospel must be proclaimed with authority and courtesy.

D)  Lastly, we need to live out the Gospel, not merely give lip service to it.

The overall impression from his book is that its aim is to critique and explain the contours of postmodernism and secondly adhere to his Biblical and Calvinistic theology. These are indeed great aims and I don’t want to denigrate them but I think he fails to deal with those Scriptures that talk about apologetics and also the role of Christians to “destroy fortresses and bring down strongholds” and intellectually and intelligently deal with the unbelievers worldview. At that level Carson is frustrating and light on in giving us a clear response to the postmodernist.

Indeed he seems to not understand the impact of postmodernism on the general culture when he expresses his belief that postmodernism will quickly die out as University scholars see the incoherence of it. But that ignores the “life” such a belief has taken on within our Western Culture. It may be generations before postmodernism warps into another fractured worldview, keeping to the downward spiral of the fruit of a darkened mind. Carson does say we must continue to preach the truth, and in one sense this is perfectly true, in that God’s Spirit is the one who convicts and changes people. But what are we to make of this current framework where postmoderns won’t even discuss evidences for the truth of Christianity, historical or otherwise and their worldview which hermeneutically doesn’t allow for objective truth but rather truth is whatever “the reader” thinks and not the intentions of the author?

Consider again his four suggestions for reaching postmoderns.

A) He suggests the intellectual, moral, and existential bankruptcy of our age is to be ‘critiqued’. Here he suggests focusing on the human emptiness that arises from the postmodern worldview. Pg 495. Carson however speaks in expansive generalities such as “the critique of this age must not be merely intellectual but [speak to] the bankruptcy of the moral, ethical, relational and spiritual dimensions” in a loving manner. Pg 496. Yet we must point out here that we need to seriously and intellectually grapple with the postmodern hermeneutics which controls the unbelievers response to our presentation of the gospel message and the Christian worldview.

B) Further our evangelical endeavour must recognise what’s been labelled as the ‘paradigm shift’ in worldviews which has taken place in the West. Then we like Paul must modify our presentation to address that reality. Carson refers to Paul on Mars Hill Acts 17 ( pg 496-501 ) and then Biblical theology pg 501f. Still as I will point out below, the issue is more than educating biblical illiterates, however true that may be.

C) The rudiments of the historic gospel must be proclaimed with authority and courtesy.  Here on pg 505 Carson alludes to being a herald, however the Christian is to be more than this, he is to be an apologist. 1 Peter 3.

All is not lost for the careful reader however. Hidden in a story in Carson’s work is a further hint of an approach to take with postmodernistic thinking whether it be in the Church or outside. He talks about a Ph’d student who cornered him after teaching on hermeneutics and insisting “that true knowledge is possible, even to finite, culture-bound creatures.” She insisted he was “escaping from the dreaded positivism of the 19^th century. Ardently arguing for the new hermeneutic she was not amused when he tongue in cheek said “I see what you are saying, you are using delicious irony to affirm the objectivity of truth”. She responded more heatedly when he said “he was delighted to find someone using irony so cleverly in order to affirm the possibility of objective knowledge.”  She became quite upset as she considered Carson was not taking her words for what she was saying, she then exploded in anger when he said “it’s marvellous that you can add emotion to your irony.”   
It sunk home when he quietly explained “but this is how I am reading you” As he then explained to her, “You are a deconstructionist .. but you expect me to interpret your words aright.” page 102-3. The point is one cannot have it both ways. To espouse a worldview that is self contradictory and self defeating and unliveable leaves a person either open to seriously considering a worldview that is liveable, and consistent and gives an account for truth or to remain intellectually vacuous and left on the futility of  their thinking because of their rebellion against God.

What Carson does there is an example from apologetics of an internal critique of the unbelievers worldview pointing out its internal incoherence and also that in the end it is un-liveable, that it just does not comport with reality.  And then offering an external critique from the Christian worldview. Biblically this is grounded in Proverbs 26 verse 5 that says “Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes” for an internal critique, and then Proverbs 26 verse 4 “Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you yourself will be just like him” for the external critique where the Christian declares the Christian worldview and Gospel. As Greg Bahnsen points out, this means saying to the unbeliever, ”let’s assume your position – what follows from it? Is it coherent? Is it liveable? Does it agree with reality?” And then after having done this, don’t answer a fool according to his folly means let’s now not accept what you say, but let me now offer you a view that is coherent, that is liveable, that does comport with the way things are! Does my Christian worldview explain why you are the way you are and why such views as you hold flourish even in the face of being incoherent and unliveable.

This approach is sadly lacking in the Church today. We need to take it up with vigour for when our children go off to University they are no longer presented arguments as to why their Christian beliefs are wrong, but merely ridiculed and called intolerant from the perspective of the Postmodern worldview and its assumptions. Our Christian youth are then left confused about the coherence and intellectual foundation of the Christian faith.

We also need to take up this approach ourselves with our work colleagues and friends and family who are unbelievers. They have bought a worldview without considering its cogency or coherence or whether it is indeed liveable.

In the end what postmoderns reject is exactly the stance that Eve took in the Garden of Eden “Has God said?”

You may not like what God has said, and the unbeliever will reject it at his own peril, but we must never ignore what God has said and present it with honesty and clarity so that he may repent and worship his Creator.

We as Christians need to realise that the affliction of the world is a malignant hermeneutics, and indeed the battleground for the next 50 years within the church is hermeneutics, just as we see happening right now,

In Christ
Gary.

---

[i]  No doubt this can be attributed to his involvement with the demonic before becoming a Christian. Though not aware of all the details of his release from bondage, I have read his testimony on the blog, and would at this stage just mention that the Gospel message is what is to be used to bring a person into the Kingdom and a Christian can be oppressed but not possessed by demons.

 

Genre and Hermeneutics in relation to the book of Revelation

Genre is certainly the dominating hermeneutic these days in interpreting the book of Revelation, no more clearly evident than among evangelicals, however evangelical commentaries frequently ignore the need for clarifying exactly what this apocalyptic being spoken of is [1] and how a lack of clarification of apocalyptic impacts ones understanding of the book of Revelation, leaving aside the ever present problems of defining genre itself. [2]


Nowhere is this confusion clearer than when scholars question how we can claim the book of Revelation is apocalyptic when some 30 of the 31 base characteristics used to define apocalyptic could just as rightly be said to be the marks of prophecy! Indeed the naming of the author of the book, [3] which Revelation does, and the use of epistolary sections which the book of Revelation also has, marks it more as prophecy than apocalyptic! The nail in the coffin here is that the opening verse which declares it is prophecy! In the face of this many today are opting to say the book is a mixture [4] of these genres while others go so far into the nether region as to proclaim that its meaning is to be determined by comparing it with non-biblical apocalyptic texts!

Robert Thomas notes “most distinctive of all, however, is the fact that the book calls itself a prophecy ( 1:3, 22:7,10,18,19 ).” [5] To neglect, or ignore such a clear pronouncement is to undermine all ones attempts to understand Scripture.

Again Robert Thomas gives all who study the book of Revelation an astute reminder when he states in his Commentary on Revelation that too often we meet ‘genre override’. We do well to heed his warning as already far too many purported scholars are relying upon genre when the exegesis and consideration of the text in context fails to meet their preconceived theology. What we encounter is amillennialist’s arbitrarily resorting to “apocalyptic genre” to justify not taking the text literally even when there are no grammatical indicators to suggest a given passage is not literal. It is basic hermeneutics to take careful note of such indicators as the words “like” or “as” in the text, for example as seen in chapter 13:2, or when the text already clearly indicates that what is said is figurative as seen in chapter 11 which explicitly says “figuratively called Sodom and Egypt” where also ‘their Lord was crucified’ 11:8 or again when the text declares to the reader that a “sign” is being given as in Rev 12:1, Indeed in Rev 1:1 we are already told that it was signified to his servants, that is, “shown by a sign”. Again, just consider the usage of numbers in chapter 21. Many have found issue with the number 1000 in chapter 20, yet the text frequently clarifies exactly the literal nuance to be understood when a number is not symbolic, as in chapter 21 verse 17 it tells us it was 144 cubits thick by man’s measurement! And in 21:16 it has told us “found to be 12000 stadia in length” and height and width. Given the careful use of such grammatical markers or when the author has repetitive use of the same number without any contextual indication that it is to be taken symbolically, one should be hesitant to assume a number is symbolic. [6]

The arbitrariness of interpreting Revelation literally at one point and then symbolically at another without any grammatical justification is evident when genre driven interpreters get to chapter 11. Most Commentators I have read take the two witnesses as two people. After all the context clearly explains, they are literally two. It says in verse 4 “they are the two olive trees and the two lampstands”. They are protected from harm vs 5, they are crucified in Jerusalem 11:8. And they are two prophets vs 10. Yet on their [7] hermeneutic one could just as easily say they are symbolic, that the point being made is legal witness, for 2 are required to stand as legal witness against another. Lo and behold are we surprised when Gentry develops this thought by saying the two witnesses “probably represent a small body of Christians who remained in Jerusalem to testify against” the temple. “They are portrayed as two, in that they are legal witnesses to the covenant curses.” [8] The trouble is that the reader is at a loss to determine much of what the book of Revelation is on about when there are so many possible interpretations. The incredible diversity found in those that advocate apocalyptic Genre indicate the problems remains of deciding which interpretation is likely. Here, the number two on Gentry’s interpretation means “a small number”. If they are to be taken as “a small number in Jerusalem”, then what historical evidence do we have of them being crucified ( Rev 11:8 ) in AD70, which is also what Gentry, a Preterist says the book of Revelation relates.

Commentators such as Mickelsen, Gordon D Fee & Douglas Stuart, Leland Ryken, M Robert Mulholland, Beasley-Murray, Mounce and Leon Morris ( those who combine a idealist and futurist approach ) [9] arbitrarily switch in their hermeneutical stride from Symbolic or figurative to literal and so reveal a dire hermeneutical inconsistency. Too often they take this approach and yet are silent in regard to providing justification for doing this.[10] It is hermeneutical gymnastics and further, methodologically undermines a rational approach to God’s revealed Word. [11] Appeal to apocalyptic genre just won’t overcome firstly, the subjective manner of being literal on whim, often ignoring context and secondly, the prevailing differences of a multiplicity of varying interpretations between them on such passages meaning. We see this frequently also in Paul Barnett’s book ‘Apocalypse: Now and Then’: We acknowledge his stated aim is to provide a “devotional commentary” for families and individuals to read, however, declaring Revelation to be a confusing book, and reinforcing this in the mind of the reader by saying that one needs a key to decipher it, he should provide a little more justification for some of his more questionable claims or at least admit there are people who differ with him on these points.

For example his book follows an idealist / future interpretation and his [ layered ] seven fold structure follows closely that argued by Hoekema with his recapitulative theory of Revelation which finds its genesis in Augustine.

As to this recapitulative theory evidenced in the structure, one fraught with disagreement, one commentator astutely asks ”why a 7 fold structure and not 3 or 10?” [12]
Concerning the recapitulative theory, it is Hoekema himself who admits that if you don’t assume that Rev 20:1-6 describes what takes place during the history of the Church then you would need to admit that the 1000 years reign of Christ coming after his return, and it is only when one assumes 20:1-6 describes the history of the church that it follows that Revelation follows a progressive parallelism structure. [13] The question is “can one come to the meaning of the text that Hoekema gives us on a natural contextual reading of the text”? If not, it isn’t much of an unveiling!


Another serious deficit not even addressed is the problem acknowledged by commentators on how you understand the two resurrections in Revelation 20. Can they plausibly be understood as spiritualizing the first resurrection, whilst taking the second one literally as a physical resurrection? Are people who make one symbolic and the other literal really dealing with the context in any grammatically meaningful way? I believe not.

Lastly, I find Wood's arguments on how to deal with numbers especially relevant given how Barnett lays so much interpretive weight upon his meaning of numbers in the book of Revelation. Again Barnett fails to explain why numbers mean what he says they mean, and this justification is crucial when there are Greek expressions available for John to declare something to be “a very long time” without using the numeric 1000. Woods points out [14] that the phrase, “ a long time” has been used by Matthew in Matt 25:19 to “depict the duration of the Lord’s absence prior to his second advent”, and given its context in Matthew this is indeed intriguing, so much so that one might have expected John to use it here. Even in the book of Revelation itself, John has used a phrase to indicate the temporal shortness of time as in his use of “a little while”, which occurs in Rev 17:11 and his use of it again in Rev 12:12 where it is said of satan that “he is filled with the fury because he knows that his time is short.” Instead of using “symbolic numbers” it seems to me to suggest that John is quite deliberate in both his use of such grammatical temporal phrases and in his choice of numbers.  

Ryken’s comments on how one approaches the book of Revelation is characteristic of many preaching evangelicals today who see it as combining not merely the idealist and furturist but also the preterist and continuous historical. In essence he wants to have it all ways. He says: “Because of the literary form of the book, which portrays events symbolically, its relevance extends throughout the history of the world.” Thomas pg 89

Even whilst saying the book portrays events symbolically, he yet wants to keep references to the second coming of Jesus as literal. So while looking at chapters 4-18 in a very symbolic way, having interpreted so much of it under the idealistic rubric, [15] when they come to chapter 19:11-16 they want to see it as the literal physical return of Jesus to earth. If they remained true to their idealistic hermeneutic they would see Christ’s coming as metaphor for peoples moral and spiritual enlightenment much as the 19th Century liberals did with Jesus taking him purely as an enlightened man with a true sense of God. Of course taking chapter 19 in this way would mean it’s only about personal transformation and illumination, which is the end is pure mysticism.

The above is just a small investigation of the issues involved.

References:
[1] See Michael G. Michael Macquarie University, At. S.W Australia The Genre of the Apocalypse:What are they saying now? Bulletin of Biblical Studies Vol 18 Jul-Dec 1999


[2] See David E Aune ‘The Apocalypse of John and the problem of genre’ Semeia 36 ( 1986 ) pg 66

[3] Thus contravening apocalyptic as pseudonymity. See Robert Thomas ‘Literary Genre and Hermeneutics of the apocalypse’. Pg 82. See also his Wycliffe Commentary on Revelation. Tmsj2e.pdf

[4] This is seen in saying it is Prophecy and Apocalyptic and Epistle. Cf C. L Blomberg ‘NT Genre criticism for the 1990’s’ Themelios 15/2 ( Jan / Feb 1990 ) pg 45. By conflating the three, who knew what it was saying until the 1980’s and thereafter?

[5] Robert Thomas ‘Literary Genre … ‘ pg 82

[6] Yet Paul Barnett does exactly this, ignoring context and the books use of numbers and without any supporting argument unilaterally declares numbers mean what he posits. So 1000 in Rev 20 is “a great number or a very long period”, indicating he takes it as both numeric and as temporal! That on the face of it is mind boggling.

[7] Ammillenialists for example.

[8] Gentry, He Shall Have Dominion, 421-22. This is an approach exemplified in the New Hermeneutic. See D A Carson. ‘The Gagging of God’ pg 106

[9] See R Thomas ‘Literary Genre..’ pg 88

[10] Apart from a bland appeal to “genre” as apocalyptic.

[11] In other words it exhibits irrationalism. As to the accusation that my approach in this summary is mired in modernism that rejoinder will be dealt with in another article, but I believe others have pointed out the failures of postmodernism etc eg D A Carson in ‘the Gagging of God’ and William J Larkin’s book ‘Culture and Biblical Hermeneutics.

[12] See Steve Lewis, ‘Theological Presuppositions and the Interpretation of Revelation’. Conservative Theological Journal August 2003 pg 4.

[13] See Steve Lewis, ‘Theological Presuppositions and the Interpretation of Revelation’. Conservative Theological Journal August 2003. pg 3

[14] Andy Woods pg 9. 'A Case for the futurist interpretation of the book of Revelation' www.pretrib.org/data/pdf/woods-ACaseFortheFuturistl.pdf  and 85.pdf
[15] So Leon Morris sees the trumpet plagues as something that has been “true throughout the ages and it will be until the End.” Morris Revelation pg 123 cited in Thomas ‘literary genre ..’ pg 89