3 Ways to Read the Book of Revelation

According to Richard Hays, there are three interpretive approaches to the Book of Revelation. I will list the three and their definition and my leaning towards the method I find most attractive.

1. Predictive: 

The more dominant view throughout Church History, it reads the text of Revelation as 'literal' and as a transcript of historical events. It is usually considered to include varying contemporary political/religious events. The Gulf War, The Soviet Union, etc. I find this to be a poor translation of literal events, especially when it is contingent on our current situation. Thus we read back into Revelation our current circumstances. Highly problematic for me.

2. Historical:

Instead of being read as a prediction, Revelation is to be read as a commentary on political events within the context of the original author of Revelation. Hays states that like the Book of Daniel, Revelation is a resistance document. Simply, the imagery evokes the intended meaning of, say, Caesar and the Roman empire. This is a more attractive interpretation as it affirms the original intent of the author and grants a window into the views/symbols/ideals of the time.

3. Theopoetic:

One reads this text as a theological and poetic representation of the spiritual environment  within where the church finds herself. It is thus a prophetic confrontation of all earthly pretensions of power. This allows for a stronger sense of ethics, and seems to drive most fluidly within the context of apocalyptic literature, especially with the imagery there within.

I don't pretend to understand the Book of Revelation. I find it to be a fascinating but also a maddening document. Mostly because I cannot read it without the image of Putin and Reagan. But, it is indeed a fascinating document.

For a pacifist reading of Revelation, Hays "The Moral Vision of the New Testament" is quite good. Material taken from 170-173.

--Nick

Pulse: How We View The Bible (Guest Post by Brandan Robertson)

1. What important topic do you think our Christian generation (20s) has to deal with the most? Why must we deal with this issue?

The issue of how we approach the Bible in general. 

For me as an evangelical, I affirm the full inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture and see it as the highest guide on all matters concerning faith and practice. But we need to grapple with what is the best way to approach and deal with the Bible. We have generally been handed two options: the literal approach, believing that every event and statement recorded in the Bible is scientifically, historically, geographically, and absolutely true in the modern sense of the word or a rejection of the Bible as a reliable guide for anything. Neither of these approaches works for the new generation of Christians. Most of us are ready to accept things like the fact of evolution and many of us want to embrace a hermeneutical framework that allows for egalitarianism to exist within our churches. But most of us have been told that to do these things we are either “selling out” or that we have to disregard the Bible as our authority all together.

Neither option is healthy. Neither option gets us anywhere.

If we don’t begin to look into history and try to find a better way to approach the Bible, we are going to see divisions continue to spring up and more and more injustice committed in the name of “the Bible”. Many support war, anti-environmental, anti-homosexual etc. sentiments with Biblical passages based on a skewed literal hermeneutic. Likewise, many Christians disregard the Bible and are embracing any new and colorful thing that comes their way. These postures will destroy the faith. Want proof? Look at the last 500 years since the Protestant Reformation.

2. In what (positive or negative) ways has our generation already engaged with this issue?

I think there is no doubt that we are all engaging with this issue. But the reality is, many of us don’t have a framework to engage this other than the two postures I mentioned earlier. Derek Flood, a young budding theologian, does an awesome job understanding and interpreting scripture in a serious, literal, but not fundamentalist way. So does N.T. Wright (who was born in the wrong generation).

Karl Barth and folks from the Neo Orthodox perspective also bring a fresh perspective to the table that I think our generation can relate to. Folks like The Gospel Coalition (whom I love) are unfortunately rehashing a fundamentalist approach to the Bible that isn’t very helpful but because of their popularity among millennial is being embraced. The answer to this issue is not to rehash the same old answers from the past 200 years. We need to stretch further forward and reach farther back in order to get a fresh and renewed way of dealing with Scripture. Scoffed, Edwards, Owens, and Calvin just aren’t cutting it anymore. We need some Clement and Chrysostom along with, dare I say, J.R. Daniel Kirk and Derek Flood.

3. What can we do to improve our relationship with addressing this issue? Or can things be improved?

We just need to be open. We need to work on not being so sectarian, so defensive. We need to be willing to rethink, reform, and renew our faith. (and that’s not just a shameless plug for the Revangelical movement). Until we can begin, with epistemological humility, to admit that we may not have the right way or the best way and begin to listen to traditions beyond our own, then we will never be able to address any of the pressing issues that face our generation. We need to listen. To learn. And to discern with grace what is best and true. If we can’t learn from Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Progressive, Liberal, Conservative, and Fundamentalist streams concerning hermeneutical approaches to scripture, then we are doomed to never see any change and instead see increased division and hostility.

I was recently having a conversation with an Evangelical friend of mine who comes from a fundamentalist background. I was suggesting that Evolution could be reconciled with the Genesis narrative. After a half an hour of discussion, he finally said something to the effect of, “You know what, I am a black and white guy! And I think you’re a heretic. Not the kind who is going to hell, but the kind that is teaching falsehoods.” I understand where he is coming from. Many of us have been taught a view of the Bible that has been fenced off with the warning “If you change this, you lose everything.” That kind of rhetoric is absurd, untrue, and stunts the movement of God in his Church. I used to believe that. I used to believe that our way was the only way. But that’s just not the case. Things aren’t as black and white as we want to make them. And our approach to the Bible cannot be reduced by modernism to simply either “everything is factually true in every regard” or “nothing is factual and is complete fiction.”

Neither is good. Neither is faithful. Neither helps anyone in the long run.

I hope that as we continue to discuss these topics as a generation, we will see new life spring up. I pray that walls will come down. I pray that we will grow closer to Jesus. And I pray that we would be pulled by the Spirit of God ever forward to fresh and new ways and ever backwards towards tried and true ways- living in that sacred and divine tension.

Brandan Robertson is a theology student at Moody Bible Institute, a blogger, podcaster, aspiring minister, and dreamer behind The (Re)vangelical movement.

You can find him on the web, twitter and facebook.

Clarity, Spirals and Hermeneutics

The debates within evangelicalism are now beginning to boil to this stock-broth reduction:

Scripture is clear. . .

I was listening to a podcast segment on Unbelievable? where the topic centered around the 'Religious Right' and whether or not it was 'wrong.' I appreciated the program, not because I necessarily agreed with the ideas expressed but because it shone a bright light on two important factors.

Those two factors were brought out vividly by a right-wing Christian who proof texted Scripture like a bat out of Tartarus to prove capitalism, and by Brian McLaren. The right-winger would espouse the clarity of Scripture to prove his point, and Brian would undermine the right-wingers clarity of Scripture by allowing the man his opinion but saying people disagree.

Those two things:

One would assert over and over that his view was "biblical" and "clear" as a means of ending the discussion before it had a chance to really begin. I will grant that some topics in Scripture are clear, but many of them aren't. Thus the spiral and lack of clarity.

The other factor was the only response Brian McLaren could make was to simply disagree. Which was fine and Brian was a gentleman about it, but nevertheless I wish that things weren't just boiled down to simply a disagreement in abstract silence. The spiral of hermeneutics is washed down to simply a disagreement and that is that.

Now I grant that disagreements aren't necessarily a bad thing. As someone who does, however, tend towards theological realism, I find that most disagreements are centered around flattening interpretations to accommodate some views and exclude others. In short, while I don't think Scripture at all teaches Capitalism, I really wish more progressive Christians would simply stand up, say that the argument is bad and give really good reasons why it isn't.

I should offer a concluding remark and clarification; I didn't distinguish between salvific and non-salvific issues. What one thinks about the age of the earth has no bearing on one's salvation. But one can be dead wrong.

So, let's make a point to make better arguments (conservatives) and actually give better biblical arguments (progressives). Let's avoid black and white thinking where color is needed, and let's avoid pat answers. The truth usually sucks and I hate believing in it, but the universe is what it is regardless whether or not I want it to stop spinning.

There. I picked on both enough to know that I'm right and that is the clear sober truth.

Psych. :)

--Nick

Inerrancy, Genesis and Terms of Endearment

OPENING

I've had a few recent shifts in thought about the topic of biblical inerrancy, spurred on by discussions with good friends, reading the Bible and perusing various literature about said holy book.

So, to begin this off on the proper foot, I'm going to create a phrase that I will attempt to defend in the ensuing post(s?) as the way I tend to approach the Bible. This definition is more of my own musings on the topic, as many within Christendom are arguing over it and I'm nothing if not needy for more controversy.

INERRANCY AS A BRICK WALL

I was raised with the idea of biblical inerrancy, and that was more or less defined by the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. Their "short statement" reads:

1. God, who is Himself Truth and speaks truth only, has inspired Holy Scripture in order thereby to reveal Himself to lost mankind through Jesus Christ as Creator and Lord, Redeemer and Judge. Holy Scripture is God's witness to Himself.
2. Holy Scripture, being God's own Word, written by men prepared and superintended by His Spirit, is of infallible divine authority in all matters upon which it touches: it is to be believed, as God's instruction, in all that it affirms; obeyed, as God's command, in all that it requires; embraced, as God's pledge, in all that it promises.
3. The Holy Spirit, Scripture's divine Author, both authenticates it to us by His inward witness and opens our minds to understand its meaning.
4. Being wholly and verbally God-given, Scripture is without error or fault in all its teaching, no less in what it states about God's acts in creation, about the events of world history, and about its own literary origins under God, than in its witness to God's saving grace in individual lives.
5. The authority of Scripture is inescapably impaired if this total divine inerrancy is in any way limited or disregarded, or made relative to a view of truth contrary to the Bible's own; and such lapses bring serious loss to both the individual and the Church.

Presumably, this excludes interpolations within the text by stating implicitly that if it was not divinely inspired then it carries no authority. An example of an interpolation is a word or phrase that was not in the original manuscripts (further ex. 1 Corinthians 14:34-35; for a compelling conservative evangelical case for this, Philip Payne's "Man and Woman, One in Christ" pgs 217-67). But, upon reading this shorter statement, I don't find much that makes my toes curl or my scalp itch.

Interestingly, the writers also mention that inerrancy is not necessary for salvation (Article XIX), though they worry of the consequences.

A MOST LINGERING QUESTION

How do we honestly resolve apparent tension (historical, scientific, textual) in the bible without glossing over it?

DEFINITION

My view is one I will dub "flexible" or "open inerrancy." This means one can take into account various textual or historical errors by maintaining genre distinctions and personal witnesses. Various people viewing something from different angles resulting in various points of view on the same event does not nullify the actual event.

By this, I mean inerrancy (like evangelical) is a flexible definition and can include various options and ranges of influence. A big debate over this comes about by Mike Licona and Norm Geisler with Licona's view of Matthew 27 and the raised saints likely being not historical fact (one I agree with and support Mike). The question under the microscope is not the Bible's authority as most would suggest, but how to interpret such a strange little text within the confines of biblical authority.

An openness to expand the walls of inerrancy while maintaining biblical authority is what is necessary. We have to be personally critical to see if we can resolve issues within the text without a priori assuming that the bible is already perfect. I'm not willing to throw out the term "inerrancy" simply because other Christians claim ownership. In the same way Universalists don't get to claim Romans 5 or Calvinists get to claim Romans 9.

GENESIS AND THE "TEST CASE" FOR INERRANCY

I've heard it repeated that if one denies a "literal" interpretation (literal being used in an inflexibly flexible fashion, or rather, what makes sense to me is literal) of Genesis that one ceases being an inerrantist. I find this quite odd. So I'll muse a bit.

I think Genesis 1-11 aren't meant to be used or abused in a scientific fashion. Given the ANE culture and the prevalence of varying views of gods (an example being used that the gods flooded the earth because the puny humans were making too much noise) comes to mind.

Genesis personifies chaos, possibly utilizing the Babylonian god Tiamat (a primordial goddess of the sea; possible reference to Genesis 1:2 and the deep). This personification is used in a way to not only assert that YHWH is greater than their gods, but that YHWH is separate from creation (v.1). Though Church Father Origen was prone to over-allegorization, he never considered a "literal" view of 6 literal 24 hour days, citing the sequencing of the creation of night and day, sun and stars. The early church didn't seem to view Genesis in the same way, so I'm concerned why modern evangelicalism feels the need to draw the line at Genesis.

For a post-creation account exhibiting YHWH's subversive power, see Elijah's experience with the prophets of Baal. YHWH is bigger than your god (1 Kings 18).

Needless to say, Genesis cannot be read "literally" because it is not a literal account. Instead, from an ANE perspective, the greater principles are quite strong: YHWH is sovereign and creation came about because of a command. Genesis is intended to be a mythic, grandiose explanation as to the creator God's desire for community and his power to bring this about.

Another issue comes about when historical aspects are put in incorrect order, or technical difficulties like the spear/sword that King Saul is killed with in 1 and 2 Samuel. These would be technical errors, but they do not detract from the truth of the statement.

To view this in the oppose way is to miss the point of the text. At this point, the issue isn't the authority of Scripture, but of interpretive method. The method I have in mind can easily account for scientific formulation while maintaining the authority of the Bible.

A FALLIBLE DOXOLOGY

Maintain the bible's authority while keeping a critical eye is no easy task. In fact, I doubt I've done much to assuage the issues within the text. What about the "all or nothing" bit? Besides it being a fallacy, I don't see much of an issue. One needn't run away in fear unless they are committed to a specific view of Scripture that crumbles when challenged.

Hopefully this conversation helps. 

--Nick

(postscript) re-editing this post. Things may change.

Origen, Homilies & Hermeneutics

"While he was not the first Christian to write commentaries on the books of the Bible, the scope of his achievements in this area was unmatched in the ancient Church. His are not the earliest Christian homilies preserved, but the size of the corpus of his homilies makes them the earliest that can be studied in breadth and depth. They reveal him as an accomplished preacher of the Bible and a concerned pastor of the Church. He seems, moreover, to have been the first Christian to conceptualize the hermeneutical process. He devotes a large portion of the fourth book of On First Principles to how the Bible should be interpreted. This issue is also raised in his homilies.5 His approach to the Bible prevailed in the Church among both his followers and his antagonists for centuries. Beryl Smalley has said, "To write a history of Origenist influence on the west would be tantamount to writing a history of western exegesis.6"

Origen, "Homilies on Genesis and Exodus." Page 2.

5. See, for examples, Ex. Hom. 5.1.
6. The Study of the Bible in the Middles Ages, 2nd ed. 1952 (reprint ed. Notre Dame, In., 1964), 14.

BioLogos & Core Theistic Evolution Tenants

Ted Davis:

(1) The Bible is NOT a reliable source of scientific knowledge about the origin of the earth and the universe, including living things—because it was never intended to teach us about science.

This reflects not only modern scientific knowledge, but also (more importantly) modern biblical scholarship. Peter Enns and some other evangelical scholars have recently stressed this point, initiating a firestorm in the evangelical academic community that, so far, has confirmed my view that evangelicals in general are just not ready to deal with this, even though it is consistent with the classical notion of accommodation. My own comments about the magnitude of the problem, written before the firestorm started, can be found here.

(2) The Bible IS a reliable source of knowledge about God and spiritual things.

Remember the quip that Galileo attributed to Cesare, Cardinal Baronio, “The intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how heaven goes.” (We discussed this earlier in the series). Evolution was not an issue in Galileo’s day, but this platitude is frequently quoted by advocates of TE—and often without proper attribution to Baronio. Commonality obviously lies in the attitude, not the topic. Many critics of TE are willing to adopt Galileo’s approach when it comes to the Solar System, but not when it comes to evolution: they are anxious to keep Galileo out of the garden of Eden.

(3) Scientific evidence is irrelevant to the Bible—it is simply not a science book.

See above. This needs to be stated separately, since some believers look to science for “proof” of the Bible, just as some unbelievers look to science for “disproof.” Proponents of TE stress that science and the Bible aren’t like apples and oranges; rather, they are more like apples and rocks: you can hold one in each hand without tension, but they have very little in common. We wouldn’t look for God in the phone book, or in an automobile repair manual. Don’t look for science in the Bible. In principle, scientific theories neither support nor threaten the Bible.

(4) The creation story in Genesis 1 is a confession of faith in the true creator, intended to refute pantheism and polytheism, not to tell us how God actually created the world.

This is meant to echo what we said about the Framework View. It is not necessarily true that all TEs accept the Framework View or something like it, but many do. Most would probably say that the Bible is not contradicted by any specific scientific theory of biological diversity—unless that theory oversteps its philosophical boundaries and functions as a kind of religion, what Conrad Hyers called “dinosaur religion.”

(5) The Bible tells us THAT God created, not how God created

Again, this sounds like the Framework View—or, at least, it should. Belief in God the creator is consistent with science, and even supported by some aspects of science; but, it is not a substitute for scientific explanations.

For my part, I see too many similarities between ANE literature and Genesis 1-11 to consider it a historical account, though there may be historical truths involved. However, I think Ted gets close to the heart of the issue, and it not about how one takes the authority of the Bible, how one interprets it.

If one is attempting to stay true to the text, this includes the implication of genre and literary devices within the genre. To extrapolate principles is necessary, but to take every detail literally seems to go beyond the natural scope of the text.

Plus, a TE doesn't deny God created the earth. Imagine for a moment, that creation is linked with itself, and itself reflects the glory of God. In my own eyes, if I share DNA with creatures from the past, that shows me how God not only brought me/us forth, but that we share a special bond with creation. That creation is intrinsically linked.

But, I'm just musing right now. For me, point 5 is the better point; one that I made when I was a staunch OEC.

For the entire article, click HERE.

--Nick

Hermeneutics: "Slave & Women"

My lady wrote this. Check it out. ;)

"Different Interpretive Methods within the Evangelical Egalitarian Camp 

I’ve made a lot of progress finding the points that are guiding the differing interpretations of the gender debate. My understanding that there are two different interpretive methods being used in the Egalitarian camp was confirmed by Douglas Walker in a TEDS dissertation I recently read. In my own words, they are: 1) Those who say the text actually means something different than what the hierarchalists think it means and 2) those who believe Paul’s words are more culturally confined (because they believe the text warrants this?). I would definitely fall into the first camp even though I acknowledge those coming from the second perspective sometimes make valid points. I would side with Schreiner in saying that everything necessary for faith and practice can be found in the Scriptures and has its ultimate expression in the NT (I include useful principles here)."

To continue, Allison Quient blog post


--Nick