Café Apocalypsis

Life is what happens between blog postings.

I have completed my first year of teaching at Louisiana College and loved every moment of it. Naturally, I had to prioritize my time with course preparation and other responsibilities. As a result my blog rested dormant collecting cyberdust along with a ridiculous amount of junk comments waiting in moderation. The lack of blog posts, however, does not mean that things have been static in my life. I will be moving in a few weeks back to North Carolina to start my new job as the assistant director of the Ph.D. program at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary. I am excited about my return to SEBTS for many reasons, but one of which is because it really is an outstanding institution (see the Chronicle index).

I am leaving for Brazil this week and will be moving back to NC when I return. Please look for more posts around the end of August.

Until then. . .

(The following is a repost from my old blog)

Revelation 3:20 portrays a picturesque scene (like the painting of Holman Hunt) of Christ standing outside, knocking at a door and waiting for the occupant to let him in. In our modern evangelistic approaches this has become a standard verse for the invitation of a sinner to open the door of his heart and allow Christ to come into it. Doubtless, many have “received Christ” as a result of the presentation that incorporates this verse, but is it an appropriate utilization of this verse? In other words, is an evangelistic appeal for lost sinners to become Christian the intended meaning of this text? If not, what is a more exegetically sound interpretation?

Tim Wiarda argues, “It is thus quite legitimate to present this verse as Jesus’ promise to those who are unsaved.”[1] However, Daniel Wallace avers, “to use this text as a salvation verse is a perversion of the simplicity of the gospel.”[2] Wiarda approached the issue from the literary imagery, while Wallace’s conclusion was based on grammatical considerations. By examining the text from both a literary and grammatical analysis, I hope to demonstrate that Rev 3:20 is intended for Christians who are out of fellowship with Christ. As such, its aim is not so much an evangelistic appeal as it a matter of discipline and restoration.

The first question to address relates to the intended target audience. The text clearly addresses this letter to the church at Laodicea (3:14). Does this mean that the church members were all true Christians? The possibility for a mixed congregation carries a high degree of probability. One reason is because the letter to Thyatira exposes the existence of people following the false teachings of the prophetess “Jezebel” who encouraged sexual immorality, eating food sacrificed to idols, and learning Satan’s so–called deep secretes. John warns that after having time to repent, she will be cast on a bed of suffering. It is doubtful that she was a true Christian, and subsequently her followers are also suspect. In addition, the mixed nature of the church (i.e., meaning the existence of saved and unsaved people in the congregation) seems to have always been part of the history of the Church (Matt 13:24–30). However, verse 19, indicates that Jesus is addressing true born again Christians.

Jesus identifies his audience as those whom he loves (o[souj file,w/ lit. as many as I love). Because he loves them he rebukes and disciplines them (evle,gcw kai. paideu,w). One question that often emerges is “who are those that he loves?” Wiarda believes that this is a general love for all people, not just Christians.[3] Wallace draws a distinction between file,w and avgapa,w, asserting that file,w never refers to God’s love for unbelievers.[4] The problem is that Wallace falls into the trap of over particularizing the semantic distinction between these two words. Osborne aptly notes that John uses these terms synonymously.[5] Most commentators view the concept of disciplining loved ones as having Prov 3:12[6] in the background.[7] The closest parallel is Heb 12:4–11 where Prov 3:11–12 is quoted in a passage that describes God as a loving father who disciplines his children.[8] If this is a legitimate parallel then it is significant to highlight Heb 12:8, which states, “If you are not disciplined . . . then you are illegitimate children and not true sons.” Therefore, given the context that Jesus is addressing a church and the allusion to Prov 3:12 it is very plausible to assert that Christians, not lost sinners, are addressed in Rev 3:20.

The next question, then, addresses the meaning of the imagery of Jesus standing at the door. There are four major suggestions concerning the door imagery: (1) The eschatological door of Christ’s imminent coming in judgment (Thomas, Swete); (2) The eschatological door leading to the messianic banquet (Bauckham); (3) The door of a person’s heart; and (4) the door to someone’s house (Wiarda blends these last two together).[9] Rather then analyze and critique all of these, I want to argue that the imagery best fits the fourth option. One reason is because of the allusion to Song of Solomon 5:2:

Beale explains that the allusion “points to a focus on renewal of a relationship” and that by analogy, “Christ, the husband, is doing the same thing with regard to his bride, the church.”[11] The idea seems more closely aligned to restored fellowship than initial salvation. Another reason why, the fourth view is likely stems from a grammatical analysis of eivseleu,somai pro.j.

Wallace laments the translation of eivseleu,somai pro.j as “come into” instead of the more accurate “come in to.”[12] In fact even Wiarda confesses that the expression does not mean enter into a person, but to enter a house or room to where a person is (cf. Mk 15:43; Acts 10:3; 16:40; 17:2).[13] Therefore, the idea of this construction is to enter into something in order to meet with a person, not penetration into someone’s heart.[14] In Judges 4:21 the LXX states that Jael “eivsh/lqen pro.j auvto.n evn krufh/| kai. e;phxen to.n pa,ssalon evn tw/| krota,fw| auvtou/, clearly meaning that she went into the tent where Sisera slept (not into Sisera).[15] If the believer opens the door, Jesus will come in and dine with him. This notion of dinning together stems form the Near Eastern practice of table fellowship.[16] Does this mean that John literally envisions Jesus knocking on the door of people’s homes to join them for dinner? Once again this is a use of imagery and therefore the image should not be pressed too far. The idea is that the believer is out of fellowship with Christ (hence, Jesus is outside the person’s house[17]) and if the believer were to repent and open the door, Christ would gladly restore him or her into fellowship.

Should Rev 3:20 be invoked as an evangelistic invitation? We should probably refrain from using this verse in evangelistic appeals. This is not an invitation for unsaved sinners to “receive Jesus into their hearts,” because nothing in the text or context warrants this understanding. The normative concept for an unbeliever becoming a Christian is not to “receive Christ” but to “believe or trust in Christ.”[18] Perhaps the best way to use this verse is as Osborne suggests: “Rather, it is a call to a weak church to repent (as in 3:19). At the same time, it is a challenge to every individual . . . in that church (indeed, in every church; see 3:22) to open themselves up to Christ and invite him into their lives.”[19]

[1] Tim Wiarda, “Revelation 3:20: Imagery and Literary Context,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 38 (June 1995): 203.

[2] Wallace, Greek Grammar, 381.

[3] Wiarda, “Revelation 3:20,” 211–12.

[4] Wallace, Greek Grammar, 380. He writes: “Here file,w is used for “love”––a term that is never used of God/Jesus loving unbelievers in the NT. (Indeed, it would be impossible for God to have this kind of love for an unbeliever, for it routinely speaks of enjoyment and fellowship. avgapa,w, rather, is the verb used of God’s love for unbelievers [cf. John 3:16], for it frequently, if not normally, speaks of commitment and, when used with God/Jesus as the subject, the idea is often of an unconditional love.)” See also http://www.bible.org/docs/soapbox/twist4.ht.

[5] Grant Osborne, Revelation, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002), 210 n. 22. Osborne observed that “Neither verb is frequent in Revelation, with avgapa,w found in 1:5; 3:9; 12:11; and 20:9, and file,w in 3:19 and 22:15. Yet as in John, both terms are used for divine love (1:5; 3:9, 19; 20:9) and for human love (12:11 with 22:15).” See also D. A. Carson, The Gospel According to John, Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 676–77.

[6] Prov 3:12 LXX: o]n ga.r avgapa/| ku,rioj paideu,ei mastigoi/ de. pa,nta ui`o.n o]n parade,cetai

[7] R. H. Charles, The Revelation of St. John, vol. 1, The International Critical Commentary (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1920), 99; Henry Barclay Swete, Commentary on Revelation (Grand Rapids: Kregal, 1977), 63; William Mounce, The Book of Revelation, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977), 128; G.K. Beale, The Book of Revelation, The New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 307; Osborne, Revelation, 211.

[8] Osborne, Revelation, 211.

[9] To limit all the suggestions that have been offered to just these four is a gross over simplification. For example, I have decided to not even consider Aune who believes that this alludes to ancient magical documents involving inviting pa,predroj dai,mwn (“assistant god”) to someone’s house for dinner to invoke the god as a type of oracle. See David E. Aune, Revelation 1–5, vol 52a, Word Biblical Commentary (Nashville: Nelson, 1997), 250–54. For a helpful summary of various interpretations see Wiarda, “Revelation 3:20,” 204–8.

[10] Beale, Revelation, 308.

[11] Ibid. Other possible Scriptural allusions are Lk 12:36–37; 14:15; 19:1–10; 22:30; John 10:2–4; James 5:9; Matt 8:11; 26:29.

[12] Wallace, Greek Grammar, 381.

[13] Wiarda, “Revelation 3:20,” 205. He also acknowledges “There is no direct NT parallel that portrays Jesus seeking entry into a person’s heart.” (206) Yet in order to defend his thesis, Wiarda argues that the concept of “receiving Jesus” into a person’s heart can be indirectly supported by other passages that speak of the indwelling of Jesus in a believers heart (Eph 3:17; Jn 14:20; 15:4–5; Rom 8:10; Gal 2:20; 4:6; Col 1:27). I would not want to dispute the theology of the indwelling Christ, however I do think that to admit a text does not say what he wants it to say and then precede to make it fit his interpretation by appealing to scriptures that support his theological presupposition lacks hermeneutical integrity.

[14] Wallace instructively notes: “The idea of “come into” would be expressed with eivj as the independent preposition and would suggest a penetration into the person (thus, spawning the idea of entering into one’s heart). However, spatially pro,j means toward, not into. In all eight instances of eivseleu,somai pro.j in the NT, the meaning is “come in toward/before a person” (i.e., enter a building, house, etc., so as to be in the presence of someone), never penetration into the person himself/herself. In some instances, such a view would not only be absurd, but inappropriate (cf. Mk 6:25; 15:43; Lk 1:28; Acts 10:3; 11:3; 16:40; 17:2; 28:8).

[15] Ibid., 381, n. 70. Wallace also provides an insight analysis of the frequent usage of eivsh/lqen pro.j in the LXX, where it commonly refers to sexual intercourse. Wallace, therefore concludes, “Hence, the notion of entrance into the heart in Rev 3:20 lacks a sufficient parallel in biblical Greek and must be judged as a misunderstanding of this text.”

[16] Osborne, Revelation, 213. He quotes Bartchy (DJG 796) who says “When people were estranges, a meal invitation opened the way to reconciliation.” See also Wiarda, “Revelation 3:20,” 208–9, for additional insights on the social value of sharing a meal.

[17] Since early Christians frequently meet in people’s homes this could be addressing the entire church, but because of the individual nature of the conditional statement we should primarily apply this to individuals.

[18] See Wallace, Greek Grammar, 382 n. 71.

[19] Osborne, Revelation, 212.

I found this amusing passage in Bruce Metzger’s The New Testament: its background, growth, and content.

Even the Jewish Talmud itself acknowledges the existence of several kinds of Pharisees, not all of whom were good and upright. It differentiates seven varieties, and vividly characterizes five of them with descriptive adjectives which hold them up for ridicule. (a) The “wait-a-little” Pharisee always has an excuse for putting off doing a good deed. (b) The “bruised” or “bleeding” Pharisee, in order to avoid looking at a woman, shuts his eyes and stumbles against the wall so as to bruise himself and bleed. (c) The “shoulder” Pharisee wears, as it were, his good deeds ostentatiously upon his shoulders, where all can see them. (d) The “hump-backed” Pharisee walks about stooped over in mock humility. (e) The “ever-reckoning” Pharisee is continually counting up his good deeds to balance them against his bad deeds. (f) The “God-fearing” Pharisee stands in awe and dread of God. (g) The “God-loving” or “born” Pharisee is a true son of Abraham and a genuine Pharisee. (p. 41-42)

I recently came across an essay by Ian Paul in Studies in the Book of Revelation titled “The Book of Revelation: Image, Symbol, and Metaphor.” This essay represents a drastically scaled down version of his Ph.D. thesis “The Value of Paul Ricoeur’s Hermeneutic of Metaphor in the Interpretation of the Symbolism of Revelation 12 and 13.” He had my interest from the very start of this essay because he points out a common contrast between commentators and how they approach interpreting Revelation’s symbols. On one hand we have scholars like H. B. Swete and G. K. Beale that include a lengthly section on interpreting symbolism in their introductions. On the other hand, R. H. Charles and D. E. Aune completely omit such a discussion in favor of their source critical interests. After surveying the divergences in interpretative theory ranging from historical criticism, Origen, socio-political readings (Allan Boesak), Hal Lindsey, and feminist readings (Tina Pippin), he posits “[c]onflicts in interpreting Revelation’s imagery are in part due to the lack of methodology for the analysis of these images, in turn leading to a lack of conceptual apparatus for a dialogue between conflicting interpretations.” (p. 135).

I think he hits the nail on the head in that no standard methodological framework exists for interpreting the metaphorical and symbolic imagery of the Apocalypse. This is not to say that no methodology exists, but rather each interpreter employs a framework that corresponds to his or her own particular philosophical and theological perspectives.

Prior to his own suggestion for an interpretive framework based on Paul Ricoeur’s hermeneutic of retrival for metaphors, he provides a fascinating historical sketch charting the demise of the metaphor. Aristotle recognized that to master speech one must be the master of metaphor. This sentiment, however, was significantly marginalized with the rise of the scientific method and the ascendancy of empiricist thinking. Metaphors were denigrated because they were artistic forms of comparisons and failed to provide a proper and concrete description of the world. John Locke made this explicit in his Essay Concerning Human Understanding:

[I]f we would speak of things as they are, we must allow all the art of rhetoric, besides order and clearness, all the artifical and figurative application of words eloquence hath invented, are for nothing else but to insinuate wrong ideas, move the passions, and thereby mislead the judgment, and so indeed are perfect cheats, and therefore are wholly to be avoided.

Kant relegated metaphor into the category “aesthetic knowledge” as opposed to “useful knowledge.” Ian Paul concludes this with his insightful observation about how this has impacted the interpretation of the Book of Revelation. He avers, “[t]he whole discipline of hermeneutics continues to labour under this Kantian bifurcation. On the positivist side, Revelation is sidelined by the preference for the rational and propositional feel of the Pauline corpus, while on the romanticist side, the great store put by the potential of ambiguity empties Revelation’s images of their epistemic claims.” (p. 138)

Time does not permit me to summarize the rest of the essay, but I would like to conclude with a few remarks. The first is that I completely agree that there is a lack of uniformity when it comes to interpreting the imagery of the Apocalypse. I am not convinced that Ricoeur’s theories solves the dilemma, although they do point to a positive way forward. One possible avenue that needs to be explored is how Jewish and Christian interpreters of the Second Temple and early second century approached passages laden with metaphorical images. I am not so much interested in how metaphors work as much as I am concerned with how they function in the text of Revelation. The chief problem I see with developing a methodology for interpreting symbolism is that I am not certain that others would agree with my methodology because they have their own. In other words, developing a methodological framework of this nature would require a collaborated effort. Something like what occurred with the SBL study group resulting in Semeia 14 (1979) and 36 (1986) providing us with a fairly standardized definition for the apocalyptic genre.

The other remark that I have is that Ian Paul brilliantly demonstrated how the ideological shift in language giving preference to the “scientific” over the “aesthetic” has been the largest contributor to faulty interpretations of the Apocalypse. This highlights the fact that one of the reasons it is such a misunderstood book is because it represents an entirely different way of thinking than what we are accustomed.

During Christmas week I managed to read three books all pertaining to interpreting the figurative language of the Apocalypse. I would recommend all three of these books for various levels of interpreters of the Apocalypse.

Beginners

Those just beginning to read the Apocalypse will benefit greatly from The Apocalypse Code by Hank Hanegraaf .

This book targets a popular audience and assumes that a reader is basically familiar with the Book of Revelation. In fact, one might conclude that his target audience are those who have read the Left Behind series by Tim Lahaye and Jerry Jenkins. Hanegraaf offers a penetrating critique of the Dispensational interpretations of the Apocalypse. The bulk of his book presents what he calls Exegetical Eschatology and how to read the Book of Revelation in a way that corresponds with sound hermeneutical and exegetical principles. As such he primarily focuses on how to interpret figurative and symbolic language, the importance of the historically conditioned nature of the Apocalypse, reading the Apocalypse in light of the Old Testament, and thinking through the relationship between Israel and the Church.

I have not to found any other book written on a popular level for evangelical Christians that provides readers with a hermeneutically informed approach for reading the Apocalypse. He also demonstrates how a strict literal interpretation of figurative language actually distorts the meaning of the text. While I recommend this book, I do not agree with Hanegraaf’s preterist perspective mandating a pre-70 date for the Apocalypse and his subsequent interpretation of it as primarily an indictment against apostate Israel. He implies that a late date (95-96 A.D.) results in a significantly flawed interpretation. I find this to be overstated and unfair. My dating of the Apocalypse is a matter of evidence rather than theology and I believe the evidence favors a late day. What is more, to interpret Babylon as a reference to Jerusalem requires a force reading that minimizes much of the language and universal references associated with Babylon.

Intermediate

Those with a little more advanced training will really enjoy Plowshares & Pruning Hooks: Rethinking the Language of Biblical Prophecy and Apocalyptic by D. Brent Sandy

.

This book is primarily intended for students of OT prophetic literature, but is written with a stylish flare that makes it immensely readable. What is interesting is that the subtitle, “Rethinking the language,” implies that he advocates some radically new hermeneutic, but that is simply not the case. He offers a comprehensive guide for interpreting the metaphorical and figurative nature of the prophetic genre as it corresponds to Hebrew poetry. Although he only briefly focuses on the Book of Revelation, his overall treatment of types, figures, metaphors, and prophetic imagery are extremely relevant for the Apocalypse. I hope, in the near future, to take his work and develop a more focused and detailed study of the language and imagery in the Apocalypse.

Advanced

Those who have had advanced training in hermeneutics must read The Language and Imagery of the Bible by George B. Caird. I read this book for the first time several years ago and recently read it again. This is one of those “life changing” books that will help you read the bible for all its worth.

This book is the best book ever written on the subject of interpreting figurative and metaphorical language in the Bible. It culminates with an amazing chapter on the language of eschatology. Although it does not deal with the specific interpretations of various symbols, images, and metaphors in the Apocalypse, it does lay the necessary foundation for reading the Apocalypse. My only critique of this book is that Caird has a tendency to overemphasize most of the biblical concepts as metaphorical. For example, he posits the resurrection is an OT metaphor about the victory of God’s people in the face of death. On one hand, I certainly affirm the metaphorical significance of resurrection imagery. On the other hand, I believe that the language of resurrection is much more than metaphorical and bespeaks an expectation of a real physical resurrection to occur in the space-time continuum.

It has been an unusually long time since my lost post and just in case you were wondering I am still alive. I have been profoundly busy and as a result writing on the blog is the first thing to be sacrificed at the altar of priorities. This is not to say I have not written numerous posts in my head, but never found the time to type them out for you. I hope to return to a writing at least one or two posts a week.

The most recent edition of RBL has some exciting reviews, here are a few that are particularly interesting to me:

ORALITY AND BIBLICAL STUDIES: A REVIEW ESSAY By Werner H. Kelber

Andrew D. Clarke
Secular and Christian Leadership in Corinth: A Socio-Historical and Exegetical Study of 1 Corinthians 1-6
Reviewed by Barbette Stanley Spaeth

Paul-Gerhard Schwesig
Die Rolle der Tag-JHWHs-Dichtungen im Dodekapropheton
Reviewed by Rachel Bornand

Peter Stuhlmacher
Die Geburt des Immanuel: Die Weihnachtsgeschichten aus dem Lukas- und Matthäusevangelium
Reviewed by Markus Oehler

John N. Suggit, trans.
Oecumenius: Commentary on the Apocalypse
Reviewed by Pieter G. R. de Villiers

Robert C. Tannehill
The Shape of the Gospel: New Testament Essays
Reviewed by Derek S. Dodson

Ariel Álvarez Valdés
La nueva jerursalén, ¿ciudad celeste o ciudad terrestre? Estudio exegético y teológico de
Reviewed by Sylvie Raquel

Laurence M. Vance
Greek Verbs in the New Testament and Their Principal Parts
Reviewed by Jutta Henner

Chris VanLandingham
Judgment and Justification in Early Judaism and the Apostle Paul
Reviewed by D. A. Carson

Christopher J. H. Wright
Knowing the Holy Spirit through the Old Testament
Reviewed by James Robson

Earliest church tradition ascribes the Book of Revelation to John the apostle. Few other books of the New Testament enjoy such clear and unambiguous testimony of authorship. R. H. Charles writes, “Thus throughout the Christian Church during the 2^nd cent. there is hardly any other book of the N.T. so well attested and received as J^ap” (Charles, The Revelation of St. John, c. See also Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, 933; Gerhard Maier, Die Johannesoffenbarung und die Kirche, WUNT 25 [Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1981], 107; Carson and Moo, An Introduction, 701). Explicit early and uncontested testimony asserting apostolic authorship is found in the writings of Justin Martyr (Dial. 81.4. Cf. Eusebius, Hist. eccl., 4.18.8), Irenaeus (Ireneaus, Adv. haer. 4.20.11), Clement of Alexandria (Paed. 2.119; Quis div. 42; Strom. 6.106), Hippolytus (Antichr., 36), Origen (Comm. Jo., 2.4), and Tertullian (Adv. Marc. 3.14.3; 3.24.4). While no extant writing from Melito of Sardis exists, he apparently wrote a commentary On the Devil and the Apocalypse of John (Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 4.26.2; Jerome, Vir. ill. 9). It is generally assumed, then, that Melito would have attributed it to John the apostle. Other testimony may possibly point to additional early affirmation of apostolic  authorship in the writings of Papias of Heiropolis (ca. 60-130), the Gnostic Apocryphon of John (ca. 180 or possibly early 3rd century), and the Muratorian Fragment (ca. 180-200 or possibly the 4th or 5th century), but these sources remain inconclusive in certain respects. This evidence establishes that by the early second century until the third century there existed an early and unbroken tradition that John the apostle is the author of the Apocalypse.

I was pleased to discover several blogs that quickly caught my interest because they all share a distinctively Pauline emphasis.

The SBL Paul and Scripture Seminary has an interesting bibliographic blog.

David B. Capes of Fuller Theological Seminary Texas has a superb blog titled Pauline Theology.

Another noteworthy slightly new blog is the personal/academic blog and website of Michael J. Gorman the noted author of Apostle of the Crucified Lord and Reading Paul.

Last, but certainly not least, is the newly launched blog of Matthew D. Montonini titled New Testament Perspectives. I have enjoyed my interactions with Matthew in the past and it seems that we both share a common fascination with the anti-imperial themes of the NT.

He has also provided a helpful link (HT Andy Rowell) to the SBL interviews with Richard Bauckham and N. T. Wright. (Note: these mp3s are not best quality)

In his little known work on modesty, De pudicitia (ET Modesty), Tertullian (after his conversion to Montanism) writes:

For there is even an epistle to the Hebrews, written by Barnabas, who has been authorized by God sufficiently, because St. Paul has mentioned him at his own side in observance of abstinence, ‘for I only and Barnabas, have we not power to forbear working.’ At any rate this epistle of Barnabas is more accepted by the churches, than that apocryphal “Pastor” of the adulterers. And so without any introduction he exhorted his disciples rather to go on unto perfection not laying again the foundation of repentence from the dead works, “for it is impossible for those” - he says - “who were once enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost and have tasted the good word of God… - when time is out - if they shall fall away, to renew them again unto penitence, when they crucify to themselves the Son of God and put him to an open shame. For the earth, which drinketh in the rain that cometh oft upon it, and bringeth forth.”

This excerpt of the English Translation is only available from a photocopy of a translation by the Swedish philologist Dr. Gösta Claesson