I just finished the first chapter of Bauckham’s The Theology Of The Book Of Revelation, entitled “Reading the book of Revelation.” He sketches quite a few helpful things about Revelation’s structure, one of which is theΒ threeΒ genres of literature that make up Revelation — Apocalypse, Prophetic, & Epistle. The latter genre is quite central in providing the structure through which we should read and understand the whole book of Revelation, according to Bauckham. In other words, the book should be understood as a letter written to these seven churches; and thus this presupposes that the primary milieu that John is targeting is that of the late first century. His goal was to, in continuity with the Jewish apocalyptic/prophetic tradition familiar to themΒ from the Old Testament, was to use evocative language to transpose their perspectives into an Christian apocalyptic world; over and against the pagan secular world (of Rome) which they were currently inhabiting. John’s goal was to give them “eyes to see, and ears to hear” so that they would understand that the current situation and persecution they were enduring—and also the lusty temptations that others in some of the churches were participating in (e.g. Laodicea et al.)—would soon be coming to an end, and was all under God’s judgment. Bauckham writes:
[T]he world seen from this transcendent perspective, in apocalyptic vision, is a kind of new symbolic world into which John’s readers are taken as his artistry creates it for them. But really it is not another world. It is John’s readers’ concrete, day-to-day world seen in heavenly and eschatological perspective. As such its function, as we shall notice in more detail later, is to counter the Roman imperial view of the world, which was the dominant ideological perception of their situation that John’s readers naturally tended to share. Revelation counters that false view of all reality by opening the world to divine transcendence. All that it shares with the apocalyptic literature by way of the motifs of visionary transportation to heaven, visions of God’s throne-room in heaven, angelic mediators of revelation, symbolic visions of political powers, coming judgment and new creation — all this serves the purpose of revealing the world in which John’s readers live in the perspective of the transcendent divine purpose. (Richard Bauckham, “The Theology Of The Book Of Revelation,” 8 )
This, contends Bauckham, is the primary purpose of the book of Revelation. It is to provide a theological gloss through which these first century churches could understand their self-identity relative to God’s eschatological purposes juxtaposed with the kingdom of man. Consequently, this rubs against reading Revelation the way I grew up reading it; as a futurist predictive template of end times scenarios that involve mother Russia and Red China rushing in on the nation of Israel, along with the rest of the world. While, according to Bauckham’s presuppositions, John’s book is Jewish in genesis, it is a Christian reinterpretation of things; wherein Jesus and thus His people, Christians (both Jew and Gentile cf. Eph. 2) are those who are being opposed by the kingdom of darkness and the sons of men. So certainly there is futurist appropriation possible, and intended by Revelation; it is not to predict the “details,” instead it is to predict the certainty of God’s eschatological (proleptic-future) judgment that is coming on this past, present, future world system. This is John’s intent; to comfort the afflicted (churches in chapters 2–3), and afflict the comfortable and immoral (churches). This, just like we read Old Testament apocalyptic-prophetic books (even dispensationalists usually do, in principle), is how we should appropriate the Epistle of Revelation; according to Bauckham.
What do you think?
I think his emphasis on seeing the entire Revelation is very helpful; it keeps us grounded in the first century, and reminds us that this was a text that had meaning for, could be completely understood by, and had practical ethical implications for, a first century audience. I think that it helps to limit the range of possible interpretations of the visions (which, as you and I both know, can get rather outrageous).
I also appreciate the way in which he describes how a focus on transcendence works in apocalyptic. It gives an oppressed people hope in what appears to be an entirely hopeless situation. They might not have been able to see how going to act through their physical eyes, but through eyes of faith, they could be confident that God would overturn the empire, and vindicate those who followed Christ.
Sorry, first sentence was supposed to read, I think his emphasis on seeing the entire Revelation “as an epistle” is very helpful.
Bobby: Of course this is interesting, but my approach is going to be the Text itself first, before the historical. Thus I see it as both “revelation” (apocalypse) and “prophecy” (Rev. 1:1-3). Note the plenary genitive. And see too, verse 19. Of course it is an Epistle; and the Letters too in Rev. 2 & 3. Also, it appears that in verse 10: “I came to be (or found myself), by the Spirit, in the day of the Lord). i.e. by the power, or the agency, of the Spirit, just as in 4:2, 17:3, and 21:10. Note Ezek. 1, the prophet was under the direct influence and power of the Spirit. So too John, and/in “The Day of the Lord”. Here the ‘Lord’s Day’ is ‘The Day of the Lord’! The manifest judgment of God! Yes, I am following E.W. Bullinger here somewhat. This last Book of the Bible is in connection with the Book of Genesis, “and is the foundation on which Divine Revelation rests; and on which it is built up. It is not only the foundation of all Truth, but enters into, and forms part of, all subsequent inspiration; and is at once the warp and woof of Holy Writ.”
Bobby: Of course I could be wrong in my interpretation here, just as Bullinger? But I am going to follow out this verbal and prophetic futuristic biblicism. This does appear to be the most faithful to the biblical text itself. Both literal and spiritual! π
Brian,
I think keeping the original audience in mind is a very important ground upon which to engage exegesis of Revelation through. It’s interesting how Revelation is often sanctioned off from the normal ways of bib interpretation by many Christian appropriations. As if Revelation defies normal rules and principles of exegesis. I think Bauckham helps remind us of this. I probably tend to see it through a more foretelling mode than does Bauckham, but I still think his insight on this is very important and should challenge those who see Revelation as only futurist in orientation; it’s not!
Fr. Robert,
How do you think John intended his original readers to understand what he was “revealing?” To annex it off as only futurist and rife with specific detailed itemization of the future seems awry from John’s original audience and purpose. I’m not saying I don’t see John doing “Prophecy” (even in a foretelling sense), but I see him doing so within the parameters of something like the analogy that Jesus used of the birth pangs. So what these 1st cent. saints were going through, is exactly what the end will look like, relative to the kingdom of man vs. God, at the end; only the end will be in a global and intensified sense.
Bobby,
Certainly like the OT itself, the Book of Revelation has it’s historical sense, this is more the aspect of chapters 2 & 3. And certainly the whole Book can have a spiritual application, but the final exegesis and interpretation is future to my mind. As Rev.1: 19, and whether three-fold or two? It is looking toward the future.
I think there is a both and here, Fr Robert. But, like any book in the Bible it is occasional in orientation, and thus finds its primary shape by that context. Of course, then, the Holy Spirit uses this as another occasion to speak whatever he will about what is to come as well. Yet, I am way more comfortable in allowing the first century context be determinative or the control for its primary focal point vs. the 21st century.
Hello Bobby,
This is my first post to your site. Your journey as I’ve read in your previous posts is much the same as mine. This has opened up a whole new world of theological thinking for discipleship that I am excited to become acquainted with.
I’ve read Richard Bauckham’s book that you are reviewing. I have come to see Revelation as a situated letter on Christian discipleship that carries through this whole age to the end, even if historical circumstances called for Revelation’s more particular address. This allowed me to see the merits of all the ways it has been read in the church (preterist, historicist, idealist, and futurist).
I think John’s address to his constituents sets the theme of the book quite well: “I, John, your brother and partner in the tribulation and the kingdom and the patient endurance that are in Christ Jesus….. (Rev. 1:9). This is especially so if Paul’s use of “in Christ” language means anything to our identity as a cross-bearing people for the sake of the world. It was exciting to work through the book with these three themes in mind – to see the hope we are called to that allows us to be obedient just as Jesus was to his Father’s will.
I am looking forward to read what you gain from Bauckham’s book as you review it.
Mark
Bobby,
The reality of Futurism and the futuristic interpretation of Revelation, etc. is hardly 21st century (note the link). And it is here I would recommend the standard book of ‘Things To Come, etc.’ by Pentecost, and too many of Ryrie’s works. I know this is not popular today in theological circles, but it is where I have returned.
http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/antichrist.htm
Btw, it is here that I note too, that it is people like Irenaeus and Cyprian, etc. believed in the literal Second Coming of Christ, and from Daniel, a Personal Antichrist. In fact even in his book: Regnum Caelorum, etc. Charles Hill states: “We have already observed that both Hippolytus and Origen accepted such calculations (a world-week chronology) of the worlds age and even seemed to give some credence to a full world-week allegory..” The point being they believed before Christ would return the Antichrist must be manifested, who would engineer a universal deception and apostasy; before Christ came. And this would be future!
Fr Robert,
It is precisely because I’ve read Things To Come, Ryrie et al that I would say what I did about the 21st century. If the interpretive key for prophetic history is the nation of Israel; then the book of Revelation and all things prophetic in the Bible are annexed off to that key.
And I think you’re reading too much into, at least my personal views. I’m not fully on board with Bauckham. I do believe in the reality of the a personal antichrist etc. But I can also hold to most of what Bauckham is saying w/o contradiction with my own historic premil views.
@Mark,
Hi, welcome, thanks for the comment. I think there are elements of all the paradigms, as you note, that Revelation is usually interpreted through. I hold to the 90 or 95ad dating of the book of REvelation, which means I don’t follow a full preterism, and even the partial preterism I would follow would be a modified one (Kim Riddlebarger has some good discussion on that in his book “A Case For Amillennialism”). But yes, when the book of Revelation is read like the rest of the Bible, and not like a code needing a decoder key that only a few elite (geopolitical experts) have; then the book itself takes on a whole new dimension in re. to spiritual formation and discipling (as well as providing the comfort that Paul speaks of in I Thess 4). Thanks for the feeback, look forward to more.
Bobby: The question was the futurism of the majority of the Book of Revelation. And this Bauckham simply does not provide. I was not picking on your personal ideas and views.
Actually, my question had to do with the 21st century, and how a commitment to the nation of Israel as the interpretive key shapes a kind of futurist interpretation. I realize that Bauckham is soft on any kind of futurism; that’s where I would part ways with him somewhat.
Bobby: You know better than most that the interpretive view of Dispensationalism places a renewed Israel central in any futurist position. The history of Jews returning to their land in the late 19th century, and also becoming the Nation of “Israel” in 1948, is a precursor to Israel in the Millennial Kingdom.
Fr Robert, I do realize this; and this is why I am pressing it, a bit. I see it as problematic to make the nation of Israel as the locus and purpose of salvation history. That is not to say that I don’t think the nation of Israel is unimportant, or that there aren’t an remnant of ethnic Jews who are being saved (per Rom. 9–11); but to make a nation the centrum for all of God’s saving purposes is to fail to appreciate their vocational role vs. their salvific place. Their vocational role, from my reading, was to mediate and particularize the “seed” to all the nations (thus making Abram “plural”); that “seed” (according to Gal. 3) is the point, purpose, and perdurance of salvation history. This, if true, should have a dramatic effect upon one’s hermeneutical model. My obvious point: I see Jesus, God’s person, as the point and “control” of salvation history; not the nation or even the Church that mediates him to all of creation.
I think making Israel central to prophetic biblical history creates a certain “kind” of futurist hermeneutic that I am no longer comfortable with. That is not to say that I don’t follow a futurism of a different kind now; because I do! If that makes sense.
Bobby: This is why “Israel” and “Covenant” are where we see “Christ Incarnate” (Rom. 9:4-5 ; 15:9), but even with this as we move from Eph. 2:12-15, we move to St. Paul’s revelation in Eph. 3, note verses 9-10-11..and finally to verse 21:
“to Him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughtout all ages, world without end. Amen”.
This is that “mystery” which was kept secret since or before the world began! (Rom.16:25, etc.) So the salvation or doctrinal part of Romans ends with the eighth chapter, a chapter on which is built the foundation of the “Ephesians” truth. The key note is heavenly, and in it is revealed the “great secret” of this Dispensation of grace, viz. that individual sinners among Jews and Gentiles are being “called-out” and formed into “the church which is His body”, in which there is neither Jew nor Gentile. And that this church or body should be “to the praise of the glory of His grace” throughtout eternity (Eph. 2:7), and an object lesson to the rulers and authorites in the heavenlies (Eph. 3:10), “of the glorious purpose (before hidden in God) of Him in “heading up” in one all things in a Dispensation of fulness of times (Eph.1:10), having Christ Personal as its glorified Head, and Christ Mystical, the glorified members together with Him of His Body.”
And as Chrysostom said, ‘these lofty thoughts and doctrines which . . . things which he scarcely anywhere else utters, he here expounds.”
Indeed we simply must move into these spiritual and revelatory places with St. Paul! For me this is more than mental theology, but a spiritual “biblicism”.. the words and ministry of St. Paul himself. Or as John says…’Spirit & Truth’!
Fr Robert,
I’m way past mental theology myself. My heart is and always will be what you call spiritual biblicism. Obviously that doesn’t get us anywhere in re. to coming to agreement.
Bobby,
We don’t need to agree so much, as just stand in awe of God’s Word! And that’s not really mental as a spiritual experiential empirical! π
Fr Robert,
Amen! I am more eclectic in some ways (on this issue anyway). I am not willing to totally discard dispensationalism; I think it offers some helpful correctives in emphasis (it does provide chastening for those other interpretive models that diminish the significance of the nation of Israel etc), just as all of the paradigms do. That’s why I like the “label” historic premil, because it is rather elastic in some instances, it still holds onto the premil side, while also allowing for the possibility to see things more through a historia salutis approach. Anyway, I just am thankful for God’s Word; I don’t know what I’d do w/o it! I’m glad we fellowship around that reality!!