A Study of Matthew Chapter 24, Part 6 -- Matthew 24:4(Stay tuned for more posts until study of Matthew 24 is completed.)
And Jesus answered and said to them, "See to it that no one misleads you." (Matthew 24:4)
In part 5 of our study, I suggested that many believers have been misled throughout most of Church history in the area of eschatology (future events leading up to the consummation of history). In recent times, many believers are being misled by the Preterist approach to prophecy in the Bible. Preterism assumes that the major prophetic portions of the Scriptures, such as those in the Olivet Discourse (Matthew 24 and 25) and the book of Revelation, were fulfilled in the events associated with the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 by Rome.
In recent years, Preterism is being fueled by a misinterpretation of the apocalyptic literature in the Bible. Apocalyptic is one of the genres of literature represented in the Scriptures. Genre is a word that comes to us from the French, meaning kind or species. When applied to biblical studies, genre refers to the different types of literature represented in the Bible. A particular genre is a group of literary works in which common traits in elements of content, form, and function have been recognized. We recognize biblical genres because we see them in the context of the larger world of ancient literature. The are six major genres in the Canon:
1. Theological Narrative--Biblical communication through the recording of events (e.g., Genesis through Esther, and Matthew through Acts)
2. Poetic Literature--Biblical communication with rhythm and often high emotion (e.g., the Psalms. Elements of poetry are also in Job, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, and in parts of the Epistles)
3. Wisdom Literature--Biblical communication in generality to motivate the reader to live responsibly with a sense of accountability to God (e.g., Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and James)
4. Prophetic Literature--Biblical communication characterized by confrontation, exhortation, and often prediction (e.g., the Old Testament Prophets, major and minor)
5. Epistolary Literature--Biblical communication in discourse for the purpose of instruction (e.g., the Epistles, and some of Christ's teaching in the Gospels)
6. Apocalyptic Literature--Biblical communication which unveils and views the conflict in the world, future events, and the end times through a heavenly lens (e.g., portions of Isaiah, Daniel, Zechariah, Revelation, and portions of the eschatological discourses of Jesus in Matthew 24-25; Mark 13; Luke 17:20-37; Luke 21:5-38)
It is important to note that a number of genres are often represented in a particular book of the Bible. For example, while Matthew's Gospel is mainly narrative, the Olivet Discourse contains prophecy and apocalyptic.
Of all the genres, apocalyptic is the most cryptic and mysterious. Apocalyptic literature is heavily symbolic, so commentators often differ with one another as to what the symbols mean. This genre often communicates through pictures, and interpreters have different ideas as to just how to understand the images. Just what the images represent and how they relate to historic or future events is often the subject of heated debate.
There has been a recent trend among some evangelical interpreters to more or less lump together the apocalyptic in the Bible with the host of non-canonical writings that emerged during the intertestamental period and continued into the first two centuries. Writings such as The Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, Ezra, Enoch, The Apocalypse of Baruch, and The Assumption of Moses share common features, such as visual images, extensive symbolism, angelic guides, and a focus on the end of the present age and the inauguration of the age to come. Because the apocalyptic literature in the Bible contains some of these attributes, it is argued (often by Preterists) that the biblical apocalyptic must be interpreted within the context of non-biblical apocalyptic. This new method of hermeneutics does away with the solid, conservative principle of assuming the author desired to be understood in literal terms, unless there is compelling evidence from the text that would dictate otherwise. That principle is replaced with the principle that symbolism and allegory are assumed unless the text informs the interpreter otherwise. There is definitely symbolism and allegory contained within biblical apocalyptic, but there are also specific persons and events: and there is prophecy.
An important point that Grant R. Osborne makes is that, "It is impossible to distinguish ultimately between prophecy and apocalyptic, for the latter is an extension of the former."[1] In fact, John calls his book an apocalypse in Revelation 1:1 (The Greek word translated "revelation" is apocalupsis.). But he calls the same book prophecy in Revelation 1:3. The imagery of biblical apocalyptic can represent reality generally or specifically, and I think that Darrell L. Bock makes a good point about the interpretation of the apocalyptic in the Bible when he says it is "...not a matter of literal versus figurative/allegorical approaches, but of how to identify and understand the reference of the figure in question."[2]
Preterism, with its supposed insight into the apocalyptic genre, is suddenly finding great popularity. A pastor I know, who was a premillennial dispensationalist for thirty years, has recently adopted the Preterist position and is now challenging the members of his congregation to learn to "think apocalyptically." He is now convinced that the thousand year reign of Jesus Christ, mentioned six times in Revelation 20, is not a literal thousand years during which Christ will reign in his prophesied kingdom. In his new viewpoint, the apocalyptic in the Bible has "radicalized" and reinterpreted the prophets and shown their words to be fulfilled in the present Church, which he calls the "eschatological Israel."
I fully understand the importance of genre classification with regard to the accurate interpretation of the Bible, but there are abuses of genre classification as well. The oldest apocalyptic is in the Bible, and it was born out of prophecy and never came to stand out in absolute contrast with prophecy. Therefore, biblical apocalyptic is the genuine apocalyptic. The true apocalyptic genre began in some of the writings of Isaiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Joel, and Zechariah. The non-canonical apocalyptic literature began to emerge in about 250 B.C. and flourished when the Jews were under the pressure of Antiochus Epiphanes. This literature was a vehicle of the Hasidic movement and became a religious-political tool. The non-canonical apocalyptic was not prophecy. In fact, it emerged well after the last book of the Old Testament was written, a time during which God was not providing prophecy. Because prophecy had ceased during a frame of about four hundred years, the writers of apocalyptic thought it necessary to explain the delay of God's kingdom and the suffering of God's people. Apocalyptic became a literary form which tended to rewrite history as pseudo-prophecy, while not even claiming to be prophetic. Not only was the extra-biblical apocalyptic not prophetic--much of it was just bad literature! G.B. Caird described 1 Enoch as one of the world's six worst books, and he said that 4 Ezra (2 Esdras in the Apocrypha) was responsible for many of the worst features of medieval theology.[3] I can imagine a Jewish writer of the second century B.C. reading the book of Daniel and thinking, "Hey, I think I could write like that!" The apocalyptic genre became a literary style without being inspired by an actual divinely revealed apocalypse.
Here is my question: Do we interpret Old Testament apocalyptic by the standards of the non-prophetic, non-inspired apocalyptic literature which came later? Or, do we interpret Old Testament apocalyptic in its own right--in its own development within the Canon? After all, Old Testament apocalyptic is the original apocalyptic! My point is, the extra-biblical apocalyptic was an aberration of the original!
Now, it is true that in the non-canonical apocalyptic literature, numbers often represented concepts more than literal count units. But let’s consider what the result would be if we choose to interpret the Old Testament apocalyptic within its own time and not by the features of the non-canonical literature which came later. I think that it is very significant that in Daniel 9:2, Daniel was observing in the Scriptures the number of years revealed to Jeremiah that the people would be in captivity (and that was, without dispute, a literal 70 years), and then Daniel received the information on the 70 units of 7 prescribed for Daniel's people, the Jews (Daniel 9:24-27). Since the 70 years in captivity were literal years, is there any reason to assume that the 70 units of 7 were not to be taken literally? I don't think so. And, is there any indication in the development of apocalyptic in the Old Testament that new standards of interpretation must be adopted? Is there an indication that eschatological events are not to be taken literally? None that I know of.
When we come to the Book of Revelation, do we assume that the numbers in the book, such as the 1000 years, should not be taken literally because of the way that numbers were used in the some of the non-canonical apocalyptic? Or, do we refer to the genuine article and the roots for the apocalypse John received: the Old Testament apocalyptic--where the numbers mean the numbers? To me it only makes sense to interpret the Book of Revelation and other eschatological portions of the New Testament, like Matthew 24, by going to the Old Testament roots. In Revelation there are many hundreds of allusions to Old Testament passages. Let’s compare spiritual with spiritual (1 Corinthians 2:13). The Bible is its own commentary: I’m really not that concerned with what kind of form that literature took on outside of the Bible, and I’m certainly not going to use non-canonical writings as a standard for interpreting the Scriptures!
One of the greatest challenges modern communicators of doctrine face is their incomplete understanding of the times and cultural background in which the Bible was written. We have some writings and artifacts, and some archaeological ruins, but there is always the problem of our distance from the biblical world. We’ll never understand the ancient world as precisely as those did who inhabited it. With regard to the interpretation of the one thousand years in Revelation 20, I do find it meaningful that the early Christian writers of the first and second centuries, Papias, Justin Martyr, and Irenaeus were all born when apocalyptic literature was still being written--and all three believed the thousand year reign of Christ to be a literal one thousand years! Now, I’m not saying these men and others did not have some strange ways of applying that thousand years historically--but my point is, they interpreted the thousand years literally, and they did not have the previously mentioned problem of distance from the time in which Revelation was written. They were no doubt very familiar with the apocalyptic genre, being born while it was still being published! (It is believed that Papias, in his youth, may have been a student of the Apostle John.) Premillennialism appears to have been the dominant view in the Church until the time of Augustine, though there were some who were not Premillennialists.
I understand the necessity of recognizing figures of speech and symbolism in the Bible. However, references to the one thousand years in Revelation 20 describe a period of time marked off by events specifically taking place both prior to it and after it. To allegorize the Millennium and to remove the distinction between Israel and the Church, Christ's Body, is to send repercussions throughout the way we interpret the whole realm of the Canon. How we view the very essence and integrity of God is affected. Does He actually keep (and possess the ability to keep) the promises He has made to those to whom He made the promises? If His promises to the racial species He established through Abraham are not to be taken literally, then maybe the promises He made to the members of Christ’s Body are not to be taken literally.
In the apocalyptic language of Revelation, John often conveys truth through correspondence. By comparison, he is equating things from the world in which he lived to the future events he sees in the vision. Through this language, we are able to perceive a solid outline of the events which will occur during Daniel's seventieth week, and the believers who live during that time will be able to make sense of many of the finer details that we may not understand.
Footnotes:
1. Grant R. Osborne, Baker Exegetical Commentary of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002), p.13.
2. Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock, Progressive Dispensationalism (Wheaton:Victor Books, 1993), p.93.
3. David M. Williams, The Book of Revelation as Jewish Apocalyptic Literature, http://www.geocities.com/athens/forum/5951/ntb519c.html
Scripture quotations taken from the NASB.http://www.lockman.org/
