Tag: G.K. Beale

On Approaching Revelation Literally

~ Bob Hayton

I’ve been thinking about the relative merits of approaching the book of Revelation with the aim of taking all the visions and judgments literally as opposed to symbolicly. Rev. 1:1 does say that John has a message for us to know, but it says more than this. This message was “signified” to John (this is the alternate reading in the footnote of the NASB, the main text has “communicated”). The word for “signified” is semaino, which means to “communicate by symbols.” So John in effect is answering our question: he is telling us his book communicates via symbolism.

For more help on the question of how to approach Revelation I turned to Invitation to Biblical Interpretation by Andreas J. Köstenberger and Richard D. Patterson for help. Their book is endorsed by a wide assortment of conservative evangelical scholars and is the best work on hermeneutics I’ve ever read. (Read my reiew here.) I found their comments on this question insightful.

What could be wrong with interpreting apocalyptic literature such as Revelation literally? The main problem with such an approach is that it inadequately considers that the literary genre of a given text establishes the rules for how it should be interpreted. Meaning is intrinsically bound up with genre.119 It follows that genre provides a context assigned by the author to communicate meaning. We have already shown that the genre of Revelation is prophetic-apocalyptic. The apocalyptic genre, by definition, is highly symbolic and not intended to be interpreted in a literal manner. For this reason, a rigid literal interpretation or literalism may actually obscure the author’s intended meaning rather than expose it. Kevin Vanhoozer correctly poses a distinction between the literal sense and literalism.120 If the interpreter is concerned with authorial intention, the literal sense must not be reduced merely to letters, langue, or locutions. Vanhoozer contends that “literalistic reading is less than fully ‘literal’–that it is insufficiently and only ‘thinly’ literal–insofar as it ignores the role of authorial intentions and communicative acts.”121 What Vanhoozer means by this is that the literal–but not the “literalistic”–sense is what the author intended to convey by a given text; this, in turn, is especially true for figurative and symbolic language. In other words, if Revelation is prophetic-apocalyptic in nature, ascribing literalism to its numbers, proper nouns, and other images may actually prevent a proper understanding of John’s intended meaning.122 A more profitable hermeneutical approach is to reverse the interpretive order by placing the symbolic in the foreground while shifting the literal into the background. Thus, rather than positing the dictum “When the literal makes sense, seek no other sense,” we suggest that a better maxim in interpreting apocalyptic is “Start out with the assumption that a given statement or image is figurative rather than literal.”

G.K. Beale makes a strong case for the primacy of the symbolic over straight one-to-one literal correspondence.123 He argues that semaino in Revelation 1:1 conveys the idea of “communication by symbols,”124 noting that the normal usage of semaino in Scripture implies some type of “symbolic communication.”125 Since Revelation is a symbolic means of communication, the literal approach for interpreting the “plain sense” of the image may actually distort the intended meaning of the text. Beale maintains, “Of course, some parts are not symbolic, but the essence of the book is figurative. Where there is lack of clarity about whether something is symbolic, the scales of judgement should be tilted in the direction of a nonliteral analysis.”126 For reasons such as these, the symbolic plane should be considered primary while care should be taken not to reduce the meaning of symbols to something exclusively spiritual.

(pg. 550-551)

Footnotes
119 Hirsch, Validity in Interpretation, 236.
120 Vanhoozer, Is There a Meaning in This Text?, 310.
121 Ibid, 311.
122 Carson, Exegetical Fallacies, 90.
123 Beale, Book of Revelation, 50-55.
124 Ibid, 52.
125 Ibid, 51. See the discussion of the allusion to Daniel 2:28-30 (LXX) in Revelation 1:1.
126 Ibid, 52.

The authors go on in their book to explain how Revelation itself, through John’s extensive use of the Old Testament (quoting and alluding to OT Scripture, as well as making use of well known OT symbols), helps us when it comes to discerning when and where symbolism exists and how to interpret it.

For my part, knowing that the author intended his book to “communicate by symbols” (Rev. 1:1) as an apocalyptic book, requires me to take this into account as I approach this great book.

Sermon Download: Raised for Our Sake

~ Bob Hayton ~ 2 Comments

I was blessed to be able to fill in for our pastor again this Sunday. I realized later that trying to preach on the NT theme of “Resurrection Life” was probably too much to try to accomplish in one message. But then again, my opportunities to preach are limited and I pack as much in as I can, when given the chance!

I won’t spell out the sermon here, but you can peek at my notes or download the audio (mp3) of my message. I hope it is a blessing to everyone. I know it was a blessing to me. I should also note that I am indebted to G.K. Beale’s A New Testament Biblical Theology for many of the lines of thought that I trace out in this message.

Place: Beacon of Hope Church, St. Paul
Date: July 22, 2012
Title: Raised for Our Sake
Text: 2 Cor. 4:16-5:17
Notes: Download PDF
Audio Link: Listen online or download (right click the link and save it to your computer)

Mark Dever Interviews Greg Beale on Biblical Theology

~ Bob Hayton ~ 2 Comments

I just listened to a fascinating interview where Mark Dever interviews Greg Beale. He focuses on Biblical Theology and begins the interview by asking Beale his opinion on Bible versions and then a litany of different works on Biblical Theology. They are basically in the Westminster Theological Seminary bookstore and talking about a host of different titles.

Then they go into Beale’s background and his studies and books. Very fascinating interview, especially if you’ve read some of Beale’s works. And like Dever would be expected to, he starts off by pointing out the irony that Beale now teaches at Westminster but studied at Dallas Theological Seminary.

Click here to listen to the interview from Nine Marks.

I’m still working my way through his A New Testament Biblical Theology, and finished his The Temple and the Church’s Mission last year – both are excellent books.

Book Recommendation: “The Temple and the Church’s Mission” by G.K. Beale

~ Bob Hayton ~ 2 Comments

A few years back, in a biblical theology Bible institute class, my instructor highly recommended this book by Gregory Beale: The Temple and the Church’s Mission: A Biblical Theology of the Dwelling Place of God. In that book, Beale unpacks the central place that the Temple and Tabernacle play in the Biblical narrative.

In Genesis, Eden was the first Temple, complete with a sanctuary, cherubim and God’s presence. In fact the creation of the earth is actually described in temple-building terms. The building of the Tabernacle uses language only found in Genesis 1 for the description of the candlestick, and there are other parallerls. At the end of the Bible, Revelation 21 describes the New Jerusalem in terms of a garden temple, very much like Eden. Significantly, there is no need of a temple there, since God the Father and the Lamb dwell there.

Beale traces this theme of God’s presence throughout Scripture and he compares the Biblical idea of temples and God’s presence with its prevailing ancient near Eastern counterparts. Such a comparison proves quite instructive, and I trust the book will flesh out how all of this impacts our understanding and appreciation of the Bible.

I haven’t finished the book yet, but so far it has proven a technical and careful study opening new wonders at every turn. Beale’s mastery of exegesis, the Biblical languages and ANE literature is quite impressive. Even more so is his humble sincerity and the awe he displays before the Word of God. I highly recommend picking up this intriguing, and impactful work. You can see a preview of the book’s contents, here.

Now through at least Tuesday (June 21), Westminster Bookstore has a 40% off sale of this title, and all others in the New Studies in Biblical Theology series from IVP. If you purchase 5 titles from that excellent set, edited by D.A. Carson, you can get a 50% discount. I encourage you to pick up this book directly, or check out the listing of titles in this series (scroll down at this link), and take full advantage of this great offer.

Galatians 6:16 and “The Israel of God”

~ Bob Hayton ~ 16 Comments

The phrase “the Israel of God” in Galatians 6:16 has long been a matter of contention. Scholars and theologians, as well as pastors and church leaders have debated whether or not the Church should be included in Paul’s descriptor “the Israel of God”. Dispensationalists in particular are very concerned that we not include the Church as part of “the Israel of God”. Obviously the interpretation of this verse has theological implications.

What I find interesting is how much trouble has been spent on this verse to avoid the Church (believing Gentiles and Jews) being referred to by the precise term “Israel”. Why should that term be more important than the following terms which all clearly teach that the Church shares much continuity with Old Testament, believing Israel?

Gentile Christians (who, in part make up “the Church”) are called:

  • those who share “the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all”, and thus share in “the promise” (Rom. 4:16, with vs. 13)
  • Jews (Rom. 2:27-29, compare Rev. 2:9, 3:9)
  • “Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise” (Gal. 3:29)
  • children of “the Jerusalem above” who is “our mother” (Gal. 4:26)
  • “like Isaac”, they are “children of promise” (Gal. 4:28)
  • formerly, Gentile Christians were “alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise” now they are “no longer strangers and aliens” but are “fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God” (Eph. 2:12,19)
  • “the real circumcision” (Phil. 3:3)
  • “the offspring of Abraham” for whom Christ died (Heb. 2:16)
  • recipients of the “new covenant” (Hebrews chapters 8 & 10, and 2 Cor. 3:6, compare Jer. 31:31-34)
  • “the twelve tribes in the Dispersion“, “elect exiles“, “sojourners and exiles” (James 1:1, 1 Pet. 1:1, 2:11)
  • “a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession” (1 Pet. 2:9 compare Ex. 19:5-6)
  • formerly they were “not a people, but now” they “are God’s people“; formerly they “had not received mercy, but now” they “have received mercy” (1 Pet. 2:10 compare Hosea 1:6-10)
  • “a kingdom, priests to… God” (Rev. 1:6, compare 1 Pet. 2:9, Ex. 19:5-6)

This list doesn’t include the sacrifices Gentile Christians bring to God (Rom. 12:1-2, Heb. 12:15-16) nor the idea of the Church being a temple of God indwelt by the Holy Spirit (2 Cor. 6:16, Eph. 2:20-22, 1 Pet. 2:4-5). Sure one or two of the terms in the list above might be open to dispute. But the cumulative result of all of the titles above seems to be undeniable — Gentile Christians share many titles and privileges with believing Israel of old.

Given this wider Scriptural context, should it be surprising that in Galatians, a book where Paul goes out of his way to affirm in no uncertain terms the equality all believers (Jew and Gentile) share in Christ, that he would call the Church, “the Israel of God”? Again consider Paul’s statements below:

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise. (3:28-29)

For neither circumcision counts for anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation. (6:15)

Contextually in Galatians, Paul is arguing for the unity of believers in Christ, and the last part of chapter 6 is a summation of his argument. An unconditional blessing given to a Jewish “Israel of God” seems out of line with the rest of the book. Furthermore, “all who walk by this rule” (stated in vs. 15) seems to qualify the receivers of the “peace and mercy”.

I have read and reviewed O. Palmer Robertson’s book The Israel of God: Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow and found his arguments concerning the verse quite compelling. Recently I came across 2 additional articles which deal well with this question.

G.K. Beale’s “Peace and Mercy Upon the Israel of God: The Old Testament Background of Galatians 6:16b” (Biblica 80, [1999], pg. 204-223) is fantastic. He shows that Isaiah 54:10 is most likely alluded to in Paul’s very unusual linking of the terms peace and mercy. He demonstrates that the terms are not commonly found together and demonstrates convincingly that the “new creation” motif of Isaiah 54 is likely in Paul’s mind when he penned Galatians 6:16. His analysis sides with the view that “the Israel of God” refers to all believing Jews and Gentiles together (i.e., the Church).

Andreas Köstenberger around the same time as Beale, independently worked on an article entitled: “The Identity of ‘Ισραηλ  Ï„ου Θεου (Israel of God) in Galatians 6:16″ (Faith & Mission 19/1 [2001], pg. 3-24). His article approaches the issue from a wider angle analyzing the passage syntactically and theologically. He concludes that the term refers to all the believing Church, whereas the “them” earlier in the verse is more specifically focused on believers at Galatia. He also shows how this verse harmonizes with Rom. 9-11 and Paul’s emphasis there.

The articles above (as well as the book mentioned previously) would be a good read for this topic. Michael Marlowe also includes some historic quotations from earlier commentators on this particular question, at bible-researcher.com.

I don’t think that the term “Israel of God” by itself settles the dispensationalist/covenant theology debate. But I would have to think some nuancing is required for strict dispensationalists. For more on the dispensational / covenant debate, I would also point you to my series “Understanding the Land Promise“.