REVELATION, RE-APPLICATION, INTERPRETATION

PMW 2024-058 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

All Christians are called by God to study the Bible, for it is his Word designed for and graciously given to us for our good. As Paul says: “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16–17).

And because of this, the Bereans are commended for their studious diligence in seeking to understand the Scriptures: “Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so” (Acts 17:11).

Unfortunately, too many believers approach Bible study as a simple, even casual task. They too often try simple proof-texting to build up their theology. Sound biblical study requires more than such a cursory effort. We need all the help we can get; and we need to access proven exegetical observations in order to get into the deeper things of God. The writer of Hebrews warns that: “though by this time you ought to be teachers, you have need again for someone to teach you the elementary principles of the oracles of God, and you have come to need milk and not solid food” (Heb. 5:12). We see this problem in much Christian theological musings today.

THE APOCALYPSE OF JOHN
by Milton S. Terry
This book is Terry’s preterist commentary on the Book of Revelation. It was originally the last half of his much larger work, Biblical Apocalyptics. It is deeply-exegetical, tightly-argued, and clearly-presented.

For more study materials: https://www.kennethgentry.com/

In this brief article, I want to introduce the concept of “re-application.” This concept is not recognized by many Christians as they attempt random proof-texting. This concept is especially important for understanding the Book of Revelation, which is the most Old Testament-oriented book of the New Testament corpus.

Too often when we see a reference to the Old Testament in the New, we assume that it is a direct fulfillment that answers the full meaning of the original text. Such is not necessarily the case, however.

For instance, even though “allusions and echoes are found in almost every verse of the
book,” John “seldom quotes the OT directly” and has “no formal quotations”
whatsoever (Beale and Carson 1081, 1082). The reason he never formally cites
the Old Testament appears to be that he presents his work as a prophecy (1:3;
22:7, 10), in which he himself is taking up the prophetic mantle. And by this he is intentionally mimicking Old Testament prophetic language as he speaks of Israel’s coming judgment. Mazzaferri (379) is surely correct in noting that John “archaises his style to mimic classical biblical Hebrew” in order to reinforce his identity “as a prophet in classical OT style.”

[image error]For more information and to order click here." data-image-caption="" data-medium-file="https://postmillennialworldview.com/w..." data-large-file="https://postmillennialworldview.com/w..." tabindex="0" role="button" src="https://postmillennialworldview.com/w..." alt="Navigating the Book of Revelation: Special Studies on Important Issues" class="wp-image-209" />

Navigating the Book of Revelation (by Ken Gentry)

Technical studies on key issues in Revelation, including the seven-sealed scroll, the cast out temple, Jewish persecution of Christianity, the Babylonian Harlot, and more.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

John does not so much present fulfillments of Old Testament prophecies— which is why he never directly cites them—but rather adapts them for and re-applies them to new circumstances. Though Beale and Carson (1087) argue that “prophecies from the OT are fulfilled in Revelation,” they admit that the various Old Testament prophecies “may be fulfilled in various ways,” including their being subjected to “creative changes” (1085) and even being “creatively reworked and applied.” Indeed, “there is unanimous consensus that John uses the OT with a high degree of liberty and creativity” (Beale 81).

Regarding John’s tendency to adaptation, Mulholland (1990: 342) aptly notes: “The reality of his vision, therefore, was both experienced and conveyed through the matrix of language, myths, and symbols that were drawn primarily from the image pool of the Old Testament and intertestamental Judaism. Frequently the language, images, and even literary forms are “bent out of shape” in the service of an experience that transcends the limits of the old frames of reference. The reality that John experienced was only shadowed or intimated by much of his prevailing image pool. Thus John combined old images and symbols in new ways in order to express the depths of the reality that he experienced. The old images, myths, and symbols have become flexible and polyvalent in the service of a multifaceted visionary experience. Yet they have retained enough of their meaning to be significant aids in understanding what John is conveying.”

The Reformed Eschatology of Geerhardus Vos Ed. by Ken Gentry and Bill BoneyThis collection of several key eschatological studies by the renowned theologian Geehardus Vos will be published in late Summer or early Fall 2024. We have modernized Vos’ grammar and syntax and updated his publications according to modern style conventions (shorter sentences and paragraphs).For information on the upcoming Geerhardus Vos work, see:https://axeheadpress.com/pages/coming-soon-vos

As Corsini (88, 104) states of John, “his usual method” is to “take a passage in its original meaning, and then deepen it, altering it as he uses it.” Consequently, Revelation’s Old Testament allusions frequently refer to something other than that of which the prophets originally spoke. For instance, both “Egypt” and “Babylon” have concrete historical meanings in the Old Testament, yet John uses these Old Testament villains in Revelation, maintaining their evil character while reapplying their historical meaning. Thus, Jerusalem, the place where the Lord was crucified, is mystically called “Egypt” in 11:8. In the commentary, I will argue that Babylon also represents Jerusalem, in that she appears in high-priestly attire in 17:4–5 and is distinguished from “the cities of the nations” in 16:19. This suggests that John may even use other Old Testament personnel and nations in a new, dramatic way. It allows that his references to “the kings of the earth” may have a very different meaning than its use in the Old Testament. Indeed, I am arguing that he actually applies this phrase to Israel’s religious aristocracy rather than to the kings of the Gentile nations.

Thus, one should be careful about taking a running jump into this very deep, very Old Testament-oriented book.