Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T17:01:49.415Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ontology and Ecclesiology in the Apocalypse1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2009

Paul S. Minear
Paul S. Minear
Affiliation:
Connecticut, U.S.A.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

You may be surprised at the first term in my topic: ontology. Should a biblical interpreter deal with such a topic? Is he obliged to clarif the ontological assertions and assumptions of the biblical writers? From our colleagues in other disciplines we hear differing answers to this question. Some philosophers demand from us greater concern with ontology. Others warn us against such concern. Still other philosophers, absorbed in the discoveries of linguistic analysis, repudiate even for themselves the legitimacy of ontological statements. Whether it is encouragement or discouragement that we receive from our academic colleagues, it must be admitted that few biblical scholars are willing to venture into this realm.

Type
Articles
Information
New Testament Studies , Volume 12 , Issue 2 , January 1966 , pp. 89 - 105
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1966

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 90 note 1 Cf. Eliade, M., Cosmos and History (New York, 1954), p. 150.Google Scholar

page 90 note 2 Cf. New Test. Stud. IX, no. 4 (July 1963), 351–61.Google Scholar

page 90 note 3 Cf. Nouum Test. vi, no. 4 (Nov. 1963), 290–308.Google Scholar

page 90 note 4 Cf. Kung, H., The Council in Action (New York, 1963), pp. 159 f.Google Scholar

page 91 note 1 The Fourth World Conference on Faith and Order (SCM Press, London, 1964), pp. 43 f.Google Scholar

page 92 note 1 Par.8. Translation by National Catholic Welfare Conference, Washington, 21 November 1964.

page 92 note 2 Each of these words carries overtones typical of John's thought and resonant with echoes from all sections of the Apocalypse. Some of the obvious meanings have been challenged by exegetes: Had he left Patmos before writing the Apocalypse? Had he been imprisoned there and, if so, under what charge? Does the έν Ίλσοῡ clause cover all three of the other dative clauses? Such questions permit different answers, yet neither the textual variants nor the exegetical comments shake the conclusions I have drawn thus far.

page 93 note 1 Contra Charles, Commentary, 1, 21Google Scholar; Lietzmanns, , Commentary, p. 433.Google Scholar

page 94 note 1 I have translated the adverb πνευματıκ⋯ς as propheticallyrather than allegorically (R.S.V.)for several reasons. To say allegorical is to stress a conscious literary technique in which a single empirical datum is given a corresponding symbolic equivalent. To say propheticis to stress the prophet's spiritual gift, a charisma which enables him to see the hidden meanings and the invisible unity of multiple empirical data. Πνευματıκ⋯ς suggests the presence of the Spirit and his power, both in John and in the work of the two olive trees. To say allegorically, on the other hand, prejudges the kind of thinking and the kind of literature, while to say propheticallyenables us to avoid this prejudgement. This translation also keeps open the valid question of whether John was here interpreting the senses pleniorof the prophetic tradition.

page 94 note 2 E.g. R. Jose b. Chalaphta ‘All kingdoms are called by the name Egypt because they enslave Israel’, cf. Strack-Billerbeck, III, 812 for this and other references.

page 95 note 1 Cf. my essay in Klassen, W. and Snyder, G., Current Issues in New Testament Interpretation (New York, 1962), pp. 28f.Google Scholar

page 95 note 2 The Healing of the Waters (New York, 1943), pp. 9, 10.Google Scholar

page 96 note 1 Eliade, M., Myth of the Eternal Return (New York, 1954), pp. 3–17.Google Scholar

page 96 note 2 For brief recent summaries, cf. Feuillet, A., New Test. Stud. IV, no.3 (April 1958), pp. 189 f.Google Scholar; Munck, J., Petrus and Paulus in der Offenbarung Johannis (Copenhagen, 1950)Google Scholar; Haugg, D.Die Zwei Zeuge (Munster, 1936).Google Scholar

page 97 note 1 Elsewhere John describes this final battle as an attack by the beast upon all the saints (xii. 17; xiii. 7; X. 19; xx.8, g), an observation which strengthens the hypothesis that the two witnesses are the archetype for all true witnessing.

page 98 note 1 The adjective ‘great’ (μ⋯λας) is a favourite word with John, appearing 80 times in the Apocalypse, more than 40per cent of its total number of appearances in the N. T. Generally it signifies not so much an estimate of comparative earthly power as a token of the incommensurable contrast and conflict between earthly and heavenly magnitudes.

page 98 note 2 The times of the Gentiles coincide with the time for them to trample on Jerusalem (Luke xxi. 24; Dan. viii. 13; Zech. xii. 3; Isa. lxiii. 18), the time for them to hold Israel captive. Because trampling signifies the victory of one party and the disgrace of another, the Messiah can be said to trample his enemies as they have trampled him (Rev. xiv.20; xix.15). In fact, he gives his disciples power to tread unharmed on serpents and scorpions (Luke x. 19). By contrast, the worst conceivable act of a Christian is to trample the Son of God (Heb.x.29).

page 98 note 3 Cf. Isa. lxiii. 18; Dan. viii. 13; Zech. xiii. 3; cf. Bertram, G. in Kittel, , T.W.X.T. v, 941 f.Google Scholar

page 99 note 1 Cf. Michl, J., Die vierundzwanzig Ältesten (München, 1948).Google Scholar

page 99 note 2 Professor van Unnik's valuable study of this formula (New Test. Stud. IX, 86–94Google Scholar) shows how widespread was its use in both biblical and pagan circles, and what ‘ontological’ weight it conveyed as expressing ‘eternal duration’, ‘something that surpasses the merely temporal aspect, the mystery of existence, of history in its totality’.

page 99 note 3 The Mystery of the Temple, (Westminster, Md., 1962).Google Scholar

page 100 note 1 John stresses the difference between the God ‘who is and was and is to come’ and the beast which ‘was and is not… and goes to perdition’ (xvii. II). Does this contrast between a perfect and an imperfect formula constitute the prophet's way of denying ultimate ‘Being’ to the demonic powers which are set against God? I believe it does. (Cf. W. C. van Unnik's essay as cited above.)

page 100 note 2 For an excellent study of the significance of this μαρτυρíα Ίησο⋯ cf. Brox, N., Zeuge and Märtyrer (München, 1961), pp. 92 f.Google Scholar

page 100 note 3 It is well to remember that John nowhere applies the term church directly to the holy city, although he promises ‘the name of that city to the church which conquers in its battle’ (e.g.iii.12).

page 101 note 1 Of these eight words, only one (δεıλοίς) does not occur elsewhere in the book, although its meaning is by no means alien. Another of the eight (άπıστος) appears only once as a negative adjective but several times as a positive adjective (ii. 10; xvii. 14) and frequently as the cognate noun (ii. 19; xiii. 10). One of the eight appears in a second list (idolater, xxii. 15) and frequently in a verbal construction (e.g. ii. 14, 20; ix. 20). The others appear at least three times in lists (e.g. ix. 20, 21; xxi. 27; xiii.15) as well as many times in other literary forms.

page 102 note 1 City of God xıı, 16, transl. by Healey, J. (Temple Classics edition).Google Scholar