Product Description

A full pneumatology of the Apocalypse, integrating literary theory, critical biblical scholarship, and Pentecostal theology.

Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #54376 in Books
• Published on: 2006-10-03
• Original language: English
• Number of items: 1
• Binding: Paperback
• 240 pages

Customer Reviews

Well thought-out and exectuted
The author clearly lays out his arguments with historical facts and juxtaposes them with scripture, utilizing the original languages and and cultural contexts.
Waddel is very balanced in his approach, and makes much sense.

A post-modern literary theory is a bad thing
I'll start with a quote. "Competing interpretations of Revelation are not simply either right or wrong, but they constitute different ways of reading and constructing socio-historical and theo-ethical meaning" (pg 39).

His Intertextual (post-modern literary theory) was born, in the late 1960's, out of the mind of J. Kristeva. She had a "solid grounding in Marxist theory" (pg 42). She was associated with the avant garde Tel Quel group, along with such names as Foucault, Derrida and Barthes. The group eventually revolted against French communism and "opted instead for Maoism (a Chinese form of Marxism led by Mao Zedong). They held to "a context which is completely contrary to the ideological assumptions of historical criticism (pg 43).

The author claims that our tendency is to "reserve inspiration to the role of the Spirit in the writing process". In other words, the inspiration is also found in the way that the Holy Spirit inspires reader's/listener's interpretation. This is different from the traditional understanding of the Holy Spirit revealing the same, unified truths of scripture to those that are born again. My sheep hear my voice (John 10:27). These "inspired" interpretations take on different truths based on the receiver's context, whether social, theological, chronological, etc. Although he rejects the notion that this technique spawns relativism, he all but admits that the interpretations of Revelation throughout church history were not necessarily right or wrong (which he ridicules as woodenly 1-to-1) as much as they produced inspired interpretations appropriate and relevant to that specific audience. Waddell quotes C.H. Pinnock in stating that our Western culture is preoccupied with rationalism, "which fosters a neglect of the Spirit. The flip side of the coin is that mysticism is being devalued. Therefore, the only thing we leave the Spirit to do in interpretation is to rubber-stamp what our scholarly exegesis concludes" (pg 87-88). I would argue that scholarly exegesis is the means by which God reveals the truths of His word.

The unnerving part is that he admits that the Holy Spirit's role in the inspiration of interpretation "does not necessarily ensure a following of the Spirit which may result in misreadings or negative effects" (pg 90). So, not only should we not rely on traditional scholarship in biblical exegesis but, according to intertextuality, while revelation is required for proper interpretation we cannot trust that the Holy Spirit will prevent error either. The result is the acceptance of uncertainty and the coexistence of contrary meanings--true post-modernism at its finest.

The list of favorably quoted authors (Pinnock, Schleiermacher, etc.) is like a who's who of liberal scholars that seek to undo the grounding work of orthodox biblical reasoning exemplified in the works of men such as C.S. Lewis and Francis Schaeffer. Instead this book seems to revel in dragging us backward to the erroneous reasonings of the Enlightenment. In fact, he regularly counters the work of D.A. Carson and G.K. Beale, perhaps the only solid biblical exegetes I could find among the 196 pages. Perhaps I'm not sufficiently well read.

There is a continual, emergent focus on the role of the community in the interpretative process. For those who know anything of this movement, I'll just let this statement speak for itself.

The author speaks of the "effects" of the Apocalypse when he quotes E. Fiorenza as saying, "the strength of the language and composition of Rev. lies not in its theological argumentation or historical information but in its evocative power inviting imaginative participation...Insofar as exegetes have understood Revelation as a descriptive or predictive account of factual events of the past and the future or of timeless theological statements and principles, they have tended to reduce the imaginative language of Revelation to a one-to-one meaning" (pg 195-196). Clearly the bible doesn't say what it means to say. It must also be experienced for additional depth of meaning(s). I would counter that it is precisely the true meaning of scripture that produces a God-breathed, divine experience. It is not our subjective experiences that produce unique truth.

This book was given to me as a gift from a close friend who studied under Dr. Waddell and is a great admirer. I had hoped for something better. But I must be honest because I see many from my own Assemblies of God denomination being drawn in by the popular post-modern mindset and its very popular mouthpieces like Rob Bell. It's as if, as I once heard Ravi Zacharias say, this generation of Christian university students have "become bored" with the glorious truths of scripture. Just because we don't fully understand the book of Revelation does not necessarily mean that there are many right interpretations, or that some are not just simply wrong. Although most post-moderns will agree that some interpretations are wrong, they refuse to actually state what they believe to be true.

Until all have heard,

JDLollar

Purchased because it was a requirement only.
Hard to follow, I believe from "skimming" the book, the author holds the view the angel in Revelation is the Holy Spirit. Do I agree, no, but I respect the fact that he has done much more research than me. Once again only purchased because it was required reading. Like most scholars, the author views interpeting Revelation literally as too simple. Instead like many others, resorts to speculation.