In a FB post on February 28, 2025, Israel Steinmetz offered a critique of an article I wrote entitled, “The Book of Revelation is Not Apocalyptic Literature.” While I don’t often engage critiques on social media (it is a very difficult medium for establishing civil discourse ), and I often don’t respond to critiques in general, there are times it seems appropriate, particularly when an important conclusion may be at stake.
First, I am thankful for my brother, Steinmetz, whom I have not yet had the pleasure of meeting. I see that he is active in educating people in God’s word, and for that I am grateful – knowing that brothers may have very different perspectives at times.
Second, a quick bit of context on why I wrote the article that Steinmetz critiques. It is no secret that some thinkers will use a genre categorization to override the plain meaning of the text. I have written extensively on this and other hermeneutics principles in three books (e.g., Prolegomena on Biblical Hermeneutics and Method, Priority in Biblical Hermeneutics, and The Green Tree and the Hermeneutic Roots of Biblical Faith and Practice). My purpose in writing the article was not to present a full-length academic treatment. It was to offer an introduction in simple terms to some of the issues in play, and the implications if one allows genre override in the book of Revelation. My hope was that people might dig deeper as a result (as is often my hope in writing blog articles). I concluded in the article, “It should come as no surprise that those who prefer a non-literal interpretation of the book would also gravitate toward the apocalyptic classification.” I also noted that “it is surprising how many futurist interpreters likewise follow their non-literal colleagues in the apocalyptic classification.” These concluding points will be of value at the conclusion of this response as well.
Steinmetz:
Frankly, it’s disappointing to see someone as well-educated as him engage in such irresponsible “scholarship.” To borrow a quip from N. T. Wright, Dr. Cone’s article is only half right…and it’s the wrong half!
1) Cone’s “research” (as evidenced in his footnotes) into Revelation, genre, and apocalyptic literature is limited to an article from BDAG (a standard, though dated (he cites the 2nd ed. published in 1979) Greek lexicon), an online Britannica article written by the medieval historian Robert Lerner (though Cone fails to acknowledge that Lerner treats Revelation as apocalyptic literature!), and Henry Barclay Swete’s 1911 commentary on Revelation.
My Response:
The reference to BDAG showed that the lexical meaning of the word has been understood to reference a revelation or disclosure, and that it was not an assertion of literary genre.
The purpose of referencing Lerner and Swete was likewise to show early definition and understanding of the distinctive aspect of apocalyptic genre as different from the term in Revelation 1:1.
These three sources together illustrate the difference between an “apocalypse” and “apocalyptic literature.” There is nothing irresponsible or incorrect about citing early and credible sources to deal with lexical meanings or to consider early definitions and usage. In fact, this is an important component of responsible scholarship.
Steinmetz:
To put this into historical context, many Jewish and Christian apocalyptic texts were not even discovered until after Swete’s death in 1917 and the modern resurgence of apocalyptic scholarship can be traced to the 1970s. Cone seems to be completely ignorant of this impressive and growing body of scholarship that would undermine nearly every claim he makes against Revelation being apocalyptic literature.
My Response:
The first sentence above is absolutely correct. The next one is not. The growth of scholarship does not undermine any of the claims I make against Revelation being apocalyptic literature.
In the article I make the following assertions:
- There is a difference between an apocalypse and apocalyptic literature.
- Revelation self identifies as a book of prophesy (as an apocalypse), and not as apocalyptic literature.
- The characteristics of apocalyptic literature are a matter of extra-biblical literature.
None of these are countered by what Steinmetz has asserted about the growth of scholarship. It is worth noting that his statement affirms the third assertion I note here – that extra-biblical data is increasing. But that has little to no bearing on what the text of the book of Revelation itself has to say. The question remains whether we rely on extra-biblical sources to govern the meaning of the text, or whether we rely on the text itself.
Steinmetz:
2) Cone seems ignorant of the fact that the entire genre of “apocalyptic literature” comes from the word “apocalypse” (Gk. apokalipsis), at the beginning of the book of Revelation.
My Response:
When discussing a genre of literature that has supposedly pre-dated the book of Revelation it seems quite anachronistic to suggest that the “entire genre” comes from a word appearing in a late-first century text. Perhaps I am not the one in ignorance here.
Steinmetz:
That is, Revelation is the quintessential Christian apocalypse and bears important “family resemblance” literary traits to every other Jewish or Christian document that fits within the genre (a genre partially controlled by the features of Revelation). Cone’s mistake is something akin to claiming that Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein is not “gothic fiction”.
My Response:
The book of Revelation is not “the quintessential Christian apocalypse” – in fact it is not a Christian apocalypse at all. It is the apocalypse of Jesus Christ. Earlier textual uses of the word had in mind an appearing or unveiling of Christ (e.g., Luke 2:32, Romans 2:5), or of another specific appearing or unveiling (e.g., Romans 8:19). The book of Revelation is not unlike those other (historical) books in their expectations of future, literal fulfillments.
Of course, there are resemblances between the book of Revelation and apocalyptic literature – it is precisely those resemblances which some use to support the apocalyptic genre label for Revelation. However, similarity is not sameness. Any discerning observer will note that cats, dogs, and tables might all have four legs, but they are not the same thing. The guilt by association fallacy committed in this critique is precisely why we must allow the text itself to dictate its own terms.
Steinmetz:
3) Cone also seems unaware of current scholarship on the book of Revelation which highlights the fact that Revelation self-identifies as a complex, blended literary genre of apocalypse/revelation (1:1), prophecy (1:3), and epistle (1:4, 22:21). Cone’s insistence that Revelation is exclusively a “prophecy” simply isn’t supported by the book of Revelation or scholarship on the book, biblical genres, or biblical prophecy.
My Response:
I am not unaware at all. I am unconvinced that “current scholarship” on the Book of Revelation is persuasive enough to overturn a hermeneutic method evident consistently throughout the books of the Bible.
In another category, one might argue that there is current scholarship affirming non-binary genders. I need to be aware of that, but I need not be persuaded. Revelation does not identify as “a complex, blended literary genre…” – it identifies as a book of this prophecy (1:3) about an apocalypse (1:1) and containing epistles (1:4). This is very different than actively blending those together into an interpretive mush – the structure is clearly delineated in the text itself.
Perhaps there is an interpretive outcome that is not preferred? Perhaps there are some theological implications that some interpreters would rather avoid, and to that end foist “current scholarship” upon the text? That would be irresponsible scholarship.
Steinmetz:
4) Along these lines, Cone’s concept of biblical prophecy seems terribly narrow as he speaks as if prophetic literature is purely futuristic. He seems unaware of the fact that a limited percentage of biblical prophecy is concerned with future events (i.e., foretelling), while the majority is concerned with current events (i.e, forthtelling), and all biblical prophecy, regardless of whether it speaks to past, present, and/or future events is directed toward calling God’s people to covenant faithfulness.
My Response:
I address the multi-faceted nature of prophecy directly in Priority (Chapter 8) and The Green Tree (Chapter 3), and do not take a “narrow” or futuristic view of prophecy, at all. On the contrary, it is the context of any particular prophecy which provides our understanding of what sense the author is employing. The author determines that sense by the text that is utilized. The book of Revelation speaks with clarity in this regard.
Steinmetz:
5) Further, Cone’s ignorance of the features of apocalyptic literature is evident in the fact that he seems to think apocalyptic literature doesn’t address the future, whereas many (most?) pieces of apocalyptic literature do.
My Response:
After discussing some of the features of apocalyptic literature, I also affirmed in the article that the apocalyptic genre ascription supports – among other views – “the eclectic interpretation (a hybrid approach, popularized by George Ladd, this view combines the preterist and futurist interpretation).” Of course, apocalyptic literature can address the future – I made no assertion to the contrary, and referenced Ladd’s perspective as an example to that end.
Steinmetz:
6) Finally, Cone relies on contrasting Revelation (a biblical apocalypse) with (mostly Jewish) extra-biblical apocalypses. With far less care than the limited sources he cites, Cone emphasizes dissimilarities between Revelation and extra-biblical apocalypses (e.g., pseudonymity, focus on the Church rather than national Israel), without acknowledging the similarities between Revelation and biblical apocalypses (e.g., Daniel, Zechariah, the “Little Apocalypse” of Matt 24, etc.).
My Response:
The article is not reliant on the contrast – I am only illustrating by several commonly perceived contrasting characteristics. The article is reliant on the assertions of the Biblical text, not any extra-biblical data.
However, in your critique you have referred to Daniel, Zechariah, and Matthew 24 as “apocalypses.” Why call these “apocalypses?” Because they use the term? Because they deal with the appearing of Christ? If so, then wouldn’t those elements provide sufficient explanation of an apocalypse without reading into those texts extra-biblical characteristics of “apocalyptic literature?” Further, if there is similarity, is there not also distinction? Is not Zechariah’s message sent to the returned exiles of Judah, while Revelation is addressed to “the churches?” Similarity is not sameness.
Each of these books also self-identifies: Daniel, as historical narrative (of course, including some prophetic passages), and later acknowledged in its inclusion in the Ketuvim; Zechariah, as the narration of the “words” of the Lord (prophecy); Matthew, as historical narrative; Revelation as prophecy. Why saddle any of them with the genre of apocalyptic literature and force extra-biblically inferred characteristics on any of them?
Steinmetz:
Cone’s article is an example of a person who holds a particular set of assumptions (in this case a brand of dispensationalism) and who finds a few bits of data to support their assumptions and pass it off as research. This isn’t scholarship, it’s irresponsible misuse of information to “conclude” the same things he believed before he started his “research”. It’s misleading and twisted.
My Response:
Wrong. I do not hold dispensationalism as a set of assumptions. In fact, I have been on record for decades critiquing dispensationalists who do (here, for example) – just as I critique anyone else who would read their conclusions and presuppositions into the Bible. This is an ignorant and irresponsible mischaracterization.
As you used N.T. Wright’s comment in criticism of me, I will respond with Queen Gertrude’s poignant remark – “The lady doth protest too much, methinks.” If you were interested in responsible scholarship, perhaps you would admit transparently how your genre precommitment impacts your interpretations and your theology. I have been transparent about my precommitment (to rely on the text and let it speak for itself) and its outcomes.
Have you?
Happy to dialogue if you would like to discuss further.
Respectfully,
Your brother in Christ.
