THE BOOK OF REVELATION.
INTRODUCTORY NOTES.
______________________________________________________________
This post is currectly under review. If you find it like this then I apologise - but I will soon be finished.
SOME COMMON GROUND:
Revelation is one of the most controversial books in the Bible. Discussion seems to breed more heat than light. So before looking at the various interpretations let’s try to affirm what is common instead of what is divisive. I will attempt, as far as my limited knowledge allows me, to point out as I go along what we can agree on. If I miss something along the way please don’t hesitate to point that out. The more we can see that we agree on the less or differences will matter. So here are a few points of “Common Ground”.
(1) The fact is all interpretations/schools assume that “Revelation is prophesying the future somehow”. That is “the future in relation to when Revelation was written.”
For some of these schools much of Revelation is now “History” in the sense that the events prophesied there are NOW deemed to be historical. But all schools claim that Revelation was prophetic when written. This is a bit of good common ground.
The difference is that each interpretation has its own view as to which bit of the future Revelation is prophesying. I will return to this point later in the introduction, but it is good to remind ourselves that there is a basic minimum that we can agree on: Revelation prophecies the future - in relation to when it was written.
(2) As such, then, we all affirm its Divine inspiration.
No matter what school we adhere to we think that Revelation is prophesying accurately future events, and we would also agree that this would not be so if it was a purely human writing. So we affirm together that God inspired Revelation somehow, even if we disagree on details as to how this happened.
So this is a second point of common ground.
(3) Thirdly all of these approaches agree on the fact that Christ is coming again.
As a Bible believing Christian I am not going to even discuss the idea that Christ is not coming again. The Bible is clear, and we shall see many Bible statements to this point soon, that Christ is coming again. The idea that he is not is not even worth entertaining. So we are starting with the assumption that Christ is returning. I am also assuming that this is a third point of common ground we have together. It is part of the affirmation of the Creeds of the Church, a declaration of something that is essential to our faith, and part of the definition of what is “Orthodoxy”, even though we disagree, maybe, on some of the details.
(4) It would be good to start with a general outline that, it seems to me, all would agree on.
A GENERAL PROGRAMME OF THE RESURRECTION.
1 Corinthians 15:21-26.
“For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. But each in his own turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death.”
The Resurrection here is pictured as having three stages, which we can put in a timeline:
"Christ…….The First Fruits……At his coming all who belong to him."
Following this we are told Christ “hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, power, authority and power.” This gives us another two events in our timeline.
..Christ destroys all evil government….Christ delivers the kingdom to the Father.
Let us look at some of these more closely.
1. The Resurrection of Christ.
This is the first stage of the resurrection, and is the guarantee that the rest will follow.
2. “The First Fruits.”
This metaphor suggests that the resurrection of Christ involved more than just the "seed" of his body that died. More rose with him.
The metaphor of “first-fruits” is telling in itself. It comes from the celebration of beginning the annual harvest the Sunday after Passover where the sheaf of first fruits (or the “tithe”) was given to God right at the beginning of the harvest. Then the rest of the harvest followed over the next 7 months until the end of the harvest was celebrated at Tabernacles and the Day of Atonement. The Day of Atonement was the Celebration par excellence of the completed harvest, and prophecies the Second Coming and the Future resurrection of the dead.
Thus, in interpreting the type of “first fruits” it seems legitimate to speak of it as being “the first part of the harvest or the resurrection”, or “those who rose with Christ at his resurrection.”
This illuminates a difficult scripture in:
Matthew 27:50-53.
“And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit. At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook and the rocks split. The tombs broke open and the bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. They came out of the tombs, and after Jesus' resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many people.”
At the time of Christ’s death and resurrection it seems that the saints of the OT period were raised to life. The use of the word “many” here should not be interpreted to mean that not all the righteous from the previous age were raised. The Bible has a tendency to use “many” in the sense of “all”. Hence we are probably justified in seeing this as a general resurrection of the OT saints. Thus the “First Fruits” are the harvest of the
There may be some interpreters who would want to question the following points:
(1) The EXTENT of this resurrection – was it ALL of the OT period saints or just some of them? On this I believe that it was all the OT saints. This is because I have difficulty in imagining why there would be any selection criteria for this resurrection other than faithfulness to God. Some may disagree with this but I can’t imagine anyone disagreeing that some were raised with Christ – it actually says so.
(2) The NATURE of this resurrection. Was it simply a revival of those who had recently died in
(3) What happened to them? We are told that they “appeared to many people” but we are not told that they settled down and lived in
Thus I conclude that this was a general resurrection of the OT saints, it was a full resurrection to eternal life and they were afterwards raptured to Heaven. This seems to be the simplest way to understand the event. This then was truly a “first fruits” of the resurrection of the righteous, the first part of the harvest of the righteous of the earth. The resurrection of the Church age saints on the Day of the Lord will be the rest of this harvest. Just as the only qualification for being part of the resurrection on the Day of the Lord is faith in Jesus as the Christ, so too there was only one qualification for this “first fruits” resurrection was “faith in the Coming Messiah”, the identity of whom had not yet been revealed. I can think of no other possible qualification for being in this resurrection that makes any sense.
Thus we have a nice little bit of history – The OT saints rose with Christ – but a few of them stopped by in
3. “At His coming all who are his.”
It is clear from the statement “all that are his”, that the qualification for being part of the resurrection of the dead at the end of the age is that you “are his”, i.e. you “belong” to Christ, i.e. are a Christian. There are no other participants in this resurrection. This is probably adequate reason for assuming that all the OT saints are already raised.
Paul goes on to describe the event of the resurrection of "all who are his" in more detail later in the chapter:
1 Corinthians 15:51-54.
“Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed- in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality. When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: "Death has been swallowed up in victory." "Where, O death, is your victory? Where, O death, is your sting?" The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. But thanks be to God! He gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.”
Paul is talking about the same event, but is giving more detail. Clearly this event is the point in time when the “last enemy…death” is destroyed, as dead people come back to life. Paul tells us here that certain things will happen:
* “The (last) trumpet will sound.”
* “The dead will be raised imperishable.” Presumably this means the Christians who have died.
* “We will be changed.” Presumably this refers to those Christians who are still physically alive when this occurs.
In this event “death” is overcome, “Death” being the “last enemy” of Christ.
Paul describes this event again in:
1 Thessalonians. 4:13-18
“Brothers, we do not want you to be ignorant about those who fall asleep, or to grieve like the rest of men, who have no hope. We believe that Jesus died and rose again and so we believe that God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in him. According to the Lord's own word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left till the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep. For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever. Therefore encourage each other with these words.”
Paul tells us here that certain events will happen:
1. Christ will come “with the archangel.”
2. The “Trumpet” will sound.
3. Those who have “died in Christ” will come with him.
4. They will receive their resurrection bodies.
5. Then we who are alive will be “caught up” to meet Christ in the clouds. Presumably we will also be transformed as 1 Corinthians tells us.
This event is usually called “the Rapture” from the Latin word for “caught up”. The Greek word here (harpazo, literally “to snatch up”) is translated “caught up” in English and “raeptius” in Latin. It is from raeptius that we get the English word “rapture”. Thus “rapture” is clearly a Bible word and it means “to catch/snatch up”.
Those who argue, “The word ‘rapture’ is not in scripture” are really only trying to split hairs. Of course the word “rapture” is not in Scripture, the English translators tend to prefer the literal “caught up”. But “rapture” is derived from a Latin word, raeptius, which means “to be caught up” so the idea of “rapture” is there and the use of the word “rapture” to describe the idea is perfectly valid.
This, of course, does not determine any particular view of the rapture is correct (i.e. Pre Tribulation, mid tribulation, post tribulation or post Millennial rapture) all it determines is that there is clearly taught in scripture that there will be a rapture, a “catching up” of the saints at the end of the age – Paul says so in 1 Corinthians 15 and 1 Thessalonians 4. The details of this can be disputed, but the fact of it cannot be.
Definition: The Rapture: The Event when Christ returns and the dead in Christ are raised to life, and those who are alive “in Christ” are caught up (raptured) to be with him and are changed.
So we have a programme of events as follows:
1. Christ has been raised from the dead.
2. The “First Fruits” (the OT saints) were also raised from the dead and went to heaven with Christ at the ascension.
3. Christ comes again at the end of the age with the archangel and other angels. The (last) trumpet of God sounds.
4. The “dead in Christ” are raised.
5. Those alive “in Christ” are transformed and “caught up” to be with Christ.
6. Christ destroys all evil rulership, including Death itself
7. Christ delivers the kingdom to the Father.
Clearly the saints of the Church age are understood to be "the rest of the harvest", and hence logically the OT saints are “the first fruits”.
In general, evangelical Christians agree with this outline. It is only as we begin to add details, or try to arrange these events around other prophesied events, that debates arise.
For the purposes of our discussion I am gong to assume that this general outline derived from 1 Corinthians 15 and 1 Thessalonians 4 is another area of Common Ground. I don’t think I would be wrong in this assumption – I would be very, very surprised if I was! It really is amazing how much common ground we have!
Let’s celebrate the fact that there is a good deal of agreement up to this point. We might then be able to find more agreement as we go along.
SCHOOLS OF INTERPRETATION.
There are several different approaches in the Church to interpreting REVELATION. To a large degree all of the major schools of thought should be thought of as "Orthodox", doctrinally speaking. Each has some element of truth in them. In reality none of them (including the offering I am about to make) is completely true, but we can learn from the work of others. Each writer does the best he can within the limited scope of his knowledge. And let’s be honest – we are all limited, we “only know in part” (1 Corinthians 13:9). If there is anyone who thinks they already know it all they can stop reading now because they are definitely not going to get any benefit from continuing on.
None of these approaches are to be considered heretical, or erroneous. They are simply differences in approach.
The differences arise mainly out of the fact that REVELATION is a living book - it describes the action of spiritual realities (“principalities and powers” Ephesians 6:12) and their effects on earth in human history. These forces can be seen at work in every age. Hence every generation of the Church has read REVELATION and seen themselves in its pages. They have thus declared themselves to be the "
So many of the views must be considered to be true – as far as they go - but inadequate. They correctly interpret Revelation to their time and place in that they recognize the spiritual forces operating in their days but there never seems to be a final defeat. This is important – none of the views are actually wrong, in an absolute sense, and because of this it is possible to learn from each school of thought and so have one’s own understanding extended. But the danger is that one then accepts what is a partial, historical interpretation as being the full and final interpretation, and this is what I see repeatedly happening. I have no difficulty seeing that the Spirit of Antichrist invaded the church in the Dark Ages and corrupted the Roman Catholic Church to a great extent. But it is a big step from there to rejecting the Roman Catholic Church as being the people of God today. Reformation has come to the RC church as well as to the
However it is my view that REVELATION is not just describing something which is seen in every age but is also describing the final culmination of the work of these evil spirits and their final defeat.
One only has to start “Googling” on “The Book of Revelation” to discover there are a wide variety of approaches to interpretation of this book. Attempting to classify them is a bit of a nightmare as, no matter what classification categories one uses, there will always be a couple of approaches that defy one’s system of classification.
Also it is simply a fact of life that one approach “feeds” another with ideas – there is tremendous crossover. Different writers borrow bits and pieces from here and there so that it is almost impossible to identify a “pure” approach at all.
Before I do this summary classification and critique I want to point out this fact of life: There seems to be no foolproof way of classifying the different approaches to interpreting Revelation.
Of course some wit (or “twitt”) may say, “Yes there is. There is the right view – the one I believe, and there are the rest - which are wrong. So there is a simple classification of right and wrong.”
But it is not as simple as that – I have already argued that none of the views are absolutely wrong, but equally we could say none of them are absolutely right. Each view, by virtue of the fact that in this age we only have partial knowledge and understanding, can only be partially right and hence must be partially wrong. Including what I am about to write. Of course I think what I am writing is right – otherwise I wouldn’t be bothered doing it. But I am also aware that in 10 years time I may have some quite different views on Revelation as God gives me more insight.
So to classification.
If one tries to do a classification on the basis of Millennial views, then there are approaches that don’t fit this category, e.g. Idealism. And the same seems to be true of any method of categorizing. So I am just going to invent a rough sort of list that takes us through the different approaches in a more or less systematic way. Distinctions will have to be made simply to make different sets of ideas clear.
Part of the problem is that different interpreters are just as likely to take a set of ideas belonging to one school of thought and graft them on to another school. But, equally, a different interpreter may take that same set of ideas and graft them on to a different school altogether. So we can end up with multitudes of variations. For instance Idealism can, at least in principle, be grafted into Amillennialism, Postmillennialism, Premillennialism, Preterism, Historicism and so on, and provide rich insights wherever it is grafted on. Similarly insights gained from Preterism, Amillennialism or Historicism can provide rich understanding and insights for a Futurist.
So these schools are not necessarily mutually exclusive. We need to have minds that are more open so we can learn from each other – even if we are relatively sure in ourselves that the main approach we adhere to is the correct one.
What I want to do in this introduction is briefly summarise each of these and point out some reasons why ultimately each one doesn’t work for me (except, of course, the one I think works for me). This is not intended to be an in-depth explanation and critique of each school, but only a brief summary, with one or two reasons why I don’t think they hang together.
I am also aware that each of these schools has several variations in them. If the particular writer or groups of writers I summarise from a particular school does not tally with your personal understanding, then forgive me – I can’t read your mind from this distance, so basically I have to paint a general picture of that school’s position. If you feel that your version of it doesn’t fall into the traps I lay out, then you are welcome to put up a blog to defend your position. I would be happy to debate with you your points.
So let’s have a look at the different approaches:
I will use what, as far as I can tell, are the common names for each school. Later on in our discussion I may choose to disagree with the use of a particular word to name a particular school, but we won’t go there now.
There may be others. If there are I hope someone will point them out so we can discuss them also.
Generally interpretations are classified into four main schools: the Preterist, the Historicist, the Idealist and the Futurist. I will try to fit sub classifications into the general school they belong to. There will be a surprise fifth category.
Much of this information has been Googled from other sites – there is not much point in reinventing the wheel! If you recognize a bit as “yours”, then thanks very much. Obviously I considered your work good enough to plagiarize!
1. The Idealist, or Spiritual, Interpretation.
This method of interpreting the Revelation does not look for individual or specific fulfillment of the prophecies of the book. Rather, the Revelation is perceived to contain spiritual lessons and principles that may find recurrent expression in history. What is being conveyed in the book of Revelation, it is claimed, is the reality of spiritual warfare that is always being waged. Major themes are to be seen in which the Christian may receive assistance and encouragement. It deals chiefly with principles that are always valid in Christian experience.
Some interpreters in this school say the book has prophecies of the first century (Preterist) and prophecies of the far future (Futurist).The beast is thus both the Roman empire of John's day but also a succession of ungodly empires leading to the last empire from which the antichrist will come. Because Christians have been persecuted throughout the generations, each generation should be able to identify who their “beast” is. In this way, the message of the book could be applicable to believers of any period of history.
As a system of interpretation it is more recent than the three other (Preterist, Historicist and Futuristic) schools.
The primary benefit of this view is that it renders the apocalypse quite understandable at a basic level. It is simply a book that was written to encourage suffering saints in the knowledge that God will someday conquer all evil and make things right.
The main weakness of this interpretation is that Revelation 1:1 specifically says that it deals with specific historic events that would soon take place:
"The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to show unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified [it] by his angel unto his servant John."
"And he said unto me, these sayings [are] faithful and true: and the Lord God of the holy prophets sent his angel to show unto his servants the things which must shortly be done."
Most commentators, even those who use the other three approaches, resort to mixing Idealism with their own approach. One would have to use this method if the book of Revelation is to be used legitimately to encourage struggling and persecuted Christians in every historical period and situation.
This approach has the big advantage of making Revelation relevant to every generation and country. After all, the Christians of Communist China had no difficulty in recognizing the “beast”. Their Senate had 666 seats.
This approach has great value because it explains how many of the other approaches work so well. Because the conflict of spiritual forces is present in any generation we can look back and see it in First Century Rome, or at any other point of history that we care to choose. Understanding the Idealist principle gives us a reason why the Preterist and Historicist interpretations of Revelation are “right”, and are true interpretations of Revelation. And it is why, when all is done bar the shouting, we will see A Futurist interpretation was also right (but not all of them!).
2. Preterism.
The word "Preterist", if used as a noun, describes one who is chiefly concerned with the past. A Preterist interpretation of the book of Revelation holds that most of the prophecies of the book have already been fulfilled, that they were fulfilled shortly after the writer, John, first penned them.
In a sense, one might say that there is an element of futurism, in that it truly was future to John, but from our perspective, it relates to history. Hence, we might say, in a technical sense that preterism is futuristic to John, yet historical to us.
Preterists take literally the words of Revelation 1:1,
"The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to show unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified [it] by his angel unto his servant John."
They would say the same of Revelation 22:10, which reads:
"And he said to me, "Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is near."
The Preterist movement essentially teaches that all the end-times prophecies of the New Testament were fulfilled either by:
(i) AD. 70 when the Romans attacked and destroyed
(ii) The end of the
(iii) The conversion of
These are the major variations in the school.
The common feature is that the “beast” is seen as the ancient Roman Empire and “
There are two principal schools of Preterist thought, commonly called Partial Preterism and Full Preterism.
Full Preterists believe all prophecy was fulfilled with the destruction of
Partial Preterism allows for a longer time span (as above) and also for some form of “last days” fulfillment climaxing in the Second Coming of Christ (which they do not perceive as having happened yet). This makes more sense.
As I say, different writers have different details but these are probably the main lines of Preterist thought. The details need not concern us here.
Advantages:
(1) Preterism is able to demonstrate an immediate relevance for the original readers, i.e. the churches of
(2) A Preterist interpretation of the book is able to show that it parallels the prophetic words of our Lord in His Olivet discourse in Mark 13, Matthew 24, and Luke 21, in which He foretold of the soon destruction of Jerusalem and the Jewish temple.
Weaknesses:
(1) It depends completely on Revelation having been written before AD 70. This would appear to be true no matter which variation of Preterism one holds to. Otherwise it is not, in fact, a prophecy but is (partially, at least) a history.
(2) Most of what was supposed to happen, actually never happened.
(3) The fact that much of what is in Revelation appears to be prophetic and speaking of a time quite distant from John's time (i.e. the return of Christ and the consummation of all things), but the Preterist interpretation does not fully account for this.
Conclusion:
(1) As we saw, when talking about the Idealist view, there is a truth here. The same spiritual forces behind the scenes were “already at work” (2 Thessalonians 2:7). So it is not surprising if a Preterist interpretation makes sense for its time/age.
(2) But it does not make ultimate sense – as Christ did not come. So there remain unfulfilled prophecies and this suggests that, while Preterism has valid insights into Revelation it is not the final and full meaning of the book. So there is still a fulfillment that is future that awaits the book which will fully and finally fulfill Revelation.
(3) Historicism.
A Historicist approach to interpretation of the Revelation sees the book prophesying events that transpire over the course of the entire church age. The book of Revelation, they would say, is a foretelling of all history from the time of the first coming of Christ unto the end of the age, and beyond. Usually, the events described in Revelation are seen to refer to actual events from the beginning of the church until the time of the interpreter. Most historicist interpreters seem to arrive at the conclusion that they are actually the last generation before the Second Coming – but then time passes and they are shown not to be the last Generation, and another interpreter arises who reinterprets Revelation in an Historicist way to make HIS generation the last, and so on.
In this method people will try to make sections of Revelation fit in with specific historical events. The beast is usually identified the “current” manifestation of the beast (i.e. current to the interpreter) such as the papacy in the time of the Reformation.
In other words one can use Revelation to make a chart of human history.
The “Tribulation” or the period of 1260 days/ 3 ½ years /42 months is thus symbolic of this evil age we are living in.
Main forms of Historicism:
(i) Classic (Protestant) Historicism.
In this the interpretation of the time frame of Revelation is quite general and so the interpreters can manipulate the time frame to suit whatever events he thinks fit in there. Hence, as time goes by, new historicist interpretations appear and have differing applications of parts of Revelation.
Thus the Reformers could say that the Roman papacy was the antichrist, entrenched in its false doctrine and deception.
According to Mounce, in this view, "the Apocalypse was held to sketch the history of
(ii) Chronological prophecy.
In this interpretation the 1260 days/42 months/3 ½ years of the “Tribulation” are reinterpreted using the principle of Daniel 9, a day symbolizes a year. Thus a fixed time frame for the events of Revelation is arrived at.
The greatest exponent of this approach was probably H. Grattan Guinness, in his books, especially in “Light for the Last Days”. Guinness applies this principle and arrives at some startling dates for prophecied events. The more startling thing about his approach is that it seems to work – up to a point. His books can be downloaded from:
http://www.historicism.com/menu/bookshelf.htm
The point where Guinness’ work collapses is that he can only make his scheme work up to 1933, but what he does up till then is absolutely astounding and well worth reading. But 1933 is the last date he can produce out of his hat, and the Second Coming didn’t happen then.
A New Zealand writer, George Curle, took up Guinness’ work in the later part of the 20th Century and somehow managed to find another 70 years, taking the dates up to 2003 (of was it 75 years taking it up to 2008?). But again this has not worked completely as 2008 should be, according to this scheme, the end of the “Tribulation” and the Second Coming. You can Google “George Curle” to find out more about him. His two books are worth reading even if one dos not end up agreeing with him.
Examples of Interpreting Passages with an Historicist Approach
Revelation 6 & 7 record the Lord Jesus breaking seven seals that are on a scroll in His hand. As each seal is broken and the scroll is unwound, great events of judgment transpire on the earth. It was a common interpretation of the historical approach to view these chapters as predicting the sacking of the
Of course, the most significant interpretation that was promoted was that of Revelation 13 where the Beast is declared to be the Roman papacy. The Pope was universally held to be the Antichrist by the Reformers who used the Historicist approach of interpreting the book of Revelation.
Advantages:
1. Because the principles are valid to all generations, as the Idealist would suggest, each generation should be able to identify the characters portrayed by Revelation in their generation. And each generation does have an “antichrist”. Therefore the historicists view should not be disparaged, it has provided comfort in times of persecution throughout church history.
- This has been the most predominant approach to interpreting the Book of Revelation by Bible believers down through history. Essentially all of the Reformers and evangelical leaders used this approach until toward the end of the 19th century.
- The apparent evidence of its legitimacy. History has seemed to parallel some of the descriptions of events found within Revelation.
2. Weaknesses.
(1) If the book of Revelation were to be seen in this way, it would mean that the book had little or no meaning to the churches of
(2) The subjective nature of assigning meaning to the symbols is unavoidable. No two independent Historicists can agree on the meaning of the symbols from the text alone. It is simply very difficult to arrive at a consensus in the identification of referents in history for the symbols in the text.
(3) There is the tendency to see the culmination of history in one’s own time.
(4) There was a tendency to see the fulfillment only from Western European church history.
(4) Futurism.
For the Futurist, Revelation is largely a prophecy of events still to come, especially just prior to the return of Christ..
Futurists divide the book's contents based on their understanding of Revelation 1:19 in which John is told: "Write the things (1) which thou hast seen, and (2) the things which are, and (3) the things which shall be hereafter." They go on to say that:
(i) Revelation 1 records the things that John had already seen.
(ii) Revelation 2 & 3 that contain the seven letters to the seven churches, are "the things that are."
(iii) "The things which shall be hereafter" begins with 4:1 and continues to the end of the book.
Futurists assume certain things are literally going to happen at the end of the age:
(1) There will arise a ruler in (Europe) emerging from a revived
(2) Antichrist rules for a total of (seven) years, divided into two periods of 42 months /1260 days / 3 ½ years each. The midpoint of the seven years is when Antichrist declares himself to be God and demands religious worship. Some futurists would dispute the 7 year theory and settle for 3 ½.
(3) This (seven) year period is called “the Great Tribulation”, though some interpreters prefer to call the first half “the Tribulation” and the second half “the Great Tribulation”. Revelation ch 4-19 describe this period of time.
(4) At the end of the seven year rule of Antichrist, Christ comes again, the Second Coming, defeats Antichrist and Satan and sets up a kingdom on earth.
(5) This
What I have said thus far about Futurist interpretation seems to be about the minimum different Futuristic schools can agree on. Just about everything else is disputed.
Advantages:
(i) It is clear that the second coming features prominently throughout the book and therefore there is truth in the futurist view.
(ii) It means that the book will be especially relevant for those in the last generation.
(iii) This is the normal interpretation of someone reading the book for the first time because its imagery looks so fantastic. It is the natural way to understand the book.
(iv) The position claims to take the book "literally", something that is certainly desirable when interpreting the Bible.
Disadvantages:
(i) This view tends to overlook spiritual truth that is of value today.
(ii) John is told not to seal up the book (Rev 22:10) because the time is near, although Daniel was told to seal up the vision until the end times (Dan 12:4), this means that the book is about to start its fulfillment.
(iii) The book of Revelation was written initially to the seven churches in
(iv) The futurist interpretation of the Revelation renders the bulk of the book as inapplicable to any Christian of any other time.
(v) Even the most thoroughgoing Futurist does not and cannot claim to interpret the book of Revelation literally – they all resort to symbolic interpretations in parts of the book. The problem with this is that different interpreters are left to their own opinions as to what is INTENDED to be literal and what is INTENDED to be symbolic. Subjectivism in interpretation is thus rife – and it can be no other way in this school of thought.
Four Main Versions of Futurism:
(1) Premillennialism Proper, or Post-Tribulation Rapture (Called Premillennialism hereafter).
This view seems to be restricted mainly to Futurists in the more established denominations, though it is growing in popularity today.
It says Revelation is a letter to the Church, and is about things the Church should do (Rev 1:3, Rev 22:7). Hence references to “God’s people” throughout the book all refer to the church – even if it appears that it may be referring to
Premillenialism recognizes that Revelation is an Apocalyptic book and, in keeping with other Jewish books of that genre, is highly symbolic.
Premillenialism accepts the 5 point outline above but argues that the rapture of the church is found at the end of the Great Tribulation, on the Day of the Lord, when Christ comes visibly in power and glory. Thus the church is present on earth throughout all of the events of Chapters 4-19.
Premillenial interpreters tend NOT to see the book of Revelation as being in Chronological order, rather they see it as a series of visions, each vision covering the same time frame but adding details from a different point of view. The visions came to John chronologically – after all John was only human and humans can only receive one vision at a time – but the visions themselves are not chronological – Trumpets do not follow seals and bowls do not follow trumpets in a strict chronological order. Rather they overlap in time. Inside each vision the events may be Chronological, but then they may not. It depends on the vision one is talking about.
Advantages:
(ii) It recognizes the symbolic nature of the Apocalyptic genre.
(iii) It gives a good interpretation and allows for the different visions to be lined up with each other.
(iv) It does allow for there to be a literal interpretation as well as a symbolic interpretation, but acknowledges that the symbolic is the main understanding.
Disadvatages:
I’m not sure I can find any other than the general problems that are listed above that apply to all Futurist interpretations.
(2) Dispensationalism, or Pre Tribulation Rapture.
Most futurists are Dispensationalists. Dispensationalism attempts to be pure literalism, but this is impossible, so there are always places where different Dispensational writers will differ on whether or not something is literal or symbolic. Virtually all the details of the book are to be taken literally. Ladd calls it “The Largely Literal View”.
Dispensationalism makes a sharp distinction between
(i) The letters to the seven churches deal with seven ages of church history.
(ii) Revelation 4:1 is viewed as a future rapture of the church.
(iii) Chapter 7 onwards concerns
Their view holds that the book was written so that the prophesied events are recorded in chronological order.
They say the bulk of the Revelation from chapter 4 onwards speaks of a final seven year tribulation period from which Christians have escaped. This time will culminate in the Second Coming of Christ in which He will judge the world, set up a literal earthly 1,000 year kingdom on earth in which a renewed state of
Dispensationalism says that it must happen in just this way, literally. There is no possibility that these things may have been symbolic of other things. These things are all seen to be yet future.
Finally, in this method, proper attention is given to the grammatico-historical context of the letter and the churches in chapters 2 and 3 are generally taken as real, literal churches. However these seven letters are also seen to be prophetic of seven ages in church history. So there is a double hermeneutic at work here: a literal interpretation and a symbolic interpretation. This double hermeneutic is common in Dispensational interpretation – especially of the Old Testament. Dispensationalists are usually very strong on Old Testament typology, also in taking OT prophecies originally given to
Strengths of Dispensationalism:
- It is currently the most widely held approach of modern evangelicals.
- The position claims to take the book "literally", something that is certainly desirable when interpreting the Bible.
Weaknesses of Dispensationalism:
- There is the great danger of subjective interpretation. One can never refute even the most bizarre futurist assertions of what the book predicts will happen.
- There is a refusal to see that any of the details of the Revelation may have already been fulfilled in the lives of the original recipients of the book. Everything is presumed unquestionably to be unfulfilled yet. Thus the book has no relevance to readers throughout church history – until the Tribulation. Yet it says Rev 1:3, Rev 22:7.
- Since apart from chapters 1-3 the book records events after the church is removed, not only do the details of the book have no direct relevance for the churches of Asia Minor at the end of the first century, they have no relevance for us Christians as well, for according to their understanding we will be gone. Yet John clearly says Revelation is about things that Christians should “keep”, i.e. “do” (Rev 1:3, 22:8).
- This interpretation relies heavily upon the distinction between
(3) The Moderate futurist view. (Espoused by G.E.Ladd).
(I borrow this from another web site. I have read Ladd’s commentary several years ago, but I didn’t pick up on these points myself.)
According to Ladd, an answer to the problem of the relationship of the seal, trumpet and bowl judgments to one another could provide the solution to the view of history affirmed in the book. With that in mind, he proposes that the seal judgments represent "the forces in history, however long it lasts, by which God works out his redemptive and judicial purposes leading up to the end." Therefore, Ladd understands the seal judgments to be going on throughout the church age and the trumpet and bowl judgments (really from chapter 7 onward) to be concerned with the time of the consummation. The primary reason he argues in this fashion is because the contents of the book cannot be opened until the last seal and 6:16, 17 explicitly says that the "great day of their wrath has come, and who can stand" (NIV)? This text, according to Ladd, suggests that it had not yet arrived until the sixth seal was broken. Further, Ladd understands the seal judgments to parallel the woes outlined in Matthew 24 and that the white horse in Revelation should be understood to be the victories won by the gospel in an age characterized by evil and death.
There are several problems with this view of Revelation 6. First, it is unlikely for several reasons that the rider and white horse are to be associated with Christ and the gospel. It is true, as Ladd points out, that white is generally associated with spiritual victory in Revelation, but the identification of the rider and 6:2 rests partially on parallels with the rider in 19:11. They are similar in that they are both on white horses, but the parallel is difficult to maintain beyond this. The rider in 6:2 has a bow and a crown and is bent on conquest, the rider in 19:11 is judging to effect justice. Therefore, the purpose and contexts for their actions are different. Also, the language of "was given" is used of divine permission given to evil powers to carry out their destruction (9:1, 3, 5; 13:5, 7 and 14:14, 15). Therefore its use in 6:2 would tend to argue for the rider and his mission relating to some form of evil, perhaps military invasion, with the crown symbolizing eventual rulership over conquered peoples. Yet another thorn in the side of Ladd's theory is the fact that 6:2 is part of a series of judgments and calamities and it is difficult to believe that it could refer to the gospel going forth. Chapter 6 and the seals represents profound judgment, not salvation. Finally this interpretation of the rider in 6:2 seems to promote confusion between Christ opening the seals and also being the one sent forth as the first rider.
My own comment:
I do have some sympathy with Ladd’s idea that there are forces at work throughout the church age that can be seen in Revelation. This is just Idealism as outlined earlier. I would not restrict this to just the Seals, however, as I think the Trumpets have a strong aspect of this also. We will get there.
It seems to me that Ladd is making a wrong connection: “God’s wrath = the Tribulation”. I will argue later on in the blog that this is not the case. Mind you, it is not only Ladd that makes this identification – Missler does also as you will see later in the blog.
(4) Mid Tribulation Rapture.
It will become clear that I have no time for these theories.
Two “Wild Card” Theories: Postmillennialism and Amillennialism.
I have called the last two theories “Wild Cards”, not because they are “off the wall” ideas - there are good Biblical arguments that can be put forward in their defense. Rather, I use the term “wild card” as in the card game “500” or “Bridge”, where the Ace or Joker can be played at any point, on any suite. The feature of these two theories is that they could, at least in theory, be grafted on to an Idealist View, a Preterist view, an Historicist View or a Premillennial View or at least a version of them could. Though it would seem impossible to graft either of them on to a Dispensational view.
In practice it seems that this is not the case, most Postmillennialists or Amillennialists seem to hold to versions of the historicist school.
(I suppose, in one sense, Idealism could be called a “wild card” in this way also and maybe I should have categorized it here instead of as I have done above.)
Amillennialism.
Amillennialism is the name given to the belief that there will not be a literal 1,000-year reign of Christ as referenced in Revelation 20. The people who hold to this belief are called Amillennialists. The prefix "a" in Amillennialism means "no" or "not." Hence, Amillennialism means “no millennium”.
There would seem to be two subgroups of this theory:
(1) Those that hold there is no Millennium at all. There would seem to be very few interpreters in this camp.
(2) Those who hold that the passage in Rev 20 referring to the Millennium is to be interpreted symbolically, not literally.
Hoekema:
“… the number ten signifies completeness, and since a thousand is ten to the third power, we may think of the expression “a thousand years” as standing for a complete period, a very long period of indeterminate length.”
Again there would seem to be two subgroups in this camp:
(i) Those who hold that there will be an undetermined length of time after the Second Coming of Christ. Again this does not seem to be a widely held view and could be considered to be effectively non existent.
(ii) Those who hold that we are in the millennium now, and that at the return of Christ (1 Thess. 4:16 - 5:2) there will be the final judgment and the heavens and the earth will then be destroyed and remade (2 Pet. 3:10). This would seem to be the majority opinion and so can effectively be considered to be the Amillennial position.
(It may be that this final view is actually the only Amillennial view. I have met people who held to versions of the previous positions stated, but it could be simply that they were not fully acquainted with what they said they believed and so they were espousing “non-positions” out of ignorance of the facts.)
The term amillennialism suggests that amillennialists either do not believe in any millennium or that they simply ignore the first six verses of Revelation 20, which speak of a millennial reign. Neither of these two statements is true.
Professor Jay E. Adams has suggested the name “realized millennialism”. This describes the “amillennial” position more accurately since “amillennialists” believe that the millennium of Revelation 20 is not exclusively future but is now in process of realization.
Thus they believe that Christ is now sitting on the throne of David and that this present Church age is the kingdom over which Christ reigns. The number “1000” is thus symbolic.
This, of course, suggests a quite different understanding of the structure of the book of Revelation.
Typically Revelation is seen to be a linear historical progression over (earth) time. This seems to be true of most Historicists, Preterists and Futurists.
The Amillennial view however, sees the Book of Revelation as a series of cycles in which the same time frame is covered over and over again from different viewpoints. This is known as progressive parallelism, (William Hendriksen in “More Than Conquerors”).
Thus the book of Revelation consists of seven sections which run parallel to each other in time, each of which depicts the church and the world from the time of Christ’s first coming to the time of his second.
Advantages:
(1) Structure of Revelation.
It is my feeling that progressive parallelism makes a good deal more sense of Revelation than a strict sequential view. There are clearly several references to the same events in different places in Revelation and most sequential interpreters either gloss over these problems or struggle to explain how they relate to each other.
Thus I would not debate the cyclic structural idea but I may debate exactly where the divisions of the cycles should be made and whether ALL of the cycles actually cover the same time period. In my view some do and some don’t – but we will get there. So I agree with the concept but not necessarily with the divisions of Revelation as suggested by Amillennial writers. I have to admit I am not very well read in the Amillennial school so I don’t know exactly where they would argue for the divisions. I suspect that there would be differences of opinion between Amillennialists also. Later on in this introduction I will give an outline of Revelation based on this cyclic interpretation which I borrowed from Martin Kiddle’s Commentary of Revelation (in the Moffatt NT Commentary). But Kiddle would, I think be classified as a Premillennialist, not an Amillennialist.
(2) Interpretative Methodology.
It seems to me that the Amillennial school arises from an genuine attempt to use a consistent hermeneutic right through the book of Revelation, namely, that the book is symbolic and so needs to be interpreted rigorously as symbolic.
This has to be seen as a plus in their favour. Most other schools are really inconsistent in which methodology they use – including Dispensationalism who seem to me to be the most inconsistent of all when it comes to methodology. It seems to me that the Amillennial school is the most consistent in their hermeneutic method. Thus it has strong integrity as an approach. In general I agree with the Amillennial position on this – with some qualifications and reservations:
(i) Revelation 1-3 are clearly largely literal – but also capable of a symbolic interpretation.
(ii) I would want to argue with the rest of the book of Revelation, particularly chapters 4-19:8, that it is not a case of “either literal or symbolic” but of “both /and”. I believe it is intended to be largely symbolic but is also – at least in parts – capable of a literal interpretation. I believe there is a blending of the two methods of Divine revelation.
(iii) However in Chapters 19:9-20:8 I believe it is more like the first 3 chapters – largely literal but capable of some symbolic interpretation.
(iv) I will argue that the vision of the New Jerusalem is intended to be totally symbolic.
I will later on argue that Revelation is the climax of redemptive history and as such brings to us the fullest manifestation and revelation of the Divine purposes that have been progressively revealed to us throughout scripture. As the Book of Revelation is the climax of Biblical revelation and I believe it also encompasses and embodies all of the hermeneutic methods of scripture, all intertwined, just as it brings to a climax all of the purposes and plans of God throughout history. Thus it is not a case of pure literalism (as argued by Dispensationalists) or pure symbolism (as argued by Amillennialists) but a case of BOTH/AND.
And this is what makes it so hard to interpret!
Objections to Amillennialism:
1. It would seem that the vast majority of Bible prophecy has been fulfilled on a literal level even if it has also had symbolic applications. There seems to be no reason why the millennium passage (Rev 20) cannot be the same.
2. There is no doubt that Christ now rules, for He is God. Yet this does not mean He is ruling over the millennial kingdom.
This, of course, depends on how one “sees” the Millennial kingdom, The structure of Revelation, hermeneutic methodology and so on.
3. While I agree that the numbers in Revelation carry a symbolic meaning (one would have to be a fool to argue otherwise) it seems clear to me that many of them also carry a literal feel, or sense, as well. There are, after all, only seven seals, seven trumpets, seven churches, seven angels, seven bowls, 12 foundations/apostles, 12 gates/tribes of
4. If one does not accept the actual cycle divisions of Revelation proposed by the Amillennial school, but one sees the divisions more logically falling elsewhere, then one does not have to accept that the “1000 years” is the present age in some shape or form. One can reasonably be left with a period of “1000 years” after the coming of Christ, a period starting with the binding of Satan and ending with the loosing of Satan. And, as it is a period with a defined beginning and end, then it has a defined length – so why not 1000 years - literally? There doesn’t seem to be any reason why not.
5. The whole “binding of Satan” during this age has been strongly defended by Hoekema and others. I personally don’t find the argument convincing. Satan doesn’t seem to be bound in any significant way to me. Defeated, yes, but not bound - yet.
I am reminded of the old sermon illustration of the comparison between D Day and VE day in
However I understand the arguments put forward, they just don’t convince me and I am not convinced that the verses quoted by such noted authors actually apply to the Rev 20 scenario. I suspect a strong attack could be made on that position. But to be fair it is a good argument and well presented. It just leaves me unsatisfied (and when I feel unsatisfied with a position it is usually only a matter of time before I find the holes in it).
So as schools of thought go, Amillennialism has a lot going for it. I haven’t read enough of its literature to know if it is fully consistent in itself. But on the surface it appears to be so.
Post- Millennialism.
In Christian eschatology, postmillennialism is an interpretation of chapter 20 of the Book of Revelation which sees Christ's second coming as occurring after (Latin post-) the "Millennium", a Golden Age or era of Christian prosperity and dominance. The term subsumes several similar views of the end times.
Brief Statement:
(1) The forces of Satan will gradually be defeated by the expansion of the
(2) Although some postmillennialists hold to a literal millennium of 1,000 years, most postmillennialists see the thousand years more as a figurative term for a long period of time.
(3) At the end of this period Christ will come.
(4) When He comes Christ will "wind up" all things, judge the human race and settle the eternal destiny of every individual of it. Post-millenarians believe in a general resurrection and a general judgment at the end of time.
The Biblical basis of Postmillennialism.
(Dan 2:35 NIV) …But the rock that struck the statue became a huge mountain and filled the whole earth.
(Mat 13:31-32 NIV) He told them another parable: "The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed, which a man took and planted in his field. {32} Though it is the smallest of all your seeds, yet when it grows, it is the largest of garden plants and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and perch in its branches."
(Mat 13:33 NIV) He told them still another parable: "The kingdom of heaven is like yeast that a woman took and mixed into a large amount of flour until it worked all through the dough."
Postmillennialism expects that the gospel will be successful in winning a majority of people to faith in Christ, such that righteousness will triumph over evil – in this age.
Variations:
(1) Postmillennialists diverge on the extent of the gospel's conquest. The majority of postmillennialists retain the notion of a final apostasy at the end of human history, presupposing the presence of a sufficient number of unsaved people on earth to mount the alleged rebellion. There are a minority of postmillennial scholars, however, who discount the idea of a final apostasy, regarding the gospel conquest ignited by the Great Commission to be total and absolute, such that no unsaved individuals will remain after the Spirit has been fully poured out on all flesh.
(2) As I have previously noted most postmillennialists follow some variation of the historicist school. However many postmillennialists also adopt some form of preterism, which holds that many of the end times prophecies in the Bible have already been fulfilled.
Advantages:
(1) Postmillennialism supports a very positive vision of the success of the Gospel in the world. Scripture is clear about the extent, scope and indeed the success of the great commission. God sent Jesus to save the world, who in turn commanded his disciples to spread the gospel to the ends of the earth. Scripture makes it clear that the gospel will penetrate not only all nations but all languages, tribes and peoples as well. It also shows these same people groups in heaven (Rev 7:9). Some of the clearest passages on the size of the kingdom come from the Old Testament "Ask of me, and I will make the nations your inheritance, the ends of the earth your possession" (Psa 2:8). "All the ends of the earth will remember and turn to the LORD, and all the families of the nations will bow down before him" (Psa 22:27).
(2) As such it provides a very real balance to the prevailing view of the church in the West which has taken a negative and short term view of the future: viz believing that the inevitable decline will happen, Jesus will return soon, in our generation. As a result the Western church has taken a neutral attitude towards the decline in moral standards within society, and thus handed the world back to Satan. While postmillennialism is not the total answer, it is one concept that will start the pendulum of (church) history in the other direction. The question, about our future, is crucial because it affects how Christians act in society and also, how it will affect our attitude to the great commission. While premillennialism is most pessimistic, and amillennialism is neutral, postmillennialism is optimistic about the future.
(3) Postmillennialism is strong on the idea that the conversion of the Jews will bring in a new era in human history in which there will be greater blessing than we have ever seen.
(2) Those who hold to postmillenialism use a non-literal method of interpreting unfulfilled prophecy, assigning their own meanings to words. A normal, literal interpretation of Scripture rejects postmillennialism and holds to a normal interpretation of all Scripture, including unfulfilled prophecy.
The problem for anyone trying to interpret the book is that on reading the text one can find support for all these views which is why there is such a wide variety of interpretations and indeed disagreements. In a sense they are all correct, but they all see truth from a different perspective. This commentary is written mainly from a futurist and idealist viewpoint because this interpretation will be most useful to the church in this generation in the West. While the church in the West is not undergoing persecution, war is still being waged against it in the form of false doctrine and the seduction of worldly values.
Mounce points out that 'John himself could without contradiction be preterist, historicist, futurist and idealist. He wrote out of his own immediate situation, his prophecies would have historical fulfilment, he anticipated a future consummation, and he revealed principles which operated beneath the course of history. The interpretive problem grows out of the fact that the End did not arrive on schedule.' If the author of the Revelation is the author of the fourth gospel, then he certainly expected to be alive when Christ returned, John 21:21-24. If we read John's first letter, 2:18 indicates that he considered himself to be living in the last hour.
My own view on the different schools of interpretation is complex. I see them as all being “right” to some degree.
Thus I am a futurist. But I accept the “rightness” of the other schools in that they are a true meaning of Revelation – intended by God, and a proof of the book’s divine inspiration. But they are not the final meaning.
ASSUMPTIONS:
(i) Addressed to the 7 Churches Ch 1:1,11.
(ii) A Blessing on those (in the Church) who DO IT (1:3, 22:7).
(i) The actions of spiritual powers and events on earth, and,
(ii) Events in history and events today or in the future.
For this reason sometimes REVELATION talks of spiritual realities, then of earthly events, fluidly moving form one sphere to the other and back again. Also REVELATION includes references to some events which were history when the book was written but they are mentioned so we can see the connection between those historical events and events on earth in the future. It is not wise to simply assume everything in REVELATION is future – it may not be.
The name REVELATION (Greek = apokalypsis) tells us what type of book, or literature, REVELATION is. This is a class of literature which flourished in Judaism after the closing of the OT canon. Daniel is really the only OT example of this literature, but there are many others coming from the inter-Testament period. REVELATION seems to have been the last produced in this series of books. It is God's final word.
Interpretative Principles:
(2) There should be an avoidance of subjective assigning of meaning to the symbols when one interprets the Revelation. An interpreter should have some objective (i.e. outside of himself) reason for assigning a meaning to a symbol. I shall address this question in my next section of this introduction.
(3) No one position is consistently "literal." And by the way, literal does not necessarily mean material. Some say (e.g. Dispensationalists) that they are the only position that interprets this book of the Bible "literally." Although they may take the book more literally than the other positions, they, too, do their spiritualizing (e.g. their teaching that Rev. 4:1 teaches the rapture of the church). In fact, they may be charged with hyper-literalization--taking literal what was intended by God to be understood symbolically. The question of what is intended to be literal and what is intended to be symbolic is vexed and different interpreters take different views on this. But it would seem to be a point of integrity to, having assumed something is symbolic in one place in Revelation, apply the same symbolic meaning in another place. To sometimes say something is literal and sometimes is symbolic seems to be very poor hermeneutic methodology.
(4) Ultimately, however, all of the positions agree that the book of Revelation displays God as the Sovereign over all of His creation and that He has given the task to His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, to bring history to its consummation. Through the power of God and the Second Coming of Christ, God's people will one day experience their full redemption. They will be vindicated for their faith and rewarded for their suffering. They will enjoy eternal life in an ideal new heavens and earth. On the other hand, all those who are unbelievers and are opposed to God's rule over them will suffer their fate of eternal punishment and banishment from God and His people. All interpreters agree that this is the teaching of this book.
Revelation and Symbolism.
It is a point of common agreement between all interpreters, no matter what school they adhere to, that at least some of Revelation is symbolic. This raises the question of where and how do we interpret symbols? And where does the symbolism of Revelation come from?
There would seem to be some obvious sources of symbolism:
(1) The Book of Revelation itself.
This is only common sense. If Revelation says "X is a symbol of Y" then we should be consistent and interpret "X" as "Y" wherever it occurs.
(i) By direct statement, e.g.Rev 1:19:
"the seven stars are the angels of the seven churches and the seven lampstands are the seven churches."
Thus from this we get the equations:
"stars" are a symbol of angels.
"lampstands" are a symbol of churches.
It follows that whenever we come across "stars" and "lampstands" in the rest of Revelation we should automatically read "angels" or "churches" respectively.
(ii) The second way John identifies symbols is indirectly - by using something in a way that is could only be understood as a symbol, e.g.Rev 3:12:
"He that overcomes I will make a pillar in the temple of my God."
It is clear that Jesus is not saying, "If you are victorious I will transform you into a pillar of stone or concrete in some physical temple I am going to build." Rather he is using "temple" in the NT way - i.e. a church, a congregation of people (1 Peter 2:3-5, Eph 2:21). And a "pillar" is thus one who supports the building, i.e. holds other, weaker Christians up in their faith.
Thus it follows that we should read "temple" as "church" throughout Revelation if we are to be at all consistent in our methodology.
Other examples could be given of these two methodologies John uses, but you can seek them out for yourself.
(2) The second source of symbolism is clearly the rest of the NT. John makes it clear that Revelation is intended to be a Christian book:
Rev 1:1 "of Jesus Christ"
Rev 1:1 "to show his servants", i.e. Christians.
Rev 1:3 "Blessed is he who reads this..." But it is clearly intended for a Christian audience.
Rev 1:3 "and who keeps" i.e. who does it - again Christians are intended.
Thus Revelation is a Christian book, written by Christ, through a Christian, John, to other Christians about things Christians should do.
It is not a Jewish book. Oh it clearly uses Jewish writing styles and symbolism - but no more than the rest of the NT does.
Thus it falls on us to assume that we should interpret the symbols and words in it in a NT way, not in an OT way. We have already seen an example of this in the previous section with the word "temple". But it seems as if John consistently uses words and symbols in a NT way, not an OT way.
(3) The Old Testament.
John does use OT symbols - but it seems clear that he is reinterpreting them. This is abundantly clear in many cases (like "temple" above), and we should assume that it is also true with the rest of the OT symbols he uses.The point is John is clearly giving a NT "Christian" reinterpretation of any OT symbol he uses. A little later on in this blog I will include a chart of many instances where John does this.
(4) Wider Judaism and Hebrew literature and tradition.
There are many instances in Revelation where John has used traditional symbols from Hebrew writings - but symbols that are not used elsewhere in scripture.
One such example is the "seven angels" which are a traditional representation of the archangels and is developed in some depth in the intertestament apocalyptic literature. Another example is the "7 mountains" of Revelation 17 which are drawn from the Book of Enoch. In these cases John uses the symbols in the traditional way with the traditional meaning - except he may, if necessary, clarify a "Christian" slant on it
(a) The idea of the divinity of the King or Emperor. This was a long standing tradition dating from, as far as we can tell,
(b) The idea of a dying and rising god pervaded Middle eastern religion and mythology along with creation myths and the belief in a great cosmic battle at the end of the age. John did not just "dream these up" himself.
See: Rev. Alexander Hislop: The Two Babylons.
Hislop's work has come under some criticism because it does not conform to modern methodology of historical research and analysis, but this doe not undermine the basic theory he is outlining, that there was a common source to the ancient mythologies and this source was the
(c) The idea of a dying and rising god had been reincarnated into the popular belief that Nero would come back again.
(d) Astrology.
The fact is this: John does use pictures drawn from ancient astrology. Nowhere is this more clear than in Revelation 12 - the great 7 headed dragon (Hydra) and the woman with the manchild (Coma) - these are straight out of astrology and John is clearly giving them a "Christian" interpretation. In fact, out of the 48 traditional pictures in the stars John uses 27 of them in Revelation to a greater or lesser degree.
Whatever our views on Astrology we cannot ignore this fact of scripture. I have ended up in heated discussions on internet chat sites with people who are convinced I am suggesting heresy. But the facts are:
(i) I didn't write the book of Revelation (aren't you surprised by that?).
(ii) Astrological symbols/pictures are clearly present in Revelation.
(iii) These are given a "Christian" interpretation in Revelation.
How you cope with these facts is up to you, but for me, as a Bible interpreter, I have to accept what is there and grapple with that. On this blog there is a paper discussion this further.
That there was a Hebrew tradition of Astrology is well attested in the scriptures - but there was two strands of it:
(i) A "legitimate" strand wherein the symbols were used in a positive way.
(ii) A condemned strand - what we call today "horoscopes".
Seiss: The Gospel in the Stars.
Conclusion:
The fact is this: When we come to read Revelation through the eyes of a 1st Century Christian Jew then we will understand it, but not before. And when we read it like that I suggest that we will find that it is more symbolic than we would imagine - far more so than any literalist would want to acknowledge. In fact we may be forced to ask, "Is there anything literal here at all?" The answer to that may well be, "No! Decidedly not!"
(b) Seven Visions of Seven Parts.
(c) Conclusion.
(2) There are also several interpolations, most of which deal with the conditions of the saints in the last days. These are strategically placed so that we read of the Saint's welfare in each case just prior to the falling of the Wrath of God, the final judgment. These interpolations emphasis the fact that "we are not destined to wrath" (1 Thessalonians 5:9), rather we see the saints delivered in each just prior to the judgment falling.
(From Martin Kiddle in the Moffatt NT Commentary Series).
Vision 4: 10:1-7. The Seven Thunders.
(b) 12:3,4. Satan, the Dragon.
(c) 12:5,6. The Man-child, Christ the Virgin Born.
(d) 12:7-17. The Victorious Saints.
(e) 13:1-10. The Antichrist.
(f) 13:11-18. The False Prophet.
(g) 14:1-3. The 144,000 on Mt Zion.
(c) 19:17-21. Armageddon.
(d) 20:1-3. The Binding of Satan.
(e) 20:4-6. The Resurrection.
(f) 20:7-10. Satan's Final Deception.
(g) 20:11-15. The Great White Throne.
Seventh Interpolation 22:1-6 The Saints in Eternal Bliss, the
- REVELATION is a series of cycles in which the same time period is covered several times from differing viewpoints.
7 Bowls
The chronological interpretation does seem to give considerable sense when used in conjunction with the Preterist, Historicist or Chronological schools, but in my view it creates considerable confusion when used on Premillenial interpretations (Premillenialism proper and Dispensationalism). In my view the view that understands REVELATION as a series of cycles covering roughly the same time period makes better sense of the text.
“Then the angel took the censer, filled it with fire from the altar, and hurled it to the earth; and there came peals of thunder, rumblings, flashes of lightening and an earthquake.”
“Then God’s temple in heaven was opened, and within his temple was seen the ark of the covenant. And there came flashes of lightening, rumblings, peals of thunder, and earthquake and a great hailstorm.”
“Then there came flashes of lightening, rumblings, peals of thunder and a severe earthquake….From the sky huge hailstones…”
Wrath of God
7th Seal
Blessings on you as you read REVELATION, as the Apostle John promised - and, I hope, as you read my inadequate notes.
Note:
These notes were first compiled using the RSV Bible as a study base. The text used in this edition has been the NIV. This explains some of the (minor) variations between the text provided and the wording quoted.
No comments:
Post a Comment