Christian Theological/Philosophical Book Club discussion
This topic is about
Revelation - The Way it Happened
The Forum - Debate Religion
>
The Book of Revelation - Apocalyptic Showdown
Great intro, David! My own views will come to light during the book of course, so I won't waste space here, but I will say that I am:- sympathetic to today's preterists, because
- it seems to me the author of Revelation was sort of a Premillennial Dispensationalist in his own time, while believing the tribulation had begun.
Nevertheless, I am not a preterist. I would not be welcome among preterists because I do not agree with them over the timing of when it was written (I don't think it predicted the war in advance). My treatment of Revelation is purely historical-critical, explaining what was happening in the first century and what Christians were thinking, and I'm happiest in that mode, not taking a stance about my own particular beliefs.
David, if you like, I'll lead conversation chapter-by-chapter if we have enough interest.
Does everybody have a copy of the book who wants one? Contact me at [email protected] if not.
I remain a futurist and premillenial dispensationalist. I thoroughly look forward to this discussion, but only if I must suffer through another ghastly Halloween without being raptured!
INTRODUCTION AND CHAPTER 1OK, I'll lead conversation by going chapter-by-chapter. There are only ten chapters so it won't take too long. :)
To kick this off, the introduction and chapter 1 are both very short, so let me introduce them. Chapter 1 (the section about Nero Caesar) was actually the final chapter written; my agent was determined that the book's story line be improved--I am not a fiction writer, and hold no illusions about being one--and she felt the antagonist needed an introduction to set the stage. So, I whipped out this death scene and series of flash-backs to introduce Nero.
God only knows which of these legends about him are really true. But that's not the point. The point is, this is how he was perceived, as an evil and disturbed man, particularly among Christians.
I'm still unsure whether including this confusing and jam-packed intro to Nero was a good idea, but there it is, hopefully setting the stage: these are wicked times.
It would probably be better to read through the Book of Revelation rather than Lee's book. As fun as i'm sure Lee's book is. :DI do think it's amazing how Revelation toys with History as well as future - God often hits more than one target with Prophecy.
But since I haven't seen Jesus physically come down (the same way he went up Acts 1:11) or any of the last 4 chapters of Revelation then logically...we are still waiting for these future events.
Well, you WILL be reading the book of Revelation, word-for-word, in my book. :) Good news for you: It doesn't just quote scripture (NIV), it relates it to history as its quoting.
I'm through Chapter Two and to me Lee's book is just interesting historical perspective and stage setting so far. I look forward to diving deeper into the contents. One general comment: Christianity was so new and so isolated in the 1st century that worldwide tribulations like seas turning to blood or the planet turning dark would seem unjust treatment to a population who hadn't even yet HEARD of Christ. Today, practically the entire earth has heard the message and been given a chance to believe or not. Wouldn't this alone indicate a present or futuristic time frame for Revelation?
Interesting question, but IMO, no. When we get to the apocalyptic claims, you'll see they are nothing new to Jews; Christianity didn't invent those ideas.
Another general comment: there is a significant faction of anti-semitic Christians who will embrace any scenario in which they can strip the Jews of their covenants and replace them as Israel. I don't think this is Lee's intention, but this interpretation of Revelation as a 1st century phenomenon helps in their tortured, long-winded reasoning.
lol. No, it's not my intention, and in fact, one reason I argue for Revelation's (relatively) early date is its sympathy for the Jews. It is probably dated before the severe schisms that developed in the 80s. You don't see that sympathy in early chapters, but you do in the later ones.
No, Lee, this just can't be! You and I reach an accord - madre de dios! It does appear that you and I are sympathetic towards Judah, though. Most Christians aren't although they keep it well hidden.
Hmmm, you're right, we can't have that, Robert. OK, let's get this thing started, diving into chapter 2 where we hit some meat for discussion.
CHAPTER 2Where chapter 1 introduced the throne of Rome, now I introduce the throne of God. We jump ahead to chapter 4 of Revelation and start a verse-by-verse treatment that will go through the whole book. This is where the vision(s) begin, and the story John tells starts at the end rather than the beginning ... with the multitude up in heaven, cheering and encouraging for the final battle. This scene will repeat multiple times in Revelation; those who try to read Revelation chronologically are easily defeated by its constant reverting to the throne scene and cheering multitude up in heaven.
Some interesting interpretations jump out from this chapter. I'll try indicate where the opinions are mostly my own and where they are representative of scholarly majority.
For example, the scroll that Jesus opens: Is it the scroll from Ezekiel? The scroll Daniel was told to seal up until the end of days? I think both. But there is no consensus among scholars on this.
The idea that the white horseman is Vespasian, however, is my own. I've since learned it's not entirely original, but at the time I wrote the book, I knew of no other scholar who tied the white horseman to Vespasian. This is surely because most scholars hesitate to date Revelation to the period I do (about the year 79-80 CE). Note that this is not the victorious horseman that comes later in Revelation; this is one of the four evil horsemen introduced at the beginning.
I introduce Vespasian in this manner just so you have it in the back of your head. I expect every reader at this point will consider it hogwash. If I do a good job of presenting the argument, however, by the end of the book it should all come together and convince you that, heck, maybe John really DID mean Vespasian!
So before jumping into the battle, we set the scene with an interlude meant to remind readers that most first-century Christians were anticipating an immediate return of Christ. When the war came and went with no Messiah returning to fight, it must have caused great disillusionment; but then came this letter from John saying he had been up to heaven and heard Jesus saying the time had arrived and Jesus was finally coming.
Lee - I'm sure you had great fun writing this book. Especially enjoyable must have been the attributing of miraculous circumstances to ordinary events. Jesus, during his lifetime predicted the overthrow and desecration of the Temple - nothing but prophecy fulfilled there, no need for John the Revelator to get involved. The volcanic eruption of Vesuvius, though spectacular, had nothing to do with Sheoul or contained any cosmic relevance - it was merely a mountain that blew it's top not unlike our own Mt. St. Helens. No judgements from Revelation here either.Sure these were tough days for Jews, early Christians and the residents of Pompeii and Herculanean, but God was largely uninvolved - just watching life play out and patiently waiting for the real End of Times coming soon to a continent near you!
It's not me you need to convince that no supernatural powers were at work in the events Revelation describes, Robert. I suspect it's John of Patmos that you mean to direct that post to. :)The point of my book is not to convince anybody of any religious beliefs, but to bring to light the events and politics and fear and religious convictions which inspired first-century writings like Revelation. By understanding what those Christians were going through and what was happening around them, it's easier to put Revelation in perspective, perhaps even tempering the sensationalism of apocalyptic preachers today.
Lee = oh, supernatural powers were at work in Revelation, just not in that time period.I understand the purpose of the book, and I'm enjoying the read. I just regard it as historical fiction with a dash of science fiction disguised as divine interference thrown in for good measure. Works for me!
I would say your description is spot on! By its nature, a historical-critical analysis is not going to lean on supernatural powers. I cannot assume "supernatural powers were at work" as you do and be true to my scholarship ... nor do I really wish to change your mind about it being supernatural. I merely wish to explain the setting in which John wrote, and how Christians of the time understood his message.
For example, as chapter 2 pointed out, Christians today generally assume the "little apocalypse" of the gospels, when Jerusalem was destroyed, is a different event than the "big apocalypse" of Revelation. It doesn't matter that the descriptions are identical. This is because, 2000 years removed from the period in which they were written, we prefer to believe none of Revelation has happened (why we prefer this, I'm not sure). But in the first century, not a single soul would have thought that way...including the writers. People just simply don't read or write about something 2000 years in the future; they care about what is happening to them in their own time.
Not so, Lee - the coming of Christ was predicted by Isaiah and a host of OT authors up to a thousand years before His arrival. Just that John the Revelator is included in Scripture imbues him a gift for foresight far beyond ordinary men (especially historians, who live in the past!) at least from the viewpoint of the compilers of the NT. It doesn't follow that he could not write about matters far in the future, given his special gifts from God.I suppose I did not realize you would attempt to write a book about a Biblical staple and then turn around and say "I haven't assumed supernatural powers at work". This is not betraying scholarship, religion is part and parcel of liberal arts research. If your book were scientific, THEN you might run afoul of scholarship issues by including inexplicable phenomena.
Oh, sorry, I didn't mean I was betraying scholarship. Lots of theological works are scholarly, obviously. I was saying that a historical-critical treatment, by its nature, hesitates to align with supernatural claims. I set out to describe Revelation in its historical setting.Likewise, a historical-critical exposition of Isaiah would never say he was "predicting" the coming of Christ. It would address the issues of Isaiah's time that Isaiah was writing about, not how his writings were interpreted in the first century after Jesus came.
The opinions of the Bible's compilers also holds little influence for this type of treatment, particularly when Revelation had such a horrible time squeaking into the canon.
I realize this is a foreign way of reading the Bible for many folks. However, it can be enlightening.
Lee - we've been through all this before in other threads. If one were to take a critical view of the Bible (historical, scientific, social, etc.) one would throw it out as unworkable for ANY age, not just our current secular lovefest. Without Faith the Scriptures are God's blueprint for life for His sheep, the Bible just becomes a curiousity without any teeth.
I'll get into this discussion in a few days...its been a busy time.For now, I have a question. Robert said, "a significant faction of anti-semitic Christians who will embrace any scenario in which they can strip the Jews of their covenants and replace them as Israel."
What do you mean? Are you saying Jews have a separate path to salvation from that of grace by faith in Jesus? If I say salvation in Jesus is the only way, am I now anti-semitic? I think Jesus completed God's plan of salvation promised to Abraham (Genesis 12 - through Abraham all nations on earth will be blessed).
Why must the white horse only be Vespasian? That seems a bit too specific for me. I mean, even if (or "just because") Vespasian may be the first illustration of the first horse, or even the person the writer had in mind, why is that all it means?Is this where I part ways with my liberal friend - I am okay with scripture having a originally intended meaning as well as the Spirit drawing further meanings. So Isaiah 7 is not speaking of Mary as the virgin/young woman in Isaiah's day, he was speaking of something happening then. But there is an extended meaning that Matthew finds in light of Jesus.
David - God knew all Jews would not recognize Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah as surely as he knew all gentiles wouldn't. That's why those who have their salvation assured get raptured before the real fun begins. The leftover Jews and gentiles then get progressively more gruesome judgments to convince them of the power and potential forgiveness of God. 144,00 Jews and a fair number of "others" will recognize why they missed the rapture and get on board immediately; some will come later; some will never come and are destined to join the antichrist and miss the millenium. Because you are saved, David, does not ensure you are anywhere near as holy as an Orthodox Jew. And 'dem bones are just sitting out there waiting for a second chance at salvation by becoming part of the army of the Lord at Armageddon.
I don't think your end-times scenario is biblical, but that is irrelevant to my question.Is anyone saved outside the grace of Jesus? Is there salvation under another name - Moses, the law? Is there one way for the Jews and another for the rest of us?
No - David no one is saved without belief in the death and resurrection of Jesus, but the Jews are still the chosen people of God, their covenants are still intact and we Christians are but branches easily pruned from the more important root of Judah. Be thankful for your salvation, but if it wasn't for Paul's insistance, you and me (lowly pagan Goyim) wouldn't have received ANY grace.
re: #22, we haven't actually parted ways yet, David. This is a book about first-century beliefs. I suspect in the first century, folks reading Revelation would think first of Vespasian as the white horseman. It fits, and they were still under the oppression (heavy taxation) of Vespasian's rule. However, I do know that Hebrews recognized a cyclical fulfillment of many things. They knew quite well, surely, that past prophets were writing about events current to them (I'm thinking especially of the destruction of Jerusalem), yet these things seemed to happen again and again. Like a cyclical truth, which would finally culminate in a final entrance of the final Messiah. So, my book may be about the first-century version of Revelation; nothing keeps you from believing it has happened multiple times in the past and will all happen again in your future, with even more meaning. re: what is required to be saved, I personally think this would be interesting topic to bring up again when we get to chapters 9 and 10, as Revelation's concept of being 'saved' may differ considerably from today's Christian ideas. So, at least as far as Revelation goes, the discussion may be moot.
Robert, I agree with #25.I just skimmed chapters 1-2 and don't really have anything to add. I agree that the first Christians wouldn't have seen this as a distant-future prophecy.
I guess one place I might disagree is p. 35 where you say the book of Revelation is contrary to the spirit of Jesus. I think a strong case can be made (and has been made by many scholars) that Revelation is not this. Heck, even some like John Howard Yoder argue for Revelation in a Christian pacifist framework!
I think Revelation shows there is a time to show your choices in stark terms; maybe at other times most people seem to be uncertain about Jesus, or neutral, but Revelation is that in-your-face message, its time to pick a side. As far as the wrath part (and I guess we can talk on this later), I don't see that as against Jesus if seen in the right way (and I apologize for how arrogant that sounds, as if I have the right way!). What I mean is that Jesus is always very loving, even in Revelation, but if people continue to choose evil they destroy themselves (and the fact it is the beasts who turn on and destroy the harlot later shows how sin is self-destructive).
I had to go read page 35. I think I stand by the statement, that the spirit of Revelation is contrary to the spirit reflected in the Gospels. And I don't see Jesus as loving (and absolutely not pacifistic, yikes!) in Revelation...I recall just the vengeful warrior side wherever Jesus is mentioned. This could be a fun conversation.
Setting aside the identification of the white horseman as Vespasian, I guess the primary insight of chapter 2 is that these first-century Christians, taking their cue directly from Jesus, expected Jesus to return within their lifetimes. See pages 33-35. This, coupled with the way the wording of the gospels for the little apocalypse (Jerusalem, 70 CE) matches the wording in Revelation for the big apocalypse (see page 29), makes it obvious to me that Christians in the first century considered the early events of Revelation to refer to the fall of Jerusalem. What else could they possibly think? Does anyone really disagree? If not, I'll start chapter 3 tonight.
CHAPTER 3: THE JERUSALEM WARWe now start peeling the seals from the mysterious scroll. There are three sets of seven in Revelation: the seven seals, the seven trumpets, and the seven bowls of wrath. All indications seem to be that these three sets climax simultaneously. We go through six of the seven seals, then six of the seven trumpets, then six of the seven bowls, before the concluding seventh of each. And first come the seals, describing the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD.
This chapter may be my least favorite, but I felt it was important to give the history. So many Christians know absolutely nothing about the events of the first century after the book of Acts stops narrating! But the majority of scholars agree, most of the New Testament was written in the shadow of this horrible war. It would have had a profound effect on Christian thinking.
Three important insights from this chapter:
1. Page 43: note the discussion of wheat and barley, oil and wine. This will come into play in the writings of Josephus. I would consider it a huge coincidence if Revelation's story is unrelated to Josephus' story. We'll talk more about this in later chapters.
2. Page 55: It's very important to recognize that Revelation speaks symbolically. Few people think there will really be a seven-headed dragon, but many Christians actually do read Revelation literally when it speaks of stars falling from the sky!! But this is untrue to the Bible. The events of the sixth seal are figures of speech that are found elsewhere in the Bible and other literature, and NEVER refer to literal cosmic events. Why on earth would we think this sort of symbolism is different in Revelation?
3. Page 69: Could Revelation--like nearly all other apocalyptic writing, both contemporary to Revelation and hundreds of years beforehand--have been written AFTER some of the events it "predicts?" Obviously, this is a highly sensitive topic, and it's what separates me from Preterist beliefs. I don't think Revelation predicted all of the events it narrates; it simply retells recent history. Of course, this doesn't mean didn't John have a real vision. Indeed, Revelation itself admits some of it already occurred. The very first chapter of Revelation, in verse 19, tells us that some of the events John is to write about have already happened; some are happening as the vision is occurring; and some are to take place later. John's vision includes past, present, and future. And the seals, I believe, are in the past.
Lee - I'll address some of your specific contentions in a later post, but I have another of my dreaded general comments to make. Why would newly-minted Christians concern themselves with any goings on concerning the Jews and Jerusalem's Temple? What did they care? As long as the Romans weren't tearing down their edifices at Phillipi, Corinth, etc. they were probably relieved Caesar was occupied elsewhere and Jerusalem was as good a place as any. Similarly, the Jews, if they'd given it any thought, would find it hard to envision a Messiah coming to their aid. They'd just treated Jesus harshly, yet he was becoming more influential in death than in life. Their current leaders were hardly paragons of virtue and it wasn't a time they were likely to find favor with the Lord. More likely, the priests interpreted events as a fulfillment of Jeremiah's prophecies about punishment of the Jews for persistent disobediance, rather than an opportunity to witness The Coming.
Good questions, and although it's clear from history that many Jewish sects/movements (not just Christians) DID expect a returning Messiah, I'm not sure I'll be able to answer the questions satisfactorily. Some notes, though:1. Christians initially worshiped alongside other Jewish sects in Jerusalem, at the Temple. Christians, like many other messianic movements, were Judaic at their core; they just insisted that the Jewish Messiah had made himself known. However, Christianity (thanks in a large part to Paul) was rapidly becoming a Gentile religion, and thus was well-suited to overcome the destruction of the House of God.
2. There were many apocalyptic scenarios floating around in the heads of various Jewish teachers, but one common theme was that the new age of God's rule must be preceded by a time of suffering. See the book of Daniel, for instance. But God would not abandon his people. When things got at their very worst, God would step in and save the Jews and restore them to their rightful place.
3. Those sects which felt the Jewish leadership was corrupt were quick to disband, thus preserving righteousness on the earth. The Essenes went off and hid in the desert. Jesus taught that we should largely ignore the ruling class and worry about grassroots. Military movements such as the Zealots were trusting in God's intervention...no matter how impossible it seemed to stand up to the Romans, they felt they had God on their side.
Lee post 30 - I agree with number 2 and I don't really have a problem with your points in number 3. I'm more in the idealist camp, so I don't really emphasize the predictive side of Revelation, either things fulfilled in first century or in our future still. I don't really have a dog in that fight as it seems to try to take the beauty of this literature and reduce it to a historical referent. In regards to Robert's question, I'd add that the way we tell church history influences the answer. We take Acts, see the move west from Jerusalem - Rome and continue the story mostly centered in Roman Empire, then northern Europe, then America. What we forget is that while Paul was moving east, there is the untold story of other Christians (Jewish-Christians) moving east. There were the Jewish-Christians who did not go as far as Paul and many may have hung around Jerusalem and eventually became the Syrian Christians (Ebionites, I think).
Another answer - because early Christians were not Marcionites. They saw JEsus as the fulfillment of OT and thus saw themselves as, as you said above, ingrafted branches. Heck, couldn't you ask the same question today of Christians who obsess over Israel? As spiritual children of Abraham we care for what happens in Jerusalem because as Christians it is part of our family history.
David - many Christians feel we are a sort of Judeochristian brotherhood, many others feel the Jews have been abandoned by God and are merely a troublesome, demanding ally. I'm in the former camp but must admit: if the Arabs are going to nuke somebody to ensure their martyrdom, I hope it's the Israelis rather than us!
Lee - let's go back to msg#30, point 2. You take the Bible symbolically, Rod takes it literally and I insist it is inerrant (which nobody seems to accept). By inerrant I can say there's a 7-headed dragon alright, but he's not like any 7-headed dragon we can imagine. That puts me between Rod's medieval green thing on steroids and Lee's making the statement mean anything he wants depending on how allegorical he feels that day.
How inerrant, Robert? Do you think it's possible that John really did receive a vision from God, but that he misinterpreted some of it, and perhaps assumed a few things that he shouldn't have? (For example, the urgency of it all, that it was all happening immediately).I know Rod has a copy of the book, wonder if he'll ever show up to defend his own interpretation.
Lee - it is YOUR vision that it was happening immediately not John's (whichever John we are actually talking about, although you do make a well thought out case for John of Patmos). Until every earthly being has at least heard the message of the salvation available through Christ. Until the new temple is built in Jerusalem according to the exact specifications in Ezekiel. And, until the Lord's church has been raptured, NONE of Revelation will transpire.
re: "happening immediately," we'll cover this more later, but if you want a sneak peek, read 22:7-12, or verse 22:20.
Lee - I'll just give the predictable answer now that God's time frame for "quickly" probably differs considerably from human interpretation and await further discussion.
Yes, I surely wouldn't expect to change someone's religious beliefs. Nevertheless, it says what it says, for those who read straightforwardly...and you can bet first century Christians understood "soon" to mean "soon," especially in light of what was happening around them. The letter was, after all, written to first-century churches who were already in the middle of the tribulation.Thus I refute your claim that an immediate return is "my vision." :) I'm simply repeating what Revelation says and how it was understood by its target audience.
Lee - alright, I stand refuted and I won't even offer up a challenge. I might think that a vast majority of John's "target audience" thought of him more crackpot than prophet, though.
Lee - I do object to your use of the words "the tribulation" at the end of paragraph one on the grounds of leading the witness. Please allow me to edit and substitute "severe persecution".
heh, heh. ok, I'll compromise for "severe persecution that precisely matched Revelation's description of the tribulation."
Oh Really! And I suppose you are claiming that one-fourth of the entire earth's population were slain during the riding of the pale horse.
No, I don't claim that, and neither does Revelation. It merely claims that the pale horseman was given power over a quarter of the earth. I'd say that sounds about right from a Mediterranean perspective.But your point is valid, I do not read head counts in Revelation literally, any more than we can read them literally elsewhere in the Bible. You'd think if I am going to interpret "seven years" literally, or "soon" literally, I would believe John really does mean an attacking army of 200,000,000 is coming.
Robert - "Until every earthly being has at least heard the message of the salvation available through Christ. Until the new temple is built in Jerusalem according to the exact specifications in Ezekiel. And, until the Lord's church has been raptured, NONE of Revelation will transpire." This reflects my problem with the futurist view of Revelation - you treat the Bible like a jigsaw puzzle. Where does Revelation say that Jesus won't return till every person has heard?
The answer, I know, is Matthew 24:4-14. So you bring in a verse from Matthew and line it up to give you your interpretation of Revelation. Of course, if you bring in Matthew, I raise you the apostle Paul (Romans 1:8; Colossians 1:5-6) who said the gospel already has gone out to the whole world!
So basically, to hold your inerrant view of the Bible, you need to believe Paul was wrong.
Lee - post 30, point 1 - I agree Revelation speaks symbolically. John says it himself in 1:1 when he says that the message was "sent and signified" (KJV). Yes, KJV does the best job of translating the Greek word semeion (sign) - Revelation is filled with signs. It is not a literal timeline of the future.
Interesting, David, I'll have to give that some thought. You would interpret 1:1 to say "sent to explain by signs," sort of?Do you agree with the translation of the first part of the verse, that the purpose of Revelation is to inform Jesus' servants what must "shortly come to pass?" As I read your intro, I understood you to believe it was written primarily about the first century but with some hidden (or double-meaning) futuristic predictions, perhaps about another final beast in our future. Still good with that?
David, you asked what is my view of Revelation and why. Here is an excerpt from my ebook "Rapture: Pre-tribulation Fact or Fable?"I was on a quest for...detail about possible post-pre-trib rapture events in other areas of the Bible, and believing the last book in the Bible, Revelation, is supposed to reveal the end-times, I thought that would be a good place to further my investigation.
I decided to read the introduction to Revelation as found in "The Wycliffe Bible Commentary" so I could get a grounding in the who, when, why, and especially the what of Revelation.
Interestingly, Wycliffe starts off by saying "that proportionally more space is given [by Wycliffe] to introductory matters [of Revelation] than is normally assigned in either a brief or longer treatment of this book."
Well, that got my attention. I wondered why Wycliffe would make that statement?
Wycliffe continued and said that Revelation "is a book of acknowledged difficulty." As I read further, Wycliffe noted that the great religious leader, John Calvin, refused to write a commentary on Revelation and gave the book very little consideration. In addition, Martin Luther initially avoided Revelation for eight years until such time as he changed his mind from no and decided, yes, Christ was in the book (apparently his struggle with Revelation indicative of the difficulty for even an as astute scholar as Luther to decipher).
Next, I was surprised to find that there is dispute over who the author of Revelation was — a dispute apparently to such an extent that Wycliffe comments "…there is not enough space [assuming Wycliffe means in their commentary] for presenting and answering the arguments against Johannine authorship…"
Wow! I thought. If the authorship is so controversial, could the book itself be equally controversial? I mean, if there's uncertainty about who wrote it, then how can the contents be validated by the known qualities and competencies of the author?
On the other hand, I did learn from Wycliffe that despite scholarly opinions to the contrary, the accepted consensus is that the apostle John, the author of the Gospel of John, wrote Revelation when he was some ninety-years-old while in exile on the island of Patmos.
Next, surprisingly, and rather incredibly, Wycliffe says, "The Book of Revelation is the only large portion of the Word of God concerning which four basic differing systems of interpretation have been developed."
After reading that, I thought, now there's a comment that has to be discouraging for the average layperson hoping to get some clarity about end times. I mean, if some of the greatest theological minds, modern and of past centuries, can't figure out or are at odds with each other on Revelation, what are we, the lesser theologically-educated readers to think?
Finally, Wycliffe recaps their ten-page introduction with the comment "prolonged study [is] needed for the understanding of this book."
After reading Revelation several times in two different versions, including delving into the original Greek and Aramaic, and reading comments from such pillars of the faith as Matthew Henry, and referencing Strong's Concordance, I believe the Wycliffe comment to be correct — Revelation for me remained the antithesis of clarity despite the commentaries and word meaning investigations I had undertaken.
Bottom line is I had little choice but to join apparently many others who have discovered that the metaphors, allegories, and mysteries of interpretation are difficult, many, and varied, which to me begs the question, Why does the introduction to Revelation state that "Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written in it…" if the contents are not readily understandable? Said another way, there are a score of other books of the Bible that are and have been blessings throughout the ages. Psalms, Proverbs, the Gospels, and Romans come to mind.
Frankly, I have a difficult time understanding why Revelation is so obscure on such important subjects as the rapture. For example, I found no hint of rapture mentioned as a future event in Revelation other than a rather oblique reference to a "harvest" in chapter 14.
Bothersome, too, was that I saw no hint of the second coming of Christ as describe by Jesus himself in Matthew 24. The only event described approximating the second coming in Revelation is Christ coming with his "army" to fight at Armageddon. Of sidebar interest is that Revelation is the only book in the Bible where "Armageddon" is mentioned.
Then I ran across a non-sequitur that "everyone" takes the mark of the beast, yet those who do not are singled out for particular praise in heaven.
I was also troubled by the appearance of Jesus with the 144,000 on Mount Zion. Is not His appearance on Mount Zion a return to earth, i.e., a second coming that, in turn, would make all other references in the Scriptures to His second coming in error because those references would not be to a "second" coming but in fact would be to a third coming; or is the reference to the 144,000 an event in heaven? If the latter, how does earthly "Mount Zion" fit?
Confusing? You bet.
In addition, early on in the book there's the corporate and blanket condemnation of several of the seven churches that instead of singling out erring individuals or leaders within those churches, the whole church is condemned — a blanket condemnation by Christ that places blame and shortcomings on the whole of the congregation; a type of condemnation that somehow does not seem in character for Christ [for His church].
In addition, several of the wordings in the letters to the seven churches seemed contrary to the concept of salvation that John himself wrote about in his gospel using Jesus' own words about salvation. For example, the letters seemed to make salvation contingent upon one's ability to "overcome" and upon "works," both anathemas to salvation by grace alone.
Knowing that some of the best-ever theological minds have either ignored Revelation or spent years trying to decipher it and even then with no consensus on meaning, and knowing my own limitations in exegesis, I decided to forego any attempt to prove or disprove pre-trib rapture or any other end time event using Revelation. To do otherwise, in my opinion, would necessarily devolve into circular reasoning by using Revelation to interpret Revelation. Instead, I much preferred to use for the purposes of [my ebook] the simple words of Jesus in the Olivet Discourse, which, dear reader, I hope you have already read...before visiting this section.
Yes, all you Christians who still want to do their livestyle their way instead of the Scriptural way think the entire Bible, not just Revelation, is symbolic. Makes it real easy to forget all about sin when it doesn't literally exist, doesn't it? Got a skeleton in the old closet, do we, that we can't or won't part with? Don't worry it's not real to God, He merely speaks in allegories and is so into LOVE you won't be held accountable.
What is your view of Revelation? Why?
1. Futurist - John saw the distant future (i.e. our future)
2. Historicist - John saw the future, his future (some of which may now be our past)
3. Preterist - it is all first-century
4. Idealist - the focus is on the message; it is more pastoral then literal prophecy
Second, are you:
1. Premillennial Dispensational
2. Postmillennial
3. Amillennial
4. Historic Premillennial
5. Something Else
I grew up being taught Revelation was all future and along with that, premillennial dispensationalism. The anti-Christ would soon appear and the real Christians would be raptured.
When I read Revelation, I saw little of what I was taught.
I read Left Behind. As a teenager I found it to be atrocious story-telling. Compared to good fiction (at the time I liked John Grisham, Michael Crichton) this was just bad. It is just bad literature. At the time I didn't know much about the theology.
In seminary I learned other views. My New Testament prof was very critical of the premill dispensational view.
For me the biggest strike against it was historical context. Why would God reveal something to John that had no relevancy for the christians in the 7 churches? I broke out of the self-centered view that all scripture is written primarily to me and realized that it had a message for the day it was written (not just Revelation, all of it). I also realized the idea that a tribulation (persecution of Christians) is coming is arrogant - how does this preach in places where Christians are persecuted?
Finally, when I began to learn the historical context of Revelation I was challenged. John contrasts evil and good (beast/lamb) in stark terms and forces the question, which side are you on? But the side of the beast was nationalism - Roman patriotism. It made me wonder - if we are so wrapped up in waiting for a future antichrist, a future mark of the beast, have we already taken the wrong side already? Are we missing the ways we have compromised with our own nation, living in contemporary Rome? Do we ignore the suffering lamb and instead opt for the power of America?
In other words, Revelation became real to me when I found the historical contextual message which greatly applies today.
So I suppose I am mostly idealist, though within that I think there is prophecy with historical fulfillment but we can't know when. Maybe some in the first century, maybe some in history (conversion of Constantine as triumph of Jesus over pagan gods?) and maybe some more in future. But all those little "beasts" may point to a final big Beast. I am not concerned with that as much as where we are now.
And I suppose I am amillennial.