Welcome
Prayer
Song
Silence
Revelation Introduction – Part II
Meat
October 2nd 2016
Okay, Revelation – Introduction Part II
Last week we covered the Idealist view of Revelation – which essentially teaches that the book is allegorical and must be read through spiritualized eyes and not by assigning the contents to actual events.
We also covered the preterist view – both full and partial views – which say that the contents of Revelation was written to the Seven Churches of that day and most of its contents describe what occurred in the 70 AD destruction of Jerusalem.
According to the Preterist view Revelation had to have been written before the 70 AD destruction because if it was written after then it certainly wouldn’t have been written to them and therefore it would have been to another generation thus rendering both preterist positions impossible.
So the dating of the book comes into question as traditionally the date of it is 95 AD.
We also pointed out that the main differences between the partial and full preterist positions is partials believe the contents of Revelation have been fulfilled up to chapters 20, 21 and 22 and full preterists believe the entire book is complete.
Let’s move on and talk about the view known as the Historicist view or position.
One note that I failed to mention last week. Perhaps the easiest way to see the four main views would be:
ON BOARD
The Idealist View – never to be fulfilled.
The Preterist View – has been fulfilled.
The Historicist View – is being fulfilled.
The Futurist View – will be fulfilled.
As I mentioned last week I do find the historicist view quite compelling as it’s a view that teaches that Revelation is a symbolic representation of the course of Christian history beginning with the age of the apostle and working its way through to the end of the Christian age (or what historicists believe would be the end of the world).
For example, when we get to the actual seven churches mentioned in the book, a historicist sees them as representing a period of time (or age) in church history.
(ON BOARD)
So instead of Jesus having John speak to an actual Church at Ephesus
The age of Ephesus is the apostolic age.
The age of Smyrna is the persecution of the Church through AD 313.
The age of Pergamus is the compromised Church lasting until AD 500.
The age of Thyatira is the rise of the papacy to the Reformation.
The age of Sardis is the age of the Reformation.
The age of Philadelphia is the age of evangelism.
The age of Laodicea represents liberal churches in a “present day” context.
Admittedly, this interpretation does seem to reasonably fit and it goes without saying that most historicist interpreters place the events of our day as being described in the later chapters of Revelation.
So if we were to examine the actual chapters of Revelation a historicist might say that . . .
chapters 1-3 present the seven periods in church history (as I’ve detailed on the board).
The breaking of the seals in chapters 4-7 symbolizes the fall of the Roman Empire.
The Trumpet judgments in chapters 8-10 represent the invasions of the Roman Empire by the Vandals, Huns, Saracens, and Turks.
Then among Protestant historicists of the Reformation, the antichrist in Revelation was believed to be the Catholic papacy.
Chapters 11-13 in Revelation represent the true church in its struggle against Roman Catholicism.
The bowl judgments of Revelation 14-16 represent God’s judgment on the Catholic Church, culminating in the future overthrow of Catholicism depicted in chapters 17-19.
And of course, like the partial preterist, chapters 20-22 describe the end of all things.
Criticisms of the approach include the obvious – there is an abundance of views and interpretations out there.
What this has led to is adherents to the historicist view have a tendency to interpret the text as having application to their day and see the climax of the book happening in their generation.
John Walvoord, scholar and one time President of Dallas Theological Seminary points out the severe lack of agreement among historicists saying,
“As many as fifty different interpretations of the book of Revelation therefore evolve, depending on the time and circumstances of the expositor.”
Over a hundred years ago Moses Stuart said the same complaint, saying:
“Hithertho, scarcely any two original and independent expositors have agreed, in respect to some points very important in their bearing upon the interpretation of the book.”
Another problem with the historicist view is it focuses mostly on the events of the church in Western Europe and says very little about the church in the East.
Thus, its narrow scope fails to account for God’s activity throughout Asia and the rest of the world.
Also, this view would have little significance for the church of the first century whom John was addressing meaning it is highly unlikely that believers in that day would have been able to interpret Revelation as the historical approach suggests.
Prominent scholars who held this view include John Wycliffe, John Knox, William Tyndale, Martin Luther (though he questioned the validity of the book all together), John Calvin, Ulrich Zwingli, John Wesley, Jonathan Edwards, George Whitefield, Charles Finney, C. H. Spurgeon, and Matthew Henry.
It was a view that obviously came into prominence during the Protestant Reformation because of its identification of the pope and the papacy with the beasts of Revelation 13.
However, it seems that since the beginning of the twentieth century, it has declined in popularity and influence as futurism seemed to rule in the last 100 years or so.
Before we speak of the futurist view I want to make a personal observation about the book of Revelation and the response many believers have toward it:
In my opinion it seems to attract or draw out of people a need to project their fears and desires right into the text, and sort of becomes “applicable” to whomever is reading it at whatever period of history.
I say this because of the THOUSANDS of interpretations of the book to the age that people have lived on for over 1700 years.
And if this has ever been the case I think it is found more in the Futurist View than any other.
It has been said that a futurist reads the Bible with a newspaper in their hands.
It takes and teaches that the events of the Olivet Discourse and Revelation (chapters 4-22) will occur in the future.
Futurist divide the book of Revelation into three general sections which John lays out in verse 19 of chapter one:
“what you have seen, what is now and what will take place later.”
To the futurist Chapter 1 describes the past (“what you have seen”), chapters 2-3 describe the present (“what is now”), and the rest of the book describes future events (“what will take place later”).
Futurists apply what is called a literal approach to interpreting Revelation.
Admittedly, this approach can make some sense – especially with a newspaper in the other hand.
(ON BOARD)
So as I said, chapters 1 describes what you have seen, and chapters 2-3 are “what is now” to the reader.
But then chapters 4-19 refer to a period known as the seven-year tribulation and related to the Book of Daniel 9:27.
Some futurists believe that believers will escape the contents of verses 4-19 and are known as Pretribers – meaning that they will be raptured before the tribulation described in chapters 4-19.
Others who see believers being saved after the tribulation are called “post-tribbers.”
During the tribulation God’s judgments are actually poured out upon mankind and they are described in the book through “seals, trumpets, and bowls.”
Chapter 13 describes a literal future world empire headed by a political leader and a religious leader that are represented by two beasts.
Chapter 17 pictures a harlot who represents the church in apostasy.
Chapter 19 refers to Christ’s second coming and the battle of Armageddon followed by a literal thousand-year rule of Christ upon the earth in chapter 20.
Chapters 21-22 are events that follow the millennium: the creation of a new heaven and a new earth and the arrival of the heavenly city upon the earth.
Futurists argue that a consistently literal or “plain interpretation” is to be applied in understanding the book of Revelation.
Literal interpretation of the Bible means to explain the original sense, or meaning, of the Bible according to the normal customary usage of its language.
This means applying the rules of grammar, staying consistent with the historical framework, and the context of the writing.
Literal interpretation does not discount figurative or symbolic language however we already see that even the futurists attempts at remaining literal are impossible with this book as they believe “this and such” REPRESENTS “thus and this.”
However, futurists teach that prophecies using “symbolic language” are also to be normally interpreted according to the laws of language.
J. P. Lange, a Calvinist Theologian of old stated,
“The literalist (so called) is not one who denies that figurative language, that symbols, are used in prophecy, nor does he deny that great spiritual truths are set forth therein; his position is, simply, that the prophecies are to be normally interpreted (i.e., according to the received laws of language) as any other utterances are interpreted – that which is manifestly figurative being so regarded.”
Charles Ryrie, a proponent of premillinialist dispensationalism and Professor at Dallas said:
“Symbols, figures of speech and types are all interpreted plainly in this method, and they are in no way contrary to literal interpretation. After all, the very existence of any meaning for a figure of speech depends on the reality of the literal meaning of the terms involved. Figures often make the meaning plainer, but it is the literal, normal, or plain meaning that they convey to the reader.”
So while futurists will acknowledge the use of figures and symbols they say that when figurative language is used a person must look at the context to find the meaning.
At the same time they maintain that figurative language does not justify allegorical interpretation.
The key to knowing how to literally interpret figurative symbolism comes from an understanding of the ancient church fathers.
For example, the idea of a future millennial kingdom is found in the writings of Clement of Rome (AD 96), Justin Martyr (AD 100-165), Irenaeus (AD 115-202), Tertullian (AD 150-225) and others.
Futurists maintain that the church fathers taught a literal interpretation of Revelation until Origen (AD 185-254) who was the one who introduced allegorical interpretation.
This then became the popular form of interpretation when taught by Augustine (AD 354-430).
The futurist maintain that the literal interpretation of Revelation was a constant throughout the history of the church but rose again to prominence in this the modern era.
So it goes without saying that the futurist view is widely popular among evangelical Christians today.
One of the most popular versions on futurist teaching is called dispensational theology, promoted by schools such as Dallas Theological Seminary and Moody Bible Institute.
Theologians such as Charles Ryrie, John Walvoord, and Dwight Pentecost are noted scholars of this position.
Some of the drawbacks to the futurist position occur when people apply the futurist approach to current events to the symbols in Revelation.
This is a constant embarrassment to the body.
Many – for over a thousand years – have even been involved in setting dates of Christ’s return.
One of the problems with the futurist view is that in most ways it renders the contents of the book irrelevant to the original readers of the first century.
I mean, why would the Revelation begin by saying it was to the seven churches but have 80% of its contents have nothing to do with them and their lives or age?
Another criticism is that Revelation is apocalyptic literature and thus meant to be interpreted allegorically or symbolically rather than literally.
Hank Hanegraaff makes an interesting point, saying,
“When a Biblical writer uses a symbol or an allegory, we do violence to his intentions if we interpret it in a strictly literal manner.”
So there are the four views of Revelation – the Idealist, the Preterist, the Historicist and the Futurist. I want to present another which has never found a real home in the hearts of Christians today – but maybe it’s time to consider it?
It’s the, “we ought to question the books place in the word” view.
Because we live in a time where Bible worship is almost as fervent as Jesus worship this view is unlikely to ever get legs but I want to include it in our scope for the following reasons:
Eusbius’s words and Luther’s words. We read Luther’s last week. And,
What may be seen as a general fail in terms of consistency.
(let me talk about this for a minute)
One of the things I love about the Word of God is the utter consistency of its central message of God’s grace to Man.
I don’t find this to be present in the book Revelation. We may discover (through our studies) a consistency to the New Testament books but presently I do not see one.
Additionally, where I find consistency between the Gospel of John and the Epistles of John I again fail to see a consistency in a book ascribed as coming from his hand in the Book of Revelation – both in a comparison of the Greek nor in the tenor or tone of the messages.
In some ways the Book of Revelation fully addresses the completion of a very Jewish Age – which is why it’s message is so consistent with books of the Old Testament like Daniel and Ezekiel but is the book consistent with the teachings of God made flesh (Jesus of Nazareth)? Is it consistent with the Message of Paul to the Gentile world?
This is one reason why its authorship may be in question – it appears – in many ways – to be the workmanship of a Jew and not a Jew converted to Christ – especially a Jew converted to Christ who was one of His main apostles known as the Beloved.
We might begin our examination of this view of the Book of Revelation by asking these questions as we read through its contents:
1. Would Jesus demand little children to die because their parents sinned?
2. Would Jesus and or Paul change salvation by faith back to salvation by works?
3. Would Jesus direct his disciples to rule with an “iron rod” instead of with love and forgiveness like He taught them?
4. Would Jesus vomit you (and me) out of the Kingdom of God for being a little warm and not red hot in our faith-walk?
5. Would Jesus send us to hell for not believing every word of the Book of Revelation, revoking his promise to “never leave us and to be with us forever?”
(This was one of Luther’s complaints of the Book – that the author made this book more important than any other book in scripture.) And . . .
6. Would Jesus tell you he is coming soon . . . and then not come?
I mean, really think about this – we are thoroughly commanded to believe and love and trust in God’s GRACE – but are told here that if (in a time of trial and utter desperation) that if we accept a mark in our flesh as a means to materially survive (to buy and sell goods) we will lose our salvation and there is no way out?
I’ve always wondered about this.
These passages have always troubled me.
When we compare Revelation to the message of the Gospels and Epistles we might also wonder about its consistency.
I have to personally admit that the joy and peace and rest I have from reading the Gospel Message throughout the New Testament.
This peace is entirely lost on me when I read Jesus words to the seven Churches.
He is not the Jesus I know. I honestly hear a different Lord, a demanding Savior and Gospel based on anything but grace.
Maybe I’m missing something – we’ll find out.
But a simple reading of Revelation shows its contents directly disputes all twenty-six books preceding it. Putting it another way, a much more troubling way, “Revelation” teaches opinions and attitudes contrary to those of Jesus and his Apostles – especially Paul.
We should remember that last week I said that “Revelation” was always accepted in early Christianity.
This statement is partially true.
One of the most well studied and well read apologists of Christianity, Nathaniel Lardner, who lived from 1684 to 1768 took a serious look at early church support for the book. This is a summary of what he discovered:
“We are now come to the last book of the New Testament, the Revelation; about which there have been different sentiments among Christians; many receiving it as the writing of John the apostle and evangelist, others ascribing it to John a presbyter, others to Cerinthus, and some rejecting it, without knowing to whom it should be ascribed.
I shall therefore here rehearse the testimony of ancient Christians, as it arises in several ages.
“It is probable that Hermas read the book of the Revelation, and imitated it; he has many things resembling it.
It is referred to by the martyrs at Lyons. There is reason to think it was received by Papias.
Justin Martyr, about the year 140, was acquainted with this book, and received it as written by the Apostle John; for, in his dialogue with Trypho, he expressly says:
‘A man from among us, by name John, one of the apostles of Christ, in the revelation made to him, has prophesied that the believers in our Christ shall live a thousand years in Jerusalem; and after that shall be the general, and, in a word, the eternal resurrection and judgment of all together.
To this passage we suppose Eusebius to refer in his ecclesiastical history, when giving an account of Justin’s works, he observes to this purpose.
He also mentions the Revelation of John, expressly calling it the apostle’s.
Among the works of Melito, Bishop of Sardis, one of the seven Churches of Asia, about the year 177, Eusebius mentions one entitled, ‘Of the Revelation of John.’
It is very probable that Melito ascribed this book to the apostle of that name, and esteemed it of canonical authority.
Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons in Gaul, about A.D. 178, who in his younger days was acquainted with Polycarp, often quotes this book as the Revelation of John, the apostle of the Lord.
And in one place he says: ‘It was seen not long ago, but almost in our age, at the end of the reign of Domitian.’
“Theophilus was bishop of Antioch about 181. Eusebius, speaking of a work of his against the heresy of Hermogenes, says:
‘He therein made use of testimonies, or quoted passages, from John’s Apocalypse.’
The book of the Revelation is several times quoted by Clement of Alexandria, who flourished about 194; and once in this manner (saying):
‘Such a one, though here on earth he is not honored with the first seat, shall sit upon the four and twenty thrones judging the people, as John says in the Revelation.’
Tertullian, about the year 200, often quotes the Revelation, and supposes it to have been written by St. John, the same who wrote the First Epistle of John, universally received:
‘Again, the Apostle John describes, in the Apocalypse, a sharp two-edged sword coming out of the mouth of God.’ He also says: ‘We have Churches that are the disciples of John. For though Marcion rejects the Revelation, the succession of bishops, traced to the original, will assure us that John is the author: “by John undoubtedly meaning the apostle.”
Lardner continues . . .
“From Eusebius we learn that Apollonius, who wrote against the Montanists about 211, quoted the Revelation. By Caius, about 212, it was ascribed to Cerinthus: it was received by Hippolytus about 220, and by Origen about 230. It is often quoted by him.
He seems not to have had any doubt about its genuineness. In his Commentary upon St. John’s gospel, he speaks of it in this manner:
‘Therefore John, the son of Zebedee, says in the Revelation.’
Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria, about 247, or somewhat later, wrote a book against “the Millenarians,” in which he allows the Revelation to be written by John, a holy and divinely inspired man. But he says, ‘He cannot easily grant him to be the apostle, the son of Zebedee, whose is the gospel according to John, and the catholic epistle.’
He rather thinks it may be the work of “John an elder,” who also lived at Ephesus in Asia, as well as the apostle.
It also appears, from a conference which Dionysius had with some Millenarians, that the Revelation was, about 240 and before, received by Nepus, an Egyptian bishop, and by many others in that country; and that it was in great reputation.
It was received by Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, about 248, and by the Church of Rome in his time, and by many Latin authors.
The Revelation was received by Novatus and his followers, and by various other authors.
It is also probable that it was received by the Manichees. It was received by Lactantius, and by the Donatists; by the latter Arnobius about 460, and by the Arians.
So there is the early support I spoke of. But let’s read on . . .
“In the time of Eusebius, in the former part of the fourth century, it was by some not received at all; and therefore it is reckoned by him among contradicted books.
Nevertheless, it was generally received. Eusebius himself seems to have hesitated about it, for he says:
‘It is likely the Revelation was seen by John the elder, if not by John the apostle.’
It may be reckoned probable that the critical argument of Dionysius of Alexandria was of great weight with him and others of that time.
The Revelation was received by Athanasius, and by Epiphanius; but we also learn from him that it was not received by all in his time.
It is not in the catalogue of Cyril of Jerusalem, and seems not to have been received by him. It is also wanting in the catalogue of the Council of Laodicea, about 363.
“The Revelation is not in Gregory Nazianzen’s catalogue; however, it seems to have been received by him.
It is in the catalogue of Amphilochius; but he says it was not received by all. It is also omitted in Ebedjesus’ catalogue of the books of Scripture received by the Syrians; nor is it in the ancient Syriac version.
“It was received by Jerome; but he says it was rejected by the Greek Christians. It was received by Rufin, by the third Council of Carthage, and by Augustine, but it was not received by all in his time.
It is never quoted by Chrysostom, and probably was not received by him. It is in the catalogue of Dionysius, (called the Areopagite) about 490.
It is in the Alexandrian MS. It was received by Sulpicius Severus about 401; and by J. Damascenus, and by OEcumenius, and by many other authors. Andrew, bishop of Caesarea, in Cappadocia, at the end of the fifth century, and Arethas, bishop of the same place, in the sixth century, wrote commentaries upon it.
But it was not received by Severian, bishop of Gabala; nor, as it seems, by Theodoret. Upon the whole, it appears that this book has been generally received in all ages, though some have doubted of it, and rejected it; particularly the Syrians, and some other Christians in the east.
In the end Revelation wasn’t generally accepted as canon or beneficial until the year 508 AD
Some ancient Christian branches still do not include it in their Bibles.
So, from both Luther’s comments and this information on the Eastern Church and th fact that it was not fully embraced we can see that criticism of “Revelation” is not new and is not necessarily a disrespectful or heretical stance.
Its acceptance by the Roman Church does nothing to change the uncertainty about it expressed both in the early Eastern church and then later in the Protestant reformation.
Again, 65 years before Jerome included it into the Vulgate Eusebius had rejected it.
In modern times, computer analysis of “Revelation’s” style and content strongly report that compared to all of John’s other writings it has a different author.
But even without knowledge of this history or the presently available computer analysis, simple observation shows “Revelation” differs from the Gospel accounts.
In fact, most everything in this book opposes the Gospel of Jesus in terms of personality, tone, words, ways, and teachings.
At the beginning of the Revelation we are told about seven spirits before Jesus’ throne. There is only one place where Spirit is singular – and good – in terms of the Holy Spirit.
The only place were Spirit is plural is when they are described as unholy.
Jesus in Revelation tells John that he is “the Alpha and Omega.” This is a new phrase to the Bible and something Jesus never said before.
But John the Apostle, in his Gospel, already taught that, “In the beginning was the Word and the Word was made man. John the Apostle didn’t really need any more information or explanation about Jesus’ nature did he?
Additionally we might wonder why John the Apostle would faint (1:17-19) upon seeing Jesus. This is a man who had been with Him throughout his ministry, crucifixion and after the Resurrection. He ate with Jesus and was show His wounds.
Why would John the Apostle be frightened by seeing Jesus again?
And then why does Jesus tell John what he has done (1:18) when John the Apostle has already written this in his Gospel?
Does the strange description of Jesus (Rev. 1: 12-16) match up with the Jesus of the Gospels?
Then John’s predictions are addressed only to the seven churches in Asia, and not to the whole church, the Church Universal – the whole body of Christ.
So, why are these verses universalized and assumed to apply to the whole church and why do individual Christians assume they apply to themselves?
And then if the predicted event of Jesus’ bodily return did not happen to those seven churches in or near that time this is a false prophecy.
Then there is the idea of group judgement (a very Hebrew ideal) when Jesus speaks to the Seven Churches.
Here believers are judged collectively, by association, and not as individuals.
That is a very different message from Romans 14 description of every man standing before the judge.
Here in Revelation there is a “guilt by association” going on.
Then consider Jesus words to the Seven Churches:
Smyrna (2:9) must remain “faithful to the death to deserve salvation” but Jesus said, “I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in me, thus he shall die, yet shall he live, and whoever lives and believes in me shall never die.” (John 11: 25,26).
To the church at Pergamum Satan has that territory and though they “held fast and did not deny Jesus during persecutions,” Jesus rebukes them “for eating food sacrificed to idols.”
Does that sound Jesus like? Worst yet, Paul says in 1st Corinthians 8 that this was permitted and Jesus Himself made it clear that its not what goes into the mouth but what comes out that defiles a man.”
Which is it?
Going on to Thyatira, this church has love, patience, faith, service and patient endurance. But Jesus says that this is not enough.
They have a bad woman in their midst who causing immoral acts and the eating of food that has been sacrificed to Idols. Here Jesus promised to kill any children born from adultery with her.
Again, Revelation Jesus will reward those who avoid this Jezebel and who will turn into hard and mean rulers (2: 24-28) ruling with “rods of Iron!”
Again, I don’t know this Jesus.
At Sardis the church is judged for being dead because it lacks for works. If their works do not improve, Jesus will come undetected and save only those in Sardis who have good works.
Of course this is a contradiction of the Good News that says salvation is by works and not by faith.
This is also a revocation of Jesus promise to never leave us, and to be with us until the end of time. (Mt. 28: 20b)
The Church at Philadelphia has done everything right according to Jesus. They have endured patiently. If they will just keep on enduring, they will receive their reward.
Reward here is based on continuous enduring rather than faith. Again it is only these who continue to endure that Patmos’ Jesus will save.
How do they fail to endure? Those who cannot handle persecutions are condemned and outside the blessing of salvation.
Laodicea is a church neither hot nor cold so Jesus will vomit the lukewarm Christians out of his mouth – expelling them from the body of Christ – apparently sending them to hell.
But in the Gospel of John Jesus says that He will “draw all men unto him,” whih I interpret to mean even “lukewarm” Christians.
Quite the contrary Revelation Jesus qualifies whom he will bless by their works with their endurance being the measurement by which they are deemed worthy to be saved and to remain saved.
Unquestionably, and throughout the Book of Revelation salvation and safety are the product of works not grace by faith.
Quite frankly the result of “Revelation’s” doctrines is that no one can know their status with God until they are raised from the dead and judged.
Then there is the “extravagant threat” that says in effect that unless every word is believed and accepted unsalvation awaits.
This threat has absolutely no New Testament precedence.
Can any careful Christian take “Revelation” seriously after reading it?
Next, why did God allow it into the New Testament canon? We might guess on the answer to this – once the study is done.
It might be Christians feel obligated to accept it because it is in the New Testament.
Believing the Bible to be the inspired word of God, many do not dare analyze its contents as has been done in this essay. Few read it critically.
But in my estimation we are forced to ask ourselves:
“How can any believer seeking to live by faith and love take “Revelation” seriously?
It has NEVER made complete acceptable sense to anyone on earth – and does NOT seem to bring in a spirit of unity and love . . . in the least!
How can it be useful if it is not understood and only brings disputing and division?
Is it possible that the presence of “Revelation” is there to be a literal history lesson that shows us the type of person that was contesting and contending with Paul about the nature of the Gospel.
It does smack of coming from the party of the Circumcized,” who wanted the Jewish traditions to be continued in the Body of Christ – and harassed Paul to have their way accepted.
Do you hear the Masters voice in the book?
Are you a more loving, patient follower of Christ with yourself and others after reading its contents?
Are you encouraged and filled with faith or discouraged and filled with fear as a result of reading it?
Could it be that all Christians ought to know enough about Jesus and Christianity that by the time we reach “Revelation,” we ought to realize it contradicts the rest of the New Testament – even the Jesus we have come to know and love?
Could it be that “Revelation” is given to us as a written example of “a false prophet and a false Christ” for our own protection! That it is the beast to reject and retain the heart of loving faith for our King?
Something MORE . . . to think about.
In humble prayer and thought . . .until next week.
