HOW SHOULD REVELATION BE INTERPRETED

There are four main views/methodologies on Revelation, but why? Why can’t scholars just agree on one of them and get on with it? The problem begins with the first verse of Revelation: “The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place.” That word, soon, has caused headaches over the centuries.

For a long time, soon was not an issue because the “expectation of Jesus’ parousia [second coming]…remained a vital, credible hope into the fourth century.”[i] At some point, the delay in Jesus return caused Christians to ask what soon meant. The different answers to that question led to the main views on Revelation.

VIEWS ON SOON—REASONABLE AND PROBLEMATIC: Preterism alleges the first Christians would have looked to events in their own day for fulfillment of Revelation’s visions. According to this view, Revelation was written before the destruction of Jerusalem and fulfilled in the First Century. In this case, soon would not have been an issue for the early Christians. Preterists argue that if Revelation’s prophecies were all to be fulfilled in the time of the end (as futurists allege), they would have had little value for Christians during the past 2,000 years. The preterist argument seems reasonable. On the other hand, futurists could turn the argument around and say that Revelation’s prophecies would have had little relevance after the First Century if they were all fulfilled back then. Along with that, the majority of scholars today disagree with the preterist assertion that Revelation was written before Jerusalem’s destruction, an element essential to the preterist view.

Some eleven hundred years after Christ, Christians developed Historicism: the view that the key to understanding Revelation’s visions lies in historical events taking place at different times in history…not an unreasonable position either. To the historicist, soon was not a problem, since the prophecies were in the process of being fulfilled throughout the centuries. This view had many proponents, including Sir Isaac Newton. But the long passage of time without Christ’s return has meant that historicists have run out of prophecies in Revelation. Few today find this point of view convincing.

The Idealist/Symbolic view, explains that Revelation’s visions do not describe any specific event, rather, recurring themes that are always present throughout history; like good versus evil, the persecution of Christians, etc. Since such themes are perpetual, soon is not an issue. Actually, history does seem to repeat itself, especially where Christians are concerned. On the other hand, references in Revelation to Jesus’ return in are so concrete, that most modern scholars shy away from strict Idealist interpretation. Revelation 19:11-21, for example, pictures Christ coming to destroy his foremost enemies once for all time, and this is difficult to reconcile with the Idealist view, or a strict preterist view, for that matter.

The Futurist believes Revelation’s prophecies will only be fulfilled in the last days[ii]. They also explain that soon, in Greek, is adverbial and means suddenly/without warning, referring to the manner of Jesus’ return. So, Jesus’ return would “take place suddenly,” whenever that would happen, rather than soon. That explanation seems reasonable except that Bible translations do not support it; of twenty-three translations on Biblehub.com, only one supports this explanation.[iii] Futurists also argue that, from God’s point of view, soon could easily be 2000 years. Well, maybe...

FACTORS POINTING TO A FUTURE FULFILLMENT: At its core, Christianity is undeniably apocalyptic. Central to Christianity is the belief that Christ will return to take control of earth’s affairs and put an end to injustice once and for all. “It is quite clear that the expectation of a coming great reversal, with Jesus returning as judge, continued unabated in the second century and beyond, with no apparent embarrassment or signs of hasty rewriting of predictions…There is no sense that Christianity had changed its character, or been put in jeopardy, by the failure of Jesus to return within a generation of Easter…One of the truly remarkable features of Christian history, in fact, is the persistence of apocalyptic hope across two millennia of the church’s existence.”[iv] The apocalyptic aspect of Christianity points away from the view that the ultimate fulfillment of Revelation was accomplished in the First Century or in a continual repetition of the triumph of good over evil.

Another factor to consider is the Revelation story, the main point of my book REVELATION—An Epic Drama In Four Acts. The existence of a scenario, a definite sequence of events, means that once that sequence begins, it plays out to the end without any pauses in between. This is only consistent with the original apocalyptic belief that Christ would return sometime in the future to effect the promised change to the world as we know it.

Revelation itself says that the time of the end would be short: “woe to the earth and the sea, because the devil has gone down to you…he knows that his time is short" (12:12). But, how short is short in Revelation? As we have already seen, it is not wise to be dogmatic about expressions like soon and the same is true for short.

However, in the gospels, Jesus used the term birth pains/pangs in reference to the last days and this gives a clue to the shortness of the end time: “All these [wars, famines and earthquakes] are the beginning of birth pains…and then the end will come.” (Mt. 24:8-14). Just as birth pains last a short time compared to the nine months of pregnancy, the time of the end would be short in comparison to the length of a human life.

If Jesus’ reference to birth pains in the gospels is accepted as a guide, then short in Revelation, related to the length of human life, is difficult to reconcile with some of the methodologies. For preterists and historicists it would mean that the birth pains started in the First Century and have continued now for nearly 2,000 years. The Idealist view would mean continual birth pains without a birth.

Well then, Futurism must be the correct view, right? Not exactly. Even though Christianity was apocalyptic, and Futurism squares with the idea that Christ’s return will occur in the future, there is much more involved in Futurism as a methodology. Most futurists are dispensationalists and believe in the rapture[v]; that history has been preordained to unfold in various periods and that Revelation should be interpreted quite literally (for example, that Christ will literally return from heaven riding a white horse).[vi] The first Christians did not believe in the rapture nor did they interpret Revelation literally, so they were not futurists in the dispensational sense, even though they believed in the future return of Christ.[vii]

Well then, if Revelation was written for the end time, were the interpretations of all those Christians throughout the centuries wrong? No and Yes…

No, I would not say “all those interpretations were wrong.” I am convinced that Revelation was written in such a way that it could be applicable and encouraging for those that were in dire need, though, at the same time, I firmly hold that the Revelation script was meant to be played out in the time of the end.

Ancient Christians that were slaughtered in the Roman arena saw Rome as the beast, those burned at the stake in the Catholic or Protestant Inquisitions may have seen their persecutors as the harlot, Babylon the Great, and so on. Those interpretations would have been correct in principle, even if the scenario of the last days or its timing was not understood. The comfort and strength they received from the scriptures was most certainly real.

Revelation’s adaptability is inspired genius and helps to understand why it was written the way it was. As Ladd wrote: “The beast is both Rome and the eschatological Antichrist – and, we might add, any demonic power which the church must face in her entire history. The great tribulation is primarily an eschatological [end of days] event, but it includes all tribulation which the church may experience at the hands of the world, whether by first-century Rome or by later evil powers.”[viii]

Revelation must have been of great encouragement throughout the ages for those undergoing severe persecution. If it had been crystal clear that its prophecies were all fulfilled in the First Century, that would have diminished the relevance of the book, like Old Testament prophecies that had already been fulfilled. The same would be true if it were clearly understood that the prophecies would only be fulfilled in the time of the end. The way in which it was written has given the book its relevance in every age and in every circumstance.

Yes, technically, the interpretations were not correct. But, who cares?

DOES THE ORDINARY BELIEVER STAND A CHANCE OF UNDERSTANDING IT: The promise of happiness for those that read and “take to heart what is written” in Revelation, implies that it was meant to be understood (1:3). How could God expect people to take to heart, to act upon, something they were unable to understand? Clearly then, Revelation was written to be understood by ordinary believers.

The visions John describes have emotional impact and impart emotional understanding. The main symbolic images—the dragon, the beast, the false prophet, Babylon the Great, the saints, etc.—can all be understood in principle even though the exact identification of the images would remain unknown until the time of the end. This is an important factor; the most significant aspects of the message are understandable even if many particulars of the visions are not.

For example, in Revelation 1:14-16; Jesus has ‘eyes like blazing fire, feet like bronze glowing in a furnace, a voice like the sound of rushing waters, with seven stars in his right hand and a sharp double-edged sword protruding from his mouth.’ The reader is able to feel Jesus' power, that he is in control. That is a very strengthening feeling especially when things are not going well. Each vision works the same way, communicating a gut understanding. The exact meaning of the details is secondary. So, Revelation, for all its complication, also has a certain simplicity and that, to my mind, is part of the brilliance of the book.

The first paragraph of this subheading makes the statement: “Revelation was meant to be understood by ordinary believers.” Non-scholars should ask themselves if they believe that. If they do, then they will read the Revelation with confidence and will understand many things. If they don’t, they won’t. According to the message of an electronic billboard near my place of work: “If you believe you can, you’re right and if you believe you can’t, you’re right.” So, give it a try, what have you got to lose? (It would be hard to do worse than some of the strange interpretations that are out there.[ix])

MY POINT OF VIEW ON SOON: (Caveat Lector—reader beware—what follows are personal views on the subject. If you disagree with me then you are automatically in the majority. Naturally, that doesn’t mean I’m wrong, just that you have a lot of company.)

Soon, the problem word, appears more than once in Revelation. Following is a discussion of several passages in the NIV using this term, though other versions might translate it as quickly or shortly etc.

·        1:1 The revelation from Jesus Christ…to show his servants what must soon take place. 

·        22:6 “God…sent his angel to show his servants the things that must soon take place.”

Both passages, mention that something would “soon take place,” without specifying what. In fact, what John saw and was told, especially the things contained in the letters to the seven congregations in Asia Minor (2:1-3:22), did occur soon after he wrote. For example, 2:10 says, “Do not be afraid of what you are about to suffer. I tell you, the devil will put some of you in prison to test you, and you will suffer persecution for ten days. Be faithful, even to the point of death, and I will give you the crown of life.” This actually took place not too long after John wrote.

In some passages, however, Jesus says he is “coming soon,” how are those passages to be understood?

·        22:7 “Look, I am coming soon!”

·        22:12 “Look, I am coming soon!”

·        22:20 “Yes, I am coming soon.”

These passages seem more baffling because they give the impression that Jesus’ return is imminent. On the other hand, maybe not. Take a look at the following passages written earlier in Revelation to some of the seven congregations.

·        2:16 “Repent therefore! Otherwise, I will soon come to you and will fight against them...”

·        3:11 “I am coming soon. Hold on to what you have, so that no one will take your crown.” 

·        3:20 “Here I am! I stand at the door and knock.”

The first two passages use soon in relation to Jesus’ oversight of the congregations; he would soon discipline or comfort his followers. The passages do not refer to the last days and there is no reason to believe that Jesus did not do exactly as he promised within the lifetime of the recipients of those letters. The last passage above is especially interesting. Rather than soon, Jesus says: “Here I am—he’d already arrived!—I stand at the door.” This is also said in the context of Jesus’ readiness to do what is needed to ensure the well being of the congregations. That is very interesting since it removes soon, the aspect of waiting, from the equation.

The point is that all of the “I am coming soon” passages may be viewed in the congregational context rather than in relation to Jesus’ second coming.

METHODOLOGIES IN RETROSPECT? I feel both admiration and melancholy for the different views/methodologies. Each is an attempt to reconcile soon with the delay of Christ’s return. The explanations were basically sincere and reasonable in the context of the age in which they were formulated. Though at times other factors were involved; Protestants used Historicism to condemn Catholicism and Catholics used Futurism to defend it. In the main, however, they are attempts at harmonizing Revelation with the reality of history. And, to some degree, they also seem born out of a sense of dismay and a need to reconcile their delayed expectations in some way. In each case, time is the behind-the-scenes directive factor, the key to interpreting Revelation’s visions. I ask myself how I would have interpreted Revelation had I lived in the First Century or the Middle Ages. I wouldn’t want to be cavalier about my answer.

A few things should be clear at this point; Christianity is apocalyptic at its core. Remove that from it and regardless of what remains—or whatever it might be called—it is no longer biblical Christianity.[x]

As mentioned previously, the promise of happiness for those that read Revelation and take it to heart, shows that the book was meant to be understood. Christians should demonstrate their faith in that promise by reading it with confidence and, of course, with prayer.

The Revelation scenario, its story, supports the fact that the book is a testament to the faith that Christ will return to right all wrongs once and for all time. True, nearly 2000 years have passed since Jesus’ resurrection and many have waited a long, long time for his return. But faithful men of old also waited patiently for God to fulfill certain promises. Abraham, Isaac and Jacob received divine promises that they never saw fulfilled. The same is true of Isaiah, Daniel and other prophets (compare, Daniel 12:9, 13). And countless thousands of faithful Jews died without seeing the coming of the Messiah (compare, Luke 2:25-32). But, no one has ever waited more than one lifetime and that is not too long to wait given the nature of the promises...even if it necessitates being resurrected to enjoy them. As the saying goes: “Anything worthwhile, is worth waiting for.” Waiting faithfully is part of faith…as is reading Revelation and “tak[ing] to heart what is written in it, because the time is near.”

[i] The Return of Jesus in Early Christianity, page 185.

[ii] Dispensationalism is divided into several subgroups.

[iii] The ISR Translation: “to show His servants what has to take place with speed.”

[iv] The Return of Jesus in Early Christianity, pp. 149 and 185.

[v] Rapture refers to the ‘catching up’ into the air of believers in Christ shortly before the great tribulation: “[God] has made special preparations for all believers so that we might be spared this misery and torment of the final tribulation. Do you want an E-ticket ride out of here?…God will declare war on planet earth…And God wants to get us out before the real shooting war begins. This is what we call the Rapture” (Planet Earth—2000 AD., pp. 265 and 285, by Hal Lindsey). Lindsey’s books have combined sales of over 35 million and it is safe to say that this quote represents the belief and feelings of a large segment of rapture believers.

[vi] In Four Views On The Book Of Revelation, Gentry observes: “Some instances of literalism seem to me strange, unreasonable, and unnecessary. For example, Robert Thomas holds that the eerie locusts of Revelation 9 and the strange frogs of Revelation 16 are demons literally taking these peculiar physical forms, that the two prophets of Revelation 11 literally spew fire from their mouths, that every mountain in the world will be abolished during the seventh bowl judgments, that the fiery destruction of the literal city of Babylon will smolder for more than one thousand years, that Christ will return from heaven to earth on a literal horse, and that the New Jerusalem is literally a fifteen-hundred-mile-high cube” (p. 40).

[vii] “It is granted by dispensationalists that as a system of theology dispensationalism is recent in origin” (Dispensationalism Today, by Charles Ryrie p. 67).

[viii] A Commentary On The Revelation Of John, pg 14.

[ix] “Newspaper exegesis [interpretation]” is popular today and there are websites dedicated to seeing fulfillment of some verse or other in Revelation in every new happening. Predictably, dramatic interpretations are soon replaced by new ones. The interpreters must have a good knowledge of current events, but not of Revelation. Jesus described something similar in Matthew 24:26: “So if anyone tells you, ‘There he is, out in the wilderness,’ do not go out; or, ‘Here he is, in the inner rooms,’ do not believe it." There is a certain frenetic quality about it that appeals to those who are constantly looking for something new and exciting. It reminds me of the Chicken Little story (an expurgated version): “One day while Chicken Little is walking an acorn falls from a tree, and hits the top of her little head. My, oh, my, the sky is falling. I must run and tell [everyone] about it, says Chicken Little and begins to run…Oh, Henny Penny, the sky is falling…How do you know it? asks Henny Penny. It hit me on the head, so I know it must be so, says Chicken Little. Let me go with you! - says Henny Penny. Run, run. So the two run and run until they meet Ducky Lucky. The sky is falling, says Henny Penny…How do you know that? asks Ducky Lucky. It hit Chicken Little on the head, says Henny Penny. May I come with you? asks Ducky Lucky…and they all lived happily ever after until Foxey Loxey ate them.”

[x] “In our own day one can certainly see…what we have come to call mainstream Protestants and Catholics who make retirement plans without a thought about the parousia of Jesus” (The Return of Jesus in Early Christianity, p. 150).