Understanding Revelation

Hi Don,

I know some people would say that Revelation is about past events and some would say future.  What is your take on that?  If John was imprisoned by Diocletian, who came after Nero, then the events of 70 AD would have occurred prior to Revelation being written, wouldn’t they?

Thanks,   Mike 

 Dear Mike,           Here is my long-for-a-blog take:

 One of the aspects of correct Bible interpretation is to be willing to go where the text demands regardless of what the scholars or others say. Revelation is a case in point. The author repeatedly, as in over and over, about twelve times states in varying phrases that the events ‘must shortly take place’ (Rev. 1:1), ‘for the time is near’ (Rev.1:3) ‘about to suffer” (Rev. 2:10) ‘I am coming quickly’ (Revelation 2:16 and 3:11) or ‘which is about to come upon the whole world’ (Rev. 3:10) or equally straight up time related phrasings. These statements are found primarily at the beginning and end of the book. Revelation is book-ended with close time frame statements. It is as if the author wanted to make sure nobody missed his point that these events were to happen soon.

 Now, I am fully aware that the large current crop of pre-mil adherents thinks this book is about some time in the near future for us. When I ask them why they always start with arguments based on current events – every time. They often say that they can read the newspapers and that I should open my eyes. They sincerely believe that Israel as a national entity is predicted to return (Matt.24?) green leaf shoots etc. So the first appeal is to history and the second is a weak interpretive appeal Jesus’ words about the end of the age. I always point them back to the actual text of Revelation which repeatedly says the time is short. They then get angry or frustrated and do not want to talk about it any more. They hate discussing Scripture because Scripture is damning to their doctrines.

 Revelation has only a few major themes. The first is the theme of victory. Revelation predicts the victory of Christ and His church and the victory of the saints, in history. This book was written as an encouragement to the 1^st century church as it faced vicious persecution. The saints needed to know that this persecution would not defeat the church and that it would end. Revelation, properly understood, was that encouragement. My best historical understanding is that the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD is what the book of Revelation is predicting. I know from the Biblical text that the judgment was ‘soon’. My observation of history says it almost certainly was fulfilled in 70 AD. My 70 AD talk is not interpretation it is historical observation. The short time phrases however, are straight up interpretation. They are the ground we should die on, so to speak.

 The final chapters do extend the promise across time to the end of the Age of the Gentiles. So, we also are encouraged to keep the faith, remain always hopeful and diligent to live rightly in our time. When I get discouraged I often go read about the New Jerusalem coming down out of heaven. This is our hope.

 Do not worry about the historians. We do not get our doctrine from whatever the popular historical interpretation might be. Historians are ever learning and do not know everything. We do not derive our doctrine from history. We get our doctrine from Scripture alone – thus the motto, Sola Scriptura.

 If you assert what I have asserted here then the next question will be,’ well, what about all those horsemen and plagues? Those things have not happened yet.’ The answer to this has to do with our methods of interpretation. I assume that all Biblical figures are to be interpreted first by referring to similar figures in previous Scripture. So, first we look up examples in OT and NT to see how the figure was previously if ever used, or how a similar figure was used. For instance, when Isaiah talks about God’s judgment of Egypt He uses the figure of Him ‘coming on the clouds’ in judgment. Reading the OT we all understand this to be a figurative statement not literal. Yet, when we see that same language in the NT we assume it is literal (no figure) and also assume that the usage is about reward not judgment, thus reversing the original meaning of the OT figure. We do these things without a flittering thought because the modern church (pre-mil dispensational) has no use for the OT for developing doctrine. They treat the OT as a dead letter and do not even think of going there for doctrine.

 I reject the dispensational view and practices. I believe the Bible is covenantal. The doctrines of the covenant are the central organizing principle of the Bible, not a man made invention of dispensations. The word covenant is used almost three hundred times in the Bible including almost forty in the NT. It is not an obscure word nor doctrine. I do not know why Christians of our day rail so hard against a deeply Scriptural concept but they do.

 I do not have time to go any further into this right now but I pray this helps give a framework for understanding Revelation.

 For Christian Civilization,  

 Don Schanzenbach   11-23-10