Most of the time when someone says they want you to “re-think” something what they really mean is they want you to change your previously held position. Every time an article is written by those within the churches of Christ that asks you to re-think something (like divorce and remarriage or women’s roles in worship) they want you to cast off the Biblical teachings and hold to their new revelations on the subject. That is not entirely what I mean by re-thinking the book of Revelation, but it isn’t too far off either I must confess.
There are two commonly held positions on the book of Revelation: the premillenialist view which is that the things described in Revelation have not happened and will happen sometime in the future. This view is held by many denominations. It is what made the “Left Behind” books and the teachings of people like John Haggee so popular. There is also the amillenialist view, commonly held by those with the churches of Christ and traditional Christian churches which believe that most of the events have already happened. Most of the disagreement focuses on the supposed “1000 year reign of Christ” on Earth which the premillenialists are waiting on and the amillenialists believe is currently taking place.
First off, we can easily look at the first three chapters of Revelation and see applicable teachings for the church today. We want to be like the church at Philadelphia. We don’t want to be like the other churches. After the first three chapters is where most of the disagreement begins.
Look first at chapter one, verse four. This tells us who wrote the letter (John), but more importantly, it tells us who this was written to – the seven churches that are in Asia. This is very important. Why? Because we are reading someone else’s mail! This letter wasn’t directly written to us. None of the letters of the New Testament were written to us, but they still contain instructions for us. The difference is in the way they are written. The letters of Paul, James, John, Peter, Jude and the Hebrew writer are clearly written. There is no mystery. When John wrote to these seven churches he was in exile and so one might conclude that he couldn’t write plainly (in literal description).
People take John’s Revelation and begin to “decode” it. They want to tell you what John means by his words, both those from denominations and those from the churches of Christ. Consider this – if it takes men today to “decode” Revelation, then why did John write to the churches of Asia? Why would he send them a letter that they couldn’t understand? I can’t believe that he would or did. I believe the people who originally read this letter, those to whom it was addressed, understood exactly what he meant! Were they to preserve the letter so that men some 2000 years later could tell everyone what he really meant? The idea is absurd. I think we must be content with the fact that they understood the letter and that we may not. Everything else pertaining to manner of life for Christians and worship to God is clearly defined elsewhere in the Bible. We should be content with that.
Now let us skip almost all the way to the end of Revelation to chapter 22 verses 18 and 19:
18I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book;
19and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book.
Commonly these verses are used by those within the churches of Christ as if those words were God’s final words to sum up the scriptures. The book John is talking about is the book of Revelation, not the entire Bible. John wasn’t commissioned by God to put the finishing touches on the Bible. Revelations place in the New Testament is for two basic reasons – because it is believed to be the most recent letter and because of its nature. God didn’t assemble the Bible the way we have it – men did. This is not to say that the principle of adding to / taking away from the word of God being wrong isn’t expressed throughout the Bible. I am simply saying that those verses apply specifically to John’s letter.
Regardless, the point John makes is that if you add to the book of Revelation, or take away from it you will be added to the plagues therein and your part of the tree of life will be taken away. That is serious business! Maybe you are right in your interpretation of the book of Revelation, maybe you are wrong. Either way, you can’t know that you’re interpretation is correct. By insisting upon ANY interpretation of the book of Revelation you take the chance of being wrong and as you can see, the consequences are severe.
So what am I saying? Simply this – the first three chapters of Revelation are easy to understand and are full of lessons for the church today. The final nineteen chapters are not easily understood and we cannot be sure that we perfectly understand them. Considering John’s warnings about adding to it and taking away from it I believe it is best to simply leave them alone. In doing so we are not denying the inspiration of the book. We would simply be acknowledging that those to whom it was written understood it and if it was meant for us to understand the language would have been as clear as the rest of the Bible.
If we could agree to leave chapters 4 through 22 alone we would eliminate a great deal of disagreement and we could still understand all that we need to know about how to worship our Lord and how to live the life that pleases Him.
5 comments
Comments feed for this article
April 30, 2008 at 9:40 pm
cthoward
Interesting thoughts. I have often thought the same thing myself: if it is so difficult and causes so much confusion, and since we are warned about messing it up, and since relevant teachings are included elsewhere, why not leave it alone?
I’m not sure leaving it alone entirely is the answer, though. Maybe just being more careful not to build theology on the symbols of Revelation. Maybe avoiding dogmatism based on Revelation. There are still some wonderful messages to be found: especially the message of victory for the faithful. This is a true principle no matter when the symbols are fulfilled.
I would add one more thought to the pot from the “clearer” sections of Revelation. Revelation 1:3 says, “Blessed is the one who reads aloud the words of this prophecy, and blessed are those who hear, and who keep what is written in it, for the time is near.” Also, Revelation 22:10 says, “And he said to me, “Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is near.” Two times, one at the beginning and once at the end, we are told that “the time is near” in reference to the events of the book. I know…to God a thousand years are like day…but John is writing to people in the first century, not God. John must have intended the first century audience to understand the book (as you have pointed out), including these statements about the events being near. I have to ask myself as I read Revelation, “How would I, as a first century Christian, understand the statement, ‘the time is near’?” I think we can be pretty sure that it was near to them…at least in the lifetime of some of the first readers.
May 1, 2008 at 12:46 pm
coreydavis
Clint,
Thank you for your comments. I must admit there are some shortcomings in some of my thoughts in this way – some of the symbols in chapters 3 through 22 are actually explained by John, and therefore not subject to interpretation. We would have to actively seek to misinterpret those things which are already interpreted by John. I have to agree with you that there are some passages in those chapters that are clear, but overwhelmingly the rest is not clear.
As far as the verses that say the time is near, I would probably agree with the interpretation that most of those things would happen in the original readers’ lifetime. The verse that gives me trouble would be Chapter 22, verse 20 which says, “He who testifies to these things says, “Yes, I am coming quickly ” Amen Come, Lord Jesus.”
That would either mean that the original readers were to believe that Jesus’ second coming was near for them, or that He was coming quickly to do those things described within the letter. While the second explanation makes more sense to me, I could easily see how someone could be confused if they believed the first explanation.
Either way, I cannot know which is correct and so I must not bind one teaching or the other for fear of being added to the plagues within the letter. I respect the opinions of others who feel they understand these things, but I fear for them should their interpretation be incorrect.
May 15, 2008 at 6:21 pm
micahph
I wonder if Jesus’ comment about coming back soon might have had something to do with a visitation to the churches in Asia. I may be over-simplifying things, but we know that Jesus made a number of visitations after his ressurection. Perhaps that message to the churches it addressed simply meant they were one of the stops in Jesus’ tour =)
Forgive me if I’m completely misreading Reveltation. I follow your opinions that while the message here is not to be held back or ignored, I think many need to be warry of ‘interpreting’ it to mean something they may be looking for as opposed to just reading it for what it says under the consideration that parts of it may not be revelant or ever understood by us because it was written to a different people at a different time.
May 15, 2008 at 6:37 pm
coreydavis
Micahph – that is pretty much what I’m saying.
Your first comment reminds me of an important item – Jesus spoke of the “days” (plural) of the Son of Man and the “day” (singular) of the Son of Man.
One of the “days” seems clearly to be the destruction of Jerusalem. Jesus had told His listeners that there would be signs to watch for and gave them instructions on what to do when they saw those signs. Certainly the destruction of Jerusalem was a type of “coming” in that He came in judgment at that time.
When Jesus talks about the “day” of His coming He says there will be NO signs. It will be like “a thief in the night”. This appears to be His second coming when the Earth and all of its elements shall be destroyed.
While those thoughts tie into Revelation, they are actually presented mostly in the gospels. I think we can come to a much better understanding of those things than we can John’s Revelation.
June 26, 2008 at 8:34 pm
paarsurrey
Hi
Please don’t mind. This might interest you.
The SecondComing of Jesus has already happened in the form of the PromisedMessiah 1835-1908 fullfilling the signs as prophesised by Jesus and Muhammad. In my opinion, the Christians, Muslims and Jews should accept him.
Kindly visit my blog for interesting posts in this connection for your peaceful comments and or discussions on the pages/posts there. Differing opinions are also welcome.
Thanks
I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim