Question about the Book of Revelation

Faith & Science Conversation
1

The final hurdle i’m trying to get over in reconciling Christianity, Science, and history regards the Book of Revelation. From what I understand, Revelation is not about the future, but is rather a polemic against the Roman Empire, and a book written to provide hope to first-century Christians facing persecution by Emperor Domition. Most of the apocalyptic imagery comes from thee Jewish war and the year of four emperors and the civil war that almost destroyed the Roman Empire in the first century, as well as the eruption of Mt. Vesuvius. The Nero Redivivus stuff is recasting Emperor Domition as another Nero. The book is mostly symbolic and not trying to forcast the future.

The problem is that the book says it’s writing things that are to take place soon, and is trying to forcast the future, specifically the fall of Babylon (Rome) by the hand of the beast and ten kings. Well, Rome didn’t fall in the lifetime of the people written to, the empire turned Christian in the fourth century and Rome fell at the hands of the Goths in the fifth century. The part of the book that is prophecy didn’t seem to come true or came true in a very convoluted way.

I am told that this isn’t a problem when one understands apocalyptic literature, but every scholar explaining why this isn’t a problem has their work behind a paywall. So, I guess i’m asking in the ANE context does anyone know why scholars don’t think this is a problem? How do you deal with this issue? And does anyone know any good resources for me to read on this?

1 Like
2
  • The only way that I have been able to “enjoy” Revelation is by listening to all of the songs on Michael Card’s album: “Unveiled Hope”.
4 Likes
3

I don’t know any particular resources off the top of my head anymore. Lots of stuff shows up in preterist beliefs.

There are some of the things I consider.

  1. It’s debated on when it was written. Many leans towards 100ad. Some earlier towards late 60s of the first century. If later the prophecy may have actually been about the fires in Rome.

  2. It seems to have been accepted as cannon relatively late.

We also know they used very symbolic hyperbolic sayings when discussing kingdoms falling.

1 Like
4

You’re running into a problem that no one has come to a consensus on in 2000 years.

The basic general interpretive approaches to Revelation of which I am aware are:

Historicist–the eschatological parts (prophecy & apocalyptic) refer to identifiable historical events across a broad range of time.
Full preterist–all of the eschatological parts were fulfilled at least by about 500 AD.
Partial preterist–most of the eschatological parts were fulfilled at least by about 500 AD.
Futurist–the eschatological parts refer to future events (dispensationalism is a subset thereof, all premillennials are here as well).
Idealist–most of Revelation is symbolic, and refers in broad terms to events in church history and the lives of individual believers (amillenials and some postmillenials are usually here).

Full preterism is heretical (though not as serious as many other heresies), as it denies any sort of future second coming or judgement. What you are describing sounds like a partial preterist or historicist approach (they can overlap).

I (as is the default for my denomination) would be inclined towards a (mostly) Idealist position, acknowledging that some of it may refer to specific historical or future events, but holding most of it to be symbolic language referring to general patterns in church history, and that interpreting it is very difficult.

I recommend checking library websites (particularly university library sites) for any freely available commentaries they have that include Revelation.

8 Likes
5

I’ve never encountered that album (my parents have a number of his CDs). I’ll have to listen to it.

3 Likes
6

Martin Luther’s Preface to the Revelation of St. John (1522)​
"About this Book of the Revelation of John, I leave everyone free to hold his own opinions. I would not have anyone bound to my opinion or judgment. I say what I feel. I miss more than one thing in this book, and it makes me consider it to be neither apostolic nor prophetic.

First and foremost, the apostles do not deal with visions, but prophesy in clear and plain words, as do Peter and Paul, and Christ in the gospel. For it befits the apostolic office to speak clearly of Christ and his deeds, without images and visions. Moreover there is no prophet in the Old Testament, to say nothing of the New, who deals so exclusively with visions and images. For myself, I think it approximates the Fourth Book of Esdras; I can in no way detect that the Holy Spirit produced it.

Moreover he seems to me to be going much too far when he commends his own book so highly [Revelation 22]—indeed, more than any of the other sacred books do, though they are much more important—and threatens that if anyone takes away anything from it, God will take away from him, etc. Again, they are supposed to be blessed who keep what is written in this book; and yet no one knows what that is, to say nothing of keeping it. This is just the same as if we did not have the book at all. And there are many far better books available for us to keep."

3 Likes
7

I keep in mind three things:

  1. One of the big reasons that the book made it into the canon was that western Christians especially looked around and saw what it described happening around them.
  2. Apocalyptic literature is full of symbolism where it’s a workable rule that if in doubt about something, look for a symbolic meaning – not just in beats, but places, names, periods of time, and numbers.
  3. Fulfillment of prophecy is not like a bus schedule: though specific events may be described, in ANE prophetic literature it was more a matter of “that future will feel like this” than “the events will happen just this way”.

A further aspects is that Revelation is so heavily based on Old Testament imagery it practically takes an expert to navigate it; just as an example, Michael Heiser’s presentation on John’s use of the Old Testament in just chapters 1 - 3 of Revelation takes five hours!

So when you read about a beast and ten kings, the immediate choice is to take both symbolically, and when you talk about it “trying to forecast the future” you have to take it as “flavor” more than a schedule of events. After all, Jesus described the end times as beginning with His death, so it’s not a schedule of events to come but a portrayal of the nature of events.
Thus to say that “The part of the book that is prophecy didn’t seem to come true or came true in a very convoluted way” sort of misses the idea of both apocalyptic literature and of prophecy.

As for sources . . . I can’t point to any, really. Dr. Heiser’s presentation is most likely superb since Revelation is closer to OT-type literature than to the rest of the NT writings, but I haven’t listened to it so I can’t say for sure.

3 Likes
8

Revelation is a difficult book to interpret. As @Paraleptopecten listed, there is a diverse list of interpretations. Each heading in the list includes numerous versions that differ in detail.

In my opinion, it helps to identify the key or core of the book. Revelation 4, especially :1-2, may be seen as a key to interpretation. Much may be figurative text about events happening in the context of the writing but at least part of it tells about future (Revelation 1:1; 4:1). The problem is that the future is revealed by using figurative expressions that makes ‘literal’ reading futile. For example, how God and the heavenly ‘court’ is described is most likely figurative. The text leaves much space for various interpretations. Who could say that they have perfect understanding of what the text tells?

3 Likes
9

Not to mention “stars falling from the sky” - try taking that literally!

3 Likes
10

Michael Card’s Unveiled Hope

@Terry_Sampson is right. Card is a fine theologian, who can interpret theology musically and and make it singable.

To some degree you get what you pay for. And authors should be paid for their intellectual property and work of writing and publishing it. But libraries are there to help provide the public access to information at no or minimal cost.

The Book of Revelation is complicated, and it doesn’t help to have so many different “right” ways to understand it - that experts disagree on. My background in dispensational churches has made the book complicated beyond my comprehension, and the resulting emphasis on “prediction” has demonstrated by streams of detailed wrong predictions, that that can’t be the intended reading of the book.

I have read a little on historical interpretations, and it was a breath of fresh air.

There are some inexpensive books that compare views. If you are looking for a place ro start one of those might be good.

3 Likes
11

The world of interpretation is stranger than fiction. There are interpretations that take that fairly literally. Not as distant stars falling but believing that John wrote accurately what was shown to him and what was shown were (mostly) real events. John could see shooting (falling) stars that could be meteors, ballistic missiles, etc.

In this type of interpretations, the key assumption is that John wrote what he saw but as a person with an ancient worldview, he did not fully understand what he saw. He tried to explain the events through his experiences but what he saw could be something like modern technology.

One of our previous cars was a Mazda 3. When I looked at the front of the car, I noticed that it looked quite much like the face of a terrible beast. I was thinking that if an ancient person 2000 years ago had seen it, the description could have been pretty wild.

1 Like
12

There are Baptists that think that a Presbyterian has good theology?! :exploding_head:

Though given that he is PCA, he’s probably a bit closer to Baptists than some Presbyterians (PCA tends more low-church than most other subsets of Presbyterians; the one that I go to is at the extreme high-church conservative end of PCA).

I like his pre-2000 (roughly) albums better than his later ones, just in terms of style; the newer ones are still good.

1 Like
13

There are more things in heaven and earth, dear Young’un, than are dreamt of in your philosophy. And probably 90% theological overlap between Baptist doctrine and the WCF. Where I stand on any of it is revising all the time.

A musician who recognizes the need to go to seminary in order to be a responsible, Chiristian song-writer gets real respect from me. And I love most of his music. His exegetical albums are my favorites.

Certainly off topic, so, feel free to PM me, but can you identify any points Card makes in his songs, that a standard issue Baptist wouldn’t agree with?

3 Likes
14

Yep. I’m totally with you on this. It’s just that typical fundamentalist (or YEC) just can’t seem to abide the thought that God might accomodate to ignorance - or use any “less than technically accurate” language in order to teach some larger point to an earlier audience. But I’ll bet that most of them will allow this (that falling stars are really just ‘shooting stars’), which is still probably just a squirrell chase while larger points wait, then, to receive their due attention.

2 Likes
15

Of the songs I have listened to, none of them contain doctrinal points that divide Protestant denominations (with the possible exception of eschatology).

My point was more that Baptists and Presbyterians tend to view each other as having bad theology. The only major doctrinal differences I can think of offhand are sacramentology (spiritual presence vs. symbols), soteriology (mostly in relation to predestination), the regulative principle, church government, and eschatology.

16

About Premillinealism. I looked up the position of the Earliest Church Fathers on Revelation and they seemed to be almost unanimous Premillinealists. Is Premillinealism just another type of futurism? I read the Book of Revelation through yesterday, and it just reads naturally as a book about the end times except for the insistance of the author that all of this would happen soon. But that is not really a problem for me theologically because as 2 Peter says a day is a thousand years and a thousand years is a day to God, and prophecies are conditional on the way people respond to them, and it’s a continuous Jewish trope that the end is hoped for and believed and prophesized to be soon, but is then delayed creating a tension. Maybe futurism is correct after all.

1 Like
17
  • Is it possible for any topic, except maybe young Earth Creationism, to be off-topic in this thread?
3 Likes
18
  • This topic appears, coincidentally, just after rediscovering Christopher Hill’s The World Turned Upside Down: Radical Ideas During the English Revolution, a marvellou ride
  • And it occurred to me to ask Gemini AI:
    • Has anyone suggested that. in “a world turned upside down”–i.e. tempestuous and challenging times for the majority–the more fearful cling tighter to their “inerrant and infallible scriptures”?
    • AI Response: “Yes, this is a common observation and analysis. Many scholars, sociologists, and psychologists have noted the tendency for individuals to turn to their religious beliefs more fervently during times of crisis or uncertainty. This phenomenon is often attributed to the seeking of comfort, security, and a sense of control in the face of chaos.
      The idea that people cling more tightly to “inerrant and infallible scriptures” in challenging times is rooted in the belief that these texts offer definitive answers and guidance, providing a sense of stability and purpose. When the world feels unpredictable, turning to a text that is believed to be unchanging can be a source of solace.”
  • My follow-up question: “Which kinds of social structures, if any, manage to be more resilient?”
1 Like
19

Regarding the word soon

Rev 3:11 I am coming soon. Hold fast what you have, so that no one may seize your crown.

Rev 22:7 “And behold, I am coming soon. Blessed is the one who keeps the words of the prophecy of this book.”

Rev 22:12 “Behold, I am coming soon, bringing my recompense with me, to repay each one for what he has done.

Rev 22:20 He who testifies to these things says, “Surely I am coming soon.” Amen. Come, Lord Jesus!

Soon does not sound as thousands of years.

Soon in the Gospels, to begin with the great tribulation in Matt 24.

IMO Christ is not speaking to 21 century people but to the Jews of His time and the upcoming destruction of the theocracy Israel.

Matt 16 -
27 For the Son of Man is going to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay each person according to what he has done.
28 Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”

I take it for granted these people Jesus mentions really have seen : the Son of Man coming in his kingdom

Jesus Before Caiaphas and the Council Matt 26 -
63 But Jesus remained silent. And the high priest said to him, “I adjure you by the living God, tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God.”
64 Jesus said to him, “You have said so. But I tell you, from now on you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven.”

I take it for granted the high priest really has seen : the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven

That sound more as soon, about 40 years after His resurrection.

Therefore one might conclude Revelation must have been written before AD 70 else it comes down that Revelation is predicting the past ?

20

I guess its safe to say there are Baptists, and there are Baptists. And there are other Baptists and more as well. : )

Descriptors I would use for my background:
Dispensationalist
Independent (loose if any affiliation with other Baptist churches and congregational rule)
Informally Calvinistic
Memorialists
Of course, adult baptism on profession of faith
and a strong tendency to anti-intellectualism.

I will use the last one as part of my excuse for not having studied theology as formally as I should like to have. Being female in evangelicalism is problematic as well. This doesn’t, however, mean that I or other women evangelicals I know have studied no theology, but it’s neither encouraged nor discouraged.

Dispensationalism as an over arching category doesn’t do much for me. It makes God seem to have a hard time making up his mind, reacting more than governing. The eschatology I find mind-boggling, at least as presented, and hyper-focused on vengeance to the point of the church forgetting about the Kingdom of God now as well as the essential criticisms of the church and of empire that any Christian living today should take to heart. Michael Card’s eschatological vision in Unveiled Hope is spot on, in my opinion.

I do embrace the independent nature of church governance, and miss it now that I am attending a PCA church. I am very wary of the highly structured organization and governance of Presbyterian churches. As a student of postmodern and feminist theory, I am wary of the consolidation of power in any church and by any group (men) that can (and often does) exist to maintain its power. I see this greatly reinforced by the complementarian movement of which Kevin DeYoung (former pastor of the church I now attend) is a leader.
That being said, I have seen great benefits of highly organized church leadership in a crisis. But that does not alleviate my concerns about power.
This concern over power puts me at odds with some main features of Covenantal Theology, as I am not sure that I will be choose to join the covenantal community I attend because of matters of conscience on which we disagree.

Calvinism, as explicitly expressed in the WCF is harder to accept than a looser version I’m used to. This brings up the overall problem of systematic theology, by which I mean any systematic theology. Systems force matters, where there is play in the texts. Either/or is not accurate, if biblical texts clearly teach “both”. I understand the value of systematic theology. I also understand that any system of theology needs to be questioned robustly all the time in each age. Systematic theology saves no one.

As a fairly nonconforming Baptist, I’ve never been satisfied with the memorialist view of communion. I see Jesus as actively participating in “hosting” his table and demonstrating the Gospel through it. I’m not sure that that fits with any particular view of Communion that I’m familiar with. I’ll keep reading. J. Todd Billings’ book is beautiful and helpful. It’s not the end of the story, though.

In my experience, Baptists don’t think about Presbyterianism at all, although Tim Keller and R.C. Sproul are fairly popular among Baptists who are reading beyond “Christian living” books. Baptists I know of use from their works what is useful to them. But beyond that, such theological debates are not all that interesting among most in the the Baptist congregations I’ve been a part of over 5+decades.

Roman Catholicism is a different matter all together.

3 Likes