Where we end up in our understanding of Revelation is largely determined by where we start. Unfortunately, many start with a bad premise, and if we start with a bad premise we end with bad conclusions. Perhaps we have incomplete or just plain wrong definitions of words like “Revelation”, “Apocalypse,” and “Prophecy”. Then, instead of getting a more accurate meaning of the book, it ends up becoming a puzzle about the end of the world that we need to piece together. We become enamored with charting a timeline and interpreting world events as fulfilling biblical prophecy when in fact that is not the point of Revelation at all. So, to have a better understanding of the book, and the point the author is trying to make, I suggest we keep the following in mind:
“Apocalypse” and “Apocalyptic” do NOT mean “End Times” Unfortunately, our culture has redefined these words to mean “End Times”, or more generally, a doomsday type of scenario. An “apocalyptic” event is understood as a sort of cosmic event that will cause widespread death and destruction. Biblically, it is often understood as the period of “Tribulation” signifying the end of all life and history as we know it. However, those words never originally meant “End Times”. Instead...
“Apocalypse” literally means “Revelation” That is, in fact, the title of the book: The “Revelation” (or “Apocalypse”) of John. An “Apocalypse” may best be described from a scene in “The Wizard of Oz”. Dorothy and her friends find themselves in the chamber of the Great and Powerful Wizard of Oz, an intimidating giant green flaming face. However, while speaking to the Wizard in his chamber, they notice a curtain off in a corner. The Wizard warns them to pay no attention to the man behind the curtain, yet they pull the curtain back, “REVEALING” an old man. Dorothy discovers that the Wizard is nothing more than a man with fancy controls.
It is in that moment, when they pull back the curtain, that an “Apocalypse” happens. By pulling the curtain back, they “Revealed” the old man. You might even say they “Apocalypsed” the old man. Something was hidden behind the curtain, something that was relevant to Dorothy. When she pulled the curtain, “Apocalypsing” the old man, information which had previously been withheld from her suddenly came to light.
In Revelation, this same idea is present. There is a “Curtain”, and behind the “Curtain” is information that is relevant to John and his audience. The information is hidden from him and remains hidden until someone pulls the curtain away, Revealing or Apocalypsing what is behind the curtain. Then, information which had previously been withheld from John suddenly comes to his (and our) attention.
“Revelation” is not “Prophecy” in terms of predicting the future One of the mistakes we make with regard to Revelation is reading it as if it were a documentary of future events. When we read it like this, we are then tempted to chart events on a future timeline. “First this will happen, then this will happen, then this will happen...” and so the sequence goes. Revelation 1:3 even makes it explicit: “Blessed is the one who reads the words of this prophecy....”
While there may be a predictive element to prophecy, prediction is not the only or even theprimary function of prophecy. The Old Testament prophets were to speak for God to their contemporary audience. If God wanted to communicate with humanity, he could use any method he wished, but his usual method was through a prophet who would then give God’s message to his people. Even so, most predictive prophecy was conditional: “If you continue to sin, then I will punish you; but if you repent, I will relent!”
The book of Revelation is certainly prophecy, but not necessarily prediction. Instead it is a message that God wanted to communicate to his people, a specific message to a specific audience about a specific issue. When we read the book of Revelation as if it were 100% prediction, we are actually being less faithful to the text.
“Apocalyptic” is a specific genre of literature that uses imagery and symbolism If you were to go into any bookstore in America, you would find different sections to the store: “fiction”, “history”, “mystery”, “self-help”, “humor”, and “reference” among others. If you entered a 1st Century library, you would find all of these but you would also find an “Apocalyptic” section.
Revelation cannot be understood literally! Tim LaHaye, in “No Fear of the Storm” (Multnomah, 1992; p. 240) offers some bad advice with respect to biblical interpretation: “When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense, but take every word at its primary, literal meaning unless the facts of the immediate context clearly indicate otherwise.” However, in the case of the book of Revelation, the genre of literature itself (“Apocalyptic”) demands an interpretation that is not literal!
A friend once suggested this example. Imagine picking up a newspaper and reading the headline, “Cardinals Annihilate Bears.” Ignore that the headline is in the “Sports” section, just take the words at their primary, literal meaning. If you did, you would be terrified: if tiny red birds could annihilate an entire species of mammal, what might they do to us? Or perhaps I could convince you that Great Britain was being invaded by real-life Vikings, the proof of which comes from a Comic Strip called “Hagar the Horrible.” If that were the basis for my information, I would have a hard time getting people in London to prepare to defend themselves.
An attempt to read the book of Revelation literally is the same as an attempt to read a sports headline or comic strip literally. The genre of a sports section demands a unique reading of “Cardinals Annihilate Bears” and the genre of the comic section demands the same.
Finally, Revelation is “Ethical”: It was written to get the audience to do something, to change their behavior The point of the book of Revelation is to get the audience to change something about their behavior, and too often, a literal reading of Revelation simply ends with the reader being encouraged to “watch and wait” and to “be ready, for we do not know the day or the hour of His return.” Certainly that is true, we need to be ready, but the ethical point of Revelation goes much deeper than that. Instead, as I will explain, the main ethical lesson of Revelation can be summed up in a scene from Dr. Seuss’ “Horton Hears a Who.”
In the meantime, you may disagree with me completely, and that is fine. Nevertheless, where we end up is largely determined by where we start. Where I start is here: Revelation is not trying to predict the future, but instead uses symbolism and imagery (which cannot be understood literally) in order to get the reader to change his/her behavior.
“Apocalypse” and “Apocalyptic” do NOT mean “End Times” Unfortunately, our culture has redefined these words to mean “End Times”, or more generally, a doomsday type of scenario. An “apocalyptic” event is understood as a sort of cosmic event that will cause widespread death and destruction. Biblically, it is often understood as the period of “Tribulation” signifying the end of all life and history as we know it. However, those words never originally meant “End Times”. Instead...
“Apocalypse” literally means “Revelation” That is, in fact, the title of the book: The “Revelation” (or “Apocalypse”) of John. An “Apocalypse” may best be described from a scene in “The Wizard of Oz”. Dorothy and her friends find themselves in the chamber of the Great and Powerful Wizard of Oz, an intimidating giant green flaming face. However, while speaking to the Wizard in his chamber, they notice a curtain off in a corner. The Wizard warns them to pay no attention to the man behind the curtain, yet they pull the curtain back, “REVEALING” an old man. Dorothy discovers that the Wizard is nothing more than a man with fancy controls.
It is in that moment, when they pull back the curtain, that an “Apocalypse” happens. By pulling the curtain back, they “Revealed” the old man. You might even say they “Apocalypsed” the old man. Something was hidden behind the curtain, something that was relevant to Dorothy. When she pulled the curtain, “Apocalypsing” the old man, information which had previously been withheld from her suddenly came to light.
In Revelation, this same idea is present. There is a “Curtain”, and behind the “Curtain” is information that is relevant to John and his audience. The information is hidden from him and remains hidden until someone pulls the curtain away, Revealing or Apocalypsing what is behind the curtain. Then, information which had previously been withheld from John suddenly comes to his (and our) attention.
“Revelation” is not “Prophecy” in terms of predicting the future One of the mistakes we make with regard to Revelation is reading it as if it were a documentary of future events. When we read it like this, we are then tempted to chart events on a future timeline. “First this will happen, then this will happen, then this will happen...” and so the sequence goes. Revelation 1:3 even makes it explicit: “Blessed is the one who reads the words of this prophecy....”
While there may be a predictive element to prophecy, prediction is not the only or even theprimary function of prophecy. The Old Testament prophets were to speak for God to their contemporary audience. If God wanted to communicate with humanity, he could use any method he wished, but his usual method was through a prophet who would then give God’s message to his people. Even so, most predictive prophecy was conditional: “If you continue to sin, then I will punish you; but if you repent, I will relent!”
The book of Revelation is certainly prophecy, but not necessarily prediction. Instead it is a message that God wanted to communicate to his people, a specific message to a specific audience about a specific issue. When we read the book of Revelation as if it were 100% prediction, we are actually being less faithful to the text.
“Apocalyptic” is a specific genre of literature that uses imagery and symbolism If you were to go into any bookstore in America, you would find different sections to the store: “fiction”, “history”, “mystery”, “self-help”, “humor”, and “reference” among others. If you entered a 1st Century library, you would find all of these but you would also find an “Apocalyptic” section.
Revelation cannot be understood literally! Tim LaHaye, in “No Fear of the Storm” (Multnomah, 1992; p. 240) offers some bad advice with respect to biblical interpretation: “When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense, but take every word at its primary, literal meaning unless the facts of the immediate context clearly indicate otherwise.” However, in the case of the book of Revelation, the genre of literature itself (“Apocalyptic”) demands an interpretation that is not literal!
A friend once suggested this example. Imagine picking up a newspaper and reading the headline, “Cardinals Annihilate Bears.” Ignore that the headline is in the “Sports” section, just take the words at their primary, literal meaning. If you did, you would be terrified: if tiny red birds could annihilate an entire species of mammal, what might they do to us? Or perhaps I could convince you that Great Britain was being invaded by real-life Vikings, the proof of which comes from a Comic Strip called “Hagar the Horrible.” If that were the basis for my information, I would have a hard time getting people in London to prepare to defend themselves.
An attempt to read the book of Revelation literally is the same as an attempt to read a sports headline or comic strip literally. The genre of a sports section demands a unique reading of “Cardinals Annihilate Bears” and the genre of the comic section demands the same.
Finally, Revelation is “Ethical”: It was written to get the audience to do something, to change their behavior The point of the book of Revelation is to get the audience to change something about their behavior, and too often, a literal reading of Revelation simply ends with the reader being encouraged to “watch and wait” and to “be ready, for we do not know the day or the hour of His return.” Certainly that is true, we need to be ready, but the ethical point of Revelation goes much deeper than that. Instead, as I will explain, the main ethical lesson of Revelation can be summed up in a scene from Dr. Seuss’ “Horton Hears a Who.”
In the meantime, you may disagree with me completely, and that is fine. Nevertheless, where we end up is largely determined by where we start. Where I start is here: Revelation is not trying to predict the future, but instead uses symbolism and imagery (which cannot be understood literally) in order to get the reader to change his/her behavior.
How are we as Christians to know which parts of the Bible are to be taken literally and which parts are meant to be symbolic? It causes me to wonder, are we not just like other religions that "pick and choose" which books are part of the Bible? Are we not picking and choosing which parts are meant to be literal and which are meant to be symbolic? It seems to me that if God wanted us to follow his word he might make it easier to understand.
ReplyDeleteGood questions, and I think your questions reflect one of the main reasons many people have a hard time trying to read the Bible and simply give up.
DeleteWe know what is to be taken “literally” and what is to be taken “symbolically” based on genre of literature. An “Apocalypse” by its very nature is meant to be symbolic, while one of the “historical” books (e.g., 1 & 2 Kings, Ezra, Nehemiah, Acts) tries to relay historical facts. Likewise, a “Romance” by its very nature is meant to tell a love story, (even if the literal facts portrayed never actually happened) and a “biography” is meant to convey literal detailed facts about a person’s life. “Romeo and Juliet” does not need to come from an actual historical situation, portraying all the facts as they literally happened. It can still be enjoyable and make its point if the story is “made up.” However, if you read a “biography”, you certainly hope it isn't "made up". You want to be sure the facts portrayed in biography actually happened. Likewise, we shouldn’t read Revelation as if it were a “Gospel” (another genre of literature). The nature of those genres attempt to do two different things.
What I try to remember is that no book of the Bible is interpreted in a vacuum, and no individual can interpret the Bible by him/herself. Scripture is best interpreted by the community of believers who truly believe the Bible is the Word of God. With that in mind, interpreting the Bible is not a matter of arbitrarily picking and choosing what we want to read symbolically and what we want to read literally. Instead, the community of believers makes informed, educated decisions on how a portion of the Bible is to be read based on a number of things, including genre, and how the original readers would have interpreted the text. Revelation is symbolic, not because I say so, but because that is how ALL apocalypses were meant to be read, and that is how the original audience would have first interpreted it.
I think God does want us to follow his word. Unfortunately, we are at the disadvantage of looking at the Bible some 2000 years removed from when it was first written. It was probably easy for the first readers to read and understand what God was trying to say. For us, it is a little more difficult, but not impossible. What makes it possible (and much easier) is when we, the community of believers, interpret the Bible together.
Thanks for the question; hope this helps!