Why do Christians Have So Many Dogmatic Interpretations of Revelation?

Crucial Introductory Article – Revelation

(Why Do Christians Have So Many Dogmatic Interpretations
of Revelation)

Through the years of my study of eschatology I have learned that most
Christians do not have or want a developed, systematized, end-time chronology.
There are some Christians who focus or major on this area of Christianity for
theological, psychological, or denominational reasons. These Christians seem to
become obsessed with how it will all end, and somehow miss the urgency of the
gospel! Believers cannot affect God’s eschatological (end-time) agenda, but they
can participate in the gospel mandate (cf. Matt. 28:19-20; Luke 24:46-47; Acts
1:8). Most believers affirm a Second Coming of Christ and an end-time
culmination of the promises of God. The interpretive problems arising from how
to understand this temporal culmination come from several biblical paradoxes
(see Special Topic: Paradox in Scripture).

1. the tension between Old Covenant prophetic models and New Covenant
apostolic models

2. the tension between the Bible’s monotheism (one God for all) and
the election of Israel (a special people)

3. the tension between the conditional aspect of biblical covenants
and promises (“if. . .then”) and the unconditional faithfulness of God to fallen
mankind’s redemption

4. the tension between Near Eastern literary genres and modern western
literary models

5. the tension between the Kingdom of God as present, yet future.

6. the tension between belief in the imminent return of Christ and the
belief that some events must happen first.

Let us discuss these tensions one at a time.

FIRST TENSION (OT racial, national, and geographical categories vs. all
believers over all the world)

The OT prophets predict a restoration of a Jewish kingdom in Palestine
centered in Jerusalem where all the nations of the earth gather to praise and
serve a Davidic ruler, but neither Jesus nor any NT Apostles ever focus on this agenda. Is not the OT inspired (cf. Matt. 5:17-19)? Have the NT authors omitted crucial
end-time events?

There are several sources of information about the end of the world.

1. OT prophets (Isaiah, Micah, Malachi)

2. OT apocalyptic writers (cf. Ezekiel 37-39; Daniel 7-12; Zechariah)

3. intertestamental, non-canonical Jewish apocalyptic writers (like I
Enoch, which is alluded to in Jude)

4. Jesus Himself (cf. Matt. 24; Mark 13; Luke 21)

5. the writings of Paul (cf. 1 Corinthians 15; 2 Corinthians 5; 1
Thessalonians 4-5; 2 Thessalonians 2)

6. the writings of John (1 John and Revelation)

Do these all clearly teach an end-time agenda (events, chronology, persons)? If
not, why? Are they not all inspired (except the Jewish intertestamental
writings)?

The Spirit revealed truths to the OT writers in terms and categories they
could understand. However, through progressive revelation the Spirit has
expanded these OT eschatological concepts to a universal scope (“the mystery of
Christ,” cf. Eph. 2:11-3:13). Here are some relevant
examples:

1. The city of Jerusalem in the OT is used as a metaphor for the people
of God (Zion), but is projected into the NT as a term expressing God’s
acceptance of all repentant, believing humans (the “new Jerusalem” of Revelation
21-22). The theological expansion of a literal, physical city into the new
people of God (believing Jews and Gentiles) is foreshadowed in God’s promise to
redeem fallen
mankind in Gen. 3:15, before there even were any Jews or a Jewish capital city.
Even Abraham’s call (cf. Gen. 12:1-3) involved the Gentiles (cf. Gen. 12:3;
Exod. 19:5). See Special Topic: YHWH’s Eternal Redemptive Plan.

2. In the OT the enemies of God’s people are the surrounding nations
of the Ancient Near East, but in the NT they have been expanded to all
unbelieving, anti-God, Satanically-inspired people. The battle has moved from a
geographical, regional conflict to a worldwide, cosmic conflict (cf.
Colossians).

3. The promise of a land which is so integral in the OT (the
Patriarchal promises of Genesis, cf. Gen. 12:7; 13:15; 15:7,15,16; 7:8) has now
become the whole earth. New Jerusalem comes down to a recreated earth, not the
Near East only or exclusively (cf. Revelation 21-22).

4. Some other examples of OT prophetic concepts being expanded are

a. the seed of Abraham is now the spiritually circumcised (cf.
Rom. 2:28-29)

b. the covenant people now include Gentiles (cf. Hos. 1:10; 2:23, quoted in Rom.
9:24-26; also Lev. 26:12; Exod. 29:45, quoted in 2 Cor.
6:16-18 and Exod. 19:5; Deut. 14:2, quoted in Titus 2:14)

c. the temple is now Jesus (cf. Matt. 26:61; 27:40; John
2:19-21) and through Him the local church (cf. 1 Cor. 3:16) or the individual
believer (cf. 1Cor. 6:19)

d. even Israel and its characteristic descriptive OT phrases
now refer to the whole people of God (i.e.,”Israel,” cf. Rom. 9:6; Gal. 6:16,
i.e.,”kingdom of priests,” cf. 1 Pet. 2:5, 9-10; Rev. 1:6)

The prophetic model has been fulfilled, expanded, and is now more
inclusive. Jesus and the Apostolic writers do not present the end-time in the
same way as the OT prophets (cf. Martin Wyngaarden, The Future of The Kingdom in
Prophecy and Fulfillment). Modern interpreters who try to make the OT model
literal or normative twist the book of Revelation into a very Jewish book and force
meaning into atomized, ambiguous phrases of Jesus and Paul! The NT writers do
not negate the OT prophets, but show their ultimate universal implication. There
is no organized, logical system to Jesus’ or Paul’s eschatology. Their purpose
is primarily redemptive or pastoral.

However, even within the NT there is tension. There is no clear
systemization of eschatological events. In many ways the Revelation surprisingly
uses OT allusions in describing the end instead of the teachings of Jesus (cf.
Matthew 24; Mark 13)! It follows the literary genre initiated by Ezekiel,
Daniel, and Zechariah, but developed during the intertestamental period (Jewish
apocalyptic literature). This may have been John’s way of linking the Old and
New Covenants. It shows the age-old pattern of human rebellion and God’s
commitment to redemption! But it must be noted that although Revelation uses OT
language, persons, and events, it reinterprets them in light of first century
Rome (cf. Revelation 17).

SECOND TENSION (monotheism vs. an elect people)

The biblical emphasis is on one personal, spiritual, creator-redeemer,
God (cf. Exod. 8:10; Isa. 44:24; 45:5-7,14,18,21-22; 46:9; Jer. 10:6-7). The
OT’s uniqueness in its own day was its monotheism (see Special Topic:
Monotheism). All of the surrounding
nations were polytheists. The oneness of God is the heart of OT revelation (cf.
Deut. 6:4). Creation is a stage for the purpose of fellowship between God and
mankind, made in His image and likeness (cf. Gen.1:26-27). However, mankind
rebelled, sinning against God’s love, leadership, and purpose (cf. Genesis 3).
God’s love and purpose was so strong and sure that He promised to redeem fallen
humanity (cf. Gen. 3:15)!

The tension arises when God chooses to use one man, one family, one nation to
reach the rest of mankind. God’s election of Abraham (cf. Genesis 12; 15; 17;
18) and the Jews as a kingdom
of priests (cf. Exod. 19:4-6) caused pride instead of service, exclusion instead
of inclusion. God’s call of Abraham involved the intentional blessing of all
mankind (cf. Gen. 12:3). It must be remembered and emphasized that OT
election was for service, not salvation. All Israel was never right with
God, never eternally saved based solely on her birthright (cf. John 8:31-59;
Matt. 3:9), but by personal faith and obedience (cf. Gen. 15:6, quoted in Rom.
4:3,9,22; Gal. 3:6). Israel lost her mission (the church is now a kingdom of priests, cf.
Rev. 1:6; 1
Pet.2:5,9) and turned mandate into privilege, service into a special standing! God
chose one to choose all!

THIRD TENSION (conditional covenants vs. unconditional covenants)

There is a theological tension or paradox between conditional and
unconditional covenants. It is surely true that God’s redemptive purpose/plan is
unconditional (cf. Gen. 15:12-21). However, the mandated human response is
always conditional!

The “if. . .then” pattern appears in both OT and NT. God is faithful;
mankind is unfaithful. This tension has caused much confusion. Interpreters have
tended to focus on only one “horn of the dilemma,” God’s faithfulness or human
effort, God’s sovereignty or mankind’s free will. Both are biblical and
necessary. See Special Topic: Election/Predestination and the Need For A
Theological Balance.

This relates to eschatology, to God’s OT promises to Israel. If God
promises it, that settles it! God is bound to His promises; His reputation is
involved (cf. Ezek. 36:22-38). The unconditional and conditional covenants meet
in Christ (cf. Isaiah 53), not Israel! God’s ultimate faithfulness lies in the
redemption of all who will repent and believe, not in who was your
father/mother! Christ, not Israel, is the key to all of God’s covenants and
promises. If there is a theological parenthesis in the Bible, it is not the
Church, but Israel (cf. Acts 7 and Galatians 3).

The world mission of gospel proclamation has passed to the Church (cf.
Matt. 28:19-20; Luke 24:47; Acts 1:8). It is still a conditional covenant! This
is not to imply that God has totally rejected the Jews (cf. Romans 9-11). There
may be a place and purpose for end-time, believing Israel (cf. Zech. 12:10).

FOURTH TENSION (Near Eastern literary models vs. western models).

Genre is a critical element in correctly interpreting the Bible (see Fee and
Stuart, How To Read the Bible For All Its Worth). The
Church developed in a western (Greek) cultural setting. Eastern literature is
much more figurative, metaphorical, and symbolic than modern, western culture’s
literary models (see Special Topic: Eastern Literature (biblical paradoxes). It focuses on people, encounters, and events more than succinct
propositional truths. Christians have been guilty of using their history and
literary models to interpret biblical prophecy (both OT and NT). Each generation
and geographical entity has used its culture, history, and literalness to
interpret Revelation. Every one of them has been wrong! It is arrogant to think
that modern western culture is the focus of biblical prophecy!

The genre in which the original, inspired author chooses to write is a
literary contract with the reader (Bruce Corley). The book of Revelation is not historical
narrative. It is a combination of letter (chapters 1-3), prophecy, and mostly
apocalyptic literature. It is as wrong to make the Bible say more than was
intended by the original author as it is to make it say less than what he
intended! Interpreters’ arrogance and dogmatism are even more inappropriate in a
book like Revelation.

The Church has never agreed on a proper interpretation of Revelation. My
concern is to hear and deal with the whole Bible, not some selected part(s).
The
Bible’s eastern mindset presents truth in tension-filled pairs. Our western
trend toward propositional truth is not invalid, but unbalanced! I think it is
possible to remove at least some of the impasse in interpreting Revelation by
noting its changing purpose to successive generations of believers. It is
obvious to most interpreters that Revelation must be interpreted in light of its
own day and its genre. An historical approach to Revelation must deal with what
the first readers would have, and could have, understood. In many ways modern
interpreters have lost the meaning of many of the symbols of the book. Revelation’s initial main thrust was to encourage persecuted believers. It
showed God’s control of history (as did the OT prophets); it affirmed that
history is moving toward an appointed terminus, judgment or blessing (as did the
OT prophets). It affirmed in first century Jewish apocalyptic terms God’s love,
presence, power, and sovereignty!

It functions in these same theological ways to every generation of
believers. It depicts the cosmic struggle of good and evil. The first century
details may have been lost to us, but not the powerful, comforting truths. When
modern, western interpreters try to force the details of Revelation into their
contemporary history, the pattern of false interpretations continues!

It is quite possible that the details of the book may become strikingly literal
again (as did the OT in relation to the birth, life, and death of Christ) for
the last generation of believers as they face the onslaught of an anti-God
leader (cf. 2 Thessalonians 2) and culture. No one can know these
literal fulfillments of the Revelation until the words of Jesus (cf. Matthew 24;
Mark13; and Luke 21) and Paul (cf. 1 Corinthians 15; 1 Thessalonians 4-5; and 2 Thessalonians 2) also become historically evident. Guessing, speculation, and
dogmatism are all inappropriate. Apocalyptic literature allows this flexibility. Thank God for images and symbols that surpass historical narrative! God is in
control; He reigns; He comes!

Most modern commentaries miss the point of the genre! Modern western
interpreters often seek a clear, logical system of theology rather than being
fair with an ambiguous, symbolic, dramatic genre of Jewish apocalyptic
literature. This truth is expressed well by Ralph P. Martin in his article,
“Approaches to New Testament Exegesis,” in the book New Testament
Interpretation, edited by I. Howard Marshall:

“Unless we recognize the dramatic quality of this writing and recall the way in
which language is being used as a vehicle to express religious truth, we shall
grievously err in our understanding of the Apocalypse, and mistakenly try to
interpret its visions as though it were a book of literal prose and concerned to
describe events of empirical and datable history. To attempt the latter course
is to run into all manner of problems of interpretation. More seriously it leads
to a distortion of the essential meaning of apocalyptic and so misses the great
value of this part of the New Testament as a dramatic assertion in mythopoetic
language of the sovereignty of God in
Christ and the paradox of his rule which blends might and love (cf. Rev. 5:5,6; the
Lion is the Lamb)” (p. 235).

W. Randolph Tate in his book Biblical Interpretations:

“No other genre of the Bible has been so fervently read with such depressing
results as apocalypse, especially the books of Daniel and Revelation. This genre
had suffered from a disastrous history of misinterpretation due to a fundamental
misunderstanding of its literary forms, structure, and purpose. Because of its
very claim to reveal what is shortly to happen, apocalypse has been viewed as a
road map into and a blueprint of the future. The tragic flaw in this view is the
assumption that the books’ frame of reference is the reader’s contemporary age
rather than the author’s. This misguided approach to apocalypse (particularly
Revelation) treats the work as if it were a cryptogram by which contemporary
events can be used to interpret the symbol of the text. . .First, the
interpreter must recognize that apocalyptic communicates its messages through
symbolism. To interpret a symbol literally when it is metaphoric is simply to
misinterpret. The issue is not whether the events in apocalyptic are historical.
The events may be historical; they may have really happened, or might happen,
but the author presents events and communicates meaning through images and
archetypes” (p. 137).

From Dictionary of Biblical Imagery, edited by Ryken, Wilhost and Longman III:

“Today’s readers are often puzzled and frustrated by this genre. The unexpected
imagery and out-of-this-world experiences seem bizarre and out of sync with most
of Scripture. Taking this literature at face value leaves many readers
scrambling to determine ‘what will happen when,’ thus missing the intent of the
apocalyptic message” (p. 35)

FIFTH TENSION (the Kingdom of God as present yet future)

The kingdom of God is present, yet future. This theological paradox
becomes focused at the point of eschatology. If one expects a literal
fulfillment of all OT prophecies to Israel then the Kingdom becomes mostly a
restoration of Israel to a geographical locality and a theological pre-eminence! This would necessitate that the Church is secretly raptured out at chapter 5 and
the remaining chapters relate to Israel (but note Rev. 22:16).

However, if the focus is on the kingdom being inaugurated by the promised
OT Messiah, then it is present with Christ’s first coming, and then the focus
becomes the incarnation, life, teachings, death, and resurrection of Christ. The
theological emphasis is on a current salvation. The kingdom has come, the OT is
fulfilled in Christ’s offer of salvation to all, not His millennial reign over
some!

It is surely true that the Bible speaks of both of Christ’s comings, but
where is the emphasis to be placed? It seems to me that most OT prophecies focus
on the first coming, the establishment of the Messianic kingdom (cf. Daniel 2). In many ways this is analogous to the eternal reign of God (cf. Daniel 7). In
the OT the focus is on the eternal reign of God, yet the mechanism for that
reign’s manifestation is the ministry of the Messiah (cf. 1 Cor. 15:26-27). It
is not a question of which is true; both are true, but where is the emphasis? It
must be said that some interpreters become so focused on the millennial reign of
the Messiah (cf. Contextual Insights to Revelation 20) that they have missed the biblical focus on the
eternal reign of the Father. Christ’s reign is a preliminary event. As the two
comings of Christ were not obvious in the OT, neither is a temporal reign of the
Messiah!

The key to Jesus’ preaching and teaching is the kingdom of God. It is
both present (in salvation and service), and future (in pervasiveness and
power). Revelation, if it focuses on a Messianic millennial reign (cf.
Revelation 20), is preliminary, not ultimate (cf. Revelation 21-22). It is not
obvious from the OT that a temporal reign is necessary; as a matter of fact, the
Messianic reign of Daniel 7 is eternal, not millennial.

SIXTH TENSION (imminent return of Christ vs. the delayed
Parousia)

Most believers have been taught that Jesus is coming soon, suddenly, and
unexpectedly (cf. Matt. 10:23; 24:27,34,44; Mark 9:1; 13:30; Rev. 1:1,3; 2:16;
3:11; 22:7,10,12,20; see Special Topic: Soon Return). But every expectant generation of believers so far has
been wrong! The soonness (immediacy) of Jesus’ return is a powerful promised
hope of every generation, but a reality to only one (and that one a persecuted
one). Believers must live as if He were coming tomorrow, but plan and implement
the Great Commission (cf. Matt. 28:19-20) if He tarries.

Some passages in the Gospels and 1 and
2 Thessalonians are based on a delayed Second Coming (Parousia). There are some
historical events that must happen first:

1. world-wide evangelization (cf. Matt. 24:14; Mark 13:10)

2. the revelation of “the man of Sin” (cf. Matt. 24:15; 2
Thessalonians 2; Revelation 13)

3. the great persecution (cf. Matt. 24:21,24; Revelation 13)

There is a purposeful ambiguity (cf. Matt. 24:42-51; Mark 13:32-36)! Live
every day as if it were your last but plan and train for future ministry!

CONSISTENCY AND BALANCE

It must be said that the different schools of modern eschatological
interpretation all contain half truths. They explain and interpret well some
texts. The problem lies in consistency and balance. Often there is a set of
presuppositions which use the biblical text to fill in the pre-set theological
skeleton. The Bible does not reveal a logical, chronological, systematic
eschatology. It is like a family album. The pictures are true, but not always in
order, in context, in a logical sequence. Some of the pictures have fallen out
of the album and later generations of family members do not know exactly how to
put them back. The key to proper interpretation of Revelation is the intent of
the original author as revealed in his choice of literary genre. Most
interpreters try to carry their exegetical tools and procedures from other
genres of the NT into their interpretations of Revelation. They focus on the OT
instead of allowing the teachings of Jesus and Paul to set the theological
structure and let Revelation act as illustrative.

I must admit that I approach this commentary on the Revelation with some fear and trepidation, not
because of the curse of Rev. 22:18-19, but because of the level of controversy
the interpretation of this book has caused and continues to cause among God’s
people. I love God’s revelation. It is true when all men are liars (cf. Rom.
3:4)! Please use this commentary as an attempt to be thought provoking and not
definitive, as a sign post and not a road map, as a “what if,” not a “thus says
the Lord.” I have come face to face with my own inadequacies, biases, and
theological agenda. I have also seen those of other interpreters. It almost
seems that people find in Revelation what they expect to find. The genre lends
itself to abuse! However, it is in the Bible for a purpose. Its placement as the
concluding “word” is not by accident. It has a message from God to His children
of each and every generation. God wants us to understand! Let us join hands, not
form camps; let us affirm what is clear and central, not all that may be, might
be, could be true. God help us all!

Use this space to list your own presuppositions about how to interpret the
Revelation. All of us bring our biases with us into the interpretation of this
book. Identifying them helps us overcome their influence and limits our
dogmatism.