and He sent and communicated it by His angel to His bond-servant John, ²who testified to the word of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, everything that he saw. (New American Standard Bible – NASB)

We’re heading for the end of the 20th century:

“…This revelation is of heavenly origin. It is not something human beings can arrive at through observation or reflection. The Apocalypse is not based on a point of view compatible with a natural theology. Rather, it presupposes that human beings are incapable of arriving at true understanding by their own efforts and that creation is alienated from the creator. So a person must be receptive to divine revelatory activity which grasps one from outside oneself. The mysteriousness of that divine revelatory activity is shown by its indirect character. It originates in a distant and hidden God who communicates with his servants through Jesus Christ. Even Jesus does not communicate directly with each of  his followers, but he sends his angel to John, who finally bears witness to the other believers concerning what has been seen and heard.    [from APOCALYPSE, by Adela Yarbro Collins, 1979]

This is one of the few female commentators I’ve found. I agree with a few of her statements, but I have to disagree at the characterization of God as “distant and hidden.” That doesn’t describe my experience with God. I was kind of agreeing with Collins until that point, but once I saw her conclusion she lost me. I saw her lead up differently: I agree that Revelation isn’t “based on a point of view compatible with a natural theology,”and “that human beings are incapable of arriving at true understanding by their own efforts.” I can even agree with the idea “that creation is alienated from the creator,” but, I don’t blame it on a “distant and hidden” God, rather, I blame it on us fallen human beings. God did not turn away or hide from us, it was the other way around.

Of course, I also disagree with the idea that Jesus doesn’t communicate directly with His followers. As I’ve mentioned before, I know someone who has personally encountered Jesus…not an angel, Jesus Himself. Also, the first encounter John has is with Jesus Himself. I worry about the spiritual life of Ms. Collins, she seems to feel pretty alone.

“As you read the twenty-two chapters of Revelation, say to yourself, ‘This Bible book is different from God’s inspired message that came to us in the literary form of history or law, for it is apocalyptic in style.’

“It would be fatal to a right understanding of Scripture to take its history or law sections and allegorize them, as the Gnostics did. That destroys the intended meaning. To take literal writings symbolically is to miss the mark. Conversely, taking symbolic literature literally gets the reader off course as well.”

Truly, one can allegorize anything one chooses to; history and law are no exception. To take a book like Revelation, one that has some symbology, symbology that is all explained within the book itself, and then assume that all of it’s symbolic, is just as wrong as allegorizing history or law. It’s as wrong as assuming that the Book of Matthew is all allegory because it includes parables.

“I believe the divinely-given book of Revelation was intended to be taken seriously, but not always literally. The opening verse states that Jesus ‘sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John’ (Revelation 1:1, ASV). Signified suggests signs or symbols will be the form used to convey this message from Heaven. The Revelation communicates to the suffering Christian’s feelings, and not exclusively to his rational mind.”

Oh wow. We’ve gone into “signified” in depth before: it doesn’t usually mean that “signs” and “symbols” were being employed. But what about Christians’ feelings? I don’t know about you, but I am frequently told that faith has little to do with “feelings.” I don’t entirely agree with that, but, the only way that Revelation seems to be meant to influence “feelings,” is by letting the believers know that God wins in the end. I do not believe that Revelation was written to frighten believers.

“The sun’s disappearance from view each evening can be explained appropriately in one of two ways. The scientist can give the physical explanation about the earth’s rotation. The poet and artist can describe the beauty of the ‘setting sun.’ Both forms of expression have their place and are equally true. Revelation comes to us more like a Beethoven symphony that stirs hearts in the music hall than like an Einstein theory designed to challenge keen minds in the lecture room.”

First of all, the poet and artist don’t “explain” the sun’s disappearance each day, they just describe it. Secondly, Revelation is nothing like a Beethoven symphony and far more like the Einstein theory.

“At first, do not worry what passages mean. Let them affect you. Be impressed by the colors used (white, red, green, purple, black, and pale-green). Listen to the sound effects (silence, earthquake, thunder, trumpets, harps, winds, and choirs). Say, ‘God is speaking to all of me — my heart, my longings, my fears, and my feelings — and not just to my brain.’ This book is distinctive, because it is apocalyptic. When I read of dragons with seven heads and ten horns, I am not to believe that there are literal dragons, but I am to know that there is a real devil with whose wiles and threats I must deal. Great English literature has place for Alice in Wonderland and Gulliver’s Travels. God, too, can use symbolic literature in getting across His message.”           [from THE BOOK OF REVELATION IN MISSIONARY PERSPECTIVE, by Alger M. Fitch, 1986]

I just can’t go along with just letting Revelation “affect you.” Of course you need to think about what the passages mean! Dragons are certainly symbolic, and what is represented is made clear. God is perfectly capable of using symbolism, but that does not mean that Revelation needs to be compared to ALICE IN WONDERLAND or GULLIVER’S TRAVELS. 

“Now St. John says that these things regarding the future were signified, or ‘sign-ified,’ to him by the angel. The use of this word tells us that the prophecy is not simply to be taken as ‘history written in advance.’ It is a book of signs, symbolic representations of the approaching events. The symbols are not to be understood in a literal manner. We can see this by St. John’s use of the same term in his Gospel (12:33; 18:32; 21:19).” 

³¹Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out; ³²And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to Myself. ³³Now He was saying this to indicate what kind of death He was going to die.   
(John 12:31-33; NASB)

³⁰They answered and said to him, “If this Man were not a criminal, we would not have handed Him over to you.” ³¹So Pilate said to them, “Take Him yourselves, and judge Him according to your law.” ³²This happened so that the word of Jesus which He said, indicating what kind of death He was going to die, would be fulfilled.  
(John 18:30-32; NASB)

¹⁸Truly, truly I tell you, when you were younger, you used to put on your belt and walk wherever you wanted; but when you grow old, you will stretch out your hands and someone else will put your belt on you, and bring you where you do not want to go.” ¹⁹Now He said this, indicating by what kind of death he would glorify god. And when He had said this, He said to him, “Follow Me!”   (John 21:18,19; NASB)

Again, I have included more of the passages to provide context; we can see by John’s use of the word semeion in his Gospel, that it often doesn’t mean “sign.” 

Also, the phrase “‘history written in advance’” is a direct and uncredited quote from Beasley-Murray, who we looked at in an earlier post.

The author of this quote is David Chilton, a very well-known preterist. How sad to see him take up the “sign-i-fy” banner.

“In each case, it is used of Christ ‘signifying’ a future event by a more or less symbolic indication, rather than by a prosaic, literal description. And this is generally the form of the prophecies in the Revelation. It is a book of symbols from beginning to end. As G. R. Beasley-Murray well said, ‘The prophet wishes to make clear that he does not provide photographs of heaven.’ This does not mean the symbols are unintelligible; the interpretation is not what any individual chooses to make it. Nor, on the other hand, are the symbols written in some sort of code, so that all we need is a dictionary or grammar of symbolism to ‘translate’ the symbols into English. The only way to understand St. John’s system of symbolism is to become familiar with the Bible itself.” 

At least he credited Beasley-Murray for this second quote. I’m irked at his comment: “the interpretation is not what any individual chooses to make it. Nor, on the other hand, are the symbols written in some sort of code…” “Any individual” apparently doesn’t apply to him: he is free to tell us what the “symbols” mean. And, while he tells us there is no “code,” he is also going to go on to explain the meanings to us as if there were a “code.”

“2-3 An important relationship is set up here. Verse 1 showed us Jesus Christ giving the Revelation to St. John; now St. John states that he himself bore witness to the Word of God and to the Witness of Jesus Christ. Thus we see that Jesus is the pre-eminent Witness-Bearer, testifying to His servants; and we see also that St. John bears witness of Christ’s Witness, testifies of Christ’s Testimony. He can do this because he is one of Christ’s servants, and has become like his Master. In giving testimony, St. John is conformed to the image of Christ. These two pat- terns — Christ and His servants bearing dual witness, and Christ’s servants bearing His image — are carried on throughout the book, and will inform our understanding of such passages as 11:4-12.”          [from THE DAYS OF VENGEANCE: AN EXPOSITION OF THE BOOK OF REVELATION, by David Chilton, 1987]

³And I will grant authority to my two witnesses, and they will prophesy for 1,260 days, clothed in sackcloth. ⁴These are the two olive trees and the two lamp stands that stand before the Lord of the earth. ⁵And if anyone wants to harm them, fire flows out of their mouth, and devours their enemies; and so if anyone want to harm them, he must be killed in this way.   
(Revelation 11:3-5; NASB)

This was a reasonable paragraph, but I do want to point out that he is trying to establish “patterns” here; a “pattern” is a type of “code.”

“John, in his opening verses, describes his work as an invitation to blessedness, to happiness. He is careful to describe five links in his chain of communication: God, Jesus, his angel, his servant John, and the servants to whom he is writing. The work he is writing is not his own product for he is only a servant. ‘Servant’ is that popular Old Testament word used frequently in the New Testament as a title of honor to describe the special representative of Jesus.”

Revelation as an invitation to happiness? Blessedness, yes; happiness, no. The rest of the paragraph is okay, until we get to ‘Servant…as a title of honor to describe the special representative of Jesus.” I can go along reluctantly with it being a “title of honor,” though I don’t think that was the intention behind the use of that word. But, it’s definitely not used for “special” people: it is used for all the followers of Christ, who, while set apart, are not one more special than another.  

And lastly, I don’t like the use of the word “representative.” It sounds like being a salesman. I know that in a marriage, a husband is said to “represent” Christ to his wife; and that in certain denominations, the priest or minister is said to “represent” Christ to the congregation. But those are the only situations I can think of where a Christian is actually attempting to “stand in for” Christ. And even in these situations, I’m not sure that I’ve actually heard the word “representative” used. As Christians, we believe that Christ lives within us as the Holy Spirit; because of this, we don’t need to “represent” Christ, He is always present Himself. Even in the situations given, Christ is there, and these Christians are only supposed to be doing a better job of allowing Christ to present Himself through them.

“Even a brief reflection on the earliest Christian document (1 Thess 1:10) shows that his service is simply to present the apostolic preaching in a different kind of literature

to await from heaven the Son he raised from the dead, Jesus who delivers us from the wrath to come.”

This is very confusing. The “he” referred to in the prior paragraph is John; but John didn’t write 1 Thessalonians, so is the “he” now referring to Paul? And how does the Thessalonians awaiting Jesus’ Second Coming affect “apostolic preaching” or the type of “literature” used?

One other thing, 1 Thessalonians is among the earliest Christian documents, but not necessarily the earliest. For instance, many scholars think that Galatians was written earlier.

“In such Pauline texts as 2 Thes 1:3-12; 1 Cor 2:6-8; 2 Cor 4:4,17; Rom 8:18; Eph 6:11-18, we find the opposition to the true God instigated by the devil and demonic forces, a two age dualism and the idea that present sufferings will yield to future glory in the eschatological judgement. This will bring punishment to the opposition and comfort to the afflicted. Paul, in dealing with his communities’ problems, has no difficulty in using curses and threats, ironic and sarcastic rebukes, but also reminders of blessings.”     [from THE APOCALYPSE OF JOHN, by Sean P. Kealy, 1987]

I can’t figure out what Kealy means by “a two age dualism.” The “opposition” as described does set up a kind of “dualism,” but only if one assumes that the “devil and demonic forces” are equal in power to God…and I don’t believe that for a minute. It would have been nice if he had explained what the “two age” referred to.

Aside from that, I can’t figure out why Kealy has side-stepped from discussing John’s writings, to going whole hog into Paul’s. Maybe because Paul has been understood more fully than John, so it’s easier to pontificate on it?

³We ought always to give thanks to God for you, brothers and sisters, as it only fitting, because your faith is increasing abundantly, and the love of each and every one of you towards one another grows ever greater. ⁴As a result, we ourselves speak proudly of you among the churches of God for your perseverance and faith in the midst of all your persecutions and afflictions which you endure. ⁵This is a plain indication of God’s righteous judgment so that you will be considered worthy of the kingdom of God, for which you indeed are suffering. ⁶For after all it is only right for God to repay with affliction those who afflict you, ⁷and to give relief to you who are afflicted, along with us, when the Lord Jesus will be revealed from heaven with His mighty angels ⁸in flaming fire, dealing out retribution to those who do not know God, and to those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. ⁹These people will pay the penalty of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power, ¹⁰when He comes to be glorified among His saints on that day, and to be marveled at among all who have believed — because our testimony to you was believed. ¹¹To this end also we pray for you always, that our God will consider you worthy of your calling, and fulfill every desire for goodness and the work of faith with power, ¹²so that the name of our Lord Jesus will be glorified in you, and you in Him, in accordance with the grace of our God and the Lord Jesus Christ.   
(2 Thessalonians 1:3-12; NASB)

⁶Yet we do speak wisdom among those who are mature; a wisdom, however, not of this age nor of the rulers of this age, who are passing away; ⁷but we speak God’s wisdom in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God predestined before the ages to our glory; ⁸the wisdom which none of the rulers of this age has understood; for if they had understood it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory…   
(1Corinthians 2:6-8; NASB)

³And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, ⁴in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they will not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God…¹⁶Therefore we do not lose heart, but though our outer person is decaying, yet our inner person is being renewed day by day. ¹⁷For our momentary, light affliction is producing for us an eternal weight of glory far beyond all comparison, ¹⁸while we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not see; for the things which are seen are temporal, but the things which are not seen are eternal.   
(2 Corinthians 4:3,4,16-18; NASB)

For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory that is to be revealed to us.  
(Romans 8:18; NASB)

 ¹¹Put on the full armor of God, so that you will be able to stand firm against the schemes of the devil…¹⁸With every prayer and request, pray at all times in the Spirit, and with this in view, be alert with all perseverance and every request for all the saints   
(Ephesians 6:11,18; NASB)

“John saw two visions. One is referred to in 1:9-20, the other in 4:1. The whole of what John now writes in this ‘book’ (1:11 RSV) arises out of these two visions. These two visions form the substance of what he calls the revelation (= unveiling) of Jesus Christ (v.1)

Two visions? So John only saw the golden lamp stands with Jesus, and the door standing open to heaven? Excuse me? What, is the rest of the book John’s imagination? 

And Revelation is not called a book, but a “book.” 

“This ‘revelation’ originated from God who gave it to [Jesus] who in turn sent his angel to his servant John (v.2).”

So, is he saying that the rest of the “book” was just told to John by an angel? Where does it say that?

“Who was this ‘angel’? I think it was a human messenger from the churches of Asia, who had come to Patmos to tell the revered Christian leader about the grave difficulties Christians were then facing in the mainland cities. As John reflected in ‘the Spirit’ on this news from Asia, God gave him the two visions about which he proceeds to write.”

Ahhhh. Now we see what’s going on. The “angel” (not angel) “was a human messenger from the churches of Asia”….I get it. We have a preterist author here. He is trying to show that everything about Revelation is A) symbolic, and B) a report of something that happened during, or shortly after, John’s time.

“John calls what he writes the words of this prophecy (v.3) and says that these must soon take place (v.1), because the time is near (v.3). Once completed, couriers were to bring the ‘book’ to the seven cities in turn where it was to be read aloud to the assembled congregations. The ‘book’ is in the form of letter (v.4) written to the Christians in Asia. As such it is by far the longest letter within the New Testament.”

I’ve been pretty iffy about the idea that Revelation is a “letter.” This totally convinces me that only verses 2 & 3 are letters, the rest is not.

“Clearly John is writing his ‘prophecy’ for the benefit of hearers who were at that time facing suffering and death, which ‘must soon take place’ in the churches in Roman Asia. This is not to say for one moment, however, that John’s words only apply to the hearers in the immediate times about which he wrote. His ‘book’ is profoundly applicable to Christians throughout the whole of human history. But as always in reading scripture, we must begin by asking what the writer meant his original readers to understand. Only then can we ask what his words mean for us now…”

This is why the preterist has to move Revelation up to before Paul died in 67, because Nero, in Rome, was a bad tyrant who actually killed Christians (in Rome). I bring up Rome twice like that because Nero wasn’t having Christians killed in the provinces…where John was living (if Nero was killing them in the provinces, then John would have been killed, not banished). Domitian, during the mid-90’s, was having people banished both from Rome and the provinces. He wasn’t killing a lot of Christians, so they weren’t “facing suffering and death” at that time to the degree that the author wants you think. And, if Revelation was written in Domitian’s reign, then Jerusalem had already fallen, so the preterist can’t make Revelation be about that.

“John is not so much focusing on the future as on the past. The future is entirely controlled by the past. The past in question is, of course, the already-completed victory of Jesus over those evil forces which were against him and which, though defeated, remain to afflict those who bear witness to him. Understood in this way the futuristic references are made in order to identify as demonic the sources of suffering to Christians and others in the world and to show that, in the words of Luther’s great hymn, ‘their doom is writ’. Indeed it is. Christ has conquered, prevailed, triumphed; the victory is his, the outcome not in doubt.”

Hmmm. This paragraph ties God’s plan of salvation up in total knots. If Christ suffered and died to defeat Satan, and totally completed this on the cross, then why is Satan still bothering us? The only way this makes sense is if we look at it as Christ opening a door for us on the cross that we have to decide to walk through. In the meantime, the last 2000+ years have seen a growing spiritual war as Satan tries to avoid his final, though certain, defeat. Revelation, then, is an account of the end of time, when Satan and his followers are finally taken down; when the Jews in particular, and everyone else in general, are given a last chance to walk through the door that Christ is holding open…and then there is the Millennium. In the Millennium everyone gets to live under the rule of Christ for a thousand years; then, Satan is released one final time, to pull away those who just cannot tolerate a life with Christ. That’s how I see it.

The author of this paragraph sees it like this: Jesus died on the cross and totally conquered Satan, but Satan has been left lying around the earth, creating havoc specifically for Christians, though we’re not sure why. There is no spiritual war, no need for Armageddon, because that stuff happened already and is in the past. We know that they are already defeated, so they probably can’t really hurt us. We will just make the world a better and better place, with everyone becoming Christian, until Jesus returns at some point in the far distant future. Some of this scenario is based on the preterist world view, and seems to be implied in the above paragraph.

“It is for this reason that in writing the Revelation John speaks as one who testifies to everything he saw (v.3). This he immediately identifies as the word of God…the testimony of Jesus. The words ‘testify’ and ‘testimony’ are first cousins and derive from the well-known New Testament word ‘witness’, a word we associate with declaring the gospel-message about Jesus. In other words, John’s ‘prophecy’ is not a series of bizarre forecasts about future historical events but a presentation of the ‘word of God’, that is, the ‘testimony’ or ‘witness’ to Jesus. It is nothing more or less than the gospel of Jesus as applied to the sufferings of believers in a hostile environment. This is brought out clearly in John’s important definition offered later: ‘The testimony of (= about) Jesus is the spirit of Prophecy’ (19:10). Put simply, John is saying ‘evangelism is prophecy’.”     [from APOCALYPSE NOW AND THEN: READING REVELATION TODAY, by Paul William Barnett, 1989]

I believe we are talking about future events in Revelation. The closer we get to those “events,” the more that becomes clear. Revelation is also “a presentation of the ‘word of God’” and “the ‘testimony’ or ‘witness’ to Jesus,” just as it says in Revelation 1:2. But, I would not call it the Gospel of Jesus. It provides a future look at where the Gospel leads, but it isn’t a retelling of the Gospel message of Christ died, buried, and resurrected.  

The testimony of Jesus goes beyond the Gospel in Revelation, just as He went beyond the Gospel in the Olivet Discourse, and the apostles go beyond the Gospel in some of their books and epistles. The main thrust of these messages that “go beyond” is the Second Coming of Christ, and what leads up to it. 

Some may say that His Second Coming is part of of the Gospel, but I think it’s only the promise of the Second Coming that’s part of it. The fulfillment of that promise is like a “second chapter,” or the “next installment;” in other words, going beyond the Gospel.

My last complaint is that Barnett misquoted “testifies to everything he saw” as being from verse 3, when it’s actually verse 2.

That’s it for today; we’ll pick up at the end of the 20th century again next time.