I am convinced that most of what is said about the future — and about eschatology — and about the Revelation of John in particular — in most churches today is mostly wrong. Western evangelicals somehow got sidetracked by the rise of Dispensationalism, it stuck to many evangelicals like glue, and today I rarely hear evangelical sermons about either Revelation or eschatology that spend the time to know (1) what the Bible says and what it does not say, (2) how ancient prophetic and apocalyptic language works, (3) what eschatology was like in Judaism that gave rise to the eschatology of early Christians, and (4) what the Church has actually believed.
It was this situation that gave rise to Tom Wright’s book Surprised by Hope, and that book is beginning — God be thanked — to make an impact for the good on how we need to understand and appropriate eschatology. There’s so much to do. What must be done the most is “convert the imagination” of the Church back into a robust biblical eschatology.
Michael Gorman, Reading Revelation Responsibly: Uncivil Worship and Witness: Following the Lamb into the New Creation is one recent scholar who gets it.
The situation of the Book of Revelation, while it can’t be known with utter certitude, is made up of the following two elements:
Imperial idolatry (civil religion)
Imperial injustice (military, economic, political, religious oppression)
This book is not designed for speculators but for the oppressed; it is designed to tell them in graphically prophetic and concrete language that the Enemy will come to justice and the People of God will be vindicated.
But this leaves the Book of Revelation with an “application” problem:It is so Roman that we must learn to read it over against Rome. But, at the same time, it speaks to Empire ideology at all times — with graphic warnings that Doomsday means Justice.
Gorman points out (most helpfully) that the crisis this book dealt with was not just a crisis of oppression and Empire, but that the Christian church had become complacent and complicit.
This context explains the Liturgical Focus of Revelation.
The central and centering vision of the book is worship of God and the Lamb. This means a call to abandon false deities and worship the true deity.
Worship was a political action, is, and always will be: it is the enthronement of the one true God.
Gorman thus points to the “music of heaven” and sees these texts as rooted in early Christian worship: 4:8, 11; 5:9-10, 12, 13b; 7:12; 11:17-18; 15:3-4. It would make this post too long to quote each of these, but I will quote 15:3-4:
3 and sang the song of God’s servant Moses and of the Lamb:
“Great and marvelous are your deeds,
Lord God Almighty.
Just and true are your ways,
King of the nations.
4 Who will not fear you, Lord,
and bring glory to your name?
For you alone are holy.
All nations will come
and worship before you,
for your righteous acts have been revealed.”
Can this (good) way of interpreting Revelation (and eschatology) be married to some form of ‘dispensational’ or at least ‘premillenial’ eschatology? I come from a dispensational background and am interested in ‘progressive dispensationalism’ but I love what Wright and others are doing with eschatology and preach it all the time as a pastor-teacher. I don’t know if I’m just making a mess of things or if I’m intuitively putting some things together that are ultimately complementary. Help?
Daniel, I have my doubts. There are serious attempts among some dispensational folks to let Revelation speak into the first century, but the more that is done the less the dispensational approach gains traction. (That’s how I see it, but I’m surely open to correction on that one.)
Thanks so much for your thoughts, Scot. Hmm… I shall have to keep pondering the matter (obviously!). You may be right. But if there’s *anything* right in any form of dispensationalism, that thing (or those things) will necessarily have to work into the whole eschatalogical picture somehow. Would you be willing to suggest any element(s) of dispensationalism that is on the right track and that should be retained even if dispensationalism as a whole must be abandoned?
Daniel,
Dispensationalism tends to take the text literalistically and futuristically, while someone like Gorman or Metzger, take the text poetically and historically.
But this leaves the Book of Revelation with an “application” problem: It is so Roman that we must learn to read it over against Rome. But, at the same time, it speaks to Empire ideology at all times — with graphic warnings that Doomsday means Justice.
If we read it over against Rome, then it seems to me that unless you’re a Preterist, the following could suggest that Revelation, as dramatic and inspiring as it might be, is a failed prophecy, or perhaps more a product of the author’s imagination or longing than what he saw and heard (if he indeed saw and heard it):
1:1 – The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must happen very soon (εν ταχει). He made it clear by sending his angel to his servant John,
2:16 – Therefore, repent! If not, I will come against you quickly (ταχυ) and make war against those people with the sword of my mouth.
3:11 – I am coming soon (ταχυ). Hold on to what you have so that no one can take away your crown.
11:14 – The second woe has come and gone; the third is coming quickly (ταχυ).
22:6 – Then the angel said to me, “These words are reliable and true. The Lord, the God of the spirits of the prophets, has sent his angel to show his servants what must happen soon (εν ταχει).”
22:7 – (Look! I am coming soon (ταχυ)! Blessed is the one who keeps the words of the prophecy expressed in this book.)
22:12 – (Look! I am coming soon (ταχυ), and my reward is with me to pay each one according to what he has done!)
22:20 – The one who testifies to these things says, “Yes, I am coming soon (ταχυ)!” Amen! Come, Lord Jesus!
I know that “with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day,” but nearly 2,000 years later, we’re still saying, “How long, O Lord?” And those who were saying it in the 1st century never saw the Lord’s promised (per this book) return εν ταχει.
Can its “warnings that Doomsday means Justice” be taken seriously or with certainty if it is indeed a failed prophecy and/or if it is more of John than of Jesus?
(I’m sort of playing the devil’s advocate or Doubting Thomas part, but I’ve wondered for years what to do with Revelation, other than simply enjoy it or be inspired by it to worship and pray.)
Scot,
I would really value your thoughts if you might expand on the 4 points you laid out:
“I rarely hear evangelical sermons about either Revelation or eschatology that spend the time to know (1) what the Bible says and what it does not say, (2) how ancient prophetic and apocalyptic language works, (3) what eschatology was like in Judaism that gave rise to the eschatology of early Christians, and (4) what the Church has actually believed.”
Eventually, Tim, but not in one setting or today. Each of those is a series of posts…
Scot,
For me this ties in a lot to what I was talking about yesterday in RJS’s thread about bibliolatry. I was kind of shocked the first time I heard that Revelation might be more about 1st/2nd century Christians dealing with the Roman empire and not about an ever-closer rapture/tribulation/judgement/end-of-earth. Now I’m kind of left with a “oh, that’s all it’s about? bummer”.
For me, as I was building my house of cards I assumed that the purpose of the Bible was for God to mysteriously speak to me, here and now, through what was written. Therefore, as I read the Bible I was always looking for the “application for today”. If I look at the Bible as a lamp, written to be understood by the original hearers more than to be understood through my particular context, then things take on a much different light. It’s really disturbing, to be honest, but I guess I have to trust that God is bigger than my hermeneutics.
I have N.T. Wright’s Surprised by Hope and I think it’s next on my reading list. I hope to be surprised by it
So is Revelation more useful as a historical/theological example of what 1st-century Christians thought and believed than it is something to be applied to or about us today?
Should it be treated as The Shepherd of Hermas?
OK Scot, I look forward to your continuing series on this topic
@ 9
It can still have historical context and provide devotional reading that guides our principles for living today, exactly like the rest of Scripture. The biggest thing to set aside is our understanding of the “nuts and bolts.” “Stand firm in your commitment to Christ” is relevant to every age but the locusts probably aren’t apache attack helicopters.
To the OP:
I personally think a lot of this stems from an inherent bias I see in western culture against the imagination (i.e. “That’s something for little kids). I don’t think we encourage people enough to develop their imaginations as much as other faculties of the person.
The NT epistles allows harnessed the imagination and used poetry and imagery to do so because it literally “frees your mind” to look past the “facts”/”reality” in front of you.
I’m with Tim in looking forward to how you unpack the 4 approaches you see.
Eric W,
It’s critique and warning about Empire; it’s exhortation to remain faithful and to worship the Lamb, etc. Those things abide, but historical particularities devoted to 1st Century Rome pass into …
… prototypes of other instances of Empire and the Final Battle of Empire.
I’m not convinced that Babylon of Revelation is Rome. I believe Babylon to be Jerusalem, the “great city … where their Lord was crucified” (Rev 11:8), which had become the center of spiritual idolatry and injustice.
While Revelation is assuredly liturgical, the book is also a divorce document served to physical/ethic Israel. Certainly Rome is present in Revelation, symbolized by the beast of Rev 17, but it is in this context: Jerusalem (the woman sitting upon the beast) performed the ultimate act of prostitution in declaring its allegiance with Caesar during the trial and crucifixion of Christ (John 19:12, 15).
Once divorced for prostituting herself (and, in a sense, executed for the same in AD 70), the multi-ethnic Church — comprising the rooted tree of Israel as well as the Gentiles, which were grafted into the identity of God’s chosen people — officially became God’s new bride (Rev 19:7-8). Those of physical Israel who had “come out of her [Babylon]” (Rev 18:4) could join with the Gentiles in proclaiming their allegiance to the Alpha and Omega, giving glory and honor to the Lamb.
Richard, spot-on about the loss of and fear of imagination. And Revelation appeals to imagination on every line.
13. @Mike Beidler:
I, too, have seen the anti-Jewish/anti-Jerusalem nature of Revelation. I’ve heard that Jerusalem has 7 hills as well.
(I was there in 2009; I didn’t count them, but I noticed that it is indeed very hilly – that’s what struck me most about our first drive to Jerusalem: “Man, look at the hills! Photos didn’t prepare me for this!” It was like a roller-coaster ride, and left a very strong impression on me – that, and the Mars Rover-view landscape at Arad).
@15 (EricW):
I don’t think the seven hills/mountains of Rev 17:9 refer to Jerusalem. I believe they refer to Rome, which was universally known as the City of Seven Hills. Saying that the woman (Jerusalem/Babylon) sits on the beast (Rome) and sits on seven hills (Rome) is merely using two different ways of saying the same thing.
So never the twain shall meet, eh, Scot? But I’m still wondering. Do we never read portions of the Bible in a way that combines a ‘more literal’ and a ‘more poetic’ approach in some strange tension? (Isaiah 53? Daniel 7-8?) I guess I’m not entirely convinced that Revelation is a strict either/or case. (Interesting how the same issue abides at the very beginning of the Bible too, with Genesis interpretation questions.) I know ‘literalistic’ hermeneutics are in danger of woodenly shutting down the full meaning of the text. But are ‘poetic’ hermeneutics supposed to be immune to this by their very nature or something? I LOVE imagination, wonder, and awe, so this investigation is not the result of a stunted capacity for outside-the-box thinking. It’s a question of whether ‘dispensational’ theologies are the only ones in danger of reductionistically limiting and even perverting the text. Surely the world and the word both tend to be far *weirder* and *wilder* than we can usually safely and straightforwardly process and categorise. So again I ask: no literal/futuristic-cum-poetic/historical complementarity or harmony? (Be it ever so strange and tense!)
@ 14
Unfortunately I’m reminded of Rob Bell’s words at Poets, Prophets, and Preachers that “imagination” and “creativity” are not often used to describe “the sermon.”
I’m a huge advocate for joint-worship services in our community but I’ll be the first to admit that I’m often cringing when some of the other pastors in our community take the pulpit. In reflecting back on my own pastoral studies, I wish writing classes taught by an Creative writing Prof, public speaking class by a Comm prof, and a Stage Presence by the theater dept. would’ve been required.
@Scott: “Western evangelicals somehow got sidetracked by the rise of Dispensationalism…”
Indeed.
@Scott(2): “but the more that is done the less the dispensational approach gains traction”
It depends on your definition of dispensationalism, which is a big issue for the proponents of the progressive variant (see Blaising and Bock, “Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church”).
@Daniel(1): “Can this (good) way of interpreting Revelation (and eschatology) be married to …”
I think so. See my ThM thesis on a discourse analysis of Revelation (darev.christian.net), which takes into account its narrative structure, symbolism, and cohesion. There I argue that the 144,000 represents ethnic Israel and is to be distinguished from the great multitude. I think that’s a mild form of disp, but for sure, there’s no rapture in there. On the other hand, the 1000 year period may be an indefinite period of time, but it’s for sure after the Parousia (as in second coming, not just “presence”). I don’t think you can make the narrative say otherwise. So I guess that puts me between prog disp and historical premil.
Its main function for first century Christians and all Christians thereafter: catharsis through apocalypticism.
Its audience after the first century Christians: the persecuted church, which ought to and does continue after first century till _their_ kingdom comes.
Its main exhortation: Wait for the eschatological vengeance of a gracious and patient God upon those who truly and obstinately deserve it (your persecutors).
If you want to see how premil is the best framework for Empire resistance, see Jurgen Moltmann’s “The Coming of God.” As he says it succinctly, “Without millenarian hope, the Christian ethic of resistance and the consistent discipleship of Christ lose their most powerful motivation” (p. 201).
Scot,
I’d just like to offer a hearty, “Amen!” As one who grew up in an extreme Pentecostal expression of Dispensationalism, then attended the bastion of Dispensationalism that is Moody Bible Institute, and has now committed to Wright’s own Anglican tradition, I resonate deeply with this post.
I was part of a group that was so obsessive about Revelation that we had to place a moratorium on Revelation specifically and eschatology generally. No talking about it during our Bible study. That was 6 years ago, and I’ve still not lifted it in my personal life. It’s been difficult to disassociate with all the… junk.
Anyway, these post gives me hope of seeing the book in a new, refreshing light. Thanks.
Oh, and just to throw it out there, most don’t realize that Dispensationalism was only invented by J.N. Darby in 1827. That doesn’t disprove the system–suggesting it does is a logical fallacy–but it seems to me it should prompt further thought.
@ Erwin (19): thank you! I’ve downloaded the thesis and I find what you outline here very interesting. That ‘between prog disp and historical premil’ is the kind of space I think I’m looking for. (I’m looking for biblical truth, of course, but I wonder if it’s more likely to be discovered in these ‘inbetweens’ than the either/or dilemma-horns.) The quote from Moltmann about premil empire resistance is VERY interesting! Is there anyone at Talbot going for this kind of stuff eschatalogically? Thanks again!
Someone else who gets it:
http://www.collegepress.com/storefront/node/101
@Daniel(21): Truth is dialectical
I don’t know whether someone in Talbot is doing it. I’m now in Fuller doing my PhD in systematics on constructive eschatology.
@ Erwin (23): yeah, I guess I should have asked if ANYONE at all is going for anything like a ‘between prog disp and historical mil’ strategy that you know of. (And I take it that position still admits of the insights of the likes of N. T. Wright?)
Discipleship on the Edge (http://tinyurl.com/39xh8lp) by Darrel Johnson is another great work on the Book of Revelation.
There have been some great posts on this in a short amount of time! But as a pastor I’ll say that I finally jumped in and preached a series on Revelation. I find myself agreeing with Scot’s comments. I happened to be preaching during the time that Dr. Gorman was finishing the book (he’s the dean at the school where I teach Biblical Studies) and just heard him lecture on it. I think what he offers is helpful to thinking Christians.
Also, as a Baby Boomer who grew up with Late Great Planet Earth and lived long enough for the Left Behind series, I am grateful that Dr. Gorman gives us some guidelines for interpretation that work beyond the popular fixations that have assaulted the minds of Christians in America.
Scott Hahn’s book on the relationship between the Roman Catholic Mass & Eucharist and the book of Revelation (would apply in large part to the Eastern Orthodox Divine Liturgy as well): http://www.amazon.com/Lambs-Supper-Mass-Heaven-Earth/dp/0385496591/
I apologize for being so remedial, but if someone could give me an answer I would appreciate it.
I don’t understand the significance of dispensationalism. To me, it is obvious that there are different periods in history and at least the bible does relate differently in each of these periods. So how could dispensationalism not be right?
There must be some basic premise to this that I am not getting. Is it that dispensationalists feel god actually changed during these different periods?
I also grew up under the influence of the LGPE. I find it difficult to define my position apart from “Christ will come again.”
Eric (27), I have not read Hahn’s book, that that strikes me as being on the mark. Eucharist as proleptic of the Marriage Supper of the Lamb.
“What must be done the most is ‘convert the imagination’ of the Church back into a robust biblical eschatology.”
I can’t agree more that this needs to be a priority for the church in America today. As someone who is currently teaching Revelation in our church in a way that is far removed from dispensationalism, I must say I have never come across a task more difficult. It’s an emotional endeavor above all else. I hope more people begin to take on the task, but know it is a lot easier to do this in a forum with people who really believe what you believe than with people who hold traditional ideas dear to their hearts.
To add to valuable resources, Dr. Robert Mulholland Jr., formerly of Asbury Theological Seminary has put forth a powerful alternative to reading Revelation. Anyone interested should check out his lectures at Asbury that are available for download on iTunesU. A detail here or there might be questioned, but the approach as a whole is incredibly valuable and offers a reading of Revelation that unfolds an understanding of reality in light of the claim that Jesus is the Messiah.
@30 (Joe Watkins):
I just looked up Dr. Mulholland’s lectures on iTunes. The course number of his Revelation class appears to be NT666. That’s hilarious!
Good thoughts all down the thread. I preached on Revelation on Advent Sunday and my two points were that Revelation was written (1) for encouragement – the Lamb wins and (2) for challenge – where does your allegence lie, Jesus or ‘Rome’. These themes seem to me to translate very well, especially to our UK ‘post-Christian’ society.
None of the three prevailing views on eschatology (premillennialism, postmillennialism, or amillennialism) and their many sub-groups get Revelation right. It is time that evangelicals revisit the ante-Nicene fathers who understood that the “first resurrection” was of the natural body (that would be given in marriage) because it was destined to inherit a restored Adamic earth, and the final resurrection on Judgment Day was of the immortal body (the raptured body not given in marriage) because it was destined to inherit the Father’s eternal kingdom of heaven or the new heavens and new earth. Justin, Irenaeus, and other millennialists may have mistakenly placed Christ’s second coming in conjunction with the resurrection of a “natural” body, but this can be easily corrected by placing Christ’s second coming on the last day at the great white throne judgment when he comes again, destroys this Genesis creation, and takes the raptured children of God to heaven for eternity. One might call this modified millennialism, “postrestorationalism.”
Gary Cangelosi