The Book of Revelation needs to be interpreted — and there are five major forms of interpreting Revelation. Which is your interpretive model? Today we discuss these models, and in our next post (next Monday) sketch Gorman’s criticisms of the Left Behind (and similar) approaches.
Michael Gorman, Reading Revelation Responsibly: Uncivil Worship and Witness: Following the Lamb into the New Creation breaks down the methods of interpreting Revelation into five basic methods.
First, the Predictive approach. The book is about the future — our future because the big vision hasn’t happened yet. This view is old and the most common. There has been lots of “decoding” — seeing images, etc as being fulfilled in specific events. They’ve all been wrong. One view sees Church history, while another — the dispensationalist approach — sees it concerned with the “End Times.” Dispensationalism is more or less a decoding approach. Locusts could be helicopters. (More later.)
Second, the Preterist approach. Revelation is about its immediate time — hence the 1st Century, Rome, etc.. The “decoding” is about the Roman Empire. David Aune is an excellent example.
The next three are essentially timeless:
Third, the Poetic approach. Revelation is full of mythical and poetic language. That language conveys great truths about God, evil, history … (like Star Wars, Homer). This view is sometimes called Idealist. The view often emerges as a reaction to historicist or futurist readings. Origen, Augustine, Eugene Peterson (how’s that for a leap in time?). the original context isn’t solely the determinative factor.
Fourth, the Political approach. Revelation is a protest against empire and comfort for the people of God. A major interest is the critique of injustice.
Fifth, the Pastoral-Prophetic approach. Revelation is pastoral in that it calls people to faithfulness and discernment. Charles Talbert is a good example and so is Rob Wall.
Gorman’s approach combines the poetic and the political — theopoetics and theopolitics.
While I don’t necessarily agree with Gorman’s particular combination he is right to find more than one approach to discover the layers to the text.
Honest questions: Why couldn’t it be all 5 without the fantasies of the first view? Are these views mutually exclusive?
I agree with #2 comments. It seems that the book of Revelation lends itself to all the above interpretative models, BUT I don’t think it does so evenly….I think the best method has traces of a few of these methods combined.
It’s not even close. The Preterist approach is correct except with the caveat that the Harlot is not Rome as an examination of Ezekiel 16 & 23 reveals. This is a Jewish writing dealing with the crisis of the Christians under Nero. The Harlot is Jerseleum/Judah in which the prophets were killed and the Savior was crucified. It is a fulfilment of OT prophecy concerning the rebellion of Apostate Judaism toward the Messiah.
Eze 16:35 KJV Wherefore, O harlot, hear the word of the LORD:
40 They shall also bring up a company against thee, and they shall stone thee with stones, and thrust thee through with their swords. (41) And they shall burn thine houses with fire, and execute judgments upon thee in the sight of many women: and I will cause thee to cease from playing the harlot, and thou also shalt give no hire any more.
normbv-
“The Preterist approach is correct…”
How do you define the 2nd coming of Christ?
Just as the NT outlines that it was about to occur shortly.
Rev 1:1 KJV The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:
Rev 22:6 KJV And he said unto me, These sayings are faithful and true: and the Lord God of the holy prophets sent his angel to shew unto his servants the things which must shortly be done.
Now if Christ did not come in Judgment shortly against the old covenant then I suppose we are all still living under Law and are still mired underneath the curse of Adam. The Jews understood that just like the judgment against the first Temple that a Judgment against their second Temple demonstrated God’s Judgment against them. Christ gave the prophecy about its destruction in Matt 24 and it happened just as He said which was in their Generation. It demonstrated that He came in Judgment against the old Covenant and in no ways is about modern Israel and the left behind crowd.
Rev 22:3 KJV And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him:
“It demonstrated that He came in Judgment”
So His return was not a literal personal return, instead it was referring to His actions?
Just trying to clarify your position.
Yes His actions, becasue we have the same type of actions in the OT where God came in judgment against various Nations described through Biblical Imagery.
Christ coming on the clouds is figurative language taken from the OT which simply indicates his power as it did God’s previously.
Joe 2:1-2 KJV Blow ye the trumpet in Zion, and sound an alarm in my holy mountain: let all the inhabitants of the land tremble: for the day of the LORD cometh, for it is nigh at hand; (2) A day of darkness and of gloominess, a day of clouds and of thick darkness, as the morning spread upon the mountains: a great people and a strong; there hath not been ever the like, neither shall be any more after it, even to the years of many generations.
Dan 7:13 KJV I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.
Seeing the coming of the Lord Jesus was through faithful eyes in which He demonstrated His Lordship just as His Father had previously.
Did it really take a prophet (or God) to predict the soon to be realized fall of Jerusalem? Or do you think that was the common perception at the time anyway?
Normbv-
Thanks for your clarificaton. So would you disagree with the ancient creeds on this matter?
I tend to agree with Dr. Gorden Fee when he says, if there is one thing to know about the book of Revelation, know that it is “about the first century church that is headed for a terrible two century holocaust. Read it with that in view and then ask yourself, where do I fit in.”
Absolutley I would disagree with any creed that missed that point. Rick, I’m not one overly impressed with the historical variations of the church in understanding a lot of these issues. The church essentially lost the ability to read and interpret Hebrew through Jewish eyes and picked up philosophical views or worse they started following the Pharisaical Jews interpretation post first century who rejected the Messiah. The NT is consistent if we read it through the eyes and mind of the NT writers and don’t ignore their pointing to these issues as happening in their day. No the church has historically wanted to apply the coming to each and every generation since. No wonder Christians are mocked by the athiest who read the same NT and see that Christ and the apostle said His “coming/parousia” was coming shortly in their time.
DRT,
Well much of Second Temple Judaism literature pointed to the demise of the physical Temple. Apparently many of the Jews did not take Jesus seriously about their impending ciies judgment or they would have fled when the armies started surrounding Jerusleum. Josephus documents a million died in the city because they became trapped and thought God would deliver them. Very tragic story.
normbv, thanks. The reason I ask is, of course, because if it was a thought of many of the people anyway then the obvious interpretation of Revelation would be toward the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem.
Also, while the gospels seem to be written as generalized documentation concerning Jesus the letters do not seem to be that way to me. I don’t think John (or the author) intended Rev to be something we all carry around until this day reading it and trying to figure out future implications. It seems much more obvious to be written for the intended audience, right?
I have a question as to the “partial-preterist” approach.
I think I recall Scot mentioning before that he ascribed to a partial-preterist understanding of the Kingdom of God, but that was more with respect to Jesus’ teachings on the matter. I believe Scot’s interpretation of Revelation (and likely the Book of Daniel too for that matter) is mainly political and not futurist.
So can one appropriately use the term partial-preterist in this manner, that of interpreting Jesus’ teachings on the Kingdom but not Revelation, or is the term more exclusively meant to convey an interpretation of Revelation specifically?
Tim,
I think the term partial-preterist is meant to convey an view of eschatology in general, particularly the time and scope of prophetic fulfillment. I don’t know if you can pigeon hole the kingdom of God apart from its eschatological leanings.
Per the all knowing and seeing god of the internet (Wikipedia):
Partial Preterism is generally considered to be a historic orthodox interpretation as it affirms all eschatological points of the ecumenical Creeds of the Church.[31][32][33] Still, Partial Preterism is not the majority view among American denominations founded after the 16th century and meets with significant vocal opposition, especially by those denominations which espouse Dispensationalism.[31][33][34] Additionally, concerns are expressed by Dispensationalists that Partial Preterism logically leads to an acceptance of Full Preterism, a concern which is denied by Partial Preterists.[35]
There goes those dispensationalists worrying about sliding down the preterist slope….
DRT,
I think you are essentially correct. However the Gospels themselves are much more instructive to the immediate audience than we often realize. The Beatitudes are very instructive toward how to deal with their Jewish brothers when times start getting rough and they become persecuted. The apsotate Jews fulfil the typology of Cain killing their righteous brother and are judged and removed from covenant standing with God and away from His Face.
2Th 1:7-10 KJV And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, (8) In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: (9) Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power; (10) When he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe (because our testimony among you was believed) in that day.
Notice that this message is to those that believe and see this occurence happen. It’s not to a future long off generation.
Tim,
Preterism is made up of every variant of partial that one can imagine. Typically partial Preterism is defined IMO as a mixture of literal and symbolic application of scriptures. A full Preterist would often see partial Preterism applying verses from a literal viewpoint when it should be applied symbolically and biblically. The difference is it seems to be a hermenutic blend from both the dispensational and Pretersit camp and as I said with every variation imaginable. Every Preterist I have ever met is a hybrid of some sort and so partial tends to fit many. How some full Pretersit like to define themselves is the word “consistent” according to their hermenutic.
normbv-
“Notice that this message is to those that believe and see this occurence happen. It’s not to a future long off generation.”
Cannot some of those passages be considered “both/and”?
let me expand #20 a bit:
Cannot some of those passages be both/and, or at least a glimpse/reflection of a larger fulfillment?
Rick,
It depends upon the context. If it says something is going to happen in that original audience generation then we should look for its occurence there. The “both/and” argument is like former President Clinton arguing for the nuance of “is” and its meaning. LOL
Yet there are of course ongoing realities for everyone in scripture so don’t mistake that I’m not saying the scriptures aren’t profitible for every generation. However there are somethings that are historical and applical to these particular faithful. When Jesus told His audience to watch for the times and to flee the city it was specific to them. Therefore much of the NT writings are warning them about being ready for that coming time of tribulation that preceeds those events.
Can we gain from understanding that God delivers the faithful even today? Absolutely we know that God hears our prayers and rescuse the faithful.
Rick,
I don’t know of any larger fulfilment than what went on through Christ and His Death, Ressurection and removal of the Old Covenant. The change of Covenant from the old Adam of death [seperation from God]to the New Covenant of Life through the Second Adam Christ is the story that breathes the Image of God fully into us so that we have eternal life.
That was the Hope of Israel to be redeemed from the “dead dry bones” of Eze 37 and to have right standing with God again in His Temple. We have been restored to the original Temple Garden of God and through faith in Christ we will be with God and Christ forever as we are now the Temple.
normbv-
Again, thanks for your feedback.
How do you then stand on a future, bodily resurrection?
Rick,
The “body” that is to be resurrected is the “dead body of Sin” that encompassed Israel. It is a National or corporate “body” ressurection in which the individual members within that “body” find their existence. Under the old Body of Israel we have the faithful True Israel ressurected into the New “Body of Christ”. It is a dispensational legal change that occured with a twinkling of an eye. This occured at the consumation of the judgment upon Israel as is stated in Dan 12:2,7.
Philipians 3:21 gives a short discription of what is occuring as the old “body” is transformed into the “body” of Christ. The Body lingo of Paul is best described in 1 Cor 12 and is generally not talking about the individual body per se. If you are in the body you were in Israel or now through faith you are in Christ.
Php 3:21 who shall transform the “BODY” of our humiliation to its becoming conformed to the “BODY” of his glory, according to the working of his power, even to subject to himself the all things.
So through the ressuerection of the Body of Israel into the church body we are eternally with God as Sons of God. Contrary to N. T. Wright my understanding is that we go to be with Christ and God and are not waiting in Hades for a phyiscla individual bodily ressurection as Hades was destroyed along with the old city. Aunt Susie who passed on is with God now and doesn’t have to come back to earth and demonstrate what happened to Christ as His ressurection. That was to demonstrate His power by overcoming death and we don’t have to do such a thing because if we followed the typical Christian understanding of it who would it benifit to perform such an exhibition for.
Rick in other words if you are in the Body of Christ youre good to go when you leave this physical world.
@25 Norm, that sounds very gnostic. How would you distinguish what you’re saying in regards to leaving to go to be somewhere spiritually from gnosticism, or would you not distinguish your views from gnosticism? What about the restoration of all things?
What is Gnostic is a dual desire for something more than the spiritual Kingdom that Christ inaugurated through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Christ restored man to the abundance of all things lost in the Garden which is eternal life with God. The Pharisees were the ones seeking the physical Kingdom here on earth but Christ told Pilate that my Kingdom is not of this world [meaning a physical one] lest my followers fight for me. Gnosticism is a Greek idea and has nothing to do with a Hebrew understanding of life through the Spirit. God has placed eternity in Mans heart.
Jesus said something recorded in Greek, which I understand to be translated correctly into English as “My kingdom is not **from** this world.” Which, according to my understanding, means that it does not have its origin here. That’s not the same thing as not including the physical, material world among the beneficiaries of the effects of what Jesus did.
Exactly how could God restore man to “the abundance of all things lost in the Garden” without also healing and restoring the material world he created? If the physical creation somehow lies beyond the purview of the effects of the Incarnation and Resurrection of Jesus, then God is not powerful enough to effect that restoration of man. If the physical creation is simply going to be burned up or thrown out somehow, then there is something that lies outside of God’s ability to redeem– and the devil wins.
I don’t believe the devil wins.
Norm, not to put words in Richard’s mouth, what he might have meant, and what I certainly mean, is that such a separation between “physical” and “spiritual” in your line of thought is quite dualistic (which was an important feature of Gnosticism, so the connection with it). I think such an over-spiritualized interpretation is very problematic: it splits reality, it relies too much on rationalistic analysis, and it discounts the connection of Christian apocalyptic/eschatology to what we know about the beliefs of at least some 1st century Jews (and there is a connection to what some of today’s Jews also believe – ever heard of Tikkun?).
I’m also in the both/and “partial preterist” camp, which, happily, is also the teaching of my church. Makes the best sense to me. The evidence you put forth is very convoluted. Perhaps I don’t understand. It does seem overly-complex and not very connected to any kind of Story of God, though.
Dana
Dana you said … “My kingdom is not **from** this world.” Which, according to my understanding, means that it does not have its origin here. That’s not the same thing as not including the physical, material world among the beneficiaries of the effects of what Jesus did.
That’s correct; it’s from above and who said anything about it having a limitation upon the faithful living in the physical world. I believe there’s quite a bit of reading into what’s been stated that is simply not there.
However can you describe where in scriptures that the material physical world is described as in need of healing. The healing is the removal of the curse of Sin brought on by the original disobedience of Adam to a commandment.
Rom 7:11 For sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me.
The creature [Adam] is in need of redemption [Rom 8:19] not the physical cosmos. If your idea of an all-powerful God is one who needs to establish a paradisiacal earth then have at it but that’s not the Hebrew biblical theme in fact that was tried and discarded under old Israel. Unless of course one reads it through a literalistic world view much like the apostate Jews of the first century did or the modern YEC and dispensationalist do today. You see there were the same divisions among the Jews of the first century over how to interpret scriptures. The literalist reading Jews didn’t fair to well according to Jesus either.
Mat 13:13 This is why I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand.
I also have news for you; the Devil has met his demise as well unless you think Christ didn’t accomplish that task of crushing his head.
Rev 20:10 and the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.
I will repeat once again that life through the spirit has nothing to do with the idea of Greek Gnosticism and to make that correlation is spitting in the face of Christ sending the Holy Spirit to the faithful. If one doesn’t understand the ramifications of the indwelling of the spirit of God to the faithful then it is questionable whether they have sufficiently grasped the plan of salvation and redemption.
1Jn 3:24 Whoever keeps his commandments abides in God, and God in him. And by this we know that he abides in us, by the Spirit whom he has given us.
2Co 3:17-18 Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. (18) And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another. For this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit.
Dana said … “I think such an over-spiritualized interpretation is very problematic: it splits reality, it relies too much on rationalistic analysis, and it discounts the connection of Christian apocalyptic/eschatology to what we know about the beliefs of at least some 1st century Jews … “
Dana you really need to take a better look at what you just wrote as it basically puts you at odds with a systematic biblical examination and is contradictory in principle. Especially since apocalyptic and eschatological studies are what I have been expounding on.
A little late….but thank you Normbv and Samuel for answering my question in #15. I wonder if there is a better term for Scot’s view, which seems to be a view shared among no small number of Biblical scholars, that holds the Book of Daniel and Revelation to be mainly political/resistance literature, while the teachings of Jesus are seen to be partially fulfilled in 70 AD and fully fulfilled at some yet to come future time. What label would apply to this view I wonder?
Norm, I know you have been expounding on them. I simply think your interpretation is mistaken, as I suppose you do mine. I don’t think you’re less of a human being. I admire your tenacity.
“For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God; for the creation was subjected to futility, not of its own will but by the will of him who subjected it in hope, because
***even creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay, to the freedom of the glory of the children of God***.
For we know that all creation has been groaning in travail together until now, and not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait for the adoption as sons,
***the redemption of our bodies. For in this hope we were saved.***” Rom 8.19-24
(I don’t do well with stopping the html bold & italic commands, thus the asterisks.)
Yes, human beings first- and then the rest of creation with us. I don’t believe the hope of renewal of the cosmos was “tried and discarded under old Israel”. It continued throughout Hebrew/Jewish consciousness and can be found there today. What kind of God would make a material creation and then simply abandon it? Incarnation isn’t “plan B” simply to be able to do away with sin -which was necessary; God also had to deal with death and corruption, and fulfill the prophecy that the earth would be filled with His glory as the waters cover the sea.
This is not just N.T. Wright’s interpretation; it’s also the interpretation of Eastern Orthodoxy, whose greatest thinkers have been prayerfully examining the bible and wrestling with these and other issues in the light of interpretation handed down from the first followers of Jesus since the dawn of the 2nd century. That might not count for anything for you; that’s fine, it doesn’t count for a lot of people. We each have to be convinced in our own conscience. I’m not talking to you to try to win an argument. I’m just saying I can’t go where you are because it seems to me your line of thought is overly-spiritualized and dualistic, and I tried to explain why I think that without battering you with scripture verses.
Please forgive any offense. May the Lord grant you a peaceful and blessed 2011.
Dana
Dana,
Listen, I appreciate your tone and I too ask for forgivness for any offense.
Yes we do disagree and I used the Rom 8:19 verse because I knew what verses followed and that would be your follow up. Dana if you study the book of Hebrews and the Heavens and Earth [which I will call the creation] you see some interesting things happening there. It says that they will be rolled up like a garment in Heb 1:10-12 and in Heb 12:26-28 it says that the H & E were shaken at Mt. Sinai and yet are going to be shaken again and not only the earth but the Heavens. This language is dealing not with the physical cosmos but the people of God and their interaction with Him. At Mt. Sinai the shaking of the earth was the establishment of the “law” but through Christ this “law” is being rescinded to be replaced by the freedom of Grace. That is the entire subject of Romans chapter 8 where Law is contrasted to life through the Spirit then being manifested to these new ones in Christ.
However back to Heb 12 where it says that not only will the earth be shaken but the Heavens will be shaken as well. This again is not physical language but is speaking of God’s people and the governing manner of their relationship with God. This is what is transpiring as the Law is being removed and God’s people will see that the Physical Temples destruction is a sign from God to them and to the apostate Jews that the Law is finished and the shaking has brought its replacement through the Spirit of Grace as the new governing of God’s people.
The Heavens and Earth is simply God’s covenant people and the means of relationship with Him, it is not about the physical cosmos needing to be changed. God’s grace and redemption for us is sufficient for us and what God has provided here on earth is sufficient and we need to be good stewards of this good earth. I do not need God to turn this earth into Paradise as that is a mistaken myth derived from not understanding the symbolic language of scripture. No I will be satisfied to be with Jesus and God eternally and trust my existence to them post mortem. I’m sure they can provide for my needs in Heaven and who knows it may look like earth but that would be speculative on my part.
I’ve said all this so that you can now look at what is going on in Rev 21 & 22 in which like Hebrews says we have a New Heavens and Earth because the old has passed away [the one under the law]. God now dwells with us “”Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God.” It will be the place where the Nations will be healed because the Lamb and God is the Light. There is no more “sea”, “sun” nor “moon” because they are done away with. This is simply Hebrew symbolic language that is understood from the OT detailing that the “sea” which represents the Gentiles [see the Temple “Sea” in the outer court] is no longer in effect. This is because the two men have been brought into unity as one through Christ [Eph 2:15]. The sun and moon are no longer needed in the New H & E because no longer is physical Temple worship going on and the times and seasons decreed by the old covenant worship has expired. These are as Walton might say functional de-creations of existing items by the Hebrews.
So the creation that is groaning under consideration in Romans 8 is the governing creation of the Old H & E that encompasses Adam’s spiritual death. The redemption process is occurring and is about to be finalized by bringing it into the full establishment of what we have today through Christ in his Kingdom. We have the fullness of the Heavens and Earth as it is detailed through scriptures today. God is interested in bringing His people into righteous relationship and is not a story about changing physical earth. I’ll wait till Heaven for that even though N. T. Wright thinks differently.
Heb 12:28 Therefore let us be grateful for receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken, and thus let us offer to God acceptable worship, with reverence and awe,
Blessings
Norm
Tim #30,
I think it is hard to classify people completely because as I said earlier just about everyone has some variance from the other. Preterism is a big camp with much diversity within it. I personally think that the political overtones are minor compared to the theological implications so if a person comes at these issues from that perspective they may be exaggerating some aspects unwittingly.
Thanks Norm.
I can follow you a little better with the last. Of course there is lots of symbolic language, and we might even agree about what some of it means. I disagree about what “the sea” means; I think the sea basically meant “chaos” to the Jews. I suppose that could be extrapolated to have some connection with the Gentiles, but again, I think that and your “spiritual” interpretation of that everything else you’ve talked about is overly convoluted. Also, it seems you think that there was nothing good about the Law, that God’s entire purpose was to abolish it. Well, I think “the Law” as St Paul discusses it was something good that served a purpose (keeping the Jews a separate people until the Messiah, the God/Man, could come forth from them), and when its purpose was up, it handed us off to Grace -which in EO theology is not something “from outside”, but the actual working of the Holy Spirit within us. IOW, morality is good and we should be moral, but it’s not strictly the point of it all…
Listen, as I said, I’m not trying to win an argument. Sometimes you sound like you think you’re the only one who has THE correct interpretation. Well, that’s what we all think, or else we wouldn’t hold the views we hold. We can listen to one another, and Scot provides a very good place for that.
Dana