Several months ago, I was having a conversation with my dad about what we should study next. I was debating between several books, and not sure of what I should do next. He encouraged me to pick the study that I thought would be most useful to the church. He has also told me that he would avoid teaching on Revelation because it's controversial, and divisive. He's pretty certain that he has a good feel for how Revelation should be read, and how it should be applied to us. At the same time, he knows that his feel for the book runs at odds with the way the book is often read in evangelical circles. He has no interest in trying to persuade people to change their perspective on it. That's a huge, complicated, time-consuming task. He'd rather keep his mouth shut, and let the church focus on more important things than stir the pot.
So my dad has given me two pieces of advice-- (1) do what's most useful to the church, and (2) don't teach on Revelation. Amusingly, then, this whole study is evidence that I'm like a lot of kids-- I'm really good at half-listening to my parents.
I grew up in an evangelical free church that taught a typical, popular, evangelical approach to Revelation. Think along the lines of Tim Lahaye's Left Behind series, basically. I was introduced to a fancy time chart, that had the book of Revelation all laid out in perfect literal, chronological order. I was told that the church is raptured out before most of the events of Revelation. The book itself never talks about it. But the church is raptured out sometime before chapter 6 starts, and the book really has nothing to do with us. What, then, are we supposed to do with the book?
What ends up happening, is that we read Revelation with one eye, and a newspaper with our other, and try to see if Jesus is coming soon. We can hope that Russia is Gog and Magog, and that Putin will invade Jerusalem, and that millions of people will die, because this means Jesus is coming soon. But that's basically the only application this approach takes from Revelation, once we get past the seven letters to the seven churches. When we read Revelation this way, the book isn't very practical. It's not very relevant for our daily lives. And if you've listened to a sermon series on Revelation that assumes this perspective, you probably noticed that the sermons are really thin, when it comes to an application. How do you apply a book, that has nothing to do with you since you'll be raptured up to Jesus?
Some of you, I know, basically take this approach to Revelation. You listen to podcasts hosted by famous dispensationalist, premillenial, pre-tribulation speakers. You follow the blogs. You think the "Left Behind" series is basically correct. You maybe even use a Scofield Study Bible. And I think all of that isn't a very good use of time.
I think there's a better approach out there.
There is a huge divide between academic-level study of Revelation, and a popular level Christianity approach to it. I'm not going to say that there is a consensus on how Revelation should be read, among NT scholars with PhDs.
But there is a broad agreement, on much of it.
So one of the things I'd like to do with this series, is expose you to a higher level, academically rigorous approach to Revelation. If you were to take a class in seminary on Revelation, it would probably feel quite a bit like this study. And even if you end up disagreeing with me, which I'm perfectly okay with, it will be good to gain awareness of how NT scholars tend to read the book. But my guess, honestly, is that most of you will end this study in a very different place than you start it. And I'd just encourage you to be open-minded.
My own approach, that I've come to after basically finishing this whole study, is built on eight main foundations, or presuppositions. So what I'd to do today is just introduce you to these foundations. This will be a weird sermon. I'm not going to unpack any verses in great detail. I'm not going to give you an application. I'm just going to explain why I read Revelation like I do. So here they are (and this is in the outline):
(1) Revelation is addressed, first of all, to its first century readers.
The book of Revelation is addressed to seven churches living in the first century, under the Roman empire. These churches are told that God gave a revelation to Jesus, who gave it to his angel, who gave it to the churches.
Let's read Revelation 1:1-4 (NRSV updated no reason, with one change. It's "from Jesus Christ," not "of Jesus Christ):
1 The revelation from Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place, and he made it known by sending his angel to his servant John, 2 who testified to the word of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, even to all that he saw.
3 Blessed is the one who reads the words of the prophecy, and blessed are those who hear and who keep what is written in it, for the time is near.
4 John to the seven churches that are in Asia:
Now let's turn to Revelation 22:16 (NRSV updated no reason):
16 “It is I, Jesus, who sent my angel to you with this testimony for the churches.
So the original audience of the book is the seven churches of Asia. The message John receives is for them, first of all. If we try to read it, as though it's directly addressed to us, we will sometimes run into problems. There are times when the key to understanding Revelation, is by learning about the first century context.
(2) Revelation made sense to its first century readers.
This is related to the first. But I'm confident that John's hearers, and readers, understood the book. God revealed his plan to the churches. He didn't hide it, and close up the revelation for us. He revealed it. It's a "revelation." So if we find ourselves running with an application that makes sense to us, but would've been nonsense to the first century churches, we should pause. Any interpretation we make, and any application, should make sense to the book's first readers.
(3) Revelation uses symbols to teach truths. It's not literal, or chronological.
At a popular level, people try to read the book as though each chapter happens after the one before it. But it's widely recognized, among NT scholars, that Revelation reloops back over itself in time. The same events are described multiple times, using different imagery. And one chapter in particular-- chapter 12-- is a huge problem for a dispensational approach to the book. Chapter 12 describes almost the entirety of God's history with his people, starting back in the OT, and pushing on ahead to the present.
This one might be a stretch for some of you. So let me just show you a couple awkward things in the book.
Let's read Revelation 6:12-16:
12 When he broke the sixth seal, I looked, and there was a great earthquake; the sun became black as sackcloth, the full moon became like blood, 13 and the stars of the sky fell to the earth as the fig tree drops its winter fruit when shaken by a gale. 14 The sky vanished like a scroll rolling itself up, and every mountain and island was removed from its place. 15 Then the kings of the earth and the magnates and the generals and the rich and the powerful and everyone, slave and free, hid in the caves and among the rocks of the mountains, 16 calling to the mountains and rocks, “Fall on us and hide us from the face of the one seated on the throne and from the wrath of the Lamb, 17 for the great day of their[h] wrath has come, and who is able to stand?”
So in verse 14, all the mountains are removed. Then, in verse 15, people hide in the rocks of the mountains, asking the mountains to fall on them. A literal reading of these two verses completely falls apart.
And notice, in verses 13-14, what it says about the stars and the sky. The stars all fall. The sky vanishes. At this point, it's an empty heaven.
Now let's turn to Revelation 8:12:
12 The fourth angel blew his trumpet, and a third of the sun was struck, and a third of the moon, and a third of the stars, so that a third of their light was darkened; a third of the day was kept from shining and likewise the night.
How can a third of the stars be struck, if they've all fallen to the ground. How a third of the moon and sun be struck, if they are already blackened?
Let me give you one more example. Revelation 8:7:
7 The first angel blew his trumpet, and there came hail and fire, mixed with blood, and they were hurled to the earth, and a third of the earth was burned up, and a third of the trees were burned up, and all green grass was burned up.
So what's the fate of all the green grass?
Now let's turn to Revelation 9:4:
4 They were told not to damage the grass of the earth or any green growth or any tree, but only those people who do not have the seal of God on their foreheads.
How can you avoid damaging something that's already been burnt up?
I could give you many more examples, and I will, as we work through the book. But these are enough, I hope, to make you put a question mark after the idea that the book should be read literally, and chronologically.
Reading it as symbolic doesn't lessen its authority. It doesn't deny its inspiration. It treats it seriously as Scripture, and reads it as it was meant to be read.
(4) Revelation is rooted in the OT, and often can't be understood apart from it.
What we will see, as we get into the book, is that what John sees and hears in Revelation often builds on the OT. We will find ourselves hearing echoes from all over the OT-- Exodus, Leviticus, Isaiah, Jeremiah, the psalms, Zechariah, Daniel. These echoes will be found in virtually every chapter, every section of the book. They're everywhere. And what I've found, at times, is that I couldn't understand parts of Revelation at all until I saw how it echoed the OT. In chapter 10, in particular, I was hopelessly stuck for quite a while. But I had one commentator who brilliantly saw these connections, and rescued me.
I'm not going to always take the time to show how the relationship between the OT and Revelation works. That would've made the series twice as long, easily. But what I'll try to do, is put the OT echoes in references in the translation handout, so that you can easily find them later if you want.
The one last thing I want to say about the OT here, is that we might find ourselves assuming, going in, that Revelation is a straightforward fulfillment of OT promises. But what we will see, is that it's more complicated. As a rule, Revelation adapts the OT. It changes it. As a rule, it's not a straightforward prophecy-fulfillment.
(5) Revelation is best understood, apart from the rest of the NT.
What we will see, as we get into Revelation, is that the book often doesn't answer the questions we ask of it. It doesn't focus where we want it to. And so what's often done, at a popular level of Christianity, is that people grab verses from elsewhere in the NT to try to fill out what John sees and hears. People will bring in 1 Thessalonians, or Matthew, or whatever, and try to use it to explain what Revelation "really" means. And the goal in doing this, is to create the clearest, most comprehensive picture of the end that we possibly can.
But what I've decided, is that when people do this, they inevitably end up failing to hear Revelation's unique message. They end up bending the book, and twisting it. The two best interpretive guides for understanding Revelation, are the book itself, and the OT. And it's better to just temporarily set aside the rest of the NT, in my opinion.
(6) In Revelation, one of the keys to successfully reading the book is understanding the connection between what John "sees" and "hears."
Let's read part of Revelation 22:8:
8 I, John, am the one who heard and saw these things.
Often times, John will first "hear" something, and then he will "see" what he "heard." And what he sees, helps us understand what he hears.
Let me give you just a couple examples of this. In Revelation 5:5, John "hears" something (using NRSV updated no reason here):
5 Then one of the elders said to me, “Do not weep. See, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has conquered, so that he can open the scroll and its seven seals.”
John "hears" that he will see "the Lion of Judah, the Root of David."
Verse 6:
6 Then I saw between the throne and the four living creatures and among the elders a Lamb standing as if it had been slaughtered, with seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God sent out into all the earth.
What John sees, is a "Lamb standing as if slaughtered."
Verse 6 interprets verse 5. Jesus is the conquering Lion. But verse 6 tells us, that Jesus conquered by being killed. Jesus is the Lion-Lamb.
Let me give you one more example, from Revelation 21:9-10:
9 Then one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls full of the seven last plagues came and said to me, “Come, I will show you the bride, the wife of the Lamb.” 10 And in the spirit[h] he carried me away to a great, high mountain and showed me the holy city Jerusalem coming down out of heaven from God.
So an angel tells John that he will show him the bride, the wife of the Lamb. And what does the angel show him?
In verse 10, the angel shows him the holy city Jerusalem descending from God.
So what do we make of this? The new Jerusalem, the holy city, is God's people. We will be the new Jerusalem.
If we pay close attention to the relationship between hearing and seeing, there's often a really clear, simple solution to things Christians argue about.
(7) In Revelation, it's important to focus on what's seen and heard.
The way that visions tend to work, is that God reveals to people what's important. God shows people what He wants them to see, and focus on. God gives people an audible message, that He wants them to hear.
One of the best things we can do, to read Revelation responsibly, is keep our focus on what John hears and sees. We will find ourselves wishing that God had given John more complete pictures. But God showed John what's important, and we need to avoid rabbit trailing off of that.
(8) In Revelation, we need to keep in mind that the book is meant to be obeyed.
Let's read Revelation 1:3 (NRSV updated no reason):
3 Blessed is the one who reads the words of the prophecy, and blessed are those who hear and who keep what is written in it, for the time is near.
.
How do you "keep" what's written in Revelation? What does it mean to "keep" these words?
This is the same word we find in the Great Commission in Matthew 28:19, where Jesus commands his disciples to make disciples, by baptizing people, and by teaching them to "keep" all that Jesus commanded. "Keeping" Jesus' commands, means "obeying" them (and the NLT does a fine job here, in contrast to the more "wooden/formally dynamic translations).
The book of Revelation is often read in a way that makes it seem not very practical. Interesting, to be sure. Exciting. But not practical.
What we will see, is that Revelation has a clear, simple, ethical application. In it, God has very clear commands. Some of you are like me, and grew up in churches teaching premillenial, pre-trib, rapture approach to the book. And if you listen carefully to that approach, you'll hear that the book is hard to apply. There doesn't seem to be much to obey. The application each week is really thin. And I would argue, that this is clear evidence that this whole approach is messed up. I will do my best to show the kind of life that Revelation calls us to. And we will hopefully all do our best to hear Revelation, and obey what's written in it.
So that's my approach to the book. I understand, going in, that I'm perhaps the only one in this church who would take my approach. I'm the extreme minority here. And I find myself thinking about my dad's advice, to not teach Revelation. So let me just say five more things:
(1) This is a series where we may find that we disagree about a lot of things. I can promise you that I've studied the book at a pretty high level. I can wrap myself in academic NT scholarship, and point to the commentaries I'm aligning myself with. But there's no guarantee that I'll persuade you, about any of it. You might disagree, and that disagreement might be pretty sharp. If that happens, we will have to do two things: First, we'll have to agree to disagree. Second, we'll have to keep perspective on how important that disagreement is.
(2) I promise that I won't dawdle, as I go through the book. I'll cover a chapter a week, most weeks, especially as we get into the more controversial stuff. So if you find yourself grimly hanging on, just know that there's a definite ending point. We will be here less than six months.
(3) About halfway through the series, starting around chapter 13, I'm going to step on some toes. I'll try to soften my language as much as I can, but it's going to really bother some of you. I'll then keep bringing up that same controversial thing for the next three weeks after that, because Revelation keeps bringing up it for four sections in a row. Most of the time, a teacher can say something really controversial one week, and sort of get away with it. Not always, but most of the time. But when something is taught three weeks in a row, If you find, at any point in this series, that you need to skip a few weeks, my feelings won't be hurt.
(4) There are a number of places where scholars disagree about what a particular passage means, but in the end, they all end agreeing on the main point of the passage. And they also agree on how the passage was meant to be applied to the first century church, and to us. So I expect that to play out here as well. As I work through the passage, you might find yourself shaking your head "no." But when we get to the application, more often than not, you should find yourself nodding "yes." So I just want to encourage you, that even if you disagree with 80% of a sermon, there might be real value in 20% of it. Don't feel like you have to agree with my completely, for the sermon to have any value at all.
(5) Some of you will realize, as we work through the book, that I'm passing very lightly over lots of things. You're going to wish I was working slower through the book, more verse by verse. If that's you, I'd encourage you to buy Craig Koester's commentary on Revelation (Anchor Bible Commentary). In my opinion, his commentary stands head and shoulders above the rest. It's a bit technical in places, but he is a brilliant scholar, who understands the book and writes clearly. He will fill in the gaps, very nicely.
The one last thing I want to say, is that this is a series I'm dedicating to my dad. I appreciate him as a father, and a friend, and a fellow student of the Word. This series would've looked quite a bit different, I'm guessing, were it not for the discussions I've had with him on the book, and how the church tends to teach it. (I love you dad!)
