top of page
Search
Writer's pictureBrett Bonecutter

Coffee Talk and the book of Revelation - Part 1

Updated: Jun 1


Against my better judgment, I thought June would be a great month to do a little walk through of the Biblical book of Revelation. I've had a number of requests for this and I'm not much of a people-pleaser anymore, so let's do this!


If you've ever cracked a Bible open to read the book of Revelation, you've probably said something to yourself like, "Whoa. What in the actual heck is all of this?" Angels, horses, beasts, dragons, trumpets, bowls, plagues... It's quite a doozy. I can't pretend to claim that I've got it all figured out - I don't. But over the years I've studied and developed some thoughts (none are original) that I hope might help...


First, let's pause a moment and think about whether we should be reading the book of Revelation "literally." The answer, of course, is yes we should, provided we understand what that means. I believe R.C. Sproul taught that to read something "literally" means to read it as "literature." That doesn't mean it is reserved for High School English or college Lit Majors. It simply means that every text is written with certain intentions, using certain devices, to a certain audience and we need to attempt to recognize that upfront. So for example, we approach a political op-ed in the New York Times in a vastly different way than we approach, "The Cat in the Hat," by Dr. Seuss. When we recognize the different types of literature in front of us and what they demand from us, we are being "literal."


And so one of the first questions we have to ask ourselves when reading Revelation is, "What kind of literature is this?" Is it history? Poetry? Didactic teaching? Personal correspondence? What is it? The answer is that it is prophetic "apocalyptic" literature. Now that doesn't simply mean that it is strictly about the final Apocalypse. No, what it means is that it belongs to a genre of literature in the Bible and the ancient world that used cosmic and fantastic imagery to convey a fundamental and radical change in rule or historic epochs.


For example, the Old Testament prophet, Joel, prophesied about the New Testament event of Pentecost when the Holy Spirit filled the nascent church. What language did he use to describe that? Apocalyptic. The sun would darken and the moon would turn to blood. Did the sun go out and the moon change color at Pentecost? Not at all. But the world as it once was changed forever. When Christ ascended to the Father and sent his Spirit upon His people, there was a leadership change on earth. So much so that it would be as if the sun and moon were fundamentally altered. Apocalyptic language was the most appropriate and poignant for that prophecy and its fulfillment.


We'll revisit some of this shortly, but for the sake of brevity, let's keep moving on. I think it is also helpful to recognize that while virtually everyone agrees that Revelation is prophetic and forward-looking to its initial audience, not everyone agrees on how that should be handled. Many Evangelicals automatically (and naively) assume that because it is prophecy it must also be mostly future TO US. They are "futurists," if you will. But throughout church history, there have been different takes on this. For example, some people believe it was a future prophecy that has been mostly fulfilled TO THE ORIGINAL AUDIENCE. So that would make the prophecies of Revelation mostly FUTURE TO THEM, but in the PAST TO US. This view is called, "partial preterism." And then you have "idealists" who think the book is not about specific past or future events per se, but about pictures of the epic struggle between God's people and the forces of darkness until the second coming of Christ.


So should we approach the book as futurists (it's mostly future to us), partial preterists (it's mostly past to us), or idealists (it mostly describing a constant-epic struggle prior to Christ's return)? Good question. I was hoping you would ask. This is where things start to get interesting.


To answer this question, we must look to the text itself. But we must also look outside the text. Let's start by briefly looking outside the text - to its historical context and to its Biblical context.


One of the issues that must be squarely on the table is wrestling with the date it was written. And to put it simply - was it written prior to 70 A.D. or after 70 A.D.? Why is this so important? Well, because Jerusalem was sacked and the Temple was destroyed by Rome in 70 A.D. and it has never been rebuilt or restored. This might seem remotely academic to us, but it would not have been to early Christians, who were still worshipping at the Temple and de facto headquartered there. The utter destruction of the Temple was an epochal change signaling the final shift from the Old to the New Covenants and it would be a good fit for a lot of the imagery set forth in Revelation. BUT. If Revelation was written AFTER 70 A.D. and the Temple had already been destroyed, it would not make for much of a prophecy, would it?


We are not going to settle this score now, but it is important to realize this is an issue to wrestle with. I'm going to tip my hand here, but if you're looking for a resource to study this out, I strongly recommend, "Before Jerusalem Fell," by Kenneth Gentry.


The other historical context to fully grasp is one of the dominant theological challenges of the first century - which we will refer to as the "Jew-Gentile"/ "Christian-Roman" problem. A cursory reading of the New Testament along other extra-Biblical texts shows that early Christians were very confused about their relationship to Judaism and Rome. Should they be circumcised? Loyal to Caesar? Should they keep the food laws? Did they need to worship at the Temple? How about food sacrificed to idols of the official state religion? How Jewish should they be - if at all? What about Roman citizenship? The literature of the New Testament is rife with these questions and issues. The letters to the Romans, Galatians, and Hebrews are great examples of this.


So when we come to the book of Revelation, I believe we must have a heightened sensitivity to this dynamic. If you were a Christian in the first century - you may have very well been converted at a synagogue. You were probably exposed to teachers who said you needed to be circumcised or stop eating with uncircumcised people. Romans were increasingly hostile because economies suffused with idol-worship were falling apart. This is not on our cultural radar, but it certainly was on theirs. Between increasing persecution from Romans and Jews, early Christians had their work cut out for them. Enduring and overcoming this confusion would have been central to their psyche.


We'll move to some Biblical context in the next blog, but for the moment, my goals were to:

  1. Introduce the idea that Revelation is apocalyptic literature that uses fantastic-cosmic imagery to mark changes in rule/epochs.

  2. Point out that while Revelation is prophetic, the future it described can be interpreted from different vantage points. (futurist, partial preterist, idealist).

  3. Underscore the historical importance of 70 A.D. and how it could be the key candidate for the judgments in Revelation.

  4. Heighten our awareness of the Jew-Gentile / Christian-Roman tensions and conflicts that first century Christians found themselves immersed in.


73 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All

Commentaires


bottom of page