Site icon Caleb Woodbridge

Revelation

Yesterday evening, Mackintosh began a series on the Book of Revelation. Unfortunately I disagreed with virtually every point of the preacher’s interpretation of Revelation (pretribulation premillenial dispensationalism, to get technical about it). Which isn’t terribly surprising given how controversial a book it is, or necessarily anything bad. What did bother me though was that we were just told this timeline of End Time events (the Rapture leading into the seven year Great Tribulation and so on – just like those awful Left Behind books, which are the The Da Vinci Code of Christian literature) rather than having it explained to us from scripture, which I think you’d be rather hard-pressed to do.

I wouldn’t have minded a well-argued exegesis of scripture which I disagreed with, but the sermon wasn’t that, and I was a bit disappointed with it. When the preacher was talking about the implications of the second coming for us – urgency in evangelism, making sure we’re prepared and so on, he was fine, but I’d have much preferred it if he’d talked about that rather than trying to construct a rather dubious timeline of events at the end of the world. There wasn’t any argument made for his interpretive framework other than “This is what I think is right”.

It seems to me that among many Christians, especially those in America, there is a folk-mythology of the End Times. It’s a power story and drama, and some superficial proof-texting can seem to support it. But coming to the Bible without these preconceptions, I find it hard to see where many of the ideas dear to the likes of the Left Behind books can be found. For example, I don’t see any grounds for seperating “the Rapture” – believers being taken to be with Christ – from the rest of the Second Coming. It’s something that can be read into the text if you’re looking for it, but isn’t there if you try and faithfully understand it.

Another problem is that many people misunderstand the genre that the book of Revelation is written in, that of apocalyptic literature. Tim LaHay and Jerry Jenkins, writers of the Left Behind books, proudly claim that their view, “is the most literal interpretation of passages from Daniel and Revelation”, with the implication that it is therefore the best interpretation. This betrays a deep misunderstanding of the genre. Apocalyptic literature isn’t supposed to be taken literally, any more than poetry. Literal interpretations of Revelation are as mistaken as interpreting Psalm 18 as meaning that God is literally a rock, shield and horn, and so must be shapeshift into these physical objects! Since apocalyptic has fallen out of fashion as a genre (though stylistic elements still remain in our culture – The Lord of the Rings films, for example), it’s rather more understandable that people make this mistake, but still just as mistaken.

Well, rather than just gripe about what someone else has said about Revelation, I’ll start reposting my notes from studying Revelation which I sent to the ContagiousReunion mailing list. Contagious is the Christian youth conference I go on each year (it’s really great! If you’re in your teens, come along – great fun and great Bible teaching. But be warned, it is not a holiday – it is a Bible boot camp!). In 2003, we looked at the Book of Revelation and afterwards I started going back over the book chapter-by-chapter myself, and typed up my notes and sent them to the mailing list for other Contagiousites to read and comment on.

Here are my notes on Revelation Chapter One:

What Revelation tells us about itself:

What it tells us about God:

What it tells us about the Christian life:

Application for me:
I think the thing that stands out to me is that I should take this seriously. Our God is mighty, able to care for us, and worthy of our worship. I cannot take him lightly – he is the King and I must obey him. And yet he loves us! Amazing, mind-boggling stuff.

Next: Chapter 2:1-7 – The letter to the Church in Ephesus.

I’ll post the rest in installments, and also outline the interpretive principles I’m working by and my reasons for them, at a later date. I don’t like to be too dogmatic about Revelation, because it’s so complicated, multi-layered and full of meaning that there’s bound to be much more than what I notice, but the Left Behind school of thought on it strikes me as just plain daft.

Exit mobile version