Why you shouldn't read the book of Revelation

Alright, alright... I admit it.

 

The subject line was bordering on "click bait" territory.

 

Why in the world would Judah say I shouldn't read a book of the Bible?

 

Well, let me clarify my perspective, here...

 

There's a real "obsession" with end-times theology in Christianity these days.

 

You can't really blame "Left Behind" for it, either... because this goes back well before those books were released.

 

I realize (also) that among authors of Christian thrillers/suspense I'm probably in the minority in that I don't write about the "end times." 

 

That's by design. Because most of the "end times" novels are based on end-times theologies I don't personally subscribe to.

 

And because the "obsession" with the end times usually does exactly the opposite of what all of the texts about the end times in the Bible are supposed to do...

 

... they are meant to comfort us... to demonstrate that no matter how bleak things might get... Christ's victory (already won at Calvary) will one day prevail over this present darkness and these present sufferings. 

 

I said already that this "end times" preoccupation is nothing new.

 

There was an obsession with the end times during the Sixteenth Century Reformation. In fact, Martin Luther (not King... this is the reformer, not the civil rights activist) declared that the Pope was the Antichrist...

 

He was absolutely sure that Christ's return was immanent.

 

So were most of the earliest Christians. Why wouldn't they think as much? The persecution they faced under Rome came in waves. But when it happened, it was brutal.. Before 70 A.D. the persecution at the hand of Jewish Authorities in Jerusalem was more persistent. Especially in the wake of the "Jewish Zealot" movement that saw anything that smelled of "Greek culture" as the enemy... and since Christians welcomed Gentiles they often suffered at the hands of the Zealots.

 

It's no surprise that some of them hoped that Christ was coming any day.

 

And we've seen predictions of Christ's return throughout the centuries.

 

Do a Google search on the "Millerites" and you'll find a group of Christians (named for William Miller) who believed that that the Second Advent of Jesus Christ would occur in roughly the year 1843–1844.

 

When it didn't happen, they were so distraught that the event has thereafter been known as "The Great Disappointment."

 

The thing is, I hear (almost every day) someone trying to take something that's happening in the news and identify it as the fulfillment of a prophecy in Revelation.

 

Now, for the sake of full disclosure, I subscribe to amillennialism. I don't believe in the "rapture" and I don't think that the 1000 year period in Revelation 20 refers to a literal and future political reign of Christ on earth.

 

I'm not a Zionist. I think if your theology demands you support a secular regime in the historic land surrounding Jerusalem you haven't come to grips with what John the Baptizer told those who claimed that having "Abraham" as their father made them special...

 

Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Bear fruit in keeping with repentance. And do not presume to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father,’ for I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children for Abraham. Even now the axe is laid to the root of the trees. Every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire (Matthew 3:7-10, ESV).  

 

I'd raise this question to any Zionists out there... have these children of Abraham ever born fruit in keeping with repentance? If not... well... God has raised up stones... and on that "stone" he built his Church.

 

The Church is the Israel of the New Covenant - and that includes ethnic Jews as well as Gentiles. Ethnicity has nothing to do with it. Does that mean God has forsaken Israel? Paul says no! (Romans 11). But Paul's point wasn't that Israel retained a special status in the world due to ethnicity. It was that they still have access to God, just as Paul did, even as the Gentiles (everyone else) were grafted into the vine... the new "Israel" includes Jews, Gentiles, and peoples of every tribe, race, etc.

 

This isn't "replacement theology" like the innovative dispensationalists like to say. It's more of an "expansive" theology that sees the definition of what constitutes "Israel" and the benefactors of God's promises in the Old Testament as a lot broader than ethnicity or a particular sliver of land in one part of the world. The greater fulfillment, the consummation, of all the promises to Israel is a promise for all people... and it's not one piece of land we inherit as a result, but the entire earth in the resurrection at the last day.

 

Bottom line. Any theology that allows us to give a "pass" to injustices committed by a secular government simply because of the "name" that their nation calls itself is a theology we should reconsider. Because it doesn't take a lot of reading in the Old Testament (and the New) to see that God never gives his people a "pass" for injustice. 

 

Especially if they haven't born fruit in keeping with repentance (as John the Baptizer indicated they/we must).

 

I'm not saying you should or shouldn't support Israel today. I condemn antisemitism in every form. And if you know me, I don't condemn a lot of things. But any kind of hate... well... that needs to be condemned.

 

What I am saying with respect to modern-day Israel is that your theology shouldn't lead you to support Israel uncritically. Not if that theology is one that says you should support them because of their genetic heritage.

 

Some of you will PASSIONATELY disagree... that's fine...

 

I won't argue with you if you reply (I've heard all the arguments on this topic) because I don't find a lot of people change their minds with e-mail arguments.

 

I'm not a fan of any violence perpetrated by anyone, on whatever side they're on, when it causes unnecessary suffering. There has to be a better way.

 

If you believe in a rapture/millennium/Zionism, no hard feelings. We can agree to disagree on those non-essentials and it won't hurt my feelings in the slightest. I mean no disrespect to my premillennial brothers and sisters out there. I have nothing but love for you.

 

Just be careful that your theology isn't leading you to call what is 'evil' good, or what is 'good' evil.

 

Revelation is hard to understand.

 

Even some of the best scholars (with nothing but a fervent desire to faithfully understand the Scriptures) who've devoted their lives to studying the book come away with very different readings of the book and what it all means.

 

There's a lot of extra-biblical context that helps us interpret what's going on in Revelation. There are things that the original readers of John's "Apocalypse" would have understood in the light of their situation at the time under Roman persecution.

 

It also belongs to a genre that's very foreign to modern readers. "Apocalypses" were common semitic literature during the centuries just before and after the appearance of Christ. Hallmarks of the genre include the fact that numbers are almost never literal. They have numerological significance. For instance, the 144,000 mentioned in Revelation correspond with 12,000 for each of the 12 tribes. The number "12" is known in semitic numerology as the number that God uses for the fullness of his people.  

 

The word "apocalypse" just means a "revelatory unveiling." It's an intriguing genre because it is about "revealing" and "unveiling" a truth, usually with some kind of futuristic element to what's being revealed, but it also uses language that "hides" the meaning at the same time.

 

The reason for the symbolism/numerology/cryptic language is fairly simple. Images/symbols/numbers are used that had meaning to the community that first received the text (the original audience) but they are images/symbols/numbers that their enemies/persecutors at the time wouldn't understand.

 

It's a way of circulating a text meant to comfort persecuted people that only those people will understand... and their oppressors won't quite "get" since the symbolism is foreign to them. It's like a kind of code.

 

Which is one reason why the book is so difficult for us to really understand today. We don't belong to the Johannine community that first received the book. We have to do a little work to discern what John was telling them, what God inspired him to reveal thorough his vision.  

 

But there are some people who argue that Revelation better fits in the genre of "prophecy" than "apocalyptic." Some (not as many) believe it's mostly epistle. In truth, it's probably a blend of several genres. Though, I'm inclined to think of it as primarily "Apocalyptic" and understand the symbolism/numerology to be more symbolic than literal. Probably because in the very first verse of the book John defines the book as an "apocalypse," a revelatory-unveiling. It actually labels itself as apocalyptic (which means it follows the genre rules outlined above) so that's probably the safest bet.

 

Any overly literal or linear read of Revelation does not take into account the book's proper genre. If you read it like a newspaper, rather than the genre it belongs to, you're sure to get it wrong. Way wrong.

 

Here are a few examples.

 

For those of you who insist that the 144,000 refers to ethnic Jews who will be converted before the end... I'd point out that while the Book of Revelation lists 12,000 people according to each of the twelve tribes of Israel... but there's a big problem with taking this literally: only the tribes of Benjamin, Judah, and Levi existed at this point in history. The list doesn't even include the twelve original tribes. There wasn't a tribe of Joseph, for instance, and the tribe of Dan is missing in the list here. Obviously, the ethnic descendants of the original twelve tribes aren't in view here.

 

The other tribes were "assimilated" by Assyria during the exile of the Northern Kingdom. In other words, they were spread out through the Assyrian empire so they couldn't return as a united people and compelled to inter-marry with other peoples.

 

So the 144,000 can't be totally literal. It's certainly not limited to ethnic Israel. It means all of the people God intends to gather. Regardless of ethnic background. This number refers to the total number (God uses the number 12 and its multiples whenever he's calling to himself a people. This numerology recurs throughout the Bible) who are the spiritual descendants of Abraham. Even if they were raised up from the stones (as John the Baptizer said would happen).

 

But that's just one example.

 

Take the 1,000 years in Revelation 20. Some people believe (despite Jesus saying unequivocally that his kingdom is not of this world) that this means Jesus will come back and initiate a literal thousand-year political reign over the earth.

 

But there are a few things to keep in mind (apart from the fact that this attempt to make Jesus a political leader is precisely the same error that the people made in Jesus' day when they expected him to become a military leader to overthrow the Romans).

 

There is a long rabbinical tradition, from the intertestamental times (i.e. 1 Enoch, 2 Enoch, Baruch, etc.) where human history was spoken of in seven periods, in parallel to the seven days of creation. Each period, then, was described as a “thousand” not-quite-literal years. The rabbis had various understandings of what “thousand” meant, but they all agreed that the number 1000 always symbolized God’s perfection in His creation; the Lord would always carry out what He intended to do.

 

The “seventh” thousand year period would be ushered in when the Messiah was born in Bethlehem, and would exist until the end of time. These rabbis also spoke of an eighth thousand year period that would be ushered in when the Son of Man would usher in the resurrection that would, then, last forever. 

 

In other words, the people who first read Revelation would have understood this 1000 period as the time of the Messiah's reign that began at his birth and will continue until his final return. We are in the millennium/1000-year period now. Because the 1000 years aren't totally literal. It's a number than means a long/perfect period of time.

 

For example, the numerology is demonstrated in Psalm 50:10, David speaks of a thousand hills covering the earth referring to God’s perfection in creation.

 

There were other (non-Biblical) Jewish writings that were circulating at the time that also had symbolism that John included in Revelation.

 

2 Enoch 32-33 speaks of the 8th 1,000 year period. The Epistle of Barnabas 15:4-18 speaks of the days of creation as periods of 1,000 years: the 7th being the Son’s coming to judge the world, and the 8th day when He returns to judge the world forever. In 1 Enoch 10:4; 14:5, at the beginning of the seventh day God would command the archangel Raphael to "bind the devil."

 

Every Jewish Christian who heard of these 1,000 years in Revelation 20 would have made these connections. Because this was common teaching among the Rabbis at the time.

 

In other words, it's really VERY easy to misinterpret the Book of Revelation. So easy, in fact, that I can't be 100% certain that anything I'm saying about it is absolutely correct (then again, I can't say that very often about any book of the Bible... and that's okay).

 

I'm sure a few of you out there (probably more than a few) who disagree with my interpretations.

 

That's just fine.

 

I've said it before. I might be wrong about anything I say, at any given time.

 

The most important trait to have when trying to interpret Scripture is humility.  

 

I'm pretty sure when the end times come... we'll figure out who was right and who was wrong... and it won't matter in the least...  

 

I will say with some certainty is that the Book of Revelation was meant to be a book written to comfort a persecuted people. 

 

If you are reading it (or hearing it preached) in a way that sparks fear... you can be pretty sure whatever preacher or teacher you're listening to is handling the book the wrong way.

 

This is the biggest issue with the "end times obsession" that a lot of Christians embrace these days.

 

I know some people (even members of my family) who spend more time trying to dive into the hidden meanings of apocalypses and prophecies that they neglect what Jesus called the "weightier things" (Matt. 23:23 - in conversation with the Pharisees who were focused on all the wrong things) like God's goodness and mercy.

 

A pre-occupation with the end times can leave us blind to what God wants us to do here and now.   

 

After all, in the parable of the virgins, Jesus made clear all that matters. Don't let your lamps burn out waiting for the bridegroom to return. Live your life as if the end could come tomorrow, or an hour from now, or in the next five minutes.

 

If you really take that seriously, it'll radically change everything in your life.

 

That doesn't mean you should ignore Revelation completely. Click-bait subject lines aside, the book really is quite incredible... if you are reading it through the right lens of faith, hope, love and confidence. 

 

I find the book to be extremely Christocentric. It's all about Jesus and the Kingdom of God. In fact, that's what John said it was about. It's an "apocalypse (a revelatory-unveiling) of Jesus Christ" (Rev. 1:1, translation my own).

 

That means the book isn't about politics, marks of the beast (that was about not worshipping the Roman Emperor... not worshipping false gods... it wasn't a microchip under your skin), or anything that causes anxiety.

 

I'd recommend (especially if you're a new Christian or not a Christian at all) setting it aside and spending the majority of your time reading the four Gospels.

 

I recommend spending more time reading the Gospels than any other part of the Bible. Really get Jesus' words, his teachings, and his example in your head before turning to other books that people are more likely to read out of context. 

 

If you get nothing else from this e-mail get this: It's all about Jesus. And it's good news. We can disagree and debate the specific meanings of specific passages... but if you get that from it, you've got the meat and the potatoes.

 

And exercise caution with any reading that allows us to try and "predict" when the end-of-days will arrive. Because Jesus taught us (quite clearly) that we should be ready for His return at every moment. We should live our lives as if Jesus is always coming back in thirty seconds or less.  

 

If an interpretation of Revelation leads you to think there are certain things that still "have to happen" before Jesus can come back, it sort of violates this entire principle that Jesus tells us in words far clearer and direct than what we're given in Revelation.

 

 

 

Blessings always!

 

Judah

 

 

 

P.S. Tomorrow is all about HOW to read the Bible. If this intrigues you, don't overlook tomorrow's e-mail when it pops up in your in-box!!! I know I covered this before, but in the light of the above, you might find it helpful to cover this "how to" approach again with a few additional insights.