Reading Revelation Through A Colored Lens
I commend you for taking up the reading and discussion on the books of Daniel and Revelation. Too often we read books through a colored lens as Adventists do. However, others read this way also. This past Saturday I attended a day-long seminar on the Book of Revelation by Dr. G. K. Beale, and I highly recommend this introduction to Keys for Interpreting the Book of Revelation. There are three sessions, and I am sharing the link to the first one.
I notice you are very dependent only on dispensational preachers and authors. Your reading and comments could be enriched by going beyond this one viewpoint.
—VIA EMAIL
Response: Thank you for writing, and thank you for the link!
I listened to most of the introduction you sent, and I can respond to it. First, I see “symbolism” just as Beale explains it. The symbolic language and the visionary representations John received were to “signify” what was to come. They were “signs” to John and to the church. In fact, I prefer not to say that when it comes to prophecy, I use a “literal” reading of the words because “literal” is often misunderstood to mean “I read the symbols and apply them as if they were real.” I prefer to say that we use a historical-grammatical method of reading. In other words, we use a normal reading of the passage using all the normal conventions of grammar and vocabulary. A normal reading of a work of literature, for example, would include figures of speech which are not intended to be literal and which everyone would know are not literal. A metaphor, for example, describes one thing in terms of another—“her cheeks were cherries”—and no one would think that her cheeks were red fruit!
Even more, in poetry figures of speech are even more common. No one reading a poem in the normal way would think that the metaphors and similes in a poem were “literal” but rather that they describe reality in figurative language. Just so I see the symbols of Revelation and Daniel in the same way. The figurative language and the visionary representations are not “literal” but are representing a literal fulfillment by using figures of speech. Also as Beale explained, the figurative language couches the true meanings in such a way that unbelievers and people without an ear to hear will not understand what the symbols mean. Also, believers may not have a full understanding prior to the events coming to pass. And at the same time, most of the symbols in Revelation are borrowed from the Old Testament. Understanding their meanings and applications in the Old Testament reveals much about the symbols’ meanings and eventual applications in Revelation.
In fact, these understandings of symbol and figurative language are the ways our pastor Gary Inrig explains them. Further, the commentators that I read also apply them this way. They do not use a “literal” understanding of figurative language.
The place where I do not see eye-to-eye with Beale is not the method of understanding symbols; it is something more foundational. Beale stated (and knowing that he is a Presbyterian and a professor at a Reformed seminary confirms this statement) that the church is modern-day Israel. THAT is the point where our readings of Revelation diverge. I realize that the word “dispensationalism” is a distraction—a word that suggests a meaning, but in reality, it can have so many different meanings and nuances depending upon the version of dispensationalism one adopts that the word simply doesn’t describe what many people believe when they say the church is NOT modern Israel.
I am not a dispensational expert. In fact, I haven’t come to my conclusions about Israel and the church from studying either dispensational authors or pastors. I have come to the conclusion that God is not yet finished with Israel as a nation based on using the historical-grammatical hermeneutic consistently throughout Scripture. We believe that, if we understand Galatians best by using the normal reading of the word using the normal rules of grammar, vocabulary, context, and the understanding of the first audience, then to be consistent, we must read prophecy the same way. If I use this method for the epistles, I need to use the same method for the Old Testament, including the prophets. Using this method of reading, I see God making hundreds of promises to scattered Israel that He has not yet fulfilled.
If, however, I decide that the institution of the church requires that I see it as the fulfillment of God’s promises to Israel, then I have to go back to the Old Testament using a different method of interpretation and see the “church” in view when I read God’s promises to “Israel” and the land. Yet reinterpreting the Old Testament this way is inconsistent. Israel read the prophecies and understood God to be making promises to them based on His promises to Abraham. Now, in the new covenant, I can’t go back and reinterpret those promises using a new hermeneutic.
Now, I understand that a lot of Christians do just that, but from my perspective, it is not consistent. If I use a consistent hermeneutic, I can have a new covenant application to those prophecies that, using Paul’s Romans 9 through 11 and Revelation as guides, places the church in the picture, but I still see God’s promises to Israel as being the first meaning, and God’s promises cannot fail. His promises to Israel were not just spiritual; they were also physical, and He will yet fulfill those promises while also bringing the church into that fulfillment.
All to say, I do not identify myself as a “Dispensationalist”. I do see a future for Israel and an earthly millennium during which the Lord Jesus will reign with a rod of iron over the nations (as foretold in Psalm 2) and in which the resurrected saints will rule and reign with Him (see Rev. 20 and Paul’s statements in 1 Cor. 6 about the saints judging angels, etc.). I see a future millennial kingdom prophesied in the Old Testament, and I see Revelation as the “conclusion” to the Old Testament prophecies. It is this paradigm where I diverge from Beale, and my view is not based upon dispensational teachers but upon using a consistent hermeneutic for the Old Testament and the New. I use dispensational commentators because they use the same hermeneutic that has made the Bible a new book for me since leaving Adventism. The words mean what the words say, and context is everything! This direct reading of Scripture has been the most effective tool I have in weeding out Adventism from the crevices of my brain!
And one more thing: we do not divide over the interpretation of eschatology. Many former Adventists and other Christians whom I respect have different understandings about this subject. What matters, at the core, is that we agree on the person and work of the Lord Jesus and of the whole Trinity and on the inerrant reliability of the word of God.
I hope this helps, and thank you again!
Seventh Seal Is Second Coming
I’m enjoying the podcasts on Revelation!
Here’s a screenshot of the Amazing Facts devotional on Revelation; check the last paragraph. We are floored and chuckling at how off-the-chain this interpretation is.
Some of the devotional’s days are all right, and then there’s one like this that has us jumping out of our chairs. I can’t believe my in-laws believe this stuff.
Thank you for the work you do. We “hear” your blessed light and joy shining through the podcast. I trust that Adventists receive the same eye-opening revelation—being born again!
Have a great day—and here’s a picture of the devotional page.
—VIA EMAIL
Response: Thank you so much for sending this picture of the Amazing Facts devotional page! I KNEW I had learned our trip to heaven would take seven days, but I had not been able to find a clear statement explaining it. Leave it to Amazing Facts to incorporate all the reasoning into one clear statement that the readers cannot misunderstand! It’s also interesting that the seventh seal is explained to be the second coming. This is revealing and clarifying—and so invented apart from the context of Scripture!
Thank you again for sharing this.
- Should We Leave the “Isms”? - May 9, 2024
- May 11–17 - May 9, 2024
- We Got Mail - May 9, 2024