Revelation 2014 Edition Dr
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Notes on Revelation 2014 Edition Dr. Thomas L. Constable Introduction HISTORICAL BACKGROUND The opening verses of the book state that "John" wrote it (1:1, 4, 9; cf. 22:8). From the first century to the present day almost all orthodox scholars have concluded that this means the Apostle John.1 Two noteworthy exceptions were Luther and Zwingli. Today many scholars who accept the divine inspiration of the book believe the Apostle John wrote it. Others, of course, believe some other John wrote the book.2 Some of the early church fathers (Clement of Alexandria, Eusebius, Irenaeus, and Victorinus) wrote that the Apostle John experienced exile on the island of Patmos during Domitian's reign (1:9).3 They wrote that the government allowed John to return to Ephesus after this emperor died. Domitian died in A.D. 96. Consequently many conservative interpreters date the writing of this book near A.D. 95 or 96.4 Kenneth Gentry argued that John wrote Revelation in the late 60s.5 Several writers have refuted this preterist view.6 "Perhaps more than any other book in the NT, the Apocalypse enjoyed wide distribution and early recognition."7 Where did John get the revelation that he wrote down in this book? He said that he received it from Jesus Christ through angelic mediation (1:1). Most of the details of this revelation were undoubtedly new to John. However there are remarkable parallels between this revelation and the Lord Jesus' teaching in the Olivet Discourse (Matt. 24— 25; Mark 13; Luke 21). The Book of Revelation clearly builds on that foundation and 1See Robert L. Thomas, Revelation 1—7: An Exegetical Commentary, pp. 2-19; John F. Walvoord, The Revelation of Jesus Christ, pp. 11-14; or Donald A. Carson and Douglas J. Moo, An Introduction to the New Testament, pp. 700-7, for further discussion of authorship. 2E.g., David E. Aune, Revelation 1—5, p. lvi. 3See the map near my comments on 1:10-11. For a summary of this tradition, see Isbon T. Beckwith The Apocalypse of John, pp. 366-93; George Eldon Ladd, A Commentary on the Revelation of John, p. 8; and Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel According to John, 1:lxxxviii-xcii. 4E.g., Carson and Moo, pp. 707-12. 5Kenneth L. Gentry Jr., Before Jerusalem Fell: Dating the Book of Revelation. For arguments favoring a preterist-idealist interpretation, see John Noe, "An Exegetical Basis for a Preterist-Idealist Understanding of the Book of Revelation," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 49:4 (December 2006):767-96. 6E.g., Robert L. Thomas, Evangelical Hermeneutics, pp. 451-71; and Mark L. Hitchcock, "A Defense of the Domitianic Date of the Book of Revelation" (Ph.D. dissertation, Dallas Theological Seminary), 2005. 7Robert H. Mounce, The Book of Revelation, p. 36. Copyright © 2014 by Thomas L. Constable Published by Sonic Light: http://www.soniclight.com/ 2 Dr. Constable's Notes on Revelation 2014 Edition expounds it.8 The apocalyptic sections of certain books of the Old Testament— particularly Daniel, Isaiah, Ezekiel, and Psalms—contain former revelation that God gave His prophets about the end times. John also alluded often to Exodus, Deuteronomy, Jeremiah, and Zechariah. One scholar claimed that 278 of the 404 verses in Revelation contain references to the Old Testament.9 The United Bible Society's Greek New Testament lists over 500 Old Testament passages.10 With all these allusions, however, there are no formal quotations from the Old Testament. The revelation that Jesus gave in the Olivet Discourse and later to John on Patmos supplements that earlier revelation. "Jesus in His [Olivet] discourse was clearly anticipating what He was to show John in much greater detail more than six decades later here on the island of Patmos."11 INTERPRETATIONS There have been four basic interpretations of Revelation throughout church history. Of course, there are additional variations within these four. The idealist, or allegorical, interpretation sees the book as an allegory, teaching the ideal of the triumph of good over evil. Antichrist, in this view, is not a real person, but the personification of evil. In an allegory, there is no historical basis for the story; it is fiction (cf. Pilgrim's Progress). This view has appealed to few interpreters who have a high view of inspiration. Most of its advocates are quite liberal in their theology and are mainly postmillennial or amillennial in their eschatology. The preterist interpretation, after the Latin word preater, meaning "past," views the book as dealing only with events in the early history of the church, specifically: its conflicts with Judaism and paganism in John's day. Advocates often identify Antichrist as a past Roman emperor, but there is much difference of opinion about which one. Advocates are mainly postmillennialists and amillennialists. The main problem with this view is the inability of its advocates to unite on the identifications of the various people and symbols that appear in the book. Also, 1:19 says the book points ahead as well as back and to the present. The historicist view understands Revelation to be dealing with events in the total history of the church, not just the church until John's day. Many advocates identify Antichrist with one of the medieval popes, but they do not agree on which one. Advocates are mainly postmillennialists and amillennialists. The main weakness of this view is the interpreters' inability to identify everything predicted in the book with past events and people. 8See Alan Johnson, "Revelation," in Hebrews-Revelation, vol. 12 of The Expositor's Bible Commentary, p. 402; Austin Farrer, The Revelation of St. John the Divine, pp. 31-32; Henry B. Swete, The Apocalypse of St. John, pp. cli-clii; Beckwith, pp. 139-40; and Louis A. Vos, The Synoptic Traditions in the Apocalypse. 9Swete, p. cxxxv. 10Second edition, pp. 897-920. See Gregory K. Beale, The Book of Revelation, for many allusions to the Old Testament. 11Thomas, Revelation 1—7, pp. 53-54. 2014 Edition Dr. Constable's Notes on Revelation 3 The futurist view sees the book describing mainly events in the eschatological future, specifically: the things described in chapters 4—22. Antichrist, according to this view, is a person who will appear in the future from our present perspective in history. Advocates of this view are mainly premillennialists. The main problem with this view is its "improbability," at least from the viewpoint of its critics. Another problem is that it requires more literal interpretation, and belief in the supernatural, which some interpreters are uncomfortable with. This view makes the most sense of the book to me. By the way, I am a premillennialist, not because I am a graduate of Dallas Theological Seminary, but because premillennial interpretations of various New Testament passages make the most sense to me. In other words, exegesis rather theology is the basis for my Premillennialism.12 I have listed these views in order according to the literalness of the advocates' interpretation of the book, beginning with the least literal. When I was studying Hebrew with Dr. Merrill Unger in seminary, someone asked him in class what he would say to the Lord if, when he got to heaven, he discovered that Amillennialism was true and Premillennialism was false. Dr. Unger, who was a premillennialist, facetiously answered that he would say, "I'm sorry, Lord. I just took you at your word." Many amillennialists admit that if you interpret the references to Israel in the New Testament as references to the physical descendants of Jacob, you will come out a premillennialist. That is the normal meaning of "Israel." They reject this approach, however, because they believe prophecy requires a special (spiritual, really mystical) hermeneutic.13 Some scholars, mainly amillennial, have argued very hard for a different hermeneutic when we come to interpreting Revelation—even all prophetic Scripture. They say literal interpretation yields unbelievable and fantastical results when used on prophecy. "Wooden literalism" does (e.g., a great dragon trying to devour a woman's child as soon as it is born, then chasing the woman into a wilderness). But normal interpretation yields a possible scenario, though it stretches the faith of many. Opponents of a special hermeneutic for prophecy say fulfilled prophecy has been fulfilled literally (e.g., Jesus' virgin birth in Bethlehem). For God to be faithful, there must be a Tribulation, a return of Christ to the earth to reign, a Millennium, and a new heavens and earth in the future. By the way, most messianic prophecy deals with Jesus' second coming, not His first. We could compare these four schools of interpretation to four schools of painting. The allegorical school of interpretation is similar to the modernist school of painting. Its advocates believe that the images that God allowed John to see have little correspondence to reality, but serve the purpose of creating only a general impression in the reader. The preterist school of interpretation is similar to the abstract school of painting. There is somewhat more correspondence to reality, but not much. I would compare the historicist school of interpretation to the impressionist school of painting, because the intent of the 12See Appendix 1 at the end of these notes for a chart of these views and a list of some expositors and commentators who hold each one. 13For further discussion of the hermeneutics (principles of interpretation) of prophecy, see Charles C. Ryrie, The Basis of the Premillennial Faith, pp. 34-47; Alva J. McClain, The Greatness of the Kingdom, pp. 139-45, 519-26; Oswald T. Allis, Prophecy and the Church, pp. 16-54; and Paul L.