Revelation and John Theology

Theology: Revelation and John

Revelation and John: Theology

A lot of debate and controversy surrounds the proper interpretation of the Book of Revelation. There are four main interpretations of the apocalyptic work, with the four differing on the question of whether the events in Revelation have already been fulfilled, and whether the symbols relate to any historical events (Pate, 2009). We discuss three of these interpretations:

The Idealist View

the book of Revelation does not relate to any historical events; it only symbolizes the ongoing struggle between evil and good (Kreider, 2004)

Symbols not tied to specific events, but point to themes in the history of the church - the battles represent the spiritual warfare manifested in wars and the persecution of Christians; the catastrophes represent God's displeasure with man's sinful nature and a manifestation of how God emerges victorious in the end; the trumpets represent natural disasters occurring as God works out His plan for mankind; and the beast from the sea represents political opposition to the church throughout history

The Preterits View

The prophecies found in Revelation were fulfilled with the fall of Jerusalem in the first century; we are now living in a new earth (Kreider, 2004)

Two examples are used to support this view -- first, Josephus' record of the fall of Jerusalem appears to match the symbolism presented in the Book of Revelation. Secondly, Jesus' words at the end of the Olivet Discourse, "These generations will not pass away until all these things have taken place" (Matt 24: 34) fit the date of the fall of Jerusalem -- a generation refers to 40 years, the fall of Jerusalem occurred within this predicted period.

The Futuristic View

The events prophesied in the book of Revelation will occur at some point in the future (Kreider, 2004; Pate, 2009)

The main argument used to support this view is that the condition of the seven churches as described by John in Revelation does not seem to describe a first-generation church; Laodicea, for instance, is described as being wealthy and rich -- first generation churches, in their conditions, could not be described as such. Thus, the seven churches describe second-generation churches, implying that the prophesies were not fulfilled in the first generation as claimed by preterits.

Part Two: Case Study

Case Study

John Piper is the lead pastor at the Minneapolis Christian Center, a Reformed Protestantism ministry in the State of Minnesota. He has always strived to nurture his Christians in the ways of Protestantism, maintaining a firm position on a variety of issues including adultery, marriage, and divorce. Cases of family violence and disruptions have, however, been rampant in recent months, prompting the church committee to invite Mark Thompson, a guest speaker, professional chaplain, motivational speaker, and renowned marriage counselor to address the congregation during a weekend challenge. Church members were requested to attend the event with their spouses. The clergy were not to attend as it was thought that their presence would hinder members' ability to participate in the session freely.

Mr. Thompson's view about divorce and adultery, however, differed significantly from that held by the Protestant faith. He suggested that under no circumstances does God permit divorce. In his view, the Old Testament depicts cases such as that of Hagar, where there were concubines involved; yet there is no mention of divorce (Instone-Brewer, 2002; Mayes, 2011). He makes reference to Hosea, who took Gomer back despite her adulterous acts. He uses Jeremiah 3: 8 to illustrate that despite Israel's sins, God does not divorce her; He just separates Himself from her. Thompson bases his argument on the concept of shared responsibility, arguing that in most cases, the faithful spouse is to blame for their partner's adulterous behavior, and as such, they must stay and take responsibility (Instone-Brewer, 2002; Mayes, 2011). Thompson's teachings damaged how people in the church see God. Piper returns to find a hurt congregation with all sorts of questions and a wavering commitment and readiness to stay faithful to God -- if God is as faithful and merciful as He claims to be, why would He demand that a faithful child of His remain married to an unfaithful partner who raped their soul by committing adulterous acts? Does God find adultery more acceptable than divorce or salvation for the faithful spouse?

The District Overseer's Response

On a pastoral and personal level, Mr. Thompson's position on adultery and divorce is hurtful and destructive. Thompson is taking a stance on an interpretation while massively underplaying passages in the Bible where God openly declares His negativity towards adultery. In 1 John 3: 6, the scripture clearly points out that one living in adultery is not living in God's law; their rebellious acts against their faithful partner place their place in God's family in serious question. A similar position is held in Deut 22: 22, where God associates adultery with death, and calls for the killing of anyone found committing adulterous acts. These passages alone signify the intensity of God's wrath towards adulterers; Thompson's perception, therefore, that God holds some acceptance for adultery is baseless and unsupported by Biblical evidence.

Jeremiah 3: 8 explicitly states that God "gave Israel her certificate of divorce and sent her away because of all her adulteries." The word 'divorce' is very clear, and God, through His own example, demonstrates that divorce is allowed in light of adultery. If God Himself divorced Israel for adultery, then there is no way divorce that comes in the light of adultery can be sinful -- God himself did it. I find it unfair to God's people that Thompson is trying to argue away the plain meaning of the word 'divorce' just because it conflicts with his theological position.