The icon of Saint John discovered in the catacombs of Saint Tecla (ca. Late 4th Century)
(Vatican’s Pontifical Commission for Sacred Archaeology)
The Conundrum of Revelation
Where Armstrongism Joins the Consensus
By Scout
“The time has come for God's servants to open up to YOU — to lay bare before your startled eyes — these tremendous prophecies of the Book of REVELATION!” – Herbert W. Armstrong, 1972
"The art of prophecy is very difficult, especially with respect to the future" – Mark Twain
I have heartburn over the Book of Revelation. I’ll be honest about it. I find it to be a very difficult read. It is not one of those books where you just need to read it carefully with the help of a bunch of reference works to figure it out. The more I read it, the less certain its meaning becomes. And there are many interpretations of Revelation. Oddly, the Armstrongist interpretation of Revelation comports well with the most popular view found in the Christian movement. This may be the largest piece of common ground between Christianity and Armstrongism. I can think of no other.
The history of how Revelation entered the canon is checkered. I will not go into the detail but suffice it to say that it barely made it into the canon against a fairly healthy opposition viewpoint. Of course, Montanus gave it some bad press. The church back then was split fifty-fifty over whether it was actually scripture. I think it should be in the canon but I also think it is the problem child in the canon family. It is an open door to misinterpretation. I have dealt with it by adopting a popular but minority view on Revelation called preterism. But I sit uncomfortably in the preterist chair and I will tell you why.
The Chronological Bracketing of Revelation
The chronological setting of Revelation is stated explicitly in its text. Dennis Diehl has pointed this out several times. (Atheists notice things that Bible proponents sometimes simply read over.) The text is chronologically bracketed. The opening bracket is formed by two verses in the first chapter of Revelation.
“The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place, and he made it known by sending his angel to his servant John, who testified to the word of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, even to all that he saw.” (NRSV, Rev 1:1)
“Look! He is coming with the clouds; every eye will see him, even those who pierced him, and all the tribes of the earth will wail on account of him.” (NRSV, Rev 1:7)
In verse 1, we have an explicit statement that the events of the book “must soon take place.” Verse 7 supports this chronology in verse 1. This statement has a chronological hook. The coming of Christ will happen at a time when “those who pierced him” are still alive. This no doubt has some reference to the Roman soldiers who were ordered to carry out the physical act of the Crucifixion but it refers principally to the Jews who rejected Christ. Scripture states that they bear the weight of responsibility for the Crucifixion (Matt 21:33-43, Luke 9:22). Verse 7 connects the events of Revelation solidly to the First Century.
Further, verse 7 projects an interesting imagery. It portrays a special condition where Christ is “coming with the clouds.” I believe this to be a departure from what we understand the Parousia to be – Christ’s literal return as a geopolitical event affecting the entirety of humankind. This cloud imagery is found paralleled in Isaiah 19 where the prophet states:
“See, the Lord is riding on a swift cloud and comes to Egypt; the idols of Egypt will tremble at his presence, and the heart of the Egyptians will melt within them.” (NRSV, Isaiah 19:1)
This cloud-judgment imagery indicates that First Century life is about to be interdicted by the powerful intervention of Jesus. Jesus told the High Priest that he would personally witness in his lifetime Jesus coming with this cloud-judgment (Matthew 26:64). This interpretation fits with the 70 AD context much better than seeing in these words the Parousia in the Eschaton.
The closing bracket of the chronology is the following:
“And he said to me, “Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is near.” (NRSV, Rev 22:10)
This bracketing ties the events described in the written “words” of the book of Revelation principally to the First Century. I believe this is a rational, exegetical approach. But I also believe that John of Patmos digressed at some points and referred to the future. Particularly in the last two chapters of the book where he describes the New Heavens and New Earth.
There is a scholastic distinction between those who believe that the events of Revelation took place entirely or mostly in the First Century and those that hold other views. That brings us to the topic of preterism.
Full and Partial Preterism
I will wear the label of partial preterism but not without some unsettled feelings. Preterism comes from the Latin word “praeteritus” meaning “gone by.” The preterist view of Revelation is that the majority of the prophecies of John of Patmos took place in the First Century soon after he actually wrote the text – just as the scripture says. The Revelation events include the Fall of Jerusalem and the Destruction of the Temple in 70 AD. Some preterists advance the idea that the events also include the Fall of Rome in the Fifth Century.
Full preterists believe that the entirety of Revelation has happened already. Partial preterists, like myself, believe that the bulk of Revelation is done but there are, yet, references to the future among the prophecies. For instance, I believe the last two chapters of Revelation give us a preview of the future. Full preterists would likely say that these chapters are an allegory reflecting the coming of the New Testament. The New Testament makes the heavens and the earth new. Yet, I do not get the feeling I am reading poetry when I read these passages. It is logistically far too detailed. I feel like these scenarios are relating real world events. But feelings don’t amount to a tight exegesis.
Another concern that operates in conjunction with preterism is whether the events of Revelation happened in the mundane realm. Preterists believe that all or some of the events are symbolic or happen in the spiritual realm. I fall into this category of belief. Further, preterism asserts the idea that there is evidence that Revelation was written by John before 70 AD. This is controversial and most theologians believe that the book was written around 95 AD. I side with the pre-70 AD minority faction and I think it is highly probable that Revelation was either written or dictated by John the Apostle. Only in the writings of John (The Gospel of John, 1 John and Revelation) is Christ referred to as The Word.
The Geographical Focus of Revelation
Preterism has a specific view on where the events of Revelation happen. The dramatic and disconcerting afflictive agenda in Revelation was about the Jews who rejected Jesus as the Christ. Revelation 1:7 is the keynote scripture for this theme. Revelation is not about Gentile northwest Europeans and their many national sins. Gentiles have always been lowlifes from the Judaic perspective. No surprise there. The prophecies of Matthew 24, which were also of the apocalyptic genre, were about the Roman destruction of the Temple, the Chosen people and the Promised Land and not global geopolitics and some jigging Gentiles in Ireland. Just reflect a moment on what actually happened in history. You can read about it.
The Greek “tes ges” in Revelation (for instance Rev 1:7) refers to the “land” rather than to the “earth.” The cataclysms of Revelation are Israel-centric and focused on the Promised Land. The rest of the world is mentioned but in the context of how forces in the world impinge on the Promised Land and the Chosen people. Translators scaled up the local Noachian Flood to a global event by translating the word in Hebrew for “homeland” as the “earth.” In a similar manner, translators have scaled up the book of Revelation to focus on the globe rather than the Promised Land by translating the Greek word for land as the “earth.”
Further, in Revelation 1:7, the Greek term for “tribes” is “phylai”. This word may also mean “clan.” So, instead of the scaled-up, global “tribes of the earth” we have the local “clans of the land” which semantically comports with the Matthew 24 context of 70 AD.
I think the preterist view of the focus of Revelation makes sense. The storyline is about the Jews and the persecution of the early Church in Western Asia. It centers on Palestine and does not have a global agenda as its principal concern.
Armstrongism Takes the Popular View
Preterism is a minority interpretation of the Book of Revelation in Christianity. The most popular view is called Classical Dispensationalism. In this view there is a key verse that organizes Revelation into three time-segments. The verse is Revelation 1:19 and it says, “Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter.” If John was the author, and I believe he was, he is instructed to write about what he has seen based on his experience as a Disciple, and about those things “which are” and this refers to the messages to the extant churches and, finally, about the things which shall be hereafter, referring to the future. The latter is basically chapter 4 through the end of the book.
I believe Armstrongism follows this overall structure found in Classical Dispensationalism, if not always the details. Armstrongism may tend to bunch the events up in the Eschaton. And Armstrongism would, of course, factor in British-Israelism. Otherwise, Armstrongism fairly much complies with the Christian consensus. The point is, Armstrongism has no magic powers to parse out the meaning of Revelation. Armstrongists swim in the same murky, low visibility water as everyone else.
The Chronological Conundrum for all Viewpoints
A simple, spare but basic hermeneutic for the Book of Revelation might look like this, “Whatever Revelation means, all the events took place shortly after it was written.” A corollary would be, “The bulk of the Book of the Revelation is not for our time. It meant something to the church about 2,000 years ago.” At the same time, I believe Revelation reflects principles, characteristics of salvation and intents of God that are for all times. The last two chapters are clearly about the Eschaton. But the sequential narrative events that form the “bulk” of Revelation are past.
The problem for non-preterist viewpoints is that they generally see the events of Revelation playing out over history with still some events left to the distant future. Or, perhaps, all the events are to take place in one generation at the Eschaton. These views clearly violate the chronological bracketing discussed earlier in this essay.
Yet, there is also a chronological issue concerning preterist views. The fall of Rome usually is identified with the fall of Babylon in the Revelation text. But Rome did not fall until the Fifth century. That’s not” soon”. So, this also violates the chronological bracketing. This makes me think that partial preterism is a good interpretation but is not the actual interpretation. My guess is that, maybe, the fall refers to not the great collapse of Rome but to the fall of Neronian Rome (Rome under Nero). Rome did take off in a different direction after the demise of Nero.
Conclusion
If the Book of Revelation is meant to reveal something about the geopolitical landscape, it wasn’t meant for us. Because it is hardly a revealing from the modern perspective. It is instead a mystery. The tenor of the book is that “you need to know this now because it is going to happen soon.” It is not going happen over centuries. It was going to start and run to completion “soon” after John of Patmos wrote it all down. Armstrongism threw its hat into the ring but it does not interpret Revelation or abide by the chronological bracketing any better than anyone else. Revelation can only be viewed through a glass darkly. Paul didn’t know how bad things could get.
Reference
A good overall view of preterism can be found in “Four Views on the Book of Revelation,” Zondervan Academic, 1998. It contains a chapter on preterism by Kenneth L. Gentry.
