Truth Magazine

By Cecil Willis

Last week we announced our intention of studying whether God, Christ and the Holy Spirit are all one person. There are a number of denominations who maintain that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are but different manifestations of the same person. It is childish of us to ignore our differences. We should really come to grips with our differences and honestly measure them in the light of the Scriptures. Last week we tried to cite the arguments made in attempting to prove that God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit are one person. This week we want you to weigh the evidence in the Scriptures showing that the Godhead consists of three personalities, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. We may speak of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit all as being divine. I am attempting to prove the deity which we worship consists of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit.

In The Beginning

The first passage I suggest for your candid observation is Gen. 1:26. Of course in the first chapter of Genesis, we have the inspired account of creation. After God had created the heavens and the earth, the fish, fowls, animals and creeping things, as a crowning act of His creation, He created man. As God prepared to make man, the Scriptures say, “And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the heavens, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth” (Gen. 1:26). Notice God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.” He used “us” and “our” instead of “my” and “mine.” He spoke in the plural. This verse, therefore shows that there is a plurality in the Godhead. If God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit are all one person, the passage then would have read, “Let me make man in my image, after my likeness.” Someone should explain why God referred to Himself in the plural.

Our friends who believe this doctrine are sometimes willing to admit that deity was manifested in three different personalities during the time Christ was incarnate in human flesh, on the earth. But Gen. 1:26 shows there were three persons prior to Christ’s taking upon Himself the likeness and fashion of a man. The Scriptures teach that there were three divine persons active in the creation o# man. But the Scriptures also teach that the three divine personalities were also active in the creation.

God the Father had a part in the original creation. In Rev, 14:7, we read, “Fear God, and give him glory; for the house of his judgment is come; and worship him that made the heaven and the earth and sea and fountains of waters.” Jesus Christ was also active in the original creation: “who delivered us out of the power of darkness, and translated us into the kingdom of the Son of his love; in whom we have our redemption, the forgiveness of our sins: who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; for in him were all things created (KJV says “by him were all things created”), in the heavens and upon the earth, things visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers; all things have been created through him, and unto him; and he is before all things, and in him all things consist” (Col. 1:13-17). Paul also declared that the worlds were made through Christ in Hebrews 1. “God . . . hath at the end of these days spoken unto us in his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, through whom also he made the worlds” (vs. 1-3). The apostle John further emphasized the creative power of Jesus as he said, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him; and without him was not anything made that hath been made” (Jno. 1:1-3). So Jesus had a part in creation. But the Holy Spirit was also active in creation. Gen. 1:2 says, “And the earth was without void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.” So there were three persons active in creation: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit, or the divine Father, the divine Son, and the divine Holy Spirit. These passages should sound the death-knell to the “one person” theory, but if not, there are many other Scriptures equally as plain.

Let us now look at another passage that declares that Jesus, or the Word existed as a separate personality prior to His coming to earth. In John 1 we have a statement of the relationship existing between Jesus and God. In this passage, Jesus is referred to as the Word. Proof of this statement is found in John 1:14. “And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us (and we beheld his glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father), full of grace and truth.” Jesus, the Word, became flesh. Well what about the Word? “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” Notice the first expression: “In the beginning was the Word.” This carries us back to the earliest moment of time, or to the time when the heavens and earth were created. In the beginning, the Word “was,” or was already in existence. This shows that God and Christ are co-eternal.

Next the apostle John said, “And the Word was with God.” Does this sound like a statement made regarding one person? The Word was “with” God. Was John simply saying that Jesus was with Himself? Or was John saying Jesus, one person, was with God, another person? It must be the latter, for the former expression would be grammatically incorrect.

The third expression in John 1:1 is “And the Word was God.” This statement is often mis-construed to mean that God and Christ were one person, but such is not the meaning at all. John was saying that the Word was deity, or that Jesus was also divine. In Phil. 2:5-8, Paul in describing the state of Jesus, prior to his incarnation, said that he “counted not the being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped,” or a thing to be held on to. He gave up His equality with God, and took upon Himself the form of a man, with certain limitations of the human body. Yet he was God manifest in human flesh. But Jesus existed before He became human flesh, and this irreconcilable with the “one person,” or “Jesus only” doctrine.

In Providence

There are also three persons active in providence. We are promised the accompaniment of all three persons in the Godhead. In Heb. 13:5, the apostle Paul quoted the words of God as found in Deut. 31:6: “I will in no wise fail thee, neither will I in any wise forsake thee.” God said, “I will be with you.” In the Great Commission, Jesus promised also to accompany the disciples: Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit; teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I commanded you: and lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world” (Matt. 28:19,20). The Holy Spirit is promised in John 14:16,17: “And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may be with you forever, even the spirit of truth.”

So we see that three persons, God, the Son, and the Holy Spirit were all present and active in creation, and all three are likewise active in divine providence.

In the Jordan Wilderness

As an irrefutable proof that there are three persons in the Godhead, open your Bible and turn to the account of Jesus’ baptism, found in Matthew 3. “And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway from the water: and lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove, and coming upon him; and lo, a voice out of the heavens, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased” (Matt. 3:16,17). Now, how many divine persons were present at the baptism of Jesus? There were three! Jesus was the one being baptized by John the Baptist in the Jordan River; the Holy Spirit was descending as a dove; and God spoke from the heavens saying, “This is my beloved Son.” From the passage we see that Jesus was on earth, God was in heaven; and the Holy Spirit was descending from heaven to earth. There were three persons present.

There are many who are willing to admit there were three personalities present, but deny that there are three persons, which is contradiction to the meaning of good English words. No personality can exist without a person existing. Was God a person? Yes. Was Jesus a person? Yes. Was the Holy Spirit a person? Yes. If so, there were three persons present. If each of these, the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit, are not persons, then they are impersonal, which simply means they are not persons. Yet these same persons, who contend the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not each a person, have misrepresented some groups by declaring that they believed the Holy Spirit was not a person, but some sort of cosmic spirit. I believe the Holy Spirit is personal or is a person. But if these people believe that Jesus is the only person in the Godhead, then they believe God and the Holy Spirit are impersonal. If they believe that God is a person, Christ is a person, and the Holy Spirit is a person, they believe that there are three persons in the Godhead, which is what I have been trying to prove.

If the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all one person, then when Jesus was being baptized, the account of His baptism should read quite differently. The account should declare, if the doctrine under-investigation is true, that Jesus was being baptized, and that Jesus was descending like a dove and lighting upon Jesus, and Jesus said to Himself from heaven, “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” How could Jesus be baptized and at the same time, Jesus descend like a dove on Jesus, and at the same time Jesus say to Jesus, “Jesus, Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” The doctrine which we are studying makes sheer nonsense of the Scriptures as one so plainly can see by our application of it to this particular passage of Scripture. This is why we are so plainly interested in seeing the truth clearly set forth. Clearly, at the baptism of Jesus we have all three persons in the Godhead present on one occasion. Jesus was being baptized, the Holy Spirit descended, and God spoke. Nothing could be made clearer than the Scriptures make this point.

Conclusion

There were three divine persons present and active in the creation of man. There are three persons active in divine providence. And there were three persons present and active in Christ’s baptism. These passages should be adequate to establish the truth that there are three persons in the Godhead. (Next: objections considered in “The Holy Three.”)

Truth Magazine, XX:19, p. 3-5
May 6, 1976

By Larry Ray Hafley

From Tennessee: “When a congregation withdraws itself front one of its members, do the Scriptures teach that all other churches must accept this church’s decision without the right to check into the matter themselves to determine whether the withdrawn from member is worthy or unworthy of their fellowship?”

Reply:

This question appears frequently where there are several churches in close proximity. Of course, churches blessed with faithfulness do not have the problem. Churches cursed with failure to discipline after the New Testament order do not have the problem, either.

If the answer to the query above is, “yes,” the result would be:

1. That churches would have been required to refuse those whom an apostle accepted. In 3 John 9, 10, Diotrephes refused to receive the apostle John, “and not content therewith, neither doth he himself receive the brethren, and forbiddeth them that would and casteth them out of the church.” If churches “must accept this church’s decision in the matter,” then other churches should have knuckled and kneeled to Diotrephes.

2. That churches would have been forced to receive the brother in Corinth who had “his father’s wife,” since the church approved him. The rule applies both ways. If one church must automatically deny one who is withdrawn from, they must immediately take in one who is regarded as faithful elsewhere. In the case above, men rejected those whom God accepted, while in Corinth men received those whom God refused. Therefore, each church must “check into the matter themselves to determine whether the withdrawn from member is worthy or unworthy of their fellowship.”

On The Other Hand

It should not be forgotten that a congregation which scripturally delivers one unto Satan does so “in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ . . . with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Cor. 5:4; 2 Thess. 3:6). It is a serious action. Each case should be judged with care; it cannot be ignored.

Then, again, erroneous judgments and personality conflicts scar churches in given areas. Men love admiration and advantage. Resentment builds against arrogant, self-willed men. A series of factions arise to fracture the frail thread of unity. Petitions are signed. Charges and counter charges are hurled. Hatred thrives but is denied by all concerned. Each “side” says they are on no one’s side, except the Lord’s. All disclaim the devil, except to say that he is “definitely in our midst.” Each side wants to “play the tapes” of a heated business meeting which, they both affirm, proves the guilt of the other. Both groups withdraw from each other. Both groups insist that “faithful churches” cannot “endorse that faction.” Both withdraw from churches that do not accept their view. Both groups solicit the support of preachers to give them an air of recognition. Both groups send articles to papers and periodicals bewailing the division which was “made necessary” by the ungodly actions of a “certain few.” On and on the gangrene spreads. The innocent, the unsuspecting, and meddlers are drawn in. It waxes worse and worse. Other churches are caught in the middle. Who or what shall they believe? It takes a Solomon to know the answer in cases like this which have pock-marked this country like a contagious disease the past fifteen years. Perhaps the wisdom of Solomon would not be a bad idea — take the quarreling brethren and divide them with the sword.

Truth Magazine, XX:19, p. 2
May 6, 1976

By Wayne S. Walker

Prostitution is an increasing public menace and moral evil. Its rise in popularity is representative of the degeneracy among American citizens which is becoming more and more prevalent. I realize that it has been practiced almost from the dawn of history, and even on a large scale in this country in the past. But it is much more publicized today than it used to be. There are cries for its legalization and demands for “hookers’ rights”; it receives a large amount of television and newspaper coverage. Bumper stickers proclaim, “Support Your Local Hooker.” Where whorehouses were once considered places of ill-repute, they are now coming to be thought of as “in” places to frequent, and there are numerous books, magazines, and movies which portray their activities in a very appealing manner. People everywhere talk jokingly of “cat houses” and “pick-up joints.” But it is no laughing matter. Dealing with, going to, or playing a harlot is called sin by the Bible and is condemned by God.

God’s Rule for Man’s Sexual Activity

There are numerous scriptures in the Old Testament which disclose God’s displeasure with this nauseating activity. The first is found in Genesis 2:24 where God said, “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife; and they shall be one flesh.” Beginning at the very creation, it was God’s will that the marriage of a man and woman was to be a life-long, unbroken, and exclusive partnership. It is in this relationship that God ordained all human sexual desires to be fulfilled. Men have perverted that decree with polygamy, adultery, divorce, and of course, prostitution. “But from the beginning it was not so” (Matt. 19:8).

According to the Covenant at Sinai

In the law of Moses, God also revealed His attitude toward the harlot. Fathers were forbidden to give their daughters over to prostitution (Lev. 19:29). Priests were not allowed to marry or permit their daughters to become whores (Lev. 21:7-9). God did not permit money procured from prostitution to be brought into the place of worship (Dent. 23:18). Harlotry is a form of fornication (illicit sexual relations) and the Decalogue strictly forbade this: “Thou shalt not commit adultery” (Ex. 20:14). The penalty for such activity was death (Dent. 22:21-24). Even before the Ten Commandments were given, God’s people knew the reprehensivity of this vice, and death was its deserts (Gen. 38:24). The figure of whoredom is often used by the prophets symbolically to describe Israel’s spiritual condition in forsaking God, but they also condemned the actual act.

What the Wise Man Said

Some of the best bits of wisdom concerning harlotry are found in the book of wisdom, Proverbs. Listen to Solomon as he warned in chapter 5, “My son, attend unto my wisdom; incline thine ear to my understanding: that thou mayest preserve discretion, and that thy lips may keep knowledge. For the lips of a strange woman drop honey, and her mouth is smoother than oil: but in the end she is bitter as wormwood, sharp as a two-edged sword. Her feet go down to death; her steps take hold on Sheol. . . . Remove thy way far from her, and come not nigh to the door of her house; lest thou give thine honor unto others, and thy years to the cruel; lest strangers be filled with thy strength, and thy labors be in the house of an alien.” Instead, he encouraged his son, “Drink waters out of thine own cistern . . . and rejoice with the wife of thy youth. As a loving hind and a pleasant doe, let her breasts satisfy thee at all times; and be thou ravished with her love. For why shouldest thou, my son, be ravished with a strange woman, and embrace the bosom of a foreigner?”

He further asked in 6:24-35, “Can a man take fire into his bosom, and his clothes be not burned? Or can one walk upon hot coals, and his feet not be scorched? So he that goeth into his neighbor’s wife” or any other woman he has no right to. In the seventh chapter, he spoke of “a woman with the attire of a harlot,” and described her character and her seduction of a young man. As disgusting as the prostitute may be, we must not forget also the sin on the part of the one being seduced and yielding to her. “He goeth after her straightway as an ox goeth to the slaughter, or as one in fetters to the correction of the fool; till an arrow strike through his liver; as a bird hasteth to the snare, and knoweth not that it is for his life.” Solomon concluded with this piece of good advice: “Now therefore, my sons, hearken unto me, and attend to the words of my mouth. Let not thine heart decline to her ways; go not astray in her paths. For she hath cast down many wounded: yea, all her slain are a mighty host. Her house is the way to Sheol, going down to the chambers of death.”

New Testament Teaching

The New Testament is no less forceful in its denunciation of dealing in prostitution. Jesus condemned the unbridled and passionate lust that would lead a man to resort to such things as adultery and prostitution (Matt. 5:27-28). As previously noted, prostitution is a form of sexual immorality and is thus disapproved of by God in general as seen in such passages as Matt. 15:18-20, Rom. 1:24-32, 1 Cor. 6:9-10, Gal. 5:19-21, and Col. 3:5-9. But there is also special mention of judgment against whoremongers, as mentioned in Eph. 5:3-5, 1 Tim. 1:9-10, Heb. 13:4, and Rev. 21:8. These principles include all who are associated with harlotry: those who operate whorehouses, prostitutes themselves, and those who go to harlots. One interesting thing about the word “whoremonger” is that, although it generally means a fornicator, it was sometimes used in a special sense to denote a male prostitute. Let us not be chauvinistic. History reveals that men have actually hired themselves out for sexual favors as well as women. Lest someone the Bible condemns both.

A Sin Against the Body

In my estimation, one of the most important passages in the New Testament in this connection is l Corinthians 6:15-20. Paul here said that our bodies are temples of the Holy Ghost and members of Christ (vs. 15,19). When the body of the first man was created by God and whenever a baby is born, that body is pure and clean (Eccl. 7:39). We use the term “virgin” to describe not only females but also males who are undefiled. It is generally true of all humans, since each man is created in the image of God and his body is the handiwork of God, and especially true of Christians who have been recreated in Christ, that to take this body and defile it by sexual impurity is a sin against the body – against the very purpose for which God created the body. While I recognize that no sin is in reality any greater than another, and that no sin is too great to be repented of, this verse does indicate that when a person engages in unlawful sexual activity, in a special way he “sinneth against his own body.” However, this does not take place when one is married, for the marriage bed is undefiled (Heb. 13:4).

Many might think this whole discussion is silly. It may seem not of harmony with propriety to some. Others may ask why bring up a subject that everyone obviously abhors. The point I tried to make at the beginning was that not everyone abhors it, so it seems; at least not as many as we might like to think. I have tried to deal firmly yet delicately with a practice that has the very real possibility of becoming an increasing temptation to the saints of God. Our young people are growing up with the same biological urges that their elders have, and unless they are instructed in the dangers of this realm below and are told how the beauty of sex as given by God can be marred by men, they will be easy game for the devil and his agents am evil influences prey upon their natural desires. This is a special danger whenever those who pervert God’s way are allowed to come out into the open and publicly advertise themselves, as is happening more and more today. I have out even introduced the rising threat of venereal disease in our society, most of which is fostered by promiscuity in sexual relations. Suffice it to say, we need to be on guard against all forms of sexual impurity, and teach our young people to do likewise.

Truth Magazine, XX:18, p. 12-13
April 29, 1976

By Donald P. Ames

The book of Revelation seems to be completely beyond the comprehension of many; hence it is never studied, never understood, easily and often misinterpreted, and usually very confusing. It is often approached by some like a giant jigsaw puzzle, in which they become so bogged down looking at the individual pieces that they completely lose sight of the overall picture, hence it seems hopeless.

Indeed the book of Revelation is like a giant jigsaw puzzle, and when we lose sight of the overall picture, we lose sight of the very key to understanding the book itself. While it may be true that all the details of every example may not be fully comprehended by any (I do not know of any two commentaries that agree on every particular), I do believe that the basic general picture of Revelation can be understood. I also believe that the refutation of many false theories can be easily comprehended.

We shall not, in this one setting, attempt to go into an examination of each and every theory that has been advanced on the book of Revelation. Such is neither practical nor necessary. However, if we can comprehend the basic nature of Revelation, we will be in position to not only recognize a false interpretation, but to see wherein it has departed from the true message of Revelation. This we shall attempt to do by recognizing three basic keys of understanding to the message of this great book from God.

Revelation, by its very nature, was not designed to be interpreted literally, as is readily apparent to anyone who sits down to actually read it. John affirms in Rev. 1:1 that it was sent and “signified”-a term which means to speak in signs or symbols (hence not literal, but figurative). Such symbolic language is common to us from the parables, illustrations in John 10, the Lord’s Supper, etc.

Reading the book itself reveals that even those who claim to interpret it literally do not do so. (1) Rev. 7:48, 14:3-4 mention the 144,000, which the Jehovah Witnesses love to claim must be interpreted literally, but they reject the idea that it refers to literal Jews (note that even the 12 tribes are not literal, but rather that the tribes of Levi and Joseph have been substituted for Dan and Ephraim), that it means only men, that it means only unmarried men (i.e., virgins), and that they followed a literal “lamb.” (2) Rev. 12 could not be literal by any method of interpretation. The woman described was of enormous size (if literal), and so is the dragon. If sufficiently huge he is capable of hurling one third of the stars to earth, obviously we would have no earth left. Yet, having done so, he is then cast down to what is left of the earth, stands on it, and pursues the huge woman, who is able to find a hiding place on it also. (3) Rev. 14:20 would require blood flowing for a distance of 200 miles, filling up all the valleys, gulleys, lakes, etc. Again, obviously, literal logic cannot be applied to the interpretation of this passage. (4) Rev. 20:1-6 is used by those teaching the theory of Premillennialism, and the term “1,000 years” is seized upon as literal, while rejecting the literal nature of a “bottomless pit,” of only “souls” involved, of only souls which were “beheaded,” and excluding any who were not beheaded.

The very nature of Revelation then, as John affirms, is not to be literal, but figurative, and hence must be so interpreted (in harmony with other plain statements found elsewhere in the Bible, and also in light of other similar expressions found in the Old Testament which are explained for us). We will have more on this point later.

The second major point we need to understand about Revelation is the time for which it was written. Revelation was written to convey a message to those then living, and efforts to make it refer to specific events centuries later utterly ignores this point. There could be no way anyone then reading it could be blessed (1:3) if it did not convey a message to them as they read it then. Why should they heed its message (22:7) if it had no reference whatsoever to them, but referred to something going to happen yet 2,000 or more years into the future?

The truth of the matter is that John was writing Revelation with them in mind. Again, we turn to the very first verse, where he affirms he is writing about those things “which must shortly take place.” One Premillennial commentary I read recently noted this term, changed it to surely, and proceeded to affirm everything from the middle of the third chapter was yet future. This is not what John was talking about! The term here, commented on by Vincent, means: “the aorist infinitive geneszai is not begin to come to pass, but denotes a complete fulfillment; must shortly come to pass in their entirety.” Again, if it is to “shortly” come to pass, it cannot be talking about over 2,000 years into the future!

This message is carried throughout the book of Revelation. Note that the time is “near” or “at hand” in 1:3 (cf. Matt. 3:2, Mark 9:1); “about to suffer” (2:10); “1 am coming to you quickly” (2:16); “that hour which is about to come upon the whole world” (3:10); “1 am coming quickly” (3:11); “a little while longer” (6:11); “delay no longer” (10:6); “the third Woe is coming quickly” (11:14); etc. Even in the last chapter we see the same message repeated repeatedly: “the things which must shortly take place” (v. 6); “1 am coming quickly” (v. 7); “for the time is near” (v. 10); “1 am coming quickly” (v. 12); and “I am coming quickly” again in verse 20. Obviously the “coming” here does not refer to the second and final coming, or the Lord lied in saying it was “quickly,” “shortly” and “at hand.” Frequently the same term is used with the idea of coming in judgment (cf. Matt. 10:23, Isa. 19:1-not literal), and this seems to be the message John was giving to the oppressed Christians of that time.

This same idea is born out even further when we note the expression used “from Him who Is, and who was and who is to come” (1:4,8; 4:8) which is changed to “who art and who wast” in 11:17 and 16:5 (Note: the KJV has “and art to come”, but this is not found in the NASB nor the originals, and thus does not belong here. It is also interesting to note that we find he “hast (past tense) begun to reign” in 11:17 and “didst judge” in 16:5). Thus, we find that the “to come” part has been fulfilled at this point by the action taken already, and not something yet to happen over 2,000 years in the future.

This being so, recognizing the time element of the book of Revelation, there is no way Jehovah Witnesses, Premillennialists, Armstrong, Adventists, etc. can claim Revelation is either being fulfilled today or refers to events yet in the future. This same error lies in the way of the popular Historical approach taken by the Gospel Advocate commentary and some other brethren today. They are “too late,” just as those who contend the kingdom is yet in the future are “too late” in their recognition of the time element involved. And, efforts to apply Matt. 24:6-7 to events today in this same light also ignores the context of what is under consideration here too (see v. 1-3, 34). If we went no further, these two points alone are sufficient to refute most of the error taught about the book of Revelation. But there is one more point we need to note to complete our picture.

The third point we need to grasp is the full jigsaw picture itself, as we look at the book of Revelation as a whole. Why was it written, and what was its message? The book was written as an encouragement to the Christians of that time in the face of discouraging persecution from the Roman government. The tribulation was already on them, and more were yet to die (2:10, 3:10, 6:11). In view of these continued deaths, the cry was raised, “Is it all in vain?” “How long, O Lord, holy and true, will Thou refrain from judging and avenging our blood on those who dwell on the earth” (6:10), and John’s message is the reply to this cry. The book centers around their cry for vengeance-nor for the sake of revenge itself, but as a testimony it had not all been in vain. But, first, God says, it is all according to a plan: others must first die too (6:11), but “a little while longer,” and My purpose will then unfold. Now, note in 16:6-7 that Christ “didst judge” these things, giving His enemies blood to drink for having poured out the blood of the saints, and the “altar” (cf. 6:9) now sees that “true and righteous are Thy judgments.” Again, in 19:2, in direct reference to 6:10, we find “He has avenged the blood of His bond-servants on her.” And, finally, in triumph, those who had remained faithful to the Lord throughout the persecution are now sharing in the triumph of the cause of Christ in 20:4-6. Thus we see the picture, each part of it contributing to the whole, and all tied to “its own special background and history” (The Saints Victorious by James P. Miller, p. 31).

Hendriksen, in More Than Conquerors, p. 11, says that the purpose of the book is “to comfort the militant church in its struggle against the forces of evil. It abounds with consolations for afflicted believers.” Again, in the foreword of his book Revelation: Message From Patmos, Weldon Warnock adds, “Revelation was written to serve an immediate need for the suffering Christians of Asia Minor. It was written to console, comfort and assure those saints who were experiencing affliction, even death, at the hands of the Roman Emperor, Domitian, and his cohorts. It fulfills this need perfectly.” And, Ray Summers in his commentary Worthy Is The Lamb, p. 100, adds, “This does not mean that every detail of the book is to be an immediate fulfillment. The interval of time between the beginning of relief for the Christians and the final consummation was not revealed to John; neither he nor the other Christians needed to see that. They needed the assurance of immediate relief and final complete victory. That is exactly what was given them.” I believe the chart which accompanies this article (which I have composed from personal study of the book as a whole) well illustrates this message as it is carried through the book of Revelation.

But Why Figurative?

At this point, the question is again raised, But why then is the book figurative? Why didn’t John just come out and say that? Remember Pharoah’s reaction in Ex. 5:2, 5-9? The pattern for giving a message to God’s people, which they understood and their enemies thought was “the ravings of a lunatic” was then set in Ezekiel 4. The same was now employed here the Christians understood the wonderful promise of relief and victory, but the Romans thought it was the writings of one “not worth bothering with.” Again, from Ray Summers’ commentary, we note the following: “Often one is led to question as to why literature is presented in such a cryptic manner as characterizes apocalypses. The answer to such a question is seen in the fact that this literature was written in dangerous times. The personal safety of both writer and reader was endangered if the persecutors understood the true meaning of the book. For this reason the message of the apocalypse was written so as to conceal and to reveal—to conceal the message from the outsider but to reveal its message to the initiated” (Worthy Is The Lamb, p.5).

All that is contained in this book: the events, the beasts, the judgments, etc. must be kept within the concept of the time, nature and purpose of the book, or we no longer have a context, but a pretext. This does not mean that it does not contain a message for us today, for surely it does, just like the message on church discipline found in 1 Cor. 5. We must not become discouraged and assume God has lost control, but to recognize He has a purpose and in the end, He will vindicate His cause!

The failure to recognize these important truths, though, has led to many speculations-all the way from the Premillennial position to the Jehovah Witnesses’ position to the Historical Position (which has to be revised every 100 years to account for “new events.” This view, by the way, also reverses the beasts of Rev. 13 as well).

Revelation is much like the American battle of Independence. We declared our Independence in 1776, but it took a war to confirm it. Dan. 2:44 and Heb. 12:28 affirmed we have received a kingdom which could not be destroyed. It was tested by Satan, and confirmed by the Lord. As before, Satan went down in defeat, even though he threw everything he had against the church in its infancy: The power of the Roman government, the pressure of Caesar worship and the worldliness of the city of Rome as well. His final defeat has been foretold (Matt. 25:46), but he will not surrender! Would you rather follow a loser, or to follow our Lord in His final victory and the glories of Heaven, which He offers as a reward for those who remain faithful to Him?

Truth Magazine, XX:18, p. 8-10
April 29, 1976