Truth Magazine

By Ferrell Jenkins

Theories of Interpretation

The proper interpretation of the book of Revelation depends upon the method of approach in the study of it. In this section we intend to mention the major methods or theories of interpretation that have been used, giving some of the strong and weak points of each system. After this, perhaps we will be in a position to make some suggestion as to what seems to us to be the best approach to the book.

Pieters describes Revelation as “God’s great picture book at the end of the Bible.” He says, “it is a picture book of a peculiar kind.” 48 Some of these pictures are to be interpreted just as they stand. For example, we see many pictures and drawings today that truly represent what they depict, while there are others that are symbolic of the thing depicted. The G.O.P. Elephant, the Democrat Donkey, or even “Uncle Sam” would hardly be considered as literal representations by anyone. Everyone understands the figurative nature of such symbols as a flying horse, a firebird or a tiger in a tank used by modern petroleum companies. In the book of Revelation there are signs and symbols, which are not to be taken literally.

Historist

The Historist or Continuous-Historical interpretation of the Apocalypse is held by no small number of expositors. These believe that the book of Revelation is simply a great panorama of all church history from the time it was written until the end of time. They are anxious to tell us where the Pope, Napoleon, and Hitler appear in the book. Movements such as the Roman Catholic apostasy, Higher Criticism, and the New Deal are clearly “revealed” to these writers. No doubt some will even find President Johnson’s “Great Society” in this apocalyptic vision. With a view like this, one can attempt to decide at just what stage we now stand, and also predict the future.

Albert Barnes presented the continuous historical view in his Notes on the Book of Revelation. He thinks of Gibbon’s Decline and fall of the Roman Empire as corresponding beautifully with the book of Revelation. Of Gibbon he says:

“I have found it difficult to doubt that that distinguished historian was raised up by an overruling Providence to make a record of those events which would ever afterwards be regarded as an impartial and unprejudiced statement of the evidence of the fulfillment of prophecy. ” 49

Those holding this view come up with differing definite fulfillments of the prophecies in Revelation, but they all unite in declaring the “beast” to be the Pope, and “Babylon” to be Papal Rome.

A number of writers within the Restoration Movement have advanced this view, B. W. Johnson in his Notes, and John T. Hinds, in his commentary in the Gospel Advocate set of New Testament Commentaries, being chief among these. One book is advertised as having been written for the purpose of informing its readers of the beginning, work and ending of the Catholic Church.

Included in this group of interpreters are some who make the seven churches represent seven phases of church history. Of course, we are now (now, being any time a commentary is written taking this view) in the seventh or Laodicean stage.

Pieters tackles this theory vigorously. His reasons for rejecting it as fundamentally unsound may be summarized as follows: (1) The Apocalypse, so understood, is entirely out of touch with the situation of the early church, to which it was written. (2) The importance attached to the Roman Catholic apostasy seems out of proportion; it appears to be the only Triemy of true religion. (31 The outlook of such interpreters seems too narrow. They find the fulfillment of the prophecies of Revelation only in the countries composing the ancient Roman Empire. Hence, a greater part of mankind is excluded. This outlook is entirely out of date for us. (4) The interpretations of this school often descend to manifestly absurd detail. (5) This method leads to the calculation of times and periods, which have been falsified by the event, and have wrought great harm. 51

Futurist

Some interpret the Revelation so that almost everything from chapter four on is “limited entirely to the eschatological time at the end of history, a time identified in this view with the period immediately preceding, contemporary with, and following upon the ‘thousand years’ literally interpretated (20:1-10).”51

The Futurists are divided into two major groups, namely: (1) Post-Millennialists, who regard the thousand year reign as figurative or an indefinite period of time before the second coming of Christ. (2) Premillennialist, who state that Christ will return personally and reign upon the earth for a literal one thousand years.

The futurist position is inconsistent with the first statement of the Apocalypse, which states that these things would shortly come to pass. Some, however, take the statement in 4: 1, “After these things,” as implying that the material from there on could have a future fulfillment. But the things which must “shortly” come to pass cannot be limited tot the first three chapters; these describe things as they were at that time. Perhaps the most serious objection to this system is that it “leaves the Apocalypse quite out of relation to the needs of the church to which it was addressed … prophecy begins with its own generation.”52 Any position which takes the book away from its first readers must be rejected. To be told of the immorality of the Roman Catholic system, or of the campaigns of Napoleon would hardly be comforting and encouraging to the Christian of Smyrna or Ephesus who could not buy or sell because he refused to worship at the emperor’s temple. The overthrow of the Papacy would have been a small comfort to Polycarp as the flames rose about him.

Summers points out that much of the symbolism of Revelation is incompatible with the futurist method. Such portions as the twelfth chapter dealing with the woman and the birth of the man-child quite naturally have to be interpretated as belonging to the past. 53

Preterist

The Preterist school of interpreters look upon the Revelation as having been fulfilled within the first two or three centuries after it was written. This school is divided into two groups. The most liberal do not consider the book Of Revelation as inspired literature. Those who accept its inspiration find some things yet future in the Book. A. T. Robertson says that Revelation was written during the stress and storm of Domitian’s persecution to cheer the Christians with a view to final victory, “but with no scheme of History in view.”54 This fits in well with the Preterist view. I think it is important to remember that many expositors can not be limited to a specific view, but only tend to a given view while using what they see as the good points in others.

Foy E. Wallace, Jr., whose God’s Prophetic Word is an outstanding work on millennialist views, advocates a preterist view.

“The structure of the book is seen in three statements: Things that he ‘saw’; things which ‘are’; things to be ‘hereafter’-that should shortly come to pass. You will notice the part that should be ‘hereafter’ is qualified, and modified, and limited by the word ‘shortly.’ The things ‘which thou hast seen’ were the things John saw in the vision. The things ‘which are’ were conditions known to exist, and then present. The things ‘which shall be hereafter,’ but shortly, deal with the immediate future experiences of the early churches, the immediate history of which tells the story in a very extensive way. The events of the Neroan, Domitian and Diocletian periods of history, following so closely upon the first century, furnish a complete counterpart to the symbols of Revelation, as fully as any future events could be made to fit them. The events of these periods did ‘shortly’come to pass and the events from Nero’s persecution to Diocletian’s reign of terror, ought to satisfy even a literalist in the interpretation of the symbols and signs employed by John. The symbols of Revelation were fulfilled in the experiences of those early churches; and the book, from our viewpoint, should be considered in the light of history rather than as a book of prophecy. It was apocalyptic prophecy when spoken, it is history now.” 55

Wallace avoids the main objection to the strict preterist view, that is, that the book has no

application to the church today. “Someone may ask,” Wallace says, “is there no practical application or spiritual meaning in all these things? There is. Every Christian may have the spirit of the early Christians, and therefore possess the soul of a martyr.”56

Philosophy Of History

This school of interpretation tends to divorce the Apocalypse from its historical background. They see the book as “containing a discussion of forces which underlie events but not a discussion of the events themselves.”57 In Revelation one sees the great principles of God’s control, which may be seen in any period of time. Swete well describes this view saying that it has “the practical purpose of inculcating those great lessons of trust in God, loyalty to the Christ King, confidence in the ultimate triumph of righteousness, patience under adversity, and hope in the prospect of death, which were urgently needed by the Asian Churches, and will never be without meaning and importance so long as the world lasts. “58

Two objections to this method are presented by Summers. (1) It removes the book too far from the churches to which it was addressed. Perhaps a combining of the preterist and philosophy of history views would eliminate this objection. (2) This method confines the book in too narrow a channel, holding that the symbols refer to forces, but not to specific events.

Historical Background

Summers present-, the historical-background method upon which he builds his treatment of the Apocalypse. This position does combine features of the preterist method, which respects the inspiration of the Bible, and the philosophy of history approach. There are principles that guide one in a study using this method. (1) First, a study is made of the historical setting of the book. One looks at the moral, religious, social, and political conditions of the time when the book was written, as we have done earlier. (2) Realize that the book was written in highly figurative language. (3) Keep in mind that the book uses Old Testament terminology with New Testament meaning. (4) Seek to grasp the visions or series of visions as a whole without pressing the details; of the symbolism. (5) Remember that Revelation is addressed chiefly to the imagination. One must see with the mind’s eye the various episodes of intense drama, just as if he were with John on Patmos when the visions were received.59

It seems to this writer that this type of approach, combining the historical background with the basic eternal principles, that permeate the visions, is the one that leads to a clear and correct understanding of the book. Two other views that might fit in well with the preterist, philosophy of history, or historical-background method is worthy of mention.

Dramatic

The Dramatic interpretation of the Apocalypse is advanced by Bowman.60 He divides the book into seven acts, with each act having seven scenes. Act I of this schema gives the picture of the contemporary church, the “what is” of Rev. 1: 19. Acts II through VII present “what is to take place hereafter,” that is, the church and the world in the eschatological time.

Recapitulationist

William Hendriksen has presented a view in More Than Conquerors, which seems to have become quite popular. He believes that the book of Revelation is not one complete story, but rather seven. He divides the book in this manner, 1-3; 4-7; 8-11; 12-14; 15-16; 17-19; 20-22. Each division represents a complete period of time ranging from the first coming of Christ to the second coming, with each period being a little more intensified or extending a little further than the former. He refers to this recapitulationism as progressive parallelism.

Conclusion

The writer trusts that this examination of the general background of the book of Revelation, with attention to the authorship and date, may provide others with an incentive to begin a study of the Apocalypse. The examination of the theories of interpretation with a suggestion as to the one we find most helpful should serve to guide those who read them to a proper method of approach to the book. This in turn should lead to a fruitful and faith-upbuilding understanding of the misunderstood book at the end of the Bible.

Footnotes

Albertus Pieters, Studies in the Revelation of St. John (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1950), p. 33.

49. Albert Barnes, Notes on Revelation (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1951), 1). vii.

50. Pieters, 47-49.

51. Bowman, 61.

52. Pieters, 61,62.

53. Summers, 34.

54. A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament (New York: Harper and Brothers Publishers, 1953), pp. 276-277.

55. Foy E. Wallace, Jr., God’s Prophetic Word (2d ed. rev.; Oklahoma City: Foy E. Wallace, Jr., Publications, 1960), p. 275. The first edition in 1946 carried no mention of Nero (see pp. 224225). The revised edition reflects Wallace’s present view that the Revelation was written during the Neroan period (see The Book of Revelation by Wallace).

56. Ibid. 280.

57. Summers, 41.

58. Swete, ccxviii.

59. Summers, 45-51.

60. Bowman. 58-7 1.

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 27, pp.8-11
May 10, 1973

By Del Wininger

By way of introduction to this study let each of us answer a simple question. Do you believe that you can live for the next ten years and never commit another sin? If your answer is yes, stop right now and place a check mark here (Yes ). If you believe that you cannot live without sin for the next ten years, place a check mark here (No ).

For many years now, Satan has worked to convince God’s people that all Christians must sin daily. He has received a great amount of help in teaching this devilish doctrine from sincere and well meaning preachers and teachers. This is nothing more than an extension of Romanism, whereby they teach the need and use of the confessional and even the idea of indulgences for future sins now being planned. We will never overcome sin and Satan with this attitude. Let us examine this thought in the bright, revealing light of God’s word.

Jesus is confronted by the scheming scribes and factious Pharisees in John 8:3-11, as they sought to force him to contradict the teaching of Moses by bringing before him a woman taken in the act of adultery. After Jesus had convicted each of them in his own conscience, he told the adulteress, “go, and sin no more.”

If there were no other teaching in God’s word on the subject of our ability to live without being forced to commit sin, this would be enough to show that it can be done. The fairness and justness of God and of our Lord Jesus Christ testify that they will not give us a command, which it is impossible for us to obey. Therefore, when Jesus told this woman, “go, and sin no more,” he was giving her a command, which she could obey.

Paul, in Rom. 6:1-2, commands us not to continued in sin. Also in 1 Cor. 15:34, by inspiration of God, he tells us to awake to righteousness and sin not. Many, in protesting that we cannot really be righteous, fail to consider the example of Zacharias and his wife Elisabeth in Luke 1:6: “They were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.”

Nothing that we have said thus far teaches that we have not sinned in the past. A casual look at Rom. 3:23 proves without question that we have all sinned in the past, and this includes both Zacharias and Elisabeth. However, this passage does not teach that we must continue to commit sin, nor does 1 John 1: 8 or verse 10 teach such. If we will take notice of 1 John 1: 7 and also verse 9, we will see that God promises a cleansing by the blood Of Jesus Christ from all sin. Once cleansed, we are instructed in 1 John 2 :1, “sin not.”

Often people are heard to remark, “I wish I could quit lying, swearing, smoking, drinking etc., but I cannot.” If this person is a Christian, either they have lied, or God is a liar. For God, in 1 Cor. 10: 13, has promised to help us overcome all temptations by making a way for us to escape the temptation. If you question God’s ability to do this, look to Job 1: 6-22 and 2:1-10. It is here demonstrated how God can limit the severity of the temptations which Satan can use on a specific person at a given time.

In James 4:7 we are told to submit ourselves to God; “resist the devil and he will flee” from us. Jesus, while being tempted in Mt. 4:3-10, obeyed his Father and thus won the battle between himself and the devil. We also have such a battle going on right now. I Pet. 5:8 says: “Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour.” Notice the similarity in language to that found in Job 1:7 and 2:2. As Jesus sought and obtained God’s help in overcoming temptations, we must seek His help. This help is promised in 2 Pet. 2:9: “The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations.” What we really need is to convince ourselves that God can do more for us than the devil can do against us. Rom. 8: 3 1 says, “If God be for us, who can be against us?”

Some brethren are troubled by Ecc. 7:20 which says, “For there is not a just man upon the earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not.” I make no claim of scholarship and most certainly am no trained student of Hebrew, but those that are indicate that the phrase, “sinneth not,” is from “lo yechta,” which means, “that may not sin.” This is a truth of which we are all aware. Certainly we can all commit sin, and regardless of the amount of maturity we may achieve in Christ, we will always be capable of committing sin. Even Christ the sinless one, while in the flesh, was capable of committing sin.

This study then, as with so many others, simply boils down to a matter of faith. Do I believe that God has the power and is willing to use His power to enable us to overcome temptation, and thus be able to “go, and sin no more.”

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 27, pp. 6-7
May 10, 1973

By James W. Adams

There is an old adage to the effect that silence is golden.” Much has been written most of it true-concerning the evils of the tongue and the care that should be exercised with reference to our speech. There is probably no subject more frequently discussed in the word of God than this. On the other hand, grievous wrong is often done by saying nothing when something ought to be said. Another familiar saying is “Silence gives consent.” Silence is often the refuge of the coward and the compromiser. It is quite often an effective means in perpetuating a vicious lie. Many an individual, who would not think of voicing a vicious falsehood about his neighbor, will give consent to and assist in perpetuating such a lie by silence when a word from him could have corrected and stopped the matter. Many permit Satan’s lies to triumph over God’s truth by their silence at vital moments. Well did Robert Louis Stevenson write: “The cruelest lies are often told in silence.”

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 26, pp. 11-13
May 3, 1973

By Terry L. Sumerlin

I trust the reader understands, as I am convinced Brother Wright does, that I am not led to reply to the articles of my good brother in Christ by a negative attitude or a feeling of animosity toward one with whom I differ. My sole purpose is, rather, to present what I believe to be the truth on this subject, just as I endeavor to contend for the truth on any Biblical matter. With this in mind, I address myself to some final remarks regarding Brother Wright’s last article.

I ask that the reader take note of the fact that throughout this reply I will be following, for the sake of clarity, the subject headings used in the affirmative article. The usage of the word ‘misunderstanding’ in these headings, though, I believe, deserves a little consideration. This word, as it was used, implies one of two things: (1) The affirmative case was not stated clearly to begin with or (2) there was faulty reasoning in the mind of the one in the negative. Though I am not saying that something was deliberately insinuated in the usage of the word, I do think that these things should be brought to the attention of the reader so that he might be able to form his own conclusions relative to which one of the above things resulted in the “misunderstandings.” Now, we turn to the misunderstandings.”

Misunderstanding No. 1

In connection with this section, I wish to insert a statement, which was made by Brother Wright under “misunderstanding No. 5”: “I do believe the Christian who marries a non Christian commits an act of sin.” Though we will have occasion to deal with this statement more in detail when we come to it, I mention it at this point in order to show one thing: For the purpose of the statement of Old Testament passages in the affirmative case of this issue to be valid and useful, they must show beyond doubt that God has always condemned “mixed marriages.” (Otherwise, what is the point in using such passages except to add force to a line of suppositions, which are taken from the New Testament, which in reality would not need support from the Old Testament if they were anything more than suppositions?) Yet, if this fact existed before New Testament days, then everything said prior to such a time has to be consistent with such a supposed attitude on God’s part. Yet, such is not the case. As Brother Wright points out, there were “old worthies” who became involved in “mixed marriages,” to whom nothing was said about sin being involved as a result of the marriage, itself.

One is made to wonder, if such a marriage constituted sin on the part of Moses, why the sister of Moses, who seemed to have justifiable reason for objecting to the marriage of Moses to the Ethiopian woman, was made a leper instead of Moses. Notice, also, that in the same account, God said of Moses, “who is faithful in all mine house” (Num. 12:13). Such sounds rather strange as a statement in reference to one who had just sinned. Thus, I again reject such an interpretation of Old Testament scripture as has been considered, and submit my understanding of them as stated in my first review.

Yet, I call one thing more to the attention of the reader, in reference to these Old Testament passages: If for some reason I have erred in my reasoning on these passages (though I do not believe I have), such would prove nothing except the fact that I have erred. In other words, such would add no force to the opposite position. The burden of proof for the affirmative rests upon passages in the New Testament. If the passages necessary for proof cannot be found in the New Testament, the affirmative fails for lack of support. Thus, let’s see about the “support” of the affirmative.

Misunderstanding No. 2

I believe it is important that, in connection with 1 Cor. 9:5, as mentioned in this section, we focus upon the issue as to whether or not this is an approved apostolic example. This is the point of contention, which has to be resolved. I agree with Brother Wright in regard to principles on the establishment of authority and his application of such principles to singing, communion, etc. Yet, we also know that not all examples are approved apostolic examples binding. For example, I call your attention to the fact that we have often proven that the example of eating the Lord’s Supper in an upper room is not a binding one. Similarly, though 1 Cor. 9:5 is an example, I fail to see how it is binding, for the following reason: For an example to be binding, it has to be of such a nature that when it is bound it still harmonizes with all other teachings. Thus, if 1 Cor. 9:5 is a binding example, one has a contradiction between how one would repent of violating this law and scriptures which teach that fornication is the only grounds for divorce. Though Brother Wright, I feel, never gave full treatment to the idea of repentance (and I will deal more with this in another section), it is a serious problem when one starts talking about sin.

Misunderstanding No. 3

I must say that there appears to be more, problems with the sophistry that appeared in the affirmative under this heading, than there does with my “amplified translation.” First of all, Brother Wright tried to negate my point on “in the Lord” in 1 Cor. 7:39 by asking if I would take the same position on the expression as it is found in Gal. 3:27 as I do in its occurrence in 1 Cor. 7:39 and Eph. 6: 1. I feel confident that Brother Wright simply overlooked this fact, but the same expression is not in Gal. 3:27. Berry translates the expression to which Brother Wright referred in Gal. 3: 27: “to Christ were baptized.” He also translates the expression found in 1 Cor. 7:39 and Eph. 6: 1: “in (the) Lord.” I fail to see a parallel in wording or context. I have just shown the wording to be different, and ask the reader to examine the contexts.

Furthermore, if my “amplified translation” is incorrect, I wonder if “in the Lord” in Eph. 6: 1 is to be translated in the same manner as Brother Wright would translate the expression in 1 Cor. 7:39. If not, why not? The expressions are identical in construction and I fail to see how the contexts would alter the meaning of one or the other. Therefore, according to the affirmative, why would not Eph. 6: 1 mean that children are only obligated to obey parents who are Christians, as widows are only to marry men who are Christians? Beyond this, though, there is absolutely no way, assuming the affirmative’s position on the passage is correct, that anyone but a widow can be put into 1 Cor. 7:39, except by supposition!

Misunderstanding No. 4

In this section great effort was expended that the affirmative might be able to “have its cake and eat it too.” As I have previously stated, I disagree with the interpretation that Brother Wright has sought to place upon 2 Cor. 6:14. Yet, though I do disagree with such an interpretation, I do agree with the fact that in whatever sense the passage applies to marriage, it “does not apply to marriage alone.” Yet, if one is going to apply the passage to marriage in Brother Wright’s manner (in spite of the fact that it does not apply to marriage alone), he has to be consistent with the context. I also agree that we have to take all of what the scripture has to say on a given subject. Yet, when we find a passage that we think deals with that subject (in this case, the subject being: it is sinful for a Christian to marry a non-Christian), let’s take it all! I do not feel that Brother Wright has done such with this passage; and thus he has “jumped the track” on my argument.

Misunderstanding No. 5

This is the section, which I see as most destructive to the affirmative position. Brother Wright admits in no uncertain terms “the Christian who marries a non-Christian commits an act of sin.” From this point he proceeds to tell one about seeking forgiveness from such “sin,” while “hedging” I am sure in all sincerity) on how one repents. Brother Wright talked about the alcoholic repenting by quitting his drinking. Then he mentioned the fact that he still had to live with the physical problem of sclerosis, in many cases. While such facts may he true, I hasten to point out that he quit what caused the sclerosis. He could not have repented and failed to do this. In a similar fashion, if the Christian sins in marrying a non-Christian, the only way penitence can be shown is by divorce. Now if Brother Wright wants to parallel the problems of the drunkard, which he is forced to live with, with the problems that the Christian in a mixed marriage incurs, that’s fine. Yet, he will need to find the problems and not the cause. One repents of the sin, the cause of these problems (which are sometimes present in the “mixed marriage”). The sin is the marriage, according to Brother Wright. So, he will have to find other problems. Thus, I ask: How does one repent of this sin, in view of the fact that fornication is the only grounds for divorce?

Conclusion

It seems that with hardly an exception, those who take the, opposite view from mine talk as if those who are of my persuasion (1) walk on shaky ground and (2) wind up agreeing with them when kill is said and done. Thus, some words of clarification are in order. First, let me say that I will never agree (with my present understanding of scripture) with those who say that a “mixed marriage” is sin. I ask you not to confuse the fact that I say it is best for a Christian to marry a Christian with the conclusion that it is sin for a Christian not to marry a Christian. There is a difference in pointing out a way as the best of two ways, and pointing it out as the only way. It is at this point that I fail to see my ground as any shakier than those who differ with me. As I see it, the Bible condemns, just as surely, the binding of that which has not been bound as it does loosing what has not been loosed. All I am contending for is what I believe to be the truth, by which we determine who is a sinner and is to be dealt with accordingly, and who is not a sinner and should be left alone.

I assure you that my attitude toward Brother Wright (and all other brethren who do not hold my view) is only one of love, and ask that these things be considered in that light.

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 26, pp. 11-13
May 3, 1973