Preamble
May what I write here not lead others astray, but rather point to a true understanding of this great work.
Revelations, to paraphrase Martin Luther, "should be revealing." In fact,the Book of Revelation is revealing, but what it often reveals is the reader's predisposed notions.
I propose that we read Revelation with eyes and hearts open. In that way, the true message will be instilled within us, and we will stray from the errors I am about to elucidate.
There are, of course, proper theological names for this views I will describe. Because I am myself rather ignorant of proper theological naming conventions, and I also imagine my interested readers to be, I will simply characterize errors in a common-sense form of speech designed for ease of reading.
Caveat now: I am not a great scholar. In fact, I am a profound sinner, and this work of mine is only my own attempt at a kind of penance. You see, I have interpreted Revelation in ways convenient to my own life at different times, a sin of trying to make the divine message of God work for me. As I grow in faith, it is obvious to me that I in fact work for God.
With that, I illustrate errors in interpretation and how to avoid them.
Errors
THE LITERAL VIEW - I think it would be almost impossible to imagine anyone in modern times expecting the events of Revelation to literally come to pass, except that many well-meaning people espouse a view of this work that is either explicitly literal (They say they believe in the book literally) or de facto literal. I hope I do not seem smug when I say I don't understand what this view of the Revelation is supposed to be, how it can be coherent.
THE HISTORICAL VIEW - This view presupposes that the signs and visions illustrated in Revelation have come to pass. The generally accepted version of this view is that the symbolism associated with the Beast has to do with the Roman Empire, but there are other readings. The key to understanding this view is that believers in our era should not be looking forward to the signs described, but rather they should look back to what was going on in the time that Saint John of Patmos was writing.
I find this interpretation has more than a grain of truth in it. Perhaps this is why it is very widely adopted by scholars. The issues I have with this view are simple man's questions: Why include this book now in the Bible when everything is fulfilled? more importantly, what about the parts of the book in which the return of Christ is illustrated?
THE FUTURE VIEW - The current 21st century world world is rife with doom-and -gloom visions. Into this environment, a reader of Revelation can find all kinds of ways in which one news event or person of note fits a certain reading of the texts. There are all varieties of this interpretation going around now, all united by the idea that Saint John of Patmos was writing Revelation primarily as an illustration of future events that would unfold.
I find this view very compelling as well, but the details always create problems. One person says that a sign is completed in the restoration of Babylon that Saddam Hussein was attempting (seriously), while another group waits for the United Nations to take over and become the agent of the Beast (also, seriously).
In the next installment, I will illustrate a more syncretic view that also has a wholly different interpretation of the great book, one that Catholic theologian Scott Hahn writes about better than I. In fact, where Dr. Hahn and I differ, you can probably assume Dr. Hahn is right.
3 comments:
I'll be able to comment more completely once I have gotten to revelations...I just started reading the bible for the first time (still on Genesis) and I must admit it's slow going. At the risk of sounding blasphemous it's also very annoying...I can't start every sentence with the word AND and still be sane!!!!
My own opinion so far concerning Revelations is that it was mean to be literal, but because our understanding of the world is much greater now, we tend to try to see symbolism and metaphor in it so it can still be considered relevant. If I'm 100% wrong about that, my next idea would be that it was historical as you suggested, and the answer to your "simple man's questions" as you put it is that there was an understanding even then, that history DOES repeat itself. And even though these things have already come to pass, there is still much to be learned from them for future generations.
If you think it takes an extreme leap of faith to believe the literal view, I would argue that it would take an even more extreme leap of faith to believe the future view, literal or not, since we currently have no way to see the future (with the exception of studying the past). :)
Well, bear with me and I'll illustrate my view. I don't actually disagree with much of what you say here, except for a literal view of Revelation.
It really doesn't make sense to interpret Revelation literally because the author several times indicates that he's speaking in metaphor about metaphors and dreams. That doesn't even take into account he's explicitly writing from captivity in a kind of code so that the Romans can't understand what he's saying (but that's a historical view of the book, and one that I won't fully elucidate here). Finally, there are all the regular problems with literal readings of the Bible that you'd encounter with this book. I will get around to that topic in another post.
Ah...cool. See there I go talking about something I know nothing about. Hahaha. Looking forward to your next posts!
Post a Comment