Late last week, I posted an article overviewing the controversy that surrounds the final return of Jesus Christ. The common theory is that Jesus will first return silently to rapture the church. The unsaved will be left-behind on earth to suffer seven years of tribulation. The antichrist will reign during this time. His reign will be characterized by global power and persecution against the church. This seven-year period will come to a climactic end with the famous battle of Armageddon, a literal battle that will take place at Megiddo between the armies of Christ and the armies of Satan. After Christ wins the battle, Satan will be bound for one thousand years while Christ reigns over His millennial kingdom here on earth. This is the common theory. It is what most people believe. But the fact is, it is NOT what the Bible teaches.
This week, I am going to post one article per day with the intent of refuting the aforementioned premillennial theology. I will simultaneously set forth what the Bible DOES teach regarding the final return of Christ.
So far, we've looked at Matthew 24 and 1 Thessalonians 4. While both of these passages are used to teach the rapture doctrine, they do not actually teach it. Today, let's consider the third major prooftext of Premillennialism...the book of Revelation.
The book of Revelation is one of the most fascinating books of the Bible. Its imagery immediately grabs our attention. It's also one of the more popular parts of the word of God. Denominational preachers are often quoting it as they preach about the end of time. They assert that in the end of time, God will literally save 144,000 Jewish people (7:3-8), that He will literally throw a mountain into the sea (8:8-9), that He will literally poison the waters with a star of wormwood (8:11), that He will literally send horshish, human-like locust warriors to torment unbelievers (9:3-11), that there will be two literal men who will prophesy and call down fire from heaven on their enemies (11:3-12), that God will literally turn the seas to blood (16:3-4), that there will be a literal battle in Megiddo between the armies of Christ and the armies of Satan (16:12-16) and that there will be a literal millennial kingdom (20:4).
Wow...now that was a mouthful.
Even though most people view the book of Revelation this way, they have misunderstood the book. Revelation is not a book of literal language written to Christians during some tribulation period at the end of time. Rather, it is a book of highly symbolic language that was written to Christians in the first century who were enduring a period of tribulation then. Let's discuss this further.
What kind of language is used in the book of Revelation? The very first verse of the very first chapter answers this question for us. "The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto Him, to shew unto His servants things which must shortly come to pass; and He sent and signified it by His angel unto His servant John." The word signified is from the Greek word semaino which "to give a sign, to signify, indicate." To signify, or sign-ify, something is to describe it symbolically or representatively (see Jn. 12:33; 18:32; Ac. 11:28).
Some denominational scholars approach the book of Revelation by interpreting it literally unless the context demands a symbolic interpretation, but with 1:1 in mind, would it not be more correct to interpret the book symbolically unless the context demands a literal interpretation? If not, then why does Jesus say that the book was "signified?"
Yes, the book of Revelation speaks of 144,000 who are sealed by God, and yes, we do find the seven scroll, trumpet and bowl judgments, but are these things literal or figurative? Yes, we do read about a battle of Armageddon and a millennial reign, but are these things literal or figurative. We must assume that they are figurative, or symbolic. If a person is going to assert that these things are literal, the burden of proof is on them.
To whom was the book of Revelation written? Revelation 1:4 says, "John to the seven churches which are in Asia..." How can we say that the primary audience of the book is some "tribulation church" at the end of time when the book was clearly addressed to Christians in a particular region of the world in the first century? Should we not assume, then, that the events of the book were pertinent to them, that the book of Revelation applied to their circumstances? And that brings us to our next question...
When would the tribulation period of Revelation occur? John, in 1:9, wrote to the Christians in Asia, "I John, who also am your brother, and companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ..." Wait a second. Isn't this tribulation period supposed to be at the end of time, after the rapture and before the millennial reign of Christ? John says that it was going on in the first century. Some brethren apply the book of Revelation to the Jewish persecution while others (including myself) apply it to the Roman persecution.
When would the events of Revelation transpire? Revelation 1:1 says, "The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto Him, to shew unto His servants things which must shortly come to pass..." The latter part of 1:3 says, "for the time is at hand." Towards the end of the book, in 22:6, we're told, "And He said unto me, These sayings are faithful and true: and the Lord God of the holy prophets sent His angel to shew unto His servants the things which must shortly be done."
I also want you to notice Revelation 22:10. This is very important. It says, "And He saith unto me, Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book: for the time is at hand." Because the prophecies of Revelation were going to be fulfilled soon, John was told NOT to seal the book. Now compare this to Daniel 12:4: "But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased." Daniel prophesied about the rise and fall of the nations (Babylonian --> Persian --> Grecian --> Roman) as well as the rise of the kingdom of the Messiah which would be established during the days of the Roman kingdom (Dan. 2:44). So basically, Daniel was told to seal the book because the prophecies wouldn't be fulfilled for another 500-600 years, and apparently that's a long time. Now, let's go back to Revelation 22:10. John was told NOT to seal the book because the events were soon to pass...yet it's been almost 2,000 years since the book was written! If Daniel was told to seal his book because it would be another 500-600 years till it was fulfilled, then why didn't God instruct John to seal up his book? Maybe it's because the events of the book of Revelation were going to be fulfilled then, because after all, the tribulation was happening then.
So let's review. The book of Revelation is a highly symbolic, figurative book. It was written to Christians in the first century to help and encourage them during a period of tribulation that they were facing at the hand of either the Jews or Romans.
With this in mind, let me ask YOU the following questions. Is it appropriate to use the book of Revelation to say that there is going to be a literal seven-year period of tribulation at the end of time in which the Antichrist will reign over the globe? Is it proper to use the book of Revelation to teach that God will cause a literal mountain to fall into the sea, or that He will send a literal horde of horshish, human-like locusts upon the earth to torture the unbelievers? I could go on, but I think you get the point. The answer is "no."
As we go through the week, I'm going to come back and touch on some of the passages in the book of Revelation. I do want to consider the battle of Armageddon and I'd like for us to examine Revelation 20 and the millennial kingdom. But hopefully this brief study has helped to establish the basic context and nature of the book.
Feel free to comment below!
No comments:
Post a Comment