Interpretations of the book of Revelation

Recently a friend asked this question:

"I'm walking through Revelation with some people in my bible study and from the commentaries I have read it seems part of Revalation already took place with the fall of Rome. What do you think?"

First, let's define four different interpretations to the book of Revelation.

1. Allegorical View
2. Preterist View
3. Historical View
4. Futuristic View

After defining each viewpoint, I will give my humble opinion of which seems to make the most sense.

Allegorical View

This view became popular around 300 AD with the rise of a new theological school in Alexandria, Egypt. The ideas they were promoting were that the bible is largely allegorical, meaning symbolic. Take for example the OT, which conservative Christians would agree is filled with factual and historical events that were meaningful to the people going through them. However, conservative Christians also believe that the OT is useful for the believer in that it is symbolic of the Christian walk. The proponents of allegory would say all of those events were ONLY to be used for the Christian and some would question whether the events actually even existed.

It should be said that allegory is a wonderful thing that does exist in the bible. (ie: the book of Joshua) However, like many people who are off theologically, they take a good thing and run with it.

When Augustine came on the scene in the fourth century, he said allegory should not be used so widely, but should be limited to the end times. His views have been held by some Christians for thousands of years.

For instance, the Tribulation period of Rev 4-18 is allegorical (or symbolic) for all Christians who struggle. The coming of Christ in victory in Rev 19 is allegorical for the fact that Christ will reign victoriously in all believers.

The problem with applying allegory as the primary meaning to any portion of scripture is that scripture itself makes no claim to be primary allegorical. For instance, in Joshua, many see the crossing of the Jordan river by the Israelites as allegorical to a point in the Christian's life where they begin to walk in the Spirit. While this is fine, it is important to note that the bible claims that the Jordan crossing did actually occur. When we look at the book of Revelation, the bible also claims that these events did truly take place. NOT that they are primarily symbolic to the Christian.

Preterist View

The preterist view is similar to the allegorical in that it views the book of Revelation as a primarily symbolic book. The main difference is that the preterist view claims it is symbolic of certain historical events that took place in the early church. Also, this view typically only views Revelation as descriptive rather than prophetic. In a nutshell, the preterist is a more limited form of the allegorical which sees the events of Revelation happening right after John wrote them.

Historical View

The historical view is also similar to the preterist in that it attempts to find the events of the book of Revelation throughout history and maintains that the fulfillment of the book is yet future. If the preterist view saw the events of Revelation as all happening shortly after John's writing them, the historical view sees Revelation beginning after John writes it and continuing to the future.

Many have tried to take the historical view of Revelation and apply it to the timeframe they lived in. Because of this wide range of view points, there has never been a solid understanding from an authorized source on what exactly Revelation is depicting. For example, depending on when they were writing, some saw Nero as the anti-Christ, others various Popes, others various kings, others Hitler, and even some George Bush!

Futuristic View

A literal reading of the text of Revelation leads one to the futuristic view. Within this view, there is an understanding that some of the book is clearly symbolic, while other parts literal. When the bible makes a claim about an event taking place, it is taken as literal. If it uses symbolic language, it is taken to be symbolic. This is the same way other portions of Scripture are view, for instance, Jesus as Lord = literal... Jesus says "I am the door" = symbolic.

The futuristic view sees all events after Rev 4 as future events. Many futuristic scholars point to Rev 1:19 "Write the things which you have seen, and the things which are, and the things which will take place after this" as a sort of table of contents to the book. Rev 1-3 incorporates the things which he has seen and are because it deals with the churches. Rev 4-22 reveals the "things which will take place after this."

Which View is Best? (In JD's opinion...)

First, let me say that no one is heretical for choosing one of these ways of interpreting Revelation. These are things to discuss in love and not to split a church over. If someone is a Christian and loves Jesus and believes differently from me on this, then praise God. However, some of the views involve seeing Revelation in a non-literal sense. My concern for the proponents of such views is, "How is Revelation to be interpreted differently than any other book of the bible?" Some might say, "All of the bible is to be interpreted symbolically." And to this I would have to voraciously disagree. Others might simply believe this about Revelation because of its apocalyptic language. I understand that, but would like to challenge that viewpoint.

With that said, I hold to the futuristic view because of its literal view of the book as well as how well it fits in with other scripture like Ezekiel and Daniel. If anyone wants to know specifics, I would be happy to spend the time to lay them out, but time constrains me for right now.

Can a pastor's wife disqualify him?

Recently a friend asked me this question:

Can a pastor be disqualified because of his wife's sinfulness?

The bible is relatively silent on this issue, so the best I can do is offer what I believe to be biblical principles in regard to this issue. First, let's lay down a background for the question:

Church Discipline

Church discipline is a planned recourse set by the church to remove a person from ministry or from the church because of sin or heresy. The purpose of church discipline is two-fold: 1) The bible describes sin as "yeast, which works through the whole batch of dough." (1 Cor 5:6). This means that sin, if not dealt with, will spread throughout the church, causing widespread destruction. 2) The person who committed the sin may return to the Lord and repent of their sin as a result of church discipline. The act of removal may actually be the most gracious and loving thing a church can do for the offender.

When a pastor is the offender

The pastor of a church obviously wields a great deal of power and influence, especially if it is the teaching/ senior pastor. If the pastor sins, church discipline works the same, but is carried out by the other elders in the church, or sometimes elders of other churches brought in for this special purpose.

Pastor's sin usually falls in 3 main categories:

1. Sexual sin
2. Monetary sin
3. Doctrinal sin

The first two require no explanation. The last is simply when a pastor changes his beliefs to the point where they no longer fall under orthodox doctrine. In all three situations, the pastor must be removed from their position, and almost always the church itself. Because of a pastor's ability to influence people, he must not be allowed to continue at that church.

Other reasons a pastor may be asked to leave

Sometimes a pastor may be asked to leave for reasons that do not fall under the category of sin. If it becomes clear that the pastor is overworked to the point of having health or family issues, those overseeing the pastor may recommend or require a temporary break. A pastor's first ministry is to his wife and children, and problems at home may require a pastor to step down as well.

The pastor's wife

As stated above, a pastor's first ministry is to his wife. Biblically, the relationship of marriage is considered sacred and ranks second only to the relationship between man and God. Paul says in 1 Tim 3 that an elder (synonymous with "pastor" in the bible) is only qualified to lead if he is the husband of one wife and that he leads his household well. The principle here is that a man first leads himself well (1 Thes 4:4), and only then should get married. If he is a responsible man in loving his wife (and children if he has them) biblically, only then can he be considered for leadership in the church. Therefore, if there is an unresolved issue between the pastor and his wife, that pastor should step down from ministry for a time to restore the relationship. The elders of the church may force the pastor to do so if the pastor himself does not do it.

The pastor's wife and sin

The bible teaches that the responsibility for sin is primarily individual. This does not mean that sin does not affect others, but simply that God holds each person accountable for the sin they commit. Therefore, I do not believe that a pastor is responsible if his wife decides to sin greivously, however, as leader of the home, he may be responsible to do what he can to promote the restoration of his wife.

What if the wife commits adultery?

Allow me to make this more practical. One of the ways this issue might become real in a church is if the pastor's wife commits adultery on him. The man is not responsiible for his wife's sin, but it may be the wisest thing to do for him to step out of ministry to work toward (perhaps) restoring the relationship. It has already been noted that the relationship between man and wife is the primary human relationship, and takes priority for him over church leadership. In many situations, the man may be guilty of neglect and share some of the sin with his wife. In others, he was faithful and there was simple rebellion on his wife's part. Because there are unlimited possibilities here, the elders overseeing the pastor should immediately look into the situation to determine:

1. Whether the situation can be resolved. Is the wife willing to reconcile? Can she even be found or did she leave already?
2. Whether the pastor had neglected his wife leading up to her sin. Did he invert his priorities and therefore bring reproach on his family and the church?

Though I offer some possibilities, I must say that the vast majority of the time the pastor will need to step down from ministry. This may sound unfair to some, but for reasons already stated, it would be most glorifying to God for the man to attempt to reconcile his family.

What if the wife's sin is not adultery?

Perhaps the wife stole money or is guilty of continuous malevolent gossip. If this is unknown by her husband, then he is not responsible for her sin. I do not believe he should be forced to step down, but should lovingly rebuke his wife, hoping to restore her in light of Gal 6:1.

Obviously this is a very difficult question, with millions of possible scenarios and no direct application from scripture. The idea is to take biblical principles and apply them to the given situation. When that is done, it becomes clear that the family must be maintained first, and only then can the church be properly pastored.

(For the two of you who actually read all the way through this post, I commend you!)

Women in the church (1 Cor 14:34-38)

This was a question asked by one of my former youth group students. I hope it helps...

Danielle to JD:

So I haven't talked to you in like forever, but me and a friend were talking about this one random verse, and I didn't know exactly what to say, and I though who else to ask about complicated theological issues than JD? so yeah. Anyways, we were talking about 1 Corinithians 14:33, which says that women shouldn't speak in church, and yeah. I just wanted to know what you thought about that.

JD to Danielle:

Good to hear from you! Sorry, I have been off of facebook for awhile so I just went on and saw your question. So I will do my best to give you a thorough answer and I apologize if it is long. This is one of those things that can't be answered in a simple way.

So the question is, "What does 1 Cor 14:34-38 mean in today's context?" I think that is the gist of what you are asking.

There are several contexts that have to be addressed if we are to understand the text correctly. They are:

1. The context of what the bible tells us as a whole.
2. The cultural context of the NT church at that time.
3. The context of the entire book of Corinthians.
4. The context of that specific group of verses, specifically referring to prophecy.

An honest try at answering this question must deal with ALL of these... hence, why this is a long answer.

1. The bible declares that there is an order of creation. (Gen 2) This order is not just a birth order but an order of responsibility. The man, created first, is to be responsible over his household. Notice in Gen 3 that God went looking for the man after both he and his wife had sinned. This does not relieve the guilt of Eve, but simply shows that Adam is responsible. The very weighty theological way of saying it is that husband has ontological equality (meaning they are equal in being) with his wife, but functional superiority. Paul picks up on this theme in the NT, writing about multiple types of submission: husband to wife, church member to church leader, citizen to government, etc.

2. This brings us to the NT, and the culture of that time. The gospel had been taken beyond the realm of Israel to the Greeks, who did not share the Jewish view of family. The women of that day had a reputation of being boisterous, haughty, and insubordinate. Peter would later write to the Asia minor churches (made up of many Greek women) "Do not let your adornment be merely outward... rather let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the incorruptible beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit." (1 Pet 3:3-4).
In Corinth, this was especially true. A "Corinthian" of that day was a person given completely to debauchery or lewdness. As I am sure you know, there was a large temple to the goddess of Aphrodite which employed 1000 temple prostitutes. When Paul started the church there, many people got saved, but many did not. They remained a part of the church services, but they were by no means orderly. To make matters worse, it was a cultural norm at that time for the men to sit on one side of the room and the women to sit on the other during the services. If a woman wished to speak to a man during the service, she would have to practically yell across the room. It seemed that this was at least part of the problem because Paul says, "if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home." (1 Cor 14:35a)

3. The book of Corinthians not a stand-alone letter that Paul decided to randomly write to the church of Corinth. It was a response to a previous letter written by the Corinthian elders to Paul. We know this because, throughout the book, Paul makes implicit reference to certain questions they had asked him. Paul's main premise is to answer these questions so that there will be order in the church. Inevitably, someone asked him about the problem with the loud, insubordinate women in the church. This was his answer to that situation, for that church. What we can glean from the passage is to apply the principle to our lives. The main principle is that the times when God's people gather together to learn about and worship Him must be ORDERED. Whether men or women... no one should be annoying and loud while people are trying to hear the word of God.

4. The previous few chapters to these verses deals with spiritual gifts, with the last few dealing specifically with prophecy. Some have said that this reference to women being silent was directed specifically toward prophecy, but I don't believe that to be the case. In other portions of scripture, women are given complete freedom to prophesy. In Acts 21:9 we are told that Phillip had four virgin daughters that prophesied. In 1 Corinthians 11:5, Paul, speaking about head coverings, says women prophesy.

In conclusion, there are two issues at stake here. #1 - The gatherings of the church need to be ordered. Paul did not want women or men speaking out in the church during the preaching of God's word. #2 - When married women speak out boisterously, questioning things they have just been taught, they miss an amazing opportunity for their husbands to study and teach them. If this were a perfect world (and I am well aware it is not) then every man would be a pastor of his own home. He would seek God for direction and strength to lead his family with wisdom. If a woman goes "around" her husband to get her question answered, she makes him feel less than adequate and/or allows him to take the lazy road and continue to sit on the couch. Paul makes it clear that a woman is to be consistently encouraging her husband by asking him biblical questions even if she knows more than he does! Her question may not provoke an immediate response, but that man will most likely secretly go to his bible and seek to answer that question.

This is not a verse put forth by a "man-centered" religion as some contest. It is a plea from a pastor (Paul) who loves his church and wants what is best for them. What is best for the family is what the Creator of family says is best.

I hope this helps!

Thanks for the question,

JD