Rightly Interpreting the Apocalypse

The key to understanding the Apocalypse is to read it, as much as possible, with the assumption that it simply means what it says. Don't get caught up in trying to unravel a knot of hidden symbols as if the work was a mere allegory-- it's not, it's a prophecy. Some things have symbolic meaning, some things are just scenery (so much for Idealism). If everything in the book means something other than what is written, what is written ends up meaning nothing at all.

As the very first sentence of the work clearly states in rather straightforward language and grammar, the work is meant to reveal what is about to occur. It's not written to confound, nor to encrypt, and even when symbolizing, not to leave the reader clueless as to what those symbols represent. The Revelation is not the biblical equivalent of a Rubik's cube. It's written to the general audience of God's people, and it should be understandable to that audience.

The work is generally dated to around 95 AD, although there is a body of people who believe it was written before 70 AD. The usual reason given for the earlier date is because the work does not mention the Temple's destruction in 70 AD. That argument is a vapor, however, because it assumes Herod's Temple had any significance to the temple(s) envisioned within the work. Just as the First Temple's destruction was not treated by Ezekiel, neither did John mention Herod's.

Really, the earlier date only serves one purpose: to give cover to erroneous interpretations arising from the unsound doctrine called Preterism. Historical, textual, and archeological evidence for the earlier date, when examined, proves non-existent. Beside, to cram the last four chapters of the Apocalypse into to any temporal framework that has the events mentioned as already occurring is to take a wrecking ball to the text.

And since that first sentence declares that it is about things which must (Koine: dei, necessarily) soon (Koine: tachos, quickly, without delay) take place, the reasonably justified assumption is that the work would be referencing things beginning to take place around 95 AD. Therefore, any approach attempting to jam virtually all the events foretold in this book into the distant future during the last seven years of history is a fool's errand. 

So it appears that the opening statement of the prophecy precludes every preterist (by dating) and every futurist (by definition) interpretation of the work. Only an historicist interpretation can clear the very first sentence of the work intact!

Some historicists have interpreted the letters to the seven churches as describing, symbolically, seven epochs of the Church Age, starting from the Apostles and ending with the Return of Christ. Whereas that approach at least understands the historical implications of the prophecy, there's nothing in the text or context that demands interpreting it that way. These were churches extant at the time of writing, all at once in real time and were addressed for more transparent reasons, it seems to me, than as symbols for epochs unhinted at in the text.

A simpler (and thereby, generally bound to be better) approach is to take them as representing the totality of the church at any given time. The number seven is associated scripturally with completeness, or entirety, and today one will find churches existing in the same space and time, which would fit rather neatly into the general categories limned out by those seven churches. I think that has always been true, and so take the overall effect of their mention to be symbolic of the church universal throughout time, and representing the diversity in the character of individual congregations.

Whereas the letters to the churches should not be interpreted epochally, the seven seals on the scroll should be. The imagery comes right out of Roman testate law-- under that regimen, wills were sealed with seven wax seals only broken in the presence of the heir. The Lamb, being the first-born from among the dead, had earned the inheritance of creation and mankind: breaking the seals only he could open was the formality that had to occur to bring the will into ultimate enactment. Since each broken seal is related in a process over time, the action represents not only a witness to the authority of the Son of Man, but also reveals epochs proceeding in history leading up to the coronation of the coming King. 

In an upcoming post, each seal will be identified by its antecedent historical event. I hope you stay with me!