The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Revelation isn't looking good to me

It appears as though the Discussion Negative forum is a bit slow so I will post it here.

Granted, the person I have been doing weekly Bible study with is an annihilationist. We’ve been looking at all the verses that relate to the tribulation that occurs before the 2nd Coming, and the 2nd Coming itself, and the 1000-year reign (that’s where we stopped). The fate of unbelievers in the 2nd Coming looks really, really nasty. God spares none of them, seems to even have them slain with their bodies strewn all over the place and the fowls of the air preying on their carcasses, etc. God is very, very angry. It just doesn’t look like He wants or plans to save any of these guys at all. God looks completely merciless. There are various passages we went through and it looks like a really ugly picture for the unbelievers. I wish I knew what to say. How to reconcile some of the seemingly universalist passages with what is going to happen. I haven’t even talked about the Lake of Fire part either. We didn’t get to that part.

Revelation is a book I haven’t delved into much because it has seemed “out there” to me. I could never understand it on my own, but it’s not looking very hopeful for the unbelievers. It doesn’t say anything about what happens to them after they’re thrown into the Lake of Fire - just that they’re thrown…

It does look like eternal hell is not part of the picture - with death being thrown into the Lake of Fire too…

Lady Bug,

The book of Revelation is a complex read, full of symbolic language that needs to be interpreted in the light of more clear portions of the Scriptures. The Westminster Confession of Faith speaks well when it says:

…the book of Revelation is one of those places that “are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all.”

My point is, one should build the foundation of his/her theological convictions on much clearer portions of scripture, then approach complex passages in the light of the clearer portions. What do the clearer passages say? Do the clearer parts of scripture teach universal reconciliation, or do they teach that some will be eternally lost? What do the clearer portions of scripture say about the character of God? about judgement? holiness? love? the nature of man?

Once you have understood from the clearer teachings of scripture what is to be known of God, of man, and of judgement and salvation, then you go to the more complex portions of scripture and consider them in the light of what you have learned elsewhere. The complex passages will not contradict the clearer passages.

Revelation is a complex book, and there are too many interpretations of it out there. Establish your theology from the clearer portions of scripture, not from the complex.

Lady Bug,
Let me give you a bit of wisdom when studying Revelations.

Here is an exerpt from The 1st lake of fire study from Remnant Bible study resource on understanding how to look at Revelations…

“But here is the truth. The lake of fire is figurative and symbolic and the second death is also figurative or symbolic. And how do we know this? Well, It is the only way that these Scriptures on the lake of fire and the second death will harmonize and not contradict the rest of God’s Word and God plainly tells us in chapter one, verse one, that an angel “signified” this whole “Revelation of Jesus Christ” contained in this book. He “SYMBOLIZED” it, for that is what “signifies” means–to make known by signs, and signs are symbols. The word “signified” is from the Greek “SEMAINO” meaning to indicate or communicate by means of signs and symbols. Therefore it can’t be literal! Yes. Revelation is a book of SYMBOLS!”

Here is the study…It deals with the symbolism of Revelations…It is all symbolic.

remnantbiblestudies.com/arti … e_pt1.html

It is a huge mistake to look at Revelations from a literal perspective. Right at verse 1 it states it is symbolic. Take a look at the study if you have time. :mrgreen:

Out of 10 known catalogues of “canonical” books up to 380 A.D., which included some New Testament books as well as other writings, 4 included Revelation as canonical, 4 listed it among disputed writings, and 2 did not include it, implying rejection of it.

See:

bible-researcher.com/canon5.html

thank you; I will take a look at the study. :slight_smile: The thing is, she was also showing me Old Testament prophecies too; and they seemed to tie into what would happen in Revelation as well; and the Old Testament prophecies (somewhere in Jeremiah and Isaiah) looked really dismal for unbelievers but I’ll take your word for it that somehow the things in Revelation are symbolic. you see, I’m not good with the Old Testament. I only know a few books in it, but they are not even the Prophetic ones, they’re the poetic ones like Psalms and Proverbs. I have been a Christian for years but I still have plenty to learn.

Very good advice.

There are some bits in Revelation that seem to be clear as well. A favorite is from Ch 5:

And I heard every created being in heaven and on earth and under the earth (Hades) and on the sea and all that is in it, crying out together, “To Him Who is seated on the throne and to the Lamb be ascribed blessing and honor and majesty and power forever and ever!”

Now I’m not much of a Bible-thumper, as others may know, though I think the Bible is important and has value, even if I’m not exactly a big fan of much of it, but I think 1824 makes a good point about interpreting more complex parts of the Bible in the light of more clear parts of it.

Another way that I’ve heard of to look at the Bible is ‘through the lens of Jesus’, that is, the Jesus of the Gospels.

Jesus said that you have seen him then you have seen the Father, so, in other words, God is ‘Christlike’.

So if anything in the Bible contradicts the basic character and basic teachings of Jesus, then either we’re not really getting it or it’s just plain wrong and only some long dead guy’s opinion…

And speaking of which, I think that’s part of this… as long as one insists that the Bible be totally inerrant, one will have to do some extreme mental and emotional gymnastics to explain away a number of significant and frustrating contradictions throughout the Bible, at least in my view.

And if the Bible really is inerrant, than which one? Is it exactly the same in every translation and in every language?
I don’t think so.
And even the manuscripts that we have available of the Bible in its original languages aren’t exactly the first ones.

Now I’m not a scholar by any means (though Sobernost is :wink:), but I’ve read enough here and there about the awkward and haphazard formation of the Bible to cause me some considerable doubt about the whole inerrancy thing.

With that said, Revelation was one of the most contested books included in the canon, and its still contested even to this day. And that’s because it’s just plain whacky, if you ask me. :neutral_face:

However, there are a couple parts in there that I think are meaningful and worth paying attention to, like the part where Jesus appears to John in all his glory, and says “Do not be afraid. I am the First and the Last, I am the Living One; I was dead, and now look, I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades” or the part at the end when it says “He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.” So, in other words, the bookends are the best parts, imo. :wink:

I know some will frown at how I pick and choose scripture, hold to the parts I like, that mean something to me and resonate with me, and then pretty much ignore or discount the rest, but I’ll be honest and say that I do. All of us do it, to one extent or another, whether we’d like to admit it or not, so mi’aswell be honest about it.

But I know that you may not be comfortable looking at things in this way, and may feel more comfortable with trying to see if there can be a way of covering all the bases in the Bible and still arriving at ‘good news of great joy for all people’, and there are some who do a pretty good job making that at least plausible.

As I’ve said elsewhere, one could certainly argue a very strong case from the Bible alone for universal reconciliation, and I won’t argue that. There are some very convincing biblical arguments out there for UR, for sure, quite a few of which I’ve read, and even though my focus isn’t the Bible, I can still appreciate that. One need not be a ‘wishy washy’ guy like myself to believe in this great hope. :wink:

And I admit that I could be wrong about the whole inerrancy thing. Perhaps everything in the Bible does have an explanation that would still allow you to arrive at something wonderful rather than something terrible.

This video I watched recently that someone shared here on the forum comes to mind, concerning this possibility. You may want to give it a look:

godslovewins.com/blog/peter-hiet … ter-hiett/

And also something that Andrew Jukes, author of The Restitution Of All Things, comes to mind, which I found thought -provoking, and I wonder if he may be right, and I may be off in way or another:

If you like Andrew Jukes’ take on things here, you may want to check out his classic defense of UR (which the above is the first chapter of), Restitution Of All Things, which you can read in its entirety here, for free:

alampthatburns.net/jukes/res … ntents.htm

I’m not sure if any of this helps at all, or just offers more confusion… it’s hard, when the heart cries out to believe in something beautiful, and yet we sometimes are deeply afraid that the truth is something ugly… but I take hope though from certain parts of scripture, including where Jesus says ‘the truth shall set you free’… aye, now that speaks to me. :slight_smile:

Blessings to you, Lady Bug :slight_smile:

Matt

Wrath of God is a symbol, the root is not from anger,
anger is a sin, and it is not from God (although he created Satan for this purpose; we are in battlefield),
he doesn’t need to get angry, because he is the powerful one,
he can simply destroy everything in the universe in a twinkling of an eye,
but why he doesn’t do it? because he is the God of living :wink:
he has a purpose, a Plan by doing these things. if you take it literal, it will be like thriller movies,
smashing people everywhere :smiley:

Wrath of God means (even by doing these things he is not Angry in reality): earthquakes, floods (Noah’s time flood was part of his Plan) and more :smiley:

when you have his spirit, you will simply understand his love, power, and …
for us as powerless humans, because of our sinful nature it is difficult to understand who is the Spiritual Father,
because most of us taking things Literally

Lady,

So the annihilated kings of the earth, the greatest human rebels against Christ (worshipers of the Beast, who died impenitent as such and so thrown into the lake of fire at some point), walk into the never-closed gates of the New Jerusalem, where no one can enter unless their names have been written into the book of life, following the light of Christ and bringing the riches of their people with them, and the bartender says…

…would you like some leaves of healing to go with your water of life?

:slight_smile:

Their story doesn’t stop at Rev 19, or even at Rev 20. They’re back on deck in Rev 21, leading others to salvation, in a scene parallel with scriptures from Isaiah and Ezekiel about the kings of the earth coming in repentance to reconcile with the righteous in the Day of the Lord to come.

In fact, the language of Rev 19, regarding those rebels, is very similar to that of the climax of Psalm 23, the shepherd’s psalm that is famous across much of the world even outside Christendom, and which we all eagerly pray concerning ourselves (at least)!

Christ comes to pursue and overthrow them (as the Hebrew verb implies from the Psalm when it says goodness and mercy will surely follow" me for all the days of my soul) like a king running down a rebellious army; they are shepherded with the rod of iron; Christ wars against them unto “fair-togetherness”; they certainly are sent to walk through the valley of deep darkness/of death; and later in RevJohn they return to the house of YHWH for length of days (as the Psalm more literally says toward the end).

Annihilationism only works if a lot of important story details are left out. :wink:

And even if anni is true, no one should ever appeal to testimony about the destruction of evil-doers as evidence for it, when that destruction occurs before the general resurrection (perhaps with rare special exceptions with clear explanations as to why). Not unless the annihilationist is denying the resurrection of the wicked as well as the good.

What happens with the kings of the earth before the millennium reign, cannot be annihilation.

Hi LadyBug,

It’s important to know that John’s Revelation is a then common style of literature among the Jews called Apocalyptic. Because Revelation is apocalyptic literature, a series of visions filled with imagery and symbols, it is very challenging to interpret and by its very nature open to a wide range of types and systems of interpretation. It is an enigmatic book filled with mystery and ambiguity and thus difficult to understand and interpret. It is more like a series of movie clips than a study on doctrine. It was meant to encourage and inspire more so than teach. Because of its very nature it is open to a wide range of interpretations. Theologians typically group this wide variety of interpretations into four basic categories: Preterist, Historicist, Spiritualist, and Futurist. (Though some use five catagories adding “Dispensationalist”, a specific type of Futuristic interpretation.)

Preterists view the visions of Revelation as having already been fulfilled primarily, if not completely, in the destruction of Jerusalem and/or the fall of the Roman Empire. The “beast” is usually understood to be the Roman Emporer Nero or Domitian, and the Roman government was “Babylon”. Revelation was written to encourage believers that persecution would come to an end, God would deliver his people, and the church would prevail and ultimately overcome the Roman Empire, which it ultimately did. Some preterist believe that the final chapters of Revelation still look forward to the second coming of Christ, though the rest of the book is fulfilled.

Historists interpret Revelation believing that it gives a panoramic view of church history from the time of John to the present and on to the Second coming of Christ. This is the historic Protestant view of the book. They see in the visions the sacking of Rome by the barbarians, the rise of the Roman Catholic Church, the birth of Islam, etc. Some even claim the Roman Catholic Church to be the beast. They see in Revelation the steadfast continuance of the church, though it be a miniority of professing Christians, and the rise and fall of nations throughout history. Fulfillment is present and progressive, and has been unfolding for two thousand years.

Yet others interpret Revelation from a Spritualist view, otherwise called Metaphorical, Idealist, or Symbolic. Spiritualist do not look to see in Revelation the rise and fall of nations, but see in Revelation a great drama of spiritual realities such as the conflict between good and evil, Christ and Satan, saints and those who operate in an anti-Christ spirit. These transcending spiritual realities can be seen in historical events throughout this present evil age. The words of comfort and encouragement in Revelation can thus be interpreted and applied to Christians of any culture, race, or time.

And the most common view today, especially in Protestant Evangelical circles, is to interpret John’s Revelation from a Futurist view, believing that it speaks of things yet to come. Futurists usually interpret everything after chapters four or six to literally and symbolically speak of actual people and events yet to come during a relatively brief period of time just before the second coming of Christ. Many see current day events as fulfillment of some of these prophecies and thus look for the rise of the anti-Christ and the return of Christ any day. Failure to take into consideration the apocalyptic syle, its use of vivid images and symbols (dragons, monsters, stars, numbers, pregnant woman, etc.) of Revelation has led to some wacky, outlandish teachings. And of course, some have been so caught up in the Futurist view of Revelation that they have even affirmed specific dates for the Lord’s return. Do you remember “88 Reasons Why The Rapture Will Be In 1988” or more recent examples of such?

Frankly, I believe Revelation can be and should be interpreted loosely from all four perspectives, broad picture! And it is when we try to nail Revelation down to ONLY speak of one perspective, and use it as proof of our beliefs concerning that one perspective instead of using it to illustrate our beliefs, that we run into major difficulties and start misusing it. Of the four views, the Futurist view is the one that to me is the least clearly defined, most open for broadly differing interpretations, and thus should be the one most lightly held. In my opinion the Preterist view is the most solid, but the Spiritualist view is the most encouraging and applicable to our lives today personally. And the Historist view speaks to nations, no matter what era we’re in.

John’s Revelation was meant to inspire, empower, and emotionally affirm some broad principles. It was meant to reveal that Jesus is Lord of All, and not necessarily meant to be taken literally or meant to affirm a specific eschatology, much less a specific systematic theology. Through its vibrant illustrations it is meant to move one emotionally and spiritually. It is a series of visions, each more powerful than the previous, ultimately culminating in all evil being overcome, all suffering being healed, righteousness triumphing and being rewarded, evil being punished, the kingdom of God being fully established on earth as it is in heaven. It illustrates the fulfilment of our prayer, “Thy Kingdom come on earth as it is in heaven!” Arguing over the identity of the Beast is like arguing over what Sauruman in the “Lord of the Rings” stood for, or what was represented by the Red and Blue pills in “The Matrix”, or who Wormtail is in “Harry Potter”. Such makes for a fun, invigorating, even inspiring discussion, but it is not meant to be interpreted literally much less dogmatically, I believe.

Am I saying that we should only interpret it from a Spiritualist view and not from the Futurist, Historist, or Preterist view? No. What I am affirming is that there are merrits and “limitations” to each of the four views. John was inspired to write Revelation to speak to his first century audience to encourage them to hang in there. And God can inspire us all with the same message, trusting God to work it all out. Yes, Revelation can and I believe does speak of the second coming of Christ and the culmination of all things in this age, but it can and does also speak to the war of good and evil waged in our own hearts, families, and cultures.

How does one interpret Picasso’s Guernica? When asked to explain the symbolism in this painting, Picasso replied, “It isn’t up to the painter to define the symbols. Otherwise it would be better if he wrote them out in so many words! The public who look at the picture must interpret the symbols as they understand them.” John, in painting his visions with words, might have understood what they meant and what the symbols represented; he might not have understood them. He might have understood them to speak of Rome and the terrible oppression of Christians, maybe not. He might have seen in it the burning of Rome, experiencing the judgment of God like Sodom and Gomorah, maybe not. He might have understood the lake of fire to be… But we just do not know for certain because John does not interpret his visions! No other book in the Bible is more open to a wide range of interpretations than Revelation!

I find that in Revelation it is very easy, too easy, to get lost in the details and forget the message of the broader picture. Let us keep in mind that John wrote this book to encourage and inspire believers who were going through terrrible persecution. Every generation has its Babylon, Antichrist, and the revelation of Gods’ love. The Lamb of God and the hope of His return and the judgment of God has inspired believers for 2000 years to give their lives in service of others, to keep loving, to keep sharing, to keep forgiving even when facing the horrors of irrational, seemingly prevailing, evil - trusting the one day good shall prevail and evil will be vanquished!

Good summary, Sherman! (And even though I’m a futurist, I agree all four methods of interpretation have merit.)

Sherman, I think your description of futurists, should have a wider connotation. For it is certainly the case that not all futurists are pre-trib rapture/dispensationalists. The Christians of the second century were all futurists (and this was subsequent to 70 A.D.) Irenæus discussed in detail the appearance of the antichrist as an event future to his own time. He believed that Christians would live through that period, and that then Christ would come and rule in His earthly kingdom for a thousand years. Futurists who hold the same view today are labelled as “historic pre-millenialists”. I am one of them.

Other than that, you did do a good job in describing the four views.

Are you aware of Steve Gregg’s excellent book on the four views of Revelation? I have the book and must say it’s very thorough indeed. It’s a commentary on Revelation with four columns for each of the four interpretations. One may check it out at Amazon:

amazon.ca/dp/0840721285

There’s a revised and updated edition this year, too (the previous linked release having been 1997).

amazon.com/Revelation-Four-V … 1401676219

I see he released a book on ECT vs Anni vs Kath this year, too: amazon.com/All-Want-Know-Abo … 1401678300 Based on the blurb description my guess is he goes with the Kath view.