Tags
Reflecting on the text
Okay, let’s get down to it. The first question most of us ask about this book is quite appropriately, “What is this thing?”
Indeed, what is the book of Revelation?
This is the question we’ll be exploring for the rest of the week.
Let me start by asking another question. Have you ever noticed the fact that we read different types of “literature” differently? It’s so obvious that it’s easy to miss, but think about it for a minute.
Do you read the newspaper the same way you read a novel?
Do you read a poem the same way you read the phonebook?
Do you read the comics the same way you read a cooking recipe?
Of course not. There is a word for this that you’ve probably heard: genre. Genre basically refers to different types of literature (or music, movies, etc).
So when we ask the question, “What is the book of Revelation?” we are asking a question about genre.
There are three basic things that specify a genre: the form (or characteristics) of the work, the purpose for writing, and consequent guidelines for how to read it.
Thinking about our previous examples, we can see how this plays out in everyday life.
Form – When you see a page of recycled paper filled with lists of names and seven- or ten-digit numbers, you know that you are looking at phonebook and not a comic strip.
Purpose – Novels are written primarily to engage our imagination and to catch us up in the story they are telling. On the other hand, instructions manuals or recipes are written to show us how to do or make something.
Guidelines for reading – When we read a poem, we must allow our imagination and our emotions to get involved if we are to properly experience it. The same is not often true for, say, a science textbook.
How does this help us understand Revelation? Well, there are actually three genre mentioned and/or assumed in the opening statements of the book: letter, prophecy, and apocalyptic.
By looking at each of these genres (their form and characteristics, purpose, and guidelines for reading), we’ll lay a strong foundation for our study of the rest of the book.
So with the time we have left today, let’s talk briefly about Revelation as a letter.
The form of Revelation’s opening verses is our main clue that it is, in fact, a letter. Notice verses 4-6. Do they look familiar? They sound an awful lot like the openings to other New Testament letters (see Ephesians 1.1-5; James 1.1; 1 Peter 1.1-2; 2 John 1-3; Jude 1-2).
So among other things, Revelation is clearly a letter.
Living what we learn
Now to the important question: who cares? What difference does this make? We can answer this by thinking about letters today. What are some of the purposes of letters in our world?
Basically, letters communicate information from one person (or group) to another person (or group). The important thing to grasp is that letters are personal forms of communication that usually address specific issues within an already (or soon-to-be-) established relationship.
Here is something we must never ever forget: Because Revelation is a letter, we can’t ignore the original audience.
The basic point is that the text cannot mean something that would have been totally incomprehensible to the original hearers. Our reading of Revelation must make at least as much sense in their world as it does in our own. If we remember this, we will be protected from many of the ridiculous things being said about Revelation in our world today.
Or in someone else’s words, “If Revelation were ‘really’ a book of predictions of later events, such as the oil crisis in the Middle East, Russian and American militarism, it would have been meaningless to its first readers and would not have been a letter to them at all.”
Just as Paul wrote to the Galatians about things happening in Galatia (1.6-9), and to the Corinthians about issues regarding the church in Corinth (1 Cor 7.1; 7.25; 8.1; 12.1), John wrote Revelation to followers of Jesus living in the Roman province of Asia Minor (present-day Turkey) in the late first century.
There is one other very important “guideline for reading” that I want to bring to your attention. Revelation (like most biblical books) was not written to an individual; it was written to churches. This means that this book applies more to you and me together than to you or me individually. Revelation is properly read and lived out in community, as we are attempting to do.
So Revelation was God’s word to them (the original audience) before it became God’s word to us, and it’s God’s word to us (as communities of faith) before it is God’s word to you and me (as individuals).
Looking ahead to next week, read through chapters 2-3. What are some of the issues that seem to be important for these seven churches in Asia Minor?
…
Lifting the Veil 002 // What is Revelation? (pt 1)
Jimmy J said:
Michael.
Thanks. Very helpful.
Jim
cK said:
Very informative. Thanks, cK
Michael DeFazio said:
Thank you Jim. Without you I’d probably love the Left Behind series or something silly like that. Yikes!
Thanks cK!
ellie said:
can’t wait for more. this will be interesting.
your comments about not ignoring the original audience raised a lot of questions for me. i can see how it needs to make sense to the original audience, but how much sense? reminded me of being part of a jewish discussion group and reading Isaiah 53. They asked me to talk about what it means to Christianity and then explained that it obviously didn’t mean that b/c it’s written in the past tense and therefore not intended to be prophecy. But since God was, is and will be, can’t he talk in any tense he wants? How does our reading of OT prophecies agree/disagree with how we should read Revelation?
Michael DeFazio said:
Such a great question, Ellie! I don’t claim to have a perfect answer but I’ll share some thoughts. More than anything though, let’s keep your question in mind as we work through the book.
Interpreting biblical prophecy is very complicated because one text or image can be used to say many different things, and because texts and images are re-used by other prophets over time to relate to new events in the life of God’s people. (That’s what is done with the image of foreign empires as “beasts” for example, which we’ll certainly deal with in Revelation.)
What I’d say about Isaiah 53 is this. First, the meaning within Isaiah’s time period shouldn’t be discounted. The “servant” seemed to originally refer to the people of Israel (judging from other references to the Servant in Isaiah). So the meaning is that there will be some sort of suffering in Israel’s future that will somehow atone for their sins (which, for them, would have had very tangible historical counterparts, such as return from exile and freedom to worship without foreign oppression). There is even the idea that a particular individual would take upon himself their sins in a great act of suffering, but we must remember that Israel as a whole could be represented as an individual in some of the prophets (such as here and in Daniel). There is some ambiguity as to whom exactly is being spoken of. But the main idea is that through suffering, Israel (perhaps through a representative, perhaps as a corporate body or a remnant) will have her sins atoned for. What we are saying as Christians is not necessarily that Isaiah had in mind all along that Jesus of Nazareth would do that, but that this is how God chose to work things out (in accordance with his foreknowledge and pre-planning, of course).
The key thing is that this text only came to be seen as referring to Jesus after God had done something within history to reveal more about his plan, i.e. the resurrection of Jesus. It is after the fact (whatever “the fact” is in a given circumstance) that a fuller meaning of an earlier prophetic text becomes apparent. This may sound strange to all of us, but it is actually not all that crazy for ancient Jews. God regularly surprised them in how he brought about his purposes.
So what does all this have to do with Revelation? In the end, God can “finish the story” however he wants to. And after he does, we may look back at our current texts and see hints and clues that we never suspected. But this would be very different than using our texts to try and predict or map out the future. That’s primarily what I’m arguing against here, and I’m doing so by reminding us of how closely the book of Revelation ties itself to the situation of seven churches in 1st century Asia Minor. This is the importance of seeing that Revelation is a letter. As such I would argue that it’s more closely tied to these 1st century churches even than Isaiah’s prophecy was to his original audience.
So to summarize in answer to your question:
(1) Isaiah 53 had a very important message for its original audience, that the sufferings of Israel had some sort of deeper redemptive effect.
(2) After God apparently revealed himself further in Jesus, his people looked back at Isaiah 53 and saw even more meaning than was originally there. This is a regular feature of God’s unfolding revelation in Scripture.
(3) So the texts of Revelation may yet have more meaning than we’ve seen, but we will not see this until after God has done what he’s going to do. Every attempt to use Revelation to map out the future has failed, and the actual predictive failures are some of the least sins committed by these readings (others including demonizations of everyone from the Pope to Russia to Obama).
(4) The fact that Revelation is a letter written to a specific audience that the book emphasizes (especially up front), we should be hesitant to find something there that would have made no sense to them whatsoever (even more so than when we’re reading other biblical prophecy).
Pingback: What is the book of Revelation? (pt 2) « to tell the truth
Pingback: Resuming Lifting the Veil (blogging through the book of Revelation) « to tell the truth
Pingback: Naming the Beast (Rev 13) « to tell the truth