:: in.a.mirror.dimly ::

Today I am offering a very brief snapshot of the history of interpreting Revelation, made all the more limited because I’m focusing on the outcomes that have impacted evangelicals. I’m generally going to avoid labels and technical terms in the interest of brevity, but these links will provide a next step with more information about Revelation and Christian eschatology.

Uncertainty About an Unusual Book

During the 100-300’s Revelation was included in many, though not all, lists of New Testament books in the West, while it was rejected by many churches in the East. It was generally interpreted as a prediction of the immanent return of Jesus in the future, but after Constantine rose to power Christians began to interpret it in more symbolic ways, a trend that generally held throughout the following years.

The return of Jesus wasn’t literal or immanent, but was rather a spiritual reality. The millennial reign was already in process, and the book did not line up with contemporary or future events and people.

Generally speaking, Christianity became increasingly distant from its Jewish roots after the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem in 70 AD, an event that Christians fled due to the warnings of Jesus. While I can’t vouch for every theologian that followed, generally speaking the Jewish roots of the New Testament became less important, especially in the case of an obscure book such as Revelation that bore a resemblance to a small body of Jewish writings.

If Revelation wasn’t about the immanent return of Jesus in a series of cataclysmic global events, it also wasn’t recognized as a particularly Jewish kind of book. Without either of these options on the table, theologians in the west struggled to interpret it.

The Urgency Returns

Throughout the years Christian scholars wrestled with the meaning of Revelation, and throughout to the Reformation debates continued about its value. In the early to mid 1800’s, evangelical theologians in America found fertile ground for a reading of Revelation that interpreted it as a prophecy of future events that foreshadowed the literal return of Jesus.

An urgency and anticipation gripped evangelicalism in America and eventually in other countries. Some groups took the extreme measures of setting actual dates for the return of Jesus, but by and large the greater impact was one of urgency for evangelism and a fervency to remain close to Christ—shifts that leaders such as Moody viewed as beneficial.

However, throughout the late 1800’s the popularity of this view also led to a general withdrawal from many social programs that focused on serving the poor. In fact, historian David Bebbington cites this theological shift as influential in the gradual move away from evangelical social action at the turn of the 20^th century (The Dominance of Evangelicalism p. 200).

What’s Different Today?

Many modern scholars today make the faulty assumption that historians today care about the facts more than ancient historians and scholars. Just look at the circus known as the Jesus Seminar that has sought the real Jesus, but generally muddies the water. Such scholars see our traditions as a liability to be removed, which is quite wrong and unhelpful in the majority of cases.

However, when it comes to Revelation, the literary context of the book has been so widely unknown and its history of interpretation so uncertain and shifting, that I think a reexamination of the book is warranted. While we are not more intelligent or more committed to the facts than those before us, we do have a new angle on the book of Revelation in light of its contemporaries in Jewish literature.

By doing this, I think we can take some huge steps forward in our understanding of Revelation, our grasp of the larger biblical story, and the points of application to our daily lives.