there's the right way, and there's the Lahaye way: reading the book of Revelation

Msn recently published an interview with popular author Tim Lahaye, of Left Behind fame, regarding the current war involving Israel and the end times (clicking on the title of this post will get you there). Many who know me are aware of my aversion for Lahaye and his theology, I may have even used the word "disease" once or twice. Mind you, I'm grateful that people have decided to study the Bible more as a result of reading his books, and the Lord has no doubt used such means to draw people to Himself. That doesn't mean he's right, of course, since the Lord has also used those who wholeheartedly disagree with Lahaye to draw people to Himself. That's just the way He works, thankfully we don't have to get it all right in order to be used.

I just want to point out a couple things really quick. The interviewer at one point states: "But my understanding is that current biblical scholarship reads some of the apocalyptic scenes in the Bible as metaphorically addressing events that were taking place as the Bible was being written." Lahaye's replies with: "These are usually liberal theologians that don’t believe the Bible literally." Woah, slow down, buddy! This is hardly a liberal position. Is it liberal to assume that the Bible had something to say to those living in the time it was written? Or should we automatically assume that the apocalyptic visions were written only for the future, or more specifically, for 21st century Christians? This is, after all, what Lahaye believes. This reminds me of a friend of mine who said Revelation is his favorite book "because it's the only book written specifically for us today." How arrogant is that to assume that John decided to skip over 2000 years of the Church in order to encourage us?

Actually, when you study Revelation, it makes much more sense to see the imagery as something that the initial readers understand. This isn't a "liberal" notion, it's common sense. It was written in the 1st century, therefore 1st century readers would have been able to figure out its meaning. Mind you, I think Revelation does talk about the end times, but not to the exclusion of addressing the original readers. The truth is that God delivering His Church from the persecution and temptations of Rome is intertwined with God delivering His people in the last days. Have you noticed how OT prophets refer back to the exodus from Egypt when talking about the Israelite return from exile? Why? Because they are connected. God delivered His people from Egyptian slavery, and He would do the same as they were in exile in Babylon. Looking backward is the key to looking forward.

Notice that Revelation does the same thing. There is imagery of the exodus (for instance, the plagues) and wording taken from the prophets (Zechariah, Ezekiel, Daniel) who spoke of the return from Babylon. Why? Because looking back to God's faithfulness to deliver His people is how John decided to encourage his readers in their trial. In a sense, history is cyclical. God's people are persecuted/enslaved/exiled and are delivered. There will one day be a final deliverance, which Revelation does talk about (see chapter 20). It is the "end-times exodus." We can understand Revelation to address its original audience without making it purely about us. We can understand the Lord's view of the future by looking at His view of the past. Rome was a brutal, oppressive force agains God's people. They were also a temporary power that eventually God would destroy, and John's readers needed to know that. And so does every generation of Christians who has suffered at the hands of an enemy of God. That is the primary way we can see Revelation addressing us.

I also wanted to make a comment about Lahaye's commitment to a literal reading of Revelation. It's interesting to note that he (and others who take his view) love to trumpet this claim- that they read the book literally. However, they aren't consistent. Does he really think a literal beast will arise from the sea (chapter 13)? No, he sees that as a picture. Why? If he's so committed to a literal reading he should see this as a literal beast popping up out of the sea. But he knows that's absurd, so he abandons his method at this point. In essence, he becomes a "liberal" (his word, not mine) when it's convenient.

I'd also like to point out that Revelation interprets itself metaphorically: "And I saw coming out of the mouth of the dragon and out of the mouth of the beast and out of the mouth of the false prophet, three unclean spirits like frogs, for they are the spirits of demons" (16:12-14, italics mine). It gives a picture (three frogs) and its interpretation (spirits of demons). Shoot, Jesus Himself does this in the last verse of chapter 1 ("the seven stars are the angels of the seven churches, and the seven lampstands are the seven churches", where are the red letters when I need them?). This is one reason I read the book metaphorically, there aren't literal frogs, and there isn't a literal beast or literal horses with literal riders. And for the record, I don't take the numbers in Revelation literally, either.

Part of the problem, in my opinion, is our poor understanding of how metaphors work (and here I may be getting away from my realm of "expertise" so bear with me). Admitting that something is metaphorical is not the same thing as saying it isn't real. A metaphor is grounded in reality. In fact, metaphors work so well because they refer to something that is real. We see this in art, music, etc., why not in the Bible?

Anyway, I really think I'm starting to ramble here, I apologize. My point is that we don't need to read the newspaper or watch the evening news in order to understand Revelation. The Bible does a fine job interpreting itself, we don't need CNN to do it for us. Revelation was always intended to be understood. Notice that the angel tells John "Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is near" (22:10). Contrast that to what the angel tells Daniel: "conceal these words and seal up the book until the end of time" (Daniel 12:4). Daniel's book was not meant to be understood at that time. John's is.

Lahaye and others confuse the main point of the book with the wrong things. They think it's all about timing: when is the tribulation going to happen? What about the rapture? And so on. Revelation isn't about these things. I am convinced that people are intimidated by Revelation because people like Lahaye have focused on the wrong things. People have become worried about what is happening in the world because they keep wondering "what if this is Armaggedon? What if this man is the antiChrist?" It's odd because Revelation is meant to inspire confidence and trust in our God, not concern. It's about how to view reality in times of persecution and temptation to fall away. It shows us that God is the one who is truly in power, not those who attack God's people. We don't have to wait for the stars to align or the right powers to be in place for Revelation to become a reality. It already is.

We are living in the last days, and have been since the time of Jesus. I refer you to Acts 2, where Peter states that the last days as prophesied by Joel were beginning right then. The "end of time" that Daniel's book referred to is now. John uses all sorts of imagery from that book because he was aware of this fact. The time of confusion over what is happening to the people of God is through. We can rest in confidence knowing that the same God who delivered His people from Egypt is the same God who deliverd His people from Babylon and is the same God who delivered His people from Rome. Whatever might happen in the future is to be interpreted with this knowledge, not some secret knowledge we attain by reading the Bible with the newspaper opened next to it.