by M.J. Webb

Created on: March 25, 2010   Last Updated: March 27, 2010

The ominous figure of Martin Luther is quoted as saying that ‘everyone think of this book whatever his spirit imparts’[1]. The breadth of interpretation of the closing words of the New Testament would serve to justify Luther’s claim. Such is the diversity and subsequent controversy of John’s Revelation, that such an issue must surely be addressed with humility, spiritual wisdom and sensitivity.

The question of whether the book is literal or symbolic at first appears simple. Yet we must be clear on what is meant by the terms. If one view is held, must it be held for the entire book? Holding that the book might contain both the literal and the symbolic might be accused of being inconsistent, making the book say whatever the interpreter wishes. Yet a look at other apocalyptic literature in scripture would reveal some points of interest. Daniel’s prophesy, for example, contains biblical narrative as well as apocalyptic visions. It is clear that the narrative should be interpreted literally, and the visions symbolically. Yet even within the narrative, when dreams are being described, we render the images of the dream as symbolic, though their meaning is literal. This is simply applying normal literary rules to the book. Beasley-Murray concurs, writing that no-one would dream of applying the kind of rules applied to Revelation to Old Testament prophesy.[2] Likewise, when in the narrative, the writer chooses to use a figure of speech, such as a metaphor, we take the metaphor symbolically as intended, even though it occurs in narrative. These are obvious points. Yet it seems that the sensible rules for interpreting literature are thrown away when Revelation is approached. Normal rules apply, and, more important, normal Biblical interpretation rules apply also. Especially as we are given Old Testament points of reference such as the apocalyptic writings with which we might compare Revelation. It would seem strange to interpret scripture one way, especially the apocalyptic books, yet have a separate set of rules for Revelation. The book may contain great mysteries, but one cannot help but feel that the mysteries are compounded, rather than helped, by unique treatment of it.

So, is the book to be taken literally? Let us not make this harder than it need be. When John speaks of writing letters to churches, he is literally writing letters to churches. When he says he saw visions of beasts, he literally saw visions of beasts. It is the

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• Next Page >>