Revelation Rule #1: Revelation Cannot Mean What it Never Meant to Mean

(This post is part 2 of my 8 part series on interpreting Revelation faithfully. You can read the first post in the series here.)

Rule #1: Revelation cannot mean what it was never meant to mean.

First, let me apologize to all of you who are part of the grammar police brigade about the double negative in this rule. I couldn't figure out how to word this any other way. I accept my citation and fine. Feel free to suggest other wording options so as to save me from grammatical embarrassment in the future.

Now that that's out of the way, I'm going to let you in on a secret: This first rule is actually the bedrock of all responsible Biblical interpretation.

In other words, this rule doesn't just apply to Revelation; it applies to every single book of the Bible. Once you've mastered this rule, you're well on your way to becoming a Bible expert. Feasts will be held in your honor. Someone might even compose a sonnet to commemorate your brilliancy. 

Anyway...

In order to faithfully interpret Revelation’s message, we must first understand that the book was written by someone in the first century for people in the first century. John’s message meant something to the early church and their immediate context.

During the time that Revelation was written, the Roman emperors started to declare themselves as gods. This was extremely problematic for a people group whose most basic tenet of faith was "Jesus is Lord." This statement was political, because by declaring that Jesus was Lord, they were insinuating that Caesar was not. Research indicates that this divergence from the Roman imperial cult may have caused some localized persecution, although the extent of this persecution is unclear and contested among scholars. Nevertheless, the early Christians were fearful of Rome’s imperial rule. Whether persecution was already a reality, they feared that it was at least imminent. 

John wouldn’t write to these first century Christians and say, “Sorry you’re terrified, but here is a strange message given to me from God that won’t have any significance until someone from the 21st century decodes it.” 

This would not have been a message of hope, comfort, or challenge to the early believers. In fact, if you were a Christian who was worried about reaping repercussions from disassociating yourself from the Roman system, you would probably want to punch John in the kidney. Assuming that Revelation only has meaning to those who live centuries later is a gross injustice to the text.

When we read Revelation, we should not impose our own time period upon it. Yes, as part of God's inspired Word it does speak to our present situations; however, Revelation cannot mean what the original author and audience could not have understood. In other words, Revelation cannot mean that the anti-Christ (a term which actually doesn't even appear in Revelation) is a recent president of the United States or that the Beast is the European Union. The first century Christians would have understand neither of these, nor would they have been relevant to their situation.

Interpreted responsibly, Revelation warns us against the evils of civic idolatry and the unjust systems that exist today. It encourages us to persevere in our worship of the one true God, even unto death. Revelation emphasizes God's sovereignty over human history and the Christian belief that God will intervene and make this world right again.

These are all in line with John's original message. And when we interpret this book carefully and faithfully, Revelation is a wealth of theological insight for the church past, present, and future.