Revelation As Fantasy?
Q. I just found your website. No offense intended, but your doctrine sounds straight out of the “Left Behind” series. Isn’t Revelation better interpreted when seen through the eyes of its earliest audience to which it was written, i.e. the seven churches of Asia Minor.
There’s no end to the wacky stuff that can be attributed to Revelation when taken out of its context. It’s apocalyptic material written to give comfort to the Christians who were being persecuted by the Roman Empire.
How do you avoid that?
It’s bookended by praise. It’s about Christ being victorious. I fear that Christians come across sounding more like Nostradamus than the apostle John when we get carried away trying to attribute all the symbolism to modern times.
I’m not a scholar on Revelation, and I don’t want to come across as hateful about this. Your website badly confused an acquaintance of mine, however. I would like to hear how you can dismiss the context to which this was first written
.
A. My doctrine, as you call it, is known as pre-millennial dispensationalism.
It’s subscribed to by countless thousands of Bible scholars and students (including the authors of Left Behind) and has its roots in Paul’s writings. It’s the view that’s most closely aligned with a literal interpretation of God’s word.
If you want to think of Revelation as a “feel good” piece written for 1st Century consumption, that’s your choice but it doesn’t mean that you’re right or that other interpretations are wrong.
And if by being confused, you mean your friend is no longer certain that the allegorical view of Revelation is correct, then I would call that a good thing.
God doesn’t tell fantasy stories to make people feel good during times of trouble. He tells us the end from the beginning and expects us to take Him seriously.
