Since the questions are somewhat controversial, and since my answers are not necessarily textbook, I’d be interested in your reaction to what I say in this interview on the Crossway blog. Here are the questions:
Why should pastors preach on Revelation?
What’s the best way to prepare to interpret apocalyptic literature in general and Revelation in particular?
If a pastor knows that his congregation takes a very different view of Revelation than he does, how should he go about preaching the book? Should he be trying to convert them to or away from a dispensationalist perspective and why?
What is the relationship between the judgments that accompany the seals, trumpets, and bowls? Are these sequential or recapitulatory?
What’s with the exodus imagery in Revelation? Didn’t Jesus fulfill the new exodus and return from exile in his death and resurrection? Why are we getting that imagery again in Revelation?
My answers to these questions are here, and the explanation of those answers can be found in Revelation: The Spirit Speaks to the Churches.
Praying that my questions are clear, the second and third questions are more follow-up questions to the first one.
What is your take on the lack of commentary that John gives in writing Revelation as opposed to the abundance of commentary in his gospel account?
Do we have the right or responsibility to interpret the symbolism since it seems the apostle did not?
And how can one avoid over-interpreting the book while holding to the position that the book is apocalyptic literature instead of prophecy (or the prophecy is bound up within the apocalyptic style)?
p.s. my intent with the second question is not to say that we shouldn’t interpret what it says and live in light of its truth but does John’s lack of interpretation serve as a boundary on how much we should interpret it? In other words, shouldn’t we simply interpret it in the normal, literal sense as one would any other prophetic literature found in the Bible (while not interpreting it in the normal, literal sense of a narrative or epistle)?
Forgive me if any of this is not clear.
Sorry I’m just now getting to this. Brief replies:
1) The two books are very, very different!
2) John meant those symbols to communicate, to resonate with his audience.
3) I think it’s both apocalyptic and a prophecy! Over-interpretation is probably going to be in the eye of the beholder. . .
I hope this helps!
JMH
Thanks Jim!