Perhaps you've noticed I haven't been blogging much in the last week or so. I actually didn't feel like writing humor, so I've stuck to theology and book reviews. Humor will come back soon. But for today, it's a Super-Sized Theology Thursday Book Review. I'm just telling you right now that this post is about four pages long. Eighteen hundred words or so. So you might want to hit the restroom first. If you're interested at all, of course. And now, the review...
In the past, I've recommended (and still heartily do) Steve Gregg's excellent Revelation: Four Views: A Parallel Commentary. In it, he shows the common interpretations of Revelation from the four major historic viewpoints. When I read his book, I was already familiar with the Futurist (looking for a future Tribulation and Beast) and Preterist (looking backward to A.D.70 for much of the fulfillment) views. I also had a certain familiarity with the Historicist view (finds fulfillment through the course of Church History). The view I was most unfamiliar with was the Idealist/Spiritual approach, which finds a cycle of fulfillment of the visions in the struggle between Satan and the Kingdom of God. It applies all the visions to All Time.
By the way, I was going to go into a rather lengthy survey of what I see as the benefits (to the Church both past, present and future) of the Four Views, but I think I'll save that for when I'm actually reading Revelation. Which should be in May-ish. So remind yourself to skip it if you're not interested. I won't be looking at what Scriptural basis the Four Views have, but only giving my impression of how useful they are/have been/will be. It'll be good, I promise. Plus, I've already written most of it, and I've got several months to put the finishing touches on it.
Anyway, back to the Spiritual/Idealist position. I was pleased when a friend from the faraway past mentioned that her church was really into the Spiritual Interpretation of Revelation, particularly as espoused in Dr. Lynn Hiles' The Revelation of Jesus Christ: An Open Letter to the Church from a Modern Perspective of the Book of Revelation. I found it on InterLibrary Loan.
Unfortunately, as much as there was some interesting stuff in it, I mostly hated it. But I think I'll start with the positive. Dr. Hiles is very passionate, and we seem to agree on several major issues as regards the Book of Revelation and interpretation of Scripture in general. He favors the early date (60s A.D.) for the writing of the Apocalypse, as do I. He hits very hard on the fact that Jesus is not waiting to be crowned but is currently reigning as King (and if you can't agree on this, you need to read Acts 2 again). And he thinks that there is a benefit to reading Revelation and attempting to understand it. And he points out that, more than anything, Revelation is a revealing of Jesus Christ himself. I think that's a great point. That's all positive.
And one other thing: He has some really good things to say, even if they didn't always make sense in the context of the book (he meanders a bit, which I've been known to do). And this is where I was greatly disappointed. See, I was hoping for more of what Steve Gregg did in his book. Mr. Gregg pulled together something of a consensus of the Idealist position on each passage in Revelation. Dr. Hiles' book was just his own opinions, which is okay, I suppose, but less than authoritative. And some of his opinions were just plain strange.
My gripes with the book boil down to two things: his use of language, and his use of Scripture. And the two crossed over more than you'd probably think possible.
First, his use of language. Now, I'll admit to being something of a Word Nerd or Grammar Geek (although I don't think I'm a Grammar Snob). But when I hear or read improper uses of "and I," I cringe. And I'm aware there are folks out there who don't have any sense for how to use "and I" and "and me," so they just go for one approach, on the assumption that they'll be right half the time. But an author? Really? And an editor didn't catch them when they happened twice on the same page?
The Revelation of Jesus Christ, page 32:
God allowed the Roman Emperor Titus to destroy the physical Temple in A.D.70 because God was transitioning to a more expansive, spiritual Temple -- you and I! Where do you suppose the vantage point is for much of Revelation? God speaks and works primarily from His Temple! Suppose for a moment with me that this Temple is not just some great marble building in a Middle Eastern country somewhere. Rather, He speaks through you and I!
Maybe I'm just uptight about this, but wouldn't it just sound better with "and me" in both cases? Just remove the "you and" on both of them and see if I'm not right. (I'm writing now to anyone who might be in the '50% right' category. Not to you, members of my family.)
I was equally offended by Hiles' use of Scripture, because he comes up with some, er, novel interpretations. And sometimes, he mixes in a little misuse of language:
The Revelation of Jesus Christ, page 47:
The second thief asked Jesus, "Remember me...." I don't think "remember" means "Don't forget about me when you get over yonder" in this context. This thief was praying that this Jesus would re-member him, crying out: "Put me back together again when You come into Your kingdom."
Umm...what? To me, this kind of rubbish is just appalling. The Greek here is the word for (wait for it) "to remember." That is, to recall or to think of. There's no sense in which the word could be stretched to "put back together." I almost laughed out loud when I read it. Why would Hiles take a passage in which the plain meaning was, well, plain, and try to stitch in some esoteric misinterpretation? I don't get it. And this isn't an isolated incident. For a few other examples, here's a list I've titled...
What Hiles Does With Scripture
- Conflates "The Lord's Day" in Revelation 1 with "The Day of the Lord" (p. 54). So, instead of Sunday, we're talking about The Last Day? Umm, no.
- Associates Jesus with the Man of Sin in 2 Thessalonians 2 (p. 45). Yeah. Wow. And I know it's not what he meant, but it is what he wrote. Seriously. p. 45: "The 'He' who is to be revealed in time is the Lord Jesus Christ." Now look at the verse in question and tell me Hiles hasn't completely run aground here.
- States that the Beatitudes are "attitudes that we need to be in" (p. 98). It made me throw up a little.
- When Christ says he knows the "works" of the Ephesians (which he is plainly praising them for), Hiles thinks he's criticizing them for a "works righteousness," completely missing the pattern of the Letters to the Seven Churches (p. 103).
- Again with Ephesus, he says that when Jesus tells them to remember from "whence they have fallen," He's referring all the way back to the Garden (p. 104). I'm actually surprised Hiles doesn't think they're supposed to "put the Garden back together."
- When Jesus tells the Smyrnans to be "faithful unto death," Hiles thinks they're supposed to be faithful to Jesus' death (p. 122). The plain sense of the passage, however, is to be faithful in the face of martyrdom.
And even when he's making good points, he has a tendency to go just a bit too far with his analogies. For instance, in his chapter on Thyatira, he puts together a good analogy of dying to the Law and being united with Christ. More specifically, he presents it as being formerly married to Adam, but now to Christ. And that's fine, because Paul uses that very imagery. But then there's this:
The Revelation of Jesus Christ, page 191:
I'm so thankful I didn't have to stay with Adam. He was abusive, a wife beater. He brought me nothing but heartache, pain, and discouragement. He was ruining my life.
As my wife pointed out, how exactly does this present Christ in a good light? Better than an abusive husband? Wow, what an honor! And the trouble is, he follows this tripe up with a truly profound passage:
The Revelation of Jesus Christ, page 192:
We have lived with Adam so long. We've lived with sin-consciousness so long that once we are born again, even though our old life has been put to death and we have become married to another, our habits and ways have not yet become converted to the new union.
It's a good analogy, but it's dealt a hard blow because of the outrageous lead-in.
I realize I've been somewhat verbose here, but I covered a sheet of paper with notes on this book, so I could really go on and on if I wanted to. But I won't. Again, the real bummer here is that Hiles wrote some good stuff. I think he makes some good points when he presents an alternate view of the "second death" (in which he challenges the traditional view of Hell as Eternal Torment). He also sees a different meaning to the "Last Days" mentioned by several NT writers. Different in that, unlike many contemporary scholars, he sees those Last Days as already fulfilled in events of the first century.
And, again, Hiles believes there's value in reading Revelation, because Jesus reveals himself in it.
The Revelation of Jesus Christ, page 178:
It is noteworthy to recall once more that before Jesus commands any of these churches to repent, He first gives them a revelation of Himself that will help them make the changes He desires of them. Outside the revelation of Christ, no real change can come to us.
I realized when I was most of the way through this book that Dr. Hiles is probably fantastic as a speaker. But I think he'd be one of those speakers you were really high on until you got home and started thinking about what he actually said. On the page, that process doesn't take so long. I can't tell you the number of times I said (aloud) "What? That doesn't mean that."
There's one last gripe I have. On the back cover (and somewhere inside the book), is this statement: "The Book of Revelation is not about dreadful beasts or scary monsters, ...it is an on-going revelation of Jesus Christ and God's redemptive plan."
And yet, Hiles fails to deal with any of the passages in Revelation that make reference to dreadful beasts. Now, I agree with the sentiment of his statement, but if I set out to write a book claiming that, I'd probably attempt to address those passages that seem to be about scary monsters. It's not that the Idealist position can't deal with them, either. So Hiles hurts his own cause by not addressing them.
I promise my next book review will be both shorter and more positive. And hopefully it'll be ready by next week. If you read this far, I'm very impressed. When I went back through to proofread, I got a bit weary. So raise your hand if you made it. (That means leave a comment. Even if you skipped through to the end.)