By
John Stott

Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2001, 235 pages.

The contents of this book were delivered by John Stott at the A.D. 2000 London Lectures on Contemporary Christianity, at All Souls Church, London on four consecutive Thursdays. The full title of the lectures was The Incomparable Christ: Celebrating His Millennial Birth. Despite having founded the annual London Lectures in 1974, Stott had never been the lecturer until this time. And in this book, he brings the 2000 lectures to print.

Stott begins his Introduction by emphasizing the centrality of Jesus with a quote from Jaroslav Pelikan contained in his book, Jesus Through the Centuries:

Regardless of what anyone may personally think or believe about him, Jesus of Nazareth has been the dominant figure in the history of western culture for almost twenty centuries (page 15).

And Stott asks us to consider his dominance in three spheres: Jesus is the center of history, the focus of Scripture, and the heart of mission. Regarding that last sphere, Stott quotes from Bishop Stephen Neill:

Our task is to go on saying to the Muslim with infinite patience, “Sir, consider Jesus.” We have no other message (page 16).

However, Stott says, that brings up the question as to which Jesus we are talking about, for “there are many Jesuses on the overcrowded shelves of the world’s religious markets” (page 16), a trend which had its beginnings even before the end of the first Christian century as many teachers demonstrated a tendency to “create an image of Jesus according to their own image” (page 16). And this tendency has continued down to the present day, as evidenced by “The Jesus Seminar” in the United States, which has used highly subjective criteria to “evaluate” the authenticity of all of the sayings attributed to Jesus.

Thus Stott’s plan is to investigate the Christ of the New Testament witness, and to consider some ways he has been presented in church history, and how others have been influenced by him. Thus he seeks to ask and answer four basic questions about Christ, which will lead to the organization of the book into four parts:

• Part 1-The Original Jesus. Here he asks how the New Testament witness bears witness to him, with the goal of demonstrating that while rich in diversity, it is at the same time a united witness.
• Part 2-The Ecclesiastical Jesus. Here he asks how the church “at different times, now faithfully, now unfaithfully, has presented Christ to the world” (page 17).
• Part 3-The Influential Jesus. Here he moves from the successive stages of church history to the successive stages of Christ’s career, and asks “how each stage (with its different emphasis) has inspired different people” (page 17).
• Part 4-The Eternal Jesus. Here Stott reminds us that Jesus is not only historical, but also “eternal (‘the same yesterday, today, and forever’) and therefore also our contemporary” (page 17). As such

…he confronts every new generation, century and millennium in his roles as Saviour, Lord and Judge (page 17).

Therefore in Part 4, the question is what should Jesus mean to us today? And Stott has chosen as the context for this fourth study the New Testament’s last book, the book of Revelation, and will bring our focus to the ten main visions of Christ in that book.

Stott then concludes this portion of the Introduction:

This book, therefore, will be a blend of Scripture and history. We will consider the church’s presentation of Christ and Christ’s influence on the church, against the background of the New Testament in general and the book of Revelation in particular. In this way the biblical portrait of Christ is seen to be normative. He is the authentic Jesus by whom all the fallible human pictures of him must be judged (page 17).

The second portion of the Introduction deals with history and theology. He notes that in the 20^th century, the emphasis has been on the quest of the historical Jesus. The first quest began in 1906 with Albert Schweitzer, and concluded with Bultmann who claimed that “to demonstrate the historicity of Jesus was neither possible nor (if it were) necessary for faith” (page 18). The second quest began in 1953 with Ernst Kasemann; while having a more positive view of history, the models of Jesus provided by that quest were too “tame” to provoke his crucifixion or to launch the worldwide Christian movement. The third quest began in the 1980s, and is marked by a greater confidence in the reliability of the gospels’ portrait of Jesus (though such confidence is not universal, as demonstrated by “The Jesus Seminar”). However, there has been a shift in emphasis among scholars from history to theology.

However strong our conviction may be that they are conscientious historians (as Luke claims in 1:1-4), it is also important to hold that they are evangelists, consciously proclaiming the gospel, and theologians, developing their own distinctive emphasis. This being so, it is clear that the process of divine inspiration did not smother the personality of the human authors…The Holy Spirit selected, fashioned, prepared and equipped the human authors in order to communicate through each a message that is both appropriate and distinctive (page 19).

Stott proceeds then into Part 1: The Original Jesus (or how the New Testament witnesses to him). He first looks at each of the gospels, finding Jesus portrayed as The Fulfilment of Scripture (Matthew), The Suffering Servant (Mark), The Saviour of the World (Luke and Acts), and The Word Made Flesh (John). Further, he detects in the gospels’ witness the four dimensions of the saving purposes of God: its length (Matthew: in looking back over long centuries of expectation); its depth (Mark: in looking down to the depths of his humiliation); its breadth (Luke: in looking at God’s mercy to the broadest spectrum of humanity); and its height (John: as the Word made flesh looks up to the heights from which he came and to which he intends to raise us) (page 40).

He notes the attempts over the course of church history to compose a harmony of the gospels, beginning with Tatian in the middle of the second century. However, he advises caution, referring approvingly to a book by Dr. Richard Burridge titled Four Gospels, One Jesus?

What, then, is the relationship ‘between the four gospels and the one Jesus?’ Dr. Burridge answers that we must allow each evangelist to paint his own portrait and tell his own story. We have no liberty to turn the four into one by ironing out the individuality of each, or to turn the one into four by exaggerating the individuality of each, and so making a composite picture impossible. No, ‘there are four gospels, with four pictures, telling four versions of the one story of Jesus.’ And this one story in its four versions remains normative; it is the criterion by which to judge the authenticity of all attempts to reconstruct other Jesuses (pages 41-42).

Stott then moves into the rest of the New Testament to expand on the portrait of Jesus. He looks first at the 13 letters of Paul, finding Christ portrayed as the Liberator (Galatians), the Coming Judge (1,2 Thess), Saviour (Romans, 1,2 Corin), Supreme Lord (Coloss, Philemon, Ephesians, and Philippians), and Head of the Church (Pastorals), as helpfully summarized in a chart on page 45. Next he looks at a grouping he calls Three More Jewish Authors and finds Christ portrayed as the Moral Teacher (James), Our Great High Priest (Hebrews), and the Exemplary Sufferer (Peter).

Deferring an examination of Revelation until Part 4, he concludes Part 1 by emphasizing “diversity in unity” (page 74).

We must emphatically agree that we have no liberty to manipulate biblical texts into an artificial harmony; that we may not iron out apparent discrepancies; and that we must allow each New Testament author to say what he does say. And when we do this, tensions will remain. But we have also seen from our survey that the four gospels complement each other; they do not contradict each other. Nor do Jesus and Paul. Nor are Paul’s 13 letters self-contradictory. Nor do the more distinctively Jewish books (James, Hebrews, 1 Peter) strike a discordant note. Even Paul and James do not preach a different gospel. All the New Testament authors find their unity, as Professor Charlie Moule has written, in ‘devotion to the person of Jesus Christ—the historical Jesus acknowledged as continuous with the one now acknowledged as the transcendent Lord’ (pages 75-76).

To hammer home his point, Stott quotes from Bishop Stephen Neill, as updated by Dr. N.T. Wright:

It is the view of many competent scholars today that all the fragments of Christian tradition which we possess in the New Testament bear witness with singular unanimity to one single historical figure, unlike any other that has ever walked among the sons of men (page 76).

And so, with Stott, we “pay our tribute to the original Jesus, the Jesus of the New Testament witness, who is the incomparable Christ” (page 76).

And so we pass into Part 2: The Ecclesiastical Jesus (or how the church has presented him). With varying degrees of success or accuracy, and sometimes colored by prejudices and traditions, “the church has displayed a remarkable ingenuity in adapting, shaping, and presenting its own images of Christ” (page 79). Here Stott has selected 13 examples from church history, beginning with Justin Martyr (c. 100-c. 165) who presented Jesus as Christ the Complete Fulfillment, and ending with the various world missionary conferences from 1910 to 1974 which portrayed Christ as the Global Lord. In between we see such portraits as Christ the Unique God-Man (by the early church councils who dealt with various heresies), Christ the Ethical Exemplar (Thomas a Kempis), Christ the Gracious Savior (Martin Luther) and several others. For such efforts to portray Christ to be Christ-honoring, Stott says that on the negative side, we must “rid our minds of all preconceptions and prejudices, and resolutely renounce any attempts to force Jesus into our pre-determined mould”, and on the positive side, we must “open our minds and hearts to whatever the biblical text tells us, and listen to the witness of the whole New Testament to Christ” (page 120). He then provides a helpful analogy:

C.S. Lewis saw an analogy here with an appreciation of art. He wrote: ‘We must look, and go on looking, till we have certainly seen exactly what is there. We sit down before the picture in order to have something done to us, not that we may do things with it. The first demand any work of art makes upon us is surrender. Look. Listen. Receive. Get yourself out of the way’ (page 120).

This brings us to Part 3: The Influential Jesus (or how he has inspired people). Here he considers “the whole cycle of Jesus’ career, from his first coming to the anticipation of his second, and see how each stage (whether episode or teaching in the gospels) has gripped somebody’s imagination and inspired him or her to action” (page 126). Stott has chosen 13 examples, beginning with Francis of Assisi who saw in Jesus birth in a stable “the supreme expression of the Son of God’s self-imposed poverty “(page 126), and ending with William Wilberforce, who constantly remembered that one day he would have to stand before the judgment seat of Christ and therefore dedicated his life to the abolition of slavery. In his conclusion, Stott quotes from historian Kenneth Scott Latourette:

In this world of men…there appeared one, born of a woman…To most of his contemporaries he seemed a failure…Yet no life ever lived on this planet has been so influential in the affairs of men (page 164).

The final section of the book is Part 4: The Eternal Jesus (or how he challenges us today). Here Stott has chosen the book of Revelation because “it contains within itself a gallery of pictures of Jesus Christ” (page 169). Whereas the other New Testament books seemed to each have a distinctive emphasis or particular theme, Stott says this is not so with the book of Revelation which contains:

a variety of portraits of Christ. It presents him as the first and last, the lamb and the lion, the thief in the night, the King of kings, the divine judge, and the heavenly bridegroom. These and other metaphors come tumbling out of John’s fertile mind. We must do justice to this portrait gallery (page 169).

In approaching Revelation, Stott talks about the two extremes of obsession with it on the one hand, and neglect of it (due to intimidation) on the other, but urges a third and positive approach: perseverance in view of an appreciation of its profound theology and literary artistry, combined with the promise in Revelation 1:3 of special blessing to those who hear the message and take it to heart.

He begins by setting forth four principles of interpretation: Revelation 1) is full of symbolism, 2) addresses the past, the present, and the future, 3) celebrates the victory of God, and 4) focuses on Jesus Christ (pages 170-171). Regarding the second point, he briefly sets forth the three classical theories of interpretation (praeterist, historicist and futurist), but doesn’t see it as necessary to decide between the three.

It seems better, therefore, to adopt a ‘parallelist’ view, which sees every section of the book as recapitulating the whole ‘inter-adventual’ period between the two comings of Christ, each concluding with a scene of judgment and salvation. John sees the visions consecutively, but the realities they symbolize do not happen consecutively (page 172).

However, an appreciation of this portion of the book is not dependent on agreement with his theory of interpretation, for as Stott says:

My plan is not to increase the confusion with yet one more analysis, but rather to concentrate on the ten most striking Christological visions in the book (page 173).

And so Stott presents each of the ten visions of Jesus Christ, beginning with Christ claiming to be the First and the Last, and the Living One (the resurrected and eternal Christ in chapter 1), and ending with Christ coming as the Bridegroom to claim his bride (chapters 21-22).

He concludes Part 4 with this hope:

I think and hope that my readers will have been impressed by the picture of Christ that John has painted in the book of Revelation—the eternal Christ who never changes, but who challenges us to follow him today. We have seen him now supervising his churches on earth, now sharing God’s throne in heaven, now controlling the course of history, now calling the world to repentance, now riding on a white horse to judgment, and now promising to come soon to claim and marry his bride (page 233).

Earlier, Stott had expressed a hope regarding his book as a whole:

My hope is that these studies in the Bible and church history will be seen to justify my title, The Incomparable Christ. There is nobody like him; there never has been, and there never will be (page 17).

And I believe that the reader of this masterful exposition will agree that Stott’s hope has been fully realized. The content of the book fully justifies the title. Christ is indeed Incomparable.

Ron Maness

Copyright 2000 by Pleasant Valley Publications.

Introduction

Over the past couple of months several people have approached me or my wife about a wonderful ministry that they’ve come across that has changed their lives. It is the ministry and teaching of Henry Wright. We were invited to read his book, to attend a bible study based on the book, and to go to the seminars when he came to town last week. One of the more common descriptions given was that he is so biblical in his teaching because he backs everything up with scripture.

So, I read his book called A More Excellent Way. It certainly appears biblical, because he has a verse or two for every point he makes. I actually counted 186 verses quoted in the first 50 pages. But I didn’t find it to be at all biblical because of the way he uses scripture.

What does Wright claim? He says that diseases are caused by specific sins in one’s life. He claims that if a person repents of that sin, then we can pray for healing and the person will get well. If there is no repentance, then there can be no healing.

Areas of Agreement

First: I want to make it clear that I DO think God heals today. I think that the Bible, properly interpreted, makes this plain and therefore a genuine Christian expectation. There have been times—in my own experience—where God has answered fervent prayer and healed miraculously.

Second: I DO think that sin, i.e. anger, bitterness, jealousy, fear, worry can cause sickness, that is, any number of diseases from ulcers to cancer. I think we should search our hearts and see if there might be something spiritual/emotional behind a sickness. And if the cause of a sickness is sin, then dealing with the sin might be all that God was waiting for to heal the person. James 5:15 addresses this issue. James says, “And the prayer of faith will save the one who is sick and the Lord will raise him up—and if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven.” Note, however, the “if.” Sickness is not always the result of sin, as in John 9.

Third: I think Henry Wright may have, through his research and experiences, found some links between certain sicknesses and certain sins. He certainly has a lot of experience and examples to prove his points. And some of his information might be useful in identifying the spiritual source of a particular illness.

Areas of Disagreement

I think that there is a movement across our whole society to link physical illness with the spiritual side of man. All you have to do is go past the checkout stand in the whole foods stores and read a few magazine headlines. Recognize this, that throughout church history, a lot of doctrines have arisen that sound very much like the secular ideology of the day. They are just re-packaged and presented with bible verses to make it palatable to Christians.

2 Pet 3:14-18 warns us about people who will come along and twist scripture to say whatever they want it to say. Peter says these people are unstable and unprincipled and will lead God’s people away from the truth. Our responsibility is to be like the believers of Berea who after hearing someone teach, went home to study the scriptures to see if what Paul said was consistent with the rest of scripture (Acts 17:11). If the Bereans felt it necessary to seriously weigh what the apostle Paul said—and indeed they were commended for doing just that—how much more should we seriously evaluate what others say today?

So, I want to examine some of the claims and scriptural proofs set forth by Henry Wright.

If I seem disorganized and “all over the map” it’s because the book is that way. A topic will be introduced, the subject will suddenly change to something else, and then the original topic is returned to. The book is really just the transcripts of several seminars. That would explain the re-occurrence of the topics later in the book. So, I’m just sort of taking stuff as it comes. Also worth mentioning is that Henry Wright’s style of speaking is to throw out many topics with brief statements and bible references and move on to a new topic. This method is very handy when what you are saying won’t bear scrutiny. Before the listener can really think about what’s been said, a new topic is introduced and you have to stop thinking about the previous topic or miss out on what’s being said. When reading the book, one can stop, look up the scriptures referenced and think about them in the biblical context.

The Diseases of Egypt

Henry Wright makes the claim (p. 22) that Deut 28 and Ex 15 are promises to us that the diseases which God put on Egypt won’t be put on us today if we obey. That was a promise to the nation of Israel before they went into the land. Following the secular custom of that time period, God used the Suzzerain/Vassal treaty formula (where a king made a contract with his subjects). This would be very familiar to the Israelites. God told them the conditions for keeping the land: If they obeyed the commandments (the Law), He would bless them and they could stay in the land. If they disobeyed, he would curse them and remove them from the land.

However, this is not a promise to believers of today. We are not Israel. We don’t live in the promised land. And we are not under the Law. If you want to try to apply that passage to us, then you need to go back under the Law, observe the Sabbath, etc. Compare Jer 31:31,

^31:31 “Indeed, a time is coming,” says the Lord, “when I will make a new agreement with the people of Israel and Judah. ^31:32 It will not be like the old agreement that I made with their ancestors when I took them by the hand and led them out of Egypt. For they violated that agreement, even though I was a faithful husband to them,” says the Lord.

Jeremiah makes it clear that Israel violated the old covenant, and it is finished. We are now under a new covenant. So, this is an invalid use of scripture to prove that disease is the result of disobedience or sin. Nor does it support Wright’s claim that if we obey God, we won’t get sick.

Doctors are not from God

On p. 29, he says, “I’m not against doctors, but I believe, in our ignorance and our separation from God, that we’ve asked the medical community to do something they are not qualified to do—that is to pastor us and deal with spiritual issues. I don’t find anywhere in Scripture, especially in Eph 4, where a doctor and a psychologist are considered to be a gift from the Lord Jesus in leadership to us.”

That is an argument from silence. A lot of professions aren’t mentioned in the bible, but that doesn’t mean they are bad. And it would seem to me that a Christian doctor would be excercising his gift of mercy in his care of people and using his knowledge, his years of study and experience to help people.

A little later in the book (p. 70), he says, “Pastors, you don’t need more than Vines, Ungers, Strongs and a Bible. Instead of getting 14 translations, why don’t you buy a Merck Manual, a pathophysiology manual, and an anatomy and physiology book and why don’t you do a little laymen’s study on disease?”

In the next paragraph (p. 70) he says, that when reading his Merck Manual, he reads that Fibromyalgia is “particularly likely to occur in healthy young women who tend to be stressed, tense, depressed, anxious, striving, and driven.”

Two things stand out: This statement shows that he has a very shallow understanding of scripture and is not at all concerned with the historical or literary context, with theology, or with what scholars have learned over the past 2000 years. His study of the Bible seems to be limited to word studies and just finding verses or phrases out of context that might prove his point. I’ll look at some examples latter on.

Second, who wrote the Merck Manual, the pathophysiolgy manual, the anatomy and physiolgy books? Doctors! If doctors are not from God and are incompetent to deal with disease, then why does he first condemn them and then turn around and buy the Merck Manual? And how in the world could they be identifying spiritual/emotional root causes for Fibromyalgia? That is inconsistent with his point on page 29.

So, on page 29, we see that doctors are incompetent. Then on page 70, we see that pastors are incompetent. The implication is clear that the only one who is competent is Henry Wright.

Conflict Resolution

On page 39 he starts off with the statement that “you do not have to resolve one issue with somebody that has victimized you in order for God to heal you, providing you have resolved that issue between you and God concerning them.” The obvious inference is that unforgiveness is the cause of sickness, and if you forgive them, God can heal you. I agree that unresolved bitterness or anger could very well be the source of illness. And sometimes you can’t find resolution with the person who wronged you. You just have to forgive them.

After making this statement about forgiveness, he takes us to 2 Tim 1:7 which says:

2 Tim 1:7 For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind.

Why does he go there? This verse doesn’t relate to his statement about forgiveness. It is about fear. It is about Timothy standing firm against the Gnostics who are trying to destroy his ministry.

His explanation of 2 Tim 1:7 is that we can overcome fear by trusting the Godhead. He concludes this by interpreting the “spirit of power” as the Holy Ghost, “love” as the Father and “sound mind” as the Word. That reminds me of the allegorical writings of the early church fathers who when they read that “Jacob dug three wells” concluded that the three wells referred to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. In other words, he’s pulling the Godhead thing out of the air.

In the midst of his Godhead discussion (p. 40) and a later Godhead discussion (p. 61), he pulls in a little Hebrew to make his argument sound even more biblical. He says that in Deut 6:4 which says, “The Lord your God, the Lord is one,” the Hebrew word for “one” is echad which means plural unity. Therefore, he says, “Right there in the Torah you find the Godhead.” That is a possible meaning of echad when it is in the plural., but it’s not plural in Deut 6, and it doesn’t mean plural unity there. Maybe he should add the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament to his Vines and Ungers in his library.

Why would he even go to Deut 6 to prove the Godhead? There are plenty of other passages that would be better suited. My only conclusion is, if you can make a verse mean anything you want, then I guess you can use any verse you want. Of course, who would deny that we should trust the Godhead? If you argue with his point, it sounds like you don’t trust the Godhead. But my point is that the Godhead is not in 2 Tim 1:7 and 2 Timothy has nothing to do with his point about forgiveness and conflict resolution.

Communion

Immediately after the incoherent forgiveness/fear discussion he starts talking about communion and its relationship to autoimmune disease. He is still on the autoimmune disease topic, which started with the cause of all autoimmune disease being caused by lack of forgiveness, bitterness, anger, etc.

His understanding of the communion passage is abysmal. He prefaces his discussion with, “I may bump into some of your theology, but if I do, I sure do love you, and I hope you love me too!” So, maybe he knows he’s way off-base on this passage?

He says, “In dealing with autoimmune disease, 1 Corinthians is an example of a block, not a root, but a block to healing.” (p. 41)

Read the passage for your self and let’s start in verse 27 so you get the context. 1 Cor 11:27-31 says:

²⁷ Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. ²⁸ But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. ²⁹ For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body. ³⁰ For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. ³¹ For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged.

He has totally missed the point of the passage which is that their flippant attitude about the Lord’s Supper, their unconfessed sin, and their abuse (gluttony and drunkeness) of the Lord’s Supper IS IN FACT the root cause of their sickness and death.

Then there is a confusing discussion about Christ’s body paying the penalty for the curse and if we don’t appropriate that when we take the Lord’s Supper, then we are denying healing today and we will be filled with disease and go insane. Here is the whole paragraph:

If we come to a Communion service, and partake of the cup and the bread, but we deny healing and deliverance as part of the atonement today, we eliminate the provision of God in our lives as a human being apart from salvation and eternal life in that day. For that reason, because we eliminate the broken body, but we celebrate it, and we don’t believe it, then we cannot partake. For that reason many of us are filled with disease and insanity today because we have said in our heart that it passed away two thousand years ago yet we still participate in the sacrament of Communion which represents its reality for today. If you don’t believe it, you don’t have to worry about it happening. But be careful, ignorance is a form of knowledge and so is unbelief. (p. 42)

To back up this confusing statement, he quotes 1 Peter 2:24 which says “by his stripes you are healed.”

If you will go read 1 Peter 2, you will see that the context (2:13-17) is about submitting to authority. And that it (2:18ff) is dealing with slaves submitting to their masters. In that paragraph Christ is given as an example of submitting, even when it is unjust. And the result is that through his submission (to the beatings and the cross) we are healed (saved). There is nothing in this passage about physical healing. It’s about the healing of their/our souls. It is about eternal salvation and our response to God as saved people; we are to suffer for Christ and do so for being good, not for being evil.

In conclusion, there is no way you can conclude that the Lord’s Supper itself has anything to do with physical healing. It is about remembering the Lord’s death. But to those who don’t pay attention to the details of what is actually being said, bringing the Lord’s Supper in as support for your theology sounds biblical.

What about Paul?

When Wright says that disease is always¹ the result of sin, I immediately think about Paul. He had some “thorn in the flesh” that God would not heal. If Wright does not believe that all disease is caused by sin, then this verse shouldn’t cause a problem for him. But it evidently does, because he redefines Paul’s thorn to be some spiritual problem, not a physical problem. That would certainly be a minority viewpoint. Wright says, it was an “area of his carnal nature that he just never got under control.” (p. 75) He points to Romans 7 where Paul lays out his struggle against the flesh as proof, but Wright apparently failed to read Romans 8 where Paul describes how the Holy Spirit gave him victory over the flesh. The point of Romans 6-8 is that we cannot overcome the old nature by our own power. We can only overcome it with the Spirit’s power. But we CAN find victory over sin. As usual, Wright is taking verses out of context to prove his point.

But, for the sake of discussion, let’s assume he’s correct and that Paul’s problem was spiritual. What is Wright teaching about struggles against the sin nature? If Paul couldn’t overcome his, and he’s the apostle who saw the risen Christ, was multi-gifted, had a multitude of revelations from the Lord (2 Cor 12), and wrote half the New Testament, then what are our chances of overcoming envy, jealousy, anger, bitterness, fear, etc.? Wright’s whole message is that disease is caused by the above sins, but then he teaches that we may be stuck with our envy, anger, etc. What hope is there?

Wright continues his discussion of Paul later in the book (p. 192) where he discusses Paul’s struggle with the flesh in Romans 7. He says our battle is not with flesh and blood, but with entities from another kingdom. He takes us to Hebrews 4:12f.

^{Heb 4:12} For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. ¹³ Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do.

Wright says, “Notice in verse 13 that the Word of God is making manifest those creatures that are within. That’s those ‘yucky-puckies’ / ‘crispy critters’ that Paul is talking about in Romans 7.” I’ll agree that our struggle is not against flesh and blood, and that there is a spiritual battle going on, but Hebrews 4:13 is not the place to go to prove one’s point. It is NOT talking about “crispy critters within us.” That is totally backwards from what the verse is saying. It means that God sees the heart of all creatures, i.e. His creation, i.e. people. And lest one think that has to be a typo or something because his interpretation is so outrageous, he quotes Hebrews 4:12-13 again on page 195 and says, “This sin that dwells within Paul is identified in Hebrews 4:13 as the creatures that need to be made opened and naked before Him with whom we have to do.”

What about Job?

Wright also points to Job 3:25 and says that fear was Job’s problem and the cause of his physical problems (p. 73-4). A couple of things stand out as wrong with this. Before mentioning Job, Wright has just claimed that the cause of aneurysms, strokes, hemorrhoids, and varicose veins is fear and anxiety. Did any of those things happen to Job? No. And God himself said that Job was the most righteous man on the earth. Yes, Job did fear (was concerned?) that his children might not be following God, and so he sacrificed and prayed for them. And he trusted God through it all. After all, if there is no worry, fear, etc., then we don’t have a need to trust God. To say Job feared, is not to say that Job was controlled by his fear. And certainly from the context of God pointing out Job’s righteousness to Satan and giving Satan permission to test Job we should recognize that his sickness was definitely not due to his sin. It was to demonstrate to Satan that Job’s love for God was not based on his prosperity or health.

If Job, the most righteous man on the earth, couldn’t overcome his fear, then why should we bother trying? And again, I have to ask, if he doesn’t believe all disease is caused by sin, then why does he try to prove that Paul’s thorn in the flesh and Job’s sickness were caused by their sin?

Two very clear examples of where it was God’s will for someone to get sick or stay sick are redefined so that it was their fault (i.e., their sin). Therefore, if I don’t do what Paul or Job did, then I won’t get sick. This theology is trying to offer certainty and control in a sinful/uncertain world. I will discuss this at the end.

Multiple Chemical Sensitivity

Wright says that osteoporosis is caused by envy. Prov 14:30 is his proof text because it says,

^{Prov 14:30} A sound heart is the life of the flesh:
but envy the rottenness of the bones

On page 61 he quotes Prov 17:22 which says, “a broken spirit drieth the bones.” From that he concludes that, since the bone marrow is the source for our immune system, a broken spirit is the cause for MCS. It’s not chemicals, odors, etc.

^{Prov 17:22} A merry heart doeth good like a medicine:
but a broken spirit drieth the bones.

In both of those passages we have examples of Hebrew poetry and parallelism. You say something one way and then you repeat it or reverse it and use a different word which stands for the same thing. I.e. “Something is good for the body, but something is bad for the body.” The bones don’t mean “bones.” They mean body. The part represents the whole. There is a fancy seminary word for it. It is called synecdoche.

I did a quick word search in the Bible for “bones” and noticed that Prov 12:4 says, “the wife who acts shamefully is like rottenness in his bones.” To be consistent, Wright would have to say that men with osteoporosis must have wives who act shamelessly. However, Wright never mentions Prov 12:4.

Maybe you can start to see how ludicrous this is and that he’s making way too much out of a couple of adjectives such as rotten or dry.

He continues his discussion of MCS on p. 71 when he says, “Isaiah talks about the brokenhearted.”

^61:1 The spirit of the sovereign Lord is upon me,
because the Lord has chosen me.
He has commissioned me to encourage the poor,
to help the brokenhearted, to decree the release of captives,
and the freeing of prisoners,

“The healing of MCS/EI is healing of the broken heart. I spend more time healing broken hearts than you can imagine.” (p. 72)

“I want to tell you something; you had better thank God for my intensity because I am a warrior. I am out to destroy the works of the devil and to reclaim God’s precious flock from the hands of Satan and re-establish you into praising His glory here and now, not when you get to heaven. Then, when you get to heaven, you can give Him thanks for it. AMEN!”

“Isaiah continues to talk about God’s healing and restoration that has been provided:”

^61:2 to announce the year when the Lord will show his favor,
the day when our God will seek vengeance,
to console all who mourn,
^61:3 to strengthen those who mourn in Zion,
by giving them a turban, instead of ashes,
oil symbolizing joy, instead of mourning,
a garment symbolizing praise, instead of discouragement.
They will be called godly oaks,
trees planted by the Lord to reveal his splendor.

“Isaiah 61:4 is generational in nature and provides for the healing of generations. This is the breaking of inherited genetic curses. This is breaking inherited familiar spirits from your family trees, the rollovers, specifically meaning spiritually, psychologically and biologically inherited diseases.”

^61:4 They will rebuild the perpetual ruins
and restore the places that were desolate;
they will reestablish the ruined cities,
the places that have been desolate since ancient times.

“I’m going to tell you that there is a revival coming to this planet, and there is a revival coming to this nation, but it will not be the type of revival that you may think it is. The revival coming is one of sanctification and purification. I will tell you with all the authority of my heart that I can know, that the only way that it will be ushered in is the same way it was ushered in the first time: by the Lord when He came. The healing of diseases, the casting out of evil spirits, and the establishment of His grace and His mercy—you can go and read about it from Romans to Jude.” (p. 72)

That was a long quote, but I think it is helpful to see how he reads lots of scripture and then throws in his comments. Let’s look at the page in detail.

How is Isaiah’s mention of the broken hearted proof that MCS is cause by a broken heart? It’s not. It’s just a verse about the broken hearted.

What is the Isaiah prophecy really about? It’s about the coming Messiah. Jesus quotes that verse when he stands up in the synagogue to teach in Luke 4:16-21 and says that it was being fulfilled in their presence. He was announcing that He was the Messiah. If Henry Wright is claiming that verse for himself does he realize the implications? He’s probably not claiming that he’s the Messiah, but he is certainly arrogant to tell us that he is a warrior and we will thank God for him when we get to heaven.

Note also that Jesus stops the quote of Isaiah at 61:2a. The rest of the Isaiah passage was not being fulfilled at that time. The next phrase, “the day when our God will seek vengeance,” was still to come. When is “the day of God’s vengeance?” It is the Tribulation. And it is after the day of God’s vengeance that the rest of the passage will be fulfilled. In other words, it is after the tribulation. So the rest of the passage is about the restoration of Israel after the tribulation.

Isa 61:4 is just a continuation of the description of that restoration. It is certainly not about the breaking of inherited genetic curses and diseases or about a “revival that is coming to the planet.” At least not now.

Toxic Retention

On page 160 Wright continues his discussion of MCS. He says that when people were healed of MCS that the toxins in their bodies went away because “God designed the body to cleanse itself as part of its creation. When spiritual roots are dealt with, that is exactly what happens. Have you not read the scripture—if you drink any deadly thing, it shall not harm you?” Mark 16:18

He goes on to say, “I’m not talking about going out here and doing something presumptuous like drinking something poisonous. I’m talking about a normal lifestyle and things you are exposed to. God created your body to cleanse itself of impurities. The spiritual root of the toxic retention is fear and anxiety.”

A couple things stand out here. First, he just quoted a verse that said we could go out and drink poison and it wouldn’t harm us. Then he says, that we shouldn’t do that. Why not? That’s what the verse said. Why would he use the verse as proof and then tell us not to obey it?

Second, I thought that MCS was not caused by toxins. It was caused by a broken spirit. Now he says that people “healed” of MCS have the toxins leave their body. What toxins?

Forgiveness

On p. 182 he quotes Matt 18:22 where Jesus says to forgive seventy times seven. His explanation is as follows:

One day in my prayer time I asked the Lord, “What did you mean by that?” This came into my heart and into my understanding: Our days are 24 hours long, 8 hours for work, 8 hours for family and 8 hours for sleep. 8-8-8. If you take 8 hours of the day, whether it’s business, family or yourself, this is the whole dimension of human existence, others, yourself and so on. If you take 8 hours, how many minutes are there to an hour? Sixty. Sixty times 8 is 480. What is 70 x 7? 490.

I felt that the Lord was saying it this way, “Every hour of your day, if your brother blows it regarding the same issue minute by minute, hour by hour, day by day, release him.”

That explanation is so bizarre that it probably doesn’t need comment, but why use only 8 hours out of the 24 hour day? And which 8 hours should we forgive…the 8 at work, or the 8 at home, or even better, the 8 while we are asleep? And in case he didn’t notice 480 is not equal to 490 and close doesn’t count in math.

His use of math is on par with his use of the bible, his use of Hebrew, etc.

Henry’s Pride

I’ve talked to three people who went to the seminars, and one common comment was that he was very proud. That attitude comes through loud and clear in his book when he makes statements like, “I have many medical books on this subject in my library. I’ve read them all, and no one knows the ‘cause’ of CFS.”(p. 165) But he does. Or, “Now I want to tell you that on the phone as a minister, this insight that I had is really incredible.” (p. 169) He claims to have an undisputed corner on the truth. However, he contradicts himself often. He relies totally on experience and has fantastical interpretations of scripture. He perfectly fits the description of false teachers who claim to teach the truth but twist the scriptures to support whatever they have to say.

Conclusion

What About those that Got Better?

I know some who say he has changed their lives. They have been healed. I believe the people. What do we do with claims like that?

I mentioned at the beginning that sickness can be caused by sin. If through the ministry of Henry Wright, someone gets into regular bible study, examines their life, identifies a sin (like worry), and deals with it, then it not only possible, but even probable that any illness caused by that sin will go away.

Is that a “bonafide” biblical healing miracle? No. But it is a demonstration of the grace of God who can even use someone like Henry Wright to get people back into studying scripture and bring about healing.

Why Is He So Popular?

I think control is the number one area in everyone’s life that God has to deal with – whether it is anxiety attacks, money problems, submission to authority, you name it. And health is a big area where we want to have control. Nobody wants to get sick. And if you are sick, you want to get well. I think it was a Geritol commercial from a long time ago that said, “When you’ve got your health, you’ve got just about everything.” That’s probably a pretty accurate statement for most people.

Health and wealth gospels are attractive because they give us a sense of control. I think that Wright’s message is popular because he offers definite solutions to sickness. He identifies with great certainty the source for most diseases. If you will just examine your heart for sin and repent, then either you will not get sick, or if you are already sick, prayer will heal you. And of course, getting sin out of your life is a good and honorable thing, so who can argue with that?

Some people use nutrition to “control” their health. I’ve personally seen or heard of lots of folks cured of allergies, asthma, cancer, etc. just by changing their diet. I know it works. I highly recommend it! However, eating properly can actually become a form of control and be just like a religion.

Others blame demons² and say you just have to cast out the demon to get well.

Is there any room for God to use sickness to glorify himself or to teach us some spiritual lesson? When the nutrition advocate eats right but gets sick anyway, could God be teaching them that they are not in control? What is the proper response to sickness? It is to recognize that God is in control and leave that control of your health/life up to Him. Go back to eating healthy, knowing that it really does have good results, but knowing that you could still get sick if God sovereignly designs it for your growth.

The wrong response is to try to find another way to control your life/health/etc. I think Henry Wright offers that promise of control. If you just find the right sin, you can cure the disease or if you take power over that demon then you can be healed of your sickness. He expresses no doubts about getting well if you “know the truth” (as he teaches it). Is that not a promise of controlling our destiny (health)?

And if you don’t get well after praying, then what must you conclude if you follow the teaching of someone like Henry Wright? You just haven’t found the sin that caused the disease, so keep digging. The result will be that a person who really has no problem with fear, but who has an illness which Wright says is cause by “fear” will have to invent fears to repent of. The result is a self-centered focus and not a Christ-centered focus.

God promises us the abundant life. According to the health and wealth preachers, the abundant life is only being healthy and wealthy. That is an earthly (unbiblical) perspective. The biblical perspective is that the abundant life is being able to have joy in the midst of trials – whether sickness, poverty, prison, or whatever. The abundant life is not found in circumstances. It is found in relationship with Christ, the Lord of and over our circumstances.

Is Henry Right?

So, is his teaching biblical? He certainly does use a lot of verses. But he uses them incorrectly. He has no biblical authority for what he teaches. The only authority behind Wright’s teaching is “all the authority of his heart.” I’m sure he’s sincere, but he is sincerely wrong.

If the Bible is consistent and Wright is using the Bible to prove his points, then how could he be so inconsistent? He is inconsistent, because he’s pulling verses out of context.

It is like someone quoting “Judas went out and hanged himself” and then finding another verse that says “go thou and do likewise” and putting them together to prove that suicide is biblical. We all would instantly recognize that as being ludicrous. But because the audience wants what Wright is saying to be true, many people aren’t recognizing the similar use of scripture by Wright.

Related to this is the fact that he cautions us to use the King James Version or “this teaching will lose the integrity and intent of its meaning.” (p. 5) Why would it hurt to use another translation of the Bible? Because so many of his points rest on the specific words used in the King James Version. If the verses were used in context, it wouldn’t matter which translation he used. If your whole doctrine hinges on a particular English word (which is just a translation of Hebrew or Greek), then you have a very precarious doctrine.

He says he’s not interested in defending himself because he knows what he knows from experience. I believe the reason he won’t defend himself is because he can’t. His interpretation of scripture won’t stand up to even the most casual questions. I also believe that is the reason for his rapid-fire presentation during his seminars. It doesn’t give the audience time to think.

You have to decide if you are going to base your theology on a man’s experience or the Word of God properly read and interpreted. That means that texts must be read in their literary and historical (and theological) context—a simple rule for interpreting any document. I do not say this to be hurtful, but Mr. Wright demonstrates, over and over again, a complete failure to appreciate this point. I am not surprised when he says that he speaks out of “all the authority of his heart.” That much is quite evident; so also is the fact that he speaks without the authority of Scripture and therefore without the authority of the Spirit of God who inspired Scripture.

So, even if there may be some truth to his teaching (some sickness is indeed caused by sin), there is so much that is false that I think it would be extremely dangerous to listen to him at all. Constant exposure to his teaching could only have ill effects. (pun intended)

Reviewed by
Hampton Keathley IV

¹ Although on page 24 he says 80% percent of disease is caused by sin, he makes very strong statements such as, “Today, I stand 100% not for disease management for disease eradication and prevention on a regular basis, if at all possible.” (p. 33) “eradication” is not an 80% word. It is a 100% word! Not to mention the use of “100%” in the quote.

² See article on Thurman Scrivner. He has a ministry which teaches that sickness is the result of demonic control and all you have to do is cast out the demon to get well.

Our Lord not only rebuked the religious leaders of His day for their false doctrine and for leading people astray, He warned us about such prophets and teachers (see Matthew 7:13-29; 23:1-37; 24:11; etc.). As the apostle Peter saw the day of his own death drawing near, he also warned of those false teachers who would arise, seeking to turn men and women from the faith. Second Peter begins with an exhortation to spiritual growth, and an affirmation of the reliability and authority of the Scriptures, as recorded by the apostles through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit (chapter 1). He then goes on to warn us of false prophets, and to assure us of the certainty that God is able to “rescue the godly from temptation, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment for the day of judgment” (2:1-9). Peter describes not only the doctrinal deviations of the false teachers, but the tell-tale signs of spiritual deadness which is evident in their values and lifestyles (2:10-22).

As Peter warns us of the error which the false teachers disseminate concerning the end times, correcting these errors and exhorting us to stand fast until the coming of our Lord, as we “grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ” (3:1-18). Peter’s last words are vitally important words for these “last days” in which we live. Let us hear and heed them as we study this great epistle.

The material in these sermons is available without charge for your personal study and to assist you in living, teaching and preaching God’s Word.”

Having looked at some basic principles and definitions for prophecy as a whole, we now want to look at some points of introduction to the book of Revelation itself.

Title of the Book

Our Bibles carry the title of the book as “The Revelation of John,” or “The Revelation to John” which means it is a revelation given to the Apostle John, but the proper name is found in the first words of 1:1, “The Revelation of Jesus Christ.” Revelation is from the Greek word apokalupsis meaning “a disclosure, an unveiling.” The name “revelation” (note that it is singular) is derived from its use in 1:1, “The Revelation of Jesus Christ.”

“Of Jesus Christ” is a genitive construction which can mean “about Jesus Christ” or “from Jesus Christ.” This is what some grammarians call a “plenary genitive,” i.e., a genitive doing double duty since both aspects are true.

(1) It is the revelation that comes from Christ (cf. the second clause in 1:1, “which God gave Him to show to His bondservants,” and 22:16 make this point clear). Jesus Christ, being God Himself, gave this revelation to His servant.

(2) But Jesus Christ is also the center of the book. The book is supremely the revelation about the Savior who has overcome and will return to defeat all evil (1:7, 13 [Note that each message to the seven churches begins with some aspect of the vision of Christ in 1:13-16]; 5:5-14).

Let’s note one more thing about the title. While this book contains several visions and unveilings, it is one book and one total revelation centered around one person and His literal return to earth—the person of the Lord Jesus Christ. It is not the Book of Revelations (pl). The noun Revelation in verse one is singular and is so in the Greek text.

Theme of the Book

The prominent theme of the book certainly concerns the conflict with evil in the form of human personalities energized by Satan and his world-wide system, and the Lord’s triumphant victory to overthrow these enemies to establish His kingdom both in the millennium (the 1,000 years of Revelation 20) and in eternity.

This is accomplished by taking the reader and hearers (1:3) behind the scenes through the visions given to John to see the demonic nature and source of the awful evil in the world along with the conquering power which rests in the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, who is also the Lamb standing, as if slain, but very much alive, angry, and bringing the judgment of God’s awesome holiness against a sinful and rebellious world.

Importance and Purpose of the Book

I suppose there is no book in the New Testament which has been as neglected and as controversial as this book, at least in some quarters. Some assert that Revelation is impossible to interpret. Others claim it should not even be in the New Testament much less studied and read. An illustration of this can be found in Martin Luther’s attitude and remarks. For Luther, Revelation was “neither apostolic nor prophetic” and because of its overuse of visions and symbols, Christ was neither taught nor accepted in this book.⁵ Luther was offended by this book. Some seminaries avoid it almost entirely or give it very little attention, and many people and schools dismiss it as a hopeless conglomeration of visions and dreams.

The point is man has attempted to do precisely what God has told him not to do. Revelation 22:10 says, “seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book, for the time is near.” God does not intend for the truth of this book to be sealed to man. He intended the church to study and understand the message of Revelation. Why is that?

First, because blessing, not confusion is promised to those who will read it (1:3). Though filled with horror, it ends in the triumph of righteousness and faith.

Second, the Bible says “all Scripture is profitable,” meaning every book of the Bible. But Revelation has a unique and very important place as it is the consummation and climax of God’s revelation and redemptive history. As the final book of the Bible, Revelation brings together a number of lines of prophetic truth which run parallel throughout the Old and New Testaments, but, apart from the book of Revelation, they find no complete prophetic fulfillment.

I remember reading about a young believer who, at the conclusion of reading Revelation for the first time, jumped up and shouted, “We Win! We Win! The point is that without the book of Revelation, the Bible would be incomplete. Other Old and New Testament books add new dimensions and give added information and details of prophetic truth regarding the end times, but only Revelation draws them all together into a final conclusion.

This forms one of the arguments for the Bible as a completed canon. All the themes of Scripture are fulfilled and find their culmination in Revelation. There is no need for more revelation from this standpoint. With this book, we truly have “a faith once and for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3).

Third, this book is also important because it deals with “things which must shortly come to pass.” It is the only major prophetic book in the New Testament that deals in an in-depth way with the events of the Day of the Lord. Many other passages deal with this period of time like Matthew 24 and 1 Thessalonians 5, but not to the extent Revelation does.

Fourth, it is also important because of the way it reveals the Lord Jesus. It reveals Him as the Lamb of God and King of kings who, in the consummation of His program of salvation, restores to man what was lost by the fall and much more. All of Scripture ultimately speaks of the Lord, it points men to Him, but it is Revelation which thoroughly demonstrates the culmination of God’s complete salvation in Christ.

Fifth, Revelation is also important because of its unique warnings and challenges to the church in the section spoken of as “things present” (2-3). But even beyond this, the rest of the book also has a very pertinent message for us today for two reasons:

• On the one hand, it provides us with an extended commentary on the spiritual warfare described in Ephesians 6:12. What we see revealed in this book is but the culmination of the warfare with rulers, principalities, and powers of evil under the control of Satan. As such, it calls us to walk carefully and to understand that what is happening around us is not merely a struggle with flesh and blood, but with supernatural entities that are as real as we are.
• On the other hand, it gives us light concerning things to come, of things that have not as yet occurred in history, but will. It thereby comforts and encourages us to carry on in the light of the sure and final judgment on evil and consummation of God’s kingdom in time and eternity.

Sixth, it is important because it discloses conditions that will be present in the end-time system of the beast and the final world empire, politically, religiously, economically, and internationally. Such conditions, one would think, would naturally begin to come together to set the stage, as props are prepared for the world stage, before this end-time drama would actually unfold. Thus, while Christ’s return for the church is imminent, those members of the body of Christ who will be living in this moment of history can know that His return must be even more imminent, i.e., just around the corner.

Author and Date

According to the book itself, the author’s name was John (1:4,9; 22:8). He was a prophet (22:9), and a leader who was known in the churches of Asia Minor to whom he writes the book of Revelation (1:4).

Traditionally, this John has been identified as John the Apostle, one of the disciples of our Lord. That the style is different from the style of the Gospel of John stems only from the difference in the nature of this book as apocalyptic literature.

An early church father, Irenaeus, states that John first settled in Ephesus, that he was later arrested and banished to the Isle of Patmos in the Agean Sea to work in the mines, and that this occurred during the reign of the Roman emperor, Domitian. This supports the author’s own claim to have written from Patmos because of his witness for Christ (1:9).

Domitian reigned in Rome from 81-96 A.D. Since Irenaeus tells us that John wrote from Patmos during the reign of Domitian, and since this is confirmed by other early church writers, such as Clement of Alexander and Eusebius, most conservative scholars believe the book was written between 81-96 A.D. This would make it the last book of the New Testament, just shortly after John’s gospel and his epistles (1, 2, and 3 John). Others conservative scholars believe it was written much earlier, around 68, or before Jerusalem was destroyed.

Interpretation of the Book

(1) This book is a part of the canon—a part of that which God has spoken. It belongs in the Bible.

Early church history supports the Apostle John as the author. So it was written by an apostle and this is one of the requirements or tests for inclusion into the canon of Scripture.

The book refers to the human author simply as John without further identification. This would imply the author was well known to the readers of Asia Minor, as would be the case with the apostle John who we know lived in Ephesus. This further supports the Apostle John as the author.

This book was widely circulated and received as inspired Scripture by the beginning of the third century, the early 200s.

There were a few small groups who did not accept it as Scripture, but this was primarily from opposition to the thousand year reign so clearly taught in chapter 20. Much of this came from heretical groups, but on the whole, the early church accepted it as inspired Scripture.

(2) As a part of the Bible, this book is what God has spoken through the Apostle, the human author. The principle is that God is its author and Scripture emphatically declares that God is not the author of confusion (1 Cor. 14:33). If we accept it as Scripture, as did the early church and the majority of the church historically, we must approach the book as a book intended to be understood, not as a book to mystify and confuse. It is as Moses wrote: “The secret things belong to the Lord our God; but those things which are revealed belong unto us and our children forever” (Deut. 29:29).

(3) The uncertainty and confusion that this book has been accused of creating is not the fault of the book nor the fault of God. Rather, the confusion is the product of the way men have tried to approach this book. A great deal of confusion has been caused because of a bias against such things as: (a) a literal 1,000 year reign, (b) the coming of the terrible judgments depicted, and (c) a desire to spiritualize prophecy in general. The confusion has come from those who have tried to spiritualize or allegorize prophecy and especially this book.

In allegory, words are not taken in their literal or normal meaning. They are spiritualized which means that the interpreter looks behind the literal, plain meaning of the text for a hidden and more profound meaning. This turns exegesis or Bible study into an artful play of human ingenuity and fanciful imagination.

The result of this approach is a potpourri, a mixed bag of interpretations. One man sees one thing and another sees something else because when the normal method of interpretation is abandoned (which includes the proper use of symbols) you have no objective controls to your interpretation and no control over human imagination.

Schools of Interpretation Used with Revelation

The Preterist School

Preterist is from a Latin word meaning “past.” This school of thought sees Revelation as already fulfilled in the early history of the church by 312 A.D. with the conversion of Constantine. Note the spiritualizing nature of their interpretations: Revelation 5-11 is a record of the church’s victory over Judaism; Revelation 12-19 is record of her victory over Rome; and Revelation 20-22 is record of the glory of the church. The persecutions of Revelation, it is claimed, are those of Nero and Domitian and all was fulfilled by the time of Constantine (312 A.D.).

Revelation for the Preterist is purely symbolic history rather than prophetic of coming events in history. This not only does total injustice to the nature of the book as prophecy, but to the normal meaning of words.

The Historical Approach

This approach sees Revelation as a symbolic presentation and a panorama of the total period of church history from John’s day to the end of the age or Christ’s second advent. In this view, Revelation does not just deal with a future time, but covers all of history from the time of John. The problems is most adherents of this view see the book culminating in their day and as many as 50 interpretations have evolved. Why? Because the literal, normal approach of interpretation has been abandoned. Further, such a view must ignore the imminent return of the Lord.

The Idealist Approach

This approach sees the book as portraying in symbolic terms the age-old conflict of the principles of good and evil with no historic elements whether past or future.

The Futuristic Approach

The term “futurist” comes from the fact this interpretation sees the book from chapter 4 on as yet to be fulfilled. This is the approach taken in this study, though I do believe it is also an extended commentary on Paul’s statement in Ephesians 6:12.⁶ The futurist approach follows the principle of interpretation known as the literal, plain or normal method of interpretation. This method which will be defined below recognizes the use of symbols, but understands them in their plain, customary, and normal meaning just as we do in our language. The term star, for instance, can refer to a star in the heavens, or it can refer to a famous athlete, someone who excels in athletics. It depends of the context.

There are several reasons for the futuristic approach. The prophecies found in this book have simply not taken place. There is nothing in history that comes close to the events of the majority of the book. For instance: (a) No judgments in history have ever equaled those depicted in chapters 6, 8, 9, and 16, but in these chapters, these judgments are presented as things that will occur. (b) The resurrection and judgment of chapter 20 have never occurred, but are clearly presented as future facts. (c) Obviously, the great anticipation of the book, Christ’s visible return as portrayed in chapter 20, has also not taken place.

Only the futuristic approach which is based on a literal or plain method of interpretation has any objectivity about the contents of the book.

Structure of the Book

The contents of Revelation are given in terms of a series of sevens, some explicit and some implied: seven churches (chap. 2-3); seven seals (chap. 6-7); seven trumpets (chap. 8-11); seven signs (chap. 12-14); seven bowls (chap. 16-18); seven last things (chap. 19-22).

Some divide the contents of the book around four key visions: (a) The vision of the Son of man among the seven churches (chap. 1-3); (b) The vision of the seven-sealed scroll, the seven trumpets, the seven signs, and the seven bowls (4:1-19:10; (c) The vision of the return of Christ and the consummation of the age (19:11-20:15); and (d) The vision of the new heaven and new earth (chap. 21-22).

The contents may also be divided up based on the division of 1:19: (a) “the things which you have seen,” The Things Past (chap. 1:1-20); (b) “the things which are,” The Things Present (chap. 2-3); and (c) “the things which shall take place after these things,” The Things Future (chap. 4-22). Some look at 1:19 differently, but the most natural way to take this verse is as it is translated in the KJV, the NAS, and the NIV.

Method of Interpretation and Use of Symbolism

One’s method of interpretation is crucial to a correct interpretation of Scripture because without a correct method, the Bible becomes putty in the hands of the interpreter. You often hear the complaint that you can prove anything you want to with the Bible. And the implication is simply that everyone comes up with a different interpretation, especially with the Book of Revelation. A further implication is that we simply cannot have a sound and objective system of doctrine. But this is incorrect on several points:

(1) The commands of Scripture to know the Word and maintain a system of sound doctrine show us that God expects us to know and come to an objective understanding of the Bible and that this is to become the foundation for sound theology in all categories of truth or doctrine, prophecy included (1 Tim 1:3, 7, 10; 4:6; 6:3; 2 Tim 1:13; 4:3; Tit 1:9, 13).

(2) Without a sound system of doctrine derived from the Bible as our authority, men are left to the shifting sands of their own experience and imaginations. We are invariably left with some form of mysticism and neo-orthodox theology in which the Bible only becomes the Word of God when it speaks to you and a passage of Scripture may do this not only in different ways with different people, but in ways that are completely contradictory.

(3) You cannot prove anything you want to with Scripture if you follow the rules of sound hermeneutics. Hermeneutics means the science and art of Biblical interpretation and it is this that provides controls over the imagination and ideas of man.

(4) Hermeneutics is called a science because it follows rules that guide and control the interpreter. It is called an art because it requires skill and practice to apply the rules correctly as in any skill. This is evident in Paul’s words to Timothy and the context for the words, “accurately handling the Word of truth” in 2 Timothy 2:15. Without an accurate handling of the Bible, we end up with error, not truth. We must, then, using the science of hermeneutics, seek to ground interpretation in fact or the objective data of Scripture—context, grammar, historical setting, meaning and use of words, literary style, etc.

Some passages of Scripture and areas of doctrine are more difficult and hard to be dogmatic on, but this does not mean that they are beyond our grasp or that we should ignore them. We should continue to study these areas being careful to apply ourselves to a careful study of the Word as the inspired Word of God always examining our position as objectively as we can (Acts 17:11; 2 Tim 2:15).

It is also true that no one comes to Scripture without certain preconceived ideas. No one is completely objective (though we must strive to be so) and this is why our method of interpretation is so important as a check (Acts 17:11). But even with that there is also the need to humbly ask God to help us deal with our preconceived notions and prejudices. We need the humble attitude and prayer of the Psalmist who prayed, “Open my eyes that I may behold wonderful things from your Law” (Ps. 119:19).

It is also obvious that men will vary in their skill and knowledge of exegesis (one’s personal examination of the text to determine its meaning in its historical and literary context) and this will affect their ability to accurately interpret the Bible. But again, the responsibility is not to give up, or ignore Scripture, or to treat it as a mystic would do. Instead, our responsibility is to be careful students, ever seeking to be as objective as possible, to be willing to say I am not sure, or I may be wrong, and to continue to grow in the art and science of the study of the Bible as our only objective guide for truth.

As Ramm so aptly put it, “That God has spoken in Holy Scripture is the very heart of our faith and without this certainty we should be left to the relativity and dubiousness of human knowledge. God has spoken! But what has He said?”⁷ (italics his). “This is our primary and basic need in hermeneutics: to ascertain what God has said in Sacred Scripture; to determine the meaning of the Word of God.”⁸ (italics his). The Bible is no profit to us at all if we do not know what God has said, what it means, or if we think we know, but are wrong.

We must know and have the correct method of interpretation, a correct hermeneutic, so that we do not confuse the voice of God with the voice of man. The false methods of men are what make the Bible a source of confusion rather than a source of light and truth, not the Bible itself.

We must have a method that provides: a check on the imaginations, feelings, background, prejudices of men, a protection against the delusions and misuse of Scripture by Satan, and one that enables us to bridge the gap between the minds of the biblical writers and our minds, the minds of interpreters who live many years later, even hundreds of years later, in a different time, usually in a different place, and with a different language. This is the tremendous gap created by differences of culture, history, geography, and language.

The only method of interpretation or hermeneutic that brings such controls and that moves us toward objectivity is the literal or normal and plain method of interpretation. This is the method that I will be employing in this study of Revelation. But what does this mean?

The Literal Method of Interpretation

To interpret means to explain the original sense of a speaker or writer versus imposing our ideas on the text. To interpret literally means to explain the original sense of the speaker or writer according to the normal, customary, and proper usage of words and language.⁹ “The literal or normal interpretation of the Bible simply means to explain the original sense of the Bible according to the normal and customary usages of its language.”¹⁰

The Control: The literal or normal method operates by rules which help us to ground interpretation in fact. These are the rules of context, grammar, the analogy of Scripture, cultural and historical background, and the normal meaning of words according to their use in various contexts.

Spiritual or Allegorical Method Compared

“Allegorism is the method of interpreting a literary text that regards the literal sense as the vehicle for a secondary, more spiritual and more profound sense.”¹¹ The spiritual or allegorical method sees the literal sense as well figures of speech as a symbol to convey some secondary or mystical, metaphorical, or spiritual idea that is hidden, but the hidden meaning is developed and controlled by the interpreter’s own ideas or ingenuity rather than by the rules and guidelines of context, grammar, the analogy of Scripture, cultural and historical background, and the normal meaning of words.

Clearly there are dangers to the allegorical method of interpretation.

(1) The allegorical method does not interpret Scripture. It ignores the common meaning of words and gives rise to all manner of speculation ignoring what the author really intended to say.

(2) In the allegorical method, the authority in interpretation is the imagination of the interpreter or his mind rather than the Scripture itself. In the final analysis, in the allegorical method one is left without any means by which the conclusions of the interpreter may be tested.¹²

(3) The allegorical method results in shear nonsense because “To understand a speaker or writer, one must assume that the speaker or writer is using words normally and without multiple meanings. This is what the literal method of interpretation assumes of God in Scriptural revelation. It believes the Bible to be revelation, not riddle.”¹³ Again we remember Deut. 29:29.

The word “literal” is sometimes taken to mean non-figurative. The literal approach, however, recognizes the fact and use of symbolism, or figures, but attempts to understand them, as with any other literary method, on the basis of their normal and plain meaning as dictated by the normal rules of interpretation. This provides a check on our imagination or prejudice.

Let’s look at several illustrations:

PSALM 22: Verse 18 speaks of the casting of lots. This is a literal statement and is a prophecy of a literal happening, one that did happen when Christ was crucified, but verses 12-13 depict the fierce enemies of the Lord as strong bulls and ravenous lions. These are obviously figures or symbols, but with a very plain and literal meaning which is derived by the rules of the literal method—context, usage, culture and history. It important to realize that a symbol only has meaning when we understand how or what it previously meant literally in the historical and cultural setting of the time.

• The Bulls of Bashan. By studying the historical background, the geography, the culture, and Scripture itself, we find that the area of Bashan lying northeast of the Sea of Galilee was a place where bulls became fat and strong. In the Bible, then, the phrase, “the rams or bulls of Bashan,” at times served as figures or symbols of Israel and especially as symbols of her leaders. It was used to portray those who had become luxurious, proud, and full of their own prosperity and importance. So this symbol pictures Christ’s enemies like the bulls of Bashan, with a full feeling of power and strength, ill natured, self satisfied and bullish in their attitude.
• The Lion symbolizes Christ’s enemies as those who stand and gap with open mouths like a lion roaring over its killed prey. They weren’t literally lions, but they acted like lions based on our knowledge of how lions behave when standing over their prey.

JOHN 1:29: “Behold the lamb of God” is obviously another symbol, but it too has a plain meaning based on historical and Scriptural facts. In the light of Old Testament teaching and Israel’s sacrificial history, it points to Christ as God’s sacrifice, the one who would die for our sin as God’s innocent substitute.

JOHN 6:25-59: In this passage John records Jesus’ feeding of the five thousand. This is an historical event, but it contains a number of spiritual truths and applications. For instance, Christ refers to Himself as “the bread of life.” The literal method understands this is symbolic but its meaning is derived from the significance of bread for our daily food for sustenance.

REVELATION 8:12: This passage speaks of judgment that will affect the sun, moon, and stars. Here there is no indication of symbolism other than one’s own bias against such catastrophes. The stars are literal because there is nothing in the context to indicate otherwise. We are imposing our imaginations on the text if we say, this is symbolical of world rulers or the loss of spiritual light in the world. Why? Because there is nothing in the passage or context to suggest this. We must let the passage speak for itself.

REVELATION 9:1-12: Here John records seeing a star fall from heaven. But in this passage, by context and the analogy of Scripture, this is plainly a symbol. Why? How can we know this? The following are some important keys and helps:

• We should always read a passage literally and assume that the literal meaning is the prophet’s meaning unless there is adequate reason from context to read it otherwise.
• But we should always note carefully words like “as,” “like,” “as it were,” and similar expressions (cf. 6:1; 9:7). Why do we do this? Because words like “as” normally indicate a figure or symbol by way of a comparison or an analogy and not an identification. Compare Revelation 8:13. The text here does not say, “I heard one flying like an eagle in mid-heaven …” Some would make this refer to perhaps an angel, but I think we should take it literally. If God made a donkey speak to Balaam, why could and would He not, in this tremendous hour, not use an eagle as a voice of woe to stress His sovereignty over creation.
• Always, where a figure of speech is suggested by the context, interpret by the analogy of Scripture. Allow Scripture to interpret Scripture while always bearing in mind the context and other rules of interpretation.
• Look for interpretive clues and identifications within the text itself which indicate a figure is being used. Note the following three examples:

REVELATION 9:1: All the English translations rightly view the star as a person rather than as a fragment of a star. This is indicated by the personal pronouns, “to him” in verse 1 and “he” in verse 2. Some would say the keys were given to the fifth angel, but word order would suggest the “him” looks back to the star who fell from heaven and not the fifth angel who sounded his trumpet. The star, who is further identified as a king in verse 11, is the subject of the passage, not the angel who simply announces this judgment by blowing his trumpet.

• The star is also connected with the Abyss which is a demonic abode according to the analogy of Scripture (cf. Luke 8:30-31; Jude 6; 2 Pet. 2:4).
• Further, he is identified as the angel of the Abyss, the king of demons and this identifies him as Satan which also perfectly fits with the analogy of Scripture which in other places refers to angels as stars (Matt. 9:34; 12:25-28; John 12:31; Eph. 2:2; 6:12: Rev. 12:7f).

ISAIAH 14:12-16: Though this a taunt taken up against the king of Babylon, most believe, due to the strong language of the passage, that it must look beyond any human being. Ultimately it must refer to Satan who Scripture portrays as the prince of this world and the power behind many of the world rulers (Eph. 2:2; 6:12). This speaks of Satan who controlled the king of Babylon and the Babylonian system of the past and will control the system of the future. In Isaiah 14:12-14, Satan is called “star of the morning,” lit. “bright, or shining one” which refers to him as a bright morning star.

LUKE 10:18: In Luke 10:18 the Lord refers to Satan as falling from heaven, like a star, and this all fits with the context and emphasis of Revelation 9 and 12. This is totally in keeping the natural use of words in language and is even found in our own English idiom. We likewise use the term “star” in both a literal and symbolical sense. We speak of the stars in heaven, but we also speak symbolically of the star of the game, of the stars in Hollywood because, like a star, they stand out among others in some particular way. It has a symbolical meaning, but it depends on the context and its normal use for its true meaning.

The literal method of approach that will be used in this study will recognize the presence of symbols, but they will be interpreted by the normal and plain meaning of the symbol derived by historical background, context, grammar, the analogy of Scripture, and general usage.

5 Alan Johnson, Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Vol. 12, Frank E. Gaebelein, general editor, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, 1981, p. 404, 407.

6 Johnson, p. 410.

7 Bernard Ramm, Protestant Biblical Interpretation, W. A. Wilde Company, Boston, 1956, pp.1-2.

8 Ramm p. 2.

9 Paul Lee Tan, The Interpretation of Prophecy, Assurance Publishers, Rockville, MD, 1974, p. 29.

10 Tan, p. 29.

11 Ramm, p. 21.

12 Pentecost, pp. 5-6.

13 Tan, p. 30.